Conversations of Old Believers of the Belokrinitskaya Hierarchy with Pomorian Old Believers in Moscow, 1913

(Stenographic Record) Moscow 1915

Preface

At the initiative of the doctrinal commission of the Moscow Brotherhood of the Holy Cross of the Old Believers of the Belokrinitskaya Hierarchy, public conversations were held in Moscow in 1913 between the aforementioned Old Believers and representatives of the Council of Pomorian Assemblies. The following conditions were agreed upon:

1. 1. The conversations shall be held publicly in the auditorium of the Moscow Polytechnic Museum on August 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, and September 1, addressing six topics listed in the attached program.

1. 1. Participants from both sides shall have equal rights during the conversations.

1. 1. All six conversations shall begin with speeches by representatives of the Brotherhood and conclude with speeches by representatives of the Pomorian Council.

1. 1. Each participant’s speech shall not exceed 20 minutes. There shall be no more than ten speeches, five from each side. The eleventh speech shall not exceed 10 minutes, and the twelfth, concluding speech shall not exceed 5 minutes. No new arguments shall be introduced in the eleventh and twelfth speeches.

1. 1. Participants must not deviate from the topic of the conversation. When discussing one side’s position, participants must not address the beliefs, positions, history, or actions of the other side. Conversations must be conducted in a peaceful, calm, and fraternal tone; participants are obligated to avoid personal reproaches, judgments, or sharp and critical expressions.

1. 1. The conversations shall be chaired by a representative of the Brotherhood. The chairperson oversees the conduct of the conversations and ensures compliance with these conditions.

1. 1. To maintain general order and decorum, two representatives from the Brotherhood and two from the Pomorian Council shall be appointed. These representatives ensure that the audience does not interfere, that proper silence is maintained in the venue, and that the audience does not express approval or disapproval toward the participants.

1. 1. Each conversation begins with the singing of the prayer “Heavenly King” and ends with the singing of “It Is Truly Meet,” first by the Brotherhood and then by the Pomorian Council.

1. 1. Before each conversation, articles 2–8 of these conditions shall be read aloud to all present.

1. 1. All expenses related to renting the venue, obtaining administrative permission for the conversations, producing stenographic records, and other costs shall be fully borne by the Brotherhood. The Brotherhood shall also set and collect entrance fees and other proceeds from the conversations.

1. 1. The Brotherhood shall provide the Pomorian Council with 20 free admission tickets for all conversations and allow up to six singers from the Council to enter with special passes. Participants must also have admission tickets.

1. 1. After the conversations, the Brotherhood shall provide the secretary of the Pomorian Council, N. P. Anufriev, with a free copy of the stenographic record for verification of accuracy, necessary corrections, and filling in any gaps. Both copies of the record shall be signed by all participants or their proxies. The signed text serves as the basis for printing the conversations but may be subject to literary editing by each side to make the printed conversations literary in form and accessible in content, without altering the arguments (texts and citations). Such edited text shall be signed again by all participants or their proxies and serve as the final text for publication.

1. 1. The Brotherhood shall print the conversations at its own expense. Representatives of the Brotherhood and the Pomorian Council shall oversee the printing process and the accuracy of proofreading, which must be approved by their signatures. Each copy of the publication shall bear a note on the first page stating that the text has been approved by both sides.

1. 1. After printing, the Brotherhood shall provide the Pomorian Council, via its secretary N. P. Anufriev, with at least 500 copies of the publication at their production cost, including printing costs and the portion of expenses for compiling and transcribing the stenographic record attributable to these 500 copies.

1. 1. The Brotherhood or its doctrinal commission agrees to hold public conversations with representatives of the Pomorian Council during the third All-Russian Pomorian Church Assembly, planned for 1915 in Saratov, on six topics proposed by the Pomorian Council six months in advance. The Brotherhood shall not alter or supplement the proposed topics or their order. These conditions shall remain in force for the 1915 conversations, with amendments as follows: in article 1 regarding the place and time of the conversations; in article 3, where the Pomorian Council shall open the conversations on all six topics, and the Brotherhood shall conclude them; in article 6 regarding the chairperson, who shall be elected by the assembly; in article 8 regarding the order of singing prayers; in articles 10–11 regarding the distribution of expenses and proceeds, which shall be borne by the Pomorian Council, while the Brotherhood receives 20 free tickets and six passes for singers per session; in articles 12–14, which may be renegotiated.

1. 1. Both sides shall strictly and inviolably adhere to these conditions.

These conditions were signed on August 24, 1913, by the Brotherhood’s representatives, Fedor Efimovich Melnikov and Dmitry Sergeevich Varakin, and the Pomorian Council’s representatives, Feofan Fedorovich Rumyantsev and Nikolai Petrovich Anufriev. The program attached to the conditions listed the following topics for discussion: a) On the Pomorian practice of lay leadership. b) On the eternity of the bloodless sacrifice in Christ’s Church. c) On the Antichrist in relation to the current state and views of the Pomorians. d) On the prophets Elijah and Enoch. e) Are the decisions of the 1909 All-Russian Pomorian Assembly regarding baptism performed in heretical communities consistent with church canons and the teachings of the holy fathers? f) On the so-called Belokrinitskaya Hierarchy of the Old Believers. Per the first condition, all six conversations were to take place from August 25 to September 1, 1913, with the venue secured at the Polytechnic Museum and appropriate permission obtained from civil authorities. Unfortunately, the first conversation was interrupted by a police representative during the third speech by the Pomorian participant, F. F. Rumyantsev. The second conversation was similarly halted during the fifth speech by the Pomorian participant, F. P. Kondratyev. As a result, further conversations were suspended, and a new petition was submitted to the administration to hold the conversations in a freer setting. The petition was successful, and the conversations were relocated to Old Believer churches: the first four were held in the Church of the Vvedenskaya Community of the Belokrinitskaya Hierarchy on Generalnaya Street, and the last two in the Pomorian Community Church in Tokmakov Lane. Due to the new venues, article 8 of the conditions was amended: in the Belokrinitskaya church, prayers were sung by Belokrinitskaya singers before and after the conversations; in the Pomorian church, Pomorian singers performed the prayers. The first conversation resumed in the Vvedenskaya Church with the fourth speech by F. E. Melnikov. By mutual agreement, this conversation was extended by two speeches—one from each side. The Pomorian participant, F. P. Kondratyev, left Moscow shortly after the second interrupted conversation on August 26 and did not return for the resumed conversations. For the conclusion of his conversation, he sent a written (sixth) speech, timed for five minutes, which was read before the fifth conversation. D. S. Varakin also delivered a sixth speech, and both were appended to the August 26 conversation. The remaining four conversations proceeded without incident. All speeches, except for Kondratyev’s written speech, were recorded stenographically. Per the agreement, these records were edited and, where necessary, corrected by the participants themselves. No additional content was added; corrections addressed only minor roughness in expressions. Once finalized, the records were reviewed and approved for publication by participants from both sides. We confirm the above with our signatures: Fedor Efimovich Melnikov Dmitry Sergeevich Varakin Feofan Fedorovich Rumyantsev Note: The assembly and conversations could not take place in 1915 due to wartime events. Article 15 of the conditions will be fulfilled after the war.

---

 

First Conversation: On Pomorian Lay Leadership

(August 25)

