-M. L. Vlasov.

The Fall of the Priesthood

When speaking of the sacrament of Holy Communion, it must be pointed out that not only among us, but nowhere in the world today is it present in a form acceptable to true Christians, because the priesthood with successive ordination — tracing its origin from Christ and His holy apostles — is absent.

The Lord Himself, through the holy prophets and holy fathers, clearly foretold that the priesthood of lawlessness, once accomplished, would cease to be such, being deprived of the grace of the Holy Spirit.

And the time came when the priesthood gradually fell into heresy in various countries; the turn came for the Russian land as well, where only until the time of Patriarch Nikon did a truly Orthodox hierarchy exist.

The aforementioned patriarch shared the common fate of the priesthood’s deviation from the true faith: by beginning to introduce heresies, he infected the entire Russian clergy with them. Having fallen away from piety and plunged into the heretical abyss, it lost its grace-filled power, for the holy fathers say: “Heresy separates every person from the Church” (Acts of the 7th Ecumenical Council, Vol. 7, Art. 93); “To depart from piety is to depart from God” (Homilies on the Apostle, Galatians, Ch. 1, fol. 1473).

Let us turn to proofs of the above assertion regarding the cessation of the priesthood. First of all, let us recall the words of the prophet Ezekiel and the interpretations of them by Blessed Jerome, where we shall be assured of the following:

“Therefore, shepherds, hear the word of the Lord. Thus says the Lord God: Behold, I Myself will require My flock at the hand of the shepherds, and I will destroy them, so that they no longer pasture My flock, and the shepherds will no longer pasture themselves; and I will deliver My flock from their mouth, and they will no longer be food for them” (Ezekiel 34:9-10).

Interpretation: “The word is addressed to the shepherds of Israel, whom we must understand either as kings or princes, scribes and Pharisees, and teachers of the Jewish people, or, in the evangelical people, as bishops, presbyters, and deacons”…

“Behold, I Myself will come to the shepherds and require My flock from the hand of those to whom it would have been better to have millstones hung around their necks than to scandalize even the least of My people.”

“And this will be the greatest punishment for them: that they will no longer pasture My flock, and under the guise of sheep pasture themselves and amass wealth. And I will deliver My people from their mouth” (Works of Blessed Jerome, Vol. 4, Part 2, pp. 94, 97-99. 2nd ed., 1912).

In another place we have the words of the prophet Jeremiah: “Wail, shepherds, and groan, and cover yourselves with ashes, leaders of the flock. For your days are fulfilled for your slaughter and your scattering, and you will fall like precious vessels, and flight will perish from the shepherds and salvation from the leaders of the flock” (Jeremiah 25:34-35).

Interpretation: “Your days are fulfilled for your slaughter. Their days will be fulfilled when their sins are fulfilled. And they will be scattered and fall like precious vessels, so that, once broken, they cannot be restored; and the more precious they were before, the greater the loss from their destruction — or like chosen sheep that will become a fat sacrifice for those who wish to devour them” (Works of Blessed Jerome, Vol. 4, Part 6, pp. 435-436. 2nd ed., 1905).

And in a third place, Blessed Jerome speaks in the name of the prophet, applying the interpretation to the fall of the shepherds: “The prophet and the priest are defiled; in My house I have found their iniquities, says the Lord” (Jeremiah 23:11-12).

Interpretation: “The house of Christ is the Church… but when they are in darkness and on a slippery path, that is, in heretical delusion, then they will be forced into all wavering and will fall” (Blessed Jerome, Vol. 4, Part 6, p. 405. 2nd ed., 1905).

The above prophecy, together with the interpretation of Blessed Jerome concerning the fall of the shepherds — both Old Testament and New Testament — has been fulfilled among us in Russia as well. Twenty-two years before the schism of the Russian Church, Abbot Nathaniel of the Kyiv St. Michael’s Monastery wrote the “Book of Faith,” printed in Moscow under Patriarch Joseph in 1648.

In this work, fully in accordance with what has been said above, the very year of the fall of the priesthood is prophetically foreseen: “After a thousand years,” we read in the “Book of Faith,” “from the incarnation of the Word of God, Rome fell away with all the western countries from the Eastern Church. And in the five hundred and ninety-fifth year after the thousand, the inhabitants of Little Russia joined the Roman Church and gave him a charter of submission to 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 it not happen to us, because of previous causes, some evil.” “And whoever reaches those times will be at war with the devil himself” (Ch. 30, fol. 272v and above, fol. 271).

As we see, the “Book of Faith” notes, after a thousand years from the Nativity of Christ, the falling away of Rome from piety along with all western countries, and in 1595 the same deviation of the inhabitants of Little Russia and their union with the Roman Church.

Protecting Russian piety, the author further warns that with the arrival of 1666, what happened to Rome, the western countries, and Little Russia might not happen to us as well. In 1666, whoever reaches it will have to fight with Satan himself.

Patriarch Nikon himself, more familiar than others with the work of his own hands, remarked very notably about his subordinates and the work done: “The entire Russian Church has fallen into Latin dogmas and teachings” (History of the Russian Church by Metr. Macarius, Vol. 12, p. 742).

“It has separated from the holy Eastern Apostolic Church and joined the Roman Church” (Ibid., p. 724).

“As many as are now metropolitans, archbishops and bishops… priests and deacons, and other church clergy… Metropolitans are no longer worthy to be called metropolitans, likewise archbishops, even to the last, even if they count themselves in rank and appear adorned with the beauty of sacred vestments, as metropolitans and archbishops and others — according to the holy divine canons they are deposed; and whatever they bless is unblessed. For those baptized by them are unbaptized, and those ordained by them are not clergy… and for this reason all priesthood and sacred office has been abolished” (Prof. Kapterev, “Patriarch Nikon and Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich,” Vol. 2, p. 200).

With the abolition of the priesthood (only external vestments and human titles do not serve as a sign of its authenticity), there can also be no visible sacrament of Holy Communion, which can only be administered by truly Orthodox pastors.

Suffering for the Faith

It must be noted that during the times of Rome’s falling away from piety, as well as the conclusion of the union in Little Russia, there were shocking events: there was no limit to the sufferings and misfortunes of Christians persecuted and cruelly oppressed by those who had fallen away from piety. This is precisely what the prophetic book had in mind when foretelling that Christians would have to endure greater evil and bitterer sufferings in the struggle with the devil himself.

Thus later, exactly as written, everything happened: the Russian pastors, led by Patriarch Nikon, not only apostatized from piety by falling into Latin heresies, but also raised terrible persecution against the faithful Christians who rejected the newly introduced dogmas and heretical customs.

The only steadfast bishop in those years of trials, Paul of Kolomna, who did not accept Nikon’s innovations, was personally beaten half to death by the patriarch and ordered sent into exile, where by Nikon’s own order the last bishop was murdered and his body burned (History of the Russian Church by Metr. Macarius, Vol. 12, pp. 145–146). Burned alive in Pustozersk were Protopope Avvakum, Priest Lazar, Monk Epiphanius, and one Nikiphor (Sketches of Priestism by L. I. Melnikov, Vol. 7, p. 382).

Dry excerpts from historical investigations paint for us the sufferings of our ancestors for their unwillingness to follow Nikon’s heresies: “Schismatics were exiled, imprisoned in jails, casemates, and monasteries, tortured and burned with fire relentlessly, flogged mercilessly with whips, nostrils torn, tongues cut out, heads chopped on blocks, ribs broken with pincers, thrown into wooden cages and, covered with straw, burned, naked doused with cold water and frozen, hanged, impaled, quartered, veins pulled out… in a word, everything that human beastliness could invent to instill panic and terror was put into action” (Schism and Sectarianism in Russian Popular Life by A. S. Prugavin, p. 31, 1905 ed.).

The human mind refuses to understand how archpastors of the Church, calling themselves the Orthodox priesthood, could perpetrate this horror, truly inspired by the devil himself; the apostasy of the Roman popes, following the indications of the English historian Robert James (History of the Christian Church, Vol. 2), and the persecutions associated with papism pale in comparison to the sophistication of Nikon’s lords in tortures and murders.

Another very interesting reference fully confirms the main idea of the “Book of Faith” in depicting the elemental events of that time in Rus’: “The Supreme Church Administration in Russia” (Religious-Philosophical Library ed., 1905, p. 89) describes what was happening as follows: “Under the most gentle Alexei Mikhailovich, a significant part of the Russian population suddenly felt that it was impossible to live, and in despair rushed into forests and deserts, climbed into burning log houses. What had happened? To these people it seemed that the greatest calamity on earth had occurred: that the hierarchs had deviated into Latinism, that true spiritual authority was gone, and the kingdom of the Antichrist had come in the Orthodox world. A tyrant-patriarch sat on the throne of the martyr-metropolitan, himself accepted Latinism and forced others to do so.”

This text represents a classic Old Believer (particularly priestless/Bespopovtsy) explanation of why, after the 17th-century schism, the visible sacrament of Eucharist (with proper priesthood) is considered impossible in their communities — the grace-filled apostolic succession was lost due to the “heresy” introduced by Patriarch Nikon in 1666, as prophesied in pre-schism books.

Servants of the Antichrist

Now let us consider the next point of our discussion — the prophecies and interpretations of the holy fathers as proof of the inevitability of the shepherds turning into servants of the Antichrist.

The holy prophet Zechariah says (11:15): “And the Lord said to me: Take yet again for yourself the shepherd’s equipment of an unskilled shepherd.”

Blessed Jerome provides the following interpretation of this: “It is undoubtedly the case that the foolish or unskilled shepherd is the Antichrist” (Works, Part 15, p. 150, 1915 ed.).

And St. Ephraim the Syrian confirms this thought with the words: “In the image of this shepherd the Antichrist is presented” (Works of St. Ephraim the Syrian, Part 6, p. 189, 1901 ed.).

Thus, foolish shepherds who deviate from the true faith and sin against it, according to the words of St. Ephraim the Syrian, already represent the Antichrist themselves.

The concept of “Antichrist” is not and will not be the personality of a single man or other living being, as some often think; the understanding of the meaning of this term must be broader, so that in this sense every heretic and apostate is a particle of the body of the Antichrist, and individually is his servant, drawing the trusting and faint-hearted onto the path of unrighteousness by his teaching.

It is precisely such false shepherds, as servants of the Antichrist, who by their apostasy from piety have destroyed the sacrament of Holy Communion.

The Abomination of Desolation

The Antichrist will destroy the sacrament of Holy Communion — such are the reflections and explanations of St. John Chrysostom. The Antichrist, through his emissaries, begins to destroy the true sacrifice, but the time will come when not only everywhere, but even in the Apostolic Church, on the holy place, “he will set up his abomination,” and the true Christians who are in Judea should “flee to the mountains,” the Book of Kirill warns.

It is necessary to explain what “the abomination of desolation” means and how to understand “let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.” On these last words, St. John Chrysostom gives the following explanation: “Those who are in Christianity should take refuge in the Scripture, for from the time when heresies began to disturb the Church, no true Christian refuge can be had for those who wish to know the correctness of the faith, except the Divine Scripture” (Book of Faith, Ch. 23, fol. 215v).

Thus, whoever is a true Christian must always turn to the Holy Scripture, because from the time the Church was disturbed by heresies, nothing can serve as a Christian refuge for knowing the true faith except the Divine Scripture. And the holy father Hippolytus, Pope of Rome, in his discourse points out to us that “those who hear the Divine Scriptures and hold them in their hands and are always instructed in them in their minds, many will escape his deception” (Discourse 3, Meat-fare Sunday after the Synaxarion, fol. 183v).

Let us also turn to this indisputable and sole source in our further examination of the concept of “the abomination of desolation,” which is to be established by the Antichrist on the holy place, and how to understand this latter designation (the holy place).

Regarding the first, in the Menaion (Life of St. Eusebius of Samosata) we are assured: “Thus not only people of full age, but even little children abhorred that heretical bishop, who was as the abomination of desolation standing on the holy place” (Menaion, June 22, fol. 149). In the city of Samosata, the heretics, having driven out the truly Orthodox bishop, appointed one like themselves in his place, and it was this other heretical bishop whom not only adults but even children called the abomination of desolation on the holy place.

In the same source, but in another place, we read: “For it was to be seen how, in place of the true shepherd of Christ, a wolf in sheep’s clothing of the episcopal rank entered into Christ’s flock. The Orthodox people of Odessa, unwilling to turn to that false shepherd-heretic who was the abomination of desolation standing on the holy place in the Church as its head, went out of the city into the fields and, gathering in a deserted place, performed the divine services to God” (Menaion, August 29, fol. 527v).

From the cited passages of Holy Scripture we are convinced that pious people considered the appearing heretical hierarchs to be “the abomination of desolation” and, striving to distance themselves from the abominable, went out into the fields to perform divine services.

Blessed Jerome confirms this designation with the words: “Under the abomination of desolation one may also understand every perverse teaching, when we see it standing on the holy place, that is, in the Church” (Blessed Jerome, Part 16, p. 250, 1901 ed.).

The holy place denotes the throne on which the sacrifice must be offered to God, that is, the sacrament of Holy Communion, as the Book of Kirill states on fol. 31: “The throne is the holy place, on which the priests offer the sacrifice to God, consecrating the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ.”

Therefore, according to what has been cited above, heretical archpastors and pastors are servants of the Antichrist, constituting his body; they are themselves the abomination of desolation, performing the service on the holy place, that is, on the throne.

The Destruction of Holy Communion

In the Book of Kirill of Jerusalem we read: “For concerning this Christ the holy one says: that the Antichrist, before his coming, will do what he will everywhere destroy the altars and the true sacrifice, and will set up his idol on the holy place. Already such abominable desolation is being begun by the false prophets sent by him, and from this we know that the day of the Lord is already near, for when the last daily sacrifice established in Solomon’s church was desolated, as spoken of that desolation in the Gospel and likewise said by the prophet Daniel, the power of the Jews was again fulfilled and completed and ended, and the temple was destroyed.”

“Thus in desolation will be the present holy sacrifice, which is not in Solomon’s temple but is established throughout the whole world…”

“And not only everywhere and in every place, but even in the original Apostolic Church in Jerusalem he will bring the true sacrifice into desolation and set up his evil abomination on the holy place, as it is written: When you see the abomination of desolation standing on the holy place, then let those in Judea flee to the mountains” (Book of Kirill, fol. 32v).

The Antichrist will destroy the sacrament of Holy Communion — such are the reflections and explanations of St. John Chrysostom: the Antichrist through his emissaries begins to destroy the true sacrifice, but the time will come when not only everywhere, but even in the Apostolic Church on the holy place “he will introduce his abomination” and true Christians who are in Judea should “flee to the mountains,” the Book of Kirill warns.

Particular attention deserves the prophetic word about the Antichrist from the teacher of the 3rd century, the holy Hippolytus, Pope of Rome: “The Churches of God will weep with great weeping, for neither offering nor incense is performed, nor God-pleasing service. The holy Churches will be like vegetable storehouses, and the precious Body and Blood of Christ will not appear in those days” (Discourse 3, Meat-fare Sunday after the Synaxarion, fol. 184v).

Another holy father, who lived in the 4th century, predicted: “Then all the Churches of Christ will weep with great weeping, for there will be no holy service in the altars, nor offering” (Ephraim the Syrian, Discourse 105 according to the collection, fol. 227v).

St. Theodore the Studite writes on p. 440, Letter 80, Vol. 2, Part 2: “For a temple defiled by heretics is not the holy temple of God, but an ordinary house, as Basil the Great says, since the angel who was present at each Church has departed from it because of impiety. Therefore the sacrifice performed in it is not accepted by God.

Listen to how He Himself says: ‘The lawless one who offers Me a calf is as one who kills a dog’” (Isaiah 66:3).

And Blessed Jerome (Vol. 4, Part 2, p. 155, 1912 ed.) points out that heretics also imitate the gentleness of the Church, but their offering is not as service to God, but as food for demons.

Thus, the holy fathers teach us that the temple of God defiled by heretics is likened to an ordinary house, and the angel of the Lord departs from it; the sacrament of Communion performed by heretics in imitation of the true one is food for demons.

The external, purely theatrical action is still performed to this day under the guise of the sacrament of Communion by false shepherds, in particular by those who have apostatized from ancient piety; but, remembering the instructions of the holy fathers of the Church, true Christians must in every way avoid both heretics and their inventions. For even St. Theodore the Studite warned: “And if he again abstains (from Communion) because of heresy, this is necessary. For Communion from a heretic or from one openly condemned in life alienates from God and delivers to the devil” (Theodore the Studite, Vol. 2, Part 1, Letter 58, p. 323).

Old Rite Christians Without Priests (Bezpopovtsy)

Do the Old Believer-Bespopovtsy sin against the commandments of God when they flee from apostate shepherds, whose false sacraments bring destruction to their souls, according to the testimony of the holy fathers of the Church? They do not sin; the sacrament is absent among us because it does not exist in the world today in a pure form worthy of its high purpose, just as in general there is observed a deviation and shift from the paths of righteousness.

The Lord God, for the sins of men, permits the holy temples, the holy sacrament, and the priesthood to be defiled.

In the Menaion for the month of August, on the 20th day, in the Life of the Prophet Samuel, we read: “And the sins of the people do not so quickly move the wrathful God to vengeance as the sins of those who have been appointed by God as authorities and rulers of the people.”

“For wherever the righteous vengeance of God overtakes, there it spares not even the sanctuary.”

“Thus God, for the sins of the rulers, delivers the subjects to punishment, and for the foul deeds of those who serve the altar, permits the holy altars to be plundered by the hands of the impious, and the holy temples to be laid waste” (fol. 501v).

From what has been read it follows that God permits the abomination of desolation to be in the holy altars because of the foul deeds of those who serve them (that is, the priesthood).

In the holy writings there are also such lines on this subject: “You marvel, beloved, how God does not spare His own houses when He permits wrath upon the earth. For if He did not spare the holy Ark, but delivered it to the foreigners, together with the priests who had sinned, and the temple of consecration, and the Cherubim of glory, and the garments, and prophecy, and anointing, and apparitions, to be trampled and defiled by the Gentiles, neither does He spare the holy churches and the most pure mysteries” (Book of Nikon of the Black Mountain, Discourse 41, fol. 308v).

We justifiably compare the above with the defilement and delivery into the hands of the impious of both the altars with thrones and Holy Communion from the time of Patriarch Nikon. And what is called Communion and is still practiced among those who are only so-called Orthodox we evaluate with the words of St. Theodore the Studite:

“This is an abyss and a net of the devil — communion with heretics. One who falls into this net is cut off from Christ and led far from the flock of the Lord. As great as the difference between light and darkness, so great is the difference between Orthodox Communion and heretical communion. The first enlightens, the second darkens; the one unites with Christ, the other with the devil; the one quickens the soul, the other kills it” (Theodore the Studite, Vol. 2, Part 2, Letter 154, p. 742, 1908 ed.).

We follow this teaching of the holy fathers: if there is no true sacrament of Holy Communion — we do not accept the false one that is destructive to the soul. Cyprian of Carthage points out (in Letter 56, Part 1, p. 316): “And thus the people who obey the divine commandments and fear God must separate themselves from the sinful leader and not participate in the sacrifice of the sacrilegious priest.”

The above-quoted Theodore the Studite writes in the same second volume: “As the divine bread of which the Orthodox partake makes all who partake of it one body, so exactly the heretical bread, bringing those who partake of it into communion with one another, makes them one body opposed to Christ” (Part 2, Letter 153, p. 532).

We do not forget the warning of Blessed Jerome, in Part 6 of his works (p. 78, 1905 ed.), reminding Christians of the church of heretics, “which calls to itself the foolish in mind so that, deceived by it, he may receive stolen bread and stolen water, that is: false sacrament.”

Is Holy Communion Salvific?

It is necessary to note one more very important point in the matter of the sacrament of Holy Communion: even in its pure and untouched form, it cannot of itself save a person, as is confirmed by the proofs cited below:

“Truly, then, in Judas it bears witness that, having received the most holy bread from the most pure hands of the Master Christ, Satan immediately entered into him because of his unworthiness” (Prologue, March 22, fol. 117).

“‘Take,’ He said, ‘the bread of which you have partaken from Me…’ Since the Lord gave the bread to Judas, perhaps in the hope that, coming to his senses at the table of bread, he would abandon the betrayal; but Judas was not thus persuaded, and then he became wholly satanic” (Blessed Gospel, Interpretation of Theophylact on the 45th Pericope of the Gospel of John, fols. 222 and 223).

As we are convinced — the apostle Judas, having communed directly from the hands of the Savior Himself, nevertheless perished; the utterance of Christ’s words “take from Me the bread and commune,” and the very performance of the sacrament of communion, which was intended to bring Judas Iscariot to reason and to his senses — did not restrain the latter from the greatest crime and his own destruction.

Therefore, it is not communion that has the power to save a person or to restrain him from crime — this depends first of all on the Christian himself, who is recognized by the manner of his life, by his good deeds, and not by whether he communes, as St. John Chrysostom also teaches us:

“For a believer should not be known by partaking of the holy mysteries, but by an excellent life and pleasing deeds” (Blessed Gospel, Preface to Matthew, Moral Teaching of John Chrysostom, fol. 24).

The thief crucified with Christ, who was considered a desperate sinner, was brought by the Savior into Paradise, although, of course, during his greatly sinful life he never communed; about this St. Ephraim the Syrian says:

“Since the Jews chose the thief and rejected Christ, God chose the thief and rejected them. But where then is that (which was said): ‘Unless one eats My flesh, he has no life’? (John 6:53): (above). When He received faith from the thief, in return He freely granted him immeasurable gifts, freely poured out His treasures before him, and immediately transferred him into His Paradise and there placed the one brought in (into Paradise) over His treasures: ‘Today you will be with Me in Paradise of desires!’” (Works of Ephraim the Syrian, Part 8, pp. 306–305).

The holy father refers in this case to the passage from the Holy Gospel with which the “zealots” of the Old Rite so love to reproach us, citing the well-known words of the Savior: “Unless one eats My flesh, he has no life.”

St. Ephraim the Syrian, as if emphasizing this, asks: “But where then is that which was said, that whoever does not commune will not be saved?” For the Lord did bring the thief into Paradise, granting him all good things for his sincere faith.

A person can be saved even without visible communion under the conditions that determined the existence of the followers of ancient Orthodoxy. The New Rite Church, in the person of the memorable missionaries, literally raged, frightening the already oppressed wisdom of the rulers and their adherents of the priestless faction with the notorious absence of physical communion.

Thunderously and with lightning raging about our “pernicious transgression,” the fathers of the Jesuit stripe diplomatically bypassed the embarrassing book for their methods of “persuasive” processing, the “Rod of Governance,” published with the blessing of two Greek patriarchs and the entire council of 1666. In this source, already of Nikonian origin, we read what the grieving “schism scholars” preferred to keep silent about us: “It is necessary for all to know that some church mysteries are, by necessity, intermediate, such as chrismation, the Eucharist, and unction, of which, if someone is not vouchsafed because of some necessity, he can still be saved. Others, however, are commandments of necessity, and these are two: baptism and repentance, without which it is not possible to obtain salvation” (Rod of Governance, fol. 49v, 1666 ed.).

In another little book published by the New Rite Metropolitan (of St. Petersburg and Novgorod) Gregory under the title “The Truly Ancient, Truly Orthodox Church,” on p. 311 it is stated: “In all such cases, one who earnestly desires to commune, even though he does not actually commune, communes spiritually: that is, then, according to his earnest desire to partake of the holy mysteries of Christ, his earnest desire to commune is accounted to him as actual communion, just as faith was accounted to Abraham as righteousness. Whoever communes thus spiritually receives all the good things that one who communes in actuality receives” (Part 1, 1898 ed.).

The cited texts from Nikonian theology, contrary to the heated missionary heads, also indisputably support our main thought about the possibility of salvation without Holy Communion when it does not exist in an undefiled form.

But even in our time worthy of bitter weeping, the Old Believer-Bespopovtsy have their consolation, for, according to the testimonies of the holy fathers cited below, they possess another altar, high but invisible — by the sacrifice of which they commune spiritually. St. Gregory the Theologian says: “They will not allow me to the altars, but I know another altar, of which the visible altars now serve as an image… which is entirely the work of the mind and to which one ascends by contemplation. I will stand before it, on it I will offer to God what is pleasing, and a sacrifice and whole-burnt offerings, so much better than those offered now, as truth is better than shadow… From this altar no one will drag me away; they may expel me from the city, but they will not expel me from that city which is above” (Works of Gregory the Theologian, Part 1, Art. 382 and 3, Soykin ed.).

It is to such an altar that our prayerful gaze has been turned since the times of the ill-fated reformer Patriarch Nikon; the holy father Athanasius of Alexandria teaches in his works: “They shall not be ashamed in the evil time” (Ps. 36:19). In times of persecution, when teachers are scarce, the Lord Himself will nourish the believers in Him with His Spirit” (Part 4, p. 29, 1903 ed., in the interpretation of the Psalms according to the excerpts of Permyakov, Part 1, fol. 222v).

In Part 3 (Letter 4, pp. 98–99), the holy father explains more extensively and definitely: “I also note this figure of speech in the Gospel of John, when the Lord, speaking about eating His body and seeing that many were offended by it, says: ‘Does this offend you? What if you see the Son of Man ascending where He was before? It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life’ (John 6:63). For He says: the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. And this meant that what is shown and given for the salvation of the world is the flesh that I bear. But this flesh and its blood will be given by Me to you spiritually as food, so that It will be imparted to each one spiritually and will become for all a preservation unto the resurrection of eternal life” (Works of Athanasius of Alexandria according to the excerpts of Permyakov, Part 1, fol. 220v).

And we, Old Believers, not having now the visible sacrament of Holy Communion and its performers, nevertheless receive the possibility, through faith in Jesus Christ, to commune spiritually, according to the words of St. Athanasius of Alexandria and St. Gregory the Theologian.

This spiritual union with the Body and Blood of the Lord also occurs through the knowledge of the word of God, as Blessed Jerome writes about this: “Since the body of the Lord is true food and His blood is true drink, then, according to the mystical interpretation, in this present age we have only this one good thing: if we feed on His flesh and drink His blood, not only in the sacrament (Eucharist), but also in the reading of the Scriptures: for the true food and drink received from the word of God is the knowledge of the Scriptures” (Blessed Jerome, Part 6, p. 37).

Afterword to the Second Edition

The present brochure is intended for people who are already well acquainted with Christian doctrine and capable of serious and thoughtful reading. For those who are only now, in our troubled times, coming to faith in the Lord, it would be advisable at first to recommend books that can be easily assimilated by them without excessive spiritual and intellectual strain.

Much has been written about spiritual communion among the Old Believer-Pomortsy, and it is difficult to add anything to what was said by the instructor of the Riga Grebenshchikov Community, Fr. Mikhail Vlasov († 1958). Perhaps only a few lines.

Today, followers of the New Rite more insistently than ever repeat the well-known words of Christ: “Unless one eats My flesh, he has no life” (John 6:53), directing them against the Old Believers who have no priesthood and therefore no sacrament of the Eucharist.

Yet these words become a snare not for the Old Believers, but on the contrary — for those who attempt to use them against the ancient Orthodox Christians.

First of all, let us reflect: did the Old Believers themselves deprive themselves of the priesthood, and along with it the Eucharist, or is this the “merit” of the New Rite adherents? Who destroyed, exiled, and executed the ancient Orthodox bishops and priests? Was it the Old Believers who did this? It turns out that the New Rite adherents, while believing that the deprivation of the Eucharist leaves a huge number of deeply believing Russian people without hope of salvation and eternal life, have nevertheless condemned them to eternal torment and spiritual death! But then, will the reward from God for this be great for them either? Perhaps, then, it would be better to weep not for us, but for themselves?

Usually the New Rite adherents object: “Of course, there were injustices on our part toward the Old Believers, but much time has passed, we acknowledge our mistakes, now there is no reason for alienation, and you Old Believers sin against God by still remaining without the Eucharist.” In these words only one thing is just: one should not hold onto evil and offenses. But neither should we forget our history. The Lord alone knows what an ocean of tears and blood was shed by Russian people for their Old Faith; yet every Christian well knows that the true Christian Faith was never spread by violence and blood. The Old Believers were brought to “Holy Communion” by sword, fire, and penal chains, and it would be surprising if the thought did not arise among them that in spirit this would be communion not to Christ, but on the contrary — to the Antichrist. The word of historical truth and sincere repentance from the side of the New Rite adherents (with rare exceptions) has still not been spoken. For these were not mere “injustices” and “mistakes”; it was a well-organized and enormous in scale mass destruction of the spiritually most developed representatives of their own people. Today something similar is called genocide. And if the roots of the New Rite hierarchy were nourished by Christian, rather than Christ’s, flesh and blood, can there be confidence that the tree grown from these roots (i.e., the contemporary New Rite Church) is preparing life-giving fruits for all who partake of it? God grant, as they say, that we are mistaken in this; but if there is even the slightest serious ground for doubt, does a Christian have the right to approach Holy Communion?

And are there not reasons for such doubts given to us by the entire history of our people? Few doubt that the Bolsheviks are responsible for bringing Russia in a short time to spiritual and economic crisis, but was not the spiritual crisis already at its sharpest peak in 1917, when Russia entered that year after 250 years of the New Rite adherents’ monopoly on the truth? Why did the Russian people as a whole so easily renounce Christ? Are only “foreigners” and “non-believers” to blame? The New Rite Church itself took upon itself responsibility for the spiritual state of the Russian people, and took it by force — from it the accounting will be demanded. “By their fruits you shall know them,” said Christ (Matt. 7:16), and these “fruits” give plenty of food for thought even in our time.

Let us return again to the main argument of the New Rite adherents (John 6:53). It is a remarkable phenomenon: they always strive to emphasize their refinement, theological sophistication, dislike of literalism, “spiritual ignorance,” and so on, but the cited words of Christ have become for them some kind of stumbling block — for some reason they are understood this time exclusively literally. Meanwhile, one does not need to graduate from theological academies to understand that in these and similar words of Christ the main thought is not a reminder of the visible sacrament of the Eucharist, but life in accordance with faith in Christ, the assimilation by the whole human being of the Saving Sacrifice of Jesus Christ. This seems so obvious that it hardly requires any proof. One need only read the writings of the holy fathers more often, and the Gospel itself. And did not Christ also call Himself “the fountain of living water,” offering everyone to drink from Him? Should not the New Rite adherents recognize that they do not have an exclusive right to interpret Holy Scripture, and acknowledge that in the words (John 6:53) there is, of course, a literal meaning relating to the sacrament of Holy Eucharist, but above all one should see in them the spiritual meaning? And our ancestors in the times of piety had Holy Eucharist, reverently performing the sacrament in remembrance of Christ’s Sacrifice, but they did not fall into the extreme of literalism. M. Vlasov reminds us of the thief saved on the cross; one can also read in the Menaia or Prologues about those holy martyrs who believed in Christ but who had not yet been vouchsafed not only Holy Eucharist, but even Holy Baptism (like the thief), yet suffered for the faith and were granted the crown. Any literalism in interpreting Holy Scripture can lead to dangerous heresies. So in this case: who gave the New Rite adherents the right to limit the Almighty God? Is it worthy of the title of educated theologians to make the action of God’s Grace dependent on accidental circumstances of earthly life? Does the absence of earthly priesthood stop or limit the action of the Holy Spirit, and is Christ no longer the High Priest? No, the Nikonians were able to destroy Bishop Paul of Kolomna, but no one will succeed in destroying God’s Mercy and His Omnipotence. Yes, we have no visible sacrament, but we are not guilty of its humiliation. With all our heart we desire Communion of the Holy Mysteries of Christ and believe that He Who in His Essence is Superabundant Love and Perfection will not abandon us in His goodness!

A thinking person must distinguish the visible and invisible sides of the sacrament. If only the form is performed — which, though in a distorted form, has nevertheless remained among the New Rite adherents — can one always be confident in the efficacy of the sacrament? After all, any Old Believer instructor could arbitrarily put on priestly vestments and dare to perform the sacrament, but at the same time it is perfectly clear that the sacrament would not be valid, for the one who dared has usurped what was not given to him by the Church, broken the succession, and done what he has no authority or blessing from predecessors for. Among the New Rite adherents the visible side of the sacrament has not been interrupted, which serves them as a constant reason for condescending attitude toward the Old Believers. But is everything so simple with the invisible side? Has not only the external form remained? Grace is an invisible thing — has it not departed from those Nikonian hierarchs on whose conscience were the weeping of orphans, the sobbing of widows, and ruined lives? Is it not from those hierarchs that the current clergy have received ordination in succession? Were not those hierarchs the ones who not only rejected the native church tradition, but mocked it and subjected it to anathema? Did not this very anathema, together with the blessing and incitement of the civil authorities to violence, break precisely that apostolic succession of which the New Rite adherents are so proud? The point is that it is impossible not to recognize that the visible side in no way can guarantee the validity of the sacrament if other important conditions are not fulfilled — and the first of them is apostolic succession, not only in form, but in spirit. But as for the invisible side of the sacrament, which depends on God — this is precisely the most important side, without which only an inactive form remains of the sacrament. And there are many examples in church history when, by His mercy, the Lord granted His Gifts to people regardless of external circumstances: “With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible” (Matt. 19:26).

However strange it may sound to the New Rite adherents, no one reveres the purity of the sacrament of Holy Eucharist more than precisely the Old Believer-Bespopovtsy. The New Rite adherents ought once honestly to acknowledge: does their church society exist on the foundations laid by the seven Ecumenical and nine Local Councils, which are called “church rules” and constitute an integral part of the Ancient Orthodox Sacred Tradition? What can now be seen in New Rite churches during the performance of “baptism” and “Eucharist” is, at best, not a holy sacrament but a church rite; at worst — a mockery of the sacrament. When was the last time church rules were applied to New Rite pastors and flock? After all, anyone familiar with these rules knows that in our time, according to the ancient church canons, very few people can be admitted to Holy Communion without a corresponding penance lasting years. Who and when abolished the church rules? Who and when introduced new rules into the Church? To what are the New Rite adherents — willingly or unwillingly — calling us: to apostasy from the Holy Tradition, to the replacement of the sacrament with a rite?

So let it be better that in the Ancient Orthodox Church there be preserved the bright and pure memory of the undefiled Throne of God, upon which the Lord will come again to tread in the Day of His Second and Great Coming! And if we have faith and deeds, if we have love and the truth of God, then there is also hope in the Mercy of the Creator and Savior!

Glory to our God, now and ever, unto the ages of ages. Amen.

Published by the Brotherhood of Zealots of Ancient Orthodoxy in the Name of the Holy Hieromartyr Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage. Publishing House “Third Rome,” Moscow, 1999.

by E.A. Ageeva.

In the Old Believer tale “About the Greatly Zealous and Long-Suffering Archpriest Avvakum,” the great ascetic of faith is described as follows: “Archpriest Avvakum, a man of great good and abstinent life, of such great and fiery zeal: abundantly endowed with magnanimity and enriched with much suffering; he was known and loved by the earthly tsar, princes, and boyars for his righteous life; and he appeared desirable to the heavenly King, the angels, and all the saints for his long-suffering endurance. Everywhere he always had good and most useful clerics—friends in prosperous times, counselors in standing for piety, companions in suffering: and everywhere he proved to be valiantly zealous for good. How many long years he suffered, in how many great torments he was enveloped, how many most severe exiles, imprisonments, and dungeons he endured with magnanimity: yet he remained immovable in piety.”[1] Indeed, for Archpriest Avvakum, not only prayer but the entire daily liturgical cycle constituted the most essential foundation of his Christian life—and so inseparably that the archpriest sought to maintain the full liturgical cycle in any circumstances of his own life and that of his spiritual children. The initial source of such prayerful views was, of course, his mother, who later became the nun Martha: “My mother was a faster and a woman of prayer, always teaching me the fear of God,” writes the author of the Life.[2] Undoubtedly, Avvakum himself possessed a special disposition of personality: “Once I saw a dead animal at a neighbor’s, and that night, arising, I wept much before the icon over my own soul, remembering death, that I too must die; and from that time I grew accustomed to praying every night.”[3] He also turned to prayer before marriage, for which he was rewarded with a bride, Anastasia, who “constantly made it her habit to go to church.”[4] Later, Avvakum had many spiritual children, whom he, “without resting, diligently attended in churches, in homes, and at crossroads, in cities and villages, even in the reigning city and in the Siberian land, preaching and teaching the word of God….”[5]

Avvakum encouraged prayerful zeal and conscientious fulfillment of the liturgical cycle. He recalled about Tobolsk: “My spiritual daughter greatly applied herself to the church and cell rules and despised all the beauty of this world.”[6] For Avvakum, sincere striving and self-overcoming in fulfilling the prayer rule were important. He addresses Boyaryna Morozova thus: “Rise at night—do not order people to wake you. But arise yourself from sleep without laziness and fall down and bow to your Creator.” Neither the difficulties of the last times nor persecutions could serve as a reason to weaken prayer discipline. Thus, in a letter to Feodosia, Avvakum remarks: “It seems to me that you have grown lazy about nighttime prayer: that is why I say this to you with joy, recalling the Gospel: ‘When they revile you and drive you out, rejoice on that day and leap for joy: for behold, your reward is great in heaven.’”[7]

While demanding of others in prayer discipline, Avvakum was extremely strict with himself. Even the most severe circumstances could not serve as a reason to abandon the statutory prayer: “Then another superior, at another time, raged against me—he ran into my house, beat me, and bit my fingers with his teeth like a dog. And when his throat was filled with blood, he released my hand from his teeth and, leaving me, went to his own house. But I, thanking God, wrapped my hand in a cloth and went to vespers.”[8] And another time: “From weakness and great hunger I grew faint in my rule, having almost no strength left—only the vespers psalms, matins, and the first hour, and nothing more; so, like a little animal, I drag myself along; I grieve over that rule but cannot perform it; and now I have grown completely weak.”[9] That is, we are speaking only of some shortening of the rule.

Avvakum’s liturgical practice was also not strictly tied to the space of an Orthodox church, except for the Liturgy. The peculiarities of how Avvakum fulfilled the rule are especially evident in the example of his exile: “Walking along, or dragging a sled, or fishing, or chopping wood in the forest, or doing something else, I recite the rule at that time—vespers and matins, or the hours—whatever comes up. <…> And riding in a sled on Sundays at stopping places, I sing the entire church service, and on weekdays, riding in the sled, I sing; sometimes even on Sundays while riding, I sing. When it is quite impossible to turn, I still turn a little bit anyway. Just as a hungry body desires to eat and a thirsty one desires to drink, so the soul, my father Epiphaniy, desires spiritual food; it is not hunger for bread nor thirst for water that destroys a person, but great hunger for a person is to live without praying to God.”[10] Thus, Avvakum used the daily liturgical cycle as his personal prayer rule. And this was adopted and embraced by the Old Believer accords.

Divine service constitutes the most important part of religious life. History shows that where the prayer rule is strictly observed, the community of believers continues to live, and conversely, where public liturgical life is abandoned, the community falls apart. For Old Believers, the temple of God is the community of the faithful itself. Personal prayer and public divine service form an indivisible complex, especially vividly manifested in Old Belief, and so closely interconnected that attention to liturgical space is diminished, thereby bringing the sacred and the everyday closer together. God’s presence is not necessarily tied to the sacred. What matters is not the place or the number of believers, but faith and piety. Liturgical space is not as important for Old Believers as it was for Avvakum.[11] His prayers took place not only outside churches but often without the necessary attributes, for example, without icons or books. And this too was adopted by Old Believers. The main thing is that prayer should be regular and meaningful. This principle is known from the book The Son of the Church, which has been published many times and is highly respected among Old Believers: “When you stand in church in your place, do not look here and there, nor step onto another’s place. … Do not give in to weakness of the flesh, and do not indulge in the vanities of this world. Only listen to the singing and attend to the reading. And if some word comes and you cannot understand it, then ask those who know about it after the singing.”[12]

Avvakum’s own writings and instructions eventually became difficult for his followers to access. As the study of Old Believer manuscript collections from the second half of the 18th–20th centuries shows, copies or excerpts of the archpriest’s works are quite rare in them. To a greater extent, Avvakum’s written heritage became the property of the scholarly community. However, the universal idea that performing divine services and sacraments is more important than certain external conditions—for example, the presence of liturgical space—firmly took root in Old Belief and found development both in theological thought and in liturgical practice.

source

[1] Tale about Archpriest Avvakum [Text]. — Moscow: Moscow Old Believer Printing House, 1911. Pp. 1-2.

[2] Life of Archpriest Avvakum. M., 1959. P. 54.

[3] Ibid. P. 59.

[4] Ibid. Pp. 59-60.

[5] Ibid. P. 60.

[6] Ibid. P. 117.

[7] Ibid. P. 210.

[8] Ibid. P. 61.

[9] Ibid. P. 91.

[10] Ibid. P. 90.

[11] This idea is convincingly developed; see Ivanov M.V. Archpriest Avvakum on Prayer Outside the Church. Electronic resource: https://ruvera.ru/articles/protopop_avvakum_o_molitve_vne_hrama/comment-page-1

[12] The Son of the Church. M., 1995. Folios 24-25.

By Vladimir Shamarin.

Samara, 2006.

Commissioned by the Russian Council of the Ancient Orthodox Pomorian Church.
The book was prepared for publication by the Samara Old Believer Community of the Ancient Orthodox Pomorian Church.

For nearly three hundred years, the Ancient Orthodox Church has been forced to exist without priesthood. This occurred by God’s permission, in fulfillment of prophecies, yet ancient Orthodox Christians are constantly reproached for the incompleteness of church life, even called heretics, while writers, in collusion with publishers, distort the history of the schism (Zenkovsky’s “Russian Old Believers” and others). This compels us to turn to the question of priesthood, the gracious gifts received through lawful ordination, and also to offer a historical overview of the church structure of the first Old Believers. As an introduction to this topic, readers are offered the following article.

---

Priesthood as a distinct estate for performing divine services was established by God’s command during the exodus of the ancient Israelites from Egypt, from the descendants of Levi, one of the twelve sons of the forefather Jacob. The Levites proved themselves defenders of true worship of God at a time when the other tribes of Israel participated in idol worship before the golden calf (Ex. 32). “And Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, Who is on the Lord’s side? let him come unto me. And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together unto him” (Ex. 32:26). The Lord said to Moses: “I have sanctified to Myself all the firstborn in Israel, from man to beast; they shall be Mine. And behold, I have taken the Levites from among the children of Israel instead of all the firstborn that open the womb among the children of Israel. The Levites shall be Mine” (Num. 3:12-13).

However, the direct duties of the priesthood were laid by the Lord through Moses upon his brother Aaron and his descendants. “And Moses brought Aaron and his sons, and washed them with water; and put upon him the coat, and girded him with the girdle, and clothed him with the robe, and put the ephod upon him (a cape made of two pieces of expensive fabric with straps), and girded him with the girdle of the ephod, and bound it unto him therewith, and put the breastplate upon him, and in the breastplate he put the Urim and Thummim (special ornaments, literally ‘light’ and ‘perfection’), and put the mitre upon his head, and upon the mitre, upon the front thereof, did he put the golden plate, the holy crown, as the Lord commanded Moses” (Lev. 8:6-9).

Moses poured the anointing oil upon Aaron’s head: Aaron became the high priest with the right to pass this rank to his eldest son, and his sons became priests. Concerning the priesthood, the Lord said to Moses: “In those who approach Me I will be sanctified, and before all the people I will be glorified” (Lev. 10:3). God’s blessing upon “the house of Aaron” was also manifested in the miracle of Aaron’s dry rod sprouting (Num. 17:8), which was thereafter kept at the Ark of the Covenant in the Tabernacle, and later in the Jerusalem Temple. The other Levites, when the people gathered, were washed with water, cleansed by sacrifices, and after the laying on of hands by the rest of the Israelites, were given in subordination to the priests to assist in divine services and maintain sacred objects. The duties of priests and Levites are detailed in the biblical books of Leviticus and Numbers. By the end of King David’s reign, 24,000 Levites served at the Tabernacle (1 Chr. 23:4). Unlike the other tribes of Israel, the Levites had no land and subsisted on the tithe of livestock and harvest. In turn, they also contributed a tithe for the support of the high priests (Num. 18:21-32).

The Lord severely punished priests for deviating from the rules of service. Thus, Aaron’s sons Nadab and Abihu took their censers and offered before the Lord “strange fire” (taken not from the altar, as the Lord commanded), for which they were consumed by fire sent from the Lord (Lev. 10:1-7). The sons of the high priest Eli, priests Hophni and Phinehas (not to be confused with another Phinehas!), taking advantage of their father’s old age and weakness, appropriated what was offered to the Lord and behaved unworthily with women. The Lord revealed to Eli that the priesthood would depart from his family, and his sons would die on the same day. Soon, during the battle with the Philistines, they were killed, and the greatest sanctuary—the Ark of the Covenant—fell into Philistine hands for seven months. Eli died from shock, and the high priesthood passed to the righteous prophet Samuel (1 Sam. 1-7).

After King Solomon, priestly service was performed in the temple he built, which was later destroyed and restored after the Babylonian captivity by Zerubbabel.

The pattern of Old Testament worship was a preparation for the coming of the Savior into the world. “The law,” in the words of the Apostle Paul, “was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith” (Gal. 3:24).

The various images constantly encountered in the Book of Leviticus—on one hand, of sin, and on the other, of its forgiveness by God’s mercy—helped preserve in Israel for subsequent centuries the awareness of the need for a Redeemer of the whole world. By the time of the Savior’s coming into the world, Old Testament service had so lost its spiritual foundation that both the priesthood and most Jews failed to recognize in Christ the coming Messiah.

Christ taught in the temple many times. As a twelve-year-old boy, Jesus answered His relatives who had lost Him in Jerusalem: “I must be about My Father’s business” (Luke 2:49). He drove the merchants out of the temple (Mark 11:15-17), rebuked the hypocrisy of the scribes and Pharisees. “That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth,” says the Savior, “from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias (father of John the Forerunner), whom ye slew between the temple and the altar” (Matt. 23:35).

Christ’s preaching was not accepted by the Jewish people, and He foretold the imminent desolation of the Jewish sanctuary. “Behold, your house is left unto you desolate” (Matt. 23:38).

The remnants of Old Testament Jewish priesthood disappeared along with the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in 70 AD.

Christian priesthood was established by the Lord Jesus Christ Himself in the persons of His holy apostles (meaning “messenger”): “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned” (Mark reading 71). The entire 10th chapter of the Gospel of Matthew consists of Christ’s address to the apostles, sending them to preach, and foretelling the expulsion and martyric death that awaits them. The apostles themselves, and subsequently their disciples, became the founders of local churches—bishops (meaning “overseer,” “supervisor”). Thus, the first bishop of Jerusalem was James, the brother of the Lord—the son of Joseph the Betrothed; in the Roman Church, the bishop was the Apostle Linus. In individual cities and villages, for service, bishops appointed presbyters (meaning “elders,” see Titus 1:5). However, in the apostolic church, there was no strict distinction between bishops and presbyters. The apostles themselves were called presbyters (1 Pet. 5:1; 2 John 1:1). In the Slavonic text, the Greek word “presbyter” is translated as “pop” (father). Church servants also included deacons (literally “servants”), whose initial duties involved assisting presbyters in managing the community (Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim. 3:8-12), and later performing certain liturgical actions.

Over time, three degrees of church hierarchy were firmly established: bishops, who ordain priests and deacons and bless the performance of sacraments; priests, who directly shepherd the flock, perform certain church sacraments, and lead divine services; deacons, who do not perform sacraments but carry out various liturgical actions. Elevation to a degree of the hierarchy was accomplished through ordination (“cheirotonia”) and was a church sacrament that only a bishop had the right to perform.

Among the newly converted Christians were both Jews and pagans, but the service in the Jerusalem Temple—where the Savior and the holy apostles had been many times—was chosen as the model for worship. Christian churches were arranged to a certain extent in the likeness of the Temple; the clergy retained similarity in vestments to the Old Testament priesthood; the Psalter remained the foundation of the service; the external appearance of Christians and their everyday customs preserved a natural connection with the Old Testament.

The highest authority in the church belonged to Church Councils. At Ecumenical Councils, representatives from all local Orthodox churches gathered to affirm dogmas (foundations) of the Orthodox Faith and condemn heresies. Local councils (councils of individual churches) addressed matters of local significance. The Seven Ecumenical Councils and nine authoritative Local Councils laid the canonical foundation of the Orthodox Church in the form of church rules, including a series of rules for Christian life applicable to candidates for church degrees: husband of one wife (married to a virgin), without physical defects, not having obtained the degree through bribery, and others. A clergyman must lead a temperate, blameless life; for a whole range of offenses, he is subject to deposition from his rank.

As church organization strengthened, the number of rules related to church governance increased: the right to ordain priests was reserved for urban bishops, while rural bishops were deprived of this right (Rule 7 of the Council of Neocaesarea). A bishop’s rights were limited to his own diocese; without the consent of the metropolitan (the bishop governing a region), a bishop could not perform significant actions (Rule 19 of the Council of Antioch, and others).

Church rules were composed “as needed,” in response to specific occasions. For example, there were heretics who denied the possibility of repentance for those baptized Orthodox but who committed particularly grave sins or fell into heresy, rebaptizing such persons as if for purification; Rule 47 of the Holy Apostles prohibits second baptism. And in the Symbol of Faith are the words: “I confess one baptism for the remission of sins.”

Unfortunately, through the action of the devil, heresies began to arise in the church, and their analysis and refutation became the primary task of the councils. One of the main issues was the attitude toward sacraments performed in a heretical environment. Is baptism performed by a heretic truly valid? Can and should one ordain a priest or bishop who received cheirotonia from heretics? Many centuries later, these questions became cornerstone issues for the Orthodox Russian Church, leading to the tragic division in Old Belief.

Rule 68 of the Holy Apostles states: “If any bishop, or presbyter, or deacon receives from anyone a second ordination: let him be deposed from the sacred rank, both he and the one who ordained him: unless it is reliably known that he has ordination from heretics. For those baptized or ordained by such cannot be either faithful or servants of the church.” From the commentary of Balsamon: “…It is decreed to ordain without hesitation, and what they had is considered as not having been.” This is a natural and sound church conclusion. And Apostolic Rule 46 states: “A bishop or presbyter or deacon who does not anathematize or mock heretical baptism… let such be deposed from his rank.”

We find the same opinion on the significance of heretical sacraments in St. Cyprian of Carthage and St. Basil the Great. But later, we see that by the authority of Ecumenical Councils, in relation to certain minor heresies and schisms, the reception of clergy into the bosom of the Church was softened. Guided by the goal of attracting heretics into the Church, taking into account the insignificance of heretical errors and the absence of a conciliar decision on the dogmatic issue that caused the heresy, councils of bishops made decisions to receive some heretics without baptism or ordination.

In the mid-3rd century, the Novatian schism arose. The occasion was the attitude toward Christians and clergy who had fallen away from the church during persecutions or committed grave sins, and then wished to return to the church. Novatus (in Carthage) and Novatian (in Rome) refused to receive into the church those who had denied Christ during the persecution of Emperor Decius, as well as those married twice. For this unreasonable strictness, they were called “the pure.” They had their own hierarchy. The First Ecumenical Council (325) in its 8th rule resolved to receive them without baptism, leaving bishops in their sees if there was no Orthodox bishop in that city. If an Orthodox bishop was already present in that city, the Novatian was to be left as a presbyter. Commentary by Zonaras: “Since they erred not by deviating from the faith, but by hatred of brethren and not allowing repentance for the fallen and those turning back, it was decreed that they remain in their degrees if there is no bishop in the Catholic Church of that city.” In the Acts of the Council, it is said that Novatians were received through “laying on of hands.”

It is considered that this meant chrismation, but some researchers believe that another rite was intended here.

St. Cyprian of Carthage remarks regarding Novatian that he “observes the same law that the Catholic Church observes, baptizes with the same symbol as we do, knows the same God the Father, the same Son Christ, the same Holy Spirit, since, apparently, he does not differ from us even in the question of baptism” (Works, Part 1, p. 366). St. Basil the Great in his 1st rule explains: “As for the Novatians, called ‘the pure,’ and ‘those standing by the water,’ and ‘the abstainers’ (varieties of heretics), their baptism, though not acceptable (i.e., not received), since the Holy Spirit abandons them, yet for the sake of economy let it be acceptable.”

In the three-commentary Nomocanon (pp. 302-304), St. Basil writes that they rebaptize Novatians and other schismatics: “Although among you this custom of rebaptism is not accepted, as likewise among the Romans, for some reason of economy; yet let our reasoning (i.e., justification of actions) have force, since their heresy is akin to that of the Marcionites… therefore we do not receive them into the Church unless they are baptized with our baptism, lest they say that we baptize into the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit when, like Marcion, they represent God as the creator of evil (permitting apostasy but forbidding repentance). And so, if this is agreeable, then a greater number of bishops should assemble and thus establish a rule, so that both the one acting is safe, and the one answering inquiries about such matters has a reliable basis for response.”

The Donatist schism caused much disagreement; they did not accept sacraments from hierarchs who had stained themselves with unseemly acts (prior to their conciliar condemnation), and since the Orthodox Church was still in communion with these hierarchs, the Donatists formed an independent society with their own hierarchy. Having spread in Africa at the end of the 3rd century, the Donatists existed for more than one and a half centuries. Different attitudes toward this and other schisms were evident in Africa and in the Roman Church. St. Cyprian of Carthage did not recognize the validity of any sacraments outside the Orthodox Church; St. Stephen of Rome recognized the baptism of schismatics but not their ordination. Blessed Augustine believed it possible to accept even the ordination of Donatists, but this opinion is hard to trust, since, according to historians, the writings of Bl. Augustine were distorted by heretics, and considering that he was bishop of Hippo in Italy, where at a council in 393 it was decreed to receive Donatist hierarchs only as laymen. More likely, Bl. Augustine spoke of the non-repeatability of cheirotonia upon falling into heresy and subsequent conversion.

Nevertheless, at the Council of Carthage in 411, it was decreed to accept even the ordination of Donatists, with the note: “This is done not in violation of the council that took place on this matter in lands beyond the sea, but so that it may be preserved for the benefit of those wishing to come to the Catholic Church in this way, lest any obstacle be placed to their unity” (three-commentary Nomocanon). The preeminent Orthodox Church, in the person of a multitude of bishops, had the authority to attract in this manner an already weakened society of schismatics with the aim of completely extinguishing the Donatist schism!

The Arian heresy, which denied the Divinity of Christ and, after its condemnation, continued to diminish God the Son as a Hypostasis of the Holy Trinity, proved a serious trial for the Orthodox Church. The Arians convened assemblies where they set forth their definitions of faith. Some bishops, not discerning the subtlety of the dogma, placed their signatures under such definitions. Then, when Orthodox teaching was affirmed, some—in particular, Lucifer, bishop of Cagliari—considered it impossible to receive these bishops in their rank, but the Church did not accept this opinion.

The First Ecumenical Council affirmed the Symbol of Faith but did not establish a rite for receiving Arians; only a few supported Arius, they soon sent letters of repentance and were received, but after the Council, Arianism flared up anew in a more refined form. At the Second Ecumenical Council (381), Orthodox teaching on the Son of God was confirmed, an exposition on the confession of the Holy Spirit and the Holy Catholic Apostolic Church was added, and in its 7th rule, the Holy Council decreed that heretics—Arians, Macedonians, Sabbatians—be received through chrismation.

The Arian heresy (against the Divinity of Christ) was great, but it was an “internal pain” of the Church. The best church minds, illumined by the Holy Spirit, expounded Orthodox teaching on the Son of God. Hidden forms of Arianism persisted for a long time; the people lived intermingled; episcopal sees sometimes passed from Arians to Orthodox. Almost all hierarchs of the Eastern Church were infected with the heresy. At the same time, worship remained the same. In these conditions, any other rite for receiving Arians was impossible. According to Zonaras’ commentary on this rule: “These heretics are not rebaptized because, regarding holy baptism, they differ from us in nothing, but are baptized in the same way as the Orthodox.” St. Epiphanius of Cyprus testifies that “people even to this day live intermingled (Arians with Orthodox), and many of them are Orthodox.” The Greek Nomocanon Pidallion: “Moreover, careful examination shows that the heretics leniently received by the Second Council were for the most part those who fell into heresy already having been baptized; consequently, leniency was shown to them; but the truth of Sacred Scripture and sound reason say that all heretics without dispute must be baptized.” St. Athanasius of Alexandria also did not accept Arian baptism.

Without examining in detail the rules for receiving heretics condemned by the Third and subsequent Ecumenical Councils, it should be noted that the approach to this question was the same as to Arianism, since the main heresies that necessitated these councils also arose within Orthodoxy on ever more subtle dogmatic questions not fully comprehended at the time. Nestorianism arose (distorted teaching on the Incarnation of the Son of God), Monophysitism (denial of the human nature in Christ as God-Man, leading to denial of the authenticity of the Savior’s sufferings on the Cross), Monothelitism (denial of the manifestation in Christ not only of divine but also human will, which is refuted by the Gospel narrative). These heresies were condemned, Orthodox teaching on the questions that arose was expounded, unrepentant heresiarchs were excommunicated from the Church, and after excommunication, sacraments from them were not accepted.

The iconoclastic false teaching, largely imposed by imperial authority, was from the very beginning perceived by the Orthodox as heresy even before its conciliar condemnation at the Seventh Ecumenical Council.

The question of iconoclastic ordination arose acutely when it became clear that, due to 80 years of iconoclastic heresy dominance, many de facto Orthodox hierarchs had been ordained by iconoclasts or had entered into church communion with them, for which, according to the rules, they were subject to deposition. It was decided to receive them in their existing degrees, for otherwise, according to St. Theodore the Studite, who lived in that period, “all would become subject to deposition one from another.”

At the same time, the council decreed: “If anyone dares to accept cheirotonia from excommunicated heretics according to the proclamation of the conciliar definition and the unanimous opinion of the churches regarding Orthodoxy; then he is subject to deposition.”

In the acts of the Seventh Council, as an example, the opinion of contemporary historians is cited that St. Meletius of Antioch (who ordained St. John Chrysostom) was ordained by Arians, but evidence from other sources (Cheti-Minei, June 22; church history of Bl. Theodoret; letters of St. Basil the Great, and others) refutes this.

St. Theodore the Studite, referring to St. Basil the Great, explained the order for receiving those who had communion with heretics: “As the divine Basil said: he says that sometimes those who had communion with the disobedient, if they repent, are received in the same rank, but not by us (i.e., priests), even if they repent, but by those of equal rank, according to the expression of the divine Dionysius.” “If one of the patriarchs deviates, he must receive correction from his equals” (i.e., received by decision of patriarchs).

According to the Nomocanon, all heresies are divided into three ranks— the first (heretics) are received through baptism, the second (schismatics) are chrismated, the third (those under the church) merely renounce heresies. However, the assignment of a specific heresy to a particular rank was determined by the circumstances, depth, age of the heresy, and correspondence of external confession (rites) to Orthodoxy.

Other church rules set forth in the Nomocanon treat the reception of heretics more strictly. Thus, Rule 7 of the Council of Laodicea receives Photinians through chrismation, but in the commentary on this rule and in the rules of Timothy the Presbyter, these heretics are to be baptized. The Photinians (like the Paulicians received through baptism), according to historians, preserved the correct form of baptism in three immersions. Rule 47 of Basil the Great assigns a series of heretics to the first rank, who in other rules are assigned to the second.

There is no contradiction here. On one hand, “What was determined by economy for some useful purpose should not be brought forward as an example and retained for the future as a rule” (Balsamon’s commentary on the epistle of the Third Ecumenical Council); on the other hand—”those who have departed from the Church no longer have the grace of the Holy Spirit in them. For it ceased when the succession was interrupted. The first who departed had spiritual bestowal from the fathers, but those who separated, being laypeople, had neither the authority to baptize nor to lay on hands. Consequently, they could not impart the grace of the Holy Spirit to others, from which they themselves had fallen” (Nikon of the Black Mountain, word 63, Rule 1 of Basil the Great according to the three-commentary Nomocanon).

Chapter 37 of the Nomocanon answers the question of receiving ordination from condemned heretics: after baptism or chrismation, ranked heretics are ordained to the rank in which they were. The same is written in Book 4 of Sevast Armenopoulos: “For diligent people are cheirotonized to that which they first had among themselves: whether presbyters, or deacons, or subdeacons, or psalm-readers.”

Gregory Symbolak, Metropolitan of Kiev, who lived in the 16th century, in a discourse on the mystery of priesthood, explaining the rules of the First Ecumenical Council on Novatians, writes on the order of restoring heretical cheirotonia: “If some of them are bishops, or presbyters and deacons, if they have a blameless life, from the bishop of the Catholic Church to which they have joined, let them be ordained, first passing through all degrees… and in each degree let them remain for no small time… otherwise it is not permitted… And presbyters without the bishop’s will have no authority to anoint with Holy Chrism bishops or presbyters or others of the clergy coming from heretics. For they have no authority to appoint such by degrees, that is, to cheirotonize them to the rank in which they were.”

Thus, an impartial examination of the Ancient Church Rules allows the following conclusions:

• According to the opinion of the majority of holy fathers, hereditary heretics upon reception must be baptized.
• By decisions of Ecumenical Councils, some heretics were received through chrismation for the sake of church peace. At the same time, the form of baptism was not decisive for assigning a heresy to the first or second rank. There were differences in the rites for receiving heretics, depending on local circumstances.
• Unrepentant hierarchical persons after the condemnation of a heresy were received as laymen. As an exception, by the authority of Councils, only the schismatics Novatians and Donatists were received in their existing rank. The reception of bishops in their existing rank was carried out by those of equal rank (i.e., by a council of bishops).

The history of the Church in Rus’ knew no significant heretical movements until the 17th century. The heresies of the Strigolniki (14th century) and the Judaizers (15th century) were sufficiently few in number and short-lived that the question of the rite for their reception did not even arise. Russia increasingly became the Third Rome, the bulwark of piety. The Stoglav Council (1551) enshrined Russian Orthodoxy as a model for the Universal Church. It elicited respect and laudatory reviews from hierarchs of other Orthodox Churches. In 1589, the patriarchate was established in Russia, and the Russian Orthodox Church gained independence.

At this time, in the Eastern Church, Armenians were received through baptism (conciliar epistle of Bl. Jeremiah, Patriarch of Constantinople, 1591, and others), despite the fact that they baptize with three immersions and initially, after their separation, were received through chrismation. The practice of baptizing Catholics was affirmed, even though in the early period after the separation (1054) they were received through chrismation (Testimonies of Baronius, L., 1219; Serbian Trebnik, 1520).

At the same time, the pernicious influence of Latinism penetrated Greece. The conquest of Constantinople by the Turks (1453), the “crusade” into Byzantium by Catholic knights in 1204, the Unions of Lyon (1274) and Florence (1439) began to shake Greek Orthodoxy. In Venice, Nicholas Malaxas, protopope of Niviliysky, engaged in publishing liturgical books, into which he inserted his own compositions. These books, distributed in Greece, “by the action of the devil” in a relatively short time established there the three-fingered sign of the cross, the triple Alleluia, and other distortions. Elder Arseny Sukhanov, who traveled in the East in 1649, reports on the pouring baptism practiced there. Suspicion began to arise on Rus’ toward the Greek priesthood.

The Brest Union (unification with the Catholics) of 1596 became a “dress rehearsal” for the schism. How, then, was an Orthodox person to relate to Uniate clergymen? The venerable elder, hieromonk Zachariah Kopystensky, in his book “On True Unity,” directly calls for accepting no sacraments from Uniates, in necessity to marry without crowning, and if possible to commune oneself.

In the Conciliar Exposition of Patriarch Philaret, we read: “Let all people of the entire Russian land know that, just as all heretics of various heretical faiths do not have the right Holy Baptism by water and the Holy Spirit. And therefore, all those coming to Orthodoxy from various heretical faiths of the Christian law must be fully baptized with holy baptism, according to the tradition and observance of the holy ecumenical patriarchs.” In accordance with this, in the Great Trebnik, folio 874, it is set forth that one baptized by a Uniate—a former Orthodox priest who commemorates the Roman Pope in the litanies—should be rebaptized (which the Pomortsy also follow).

And then came the time of the beginning of the well-known Nikonian reforms. All the hierarchs, with the exception of Bishop Paul of Kolomna, who was exiled and died a martyr’s death, did not oppose the innovations. Proceeding from the practice of the Russian Church in relation to Uniatism and the “Exposition” of Patriarch Philaret, it was logical that after the council of 1666, which imposed anathemas on the old rites and thereby determined the separation of Ancient Orthodoxy from Nikonianism, after the flood of polemical literature containing heresy, and the subsequent acceptance of baptism from Catholics—newly baptized from Nikonians—the followers of Old Belief began to receive through baptism. As historians testify, this is how all the first Old Believers acted, despite certain differences of opinion on other issues. The Old Believers acted according to the decision of the Kurzhitsky Council of 1656, and this common practice proves the historical fact of that council.

At that time, Old Belief was still united. There remained quite a few priests of pre-Nikonian ordination who, having withdrawn from the new-rite church, performed the necessary sacraments in ancient Orthodox communities; however, liturgies were served very rarely, since churches with consecrated antiminses ended up with the Nikonians. Until the beginning of the 18th century, in the Pomorian regions, the hieromonk Paphnutius and the hierodeacon Ignatius performed sacraments (“History of the Vyg Desert”). In Courland (Lithuania), until 1704, the hieropriest Terentiy led the community; then his son Athanasius came to leadership, already as a layman (“Degutsky Chronicle”).

Soon the question arose of the further existence of the church in view of the priesthood’s fall into heresy. The first Old Believers comprehended what was happening in the Russian Church as an ineffable providence of God and as prophecies for the last times. Neither Bishop Paul of Kolomna nor the bishops inclined toward the old ways—Alexander of Vyatka, Sava and Makary of Novgorod—dared to continue an independent Old Believer hierarchy, although canonically they had the right to do so in those circumstances (which, 150 years later, the Beglopopovtsy dared to do).

The Old Believers recalled the words of Scripture about priesthood:

“Ye are the salt of the earth… but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men” (Matt. 5:13).

“And the churches of God shall weep with great weeping, for neither oblation nor incense is offered, nor service pleasing to God. For the holy churches shall be as vegetable storehouses, and the precious Body and Blood of Christ shall not appear in those days” (Word of St. Hippolytus on Meatfare Sunday).

“Before the coming of Christ, Antichrist will cause the true sacrifice to be abolished everywhere and will set the abomination of desolation in the holy place” (Book of Kirill, Explanatory Apostle).

“Then all the churches of Christ shall weep with great weeping, for there shall be no holy service at the altars, nor oblation” (Ephrem the Syrian, Word 105).

They recalled the words of the Moscow saint Philip (16th century), who, addressing the people, said: “It grieves me to part with you, and I sorrow that a time is coming when the Church will be widowed, for the pastors shall be as hirelings” (Life of St. Metropolitan Philip, ed. 1860).

Foreseeing the scarcity of priesthood, the pre-Nikonian priests nevertheless did not consider it possible to prevent this by any artificial means—for example, by attracting on a material basis a hierarch of pre-Nikonian ordination or by accepting a priest ordained according to Nikonian books, which later became the Beglopopovtsy practice.

This view was held not only by the aforementioned hieropriests from those places where laymen later acted, but also by other priests in those places where the so-called “Beglopopovstvo” later appeared.

For the consecration of churches, antiminses are necessary, into which a particle of the relics of saints must be placed, which were difficult to obtain. To this time belongs the dark story of well-preserved human bodies discovered in a cave in the North Caucasus, which the clergy of the newly formed hierarchy, without any basis, presented as the incorrupt relics of early Christian Persian martyrs Dada, Gaveddai, Kazdoi, and Gargal. The bodies were transported to Moscow, broken into pieces, and placed in the newly consecrated antiminses. And even now, apparently, liturgies are served on them. The Belokrinitsa readers fiercely convinced the new-rite believers and the scholarly world of the authenticity of the relics (materials of Subbotin; Brilliantov M.I. Information on the Holy Relics of the Persian Martyrs. M., 1911).

In 1863, a serious division occurred among the Popovtsy in connection with the attitude toward the “Encyclical Epistle” of I.G. Ksenos, in which the validity of the sacraments and rites of the Greco-Russian Church was affirmed, and the reasons for the separation of Old Belief lost their canonicity. There appeared “Okruzhniki” and “Protivookruzhniki”; the division lasted about 30 years.

A significant part of the Beglopopovtsy justifiably doubted the canonicity of the reception of Metropolitan Ambrose and, until the present century, maintained the practice of Beglopopovstvo. In the 1920s, during the period of spiritual turmoil in the patriarchal church, two new-rite bishops, joining the Beglopopovtsy, established yet another hierarchy—the Novozybkovskaya (from 1923). Both the Belokrinitskaya and Novozybkovskaya hierarchies exist independently to this day.

Over centuries of spiritual nourishment by new-rite hierarchs, a number of innovations appeared in Beglopopovtsy worship and life: choirs began to be led by regents with a baton (instead of golovshchiki), the “classical” manner of singing, similar to the new-rite one, became the model; the ancient Orthodox rule of non-communion in food (and now in some places even in prayer) with those of other faiths was forgotten; persons of reprehensible appearance—shavers of beards—were almost everywhere admitted to communion. The episcopal service, restored only on the basis of manuscripts, apparently lost some details of the pre-Nikonian era.

Concluding this part of the narrative, one wishes to quote words from “The Shield of Faith,” a well-known collection of answers by a Pomorian reader to questions from a Beglopopovets: “Your people do not seek that from which your priesthood would receive the power of the Holy Spirit in sanctification through a bishop, but only seek that it bear at least the name of priesthood, and the people in their blindness will grant it dignity.”

Our Pomorian ancestors, guided by the unanimous negative opinion of the sufferers for piety and the last pre-Nikonian priests regarding new-rite cheirotonia, did not consider it possible to accept Greco-Russian priests in their existing rank.

Andrei Dionis’evich rightly believed that all rites, including sacraments, performed according to books corrupted by Nikon, lack gracious power and, accordingly, cannot be recognized as valid. The ancient “minor” heretics, whose baptism was accepted, performed all rites identically to the Orthodox.

In those times, due to the great distances and difficulties of travel, there was still hope that pious priesthood was preserved somewhere. Feeling the church’s need for a bishop, the Pomortsy undertook attempts to search for one. At the beginning of the 18th century, the Vyg resident Mikhail Ivanovich Vyshatin was sent to Greece and Palestine. He testified that in the Eastern Churches it was impossible to find a truly Orthodox bishop.

The searches ceased, and the Pomorian Church, faithful to the Spirit of Ancient Orthodoxy, continued its existence without visible priesthood, building church life according to the rules of necessity, sorrowing but not seizing what was not granted. The Typikon even in pre-Nikonian times provided for the possibility of conducting services in necessity without a priest, services without liturgy, and according to this Typikon the Pomortsy perform services to this day.

Prophetic indications and instructions of the Church Fathers show the true path of salvation in the absence of an Orthodox pastor:

“Through them (through pastors), with the approach of Antichrist, the faith of the warring people is disarmed when the power and fear of Christ are destroyed. Let the laity take care according to their own discretion” (St. Cyprian, part 1, p. 264).

“You have, says he, beloved brethren, no vain thing in reverence and faith, for there in this time you cannot offer sacrifices and oblations through God’s priests: offer as sacrifice a contrite spirit; a broken and contrite heart God will not despise. This sacrifice you continually offer to God, day and night, and you yourselves are a living and holy sacrifice, as the apostle says, in your bodies” (Hieromartyr Cyprian addresses the imprisoned—according to Baronius, folio 165).

“In times of persecution, with the scarcity of teachers, the Lord Himself will nourish by the Holy Spirit those who believe in Him” (St. Athanasius of Alexandria, part 4, p. 146).

“Beware lest you be deceived by them, for the pastors have departed or gone astray, as if it were impossible for us to preserve ourselves without them; but it is not so, it is not; for it is possible even without them, since God has expelled them from the Church and dishonored them, because they unworthily hold those thrones and bear that name” (Book of Kirill, folio 501, epistle of St. Meletius).

“And if your whole life, due to some necessity or calamity, remains without communion, not finding a conciliar church… Do not, therefore, O children, touch such prayer-leaders (heretics) for the sake of communion” (words of St. John the Merciful, Cheti-Minei, November 11).

Two sacraments—baptism and repentance—are the pledge of our salvation, and in necessity a layman can perform them, for which numerous examples are found in church history. As for the third most important sacrament—visible communion—when the Holy Gifts were exhausted, the Pomortsy began to live in hope of salvation from the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, the Great High Priest, who can invisibly commune those who sincerely desire it, looking at the same time to examples from the Ancient Church, when martyrs and ascetics who never once partook of the visible Body and Blood of Christ not only received no condemnation but were glorified in holiness.

“And you can not only eat and drink the Flesh and Blood of the Lord by secret communion, but in another way” (Blagovestnoe Evangelie, folio 106).

To every Old Believer at confession it is reminded: “Do you have a burning desire for communion of the most pure Body and Blood of Christ; do you strive to prepare yourself for it in due time; do you grieve in soul before God for not receiving it?”

Our priestless service is not an invention of serving without priests, but a true and salvific service in conditions of the absence of Orthodox priesthood. The pledge of our salvation lies in preserving the Ancient Orthodox Faith—the Faith of pre-Nikonian Rus’ of the 17th century, the Faith of the sufferers for piety, the Faith of the Solovki monks, the Faith of the Pomorian fathers—the wisest and most discerning children of Ancient Orthodoxy, who hoped in the ineffable Providence of God, and not in human contrivance.

An Essay on History and the Contemporary Situation

By Valeriy Selishchev

Illustrations by Anastasia Rumyantseva

Repent, ye people, repent, pray to God with tears. And with heartfelt sobbing altogether. For the Antichrist sits upon the throne— This is the cunning seven-headed serpent. He has spewed forth his bitter fury. Throughout all the earth, throughout the universe, princes and boyars grew afraid. They fulfilled all his bitter will, eating meat on Wednesdays and Fridays. They clothed themselves in Latin attire, preparing themselves for the pit of perdition.

An old spiritual verse

To every person who sincerely desires to lead a Christian way of life and to observe the laws and customs of piety, it becomes clear that in such a matter there are no trifles or superficial, external things. The Lord tells us in the Holy Gospel that if we are faithful in little things, He will set us over much. One such thing must be considered our attitude toward Christian clothing and outward appearance.

In the Christian worldview, it is not customary to divide the confession of faith into external (non-obligatory) and internal (sacred) actions and rules. For by the incarnation of the Savior Christ, we are called in everything and by everything to preach the Truth about the indivisible and unconfused union in Christ of two natures—the Divine and the Human, the visible and the invisible. The Lord became incarnate in human form and, like our forefather Adam of old, clothed Himself in the garments of our nature. And earlier, the Lord granted leather garments to the first humans because it was unseemly for the fallen foreparents to remain naked. If before the Fall, forefather Adam and our foremother Eve knew no sin and, consequently, no shame for it: “And they were both naked, Adam and his wife, and were not ashamed”¹Bible. First Book of Moses. Genesis, chapter 3., then afterward a covering for the body became necessary for them. “And the Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife, and clothed them”²Ibid.. And our Christian clothing must correspond to the calling and purpose of man as a child of God.

From ancient Christians we can hear this instruction: “The Lord in that fearful hour will ask us: How will I know that you are Mine (that is, true Christians)? By deeds? But we often do not perform good deeds. By thoughts? But we have vain thoughts and worldly ideas. By clothing, at least? But even our outward appearance is not Christian!

So how will we answer God?

Paraphrasing a famous Russian writer, one can say: In a Christian, everything should be Christian: thoughts, deeds, and clothing…

And this is entirely just. For the Church Fathers and even ecumenical councils have left us instructions about clothing befitting Christians.

“Everywhere Holy Scripture commands us to dress in ordinary Christian garments, as St. Ephraim teaches us (Word 52): By ordinary garments, he says, one who covers himself cares to clothe himself in spiritual attire. But he who adorns himself with multicolored garments strives to be naked of divine clothing. For covering is required of us, but not variegation. The meaning of clothing is one—to be a veil for the flesh (St. Nikon of the Black Mountain, Book 1, Word 37). And again: Wear clothing down to the calves (long to the middle of the shin), neither variegated nor adorned with worldly things. And we must fear such spiritual nakedness and guard ourselves from heretical customs in clothing. Likewise, women are commanded to dress according to Christian custom, and not as Latin women wear indecent attire, baring their breasts and even their shoulders, and thus the wretched ones place the sign of the cross on a single chemise (shirt—underwear), not fearing the prohibition of the holy fathers, that a woman should not, as they said, place the sign of the cross on the chemise except in great need: when washing, or lying down, or rising—then it is without sin. But let her not stand in prayer in a single chemise or with uncovered head, for this is abominable to God”³Red Ustav, part two, folio 3..

To those who do not follow the paternal instructions on decorum in clothing, Scripture directly threatens prohibition and excommunication from the Church: “Now many of our Christian women and men are mired in these same heresies. Those who do so shall be prohibited, and if they do not obey, let them be cast out from the Church and from communion with the faithful. And if after much instruction and admonition they do not cease and do not submit to the Church, but continue their wicked custom, let them be accursed, and those who commune with them shall be excommunicated. Such ecclesiastical punishment applies not only to simple people, but also to the clergy, as stated by Nikon of the Black Mountain in Book 1, Word 37, and by Sevastos Armenopoulos in Book 1. Bishops or clergy who adorn themselves with red and bright (in modern terms—fashionable and bright) garments should be corrected; if they persist in this, they are to be prohibited and deposed. The same is said in the book of Apostolic Discourses of St. John Chrysostom (Epistle to Timothy, Moral Instruction 8) ‘On women who adorn themselves with garments for prayer.’ ‘When coming to pray to God, do you clothe yourself in golden braids? For you have come as if to a festival, or as if to a display? Or to join in marriage? But you have come to ask and pray for sins, to beseech the Master to be merciful, desiring to arrange that. Why do you adorn yourself? This is not the image of those who pray. Adornment with garments is no small sin, but a very great one, sufficient to anger God, sufficient to destroy all the labor of virginity. Truly, adornment with garments is the devil’s hook’ (Great Synodicon, folio 116). From which the holy fathers deterred by all means, sometimes with excommunication and prohibition and threats of anathema, sometimes, according to the apostolic word, handing over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh. As related in the old-printed Patericon, chapter 130: ‘They brought to Father Isaiah from Alexandria a nun fiercely possessed and suffering, and begged the elder to have mercy and heal her, for the demon was fiercely devouring her flesh. Seeing her suffering thus, the elder made the sign of the cross and forbade the demon. The demon replied to the elder: I will not obey you nor come out of her, for I entered her unwillingly. This one whom you see is pleasing to me; I taught her to adorn herself shamelessly, and through her I ensnared and wounded many. It happened once that your fellow ascetic Daniel met her after she had bathed in the bathhouse, and sighing to God and praying that He send punishment upon her, so that she might be saved and other nuns live chastely, having learned from her example. God heard his prayer and allowed me to enter her.’”

Thus are people tormented even in this life for adornment with garments, and what will be in the future age for it—if anyone wishes to know, let him labor to seek it in Holy Scripture. For proper prohibitions from the holy Church lie upon those who wear clothing not according to their rank and outside Christian custom.

On this, see: “Nomocanon, chapter 17.” “Rule 71 of the Sixth Ecumenical Council.” “Stoglav, chapter 90.” “Sevastos Armenopoulos, Book 1, section 3, heading 2.” The same “Book 5 from answers to the charter-keeper Nikita the archbishop, and also on those wearing pagan foreign and heretical clothing.”

The prophet Zephaniah says (ch. 3): “Fear before the face of the Lord God, for the day of the Lord is near, and I will punish the princes and the royal house, and all those clothed in foreign garments.” And again it is said (Dioptra, part 1, chapter 16): “Let no one introduce new inventions in garments, but let him fear the fearful Judgment of God. And many other testimonies are found in Holy Scripture prohibiting unusual and variegated clothing, which it is inconvenient to relate in detail here; let us say only this: that for unusual clothing—of Germans and other heretics—it calls them demons and devils. And Christians do not avoid this comparison who imitate ungodly heretics in clothing and other customs”⁴Red Ustav part 2, folios 3 to 7..

One can also read about Christian clothing in the book by G.E. Frolov “The Path Leading a Christian to the Forgiveness of Sins” in chapters 57 “What Clothing Should a Christian Have,” 58 “Conciliar Prohibition of the Holy Fathers on Dressing in Improper Clothing and Using Fragrant Ointments,” and further from 59 to 61.

What Does Appropriate Clothing Look Like?

Some assert that since we cannot dress like the apostles, there is no point in investigating this. But thanks to the continuity from the fathers, traditional garments in which they prayed and worked have come down to us. For us here, it is important to understand that, of course, there can be no complete analogies with apostolic times and attire. Nor is this necessary. But despite all external historical and national differences, our clothing must be befitting the Christian calling and serve the same purpose as during the time of Christ and the apostles. As seen from many quotations in Scripture and Christian canons, the main purpose of clothing is to be modest, not seductive, not attracting undue attention to persons of both sexes.

Now it is very important to recall that Christianity, coming and enlightening nations with the light of the true Faith, did not at all strive to necessarily unify the cultural customs of peoples, forcing them into a single external form—for example, Greek (Mediterranean) or Jewish (Near Eastern). Christianity accepted suitable cultural models, filling them with new, higher content. This is what happened in Rus’ with regard to clothing, as it fully suited Christian life and could symbolize Christian images. For example, the cross-shaped form of shirts for men and women, the division of lower and upper parts by a belt, the symbolism of the right and left sides.

It is interesting to note that practically all national clothing of peoples who converted to Orthodoxy (within the Roman Empire and even beyond) had a sufficiently chaste appearance and was acceptable for Christians. The cut of the traditional clothing of these peoples was preserved over many centuries, usually until the time of complete secularization and loss of tradition. In Rus’, this lasted until the Petrine reforms (among the people, it persisted until the revolution), in the West—until the Renaissance era.

Evidence of the attitude toward clothing in pre-schism Russia is that the same cut was used by the tsar with his boyars and by the simple peasant. They differed only in price, richness of fabric and trimming, as well as decorations and regalia corresponding to status.

However, while carefully preserving and honoring proper traditional Christian clothing, one should not become excessively carried away to the detriment of Christ’s teaching, reducing it merely to the folkloric side.

Thus, let us begin the account of the outward appearance befitting a Christian with Russian folk clothing, since it serves as the starting point in revealing the concept of Christian attire. It should be noted that the task of this article is not to examine the entire diversity of Russian folk costume. We are primarily interested in the traditional archaic forms of folk clothing, which were more stably preserved over the vast territory of the Russian North (Olonets, Arkhangelsk, Novgorod, Vologda, and partly Perm provinces). It is known that it was in these regions that the Fedoseevian and Old Pomorian communities and monasteries were originally located. “The disciples of the Solovetsky elders Daniil Vikulin and Andrey Denisov, together with Korniliy Vygovsky, founded in 1694 the famous Vyg community, renowned in the history of Old Belief”⁵Maltsev A.I. Old Believer Priestless Concordances in the 17th–early 19th centuries. Novosibirsk: ID “Sova.” P. 25.. “In the Novgorod lands, local fathers enjoyed great authority: the hieromonk Varlaam…”, “as well as Iliya, a former priest from Krestetsky Yam. Among their disciples and followers in the 1690s, the most active was Feodosiy Vasilyev…”⁶Ibid. P. 26..

Based on scientific research and literary sources, we have attempted to approximately outline for all those interested—primarily Old Believers—the origins and forms of the cut of Christian clothing. In our view, due to the circumstances (lack of hierarchy, celibacy), the prayer clothing of Old Pomorians stands, as it were, in the middle—between folk clothing and pre-schism monastic vestments.

Russian Folk Men’s Costume

The main elements of men’s clothing were: the shirt, trousers (ports), head covering, and footwear.

The ancient East Slavic shirt was of tunic-like cut, with long sleeves and a straight slit from the neckline—that is, in the middle of the chest—without a collar, called “goloshveyka” (bare-neck). Later appeared the kosovorotka—a shirt with a slanted slit on the left (rarer on the right) and with a stand-up collar (fig. 1). The “goloshveyka” was subsequently used as an undergarment, worn beneath the upper shirt and not removed at night, like the belt. Our pious ancestors considered it impermissible even to sleep naked. For, in the words of the Savior: “In whatever I find you, in that I will judge you,” and even at night one must be ready to appear before the Judge in a decent form.

 

To ensure freedom of arm movement, rectangular pieces of fabric—gussets—were sewn between the sleeves and side inserts (panels). A characteristic feature of the men’s folk shirt is the lining of canvas in the chest area, called the podopleka, which extends front and back in a triangular or rectangular projection.

The length of the shirt was a sign of age difference. Shirts for old men and children reached the knees or even lower, while for adult men they were 10–15 cm above the knees. By the end of the 19th century, during the height of secularization, the length of shirts—and especially in cities—shortened significantly (to wear under a jacket).

Shirts were sewn from linen or hemp canvas, pestryad’ (checkered or striped linen fabric), dyed canvas fabric—naboyka, and later—from factory cotton materials. The color of fabric for work shirts was dark, while for prayer it was white. The hem and cuffs could be decorated with embroidery, an ancient form of which is “brannaya” embroidery (in black and red). Ornament covered the lower sleeves, neckline, and hem. Along with patterned weaving and embroidery, festive shirts were decorated with braid, sequins, gold galloon, buttons, and beads. Men’s festive shirts, in richness of decoration, were not inferior to women’s. However, shirts for prayer—both men’s and women’s—had no decorations.

Figure 2 depicts ports (trousers) of Russian cut. They were sewn from striped pestryad’, naboyka, plain canvas, and homespun wool—depending on the season. They were tied at the waist, or more often at the hips, with a gashnik cord or rope. There were also under-trousers—for sleeping.

The belt is an obligatory element of both men’s and women’s traditional Russian costume (fig. 3). Belts were made using techniques of braiding, weaving, and knitting. One of the most common motifs in belt patterns are ancient “solstice” (solar) ornamental motifs, which in Christian symbolism signify the Sun⁷A frequently occurring symbolic image of Christ in patristic theological and instructional writings, as well as in liturgical texts. For example, the troparion for the Nativity of Christ: “Thy Nativity, O Christ our God, hath shone upon the world the light of reason; for thereby those who served the stars were taught by a star to worship Thee, the Sun of Righteousness, and to know Thee, the Orient from on high. O Lord, glory to Thee.” of Truth, the Lord God Jesus Christ. Belts were also made with a prayer to the saint whose name the person bore.

“The most ancient were belts made from linen or woolen threads, woven on fingers and having a rhomboid pattern. The width of belts varied from 5 to 20 cm, and the length from 1 to 3 m”⁸Russian Traditional Costume. Illustrated Encyclopedia. Authors-compilers: N. Sosnina, I. Shangina. St. Petersburg: “Iskusstvo–SPB.” 1998. P. 284.. Festive belts were wider and brighter than everyday ones. For a Christian, the belt is not merely an attribute of clothing but carries deep symbolic meaning. It represents both the division of lower and upper parts and readiness to serve God. Without a belt, one cannot pray or go to sleep. Thus, there are two types of belts—lower and upper. The lower belt is simpler and unadorned.

Since an Orthodox Russian person did not undertake any task without a belt, this attitude toward a person neglecting such a custom sanctified by antiquity has been preserved in the language. For example, the word raspoyasat’sya means: 1. To untie one’s belt. 2. To become dissolute, to lose all restraint⁹Ozhegov S.I., Shvedova N.Yu. Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language. Institute of the Russian Language named after V.V. Vinogradov RAS. Moscow: Azbukovnik. 1999. P. 661.. “Walking without a belt is a sin,” people said. To raspoyasat’ (unbelt) a person means to dishonor him. Hence, one behaving unworthily was called in the folk tradition raspoyasavshiysya, that is, voluntarily depriving oneself of honor. “The belt is considered even now a sacred object… and is not removed either by day or by night, except in cases when one needs to go wash in the bathhouse”¹⁰Lebedeva A.A. The Significance of the Belt and Towel in Russian Family and Daily Rituals of the 19th–20th Centuries.. “In the daily life and rituals of the Russian people, great importance has long been attached to the belt. For a man to be without a belt was considered extremely indecent in public, in society. The removal of the belt at a feast offended Vasily Kosoy, grandson of Dmitry Donskoy (mid-15th century), which served as a pretext for war”¹¹Solovyov S.M. History of Russia from Ancient Times. Moscow, 1960. Book 1. P. 1055.. There was a proverb among the people: “Why do you walk without a belt, like a Tatar?!” That is, a person walking without a belt, in the folk consciousness, becomes not only non-Christian but even non-Russian. Moreover, people walking without a belt were considered sorcerers connected with unclean forces. “It is indicative that the absence of a belt is a sign of belonging to the chthonic (lower, animal, in this case demonic—V.S.) world: for example, rusalki (water nymphs) are traditionally described as (…) dressed in white shirts, but the absence of a belt is always emphasized. In rituals associated with communion with ‘unclean forces’ (demons—V.S.), the belt was removed simultaneously with the cross.” “The belt tied on a person turns out to be the center of his vertical structure, the place of connection between the sacral upper and the material-corporeal lower…”¹²V. Lysenko, S.V. Komarova. Fabric. Ritual. Person. Traditions of Weaving among Eastern European Slavs. St. Petersburg, 1992..

The main head covering for men was the cap (shapka). An ancient type of head covering among the Great Russians is considered the felt cap—“valenka” (fig. 4), “a head covering for spring, summer, autumn made of felted sheep’s wool in white, gray, brown color. They were made in the form of a truncated cone with a flat or rounded top about 15–18 cm high, with turned-up brims or high brims fitting the crown”¹³Russian Traditional Costume… P. 40.. Peasants wore felt caps, as well as lower round caps with fur trimming. Wealthy people made caps from satin, sometimes with trimming decorated with precious stones and sable fur.

By the 20th century, hats of practically modern form began to be worn. But a Christian necessarily wore a head covering; when bidding farewell, he would remove it, say a prayer, and then put it on again. Forbidden for Christians were only kartuz caps and malakhai caps (Tatar) and treukhi (ear-flap hats). Also caps made of dog or wolf fur, especially for attending communal prayer.

Russian Folk Women’s Costume

One of the main elements of women’s folk clothing is the shirt (rubakha).

Structurally, the shirt consists of the stan (body) and sleeves (fig. 5). The stan was made from panels of fabric running from the neckline to the hem, in most cases not whole but composite—with transverse division. The upper part of the stan was called differently in various places: “stanushka,” “vorot,” “vorotushka,” “grudka.” The lower part of the stan was called: “stan,” “stanovina,” “stanovitsa,” “pododol,” “podstava.” The horizontal division of the stan was located below the chest level and above the waist level. In width, the stan was made from whole lengths of canvas, whose width varied from 30 to 46 cm, depending on the design of the weaving loom. The voluminous form of the shirt, the width and density of gathers at the neckline, and the volume (fullness) of the sleeves depended on the number of panels used.

Shirts were made from linen, hemp, cotton fabrics; heavier ones—from woolen cloth and wool. The upper and lower parts of the shirt, as a rule, were sewn from fabrics differing in quality, color, and pattern. For the upper part of the shirt, better-quality and more colorful fabrics were used; sleeves and poliki (shoulder inserts) were usually decorated with patterned weaving in red threads, and various embroidery techniques were applied. The neckline of the shirt and the pazukha (20–25 cm) were finished with edging, most often red. The neckline cut was fastened with a button and loop.

There are four main constructions of women’s shirts (fig. 6):

1. Tunic-like (archaic type).
2. Shirt with straight poliki.
3. Shirt without poliki.
4. Shirt with oblique poliki.

The folk shirt could serve as an independent element of women’s costume (for example, the “pokosnitsa” shirt for haymaking), in which case it was necessarily belted with a woven belt and supplemented with an apron. But in the Red Church Statute, Christians were forbidden to walk in a single shirt, and especially to pray in one. A sarafan was worn over the shirt. In southern regions of Russia, instead of a sarafan, a poneva—a rectangular panel gathered at the upper part—was worn over the shirt. The poneva was wrapped around the waist. Like men, women wore a lower, under-shirt, which was not removed at night and was belted with a lower belt.

In fig. 7, we see rukava (sleeves, or a type of upper garment). The types of sleeve constructions are the same as in the folk women’s shirt; their distinctive feature is the absence of the lower part of the stan. Rukava were worn over the belted under-shirt, followed by the sarafan—the second main element of the folk women’s costume.

The sarafan has many names derived from the fabric from which it was made (shtofnik, shelkovik, atlasnik, kashemirnik, sitsevik, sukman, kumashnik, samotkannik, etc.); names from the sarafan’s construction (klinik, kosoklinny, semiklinny, sorokoklin, krugly, lyamoshnik, etc.); from the color and pattern of the fabric (sandal’nik, marenik, nabivnik, pestryadil’nik, kletovnik, troekrasochniki, etc.). “The most ancient of them (sarafan—from Iranian ‘sarapa’ or ‘sarapai’—clothed from head to feet) was the deaf (closed) kosoklinny sarafan, which existed in a number of provinces until the end of the 19th century under names such as shushun, sayan, feryaz’, dubas, etc.”¹⁴Russian Traditional Costume… P. 284..

Over time, the sarafan changed structurally, the fabrics used for it changed, and new names appeared. In general, the entire diversity of this type of clothing reduces to four main types of sarafans:

1. Deaf (closed) tunic-like, of the most ancient type (fig. 8).
2. Kosoklinny (oblique-wedge) (fig. 9).
3. Round or straight (fig. 10).
4. Sarafan with a bodice. (The latest type of sarafan, not considered in the context of this article).

1. The deaf tunic-style sarafan represents an archaic form and construction. It was sewn from one piece of fabric folded in half, forming the front and back panels of the sarafan. The sides were widened with longitudinal wedges or slightly slanted panels of fabric sewn in along the entire length from small oval armholes to the hem. A shallow neck cut was made in the center of the folded panel, round or rectangular in shape, with a small chest slit (opening), fastened with a button or tied.
2. The kosoklinny sarafan, by the construction of the front panel, is divided into deaf, open-front, and with a central front seam. The deaf kosoklinny sarafan is a transitional form from the archaic tunic-like sarafan. The open-front or with central front seam sarafan was sewn from three straight panels of fabric (two in front and one in back) and two to six wedges on the sides. The front flaps were fastened with metal buttons and loops or sewn together; the central front seam and hem were decorated with gold galloon, braid, embroidery, fabric appliqué using sequins, glass beads, river pearls, etc. The quantity and value of decoration depended on the purpose of the sarafan. The straps of the sarafan could be cut in one piece or made from a separate piece of fabric. The edges of the straps, neck cut, armholes, and hem were edged with strips of fabric or braid.
   

   

3. The main distinction of the straight or round sarafan is the whole straight panels of fabric gathered at the upper edge. In such sarafans, either all panels are of equal length, forming a kind of skirt on straps, or the front panel is elongated in the upper part, reaching almost to the neck and covering the entire chest. Narrow straps are cut from the same fabric as the sarafan and edged with strips of plain colored fabric. The round sarafan at the bottom could be supplemented with one or several rows of frills, edged with braid or lace.
   

   

   For all types of sarafans, the hem was doubled on the wrong side with plain fabric, 7 to 20 cm wide. The kosoklinny and tunic-like sarafans, to give a rigid shape and for warmth, could be sewn entirely with lining. Everyday sarafans were sewn from simple fabrics and almost undecorated. Festive sarafans were made from precious and semi-precious fabrics and richly decorated. When worn, both on holidays and weekdays, a zaveska, zanaveska, zapon, or apron was put on over the sarafans (fig. 11). Later, it acquired practically the modern form of an apron. And over the zaveska, the upper belt was tied. Thus, the clothing was three-layered: the shirt with the lower belt, the sarafan, and the apron with the upper belt.

   

   The ensemble of women’s folk clothing is unthinkable without a headdress, to which special attention was paid in folk culture. By the headdress, one could tell the region of its owner, her age, marital and social status. Almost every province (and sometimes district) had forms of headdresses unique to it. They are extraordinarily diverse.

   

   Headdresses are divided into two large groups: maiden’s and married women’s. A characteristic feature of maiden’s headdresses was an open crown, while married women completely covered their hair, as by ancient custom it was forbidden to show them. Maiden’s headdresses include the fabric headband (fig. 12), which “was a strip of fabric (silk, brocade, velvet, kumach, galloon) on lining… width from 5 cm to 20–25 cm, length up to 50 cm. The band was worn on the crown or forehead and tied under the braid at the nape. Two lobes of silk or brocade were sewn to the back…”¹⁵Russian Traditional Costume… P. 223.. Also: a hoop of wood bark or cardboard, a venets (crown), a venok (wreath), a plat (scarf), a knitted cap.

   Women’s headdresses include:

   1. Towel-type headdresses (polotentse, nametka, ubrus) in the form of a long towel with or without decoration, wound in a special way over a cap with a round bottom, a chepets, or a kichka.
   2. Kichka-type headdresses (kichka or soroka), distinguished by diversity and fanciful design. As a rule, composite. Main elements: lower part with a hard base giving shape to the headdress (kichka, horns, volosnik, etc.); upper decorated part of fabric (soroka, verkhovka, privyazka, etc.); pozatylynik of fabric tied at the back under the upper part. The kichka-soroka was supplemented with other elements: nalobnik, bead pendants, feathers, “naushniki” (earpieces), cords, silk tassels, etc.
   3. Kokoshnik — a festive headdress richly embroidered with gold and silver threads, sewn with river pearls, decorated with sequins, multicolored glass, cannetille, glass beads.
4. Povoinik, sbornik (fig. 13). One of the ancient headdresses in Rus’, in the form of a soft cap completely covering the hair. The povoinik was an under-headdress, always covered from above with an ubrus or volosnik; it was not proper to walk around the house, let alone on the street, in just a povoinik. From the second half of the 19th century, it acquired independent significance. Everyday povoiniki were sewn from simple materials, festive ones from expensive fabrics, with the bottom decorated with gold embroidery, river pearls, sequins.
   

   

   In our Old Pomorian tradition, all the above-listed headdresses are completely absent. This is connected with the celibate status in recent times¹⁶Interestingly, in the Trebnik there is a special priestly prayer for the povoinik..

   5. A widespread headdress is the plat (shawl/scarf). Shawls were worn by both girls and women at different times of the year. They gave the costume special colorfulness and uniqueness.

Footwear

Folk footwear can be divided into the following groups:

1. Woven footwear (lapti, bast and birch-bark shoes, half-boots, and boots). Lapti were the most common and cheapest summer (and sometimes winter) footwear. Materials were lime, elm, rarer willow bast, and birch bark.
2. Leather footwear (boots, botinki, shoes). Leather footwear was widespread in Russian villages, though not every peasant could afford it. Leather botinki and shoes (koty, chary, choboty, khodoki, chereviki, etc.) — rigid construction footwear with heels. 19th–early 20th century koty (fig. 14) — women’s festive footwear, worn with stockings, sometimes fastened to the leg with straps or laces passed through eyelets on the uppers or heels.
   

   

Traditional Russian folk leather footwear — sapogi (boots) (figs. 15, 16) — gained wide popularity. Boots were made vyvorotnye (with sewn-on tops) or vytyazhnye (whole), with naboyki or high heels (a copper horseshoe was sewn to the heel). The shaft was sewn either “v garmoshku” (gathered in fine horizontal folds) or rigid and smooth on top, gathered in folds near the head.

In some localities, boots were important as work footwear (for example, in the Russian North, in Siberia). These are distinctive boots with sewn-on high shafts, loops, and straps for fastening to the leg — brodni, bakhily, bredni, lovchagi (fig. 17).

Festive leather footwear was decorated with metal pistons forming simple patterns; stitched with threads, finished with appliqué — overlays of leather and other colored material.

Russian Folk Outer Clothing

Outer folk clothing refers to all shoulder garments worn by Russian peasants over the shirt, sarafan (or poneva), and apron. Women’s outer clothing hardly differed from men’s in construction, the differences being in details, sizes, and degree of decoration. Both women’s and men’s outer clothing wrapped in the same way — the right panel deeply overlapping the left, not by chance, for in ancient Christian tradition the primacy of right over left can be seen from the beginning. In this series stand the Orthodox sign of the cross, walking posolon’ (sunwise), and the position of hands in prayer¹⁷See: Uspensky B.A. The Cross and the Circle: From the History of Christian Symbolism. Moscow: Yazyki slavyanskikh kul’tur, 2006.. Accordingly, when making outer clothing, the right panel was often made 5–10 cm longer than the left, the placket line oblique. The fastening was mainly up to the waist line: buttons or hooks on the right panel, loops on the left.

Outer folk clothing is very diverse. By way of wearing, two types are distinguished: thrown over the shoulders (cloak, cape) and, most characteristic, put into sleeves; the latter divided into deaf (closed) and open-front (raspashnaya).

Traditional outer clothing has many names. Common Slavic: svita (from “svivat’” — to twist), gunya, koshulya, kabat, kozhukh, etc. Ancient Russian terms: ponitok, sukonnik, opashen’, okhaben’, odnorjadka, etc. Russian names: poddyovka, kutsinka (from “kutsiy” — short), shugay, korotay, semishovka, verkhovitsa, etc. Terms of Eastern origin: kaftan, zipun, shuba, tulup, armyak, etc.

Kaftan-zipun (fig. 18), open-front outer folk clothing. Made from homespun cloth or factory fabric, most often brown, rarer black or gray. The back of the zipun is whole, slightly fitted or cut-off with gathers. Two or three wedges were sewn into the sides, sleeves cut-out. The zipun was made without a collar or with a small collar fastened with one or two buttons (at the neck and chest). Sleeve edges were often edged with leather, and sometimes (in women’s zipuns) with plush. The zipun was usually made without lining. It was worn, depending on the weather, in all seasons.

Poddyovka (fig. 19), as the name suggests, was worn under another, warmer garment. For this type of outer clothing, thin homespun cloth or “ponitchina” (warp linen, weft wool) was used. A feature of the cut can be considered the cut-off waist and gathers on the back of the poddyovka. Also a shoulder seam dropped back and arc-shaped darts on the back (preserved to this day, for example, in military or police short sheepskin coats), stand-up collar. From the neck to the waist were four hook fastenings. The length of the poddyovka reached mid-calf. The ponitok had a similar cut, only without gathers at the back waist.

Short clothing has been considered impermissible and even law-breaking since Old Testament times, like beard-shaving¹⁸Collection on Worldliness and Beard-Shaving. Printing House at the Preobrazhensky Almshouse in Moscow in the year 7419 (1911). Folio 24.. In the Bible it is said: “And Hanun took David’s servants, and shaved them, and cut off their garments in the middle, even to their buttocks, and sent them away. Then certain came and told David about the men; and he sent to meet them, for the men were greatly ashamed”¹⁹First Book of Chronicles, chapter 19, verse 4..

Short — “shchapovataya” — clothing is also forbidden to wear in the well-known book of the early 19th century compiled from Scripture by “the abbot of blessed memory of the Kineshma regions Trofim Ivanovich, native of Moscow and spiritual son of Ilya Ivanovich, who ended in exile and glorified by incorruption.” “Short clothing, called telogreya, this is un-Christian attire, that is, pagan, or again women sewing men’s clothing for themselves or putting ready-made on themselves. Or again men and women keeping and wearing Circassian clothing, and not counting it a sin, some even standing in prayer in them”²⁰Statute on Christian Life. On Walking in Clothing Unbefitting Christians. If a man or woman clothe themselves in attire not according to paternal tradition, let them be anathema. Chapter 34..

Clothing for Prayer

Until now, we have considered everyday, worldly or secular clothing, and in it it was considered impious to come to communal prayer. For prayer, there was a special cut long, to the ground azyam. Now, unfortunately, in the time of general mixing and loss of tradition, the poddyovka in many places has come to be considered church clothing. And to give it “solid churchliness,” it is simply lengthened like an azyam. Meanwhile, there are conciliar paternal prohibitions for Old Pomorians to come to prayer in poddyovkas: “in poddyovkas at prayer by no means to stand.”

In fig. 20 is depicted the azyam — men’s outer clothing for communal prayer, accepted among Old Pomorians (Fedoseevtsy and Filipovtsy). Features of the azyam’s cut are recorded in the Statute for the Preobrazhensky Almshouse of Ilya Alekseevich Kovyline. The color can only be black, dark brown, dark gray, or dark blue. The azyam has a cut-off waist, shoulder seam dropped back, and arc-shaped darts on the back, like the poddyovka. But the collar is no longer just a stand-up but continues along the entire upper line of the front. On the back from the waist, under the lower edge of the darts, go three counter folds each 7–9 cm deep, almost one above the other.

The length, as mentioned above, reaches down to the footwear. A striking distinctive feature of the azyam was the red twisted “snurok” (twisted cord), with which the cuffs and the entire front panel from the side were edged, including the collar and hanging loops. From the loops, four fastenings were formed with two round buttons each from the collar to the waist. Such fastenings can be seen in old portraits in the city of Riga in the Grebenshchikov community. However, closer to the 20th century, these fastenings ceased to be made, and they switched to ordinary hooks as on secular or military clothing. Interestingly, by the 20th century, the twisted cord also disappeared from azyams, but edging of black velvet appeared on the cuffs and collar (possibly only for kliros members).

In fig. 21, as an example, a kaftan is shown, which by custom is worn in the Riga Grebenshchikov community. It is dome-shaped: there are neither folds nor darts, neither in front nor in back. This is most likely ancient outer clothing, under which an azyam or poddyovka was worn. A sample of it can be seen in the Historical Museum, where a velvet kaftan of this cut is displayed in a showcase.

In fig. 22, we see boots of ancient Russian cut: with turned-up toes and on heels. Such boots were worn during services, as seen in the same old photographs. There is also a prohibition against wearing “smaznye” boots, that is, shiny—patent leather—as well as boots without heels—in the Tatar style.

Women’s clothing for prayer also has its distinctive features that set it apart from traditional folk clothing. The complex of women’s prayer clothing consisted of the following elements: lower shirt belted with a belt, rukava (sleeves or upper bodice) worn over the lower shirt, sarafan, two shawls (lower and upper).

The sarafan for prayer (fig. 23) is an open-front kosoklinny sarafan with a collar like that of the deaf tunic-like sarafan. Its distinctive feature is three pairs of counter folds laid from the collar to the middle of the shoulder blades and stitched on the back. The front panels are fastened with buttons and hanging loops. The number of buttons must be a multiple of numbers symbolic for Christians (as on the lestovka, for example): 30, 33, 38, 40. Thus, even the buttons on the prayer sarafan were not decoration but reminded of truths significant in the Christian way of life. The hem of the sarafan at the back should lie on the ground, like a small train. The front part is shorter, so that the toes of the footwear are visible. For prayer sarafans, fabric in dark blue, dark brown, or black colors was used. Red in all shades was forbidden. It must be emphasized that sarafans for prayer are not belted (Article 41 of the Polish Council).

Under the sarafan was worn the lower shirt with a belt, and over it rukava (manishka) exclusively white in color (and not whatever one wants or happens to have!—V.S.). The wide sleeves of the shirt were gathered at the wrist or ended in a cuff and decorated with white lace. In Kazan, for prayer, it is customary to wear a white shirt with wide ungathered sleeves, also decorated along the edge with white lace (fig. 24).

An essential element of women’s prayer clothing is the shawl. First, the woman puts on the lower white shawl, completely tucking away the hair and covering the forehead to the middle. Then the head is covered with the upper shawl. There are special rules for wearing the shawl in prayer (fig. 25). Unmarried praying women (maidens and widows) wear the shawl loose, on the edge (image on the left). For praying women, fringes (bakhroma) along the edge of the shawl are unacceptable. Married women wear the shawl only cornerwise (image on the right). Let us recall that non-praying can include not only married women but also those excommunicated from communal prayer for other deviations or transgressions. In prayer, the shawl is not tied in a knot but is necessarily pinned under the chin with a fastener (in antiquity, this was most likely a fibula; now a simple safety pin). The color of the shawl, like the sarafan, is exclusively dark.

As regrettable as it is, nowadays we see complete multicolored variety in clothing and shawls among non-praying women. One should not follow the example of the “married” (those in marriages) and wear now white, now colorful shawls—this is entirely non-traditional for Pomorians, and especially for Old Pomorians. “The communal statute developed by Andrey Denisov in 1702 (… ) reflected the desire to eradicate habits of worldly life. In the 1720s, the statute was supplemented by conciliar decrees regulating the character of women’s clothing, prohibiting lace and ‘knitted plaits’ and ‘other improper’ decorations…”²¹Kapusta L.I. Folk Art of Karelia and Artistic Traditions of Vyg. Culture of Vyg Old Believers. (On the 300th Anniversary of the Founding of the Vyg Old Believer Community). Petrozavodsk: “Karpovan Sizarekset.” 1994. P. 38. And the Vyg Council of 1725 also says in Article 10: “Among all hermitage dwellers in the wilderness, strictly ensure that there be no cornered caps with tassels, no camel-hair or silk sashes, and no draget clothing”²²See: BAN. Druzhinin Collection No. 8 and Pushkin House. Collection No. 3. Autograph of Andrey Denisov..

On clothing for communal worship, Article 41 of the Polish Council of 1752 says: “Youths in red shirts and kalamencovy trousers (of fine colorful fabric), and maidens in red boots and red shawls and with gold bindings, by no means to stand in prayer, and not to gird themselves with belts, and thereby not to scandalize the Orthodox (!—emphasized by V.S.); if they prove obedient, let them make 300 prostrations to the ground.”

The St. Petersburg Council of 1809 on clothing, already not only for worship, says: “Article 8. German dress is seen worn by many Christians, and on this there are most terrible prohibitions in divine Scripture. Therefore, superiors must in every way restrain from this soul-harming custom, and excommunicate those who resist.”

The sixth article of the famous Moscow Council of 1883 prohibited what had by then become fashionable non-Christian custom in clothing: “Not to adorn oneself with foreign and pagan garments (…) In such attire, by no means to stand in prayer houses” (this is as topical as ever today!—V.S.).

It must be recalled that even at home, in cell prayer, standing before holy icons, one cannot neglect Christian attire, just as in communal prayer.

At present, among modern Christians, there is an opinion that for newlyweds and other non-praying excommunicated from communal prayer, it is entirely unnecessary to wear Christian clothing either in everyday life or even when coming to communal prayer. And men need not wear beards, nor women uncut hair, and certainly not maintain Christian utensils. “After all, they say, one won’t pray anyway.” But this is utterly unsound, un-Orthodox reasoning. We ourselves, without any persecutions or prohibitions, thereby deprive ourselves of the Christian appearance (likeness of God), reject the holy fathers’ commandments, and do not wish to imitate the lives of God’s saints.

In conclusion, one must acknowledge, following the well-known spiritual father G.E. Frolov: “Here we call ourselves Old Believers, but our outward appearance testifies to the opposite. Often they reply: ‘One must keep the covenants of piety in the soul.’ But this is merely an evasion. Your impious outward appearance… proceeds from your will, from your attachment to everything new and corrupt. Your outward appearance clearly exposes empty inner content. On you is the uniform not of Christ’s warrior, but of Antichrist’s.” “If it is shameful on the street to show oneself as a Christian before the corrupt world, then why do you appear in the prayer house and at Christian gatherings and congresses in Antichrist’s guise? What sound advice can come from such counselors?”²³Frolov G.E. Covenants of Antiquity. Calendar for the Year 1999 of Christians of the Ancient Orthodox Catholic Confession and Old Pomorian Concord. Moscow, 1999. P. 47.

From accounts of eyewitnesses of the proper attitude toward non-Christian corrupt clothing, one can cite Natalia Alekseevna Sergeeva (now reposed kliros singer of the Preobrazhensky Cemetery, disciple of G.E. Frolov). When a young man from the city arrived in their village of Rayushi (Estonia) in a fashionable jacket, one of the Christian elders approached him from behind and, pulling from bottom to top, tore the demonic attire. A similar episode was related to us by Kapetolina Platonovna Rokhina, whose great-grandfather Ambrosiy Rokhin was a participant in the council at Preobrazhensky Cemetery in 1883 (though non-praying). In their Christian village of Zubari in Nolinsky district, a certain dandy also returned from the city in “foreign attire,” so his grandfather simply hacked the “Antichrist uniform” with an axe.

Today, alas, we calmly observe, without any qualms of conscience, carefree people clad in these demonic garments walking into Christian churches. Is it really impossible for them to sew at least a Christian shirt for attending services? Of course it is possible! Let them divert a little means and time from worldly occupations in their lives, to at least attempt in this to resemble Christians, as the holy fathers and our pious ancestors called us from the beginning of the Orthodox faith to our last days.

The last among Christians V.G.S. Summer 7515

-The article is taken from the Old Orthodox calendar for the years 2007–2008.

 

source

-By Nina Lukyanova.

“Shake off, ye unbelievers, your mental slumber, open the eyes of your mind and behold: the sun of the world is already setting, night will soon come, the fateful hour will strike suddenly, Christ will appear like lightning—for all is ready. And yet, instead of Christ, Whom we must await with fear day and night and every hour, you still expect the beast—the Antichrist with ten horns.”

L.F. Pichugin (1859–1912), an outstanding figure of the Pomorian Church, a learned reader (nachetchik), and author of apologetic works

The various branches of the priestless Old Believers (bezpopovtsy) are united by the conviction that, after the schism of the 17th century, the apostolic succession of the Orthodox clergy was broken, the grace of the priesthood ceased, the church hierarchy ended, and the spiritual Antichrist came to reign. The bezpopovtsy began to understand the spiritual Antichrist as the entirety of the diverse heresies that had penetrated the Church—that is, the Antichrist is not a specific person, but a spiritual heresy reigning in the world, which has eradicated true priesthood. The bezpopovtsy view the dominion of the Antichrist as the rule of heretics with their persecutions of true Christians. And since the Antichrist already reigns, Christians must remain in a universal state without priests or sacraments. This is precisely why the bezpopovtsy did not recognize the ordinations of the dominant church and declared it impossible to accept priests from there.

In 1654, Bishop Paul of Kolomna opposed the heretical changes that Patriarch Nikon was introducing into the Church and was exiled to the Paleostrovsky Monastery in the Olonets district, where in confinement he taught and strengthened people in the patristic traditions and piety. It was Bishop Paul of Kolomna who established that all those coming from the Nikonian church must be baptized with the true Baptism. He enjoined not to accept newly ordained priests, but to baptize them, and under no circumstances to accept their “sacraments” from the new, heretical “false priests.”

Christians besought Bishop Paul to appoint priests and a bishop:

“O reverend one, our holy sufferer for the faith, holy and great ascetic father, if your holiness departs from us orphans into the ages to come, the holy and bloodless sacrifice will be extinguished on earth. And if the priesthood perishes to the end, who will kindle for us the lamp of priesthood, the holy Divine Service? Only you, father, possess the granting grace in priests, and all the holy church mysteries are sanctified by you. If you, most holy father, do not kindle this lamp, then truly visible priesthood will be extinguished in us, and then there will be great need for the faithful in the present time and for our brethren coming after us.”

To which Bishop Paul replied:

“Among you there are simple pious men and monks who fear God and keep Christ’s commandments, who can baptize and hear confessions, for true priesthood has ceased with Nikon’s innovations.”

While priests of the old, ancient Orthodox ordination were still alive, they communed the “remnants of ancient piety” with the Divine Mysteries. After it became impossible to find an Orthodox priest, out of necessity the fathers commanded that even a layman could baptize and hear confessions according to the tradition of the Holy Church, and the verbal flock was entrusted to unordained pastors who can perform only two church mysteries—baptism and penance.

From the time of the Solovetsky Uprising of 1667–1676, the monks and laypeople of Solovki who did not submit to the liturgical reform attempted to break with priests who, in particular, opposed the rebels’ decision not to pray for the tsar and patriarch. Some of the Solovetsky monks and laypeople stopped attending church and confession with spiritual fathers, rejected the heretical communion, and confessed “among themselves to laypeople.”

The priestless Old Believers never denied the church hierarchy as such, and therefore, in the first half of the 18th century, they continued to search for true priesthood of the ancient ordination. Thus, in early 1730, a joint expedition with the priestly Old Believers (popovtsy) was undertaken to Palestine to find “Orthodox priesthood.” Unlike the “runaway priests” faction (beglopopovtsy), the bezpopovtsy accepted clergy defecting from the dominant church without preserving their rank—that is, as ordinary laypeople. In 1765, in Moscow, the idea of uniting bezpopovtsy and popovtsy under the authority of an Old Believer archbishop was considered. Proposals were made to ordain such an archbishop using the hand of the relics of Metropolitan Jonah or another saint; however, all these attempts were unsuccessful—the unification never occurred. The dying out of priests of “pre-Nikonian” ordination and the absence of bishops in Old Belief led to the fact that, by the end of the 17th century, a portion of the Old Believers became convinced that it was no longer possible to have priesthood.

The bezpopovtsy divide all the sacraments, according to their importance for salvation, into “absolutely necessary” (baptism, penance, communion) and “necessary” (marriage, unction, priesthood, chrismation), which, out of necessity, may not be performed at all.

The priestless state of the bezpopovtsy (due to the spiritual heresy reigning in the world and eradicating true priesthood), the dominion of the Antichrist, and the “abomination of desolation in the holy place” formed the basis for the doctrine of spiritual communion.

In the 18th century, among the Vyg community and the Fedoseevtsy, there was a practice of communing with ancient reserved Gifts; in the Vyg Hermitage, there also existed a rite of “communion” with the God-bearer’s bread (prosphora blessed in honor of the Virgin Mary).

Old Believer priestless thinkers in the 18th century explained in their works that, in the current historical situation, it is impossible—due to the absence of an ancient Orthodox church hierarchy—to preserve “the unchanging fullness of all external forms of the Church’s existence,” and therefore partial departures are inevitable, as evidenced by examples from the Old and New Testaments, the writings of the holy fathers, and church history:

Those who dare without necessity to do what is not commanded are condemned as transgressors of the law. But one who dares out of necessity is not only not condemned, but is deemed worthy of praise and honor and is justified by all teachers. However, it is necessary to discern carefully in this, so that we dare only in those things where extreme necessity commands, lest, by proposing these things pertaining to necessity, we begin in non-necessary times to perform mysteries that are not subject to necessity.

Throughout the 18th century, the bezpopovtsy justified the impossibility of following the example of the popovtsy and accepting priesthood transitioning from the Synodal Church, explaining that this would merely reproduce external forms of worship but not the lost grace. While the “Deacon’s Answers” directly state the readiness of representatives of the priestly direction to reunite with the Synodal Church if it returns to pre-reform rites, the bezpopovtsy held a different opinion on this matter.

In Sacred Scripture and church history, the bezpopovtsy found answers to the question of how to compensate for the forced renunciation of certain church sacraments. Thus, in the ancient Church during times of persecution of Christians and in confrontations between Orthodoxy and Arianism, iconoclasm, and other heresies, Christians repeatedly found themselves deprived of hierarchy and clergy. Descriptions of such religious-historical events are well known from the lives of saints and other literature.

The 16th–17th century conflict between Orthodox and Uniates in Rus’ demonstrated that, with the near-total defection of the clergy and severe persecutions of Orthodoxy, laypeople found a way for the Church to exist even when deprived of priesthood.

Archimandrite Zacharias Kopystensky of the Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra argued in his writings that, in the absence of a clergyman, a layman may perform the sacraments of baptism and confession, and the sacrament of communion is replaced by spiritual communion—as the most sincere and “warm from the heart desire” to receive the Body of Christ.

The works of Zacharias Kopystensky, as well as those of other Orthodox writers—polemicists and church preachers—Stephen Zizanii (1550–1634) and John Vyshensky (between 1545–1550 — after 1620), were republished in Moscow already in the mid-17th century.

The most famous Old Believer publications—“The Spiritual Sword,” “The Shield of Faith,” and other priestless literature—repeat the doctrine of spiritual communion that became generally accepted among the bezpopovtsy. This doctrine is also expounded in detail in the main apologetic book of the Old Believers, the “Pomorian Answers” (Answer 104). Here, with references to the book “On the Seven Sacraments” (Chernigov, 1716) and “Dialogismos” (Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra, 1714), three types of communion are described. The first is the “ordinary,” when one receives the mystery with a pure heart and conscience and with the mouth; the second is spiritual, when “for blessed reasons those who have nowhere to commune, that is, to taste with the mouth the life-giving and most pure Mysteries, yet show warm faith and zealous desire for this, adorning their life with virtues: such people through faith and zeal spiritually commune of the Flesh and Blood of Christ”; and the third, when those who partake “with the mouth alone” receive communion unworthily, without cleansing themselves from sins, and for them it works not for salvation but for condemnation.

In response to unfair accusations of Protestantism, the bezpopovtsy replied thus:

It is not hierarchs we fear, but innovations; and it is not hand-made churches we flee, but the new traditions and statutes newly introduced into them.

The bezpopovtsy particularly emphasize that the state of a person’s spirit can determine the result of a sacrament’s effect and even compensate for the forced incompleteness of external forms, since it is precisely the “inner spiritual essence that predetermines the external forms and the character of their changes”—in other words, spiritual content takes priority over canonical external forms.

The priestless Old Belief has never rejected the idea of any church sacrament or rite, nor has it questioned the status of the priesthood as the bearer of God’s grace. The entire worldview of the bezpopovtsy is permeated with the awareness of loss, which is compensated by the spiritual power of faith.

In “The Shield of Faith” it is stated: “we, though we do not receive it because of the obstruction by heretics, yet complete it by our faith,” and this confirms the forced nature of their actions, rather than a desire to reform the Church in accordance with their own convictions.

In a Church without priesthood and hierarchy, the bezpopovtsy sought in everything to follow canonical rules and historical events, placing all their hope in the fact that God would complete what could not be performed due to compelled circumstances. At the same time, it is important to note that a layman baptized and heard confessions in place of a priest—and there are grounds and examples for this in church tradition—yet he never performed unauthorized spiritual actions, such as chrismation or the Liturgy, which laypeople could never perform. Unfortunately, the losses in the fullness of external forms occurred due to the loss of the priesthood, whose gracious power is not made by hands and cannot be recreated by any human efforts.

Many holy martyrs and ascetics went their entire lives without communing of the Body and Blood of Christ, yet were saved and are glorified by the Church. Such, for example, are the venerables: Paul of Thebes, Peter of Athos, Mark the Thracian, Theophan of Antioch, Mary of Egypt, Theoctista, and other martyrs: Eupsychius, Hesper and Zoe, Coprius and Alexander, Cyricus and Julitta, Drosida, Glyceria, and others.

Those who are now metropolitans, archbishops and bishops… priests and deacons, and other church clerics… Metropolitans are no longer worthy to be called metropolitans, nor archbishops, even down to the least; though they associate themselves with the rank and appear adorned with the beauties of sacred vestments as metropolitans and archbishops and others, according to the holy divine canons they are deposed; and whatever they bless is unblessed. For those baptized by them are unbaptized, and those ordained are not clerics… and for this reason all bishopric and priesthood has been abolished (Professor N. F. Kapterev, “Patriarch Nikon and Tsar Alexis Mikhailovich,” vol. 2, p. 200).

With the abolition of the priesthood, there is also no visible sacrament of holy communion, which can be administered only by truly Orthodox pastors.

In his commentary on the verse from the book of the holy prophet Zechariah, “And the Lord said unto me, Take unto thee yet the instruments of a foolish shepherd” (Zech. 11:15), Blessed Jerome writes: “undoubtedly, the foolish or unwise shepherd is the Antichrist” (Works of Blessed Jerome of Stridon, part 15, p. 150, 1915 ed.).

Venerable Ephraim the Syrian writes about the same:

In the image of this shepherd is represented the Antichrist (Works of St. Ephraim the Syrian, part 6, p. 189, 1901 ed.).

Thus, unwise shepherds who deviate from the true faith and sin against it, according to the words of the holy fathers, already represent the Antichrist.

John Chrysostom explains:

Those who are in Christianity should resort to Scripture, for from the time when heresies began to disturb the Church, those who wish to know the righteousness of the faith can have no true Christian refuge except Divine Scripture (Book on Faith, ch. 23, fol. 215 ob.).

This means that true Christians must always turn to Holy Scripture, because from the time of the Church’s disturbance by heresies, nothing except Divine Scripture can any longer be a Christian refuge for knowing the true faith, according to the word of the holy father Hippolytus, Pope of Rome:

By hearing the Divine Scriptures and holding them in their hands and always meditating on them in their minds, many will escape his deception (Third Word, on Meatfare Sunday according to the collection, fol. 183 ob.).

In the Reading Menaion for August 29, on the reverse of folio 527, we read:

For to see, in place of the true shepherd of Christ, a wolf entering Christ’s flock in the sheep’s clothing of the archbishopric. The right-believing people, seeing that false shepherd to be a heretic and the abomination of desolation presiding in the holy place in the Church, unwilling to turn to him, went out of the city into the field and, gathering in an empty place, performed services to God.

From the cited passages of Holy Scripture it is clear that believing people considered the emerging heretical hierarchs to be the “abomination of desolation” and, striving to distance themselves from everything abominable, went out into the field to perform divine services.

The holy place denotes the throne on which the sacrifice to God should be offered—that is, the sacrament of holy communion—as the Book of Cyril states on folio 31:

The throne is a holy place, on which priests offer sacrifice to God, consecrating bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ.

Consequently, the bezpopovtsy believe that heretical archpastors and pastors are servants of the Antichrist and constitute his body; they themselves are the abomination of desolation, performing service in the holy place—that is, at the throne.

Bishop Arseny of Uralsk (Shvetsov) of the Belokrinitsa hierarchy (Russian Orthodox Old-Rite Church) agreed with the bezpopovtsy that the prophecy about the abomination of desolation had been fulfilled. In his conversation with M. E. Shustov, he says:

These Nikonian preachers do not believe the Gospel; they have only set up one thing: the eternity of the priesthood! And they want to hear nothing else. Thus they do not see what is said: when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (whoso readeth, let him understand), then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains. The fathers called even heretical bishops the abomination of desolation. We saw that the bishops at the Moscow council rejected all that was ancient, and so we fled to the mountains from the tempting bishops. (Conversation of M. E. Shustov with Fr. Shvetsov in Moscow in May 1888, pp. 11–12).

The prophetic word about the Antichrist from the teacher of the 3rd century, St. Hippolytus, Pope of Rome:

The Churches of God will weep with great weeping, for neither oblation nor incense is offered, nor is there a service pleasing to God. The sacred Churches will be like a vegetable storehouse, and the precious body and blood of Christ will not appear in those days (Third Word, on Meatfare Sunday according to the collection, fol. 184 ob.).

Blessed Jerome (4. 2, col. 155, 1912 ed.) points out that heretics also imitate church meekness, but their offering is not a service to God but food for demons.

False sacraments of apostate pastors, according to the testimony of the holy fathers of the Church, bring perdition to Christian souls. The Lord, for the sins of the people, permits the defilement of holy temples, the holy sacrament, and the priesthood:

Thus God, for the sins of those in authority, delivers the subordinate to punishment, and for the impure deeds of those serving the altar, permits holy altars to be plundered by impious hands, and holy temples to fall into desolation.

Marvel, beloved, how God spares not His own houses when He permits wrath upon the earth. For if He spared not the holy Ark, but delivered it to foreigners, along with the lawless priests, the temple of sanctification, the Cherubim of glory, the vestments, the prophecy, the anointings, and the manifestations, to be trampled and defiled by pagans, neither will He spare the holy churches and the most pure mysteries (Book of Nikon of the Black Mountain, word 41, fol. 308 ob.).

If there is no true sacrament of holy communion, then the false one, pernicious to the soul, is not accepted. Cyprian of Carthage indicates (in letter 56, part 1, p. 316):

And thus the people obeying the divine commandments and fearing God must separate themselves from the sinful prelate and not participate in the sacrifices of a sacrilegious priest.

Theodore the Studite writes in the same volume 2:

As the divine bread of which the Orthodox partake makes all partakers one body, so exactly the heretical bread, bringing those who partake of it into communion with one another, makes them one body opposed to Christ (part 2, letter 153, p. 532).

Blessed Jerome, in part 6 of his works (p. 78, 1905 ed.), warns Christians about the church of heretics, “which entices the foolish in mind so that, deceived by it, he accepts stolen breads and stolen water—that is, a false sacrament.”

The sacrament of holy communion, even in its pure and inviolate form, cannot by itself save a person, as confirmed by the evidence presented:

It is true that in Judas it is evident that, having received the most holy bread from the most pure hand of the Lord Christ, Satan immediately entered into him because of his unworthiness (Prologue, March 22, fol. 117).

“Receive,” He said, “the bread of which thou hast partaken from Me…” Since the Lord gave bread to Judas, perhaps coming to his senses from the bread of the table, he would retreat from betrayal: but Judas did not resolve thus, and then became completely satanic (Explanatory Gospel, commentary of Theophylact on the 45th conception of the Gospel of John, fols. 222 and 223).

That is, communion from the hands of the Savior Himself, Who said to Judas Iscariot: “receive from Me the bread and partake,” and the performance of the sacrament of communion itself, whose purpose was to bring him to reason, did not restrain Judas from crime and his own perdition. Consequently, it is not communion that has the power to save a person or restrain him from crime—this depends first and foremost on the Christian himself, the manner of his life, the purity of his thoughts, his good deeds, and not on whether he partakes, as St. John Chrysostom teaches us:

For a faithful one should not be recognized by partaking of the holy mysteries, but by an excellent life and deeds pleasing to God (Explanatory Gospel in the preface to Matthew, moral teaching of John Chrysostom, fol. 24).

The main idea of spiritual communion lies in the Christian’s life in accordance with faith in Christ, in the assimilation by the whole human being of the Saving Sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

The robber crucified with Christ, considered a despairing sinner, throughout his greatly sinful life never partook of communion and was not even baptized, yet was led by the Savior into paradise, as Ephraim the Syrian says:

Since the Jews chose the robber and rejected Christ, God chose the robber and rejected them. But where is that (which was said): “If anyone does not eat My Flesh, he has no life”? When He accepted faith from the robber, in exchange for it He freely gave him immeasurable gifts, freely poured out His treasures before him, immediately transferred him to His paradise and there set the one introduced (into paradise) over His treasures: thou shalt be with Me in the paradise of delights! (Works of Ephraim the Syrian, part 8, p. 306).

In addition to the robber saved on the cross, one can read in the menaia or prologues about those holy martyrs who believed in Christ but had not yet been deemed worthy not only of the holy Eucharist but even of holy Baptism, like the robber, yet suffered for the faith and were granted the crown. Any literalism in interpreting Holy Scripture, the bezpopovtsy believe, can lead to dangerous heresies.

St. Gregory the Theologian writes:

They will not admit me to the altars, but I know another altar, of which the present visible altars are but images… which is entirely the work of the mind and to which one ascends by contemplation. Before it I will stand, on it I will offer a sacrifice pleasing to God and an offering and whole burnt offerings, as much better than those now offered as truth is better than shadow… from this altar no one will distract me; they may expel me from the city, but not from that city which is above (Works of Gregory the Theologian, part 1, cols. 382 and 3, Soykin ed.).

The holy father Athanasius of Alexandria teaches in his works: “They shall not be ashamed in the evil time” (Ps. 36:19). In times of persecution, when teachers are lacking, the Lord Himself will nourish with His Spirit those who believe in Him (part 4, p. 29, 1903 ed., in commentary on the psalms according to Permyakov’s extract, part 1, fol. 222 ob.).

According to the words of St. Athanasius of Alexandria and St. Gregory the Theologian, the bezpopovtsy, lacking now the visible sacrament of holy communion and true performers of it, nevertheless receive the possibility, through faith in Jesus Christ, to partake spiritually. This spiritual partaking of the Body and Blood of the Lord occurs also through the knowledge of the word of God, as Blessed Jerome writes about this:

Since the body of the Lord is true food and His blood is true drink, according to the mystical interpretation, in this present age we have only this one good: if we feed on His flesh and drink His blood not only in the mystery (of the Eucharist) but also in the reading of the Scriptures; for the true food and drink which is received from the word of God is the knowledge of the Scriptures (Blessed Jerome, part 6, p. 37).

Reasoning about spiritual communion, the bezpopovtsy say:

Just as the first coming of the Savior was in the diminution of the Old Priesthood, so the second coming will be. Let it be better that in our Church at least a bright and pure remembrance be preserved of the untrampled Throne of God, upon which the Lord will again come to step on the Day of His Second and Great Coming. Though we have no visible sacrifice of communion, yet according to the merit of faith and virtues, God nourishes His faithful with the Holy Spirit.

A superficial understanding of the words of Christ “he that drinketh My blood and eateth My body hath eternal life” as referring only to communion in the form of bread and wine—any literalism in interpreting Holy Scripture that leads to heresies—misleads many people, the bezpopovtsy believe; in other places the body of Christ is called the Church, and the blood is interpreted as the teaching of Christ.

The sacrament of communion is performed by the Holy Spirit, and not by the faith of the priest alone, yet the sacrifice of communion cannot be performed without a truly Orthodox priest.

In the life of the holy martyr Maria Golendukha we read:

The holy martyr Maria Golendukha prayed to God to reveal to her about the Severians—whether she should approach their communion or not—and she saw an angel holding two chalices: one full of darkness, the other filled with light, showing her that the chalice with darkness is heretical communion, and that with light is of the holy catholic Church. The saint abhorred heretical communion and quickly departed from there (Chet’i-Minei, July 12, fol. 433 ob.).

St. Theodore the Studite (part 2, letter 154, p. 385, 1867 ed.) writes:

Here too the light of the world shows that communion is fellowship: and no one of sound mind will say that communion is not fellowship. As the divine bread of which the Orthodox partake makes all partakers one body, so exactly the heretical bread, bringing those who partake of it into communion with one another, makes them one body opposed to Christ, and one who says otherwise vainly utters empty words.

To the question of how to acquire spiritual communion, the bezpopovtsy say:

Only through spiritual ascetic struggle.

Sometimes a person’s heart becomes a nest for various vices, while the mind skillfully finds justifications for them. Often the inner essence of a person is concealed by empty words and actions generated by a contentless mind that exists without any connection to the Creator.

It is fitting for a true Christian first of all to know the Lord his God, to believe in Him and confess Him, for all Christian wisdom consists in knowing the Lord God and oneself. Not every reasoning or teaching about God is truth; therefore, a Christian must be experienced in teachings—accepting the good and rejecting everything inconsistent with the Teaching of Christ.

-G. V. Markelov. 

In the Russian Orthodox Church, the sacrament of repentance as a divinely instituted sacred act acquired its final forms only in the 17th century. The rite of repentance, known as the Order of Confession, was already included in pre-Nikonian printed books and, in this most ancient version with only minor changes and additions, was transferred into the liturgical practice of the Old Believers. The Old Russian Order of Confession was a ritual dialogue between the Christian who came to repent and the priest who examined him. This dialogue included obligatory elements that constituted its canonical form.

In the most general terms, repentance proceeded as follows. The priest was obliged to question the penitent in detail about his identity, the nature of his transgressions and violations of God’s commandments, and about where, how, when, and from what motive the violation occurred. The penitent was required to answer the questions fully and directly. After that, the priest demanded that he recite the Symbol of Faith (the Creed) to confirm that the person coming to confession believed in an orthodox manner without doubt. Then the priest either “absolved” the penitent (i.e., forgave his sins) if the repentance was sincere, or imposed appropriate penances (epitimia). Penances had long been regulated in detail by the various rules of the Nomocanon or “Book of the Pilot” (Kormchaia Kniga). Minor sins were forgiven on the spot through the “absolutory” prayer, and the penitent, having received admonitions, was admitted to Holy Communion.[1]

The order described above is found primarily in numerous manuscript Trebniks (Books of Needs) of the 14th–16th centuries. With insignificant differences, the same structure appears in printed Trebniks of the 16th–17th centuries. The particular variations in the Order of Confession found in Old Russian books were caused chiefly by differences in the social categories of those confessing. Thus, already in 16th-century Trebniks there appear special sections containing particular questions addressed to princes, boyars, boyars’ children, secular rulers and nobles in general, as well as to clerks and officials serving the authorities. There are also specific questions for peasants and merchants. Printed Trebniks further contain more differentiated sections addressed to married or unmarried men, maidens or married women, widows, children of both sexes, the literate or “those who do not know letters,” etc. Finally, among 17th-century texts one even encounters special questions for the confession of a patriarch or of the tsar himself.[2]

Often the texts of the Order of Confession consist not only of questions about the penitent’s sins but also include the penitents’ answers. These “standard” answers essentially repeat the sequence of questions and are phrased in the affirmative with the introductory verb “согреших” (“I have sinned in this and that, at such-and-such a time and place”).[3] Such responses at confession were called “ponovlenie” (renewal), because sincere repentance not only frees a Christian from the burden of sins but renews his soul, as it were, by a second baptism.[4]

As is well known, the priestless Old Believers (bespopovtsy) preserved the sacrament of confession and were forced to concentrate in it a significant part of their religious feeling, since they rejected certain other important church sacraments. For this reason the priestless Order of Confession constantly underwent corrections that expanded both the range of articles and the regulation of penitential discipline itself.[5]

A curious example of such an expanded Old Believer order of confession is a 19th-century text that has come down to us in a manuscript from the Ancient Manuscripts Repository of the Pushkin House (Institute of Russian Literature), collection of I. A. Smirnov, No. 7. The manuscript was first mentioned by V. I. Malyshev as the “Pomorian Order of Confession.”[6] In the 1960s, when describing I. A. Smirnov’s collection, A. S. Demin called this manuscript a “Pomorian Trebnik.”[7]

Below is a description of the manuscript with the present author’s title:

Confessional Miscellany. Early 19th century, quarto, 178 leaves. Leaves 2–162 are written in a semi-uncial hand close to the Pomorian type; leaves 163–171 in a rapid semi-uncial; leaves 172–175 imitate printed type; leaves 1, 176–178 are blank. Headings and initials are in cinnabar; binding: boards covered with embossed leather, one of the two original copper clasps survives. Paper with factory watermarks dated 1806 and 1807. On the upper flyleaf a pencil note “Ivan Stepanovich Ukashchin” (?), a note about the manuscript’s acquisition by the Pushkin House manuscript department in 1956, and a pencil note “G. Skachkov?” (in the hand of V. I. Malyshev?). On leaf 1 the ink stamp of the library of Ivan Alekseevich Smirnov.