First Speech by F. E. Melnikov

Since the proclamation of religious freedom in Russia, Old Believers have gained the opportunity to gather at their assemblies and councils to discuss their ecclesiastical and communal needs. We must seize this opportunity to fulfill the most significant and essential task of Old Believerism—namely, the unification of all our factions into a single Old Believer ecclesiastical family. Our divisions are caused not so much by religious disagreements as by the harsh historical conditions under which Old Believerism has existed for over two centuries. Thanks be to God, these conditions are becoming a matter of sad memories. Perhaps a time will come when they are entirely forgotten. But as conditions change, our divisions must also change—both in their substance and form. It is our duty to eliminate these divisions. I am personally deeply convinced that their end has come. If our generation does not succeed in abolishing them, we can at least weaken them, paving the way for future generations to eliminate them completely. It is with this goal that we, Old Believers who accept the priesthood of the Belokrinitskaya Hierarchy, have proposed to the Pomorian Old Believers to hold a series of conversations to clarify our disputed issues. Of course, these appointed conversations do not cover all the contentious questions between Old Believers with priests and those without, but they are merely one link in the chain of further conversations, consultations, and negotiations that we must continuously conduct with our Pomorian Old Believer brethren. If we do not resolve all issues now, we will do so later through ongoing dialogue with the Pomorians. There may be various obstacles in our path, and we may face setbacks or failures. But we must not despair; on the contrary, what is achieved through effort and great struggle is more pleasing, stronger, and more valuable. Even of the Kingdom of Heaven, Christ Himself says that it is taken by force, “and the violent take it by force” (Matthew 11:12). We need collective effort and the combined endeavors of all our communities and parishes to achieve the full unification of Old Believerism. We have included the most essential and significant questions in the program of these conversations. Both Pomorian Old Believers and those with a priesthood are guided by their leaders and pastors. It is necessary first to establish who these pastors are: Are they Christ’s, or perhaps opponents of the Lord’s will? Have they perhaps usurped authority that does not belong to them, performing duties not rightfully theirs? We dedicate two conversations to the questions of lay leadership and the Old Believer hierarchy: today’s conversation on lay leadership and the sixth conversation on the Belokrinitskaya Hierarchy. The other conversations form a bridge, as it were, leading from Pomorian lay leadership to the Belokrinitskaya Hierarchy. Whether we can build this bridge, whether it will be strong and reliable, or perhaps shaky and weak—or whether our construction will fail entirely—will be shown by the conversations themselves. Now we turn to the question of Pomorian lay leadership. We need to clarify its inner essence, its authority, rights, and power, and then identify the foundations on which it exists and operates. Along the way, we will examine aspects of Pomorian lay leadership that bring their community closer to us, who accept the priesthood, as well as those aspects that separate them from us, which must be eliminated so they do not hinder us on the great path of reconciling Old Believerism. What, then, is Pomorian lay leadership? It must be understood that it has existed for over two centuries, continuing uninterrupted throughout this period. However, it was only in recent years, when Pomorians gained the opportunity to hold their All-Russian councils, that it was formulated and given a certain definition. At the first All-Russian Pomorian Council, held in Moscow in 1909, the question of Pomorian lay leadership was raised in its full breadth and depth, and it was definitively resolved at this council. According to the proceedings of the Pomorian Council, the following question was included in the program: “Resolve collectively whether to consider our spiritual fathers as spiritual persons or as laypeople like the rest of the laity: Do they possess the successively transmitted grace of the Holy Spirit?” (Proceedings of the First Pomorian Council, sheet 2). This question clearly indicates that Pomorian Old Believers distinguish their leaders from the general laity. They speak of a successively transmitted grace of the Holy Spirit only in relation to their leaders, not the laity. The Pomorians pose the question of who their leaders are and resolve it as follows: “Our spiritual fathers should not be considered laypeople, as they receive, upon election by the parish and blessing by another spiritual father, the successively transmitted grace of the Holy Spirit for governing the church” (ibid., sheet 2). This clearly expresses why the All-Russian Pomorian Council recognized their leaders as spiritual persons rather than laypeople—because they possess successive grace. But what kind of grace? The grace that grants them the right, authority, and power to govern the church. This question was clarified even more explicitly in the council’s proceedings. I have just quoted from the council’s resolutions, which contain only its decisions and decrees, but now I will read from the council’s debates. Here is what was said: The council chairman, L. F. Pichugin, stated: “I consider the question resolved and propose the following decision: Our spiritual fathers should not be considered laypeople, as they receive, upon election by the parish and blessing by another spiritual father, the successively transmitted grace of the Holy Spirit for governing the church. The decision is adopted” (ibid., part I, p. 91). The same chairman, during the fourth session of the Pomorian Council, declared: “Beloved spiritual fathers! I dare to greet you not as ordinary mortals but as our spiritual persons. We entrust to you our entire spiritual life; we recognize you as physicians who, according to the statutes of the holy church, heal our spiritual ailments” (Proceedings of the Council, part I, p. 31). This statement by the chairman and the council’s decision stemmed from preliminary discussions among Pomorian representatives. The result was a report by T. A. Khudoshin, which was heard and approved by the council (ibid., p. 7). Khudoshin concluded his report with the following words: “Thus, brethren, our spiritual fathers cannot be considered laypeople but must be regarded as above them. They are our spiritual leaders, caring for our souls, standing above us and worthy of all honor and respect” (Proceedings of the Council, part II, p. 79). The council chairman deemed it his duty to provide an even more precise definition of the rights and authority of Pomorian leaders, beyond the council’s decision and Khudoshin’s report. He stated: “Our spiritual fathers are elected by the community or parish. This election does not grant the right to be a leader. This right is received only when another leader blesses the elected person for leadership. This blessing was referred to by some Christians as ordination, as our ancestors also expressed it” (ibid., part I, p. 22). Thus, we have before us a complete spiritual hierarchy of the priestless Old Believers. The Pomorian Council defined and clarified the most essential characteristics of their spiritual leadership. First, leaders are elected by the church. However, this alone is not sufficient. Just as in the true Church, which possesses the fullness of hierarchy, election does not make a person a cleric—ordination is also required. This second characteristic (ordination) was primarily emphasized at the Pomorian Council. The chairman stated that election alone does not grant the right to be a leader; this right is obtained only when another leader blesses the elected person for leadership. This second characteristic is more essential than the first. Just as in Christ’s Church, the right to be a spiritual person is obtained only through ordination—the sacrament of the priesthood—so too do Pomorian leaders gain the right to govern the church only after what the council chairman called the “ordination” of the elected person by a spiritual leader. A third characteristic of leadership was also indicated. Just as in a true hierarchy there must be continuity of ordination, the Pomorians also specify that their leaders must possess successively transmitted grace for governing the church. It is thus clear that among the Pomorian Old Believers, the church is governed not by laypeople but by a distinct class of spiritual persons who have special authority, rights, and power that belong not to the laity but solely to these spiritual persons. In T. A. Khudoshin’s report, which I mentioned earlier and which was adopted by the council, the following is stated regarding the election of leaders: “In the early church, bishops were elected by the collective voice of the people, from which comes the Christian expression: ‘the voice of the people is the voice of God.’ Likewise, we are not deprived of this grace when electing our spiritual fathers or leaders” (ibid., part II, pp. 76–77). You see, the very election of leaders is compared to the elections of old. Just as bishops and priests were elected in ancient times, so too do the priestless Old Believers elect their leaders. They declare: “We also have the same right and the same grace to elect our leaders, our pastors.” In the Proceedings of the Council, one of its members, a certain S. I. Volkov, states that the elected person must receive a blessing not from just one leader but from at least two or three, and only in extreme need may the blessing come from a single spiritual father (Proceedings, part I, p. 19). This requirement recalls the first apostolic canon, which states that a bishop must be ordained by two or three bishops, and only in extreme cases has ordination been performed by a single bishop. The priestless Old Believers similarly state that the consecration of a spiritual person, a leader, should be performed by three or two leaders, or in extreme cases, by one. Again, this mirrors the sacred hierarchy. On page 6 of the Proceedings of the Pomorian Council, it is stated: “The successively transmitted grace from our martyr Paul, Bishop of Kolomna, and other martyrs who died a martyr’s death in Solovki, grants our spiritual fathers the right to impart the grace of the Holy Spirit and to absolve sins in repentance.” Furthermore, they have “successive blessing for governing the church, and therefore they should be considered spiritual persons, not laypeople.” You see, here too, the continuity received from Bishop Paul is emphasized. This is not the transfer of some commercial enterprise from one hand to another; it is the transmission of a special blessing, received not even from a priest but from a bishop. Thus, this continuity is the third hallmark of hierarchical authority. The Pomorian priestless Old Believers have adapted this to their spiritual persons, claiming that they possess this successive grace. It is thus evident that the Pomorians have a spiritual hierarchy. We are pleased to note that they are becoming, as it were, “half-priested” in their beliefs, in their proclamation of their leaders as spiritual persons, and in the hierarchical characteristics they attribute to their leaders. These leaders have the right to govern the church, appoint spiritual persons, perform sacraments, excommunicate the disobedient, punish the noncompliant, bless the flock, and so forth. We must now address the following question: On what ecclesiastical grounds is such a hierarchy among the priestless Old Believers established? What teachings of the Church can justify the existence of spiritual persons among the Pomorians with successively transmitted grace, pastoral authority, and an exclusively spiritual-ministerial role in the church? Clarifying this question provides the basis for further debates, which will lead to either negative or positive conclusions: Is such a spiritual hierarchy possible or impossible?