Contents: Table of Contents (leaf 2), Preliminary Admonition to the Confessor (leaf 4 ob.), Preliminary Instruction concerning Newcomers (leaf 9 ob.), Order of Confession (leaf 11 ob.). Questions about Sins. Article 1. General (leaf 18), Article 2. Various Questions according to Rank and Station – To Spiritual Fathers (leaf 39 ob.), Article 3. To Chanters (leaf 43), Article 4. To Icon Painters (leaf 44 ob.), Article 5. To Masters/Landlords (leaf 46), Article 6. To Merchants and Traders (leaf 47), Article 7. To Goldsmiths (leaf 48), Article 8. To Silk Workers (leaf 48 ob.), Article 9. To Tailors (leaf 49), Article 10. To Gold-Embroiderers and Pearl-Stringers (leaf 49 ob.), Article 11. To Shoemakers (leaf 50), Article 12. To Coppersmiths (leaf 50 ob.), Article 13. To Blacksmiths (leaf 51), Article 14. To Millers (leaf 51 ob.), Article 15. To Day-Laborers and Workers (leaf 52), Article 16. To Farmers and Haymakers (leaf 52 ob.), Article 17. To Beggars (leaf 53), Article 18. To Writing Teachers (leaf 53 ob.?), Article 19. To Judges (leaf 54), Article 20. To Unmarried Men (leaf 55), Article 21. Questions to Married Men (leaf 57), Article 22. To Widowers (leaf 64), Article 23. Questions to the Female Sex – To Maidens (leaf 65), Article 24. To Married Women (leaf 67), Article 25. To Widows (leaf 75).

Ponovleniia (Renewals/Standard Responses). To Article 1, general (leaf 76 ob.), To Article 2 – Various according to Rank and Station: Spiritual Fathers (leaf 89), Chanters (leaf 92 ob.), Icon Painters (leaf 94), Masters/Landlords (leaf 95), Merchants (leaf 96 ob.), Goldsmiths and Silversmiths (leaf 96 ob.), Silk Workers (leaf 97), Tailors (leaf 97 ob.), Gold-Embroiderers and Pearl-Stringers (leaf 98), Shoemakers (leaf 98 ob.), Coppersmiths (leaf 99), Blacksmiths (leaf 99 ob.), Millers (leaf 100), Day-Laborers etc. (leaf 100 ob.), Farmers and Haymakers (leaf 101), Beggars (leaf 101 ob.), Writing Teachers (leaf 102), Judges (leaf 102 ob.), Unmarried Men who have fallen into fornication (leaf 103), Married Men (leaf 104), Widowers (leaf 107 ob.), Maidens (leaf 108), Married Women (leaf 109 ob.), Widows (leaf 113).

Conclusion after the confession of all sins… (leaf 114), Instruction to the Penitent (leaf 119 ob.), Consideration of Penances (leaf 128), Questions for the Illiterate (belonging to the beginning of confession) (leaf 130), The Ten Commandments (leaf 131 ob.), Seven Spiritual Works of Mercy (leaf 133), Seven Corporal Works of Mercy (leaf 134 ob.), List of Various Sins (leaf 136), Sins that Cry to Heaven (leaf 137 ob.), Sins against the Son of Man (leaf 139 ob.), Sins against the Holy Spirit (leaf 140 ob.), Sins arise from four causes (leaf 143 ob.), On the Detail of Questions (leaf 144), From the Book of Penances (leaf 153), On the Saving Fruits of Confession (leaf 163), How Repentance Should Be Offered in Good Time (leaf 165 ob.), That Christ, moved by tears and confession of sins, inclines to forgiveness (leaf 167 ob.), On God’s Mercy toward repentant sinners (leaf 169 ob.), Extracts from the Order of Confession (without title) (leaf 172).

The greatest interest in the miscellany is aroused by texts unknown from other Old Believer manuscripts, which begin with the second article (leaf 39). These contain lists of questions that were to be asked at confession to various categories (“ranks”) of members of the priestless community. The range of questions touches on the specific aspects of each profession or station. After the questions, the manuscript provides the corresponding “ponovleniia” (standard renewal responses) for each category. The manuscript concludes with instructional texts for penitents, discussions of penances, lists of evil and good deeds, etc.

Among the articles of the miscellany, our attention was drawn to the texts connected with the veneration of icons and with icon painters. Already in the opening section of the manuscript, in “Article One – General,” there are questions about icons that were to be asked at the very beginning of confession to every parishioner who came, because these questions contained the most important points of a confessional nature. Among them are the following:

• “For the sake of Christ’s Cross or holy icons, in order to confirm something as true, did you kiss them or lead others to do so, or advise anyone to do so?
• Did you raise an icon in your hands while swearing an oath, lead others to do this, or advise anyone to do so? …
• Did you blaspheme the writing of holy icons, lead others to do so, or think or say anything unseemly and blasphemous about holy icons?
• Do you call holy icons God and render them divine honor, or teach others to do so?
• Do you place special hope or trust in certain holy icons?
• Did you falsely invent miracles attributed to holy icons, teach anyone to do so, or advise anyone to do so?
• Do you light candles or pour oil only out of regard for the icon itself and not for the one depicted on it, or do you do this only for vainglory?
• Did you make icon covers (oklad not to honor the saint whose icon it is, but for vainglory? Or did you make covers using someone else’s money while wronging your neighbor?
• Did you rob holy icons or secretly take anything from them? Did you intend to rob a holy icon or secretly take from it something you liked – a cross, a stone, a pearl, or anything else – or teach or advise anyone to do so?
• Did you falsely collect candles, oil, or incense for the covers of holy icons, teach anyone to do so, or advise anyone to do so?”

Questions about one’s attitude toward icons, which from ancient times belonged among the obligatory general questions at confession, are found in all Old Russian Trebniks. In our manuscript at least two important aspects stand out: questions about the desecration of icon images and about false worship of icons as if they were “gods.” One may suppose that for the Old Believer spiritual fathers who, in the early nineteenth century, brought their flock to confession and repentance, these questions retained their doctrinal significance. In everyday consciousness various attitudes toward icons were permitted (recall the Russian proverbs “If it’s good – pray to it; if it’s no good – cover pots with it,” “If an icon falls – someone will die,” or the saying “I’ll even take the icon off the wall” (to swear by it)), rooted in the primordial duality of faith among the common people.

The manuscript in question contains a unique text: a special confession and ponovlenie (standard response) for icon painters that reveals certain features of their private life and professional activity. We present these texts in full:

Leaf 44 ob. “Article 4. For Icon Painters.”

• Do you paint and have you painted holy icons with true intent, for honor and veneration?
• Do you strive to depict the holy images truly, so that they resemble the prototypes and are not distorted in appearance?
• Have you deceived anyone by selling an icon painted without skill, claiming that it was of the very highest craftsmanship?
• For painting holy icons, have you taken an immoderate price and thereby wronged your neighbor?
• Have you slandered a fellow icon painter out of envy, disparaging his skill for your own gain?
• When giving work to someone for your assistance, have you wronged him in payment for his labor or disparaged a well-painted icon?
• When restoring someone’s icons, have you exchanged them, keeping the better one for yourself and returning a poorer one to the owner?
• Have you wronged your workers or apprentices in wages, food, or clothing, or beaten them without cause?
• After being with your wife and without washing, have you begun or even continued to paint holy icons?
• Have you painted or sold holy icons to heretics or those of other faiths for mockery and derision?

Leaf 94. “PONOVLENIIA (Standard Responses) to Article 4. For Icon Painters.”

• I have sinned: sometimes with flattering intent and without striving for true depiction I painted holy icons.
• I have sinned: when selling icons I sometimes practiced deceit and fraud, calling and assuring that low-quality work was high and excellent craftsmanship.
• I have sinned: for painting holy icons I sometimes took an excessive price from the ignorant, and those whom I gave work to for my assistance I wronged in payment for their labor.
• I have sinned: sometimes out of envy I slandered a fellow icon painter and disparaged his skill.
• I have sinned: sometimes out of envy I slandered a fellow icon painter.
• I have sinned: when restoring someone’s icons I sometimes exchanged them, keeping the better one for myself and giving the owner one of low quality.
• I have sinned: sometimes I wronged my workers and apprentices in wages.
• I have sinned: sometimes, after being with my wife and without washing, for various reasons I began and even painted holy icons.
• I have sinned: sometimes I painted holy icons for outsiders, though not for mockery and derision, but according to their zeal for honor and veneration.

Let us recall that in our manuscript the section for icon painters stands, in the list of those confessing, between the spiritual fathers and the chanters. Such a relatively high position of icon painters in the church hierarchy of the Old Believer community has ancient roots. Among Old Russian monuments this is witnessed, in particular, in the Stoglav. In chapter 43 of the monument the church authorities are instructed: “…to take care of the various church ranks, and especially of holy icons, of painters, and of the other church ranks…”[11] With regard to particularly outstanding masters the Stoglav calls upon the tsar to reward such painters and the bishops to protect and honor them “above ordinary people…”[12] From the text of our confession it is clear that in Old Believer communities of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, in accordance with the most ancient tradition, icon painters were still recognized “above ordinary people,” coming immediately after the spiritual fathers-mentors.

Let us turn directly to the content of the confession questions. The first question concerns the icon painter’s personal attitude toward his work. It was assumed that a pious icon painter paints icons for pious veneration and not for gain. The second question speaks of the “truthfulness” (istovost’) of the icon image – that is, its conformity with the “prototypes.”[13] It concerns the established correspondence of newly painted icons to the iconographic canon. This most important aspect of church-Orthodox art is formulated in chapter 5 of the Stoglav, in the third royal question about holy icons: “…according to the divine rules, according to the image and likeness and in every essence to paint the image of God and of the most pure Mother of God and of every saint, God’s pleasing ones, and there is testimony about all this in God’s Scriptures…”[14] Further, in chapter 41 of the Stoglav this provision is made more concrete: “Paint icons from the ancient models, as the Greek icon painters painted and as Andrei Rublev and other renowned icon painters wrote… and not to invent anything from one’s own imagination.”[15] In chapter 43 “On Painters and Honorable Icons” the Stoglav once again instructs icon painters: “…with very great diligence to paint and depict on icons and walls our Lord Jesus Christ and His most pure Mother… and all the saints according to the image, likeness, and essence, looking at the image of the ancient painters and signing from good models.”[16]

The third question of the confession concerns honesty in the sale of an icon. According to ancient tradition a finished icon could not be sold in the marketplace like ordinary handicraft, for the sacred nature of the image itself did not allow it (holy things are not sold). Therefore the actual sale of icons that did take place was called in old times by euphemisms: “to exchange,” “to trade,” “to barter,” etc. The content of the third question corresponds to the text of the Stoglav. In chapter 43 the monument states: “…and those icon painters who until now have painted without learning, by their own will and self-invention and not according to the image, and have cheaply sold such icons to simple ignorant peasants – let such icons be placed under ban so that they may learn from good masters; and to whom God grants to paint according to the image and likeness, let him paint thus, and to whom God does not grant it, let them henceforth cease from such work, lest the name of God be blasphemed by such painting. And those who do not cease from such work shall be punished by the tsar’s severity…”[17] In the appendix to the main text of the Stoglav there is yet another decree concerning the sale “in the rows” of poorly painted icons: “To inform the sovereign about the icon painters so that in Moscow and in all cities the unskillful icons sold in the marketplaces be collected, the painters of them be questioned, and henceforth they be forbidden to paint icons until they have learned from good masters.”[18]

Thematically connected with the third question is the fourth – about taking an excessive price for an icon. This question also finds a parallel in sixteenth-century sources. In the well-known “Tale of Holy Icons” by Maximus the Greek, chapter 6 contains the following: the icon painter “…should not burden the holy icons with the price of silver, but be content to receive from the one who orders enough for food, clothing, and the materials of the craft.” At the same time the one who commissions the icon should “…not be stingy but satisfy the honest painter as is proper and possible, so that he not be troubled by certain necessary needs.”[19] Note that the writings of Maximus the Greek exerted noticeable influence on the texts of the Stoglav Council decisions, including the formulations concerning icon painting and icon painters themselves.[20]

The fifth question again concerns the personal qualities of the icon painter as a Christian. The question unequivocally condemns envy toward another master. In the Stoglav the sin of envy is also mentioned, but there the object is the painter’s apprentice: “…and if God reveals such craft of icon painting to some apprentice and he begins to live according to the proper rule, but the master out of envy begins to slander him so that he not receive the same honor that he himself received – the bishop, having investigated, shall place such a master under canonical ban and grant the apprentice still greater honor.”[21]

The relationship between master and apprentices (or workers) is also the subject of the sixth and eighth questions of the confession. In the Stoglav the same theme appears as a direct invective: “If any of those painters hides the talent that God gave him and does not pass it on to his apprentices in its essence, such a one will be condemned by God together with those who hid their talent, unto eternal torment”[22] – and further: “…painters, teach your apprentices without any guile, lest you be condemned to eternal torment.”[23]

The seventh question of the confession concerns the restoration (ponovlenie) of icons, which was a common practice among icon painters from ancient times. The Stoglav records an instruction of similar meaning addressed to archpriests and senior priests: “…in all holy churches to inspect the holy icons… and those holy icons that have grown old, order the icon painters to restore them, and those icons that have little oil varnish, order them to be re-varnished…”[24]

The wording of the ninth question of the confession unambiguously testifies to the status of the Old Believer icon painter as a married man. It follows that the text under consideration comes from an Old Believer community that recognized marriage as lawful. Such a community could have been one of the priestless Pomorian-agreement communities settled in Moscow or St. Petersburg.[25] By the time our manuscript was written – the early nineteenth century – there existed, for example, the Moninskaia community in Moscow, headed from 1808 by the spiritual father G. I. Skachkov, whose name we find on the flyleaf of our manuscript. It is noteworthy that G. I. Skachkov organized an icon-painting workshop at the Moninskaia prayer house, which brought the community considerable income and whose works were distributed throughout Russia.[26] It is also known that G. I. Skachkov repeatedly attempted to introduce various rites of his own composition, with the help of which he regulated the ritual practice of the community he led. In particular, Skachkov is the author of: The Order of Matrimonial Prayer, The Order of Reception into the Pomorian Church from the Fedoseevtsy and Filippovtsy, The Order of Purification for a Woman Who Has Borne a Child, The Order Sung at the Time of the Joining in Marriage, and others.[27] In the Historical Dictionary of Pavel Liubopytnyi, one of Skachkov’s works is recorded under the title “A Beautiful, Easy, and Convenient Order of Church Confession, Setting Forth the Sins of People According to the Ranks of Popular Calling”[28] (emphasis mine – G. M.). It is quite possible that the manuscript we are examining contains precisely this work by Skachkov.

The ninth question of the confession also corresponds to a provision of the Stoglav. In chapter 43, the married state of the icon painter is permitted as one “joined in lawful marriage”: “For the painter must be humble and meek, reverent, not a gossip nor a jester, not quarrelsome, not a drunkard, not a murderer, but above all preserve purity of soul and body with all caution; and for those who cannot remain so to the end – to marry according to the law and be joined in wedlock, and to come frequently to spiritual fathers for confession.”[29]

Finally, the tenth question of the confession concerns the presumed sale of icons to persons of other confessions, which was evidently severely condemned in Old Believer communities. This issue is not addressed in the Stoglav, but the already-mentioned work of Maximus the Greek contains the following prohibitive passage: “…and to the unfaithful and foreigners, and especially to the impious and pagan Armenians, one must not paint holy icons nor exchange them for silver or gold. For it is written: Give not that which is holy unto the dogs.”[30] Meanwhile, as the established practice of Russian icon painting testifies, Old Believer icons very often found their way into the daily life of Orthodox “Nikonian” believers. Old Believer icon painters frequently fulfilled orders from “Nikonians” according to their “zeal,” which is unambiguously recorded in the text of the ponovlenie to the ninth question of the confession. In various strata of Orthodox society people loved the traditional icon painted by Old Believers according to the old Russian canons, preferring it to the new ecclesiastical painting created according to the rules of “synodal realism.”

The content of the questions and ponovleniia of the confession leads to the following conclusions. The text reflects the established practice, in a particular Old Believer milieu, of the icon painter’s regular repentance before his spiritual father.[31] From the meaning of the questions asked one can clearly see the orientation of the icon painters’ lives toward the strict ideals of three centuries earlier, as reflected in a number of articles of the Stoglav.[32] Copies of the Stoglav are found in abundance in various collections of Old Believer manuscripts, since for Old Believer readers the Stoglav served as a fundamental source on many other issues as well. Moreover, selections of articles from the Stoglav, together with the corresponding words of Maximus the Greek, almost always appear as introductory chapters in the special books of Russian icon painters – namely, in the icon-painting podlinniki (pattern books), which served not only as reference works or practical manuals for the craft, but also as comprehensive guides on the theoretical questions of icon painting. It is highly probable that precisely these introductory chapters of the podlinniki served as the textual sources for the author of the confession. The directives of the Stoglav Council of 1551 concerning icon painting and icon painters retained their effective force even at the beginning of the nineteenth century,[33] because they concentrated not only the main principles of the Orthodox attitude toward the icon and toward icon painters, but also the immutable norms of Christian ethics for the painter.

Footnotes (translated)

[1] Novaya Skrizhal’. Moscow, 1992. Vol. 2. Pp. 367–370. Many aspects of Old Russian penitential discipline were studied in S. Smirnov, The Old Russian Confessor. Moscow, 1913.

[2] Almazov A. Secret Confession in the Orthodox Church: An Essay in External History. Odessa, 1894. Vol. 3. Pp. 170, 171, 174, 185, 207.

[3] For example, in a seventeenth-century text of ponovleniia for monks there is the insertion: “To scribes: I have sinned, when copying the holy divine writings of the holy apostles and holy fathers according to my own will and my own misunderstanding, and not as it is written.” See Almazov A. Secret Confession… Vol. 1. P. 368.

[4] In the text of the Order of Confession from a seventeenth-century Trebnik the priest says the following words to the penitent: “Behold, child, now you desire to be renewed (emphasis mine – G.M.) by this holy repentance” (Trebnik. Moscow, 1625. Leaf 162). The text “Skete Repentance,” very common among eighteenth- and nineteenth-century Old Believer manuscripts, is essentially a text of such a general ponovlenie intended for reading at home or in a cell without the participation of a priest or spiritual father.

[5] In V. G. Druzhinin’s index are noted “The Priestless Order of Confession” and “The Vygoresky Rule on Confession” (“Spiritual fathers should properly ask at confession: First, does anyone have hidden silver, money, etc. …”), see Druzhinin V. G. Writings of the Russian Old Believers. St. Petersburg, 1912. P. 462, No. 846; p. 453, No. 804.

[6] Malyshev V. I. Old Russian Manuscripts of the Pushkin House: Survey of Collections. Moscow; Leningrad, 1965. P. 144.

[7] See the description by A. S. Demin in the inventory card of the I. A. Smirnov collection in the Pushkin House Ancient Repository. The manuscript has no self-designation.

[8] In church and monastic Obikhods there are special “rules” concerning the kissing of icons. For example, in a Pomorian manuscript copy of the obikhods of the Kirillo-Belozersk and Trinity-Sergius monasteries made by F. P. Babushkin, it is said that the brethren, following the hegumen, kiss the icon lying on the analoy “…the image of the Savior on the foot, the Not-Made-by-Hands Image of the Savior on the hair, the image of the Most Holy Theotokos on the hand, and the image of the saint on the hand” (BAN, Druzhinin collection, No. 327, leaf 89 ob.). The custom of kissing icons on various occasions is reflected in the proverb “First kiss the icon, then father and mother, and then bread and salt.” In the Stoglav the kissing of icons is noted in article 38: “Worst of all is to kiss the life-giving cross falsely or the icon of the Most Holy Theotokos or the image of any other saint,” see Stoglav. Edition of D. E. Kozhanchikov. St. Petersburg, 1863. P. 121.

[9] Cf. the question in the Order of Confession: “Have you not blasphemed the craft of icon painting and mocked it?” (from a late-nineteenth-century manuscript of the Ancient Repository, Ust-Tsilemskoe collection, No. 18, leaf 150).

[10] Cf. the question in a nineteenth-century Pomorian Order of Confession: “…did you not call icon images gods?” (from a manuscript of the Ancient Repository, Latgalskoe collection, No. 452, leaf 118 ob.). The prohibition against swearing oaths before icons is connected with the same principle.

[11] Stoglav. P. 150.

[12] Ibid. Pp. 151, 297.

[13] With this question corresponds a text found in monastic penitential texts: “I looked upon holy icons with unseemly thoughts,” see Almazov A. Secret Confession… Vol. 1. P. 215.

[14] Stoglav. P. 42.

[15] Ibid. P. 128.

[16] Ibid. P. 151.

[17] Ibid. Pp. 152–153.

[18] Ibid. P. 310.

[19] Philosophy of Russian Religious Art: Anthology. Moscow, 1993. P. 48. Cf. Tarasov O. Yu. The Icon and Piety: Essays on Icon Affairs in Imperial Russia. Moscow, 1995. Pp. 138–139.

[20] Ivanov A. I. The Literary Heritage of Maximus the Greek. Leningrad, 1969. P. 119, note 56.

[21] Stoglav. P. 152.

[22] Ibid.

[23] Ibid. P. 154.

[24] Ibid. P. 95.

[25] In the priestless Fedoseevtsy communities icon painters could only be celibates, and their status was almost equal to that of the superior. See Tarasov O. Yu. The Icon and Piety… P. 134.

[26] Old Belief: An Encyclopedic Dictionary. Moscow, 1996. P. 260.

[27] A list of G. I. Skachkov’s works is found in Liubopytnyi P. Historical Dictionary and Catalogue of the Library of the Old-Believer Church. Moscow, 1866. Pp. 91–96; Druzhinin V. G. Writings of the Russian Old Believers. St. Petersburg, 1912. Pp. 251–255. The Order of Confession is not mentioned among Skachkov’s works there.

[28] Liubopytnyi P. Historical Dictionary. P. 94, No. 268.

[29] Stoglav. P. 150.

[30] Philosophy of Russian Religious Art. P. 48.

[31] On the necessity of systematic repentance for icon painters the Stoglav says: “…to come frequently to spiritual fathers for confession and to be instructed in everything, and according to their admonition and teaching to abide in fasting and prayer, without any scandal or disorder,” see Stoglav. P. 150.

[32] “The moral code for icon painters was, as a rule, taken from chapter 43 of the Stoglav and reinforced by reference to the written Kormchaia, whose chapter ‘Tale of Icon Painters, How They Ought to Be’ was an extract from Isidore of Pelusium. Their connection is undoubted, since the Kormchaia, as is known, was compiled by Macarius on the eve of the Stoglav Council,” see Tarasov O. Yu. The Icon and Piety. P. 132.

[33] It is characteristic that even at the beginning of the twentieth century “not only the medieval artistic language of the icon was revived, but also the medieval moral-religious model of the icon painter. The orientation toward the Stoglav was clearly sounded at the opening of the (icon-painting) school in Palekh…,” whose students were to be prepared for entry into the training workshop “in accordance with the teaching of the Stoglav,” see Tarasov O. Yu. The Icon and Piety… P. 281.

“Whoever is persuaded and believes that our teaching and words are true, and promises that he can live in accordance with them, is taught to pray and fast, asking God for the forgiveness of former sins, and we pray and fast together with him. Then we lead him to where there is water, and he is reborn… just as we ourselves were reborn, that is, he is washed with water in the Name of God the Father and Lord of all, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit.”

Saint Justin the Philosopher (2nd century), teacher of Christian doctrine in a school for catechumens

“Therefore, he who is to be catechized in the word of piety, before baptism, shall first be instructed in the knowledge of the Unbegotten One, in the knowledge of the Only-begotten Son, in the assurance concerning the Holy Spirit. Let him study the order of the various creations, the ways of providence, the judgments of various legislations. Let him learn why the world was created and why man was appointed lord of the world. Let him study his own nature and what it is. Let him learn how God punished the wicked with water and fire, yet glorified the saints in every age – I mean Seth, Enos, Enoch, Noah, Abraham and his descendants, Melchizedek, Job, Moses, Joshua, Caleb, Caleb, Phinehas the priest, and all the faithful of every age. Let him also learn how the providential God never turned away from the human race, but at various times called it from error and vanity to the knowledge of the truth, leading it from slavery and impiety to freedom and piety, from unrighteousness to righteousness, from eternal death to eternal life. Let him study these things and whatever accords with them during the time of catechumenate.”

From the Apostolic Constitutions (4th century)

Every year the number of so-called “hereditary” Old Believers in the Old Orthodox Pomorian Church continues to decline, while the number of newcomers steadily grows. From generation to generation, hereditary Old Believers have zealously preserved the truth of Orthodoxy of their own free will, passing it on not only to their children and grandchildren but also to new people who come to Christ’s Church. For hereditary Old Believers, faith is a conscious choice and a vital necessity.

The difficulties that arise when newcomers adapt to the faith – their full churching, the nurturing of a Christian spirit and awareness – are a problem common to all Old Believer accords. A shortage of competent mentors and the frequently inadequate attitude of hereditary parishioners toward newcomers often hinder a person’s full integration into church life. Misunderstanding between hereditary members and neophytes is not uncommon. Such tension arises when the status of hereditary Old Believers in a community is determined not by faith, knowledge, Christian life, and deeds, but solely by blood kinship.

In turn, hereditary Old Believers do not consider the short period since a convert’s baptism sufficient time to shed the spiritual burden of their past life. For them, a convert must be tested by time. This attitude is rooted in historical experience – in the ancient Church, in post-schism Russia, and in all subsequent eras – when “outsiders” sometimes betrayed their faith and their Church, handing their fellow believers over to persecutors. It is a gene of fear, not only for the purity and steadfast preservation of the faith, but also for one’s own life and the lives of future generations in Christ’s true Church.

Yet difficulties also face new Christians: they enter an unfamiliar spiritual world that must be accepted not merely as letter, but as spirit. Sometimes, not fully understanding Orthodox church tradition, converts arrive with their own theoretical notions of Christian life and faith. They then attempt with all their might to reform the Church, to “save” it and steer it into a channel that, in their view, would make it open to the world, salvific, and correct. Some fight in this way against their former confession (e.g., coming to Old Belief as “anti-Nikonians”), others against supposed canonical violations, and still others, imagining themselves no less than Avvakum, denounce the “impiety” of parishioners and even the mentor. Only much later comes the realization that today’s Old Believers simply live according to the patristic tradition and act in everything in accordance with Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition. One must never forget the Christian principle of the Church’s closed and mysterious nature (Acts 5:13), which has helped preserve Old Belief in its steadfastness and immutability.

The sacrament of baptism will remain fruitless for an unbeliever until he believes with his whole soul and unites with the Church. One cannot accept Old Belief with the mind alone. Whoever accepts Old Belief only intellectually will later find another religion more congenial, and whether to accept it or not will become merely a matter of personal preference. For hereditary Old Believers, such a choice is unthinkable. This difference in the state of the spirit is precisely what distinguishes a hereditary Old Believer from a convert.

The problem also faces hereditary Old Believers, who must competently pass on the very essence of Old Belief to newcomers. Churching is not limited to the performance of the sacrament alone – ongoing educational oversight by the community and mentor over the spiritual growth of the newcomer is essential.

The process of churching depends greatly on the community into which the convert arrives. If the community has a wise mentor who helps the newcomer feel the Old Believer spirit and way of life not only with the mind but with the heart, then, by God’s grace, the newcomer quickly embraces the true spirit of Old Belief and becomes a Christian. In the Old Orthodox Pomorian Church (hereafter OPC) there are many examples of newcomers who not only became followers of the Old Faith but rose to become readers, mentors, and monastics.

Thus, in the last remaining monastic community of the OPC in the city of Ridder in eastern Kazakhstan – founded in its time by survivors of the famous Pokrovsky Ubinsky (Altai) monastery known throughout Russia – both the recently reposed nun Maria and the monk Alexander were not hereditary Old Believers. In earlier times, many monks and nuns were likewise converts.

Both those who call themselves Christians—whether hereditary Old Believers or newly converted—must never forget what this name truly means. St. Gregory of Nyssa, in his letter to Harmonius, reflects on who may rightly call himself a true Christian and offers the following edifying story about a monkey:

In Alexandria, a certain showman trained a monkey to imitate a dancing girl with great skill, putting a mask and dancer’s costume on her. The audience in the theater praised the monkey that danced in perfect time to the music. While the spectators were engrossed in the spectacle and applauding the animal’s dexterity, one man present decided to show the enthralled crowd that it was, after all, only a monkey. He threw almonds and figs onto the stage. The monkey instantly forgot the dance, the applause, and the fine costume; she rushed forward and began greedily gathering the treats with both hands. So that the mask would not hinder her mouth, she tried to tear it off, clawing apart the deceptive image she had assumed, “so that instead of praise and admiration she suddenly provoked laughter among the spectators when, through the shreds of the mask, her ugly and ridiculous appearance was revealed.”

“Therefore,” writes St. Gregory of Nyssa, “just as the false outward appearance was not enough for the monkey to be taken for a human being, and her craving for sweets exposed her true nature, so too those who have not truly formed their nature by faith are easily unmasked by the sweets offered by the devil as something quite different from what they pretend to be. For in place of figs and almonds—vainglory, ambition, avarice, pleasure-seeking, and other such evil provisions of the devil—when offered to human greed, quickly expose monkey-like souls that have only put on an outward show of Christianity through imitation. And in the hour of passion they throw off the mask of chastity, meekness, or any other virtue.”

Therefore the name “Christian” demands of a person a perfect Christian life:

Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect (Matt. 5:48).

Teaching the Christian faith, imparting the fundamental doctrines to one who wishes to receive baptism—this catechumenate—is a direct command of God:

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you (Matt. 28:19–20),

says the Lord Jesus Christ to His disciples.

Before a person receives holy baptism and becomes a true Christian, he first becomes a “catechumen”—one who has not yet been baptized but is already being instructed in the foundations of the faith. The necessity of catechumenate is stated in Rule 46 of the Council of Laodicea and Rule 78 of the Sixth Ecumenical Council.

The catechumenate arose in the very first days of the Church’s existence. After the sermon of the Apostle Peter in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost, about three thousand people accepted Christianity (Acts 2:14–41). Later Peter instructed the Roman centurion Cornelius and his household in the faith and then permitted them to be baptized (Acts 10:24–48). The Apostles Paul (Acts 16:13–15), Philip (Acts 8:35–38), and others acted in the same way.

The firmness of the decision to accept the new faith was tested. During the persecutions there were cases of apostasy, so throughout the period of instruction the Church carefully watched the catechumens to ensure that there were no traitors or people who had received holy baptism insincerely. If such were discovered, they were immediately expelled from the assembly of catechumens. The catechumenate lasted a long time—from three months to three years—and was divided into several stages; the catechumens themselves were divided into different classes. We still possess the catechetical lectures of St. John Chrysostom, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose of Milan, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Augustine.

Modern mentors still turn to the experience of that era, which testifies to the exceptionally high level of those sermons, for in them the catechumens received thorough theoretical knowledge of the Christian faith.

From the very first days of preparation for baptism, catechumens received both theoretical instruction and, up to a certain point, took part in divine services. In the church they stood at the back—in the narthex.

Catechumens were also obliged to learn prayer outside the walls of the temple. St. Cyril of Jerusalem writes: “Pray often, that God may count you worthy of the heavenly and immortal Mysteries.” In addition, catechumens were required to lead a Christian life: to fast, keep the Commandments, struggle against sin, repent of sins before God and men, and correct their spiritual defects. “Those who are about to be baptized must prepare themselves with frequent prayers, fasts, genuflections, vigils, and confession of all their past sins…” writes Tertullian to catechumens.

If, however, catechumens did not abandon their sinful life and did not repent of it, they were moved back to the previous class of catechumens, as it were one step lower, and an additional period of penance was appointed for them.

Thus the history of the origin and development of the catechumenate shows how seriously the ancient Church took future Christians. It was an entire institute of catechumens, with a clearly worked-out program and strict discipline. All of this provided high-quality knowledge of the Christian faith, warned of the dangers on the Christian path, and taught people to live as Christians even before baptism.

The Old Orthodox Pomorian Church still adheres to a similar program for catechumens today. This makes it possible not only to simply test the desire of catechumens to accept the new faith and grow accustomed to Christian life, but also to sift out those who are not yet ready for Christianity.

Jesus Christ demanded that those who undertake to baptize someone first teach him (Matt. 28:19), and the Pomorian Church approaches the acceptance of new members with full responsibility and reverent care for the very mystery of baptism itself.

As in former centuries, the Church conducts catechetical conversations with everyone who wishes to receive holy baptism.

The catechumenate is necessary for testing one’s faithfulness to Christ, for repentance, for a complete reordering of priorities, values, worldview, and behavior. It is precisely from this that every Christian must begin his or her church life.

Those who come to a Pomorian church for the first time and wish to be baptized first have an interview with the spiritual mentor. They tell about themselves and the reasons for their decision. The mentor preaches to them about the Christian faith, about what Christian life is, how Christianity differs from other religions, and how a Christian should live.

After this comes the formal enrollment among the catechumens, when the catechumen makes the “beginning bow of reconciliation.” In the Pomorian Church, the moment of becoming a person becoming a catechumen is considered to be the laying of the entrance (or beginning) bow in the mentor’s cell at the church. The mentor explains and demonstrates how to make the sign of the cross and how to bow correctly.

Then an approximate date for baptism is set, a specific penance (zapoved’) is given, godparents are chosen, and the catechumen receives a written “Memorandum on Baptism.” The requirements for godparents are stricter than for adult candidates. Godparents must belong to the Church not only formally (i.e., be baptized) but in reality—they must regularly confess, attend communal services, and be able to teach their godchildren Christian life not only by word but above all by personal example.

Some time later comes the confessional conversation. Before baptism the catechumen must recall all his or her grave sins. It is ascertained whether there are any impediments, the chief of which are drunkenness, tobacco smoking, drug addiction, and many others.

In 2008 the Council of Spiritual Mentors of the Old Orthodox Pomorian Church, having examined the canonical foundations and practical order of performing the sacraments, services, and rites in OPC communities, established the period of preparation for holy baptism (catechumenate) in accordance with ancient Christian custom—40 days. The exact length, however, may be shortened or extended by the spiritual mentor depending on the readiness of the candidate and other circumstances. The regimen of preparation (fasting, prayer, fulfillment of the penance) is also determined by the mentor.

A newly converted Christian begins everything from zero, striving to absorb as much knowledge about the faith as possible. For this he must be guided step by step, for, as the Apostle Paul teaches, one who strives on his own receives no fruit:

And if a man also strive for masteries, yet is he not crowned, except he strive lawfully (2 Tim. 2:5).

Baptisms in the Pomorian Church are not numerous; they do not baptize just anyone. A person goes through the catechumenate, prays, fasts, fulfills the penance, and is thereby considered to have entered the Christian path. But if a catechumen has still not freed himself from grave sins and has not shown good fruits of spiritual labor by his whole life, he may remain among the catechumens for years. Whoever, on the other hand, already demonstrates by his deeds that he has truly set out on the path—such a one fasts for 40 days, prays, fulfills the penance, confesses, and only then receives holy baptism.

In every Pomorian community there is a person appointed to greet newcomers in the church who wish to learn more about Pomorian belief. They are told about the Christian faith and the history of the accord, and all their questions are answered. If a service is in progress, they are quietly told how to behave at that moment in the church—what is permitted and what is not—and all further questions will be answered after the service ends.

In the communities a full Christian life has been established, with spiritual upbringing, continuity, and responsibility that guards both hereditary Old Believers against pride and arrogance and newcomers against distorted Christian self-awareness and improper behavior. A certain wariness toward new people is always present for a time—yet the same wariness is shown even toward hereditary Old Believers who have been out of communion with the Church. After some time this wariness disappears.

How, in the Church, can we overcome or prevent possible difficulties in the adaptation of newcomers? Above all, by Christian love and patience. Love is the highest commandment of Christianity, given by the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. A person without love cannot be a true Christian. Judas, having no love, betrayed the Lord to the Jews.

But he that hateth his brother is in darkness, and walketh in darkness, and knoweth not whither he goeth, because that darkness hath blinded his eyes (1 John 2:11).

The adaptation of newcomers into the Church is always a difficult task, yet if the Christian life of the community is founded on patience and love—according to the Apostle’s words—“Let all your things be done with charity” (1 Cor. 16:14)—then all these difficulties can be overcome with ease. The practice of such activity in the Pomorian Church, together with an active Christian life that bears visible spiritual fruit, proves the correctness of the path that has been chosen.

Author: Nina Lukyanova

source

Preface

Even if someone were a king over the entire universe and possessed all earthly riches, he could not redeem his own soul, even if he gave all the wealth of the world. Neither can all worldly nourishments, fine garments, fleeting rest, or comfort bring any relief to the soul when it is eternally tormented.

Beloved readers in God, as you read this divinely inspired little book, if you find any discrepancy that has crept in through my negligence or ignorance during copying, which does not agree with the original book, I beseech your love, for the Lord’s sake, to forgive me, and you yourselves will receive forgiveness from the Lord, according to the word: “For with the same measure that you use, it will be measured back to you.”

This divinely inspired little book, entitled “Instruction on Christian Life,” has been copied from a book compiled from Holy Scripture through the diligence and labors of the superior of the Kineshma region, Trofim Ivanovich, who reposed in the Lord in exile and was glorified through exhaustion.

It is recounted thus in the book “Patristic Letters,” Part One, Chapter One, in the questions addressed to the elders of the Preobrazhenskoe Cemetery in Moscow during the time of Ilya Alekseevich Kovylin, in the year 7313 (1805), on the 26th day of April; and in Chapter 102, in the replies to Alexei Nikiforov in the year 7318 (1810); likewise in the same book, Part Two, Chapter Two, in the conciliar response letter from Moscow to Saint Petersburg confirming the 18 articles set forth in Saint Petersburg by the Petersburg spiritual assembly in the presence of Ilya Kovylin and Kalina Kastsov, concerning the confirmation and observance of Christian rites, in the year from the creation of the world 7317 (1809).

And this little book, in its spiritual understanding, fully agrees with the aforementioned conciliar decrees previously held by Christians, as is explained in it on page 335. It is truly beneficial for Christians—not those who are called Christians in name only, but true Christians who desire to flee temptations and seek the salvation of their souls. This is especially so in the present time, corrupted by delusion, storm-tossed by passions, and guided by no one. For not only are there no sacred persons to guide the human race into the Kingdom of Heaven, but one cannot even see simple, experienced men who kiss and counsel others to kiss and unwaveringly preserve the tradition of our Mother—the Holy, Conciliar, Immaculate, Apostolic Church—persecuted by the serpent and nourished in the wilderness.

How is she persecuted? Behold: “And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.” (Old Church Slavonic Apocalypse, Chapter 25, verse 152; Pandects, Part 8, Chapter 81)

Interpretation To this poor woman—that is, the Church of Christ—were given two wings of a great eagle, meaning the two Laws, the Old and the New. With these the woman flies, strengthening herself and fleeing heretical teachings.

Hear whither she flies! You will hear: into the wilderness—that is, to people who are simple and not wise in worldly terms, of whom the Lord said: “For You have hidden these things from the wise and prudent and have revealed them to babes” (Luke 10:21, slightly adapted). And thus she is to be nourished there until the will of the Lord.

Thus far the Apocalypse.

Others understand the wilderness as the Christian desert life—empty and removed from all worldly vanities, without marriage, exercised in the unchanging fulfillment of apostolic and holy-fatherly traditions, despised and persecuted by all heterodox. There the woman—that is, the true Christian faith—is to dwell.

Similarly, according to the apocalyptic prophecy, it is signified also by the holy prophet Daniel (Book of Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus, on the Vision of the Prophet Daniel, Moscow Synodal Press, 1816, Chapter 12, page 312): “When the scattering of the hand of the holy people is finished, they shall understand these things.”

The beginning and perfection of Christian life—how every Orthodox Christian ought to live, complete his life in the commandments of the Lord, and fulfill the law handed down by the holy fathers; without doing these commandments it is impossible to live rightly or to be saved.

Chapter 1 On the Veneration of the Lord’s Feasts

On the feasts of Christ, of the Most Pure Theotokos, and of the great saints, and on all Sundays, one must celebrate as the Typikon commands—or rather, as the Lord Himself and the tradition of the holy fathers command—and do no work at all on these Sunday feasts, neither small nor great, neither buy nor sell. And whoever regards these lawful commandments as nothing and does not fulfill them, let him be accursed by the law of God. As David says: “Cursed are all who stray from Your commandments.”

These commandments of the Lord were given to us from the beginning, as God spoke to Moses: “Observe My sabbaths, for this is a sign between Me and you… Whoever profanes it shall surely be put to death; whoever does any work on it, that soul shall be cut off from among his people. Six days shall work be done, but the seventh day is a sabbath of rest to the Lord God” (cf. Exodus 31:13–15; Numbers 15). “Whoever does any work on the seventh day shall surely be put to death.” And when the children of Israel in the wilderness gathered wood on the sabbath day, the Lord said to Moses: “The man shall surely be put to death.” And the children of Israel stoned him with stones. Again the Lord said to Israel: “Remember the sabbath day” (Exodus 20). Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but on the seventh day you shall do no work—you, nor your wife, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your manservant, nor your maidservant, nor your ox, nor your donkey, nor any of your cattle, nor the stranger who dwells with you.

In the same spirit, under the New Grace it is declared (Rule of the Holy Apostles 1): We, Peter and Paul, apostles of Christ, command the servants of Christ concerning human works: work six days, but from the eighth hour on Saturday cease all work, hasten to the church, and with fear keep vigil, praying attentively. Men, women, and children shall stand until Sunday morning; after the holy liturgy is dismissed, return to your homes and keep the feast until Monday morning, and only from the second hour begin your work again.

Likewise the venerable Macarius, taught in a vision by an angel of the Lord, instructs us to keep the Sundays and feasts of Christ and His saints. Whoever does not keep them as commanded counts the Lord as nothing, dishonors His Most Pure Mother, and despises His saints. Moreover, he brings a curse upon everything in his house, burns his entire house with spiritual fire—that is, the wrath of God—utterly destroys his soul, and becomes subject to eternal torment.

See more fully on this in the book Alpha and Omega, Chapter 88; Nomocanon, Rule 158; and the Zinar.

On Sundays and feasts we are commanded not to work but to come to church as befits Christians. Whoever works on those days shall be excommunicated. The Sixth Ecumenical Council says: “We must not only pray but also listen to the divine services.” And in Proverbs it is said: “He who turns away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer is an abomination.” If a priest does not preach the word of God and does not teach the people how to live in faith, let him be deposed according to the rule of the holy apostles.

Again, recall the aforementioned Macarius conversing with angels. The saint asked the angel: “Tell me also about those who profane the holy day of Christ’s Resurrection, that is, Sunday.” The angel answered: “Woe to them, for great torment awaits them… cursed are such people both in this age and in the age to come.”

Chapter 2 How All Orthodox Christians Ought to Celebrate Bright Week

Bright Week—that is, the Resurrection of Christ—the entire bright and most radiant week must be celebrated, and one must in no way touch any work, neither small nor great, that is, perform any labor. For Holy Scripture teaches us to do no work at all during the entire Bright Week. Thus it says (Gospel of Thomas, apocryphal reference): just as one day and one feast, so the whole week is to be observed.

Likewise Athanasius of Alexandria in his Discourse on Holy Pascha: “This is the day which the Lord has made; let us rejoice and be glad in it.” And the holy Church has conciliarly received that this day is to be celebrated throughout the entire Bright Week as one single day, with unanimous victorious hymns and spiritual rejoicing, prefiguring the eighth day of the age to come—the incorrupt resurrection of us all and eternal rejoicing.

Likewise the great old-written Synaxarion, Word on Holy Pascha: Let it be known to all that Bright Week is one single day, and the entire Bright Week is to be celebrated as the one day of Holy Resurrection. And again in another word: Therefore the holy fathers commanded the faithful to celebrate this entire week. And further below in the same word: All the faithful must spend this week in purity as one single day.

Thus we must follow Holy Scripture and heed the understanding handed down by the holy fathers. We must not follow the customs of certain regions where, in some lands, people consider it permissible to do all kinds of work beginning with mid-week of Bright Week. This is utterly contrary to God. If it is forbidden to work from the middle of the week, then it is all the more required throughout the whole week—that is, from noon on Sunday one must not work. Let there be upon such people neither God’s blessing, nor that of our fathers, nor the counsel of all our brotherhood to act thus. For we must look not only to the faithful but even to those who have fallen away from piety: even they do not act thus (the so-called Christians), but celebrate the whole week. How much more ought we to celebrate, to rejoice spiritually, and to spend this entire Holy Week honorably and in a manner pleasing to God! Then the Almighty Lord will fill us with every good and profitable thing for soul and body, reward His servants richly with every abundance, and they shall never be impoverished.

Therefore, according to Holy Scripture, the faithful must celebrate in the joy-creating light (Athanasius of Alexandria) as the light of the Resurrection, the foretaste and deliverance from the dark abysses of hell.

Likewise the holy apostles Peter and Paul say (Prologue, March 27): We call Saturday [a day of rest] because of the completion of creation, and Sunday because of the Resurrection. Let servants celebrate the entire Great Week and the week following it—one for the Passion of Christ, the other for the Resurrection.

Thus far from the ordinance of the holy apostles.

Many holy writings unanimously testify everywhere concerning this most holy week of Christ’s Resurrection and command that the entire week be celebrated and honored as one single day, that one exercise oneself in reading the divine Scriptures, and that no work, neither small nor great, be done, because the holy fathers established this entire holy week as one single day for celebration and spiritual rejoicing, constantly coming to the praise of God, reading the holy and divine Scriptures, and listening attentively.

Young people must not be given freedom to go out to any god-hateful and all-destructive games. If parents permit their children to go to games or to watch others play, then such parents, consenting to evil and to the destruction of their own souls and those of their children, shall all be excommunicated from the church.

If they repent of such perdition, they shall be appointed—not to the usual beginning penance—but to a thousand bows before the whole brotherhood (waist bows and lower, but not full prostrations, because it is the day of the Resurrection), and afterward ask forgiveness of all the brothers and sisters. Not only the children but the parents with them must perform these bows.

If they fall again into the same sin, they shall be excommunicated for six weeks. If they repent again, they shall be appointed to a thousand full prostrations before the whole brotherhood and ask forgiveness of all; they shall not be simply readmitted into homes.

But if they unrepentantly cling to their customs (Korinchaya, folio 261) and prefer to serve pleasures rather than the Lord, and will not accept the life of the Gospel, then we have not a single word in common with them. Again: if any unrepentantly hold to their customs and do not cease sinning, we have no communion at all with such people. For we hear from Scripture: “Save yourself, and save your own soul.” Take heed lest, by associating with the incorrigible, you destroy yourself. Behold this wisely.

Chapter 3 On Conciliar Singing on the Feasts of Christ

On the feasts of Christ, of the Theotokos, of the great saints, and likewise on Sundays – that is, the days of the Resurrection – wherever the praise of God and the divine service are performed, one must come diligently and without laziness to that gathering and not separate oneself from the conciliar assembly of the brethren. As Scripture says (Korinchaya, Rule of the Holy Apostles 9):

If someone says, “It is not possible to gather in church because of unbelieving heretics, so we gather at home for singing,” even according to this, the Holy Scriptures in many places command and greatly praise the brotherly conciliar gathering for the praise of God – it is impossible to recount them all. Behold, in all the sacred writings concerning this matter: the Gospel for the Nativity of John the Forerunner, Sunday 27; Discourse, beginning 121; the venerable Abba Dorotheos, Discourse 10; Nikon of the Black Mountain, Discourse 1; the Gospel for Sunday 21; and in the Book on the Priesthood, folio 373, it is said: “Where two or three are gathered together in My name, there am I in the midst of them.” If Christ says He is in the midst even where two or three are gathered, how much more is He among you!

He who prays alone and hides cannot receive what he who prays with many will receive. Why? Because even if he lack personal virtue, the concord of many has great power. “Where two or three are gathered,” says the Lord. Why two? If there were only one, would You not be there when he gathers in Your name? The Lord answers: “I desire that all be together and not torn apart.” Therefore let us build one another up, let us be bound by love, let no one separate us. Holding fast in this way, let us do all things and extend a hand to one another, that our praise may be yours and yours ours in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. Behold the joy, the consolation, and the praise that come from gathering for the praise of God!

For this reason, the divine Scriptures everywhere command us to gather for the praise of God. The apostolic discourses likewise teach: “Where two or three are gathered in My name, there am I in the midst of them.” Where Christ is, there must also be angels, archangels, and the other powers. We see in Scripture that even in times of persecution and distress, the Christians of old gathered not only in houses but even in fields for divine service. Great and most praiseworthy indeed is common prayer. For it is written: when many together say even once “Lord, have mercy,” it is worth more than a thousand psalms recited by one standing alone (Catechism, Chapter 61; Korinchaya, Sixth Ecumenical Council, Rule 81).

No one can be saved apart from the union of the Church, and “Church,” according to Scripture, means the house of every Christian.

The sacred rules concerning those who neglect this say: Whoever remains outside the church for three Sundays without great necessity or affliction – if he be a cleric, let him be deposed; if a layman, let him be excommunicated. This deposition and excommunication are pronounced for laziness and negligence.

If anyone begins to reason that it is more pleasing to God to pray alone rather than in common, Scripture has no fellowship with such people. Concerning them it says (Zinar 102): Whoever says, “It is better to pray by oneself than in church,” let such a one be anathema. Again: Those who of their own will turn away from prayer and singing and wander like cattle, let them be excommunicated and set to repentance for one year, doing 100 bows each day.

Therefore I beseech and fall down before all who abide in Orthodoxy: do not separate yourselves from the church assembly, do not withdraw from brotherly union, do not turn aside from the praise of God. Rather, make haste to be present at the beginning of every service. Moreover, come in humble attire; do not adorn yourselves with costly garments nor cover yourselves with bright-colored veils.

Chapter 4 On the Church Cycle, How All Christians Together Must Fulfil It

All Orthodox Christians must fulfil the church cycle; without it one cannot exist at all, nor go to work, nor even eat if one has not first fulfilled it. Scripture testifies to this (Nomocanon, Chapter 57; Zinar): If a presbyter or monk does not read the 1st Hour, 3rd Hour, 6th Hour, and 9th Hour, he is not worthy to eat.

Likewise Basil the Great in his book on asceticism says that this has been commanded to all and is necessary for our life; the prayers appointed for the hours must not be despised. Nikon of the Black Mountain says: Always watch yourself and strive to fulfil your rule – that is, the hours and the most necessary vespers and the rest. And again: Always have sorrow if you fail to fulfil these things.

The Book of Penances says (Chapter 11): Whoever succeeds in fulfilling all these with fear, humility, love, and a pure conscience will be great before God and will receive great reward. This is the ladder that leads to heaven and the fiery chariot.

The holy rules say (Nomocanon, folio 78): If any presbyter, deacon, monk, or reader knowingly neglects matins, the hours, and vespers – even if he be on a journey – and despises his rule, let him be forbidden communion for two years and do bows.

In agreement with this, the author of On the Faith says (folio 349): On ordinary days we are all obliged to fulfil the midnight office, matins, the hours and inter-hours, vespers, and compline. Metropolitan Photius in his epistle says: Since all are obliged to do these things – vespers, compline, midnight office, and matins – let all the right-believing make haste to fulfil them.

Archbishop Simeon of Thessalonica likewise commands the fulfilment of all the aforementioned services (Chapter 83). The hermit Philimon says: Strive, O man, with all your strength to fulfil and keep the 1st Hour, 3rd Hour, 6th Hour, 9th Hour, vespers, and the nightly services.

The great Macarius likewise commands the same: Let your prayers be reverent and undisturbed before God – the 1st, 3rd, and 9th Hours, vespers, compline, midnight office, and matins – which, by the grace of God that strengthens you, you are obliged always to fulfil. This is good and profitable. The Small Catechism (folio 29) gives this as the first commandment: First of all, every day according to Christian custom, perform the proper piety – either by listening to the singing in church or by yourself zealously fulfilling matins, the hours, vespers, and compline.

The Great Lenten Synaxarion (Monday of the 3rd week) says: Those who know how must always sing matins, the hours, vespers, and the hymns to the Theotokos. Whoever fails to fulfil these deprives himself of the light of God.

The Horologion (Mogilev edition) explains how even busy people are to pray the church cycle: If one is unable to fulfil all the above or is unlettered, let him instead perform full or waist bows according to the Typikon of the Holy Church on the appointed days, and in no wise postpone it – even if someone has very heavy labor, except for those bedridden with illness. Even they must ceaselessly keep the Jesus Prayer, the remembrance of death, and the confession of sins.

Concerning those who postpone or fail to fulfil it out of laziness, Scripture says (Nikon of the Black Mountain, Discourse 29): Whoever transgresses this commandment, let him be accursed.

Nilus of Sora likewise terribly forbids failure to fulfil the church cycle (Chapter 15). Whoever has no care for his rule, let such a one know (Prologue, February 10) that he has fallen into the Messalian heresy or will soon fall into it.

We give good counsel also to those who travel on the roads without necessity and abandon their appointed rule though they could remain in one place and support themselves by their own labors: such people greatly destroy and grievously wound their souls. As Scripture says about them (Ancient-Written Christian Life).

Those who do not daily have the aforesaid care for their rule with understanding can never acquire a pure conscience in their life; they pass their days in forgetfulness and blindness as though they see no light, stumbling in darkness in every matter. From this come untimely wanderings, the breaking of the fast, and slackness concerning one’s established rule. From this again comes blindness and darkening of the mind, and finally complete insensibility to one’s own lack of understanding – together with many other and worse consequences which we will not enumerate. The divine Scriptures with great prohibition excommunicate such people, saying: “Cursed are all who stray from Your commandments,” and again, “Cursed is everyone who does the work of God negligently.”

For the one who despises his rule destroys his own soul and sets a stumbling-block and perdition for others. Woe especially to superiors who do not firmly and steadfastly teach this and, out of human weakness and people-pleasing, let it slide. Woe also and great torment await parents who have Christian children yet care nothing for their prayer. And there are many other such things that everywhere ceaselessly reprove us and guide us to what is good.

Therefore everyone who desires salvation must carefully and diligently keep and fulfil the appointed cell and church rule established and handed down by the holy fathers, and in no wise abandon it – even in the most pressing or laborious time. Rather remember the word spoken by the Lord: “Seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you.”

Chapter 5 On the Fulfilment of the Church Cycle by Simple Folk – How to Perform It on Feast Days

It is easy for all who abide in Orthodoxy to preserve this statutory tradition. It is this: On the feasts of the Lord and on Sundays, apart from the divine services where the brethren gather for the service, one must listen attentively to the conciliar singing and reading and stand without leaving. On ordinary days, wherever one lives – whether alone, or two, or three in one house – they must all pray together every day for vespers, compline, matins, and the hours. The cell rule one then fulfils separately according to one’s own desire.

We only beseech you, brethren united by the spiritual bond in Christ for the salvation of your souls: never postpone these statutory prayers, but fulfil the rule and the church cycle every day without laziness, striving diligently.

Moreover, we offer this good counsel: Where in some village or settlement people live in different houses, one or two in each, and there are no books or service, on feasts and Sundays they should all gather together in one house (if possible) and at least stand with the Psalter or with prayers. This is exceedingly good, pleasing to God, praiseworthy for piety, and saving for souls. For the Lord loves good counsel and commands all to abide in undivided love. As the Lord Himself says again: “Where two or three are gathered in My name, there am I in the midst of them.”

I only beseech and fall down before all who abide in Orthodoxy: do not postpone prayer and supplication every day; keep the established tradition and the holy-fatherly ordinance unalterably and unchangingly even to the end. Only let them gather not to jest, nor to speak idly, nor to judge anyone, and thus we shall be made worthy to receive the blessing of the Lord.

Chapter 6 On the Cell Rule, Which One Must in No Wise Abandon

Every Christian must fulfil his cell rule with great diligence, much zeal, and contrition every single day and despise not a single day. For this is our saving hope. The fulfilment of this rule is the path that leads to the Kingdom of God; it makes a person alive in soul and body; it establishes him firm and steadfast in the holy faith.

Scripture says about those who despise the rule (Nomocanon, Rule 87; Zinar): Whoever despises and does not fulfil his rule, God counts such a person as dead. And if God counts a person dead, of what use is a dead man except to be buried in the earth? Truly the divine David speaks rightly: “The dead will not praise You, O Lord, but we the living will bless the Lord.”

If you wish to be alive, O Orthodox Christian, fulfil your rule without laziness. Scripture reveals something even more fearful about those who abandon their rule (Christian Life): Whoever is negligent about these things and is overcome by laziness or for any other reason, let such a one know that he falls under the same condemnation as those who have fallen away from the church’s law and tradition – he is subject to heresy.

Behold here and be afraid! Everyone who desires salvation is counted together with those who have fallen away from the Orthodox faith for abandoning his rule and is likened equally to heretics. Again Scripture says about such people (Christian Life): Some think in their mind that they pray, but in deed they do not fulfil it. Some imagine they pray in the Spirit, yet are too lazy to labor bodily in prayer – such a one deceives himself. For spiritual things are born from bodily, as the ear of grain from the bare seed. Thus bodily things always precede spiritual, visible precede invisible.

Again on the same (Christian Life): A monk – and likewise a true Christian – must not despise his appointed rule. Others hand down this teaching: “As much as we can, when we can, we do,” not as though they lacked saving observance or any appointed rule, but they pass their days in slackness – especially in ignorance or inattention. Holy Scripture says about such: He who does not look after his own house is like the wind. Again: He who walks his path without understanding walks in vain – that is, his going and his staying are empty and void. And it pronounces prohibition: “Cursed,” says the prophet, “is everyone who does the work of God negligently.”

The sacred rules say about such (Zinar, Chapter 188): Whoever is negligent concerning the daily and nightly prayers which must be fulfilled with fear and trembling – let him be anathema.

One must fulfil one’s rule with full prostrations every day except Saturdays, Sundays, and great feasts; on all other days throughout the year full prostrations are always laid down and never changed. The extent of the rule, however, is according to each person’s strength: some great, some middle, some lesser.

As Christian Life again says: Even if someone through weakness cannot fulfil the entire handed-down rule, let him do half, or a third, or a quarter – according to each one’s strength – only let us not be lazy about our salvation as far as we are able. And let no one judge his own appointments by himself or by self-will; let this not be, but let him follow spiritual fathers, ask them, and obey – not heeding his own understanding.

One must stand at one’s rule with fear and attention (Zinar, Chapter 88). If a monk laughs or talks without need while at his rule, let him receive a penance of 80 bows.

Here is a fatherly discernment offered to those who wish it:

• Great rule: 300 full prostrations, 600 Jesus Prayers, 10 lestovkas (léstovki) of waist bows to the Theotokos, plus 17 verses “Rejoice, O Virgin Theotokos” with a full prostration each; 17 full prostrations for the Passion of Christ (“I bow down to Thy Passion, O Christ”); 17 full prostrations to the guardian angel (“Holy Angel of Christ, save me, Thy sinful servant”); then 100 waist bows to all the saints (“All saints, pray to God for me a sinner”).
• Middle rule: 108 full prostrations, 300 Jesus Prayers, 100 waist bows to the Theotokos, the same 17 each, 100 waist bows to all saints.
• Lesser middle rule: 100 full prostrations, 200 Jesus Prayers, 100 waist bows to the Theotokos, the same 17 each, 100 waist bows to all saints.
• Smallest rule (for very young children and those with extremely heavy labor): 50 full prostrations, 100 Jesus Prayers, 50 waist bows to the Theotokos, the same 17 each, 50 to all saints, and the dismissal.

Therefore I beseech and fall down before all who desire salvation: do not postpone or forget your rule, but fulfil it daily, that the Lord may not forget to have mercy on you in this age and in the age to come. And if because of summer labor it is impossible to fulfil the (full) rule, then in winter make haste to fulfil the summer rules. But without a rule you cannot remain even one single day throughout the whole course of your life.

Chapter 7 That All Orthodox Christians Must Come Promptly to the Beginning of Every Divine Praise

To all who abide in the Orthodox faith and do not live far from the place of divine praise: as soon as the call is given or the appointed time arrives, such persons must hasten and make all speed to be present at the very beginning of every act of divine praise and apply themselves with all diligence to this soul-saving work of prayer. They must postpone it for no reason, however small, and for no kind of work.

For this cause the Scriptures command us thus in all the great and middle Typika and in the other holy books: the Son of the Church, Nilus of Sora, the Starchestvo, the Book of Penances, and Basil the Great—all unanimously say and command that we come quickly and diligently to the beginning of every church singing, that we leave it for no work, and that we pay no heed to careless people who do not wish to be saved, whether out of laziness, sleep, or being “too busy.”

For truly, according to Scripture, the prayers of all such are not acceptable to the Lord. It has been said to all: a beginning that is careless and an ending that is rejected—such prayer is not accepted by God. Whoever postpones because of sleep or being “too busy” is not like those who come from the very beginning; those who come from the start will truly receive great grace and mercy from the Lord in this age and in the age to come.

Some careless people quote the divine Chrysostom’s Paschal homily: “The Lord receives the last even as the first.” But that word is spoken not about the divine service, but about those coming to faith or to repentance. Concerning the service, listen attentively to what the holy Typika say.

Therefore the summons is given from the beginning—by the wooden semantron and the bells. If late-comers’ prayer were acceptable, there would be no need for the call or the ringing; everyone would simply come at the dismissal of the last hymn.

Every person who desires salvation must also know this: when at matins the first reading from the Holy Gospel or from other books is read, all who are seated must listen with great attention and not go out for any reason except the most extreme necessity. At the other canons one may go out once only for natural need, and even then with great self-condemnation and humility; upon returning, one must make two waist bows and one full prostration, ask forgiveness of the brethren, and then stand again. One must never in no wise go out simply without need.

Thus the venerable Ephrem teaches (Discourse 107): “I beseech you, do not go out of the church, nor stand in it conversing, nor pass the hour of divine service without fear. Let us stand with fear and trembling, eyes cast down, mind lifted upward, crying out in the heart with silent sighs.”

If we carefully keep ourselves and preserve all that the Scriptures have spoken, we shall receive great and rich mercy from the Lord God in this age and in the age to come.

Let this also be wisely understood by all: if because of great necessity or distance of dwelling someone cannot arrive at the beginning, let him afterwards ask the superior and inform him when he arrived at the service; the superior will then appoint him to pray according to the measure of the time missed.

O brethren and fathers, I beseech and entreat you: do all these things according to the judgment of the superiors; in no wise give yourselves over to your own will or follow it, but attend to the Holy Scriptures.

Chapter 8 That One Must Fear Hasty Speech in the Praise of God

Let it be known to all who desire salvation, to live in understanding, to keep the law of God purely, to preserve the commandments of Christ and the ordinances of the holy fathers with discernment, and to make themselves pleasing to God and beloved of men: one must carefully guard oneself in the church order—that is, in the singing of psalms—with good order and skill. This means: speak neither hastily nor boldly; pause at the full stops, do not forget the commas, and above all fear God and bring one’s soul into the fear of God by measured and slow speech.

Those who listen are moved to contrition by such measured words, and many shed tears from outward slow speaking. But if one sings the psalms and other hymns of praise boldly, quickly, incessantly, and without pausing at the stops, he profits his soul nothing—rather he destroys it, receives no small harm, and gives no benefit to the listeners. Because of such rapid speech they cannot hear the words distinctly and understand nothing. The reader himself will receive double perdition for their souls, for he will truly be condemned for his negligence and will lead the listeners also into great perdition because of his manner of reading—they hear nothing at all.

Alas for the lack of understanding that brings such perdition! Is this not perdition? Even in outward speech: “If someone speaks carelessly before a lord or before his brother, he will not receive honor but rather dishonor, mockery, and beating. How much more will one receive condemnation before the Lord God and His saints for unworthy speech!”

Scripture clearly says the same: “We must be exceedingly diligent that disciples not speak hastily, but speak according to the strength of higher understanding. If understanding does not keep pace with the teaching, there is great hindrance to the tongue of the disciples, and even greater offence to God and great sin to our souls. We should choose what is better. For cursed (says Scripture) is everyone who does the work of God negligently, and we know that the teaching of letters is the work of God.”

Again: “If you teach disciples in this way, you will receive mercy and blessing from God, praise from men, and your disciples will have strength in their tongue, understanding in their mind, and purity in their speech.”

Likewise Patriarch Photius of Antioch (in the Book of Cyril, Epistle 5) says: “One must guard against haste in words. Rapid speech in ascetic conversations and exercises is not easily overlooked; it is neither virtuous nor blameless, and especially in commandments and in city and common affairs it is base and deadly.”

Therefore we too must know and understand all these things wisely, lest we anger the Lord God rather than appease Him, and lest by this hasty speech we not only fail to have mercy on our own soul but destroy it and receive no mercy from God. Let us therefore guard ourselves carefully.

Chapter 9 On Statutory Full Prostrations

The full prostrations appointed in the church cycle must in no wise be despised or omitted except on the great feasts of the Lord and of the Theotokos, on Saturdays, Sundays, and the feasts of the great saints. On those days alone full prostrations are omitted both in the cell rule and in the church cycle; the entrance bows, exit bows, and those at “More honourable than the Cherubim” are all made as waist bows. Only after “It is truly meet” is a full prostration never changed.

This is written by the holy and God-bearing fathers of the First Ecumenical Council (Rule 2) and of the Sixth Ecumenical Council (Rule 90) that one must not bend the knee on any Sunday or during the fifty days of Pascha. Nikon of the Black Mountain says the same (Discourse 57).

On every Saturday, Sunday, and feast of the Lord, of the Theotokos, the Nativity and Beheading of the Forerunner, of the apostles Peter and Paul, of John the Theologian, and other temple and all-night-vigil saints, the entrance bows, exit bows, and cell rule are all waist bows.

During Holy Great Lent and the other fasts when “Alleluia” is sung, all bows are full prostrations except on two days when they are waist bows. Throughout Holy Lent every day they are full prostrations. On the Annunciation, if it falls on a weekday, the entrance and exit bows, the four great bows, and the rule are full prostrations.

Throughout the whole year, in fasts and non-fasting periods except Saturdays, Sundays, and feasts, the entrance bows, exit bows, and those at “More honourable than the Cherubim” are all full prostrations.

In the other fasts—those of the Apostles and of St Philip—for those who labour heavily there is a fatherly dispensation: either all five weekdays have full prostrations, or on all five days 17 full prostrations are made after vespers, compline, midnight office, matins, and the hours. In the Fast of the Dormition of the Most Holy Theotokos only one day has all full prostrations; throughout the rest of the fast only the entrance, exit, and “More honourable” bows are full.

Yet the sacred Typika most terribly and fearfully command us in no wise to despise or omit full prostrations. The Scriptures (the Teaching Psalter with Appendices, the Great Typikon, and the Middle Typikon) declare that these full prostrations have been handed down everywhere to all Orthodox—both monastics and laypeople—from the Holy Apostles and Holy Fathers.

They are in no wise omitted during Holy Great Lent; rather we must strive even more to fulfil this tradition of the holy fathers—that is, kneeling in worship—as the Typikon commands, and not destroy it. To love darkness instead of light is accursed and rejected together with heretics. Such impiety—refusing to make full prostrations to the earth in our prayers to God in church on the appointed days as the Typikon commands—is accursed. Those who do not attend to this, who pay no heed, who despise the tradition of the holy fathers, and who above all create schism in the Church of God, leading their own souls and the souls of others to perdition, are excommunicated from God.

Again it is said: No son of the sobornic and apostolic Church who hears of piety can endure such impiety and heresy; let such evil not be found among us Orthodox.

Let the holy fathers speak, and let such people hear what is written here—not by us, but from the ordinances of the holy fathers, set down for our profit. Let no one transgress the appointed Typikon of the Holy Church of God. As the divine Chrysostom says: “He who destroys the fearful and ineffable dogmas—will he receive answer or mercy? No, indeed! Even to be careless about small things is cause of all evils.”

Therefore all Orthodox Christians must fulfil everything that is written and accomplish everything that is spoken, that we be not like the pagan heretics who “understood not, neither were mindful, but walk in darkness.” Upon us the Lord has set enlightenment, saying: “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father who is in heaven.”

Chapter 10 On the Fasts of the Lord and on Wednesdays and Fridays

On Wednesdays and Fridays one must not eat fish or oil. Likewise all Orthodox Christians should keep Monday as they keep Wednesday and Friday. Some, however, leave Monday to personal discretion, provided they carefully abstain from milk foods and fish.

Holy Great Lent must be kept strictly and firmly: on the five weekdays eat once a day; on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday eat dry food (nothing cooked); on Saturday and Sunday eat twice with oil; on Tuesday and Thursday eat cooked food; during the first week and the last week eat no cooked food, but keep it very carefully for the salvation of the soul. Fish is permitted only on the Annunciation and on Palm Sunday.

The Fast of the Dormition of the Most Holy Theotokos is to be kept in the same way as Great Lent.

In the Nativity Fast (St Philip’s) until St Nicholas eat fish; on Tuesdays and Thursdays eat with oil; eat once a day throughout the fast.

The Apostles’ Fast is kept in the same way as the Nativity Fast until St Nicholas.

In the Nativity Fast, for the five days before Christmas do not eat with oil except on Saturdays and Sundays, because of the approaching feast of Christ’s Nativity.

In all fasts, whenever “Alleluia” falls on a Tuesday or Thursday, transfer the strict fast to Wednesday and Friday and eat no cooked food on those “Alleluia” days.

Thus one must carefully and firmly keep the Lord’s fasts, Wednesdays, and Fridays, and in no wise transgress them.

The sacred rules unanimously declare (Korinchaya, Rule 69 of the Holy Apostles): “If any bishop, presbyter, deacon, reader, or singer does not fast during Holy Lent, the days of the Passion, and every Wednesday and Friday, let him be deposed.”

Many other sacred rules say the same (Korinchaya folios 19, 59; On the Faith folios 24, 125; Nomocanon Rule 125).

Above all, everyone who desires salvation is obliged by the 60th Rule of the Holy Apostles to keep every Wednesday and Friday of the whole year with dry eating and drinking water. If someone cannot because of bodily weakness, let him be permitted wine only, and that with contrition of heart, abstaining from fish and oil. He who keeps even the wine will find reward as one who fulfils the commandment. By wine here is meant grape wine, not distilled spirits; thus the Typikon and the Flowery Triodion on the eve of Holy Pascha say: “In lands that have no wine, the brethren may drink kvass or mead.”

St Athanasius the Great says: “Wednesday and Friday have been appointed for this. If you do more, you will acquire great reward for your soul. The ‘more’ is to eat nothing and drink nothing on Wednesday and Friday. The appointed measure is to taste bread and water at the ninth hour or after sunset. Such abstinence is high and praiseworthy and exceedingly beloved of God; truly it is honourable and a great pattern of piety” (Discourse, folio 1505).

The law commands us to do all that is written; he who does not do it is to be punished, as the divine Chrysostom says.

Chapter 11 On Eating at the Wrong Time – Between Meals or Before the Meal

It is not fitting to eat anything at all between the meal or before the meal, for such eating cannot be done secretly; it is seen by all the faithful and brings danger. Even if no one saw him eating, how shall Scripture name such food except “stolen”? Such a person truly becomes like a thief and falls under the sacred rule that says: “He who steals vegetables shall have a penance of six months, sixteen bows a day” (Nomocanon, Second-First Rule 25). “If a monk eats apart from the brotherhood, let him be excommunicated for two weeks, doing 1,500 bows.”

Thus the saints teach us abstinence and to pass our life in patience. For the Lord Himself teaches us: “In your patience possess your souls… Do not faint” and again, “He who endures to the end shall be saved.”

Scripture says about secret eaters (Synaxarion, folio 183): “I have seen many who were held by passions yet were healthy; but among them I never saw a secret eater or glutton healthy—only those who had abandoned the abstinent life.”

Again (folio 134): “Do not accept as counsellor the serpent who with another key wishes to lead you to steal food.” He who eats apart from the brotherhood shall be excommunicated for two weeks, doing 1,500 bows.

Thus the saints teach us abstinence and to pass our life in patience.

For the Lord Himself teaches: “In your patience possess your souls… He who endures to the end shall be saved.”

Holy Scripture guards us and sets us on the right path of salvation: guard yourselves even from the taste of the tongue, from the sin of secret eating. If the serpent can harm you in a small thing and cast you into struggle and hold you with a small wound, then, beloved, I fall down before you all and beseech you: flee from this passion and grievous wound; guard yourselves very carefully from untimely eating, whether secret or open.

Secret eating is indeed most fearful, as Holy Scripture declares, yet open untimely eating is even easier to fall into. The one sin destroys only the soul of the sinner; this sin destroys many souls because of the stumbling-block it causes.

Believe, brethren, that if anyone has even one passion as a habit, he is subject to torment. It teaches that if someone does ten good deeds and has one evil habit, that single evil habit overcomes the ten good deeds.

Therefore we too must in every way guard ourselves carefully from secret eating, lest we fall prey to the cruel serpent—that is, the devil—to be devoured. Many diseases also are born from this secret eating and destroy a person.

Chapter 12 That One Must Stand Firmly and Steadfastly in the Holy Faith and in No Wise Listen to Schismatics and Dividers

Every Orthodox Christian must know this above all other most necessary and profitable works of spiritual life: it is utterly sufficient to have very great and firm strength in the pious, holy, Orthodox Christian faith and in no wise to waver in mind or personal understanding—this way or that. There is no perdition worse or more cruel than to follow one’s own opinion and reasoning. Truly, according to Scripture, such a one is not a Christian but is called a heretic. As the Holy Gospel says: “All who reason contrary to Scripture are heretics.” And again: “Whoever clings firmly to his own opinion is a heretic.”

Above all, one must guard oneself and be exceedingly careful concerning schismatics and dividers of Christ’s faith: listen to them in nothing and ask them nothing. If any doubt arises in the eyes (that is, outwardly), do not ask schismatics and church-dividers, but ask your fathers and they will tell you, and your elders will declare it to you. Do not ask schismatics and dividers, and do not admit them into your houses.

As the beloved John the Theologian says (2 John 10–11): “If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him; for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds.” For such a one does not abide in the teaching of Christ and therefore does not have God. As the same apostle says: “Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God.”

Always keep in mind the word of Christ: “If they say to you, ‘Behold, here is the Christ’ or ‘There,’ do not believe it… If they say, ‘He is in the desert,’ do not go out.” And again: “Many false christs and false prophets and false teachers will arise.”

The chosen vessel Paul says: “From among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things” (Acts 20:30).

The apostle Jude, in the preface to his epistle, commands concerning such people: “Drive them out as deceivers and commands the faithful to have no communion at all with them.” And further: “It is needful to separate yourselves from such people.”

The apostle Paul exhorts and beseeches all: “I beseech you, brethren, mark those who cause divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and avoid them” (Romans 16:17). And again: “Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the mutilation [of the unbelievers]” (Philippians 3:2). Therefore again he says: “Brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught” (2 Thessalonians 2:15).

Finally, he pronounces a most fearful prohibition: “But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed” (Galatians 1:8).

One must also guard against ever entering the houses of such dividers. Thus the holy apostle writes to Timothy—and even more to all the faithful: “Forbid certain men from going to other teachers or giving heed to fables and endless genealogies, which cause disputes rather than godly edification which is in faith” (cf. 1 Timothy 1:3–4).

And according to Holy Scripture: “With fair speech and flattery they deceive the hearts of the simple” (Romans 16:18). And again: “The impious will appear as though pious.” Truly the very time has come of which the apostle spoke: “The time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires will heap up for themselves teachers, having itching ears, and will turn away from the truth and be turned aside to fables” (2 Timothy 4:3–4).

And again: “I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock” (Acts 20:29).

Therefore one must in every way flee from such people and run from them as from a poisonous serpent or a consuming fire. For this reason the divine Chrysostom speaks most fearfully about dividers: “Even the blood of martyrs cannot wash away this sin.” And Scripture likens one who doubts in faith to “a wave of the sea” (James 1:6). And again: “A double-minded man is unstable in all his ways” (James 1:8).

Truly heretics are born from this. Consider Arius, Nestorius, Origen, and the other heretics: were they not all Orthodox at first, before they began their evil reasoning? When they did not submit to the councils of the holy fathers, they became the chief and most wicked heretics. “Not understanding the righteousness of God and seeking to establish their own righteousness, they have not submitted to the righteousness of God” (cf. Romans 10:3). Truly a man without conscience is his own enemy and murderer.

But upon the faithful who carefully attend to the laws of God neither man, nor demon, nor anything else can prevail. Therefore let us also strive to keep the traditions of the holy fathers, to guard ourselves carefully, and always to accept good counsel, for according to Scripture, “in a multitude of counsellors there is safety” (Proverbs 11:14).

In every way beware of those who create schisms and divisions in the Holy Church. If anyone obeys them, you (according to Scripture) will become guilty of the perdition of others and will suffer worse things than those who stumbled with you and whom you led into perdition. Therefore let us guard ourselves carefully.

Chapter 13 That One Must Not Speculate Excessively about the Antichrist

Holy Scripture says much about the Antichrist and describes various visions; it requires great wisdom and much discernment. Yet it is not fitting to argue or create discord by excessive disputation about him. If someone in debate says that he will appear sensibly (physically) and describes all his deeds and appearances, we do not greatly dispute with such people nor fall into malice, but one should only ask him calmly about his birth, country, city, parents, name, age, deeds, sitting in the holy place, taking the image of God, and likeness to Christ. All these mysteries should be asked separately and with peace. Even this should be done only out of love; it is not fitting to dispute in anger, for such a person lacks perfect understanding.

Whoever expects him only in a sensible, physical manner will not be granted spiritual discernment. For even if he does appear physically, if we do not see him ourselves but only hear where he is, what then? And if he is not to appear physically at all, we still have hope of receiving salvation from the Lord God without such speculation.

The saints speak of him in many veiled and very subtle ways and do not openly and simply reveal this mystery so that it may be perfectly understood. They only say: “Let him who has understanding calculate the number of the beast” (Revelation 13:18), and many other things they express with wisdom.

It is more fitting for us to attend to this: these mysteries are not necessary for us, for even without much investigation into this mystery it is possible to be saved. Even though the saints knew and examined it clearly—those divine men—yet they set forth the vision in veiled, most wise, and fearful terms.

Therefore, since it is not the most necessary thing, the chosen vessel, the divine Paul, with the interpretation of the great Chrysostom, commands silence about it and forbids seeking what is unprofitable. Thus he writes: “He would not have left these things about the Antichrist unexplained if they were profitable; therefore we do not seek them.” And further: “Many ask where Enoch was translated and why he was translated. They do not even leave unknown the day of the very coming. But concerning Elijah and Enoch he answers: ‘It is superfluous to seek all these things in every way.’”

Therefore we also pray to the Lord only that He enlighten our eyes, lest we ever sleep in death. We beseech and entreat your brotherly love likewise: do not seek these things, and do not question us who are dull-minded and coarse about them.

For this reason the saints also forbid speaking of it. As the venerable Ephrem says: “To him who has his mind on the things of this life and loves earthly things, this will not be understandable.”

It is sufficient for us to have only faith in Christ and diligently keep the commandments of the Lord.

If anyone insists on knowing it fully, let him examine the holy books with great discernment and brotherly counsel: Chrysostom, Hippolytus, Irenaeus, Methodius the Truthful, the Apocalypse, the Golden Pearl, the New Solodorion, the Apostolic Discourses, the Chrysomologion, the Festal Menaion, the words of John the Theologian and the venerable Ephrem the Syrian, the Small Synaxarion, the word of Zinovii, and others.

If anyone examines all these books with testing, with the blessing of the ancient and present fathers, and with brotherly counsel, and with prayer to the Almighty God for understanding, then he will come to the truth of what the saints have said. But in no wise follow his own opinion; rather attend to what is written, hold fast to fatherly blessing and brotherly counsel, lay his hope upon God, and have no reliance on his own wisdom. One must always follow fatherly discernment spiritually—that is, both visibly and invisibly.

Invisibly we understand, according to Scripture, that he already rules the whole universe, cities, monasteries, all churches, the entire sacred order, all mysteries, and every action: he will take the form of a true shepherd and deceive the whole world unto death, desiring in all things to make himself like the Son of God, the deceiver.

Visibly he deceives, teaches, compels, oppresses, drives out, and brings countless other torments. As Scripture again says: he will torment and torture the whole human race without mercy.

We cease speaking much about this and cannot speculate greatly, but we place it in the judgments of the Lord.

Chapter 14 That One Must Not Follow One’s Own Opinion

Furthermore, all who desire salvation and to abide in true understanding must not attend to their own opinion or reasoning, but follow the writing of the holy fathers and their right-ruling discernment, together with that of our fathers of old and of the present, and the united and concordant understanding of all the brethren in Christ in agreement with Holy Scripture. One must not follow one’s own will, for as Abba Dorotheos says: “Our own will is a brazen wall standing between us and God.” Read there at length in the instruction of the saint, and you will understand the power of what is said, and receive in your mind the fearful, terrible, and most awesome declaration.

Thus Maximus the Greek also speaks fearfully (Chapter 78): “He who clings firmly to his own opinion is a heretic.” The Holy Gospel teaches the same: “All who reason contrary to Scripture are heretics.”

The divine Chrysostom testifies in agreement: “Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes! Even if you are wise, you still need another; but if you think you need no one, you are the most foolish and weak of all.”

Many other saints also lay down much and fearful prohibition against following one’s own opinion in anything and command us to cut off our own will entirely. As the venerable Dorotheos says: “Then will a man see the way of God without fault—when he abandons his own will. But as long as he submits to his own will, he does not see the faultless way of God. Whatever he hears for edification, he immediately censures, spits upon, turns away, and strikes against it. For how can he endure anyone or submit to any counsel while holding fast to his own will?”

Therefore one must carefully guard against reasoning anything from oneself and producing writings that disagree with Holy Scripture, or teaching people thereby. This is exceedingly destructive and harmful to Christian souls.

But if anyone writes, speaks, or teaches in full agreement and union with the holy faith, the law of God, and all God-given Holy and Divine Scripture, then such a one does not lead Christian souls astray or harm them; rather he strengthens them and incites them to the struggle of the holy faith.

Thus the blessed mother of James the Persian, hearing that her son had fallen away from the faith, was greatly afraid. She sent him an entreating and exhortatory epistle fully in accord with Holy Scripture, and thereby not only turned her son from impiety but brought him to suffer for the true piety handed down by God.

Therefore we in no wise forbid those who abide in right belief from writing or teaching from themselves, provided only that it be in full agreement with the divine words of Holy Scripture. At first many saints were simple and unlearned, even shepherds; yet they found many, baptised them, and taught them the commandments of Christ in full accord with the holy faith, not composing their own understanding to pervert the truth, but in agreement with the Holy Church and according to the understanding of Holy and Divine Scripture. None of the saints followed his own opinion or fulfilled his own will, but held fast to fatherly blessing and brotherly counsel—and they commanded us to abide in the same understanding.

Chapter 15 On the Confession and Repentance of Sins

One must not remain even a single year without repentance and confession. Whoever remains even one year without confession will receive great church punishment. Scripture says (Zinar, Rule 90; Maximus the Greek, Discourse 38; Chrysostom, Discourses 16 and 17; On the Faith, folio 114; Prologue, March 31; Korinchaya, folios 581, 608; Book of Cyril, 303; Nikon of the Black Mountain, Discourse 21; Synaxarion, folio 167; Discourses, folio 2983; Catechism, Chapter 35, and many other divine Scriptures) most fearfully and terribly prohibit postponement.

As Nikon of the Black Mountain says (Discourse 51): “If a man sins and falls into sin, even if he wears out the flesh of his body and wastes his bones in fasting and sorrow, he will accomplish nothing. But if he declares his sins to a man, putting himself to shame, thereby he will be justified.”

The Ladder says (folio 68): “There is no shame that is without shame. Bare your sores to the physician—speak and be not ashamed.”

In the Discourses (folio 3089) it is likewise said: “Sins that are not confessed will be made manifest before the whole universe, before friends and enemies and angels.” And again: “Repentance apart from the departing is better than not being born at all.”

One should confess four times a year; those who are more reverent may do so even more often. But let no one fail to confess even once a year, for such a one falls under curse and excommunication from the church. Again (Great Euchologion, folio 148): “If a Christian dies without repentance, it is not fitting for a priest to sing over him or bring an offering for him, for he has not fulfilled the law of God and the Christian faith.”

Let no one be troubled that a simple layman may hear confession. This is not a mere permission laid upon us lightly, for many testimonies of the saints declare: (Nomocanon, folio 72; Great Euchologion, folio 730) “If there is a priest who is unlearned, but another who is not a priest yet experienced in spiritual works, it is more righteous to receive thoughts from the latter and to be corrected rightly than from the priest.”

Many other saints agree with this commandment: Anastasius of Sinai (Discourse 16), Maximus the Greek (Discourse 38), Korinchaya (folio 581, Chapter 61). See the above-mentioned chapters and declarations; other saints also testify in agreement: Gabriel of Philadelphia, Genesis Chapter 4, the February 10, March 12, and May 9 Cheti-Menaia, and Zacharias Kopystensky most clearly of all in Chapter 36. See there at length.

The Book of Penances also says (Chapter 11): “The penitent must confess his secret sins to a man not as to a man but as to God Himself, confessing to a brother.” And the field discourse likewise declares that we must confess to one another. In the Apostolic Discourses (folio 3023) “brother” here means any trustworthy layman, not a monk.

Therefore I, the humble and sinful one, beseech and fall down before all who abide in Orthodoxy: do not postpone repentance until death, but cleanse your souls while you remain in this life. Fear the hour of death every moment, confess your sins frequently with all zeal.

Chapter 16 That Those Who Have Come to Know the True Faith Must Not Postpone the Time of Acceptance; Likewise a Sinner Must in No Wise Delay Until Another Time, but Hasten to Repentance

With these things and with still greater zeal we beseech and entreat all men who hear the Word of God and desire salvation, to come to the truth, and to escape eternal and fearful torments: let them come quickly, without postponement, to the pious faith. Be like the righteous centurion Cornelius, who knew nothing at all of the holy faith. When, by the appearance of an angel, the apostle Peter came to his house, Cornelius immediately and without delay accepted piety and holy baptism. Likewise the eunuch of Queen Candace, taught by the apostle Philip, did not postpone the affairs of the kingdom for even a moment for the sake of receiving baptism. Therefore they were glorified by God with incorruptible glory. All who desire salvation must emulate these examples.

Holy Scripture teaches us thus: “Woe,” it says, “to that man who knows the law of God yet postpones the time of receiving baptism for the sake of his deceitful and destructive affairs and vanities—some for the sake of riches and earthly gain, some out of laziness regarding fasting and prayer, some because of youth and health. Truly such people will receive double, great, and exceedingly heavy punishment and will inherit bitter torment—more than those who never knew the law of God. For he who knew nothing, great or small, of the law of God will be beaten little (according to the Lord’s word), but he who knew his Lord’s will and did not do it will be beaten much.”

There are now in the world many foolish and senseless people, taught by the devil, who say: “May God grant me to receive baptism at the hour of death.” Alas for this bitter and evil counsel of Satan, which has taught men such cruel perdition! They do not remember nor heed the Lord’s words: “Be ready at every hour, for you know not at what hour your Lord will come.”

Even if someone in such a state receives baptism, truly it is not voluntary, for death has already overtaken him. Had death not overtaken him, he would still have served the vanity of this world and done the devil’s pleasure. He who has not served his Master for even a year—what can he receive from the Master except dishonour, wrath, beating, and expulsion?

Gregory the Theologian writes well about this (Discourse 12), commanding those preparing for baptism to do it now without delay: “Let us be baptised today, lest tomorrow sickness or some other calamity compel us. Let us not delay further, gathering sins… What are you waiting for, O man, when many times you will not even be master of your own thoughts? Fever often causes madness, when the tongue cannot even utter the words of salvation: ‘I renounce Satan and unite myself to Christ.’ To say nothing greater—when you cannot lift your hand to heaven, stand on your feet, or bend the knee—run therefore to the Benefactor and to baptism while you are still sound in body and mind, while others do not yet control your goods. If you do not understand, then it is not baptism but merely a grave-washing of the body alone. Have mercy on yourself while you still sail from Assyria in the calm of life and are healthy; fear shipwreck in every way. If you fear, be baptised while healthy, not in sickness or sorrow, and do not bury the talent when dying.”

Now is the acceptable time, cries the apostle: “Awake, you who sleep, arise from the dead, and you shall be enlivened by baptism and enlightened” (Explanatory Psalter, Psalm 79). “Revive us, and we will call upon Your name: Lord God of hosts, turn us and enlighten Your face, and we shall be saved” (Hesychius’ Interpretation). You will revive us with the living water of baptism; then we will call upon Your name, being called Christians after Christ. Then we begin to say “Our Father.”

As the divine Chrysostom teaches (Moral Discourse 25): “This prayer ‘Our Father’ belongs to the faithful; it is the cause, and the church laws and prayers teach it. The unbaptised cannot call God Father.” The Gospel likewise testifies (Sunday 6). Therefore we, brethren, cannot call God Father until we have washed away our sins in the font of baptism and repentance. When we come forth from it, having put off the old time, then we say: “Our Father who art in heaven.”

Truly, according to Scripture, those foolish and senseless people labour in vain who know the law of God yet do not enter it, though they labour in prayer and psalmody. Their labour and prayer perish in vain. In their foolish understanding they point to the righteous Cornelius, saying that before baptism his prayer and almsgiving ascended before God. But he knew nothing of the faith. When he heard the law of God, he did not delay even an hour but immediately came to faith in Christ. He did not rely on the fact that his prayer before baptism was acceptable to God, but added faith to Christ’s faith (from the Pandects).

Truly the devil teaches the evil counsel of postponing baptism. Scripture again says about such people (Spiritual Sword, Sunday 20): “The bearers of such a one on his deathbed are unclean desires and flatteries that keep him in sin. There are four such bearers: two preceding sins—failure to guard oneself from evil and friendship with the evil; two following—hope of long life and unrepentant reliance on God’s great mercy.” And again: “God has given two streams for the cleansing of every person: one stream is baptism, the other is repentance—only acquire them without delay.” The apostle stirs us to this: “Awake, you who sleep, arise from the dead, and you shall be enlivened by baptism.”

See how the Lord raises us from the deception and perdition of this world—both the faithful to repentance and the unbelieving to baptism, to true knowledge of piety, to perfect and pure repentance, and to immediate turning from their sins.

Woe, truly woe, to him who postpones the time of accepting the faith and pure repentance. As Scripture says (Mirror of the World, Part 1, Chapter 38): “Do not delay to turn to the Lord and do not put it off from day to day, for suddenly His wrath will come… Why do you postpone even a single certain day and wait for a whole year? Do not, I beseech you, squander in vain the time given you” (Sirach 5:7, 29). “Do not promise yourself long life; false promises have destroyed many” (Acts 1). “You do not know that the Father has placed it in His own authority, not yours” (Chapter 39).

Why do you postpone repentance, which is so profitable? In the hour of death you will scarcely be able to entreat it. Even if someone sheds many tears then, it will be believed that he does it out of fear of hell, which does not justify a man. Again: “Remember your Creator in the time of your youth before you lose your mind.” Truly, those who postpone the time of repentance (Book of the Elders) are not granted it. The divine Chrysostom says (Discourse, folio 1995): “It is foreign and alien to a Christian to seek ease and comfort and cling to this life. O beloved, let us all be ready to await the hour of death.”

Chapter 17 That All Orthodox Christians Must Possess Meekness and Humility

Every Orthodox Christian must possess meekness and be adorned with humility, for the Lord Himself teaches us: “Learn from Me, for I am meek and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.” Thus He looks with favour upon such, saying: “Whom shall I look upon, but the meek and humble and him who trembles at My words?” And: “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.”

Patriarch Gennadius teaches all who live in the Orthodox faith (Catechism, Chapter 31): “Let your sitting be meek, your gaze meek, your word meek—let all these things be so in you.” By these you will show yourself a true Christian.

The divine Chrysostom says (Discourse, folio 4): “Nothing is sweeter than quietness, meekness, and obedience. Such a one is the key to all. Such a one is not ashamed of servitude, does not flee the poor, does not turn away from the sick and suffering; he possesses all and is a fellow-worker of every virtue.”

John of the Ladder instructs (Discourse 29): “Be meek and not jealous of evil. Contradiction is not the Christian way of life and is not marked in Christ’s teaching. Rejoice with those who rejoice (spiritually) and weep with those who weep—this is the sign of purity. Be ill with the sick, weep with sinners, rejoice with the repentant, do not accuse or reproach anyone. If you love meekness, abide in humility; if you attain humility, you will rejoice at all times.”

Therefore in this fearful and terrible time we must be meek, humble, and guileless, especially for the sake of those who remain in ignorance. For they not only mock and reproach us, but worse—they blaspheme our Orthodox Christian faith and revile it in every way. Their reviling of the faith brings perdition to our souls, for because of us the faith is blasphemed. Therefore let us carefully guard and keep the ordinances.

Chapter 18 That One Must Bear Sorrows and Illnesses with Thanksgiving

In this present most sorrowful last time, every Orthodox Christian must with all zeal and heartfelt love valiantly and firmly endure sorrows, illnesses, cruel afflictions, trials, troubles, and persecutions for the Lord’s sake—with thanksgiving. For such people await great, ineffable, and all-joyful reward; above all, they will receive equal honour, praise, and crowns with the martyrs and passion-bearers of Christ. Holy Scripture declares (Discourse, folio 2024): “Nothing is holier than the tongue that thanks God in evils—truly nothing distinguishes it from the martyrs.” And again: “There is nothing holier than a thankful tongue.”

Many Holy Scriptures teach and urge us to bear sorrows, illnesses, and afflictions with patience, promising great mercy, grace, and heavenly joy. Even if we suffer afflictions not for Christ’s sake but bear them patiently for God’s sake, God counts this patience to us (Discourse on the preface to 2 Timothy; Discourse, folio 68).

Upon the faithful who carefully attend to God’s laws neither man, nor demon, nor anything else can prevail. If they endure beating or reproach, they shine brighter before God and truly receive the martyr’s crown. The shining of the righteous—how does it shine if not by patience? “He who endures to the end will be saved,” according to the Lord’s word.

The holy monk Dorotheos says (Discourse 14): “If someone gives himself daily to sorrow and hardship for God’s sake, God crowns him with the martyrs. If someone dies physically in the Lord’s struggle, the Lord crowns him and gives honour to his relics as to the holy martyrs.”

If someone has no sorrows, illnesses, troubles, or grief, he should at least weep a little each day for his salvation (Holy monk Dorotheos, Discourse 62). If the day of secret departure comes because of such weeping for his soul, all his sins will be forgiven and he will be granted eternal life. Thus Holy Scripture teaches, leads us to saving understanding, and instructs us.

Chapter 19 That One Must Hold Fast to Hospitality

All Orthodox Christians, and especially in this present time of need and persecution, must hold fast to hospitality with all their strength, remembering what is written in the Lord’s law: “Whoever receives a stranger receives Christ into his house.” He who keeps a stranger and sojourner in his house truly has Christ the Lord in his house, for He Himself said with His blessed lips: “I was a stranger and you took Me in… Whoever receives a righteous man in the name of a righteous man will receive a righteous man’s reward.” Even if the person is not righteous according to the Holy Gospel, yet if he receives him with love as a righteous man, he will truly receive a righteous man’s reward.

According to Holy Scripture, there is no greater need among men than receiving a stranger—how much more in this very time of extreme need, great suffering, persecution, and lamentation, when many because of fierce persecution have nowhere to lay their heads.

Truly blessed and thrice-blessed by God will be the one who does this; he will be filled with every good thing and God’s mercy, will receive great reward from the Lord God in this age and the age to come, and will obtain a portion in the Kingdom of Heaven.

Likewise keep in memory the apostolic word: “Let brotherly love continue. Do not forget to entertain strangers… By such sacrifices we please God.” All the many Holy Scriptures offer great praise for this.

Chapter 20 That One Must Not Harbour Grudges

We say to all who abide in Orthodoxy: one must in every way fear and dread harbouring grudges, great or small. Each day examine and watch yourself and do not remain in malice. Do not offer the Lord’s Prayer in anger—that is, do not pray—but first make reconciliation, and then pray. If someone begins to pray without reconciliation, that grudge-bearer offers his prayers not to God but to the devil (Great Synaxarion).

Even if he says “Our Father,” he does not call upon or glorify the Heavenly Father but the father of the devil. The rules likewise testify (Nomocanon, Rule 123): “If anyone bears enmity toward another, let him not enter the church, nor are his offerings accepted until he is reconciled, for his (malicious) prayer is counted as sin. Let him do 50 bows each day (for as many days as he remains in malice).”

The Zinar says (Rule 111): “Let a grudge-bearer repent for one year, doing 12 bows daily.”

Many other sacred rules proclaim this with great force, fearfully and terribly. The divine Chrysostom says (Great Synaxarion): “An angry man is a dwelling-place of demons; a grudge-bearer is an entire house of Satan.”

Therefore one must very carefully guard and preserve oneself from all hatred, anger, and grudge-bearing, for great, fearful, and terrible torments await such a person. Let us therefore fear this, O beloved brethren in Christ, for the sake of the bitter, cruel, and all-dreadful hour of death and that fearful eternal torment.

Chapter 21 On Praying over Vessels Defiled by Vermin

Every vessel used for food or drink must be firmly covered wherever it is placed, with the Jesus Prayer. If by some chance a vermin falls into it, the sacred rules declare (Zinar, Rule 75):

If something (a creature) falls into wine or anything else and is found, let it be removed and let a priest come and bless it. If it remains until it begins to rot on the next day, let it be poured into another clean vessel and let the priest bless it. If it remains until it completely rots, it is not worthy to be tasted but must be poured out upon the earth and the vessel broken.

But for us in the present time, because we have no priestly blessing, another rule has been laid down by fatherly discernment for the first case: if something happens, quickly remove the unclean creature and pour the contents into another clean vessel. Then one must pray three lestovkas (léstovki) of waist bows over the vessel and what is poured.

If it begins to rot, likewise quickly remove the unclean thing and pour the food or drink into another previously clean vessel. Then place both vessels together and pray five lestovkas in place of priestly prayers, cense both the food and the vessels, and then with the sign of the cross and blessing eat that food at the proper time.

If it has completely rotted, pour everything out upon the earth or give it to dogs or cattle for food.

But always remember this: whenever food, drink, or anything else is set out, taken, prepared, or when travelling or preparing food or drink, let all be done with care, cleanliness, blessing, clean and washed hands, and above all with the Jesus Prayer. And often look at what is set out and cover it firmly.

Chapter 22 On Vessels That Must Be Kept from Heretical Hands

All Christians must keep their vessels from the hands of worldly (heretical) people, so that they do not touch them in any way. If anyone does touch a vessel or food, the vessel must be washed and prayer said over it, and likewise over food touched by heretics before eating.

The sacred rules speak thus about this, and it is not to be lightly permitted but strictly guarded. As Matthew of Jerusalem writes (Rule 50): “If anyone defiles wine, oil, or anything similar with his hand, it is not fitting for Christians to taste it until a priest comes and blesses it.”

The Zinar likewise says (Chapter 76): it is not permitted to eat simply without priestly blessing.

The venerable Theodosius said the same to Prince Iziaslav: after defilement by heretical hands, prayer must be said over the vessel.

St Cyril of Jerusalem says (folio 369): “If an Armenian and a Christian are travelling together and there is one cup, if the Armenian drinks from it first, the Christian must not drink from it and no prayer is said over the vessel.”

Do you see the firmness of the saints, how they strengthen and confirm us not to mix with heretics but to keep the faithful purely separated from the unbelieving in life, eating, and drinking?

The life of the holy martyr says likewise: the saints abhorred heretics and took nothing from heretical hands.

But now we see many who bear the Christian faith yet greatly transgress the divine rules, the commands of the holy fathers, and the instructions of our ancient fathers. Some count their prohibitions and teachings as nothing, eat and drink together with the unbelieving, consider no sin in it, pour from their vessels into their own as though they were clean, eat without fear, and even more—mock and laugh at those who are firm and strong in the faith.

Some sin still worse, utterly destroying their souls and falling into the very delusion of heresy: they go to their vile taverns, fulfil their fleshly lust and unclean defilement, and drink from those foul and unclean vessels. Then, without fear of the Lord God, they again commune with Christians and defile them with their uncleanness.

Truly the divine Chrysostom rightly says about such (Margarit, On False Teachers): “Hear, all you who eat together with heretics, the answer to this sickness: you have become enemies of Christ. He who is a friend of the King’s enemies cannot be the King’s friend and is not worthy to live, but will perish with the enemies and suffer worse things.”

Therefore do not forget these prohibitions. The Zinar likewise says: “Whoever eats with an Armenian, a Paulician, or any other heretic, even if he does it out of great love, let him abandon it and come pure to the Church. If he did it in ignorance, let a priest bless him, giving him a small penance. If he does not obey the instruction but wishes to eat and drink with them, let such a one not eat with Christians and not be received into the Church, but let him be shunned as an idolater.”

Chapter 23 On the Purification of a Defiled Well

All Orthodox Christians who possess a well must know and carefully guard it. If anything falls into it—whether a person, an animal, or a vermin—behold what the sacred rules declare (Korinchaya, Nomocanon, Zinar):

If the well does not have flowing water running out, and some vermin or an animal falls in and drowns:

• If it is discovered quickly and removed at once, let three buckets of water be drawn out, and thereafter all may drink from it.
• If the drowned creature is discovered after one day, or remains two or three days and is then removed, let nine buckets be drawn out and holy water (agiasma) poured in; then, after it has been quickly cleansed, all may drink.
• If it remains long and begins to rot, let forty buckets be drawn out (or the well completely emptied); then let a priest come with his sanctifying service, light three candles, cense around it, say the prayer, and bless it; thereafter all may drink from it.

But we, living in this time of great sorrow and extreme lamentation, being deprived of priestly sanctification, are commanded by fatherly discernment—for this great necessity—to do as befits simple laypeople:

• For the first defilement: after drawing out three buckets (or however many one’s conscience bids), make 100 or 300 bows and cense.
• For the second defilement: after drawing out nine buckets (or however many one wishes), pray three lestovkas (léstovki) or more, likewise with censing.
• For the third defilement: after drawing out forty buckets or emptying the whole well, pray five lestovkas, likewise with censing, and then drink the water without doubt.

A newly dug well likewise must have a canon prayed over it, be censed, and then used with prayer and the sign of the cross.

Chapter 24 That One Must Make the Sign of the Cross Correctly and Properly

Every Orthodox Christian must know and remember to make the sign of the cross upon the face correctly and in cruciform manner. First, this sign must be placed straight upon the forehead while the head is held upright, not inclined (Son of the Church).

Church writing teaches us thus. Yet now we see many who, while still bowing, strike the sign upon a head that is not yet raised upright. They do not place the cross upon the head, but bend the head to the cross, then raise the head after forming it and bow. This is a most improper sign, for the cross appears headless. Many also bring the hand to the left shoulder while bowing, and this too greatly harms the true and perfect sign.

Scripture commands: first form it perfectly while standing, with the Jesus Prayer, and then bow at the final words of the prayer—“have mercy on me a sinner.” The head must be bowed low (except in old age or great infirmity) down to the waist or lower; therefore by the Typikon they are called waist bows. Whoever does not bow low out of laziness or negligence—such lazy and careless bowing is called by Scripture “waving,” and the demons truly rejoice at such waving (Son of the Church, Chapter 65).

Holy Scripture testifies thus: “Therefore attend carefully to yourself that everything be done properly.”

This forming of the sign signifies: first the Trinity, then the two natures of the Incarnation. If you do not form it thus, you do not confess the Holy Trinity nor the two natures united in one Person of the Incarnation. The same applies to the forehead and the breast: whoever does not sign these properly does not confess the Incarnation of God the Word. Likewise, if through laziness or negligence one does not bring the hand fully to the right shoulder and then the left, one does not confess that He will judge the living and the dead.

Remember also concerning the Cross: you are to cross not your clothing but your body; therefore you shadow yourself with the cross. Lay your hand attentively so that it is felt upon your body, not merely upon the garment.

Whoever forms the life-giving Cross of the Lord upon himself exactly according to the tradition of the Holy Apostles and Holy Fathers—demons greatly fear and tremble before him and flee far away. But whoever forms it improperly, the demons rejoice and deceive and trouble him with every delusion.

Thus the sign of the life-giving Cross of the Lord is powerful. With fear and trembling one must begin to form the sign of the cross for every work—by night and by day, in every place, beginning and ending a task, rising and lying down, and at every hour remember this wisely, diligently, and zealously.

Even if you enter an empty room, do not remain in it even thrice without crossing yourself. If fear comes upon you somewhere, fence that place where you see demonic darkness standing in the corner. Thus, by the sign of Christ’s Cross of the Lord, you will be preserved everywhere, in all places, and at all times.

I beseech you, beloved: never forget this sign of the cross, in any place or work; be not ashamed before outsiders and fear not enemies. As the divine Chrysostom says (Moral Teaching 54): “Let no one be ashamed of the honourable instruments of our salvation and the head of all good things by which we live and by which we are. Rather let us bear the Cross of Christ as a crown. For by it everything that concerns us is accomplished. Whether baptism is needed, the cross is present…”

I only beseech you, all my brethren in Christ: do not forget all these things spoken in Holy Scripture.

Chapter 25 How One Must Receive Censing, and How the Beginning (Seven Bows) Is to Be Performed

When anyone from the brethren approaches with the censer, one must, with spiritual blessing, stretch forth the hands to receive the gift of grace of the Holy Spirit, as Scripture says (Starchestvo and Son of the Church). This is not to be done casually, as some have adopted from custom rather than from Scripture. Some take out their crosses and hold them in three fingers; others take out the cross on their breast and let their hands hang at their sides—but such reasoning is strongly contrary to Holy Scripture.

Above all, some take the cross in three fingers (that is, in the pinch) and raise it over the censer. We do not even wish to hear of this, but look only to Holy and Divine Scripture. Thus it is written in the Great, Middle, and Small Starchestvo, and in the Great Starchestvo concerning the vision of the holy angel to the venerable Pachomius: “When the superior, priest, or deacon begins to cense at the common singing, stand upright, stretch out your hands, and say: ‘Let Thy good Spirit lead me on the level path, and take not Thy Holy Spirit from me.’”

The Son of the Church says likewise: “When the censer with incense is brought by the priest, deacon, or superior, stretch forth your hands, say the Jesus Prayer, and thus receive the Spirit of life with outstretched hands.”

We understand it in no other way, but look only to the holy icons—of the Most Pure Theotokos, the great Forerunner John, the righteous, and all the saints—how they hold their hands outstretched before the Almighty God. We take this stretching forth of the saints’ hands as witness, and according to this Holy Scripture and teaching we act.

Furthermore, we look everywhere in the holy-fatherly books, the Great and Middle Typikon, the Following Psalter, the Lenten and Flowery Triodia, the Horologion, the Octoechos, and other service books: nowhere have we seen or heard of censing crosses on the breast; everywhere the Typikon commands the brethren themselves to be censed. According to this holy teaching we also act, and dare not do otherwise according to our own understanding.

Some also perform an initial set of bows differently, and I know not whence they received the custom of making an eighth bow. Many of them point to the Typikon and the Lenten Triodion, saying the Typikon commands thus. But in the Typikon and Triodion it is written:

• “O God, be merciful to me a sinner” (bow).
• “Lord who created me, have mercy on me” (bow).
• “I have sinned immeasurably, Lord, forgive me” (bow).
• “It is truly meet…” (bow to the ground). Then “Glory… Now…,” “Lord, have mercy” (twice), “Lord, bless,” and three bows.

Thus we do, and after “It is truly meet” a great bow is always made without fail.

When one kisses the holy icons in our places, then one more bow. See: the Typikon says to make the bow after “It is truly meet,” and not simply, but after kissing the holy icons—and not after “Glory… Now…,” but after “It is truly meet.” This eighth bow “now”—I know not how or whence it has been adopted. We find it nowhere—in the prefaces of the Psalters, the Exit of Patriarch Joseph, the Horologia, the Son of the Church, or other writings. We do not wish to follow our own opinion, but attend to the holy-fatherly tradition and carefully keep the ordinance of the holy fathers who established this for us.

We fear to add or subtract anything of ourselves, lest we fall under the church’s curse, for it is written: “Whoever adds or subtracts, let him be accursed.” Again: “All who reason contrary to Scripture are heretics.” Again: “Whoever clings firmly to his own opinion is a heretic.”

Therefore we greatly fear to do anything of ourselves. We neither condemn nor reproach those who do otherwise, but only declare the Typikon to all from Holy Scripture. We do not command following one’s own opinion, nor do we make division over these things. Let each remain as he wishes, and we place it in the judgments of the Lord.

Chapter 26 That One Must Keep the Holy Icons in Cleanliness and Clean Them

It is likewise fitting to remember and hold fast to this: keep the holy icons in great honour and adorn them as far as one’s strength allows. Clean and dust them often, keep the room in which the holy icons stand pure and preserved from all uncleanness and dust. For according to Holy Scripture the houses of Christians are called churches (Great Catechism).

The house of every Christian is called a church. Therefore, in accord with this pure-named work that is spoken of the visible church—how it must be kept clean and swept (Zinar)—if any priest does not sweep and adorn the church of God, let him be deposed from his rank.

Therefore we too must fear this voice of the church which says: “Though for our endless needs we have no visible church, yet wherever holy icons are set up and the praise of God is performed, even as far as our strength permits, that temple must be kept clean.”

Thus we will show ourselves followers of this churchly enlightenment and strive to obtain that portion. For all our joy and gladness is there where the holy icons stand and the praise of God, though little, is performed. We have no greater joy than this, but we beseech and entreat the most merciful God that, by His compassion, He not take away from us even this smallest joy in place of the church of God.

Chapter 27 That on Every Sunday at Matins and Throughout All Bright Week One Must Venerate the Lord’s Cross

All Orthodox Christians must fervently kiss the Lord’s Cross at matins after the Gospel wherever divine praise—that is, the service—is performed. Even apart from the full service, where people stand with the Psalter, after three kathismas one must cense, lay the Lord’s Cross upon the Gospel or another book, venerate the Lord’s Cross, and then finish reading the remaining two kathismas.

Where people stand with prayers and complete a thousand Jesus Prayers, after that one must cense, lay the Lord’s Cross upon a cloth in a clean place, kiss it, and then complete the remaining five lestovkas.

Likewise throughout Bright Week, after matins, after the hours, and after vespers, one must kiss the Lord’s Cross. One must approach the Cross with fear and joy—fear because of sins, for we are unworthy; joy because it is the joy of God’s Church for all Orthodox Christians to kiss the Lord’s Cross and the other holy icons.

The manner of kissing the Lord’s Cross:

• On Bright Week: cross oneself, venerate, and then make one waist bow.
• On other Sundays: first make two full prostrations before kissing, venerate the Cross, make another full prostration, and ask forgiveness of the superior and the brethren.

One must approach and kiss the Cross in purity. This is the tradition of the Holy Church of God; it must be carefully observed. Do not look at those who do not do this, but listen to and obey the mentors and teachers who instruct us in every good work. Thus the lips of the holy fathers (Patriarch Joseph, preface to the Octoechos) command all Orthodox Christians to kiss the Lord’s Cross.

Chapter 28 That One Must Not Sell or Exchange Holy Icons to Worldly People

Hand-written or cast-metal icons of the Christian craft must not be sold or exchanged to people living in the world—that is, to worldly persons abiding in heresy. For priests go into their houses, perform sprinklings, and serve molebens according to their foul heresy. Therefore it is impossible for Christ to be with Belial. As it is written (Small Synaxarion): “Just as heretics serve their father the devil and in all things oppose God.” Another Scripture says likewise: “If the impious hold a place, flee from it.” As the righteous and hierarchs sanctify, so the impious defile.

Therefore it is not fitting to give holy things to dogs—that is, to sell or exchange holy icons to them—but one must carefully guard and preserve oneself from them, lest we receive recompense from the Lord for this.

But if some heretics desire to receive holy icons from Christians and promise to turn to the Christian law and accept the pious faith without delay, then it is permissible. The holy icons must still be carefully preserved from heretics.

This is like when the Almighty Lord allowed the still-unbelieving Emperor Constantine to see His Cross in the heavens and commanded him, while yet without the law of God, to carry a cross made in the likeness of the one that appeared before his armies. Likewise the Lord sent the Uncreated Image to Abgar while he was still a pagan. Likewise a holy elder gave the still-unbelieving and unbaptised Great-martyr Catherine an icon of the Most Pure Theotokos to draw her into the faith. Many other Holy Scriptures show the same. Yet all these, having received the Lord’s image, accepted the pious faith.

Therefore now also, if they do not promise to accept the law of God without delay, in no wise sell or exchange holy icons to them, but preserve them carefully. Whoever disobeys the holy-fatherly ordinance and sells or exchanges icons to anyone without distinction must be separated from the brethren. Refer him to the word of the venerable Nikon of the Black Mountain, Discourse 67.

Holy icons may be given only to those who sincerely desire to come to piety and accept the law of God without postponement.

Chapter 29 That One Must Not Receive Anyone into the Law of God Without a Promise

All who receive people into the law of God and desire to come to faith in Christ must first establish the Christian faith firmly. First explain to him the whole order of Christian life, so that he may hear beforehand what Christian life is like.

First of all let this be declared when he is about to make a promise before the Lord God: that he will not live together with married children or married daughters, but dwell in a separate room and prepare his own food.

Working together is not forbidden, but he must not visit worldly people nor go to their gatherings, nor bathe with them in the bathhouse, nor wash from their vessels. He must not attend their feasts even if relatives are there. He must drink no strong drink and eat no meat because of deprivation of the most pure Mysteries of God. Whatever he buys at the market—fish, oil, salt, vessels, or anything else needed—he must pray to the Lord God over it and seek sanctification for all food: pray a lestovka over it; likewise pray over well water, for worldly people draw from the well and water flows from their hands into it.

Explain beforehand the cell rule and the church cycle, the fasts, Wednesdays and Fridays, how to fast, how to change worldly clothing, and that between meals—whether before dinner or after until supper—he must taste absolutely nothing, not even on the field or in the garden the smallest vegetable or crumb, nor berries in the forest. He must drink during the day not often, but once or twice.

The Lord’s feasts and Sundays must be celebrated in a manner wholly pleasing to God; before a feast or Sunday he must not work late but finish every task early. He must not go to sorcerers, nor accompany the dying of worldly people to their churches, nor swear with maternal oaths or quarrel with any other foul words. He must neither sing demonic songs nor even listen to them, nor look upon leaping, dancing, or weddings. He must not wash his face with soap. He must not counsel young people to marry or be given in marriage.

Above all, instruct young people coming to the faith not to lie together with one another and in no wise defile themselves, but to live purely, preservingly, and chastely. Unmarried people coming to the faith must be instructed likewise: to abide firmly, steadfastly, and preservingly in the holy faith in all their life.

At that same time declare to them, frighten them, guard their souls, and explain the penances appointed for each sin. Also declare that they must not listen to schismatics and those who disagree with you, nor be seduced in any way by their flattering words.

If they promise to do and keep all these things, receive such people with love, strengthen them with Holy Scripture, care for their souls, encourage them to the struggle, and guide them to fasting and prayer. Above all, teach young husbands and wives chastity and purity, and exact promises from them.

As Basil the Great says (Rule 19, folio 332): “Let him who renounces the world be asked whether he can endure without a wife and openly confess it; if he denies it, let him receive prohibition. Men who renounce marriage and choose virginity must likewise be asked by the bishop of that region whether they truly love such a life and openly receive their confession. If they later fall to a lustful and pleasure-loving life of fornication, they shall receive prohibition” (Rule 59, reverse folio).

A fornicator receives seven years’ prohibition: two years weeping, two years hearing the divine Scriptures, two years falling down, and one year standing with the faithful without communion; in the ninth year he is received into communion (Rule 60).

One who promised virginity or took monastic tonsure and then fell into fornication receives fifteen years’ prohibition: four years weeping, five years hearing, four years falling down, etc.—read there to the end.

See with testing from Holy Scripture how it commands us to receive people into the law of God—with such a promise and with the showing of this Holy Scripture. For this present time of great sorrow does not accord with former times when there was piety: then there were churches and priests. Now there is no one to crown husband and wife in marriage, and we have no sacred order; therefore receive them with a promise of purity. Let our instruction be to preserve purity in all things. If they themselves sin after hearing this and after receiving the law, we will be guiltless.

Chapter 30 On Praying with Heterodox in the Same Room

It is not fitting to pray with heterodox in the same room, even in separate corners at the same time. One must strictly preserve oneself from such. The sacred rules forbid it, saying: “Let the faithful not pray with the catechumens even in a house. By ‘catechumens’ we do not mean only those instructed for baptism, but also the unbaptised—that is, pagans—are called catechumens according to the divine Chrysostom” (Margarit). These the Almighty Lord calls at the 1st, 3rd, 6th, 9th, and 11th hours.

Others are called catechumens because of sins, according to the sacred rules. The Holy Church has made distinction among all these three kinds of catechumens: some for baptism, some because of sins, and the third—impious heretics. From all these, especially from heretics, one must be completely separated.

Not only must one not pray with them in the same room, but according to the discernment of the ancient fathers one must not even cross oneself with them. For what fellowship, according to Scripture, has the faithful with the unbeliever? If living with an unbeliever is forbidden, how much more praying together!

As it is written in the martyrdom of St Arethas: the faithful did not allow even one heterodox to dwell among them—neither Greek (pagan), Jew, nor heretic. They themselves, as children of one mother, the sobornic and apostolic Church, abode in all piety and purity.

Remember also this: if some stand with the Psalter or with prayers, it is not fitting to place heterodox behind them and pray together with them. Only where there is full service with reading and singing may such stand behind the service—those who neither blaspheme nor mock the Christian faith but desire immediately and without delay to come to the law of God.

Others who do not yet know the true faith but wish to hear the reading and singing may do so, and many come to the knowledge of truth thereby, as did the equal-to-the-apostles Prince Vladimir and many others.

Thus Scripture says about such (Korinchaya, folio 370): “Heretics must not come to the service in church unless they promise to repent.”

Nikon of the Black Mountain says likewise (Discourse 33): “Heretics are not permitted to stand at the service unless they promise to repent and flee from heresy.”

Another Scripture says the same (Zinar, Rule 154).

Yet now, because of the necessity of life and dwelling, another discernment is laid down: because of persecutors a blasphemer may enter and stand at the assembly. As in the Prologue about a certain Saracen who led his horses into the church while he himself stood outside, saw the priest slaying the Lamb at the divine Liturgy, and thereby came to the knowledge of truth and received salvation.

Likewise the great Prince Vladimir came to the knowledge of true piety by hearing divine praise and seeing the beauty of the church. Thus even now many come to the understanding of truth by hearing the reading and singing of divine Scripture.

Chapter 31 On Eating at the Same Table with Unbelievers

It is altogether unfitting to eat at the same table with unbelievers. One must carefully guard oneself, for the table is as one vessel. Therefore, just as we wash a Christian vessel, so this table on which Christians eat is like the most holy table. Holy Scripture says of it (Scete Patericon, Zinar 189, Prologue August 4): “The heretical table is called the table of the dishonourers.”

An Orthodox Christian must not approach it, nor allow unbelievers to approach his own table. For there is no Christian faith in unbelievers, nor is God in them; no one knows God apart from the right faith.

Even more must one sit at table in silence, saying the Jesus Prayer and remembering one’s death. Whoever sits shamelessly at table and speaks idle, laughter-provoking talk—according to Holy Scripture such a one departs from God, God departs from him, his prayer is not accepted, and all his labours are unprofitable.

Again, whoever at table converses and makes no distinction, eating with gluttonous disorder or speaking anything evil or good—such a one is worthy not of men but of pigs and cats.

Likewise in the Patericon about those eating at table and partaking of the same food: three visions are seen in it—one eats honey, another bread, another filth. Honey is silence and prayer; bread is thanksgiving for the food; filth is lack of thanksgiving and murmuring about the food.

Chapter 32 That One Must Not Dwell Together with Children Married in Heresy

Fatherly discernment according to the sacred rules and their judgment strictly forbids parents to live together with children married in the bridal heresy or with daughters who have married into it. Looking to the sacred and divine rules, they declare and distinguish heresies and strictly forbid and prohibit all union with them.

Thus Basil the Great says (Book 2, Chapter 379), Zonaras (Chapter 76), Margarit (folio 559), the Kiev-Caves Patericon (Discourse 13), and many other divine Scriptures testify in agreement: one must in no wise have love, friendship, union, connection, or cohabitation with heretics.

Whoever has cohabitation and inseparable love with them, as the venerable Joseph of Volotsk says: “does thereby make himself a stranger to Christ’s Church and alien to Christ the Master. Therefore such people receive prohibition upon themselves and make themselves alien to Christ the Master.”

Because they are strongly attached to their customs and manners, they turn away and depart from the Orthodox Church. As Nikon of the Black Mountain says (Discourse 57): “Therefore they cannot easily be torn from their customs nor accept life according to the Gospel.”

But the Holy Gospel with Christ’s own lips teaches us: “If anyone does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, he cannot be My disciple… Whoever loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; whoever loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me.”

Now whoever does not thus love son or daughter more than Christ truly loves and honours impiety more than piety, separates himself from God and from Christ’s faith, and neither hears nor heeds the words of Holy Scripture.

How innumerable are the instructions of Holy Scripture and the fathers’ admonitions—yet they count all these teachings as nothing! Even worse, they harbour malice toward those who instruct them. O what great evil these people prepare for their souls and what eternal perdition they arrange for themselves!

For by the words of Christ’s own lips it was said: “He who hears you hears Me, and he who rejects you rejects Me.”

See here, understand what is spoken, and care for the salvation of your soul. Many saints fled not only from their own houses because of unbelievers and those defiled by dwelling with heresy, but even from cities, fearing to remain with such lest they receive great punishment from the Lord for dwelling with them.

Truly and rightly the divine law says: “Let every Christian dwell apart from unbelievers.” Even Lot, though righteous, went out from Sodom and received salvation.

Whoever does not wish to hear this instruction and act as God and His saints have commanded, let him be separated from the Holy Church of God and from all the brethren in Christ. For, as was said before, he makes himself a stranger to the Orthodox faith and to the Holy Church.

Thus the apostle Jude in the preface to his epistle reproves and drives them out as deceivers and commands the faithful to have no communion at all with such. One must only weep and bitterly lament over them.

As the divine Chrysostom says (Seventh Discourse, folio 1881): “Weep for the unbelievers, weep for those who differ in nothing from them, who depart without enlightenment, without the seal—truly these are worthy of many tears and cries, for they are not among the royal but with the condemned and those liable to punishment. Therefore let us carefully guard ourselves.”

Chapter 33 That One Must Not Dwell Together with Heretics in the Same House nor Justify Them in Any Way

It is likewise fitting to remember what was said before concerning the faithful with the unbelieving: Holy Scripture forbids faithful fathers and mothers to live with their unbelieving children who have married, and the fatherly command, in full agreement with Holy Scripture, separates and excommunicates them for this. This was already spoken of earlier.

Now again, in the same way, Holy Scripture forbids living with strangers who abide in unbelief and declares openly to all (Korinchaya, folio 15): “For Old Rome fell by the Apollinarian heresy; the Second Rome, that is Constantinople, was possessed and corrupted by the grandsons of Hagar, the godless Turks.”

Behold with attention: not only are houses defiled by them, but cities as well—how much more the houses in which the faithful dwell together with unbelievers and even offer them some justification, while the faithful prepare great condemnation for themselves by this deed.

One must in every manner—by deed, word, and thought—separate oneself from such people and in every way be divided from heretics. As Nikon of the Black Mountain says (Discourse 3): “Let us carefully attend to ourselves, lest we justify some impious man by word or deed for the sake of gifts or out of compliance with his will. Woe, woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness.”

Let us wisely accept this fatherly discernment, for they speak not from themselves but expound Holy Scripture and do not permit living with unbelievers. According to the right-ruling understanding of the holy fathers, how can it be counted pious to dwell together in one house with unbelievers?

Only if a husband and wife promise to live in purity and chastity, never to come together in fleshly lust in any degree, never to defile their bodies in any way—no revelry, no lying together in one bed, no embracing, no kissing, no unseemly jesting—and if they consent without delay to come to the law of God and listen attentively to Holy Scripture and follow what is written, then it is possible to dwell and live with such people, according to the Lord’s word: “If you enter any house and they receive you (that is, the teaching), abide in that house.”

But if some remain in the delusion of this world, pass their life in every uncleanness, bear children, receive all gifts and foods from heretics, and admit them into their houses—even if unwillingly, even under compulsion—still great defilement is wrought. Even the martyrs who denied Christ under intolerable torment and compulsion are not called martyrs but apostates.

Moreover, they wear ornate clothing, attend heretical feasts and revelries, remain in every lust, and fulfil every uncleanness. It is utterly impossible to live with such people. According to the Lord’s word, one must quickly leave that house and shake off the dust that clings to the feet.

One must hate them, abhor them, and flee from them as from a poisonous serpent, a raging lion, or a consuming fire. For according to Scripture it is fitting to say of them (Apocalypse Chapter 13; Korinchaya Rule 83): “All who do not obey the law of God are Jews and their descendants.”

Again, as Basil the Great says: “They prefer to serve pleasures rather than the Lord and do not accept the life of the Gospel; we have not a single word in common with them. If any unrepentantly cling to their customs and do not cease sinning, we have no communion at all with them, lest by associating with the incorrigible you destroy yourself.”

See here what the saints have spoken: they do not speak of pagans or heretics, but of those who are called Christians yet by their deeds are as pagans. From such one must turn away and flee in every way and have no communion with them—how much more must one separate oneself from the very impious and foul heretics, flee from them, and have no communion with them whatsoever.

As it is again said in the Patericon (Limonaire Chapter 12): A brother asked Abba Alimpius, priest of the Lavra of St Gerasimus: “Speak a word for my profit.” He answered: “Do not make merry with a heretic, and restrain tongue and belly” (Cheti-Menaion, December 28).

The saints chose to dwell with wild beasts in caves and chasms rather than with the lawless (Gospel, Sunday 29). “It is in no wise fitting for the righteous to mingle with the wicked, nor the pure with the impure, nor for those who still bear the defilement of washed-away sin to be together with the holy. What fellowship has light with darkness, or what part has the faithful with the unbeliever? It is not given him by the law to mix with other people (that is, with unbelievers).”

The Sixth Ecumenical Council says in Rule 11: “Whoever associates with them—if a cleric, let him be deposed; if a layman, let him be excommunicated.”

The divine Chrysostom speaks most fearfully and terribly (Margarit, Discourse 13): “Even if one lives the life of the bodiless ones yet associates with heretics in friendship and love, such a one is alien to Christ the Master.”

Let it not be that we are slandered because we forbid such cohabitation, friendship, love, and union with heretics. We cannot cover this with silence. As Scripture again says (Korinchaya, Sixth Council): “It is not fitting to cover heresy; he who is silent and does not reprove his brother’s sins is not merciful and is like one who leaves poison in the body bitten by a venomous beast.”

If one must reprove even ordinary sin, how much more must one not be silent about heresies, lest the salvation of men be lost. For every man is sanctified by the confession of faith. Again (Margarit): “You know those who do such things and strive to conceal them, neither reproving them yourself nor telling others who can put a stop to it. Is it not clear that you too love it? Therefore together with those who do these things you will be delivered to eternal fire” (Margarit, folio 583).

Hear the words of such and do not incline toward the unbelieving (folio 589). What fellowship has light with darkness? Hear, O Orthodox, and do not mix with heretics, lest you be led with them to eternal torments.

John the author of the Ladder teaches likewise (folio 7): “One must only be defiled by heterodox and have no communion with heterodox.”

The venerable Ephrem commands the same (Discourse 102): “Flee from heretics.”

All the saints teach this in agreement, separating us from heretics and not permitting us to live with them. Many saints fled not only from pagan houses but even from cities.

Likewise John Metropolitan of Nicaea, Athanasius of Alexandria, and Dositheus (disciple of the venerable Zosima) against the Armenians, and against all heretics, declare in agreement: Christians must not admit heretics into their houses lest the faithful be defiled by the ill-believing. For the grace of God flees from those places where heretics come, and the Lord does not dwell there, but demons (Zinar, Rule 88).

Therefore, as true fellow-workers and disciples of the holy apostles, of one mind with these holy and God-bearing fathers who confessed to me what the holy apostles handed down to us, truly confirmed and strengthened by our holy God-bearing fathers and handed down to us, we must abide in the Orthodox and true faith and neither touch nor be bound to heretics, nor take counsel with them, but flee from them, avoid them, and curse them as heirs of eternal fire, servants of the devil, captives of the devil, and destroyers of souls.

Chapter 34 On Wearing Clothing Unbecoming to Christians

Short garments called “telogreya” are unchristian—that is, pagan—clothing. Likewise, women sewing men’s clothing for themselves or putting on ready-made men’s clothing; or men and women keeping and wearing Circassian dress and considering no sin in it—some even stand in prayer wearing it.

Moreover, some wear boots with high heels, disturbing all Christians and leading them into temptation, while themselves remaining in this opposition. For a true Christian this is exceedingly harmful, reproachful, and dishonouring to piety. Such tempters and opponents are truly worthy of excommunication according to the writing of the holy fathers—not only for lovingly keeping pagan customs (that is, their unchristian clothing), but because they wear clothing contrary to their own nature: men wearing women’s and women men’s.

Scripture says of these (Bible, Chapter 14): “If a man or woman clothes himself in alien clothing—that is, not according to fatherly tradition—let him be anathema.”

Therefore let us carefully guard ourselves from this delusion and perdition. It is in no way pleasing to God to transgress His law for the sake of pleasing men, nor to accept the reasonings of the world’s deceivers devised by the senseless (Cyril of Jerusalem). One must flee from them as from poisonous serpents and not look upon their delusion, for all their manners, customs, and unbecoming clothing destroy the souls of the right-believing.

Scripture again says: “If any woman, thinking it for the sake of abstinence, changes her clothing and puts on male attire instead of her usual female dress, let her be accursed” (Korinchaya, folio 58).

Likewise, soft—that is, silk—clothing is now wholly unbecoming for us to wear. The divine Chrysostom strictly forbids and prohibits the wearing of soft, that is, silk clothing—even in that former blessed, spacious, and commanding time. But our time is not of joy and gladness, but of weeping and bitter lamentation.

Therefore, since we have reached the very end of time, let no one think that we forbid the wearing of such clothing of ourselves. We only offer soul-saving counsel of humility and command to look to the ancient pattern, that we may pass our life in repentance and contrition and await our end in repentance. Above all, one must cut off and renounce one’s own will and in no wise follow it, for our will, according to Holy Scripture, is a brazen wall standing between us and God; it does not allow us to come to God and be saved (Abba Dorotheos, Chapter 7).

Therefore we must follow the command of the saints and the holy-fatherly blessing and counsel, lest we perish in soul and body and be condemned to eternal torment. As the divine Chrysostom and many others teach, we must in no wise adorn ourselves or look upon other people who are deluded by the deception of this world.

“Woe to the world because of temptations!” Again: if any of the faithful is tempted and does likewise and tempts others of the faithful—even if not by word but by appearance alone—woe to that man. According to the Holy Gospel it would be better for him that a millstone be hung about his neck and he be drowned in the sea. It would be better for him not to have been born than to tempt one of these little ones.

He who has fine and soft and bright clothing will desire to show himself to men and displays himself here and everywhere. We speak not only of bright garments but also that a woman must in no wise put on simple men’s clothing, nor a man women’s.

Chapter 35 On the Burial of Unbelievers

When any unbeliever dies, the divine John Chrysostom says (Discourse 57): “He who departs—that is, dies—in unbelief, give only to the earth—that is, bury him. But troparia, hymns, psalms, alms, bows, censing, incense, and icons—with honour let them not be escorted, for they are unbaptised and unbelieving.”

Likewise, apostates from the faith of Christ and those who have joined heretics are to be given only this burial, as other heretics. The faithful must in no wise run to a heretical burial and be accursed with them.

For the apostles said: “Remember in psalms and prayers and make memorial on the third, ninth, fortieth days, and yearly for those who have fallen asleep in the faith.” The faithful are commanded to remember them thus.

But concerning unbelievers Christ the Son of God says: “Let the dead bury their own dead”—that is, let the unbelieving bury the unbelieving.

If the right-believing go to escort the impious or apostates from God’s faith, such are subject to anathema thrice pronounced.

But if they are kin—heretics and apostates from the faith—and out of great necessity one of them must be buried by the unbelieving, then he shall perform three thousand full prostrations with almsgiving and tears before g God, that the Lord God may forgive them this grievous sin committed under present necessity.

Chapter 36 That All Orthodox Christians Must Know It Is Not Fitting to Commemorate the Dead Who Did Not Accept the Christian Faith

It is likewise fitting to know that it is not proper to commemorate the dead who did not accept the Holy Faith—even if they be parents, children, or very close kin; even if they were fasters, abstainers, and almsgivers; even if they kept some traditions of the holy fathers. According to the word spoken (Limonaire, Chapter 26): “Even if a man fulfils all virtues but does not believe rightly, he will come to the place of torment where Arius, Nestorius, Origen, and the other heretics are.”

Likewise the divine Chrysostom says in Moral Discourse 25: “He who dies unbaptised, even if he has good works, goes to hell.”

Many other Holy Scriptures say the same. Therefore the saints reject commemorating such people.

Let it be known and undoubted to all that it is not fitting to commemorate them. The divine fathers, knowing about commemorations for the departed, say (Prologue, November 9): “Almsgiving and services give them great relief and benefit; the Church commands this in common, having received it from the holy apostles.”

As it is said (Discourse, folio 1231): “This is spoken of the pious.”

But concerning the impious: “Even if you give the possessions of the whole world to the poor, you will accomplish nothing” (Korinchaya, folio 28). “He who while alive was an enemy of God—clearly when dead will have no mercy, for there is no unrighteousness with God. The Lord is righteous and loves righteousness; He will render to each according to his deeds.”

Cyril of Jerusalem likewise says the same and does not command commemoration of those who did not accept the law of God. Countless other Holy Scriptures utterly reject commemorating such people.

Let the most pure words of the Lord again be remembered: “Let the dead bury their own dead.” Let them commemorate their own dead—that is, the unbelieving. It is sufficient for them. But for us it is in no wise sufficient to commemorate the unbaptised. Therefore we must remember the soul-saving words and do what is commanded, as Holy Scripture has enjoined us, and in no wise judge according to our own will.

Chapter 37 That One Must Not Discharge Natural Moisture Toward the East

Every person, male and female, abiding in Orthodoxy must pass their life purely, fear God, and keep the law of God without transgression, preserving natural necessity purely—that is, not discharging natural moisture toward the East. Likewise preserve the other natural necessity in the same way, turning away from the East, but doing it toward the West or the northern side, and only with reverence and the Jesus Prayer.