First Speech by F. F. Rumyantsev

Esteemed assembly, I ask for your deep attention. I thank Providence for granting us the opportunity to discuss our religious differences with such a respected interlocutor as F. E. Melnikov. At the beginning of his speech, F. E. expressed a desire for the unification of Old Believerism. However, the first question is how and with whom to unite; and so, to address this question, we have gathered here today. Dear listeners, I must first tell you that, to our great regret, a lamentable situation has arisen: the pastors to whom Christ entrusted the care of His Church have, since 1666, all deviated in faith to false teachings, becoming apostates. With the apostasy of the pastors, the true priesthood ceased to exist. After losing this true priesthood, our revered ancestors, of blessed memory, concluded that it was better to continue under the leadership of people elected from among the Christians themselves than to be under the authority of apostate and false pastors. Such an order of Christian governance under the leadership of fellow Christians is not contrary to the law of Christ’s Church, as we will demonstrate in this conversation. Dear listeners, I must say that F. E. cannot accuse us of anything contrary to the teachings of Christ’s Church. In other words, he has not pointed out any heresies on our part and has only criticized us for being governed by Christians elected from our midst, the so-called leaders and overseers. But, as we have already said, this order does not contradict the teachings of Christ’s Church. First, I will address the council mentioned by the esteemed interlocutor, where, supposedly, something new was established that did not exist before. This is incorrect, as our council introduced nothing new but only confirmed what existed prior to it. As F. E. noted, our division has existed for over 200 years, and for just as long, Christ’s Church has been governed by true believers elected from its midst. This order did not arise on its own but by the word of Christ, who said that the Church can be entrusted to those who remain faithful. If all pastors became unfaithful, apostates unworthy of shepherding Christ’s Church, then faithful believers emerged in their place, receiving grace not from anyone else but directly from Christ Himself to lead people to salvation. Considering it my duty to base my arguments on Holy Scripture, I read from the Gospel of Luke, chapter 67, sheet 128 verso. Christ says: “Let your loins be girded about, and your lamps burning. Interpretation: By this He meant, let your loins be girded, that is, always be ready to do the work of your Master.” In the same Gospel, Peter asks the Lord to whom this parable applies, chapter 68: “And Peter said unto Him, Lord, speakest thou this parable unto us, or even to all? And the Lord said, Who then is that faithful and wise steward, whom his lord shall make ruler over his household, to give them their portion of meat in due season?” From Christ’s response, it is clear that whoever has not departed from the true faith and has preserved its purity should be the steward and ruler of his lord’s household. “Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing. Verily I say unto you, that he shall make him ruler over all his goods.” Interpreters explain that this parable applies to all believers, not only to the twelve Apostles and their successors. “Peter asked, as one who cares for all and is fervent for those who obey, and as a lover of brethren, and as one to whom the church has already been entrusted, whether this parable is spoken to all. The Lord did not directly answer his question but spoke covertly, saying that the parable is general, applying to all, including the faithful. He said to the apostles, who are entrusted with teaching or protection, listen: Who then is the faithful and wise steward and manager? The parable applies to many, He said, as it were; but now, speaking of those entrusted with protection, He says, wondering who will be found, for there are two qualities: faith and wisdom, which are rare and difficult to find.” Thus, according to the Holy Gospel, if the pastors did not preserve the purity and integrity of the faith, as happened in 1666, then true Christians, by the word of Christ the Savior, were to elect from their midst persons to govern Christ’s Church. Dear brethren, from all that has been said, it is clear that Christ Himself covertly indicated that those who remain faithful will govern His Church. When the pastors, until 1666, upheld the purity and integrity of the faith, they were the rulers and guardians of Christ’s Church. But when they strayed into false teachings, they became not only unworthy to shepherd the people but even unworthy to shepherd themselves. From that time, this role passed to the faithful, who elect overseers and leaders from their midst; there is no contradiction with the word of Holy Scripture in their election, but rather, it is in accordance with Christ’s guidance and command. The esteemed interlocutor cited the resolution of our first All-Russian Council, sheet 2: “Our spiritual fathers should not be considered laypeople, as they receive, upon election by the parish and blessing by another spiritual father, the successively transmitted grace of the Holy Spirit for governing the church.” On this matter, I must say: You know that before 1905, Old Believers had no opportunity to gather and discuss their needs. Only thanks to the will of the reigning humane Emperor, who freed us from this oppression, was it possible in 1909 to organize the Council in Moscow. Over 200 years, many misunderstandings had accumulated within Christ’s Church, and some questions required clarification. The Council resolved these questions not arbitrarily, but in accordance with the Word of God and the writings of the holy fathers. My esteemed interlocutor criticizes the fact that our leaders are called spiritual fathers, not laypeople. There is nothing unlawful in this. Our leaders are laypeople like others and differ only by their election. As for ordination, neither the council nor any of its attendees had any thought of it; this is an idea introduced by our interlocutor himself. We call them spiritual persons because they manage spiritual matters, teaching the people toward salvation and performing the sacraments of baptism and confession, but this does not prove that they hold any special hierarchical ranks. Our leaders are elected to govern the church, and that this is not contrary to the teachings and rules of Christ’s Church, we will further demonstrate with Christ’s parable. I read from the Gospel of Luke, chapter 95, sheet 205: “And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come.” Interpreters understand this to refer to the three ranks of the priesthood—deacon, priest, and bishop—but they also, in accordance with Christ’s teaching, say that this was given not only to these persons but to all believers. I read from the Gospel, sheet 208: “And he was Peter, and he was Paul; O foolish man, this pound will make you Paul and Peter: do according to your ability. And bring what was given to you, even if you are not Paul or Peter, you too, with Peter and Paul, take this pound, and you have a pound.” Not only to Peter and Paul were the pounds given, but to all believers. In conclusion, I would like to ask my esteemed interlocutor to point out where in Scripture it is said that when the Orthodox priesthood is destroyed, as was foretold, true Orthodox Christians cannot be elected from among the faithful to govern the Church.