Though this act is foul and unclean, yet by nature it was created by God from the beginning. One must carefully guard one’s hands and not touch except for ordinary natural need. If anyone out of lust holds and looks upon his nature, it will be counted to him as though he had committed fornication.

Thus the sacred rules say (Zinar, Rule 197): “If a monk holds his shameful member and looks upon it, it is counted to him as fornication.”

Therefore let us carefully guard ourselves. One must likewise guard against such acts toward the southern side, even though it is not written of this region. Yet by fatherly discernment it is counselled, because in the southern land all Christ’s work was accomplished: His Nativity, Theophany, Crucifixion, Resurrection, Ascension, and all the feasts of Christ, the Most Holy Theotokos, the apostles, and all the saints are perfectly remembered there.

Let this not be our command, but only good counsel that we may preserve ourselves. Just as if someone sees the church of God and, looking upon it, discharges moisture, his conscience will not condemn him.

Concerning moisture, Holy Scripture speaks most fearfully, forbidding it toward the East (Starchestvo, Chapter 34): “If a monk urinates toward the East, let him make 300 bows for six days.”

Therefore let us carefully guard ourselves.

Chapter 38 That Those Coming to the Holy Faith—Men and Women—Must Live Purely and Chastely

Those coming to piety—that is, to the Christian faith—both husbands and wives together, having accepted together the pious law and the grace of holy baptism, must live in piety purely, abstinently, and chastely, preserving themselves with all strength and firmness of faith from every uncleanness, defilement, fleshly union, and natural lust between themselves. They must have no embracing, kissing, or lying together in one bed, but sleep apart.

Each must wash separately and not look upon one another naked. They must have no jesting or unseemly laughter. Therefore we command them to live purely and preservingly, for we have no priest and no one to bless them again with marital union according to Holy Scripture. They must simply live as a spiritual brother with a spiritual sister.

Therefore spiritual fathers and brethren in Christ must receive such newcomers with agreement, first declaring everything to them, explaining the whole pure and chaste life, and that they must have no fleshly union between themselves. If they sin after accepting the faith, first declare to them the penances, that they may fear and not transgress.

If they live thus preservingly, they will receive great, most rich reward, grace, and mercy from the Lord God on the day of judgment from the righteous Judge. For truly it is a great and righteous wonder, worthy of much amazement—like flax lying or hanging with fire and not burning. Who would not call this a miracle?

So too if husband and wife live in purity and abide in abstinence—is it not a great miracle and worthy of great gifts?

But if after accepting the faith they live in foul and fleshly lusts, in impure and lustful life, they will be condemned as fornicators and separated from the Church of God according to the discernment of Holy Scripture.

The discernment concerning such is this: just as the Church of God examines and judges heretical baptism, saying: “Heretical baptism is no baptism, and a heretical marriage is no marriage.”

We greatly fear separating and dividing them because of the present time, but only beseech and most lovingly entreat such couples to live purely, abstinently, and with great care for the salvation of their souls, fleeing this delusion.

As it is said (Discourse 537): “Great good it is to have mercy on the poor, but nothing is like being freed from delusion. He who does this is as Peter and Paul.” Again: “If anyone has a friend, kin, or household member, let him do this and speak this, and he will be as Peter and Paul.”

The venerable Ephrem says (Discourse 37): “Virgin purity is found not only in ever-virgins but also in the repentant. Let us all strive to love this, that we may receive the same blessing from the Lord.”

Chapter 39 That All Orthodox Christians Must Abstain from Eating Meat and Drinking Wine

We offer this counsel, not commanding it by force, but only for the sake of one’s own soul: let each direct his life as he wishes, understanding the present time thus.

It is painful, exceedingly sorrowful, and worthy of much weeping and lamentation, for we have been deprived of all spiritual sweetness and joy—above all, of the heaviest of sorrows: we have been deprived of that greatest grace and spiritual sweetness, the most pure Body and life-giving Blood of Christ our Saviour, the very summit of our salvation. How can we be without sorrow, deprived of these holy gifts, yet partake of fleshly pleasures—eating meat and drinking wine?

Seeing such intolerable grief, did not the Lord Himself say to the Jews: “When the bridegroom is taken from them, then they will fast in those days”?

Therefore we must remember the Lord’s word: the Bridegroom—that is, the most pure and divine Manna—has been taken from us. Even before this time, in that blessed and joyful age, many saints counselled not to eat meat or drink wine.

When the Most Pure Mother of God appeared to the yet-youthful Dositheus, she said to him: “If you wish to be saved and delivered from eternal torments, fast, pray often, eat no meat, and you will be delivered from these torments.”

These three lawful commandments the most holy Theotokos gave. Truly it is fitting for us to attend to ourselves, look to the pattern of strength and abstinence, and follow it—it is good, profitable, and saving for souls.

As Abba Dorotheos says (Discourse 10): “Give blood and receive the Spirit”—that is, strive and you will enter the habit of virtue. Labour for your own soul, have all diligence and care, and do not point to former times of piety. That former time is not fitting to compare with our present last, most sorrowful, greatly afflicted, deprived of all good, most evilly persecuted, and most lamentable time.

Chapter 40 On Drunkenness, from Which One Must Guard Oneself

It is not fitting for Christians to taste strong drink, to go to those foul heretical taverns, or to drink any of their beverages. Whoever does not obey Holy Scripture, despises fatherly prohibition, and rejects their instruction must in every way be separated from the Holy Church and have no communion with them.

For they have given themselves over to the delusion of this world, loved foul abomination and uncleanness, and made most beloved communion with heretics. Truly the word of the divine Chrysostom fits them (Discourse, folio 136):

“Just as those who mix deadly herbs and smear them with honey make the deadly poison easily acceptable to those who take it, so drunkenness and fornication defilement attract with sweet drink the abomination of sin.”

Truly and rightly one must speak from the holy divine Scriptures: “Even if in times of piety someone were a drunkard, such a one will have no part in the Kingdom of Heaven or in the Church of God” (Zachalo 139). The apostle does not command even to eat with such a one and likens drunkards to fornicators, robbers, and idolaters.

See here, everyone, and understand the soul-saving words. Now even more must such drunkards be separated from the Holy Church of God and from the brethren in Christ, for they have not only entered the delusion of this world but have received the whole god-hating and most foul heresy.

As Scripture says (Spiritual Sword, Sunday 5): “All who hold the cup of drunkenness drink the cup of demons.”

He who abstains from drunkenness and from all streams of iniquity—prophet Joel says (October 7): Again concerning these drunkards: “You are deceived; awake, you who are drunk, and weep and wail over the perdition of your drunkenness.”

Truly the joy of drunkenness belongs to unbelievers and the unbaptised (Synaxarion, folio 190). The Holy Spirit will not enter a soul defiled by drunkenness (Discourse, folio 57). Nothing is so beloved of the devil as pleasure and drunkenness. Therefore these people do not hear the voice of God’s truth nor heed His voice. They are drunk with madness, do not wish to understand the truth, and have not submitted themselves to God’s righteousness.

See here, discerning reader, and know the truth from Holy Scripture; receive understanding for the salvation of your soul. Do not delay such joy, as the divine Chrysostom says (Discourses, folio 874): “Do not pour out treasure, do not bring in drunkenness—the sorrow of a mother, the joy of the devil, begetting countless evils: sleep akin to death, headache, illnesses, forgetfulness, the image of deadness. Therefore cease from drunkenness, says the saint.”

Above all, one must in every way separate oneself from heretical mixing while living in piety.

Chapter 41 That One Must Not Voluntarily Give Oneself Over to Persecution

It is likewise fitting to understand that one must not voluntarily give oneself over to persecution. The Lord Himself showed the pattern of fleeing—after His Nativity into Egypt. Again the Lord Himself says: “If they persecute you in this city, flee to another.”

Countless saints teach the same in agreement: many fled persecution and torment from those who would kill and pursue them; they fled into deserts, mountains, caves, chasms of the earth, and clefts of rocks, hiding themselves. Few gave themselves over to persecution—only the strongest and most steadfast among the martyrs.

No saint voluntarily gave himself up to be tortured and killed unto death. Even when they fled into the desert, they did not starve themselves to death but undertook various ascetic labours and toils, feeding on herbs and plants. For forty days at a time they took no food.

Thus the saints showed us the pattern of patience and endurance: to bear persecution and affliction patiently and courageously, but not voluntarily to give oneself over to death. If death comes suddenly by God’s will in any place—at home, on the way, or in the desert—that is God’s boundary, which no one can pass.

St Athanasius reveals God’s mercy concerning this, saying: “If someone crosses a river and people go before him and he follows them and drowns, he dies a martyr’s death. But if he goes alone and no one is ahead of him and he drowns, he is his own murderer. Likewise, if some climb a height or a tree voluntarily and fall from there, they are their own murderers.”

Or whoever kills himself in any way—with a knife or otherwise—as Basil the Great says (folio 450) concerning those who kill themselves: “If anyone throws himself from a cliff and drowns, or kills himself, stabs himself, hangs himself, or burns himself, do not commemorate such a one, nor give alms for him. Even if he did it for God’s sake, let him not be spared, for the Lord commanded no one to perform such deeds of virtue.”

If anyone else commemorates him and gives alms for him, let the one who committed this murder receive the penance of a voluntary murderer.

St Eusebius likewise says (folio 157): “If anyone slips while playing, or proudly resists persecutors, or casts aside the garment of deliverance—that is, the opportunity to escape from the hands of persecutors and flee—or voluntarily gives himself over to some kind of death from their hands, such are enemies of God.”

Even if persecuted for Christ’s faith and voluntarily giving himself over to death—even from the hands of tormentors—such people will find no mercy from God at the judgment, for out of fear they chose to destroy themselves eternally and irrevocably. Upon such will be fulfilled what is written in the Revelation of John the Theologian: “The fearful and unbelieving shall have their part in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, together with the devil, without remission.”

The sacred rules agree likewise (Nomocanon, Rule 175): “If anyone kills himself, they do not sing over him nor commemorate him, unless he was out of his mind” (Korinchaya, folio 370)—that is, not in his right mind, according to the 14th answer of St Timothy of Alexandria. The Zinar says the same (Rule 81): “Whoever falls and is killed of his own will—over him they do not sing nor make commemoration.”

But if he falls unintentionally and is killed and dies, over him they sing according to the Typikon, make commemoration, and even call him a martyr.

Above all, such cases—those who suddenly fall into the hands of the impious and voluntarily give themselves over to various deaths, who did not first hear that persecutors were coming to seize and torture them (October 9)—must be left to the judgment of God.

As St Martyr Domnica did with her daughters: they tore themselves from the hands of the impious and drowned in the river, judging that for the love of Christ it is better to drown in water than to be given into the hands of the lawless (Cheti-Menaion, October 15).

St Pelagia likewise threw herself from a window to the ground to escape tormentors and thus ended her life, being named a martyr.

St Princess Olga, named Helen in holy baptism, said (July 11): “It is better to drown in water than to fall into fornication.”

These things happened suddenly by the assault of the godless. But if one hears that tormentors are coming, one must flee according to the Lord’s word. If there is nowhere to flee and it is impossible because the impious surround on every side, then one must give oneself to fasting and prayer, place oneself in the judgments of God, pour out many tears, and beg the Lord for deliverance from the hands of the impious.

If it is impossible to flee and be delivered from their hands, then pray for patience with thanksgiving, that the Lord may grant endurance unto the end.

Nowhere have we heard or seen in Scripture that one should deliberately prepare a house to burn oneself in it at the coming of tormentors. Even if such a house were prepared for burning and set alight by tormentors, that suffering would be counted for the name of the Lord—but we have not seen this in Scripture: that people themselves prepare kindling for burning.

We cannot judge or condemn such cases, but place them in the judgments of God and make commemoration of them according to fatherly discernment.

But now and always, at every time and hour, remember the Lord’s word: “Be ready at every moment… Watch therefore and pray always, that you may not enter into temptation.”

Chapter 42 That One Must Not Offend Anyone in Anything

In these present last times of persecution, all Orthodox Christians must carefully guard and preserve themselves in all spiritual and bodily matters, so as not to offend anyone in anything, not to conceal another’s property, and not to keep anything stolen in one’s house. For according to Holy Scripture, ill-gotten gain is as fire: it burns one’s whole house and all the possessions in it, even if they are one’s own lawful goods.

The right-ruling prohibition concerning such says (Zinar, Chapter 135): “He who seizes and takes another’s goods with injustice shall remain five years in repentance, doing 100 bows daily.”

Many other Holy Scriptures, the Gospel, and the Right-Ruling Understanding all declare this in agreement. One must likewise guard against mowing a neighbour’s grass or ploughing over another’s field—this is most fearful. For the divine rules say (Zinar, Chapter 135): “He who ploughs over another’s field with a plough or damages it in any way—four years in repentance, 16 bows daily.”

The Nomocanon, Korinchaya, and all other divine Scriptures and sacred rules unanimously affirm the same. Truly, according to Scripture (Gospel), the oppressor will be condemned as a thief and a robber.

Therefore I beseech you, beloved brethren in Christ: flee from offending and wronging your brethren, remembering the Lord’s word: “It is better to be wronged than to wrong anyone.”

Chapter 43 That One Must Not Despise One’s Own Kin. He Who Does Not Care for His Own, Especially His Household, Has Denied the Faith and Is Worse Than an Unbeliever. A Son Who Wrongfully Offends His Father—Let His Hand Be Cut Off

All who abide in Orthodoxy must know and remember not to despise or abandon their own kin—that is, relatives—if they too abide in right belief, but to care for them and provide for them. Whether father or mother, brother or sister, or other relatives—let one have all-diligent care and concern for them, comfort them, feed them, and desire their good.

Holy Scripture teaches us thus (Discourse, folio 831): “Nothing can make one a lover and imitator of Christ like caring for one’s kin. Even if you fast, even if you lie on the ground, but do not care for your neighbour, you have done nothing great—you are still far from that holy pattern.”

The apostle says (Zachalo 285): “If anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.”

Theologian John teaches in the preface to his first epistle: “He who does not love his neighbour is not worthy of the Christian name and cannot call himself Christ’s.”

The sacred rules declare likewise (Zinar, Rule 30): “If a son reviles or wrongfully offends father or mother, let him die the death, for his parents gave him light and life. But if he repents, let the law give him half a year that his father and mother may forgive their child (Rule 106)—yet let his hand be cut off.”

Again: “If anyone abandons his aged and infirm parent, dishonours and does not care for him, but goes to be tonsured without the parent’s permission—anathema to such children.”

Therefore one must have love among themselves (Discourse, folio 2378): “Have honourable love—not merely in words, but that which is from birth and will, and heartfelt compassion.” Or concerning life: true love without which it is impossible to be saved.

Parents who are pious, fear God, and desire salvation must keep this law. This is not our word, but only good counsel we offer to all who desire salvation. We do not ourselves cause separation or malice from parents toward children, but describe the handed-down law (Korinchaya, folio 128): “It is fitting for bishops and clergy to give their property to whom they wish—but to right-believing Christians. To heretics, even if they be kin, give nothing of their own, neither in life nor after death, nor in any other way enrich them from their wealth.”

Many other Holy Scriptures in the Gospel, Discourses, and Chrysostom speak of this. Therefore let us strive carefully and preservingly to keep the Holy Scriptures.

Chapter 44 That One Must Fear Judgment of Others. He Who Judges His Brother Is an Antichrist

Every person abiding in Orthodoxy must in every way and with great diligence guard and preserve himself from judgment and slander, lest we become like demons and the Antichrist, as Scripture declares concerning this.

It is fitting for us to hold fast with all strength to reverent silence and holy quiet, to free ourselves from these passions, and to guard against much speaking, for in much speaking one cannot avoid sin in which slander or judgment may occur.

He who judges is called Antichrist by the Lord Himself; he who slanders is called a devil and a Jew.

Scripture says of such (Prologue, September 22): “The Lord turned to the angels standing before Him and said: ‘Cast him out, for he is an antichrist to Me. Before My judgment he has judged his brother.’”

On the same day concerning slander: “Woe to the slanderer—he is more like the devil. Slanderers are enemies of God, abominable, fellow-partakers with those who sold the truth and crucified our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Countless other divine Scriptures teach and instruct us in every way to preserve ourselves from judgment and slander, lest we become like Antichrist—that is, Satan—and his demons. O what great and inexpressible fear and terror! How fearful it is—above all in this present last time one must guard against it.

Since we are deprived of all holiness and the divine Mysteries, we must care for this as well, that we may preserve ourselves from every soul-destroying slander and judgment.

Chapter 45 That One Must in No Wise Use Abusive Language

One must strictly preserve oneself from abusive words—neither maternal curses, nor “black,” nor calling anyone a Jew or devil, and above all not a heretic. Holy Scripture most strictly forbids not only calling anyone by any foul word, but even “fool” or “raca” according to the Holy Gospel.

“Raca” is interpreted by the Lord’s word as: when out of some malice one does not wish to call a man by name but says in anger: “You go away,” or “You take this,” or “You do that,” or anything similar—such a one is liable to the council. And whoever says “fool” is liable to hell fire.

The Lord Himself spoke this most fearfully and prohibitively. How much more to call anyone by fouler and more unclean abuse—God departs from such a person.

Likewise one must not mock anyone—neither the old, the deaf, the blind, the mute, the foolish, the mad, nor any other appearance. For in confession all who come to repentance are asked about this and receive prohibition and commandment not to do it in future.

Basil the Great says (Chapter 8): “If any brother uses foolish words, dishonours the brethren, and mocks—let him make 100 full prostrations.” He must also give glory and honour before the one he slandered and mocked.

Basil the Great says (Korinchaya, folio 611): “He who slanders one present slanders God and judges God—whose judgment is fearful.”

Again: both the slanderer of a brother and he who hears slander are worthy of excommunication.

Therefore let us carefully guard against abusing, slandering, or falsely accusing anyone. For God did not create us to curse, revile, mock, and slander one another—this is reproachful to piety and dishonouring to right belief, and above all most destructive to our souls. As Scripture says: “Everyone who is angry with his brother without cause shall be liable to the fire of hell.” That is, all abusive words are born of anger and destroy the soul.

Chapter 46 On Washing One’s Naked Body

We offer this counsel: if anyone wishes to wash his body in a river or at home, according to the common conciliar discernment of the ancient fathers, one must pray a lestovka. For seeing one’s naked body with one’s own eyes and touching and washing one’s secret members with one’s own hands—therefore, even though the fathers permitted this as ordinary, yet for the sake of chastity and purity, and for this further reason, the fathers discerned thus: if there were no fatherly discernment, bodily washing would be done very often.

To this fatherly discernment the holy fathers likewise teach in agreement, instructing us to live chastely, saving our souls and bringing us into the fear of God, strengthening us to live as they themselves established.

The saints did not bare their bodies nor look upon them, as their lives show. Basil the Great says (on the asceticism of Isaac the Syrian): “Let no one bare any of his members, nor touch his own naked body or another’s except in great and extreme necessity.”

For people living in the world and dwelling with worldly people it is impossible to keep all these traditions and fatherly instructions. Since in all our necessities we cannot avoid touching and seeing the body without washing, let us at least fulfil the fatherly instruction to pray to the Lord God for cleansing.

We do not abandon the tradition out of laziness or negligence, but with great zeal cut off our own will and follow the fathers’ will. We do not say that they command us to do this for ourselves, but out of much discernment we offer the saving strength of the ancient holy fathers, as is written in their lives: “one threw his son into the river, another placed meat on his back,” and they left us many soul-saving and profitable instructions.

Chapter 47 That One Must Guard Against Games and Every Disorderly Deed

All Orthodox Christians, old and young, must carefully guard themselves: the young from games, disorder, and defilement; the old from jesting, laughter-making, and unseemly talk. All together, young and old, must not look upon foul, unclean, god-hating, and accursed games and satanic, demonic spectacles—where devilish games occur: leaping, dancing, gusli, drums, pipes, organs, and all other devices of the enemy; satanic songs and other vain goat-voiced cries.

All Orthodox servants of Christ who desire salvation must flee from all these as from a deadly serpent, a fearsome beast, or a consuming fire. Truly it is even more fearful and cruel than that: such a person will be condemned with idolaters according to Holy Scripture, as the divine Chrysostom says (on false teachers) and likewise in the Holy Gospel.

Where does Holy Scripture command Christians to jest and behave disgracefully, to play gusli and other such pagan things that are alien to the Holy Church? Let no one deceive you with this satanic invention. For having once renounced and rejected these things, who would wish to return to them like a dog to its vomit?

Again it is said: “Each of us is written down and will give account.” Our rejection of the devil, our deeds, thoughts, actions, jests, and laughter—all these are written and will be brought to judgment. How will you lie to Him? It is impossible. For you, your words, and all things are truly in His hand, and we know it.

Each of us will give account to God for himself, reap what he has sown, and bear his own burden at the fearful judgment. All the saints bear witness in agreement that one must guard against and fear every disorder, game, jesting, laughter-making, and idle talk. For all this is the work of demons, as the venerable Ephrem and Isaac the Syrian say, and many saints teach us this.

All such players, jesters, and singers are called sons of the evil one, grandsons of the devil, and counsellors of Satan.

Chapter 48 On Christian Parents Who Allow Their Children to Play

Christians who have small children must in no wise allow them to play or let them out into the streets. For if they play in the streets they will learn every kind of defilement and uncleanness, fornication and adultery, theft and robbery, every godless shameful deed and lawlessness, disrespect for parents, ignorance, and abusive speech. In such habits their children perish and drag their parents with them into perdition, becoming eternally liable to the fire of hell.

Upon the parents, even more than upon the children, a heavier and greater church punishment is laid for negligence: not teaching the child they bore the fear of God, not guiding it on the true Christian path and keeping it from every way of corruption—fornication, theft, and robbery.

Games, dancing, and every kind of unrighteousness—anathema upon parents who do not teach and instruct their children in the fear of God. They will receive the fearful judgment and inherit eternal fire together with their children (Zinar 106). Those whom they bore they raised wickedly; even if out of fleshly love they taught their children foul speech, they will receive such words from them and give account on the day of judgment.

Again: “Parents who do not teach their children from youth to render due honour to parents, elder brother, and sister—anathema upon such parents” (Korinchaya, folio 58). “If anyone abandons his child and does not instruct it, as far as possible, in piety, but out of pretended abstinence is negligent concerning it—let him be accursed.”

Hear, all parents, and be terrified of this fatherly punishment.

Whoever wishes to have mercy on himself and be saved must keep his child in Christ’s teaching and give it not the slightest freedom to do the unseemly things mentioned above.

Scripture again says: “If parents do not love their children equally and do not instruct them, but love one and hate another, or divide their property unequally—anathema upon such parents.”

Therefore parents must instruct and teach their children the fear of God. Whoever does not instruct and leaves his children to live according to their own will—Scripture calls and condemns such parents. Woe, they are condemned to torment like robbers.

Chapter 49 On Parents Who Counsel Their Children to Marry

Parents who counsel their Christian children to marry or be given in marriage must be completely separated from the Church, for such parents have loved impiety, defilement, and the delusion of this world. Truly such parents are worthy not only of excommunication for many years but, according to the sacred rules, of never being received again until death, for their sin is greater than that of the children who married, since the deed comes from counsel.

Holy Scripture speaks in general of such parents who loved delusion and whose children accepted heresy. Gregory of Nyssa writes (Chapter 231, Rule 1): “If anyone has denied the faith and become a Jew, idolater, Manichaean, or any such form of godlessness, and then, despising himself, repents and turns back, let him have the whole time of his life for repentance. Let him not pray with the people but pray apart, and let him not partake of the divine Gifts—unless only in mortal illness out of fear of death; if he recovers, let him again remain uncommuned until the end” (Nomocanon, folio 16; Korinchaya, folio 560).

Another writing testifies in agreement. Athanasius the Great says the same.

If Scripture speaks thus, how can we judge or say otherwise than this Holy Scripture?

Even if the children themselves who married wish to approach impiety in this way and others are ready to take an oath—how can they escape Holy Scripture which commands thus? How can they not be unworthy, as Scripture said before?

If some say: “We have not denied Christ, nor hated the faith, nor become idolaters,” we answer: “Even if you have not accepted all the aforementioned, yet you have loved the form of godlessness. By the word spoken before—that is, the delusion of this world and the foul and godless heresy—you have joined the rejected Christians, accepted an unlawful marriage, been honoured by the world with a lawful marriage, and loved fleshly glory more than the law of God. How can such not suffer?”

Behold and judge wisely, and hear Scripture again saying what was before: even if no heretical priests crowned them, but only laid on hands—that is, false priests—Scripture says (Korinchaya, folio 560): “If anyone counts these commandments as nothing and clings to such a marriage, he shall be rejected from the Church all the days of his life and not received into repentance until he dissolves the marriage.”

If anyone says: “These priests were not ordained by laying on of hands,” we answer: “And where were heretical priests ordained by laying on of hands?” As Scripture says (Conciliar Epistle): “Who ordained heretics to teach?”

If anyone reproaches us, saying: “You write this of yourselves,” we in turn ask rightly and justly: tell us truly about the church in which you received marriage—is God in it, is God’s blessing in it, is there a priest, are all the divine Mysteries performed in it? If all this is in it, then we are guilty before the law. But if not, we desire to receive your good judgment.

We cannot mix piety with impiety or join light with darkness. For what fellowship (according to Scripture) has the faithful with the unbelieving? The sacred rules strictly forbid receiving their mysteries, but command to reject and count them as nothing.

If Scripture does not permit the faithful to dwell with unbelievers, how much more must one flee heretical mysteries. It is not fitting to mingle the righteous with the wicked or the pure with the impure, nor for those who still bear the defilement of washed-away sin to be together with the holy. What fellowship has light with darkness, or what part has the faithful with the unbelieving? Therefore such parents must be completely separated from the Church and from all the brethren in Christ (Gospel, Sunday 24), for the law does not permit us to mix with such people.

Chapter 50 On Eating After Compline

After compline it is utterly unfitting to eat or drink, except in severe and great illness. Whoever voluntarily commits this sin shall be punished by the sacred rules which say (Nomocanon, Rule 102): “A monk who eats and drinks after compline shall fast one week on dry food and do 200 bows daily.”

If necessity compels eating and drinking, let him first sing compline again; necessity means only for the sick.

After compline one must say nothing except the Jesus Prayer with contrition and tears, considering and counting oneself as a corpse laid in the grave. Many who lay down in the evening did not rise in the morning but were found dead.

The holy-fatherly tradition likewise forbids and declares (Great and Small Starchestvo, and Son of the Church): “If necessity compels eating after compline, let him sing compline a second time.”

Above all one must keep silence and abide in prayer.

One must also know that after vespers, when supper is served, it is not fitting to drink between vespers and supper, nor after supper until compline. If anyone does otherwise and sits long, let him still pray compline.

Thus the Typikon of Christian life shows us, teaching abstinence not only at this time but throughout the whole day, forbidding frequent drinking, allowing only two cups—only for great necessity or heavy labour. After the third cup one must endure with thanksgiving: “In your patience possess your souls… Do not faint,” says the Lord in the Holy Gospel.

Chapter 51 On Commemorating the Departed Every Friday After Vespers

All Orthodox Christians, especially the literate, must every Friday after vespers, for all departed Orthodox Christians who have ended their lives in the pious faith from the beginning of the world until this day—the literate must with great contrition read the general canon for the departed and commemorate all Christians. The simple must likewise pray the canon—that is, three lestovkas.

Whoever strives to perform what is appointed with contrition, heartfelt compunction, and tears will be a partaker of the Kingdom of Heaven and will dwell in Abraham’s bosom with all the elect who have pleased God from the ages.

As John of Damascus says: “Commemoration benefits the souls of the departed not so much as it brings one’s own soul to the Lord and obtains great grace and mercy in this age and the age to come.”

Therefore let us strive as far as our strength allows to make commemoration—not only for our own kin but for all Orthodox Christians, and not only on Saturdays but every day if possible—as far as strength allows. Even if not the whole canon, at least a lestovka or half, or 17 bows for all Orthodox Christians.

For the impious it is utterly impossible, great or small, to offer prayer or give alms, for everywhere in Holy Scripture commemoration and almsgiving for them are rejected. The saints say: “Even if you give the possessions of the whole world for him, you will accomplish no benefit.”

But those who died suddenly while still catechumens—it is fitting to commemorate them, not as Christians, but simply to pray with great contrition and tears and weep much for them, that God may deliver them from eternal torment.

Likewise for those who came to know piety and desired quickly to enter the law of God but were suddenly overtaken by the hour of death—one must pray for them. Though we do not find this in Scripture, yet by brotherly counsel and fatherly blessing, for the desire and zeal of one who wished quickly to enter the law of God.

But those who knew the law of God yet postponed the time of accepting Christ’s faith, even though it was fully possible to be in the law of God—if they die suddenly, in no wise commemorate them or offer prayer for them, as it is written of sinners who postpone repentance until another time: such are not granted it. So too these who postpone accepting the law are not granted to receive God’s mercy. Woe! Truly a cruel woe to such evil people.

Chapter 52 That All Christians Must Await Their End and How to Bury the Departed

Hear, brethren and sisters, concerning our departure from here (John Chrysostom, Discourse 57): “If we did not expect that judgment, we would do nothing profitable for our souls. If we did not expect torment, we would not turn from sin, would cast away God’s faith, would not pray, and would in no wise obey Holy Scripture. We would be like robbers and thieves, committing fornication without fear.”

Therefore God created death, eternal torments, and the day of judgment, that He may cruelly torment the impious, evil heretics, and apostates in the fire of hell. For this reason we die—that while living we may repent of our lawlessness, for Christ our God has arranged it thus for our benefit.

If a righteous man departs, his soul rejoices, expecting to receive reward from God in heaven. If a sinner dies whose soul has not been cleansed from lawlessness, do not grieve over him—he has himself acquired an unclean place, for he so desired and did not wish to have mercy on himself, not repenting of his evils.

Again: do you not know what we do over the departed? We escort the dead with singing and hymns, with incense and candles; we follow, censing behind the coffin with incense; we carry the dead feet-first to the grave; we bear the image of God before him with fear—even if it be a small child. Or on a frame above the coffin of the departed we place an icon and carry it to the burial place; there the icon is removed from above the dead man’s shoulders. Then people bid farewell, bury him with the cross that was on his shoulders—his weapon and victory over the devil.

Bishops and priests likewise have crosses sewn on their vestments and on their shoulders; let them be buried with them and go with them to that dwelling. Thus we who follow escort them, weeping, commemorating the soul of the departed and with tears asking the Lord God forgiveness of his sins, that the asker may obtain it, and we attend to ourselves, receiving the pattern from the departed and saying: “You have escaped this corruptible life and gone to the true light.”

We bury facing east—that is, with the face toward the west and upward—and fold the hands on the breast: the right on top, the left beneath the right. We wrap the body in new-woven white linen and put on new shoes or bast shoes. Thus we bury old and young, male and female.

Then over the departed we break wheaten bread, giving it to orphans, the poor, and widows for the soul of him who has departed from us. We distribute money to the needy, and thereby we render him much help. For the aerial accusers of the twenty-two toll-houses come.

After the funeral service we make fifteen waist bows to God for him, saying this prayer: “Give rest, O Lord, to the soul of Thy departed servant [name],” etc. We say this three times with fifteen bows. On Saturday and Sunday we make thirty bows with the same prayer.

All this is commanded for those who have ended their lives in the holy faith; for them one must with all zeal make commemoration—third day, ninth, fortieth, and yearly. By such commemoration the Lord forgives the departed Christian many and countless sins.

Chapter 53 On Honouring Mentors and Teachers

One must also keep in memory to listen to and obey mentors and teachers in the Lord, not to quarrel with them, not to speak evil of them. Even if something offensive comes from them, bear it with thanksgiving and keep anger away in all things. One must fear the fearful Judge, the King of Glory, even behind their backs—not to speak anything about them, slander them, or listen to slanderers.

For the Lord Himself says of them: “He who hears you hears Me, and he who rejects you rejects Me.”

And the apostle: “Remember your mentors who spoke the word of God to you… Obey your mentors and submit, for they watch over our souls.”

Whoever wishes to oppose or contradict a teacher in anything is, according to Scripture, like one who “resists the authority and opposes God’s ordinance.”

For all these divine Scriptures speak not only of priests but of all mentors and teachers together. Though now there are no priests, yet there are mentors according to the Holy Gospel (Sunday 18). Thus we will not only walk about Galilee and Judea but the cities of the virtues, and we will not only ourselves be doers of God’s commandments but mentors and teachers to others.

Again concerning teachers (Korinchaya): “Even if a teacher be a layman yet skilled in the word, let such a one teach.”

Now the word is fittingly written again: “Even if they be simple people, yet if they are single-minded teachers to the holy faith, guide to the path of salvation, instruct in the Lord’s commandments, lead to the understanding of truth, and care for our souls—it is not fitting to reproach, be angry with, contradict, slander such teachers, or speak about them behind their backs.”

The sacred rules say of these (Zinar, Rule 186): “A monk who slanders and reproaches the superior is not far from the wrath of God.” If he repents, give him a six-month penance and 2,000 bows weekly.

Not only is it forbidden to be angry with spiritual fathers, but if anyone is angry with or hates his own brother, the sacred rules say of these (Zinar, Rule 163): “He who hates a man—two years of repentance, 36 bows daily.”

The venerable Ephrem says (Discourse 81): “He who obeys the elder—that is, the superior—imitates the angels; he who opposes him receives the devil into himself.”

The divine Chrysostom says of those who resist: “Those who do not honour and obey their teachers and mentors in the Lord—when they lack divine understanding, when the soul is not chaste, when they do not remember God’s commandments nor keep His justifications—then the devil takes them captive and departs.”

Therefore many Holy Scriptures teach and instruct us not to speak evil or slander such people in any way.

Thus we too must carefully do this—except in cases of heresy and division. We must not look at their faults and judge them. If their teaching of the faith is corrupt, even if he be an angel, do not obey him in any way. Again: “One must obey teachers and priests and not judge them.” Even if their life is blameworthy, but if they err concerning the faith, it is not fitting to submit to them but to flee and judge them. If the teaching of the faith is corrupt and he be an angel, do not obey.

Many other Scriptures say the same. Therefore we must greatly fear and dread pride, high-mindedness, and disobedience, but in every way humble ourselves, count ourselves lower than all, and keep much silence. If there is any doubt, do not judge behind their backs but ask them face to face with meekness. If there is no resolution from him, then speak rather to a lesser man, and come together with him and converse.

Chapter 54 That One Must Receive Blessing for Every Work

We further command all Orthodox Christians—not offering our own reasoning or our own understanding, whether living in cities, villages, or sketes—to keep the Typikon and tradition of the ancient Orthodox holy catholic and apostolic Church: for every work, great or small, begin nothing and finish nothing without blessing. For with the Lord’s blessing every work is holy, pleasing to God, and perfect. Moreover, God’s love is fulfilled and brotherly anger destroyed.

Holy Scripture teaches us thus (Son of the Church, Chapter 86): “Attend to yourselves in every work. Whenever you wish to begin any good deed—whether to pray to God, to rise or lie down, to eat or drink, to pour out or pour in, to cut across or break, to close or open, or wherever and whenever you begin any work—always say for every deed: ‘Bless me, Father,’ and then continually say the Jesus Prayer.”

Thus always doing what God has commanded and the saints have ordained, even when you prepare food and drink you will fill it with much sweetness and good taste. Likewise when you sit at table to eat, receive blessing from the father, elder, or brother, and then with blessing, the Jesus Prayer, abstinence, and silence take food and drink—despising nothing.

In the absence of elders, receive blessing even from a youth or a reverent, God-fearing woman, for they do not bless of themselves but by God.

The sacred rules also command (Zinar, Rule 104): “Whoever disdains the blessing of the table and does not care that prayer is required before tasting food—anathema upon such a one.”

Hear here the fearful right-ruling prohibition. Therefore many saints have shown us this pattern, as is written in the life of the righteous Mark of Thrace: “When he received blessing from the venerable Serapion at table, it was brought by an angel.”

One must continually remember this: when receiving blessing, despise neither old nor young, man nor woman, provided only they be faithful, for they do not bless of themselves but by the Lord God. Thus with God’s blessing the work is holy and pleasing to God.

One must also remember: when beginning to make bread, first lay the beginning and receive blessing; when kneading, make three bows and receive blessing. For every preparation—lay the beginning and receive blessing; when going for water, firewood, flour, leaven, mixing, pouring, chopping cabbage, carrying from the garden, setting the table, going for kvass, and every other work—make three bows and receive blessing. All this must be remembered and performed.

Chapter 55 On Receiving the Monastic Habit and Keeping It Carefully

Whoever receives the holy monastic habit—whether from a monk or laying it upon himself—must never dare again to put it off, but guard it carefully. For the angelic rank is great before God and all His saints, and such will be acceptable in heaven in heavenly glory like the holy angels.

As is written in the life of Paisius the Great: “When the holy emperor Constantine came to him from heavenly glory and told him of the monastic rank, what glory and honour God has given them.”

Now in these last times this holy habit has greatly diminished because of fear, persecution, and the pleasures of this life. We have no monasteries, sketes, or deep wildernesses. Even if the time were free, one would still remain long under trial in monasteries and be tonsured only after trial of life.

The sacred rules say (Nomocanon, Chapter 50): “It is not fitting to tonsure a monk without trial or hastily lay the riasa upon him, but only after trial.” The trial for those known and local is six months, or when the superior sees their zeal for virtue and diligence. For strangers and unknown it is three years according to the divine rules.

If anyone is tonsured or clothed in the riasa before the trial—even if not a stranger—let him not dare to put it off again, but be compelled to be tonsured.

Matthew of Jerusalem says (Chapter 40): “If anyone within three years puts on monastic garments without prayer, he receives great condemnation. If he wishes to put them off, he clearly mocks what is not to be mocked and will not be compelled willingly.”

Again Matthew says (Rule 54): “He who puts off the holy habit and does not repent—it is not fitting to receive him under roof or greet him with ‘Rejoice.’ Truly the angelic—that is, monastic—rank is good and saving.”

In this present fearful and persecuting last time it is fitting for us to keep the monastic habit. As the venerable Maximus the Greek says (Discourse 38): “Let such a one know that monastic life, which he desires, is nothing else than diligent fulfilment of the saving commandments of the divine and worshipped Gospel of Christ—that is, all righteousness, all mercy and compassion, unhypocritical love, heartfelt humility, meekness, chastity, despising of perishing riches, worldly glory, honour, vainglory, and renunciation of all covetousness. If anyone perfectly fulfils these virtues, as is beloved of God, even in worldly life he is not far from the monastic dwelling and blessedness.”

Again: “He who is clothed in monastic garments but transgresses the commandments of the Saviour and the traditions of the fathers, walks and lives disorderly and unworthily—no difference from a disorderly layman except in garments. As the apostolic voice says: ‘Circumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.’”

Therefore one must in every way attend and understand Holy Scripture.

Chapter 56 On the Prayer of the lestovka After Compline

After compline we have received from the fathers to pray the lestovka. For this we beseech and entreat the most merciful Master and our Lord Jesus Christ in His mercy and love for mankind, that the Lord may grant true, perfect, and soul-saving understanding to all people—from the first and highest thrones even to the last of God’s creation.

As the angel says (Zachalo 382): “I exhort therefore that first of all supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour, who will have all men to be saved and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.”

If the Lord of glory desires all men to be saved, how much more must we pray for the human nature created by God—that it may turn to piety, that the Lord may glorify it with Orthodox faith and soul-saving salvation.

Therefore we pray the most merciful Master that all men may come to the perfection of true piety, righteous abiding, soul-saving life, a good and blessed end, the inheritance of paradise, and the Kingdom of Heaven.

For them prayers have been handed down from the holy fathers from of old: first in the Psalter, the prayers of the 17th kathisma: “Lord, let the faithful be yet more faithful, and those who do not understand—enlighten them, O Master. The pagans turn, O Lord, to Christianity, that they may be our brethren.”

Starchestvo says likewise: “Turn, O Lord, the heterodox from their delusion, that with pure conscience they may come to repentance and baptism and serve Thee in piety and purity.”

In the Canonicon of Patriarch Joseph in the pomiannik it is written: “Those who have fallen away from the Orthodox faith and are blinded by deadly heresies—enlighten with the light of Thy knowledge and join them to Thy holy apostolic and catholic Church.”

Many saints prayed for unbelievers, as is written in the martyrdom of the forty-two martyrs in Amorium: The saints said: “We truly speak: we prayed to God for him that He might enlighten the eyes of his soul darkened by unbelief, that he might know the way of truth and honour God piously, receiving the true Christian faith” (Margarit 10).

In the martyrdom of St Condratus the saint says: “Yet Holy Scripture commands us to pray for them (that is, for unbelievers) that they may turn and understand the truth.”

Above all we pray the most merciful Master that the Lord may soften all malice, cruelty, and persecution, questioning, torment, and grant us, the almighty King of glory, to have peaceful, quiet, prosperous, and soul-saving life and dwelling.

We beseech and pray the Lord God for the whole world that it may be enlightened unto piety, and that we may keep piety in due season.

We must also pray for our enemies who hate, persecute, and greatly wrong us, according to the Lord’s word: “Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who despitefully use you and persecute you.” For the Lord Himself prayed for those who crucified Him.

Chapter 57 On Praying a lestovka After Matins on Feasts and Sundays

On Sundays and feasts of Christ, the most pure Theotokos, and the great saints, after matins pray one lestovka for those who labour for us and prepare food. For they have no time to pray matins, hours, the cell rule, or a moleben; their deficiency is filled by this extra brotherly prayer.

For they help us bodily, preparing all things needful—food and drink—and we fill them with spiritual food as far as our strength allows. This is according to the sacred apostle: “Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.” We believe the law of Christ is fulfilled thereby.

We have seen and often tested this: in fatherly books—that is, the Typika—we have found that for labouring brethren the remaining brethren in monasteries or sketes offered not only one lestovka but much prayer and molebens in church and privately in cells.

As Nikon of the Black Mountain says in the Taktikon (Discourse 1): “After the dismissal of the First Hour, three great prostrations are appointed for those who have mercy on us, serve us, and have served us.”

According to the pattern of the Black Mountain, wherever there are common-life brotherhoods, they perform the same commanded by the holy Typika for the labourers.

Thus we, emulating and following our fathers who lived before and reposed in the Lord, do likewise.

For this prayer was handed down from the Holy Church to the faithful: “Have mercy, O Lord, on those who labour and serve us, who have mercy on us and feed us; grant them all things unto salvation, forgiveness, and eternal life.” Again: “Most merciful Lord, have mercy on Thy servants who feed us, and therefore we pray.” That the Lord God may grant both us who pray and those who labour His abundant and rich mercy in this age and the age to come.

Chapter 58 For Deprivation of the Holy Liturgy We Appoint Two Hundred Bows

On feasts of Christ, the Theotokos, the great saints, and Sundays, after the hours we have received from the first ancient fathers to pray for deprivation of the divine Liturgy, making bows, asking the Lord God for the same grace and mercy and to be made worthy of the great divine and most honourable Gifts.

Holy Scripture teaches and leads us to this mystery (Nomocanon, Chapter 8): “If any monk misses the assembly of the holy Liturgy, let him make 200 bows, confessing this sin, for it is mortal—especially if he misses it on Sunday or holy days through negligence.”

Therefore we, if it be worthy and pleasing to God, even if not every day, at least on Sundays and feasts of Christ, the Theotokos, and the great saints, pray for deprivation of the divine Liturgy, making 200 bows, asking to be made worthy of the same great Gift from our Master God.

The divine and golden mouth of the great and most wondrous fathers consoles us in our great sorrow, grief, and intolerable affliction, saying with most sweet words: “Doubt not, neither be faint-hearted in your mind, O reverent and God-loving souls who love your salvation. Believe that you will receive equal reward, grace, and mercy for such reverence, zeal, and spiritual intention—as though you had truly partaken.”

The teacher of the Church testifies and teaches with these words: you have tested the faith. “Abide in purity, flee sin.” What has Christ’s Church set before you? “Believe, stand fast, submit.” Keep God’s commandments (Chapter 21). “Love with all your heart and with all your soul desire to partake of His Body.” If sometimes you cannot attain it, how great a reward you will have—as great as if you had truly partaken of the holy Communion.

Many other saints console us with spiritual joy, command us to ask the most merciful God for this by prayer, and therefore we pray to receive the same holy Gift, as the Orthodox of old were made worthy by faith to hear and see. May we too with them receive mercy from the Lord God on the day of judgment. Amen.

We, brethren, must fervently pray and ask in prayer for the same Gift—the most pure Body and life-giving Blood of Christ. Visibly we cannot receive it, but invisibly—that is, spiritually—we ask Christ God to receive it every day until the end of our life.

Scripture again says: “If it is possible to perform and we do not perform it, who will spare us? No one will have mercy on himself.” When we pray to God saying “Have mercy on me, O Lord,” we speak to ourselves and have mercy on ourselves.

Therefore we hope and pray to the Lord God to receive His rich Gift. For He said: “All things whatsoever you ask in faith, you shall receive.”

Chapter 59 That One Must Pray a lestovka for Every New-Growing Fruit

All Orthodox Christians must pray one lestovka for every new-growing fruit—in place of priestly prayers—for every edible thing: simply put, for whatever herb grows—onions, cucumbers, carrots, beets, garlic, cabbage, radishes, mushrooms, berries of every kind, and all forest abundance; likewise for every new field-grown grain, except apples alone. Apples are permitted only on the Transfiguration of the Lord; before Transfiguration it is not fitting to eat them. Whoever eats apples before Transfiguration must, according to the Typikon, abstain from apples the whole month of August.

For the aforementioned grain and vegetables, let no one sin by eating them thus, but all who abide in Orthodoxy must pray a lestovka according to fatherly counsel and with blessing from the elders in every house.

This command dates from the time of Claudius Caesar of Rome (Granograf, Chapter 79) in the year 5776 (268 AD). At that time Eutychius was pope in Rome; he conciliarly commanded that every year new fruits and every grain be sanctified by prayer and then taken with thanksgiving.

Whoever does not fulfil what is commanded—that is, neither prays nor receives blessing—will be liable to condemnation according to the holy rules which say (Zonaras, Rule 102): “A priest or monk who takes fruit out of due season—that is, without prayer and blessing—anathema upon such a one.”

The Nomocanon says likewise: “A monk who eats new fruit without the superior’s blessing shall be excommunicated for eight days.”

The Korinchaya and many other Holy Scriptures agree in this and do not permit eating new-growing fruit without blessing and prayer.

See: heretics do not taste anything thus, but even over vessels filled with bread they perform their prayers. How much more must we keep the ordinances of the ancient holy fathers, cast aside laziness and negligence, and perform what the saints have commanded.

Do not rely only on brotherly blessing and equate it with the superior’s blessing. The superior is wholly sanctified and God-bearing and blesses not only with word but with consecrated hand.

In former times there were not such great and countless brotherhoods that blessing was commanded from them, but from the superior. We must not look at other people who lack such fulfilment, but fear the aforementioned word of excommunication and condemnation from the holy and divine rules. The saints did not hand this down to us in vain or idly, but established it from the divine rules for us to perform.

Chapter 60 On Food Prepared by Heretical Hands (Many Saints Preferred to Die of Hunger Rather Than Taste Their Food)

We do not command simply to eat food prepared by heretical hands, nor do we offer such counsel. Rather, we ask the Lord God in prayer to sanctify and cleanse food made by them, and only then, with thanksgiving and the sign of the Lord’s Cross, do we command it to be eaten.

For we see many who commune with heretics, take food from heretical hands, and eat in the midst of the marketplace without scruple; they drink wine without fear in the foul heretical taverns, count it no sin, tempt the brethren in Christ, and lead them into great spiritual harm and mortal sin.

In their lack of understanding and discernment they quote the apostolic word: “Eat everything sold in the marketplace, asking no questions for conscience’ sake.”

All the feeble-minded and weak in understanding have memorised this one apostolic word and keep it in memory, but the stricter and stronger word of the same holy apostle that follows they do not wish even to recall: “…for conscience’ sake”—and the divine Chrysostom, expounding “conscience,” says (Discourse 830): “…lest another be harmed.”

That is why the first word was spoken: “conscience,” he says, “not your own but another’s.”

How does this strengthen the brethren or confirm the faith? If we see some eating in the marketplaces and drinking, how will a brother not be tempted seeing this? How will anyone’s conscience not be troubled? Truly, according to the Holy Gospel: “Woe to the world because of temptations—and especially woe to that man through whom the temptation comes.”

See again the word of the same apostle: “If it is offered to idols, do not eat it.”

Now, according to the understanding of Holy and Divine Scripture, judge for yourself wisely: the abomination of desolation now stands in the holy place, and again: “The mystery of iniquity is already at work… he sits in the temple of God as God and is worshipped as a holy God.”

From this same Holy Scripture we understand in part that heretics serve their father the devil and oppose God in all things (Zinovii from Nilova Hermitage, Small Synaxarion). Again: “In heretics dwells the lying spirit of Satan with the most evil unclean spirits.” Chrysostom says likewise (Margarit): “Even if the idol does not stand, demons dwell there.” And again: “As righteous hierarchs sanctify, so heretics defile.”

If this is so and will be according to Scripture, what sanctification of food can now come from heretics? If their baptism is defilement—worse, say the saints—then by this reasoning all their actions are defiled. Thus we now understand that food prepared and “sanctified” by heretics is defiled, or rather, offered to idols—bread, salt, wine, vegetables, wells, houses, vessels, market rows and stalls, all provisions—by their sprinkling and blessing. How then can it not be called idol-offered by their sanctification, and how can a Christian eat it without scruple?

If they quote the word: “Eat everything sold in the marketplace,” then by the same reasoning one should go to heretical feasts and eat with them. One should not even carry one’s own vessel, for the apostle did not write that one must carry one’s own vessel. If this is so, one should not separate from unbelievers even in the house, but have all things in common with them—in life, eating, and drinking. Then what separation will there be between us and heretics?

If heretical food is to be called clean, then their vessels must be called clean, for the food is prepared by their hands and in their vessels. By this reasoning it is superfluous to carry one’s own vessel.

Chrysostom’s interpretation in the same apostolic discourses says (folio 801): “If anyone says, ‘This is offered to idols,’ do not eat it—for the sake of him who pointed it out and for conscience.” And again he says: “He commands us to shun it as abominable… Do not believe that it can harm the faith, for it has no power with them, but abstain entirely. The table of the dishonourers is the table of enemies.”

How then can we eat food from enemies without scruple? Alas for this most harmful lack of discernment and careless perdition!

Half of the apostolic word they have lovingly received, but the other half they do not even wish to hear, which says: “If it is offered to idols, do not eat it.”

For again the golden mouth separates us from heretical defilement: “It is far better not to give him occasion to judge… If you abstain, he will not even say these things.”

And again the saint says: “Thus even we who live in the midst of the world remain pure.”

See how the saint commands us to remain pure in the midst of the world.

Some again quote from the same apostle: “To the pure all things are pure.”

If according to their reasoning all things are pure to the pure, then one may eat even what is pagan without scruple, for the pure one eats. But they will not accept the understanding that “to the pure all things are pure” does not mean that if something is defiled the pure one eating it makes it clean. Chrysostom again says: “Neither if he eats does it abound, nor if he does not eat is he lacking.”

He shows it to be a thing to be fled from entirely—not only for oneself but for others. If we are light and leaven, luminaries and salt, we must enlighten and not darken, bind and not loosen. How then can we be called light and leaven, luminary and salt—and not darkness and loosening—if we eat and drink in the midst of the marketplace or in worldly houses from their unclean hands, or pour from their unclean vessels into our clean ones? What separation then remains between us and heretics except that we do not eat together? Vessels, food, and heretical hands that prepare the food are all the same.

According to Scripture, instead of drawing the unbelieving to us, we drive them away. What do you drive away that you ought to draw? For many are wounded when they see us returning to such things. See what great reasons there are when they see us returning to such things—to avoid what is unprofitable and superfluous, for the harm of brethren, for the reproach of the Jews, for the mockery of the Greeks.

Behold here carefully what Scripture says and where it leads us. Truly it is fitting to say again what is written, bringing us to firmness: “This is the rule of perfect Christianity, this the careful boundary, this the highest summit—to seek what is profitable for all in common.”

The divine Chrysostom again says: “He did not say merely to abstain from what is forbidden, but from what is permitted when it causes temptation.”

See here the discerning mind: not only from the forbidden but even from the commanded when it causes temptation. Therefore the divine Chrysostom again says: “Give no occasion to anyone when a brother is tempted. The Jews will hate you more and mock you, and the Greek will the more rightly call you a glutton and hypocrite.”

See from what temptation comes—from eating in the midst of the people (that is, in the marketplace) or from carefully and preservingly guarding oneself from defiling mixture with heretics.

For again the saint, leading us away from uncleanness, says: “If you know something to be unclean and yet take it as food, you will be unclean.”

But we, because of extreme present necessity, have received from the counsel and blessing of the fathers who went before us to pray over food defiled by heretical hands. We do not consider the food itself defiled, but because of the touch of heretical hands. For every creature of God is good and nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving, for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

Hear again the saying of the same Chrysostom (Discourses, folio 2462): “What is this we say: ‘It is sanctified by the word of God and prayer’? Clearly unclean food is sanctified by prayer and supplication to God.”

Metropolitan Photius of Moscow likewise writes concerning unclean food (Epistle in the year 6925 [1417 AD]): “Whatever comes from the German land that is needful—wine, bread, or vegetables—my sons, have a priest cleanse it, and then eat and drink.”

To those who say: “It is fitting for a priest to sanctify, not for us simple people,” we answer: “If you forbid us to pray over food defiled, we in turn forbid and say: ‘Then you too do not pray over a house defiled by childbirth, or a defiled well, or vessel.’ On Pascha, Nativity, and Theophany—for all these are priestly acts, not for laypeople.”

Whoever does not wish to pray over food—let him buy nothing in the marketplace from heretical hands, let him take nothing. As God’s saints did: Great-martyr Theodore, Michael and Alexander Nevsky, the venerable Nikon Sukhanov, Eusebius of Verkol’, the holy martyr Stephen, and many others of the saints—they chose to die of hunger and thirst rather than accept defiled food. Or could the saints not make the sign of the Cross upon themselves, as the present schismatics say: “Only cross yourself and eat, do not pray”?

If you wish to act thus and take nothing from heretics—neither food nor drink—you will be in agreement with all these saints and will be blessed by God, for you take nothing from heretics.

But our dwelling is in great need and weakness; we cannot act as the saints did, who had great care to avoid heretics. Because of necessity and our weakness we cannot buy something in the marketplace and eat it thus. Therefore we beseech and entreat the Lord God with the prayer and blessing handed down by the holy fathers that the Lord God may sanctify food prepared by heretics—not by the sign of the Cross alone.

If the sign of the Cross alone sanctified all defilements and uncleannesses, there would be no need of a priest or priestly prayers to sanctify a defiled church, well, or vessel. The sign of the Cross alone would sanctify everything—but we have neither seen nor heard this anywhere in Scripture, but only this have we learned.

According to the divine Chrysostom (Discourse, folio 2000): food is cleansed by the word of God and prayer. How and by what must we cleanse food prepared by heretics if not by prayer?

Some who are like-minded with us judge otherwise; some lay it to laziness; others, not fearing the Lord God and His fearful judgment, call it heresy and reproach most harshly. Truly the pleasure and delusion of this world have destroyed them and cast them into the abyss of hell, for they have excused themselves not only from the marketplace but from foul taverns for the sake of abandoning this prayer.

If this seems opposition and unbelievable testimony from us, examine for yourself the apostolic saying you firmly remember, carefully consider the interpretation of that saying, examine it with much testing and sound discernment, and do not follow your own opinion, but submit to Holy Divine Scripture.

Chapter 61 On a Woman in Childbirth Happening to Be in the House with Christians

When a woman in childbirth happens to be in the house where a Christian lives, that Christian must make 1,000 full prostrations according to the ordinance of the ancient fathers and the common fatherly and brotherly conciliar judgment, because we are deprived of priestly communion. Let us hold to this common conciliar fatherly judgment for cleansing from defilement, that we be not like the pagan nations who abide in uncleanness and impurity. Whether it pleases the Lord God or not, let us only fulfil the fatherly discernment and blessing.

Scripture teaches us thus (Apostle, Zachalo 333): to obey and submit to mentors and do nothing without their counsel. Scripture shows that fatherly discernment must be kept no less than written law. Therefore these instructions are not for pleasure or delusion. Even if handed down without writing, they come from the custom of the ancient fathers and are described in customs.

Matthew of Jerusalem says: “Concerning things for which there is no written law, it is fitting to keep the custom.” Long-practised custom tested over many years they kept no less than written law.

Above all we beseech and entreat all who desire salvation to flee from such houses as from a deadly serpent or burning fire, and to dwell purely and preservingly with the servants of God in one house. For this Scripture strengthens us: the faithful have known their Master, and that this life is unclean; for this reason they receive greater eternal torment than unbelievers. Woe, truly woe to every Christian who abides in such foul and impure dwelling!

Chapter 62 That One Must Not Travel Without a Holy Icon

Christians travelling must not be without a holy icon—neither walking nor riding. In worldly houses that have no Christian icons, one must not pray to their newly issued icons, but carefully guard oneself from them: entering their house, set up one’s own icon, pray, and render honour to the household.

If necessity compels one to buy something, place the purchased food before the holy icon and pray one lestovka according to the command of Holy Scripture and fatherly discernment, and in no wise despise this firm and strong ordinance.

Here is faithful and sure testimony from Holy Scripture concerning holy icons. Even before this time, in that untroubled, pious, and God-pleasing age, the holy fathers carried holy icons. Holy Scripture relates (Zinovii from Nilova Hermitage, folio 139; Gregory the Theologian, folio 60): “Even before us the saints carried icons when they went to assemblies, and no pious Christian lover of Christ travelled without an icon, as good servants of God.”

Thus we too must emulate the saints and carry holy icons with us. Therefore we counsel all Orthodox Christians: go nowhere without a holy icon; fear not heretics, be not ashamed, and in no wise bow to their icons. Though it be fearful, one must place hope in the Lord God and trust in Him in all things.

Chapter 63 That One Must Not Read Holy Books Without First Praying to God

It is commanded by the saints—and we command it to be carefully kept and never neglected—that this holy and soul-saving thing, the Word of God, must not be read simply, but first stand, pray, and say this prayer established by the saints (“Alpha and Omega”):

“Lord Jesus Christ, open the ears and eyes of my heart that I may hear Thy word and understand it and do Thy will, for I am a sojourner upon the earth. Lord, hide not Thy commandments from me, but open my eyes that I may perceive the wonders of Thy law; enlighten my mind, O Lord, to understand Thy commandments; reveal to me the hidden and secret things of Thy wisdom. In Thee I hope, O my God, that Thou wilt enlighten my mind and thought with the light of Thy understanding, that I may not only read what is written but do it—that I read not the lives and words of the saints to my own condemnation, but to renewal, enlightenment, holiness, the salvation of my soul, and the inheritance of eternal life. For Thou art the enlightenment of those who lie in darkness, and from Thee comes every good gift and every perfect gift. To Thee we ascribe glory, to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit, now and ever and unto ages of ages. Amen.”

The divine Chrysostom teaches likewise: “When you begin to read any book, first say this prayer before reading; when you read, read with diligence and pain of heart, in great order, not passing over verses, and do not strive only to turn the pages. If need be, do not be lazy, but go over a verse twice, thrice, and many times that you may understand its power. When you are about to read or listen to one reading, first pray to God, saying the aforementioned prayer.”

Countless Holy Scripture speaks of this prayer: the venerable Ephrem, Prologues, Paterica, holy-fatherly books, and the holy monk Dorotheos—all agree concerning this prayer, that it must always be said before any reading of Holy Scripture, the prayer established by the holy and wondrous men, that it may be done with good understanding and wisdom, without erring according to one’s own reason or thought in anything from Holy and Divine Scripture, in no wise following one’s own opinion or unadvised understanding.

Those who listen and sit at the Word of God and desire to hear soul-saving words must ask forgiveness and pray for them, that all who listen may do so attentively and with understanding. Concerning the prescribed prayer before reading, let no one doubt—it is not our composition or reasoning, but Holy Scripture commands it in many places.

It is fitting for us above all to listen to and attend to the Lord’s words: “Ask, and it shall be given you… Whatever you ask in faith, you shall receive.”

He instructs those who listen: “Blessed are they who hear the word of God and keep it… He who has ears to hear, let him hear.”

If the word comes unclearly to the hearers, they must again ask the readers and beseech the Lord God according to the prophet Isaiah: “Give me ears to hear that I may hear.”

Concerning writing: if anyone writes even from himself—that is, from his own understanding—but in agreement with the holy Eastern Church and the holy-fatherly law and sacred rules, it is fitting to listen and attend with agreement. For the saints produced countless Holy Scriptures from themselves, taught by the grace of the Holy Spirit, and the Church of God in agreement with Orthodox Christian faith received all these with love and praise.

But all this must be done with asking and prayer to the Master Christ God, with fatherly blessing, and with loving brotherly counsel. Thus God’s grace will be beginning and end for us. Before the prayer make three waist bows, and after the prayer likewise three bows, then receive blessing from father or brother and begin to read with contrition.

Chapter 64 That Everyone Who Reads the Words of Divine Scripture Must First Offer the Prayer Established by All the Saints

Let it also be known that it is not fitting to read the instructive words of Holy Scripture simply without prayer, that the Lord God may grant understanding to the reader of the saving Word and right discernment, that he may receive it in the holy-fatherly ordinance and in all Holy and Divine Scripture because of the prayer commanded by law from the holy and God-bearing fathers—that it may be soul-saving for all who read and hear, that they may lay the Word of God in their hearts with understanding and wisdom, pour forth tears of contrition, and fulfil in deed what is read. As the Holy Gospel says: “Blessed are they who hear the word of God and keep it.”

Countless saints teach us this—Paterica, Prologues, and many other holy-fatherly books, the venerable Ephrem, and the holy monk Dorotheos.

As we now set forth the knowledge from all the holy fathers who are in full agreement and handed down and taught us to do thus and read the words of God: as “Alpha and Omega” (that is, “Beginning and End”) says in the preface to his book, citing St John Chrysostom as witness: “When you begin to read any book, first say this prayer before reading; when you read, read with diligence and pain of heart, in great order, not passing over verses, and do not strive only to turn the pages. If need be, do not be lazy, but go over a verse twice, thrice, and many times that you may understand its power. When you are about to read or listen to one reading, first pray to God (that is, three waist bows) and say thus: ‘Lord Jesus Christ, open the ears and eyes of my heart…’” (written on folio 256 of this book).

We earnestly beseech and entreat all the brethren in Christ to do and perform all these things without laziness as commanded by the saints.

Chapter 65 That One Who Reads Holy Scripture and Teaches Must Take Nothing for His Labour from the Hearers

We offer this good and soul-saving counsel to all fathers and brethren in Christ who teach and read Holy and Divine Scripture: let no one, great or small, desire to receive anything for his labour from those who listen to the words of Holy and Divine Scripture, lest we sell the Word of God for a price. For none of the saints ever touched instructive speech for sale, but all with spiritual joy and love in Christ taught.

I do not speak of selling books—this was established from of old; it is found in many lives of the saints that they wrote and sold books and thereby obtained food for themselves.

But spiritual instruction they gave freely, turning unbelievers to faith in Christ and leading them from the darkness of error to the light of true knowledge. For teaching the saints never touched even a little to receive for the labour of teaching, remembering the Lord’s word: “Freely you have received the gift of God, freely give.” And again: “Carry neither purse nor bag nor copper.”

The Holy Gospel likewise says (John, Zachalo 7) and agrees: it forbids receiving for the labour of teaching and touching money. Thus it says: “But if anyone sells even a penny’s worth of the word of teaching, he is a teacher who sells and does not proclaim the word unless he has gain; the Lord overturns the seat of such a one”—that is, the throne of teaching and the word of instruction which he wickedly withholds and does not give to all out of malice. But the Lord Jesus Christ for love of mankind scatters and distributes to the people; He will destroy the authority of such a one and set another worthy on the teacher’s throne.

Thus says the Holy Gospel. Let us carefully guard against taking anything for teaching, but receive it as alms and pray for the giver, or give it away for something else, or set up a candle, or have a holy icon painted, or buy a book to have, or something else of the saints. But for fleshly needs take not a single penny. Even if you have laboured much in teaching, great reward will be given you by the Lord in heaven. Only strive to labour for the Word of God, instructing faithful or unfaithful to the light of understanding—some to repentance, others to the light of piety.

Holy Scripture of the Lord says of these: “He who brings forth the precious from the worthless will be as My mouth.”

But if you see a brother sinning, do not be silent, but reprove and guide him to the path of repentance. As St Maximus the Confessor says (Discourse 11): “If I do not reprove a sinner, I will share the portion of the fornicator.”

If not to reprove and instruct is certain perdition, it is better and more good that my tongue be cut out than to be silent and not help the true faith. Loudly teach and instruct all to hold the pious faith.

If you see anyone damaged by some heresy, likewise do not be silent. The sacred rules say of this (Sixth Council): “It is not fitting to cover heresy with silence. He who is silent and does not reprove his brother’s sins is not merciful and is like one who leaves poison in the body bitten by a venomous beast.”

If one must reprove even ordinary sin, how much more must one not be silent about heresies, lest the salvation of men be diminished. For every man is sanctified by the confession of faith.

The divine Chrysostom says (Margarit, Discourse 12): “You know those who do such things and strive to conceal them, neither reproving them yourself nor telling others who can put a stop to it. Is it not clear that you too love it? Therefore together with those who do these things you will be delivered to eternal fire” (Nilus of Sora, Discourse 65).

Thus all divine Scripture declares. The ancient fathers, many labourers and teachers among us, built up and strengthened one another. Now that such have grown scarce, if anyone in this last time strives for the work of God, God’s grace even more enlightens and helps him. As the first saints said: whoever is saved in this present time will receive greater reward than the ancient saints.

Therefore I beseech brotherly instructive love to teach and enlighten all together who desire to receive true and saving understanding. Let him receive nothing, great or small, for his labour—that is, for teaching—but he will receive great reward from the King of glory together with all the saints in the Kingdom of Heaven, unto the ages. Amen.

-by N.A. Prozorov.

INTRODUCTION

Before proceeding to the study of the history of Old Belief, it is necessary to say a few words about what Old Belief actually is.

Having accepted the Christian Orthodox faith from the Greeks in 988 under Prince Vladimir the Saint, the Russians faithfully and inviolably preserved it until the 17th century and came to regard it as their inviolable national shrine.

During this same period, however, the Greeks, under the influence of various political circumstances, gradually introduced numerous innovations into their rites that differed greatly from the ancient ones.

In the 17th century, Patriarch Nikon and the Russian government, for political reasons, adopted all the innovations that had accumulated among the Greeks without subjecting them to critical evaluation or verification. This provoked a powerful reaction in Russia, and from that time the Russian Orthodox Church split into two hostile camps: the Old Believers and the New Ritualists.

The New Ritualists (“Orthodox” in the official sense) are the followers of Patriarch Nikon who accepted his reforms, carried out according to contemporary Greek models, as correct and who rejected the ancient Russian rites and the ancient church governance. Nikon was joined by the higher clergy, which was dependent on the patriarch and the government, as well as by the ruling class. Over time, the New Ritualist Church, relying on autocratic power, moved ever further away from Russian antiquity, and after the Russian Revolution it splintered into numerous small churches hostile to one another.

The Old Believers (also called “Old Ritualists”) are those people who remained faithful to Russian ecclesiastical antiquity, who recognised no innovations, and who wished to preserve their native ancient faith in the future as well. Its defenders turned out to be that portion of the Russian clergy and higher class which placed the interests of the faith above personal interests, as well as the entire Russian people. Despite all the terrible persecutions and oppressions to which the Old Believers were subjected for 250 years, Old Belief did not die out and scarcely diminished in numbers. Driven underground by the government and the New Ritualists, it at first split into many separate concordances and groupings, but once it obtained freedom it rapidly began to move toward unification and the creation of a single Old Believer Church that sacredly preserves the precepts of native antiquity. In recent times certain attempts at reconciliation have been noticeable on the part of the New Ritualists, but these cannot be regarded as sincere so long as the anathemas of the councils remain in force. The New Ritualists, however, do not wish to lift those anathemas for political reasons.

Old Belief has had to travel a sorrowful path. Oppressed and persecuted, driven into hiding and terrorized, Old Belief neither dared nor was able to speak anything in its own defense. The false view imposed by everyone – the view of the Synodal historians that Old Belief originated as the fruit of the ignorance of its first teachers – remained dominant for entire centuries and, unfortunately, has not disappeared even to the present day. Only the works of scholars in recent times have begun to reveal the complete incorrectness and falsity of this view, and little by little the truth is beginning to rise again.

The entire history of Old Belief must be divided into several periods:

I. The period of “struggle” – from 1652–1667: from the beginning of Nikon’s patriarchate until the council that imposed anathemas on the old rites.
II. The “martyrdom” period – from 1667–1762: the period of the most intense persecutions.
III. From 1762–1823: the period of relaxations and the legalisation of Old Belief.
IV. From 1823–1862 (the text says 1823–1826, which appears to be a printing error): the second period of persecutions and the destruction of Old Believer monasteries.
V. From 1862–1904: the second period of certain relaxations.
VI. 1904–1917: the period of liberation.
VII. From 1917 to the present day: the period of full freedom of confession and the equality of Old Believers with other religions abroad, and the struggle against the godless in Russia.

Such are the principal stages of the long and difficult path of Old Belief.

Now, after a centuries-long slumber, Old Belief is beginning to awaken and to take an interest both in the new life that surrounds it and in those ideals for which it fought.

Until now only one of the contending parties has spoken; now the time has come when the second party also begins to speak and to sum up the results.

HISTORY OF OLD BELIEF

Chapter I. Moscow – the Third Rome

Having accepted the Christian faith from Byzantium in 988 under the Kiev prince Vladimir the Saint, the Russians at the same time received from the Greeks the entire order of church worship, customs and rites, as well as church governance.

The first metropolitans in Rus’ were Greeks, but later Russian ones began to appear more and more frequently. Even so, they still travelled to the Patriarch of Constantinople for their consecration, since the entire Russian Church fell within his jurisdiction. Therefore the Greeks regarded the Russian Church not as independent, but as subordinate to themselves.

Thus Patriarch Photius, after the baptism of Prince Vladimir, wrote: “The so-called Russes have now exchanged the Hellenic and impious teaching which they formerly held for the pure and unadulterated Christian faith, lovingly placing themselves in the rank of subjects and friends.”

This view of the Russians as subjects of the Greeks persisted for a very long time. Even in the 14th century Greek emperors included the title “Tsar of the Russians” in their own titulature, and Patriarch Philotheos of Constantinople wrote to the Russian princes: “God has set our Moderation as the leader of all Christians throughout the universe, as the guardian and keeper of their souls; therefore all depend on me as on a common father and teacher.”

Thus it is perfectly clear that the Patriarch of Constantinople considered himself the sole head of the Russian Church.

Meanwhile, although the Russians continued to maintain relations with the Greeks, over time these contacts became ever rarer and more difficult. The internecine wars of the princes, the raids of the nomads, the transfer of Rus’’ centre from Kiev to the more distant north, the Tatar devastation and yoke – none of this could favour lively communication with the Greeks. Hard times had come upon Rus’, and it seemed the country was approaching its end, for the Tatars were ravaging the conquered land with great violence. Moreover, the Russian princes did not cease their disputes and internecine strife.

Only the clergy, in that era, remained at the height of its calling: it sustained the national spirit among the people and saved the remnants of Russian national culture. Monasteries became centres of enlightenment. The faith, carefully preserved and handed down from generation to generation, was the small flame that sustained the self-awareness of the popular masses. Moreover, even after accepting Islam, the Tatars themselves treated the Russian faith with tolerance.

Little by little, among the numerous Russian appanage principalities, the Principality of Moscow began to rise. Its elevation – thanks to the strong support of the clergy – began under Ivan Kalita. Particular mention must be made of the activity of the holy Metropolitans Peter and Alexis. Moscow began to flourish and grow so strong that it started to fight the Tatars and, finally, under Grand Prince Ivan III, cast off the hateful Tatar yoke, freeing the Russian land from the oppression of the infidels.

But even before that time Russian princes had begun to regard themselves as the sole defenders of the Orthodox faith, because Byzantium, pressed by the Turks, was already beginning to fall.

In order to escape the Turks and obtain help from the West, the Greeks concluded a union with the Pope at the Council of Florence in 1439. The Russian representative at that council was Metropolitan Isidore of Moscow (accompanied by Bishop Simeon of Suzdal’), who also accepted the union; upon his return to Moscow he was condemned and deprived of his see.

The Greeks’ conclusion of the union produced the most negative impression upon the Russians, who began to look upon the Greeks as apostates. “Rejoice, Orthodox Prince Vasily, adorned with all the crowns of the Greek Orthodox faith,” wrote Bishop Simeon in his Tale of the Eighth Council. “There, in the Greek lands, evil began with the Greek Emperor John, the silver-loving Greeks and their metropolitans. Here, however, the Russian land has been confirmed in Orthodoxy by the Christ-loving Grand Prince Vasily Vasilyevich.”

From 1448 Russian metropolitans ceased travelling to Constantinople for consecration by the patriarch; instead they were appointed by a council of Russian hierarchs.

In 1453 Byzantium fell – an event which, as the Russians of the time explained, God had permitted because of her apostasy from the faith. Soon afterwards Grand Prince Ivan III married Sophia, the niece of the last Greek emperor Constantine XI Palaiologos. Sophia had been accustomed to the luxury and splendour of the Byzantine imperial court. Arriving in Moscow, she tried to introduce the same customs there. Undoubtedly under her influence Ivan resolved to fight the Tatars, and in 1480 succeeded in throwing off their yoke. Moscow became a strong, independent state. The Grand Prince surrounded himself with a splendid court; the former simplicity and accessibility of the ruler disappeared. The Grand Prince adopted a new view of the loftiness of his authority and began to regard himself as an autocrat and as the only Orthodox sovereign in the entire East, the protector of Orthodoxy, whose centre was now Moscow. Ivan III adopted the Byzantine coat of arms – the double-headed eagle – to show that he was the heir and successor of the Greek emperors. Attempts were made to obtain the imperial title, though this was achieved only by Ivan IV.

To confirm the important mission of Rus’ as the centre of Orthodoxy and of its sovereigns as defenders of the true faith, a whole series of tales appeared in Rus’ at that time. The chief ones were:
1) The Tale of the White Cowl,
2) The Tale of the Babylonian Kingdom,
3) The Tale of the Vladimir Princes, and
4) The Epistle of Spiridon-Savva.

In The Tale of the White Cowl it is related that Emperor Constantine the Great, out of reverence, presented Pope Sylvester with a white cowl that symbolised true Orthodoxy, its purity and holiness. The cowl remained with the popes as long as they held the true faith; but when they began to fall into heresy, they developed an aversion to the white cowl. Finally Pope Formosus, who had fallen into the Apollinarian heresy, sent the cowl to distant lands. It was brought to Constantinople to Patriarch Philotheos. An angel appeared to the patriarch in a dream and commanded him to send the cowl to Rus’, to Novgorod: “For there now the faith of Christ is truly glorified.” The patriarch hesitated, but Constantine the Great and Pope Sylvester appeared to him in a dream. Sylvester said: “Just as grace, glory and the honour of Orthodoxy were taken away from Rome, so too shall the grace of the Holy Spirit be taken from the imperial city into the captivity of the Hagarenes, and all holy things will be given by God to the great Russian land in due season; the Lord will exalt the Russian tsar above many nations, and many kings of foreign tongues will be under his authority. The patriarchal rank will likewise be given from this imperial city (Constantinople) to the Russian land in due season. Old Rome fell away from the glory and from the faith of Christ through pride and its own will; in the new Rome, which is Constantinople, the Christian faith will likewise perish through the violence of the Hagarenes; but in the third Rome, which is in the Russian land, the grace of the Holy Spirit will shine forth. And know, Philotheos, that all Christian kingdoms will come to an end and will converge into the single kingdom of Russia, for the sake of Orthodoxy…”

The same idea – that Rus’ is chosen by God and that only here is the true faith preserved – runs through the other tales as well. But its fullest expression is found in the letters of the Pskov monk Philotheos, who lived in the 16th century.

In a letter to Grand Prince Vasily Ivanovich he wrote: “Let your sovereignty know, most pious Tsar, that all the kingdoms of Orthodox Christian faith have converged into your single kingdom; you alone under heaven are called the most holy and pious tsar of Christians.”

And in his letter to Munechin he says: “We shall utter a few words concerning the most luminous and most exalted sovereignty of our sovereign, the only tsar of Christians in the whole universe, the holder of the bridle of the holy thrones of God’s holy universal apostolic church – the church that stands in the God-saved city of Moscow, of the most holy and glorious Dormition of the most pure Theotokos, which shines in the universe more brightly than the sun. Know, lover of Christ and lover of God, that all Christian kingdoms have come to an end and have converged into the single kingdom of our sovereign, in accordance with the prophetic books – that is, into the Russian kingdom: two Romes have fallen, the third stands, and there will not be a fourth.”

Thus the idea was finally worked out that the first Rome had fallen because of its deviation into the heresy of Apollinarius; the second Rome – Constantinople – had fallen because of its betrayal of Orthodoxy at the Eighth (Florentine) Council; the third Rome – Moscow – stands, and in it reigns the true faith. If Moscow too betrays it, then the Second Coming will follow.

This idea gained wide currency and became ever more firmly rooted in the people’s consciousness – a process further assisted by the establishment of the patriarchate in Rus’.

It reached its apogee at the time of Patriarch Nikon’s patriarchate, when, after the devastation of the Time of Troubles, Rus’ revived and flourished once more. The idea of “Moscow – the Third Rome” became even more firmly established, but it also began to split in two. While the Tsar and Patriarch Nikon saw in it the necessity of uniting the entire East around the Third Rome by changing everything Russian to the Eastern (Greek) pattern, the defenders of Russian antiquity – the founders of Old Belief – saw in this a betrayal of everything Russian, which would bring about the downfall of the Third Rome. They regarded the Russian Orthodox Church as the only correct one, confessing the true faith. They applied all their efforts to maintain it at the proper height and to prevent the penetration into it of the new Greek rites.

Chapter II. The Greeks

As early as 1054, the Church finally split into the Western – “Catholic” – under the authority of the Pope with its centre in the city of Rome, and the Eastern – “Orthodox” – with its centre in the city of Constantinople, under the protection of the Byzantine (Greek) emperors.

From that time a deep enmity began between Greek Orthodoxy and “Latin” Catholicism.

This enmity was transferred to Rus’ as well, where the Greeks instilled in the Russians not only hatred toward Catholicism, but toward everything Western in general. Having adopted this point of view, the Russians began to look with horror and apprehension at everything coming from the West, especially in matters of faith.

Meanwhile, the once splendid and mighty Byzantium, under pressure from Arabs, Slavs, Crusaders and others, gradually began to decline and finally perished completely under the blows of the Turks (1453).

As early as the 7th century the onslaught of the Muslims against Byzantium had begun. First the Arabs, then the Turks, seized the entire south of the empire. Soon all of Palestine, which had also been part of the empire, passed into their hands. Jerusalem, with all the holy places dear to every Christian, found itself in the hands of the infidel Muslims. Since the Greeks were powerless to fight the Muslims on their own, beginning in 1095 expeditions known as the “Crusades” were organised from the West to rescue the Lord’s Tomb. The warriors who took part in them were called Crusaders. The first crusades passed through Constantinople; the East was flooded with Catholic preachers. In 1099 the Crusaders captured Jerusalem and founded the Kingdom of Jerusalem there, giving full scope to the preaching of the Catholic clergy, which treated the Orthodox clergy with intolerance. In 1187 Jerusalem was recaptured by the Arabs, and new crusades were gathered in the West to rescue it. One of these ended with the conquest not of Jerusalem, but of Constantinople together with the whole of Byzantium; the Latin Empire was founded, which lasted from 1204 to 1261. A Catholic patriarch was appointed in Constantinople, Orthodox churches were closed and destroyed, and the people were forcibly converted to Catholicism. Union was planted everywhere.

When the Crusaders were driven out in 1261, Byzantium’s situation did not improve, for the Turks again began pressing the Greeks. Greek strength was exhausted, and the state was rapidly heading for ruin. The cultural level fell sharply, and education declined. There were very few schools, and teaching in them was extremely poor. Everything had to be borrowed from the West or studied in Latin schools, where renunciation of Orthodoxy and conversion to Latinism were an obligatory condition.

“You will have everything,” wrote Metropolitan Bessarion in his instructions to Sophia Palaiologina, “if you imitate the Latins; otherwise you will receive nothing.” And indeed, they imitated them in many things. Brought up in foreign schools, Greek youth easily absorbed various Latin and Protestant ideas; returning home, as people with higher education, they took posts as teachers, priests and bishops. The views they had acquired at school they now put into practice in Greece itself, introducing all sorts of novelties and changes both in daily life and in the Church.

Even Greek books themselves suffered serious corruption because the Greeks, having no opportunity to set up printing presses of their own, printed books abroad – mainly in Venice – where various Latin innovations were often inserted into Greek books. Books printed at the Greek college were subject to Jesuit censorship, and the Jesuits corrected them at their own discretion. The Greek Metropolitan Theophanes spoke thus about Greek books: “The Papists and Lutherans have Greek printing presses and daily print theological books of the Holy Fathers, and in those books they insert deadly poison – their own foul heresy.”

At the beginning of the 15th century, no longer hoping in their own strength, the Greek Emperor John Palaiologos went to the Pope to ask for help against the Turks. To win the Pope’s favour, he accepted Catholicism. On 6 July 1439, at the Council of Florence, the conclusion of a union with the Greeks and the union of the churches was proclaimed. The conclusion of this union dealt a heavy blow to the Greeks’ authority in Rus’, where they began to be regarded as traitors and money-lovers who had sold their faith for gold. The subsequent fall of Constantinople on 29 May 1453 was seen by the Russians as God’s punishment for betraying Orthodoxy. The position of the Greeks under Turkish rule was very difficult: the Turks began to oppress and persecute Christians severely, and the Greek clergy also became greatly impoverished, since the aid formerly provided by the Greek emperors had ceased. Naturally the Greeks began to look for new sources of income, and their gaze turned northward to the only Orthodox state left – Moscow.

After the Florentine Union and the fall of Constantinople, however, the Russians began to organise their own church independently and to manage their internal life without reference to the Greeks, among whom new rites had appeared – three-fingered crossing, the triple Alleluia, and others. Even among the Greeks themselves voices began to be heard accusing them of unorthodoxy. All this could not help but lower the Greeks’ authority in Rus’. Moreover, most of the Greeks who came to Rus’ turned out to be adventurers and swindlers who came only for easy gain. More and more often they were accused of Latinism and placed under supervision for correction; the same was done with people from Kiev and Belarus.

The Russians were also repelled by the extreme carelessness in divine services and the complete lack of reverence for holy things. When Jerusalem Patriarch Theophanes visited in 1620, there was even a clash between the Russian and Greek clergy because the Greeks, entering the church, placed their service books, vestments and sticharia straight on the altar. After this incident the patriarch asked the Russians: “Show us according to your custom how things are done here; I am glad to serve,” and thereafter he tried to perform everything in the Russian manner.

In one of his letters the patriarch admitted: “You have enlightened me by your piety and watered the thirsty land with the water of your pious teaching, and for that I bow low to you many times.”

The Greeks who came to Moscow often displayed no high qualities and frequently showed their greed. “Money-loving Greeks, under the cover of piety, wander needlessly about our lands and commit acts contrary to the holy canons, whereby good church order is undermined. They turn every holy thing into merchandise… and are ready to sell Christ to us a thousand times, whereas Judas sold Him only once. For money they permit every kind of marriage and allow one husband to change five or six wives, sending the old ones to a monastery. For money they absolve people of their sins without confession or repentance; they give absolving letters to whoever pays, and thus send the soul straight to hell. For money they sell their chrism. For money they wander about, invent excuses for begging and ask for alms.” Thus wrote the Serb Juraj Križanić, who lived in Rus’ at the beginning of the 17th century. He also relates how a certain Greek impostor, Sophronius, forced him to forge a letter purporting to come from the Patriarch of Constantinople.

An interesting testimony is also given by Paul, archdeacon of Aleppo. He tells of Jerusalem Patriarch Paisius, who arrived in Moscow with a huge retinue. At first this retinue numbered about thirty-five persons, but the patriarch later added all sorts of riff-raff to his companions and listed them as priests, archimandrites and clerics of various monasteries – all so as to receive more alms, for he took for himself all the donations that were given to his companions and their monasteries. Merchants too were fleeced in the same way.

Thus not only ordinary Greeks, but even very high-ranking ones were distinguished neither by their behaviour nor by their morality, as is reported, for example, in the “denunciation of Deacon Gabriel.”

All this could not help but destroy the former high authority of the Greeks; among the Russians a sharply negative attitude was formed toward everything that came from the Greeks.

Moreover, the Greek patriarchs themselves spoke with great praise of Russian piety and condemned their own Greek practice. Patriarch Jeremiah of Constantinople said: “The great Russian realm, the Third Rome, has surpassed all in piety; all the pious realms have been gathered into your single realm, and you alone under heaven are called Christian tsar (Theodore Ivanovich) among all Christians in the whole universe…” Patriarch Theophanes of Jerusalem, addressing the tsar, said: “I have seen in the east and in the south the desolation of God’s holy churches and the great violence and destruction suffered by Orthodox Christians of the holy Greek law, and there is no consolation from anywhere except the report of a pious Christian tsar, for you alone in the whole world are the sovereign and guardian of Christ’s infallible faith.”

A striking opinion about the Greeks is given by the Moscow deacon Arseny Sukhanov, who travelled to the East for books. Addressing the Greeks, he said: “Tell me, whom have you watered from your spring and enlightened with your teaching? One may say that almost all of you have become Muslim, living beside the pagans; your churches have been turned into mosques, and – to put it plainly – one can only just see the trace that Christianity once existed among you and then passed away.”

It was hard for the Greeks to argue against the obvious, yet fearing that the Russians would finally turn away from them completely, they looked for ways to maintain their position in Rus’. Therefore the turmoil that began in Rus’ under Patriarch Nikon played into the Greeks’ hands. By interfering in the affairs of the Russian Church they tried to restore their shaken and fallen authority. Once again the possibility opened up for Russian gold to flow into the bottomless Greek pockets. The only people who stood in their way were the defenders of Russian antiquity; therefore these had to be removed at all costs and all opposition to themselves destroyed. As for the fact that this would condemn thousands of people to execution and torment, the Greeks were indifferent – the Russians were, after all, a foreign people to them.

Chapter III. The Stoglav Council

In the 16th century a momentous event took place in the life of the Russian Church: Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich the Terrible convened a council for the ordering of church affairs that came to be known as the “Stoglav” (Hundred Chapters) Council.

The conviction that the Greeks had fallen into unorthodoxy, that the “Latin heresy” had penetrated among them, and that only in Moscow was the true faith still preserved had become so firmly rooted in the consciousness of the Russian people that it was decided to hold the council without the Greeks. The Russians no longer needed Greek tutelage or guidance; they did not turn to them for advice or confirmation, but by their own efforts passed resolutions that confirmed all the ancient customs and rites, wishing thereby to protect themselves from Greek innovations. The Stoglav Council was convened in 1551 by Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich the Terrible at the insistence of Metropolitan Macarius, one of the most remarkable and, for that time, most learned shepherds of the Church.

Metropolitan Macarius (1482–1563) took monastic vows early and spent his entire youth in various monasteries. In 1526, while archimandrite of the Mozhaisk monastery, he was consecrated Archbishop of Novgorod; in 1542 he was elevated to the throne of the Metropolitans of Moscow, where he remained until 1563, earning the respect of both the Tsar and the entire people. Engaging in politics not at all, he devoted all his strength to the Russian Church.

Under Metropolitan Macarius councils were frequently convened at which various questions concerning church organisation, improvements in churches, popular morality were examined, and newly appeared heresies were condemned. At the councils of 1547 and 1549 many Russian saints were canonised.

Under the patronage of Metropolitan Macarius the first Russian printing house was opened in Moscow (in 1563) for printing books according to newly corrected exemplars. The first book printed was the Acts of the Apostles (Apostol) in 1564. The first printers were the deacon Ivan Fyodorov and Pyotr Mstislavets. Soon after Metropolitan Macarius’s death the printing house was destroyed and the first printers fled from Russia.

Metropolitan Macarius wrote many works. Having gathered together all the “books that are read which are found in the Russian land,” he compiled an enormous collection known as the Great Reading-Menaion (Velikie Minei-Chetii), which also included the lives of Russian saints. The lives of the saints were arranged according to the day of their commemoration for every day of every month of the year. To the lives were added separate homilies suited to be read on the saint’s day, as well as entire collections of his words. Descriptions of miracles that occurred after the saint’s repose were also included.

In addition, Metropolitan Macarius is credited with compiling the Consolidated Nomocanon (Kormchaya Kniga) and the Great Book of Rules for Cell and Journey.

Many other works were composed by Metropolitan Macarius; particularly noteworthy among those that have come down to us are his instructions and discourses, distinguished by great simplicity and clarity of thought.

Yet the chief labour of Metropolitan Macarius was the convocation of the Stoglav Council. At the council, which met under the presidency of Metropolitan Macarius, there gathered nine archbishops and bishops, many archimandrites, hegumens, elders and priests. Representatives of the secular authorities were also present.

The council was opened by Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich on 23 February 1551. The Tsar addressed the council with a speech in which he explained its purpose, pointing out that many customs had “become corrupted or had been introduced arbitrarily according to personal whims, or the handed-down laws had been violated, or the work of God’s commandments had been done weakly and negligently,” and therefore the Tsar “requires the counsel of the hierarchs and wishes to deliberate with you in God, to set in order that which is disordered for the good.” He further said that they should “judge according to the rules of the holy apostles and holy fathers and confirm in common agreement together.” Then thirty-seven royal questions were put to the council, to which thirty-two more were later added.

After this the council began to draw up answers, which it completed by the beginning of May of the same year.

All the decisions of the Stoglav Council are recorded in the book Stoglav (from the number of chapters in which the acts of the council are described).

The council’s decrees covered various aspects of church life. Most of them dealt with divine services, which were to be performed in full (ch. 6) according to the Typicon, in an orderly manner and without haste (ch. 16); with the ordination of priests who were “good, skilled, of blameless life” (chs. 6, 77, 81), their age (ch. 25), and the ordination of other church ranks (chs. 8, 86–90); with order in church and at services (chs. 7–16); with the performance of the mysteries – baptism (ch. 17) and marriage (chs. 18–24); with the painting of icons (chs. 27–43); with the copying of books (ch. 28); with the behaviour of priests (chs. 29–30, 34, 83, 96); with various rites – the two-fingered sign of the cross (chs. 31–32), the Alleluia (ch. 42), the consecration of churches (chs. 44, 47), fasting and forbidden foods (chs. 90–91).

Other decrees concerned episcopal courts, their regulation and the elimination of various abuses (chs. 53–68), the non-interference of laymen in trials of clergy (ch. 65), and the proper collection of marriage fees (chs. 46, 48, 69).

Further decrees dealt with monasteries, their properties and the removal of various vices in monasteries (chs. 49, 50, 75–76, 82, 85, 97, 100).

Finally, there were decrees concerning lay people and measures for the eradication of various vices such as drunkenness (chs. 42, 92), games (ch. 92), sorcery (ch. 93), pagan amusements (ch. 41), the prohibition of performances by skomorokhi (buffoons) (chs. 99, 41), etc. (ch. 41).

Decrees were also issued on the establishment of schools (ch. 26), the ransoming of captives (ch. 72), the founding of almshouses (ch. 73), care for the poor (ch. 71), and the like.

Apart from the aforementioned decrees on the two-fingered sign and the double Alleluia, noteworthy is the decree on the reading of the Creed with the inclusion of the words “true and life-giving” (ch. 9). Thus the use of the word “true” raised no doubts and had been employed by all from ancient times. Then, in chapter 31 it is stated that the two-fingered sign is to be used: “and to make the sign of the cross upon oneself with two fingers, as the holy fathers handed down… Likewise it befits all Orthodox Christians to arrange the hand and with two fingers to depict the sign of the cross upon their face and to bow.” Finally, chapter 42, which speaks of the Alleluia: “henceforth all Orthodox Christians are to say the double Alleluia and not to make it triple… it is not fitting to say the holy Alleluia thrice, but twice: Alleluia, Alleluia, and the third time: Glory to Thee, O God.”

Thanks to its decrees, the significance of the Stoglav Council is extraordinarily great, for it compiled a summary of all the ancient Russian customs and rites that the Russians had sacredly preserved and handed down from ancient times. At the same time, at the council the Russians showed that they had matured sufficiently to be independent of the Greeks in church life, to free themselves from their tutelage, and to order their own church independently.

Chapter IV. The Correction of Books

The idea that Moscow was the sole guardian of the pure Orthodox faith, that Moscow was the Third Rome, reached its highest apogee under Tsar Feodor Ivanovich, during whose reign the patriarchate was established in 1589.

The first patriarch was Job (1589–1605), then Hermogen (1606–1612). The patriarchal authority attained its greatest splendour and flowering under Patriarch Philaret (1619–1633), who was the father of Tsar Michael Feodorovich. Since the son was still young and inexperienced, the state was actually governed by Patriarch Philaret, who was styled “Great Sovereign” on an equal footing with the Tsar; all government documents were issued in the name of both. After him the patriarchs were Joasaph (1634–1642) and Joseph (1642–1652), after which the patriarchal throne was occupied by Nikon (1652–1666), under whom the unity of the Russian Church came to an end and it split into two irreconcilable halves. Under the first patriarchs the Russian Church attained its greatest independence.

The decrees and wishes of the Stoglav Council were put into practice, and various improvements were introduced into church life and administration. The patriarchs had to expend much effort to halt the excessively strong influence of Latinised Kiev, the Greeks, and the Lutherans. Much was also done to carry out the Stoglav Council’s decree on the correction of books, which stated in chapter 27:
“And whatever holy books – Gospels, Apostols, Psalters and other books – you find in any church that are uncorrected and full of copyists’ errors, you are to correct all the holy books collectively from good translations; for the sacred canons forbid this and do not allow uncorrected books to be brought into church or anything to be sung from them…”
And in chapter 28:
“Copy (books) from good translations, and having copied them, correct them… and do not sell uncorrected books… And if you strive to correct these things with thanksgiving and a willing heart, then joyfully expect a double reward from God and the kingdom of heaven.”

Thus the Stoglav Council was not only not opposed to the correction of books; it even recommended it, requiring only that the correction be made “from good translations” and not from hastily made ones of any kind – exactly the opposite of what Patriarch Nikon later did.

The correction of books had long been carried out in Rus’. But it was undertaken with particular intensity from the middle of the fifteenth century, when in 1469 the Grand Prince married the Greek princess Sophia Palaiologina. Upon arriving in Rus’, the princess brought with her a great many rare and very ancient books and manuscripts. Since the prince himself already possessed a large collection of ancient books in Slavonic, a very rich grand-princely library was formed. Grand Prince Vasily III Ivanovich paid serious attention to it and wished many books to be translated from Greek into Slavonic. In 1515 a request was sent to the monastery on Mount Athos to send the elder Savva for translation work. Because of Savva’s great age, the monk Maximus was sent instead. Although he did not know Russian, he was very learned and widely read, so it was supposed that “he would quickly master the Russian language.”

On arriving in Russia, where he was received with great honour, Monk Maximus set about translating. With the help of Russian interpreters he first translated the Explanatory Psalter – a book of enormous size. The translation won full approval from the clergy and a “double reward” from the Grand Prince. After this, Maximus the Greek was asked to continue his work of translation and correction of books on the basis of ancient originals. He corrected the Triodion, the Horologion, the Festal Menaion, and the Apostol. But soon the activity of St Maximus came to an end: he became involved in court intrigues and openly denounced the Grand Prince. Moreover, many of his actions aroused dissatisfaction among the Russian clergy. In 1525 a council was convened at which Maximus was accused of many offences and exiled to the Volokolamsk Monastery, and later to an even harsher exile in the Otroch Monastery in Tver, where he languished for more than twenty years. He died in 1556, leaving behind many writings.

After the Stoglav Council, work on the correction of books intensified. Especially much was accomplished under Patriarch Philaret. At the very beginning of his tenure, at the patriarch’s insistence, the case of the correctors Dionysius, Arsenius and Ivan was reviewed. Having been accused of distorting books, they were pardoned, and the books they had corrected were approved. In 1620 the Moscow printing house was reopened, and special premises for correctors and a library were set up there; ancient parchment manuscripts were ordered to be brought from all over Russia. The printing house produced a very large number of books: twelve Monthly Menaia, the Psalter, the Great Catechism, the Euchologion, and many service books, many of which were personally verified by the patriarch himself. Others were corrected by specially chosen correctors – the most learned men of the time. The patriarch strictly ensured that books were corrected in accordance with the texts of ancient Slavonic and Greek manuscripts. The chief correctors were the Trinity elders Anthony Krylov and Arsenius the Deaf, and for oversight of them were appointed Hegumen Elias and the priest Ivan Nasedka.

Under Patriarch Philaret numerous representatives of the Greek and Eastern Orthodox churches frequently arrived seeking alms, but they did not accuse the Russians of departing from Orthodoxy – as they later did under Nikon.

Under Patriarch Joasaph the work of correcting books continued; during his time up to twenty-three corrected editions were published. Besides the elder Arsenius, the chief correctors were the hegumens Abraham and Barlaam, the elder Savvaty, and others.

Under Patriarch Joseph up to thirty-eight titles were published (a total of 116 editions), many of them in several printings. In all these editions the ancient Russian rites and customs were confirmed. The chief correctors under Patriarch Joseph were Protopope Michael Rogov, the key-keeper of the Dormition Cathedral Ivan Nasedka (later the monk Joseph), the elder Savvaty, and the laymen Shestoy Martemyanov and Zachary Afanasyev; in 1651 Archimandrite Sylvester was added, and later Zachary Novikov and Sila Grigoryev – men who for that time were educated and well-read. They corrected books with extraordinary care, paying much attention to correctness of language and observance of grammatical rules. In their corrections they used not only ancient Slavonic manuscripts but also ancient Greek ones. Externally too the books were produced with exceptional care, on good paper and printed in very clear type – the finest editions of the seventeenth century.

All these corrections of books led to no church disputes or quarrels whatsoever. The Russian clergy and people perfectly understood that handwritten books needed proper correction by collation with ancient manuscripts, since accidental errors and copyists’ mistakes could inadvertently creep in. Therefore corrections were made, and the corrected books were accepted without objection by the Russian clergy and laity.

But when Nikon appeared and began not to correct books but to distort them, adapting them not to ancient originals but to contemporary Latinised Greek and Kiev books, driving out the old correctors and replacing them with Greek adventurers and former Uniate monks, then of course such books could not be accepted without protest and were bound to provoke fierce opposition from both the Russian clergy and laity – which is exactly what happened. Nikon’s excessive ambitions led to the splitting of the Russian Church and Russian society into two halves, between which opened a vast and impassable abyss whose existence is now approaching its three-hundredth year.

Chapter V. Patriarch Nikon

The chief culprit of the schism that divided the Russian Orthodox Church into two halves was Nikon. A man of majestic appearance, richly endowed with talents, intelligent, cunning, and extremely ambitious, widely read, possessing the gift of eloquence, able to please everyone, to dissemble when necessary, knowing no limits to his designs, hot-tempered, cruel, harsh, a frightful despot, yet at the same time petty and deeply suspicious – such was Nikon.

The main force that drove him toward the schism was his boundless lust for power. It pushed him ever higher and higher, raised him to an unattainable height, so that Nikon already imagined himself the sole chosen head of the entire Eastern Church and of the Russian realm. By this he alienated everyone, and he fell headlong. The higher the ascent, the more terrible the fall. In the end the proud patriarch was transformed into a half-crazed little monk.

The exact year of Nikon’s birth is not established: according to some sources 1605, according to certain Old-Believer “tales” 1613. His parents were poor peasant Mordvins from the village of Valdemanóvo (Kurmýshovo) in Nizhny-Novgorod province. Soon after the birth of Nikita (Nikon’s baptismal name) his mother died, and his father married again. The stepmother took a dislike to her stepson and oppressed and beat him severely. Unable to endure the torment, Nikita, at the age of twelve, secretly fled to the Makary-Zheltovodsky Monastery, where he grew accustomed to church services. When he grew up, at the age of twenty Nikita married and was made a reader, then a priest. After ten years of married life, when all his children had died, Nikita – dissatisfied with his life and driven by ambition – compelled his wife to enter a monastery, while he himself took monastic vows under the name Nikon. After wandering among various monasteries, he came to the Anzersky Skete, where he stayed for a time, but soon quarrelled with the hegumen and the brethren and departed for the Kozheozersky Monastery, where he was elected hegumen.

But such a modest position could of course not satisfy the ambitious Nikon, and he bent every effort to gain the support of the powerful. While in Moscow he joined the circle headed by the Tsar’s confessor Stefan Vonifatiev. For the time being concealing his true intentions, he won the favour of the archpriest and through him made the acquaintance of the young Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, upon whom he made a strong impression both by his appearance and by his speeches. Soon Nikon was appointed archimandrite of the Novo-Spassky Monastery in Moscow; at this time he grew still closer to the Tsar, gradually taking him into his own hands and making him act according to his wishes. At the same time, seeing the strength of Vonifatiev’s circle, he drew near to all its members and entered into friendship with them, fawning upon those whom he would later begin to persecute, repaying with the blackest ingratitude the people who had helped him rise.

In 1648, in violation of the canons and while Metropolitan Afoniy was still alive and had not resigned, the Tsar forced Nikon’s appointment as Metropolitan of Novgorod. From this time he began to show his Grecophilia, introducing various “novelties” in the Greek manner. Word of this reached Patriarch Joseph, who sent an order forbidding the alteration of ancient customs and rites; but Nikon, relying on the Tsar, paid no attention to the demands of the aged patriarch, who himself felt his own powerlessness and saw that “they want to change me, to cast me down.” Soon afterwards, because he interceded for the Tsar’s governors, Nikon was severely beaten by the rebellious populace, for which he entered even deeper into the Tsar’s favour. After the cruel suppression of the rebels (whose trial had been entrusted to him), Nikon was summoned to the Tsar for counsel. He was charged with bringing the relics of St Metropolitan Philip from the Solovetsky Monastery to Moscow. On the journey he greatly oppressed his companions – the boyars – and so displayed his obstinate character that the boyars sent complaints to the Tsar and to their families. At the Solovetsky Monastery Nikon made the acquaintance of the Greek Arsenius who had been exiled there, and they quickly became friends.

On 15 April 1652 Patriarch Joseph died. The Tsar informed Nikon of the patriarch’s death by letter, demanding that he return speedily for the election of a patriarch and hinting that the patriarch was to be Nikon himself.

On 9 July the holy relics of Metropolitan Philip, accompanied by Nikon, arrived in Moscow and were met outside the city by the Tsar, the boyars, and the sacred council. Having returned to Moscow, Nikon began to treat everyone “like a fox – bowing and greeting,” wishing to win everyone over and draw them to his side. Women greatly helped him in this. In the end Nikon succeeded so cleverly that the members of the “circle” submitted a petition to the Tsar asking that Nikon be recognised as patriarch, and even Archpriest Avvakum himself “put his hand” to it.

On 22 July 1652 Nikon was elected patriarch. But the election was staged in a wholly unusual manner: when the patriarchate was offered to Nikon, he began to refuse. After long entreaties from the Tsar, Nikon solemnly demanded that the Tsar, the boyars, and the whole people swear that they would keep all the church commandments and laws and in all matters of faith and the Church would obey him, Nikon, “as chief and shepherd and most excellent father.” This was done, and only then did Nikon accept the patriarchate.

Thus Nikon had reached heights beyond which there was nowhere further to climb. But even this was not enough for the ambitious Nikon: he dreamed of the papal tiara.

Moscow was the Third Rome. In the first Rome sat the Pope, whose power was immense: he was not only ecclesiastical sovereign and lawgiver, but also a secular ruler possessing his own state. All Europe listened to his voice, and there spiritual authority stood above secular.

Why should this not be introduced in Moscow, the chief centre of Orthodoxy? Greece had fallen; the Eastern Church was in bondage; the Orthodox patriarchs enjoyed almost no authority. Meanwhile Moscow was strong; the Muscovite realm was ever more flourishing, and the eyes of the entire East were turned toward it. The authority of the Moscow patriarch was very great and his power enormous; the other patriarchs came to him to bow and to beg alms in wealthy Muscovy. Clearly, if he, Nikon, were to seize secular power in his hands or at least force recognition that spiritual authority was higher than secular, the other patriarchs – for the handouts they had already grown accustomed to receiving – would agree to recognise Nikon as the Eastern Pope.

It seemed that Nikon would encounter no special obstacles on this path. The only possible obstacles were Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich himself and, as a stronger second obstacle, the difference in rites that existed between the Greek and Russian churches.

The first obstacle could be removed comparatively easily: the “most peaceful” Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich trusted his “ especial friend” completely and obeyed him without question. Nikon told the Tsar that he was the sole Orthodox sovereign who ought to enjoy authority among all Orthodox peoples. Yet this was hindered by the differences that had arisen in church rites. Therefore it was first of all necessary to change all Russian church rites to the Greek pattern, so that there should be no difference in faith.

The Tsar agreed and gave Nikon full freedom; after that Nikon became master of the entire church administration, into which the Tsar no longer interfered at all. At the same time, having entered into an agreement with Nikon which they kept secret from others, the Tsar admitted Nikon to participation in state affairs: Nikon received the title “Great Sovereign” and in all documents began to be mentioned alongside the real sovereign. In the end he began to eclipse the Tsar himself, and when the Tsar went off to the war with Poland, Nikon for two years governed all state affairs as sovereign. He forced the most eminent boyars who headed the prikazy to appear before him daily with reports, keeping a boyar waiting in the cold for a long time before receiving him standing and forcing him to make earth-bows upon entering. He treated everyone with extreme arrogance and rudeness. Nikon finally decided that the power granted him by the Tsar was his by right and that spiritual authority stood above secular, which ought to be subject to it. Nikon wrote: “God has chosen for the leadership and provision of His people this most wise dyad – the Great Sovereign Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich and the Great Sovereign His Holiness Patriarch Nikon… who justly and fittingly adorn the cities entrusted to them… May He grant them, the sovereigns, that under their single sovereign command all Orthodox peoples everywhere may glorify with joyful songs the true God who raised them up.”

In the Tsar’s absence Nikon sent out various decrees beginning with the words: “The Sovereign and Grand Prince Alexei Mikhailovich of all Rus’ has decreed, and we, the Great Sovereign…” Many decrees were issued in the name of the patriarch alone. Even the Tsar himself seemed to bow before Nikon’s authority and acknowledge his primacy, emphasising this everywhere – calling himself Nikon’s “son,” kissing his hand, raising the first toast at banquets to Nikon, etc.

Since the Moscow patriarchs possessed an enormous number of estates and lands, they were the richest landowners in Rus’. Even these riches seemed insufficient to Nikon, and by every means he increased his holdings still further, often resorting to purchases forbidden to the clergy. With the Tsar’s help Nikon built the wealthiest monasteries in order to outshine the Greek ones and gather still more lands around them. Finally he began the construction of his future Vatican – the Resurrection New-RitualistsJerusalem Monastery, where the Lord’s Tomb and other Jerusalem holy places were exactly reproduced. No expense was spared on the monastery: the Tsar donated several villages and estates; Nikon himself donated much and continued buying up land around the new monastery; he spared no money on its adornment and created the richest monastery, preparing for himself a residence there – which, however, he never managed to enjoy.

It seemed that Nikon had already achieved everything; one more step and he would be pope – especially since his church reform was also nearing its end: all opponents had been destroyed – some tortured to death, some exiled – and the Russian Church had already accepted all the new Greek rites.

But at the very moment when Nikon reached the pinnacle of his glory, fate turned against him: the Tsar’s eyes were opened to Nikon’s true designs; listening to the voice of the boyars and becoming alarmed, the Tsar cooled toward Nikon. The overweening patriarch, declaring that “the Tsar’s help is neither fitting nor needful to me; indeed I spit and blow my nose upon it,” resolved upon a break and struggle with the Tsar. In July 1658, after a minor clash over the beating of one of his boyars, the final rupture occurred: the Tsar became enraged at Nikon and ordered that he no longer be styled “Great Sovereign.” The patriarch, after serving in the Dormition Cathedral, announced to the people that he would no longer be patriarch, and “if I ever think to be patriarch again, let me be anathema.” After this he removed his vestments and wished to leave the cathedral, but the people would not let him go. Messengers were sent to inform the Tsar of everything. The Tsar sent a boyar with entreaties; Nikon, however, wanted the Tsar himself to come and beg. When this did not happen, Nikon withdrew to the Resurrection Monastery, from where he began his struggle against the Tsar – a struggle that continued right up to the council of 1666. Now he began to call himself Patriarch of New Jerusalem and continued to manage church affairs. He wrote a work in which he tried to prove that spiritual authority is higher than secular: “The priesthood is far greater than the kingdom… The authority of the priesthood is as much better than civil authority as heaven is higher than earth – nay, much more… The patriarch is a living and animated image of Christ,” he wrote. This opinion about the superiority of spiritual over secular authority gathered many supporters, and at the council of 1667 it had to be proved that they were “Nikonising and Papising,” attempting to destroy the realm. But the struggle with the Tsar proved beyond Nikon’s strength, and little by little the proud patriarch changed, becoming more and more a mere grumbling little monk who recalled the luxurious royal banquets where he had been “fed like a calf for slaughter with many rich foods,” who begged monetary handouts from the Tsar, who saw around him non-existent plots against his life. At the same time Nikon’s arbitrary actions began – both in secular matters, where he showed himself by seizing and appropriating neighbours’ lands, and in church matters, where he poured out excommunications, anathemas, and the like.

Finally, in order to put an end to all the disturbances, the Tsar decided to convene a council to judge Nikon. After Nikon’s unsuccessful attempt in 1664 to return to the patriarchate on his own authority, a council was assembled in 1666, and Nikon was presented with many accusations, among which were: appropriating to himself the name of patriarch-pope, styling himself Patriarch of New Jerusalem, attempting to usurp the place of the Patriarch of Antioch through forged letters and signatures, refusing to recognise the Patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria as legitimate, possessing eighty sakkoi (of which he would change up to twenty during a single liturgy), equating himself with the saints, wearing a crown upon his head, etc. After long sessions and a personal interrogation of Nikon, the council convicted him on many counts: of voluntarily abandoning his see, of arbitrarily removing and torturing Bishop Paul of Kolomna, of insulting the Russian Church and the Eastern patriarchs, and so forth. Nikon was sentenced to deposition, deprivation of rank, and exile to a monastery. On 13 December 1666 Nikon was sent into exile to the Ferapontov Monastery, where he lived as a simple monk. Exile broke the proud patriarch, and he turned into a feeble-spirited old man whose interests extended no further than concern for good food. After the death of Alexei Mikhailovich, his son Tsar Feodor petitioned the Eastern patriarchs for Nikon’s restoration. The patriarchs issued letters of absolution, for which the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Jerusalem took 300 thalers each, the Alexandrian 150, the Antiochian 100, and in addition enormous sums were distributed as donations to the patriarchs, their councils, etc. When the letter of absolution reached Rus’, Nikon was no longer alive. He died on the way from exile to Moscow on 17 August 1681.

Chapter VI. Nikon’s Assistants

Scarcely had Nikon ascended the patriarchal throne in 1652 when he set about his reforms, in which he was given active assistance by Greek adventurers and Kievans who already possessed considerable experience in “corrections,” since exactly the same kind of reforms had earlier been carried out in Kiev by Metropolitan Peter Mogila.

One of Nikon’s chief assistants was Arsenius the Greek. A native of the city of Trikala in Greece, he had been baptised in the Orthodox faith, but as a child he was taken to Italy, where he studied with the Jesuits in Venice and Rome, living with a Uniate metropolitan. Returning to Greece, after he had accepted the Latin heresy, he was tonsured a monk, a year later ordained deacon, then priest, and finally made hegumen. Not content with this, he left the monastery to become a teacher. But he did not remain a teacher long either, and soon his wanderings through various lands began. It must be presumed that it was precisely at this time that he accepted Islam, though he himself claimed he had been forcibly made a Muslim.

Finally he arrived in Kiev, where in 1649 he attached himself to the retinue of Jerusalem Patriarch Paisius, who was then travelling to Moscow for alms. Since there was a great demand in Rus’ for learned men, they asked Paisius to recommend some learned Greek who could establish a school in Moscow. The patriarch’s choice fell upon Arsenius, and the latter was recommended to Patriarch Joseph and to the Tsar. But scarcely had the patriarch left Russian territory when he sent a letter reporting that he suspected Arsenius of instability in the faith and recounting that Arsenius “had been a Muslim,” and then, having fallen into Poland, had accepted Uniatism.

A trial was held over Arsenius, and by the Tsar’s decree he was exiled to the Solovetsky Monastery for the correction of his faith and kept there in an earthen prison. When Nikon came to Solovki in 1652 to fetch the relics of Metropolitan Philip, Arsenius addressed him with a request to remember him “when the time comes” – that is, when he became patriarch. Soon Nikon’s election took place, and he summoned Arsenius to Moscow. Although Arsenius was still kept under supervision “for the correction of his Orthodox Christian faith,” he was nevertheless made one of the chief correctors of ancient Russian books and rites.

Such was one of the new “learned” correctors.

Another corrector was the Athonite archimandrite Dionysius, who lived in Russia from 1655 to 1669. Little information about him has been preserved, but what there is suffices to paint a clear picture of the man.

All Dionysius’s cares boiled down to extracting as much money as possible from the Russians; and satisfying his greed was exceedingly difficult. Besides his salary and various one-time gifts, upon his departure for Greece he received a parting gift of 200 roubles – a very large sum for those days – but even this provoked from him a complaint that he had needlessly ruined his health and that, had he known in advance, he would not have worked for the Tsar and the cathedral church for such money.

Being a very cunning man, he always tried to be on the side of the strong. Having first befriended Nikon, he quickly renounced him, went over to the government’s side, and took the liveliest part in Nikon’s condemnation. Appointed interpreter for the patriarchs, he persuaded them of the necessity of fulfilling the government’s wishes, frightening them with the prospect that they would receive no alms.

The extent of his influence upon the patriarchs is evident from the fact that many of the council’s decrees are almost literal extracts from his writings against the old faith. This work is divided into four parts: “On the Alleluia,” “On the Honourable Cross,” “On the Four-ended Cross which is called the Kruzh,” and “On the Jesus Prayer,” in which Dionysius tries to refute the old rites and prove the truth of the new ones. The arguments are extremely weak, mostly groundless, and at times outright blasphemous or bordering on heresy. Therefore one must strongly doubt the learning of this corrector.

At the same time, according to the testimony of all contemporaries, Dionysius led the most scandalous life; in the words of Archpriest Avvakum he was “a thief and a mocker,” and Deacon Theodore says of him that “such a rogue was deliberately assigned to them (the patriarchs) – exactly the same sort as they themselves were.”

The third corrector was the hieromonk Epiphanius Slavinetsky, a learned Kiev monk.

For a long time the Russians had looked askance at the Orthodoxy of the Kievans. As early as 1448 the Russian metropolis had been divided into the Moscow and Kiev metropolises, the Moscow one gaining full independence while the Kiev one remained within the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Moreover, Kievan Rus’, which had become part of the Lithuanian state, passed to Poland, and with this the influence of the Catholic clergy upon the church life of Little Russia increased.

An era began of severe oppression and persecution of Orthodoxy, and finally Uniatism was established, into which a great mass of the Orthodox went over. The wide spread of Uniatism caused the Russians to look with suspicion upon all Orthodox who came to Rus’ from the West, for everyone was suspected of Uniatism. That is why at the council of 1620 Patriarch Philaret insistently demanded that not only those coming from Latinism but all Belarusians from Lithuania and Poland be rebaptised.

Nevertheless, in Kievan Rus’ many ancient customs and rites were preserved until the beginning of the seventeenth century; they disappeared only from the time when the metropolitan throne was occupied by Peter Mogila. Peter Mogila came from a very noble family and had received a European education. Having by chance exchanged a military career for a spiritual one, upon being made Metropolitan of Kiev he set about broad reforms of the Kiev church and at the same time the remaking of all rites in the Greek manner and the correction of books, using Latin service-books for this purpose and inventing much himself. Against such innovations of Mogila the former Kiev metropolitan Isaya rose up, accusing Mogila of unorthodoxy and a desire to Latinise the church – “to abolish the Russian books.” But unfortunately the elder soon died.

It is clear what kind of correctors Nikon could obtain from the new Kiev Orthodoxy.

And such a corrector was Epiphanius Slavinetsky, who had studied not only in Kiev but also abroad – “an elegant teacher of philosophy and theology.” Upon arriving in Moscow he soon became Nikon’s assistant and zealously began correcting books, hastily changing everything to the Kiev manner. In his translations he wrote in such a dreadful language that much of it is impossible to understand. Moreover, he often resorted to inventing his own words when he could not find suitable ones.

Such were Nikon’s other assistants as well, and it is understandable that from them one could in no way expect a careful attitude toward antiquity or any understanding of it. They were too blind and unswervingly pursued one goal – to arrange everything as it was among themselves and to prove that Moscow was by no means the Third Rome, that Moscow had become too proud, that piety in her did not stand at the height the Russians supposed, that only the Greeks – from whom the Russians had received their faith – were the guardians of the true faith, and therefore Moscow, which thought too much of herself, had to be put in her place; it was not she, but the Greeks who must again be the leading authority.

Chapter VII. Nikon’s Reforms

As soon as Nikon ascended the patriarchal throne, he set about his reforms, beginning with a root-and-branch destruction of all the old customs and rites, striving to replace them with new ones.

In 1653, during Great Lent, he issued a “Memorandum” addressed to the priests, in which he declared:
“According to the tradition of the holy apostles and holy fathers, it is not fitting in church to make prostrations on the knees, but you should make bows from the waist; and you should sign yourselves with three fingers.”

This epistle of the patriarch caused great disturbance both among the clergy and the laity; it poured out into muffled discontent and then into open protest on the part of the defenders of antiquity, who at that time were led by the archpriests Ioann Neronov, Avvakum, Daniel, Loggin and others. Avvakum and Daniel wrote a petition against Nikon’s decrees and submitted it to the Tsar. The Tsar accepted it and passed it on to Nikon. Nikon dealt very harshly with the opponents: Ioann Neronov was exiled to a monastery, Loggin was defrocked, Daniel was deprived of his rank and exiled to Astrakhan, Avvakum to Siberia.

But this not only failed to bring calm; on the contrary it provoked an even greater explosion of protest that embraced still wider circles of society. Then Nikon, in order to quiet the raging passions, decided to convene a council.

At the end of March 1654 a council was assembled at which, under the presidency of the Tsar and Nikon, there were present five metropolitans, four archbishops, and only one bishop – Paul of Kolomna. The council was opened with a speech by Nikon, who justified himself before the assembly by saying that he was introducing no novelties; on the contrary, he wished to correct all Russian books and rites “in accordance with the old parchment manuscripts and the Greek ones.” Such a formulation of the question could arouse no objections from the council. In any case, objections were impossible because only persons who would not contradict Nikon had been invited to the council.

Nevertheless, even among them there was found a hierarch who resolved to oppose Nikon on the question of prostrations, citing ancient manuscripts in his possession. This was Bishop Paul of Kolomna. But this only led to a brutal beating administered personally by Nikon; after which, stripping him of his hierarchical vestments, he sent Bishop Paul into exile to the Paleostrovsky Monastery.

The question of the finger-sign was not examined at all at this council. Meanwhile the elder Arseny Sukhanov – who had already twice been to the East – was sent there for books. Of his first journeys he had compiled reports entitled “Articles List” with an appendix “Disputations on the Faith” which he had held with Athonite elders; of his second journey he wrote the Proskinitarion. From his travels he carried away the most negative impression and depicted the Eastern clergy in the darkest colours – their corruption, abasement, and flattery. He came to the conclusion that the faith had not been corrupted among us, but in the East. In his “Disputations on the Faith” he recounts his arguments with the Athonite monks about the two-fingered sign, the correctness of which they were unable to refute. But while Arseny was travelling for books, the “correction” was already proceeding at full speed.

Immediately after the council, in the summer of 1654, Nikon also turned against icons – both the new ones painted after Italian models and the old ones. He ordered such icons to be collected everywhere and brought to him. There he personally gouged out their eyes, after which they were carried through the streets with warnings to the people not to paint such icons. This led to a popular uprising that was suppressed by military force.

Wishing to justify himself, Nikon sent a letter to Patriarch Paisius of Constantinople asking for resolutions on various questions and at the same time denouncing Bishop Paul and Archpriest Ioann Neronov, accusing them of having introduced novelties. Deacon Theodore, recounting this, writes that Nikon in his letter “justifying himself and slandering them like the devil, as if they had composed new prayers and church rites and were thereby corrupting the people and separating them from the cathedral church – Nikon the enemy wrote untruth, but slandered righteous men.” For they “had neither added a single new prayer nor troparion nor one corrupt word into our old books anywhere at all; there had been no schism among them in the church, they had never sat at the correction of books in the printing yard nor been among the compositors – the whole of Moscow knows this.”

Understanding from the denunciation that in Moscow certain persons had appeared who supposedly wished to introduce novelties and were opposing Nikon, Patriarch Paisius in his reply advised Nikon to excommunicate such persons until they renounced their novelties.

In 1655 the Patriarch of Antioch, Macarius, arrived in Moscow for alms. The chief purpose of his visit was to obtain as much money as possible from the Moscow government – something the Greeks were extremely greedy for. Having acquainted himself with the state of affairs in the Russian Church and understood the situation, seeing that the young Tsar was entirely in Nikon’s hands, that Nikon’s power was enormous, and that the size of the alms also depended solely on Nikon, the cunning Greek began to humour Nikon in everything and to justify all his actions.

On the Sunday of Orthodoxy, after the conclusion of the service – which had been celebrated with the participation of three patriarchs: Nikon, Macarius, and Gabriel of Serbia – Nikon delivered a sermon in which he sharply denounced the incorrect painting of icons. The patriarchs present confirmed the correctness of Nikon’s denunciations and pronounced anathema upon those who painted icons incorrectly. After this Nikon took some of these icons, raised them high above his head for the people to see, then hurled them onto the stone floor, smashing them to pieces, and ordered the remains to be burned. The patriarchs watched all this impassively; only the Tsar was indignant and began begging Nikon not to burn the icons but to bury them in the earth.

Having finished with the icons, Nikon continued his sermon, denouncing the people for the two-fingered sign and declaring that the only correct way was the three-fingered sign; this was eagerly confirmed by Patriarch Macarius as well.

In March 1655 Nikon convened a second council at which, besides the Russian hierarchs, the Patriarchs Macarius of Antioch and Gabriel of Serbia were present. According to Paul of Aleppo, the council lasted a week and was convened at Macarius’s wish.

Macarius, noticing the difference between certain Russian and contemporary Greek rites, proposed changing them to the Greek manner, and this was immediately accepted; Nikon declared that although “I am a Russian and the son of a Russian, yet my convictions and my faith are Greek.” To which some members of the council obsequiously replied that “the light of faith in Christ and all the rites of religion and its mysteries shone upon us from the lands of the East.” Others, remembering the example of Bishop Paul of Kolomna, kept silent in displeasure or said to themselves: “We will not change our books and rites which we received from antiquity.”

These changes concerned the form of the antimensia, the number of particles taken from the prosphorae, the Creed (from which the word “true” was removed), the finger-sign, and the rebaptism of Catholics, whom the Greeks now accepted without baptism.

After this they proceeded to print new service-books, supposedly corrected on the basis of ancient books but in reality reprinted from a Venetian edition. In the preface to the service-book Nikon recounts the council of 1655 somewhat differently. He asserts that a letter had been received from Patriarch Paisius in which the latter approved Nikon’s activity and advised him to continue it steadfastly and zealously.

But this assertion is false: the letter was received after the council – the council took place in March, and the letter only arrived in May; moreover, the content of the letter itself was rather different from what Nikon would have liked. The patriarch advises Nikon to be cautious in carrying out his rapid reforms, to understand Christian doctrine more loftily, and on the question of two fingers versus three says that “this makes no difference whatsoever.”

Nikon further asserts that all the new books were carefully compared with ancient Slavonic and Greek ones.

But this assertion too is untrue: the council sessions lasted only a week, and in so short a time it was impossible to examine all the corrected books – still less, as Nikon tries to assure us, “carefully.” Moreover, among those sitting there were not only no outstanding but not even good experts who knew both Slavonic and Greek simultaneously.

The matter was simpler: the service-book had indeed been corrected, but from the Venetian edition. How good that edition was is evident from the fact that soon afterwards, by Nikon’s own order, it was commanded to collect and burn it.

The other books too were “carefully” corrected. The corrector Sylvester Medvedev testifies that under Nikon all books were corrected according to contemporary Greek Venetian editions.

Moreover, in the very same books issued under Nikon one finds in subsequent editions passages each time corrected and translated differently, because the correctors were concerned not so much with the correctness of the translations as with inserting whatever personally seemed to them more suitable or necessary.

Thus, making a cursory survey of all Nikon’s reforms and book corrections, one is forced to conclude that they were carried out far too hastily, without any preparation, thoughtlessly; that most of them were utterly senseless and unnecessary; that they did not answer the needs and demands of the Russian people; and that the harm produced by these reforms is incalculable.

Chapter VIII. Nikon’s Novelties

Nikon’s book “corrections” and reforms deepened year by year and went ever further.

Since all the corrections were carried out extremely carelessly, without plan or sense, many books began to contradict one another. It became necessary to await confirmations and proofs of the truth of what had been written; and since such proofs could not always be found, frequent recourse was had to forgeries.

One of these has already been mentioned above; soon afterwards there were issued the “Act of the Council against the Armenian Heretic Martin the Monk” and the “Theognost Trebnik,” in which the former asserted that all the old rites had been invented by a certain heretic monk Martin the Armenian who in fact had never existed and who had supposedly been condemned by a council in 1157; while the “Trebnik,” supposedly written by St Theognost, furnished the necessary proofs.

In the end the excessively rapid carrying out of the “reform” – despite the people’s opposition and its forcible imposition upon them – led to the splitting of the Russian Church and the Russian people into two halves: one half, the more democratic and national, stood for the old faith and customs; the second, the governmental half, stood for the new faith and inclined toward the West.

The differences between them on purely religious questions consisted in the following divergences:

1. The New-RitualistsRitualists began to assert that one must pray only according to the new books supposedly corrected by Nikon. The Old Believers maintained that the books of the Joseph edition were far better than Nikon’s and that divine services could be celebrated only according to the old books.

2. In the eighth article of the Creed the New-RitualistsRitualists removed the word “true,” reading: “And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Life-giver…”

3. The New-RitualistsRitualists recognised only the three-fingered sign, and for blessing began to use the finger-arrangement that spells the name of Jesus Christ (following the tradition of a certain Meletius Malaxos and contrary to the oaths of the ancient Orthodox Church). The Old Believers recognise that only the two-fingered sign is the ancient church custom.

4. During church processions the New-RitualistsRitualists began to walk against the sun; the Old Believers, in accordance with church tradition and the Typicon, walk with the sun (posolon’).

5. The New-RitualistsRitualists recognised the four-ended cross as correct and called the eight-ended one “Brynnian” or “schismatic.”

6. The name of Jesus Christ the New-RitualistsRitualists began to write with two i’s – “Iisus” – instead of the former “Isus” accepted by the Old Believers. According to the explanation of Metropolitan Dimitry of Rostov, the name “Isus” in translation means “equal-eared,” “monstrous and signifying nothing.”

7. The Alleluia began to be pronounced three times; the double Alleluia they consider “the God-abominated Macedonian heresy.”

8. The Liturgy began to be served on five prosphorae, declaring that otherwise “the true Body and Blood of Christ cannot be.” According to the old rites, however, it must be served on seven prosphorae.

9. In the baptism of infants they began to allow pouring, contrary to the decrees of the ancient Church which required the rebaptism of those who had been poured.

10. They ceased to count the violation of fasts and the shaving of beards as sin.

11. They permitted marriages with non-Orthodox and with persons in degrees of kinship forbidden by the Church.

12. They destroyed the ancient canonical church structure and recognised the secular authority as head of the Church.

13. They legalised oaths by Almighty God Himself, contrary to the teaching of Christ.

14. They laid an anathema upon all who cross themselves with two fingers, follow the old rites, and pray according to the old books, condemning them after death to be “with Judas the betrayer, with the Jews who crucified Christ, with Arius and with the other accursed heretics.”

15. Instead of the ancient chant they introduced new Italian-style singing.

16. New icons began to be painted not according to ancient originals but after Western models, more resembling pictures than icons.

17. The New-RitualistsRitualists abolished the ancient custom of electing clergy by the parish and replaced it with appointment by the hierarchy (and, moreover, by secular persons).

There were also certain other divergences which, with the passage of time, increased because the Old Believers were left without a hierarchy.

Recognising its full necessity, yet at the same time seeing that true piety had fallen and finding confirmation in Sacred Scripture, one part of the Old Believers ceased to accept newly ordained priests, considering it better to manage entirely without priests than to accept apostates.

Thus there arose priestless Old Belief, which – despite all the persecutions and oppressions inflicted by the Russian government and clergy – nevertheless found in itself the strength to survive for two and a half centuries; not only did it not disappear, but it has preserved itself, carrying the old customs and rites intact and undamaged down to our own time.

Chapter IX. Archpriest Avvakum

One of the chief opponents of Patriarch Nikon and one of the most steadfast defenders of ancient piety was Archpriest Avvakum. The entire life of this great man passed in ceaseless struggle for the righteous cause; yet neither the struggle itself, nor exile, nor torment could break the iron will and spirit of the “hero-archpriest,” as one great Russian scholar called him.

Even his outward appearance attracted and won people over: tall, powerfully built, with regular features framed by a handsome beard, and above all with great eyes that drew one in – now shining with kindness and an inexpressible warmth, now blazing with the terrible fire of fanaticism and unyielding resolve. A brilliant orator, an outstanding writer of his time, one of the foremost experts in Holy Scripture – such was Archpriest Avvakum, whose name every person who calls himself an Old Believer must cherish and preserve with reverence.

Archpriest Avvakum was born around 1620 in the village of Grigorovo in Nizhny-Novgorod province. His father Peter was a poor village priest. Thanks to his pious mother Marfa – a great faster and woman of prayer – he was brought up in the fear of God and became for his whole life a fiery zealot for the true faith. From childhood the lively and impressionable boy grew accustomed to pondering the vanity of all earthly things and to caring for the salvation of his soul. Once, seeing a dead animal at a neighbour’s, Avvakum rose in the night, stood before the icon and “wept long over his own soul, remembering death – that I too must die.” From that night he accustomed himself to pray every night.

Avvakum’s father died early, and the family endured many hardships. It was probably at this time that he first met those who would later be his co-workers and opponents: Hilarion, Ananias, Nikon.

When the time came for Avvakum to marry, his mother found him a bride – the very pious maiden Anastasia Markovna, daughter of a wealthy blacksmith – “a helpmeet unto salvation,” as Avvakum himself called her. Soon after the marriage his mother entered a monastery, took monastic vows, and lived there in “great ascetic labour” until her death.

Avvakum moved to the village of Lopatitsy, where at the age of twenty-one he was ordained deacon; two years later he was made priest, and eight years after that he became archpriest.

Avvakum carried out his duties with extraordinary conscientiousness. Living a pious life himself, he not only healed spiritual ailments but bodily ones as well: he cast out demons and cured various diseases.

Yet while leading a personally righteous life, he demanded from others strict observance of all church rules and rites, and for this he made many enemies among the powerful. He suffered much at their hands. Once, because he demanded that a certain “chief” return a girl he had abducted to her widowed mother, the man “raised a storm” against him: bursting into the church with a band of followers, he beat Avvakum and dragged him by the feet along the ground still in his vestments. Another “chief” grew angry with Avvakum because he served too long according to the Typicon, contrary to the man’s wishes: twice he shot at Avvakum, then seized his house and drove him and his family out altogether.

Avvakum went to Moscow and sought help from the Tsar’s confessor Stefan Vonifatiev and from Archpriest Ioann Neronov. Valuing him as an educated man, a great expert in Holy Scripture, and a strict zealot for church rites, they gave him protection and introduced him to the Tsar. Avvakum was granted a royal charter; Vonifatiev blessed him with an icon of St Philip the Metropolitan and gave him a book of Ephraim the Syrian, and Avvakum returned to Lopatitsy.

But Avvakum did not remain long in his ruined nest. Soon he again clashed with a “chief” – this time over skomorokhi (wandering minstrels). The minstrels had arrived and begun their revels. Not long before, in 1648, a strict royal decree had forbidden such performances: the minstrels were to be seized, their instruments broken and burned. Avvakum too would not tolerate lawless revelry in his village: he drove the minstrels out, smashed their masks and drums, and set their bears free. The minstrels complained to Boyar Sheremetev. The boyar summoned Avvakum, cursed him for a long time, then ordered him to bless his son. Avvakum, seeing the son with a “fornicator’s face” (he shaved), refused to bless him. The boyar ordered Avvakum thrown into the Volga, then had him severely beaten and released.

Soon afterwards Avvakum was driven out again. He moved to Moscow and was appointed archpriest in the town of Yuryevets-Povolsky. There he strove to introduce greater order in the services and to improve the singing. In his sermons he sharply denounced the vices of the local population, thereby making many enemies – especially among the local clergy, who were accustomed to a freer life with various relaxations.

Avvakum himself lived a very strict life. Here is how he describes his daily routine: before serving the Liturgy he scarcely slept – “I myself kindle the fire and read a book. When it is time for Matins, I do not wait for the sexton; I go myself to ring the bell. The sexton comes running. After bowing, I go into the church and begin the Midnight Office; by the time the chanters assemble I have finished it. If someone is late – God forgive him; but if someone sulks, he is welcome to the chain: don’t puff your moustaches at me.” After the long Matins came the Hours and the Communion rule. After the Liturgy a sermon was read. Having eaten, Avvakum slept two hours, then took up a book and read until Vespers. “When I have sung Vespers with Compline, after supper I begin the rule.” Then a long series of prayers was sung, many prostrations were made, “then we put out the light, and I, my wife, and other willing souls bow before Christ in the darkness: I make 300 prostrations and 600 Jesus Prayers, 100 to the Mother of God; my wife makes 200 prostrations and 400 prayers, for the little children are crying.”

But demands for such a strict life were not to the parishioners’ liking, and after only eight weeks the archpriest was beaten and driven out of Yuryevets. Once more he was in Moscow. Here a circle of clergy gathered – zealots for true piety who set themselves the aim of preserving the purity of the Church and strengthening it by the restoration of ancient ritual strictness. At the head of the circle stood the Tsar’s confessor Stefan Vonifatiev and Archpriest Ioann Neronov; besides them were the archpriests Daniel of Kostroma and Loggin of Murom, the priests Lazar of Romanov and Nikita of Suzdal, the learned deacon Theodore of the Annunciation Cathedral, and many others.

By the time Avvakum appeared in Moscow, the circle enjoyed enormous influence – both because of the Tsar’s support (he highly valued the piety and godliness of its members) and because of the intellectual and moral superiority of the circle’s members over the rest of the clergy.

At first Nikon – then still Metropolitan of Novgorod – was friendly with the circle and shared their views. But when, after Patriarch Joseph’s death, he was appointed patriarch, he quickly broke with Vonifatiev’s circle and went over to the Kiev circle headed by the visiting Kiev monk Epiphanius Slavinetsky, who demanded that the Moscow Church turn onto the Kiev-Greek path – the path of abolishing antiquity and introducing new rites.

Nikon began the “correction” of our books according to Greek books; the correctors were for the most part unlearned men who sometimes did not even know Slavonic, or outright swindlers and adventurers like Arsenius the Greek. The former correctors – Ivan Nasedka (the monk Joseph), the elder Savvaty, the layman Sila Grigoryev, and others – who disagreed with Nikon’s new undertakings, were dismissed. Persecution began against the circle that had risen against Nikon. First Archpriest Neronov was exiled, and soon Avvakum’s turn came. After Neronov’s exile Avvakum had submitted a petition to the Tsar interceding for his friend and at the same time denouncing Nikon for introducing novelties. This gave the patriarch grounds to deal with the archpriest – especially since Avvakum, refusing to obey Nikon’s order to pray according to the new rites, had parted company with the rest of the clergy of the Kazan Cathedral (St Basil’s) and begun to serve in a drying-shed in Neronov’s courtyard. Many parishioners gathered there, saying that “for a time even a stable is better than a church.” But soon, by Nikon’s order, a detachment of streltsy appeared: they seized Avvakum, beat him, pulled his hair, and took him in chains to the Androniev Monastery. Nikon decided to defrock the archpriest. When they brought him to the cathedral church to be shorn, Nikon kept him standing a long time on the porch until finally the Tsar intervened, interceded for Avvakum, and persuaded Nikon to limit himself to exiling the archpriest to Tobolsk.