Second Speech by F. E. Melnikov

Esteemed assembly! Today, I am discussing priestless lay leadership not with the intention of accusing it—my interlocutor mistakenly claimed that I am accusing the Pomorians—but to clarify what priestless lay leadership represents in its inner essence, in terms of the rights, authority, and powers that distinguish leaders from ordinary laypeople. That is why I posed the question: What teachings of the Church can justify the existence among the Pomorians of spiritual persons with successively transmitted grace, pastoral authority, and rights, occupying an exclusively spiritual-ministerial role in the Church? Unfortunately, we have received not only no answer to this question but not even a hint of one. Indeed, my interlocutor cited two passages from Holy Scripture: one from the Gospel Commentary about the need for the loins of all the faithful to be girded with truth, and another, also from the Gospel Commentary, stating that we, laypeople, can engage in commerce. I fully agree with these passages of Scripture and declare that I, a simple layman, neither elected nor a leader, have the right to engage in this commerce. But why, then, among the Pomorian priestless Old Believers, do the rest of the faithful not exercise this right? The Gospel Commentary states: “Peter, as one who cares for all and, out of brotherly love, is zealous for the benefit of listeners and as one to whom the Church has already been entrusted, asked (the Lord) whether He spoke this parable to all. The Lord did not answer him directly but covertly showed that, although the parable is general and applies to all believers, whoever they may be, it also pertains to you apostles and those entrusted with teaching or leadership. Listen: ‘Who then is the faithful and wise steward?’ The aforementioned parable, it says, is fitting for many, but now it speaks of those entrusted with leadership: I wonder who will be found possessing both faith and wisdom. For such are rare and hard to find. Just as in managing ordinary property, if someone is faithful to their master but unwise, they squander the master’s property because they do not know how to manage it properly—failing to give when needed and losing much more—likewise, if someone is wise and resourceful but unfaithful, they may be a thief, and the wiser they are, the harder they are to catch. So too in divine matters, both faith and wisdom are needed. For I know many who seem zealous for virtue, God-fearing, and faithful but, because they could not wisely manage church affairs, harmed not only the property but also souls” (Gospel Commentary, Gospel of Luke, ch. XII, p. 375, Russian translation, Soykin edition). From this passage, you see that Christ, according to Blessed Theophylact, distinguished some persons from others. Some hold an apostolic, teaching position in the Church, while others are simply faithful people. All these faithful people can have their “loins girded,” that is, be equipped with faith in the Lord God. But can all these believers among the Pomorians bind and loose their flock? No. The Pomorians grant the right to govern the church only to specially elected and appointed persons. The Pomorians claim that they have successively transmitted grace from Bishop Paul, asserting that they received this grace just as bishops in ancient times received it for performing the sacrament of the priesthood. They set apart certain people from their flock with special powers. Regarding these special, exclusive rights given only to spiritual persons, our interlocutor cited nothing. Now consider the other passage he read, about the talents (Luke, chapter 95). It states that every believer can possess a talent. But what kind of talent? Can the Pomorians, for example, perform ordination, that is, exercise the talent Christ gave to the apostles? They will say: No, that is not our talent. Can they perform the sacrament of chrismation—a priestly function? No, they will say, that is not our talent either. Can they administer communion? That, too, is not their talent. But how can it be said that Christ’s words about commerce and talents apply to believers? The point is that my interlocutor failed to distinguish that some talents belong to spiritual persons, while others belong to laypeople. St. John Chrysostom says that each of us has a flock entrusted to them. But what kind? Here is what he says: “A husband, rising from bed, should strive only to instill great piety in his household and family through both deeds and words. Likewise, a wife should oversee the household; but beyond this duty, she must also ensure that the entire family labors for the Kingdom of Heaven. For if, in worldly matters, we strive to fulfill public duties before domestic ones to avoid imprisonment, legal scrutiny, or various forms of disgrace, how much more in spiritual matters should we strive first to fulfill the works of the King of all—God’s works—lest we be sent where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth. Let us seek those virtues that are salvific for ourselves and beneficial to our neighbor. Such are almsgiving and prayer. For even in worldly matters, no one lives solely for themselves; every artisan, soldier, farmer, and merchant dedicates themselves to occupations for the benefit and advantage of society. How much more, then, should this be fulfilled in spiritual matters. This is precisely what constitutes life” (Homilies on the Gospel of Matthew, part III, homily 77, pp. 280–281, 1899 edition). No one will accuse the Pomorians for these talents. I am not speaking of these talents and powers but of others. The Pomorian Council clearly stated: “Our spiritual fathers should not be considered laypeople” (Proceedings of the Pomorian Council, sheet 2). As if in opposition to the Gospel passage cited by my interlocutor, the council declares: Our spiritual persons have special talents; our leaders are not laypeople; they do not belong to ordinary faithful people. No. Who are they? They are spiritual persons with rights to successively transmitted grace of the Holy Spirit and to govern the church. Indeed, we see that among the Pomorians, not every faithful person governs the church; not every one of them holds the keys to bind and loose, but only special persons, elected, blessed, and possessing successive grace to govern the church. We wish to clarify—precisely to determine whether our unification can be achieved with such clergy—what Holy Scripture justifies the existence of such a spiritual hierarchy among the Pomorians. My interlocutor says that the word “hierarchy” is not found in the Pomorian Council’s resolutions. True, that word is absent. But we know that it is not about the name but the essence. We know that in Holy Scripture, every believer is called a king and a priest, but this is merely a title. The Pomorians, however, did not merely title their leaders but recognized them as spiritual persons with hierarchical rights, even if the word “hierarchical” is absent. That is not all. They recognized that each leader must even have a letter of appointment, like those given to bishops and priests. Here is what the Proceedings of the Pomorian Council say about this: “Establish rules for the election and appointment of spiritual fathers. — Establish the form of the letter of appointment for spiritual fathers. — Determine who has the right to judge, excommunicate, or depose spiritual fathers in case they commit any unlawful act. — Establish the procedure for transferring spiritual fathers from one parish to another” (Proceedings of the Pomorian Council, sheet 2, in the council’s resolutions). Are these not signs of a spiritual hierarchy? Do these not indicate special spiritual persons who cannot be compared to laypeople? They not only have successive grace and blessing but also the right to transfer leaders to parishes, appoint them, depose them, and so forth. If you review all the proceedings of the Pomorian Council, you will be struck by the persistence and determination with which the council proclaimed its leaders as true spiritual persons, not laypeople—not ordinary faithful people. Take, for example, this council resolution. The council was asked: “How should one make use of skete repentance, that is, only in extreme need if there is no spiritual father nearby, or at any time if the spiritual father is present but unskilled or displeasing?” (sheet 6 verso). If the right to bind and loose sins and to govern the church belongs to all the faithful, why raise the question of the absence of spiritual fathers and the need arising from their absence? What was the council’s response? “Repentance should be brought to a spiritual father according to the Book of Needs (the rite of confession), and only in the absence of a spiritual father should repentance be offered to God alone, but with diligence to seek a skilled father” (ibid.). It does not say that when there is no spiritual father, go confess to your neighbor or your wife, who can bind and loose sins. No, they say, in extreme cases, turn to God, but not to laypeople who lack the rights and authority given to special leaders with special powers. We know that among the priestless Old Believers, only these spiritual persons perform repentance. But if someone does not wish to be a spiritual son under a spiritual father, what should they do? Can they go to an ordinary believer for repentance? This question was also resolved at the All-Russian Pomorian Council. Here is the council’s response: “Sins must be confessed to a spiritual father, not to every faithful person” (Proceedings, p. 7, pre-council consultation). My interlocutor read from the Gospel Commentary that every faithful person has the talent to bind, but the council says: No, only a spiritual father has the right to hear confessions; and if you wish to leave your spiritual father without his blessing, you have no right to do so. Here is what is said on the same page of the council’s proceedings: “In choosing a spiritual father, each person is granted free choice, but one who already has a spiritual father may transfer to another only under exceptional circumstances and must seek the blessing of their current spiritual father” (ibid., p. 7). The same is true among us, those with priests: one cannot transfer to another spiritual father without obtaining the blessing of the current one. The Pomorians say the same: You have the right to transfer to another spiritual father, but only on the strict condition that you receive the blessing of your current spiritual father. Thus, it is clear from this position that the passage from Holy Scripture (Gospel Commentary) cited by my interlocutor does not justify the position of priestless lay leadership. On the contrary, it condemns it, because it states that all the faithful can have their “loins girded with truth,” that is, spiritual gifts, while the Pomorians say the opposite: these gifts are not possessed by all but only by spiritual persons, specially elected, specially blessed, or, as they put it, “appointed.” Here, too, is a hierarchical term they apply to their overseers. On the same page of the council’s book, the question is raised: Should those who have married heretics be accepted for repentance? The answer is: “Accept them for repentance, but assign penance at the discretion of the spiritual father. Apostolic Canon 52” (ibid., p. 7). It is remarkable that reference is made to Apostolic Canon 52. Who and what does it address? It does not speak of laypeople or ordinary persons, but of the following: “If any bishop or presbyter does not accept a person turning from sin but rejects them, let them be deposed from the sacred order, for they grieve Christ, who said: There is joy in heaven over one sinner who repents” (Tripartite Nomocanon, Apostolic Canon 52, pp. 97–98). As we see, the Pomorians compare their spiritual fathers not to ordinary faithful people, as would follow from the Gospel Commentary, but to bishops. This is a hierarchical position. They clearly have a clergy, and thus the priestless Old Believers are, in effect, becoming priested. On sheet 10 of the Resolutions of the Pomorian Council, it is stated how spiritual persons should deal with sinners. They must admonish them with gentle measures: “If these gentle measures do not heal them, then the spiritual fathers must correct such persons with measures appropriate to their authority, remembering the words of the Apostle (chapter 297), and only in extreme cases excommunicate them.” Whose authority is this? In the Commentary on the Gospel by Blessed Theophylact, we find an explanation of who holds the right of excommunication. On page 809 of Theophylact’s Commentary on the New Testament, it is stated that this right belongs to the Apostle Timothy, who was not only a teacher but also a bishop (Russian translation, Soykin edition). On page 851 of the same book, it is said: “[Timothy] grieved both because of [the Apostle’s] absence and the weight of episcopal authority. For even great men struggle to steer the ship of the church, being overwhelmed by great waves from all sides, especially in times when wars are everywhere” (in the preface to the Second Epistle to Timothy). In the Scripture cited by the Pomorian Council, it is specifically about a bishop’s right to excommunicate. It is entrusted to him to act “in season and out of season.” The priestless Old Believers, in discussing the rights of their leadership, did not cite passages of Scripture that speak of the rights of ordinary faithful or sinful people, nor did they point to the rights that all of us, sincerely and purely believing laypeople, enjoy in Christ. Instead, they cited passages that define the authority of archpastors—priests and bishops. On page 67 of the Proceedings of the Pomorian Council, it is stated: “Our religious communities gain the right to exist, to acquire property, to have internal self-governance, to independently maintain metrical records. Our spiritual fathers are not only recognized but are also endowed with privileges appropriate to their rank” (Proceedings, part I, p. 67). We know that the law of October 17, 1906, mentioned here, “endows” spiritual persons specifically with hierarchical authority and the rights to perform sacraments: to govern the church, baptize, marry, chrismate, and so forth. And regarding all these sacred acts, the council states that Pomorian leaders are endowed with privileges appropriate to their rank. Their rank encompasses these privileges. Thus, they are not ordinary laypeople but spiritual-hierarchical persons. Further, in the council’s Proceedings, it is clearly expressed that Pomorian leaders are not worldly but spiritual-hierarchical persons. The council specifies that leaders cannot be twice-married, and we know that Apostolic Canon 17 prohibits second marriages specifically for hierarchical persons. The council also forbids leaders from marrying widows, which is a restriction for true spiritual persons; it prohibits them from engaging in trade or worldly affairs: if you trade, you cannot be a leader. Ordinary people, who lack special hierarchical talents, can trade, marry widows, and generally engage in worldly matters. Furthermore, the Proceedings of the Pomorian Council state that if a leader renounces their spiritual rank, they cannot again become a spiritual father. Can such a ruling apply to laypeople? This applies to hierarchical persons. It is also affirmed that if a leader is deposed: “A deposed leader is prohibited from baptizing or performing spiritual duties unless there is extreme need, based on church law. Nomocanon, sheet 580 verso” (Proceedings of the Pomorian Council, p. 4, pre-council consultation). This acknowledges that leaders have a special hierarchical rank. If a leader is deposed from this rank, they can no longer perform any duties. It is clear, brethren, that the priestless Old Believers have a well-defined spiritual hierarchy with hierarchical powers: sacred authority and spiritual rights. Therefore, I ask my interlocutor to clearly and precisely establish: What teachings of the Church can justify the existence among the Pomorians of spiritual persons with successively transmitted grace, pastoral authority, and rights, occupying an exclusively spiritual-ministerial role in the church? This is the question to which I would like to hear an answer and clarification from my interlocutor.