All along the way Avvakum everywhere denounced Nikon’s heresies, exhorting the people to stand firm for the old faith. In Tobolsk, appointed to serve at the church of the Holy Protection, Avvakum continued his zealous preaching. Word of his sermons finally reached Moscow; the patriarch ordered him exiled still farther into the depths of Siberia, to the river Lena. In 1655 Avvakum set off for the new place, but in Yeniseisk he was overtaken by another order – to be attached to the expedition of Pashkov, who had been charged with conquering the lands along the Amur. The campaign was extraordinarily difficult and full of privations; the archpriest suffered especially, for he did not get along with the violent and cruel voevoda. The voevoda oppressed and mocked him in every way: for interceding for people oppressed by Pashkov, the archpriest was mercilessly beaten with knouts and iron chains, shackled in irons, kept in the cold under the rain and in an earthen prison where, in mockery, he was chained together with dogs.

It is impossible to describe all the terrible torments and sufferings the great martyr endured during his six years of wandering in the inhospitable, wild Dauria. The sufferings were made still greater because his family travelled with him. Here is how the archpriest himself describes the journey: “At the portage they began dragging the boats, but the voevoda had taken away my workers and would not let others give us drink; the children were small, there was no one to pull. The poor archpriest made a sledge himself and all winter wandered at the portage. Other people had dogs in harness, but I had none; only once my two little sons Ivan and Prokopy pulled the sledge with me like little dogs. The portage was about a hundred versts; the poor things barely managed to drag it, while the archpriest’s wife carried the flour and the baby on her back, and daughter Agrafena trudged along, climbed onto the sledge, and her brothers slowly pulled her with me… The children grew faint and fell on the snow; their mother gave them a piece of gingerbread, they ate it and pulled the strap again…”

The terrible sufferings were immense; it seemed there would be no end to them. “For five weeks we travelled on the bare ice in sledges. The voevoda gave me two nags for the children and baggage, while I and the archpriest’s wife trudged on foot, stumbling on the ice. It was a barbarian land, the natives hostile; we dared not fall behind the horses, yet could not keep up with them – hungry and weary people. Sometimes the poor archpriest’s wife trudged and trudged, then fell and could not rise. Another weary one fell nearby; both struggled but could not get up. Later the poor woman reproached me: ‘How long, archpriest, will this torment last?’ And I said to her: ‘Markovna, until death itself.’ She answered: ‘So be it, Petrovich; let us trudge on further.’”

Thus, encouraging one another, they completed the hard journey. To these privations were added terrible sufferings from hunger. Rations were very meagre: “in spring one sack of malt was given to ten men for the whole summer,” and they were not allowed to leave work: “even to pluck a bit of willow into the porridge and brew it – for that a blow on the forehead with a stick.” They had to eat whatever they could find: “we wandered in the steppes and forests, dug grass and roots; sometimes God gave us horseflesh; sometimes we found bones of beasts wounded by wolves and gnawed what the wolf had left; some even ate frozen wolves and foxes. Two of my sons died in those hardships.”

But an end came even to the unbearable sufferings: soon after Nikon’s removal, Avvakum received a royal order to return to Moscow. In Moscow he found the struggle between Nikon’s supporters and the defenders of ancient piety already in full swing. At first Avvakum was received very warmly: he was caressed by the Tsar and the boyars; but soon, because he began sharp preaching against Nikon’s novelties – which displeased the Grecophile government – Avvakum was exiled again. In 1664 he was sent to Mezen, where he was imprisoned. But new sufferings could not shake the archpriest’s firm convictions; even from prison he zealously continued the struggle for ancient piety, sending epistles everywhere.

Meanwhile in Moscow it was decided to give official form to Nikon’s reforms, and for this purpose a council of Russian and Greek hierarchs was convened in 1666. On 1 March of that year Archpriest Avvakum was brought to Moscow for trial.

But the archpriest “brought neither repentance nor submission; he remained stubborn and even reproached the holy council, calling them unorthodox.” Despite all exhortations and promises, he remained firm in his convictions. He was at once publicly disgraced: defrocked, his beard was shorn, he was anathematised, imprisoned, and then exiled to Pustozersk together with his friends – Archpriest Lazar of Romanov, Deacon Theodore, and the monk Epiphanius – who were also defrocked, and in addition their tongues were cut out.

In Pustozersk earthen prisons were built for the prisoners – log huts sunk into the ground: each sat in solitary confinement under guard. Only rarely at night could the prisoners speak to one another. Yet even here Archpriest Avvakum did not lose heart; from there he continued his preaching as before, upholding the spirit of his like-minded brethren.

Left without bishops or priests, the defenders of antiquity were perplexed as to how they should now act and live. Various other questions arose. Avvakum sent epistles everywhere, resolving the questions as far as possible. It was he who worked out the foundations of the priestless way. At the same time in 1660 Avvakum sent a petition to the Tsar urging him to cast aside Nikon’s novelties; but this epistle only resulted in Avvakum being thrown into an earthen pit and put on bread and water, while the other prisoners had the fingers of their right hands cut off and their tongues completely cut out so that they could neither teach nor write epistles.

For ten days Avvakum took no food, “but the brethren commanded” him to eat, and then he divided his clothes and sat naked on the cold earth. His wife and two sons were also thrown into an earthen pit, but this did not break the preacher’s firm spirit. He wrote an epistle to his wife begging her “not to lay down her hands; to fight to the end for Christ’s faith.” And in an “epistle to the faithful” he wrote of this: “My Markovna sits in the earth with the children like in a cage, supplied by God’s grace. And I sing to my God while I still live.”

For thirteen years the archpriest had to endure sufferings in Pustozersk imprisonment; yet he never lost heart and fought unceasingly for the righteous cause until his last breath. During that time he wrote up to forty works – all in defence of the old faith; he called upon everyone to hold fast to ancient piety regardless of any persecutions raised at that time by the government.

In 1676 Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich died. In 1681 Avvakum addressed a petition to his successor, the young Tsar Feodor Alekseevich, exhorting him to return to church antiquity. But at that time the harsh and cruel Patriarch Joachim convened a council to discuss measures against the defenders of the old faith. Soon afterwards came the decree “for great blasphemies against the royal house to burn Avvakum and his comrades.”

On 14 April 1682 Avvakum, together with Lazar, Epiphanius, and Nikiphor, ascended the pyre. Bound to the stake and surrounded by smoke, Avvakum raised high his hand with the two-fingered sign of the cross and until his last breath called upon all to pray with that cross.

The fire engulfed them all; one of the condemned cried out. Avvakum bent toward him, exhorting him, but soon himself perished in the flames. Afterwards a cross was erected on that spot.

Thus ended his much-suffering life the great fighter for the true faith.

Chapter X. Boyaryna Morozova

One of the most remarkable followers of Avvakum, who did not fear to lay down her life for the righteous cause, was the great martyr – one of the greatest women of her time – Boyaryna Feodosiya Prokopyevna Morozova, “the second martyr Catherine,” as Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich himself called her. Though it was by his order that she was tormented, even her tormentors had to bow before the strength of will and steadfastness of the martyr.

Boyaryna Feodosiya Prokopyevna came from the Sokovnin family. She was married to the illustrious boyar Gleb Ivanovich Morozov, brother of the Tsar’s tutor Boris Morozov, whom the Tsar honoured “as his own father.” Left a young, rich widow after Morozov’s death, the boyaryna devoted herself to raising her little son. Since Boyar Boris Morozov had married for the second time the Tsarina’s sister, Boyaryna Morozova became related to the royal family and was one of the foremost among the court ladies, bearing the title “Kravchaya of the Tsar’s realm.” Surrounded by luxury, wealth, a huge throng of servants who watched only to fulfil her every wish, the reverence of all around her and the Tsar’s love, the boyaryna seemed completely happy and carefree. Her outings were famous throughout Moscow. She rode in an enormous carriage drawn by twelve horses; up to three hundred servants followed the carriage to guard “her honour and health,” while huge crowds of people ran alongside, catching the money that flew from the carriage window. Many suitors of the highest rank wooed the rich widow, but all received the same refusal. The boyaryna longed for no earthly bridegroom, but a heavenly one.

She made the acquaintance of Archpriest Avvakum; his passionate speeches and long conversations made a deep impression upon her. When Nikon’s novelties began and persecutions fell upon all adherents of ancient piety, Boyaryna Morozova, together with her sister Princess Evdokia Urusova and the wife of a streltsy colonel Maria Danilova, became the soul of the circle of zealots for ancient piety. The boyaryna gave material help to the exiled, offered shelter in her house to the poor, the wretched, and the persecuted, and maintained active correspondence with all opponents of Nikon. Archpriest Avvakum stayed with her upon his return from Siberian exile, calling her “the staff and support, the strength and confirmation of my feeble old age.” All the women disciples of Archpriest Avvakum found refuge with her.

In connection with this the boyaryna gradually began to withdraw from worldly life, from all earthly things, and to lead an ascetic life: she renounced all pleasures, kept a strict fast, put on a hair-shirt, and finally withdrew completely from society, taking monastic vows under the name Theodora.

Meanwhile at court it was noticed that the boyaryna appeared rarely and shunned worldly life. The Tsar ordered an investigation, and it became clear that the boyaryna had already taken monastic vows and stood for the old faith. The Tsar summoned her and began to exhort her not to oppose his will. To this the boyaryna replied that she was always obedient to the Tsar, but “to Nikon’s novelties she dared not join, for she had been brought up by her parents in pious customs, from infancy had been accustomed to Holy Scripture, and therefore could not reject the holy traditions of the fathers; she feared and trembled before the holy oaths of the fathers upon those who transgress church rules.” For “exhortation” Archimandrite Joachim of the Chudov Monastery (the future patriarch) was sent to her with streltsy. But the boyaryna was unyielding and yielded to neither promises nor exhortations. Then she and her sister Princess Urusova were shackled in chains on their feet, hands, and necks.

No longer in a rich carriage drawn by twelve horses, no longer in princely attire, but on a simple wood-sledge drawn by one horse, dressed in black monastic garb, shackled in chains and thrown upon straw, the boyaryna was driven through all Moscow to increase her shame. But her journey proved not a spectacle of disgrace but a triumph. Raising high her hand with the two-fingered sign of the cross, the boyaryna called upon all to stand firmly for antiquity. The people followed the sufferer with tears; the shameful procession, instead of frightening the people, only strengthened their faith.

The boyaryna was taken to the Pechersk podvorye. There she was again exhorted, but she stood firm. It was decided to subject her, her sister, and Danilova (Akinfia) to torture. In the torture chamber they were subjected to the most inhuman torments: they were completely stripped, their arms were wrenched, they were shaken on the rack, then tied by hands and feet and beaten with knouts. But even this was of no avail; they did not change their opinion. Then it was decided to burn the sufferers. Log huts filled with straw were built beyond the Moscow River. But at the last moment the Tsar, at the insistence of the boyars, changed the order and commanded the martyrs to be exiled to the town of Borovsk. There into an earthen prison-pit were thrown Boyaryna Morozova, her sister Princess Urusova, Akinfia, and the nun Justina. The prison-grave was damp and dark, swarming with vermin; there the executioners starved the prisoners.

Yet even there tidings from the world reached them secretly and rarely, conveyed by “our own.” Sometimes epistles came from Avvakum in which he encouraged the sufferers and begged them to endure for the faith. For one such epistle the nun Justina suffered: because she refused to show the letter she had received, she was burned in a log hut together with Boyaryna Morozova’s faithful servant Ivanushka. The executioners forced the other prisoners to be present at the burning.

After this they were transferred to another, even worse prison into which not a single ray of light penetrated, for it was built underground. Endless night began. It was impossible even to tell the time, for no sound reached there; the guard rarely brought rye rusks and water and did not speak. Princess Evdokia Urusova was the first to succumb to the torment and quietly died (11 September 1672); and on the night of 2 November 1675 the great sufferer Boyaryna Feodosiya Prokopyevna Morozova also fell asleep in the sleep of the righteous.

On the spot of her martyr’s death, beneath birch trees, lies a huge stone slab placed by the brethren with the date of her repose.

Chapter XI. Fellow-Strugglers of Archpriest Avvakum

Besides Boyaryna Morozova and Archpriest Avvakum it is necessary to become acquainted with several other remarkable fighters for the old faith.

The nursery from which the strongest fighters for the true faith emerged was the circle of zealots of piety. It was formed at the beginning of the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich, and its head was the Tsar’s confessor, Archpriest Stefan Vonifatiev of the Annunciation Cathedral. Leading a strict life and caring for church piety and order, he began to gather around himself a circle consisting of persons distinguished by great learning and teaching ability, steadfast fighters and denouncers of social vices and shortcomings. Such persons were: his closest helper Archpriest Ioann Neronov; the archpriests Avvakum, Loggin, Lazar, Daniel and others; and also Bishop Paul of Kolomna.

The circle set itself the task of struggling against various church disorders and, by means of sermons, establishing true Christian piety among the people.

Stefan Vonifatiev himself – “a man of understanding and virtuous life, having the word of teaching in his mouth” – acquired strong influence over the young Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, “always exhorting the young Tsar with tears to every good work.” Not only the Tsar but the boyars too “listened to him with delight, honoured him and loved him with all their soul as a true father.”

Under his influence the Tsar issued a series of decrees on the observance of fasts, on proper attendance at God’s churches, on the abolition of unseemly revels among the people, etc.

As his closest assistant in church preaching Stefan Vonifatiev chose Archpriest Ioann Neronov.

Ioann Neronov came from peasants of Vologda province. Learning to read was difficult for him: “he studied one primer for a year and six months.” But perseverance and desire conquered all book-learning, and soon he understood Scripture better than all his peers. From early years he was distinguished by “fiery zeal” for piety; while still a youth, once seeing mummers at Christmastide, “he was inflamed in spirit” and “began to denounce them boldly,” for which he was cruelly beaten.

Moving to the village of Nikolskoe, he married the daughter of the local priest and was enrolled as a reader; Ioann zealously performed the church services, but at the same time, seeing the priests of the area “leading a corrupt life, he ceaselessly denounced them for drunkenness and much disorder.” For this the priests wrote a denunciation against him to Patriarch Philaret.

Then Neronov withdrew to the Trinity Lavra, where he made the acquaintance of the very enlightened Archimandrite Dionysius, who took much care for his education.

When the falsity of the denunciation became clear, Neronov was ordained deacon and returned to Nikolskoe. A year later he was ordained priest, but persecuted by his ill-wishers he withdrew to the village of Lyskovo to the priest Ananias (later the monk Anthony), who “was very skilled in divine Scripture.” Under his guidance Neronov made great progress in the study of Holy Scripture and, on Ananias’s advice, took the almost parishless church of the Resurrection of Christ in Nizhny Novgorod.

Here no one hindered Neronov, and he began to perform the services indefatigably and devoutly, thereby attracting worshippers. He often delivered sermons from which the people were moved and spread his words everywhere. Neronov himself carried his preaching to the streets and squares; he walked through the city proclaiming “to all the way of salvation, and many listened.”

Word of the extraordinary preacher spread far, and worshippers began to flock to Neronov in crowds. Donations flowed in, with which Neronov built a stone church and began to help the poor and wretched, distributing alms and setting tables for a hundred or more people daily. Parents began to send their children to him “for book-learning.”

At the same time Neronov did not abandon his denunciations and especially the struggle against the skomorokhi; sometimes Neronov and his disciples “fought” with them, and it happened that the skomorokhi “filled with rage beat God’s priest.”

Finally Neronov reached even the voevoda Sheremetev himself – a very cruel and harsh boyar. He began to denounce him too, but was seized by the voevoda’s order, beaten with sticks, and thrown into prison.

But when rumours of this reached Moscow, the Tsar ordered him released, and soon afterwards Neronov was transferred to Moscow and appointed archpriest of the Kazan Cathedral.

Here too he introduced strict order and began to deliver sermons to the people frequently. “When he had read the holy books to the people, tears flowed from his eyes like a stream, and he could scarcely utter the word of divine Scripture through his sobbing; he explained every passage with interpretation so that it might be understood by all Christians.” Such masses of people gathered to hear his sermons that the walls of the vast cathedral could not contain them all, and whole crowds stood around the church. The Tsar himself often came with his family to hear the preacher.

Soon Neronov rose to first place and overshadowed Vonifatiev. At this time Nikon issued his “Memorandum,” and Neronov with his friends resolved to enter into struggle with him. Seeing that “winter was coming,” Neronov left his church in Avvakum’s care and withdrew to the Chudov Monastery, where for a whole week he prayed with tears before the icon of the Saviour. Finally he was granted a vision: from the icon a voice was heard proclaiming that the time of sufferings had come, for Russia was threatened with falling away from the faith, and therefore it was necessary to resist.

A petition against Nikon’s novelties was submitted to the Tsar, but the result was Nikon’s reprisal against the opponents: after long torments Neronov was sent to the Spaso-Kamenny Monastery on Lake Kubenskoye. Soon he took monastic vows under the name Gregory. In 1656 the wavering Vonifatiev – who had hesitated between Nikon and his old friends – died, and in the same year a council was assembled at which Neronov was condemned in absentia: he was excommunicated and anathematised.

The harsh reprisal of the stern patriarch did not spare the other members of the circle either. Archpriest Daniel, who had first been archpriest in Kostroma but was driven out by enemies for his zeal, moved to Moscow and took the liveliest part in the circle’s work; together with Archpriest Avvakum he signed the petition to the Tsar against Nikon’s novelties. For this Nikon ordered him seized and brought before him. There he cursed and mocked him in every way, shorn his head, and sent him to the Chudov Monastery. After long tortures and mockeries – to the point of placing a crown of thorns upon him – the archpriest was exiled to Astrakhan, where he was thrown into a dark earthen prison. After long privations and sufferings Archpriest Daniel died, starved to death.

Archpriest Loggin of Murom arrived in Moscow from Murom in the last months of Patriarch Joseph’s reign. Here he joined the circle and soon came out with the others against Nikon. On the false denunciation of the Murom voevoda, who accused Loggin of supposedly blaspheming icons, the patriarch ordered Loggin seized; after a trial that acted entirely on the patriarch’s instructions, Nikon shorn the archpriest in church, then tore off his outer garment. Then Loggin, inflamed with zeal, began to denounce Nikon, spat in his eyes, tore off his own shirt and hurled it at Nikon, who was standing in the altar. By Nikon’s order chains were at once put on the archpriest and he was dragged from the church; he was beaten with brooms and clubs, dragged to the Bogoyavlensky Monastery and thrown naked into a tent in the frost. The next morning, after inhuman tortures and torments, the archpriest was sent into exile, where he was put to death by Nikon’s order.

Bishop Paul of Kolomna was one of the first to rise against Nikon’s “novelties.” At the council convened by Nikon to confirm his “reforms,” Bishop Paul expressed his disagreement and instead of his signature on the council’s decrees wrote: “If anyone takes away from or adds to the traditions of the holy cathedral church or in any way corrupts them, let him be anathema.”

This signature drove the violent patriarch into a frenzy; he rushed at the bishop and struck him. The bishop remained firm in the faith and denounced Nikon, saying that all his references to grammar in his novelties were utterly absurd and insignificant. Then he cursed “the destroyer of the fathers’ statutes and church customs.” Nikon subjected him to cruel corporal punishment and exiled him to the Paleostrovsky Monastery, then farther to the Novgorod region, where after long torments Bishop Paul was burned in a log hut.

Thus one after another the bold defenders of the old faith perished.

All these were steadfast people of strong will whose sole support was the deep consciousness of their righteousness. And this consciousness made them offer even their lives as a sacrifice for the whole country and the whole people, for they saw that not only the faith was perishing but all Russian antiquity was disappearing under the heel of foreigners. They saw that “winter was coming,” that little by little the Russian spirit would begin to vanish and Rus’ herself would disappear, and upon her ruins a half-Prussian foreign Russia would be enthroned. “There will not be a fourth Rome,” they said; yet in the third Rome wavering and changes had suddenly begun which could scarcely lead to its stability. A “wolf in sheep’s clothing” had appeared who had joined the apostates – the Greeks, who had long ago lost the purity of the faith and were now encroaching even upon the Russian land. There was a foundation for the struggle – a great foundation – for which it was not a pity to lay down one’s life.

And they laid down their lives, and thousands of the people followed them, believing that for an unrighteous faith people would not so boldly go to the pyres, would not subject themselves to torments and sufferings.

In vain do our opponents assure us that all these were illiterate ignoramuses who knew and understood nothing – these were the best people of their time, the strongest representatives of their nation – its cream, its flowers.

Chapter XII. The Councils of 1666 and 1667

Although Alexei Mikhailovich bore the title of Tsar of “Great, Little, and White Rus’,” the question of the annexation of Little and White Rus’ was far from settled, and war with Poland over them was still being waged. The good fortune that had accompanied the Russians at the beginning of the war had somewhat deserted them, and the scales were now wavering. Moreover, the new subjects – the Ukrainians – were not entirely satisfied with their new sovereign. Almost three hundred years had passed since Kievan Rus’ had been conquered by the Lithuanians and then fallen under Polish rule, losing nearly all connection with Moscow, which was flourishing at that time and where the Church had gradually emerged from beneath the authority of the Greek patriarchs and from the sixteenth century had possessed its own patriarchate.

Meanwhile, Kievan Rus’ – heavily Polonised and having formed a new Ukrainian people – belonged to the Patriarchate of Constantinople and had gradually adopted from there all the newly appeared church rites, which differed greatly from the old Moscow ones. Furthermore, having borrowed much from the West, the Kievans began to look upon the “Moscovites” as completely alien people – poorly educated and even foreign in faith.

Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich would have been content with the annexation of Kiev. But here the difference in church rites was a great obstacle – a difference that Nikon had begun to eliminate. With his removal the matter had come to a halt, and church disorder had set in, which had to be ended at all costs. And so the Tsar decided to convene a council.

Before the council was convened, the opponents of Nikon’s reform were summoned and began to be “exhorted” in long and stormy disputations. How these “exhortations” were conducted may be seen from the account of the monk Abraham concerning his exhortation by Metropolitan Paul of Krutitsa: “Taking me by the beard with his left hand, he began to hold my beard firmly – nay, rather to tear it. And while doing this the hierarch, grieving over me, tested my beard to see whether it was strong…” and then “he began to bless my cheeks plentifully with his right hand, and he blessed my nose plentifully as well. And he grew very angry with me, knocked off my klobuk and kamilavka onto the floor, and dragged me about the chamber by the beard, leaving me bare-headed…” It is clear that exhortations of this kind could hardly contribute much to reconciliation of the parties – not to mention how canonical such actions of hierarchs were.

Before the council the Tsar took every measure to destroy all opposition and to push through in advance all the decisions planned for the council. Therefore, immediately before the opening of the council, it was decided first to “examine and inquire” how the hierarchs invited to the council regarded the Greek patriarchs, the Greek books, the newly corrected Russian ones, the council of 1654, etc. In February all the hierarchs sent in their written statements on these questions, and only on 29 April 1666 did the council begin its sessions, which lasted until 2 July.

No authentic records of the council’s proceedings have come down to us; only the notes of the Kiev monk Simeon of Polotsk exist, who depicted everything in his own way. For us it is noteworthy that this council consisted exclusively of Russian hierarchs. The Tsar opened the council with a speech, after which all kissed the symbols of faith in the Greek book Chrysobull as a sign of recognition of Nikon’s corrections. Then the exhortations of the opponents began. It started with Bishop Alexander of Vyatka, who yielded very hastily – so hastily that one cannot help suspecting this was done deliberately to influence the others. However, Archpriest Avvakum and the rest remained unyielding and were immediately exiled. Some seemed to incline toward agreement but later again refused it.

On 2 July the council concluded its work, issuing a decree that recognised and legalised all Nikon’s corrections but at the same time said nothing about the old rites and books – evidently finding nothing sinful or shameful in them.

But such a decision of the council could not satisfy the Tsar, for it turned out that although the council had recognised the new rites as correct and recommended them, it had at the same time recognised the decrees of the Stoglav Council as correct and had not condemned the adherents of antiquity – so that the church disputes were not ended by this. At the same time the question of Nikon as patriarch remained open.

Therefore the Tsar decided to convene a new council – this time with the participation of Greek hierarchs. Among the Greeks Nikon had many friends, such as Metropolitan Athanasius of Iconium, who had been sent to Moscow in 1664 supposedly by his uncle Patriarch Dionysius of Constantinople in order to reconcile Nikon with the Tsar. Meanwhile the Greek hierodeacon Meletius, sent by the Tsar to the East, had returned, reporting that the patriarchs themselves could not come and would not send exarchs, but were sending a letter signed by all the patriarchs in which Nikon was condemned. However, Athanasius declared the letters forged and wrote to Nikon about them that “the Greeks bring false letters only to get money.” Indeed, later the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Jerusalem assured everyone that they had given no signatures. But among the same Greeks there were also irreconcilable enemies of Nikon, such as the adventurer Paisius Ligarides, who passed himself off as Metropolitan of Gaza and who, having gained the Tsar’s confidence, bent every effort to have Nikon condemned in some way. Under his influence new royal letters were sent asking that Paisius be appointed exarch of the Patriarch of Constantinople (who could not come personally without special permission from the Turkish government); the other Eastern patriarchs were asked to come in person. A new embassy headed by Meletius was sent to the East. Patriarch Nectarius of Jerusalem categorically refused either to come himself or to send an exarch for the trial. Patriarch Dionysius of Constantinople also refused but agreed to the appointment of Paisius as exarch. Paisius used this letter to destroy his enemy Nikon completely – Nikon who had accused him of being an impostor – but here Athanasius again intervened, asserting that these letters too were forged. Disputes began again, and then the Tsar decided to send a Russian envoy to clarify everything, since the Greeks could not be trusted. The cellarer of the Chudov Monastery, Savva, was sent, and he brought back a letter from the Patriarch of Constantinople in which the patriarch exposed both Athanasius and Paisius, writing of Paisius that “I do not call him Orthodox… he is a Papist and a cunning man.” Paisius was “ordained by the Pope and served the liturgy for the Pope in many Latin churches.” Thus at last it became clear that all the letters received up to then were forged and the Greeks impostors. Paisius then began to beg the Tsar to let him go home.

Nevertheless, the Tsar had to depose Nikon at all costs and, finding no one better, he – paying no attention to the patriarchal letter – placed his trust in Paisius and entrusted him with the conduct of the council.

In June 1666, via Astrakhan, two patriarchs arrived for the trial of Nikon: Paisius of Alexandria and Macarius of Antioch. The Patriarchs of Jerusalem and Constantinople refused not only to come but even to send their exarchs. Learning that the Eastern patriarchs were coming, the delighted Tsar sent them welcoming letters and orders for their reception, but at the same time secretly ordered an investigation – not trusting the Greeks – into the authenticity and legitimacy of the arriving patriarchs. At the same time strict surveillance was established to ensure that no letters or messages from Nikon reached the patriarchs. After five months’ journey from Astrakhan, on 2 November 1666 the patriarchs arrived in Moscow, where a solemn reception was arranged for them. After their reception by the Tsar, Paisius Ligarides was appointed as their interpreter and began preparing the patriarchs for the trial of Nikon in the direction desired by Ligarides and the Tsar. And indeed he succeeded: the council sessions began, and by the end of 1666 Nikon was condemned and deposed.

After this, in February 1667, the council – consisting of Greek adventurers and former patriarchs – proceeded to judge Russian church antiquity. “Former” patriarchs because by this time they had been deposed for their unauthorised journey to Russia and others had been elected in their places; however, news of this had not yet reached Moscow, and they continued to be regarded as genuine patriarchs.

Justice must be done them: the trial was swift, and Russian antiquity – sanctified by time and by the holy saints of the Russian land – was condemned. This had to be done by the Greeks, who had their own special personal interests: they needed at all costs to raise their badly shaken authority; they themselves wrote that all their actions were aimed “so that we might again hope to come to our former freedom, honour, and glory which we had of old.” Therefore “for the sake of the common honour and the beauty of our race” it was necessary to humiliate all Russian antiquity, to shake the authority of the Stoglav Council and to annul its decrees, which had exalted everything Russian too much at the expense of the Greek, and also to condemn the defenders of Russian antiquity, whom the Greeks regarded as personal enemies because they “seemingly denounced Nikon but in essence denounced the Romans (Greeks) as having fallen away from Orthodoxy, from the faith handed down by the fathers, from conscience.”

On 31 January the new Patriarch Joasaph II was elected, and from the end of February 1667 the council sessions began for the trial of Russian antiquity. Of course the verdict had been prepared in advance and was issued in the direction desired by the Greeks. The council decreed the confirmation of all Nikon’s chief corrections and novelties concerning the correction of books, the Creed, the Alleluia, the sign of the cross, the Jesus Prayer, the folding of the fingers for blessing, and others. The decree ends with the following words:

“This our conciliar command and testament we hand down to all the above-mentioned ranks of the Orthodox and command all to keep it unchangingly and to submit to the holy Eastern Church. But if anyone does not obey what is commanded by us and does not submit to the holy Eastern Church and this holy council, or begins to contradict and oppose us, such an opponent, by the authority given us from the All-holy and Life-giving Spirit – if he be of the sacred order – we depose and strip of all priestly function and subject to anathema; if he be of the lay order, we excommunicate and make him a stranger to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and subject him to curse and anathema as a heretic and disobedient, and cut him off from the Orthodox fellowship and flock and from the Church of God until he come to understanding and return to the truth by repentance. And he who does not come to understanding and does not return to the truth by repentance but remains in his obstinacy until his end, let him be excommunicated even after death, and let his portion and his soul be with Judas the betrayer, with the Jews who crucified Christ, with Arius and the other accursed heretics. Let iron, stones, and wood be destroyed and decay, but let him remain unabsolved and undecayed, like a tympanum for ever and ever. Amen.”

With such terrible curses the council falls upon all defenders of church antiquity. Whereas the council of 1666 had treated Russian church antiquity comparatively mildly, imposing no oaths or prohibitions and recognising the ancient rites as Orthodox in the same way as the new ones, the council of 1667 – guided by the Greeks – condemned all antiquity and demanded the introduction of all Greek rites, which it found to be the only correct ones.

But even this seemed insufficient to the council, and to destroy finally the defenders of antiquity it ordered them to be “punished with civil punishments” consisting of “tormenting them with various torments and different tortures; thus some had their tongues cut out, some their hands cut off, some their ears and noses, and they were put to shame in the marketplace, and afterwards sent into imprisonment until their end.” And this was fully applied by the Russian government.

Thus was sanctified and blessed the entire subsequent policy of persecuting the Old Believers.

The Stoglav Council was not forgotten either; concerning it was said:
“And the council… that wrote about the sign of the honourable cross – that is, about the folding of two fingers – and about the double Alleluia and about the rest that was written unreasonably, through simplicity and ignorance, in the book Stoglav, and the oath which they laid unrighteously and without discernment – we Orthodox patriarchs, Kyr Paisius, Pope and Patriarch of Alexandria and Judge of the Universe, and Kyr Macarius, Patriarch of Antioch and of all the East, and Kyr Joasaph II, Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, and the whole holy council – that unrighteous and unreasonable oath of Macarius and that council we loose and destroy, and that council we count as no council, and the oath as no oath, but reckon it as nothing, as though it had never been: for that Macarius the metropolitan and those who thought with him reasoned unreasonably through their ignorance, as they wished, by themselves, not agreeing with the Greek and ancient parchment Slavonic books, nor taking counsel with the most holy ecumenical patriarchs about it, nor even asking them.”

Thus the Greeks, in order to prop up their badly shaken authority, did not scruple even to raise their hand against one of the most revered of all Russians – one of the most remarkable shepherds and most learned men of his time. The Greeks needed to blacken and spit upon him only because he “reasoned through ignorance,” not having invited the Greeks to the council and not having asked their approval.

Because of the unreasonable and unjust decision of the council of 1667 the Russian Church was split, and the people had to endure whole centuries of cruel oppression and persecution.

Chapter XIII. The Greeks and the Council of 1666–1667

To better understand the Council of 1666–1667, we must first become more closely acquainted with the Greeks who presided over it, namely the patriarchs Maсarius of Antioch and Paisios of Alexandria, as well as Paїsios Ligarides.

Patriarchs Paisios and Maсarius travelled to Moscow against the express wish of the Patriarchs of Jerusalem and Constantinople, for which they were subsequently deposed by a council. The chief reason that drove them to Moscow was the desire to obtain as much alms and gifts as possible – something to which the Greeks were notoriously partial – and which had been promised them by the archdeacon Meletios.

Their expectations were indeed fully justified. Scarcely had they set foot on Russian soil, surrounded by a large retinue, when the most lavish royal benefactions and gifts began to flow, never ceasing throughout their entire stay in Moscow. Gifts poured in not only from the Tsar, but from the Tsarina, the royal family, boyars, hierarchs, and monasteries. According to the calculations of Prof. Kapterev, during their time in Moscow the patriarchs each received gifts worth approximately 100 thousand gold dollars (in the currency of the 1920–1930s). Yet besides gifts, the patriarchs procured money by other means as well. Receiving full maintenance both in cash and in provisions so abundant that they could not consume it all, they did not scruple to sell the surplus; and surplus there was in abundance, since along the entire route they were fed in monasteries and cities. The patriarchs also drew income from their numerous retinue, which consisted not only of clergy but of laymen; maintenance was provided for all of them, and rich gifts were bestowed upon them too. The lay portion of the retinue consisted of so-called “nephews” and relatives of the patriarchs – in reality simple Greek merchants who travelled under the patriarchs’ protection in order to trade duty-free in Russia; for this privilege they paid the patriarchs an appropriate bribe.

The patriarchs themselves did not disdain trade and, wherever possible, sold whatever they could. Macarius himself writes to the Tsar: “We gave certain items to the elder and his companions to sell in that country.” Upon departing, the patriarchs begged the Tsar for charters granting them permission to come to Moscow every three years for alms, on account of the great injuries and violence suffered from the ungodly Hagarenes. Such charters were also issued to two Egyptian monasteries.

But no sooner had the patriarchs returned home than they again began begging the Tsar for alms and aid, complaining that they had suffered losses from the sale of the gifted sables. Paїsios soon landed in prison for certain commercial misdeeds; the Tsar had to ransom the patriarchs with money and intercessions before the Turkish Sultan – and here too gifts were indispensable.

Thus the visit of these Greek “saints” cost a very pretty penny indeed.

A highly interesting figure is also Paisios Ligarides. Arriving in Moscow in 1662 and having first carefully ascertained (as befits a well-trained pupil of the Jesuits) the true state of affairs, he took the Tsar’s side and “became the soul and guiding spirit of all Nikon’s enemies.”

We have already spoken of who he was and how he conducted himself at the council.

It is clear that the council owed its decisions chiefly to him, for, taking the most active part in all its affairs, he was in fact its real leader.

The arriving patriarchs knew perfectly well that Paїsios was an adventurer and impostor, yet seeing that the Tsar listened to him “as to a prophet of God” and having, one must presume, received a substantial bribe, they did not unmask Paisios but acted in concert with him.

When letters arrived that exposed Paisios, the Tsar nevertheless took his side and began efforts for his restoration, sparing no money for gifts. In the end, however, all his efforts proved fruitless, and Paisios was definitively rejected as a “Latiniser” who “works for the popes of Rome and has left his flock without a shepherd for fifteen years.”

In 1673 Paisios was given money and letters requesting his restoration, and he himself set off for the East. But having reached Kiev, he evidently received unfavourable news and decided to remain there, where he stayed for three years. Afterwards he again travelled to Moscow, but had already lost trust, and soon set out once more for Palestine; he got no farther than Kiev, and there, after some time, he died in 1678.

Such were the principal Greek representatives at the Council of 1666–1667 who condemned all the truly ancient Russian (and formerly Greek) ecclesiastical rites and customs.

It took 250 years for the truth at last to be revealed and clarified, and for the New-Ritualists themselves to be forced to acknowledge the complete absurdity of the accusations of ignorance and benightedness levelled against the Old Believers.

It was not the Old Believers who proved ignorant – those who defended the truth – but rather the Russian hierarchs who “meekly and obediently signed whatever was dictated to them by the Eastern patriarchs together with the other Greeks” (Prof. Kapterev).

Chapter XIV. The Solovetsky Monastery

Monasteries played an enormous role in the history of the Russian state. In the grievous years of calamity and woe that befell Rus’, they were the sole strongholds and guardians of faith and enlightenment. More than once their steadfastness encouraged the rest of the people, calling them to resist the external foe, and often, not content with mere calls, they set a real example of courageous defence – as happened with the Trinity-Sergius Lavra.

In the history of the Old Belief, too, monasteries played no small part.

The first to show an example of lofty steadfastness and unshakeable resolve, preferring to break with the government rather than betray the faith, was the Solovetsky Monastery.

Situated on islands in the icy White Sea, the Solovetsky Monastery was founded in the 14th century by the venerable Zosima and Savvatii. It quickly grew and became the centre of the entire northern region. Pilgrims flocked here from all over Rus’. Being one of the richest and most independent monasteries in Rus’, Solovetsky was very little subject to Moscow. Standing apart, it suffered few great misfortunes and was regarded as one of the chief preservers of piety.

And so, when Nikon’s innovations began, the monastery displayed its firmness and resolve in defence of the old faith, and from its ranks produced many zealous champions of ancient piety.

In 1654 the superior of the Solovetsky Monastery was Archimandrite Ilya. While present at the council he signed its decisions, but in his heart he remained an opponent of Nikon’s innovations. When the new books were sent to the monastery in 1657, he refused to accept them, and the rest of the monks agreed with him. On 8 June 1658 a “black council” of the entire brotherhood was convened, at which Archimandrite Ilya explained the situation and ardently called upon them “that God might grant us to die in the Orthodox faith, as our fathers died, and that we accept no Latin service.” In reply the brethren unanimously supported their superior and resolved not to accept the new books; and if certain priests should begin serving according to the new books, they would not receive communion from them. The sentence was signed by all the literate priests and monks on behalf of themselves and all the illiterate. Informers immediately sent a denunciation to Nikon, but Nikon himself had already fallen into disgrace.

In 1659 Archimandrite Ilya died, and Bartholomew was chosen as hegumen in his place. He turned everything to the new way, but his activity only brought discord to the monastery and protests from the defenders of antiquity. Despite all the new hegumen’s manoeuvres, the brethren stood firmly for the old ways. At this time the elder Gerasim Firsov wrote a “letter to a brother” containing numerous proofs and testimonies in defence of the two-fingered sign of the cross, while the elder Feoktist composed a “Discourse on the Antichrist and his secret kingdom,” in which he proved that the Antichrist already reigned spiritually in the world and that Nikon was his forerunner.

In 1666 Bartholomew was summoned to the council. Through him the brethren sent a petition begging that their ecclesiastical order and rule not be changed. But upon arriving at the council, Bartholomew concealed the document. Since rumours had reached Moscow that the brethren refused to accept the new books, the elder Gerasim Firsov was summoned. When the matter was clarified and the document hidden by the hegumen was read aloud, the council drafted a special epistle to the brethren exhorting them to accept the new books and threatening excommunication in case of resistance.

To persuade them, the following were sent: Archimandrite Sergius of the Yaroslavl monastery, the Moscow priest Vasily Fedorov, the hieromonk Ioasaf, the hierodeacon Adrian, and two patriarchal officials – the boyar’s son G. Chernovsky and the under-clerk Guryev.

At that time two petitions reached the Tsar: in one the brethren complained about Bartholomew, accusing him of unseemly conduct; in the other, Bartholomew’s supporters tried to blacken his opponents. After Bartholomew had justified himself in writing, the same Archimandrite Sergius was charged with conducting an “investigation” in the monastery.

On 4 October 1666 Sergius arrived at Solovki but immediately met with united opposition. When, in the presence of the brethren assembled in the main cathedral, he read the epistle and the decrees, the brethren refused to obey the council’s decisions, saying that they were obedient to the sovereign’s will but could not accept the new rites. Archimandrite Nikanor spoke out strongly against the three-fingered sign, declaring that he alone was ready to go to Moscow for all of them and suffer. This greatly affected the whole brotherhood, and they unanimously declared that they were ready to suffer but would not accept the new faith, teaching, or books. After disputes and arguments about the faith, Sergius – who had been received most inhospitably by the brethren – conducted no investigation, achieved nothing from the steadfast monks, and departed back to Moscow. Before leaving (6 October) the brethren gave him a petition to deliver to the Tsar, in which they wrote that they obeyed the Tsar and prayed for him but begged to be left in their former piety. A few days later (12 October) three more petitions were sent, again requesting that they be left with the old books and rites and explaining why they could not accept the new ones; in the third they complained about Sergius and asked for a new superior to be appointed. Soon afterwards the elders sent yet another petition to the Tsar, once more affirming their firm intention to defend the old faith and writing that “by bloodshed and laying down of heads we all with one mind and with the utmost zeal are ready to bear witness.” The petition was carried by the monk Alexander Stukolov and the former archimandrite Nikanor. At the council the patriarchs so cleverly dealt with Nikanor that he “repented” and was sent back with Bartholomew and Joseph to persuade the rest of the brethren. But upon returning to the monastery Nikanor repented of his repentance, while Bartholomew and Joseph returned to Moscow. From there came an order summoning Nikanor to Moscow, but the brethren would not let him go and instead sent the elder Gerasim Firsov, who was “most skilled both in holy writings and in secular learning.” Upon arriving in Moscow, by order of the ecclesiastical authorities he was strangled. After this the Tsar sent a voevoda with a hundred streltsy with the proposal to the monks either to submit or “receive the bitterest death.” At a council the elders resolved not to submit and that all should stand in defence of the old faith; the infirm and faint-hearted were offered the chance to leave the monastery. But there proved to be exceedingly few such, and 1,500 persons remained within. The monks shut themselves behind the high stone walls, appointing as their leader Savvatiy Abryutin (from the Moscow nobility). Thus began an unparalleled siege that lasted from 1667 to 1677.

The voevoda blockaded the monastery, letting no one out; if a fugitive was caught, after prolonged tortures he was put to a cruel death. Thus perished the hermit Pimen, his disciple Grigory, Ivan Zakharyev, the monks Sila and Alexey, and others. Here is how they tortured Ivan Zakharyev: first they broke his arms by shaking, then beat him with the knout, then set fire to his body, and finally the voevoda “ordered the ribs to be torn out of the scorched flesh with red-hot pincers”; then, having shaved his head, for many long hours they poured cold water on the crown of his head. Only on the third day of torment, by the voevoda’s order, was his head cut off.

After four years of siege the voevoda Volokhov was replaced by the colonel (commander) Ievlev, now with 1,000 streltsy. He burned everything around the monastery, but falling ill he was replaced (after two years) by the voevoda Meshcherinov with 1,300 fresh troops. Meshcherinov too could not take the monastery by force. Meanwhile a terrible disease – scurvy – broke out inside, carrying off up to 700 persons. Meshcherinov, abandoning the idea of taking the monastery by storm, began a proper siege, bombarding it with cannon and muskets and terrifying the besieged, who nevertheless remained firm in their resolve to hold out to the end. Every day in the besieged monastery prayers were offered and two molebens served. The defenders’ spirits were also strengthened by rumours of various miracles and visions.

Meshcherinov dug trenches around the monastery and built wooden towers equal in height to the monastery walls; tunnels were driven and powder mines laid. At last an assault began, which ended in complete failure for the Muscovites. The attack was repulsed.

Yet the monastery, which had withstood a long siege and assaults, finally fell through treachery. On 8 November the monk Feoktist came to the voevoda and declared that he knew a secret passage. The voevoda gave Feoktist soldiers, but it turned out the passage was guarded and they could not get through. They had to wait. On 28 January 1677 a fearful storm and blizzard arose. The attackers took advantage of this to creep unnoticed into the monastery. The chronicler relates that the centurion Loggin, who was on duty that night, fell asleep and in a dream heard a voice awakening him and calling him to rise because enemies were entering the monastery. Three times the same vision came. After the third, Loggin went to the elders and told them what had happened. The whole brotherhood rose from sleep and began to serve a moleben, then matins and the midnight office. Since nothing happened, everyone went back to their cells. Deep darkness reigned, and the enemy took advantage of it to penetrate the monastery. Stealthily creeping in, they broke the locks on the main gates, opened them, and let in the rest of the troops. When dawn broke and the morning watch arrived, they already saw enemies on the walls. A short battle began, in which the enemy quickly cut down those who resisted; the rest scattered to their cells and locked themselves in. The voevoda sent word that they should come out fearlessly and that no harm would be done to them; but when the monks who believed him appeared in a procession with crosses, they were attacked, the icons were taken away, and all were placed under guard. The reprisal began. First the centurion Samuil was beaten to death; then Archimandrite Nikanor was brought to the voevoda – already unable to walk from old age. For his bold speech the voevoda, flying into a rage, began to beat him with a staff until he knocked out the elder’s last teeth, then ordered him tied by the feet and dragged outside the monastery enclosure. The elder, thrown into a ditch, lay all night on the ice in only his shirt, torn and with his head smashed, and only in the morning gave up his soul. Then were tortured to death: the elder Makariy, frozen on the ice; the elder Khrisanf; Feodor with his disciple Andrey, to whom the voevoda ordered “hands and feet to be cut off, and then their very heads”; afterwards another sixty persons were executed – some hanged by the neck, some by the feet; “many more had their ribs cut open with sharp iron, a hook thrust through, and each hung on his own hook.” And the chronicler further relates that “the blessed sufferers joyfully placed their necks in the noose; joyfully prepared their feet to run toward heaven; joyfully offered their ribs to be cut and even commanded that they be cut more widely.” “Others the beast-hearted tormentor ordered to be roped by the feet, mercilessly tied to horses’ tails and dragged along the ice until they gave up the ghost.”

The sick and the aged were not spared. All were dragged to the seashore, where a huge waterless hole was cut in the ice; there, bound two by two, 150 persons were placed and water gradually let in. Since the frost was fierce, the water froze and all the sufferers were encased in ice.

Thus were tortured to death from 400 persons “or up to five hundred, as some say.” All the rest were sentenced to exile. The monastery stood empty; the voevoda began to plunder “the monastery’s possessions, daring even to lay hands on the holy icons.” Soon recalled to Moscow and afterwards appointed to Vologda, he died in terrible agonies, rotting alive.

The bodies of all the executed were gathered and buried on a separate island in the sea – Zhenskaya Korga.

The monastery perished, but its cause did not perish. Not in vain did so many people perish; their steadfastness and courage served as an example to the whole Russian people who stood for the old faith. The monks, scattered throughout Rus’, carried everywhere the tidings of the Solovetsky martyrs, calling all to follow the sufferers’ example. Among the monks of the Solovetsky Monastery who especially laboured in preaching and laid down their lives for the true faith, the following should be noted:

1. Epifaniy, who preached much in the Onega region and then in Moscow, where he laboured greatly together with Protopope Avvakum. Finally the elder was seized, long confined “in an earthen prison,” and “having twice endured the cutting of his tongue – miraculously healed by God – spoke again.” Burned in Pustozersk in 1681.

2. Savvatiy, who laboured much in various monasteries. Executed in Moscow.

3. The deacon Ignatiy – distinguished by extraordinary learning and knowledge of Holy Scripture. Preached in the Onega and Kargopol regions. Burned in the Paleostrovsky Monastery.

4. German “the humble-minded and meek,” burned together with Ignatiy.

5. The deacon Serapion and

6. Loggin, who lived thirty years in complete silence on one of the islands of the White Sea; they led the strictest life in an earthen cave they had dug, and there they reposed.

7. Evfimiy,

8. Gennadiy, and many others who became renowned for their righteous life and gave an example of strict living and asceticism.

Chapter XV. The Priest Nikita Dobrynin

Dissatisfaction with Patriarch Nikon’s reforms spread ever more widely throughout Rus’ and penetrated even into its most remote corners. “And in many cities of thy pious realm,” wrote the priest Nikita to the Tsar, “and especially in the villages, the churches of God are greatly troubled; whithersoever I have travelled much, I have not found two or three churches wherein they serve and sing uniformly, but in all there is diversity and great discord: in one church they serve and sing according to Nikon’s books, and in another according to the old… And from this, great Sovereign, many Christian souls of the simple folk, the faint-hearted, perish; they have fallen into despair, have begun to go to the churches of God less often, and some do not go at all, and have ceased to have spiritual fathers.”

Thus the seed sown by Patriarch Nikon began to bear evil fruit: the crack that had appeared in the Russian Church grew wider year by year and divided the Russian people. Year by year the defenders of antiquity separated themselves, who, as before, zealously upheld their convictions and openly defended them. But the time was already approaching when open defence of the old faith would become impossible and cruel persecutions would begin.

Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, even after the Council of 1667, despite all the conciliar oaths and the apparent victory of the reformers, still harboured doubts in his soul as to the correctness of the chosen path. He died in 1676; his heir, Tsar Fedor Alexeevich, issued a series of decrees directed against the defenders of antiquity, but reigned only a short time. After his death (1682) a struggle for power began, which the defenders of antiquity hoped to use in order to reopen the disputed question of Patriarch Nikon’s reforms once more.

At the head of the defenders of antiquity on this occasion stood the priest Nikita Dobrynin. Very little information about him has survived. It is known that until 1650 he had been a priest in the city of Suzdal. Dissatisfied with the actions of Archbishop Stefan of Suzdal, who was introducing Nikon’s innovations, he submitted a petition to the Tsar. Archbishop Stefan, convicted of various offences, was removed from his see, and the priest Nikita set about composing a “great” petition exposing Nikon’s innovations. It was written with extraordinary skill, clarity, and cogency, with numerous citations from Holy Scripture. But the government, learning of it, ordered the petition confiscated and Nikita arrested and brought for trial to Moscow. In Moscow it was commanded that a refutation be composed; the task was entrusted to Paisios Ligarides, who did not know Slavonic, and to Simeon of Polotsk. Paisios produced thirty-one “refutations,” and Simeon, basing himself on them, composed his Rod of Governance, which was confirmed by the Council of 1666. Since Nikita remained unyielding and even accused the hierarchs of ignorance, he was excommunicated and imprisoned (in May 1666). After some time he submitted a plea for mercy and in 1667 was released; thereafter he settled in Moscow. In 1682 he again came forward against Nikon’s innovations.

At that time, immediately after the death of Tsar Fedor Alexeevich, at the instigation of Princess Sophia, a revolt of the streltsy broke out, which ended with the proclamation of Princess Sophia Alexeevna as regent during the minority of the “tsars” Ivan and Peter. On the third day after the uprising (15 May 1682) the streltsy held counsel about ancient piety, desiring to restore it once more in Rus’. They resolved to draw up a petition and for this purpose turned to their like-minded comrades Kurbatov, Borisov, and Savva Romanov, who went to a certain monk Sergius, most pious and steadfast in the ancient Orthodoxy. With his blessing they began to compose a petition in the name of all the streltsy and the inhabitants of the black suburbs. After the petition had been solemnly read and approved by the streltsy, who desired “above all to stand firm for the ancient Orthodox Christian faith, and if need be, to shed their blood,” and after consultation with Prince Khovansky, it was decided, for the forthcoming disputation on the faith, to invite the Suzdal priest Nikita. Prince Khovansky promised to obtain the holding of a council to settle the disputes about the faith; it was resolved to ask that the council be held either on Lobnoe Mesto or in the Kremlin square in the presence of the tsars and the tsarina. Friday was appointed as the day of the council, since the coronation of the tsars was planned for Sunday (23 June). On Friday, after a moleben, the priest Nikita took the cross, monk Sergius the Gospel, and monk Savvatiy the “vessel of God,” and at the seventh hour they came to the Kremlin accompanied by a great multitude of people. They were received by Prince Khovansky, to whom they set forth their request that the patriarch be commanded “righteously to examine the matter with testimony from divine Scripture: why the patriarch will not serve according to the old printed books and forbids others to do so, while those lovers of God who, zealous for the fathers’ doctrines, hold fast to the true law, he anathematizes by council and sends into prisons to die.” Prince Khovansky delivered the petition to the sovereigns for their perusal, after which the council, at the patriarch’s request, was postponed until Wednesday.

Meanwhile the patriarch, in fear, began to bribe the streltsy and win them over with favours. This had its effect, and discord began in some strelets regiments. Nevertheless, delegates from the regiments, headed by Pavel and Savva Romanov, were sent to the patriarch. A dispute about the true faith began, in which the defenders of antiquity gained the upper hand. On Wednesday (5 July) all the zealots of ancient piety, taking the cross, the Gospel, and the “vessel of God,” with candles, walked in good order and reverence to the council, while “certain God-loving people carried the holy books upon their heads.” The streltsy went with them for protection, together with a great multitude of people. The patriarch ordered the delegates to be invited into the Faceted Palace, but they feared treachery, especially since they had only just been attacked on the square by parish priests and deacons. Finally, after Prince Khovansky’s guarantee, the delegates entered the Faceted Palace, where, having set up an analoy, they placed the honourable cross, the holy Gospel, and icons upon it and lit candles before them. After this they bowed to the ground before the tsarina and the princesses. The patriarch addressed them with a speech, reproaching them for disobedience and assuring them of the correctness of the correction of the books, saying that “ye have not even touched grammatical understanding and know not what power it containeth.” Nikita replied that they had not come to speak about grammar but about church dogmas, and then put a question concerning one of the new insertions in the liturgy. The patriarch made no answer, but the Bishop of Kholmogory stepped forward “and rushed upon him furiously like a wild beast.” Nikita “gently pushed him aside with his hand,” saying that he was speaking not to him but to the patriarch. Princess Sophia fell upon him. After a rebuke they proceeded to read the petition, which was soon interrupted again by a remark from Princess Sophia. The reading continued thereafter, frequently interrupted now by Princess Sophia, now by the clergy, who wished to defend themselves but did so unsuccessfully. When the reading was finished neither the patriarch nor the hierarchs offered any reply, and the people, dismissed “in peace” by the princess, left the palace, after which a discussion between the monks and the people was held on Lobnoe Mesto.

Meanwhile neither the patriarch nor the clergy wished to acknowledge themselves defeated and besought Sophia not to deliver them “to mockery and reproach.” Their request was granted, and the number of martyrs for the old faith increased: a week later (11 July) the priest Nikita’s head was cut off on Lobnoe Mesto, and all the remaining fathers were imprisoned in various monasteries. After the execution the faithful gathered the remains of the priest Nikita and buried them in the town of Gzhatsk in Smolensk province.

Thus ended yet another attempt at reconciliation with the militant New-RitualistsRitualists. During the regency of Princess Sophia the extremely harsh Twelve Articles were promulgated against the zealots of antiquity, which ordered even those “who repented” to be put to death, and those who sheltered the faithful were subjected to enormous monetary fines. The consequence of all this was the flight of the faithful into the forests and abroad.

Chapter XVI. The Vyg Desert

The idea of the supremacy of the clergy over secular authority, which still lingered among the Russian clergy, received its final blow from Peter the Great, whose despotic nature could not reconcile itself to submission to the will of a patriarch. In the clergy he wished to see only persons subordinate to him, obeying the monarch’s will in all things and helping to instil his views and reforms into the people.

In the early years of his reforms, Peter, preoccupied as he was, had little time for church disputes. Although the old harsh laws and decrees against adherents of the ancient piety remained in force, the civil authorities took little interest in church affairs and left the struggle to the clergy.

But in 1714, having learned from Bishop Pitirim that the number of people holding the old faith was very great, Peter decided to turn them into a new source of state revenue. To this end he ordered a double poll-tax to be imposed on all who adhered to the old faith, while permitting them to register openly without doubt or fear. Thus Tsar Peter openly acknowledged the existence of the Old Believers and in a sense granted them sanction for open existence within the state.

At the same time, however, there arose before the people of the “old faith” – most of whom were forced to hide in forests on the outskirts of the realm, where they built monasteries and settled around them with their families, or crossed the border into Lithuania, Poland, Courland, Prussia, and elsewhere – the question of how to organise their own church. Until then the defenders of the old faith had still been able to hope for reconciliation with the New-RitualistsRitualists or, more accurately, that the New-RitualistsRitualists would return to the old faith. But with the beginning of Peter’s reforms, seeing his turn toward the West and his disdain for church affairs, they had to abandon all such hopes and set about working out the foundations for independent existence.

The question of priests was especially acute. It has already been said that after the death of Bishop Pavel of Kolomna, who had not managed to ordain a successor, there remained no bishops of the old faith. There was no one to ordain new priests, and the old ones were gradually dying out. Thus arose the question: how were they to continue? A search began for a way out of the situation, which led to the fragmentation of the Old Belief into various sects. The question of the priesthood was resolved in the most diverse ways. Some set out in search of any bishop of ancient piety who might by chance have survived somewhere – searches that went on for about 150 years and yielded no results; others began to accept runaway priests from the New-RitualistsRitualists; still others decided to manage entirely without priests.

It has already been mentioned that the consequence of Princess Sophia’s harsh decrees was the flight of Old Believers into the forests and abroad. The chief places of Old Believer settlement were: the Kerzhenets forests along the Kerzhenets River, where the Kerzhenets monasteries were founded; the Starodub forests in Chernigov province; the Don; Siberia; and Pomorye.

But even there the government would not let the Old Believers live in peace. Frequent unrest broke out throughout the country, which often had to be suppressed by military force. The result was the terrible spread of self-immolation or voluntary starvation.

Yet even in those dreadful years of cruel persecution, in the deepest forest wilderness, great strongholds of the Old Belief – monasteries – began to arise.

One of the most renowned monasteries in the Old Belief was the Vyg Monastery in Pomorye, near the great Lake Vyg on the Vyg River. Its founder was Daniil Vikulov, who became its first superior. The desert was established in 1694. Its historian Ivan Filippov, speaking of its beginning, says: “There gathered together into this common life men chosen by God: Daniil, the golden rule of Christ’s meekness; Peter, the vigilant eye of the church rule; Andrey, the precious treasure of wisdom; Simeon, the sweet-voiced swallow and unceasing mouth of theology; and other wondrous men, lamps of true piety and storehouses of honourable virtue.”

In 1702, after the departure of the hieromonk Pafnutiy from Solovki, the question arose of choosing a chief superior for the desert. When Daniil refused, Andrey Denisov was elected.

The brothers Andrey (1674–1730) and Semyon (1682–1741) Denisov came from the noble princely family of Myshetsky. From childhood both firmly held the old faith, having been instructed by the Solovetsky monk Ignatiy. In 1692 Andrey, together with his friend Ioann, withdrew into the “desert” – the forests – where they led an exceedingly strict life and endured many hardships. Soon Andrey met Daniil Vikulov and together with him founded the Vyg community. Thither came Andrey’s sister Solomonia, and many people began to gather. Thanks to Andrey Denisov’s tireless labours, who managed all the community’s economy, the settlement quickly grew and strengthened. Travelling repeatedly on community business throughout Russia and visiting Moscow and Kiev, he studied there “the grammatical and rhetorical arts.” Possessed of extraordinary eloquence – “so cunning and sweet was he in speech that none such is found among Christians today; and in church dogmas and Orthodoxy he knew Holy Scripture so thoroughly, saw to the very end, that it is said there will not be another such; in short, he was a house of wisdom and a dwelling-place of Christian philosophy, like unto John Chrysostom” – he won the hearts of all around him and upheld their spirit in the difficult years of persecution. His Pomorskie Otvety (“Pomor Answers”) became the cornerstone of all Old Believer views, and from his desert sprang the Old Pomor agreement. To his pen also belong: “History of the Fathers and Sufferers of Solovki,” in which is related in detail the siege of the monastery and the torments endured by its defenders, and “The Russian Vineyard,” in which are gathered the lives of the chief figures of the Old Belief.

It cost Denisov great inner struggle to consent to his election as superior of the Vyg Desert. He long refused, even in writing, and accepted only after the brethren promised to obey the rules of the “common-life charter” he had drawn up, in which he demanded the strictest life: all were to lead a modest monastic life, avoiding worldly temptations; to eat only two “portions” a day; unswervingly to attend divine services, etc.

The whole brotherhood expressed full agreement with everything and granted Andrey the right to punish severely those who disobeyed.

And so, under the wise leadership of Andrey Denisov, the desert began to grow, expand, and prosper. Already in 1706 the women were separated from the Vyg Desert and established their own community on the Leksa River, twenty versts away. Its first spiritual mother “for knowledge of Holy Scripture” was Solomonia, sister of the Denisovs, and its hegumenia was the elderess Fevronia.

The deserts were built up and populated more and more. Surrounded by high fences, they occupied a considerable area where stood a chapel with a bell-tower, numerous cells (sometimes whole buildings), a refectory, hospital, almshouse, guesthouse, cattle yards, and many service buildings. Around the monasteries lay the “suzemok” – a settlement of separate sketes administered by elected elders subordinate, like the deserts themselves, to the chief church council.

The council consisted of the mentors, the ekklesiarch, the treasurer, the cellarer, the elder of the sketes, and elected representatives. It met in a special cell under the chairmanship of the superior. All the chief affairs of the desert, both spiritual and temporal, were decided there, and the council’s resolutions were binding. Decisions were taken by majority vote; in case of a tie, preference was given to the side on which the eldest members sat. These resolutions could apply to all members, beginning with the superior himself; any transgressions were punished very strictly, even with expulsion or corporal punishment.

Since everything was conducted “according to monastic order,” the greatest attention was paid to worship.

At first on Vyg things were “very poor”: there were no skilled singers, very few icons, services had to be held by splint-light; there were no bells, and a board was struck instead.

But when two men knowledgeable in Holy Scripture came from Moscow, “they began to sing all-night vigils on feast days according to church rule, and likewise on Sundays.” The reading of books was introduced: “they read the books with great zeal, and what was read was understood most wisely by all who listened.”

Little by little the lack of books and icons was made good, thanks to Andrey Denisov’s tireless efforts in collecting them on his journeys throughout Russia. Soon a huge and extremely rich library was formed. Bells were acquired. A school was established for teaching singing, literacy, “correct writing,” and icon-painting.

Every day vespers, matins, the hours, and molebens were served; on feasts great vespers and all-night vigil, and services lasted very long. Homilies were often delivered. At the sound of the bell all lined up two by two and walked in good order to the prayer-house, where each took his appointed place. The young who came from the world stood separately with their overseers, apart from the elders and schema-monks clad in ancient monastic garb. All held lestovki in their hands. In the prayer-house strict order and decorum were maintained.

The rest of the time everyone was obliged to engage in ceaseless labour, both spiritual and physical. The chief occupations of the Vyg inhabitants were cattle-breeding and farming, but they also engaged in fishing, hunting, sea trades, and later began to build their own factories: brick, tannery, sawmill.

Generous donations flowed from all sides into the desert, which began to flourish and become the centre of the entire Old Belief.

At first the government regarded the desert favourably, but the New-RitualistsRitualist clergy could not look indifferently upon the community’s prosperity and did everything possible to oppress it and lay snares.

Nevertheless, the community existed for almost 150 years for the good of the whole Old Belief until, in the harsh reign of Emperor Nicholas I, it was ravaged and destroyed, like most Old Believer monasteries. The destruction began in 1836, when the Vyg inhabitants were forbidden to acquire real estate; in 1837 thirteen bells were sealed and ringing taken away; in 1854 the desert and sketes were closed, the Old Believers expelled, and peasants from Pskov province settled in their place; the prayer-houses were given to the New-RitualistsRitualists and New-RitualistsRitualist parishes opened. An entire region was laid waste and a rich land turned into desert.

Yet the existence of the Vyg Desert was not in vain and left a deep mark on the entire life of priestless Old Belief.

Its tireless leaders Andrey and Semyon Denisov, besides organising the community, cared also for the ordering of the whole Old Belief. To this end, together with other experts, they performed the enormous labour of compiling the Pomorskie Otvety (“Pomor Answers”).

Chapter XVII. The “Pomorian Answers”

The chief compiler of the Answers was Andrey Denisov, but he was greatly assisted by his brother Semyon.

Semyon Denisov (1682–1741) settled in the Vyg community in 1697 together with his father Dionisiy and his brother Ioann. His brother Andrey helped him, as he did several others, in his studies, paying particular attention “to writing correctly and speaking well, to knowing the power of Holy Scripture, to understanding church dogmas, and to strengthening the rest of the brethren in the Orthodox Christian faith.” Semyon travelled much throughout Russia, striving to complete his education. Having studied grammar, rhetoric, poetics, and part of philosophy, he never ceased to occupy himself with the study of Holy Scripture, which, thanks to his extraordinary memory, he knew perfectly. In natural gifts he was in no way inferior to his brother, and he expended much labour for the good of the Old Belief.

For his zeal for the old faith he had to suffer no little. Thus in 1715, on account of a denunciation, he was seized in Novgorod and kept in prison for four years. In 1739, already being superior, he was again arrested on the denunciation of Krugly and kept under guard in the town of Shunga. Incessant labours and privations undermined his health, and in 1741 the second great luminary of the Old Belief also passed away.

Of the numerous works left by the Denisov brothers, the most valuable for us are the Pomorskie Otvety (“Pomorian Answers”).

The history of their composition is as follows. With the establishment of the Synod, its activity was immediately directed against the Old Believers. Seeing that harsh measures taken against them were achieving nothing, the Synod in 1722 issued a decree that Old Believers should appear before the Synod to receive “instruction.” Two months later a new decree followed, in which specific dates were already appointed for disputations about the faith. But no one responded to these invitations, and therefore it was decided to send clergy to conduct disputations in the localities. Thus to Pomorye was dispatched the hieromonk Neofit, who was given extensive instructions from which one may conclude that the Synod placed less hope in Neofit’s knowledge and ability than in the support of the civil authorities – a support to which later “missionaries” also loved to resort.

Arriving in Petrozavodsk in December 1722, Neofit drew up 106 questions, which he sent to Vyg and demanded answers by the end of December.

In so short a time it was obviously impossible to answer numerous questions requiring thorough consideration and enormous labour. Nevertheless, having received a decree “commanding under severe prohibition that answers be written to his questions,” and in which it was mentioned that if the answers were not delivered they would “be liable to civil execution,” the Vyg inhabitants, after fasting and fervent prayers, immediately set about composing the answers.

The chief work was done by Andrey Denisov, as the chronicler relates: “Andrey Dionisiev took upon himself great care in this matter and added labour upon labour night and day… For he himself read each question carefully and wrote the answer with authentic testimonies and searches. His brother Semyon and Trifon Petrov assisted him, examining and confirming everything by common counsel. But Andrey wrote everything himself, and always laid it before the council for attestation, reading it aloud, discussing and consulting.”

Meanwhile Neofit pressed for the answers and, despite all the Vyg inhabitants’ requests to postpone the deadline, insisted on their speedy submission, unwilling to give time for the composition of serious replies. Nevertheless the Vyg people did not send the answers, wishing to complete them thoroughly, and in order to calm the impatient Neofit they sent for the disputations Manuil Petrov and Ivan Akindinov. The disputations began and went very badly for Neofit. When it finally became clear to him that “the Vyg people had no desire whatever to hear the voice of instruction and guidance, but resolved with obstinacy to defend their opinions” – or, more simply, that Neofit proved unequal to his task and lacked sufficient knowledge, having no other proofs than those cited in the Rod of Governance, the Spiritual Regulation, the Investigation, and the Prashchitsa – he again resorted to new decrees against Vyg and to reports to the Synod.

All this compelled the Vyg people to hasten the completion of their work, yet, not wishing “the answer to be unworthy of consideration,” they were able to finish only in June. On 28 June the delegates presented the answers, written in two copies, to the office of the Petrovsky factories.

One cannot but marvel and bow before the enormous labours of the Vyg people in composing such detailed answers in the short space of six months. For this much zeal and effort were required.

When Neofit became acquainted with the answers, he began to postpone the disputation with the Vyg people concerning them. Finally, after insistent requests from the Vyg inhabitants “for the reading of the answers and the conclusion of the discussion,” disputations were appointed for September.

When the disputations began, Neofit refused to read the answers and only, again after insistent requests from the Vyg people, prepared his written reflections on the answers, in which he distorted everything in his own way. After vigorous protests from the Vyg side and exposures of falsehood, the hieromonk Neofit was forced to fall silent and end the disputations, after which the Vyg people were released. To all their requests that his written refutations be handed over to them for examination, Neofit refused, evidently feeling the full weakness of them.