Second Speech by F. F. Rumyantsev

Deeply esteemed assembly, I believe I addressed the question posed by my interlocutor—why our leaders are called spiritual persons—in my first speech. They are called spiritual because they perform spiritual duties. F. E. asked why they are not like everyone else. Because they are elected to lead, not through ordination but through election. If the esteemed interlocutor did not hear my response, I cannot be held responsible; I can only reiterate in further detail the rights and duties of our leaders and overseers. Dear friends, do not forget what I read from the Gospel. F. E. touched only on the idea that all the faithful can have their loins girded. But the Apostle Peter asked the Lord, “To whom do you speak this parable, to us alone?” No, Christ replied, the parable is general, and whoever is faithful, the Lord will appoint as a steward over His household. The esteemed F. E. says that every Christian, upon rising from bed, should strive to guide their children toward a Christian, moral life. This is true, but that should happen naturally. Not only ordinary believers but also clergy should teach children a moral life. However, we are now addressing a different question. You spoke of talents. It cannot be denied that talents differ: a bishop ordains, while faithful Christians are given the talent to teach, baptize, and hear confessions. My interlocutor deviated from the question at hand and spent much time discussing lay confession; I consider this incorrect and will not address what is irrelevant to this conversation. We must discuss whether Christians, after the loss of the Orthodox priesthood, have the right to elect leaders of Christ’s Church from among themselves. This is the question I posed to my interlocutor: Show me where in Holy Scripture it is forbidden for Christians, after the loss of the Orthodox priesthood, to elect leaders and overseers from their midst. Dear listeners, in all 20 minutes, the esteemed interlocutor said nothing about this and provided no evidence that our actions are unlawful; he only claimed that our leaders supposedly have some special priestly rights. As for the rights of our overseers, the first council did not definitively resolve this question. I read from the council’s resolutions, page 22: “I now propose that, due to the complexity of this question, it not be resolved definitively but be referred to a spiritual commission for consideration.” At the first council, the question of overseers was referred to a commission, which passed it to the second All-Russian Council for approval. According to the latter’s decision, the rights and duties of overseers are as follows: page VII, first section: “Leaders, or spiritual fathers and guides, standing at the head of Christian parishes, should be regarded as not having a clerical rank, as unordained pastors of the Church. The spiritual rights and duties of leaders are determined by Holy Scripture pertaining to unordained pastors and by the customs left to the Church by our ancestors of blessed memory. Popular election and the blessing of a spiritual father for service to the Church elevate the leader to an honorable and primary position in the parish.” So, dear brethren, the duties of leaders are to oversee morality and perform spiritual duties appropriate to laypeople. As for their hearing confessions, this is not contrary to the teachings of Christ’s Church, as St. Theodore the Studite states. I read from his works, part II, page 601: “But since the question arises whether one without priesthood may assign [penance] in the absence of presbyters and based on the faith of the one approaching, I say that it is not contrary to the rules for even a simple monk to assign penances…” As for penance, in the absence of an Orthodox pastor, even a layperson may assign it. However, since the question now is not about confession or whether laypeople can bind and loose, but about leadership, I will not delve further into this matter. The actions of both our ancestors of blessed memory and ourselves are in no way contrary to the teachings of Christ’s Church. We see that in apostolic times, Christ’s Church elected persons from among the faithful to govern it. I read from St. John Chrysostom’s homily on the Acts of the Apostles, page 257: “It is worthy to marvel how the people did not divide in choosing men, how the apostles were not despised by them. What dignity did these men have, and what ordination did they receive? It is necessary to learn. Was it diaconal? No, this did not exist in the churches. But it was presbyterial governance. Although there was not yet a single bishop, only the apostles themselves, hence neither deacons nor presbyters, I believe, were yet named or defined. But then they were ordained for this… Therefore, their prayers were not simple but with great effort, and this, like preaching, was performed. For they accomplished much through prayers. Thus, spiritual matters were conducted; thus, they were sent forth; thus, these were entrusted with the word. And entering the house of Philip the Evangelist, who was one of the seven, we stayed with him.” What kind of believers were elected, what dignity did they have, and what ordination was upon them? Diaconal ordination? No, that did not exist. Presbyterial? There were no bishops then, so there could be no presbyters, but ordinary believers were elected to govern the Church, as also stated by the Sixth Ecumenical Council. I read from Canon 16 of the Sixth Ecumenical Council in the Tripartite Nomocanon. “It is worthy of marvel how the people did not divide in choosing men, how the apostles were not rejected by them. But it must be known what dignity these men had and what ordination they received: Was it the rank of deacons? But there were none in the churches. Was it the office of presbyters? But there was not yet any bishop, only the apostles alone. Therefore, I believe that neither the name of deacons nor presbyters was known or used. On this basis, we proclaim that the aforementioned seven deacons should not be regarded as ministers of the sacraments” (Tripartite Nomocanon, Canon 16 of the Sixth Ecumenical Council). What dignity did these men have, I ask my esteemed interlocutor, and what ordination did they receive? Chrysostom says: “Therefore, I believe that neither the name of deacons nor presbyters was known or used.” If, in the beginning, the Holy Church was structured such that it was governed by elected men without sacred ordination, then based on the sacred words we read in the Book of Faith, sheets 29 verso and 30: “Let there be thanksgiving, glory, honor, and worship to the Lamb of God, by whose grace we have shown His bride, that is, the holy Eastern Church. The last ordinance shall follow the first.” The last ordinance will follow the first, meaning that the structure of the Church at its beginning will also be at its end. We see, according to the words of St. Chrysostom and the Sixth Ecumenical Council, that in the very beginning, Christ’s Church was governed by elected men, and so it will be at its end. To our great sorrow, we have lived to see times when the priesthood has strayed into false teachings, and the Church refused to remain under the authority of apostates and false shepherds. In accordance with the teachings of Christ’s Church, it elected faithful persons from among itself. Thus, dear listeners, I have proven that there is no contradiction with the teachings of Christ’s Church in electing persons from among ordinary faithful Christians to govern it. F. E. referred to the law that granted us freedom. That law does not concern our internal convictions and was granted not only to the Austrians but to all Old Believers, including our overseers. I believe we should not touch on state law but, to the best of our ability, address our differences based on Holy Scripture. Is it forbidden, upon the loss of the Orthodox priesthood, to elect persons from among ordinary faithful Christians to govern the Church? If you prove it, we will acknowledge our guilt; if you do not, you will be guilty. F. E. also said that we apply church canons to our leaders. Therefore, we must say that in Christ’s Church, there is only one set of canons. I read from the Apostle Paul, chapter 245: “Nevertheless, to the extent that we have attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us be of the same mind.” No matter what times we reach, the canons remain essentially the same. If we have lived to see such a lamentable time as the loss of the Orthodox priesthood, the canons still remain the same in essence. These canons are applied not to create special hierarchical persons but solely for order. Our esteemed interlocutor knows that there was a time when they themselves, lacking fugitive priests, elected overseers according to these canons. Thus, I believe our esteemed interlocutor needlessly attributes to us the establishment of some hierarchy. I maintain that if we elect leaders in accordance with the teachings of Christ’s Church to govern it, this is not contrary to its teachings and does not introduce any hierarchical ranks. Now I await a response to my question: Where is it forbidden, upon the loss of the true priesthood, for Christians to elect overseers from among the faithful?

Third Speech by F. E. Melnikov

Esteemed assembly! I still have not received an answer to my question. The passages from Scripture and the writings of the holy fathers cited by my interlocutor do not justify the position of spiritual persons among the Pomorian Old Believers. Take, for instance, the passage he cited at the beginning of his speech from Canon 16 of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, specifically the words of Chrysostom that seven deacons were elected by the apostles and chosen by ordinary men. At that time, when these deacons were elected, there was no division into ranks as there is now: deacons, presbyters, bishops. “There was not yet any bishop,” says Chrysostom, “only the apostles alone. Therefore, I believe that neither the name of deacons nor presbyters was known or used” (Tripartite Nomocanon, Canon 16 of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, full translations). I pose a question to my interlocutor: Do your leaders exercise the same rights as those seven deacons had when they were elected, or different ones? I believe he must answer that they are entirely different. Listen to what the commentator Zonaras says about this canon: “The fathers of this council (the Sixth) explain that the name ‘deacons’ used in the Acts is not understood precisely and say that at that time, the concern was not for men who would serve in divine sacraments but for service at tables and managing the sustenance of the multitude of believers. They cite the great John, golden in speech, who explains what is said about this in the Acts and says that this name does not refer to deacons or presbyters. These fathers also affirm that the seven deacons mentioned in the Acts should not be regarded as serving in the sacraments but as those who managed the provision for those gathered around the apostles and the believers, whom they call an example for us of caring for the needy and distributing what is necessary” (Tripartite Nomocanon, commentary on Canon 16 of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, pp. 334–335). This speaks not of men who served in divine sacraments but of service at tables and managing the sustenance of the multitude of believers. At that time, the deacon’s role consisted solely of distributing bread to the poor and the faithful. Deacons served at tables, much like—forgive the expression—waiters do now. But do Pomorian leaders merely distribute bread? Do they only serve food at tables? Not at all. They are seated in the place of honor, not serving food but being served. They are considered spiritual persons, standing above not only all cooks and kitchen staff but above all ordinary people. Thus, the example cited by my interlocutor does not justify Pomorian leaders but, on the contrary, condemns them. I would not accuse the leaders if they only served at tables or performed some duty related to meals. The issue is not this service but that they have seized spiritual-hierarchical authority to govern the church. Let my interlocutor show where in the Orthodox Church, even once, there was an instance when the Church was governed by laypeople. No such case ever existed: neither Christ nor the apostles commanded the Church to be in such a state. Chrysostom, whose words my esteemed interlocutor cited, in Canon 16 of the Sixth Ecumenical Council and elsewhere, did not speak of this. Take his Homilies on the Fourteen Epistles of the Apostle Paul. Here he speaks of both bishops and deacons in apostolic times (columns 2651, 2270, 3012, 2656, 463, 1751, 2444, etc.). Deacons, priests, and bishops existed, according to Chrysostom, even in apostolic times, and they exercised hierarchical rights and authority; this division into ranks was established later under the apostles. The apostles themselves called the elected men to them and imparted to them a special spiritual gift. The apostles were not only bishops but above bishops. St. Joseph of Volokolamsk says: “The apostolic rank and image are not only superior to the monastic rank and image but far more honorable than all under heaven, including kings, patriarchs, hierarchs, and monks, ordaining them: they were established and ordained by Christ to enlighten all people, to turn the erring to godliness, and to bring all to repentance” (The Enlightener, discourse 11, p. 491, 1857 edition). If the apostles were above bishops because they had authority from the Lord greater than even episcopal authority, they could establish the seven deacons in higher offices and duties, which they later did. But are priestless overseers blessed and established by apostles? They are blessed and established by ordinary laypeople, though, by their own admission, called “spiritual persons.” If you examine the proceedings and resolutions of the Pomorian Council, you will see that it completely separates and distinguishes its spiritual persons from laypeople and even acknowledges that leaders have a spiritual rank. On page 22 of the Proceedings of the Council, it is stated: “Let it also establish rules for the election and appointment of spiritual fathers. Establish the form of the letter of appointment for spiritual fathers. Determine who has the right to judge, excommunicate, and depose spiritual fathers in case they commit any unlawful act.” To this, my interlocutor responds that this question was not resolved at the first council. Its resolution was deferred to the second council, and he reads from the second council’s proceedings in proof sheets that church overseers are established as spiritual persons, not as ordinary laypeople. Thus, at both the first and second councils, the Pomorians reaffirmed their initial decision and again recognized that leaders are spiritual persons standing above laypeople. But without waiting for the second council, the Pomorians judged some of their leaders, and we see that at the eighth session of the first council, the case of the overseer Andrei Ivanovich Derevnin was considered. The council resolved: “Declare him unworthy of leadership and remove him from his office” (Proceedings, part I, p. 75). See how the Pomorians understand their leadership: not as a worldly state but as a spiritual one, from which they depose the unworthy. On pages 109–118 of the same council’s Proceedings, the “Marriage Statute of the True Old Believer Faith,” adopted by the Pomorian Council, is included. This statute, among other things, states: “Such a marriage, as lawful, must be duly blessed with prayer. But if anything is found contrary to this consideration, such a marriage, as unlawful, must not be blessed with prayer, under penalty of deposition from the overseer’s rank or stricter punishment” (Proceedings, part II, p. 110). Here, it is acknowledged that leaders have some kind of rank. If this were a worldly rank—the kind we all have—how could one be deposed from it? It is unthinkable to turn a worldly rank into a lesser one: to make a man a woman or a woman a child. Thus, if the Pomorians depose their spiritual leaders from a rank, this rank exists among them, and it is a spiritual rank. It follows that the Pomorians recognize their leaders as hierarchical persons. I pointed out that they themselves established three essential characteristics by which they recognize their leaders as true spiritual persons. These characteristics are: election, blessing, specifically “appointment,” as they put it, and successive grace, received not at baptism or any other sacrament but from Bishop Paul of Kolomna. Here is what the chairman of the Pomorian Council declared: “Spiritual fathers are elected by the community or parish, but this election does not grant the right to be an overseer. This right is received only when another overseer blesses the elected for the office. This blessing was called by some Christians ‘appointment.’ So our ancestors expressed it” (Proceedings of the Pomorian Council, part I, p. 22). Compare this to the first apostolic canon, which specifically speaks of “appointment”: “Let a bishop be appointed by two or three bishops.” The word “appointment” signifies ordination, specifically the laying on of hands for sacred persons. Thus, the All-Russian Pomorian Council has clearly established that Pomorian leaders only receive authority and rights to perform sacraments and govern the church when they receive “appointment” from other leaders. It is evident that they possess a hierarchical dignity. But now we see that our interlocutor strives to prove that their leaders are not spiritual persons but simple peasants, laypeople, and claims that he read this in the resolutions of their first council. Of course, one could agree with this, but that would be a deviation from the council’s resolutions. This is what F. F. Rumyantsev claims, but it is not the council’s resolution. By agreeing that Pomorian leaders are laypeople, we now clearly see that it is indeed ordinary laypeople who govern the Pomorian church and that among the priestless Old Believers, laypeople have appropriated a spiritual rank. I would like to know from my interlocutor: Where and when was such an establishment in the Church that laypeople were considered to have hierarchical rights, obtained solely through blessing as leaders? Were there such instances in the Orthodox Church? What Holy Scripture or patristic teaching permits such an existence of laypeople substituting for spiritual authority? Was this ever determined anywhere? If we turn to priestless writings, we see that the priestless themselves consider such a situation entirely unlawful. I have at hand a book, Excerpts from Patristic and Other Books, by Permyakov, of the Fedosian persuasion. He attacks the Wanderers, who lack hierarchical ranks but appoint leaders for themselves. He condemns this as unlawful and cites the words of St. Cyprian of Carthage, who says that they have unlawfully seized authority and appoint themselves as leaders without ordination: “This is foretold by the Holy Spirit through the Apostle, saying: ‘There must also be heresies among you, that those who are approved may be made manifest among you’ (1 Corinthians 11:19). Thus, the faithful are tested, and the unfaithful are revealed; thus, even before the day of judgment, the souls of the righteous are separated from the unrighteous, and the tares are separated from the wheat! Those are separated who, without divine appointment, voluntarily take leadership over reckless gatherings, appoint themselves as leaders without lawful consecration, and assume the title of bishop when no one grants them episcopal authority. The Holy Spirit in the Psalms calls them those who sit in the seat of scoffers (Psalm 1:1), a plague and contagion to the faith, people who deceive with serpentine lips, skilled in perverting the truth with a destructive tongue, spewing deadly poison, whose word spreads like cancer” (Excerpts by Permyakov against the Wanderers, pp. 181–182; in Works of St. Cyprian, part II, pp. 184–185). We see that the priestless leaders, as our interlocutor acknowledges, do not have episcopal gifts—they are simply laypeople, confirmed by laypeople, yet at the same time, they are leaders, pastors, whom the Pomorian Council called “shepherds of the flock,” comparing their position and authority to that of bishops and priests, i.e., hierarchical authority. Thus, they are persons who, though truly unordained, have usurped a gift not rightfully theirs. St. Cyprian of Carthage says of such: “Those who do not have the Holy Spirit absolutely cannot baptize. Indeed, in baptism, sins are forgiven to each person, and the Lord affirms and declares in His Gospel that sins can be forgiven only by those who have the Holy Spirit. Sending His disciples after the resurrection, He says to them: ‘As the Father has sent Me, even so I send you.’ And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained’ (John 20:21–23). This passage shows that only those who have the Holy Spirit can baptize and grant forgiveness of sins” (Works of St. Cyprian, part I, pp. 368–369). These words of the holy father testify that only those who have the Holy Spirit can baptize and forgive sins. Those persons who are considered laypeople but have seized spiritual authority, according to St. Cyprian of Carthage, do not even have the right to baptize. In extreme cases, as is known, laypeople are permitted to baptize by immersion. This is done out of necessity among us, Old Believers who accept the priesthood. But those persons who lack ordination and have seized spiritual authority not rightfully theirs, not out of extreme necessity but because they were elected and authorized, lose the right to baptize. St. Cyprian of Carthage, in the first canon of St. Basil the Great, says that spiritual persons who have separated from the church lose their spiritual gifts and become laypeople. This does not refer to ordinary laypeople like us, who are permitted, in exceptional cases of extreme necessity, to perform baptism, but to those who, having become laypeople, proclaim themselves spiritual persons. Do they have the right to baptize? No. “Those who are separated,” says St. Cyprian, “having become laypeople, had no authority to baptize or ordain and could not impart to others the grace of the Holy Spirit, from which they themselves fell away. Therefore, the ancients commanded that those coming from them to the Church, as baptized by laypeople, be purified anew with true ecclesiastical baptism” (Canon 1 of St. Basil the Great, full translations). My interlocutor remarked that I allegedly deviated from my own question about leadership and spoke about confession. In this case, I am now speaking about baptism. This is not a deviation from the question; I am clarifying the essence and rights of leadership. My interlocutor, however, avoids the question and speaks of the rights of laypeople, of talents belonging to every man and woman. I ask him to answer the question I posed in my first speech: What teachings of the Church can justify the existence among the Pomorians of spiritual persons with successively transmitted grace, pastoral authority, and rights, occupying an exclusively spiritual-ministerial role in the church? I have not heard an answer to this question, and I request that an answer be given specifically to it.