Thus Neofit’s attempt at a contest with the Old Believers ended in complete failure, but on another field he proved equal to the task: “seeking out Old Believers, by every kind of compulsion and deceit bringing them to his church; those who did not submit he cast into prisons and fetters, and in the chancelleries by cunning interrogations he brought them to the innovations and by force to his church; while those who stood firm he registered under the double tax and exacted money from them even for past years from the time the decree was issued. And there was from him great persecution and oppression of Christians.” In the end a petition was sent against him by the people driven to despair – which, however, helped little, and only his soon-following death delivered the people from the ferocious oppressor.

The content of the Pomorskie Otvety is as follows: first are set forth the 106 questions posed by the Synod, and to each question a most detailed answer is given, with numerous citations from Holy Scripture, the Kormchaya, etc.; many historical confirmations are also adduced. Questions 1–4 treat “of the Orthodoxy of the ancient Russian Church” and its agreement with the Eastern Church; 5–15 – of the sign of the cross; 16–24 – of alleluia; 25 – “of the all-Russian agreement before the Stoglav Council”; 26–31 – “of the correction of scribal errors”; 32–35 – “of the customs of the former patriarchs and the newly introduced ones”; 36–39 – of the Kirillova Kniga; 40–47 – again of the sign of the cross; 48–51 – of the innovations in the Great-Russian Church; 52 – of the Tsar and the Synod; 53 – of alleluia; 54–64 – of prosphorae and services upon them; 65–71 – of the cross; 72–74 – of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich; 75–78 – of ancient church piety and the new; 79–97 – of Nikon’s correction of the books, the councils of 1654–66, and the Greeks; 98–100 – of ancient church piety; 101 – of the church without priests; 102–103 – of baptism in necessity and confession to elders; 104–106 – of those who receive communion, of those not ordained, and of the writing of the number of the Antichrist.

In addition, the book contains a preface, an exhortation, and an epilogue. Of particular importance is the preface addressed to Neofit, in which the Vyg people in a sense confess their entire faith. First all the chief Nikonian innovations are enumerated; then it is said that the Old Believers are “the remnants of the ancient Orthodox Church,” who have introduced no novelties or new dogmas; “we abide in the ancient Orthodox Church, according to the divine Chrysostom: the church is not walls and roof, but faith and life; not church walls, but church laws” (Margarit, ch. 10). It is further proved that salvation is possible even without the priesthood. Mentioning that they have composed the answers, though under compulsion, yet “not for reproach or scorn, but for information and confession we offer them to your wisdom, that your teaching may see that we abide firmly and without doubt in the ancient Orthodox patristic traditions.” The preface ends with a detailed confession of the foundations of the faith: “Thus we confess the Orthodox Catholic faith, and all the Gospel and apostolic commandments we accept with all our heart; the instructions of the holy fathers we honour with all reverence; the traditions and teachings of the holy councils we kiss with all submission. All the church mysteries performed according to the tradition of the holy apostles and holy fathers we confess with all our heart, accept and honour with all reverence. And if by reason of necessary circumstances we cannot obtain something, yet we believe, desire, and confess it with all our heart; and in such circumstances we abide as the saints of old abode in times of necessity.”

The significance of the Answers for the Old Belief is extraordinarily great, for in them all Nikon’s innovations are thoroughly exposed, and then the very essence of the Old Belief is set forth, together with the possibility of its existence under the new conditions without priesthood.

The Old Believers who accepted the view of church order set forth in the Pomorskie Otvety came to be called priestless Old Believers of the Pomor agreement.

Chapter XVIII. Government Decrees and Self-Immolations

The Russian people’s faith in the immutability of the foundations of the faith and in their unchangeableness led to the fact that, as soon as Nikon’s innovations began, people started speaking of the imminent end of the world, of the Antichrist, and of the Second Coming. Various proofs were adduced to confirm the nearness of the Coming, and Nikon was compared to the Antichrist who was destroying the Church. Great significance was attached to the apocalyptic number “666,” which was linked to the year 1666 and to the council of that same year.

When nearly thirty years had passed and the Second Coming still had not occurred, in connection with Peter’s reforms and his sharp attacks both on the Church and on antiquity, the people began to see the Antichrist in Peter himself.

When that reign too had passed, the eschatological expectations were altered once more, and among the Old Believers the view became dominant that the Antichrist reigned spiritually in the world.

Since in the early times the Second Coming was expected from day to day, when government agents appeared trying to seize people of the old faith in order to convert them by force, or to imprison or execute them, many began to resort to self-immolation in order to escape violence.

The government took the following measures against the Old Believers.

As early as 1667 the first decree against the Old Believers was issued, by which they were subjected not only to church punishments but also to “the Tsar’s, that is, civic laws and executions…” The first to fall under this decree were Protopope Avvakum, Protopope Nikifor, the priest Lazar, and Epifaniy, of whom it was ordered: “having cut out their tongues, send them… to Pustozersk.” “Punishments” began against others as well, with the result that, as Protopope Avvakum relates, “they gathered in courtyards with wives and children and burned themselves of their own free will.” In the period 1676–1683 in Poshekhonsky district alone, in the single parish of St Paraskeva-Pyatnitsa, as many as 1,920 persons burned themselves, besides those who burned in other parishes. In 1679 in Tobolsk district the monk Daniil, having gathered the faithful around him, withdrew to the Berezovka River where he founded a hermitage. The Tsar’s voevodas learned of this and immediately sent “exhorters” to the hermitage. They carried out their “exhortations and persuasions” so zealously that the believers were compelled to seek escape in self-immolation. “On the night of 6 January, in that settlement the monk Daniil with his like-minded companions burned themselves in their huts.” In all, 1,700 persons perished then. On 4 February of the same year in the same district many more people burned themselves.

In the same year in the village of Mostovka (Siberia) forty persons again burned themselves, driven to it by the oppressions of the Tsar’s voevodas. Preparing for death they wrote a “tale” to Tsar Fedor Alexeevich in which they said: “They say of us that for the sake of delusion we have shut ourselves in a courtyard and wish to set fire to ourselves; yea, yea, Sovereign, God knows that we know no evil design in ourselves, only we hold to the old piety… These books we hold, for them we suffer and die… And further, Sovereign, they force us to cross ourselves with three fingers, with a pinch… they command us to believe thus… Merciful Sovereign, Tsar, command us to remain in the old former faith, and grant us a charter under the sovereign seal so that the officials do not come, do not ruin us poor ones; we write and weep from the grief of our hearts, that we may not accept the new faith, but God forbid that we should even think it, and we are ready at the hour of death to suffer from them and to burn in fire, as those who suffered with the priest Daniil. For Christ we are willing to suffer, because, Sovereign, we dare not go with wives and children to torture, we dare not be separated from them to the end.”

Thus wrote people who were utterly worn out, hunted down, seeing no way out, writing with the blood of their hearts and vainly begging mercy from the government.

But the government continued its former policy, and the result was new and ever new self-immolations.

There is no need to enumerate all the cases of self-immolation that swept across Rus’ – people burned in Siberia, in Pomorye, in the Novgorod region. Many shut themselves up and perished of hunger; others “were buried alive in graves and thus deprived themselves of their wretched life.”

In 1685 new decrees followed, recommending still harsher measures against the Old Believers, among which was the provision that “after thrice questioning them at the place of execution – burn them in a log-house and scatter the ashes…” The result of this decree was a new wave of self-immolations. Especially great was the mass self-immolation in the Paleostrovsky Monastery, where on 4 March 1687, led by the Solovetsky monk Ignatiy, “2,700 persons ended their lives by fire for the ancient piety.”

And on 9 August of the same year, led by “the most pure deacon from Great Novgorod and truly holy monk, father Pimen,” seeing “the cruel assault, the harsh ferocity, the beastly insolence – they trembled to fall into merciless hands,” 1,000 persons burned themselves.

People burned everywhere throughout Rus’, sometimes a hundred, sometimes 150, sometimes 300, and in most cases the number of those who burned cannot even be established.

And the government continued as before to shower decree upon decree, each stricter than the last, with the result that armed clashes between Old Believers and government troops became frequent. One such case occurred at the same Paleostrovsky Monastery, which had been seized by Emelyan Ivanov at the head of an armed band. The government sent a detachment that besieged the monastery; however, the troops could not take it at once, and the siege dragged on for nine weeks; on 25 September 1688 all the besieged burned themselves. In all, 1,500 persons perished.

On 1 August 1693, during the siege of the village of Strokino, after a long battle 800 persons burned themselves.

In the reign of Peter the Great the former decrees remained in force, and in 1714 new additional ones were issued. Although the government in a sense recognised the existence of the Old Believers and agreed to regard them as citizens, it did so with enormous restrictions: they were forced to wear special clothing and copper badges, to pay a tax for beards, they were forbidden to hold authority over others, their testimony in court against “Orthodox” was not accepted, in marriages with “Orthodox” they were ordered to be converted to “Orthodoxy,” and for cohabitation without church marriage they were to be handed over to court; their children were to be taken away and baptised in “Orthodoxy.” Moreover, “an Old Believer who seduced even one of the Orthodox was to be executed, and secret Old Bel &ievers were to be sent to hard labour,” etc.

Self-immolations began again. Among those who burned were people of high rank: thus Prince Peter Myshetsky burned himself in his Novgorod estate together with about a hundred of his co-believers.

After the establishment of the Synod, its measures and decrees against the Old Believers began, leading to new cases of self-immolation. There were especially many cases in Siberia, and the reasons were always the same: “we abandon our homes and all our possessions and go to voluntary death for the old-printed books of the seven councils, as the saints taught us and set forth…”

In 1723 the Synod issued a decree forbidding “Old Believers to build sketes and hermitages for themselves.” Zealous bishops began to destroy the sketes; the result – self-immolations.

Finally, the “Orthodox” clergy began to force Old Believers to confess and commune with them annually and by every means compelled them to convert to their faith. Then the people, defending their faith, began to abandon their native places and all their goods, either resorting to self-immolation, fleeing into impassable wilderness, or emigrating abroad.

The short reigns of Catherine I and Peter II passed quickly, bringing nothing new to the continuing struggle for the faith. Upon Peter II’s accession there had been bright hopes for relief, since the people saw in him the son of Alexei Petrovich, who had perished for the old faith at his father’s hand, but the young emperor’s reign lasted only three years.

The already difficult situation of the Old Believers worsened still more in the reign of Anna Ioannovna (1730–1740). Enormous taxes were doubled and mercilessly exacted, ruining the people. Mass flight began. No small number of Old Believers settled at that time in our region (ed. – in the Baltic provinces).

In Russia itself special investigative commissions subordinate to the Secret Chancellery and the Schism Office acted against the Old Believers. True, executions and tortures were at that time applied relatively rarely, but the taxes and dues reached incredible proportions. Therefore self-immolations again began to occur everywhere. This time the centre became Vyg, where in 1732, for the ancient piety, 75 persons burned themselves in various hermitages, then 12, then 30, then 85. In 1733 a mass of people burned “in the forest in Murom woods,” and those “saved” from self-immolation were seized and “beaten with the knout.” In Pomorye 50 persons burned, and perhaps many more. In 1734 in the same place – 200 in January and 200 in summer.

Finally the Synod turned its attention to the increasing cases of self-immolation and tried to work out measures against it. They ordered the seizure of ringleaders, detailed investigation, reports on everything, etc. In a word, measures were taken that were either purely police measures or purely bureaucratic.

But cases of self-immolation continued. Among the most notable cases one should mention the self-immolation in 1739 in the village of Shadrina in Siberia, caused by the terrible oppressions of the manager Kartashev, who forcibly made people attend church, “cross themselves with a pinch,” and in case of disobedience “break their arms,” etc. Between 300 and 500 persons burned then.

Empress Elizabeth Petrovna (1741–1761) extremely loved all kinds of church services and, in connection with this, the clergy. Therefore the number of clergy increased enormously under her, and at the same time the clergy formed a new closed estate into which access from other estates was almost barred. Special “missionaries” appeared to fight the Old Believers, who caused no little harm.

Although no new special decrees were issued in this reign except those directed against self-immolations, the situation of the Old Believers remained extremely bad and even worsened owing to the strengthening of serfdom. Therefore flights continued, chiefly to Siberia, as well as frequent cases of self-immolation caused by the actions of punitive military detachments. The Synod as before continued to prescribe that “having caught them, they be sent for exhortation to the spiritual authorities.” In spite of all oppressions and all the efforts of the authorities, the number of Old Believers did not decrease. Thus one report states that on the Mezen there are numerous sketes where live “some of noble origin, others of distinguished Moscow and other city merchants,” yet others “contractors,” as well as “no small number of monastics, laymen and laywomen of both sexes,” and others. The result of this report was the dispatch of a military detachment, the destruction of the sketes, and self-immolations. From the long list of self-immolations of this period the most notable for the number of victims was in 1753 in Tyumen district in Siberia, where a great many people burned, the names of 200 of them being recorded. People of all ages burned: men, women, and children, often with all their property. In the same year in Ustyzhensky district 170 persons burned, etc. In 1756 in Tomsk district 172 persons burned; the self-immolation took place after a prolonged siege by a military detachment and lengthy negotiations, during which the Old Believers asked that they cease persecuting them and then they would disperse to their homes and “live until God sends us death,” but as it was they were certain that “all the pious will be given over to execution, impaled on stakes”; moreover they were “ruined by exactions and state labour – better to die.”

Only in 1761, terrified by the incredible stubbornness of those who burned themselves, did the government decide to change somewhat the methods of struggle against the Old Belief that had been practised until then and issued a decree stating that “they be assured that the investigations carried out concerning them (the Old Believers) are now ordered to be annulled,” and that all those held under guard be released to their homes.

Thus ended the first century of the Old Belief’s existence, which passed under the sign of persecution and martyrdom. The government demanded complete submission, but the people persisted and steadfastly held to their old faith. The harsher the measures the government took, the more embittered the people became, resorting to concealment in impassable forests and thickets, flight, suicide, death by starvation, drowning, or self-immolation – the number of whose victims must be counted in tens of thousands.

Usually self-immolation took place as follows. Having learned that the government had discovered their dwelling-place and was sending a military detachment headed by an “Orthodox” priest and some officer for “exhortation,” the people gathered in a chapel, prayer-house, or simply a huge hut, dragging in straw, hay, brushwood, birch-bark, setting barrels of tar, scattering gunpowder, etc. As soon as the military detachment appeared, all gathered in the building and firmly boarded up windows and doors. General prayer began. The detachment sent a negotiator. The people asked to be left in peace and that they go away, that they could never recognise the new church and threatened to burn themselves. The detachment commanders would not even hear of leaving and insisted on their demands. Finally, seeing that persuasion was useless, the troops began the siege and went on the attack. At that moment clouds of smoke rose, flames lit up everything around, cries and groans of the burning were heard; the soldiers retreated a little from the heat, unable to save anyone, and after some time on the site of the fire there remained only charred skeletons of tens and hundreds of people.

And everywhere it was the same. If at the beginning of the persecutions the government itself tortured and burned the first fighters, the subsequent ones voluntarily went to execution so as not to fall into the hands of the enemy.

Thus passed the second “martyrdom” period of the Old Believers’ existence.

Chapter XIX. The Fedoseevtsy

Soon after the founding of the Vyg community and the establishment of the Pomor agreement, a new branch separated from it – the so-called Fedoseev agreement.

Its founder was the well-known Novgorod teacher of Scripture, Feodosiy Vasiliev, who came from the boyar family of the Urusovs. Having served as a deacon in Krestetsky Yam, he joined the Old Belief and attached himself to the Pomor agreement, receiving at baptism the name Dionisiy. In 1699 he moved to Poland, to Nevelsky district, where he was received by a certain Polish nobleman, Pan Kunitsky. “His departure became known in Russia,” and a multitude of Christians from towns, villages, and hamlets, “inflamed with love, ran after him, desiring… to remain under his guidance.” In all, there gathered around Feodosiy “up to 600 males and up to 700 maidens and women” of various estates. For them, near the village of Rusanova in Kropivenskaya volost, two communities were built – one for men and one for women. Feodosiy, together with his assistant, the nobleman Zakhar Bedrinsky, “instructed all in a life pleasing to God according to the monastic rules of Basil the Great, and established common life.” “In these communities divine service was performed – vespers, great vespers, midnight office, matins, the hours, molebens, and pannikhidas – with reading and sweet singing, everything according to the old printed holy books, in due order and very beautifully, every day without fail.” At meals “there was one table for all.” Bread and other food were held in common. Clothing, footwear, and other things “were distributed from the common treasury.” They were occupied chiefly with agriculture. Feodosiy himself took an active part in all the work. They had to pay an annual quit-rent of 30 roubles per person.

Thus they lived there for nine years, when Polish troops began to oppress and plunder them severely, seeking riches; they had to think about further existence. It was decided to look for new places to settle, and meanwhile, during these nine years, Feodosiy finally broke with the Vyg community and formed his own separate agreement. The chief point of disagreement was the question of marriage.

Expecting the imminent coming of the Antichrist and having no priesthood among themselves, the Pomortsy rejected all marriages, including those performed by New-RitualistsRitualist priests. The Fedoseevtsy, however, began to regard such marriages as lawful and to recognise them. This was the cause of the dispute.

An exchange of epistles followed, which did not, however, convince the opponents. In 1703 Feodosiy visited Vyg, where many discussions were held, but without reaching any agreement they parted peacefully. In 1706 Feodosiy, with his disciples, again visited Vyg in the absence of Andrey Denisov, but this time after long disputes a complete break occurred; Feodosiy, “leaving the community, shook the dust from his feet, crying out that they would have neither honour nor portion with those fathers.” This time the disputes were not only about marriage but also about the titulus on the cross. The Vyg people wrote on the cross “King of Glory, Jesus Christ Ni-Ka,” while the Fedoseevtsy taught that it should be written I. N. Ts. I. Because of these differences a final rupture took place.

In 1708 Andrey Denisov, while in Novgorod, attempted reconciliation with Feodosiy, but without success. Then in 1710 Denisov wrote an epistle in which he set forth the whole history of the disputes with Feodosiy and his own views on marriage.

Very soon after this, however, both sides changed their views on marriage. The Pomortsy, seeing that the Second Coming still did not occur, revised their position and began to require celibacy only for those living in the sketes; for laypeople marriages were recognised – both those performed by New-RitualistsRitualist priests and those contracted without a wedding – and Denisov himself ate, drank, and prayed together with them. Later the Pomortsy even began to bless those entering married life, and finally, at the end of the 18th century, a special rite of marriage was introduced.

The Fedoseevtsy also changed their original view of marriage.

In 1708 Feodosiy received a charter from Prince Menshikov permitting him to move from Poland with all his “brethren” to Menshikov’s estate, promising them “freedom in their faith” and permission to pray “according to the old printed books, as their order is.”

Having received the charter, the majority of the Fedoseevtsy moved to Pskov province, to Velikolutsky district. But the land in the new place proved very poor, and “great want and need” ensued, as a result of which Feodosiy petitioned again for resettlement, and Prince Menshikov allowed them to move to Yuryevsky district, to the Ryapina manor. During the negotiations for the move, Feodosiy, having come to Novgorod, was arrested and died in prison in 1711.

In Feodosiy’s place stood his son Evstrat. Under him the Fedoseevtsy settled on the Ryapina manor and lived there until 1719, when, on a denunciation, a military detachment was sent to investigate them. In fear the Fedoseevtsy abandoned everything and fled wherever they could. Evstrat fled to Poland, others to Courland, Livonia, Wallachia, Starodubye, and other places, thanks to which the Fedoseev teaching spread throughout Russia.

In 1752 a Fedoseev council was convened in Poland which issued resolutions known as the “Polish articles.” One of the chief questions was that of marriage. All married people were divided into “old-married” and “New-Ritualistsmarried.” It was decided to treat the “old-married” leniently: their marriages were to be regarded as lawful and prayer with them permitted, but if children were born – for the first child excommunication from prayer for half a year, for the second for a year, for the third for two years. With the “New-Ritualistsmarried” it was decreed not to pray and not to share food or drink, etc. However, such harsh measures as the prohibition of baptising the children of the “New-Ritualistsmarried” provoked protest even among the Fedoseevtsy themselves. Soon one of them, Ivan Alexeev, wrote a work “On the Mystery of Marriage” in which he defended married life. A new “New-Ritualistsmarried” society was formed. Nevertheless, the Fedoseevtsy remained opponents of marriage, and many peculiarities, even external ones, in the ordering of their family life persisted until recent times. Thus married persons were forbidden not only to stand on the kliros but even to pray in the prayer-house; in the family itself unmarried children did not pray with their parents and did not eat together with them. The children had their own “servile” dishes, distinct from the rest which were “worldly.” The Fedoseevtsy were hostile toward the Pomortsy, and only before the war did views change and hostility begin to disappear.

Soon after the separation of the Fedoseevtsy, a new sect – the Filippovtsy – separated from the Vyg community.

Its founder was Filipp (in the world Fotiy), who had formerly served in a strelets regiment and was afterwards received by the Vyg people. At first he was in service with the hermit David, from whom he received the tonsure, and then was elected as a spiritual father. After the death of Andrey Denisov he wished to occupy the place of superior but was not elected. Since he nevertheless continued to seek the superior’s position, a council of elders was convened (14 December 1737) which condemned Filipp. When soon afterwards, because of Krugly’s denunciation, the Vyg people had to compose a troparion “Save, O Lord…” for prayer for the Tsar, Filipp protested against the innovation and withdrew to the Umba River, where he established his own skete. People began to gather around him, and soon a whole skete arose. The Vyg people several times proposed reconciliation, but Filipp remained inflexible. After some time the authorities learned of their existence and sent a military detachment to seize the skete-dwellers. Learning of this, they all gathered in the chapel and there burned themselves (1743). Nevertheless, the Filippov sect continued to exist. Their chief distinguishing feature was that they venerated only the cross without the titulus, did not recognise prayer for the Tsar, and did not venerate all icons.

In the 18th century there also appeared the Spasovo agreement, whose peculiarity was the conviction that “in case of necessity one may be saved by hope alone in the Saviour’s mercy.” Some of them accepted baptism from New-RitualistsRitualist priests – these were the so-called Netovtsy; others baptised themselves – the “self-baptisers”; later their children began to be baptised by midwives – hence their name “babushkiny” (grandmother’s).

Many other sects arose initially among the Old Believers, but little by little they began to disappear and to change their convictions, losing the ideas for which their founders had fought.

Chapter XX. The Popovtsy

The Old Believers who resolved to preserve the priesthood among themselves came to be called Popovtsy.

When the old priests began to die out and a shortage of them was felt, on the advice of Protopope Avvakum it was decided to accept repentant old priests – that is, priests ordained before Nikon. But when even these were gone, “for need’s sake” it was resolved to make do with priests of new ordination but of old baptism; and when even such were no more, they began to accept in general runaway New-RitualistsRitualist priests, whence the Popovtsy began to be called Beglopopovtsy (“runaway-priest” Old Believers). Since at that time many bishops and priests from Little Russia appeared in Rus’, where pouring baptism was often practised, it was decided to accept only Great-Russian priests ordained by Great-Russian hierarchs. At that time the Beglopopovtsy were engaged in ceaseless searches for their own bishop.

The rite of receiving priests was performed differently at different times and in different places. At first it was the custom to rebaptise all who came over. But fearing that at rebaptism the grace of ordination might disappear, sometimes priests were baptised in full vestments. Afterwards they only baptised for appearance’ sake: they read the baptismal rite over the priest received, walked around the font sunwise, but did not immerse the recipient, merely anointing him with chrism. Later even such baptism was abandoned, and they were content with reception by the second rank – only chrismation. Finally, still later, they were satisfied at conversion with the third rank alone – that is, renunciation and anathematisation of the new heresy.

The chief centres of the Popovtsy were Kerzhenets, the Don, Starodubye, and Vetka.

The flourishing of Kerzhenets began already at the end of the 17th century. At the beginning of the 18th century in Nizhny Novgorod province – in Nizhny, Yuryevets, Gorodets, the Chernoramenskie forests, on the Vetluga, and in seven other towns there – the number of Old Believers was 122,258 persons, a figure that for that time was extraordinarily large.

The first teachers here were the hieromonk Avraamiy and the monk Efrem Potemkin. Soon, when persecutions began, Old Believers from all over Rus’ began to flock here and settle in the Chernoramenskie forests, especially along the rivers Kerzhenets and Belbash, where many sketes were quickly built. Among these sketes the most famous were the Onufriev, Safontiev, and Lavrentiev, named after their founders. There were both men’s and women’s sketes, governed by special “fathers” – hegumens – and “mothers” – hegumenias. All the sacraments were performed by priests, who also carried out marriages and communion. Many came from afar to receive communion and then spread the fame of Kerzhenets throughout Rus’.

Soon, however, on Kerzhenets a schism among the Popovtsy almost occurred because the elder Onufriy, having received forged letters of Avvakum, took them for genuine and began to preach various deviations and to fall into heresy in his views on the Most Holy Trinity, Jesus Christ, and the Mother of God. Since he also introduced the reading of Protopope Avvakum’s letters into the services and, having raised him to the rank of holy martyr, began to venerate his icon, a new sect arose which came to be called “Onufrievshchina” and “Avvakumovshchina.” This sect, however, did not last long: after Onufriy’s death in 1717 reconciliation took place, and a peace scroll was signed with the rest of the Popovtsy.

Soon a new sect separated – the so-called “Dyakonovtsy.” Its founder was the deacon Alexander, who, reading Holy Scripture and finding the place about the anathema on those who do not cross themselves with two fingers, took fright and joined the Old Belief. Arriving at Kerzhenets, he was tonsured in the Lavrentiev skete and after Lavrentiy’s death became its superior (1710). Soon he began to introduce certain peculiarities of his own: he recognised the four-ended cross as the true one, began to say the Jesus Prayer with the words “Our God,” introduced processions in the form of a cross instead of the threefold procession previously practised. All this provoked fierce disputes that almost led to a break between the Dyakonovtsy and the rest of the Popovtsy; only the intervention of Vetka and Alexander’s execution in 1720 put an end to the disputes.

Soon terrible persecutions began on Kerzhenets, raised by the New-RitualistsRitualist Bishop Pitirim, from which the majority of the Kerzhentsy fled to Vetka, yet many Kerzhenets sketes continued to exist thereafter.

In the 1760s the Popovtsy also spread to Starodubye in Chernigov province, where the settlements of Demyanka and Ponurovka were especially renowned for their steadfastness, led by the priest Kuzma who had come from Moscow. When decrees of oppression began to arrive, many Old Believers, headed by the priests Kuzma and Stefan, left the Old Believer regions, crossed the Polish border, and settled on the island of Vetka on the River Sozh. Here, at the insistence of the hieromonk Ioasaf, they built a church which was completed and consecrated in honour of the Protection of the Most Holy Theotokos already under his successor, the hieromonk Feodosiy.

Vetka quickly rose and soon became the centre of the entire Beglopopovshchina. The report of freedom of worship granted by the Polish king attracted a mass of settlers, and soon around Vetka there arose fourteen settlements with a population exceeding 30,000 persons. Vetka began to grow rich and rise, even eclipsing the fame of Kerzhenets.

But the Russian government could not reconcile itself to such fame of a Popovtsy centre. Therefore in 1735 Colonel Sytin was sent, who with five regiments surrounded Vetka and destroyed it: all the inhabitants were seized and dispersed to various places in Russia, while the church and buildings were demolished. Soon, however, Vetka recovered: new settlers appeared, a church was rebuilt, and two monasteries were constructed – a men’s monastery where the number of monks reached 1,200, and a women’s. Donations flowed from all sides, and Vetka flourished again, but not for long. In 1764 another military detachment was sent and carried out a second, this time final, “expulsion.” The inhabitants (about 20,000 in number) were seized and sent to Siberia for settlement, while the monastic church and buildings were destroyed. After this Vetka could no longer recover.

Starodubye began to rise again. From Vetka the priest Mikhail Kalmyk moved here and even managed to transport the Vetka church. From that time Starodubye became the centre of the Popovtsy. Here four monasteries were built, up to seventeen churches, and up to sixteen chapels. The chief monastery was the Pokrovsky, where up to 100 monks and 50 lay-brothers lived; then the men’s monasteries: Ostrovsky (of the Dyakonovtsy) and Nikolsky (of the Epifanovtsy), and the fourth – the women’s Kazansky, where the number of nuns reached 700.

There were also many priestless Old Believers in Starodubye, who had two monasteries of their own here: a men’s and a women’s. The chief centre of the priestless was the settlement of Ardon Chernitskaya.

One of the major centres of the Old Belief was also the Don, where chiefly the Popovtsy spread. The chief propagators were the hieromonk Iov, a native of Lithuania, and the hegumen Dosifei. On the bank of the Chir River two monasteries were founded in 1672 – a men’s and a women’s. After Iov’s death in 1680 Dosifei became hegumen; fleeing persecution in 1688 he went to the Kuma River, where he died in 1691. The Chir monastery was destroyed, but the Old Belief did not disappear; on the contrary it spread throughout the whole Don, and from there passed to the Volga, the Kuban, the Kuma, etc.

At that time certain Cossack Old Believer families, led by the ataman Ignatiy Nekrasov (in all about 2,000 persons), went beyond the Kuban River and entered the allegiance of the Turkish Sultan. Lands were allotted to them for settlement in Wallachia, where many fugitives from Russia joined them. In 1827 they moved to new places and settled in Asia Minor.

Many Old Believers also settled in Siberia – both Popovtsy and priestless. The centre of the priestless was Tobolsk province, and of the Popovtsy the city of Ekaterinburg. At the beginning of the 19th century in the provinces of Orenburg, Perm, and Tobolsk the number of Popovtsy exceeded 150,000 persons.

Chapter XXI. The New-Ritualists

The Council of 1666–1667 not only split the Russian Church but also finally cemented the predominance of secular authority over spiritual authority.

The Russian clergy, which for so long had defended its independence against all the encroachments of the Moscow tsars, which had often served as the guiding force of the entire state’s life, which numbered among its ranks the best men of Rus’, and which had attained the highest authority and power under Patriarchs Philaret and Nikon, was now broken. It was compelled to submit to autocracy and to yield the field of action to a new class—the nobility.

At the Council of 1666 the Russian clergy made its last attempt to preserve its independence, but the attempt failed, and it had to renounce its claims. After that council the clergy became obedient in the government’s hands. This was greatly facilitated by the fact that the Russian clergy was forced to give way to the flood of Ukrainian and Belarusian clergy who poured into Rus’, rapidly pushing aside all the Russians and seizing control of the Russian Church into their own hands. At first this happened imperceptibly and gradually. As before, Moscow patriarchs were still chosen from among the Russians—Joasaph II (1667–1673), Pitirim (1673), Joachim (1673–1690), and Adrian (1690–1700)—but they no longer enjoyed any authority, and the secular powers paid them no heed. When the last patriarch, Adrian, died in 1700, Peter the Great forbade the election of a new patriarch and appointed as locum tenens of the patriarchal throne the Ukrainian Stefan Yavorsky, who was then archbishop of Ryazan. Previously it had been the custom for the metropolitan of Krutitsy to deputise for the patriarch; he, however, was still a Russian, and the Russian clergy was hostile to Peter’s reforms. Peter therefore chose the more compliant Yavorsky, in whose hands the supreme ecclesiastical authority now rested.

But before we examine the subsequent history of the Russian Church, it is necessary to become acquainted with the activity of certain Kiev monks who brought great harm both to the Old Believers and to the entire Russian Church.

One of the first to come out against the zealots of the old faith was Simeon of Polotsk.

Simeon of Polotsk (1629–1680), a Belarusian by birth, was educated at the Kiev-Mohyla College, where he absorbed all the Westernising theological wisdom of the time, formed under strong Jesuit influence and expressed in the ability to speak beautifully and obscurely on every possible subject. Having taken monastic vows in Polotsk, he became a teacher, and when Tsar Alexis Mikhailovich visited Polotsk he managed personally to present the tsar with verses he had composed. The tsar took notice of him. In 1664 he moved to Moscow and there took part in the council against Nikon and in the work of the Council of 1666–1667. He wrote, in refutation of the petitions submitted by the priests Lazar and Nikita, a book entitled The Rod of Governance, which so pleased the council that it was published in its name.

The book bears the title: The Rod of Governance over the Mental Flock of the Orthodox-Russian Church, Erected by the Whole Consecrated Council for the Strengthening of Those Wavering in the Faith, for the Chastisement of Disobedient Sheep, and for the Punishment of Fierce-Necked and Rapacious Wolves Attacking Christ’s Flock. Despite such a pompous title, the book possesses no particular merits. It is divided into two parts. The first contains thirty “exposures” of “Nikita’s exposures”; the second, seventy “exposures” of Priest Lazar’s accusations. The first part is not original but a reworking of the work of Paisius Ligarides; the second was composed by Polotsk himself. The book possesses certain literary merits, for it contains much rhetorical flourish, but none whatever in theology, since it adduces no proofs and is instead filled with abuse. Consequently, despite all the council’s support, the book had almost no significance and convinced no one.

In addition, Polotsk wrote many other theological works, among which The Crown of the Catholic Faith is especially interesting. In it Polotsk brought together everything he knew, from apocrypha to astrology, while taking texts from Holy Scripture from the Latin Bible and from Western theologians.

Besides his works, under Patriarch Joachim there appeared against the Old Believers, “for the confirmation of the pious and for the assurance and conversion to repentance of those seduced by the schism from the Holy Church”, a book entitled Spiritual Admonition, which, however, converted and assured very few.

After the death of the last patriarch, Adrian, Stefan Yavorsky became locum tenens of the patriarchal throne.

Stefan Yavorsky (1658–1722) was born in the Polish town of Yavor, and received his education at the Kiev-Mohyla College, where all teaching was conducted in Latin. Having accepted Catholicism, he studied in various Polish cities, and upon returning to Kiev he “repented”, took monastic vows, and began to teach at the college. There he “firmly established the papal teaching in the Kiev schools”, which he continued to do after moving to Russia. In Russia, thanks to his eloquence, he pleased Tsar Peter and was immediately appointed metropolitan and soon afterwards locum tenens of the patriarchal throne. Voices were raised against him accusing him of “pouring” baptism and introducing Latin heresies—an accusation confirmed by Jerusalem Patriarch Dositheus. He was forced to justify himself. Wishing to please the tsar, Stefan everywhere sought to appoint foreigners as bishops and introduced “Latin teaching” in the Moscow academy. Against the Old Believers and those who saw the Antichrist in Peter he wrote a book entitled Signs of the Coming of Antichrist and of the End of the Age from the Divine Scriptures.

But since the tsar was moving ever further away from the Church—first toward Protestantism and then toward complete unbelief—his relations with Stefan also deteriorated.

At that time the tsar brought forward a new figure—Feofan Prokopovich, likewise a native of Ukraine. Having been educated at the college and having passed through Uniatism, he pleased Peter by his complaisance and indifference in matters of faith, and especially by his inclination toward Protestantism. For this reason the tsar appointed him bishop, passing over Yavorsky. On the tsar’s instructions he composed the Spiritual Regulation.

The Spiritual Regulation was written in the spirit desired by the tsar and established a new royal administration in Rus’ whereby the Church became wholly dependent on secular authority. By the tsar’s decree it was signed by the senators and the clergy and entered into force in 1721. Henceforth at the head of the administration of the Russian Church stood a collegium called the Most Holy Synod. Its members took a special oath in which they promised to acknowledge the monarch as the ultimate judge; attached to the Synod was a special secular official—the “eye of the sovereign”, the ober-procurator—who supervised the Synod’s activity, gave his own conclusions, put forward his own proposals, and reported to the tsar. All matters were to be decided unanimously; in case of disagreement the matter was submitted for the tsar’s decision. With the establishment of the Synod the convocation of Russian councils ceased. Candidates for the episcopate were chosen by the Synod, but appointed by the tsar, who became the head of the entire Church. The authority of bishops was greatly reduced, and their activity was watched by special “fiscals”. The sphere of ecclesiastical courts was considerably curtailed. The number of clergy was significantly reduced. Bishops and monasteries were removed from the management of their estates and from the use of their incomes and were placed on fixed salaries. Entry into the monastic life was hedged with great difficulties and for a time was altogether forbidden. For the supervision of ecclesiastical order new posts of superintendents were created. Entry into the ranks of the clergy was made difficult for persons of non-clerical origin, with, as a result of which the clergy became a closed caste in which offices began to be transmitted by inheritance or by various transactions—mainly sales or marriages. The moral level of the clergy fell significantly, a process greatly aided by the decline in material well-being; little by little the clergy was transformed into civil servants who were also endowed with police functions—it was ordered, for example, to ferret out various secrets at confession and to report everything to the authorities. The clergy was obliged to inform also on Old Believers, on those who did not attend church, on those who reviled the government, and so forth. Thus the clergy was turned into informers. As a result, complete estrangement between the clergy and the people began.

Under Peter’s successors the further isolation and decline in the authority of the clergy continued.

In Peter’s reign, besides the aforementioned Stefan Yavorsky, there were several other persons who actively fought against the Old Believers: Metropolitan Job of Novgorod, Dimitry of Rostov, Pitirim, and others.

Job of Novgorod published an “Admonitory Answer from the Scriptures” in response to a work that had appeared entitled “On the Birth of Antichrist”. He disputed much with Semen Denisov and Feodosy Vasiliev concerning the faith, but without success.

Dimitry of Rostov, reckoned a “saint” among the New-Ritualists, was a native of Kiev. Upon arriving in Rus’ he was appointed metropolitan. He warred much against the Old Believers, who at that time were forced to hide from persecution in the vast Bryn forests. Against the Old Believers he wrote a work entitled An Investigation into the Schismatic Bryn Faith, their Teaching, their Deeds, and a Demonstration that their Faith is Wrong, their Teaching Harmful to the Soul, and their Deeds Not Pleasing to God. The work is divided into three parts: “on faith”, “on teaching”, and “on deeds”. Although this work served as the foundation for all subsequent compilers of various rules on how to fight and dispute with the Old Believers, it is very weakly written, without proofs, contains many blasphemies (for example, that the name “Jesus” means “equal-eared”, etc.), is frequently sprinkled with abuse, and is overly permeated with a didactic spirit. He also wrote A Discourse on the Image and Likeness of God in Man in defence of shaving the beard.

Pitirim, bishop of Nizhny Novgorod (1665–1738), became notorious as a fierce persecutor of the Old Believers. Himself originally an Old Believer, Pitirim in mature years accepted the New Rite and took monastic vows in the Pereslavl monastery, where he made the acquaintance of Tsar Peter, who liked him for his fierce hatred of his former faith. The tsar charged him with combating Old Belief. Pitirim began the struggle with the Kerzhenets hermitages, at first conducting “exhortations”. He then drew up 130 questions and demanded answers to them. At that time there were many priestly Old Believers on the Kerzhenets belonging to the “deacon’s” consent. At first, in response to Pitirim’s demand, they sent their own 240 questions, and then presented “answers” written and compiled by Andrey Denisov. Pitirim held a discussion with those who brought the answers and “convinced” them, but when they returned home they again “apostatised”. Pitirim therefore published his reply to the 240 questions entitled The Sling against the Schismatics’ Questions. The Sling turned out very fortunately for the Old Believers, for instead of refutations it contained proofs that clearly showed the old faith to be the true and unshakable one.

Seeing the failure of his missionary activity, Pitirim began persecutions. In 1715 Peter I issued a decree forbidding, on pain of death, any hindrance to Pitirim in his conversion of Old Believers. In one “report” to the tsar Pitirim proposed a series of measures against the Old Believers: all those promoting the spread of Old Belief and standing at its head were to be arrested and sent to prison or “humbled”, but this was to be done secretly. Ordinary Old Believers were to be assessed double tax and barred from holding any offices. The tsar agreed and assigned Captain Rzhevsky to assist him. Terrible persecutions and oppressions began. People were seized, thrown into prisons, tortured, their households ruined, they were exiled to monasteries, sent to hard labour, flogged with the knout, executed…

Only after Peter I’s death did Pitirim have to calm down somewhat, for he ceased to enjoy such broad governmental support. Among other things, for more successful combat against the Old Believers Pitirim even set up a special missionary school whose pupils were mainly apostates who had crossed over from Old Belief. From the pupils of this school especially “distinguished” themselves in the struggle against Old Belief: Neofit, Filaret, Andronik, Joseph, and others.

Among other works written against the Old Believers in the reign of Peter I and his successors were published: Archbishop Feofilakt’s Exposure of the Schismatic Falsehood in refutation of the Pomor Answers; Archbishop Feofan’s True Justification of Christians by Pouring Baptism, proving that the Orthodox Church may permit “pouring” baptism—this work produced a repellent impression on the Old Believers, for it clearly showed where the New-Ritualists were heading and what they really were; Archbishop Rafail’s Demonstration concerning the Two-Fingered and Three-Fingered Sign of the Cross; Abbot Andronik’s work on the folding of the fingers; Pososhkov’s Mirror of Schismatic Foolishness; Florov’s Outpouring upon the Schismatics; Alexey Irodionov, who came from the Old Believers and lived more than fifteen years in the Vyg monastery, after crossing to the New Rite in 1747 wrote several works against the Old Believers: Dialogue on the Schism, Epistle to the Danilov Schismatics, Brief Answers to the Pomor Answers, and others.

All these numerous works were in essence useless and did not achieve their aim, for to the Old Believers they were unconvincing, little read by them, and if read, then only with the preconceived intention of finding something to carp at and in turn to expose. For the New-Ritualists too they were pointless, for they were issued in small numbers, little read, and as guides for disputes these books were also of little use, since they contained very weakly composed proofs that often achieved exactly the opposite aim.

Among all these works not one can be found equal to the Pomor Answers and capable, if not of shattering them, then at least of shaking them. From this point of view the Old Believers, despite their hunted, humiliated, and “ignorant” condition, succeeded in achieving far better results than the New-Ritualists, especially since the works of Old Believer writers were diligently copied and disseminated everywhere.

Only at the end of the eighteenth century did the New-Ritualists begin attempts at a more serious attitude toward Old Belief and its study.

In 1765 there appeared the “Exhortation” of Metropolitan Platon of Moscow, in which he speaks of the ritual church differences between New-Ritualists and Old Believers and of “old Russian customs” in daily life. His chief idea is that the Old Believers “dispute only over trifles” but “in the essence of the faith are in agreement” with the New-Ritualists. The book is written with extreme cunning and flattery; Platon is unstinting with all manner of sighs and exclamations and strains every nerve to attract the Old Believers, saying that we are not to blame for what happened, what is done cannot be undone, and therefore salvation can be found only among the New-Ritualists.

After this many works again began to appear on various questions. The chief among them are: the “Answers” with the “Encyclical Epistle” of Archbishop Nikifor Theotoki; the “Epistle” and “Six Exposures” of Simon Logov—one of the major persecutors of Old Belief; A. Irodionov’s Exposure of the Schismatic False Teaching; Sergey’s Mirror for Old Believers, and others. In 1807 appeared the first Instruction on How to Dispute Correctly with the Schismatics, compiled at the Ryazan Seminary. There also appeared (in 1795) the first historical work, composed by Archpriest Andrey Ioannov, who had crossed from Old Belief to the New Rite. He changed the title of his work several times, and in its final form it came to be called A Complete Historical Account of the Ancient Strigolniki and the New Schismatics; it contains many interesting historical data.

But all these books with their exposures did very little harm to Old Belief; the greatest harm, as the Synodal historians themselves rightly observe, was done to Old Belief by the Old Believers themselves, by their disputes and polemics among themselves. One would have thought that in the terrible time of persecution they should have united in order to offer a common rebuff to their oppressors, but the Old Believers preferred to gnaw at one another, as happened at the Moscow council of 1765 where priestly and Pomor Old Believers came together to decide the question of a bishop, thereby giving their enemies occasion to gloat and to draw all manner of proofs from their writings for the struggle against Old Belief.

The consequence of these disputes was Edinoverie (“United Faith”), which caused the Old Believers very great harm.

K. Kozhurin.

(On the 350th anniversary of its beginning)

In 1668, the siege of the principal holy shrine of the Russian North—the Solovetsky Monastery—began by tsarist troops. From the very start of Patriarch Nikon’s reforms, the monastery had become one of the chief strongholds of the old faith.

“The Solovetsky Monastery was the fourth most important monastic house in northern Rus— the first outpost of Christianity and Russian culture in the harsh Pomor region, in the ‘wild Lapp lands,’ which both preceded and directed the flow of Russian colonization… The venerable fathers Zosima and Savvatiy endured an extraordinarily harsh life on the island, yet already Zosima, the true organizer of the monastery, appears to us not only as an ascetic but also as a diligent steward who determined for centuries the character of the northern abode. The union of prayer and labor, the religious sanctification of cultural and economic endeavor, marks the Solovki of both the 16th and 17th centuries. The richest landowner and merchant of the Russian North, from the end of the 16th century also a military guardian of the Russian shores (a first-class fortress), the Solovki even in the 17th century continued to give the Russian Church saints.”[1]

The peaceful life of the monastery lasted until 1653, when Patriarch Nikon, with the support of Tsar Aleksey Mikhaylovich, began a church reform that split Russian society into two irreconcilable camps. As early as June 8, 1658, a “black” (i.e., monastic) council was held at Solovetsky concerning the newly printed books sent from Moscow. The books were brought in, read, and examined; the monks saw “newly introduced rites” and blasphemy against the two-fingered sign of the cross by which the holy fathers Zosima and Savvatiy of Solovetsky, Sergius of Radonezh, and Kirill of Beloozero had crossed themselves.

“See, brethren,” said Archimandrite Iliya with tears in his eyes, “the last times have come: new teachers have arisen and turn us away from the Orthodox faith and from the tradition of the fathers; they order us to serve according to new service books on Latin crosses. Pray, brethren, that God may grant us to die in the Orthodox faith, as our fathers did, and that we accept no Latin service.”

After a careful study of the texts of the new books and comparison with ancient manuscripts (the Solovetsky Monastery possessed at that time the richest library of ancient manuscripts), the council decided: “We will not accept the new books, we will not serve according to them, and we will stand by our father the archimandrite…”

The new books were carried off to the “treasury chamber,” and the monks of Solovetsky Monastery continued to perform divine services according to the old books. At the same time, over the course of several years they sent the tsar five petitions in which they begged him for only one thing: to allow them to remain in the faith of their fathers.

“According to the tradition of the former Patriarch Nikon and his newly composed books, Nikon’s disciples now preach to us a new and unknown faith, a faith that neither we nor our great-grandfathers nor our fathers had ever heard of until this day,” while they “have reviled our Orthodox faith of the fathers, violated the entire church order and rule, and reprinted all the books according to their own understanding, contrary to God and corruptly.”

“We all weep with tears: have mercy on us, the poor and orphaned; command, Sovereign, that we remain in that same ancient faith in which thy father the sovereign and all the pious tsars and grand princes departed this life, and the venerable fathers of the Solovetsky monastery—Zosima, Savvatiy, German, and Metropolitan Filipp—and all the holy fathers pleased God.”

For the Solovetsky monks, as for all sincerely believing Russian people of the 17th century, betrayal of the old faith meant betrayal of Christ’s very Church and of God Himself. Therefore, like the first Christians, they were ready rather to go to torture, torment, and certain death than to retreat from the faith in which their ancestors had been saved. This thought was clearly expressed by the authors of the Troparion to the New Solovetsky Monastery Martyrs Who Suffered for Christ (composed at the end of the 17th century, Tone 4):

Ye despised the good things of earth And loved the Heavenly King Christ, the Son of God; Ye endured manifold wounds And with your blood sanctified anew the island of Solovetsky with a second consecration; And openly received crowns from God. Pray diligently for us, O blessed ones, Who celebrate your all-festive memory.

Meanwhile in Moscow, Nikon had abandoned the patriarchal throne (1658), and a timid hope appeared that the old faith might be restored. The persecution of zealots of ancient piety temporarily ceased; Archpriest Avvakum, Ioann Neronov, and others were recalled from exile, and at Solovetsky they continued to serve according to the old rite. For a time, it seemed that the Solovki and their stand for the faith had been forgotten…

However, hopes for the restoration of ancient Orthodoxy proved vain. On July 1, 1659, the Solovetsky hegumen Iliya reposed, and in March 1660 a new archimandrite was appointed in Moscow for the Solovetsky Monastery—the hieromonk Varfolomey—who, upon arriving at the monastery, removed the old councilors from the monastic council and introduced new ones pleasing to himself. The new archimandrite attempted to introduce new orders in the monastery as well. Thus in 1661 he tried to introduce the recently adopted “notational” (named) chanting in Moscow in place of the ancient “naonnoe” chanting. This provoked discontent among the brethren, and the leaders of the choirs continued to sing as before according to the old chant books. In 1663 Varfolomey made another attempt at reform, but it again ended in complete failure. The monastic brethren stood firmly for the old ways.

At that very time, the elder Gerasim Firsov wrote his “Epistle to a Brother” at Solovki, citing numerous testimonies in defense of the two-fingered sign of the cross, while the elder Feoktist composed a “Discourse on the Antichrist and His Secret Kingdom,” in which he proved the idea that the Antichrist already reigns spiritually in the world and that Nikon is his forerunner.

In 1666, Archimandrite Varfolomey went to the council in Moscow and openly went over to the side of the new-ritualists. There he informed the authorities about the stubbornness of the Solovetsky monks who refused to accept Nikon’s reform. In response, a special commission was dispatched, headed by Archimandrite Sergiy of the Savior-Yaroslavl Monastery, which arrived at Solovki on October 4, 1666.

Upon the commission’s arrival, a “black” council was convened at the monastery, at which the Solovetsky monks declared: “Formerly the entire Russian land was enlightened with every piety from the Solovetsky Monastery, and the Solovetsky Monastery was never under any reproach; it shone as a pillar and confirmation. But now you are learning a new faith from the Greeks, when the Greek teachers themselves do not even know how to cross their foreheads properly and walk about without crosses.” After long disputes and arguments about the faith, Archimandrite Sergiy returned to Moscow empty-handed.

A petition (the second one) was sent to the tsar after the archimandrite, which stated: “From Moscow there has been sent to thy tsarist house of prayer, to the Solovetsky Monastery, Archimandrite Sergiy of Yaroslavl’s Savior Monastery with companions to teach us church law according to the transmitted books… And we, thy pilgrims and servants, all with tears beg and entreat mercy of thee, the great sovereign: have mercy on us, most pious and most merciful great sovereign, Tsar and Grand Prince Aleksey Mikhaylovich, autocrat of all Great and Little and White Russia; send us, as the Heavenly Father sends, thy most generous and great mercy; command, sovereign, that this holy archimandrite Sergiy not violate the traditions of thy sovereign ancestors—the pious tsars and pious grand princes—and of our founders and great wonderworkers, the venerable and God-bearing fathers Zosima, Savvatiy, German, and the most holy Filipp, Metropolitan of Moscow and all Russia. And command, sovereign, that we remain in that same tradition in which our wonderworkers and the other holy fathers, and thy father the great sovereign, the most pious great sovereign Tsar and Grand Prince Mikhail Fyodorovich of all Russia, and thy grandfather the sovereign, the blessed Filaret Nikitich, Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia, passed their days in a life pleasing to God, so that we, thy pilgrims and laborers, not be scattered apart and thy great sovereign’s house of prayer, this frontier and border place, not fall into desolation for lack of people.”[2]

But the tsar had no time for the venerable Russian wonderworkers or for his “frontier house of prayer.” He was already dreaming of celebrating the liturgy in Constantinople’s Hagia Sophia and mentally trying on the Byzantine crown. The Solovetsky monks’ petition went unanswered. At the same time, the authorities did grant their request to remove the former Archimandrite Varfolomey. However, the new archimandrite appointed to the monastery was not Nikanor, whom the monastic brethren wanted to see in that position, but an entirely different man. On July 23, 1667, a patriarchal decree appointed the former Moscow builder Iosif, a like-minded associate of Varfolomey, as Solovetsky archimandrite. He was charged with introducing the new rites in the Solovetsky Monastery.

Upon learning of this, the Solovetsky monks sent council elders to meet the new archimandrite with a direct question: according to which books—old or new—would he serve in the monastery?

When the monks learned that Iosif was a supporter of the new rites, they did not approach him for his blessing. On September 15, 1667, a session of the black council was held in the monastery’s Cathedral of the Transfiguration, attended also by laypeople. Now, after the public anathematization of the old rites at the infamous Moscow council of 1666–1667 with the participation of the “ecumenical patriarchs,” it had become clear that the previous policy of simply ignoring the church reform would no longer work. A definite and direct decision had to be made. The Solovetsky black council categorically rejected the new books and rites and refused to recognize Iosif as their archimandrite.

Moreover, some other interesting facts came to light: the archimandrites Varfolomey (the former) and Iosif (the current one, rejected by the black council) had attempted to smuggle secretly into the monastery an entire boatload of wine to make the brethren drunk. “And when they arrived, we write to thee, great sovereign, without inventing anything: 39 barrels of mild, medium, and strong wine, plus about fifteen barrels of mead and beer. And in that, great sovereign, thy will be done: we, in accordance with the former monastic rule and the tradition of the wonderworkers, smashed all that drink in front of the monastery at the landing place.”[3]

On the day of the council, Iosif was handed a general petition concerning the faith, which stated the uselessness of sending further persuaders and the readiness of the Solovetsky monks to stand to the death: “Command, sovereign, that thy tsarist sword be sent against us, and that we be removed from this troubled life to that untroubled and eternal life; for we are not opposed to thee, great sovereign.”[4]

And something unheard-of occurred: in response to the humble entreaties of the Solovetsky monks, on May 3, 1668, by tsarist decree a military detachment was dispatched to the Solovki to bring the rebellious monastery to obedience. Thus began the monstrous eight-year siege—an act of sacrilege against the principal Orthodox shrine of the Russian North.

On June 22, 1668, the streltsy under the command of the court official Ignatiy Volokhov landed on Solovetsky Island. The monks locked themselves inside the monastery and, at one of the general assemblies, offered all wavering brethren as well as laypeople the opportunity to leave the monastery in advance. There turned out to be few such persons—about forty. The rest, numbering up to one and a half thousand, resolved to stand to the death for the old faith and “to receive the sweetness of future saints” rather than, having accepted the newly established traditions, to abide for a time in the sweetness of earthly life.

For four whole years Volokhov and his streltsy encamped beneath the monastery, in spring and summer “inflicting various torments,” firing upon it with cannon and muskets. In autumn they would withdraw to the shore, to Sumsky Ostrog, preventing anyone from leaving the monastery, ordering the seizure of service elders and servants and, after diverse tortures, putting them to death. Yet the local Pomor population actively aided the besieged monks, supplying the monastery with necessary foodstuffs and warning them of military preparations for the siege. Even the streltsy themselves, recruited chiefly from inhabitants of northern towns, participated reluctantly in the blockade of a holy place. Boats carrying salt, fish, and bread from the Sumsky Ostrog area to Arkhangelsk constantly “lost their way” and put in at the Solovetsky Islands.

In the summer of 1670 Volokhov sent “instructions under penalty” to all the Solovetsky saltworks, threatening death “without any mercy or pardon” for journeys to the monastery or letters sent there. But even this was of no avail. The Pomors did not cease supporting the besieged monastery. As a result, Volokhov, “having accomplished nothing,” was recalled to Moscow by tsarist decree.

In Volokhov’s place, in 1672, the centurion of Moscow streltsy Kliment Ievlev—a fierce and merciless man—was sent to destroy the Solovetsky monastery. To the previous 225 streltsy another 500 were added. In two years Ievlev inflicted upon the holy place “the most bitter straits” and “the most grievous want”: he burned all the cells around the monastery that had been built for the monks’ repose, the cattle yard together with the animals on Bolshaya Muksalma Island, and the fishing gear, attempting to starve the enclosed brethren out. But the cruel centurion received just retribution from God for his evil deeds: “stricken with the plague of putrefaction,” he was taken to Moscow in painful suffering.

In 1674 a new voevoda, Ivan Meshcherinov, “came beneath the cenoby” with thirteen hundred warriors “and many engines for battering walls.” At the same time, “unreliable” strelets commanders were replaced with “newly baptized foreigners” of the reitar formation (Major Kelin, Captain Bush, Lieutenants V. Gutkovsky and F. Stakhorsky). The tsar well understood that the hearts of these hired foreigners—who spoke Russian with difficulty and had accepted a foreign faith for mercenary reasons—would not flinch at the profanation of an Orthodox shrine. “The monastery he ungratefully desired to destroy and gathered an army… god-fighting and impious, of Germans and Poles.”[5]

Now that true professionals of the military art had arrived, the siege of the monastery was conducted according to all the rules of warfare of that era. Near the impregnable fortress walls they built small forts and redoubts, and the bombardment of the monastery became constant and targeted. At the same time, mines were dug beneath three of the monastery towers.

Yet despite the cruel siege, the Solovetsky monks continued the divine services. Despairing of human help and mercy, “with bitter tears and crying aloud” they besought aid and intercession from God, the most pure Sovereign Lady God-bearer, and the venerable Zosima and Savvatiy. By prayers and tears and “day-and-night standing before God they armed themselves against the warriors.” In the monastery two supplicatory services were sung each day so that the soldiers might not gain “boldness to enter within the monastery enclosure.”

And then a true miracle occurred: “the most merciful Lord, who is nigh unto all that call upon Him in truth, sent upon them a great pestilence manifested by signs of sores.” In three or four days about seven hundred men died. Terrified by this sign, many of the surviving streltsy took monastic vows and cleansed their souls by repentance. The invisible protection of the venerable fathers Zosima, Savvatiy, and German shielded the monastery from many assaults and cannon shots.

But voevoda Meshcherinov stopped at nothing. In mad blindness he ordered his henchmen to aim a cannon directly at the altar of the monastery’s cathedral church and fire. The cannonball flew through the window and struck the icon of the All-Merciful Savior that stood in the very altar. But even this seemed insufficient. Bombardment of the monastery began from three guns at once (160, 260, and 360 iron balls). After the first two shots the balls flew over the very crosses of the monastery churches and exploded in an empty place, while after the third one burst near the tomb of Venerable German. At that moment, in the church of the venerable Zosima and Savvatiy, the candle-lighter beheld “a venerable elder” approaching the holy shrines with the words: “Brethren Zosima and Savvatiy, arise; let us go to the righteous Judge Christ God to seek righteous judgment upon those who wrong us, who suffer us not to have rest even in the earth.” The venerable ones, rising in their reliquaries, answered: “Brother German, go and rest henceforth; vengeance upon those who wrong us is already being sent.” And lying down again, they reposed, and “the venerable elder who had come became invisible.”

The fathers of the Solovetsky monastery served thanksgiving molebens to the Lord and the venerable wonderworkers, and for a long time yet the monastery remained not only inaccessible to the soldiers, but “the firing of cannon and muskets” did it no harm, and none of the difficulties devised could shake the monks’ spirit in their resistance.

Convinced of the uselessness of artillery bombardment, Meshcherinov chose a different tactic. The streltsy dug trenches, made mines in which they placed gunpowder, and built towers and ladders the height of the monastery wall. Then a certain layman (that is, a secular person), the Solovetsky servant Dimitriy, cried out from the height of the monastery wall to the besiegers: “Why, O beloved ones, do ye labor so much and spill such great toil and sweat in vain and for naught, drawing near to the walls of the city? For even the sovereign tsar who sent you is being mown down by death’s scythe and is departing this light.” The besiegers paid no serious heed to these words, considering them empty foolishness. But the words proved prophetic.

In the winter of 1675–1676 Meshcherinov and the streltsy remained beneath the monastery walls, counting on quick success in a winter campaign. On December 23, 1675, he launched a “great assault.” Yet Meshcherinov’s hopes were dashed. Having lost Lieutenant Gutkovsky and more than a hundred streltsy, he was forced to retreat. The monastery seemed impregnable…

But, as the Old Believer historian Simeon Dionisievich writes, “it happens that a great house is ruined by its own household; it happens that mighty giants are slain by those closest to them; it happens that strong and unconquerable cities are betrayed by their own countrymen.” A traitor was found. A certain monk named Feoktist came by night to the enemy camp, having abandoned “his promise and the fathers’ monastery,” “abandoned ancient church piety, kissed Nikon’s new tradition,” and, like Judas, betrayed the enclosed brethren into the hands of the executioners, showing them a secret passage through the wall.

Although the traitor had come to Meshcherinov’s regiment as early as November 9, 1675, and promised to help take the monastery without difficulty, the soldiers dared not enter because the nights were light. Only in the night of January 22, 1676, did several dozen streltsy under the command of Major Stepan Kelin penetrate the monastery through the window beneath the drying-house by the White Tower that Feoktist had indicated. That night a fearful storm arose, bitter frost gripped the northern land, and the heavy falling snow blocked the guards’ vision.

To the Solovetsky centurion Login, who was sleeping in his cell, came a voice: “Login, arise; why sleepest thou? The host of the warriors is beneath the wall and will soon be in the city.” Awakening and seeing no one, Login crossed himself and fell asleep again. A second time the voice awoke him: “Login, arise; why sleepest thou so carelessly? Behold, the host of warriors is entering the city!” Rising, he checked the watch and, crossing himself again, slept. When for the third time he heard, “Login, arise; the host of warriors has already entered the city!” he roused the fathers of the monastery and told them of his threefold vision. The elders gathered in church to offer supplicatory singing to the Lord, the most holy God-bearer, and the venerable wonderworkers; then, having served matins and seeing no danger, they dispersed to their cells.

In the first hour of the night the traitor Feoktist and the soldiers who had gathered in the drying-room beneath the fortress wall broke the locks, opened the monastery gates, and let the rest of the army into the holy monastery. Hearing the noise, the valiant guards Stefan, Antoniy, and others—up to thirty guards and monks—came out to meet the invaders but were immediately slain. To the monks who had shut themselves in their cells it was promised that no harm would come to them; then the monastery fathers, “believing that fox,” came out to meet the “victors” bearing honorable crosses and holy icons. But the voevoda, forgetting the promise he had given, broke his oath and ordered the crosses and icons seized and the monks and laypeople separated into cells under guard.

Having entered the monastery, the streltsy began an inhuman slaughter of the monks. Meshcherinov personally interrogated the elders, asking one and the same question: “Why did ye resist the autocrat and drive back the army sent from the enclosure?” The first brought before him was the centurion Samuil, who boldly answered: “I resisted not the autocrat, but stood valiantly for the fathers’ piety and for the holy monastery, and those who wished to destroy the labors of the venerable fathers I did not allow within the enclosure.” Meshcherinov ordered the streltsy to beat Samuil until he gave up his soul to God. His body was thrown into a ditch.

Archimandrite Nikanor, who from old age and many years of prayerful labors could no longer walk unaided, was brought to interrogation on a small sledge. The aged archimandrite fearlessly answered his tormentor: “Because the newly introduced rules and innovations of Patriarch Nikon do not permit those living in the midst of the universe to keep God’s unchanging laws and the apostolic and patristic traditions, for this cause we withdrew from the world and settled on this sea-girt island as the possession of the venerable wonderworkers… You who have come to corrupt the ancient church rules, to mock the labors of the holy fathers, to destroy the divinely-saving customs—we righteously did not admit into the monastery.”

Showing no reverence for the monastic habit, the “venerable” gray hairs of the elder, or his great priestly rank, the voevoda began to heap upon Father Nikanor “dishonorable abuse and unseemly words.” But even this seemed too little. Meshcherinov personally beat the elder with a staff, knocked out his teeth, ordered him dragged by the feet outside the monastery enclosure, and thrown into a ditch on the bitter frost wearing only his undergarment. All night the sufferer struggled with wounds and cold, and at dawn “his spirit departed from the darkness of this present life into the never-fading everlasting light, and from the deepest ditch into the most exalted Heavenly Kingdom.”

Next came the council elder Makariy, who boldly denounced the sacrilegious deeds of the streltsy. He too was beaten half to death by the merciless voevoda, dragged out by the feet amid mockery, and thrown onto the ice to freeze. To the skilled monastery craftsmen—the wood-carver Khrisanf and the icon-painter Feodor with his disciple Andrey—they cut off hands and feet and then beheaded them. Some monks and laypeople they hung by the neck or “between the ribs” on sharp hooks; others they tied to horses’ tails and dragged about the island “until they gave up the ghost.” No mercy was shown even to the sick and infirm—they were dragged by the feet to the seashore. There in the ice a huge hole was cut without water. There, bound two by two, 150 persons were placed and water slowly let in. Fierce frost stood without, and all the sufferers were frozen alive. Only a few, after first being beaten, were thrown into cellars or sent into exile.

The fury and cruelty of the tormentor knew no bounds. According to the list submitted by Meshcherinov to the new superior appointed from Moscow, only fourteen monks remained alive. In all, about five hundred monks and laypeople were tortured to death in the monastery! The earth and stones of the island were stained with the blood of the innocent Solovetsky sufferers. The whole western bay washing the monastery was choked with the bodies of those slain, frozen alive, and executed—monks and laypeople. In great numbers their corpses were piled near the monastery walls and dangled from gallows and trees. After the massacre, the bodies of the slain and those cut to pieces lay unburied for another half-year until a tsarist decree came ordering them committed to the earth.

But Meshcherinov did not stop even there. The executions and murders were accompanied by sacrilegious plundering of the monastery’s holy objects (a foretaste of the future “seizure of church valuables”). He “expropriated” not only the offerings and treasury accumulated over many centuries but the priceless monastery relics, including church vessels and icons. Only when the monastery had been completely laid waste did Meshcherinov send a courier to the tsar announcing “victory.”

Yet the tsar was not destined to learn of it: on the very next day after the taking of Solovetsky Monastery, January 23, 1676, he suddenly fell ill, and a week later, on January 29—on the eve of the day commemorating God’s Dread Judgment—he died. “And immediately after his death foul-smelling pus flowed from him through all the senses of the body; they stopped it with cotton wool, and scarcely were they able to bury him in the earth.”[6] The tsar’s early death was perceived throughout Russia as God’s punishment for the persecutions and apostasy from ancient Orthodoxy. Tradition tells of Tsar Aleksey Mikhaylovich’s late repentance: falling ill, he regarded his sickness as divine punishment and resolved to lift the siege of the monastery, sending his courier with news of pardon. And on the very day of the tsar’s death the two couriers met on the Vologda River: one bearing the joyful news of the monastery’s forgiveness, the other—of its destruction.

By God’s providence the sacrilegious destroyers of the Solovetsky monastery were also punished. The new tsar, Feodor Alekseyevich, having investigated the circumstances of the storming and the plundering of the monastery’s riches, ordered Meshcherinov punished for exceeding his authority and confined him on the same Solovki. The traitor Feoktist, sent after the capture as an administrative elder to Vologda, lost his mind, fell into fornication, then contracted an incurable disease and rotted alive.

After the investigation, the monks who had survived the “Solovetsky Resistance” were transported to the mainland. The holy fathers’ rules and traditions were changed to the new ones, and the brotherhood was replaced by supporters of the Nikonian reforms gathered from various monasteries. The spiritual level of these new inhabitants is attested by the complaints of Archimandrite Makariy to Patriarch Ioakim: life on the Solovki, compared with other monasteries, was “exceedingly poor”; the monks “grew weary,” refused to eat halibut, cod, and salmon, and in summer “wanted to flee the monastery” without even asking the superior’s leave.[7]

The violence and profanation of the holy place adversely affected the subsequent fate of the Solovki. The holy churches stood empty, the flow of pilgrims greatly diminished, and true ascetics of piety were no more. The former glory never again returned to Solovetsky Monastery, which became a prison for the confinement of dissidents.

[1] Fedotov G. P. The Saints of Ancient Russia. Moscow, 1990. P. 161–162.
[2] Denisov S. History of the Fathers and Sufferers of Solovki: Illuminated manuscript from the collection of F. F. Mazurin. Moscow, 2002. P. 227–228.
[3] Quoted from: Chumicheva O. V. The Solovetsky Uprising of 1667–1676. Novosibirsk, 1998. P. 47.
[4] Materials for the History of the Schism during the First Period of Its Existence. Ed. N. I. Subbotin. Vol. III. Moscow, 1878. P. 210.
[5] Bubnov N. Yu. An Unknown Petition of Ignatiy of Solovki to Tsar Feodor Alekseyevich // Manuscript Heritage of Ancient Russia. Leningrad, 1972. P. 102–103.
[6] Pustozersk Prose: A Collection. Moscow, 1989. P. 231. [7] Materials for the History of the Schism. Vol. III. P. 447–449.
[7] Materials for the History of the Schism. Vol. III. P. 447–449.