Third Speech by F. F. Rumyantsev

Esteemed Assembly, I ask for your deep attention. I am surprised at my esteemed interlocutor. He says I did not answer his question. I believe that those who listened attentively were convinced by my response. We have no hierarchical persons. We establish nothing of the sort, and as for the rights and duties of overseers as laypeople, I have also spoken about them. But what is important is that when I read from the Acts of the Apostles about the election of the seven men and St. Chrysostom’s explanation from the Sixth Ecumenical Council, F. E. responds that these were deacons elected for table service, comparing them to modern waiters to give a clearer idea of them. But, dear listeners, are the apostles waiters? Are they cooks, as my interlocutor put it? What did these waiter-apostles do? These apostles baptized, as seen in the Acts of the Apostles. I read from page 329, Homilies on Acts: “When they believed Philip, who preached the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Simon himself believed and was baptized, remaining with Philip; seeing great powers and signs performed, he was amazed.” From what was read, it is clear that “they believed and were baptized by him.” Thus, these men were not waiters but preachers of the Word of God and baptizers, yet they received no ordination, as I have read from St. Chrysostom and the Sixth Ecumenical Council. In the Book of Faith, it is said that the last ordinance will follow the first. Since we have lived to see times when the Orthodox priesthood has fallen, leaving only the faithful, they must govern according to the Word of God. F. E. says that if we consider the words in the Acts, it could be fulfilled by any woman, but they, he says, do not follow this and choose a special person who can do this only after the blessing of a spiritual father. F. E. asks: “I would like to know where in Scripture it is said that a layperson can bless an overseer?” To this question, I respond with the question I have repeatedly posed to him: Show me where it is written that, upon the loss of the Orthodox priesthood, ordinary faithful cannot do this. In his third speech, my interlocutor provided not a single testimony. As for the faithful, they have the grace of the Holy Spirit and thus can baptize. This justifies our position: we, the faithful, have inherited the grace of the Holy Spirit from Christ’s Church, which Christ the Savior sent on the fiftieth day for all believers, not only the twelve apostles. I read from page 71, Homilies on Acts: “And He sat, it is said, on each one of them: [Chrysostom] What then? Did He descend only on the twelve, and not on the others? Not at all: but on all one hundred twenty.” Thus, the faithful received the Holy Spirit together with the divine apostles, and since they received it, it is successively imparted to the faithful. I read further from page 72: “They were all filled, it is said, with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance… [Chrysostom]… He sat, it is said, on each one of them: thus also instructed by the parable. Therefore, he no longer grieves for not having been chosen, as Matthias was. And they were all filled, it is said. They did not simply receive the grace of the Spirit but were filled.” The Holy Spirit, according to Apostolic Canon 4, is given to all the faithful, and since the faithful received it, they are entitled to impart it to others. As for the election of laypeople for service, St. Chrysostom says on page 70 of the Homilies on Acts: “For we are all brethren, and our one teacher is Christ. Yet among brethren, one is to command, and others to obey.” This is done for order and is not contrary to the teachings of Christ’s Church. As for Permyakov’s excerpts mentioned by my interlocutor, we should not touch on the views of parties that cannot be discussed in these conversations. I read from the excerpts, page 181: “Those are separated who, without divine appointment, voluntarily take leadership over reckless gatherings, appoint themselves as leaders without lawful consecration, and assume the title of bishop when no one grants them episcopal authority.” In the excerpt he read, borrowed from the works of St. Cyprian, it speaks of those who voluntarily take leadership over reckless gatherings. This is what our interlocutor emphasizes. St. Cyprian speaks of those who assume the title of bishop. You will not find a single word about this among us. As for who among us has assumed something false, the future will show; our current conversation is not about episcopacy or hierarchy, so I cannot address this question. The present conversation is about leadership, about whether Christians have the right to choose leaders in times when the Orthodox priesthood completely falls. I asked my esteemed interlocutor to answer this, but he did not, and I must assure you that he will not be able to say anything on this matter in the future either. Now I turn to the analysis of the cited canon from St. Basil the Great. I read from the Greek Nomocanon, page 152: “For though the beginning of separation occurred through schism, those who separated from the church no longer had the grace of the Holy Spirit upon them.” Do we say that schismatics have the grace of the Holy Spirit? Is our question about schismatics? Heretics and schismatics have no grace of the Holy Spirit, even if they were bishops. “But those who are separated, having become laypeople, had no authority to baptize or ordain and could not impart to others the grace of the Holy Spirit, from which they themselves fell away.” If we speak of those who are separated, they, though outwardly bishops, could not perform sacraments. Are they equal to laypeople? They are worse than laypeople. Laypeople, though simple, have the grace of the Holy Spirit. The cited testimony does not accuse us but, on the contrary, justifies us, and it speaks not of Christians elected to govern the Church but of schismatics and heretics. My esteemed interlocutor says that in their proceedings, it is written that spiritual fathers must not engage in worldly affairs, trade, hunting, and so forth. But does this resolution prove anything hierarchical? You also have singers who do not engage in worldly affairs, and they are not elevated to any priestly rank by this. All this is established for order, for decorum, to govern Christ’s Church and care for it, not for worldly matters. As for canons for maintaining order, there is only one set of canons, as the Apostle Paul says, chapter 245: “Nevertheless, to the extent that we have attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us be of the same mind.” If we have lived to such a lamentable period when all pastors have become heretics, in view of this situation, the faithful are entitled to govern with their spiritual persons and, as the holy Church envisioned, to elect from among the faithful to govern the Church. Christ Himself says that whoever is faithful, He will appoint as a steward over His household, whoever preserves the purity and truth of the faith, and this has been preserved only by the true sons of the Pomorians, who did not follow the heretical and false priesthood. My esteemed interlocutor pointed out that the apostles were above bishops. True, I agree with the explanations that the apostles were above bishops, but they were above bishops not in sacred ranks but in position. This applied not only to the twelve apostles but to all apostles. St. Chrysostom says (page 1688, Homilies on the Fourteen Epistles): “There are other evangelists who did not travel everywhere but only preached, such as Priscilla and Aquila.” F. E. says that we allegedly seized church governance without any necessity. But this is untrue; our conscience cannot reconcile with the current priesthood, and therefore we elect pastors from among ourselves to govern Christ’s Church, and such an order does not contradict divine Scripture, as I have proven. In conclusion, I ask my esteemed interlocutor to show where it is written that, upon the loss of the Orthodox priesthood, there are no grounds for electing faithful persons from among themselves to govern the church.

Fourth Speech by F. E. Melnikov

The purpose of our conversations is to clear the path for the unification of Old Believerism into a single ancient Orthodox Church. A united Old Believerism must have some form of sacred authority—true pastoral leadership—without which unification is unthinkable. Therefore, we pose the question: Around which hierarchy should Old Believerism unite? The question of our Old Believer hierarchy will be addressed last, in our final conversation. First, we consider the question of priestless leadership. Can it replace true pastoral leadership, around which all Old Believer persuasions can and should unite? In my previous speeches, it has already been established with sufficient clarity that priestless leaders do not consider themselves laypeople but spiritual persons. They have appropriated not only priestly authority but also episcopal authority, and, as I will clarify later, even conciliar authority. On what basis does this newly created hierarchy among the priestless exist? How is it justified? Over the course of three speeches by my interlocutor, not a single passage from Holy Scripture or church canons has been cited to justify the position of priestless leadership. The only reference made was to the election of the seven deacons in apostolic times. Priestless leaders claim that, although these deacons were elected by the people, they performed certain church sacraments. Similarly, they conclude, we too act and perform church duties. My interlocutor has consistently denied his leadership’s status. He claimed that leaders are merely laypeople and have not appropriated episcopal authority. Therefore, I find it necessary to return to the resolutions of the Pomorian Council of 1909 and demonstrate, based on these resolutions, that priestless leaders have indeed appropriated episcopal authority. On sheet 10 of the Pomorian Council’s Resolutions, it is stated that leaders are obligated to guide their flock: “If these gentle measures do not heal them, then the spiritual fathers must correct such persons with measures appropriate to their authority, remembering the words of the Apostle (chapter 297), and only in extreme cases excommunicate them” (Proceedings of the Pomorian Council, sheet 10). This reference to chapter 297 of the Apostle is significant. It speaks exclusively of episcopal authority, stating that only a bishop has the right to excommunicate from the Church. Thus, this council resolution indisputably establishes that priestless leaders have seized hierarchical authority. In the same council proceedings (page 11, part I), the question of overseers who voluntarily renounce their leadership is discussed. What decision did the council make on this matter? It cites the words of Matthew the Canonist, a well-known canonist: “If anyone renounces episcopal authority and abandons the flock entrusted to them, it is not just to continue in service, for it is unreasonable and unskilled to shrink from the difficult and painful task of leading, teaching, guiding people to better traditions, and, to the best of one’s ability, preventing their disgrace” (Proceedings of the Pomorian Council, part I, p. 11). “Therefore,” the Pomorian Council concludes, “a leader who has once renounced cannot be elected again.” See with what clarity the Pomorian Council establishes that priestless Old Believers indeed have a hierarchical authority akin to episcopal authority. Therefore, I completely distrust my interlocutor’s claim that Pomorian leaders are merely laypeople. Let him either find in the council’s resolutions that they are not spiritual persons or admit that they indeed hold a hierarchical position. How, I ask, is their position justified? They point to the deacons elected by the people in apostolic times. Let us see if this example justifies priestless leadership. In his commentary on the sixth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, Blessed Theophylact says: “And having prayed, they laid hands on them. See how concise he (the writer, i.e., the Evangelist Luke) is; he does not say how they (the deacons) were ordained but only that they were ordained with prayer. A hand is laid on a man—this is what ordination consists of; but God accomplishes everything. What ordination did these seven men receive? Diaconal? They were ordained for this specific task, namely, providing for the necessary needs of the faithful” (Commentary on the New Testament by Blessed Theophylact, p. 61, Soykin edition). From this commentary by the blessed father, we see that the deacons did not seize authority for themselves; they were ordained by the apostles, and only after ordination did they become deacons. St. John Chrysostom, in his commentary on the same Acts of the Apostles, also explains that the deacons were ordained: “They did not leave this to chance,” he says, “nor, though they could choose themselves, moved by the Spirit, did they do so. But having tested them by the testimony of many, they appointed those who seemed most suitable. It was their task to set the number, to ordain, and to act in such need. And having prayed, they laid hands on them. (From this it is clear) that they separated them from the multitude, and they draw them, not the apostles leading them. See how the writer is not superfluous: he does not say how, but simply that they were ordained with prayer. This is ordination (that is, the laying on of hands). For a hand is laid upon a man’s head: God accomplishes everything, and His hand touches the head of the ordained, if he is ordained as it should be. What dignity did these men have, and what ordination did they receive? It is necessary to learn. Was it diaconal? But this did not exist in the churches. It was presbyterial governance. Although there was not yet a single bishop, only the apostles themselves, hence I believe neither the name of deacons nor presbyters was yet known or defined: but then they were ordained for this. And the authority was not simply given to them; they prayed over them to grant them strength” (Homilies on Acts by St. John Chrysostom, Homily 14, pp. 134–136, 1624 edition). It is clear that the deacons were ordained persons; they received diaconal authority after ordination by the apostles. Can the condition of deacons in apostolic times justify the position of priestless leaders? Speaking honestly and based on the passages I have cited, it must be said that this is not a justification but a condemnation of Pomorian leadership. Here, I find it appropriate and necessary to address the accusation made against me by my interlocutor. I compared the service of those deacons to the role, or rather, the service of modern waiters. My interlocutor began exclaiming: “Melnikov called the apostles waiters, he called them cooks,” repeating this multiple times, evidently playing on the religious sentiments of the listeners. Fortunately, I have the stenographic record at hand, which shows that I did not call either the apostles or even the deacons cooks or waiters. Here is what I said: “Deacons served at tables, as, forgive the expression, waiters do now” (p. 20 in this book). First, my interlocutor made an exaggeration entirely unacceptable in an honest debate; second, even if I had compared the apostles to waiters, it would not have been an insult but merely a clarification of the issue. It must be known that in Holy Scripture, apostles are often called sheep and compared to oxen, serpents, guards, shepherds, and so forth. We know that Christ Himself compared Himself to a lamb, a bridegroom, and even a corpse. In Blessed Theophylact’s Gospel Commentary, it is said that Christ compares Himself to a corpse and even a thief: “I will come as a thief in the night” (Gospel Commentary, pp. 143 and 145, Soykin edition). Was this an insult to Christ? Not at all. It was merely an indication to the faithful that Christ’s coming will be unexpected. Likewise, my comparison could not have insulted or demeaned the deacons when I used waiters as an example. It must be known that among the saints, there are many from the lowest classes: craftsmen, carpenters, shoemakers, janitors. Who, for instance, does not know that St. Euphrosynus was a cook (his life is celebrated on September 11), St. Isidora a cook (May 10), St. Theodosius of the Caves a table servant (May 3), Sts. Florus and Laurus stonecutters (August 18), St. Tryphon a goose herder (February 2), St. Conon a gardener (March 5), St. Alexander a charcoal burner (August 12), St. John, Patriarch of Constantinople, a blacksmith (September 2), St. Zechariah a shoemaker? So many saints were from the lowest classes. And we know that in the eyes of the Lord, sometimes a cook or waiter, if they are pious, is more important and greater than all the nobles and excellencies combined. I was outraged by my interlocutor’s attitude toward people of the lower classes, as if I were conversing with some high-flying aristocrat. I believe that priestless leaders are also drawn from cooks, janitors, shoemakers, painters, and the like. This should not be a humiliation for them but a glory. In ancient times, the pagan writer Celsus mocked Christianity, saying it consisted entirely of shoemakers. Indeed, in the early days of Christianity, shoemakers, tanners, and the most uneducated people were zealous preachers of Christianity and proclaimed Christ. I cannot dwell too long on explanations of this matter, but, frankly, I was deeply offended by my interlocutor’s exaggeration regarding the comparison of deacons to waiters. It is not good to play on the religious sentiments of Christians. Regarding the seven deacons, you should know that they later were not only table servants but also ministers at sacrificial altars. In the Epistles of St. Ignatius the God-Bearer, it is said: “To deacons, ministers of the mysteries of Jesus Christ, all must show every respect, for they are not servants of food and drink but servants of the Church of God” (Epistle to the Trallians, chapter II, p. 67). St. Cyprian of Carthage says: “Deacons must remember that the apostles, that is, bishops and leaders, were chosen by the Lord Himself, while deacons, after the Lord’s ascension to heaven, were appointed by the apostles as servants of their episcopal rank in the Church” (Works of St. Cyprian, part I, letter to Rogatianus, pp. 110–111, 1891 edition). Thus, it is indisputable that the condition of priestless Old Believers cannot be compared to deacons in any way. It is remarkable that priestless leaders, including my interlocutor, point to an example used in apostolic times by lawbreakers, which the apostles deemed it their duty to correct. In the first apostolic canon, it is said: “Let each remain in the rank given to them and not transgress the commandments: for they are not ours but God’s, as the Lord said: He who hears you hears Me, and he who hears Me hears Him who sent Me; and he who rejects you rejects Me, and he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me” (Slavic Nomocanon, sheet 30). In the second canon, it is said: “Those who seize what is not given to them provoke God, like the sons of Korah and King Uzziah: it is not fitting for a deacon to offer sacrifices, nor to baptize anyone, nor to give blessings, great or small; likewise, it is not fitting for a presbyter to perform ordinations or disrupt the priestly order, for those who dare to do such things do not contend with us but with the great High Priest, Christ” (ibid.). You see from this that the apostles, as it were, foresaw the condition of priestless leadership and therefore firmly declared that even presbyters have no right to appoint. At that time, during the apostles’ era, some referred to the deacon Philip, as our interlocutor does. What did the apostles reply to this reference? “For though Philip baptized the eunuch, and Ananias baptized me, Paul, they did not seize the episcopal rank for themselves but received authority from God, from the unordained High Priest” (ibid., sheet 30). It is clear that these examples cannot in any way justify the priestless position. Blessed Symeon of Thessalonica says: “As Luke says (about the election of the apostles), immediately (following this description), the Great and Only High Priest, who contains all in Himself and became all for us, appointed the first (i.e., the twelve apostles) as hierarchs and the second (the seventy disciples) as priests and sent them to preach before His face” (Book of Blessed Symeon of Thessalonica, Russian translation, vol. II, p. 303). Christ appointed the apostles as hierarchs and priests, and this was done even before the day of Pentecost. Therefore, my interlocutor rightly cites the words of the Book of Faith that the last ordinance will follow the first. Absolutely correct. In the same Book of Faith, it is said: “And I will appoint your judges as before, and your counselors as at the beginning, meaning spiritual ones” (Book of Faith, sheet 12 verso). Thus, at the end of the world, as at the beginning of the Church’s life, there must be all three ranks of the hierarchy: bishops, priests, and deacons. Therefore, my interlocutor’s question—what should be done when none of these exist?—is entirely idle. There will never be a time when the Church is governed by laypeople. But the question arises: Do laypeople have the right to elect spiritual persons? Yes, they do; the seven deacons were elected by them, but the latter were ordained by the apostles. Thus, even now, ordination must come from episcopal authority. Priestless leaders and the Pomorian Council also affirm that election alone does not grant the right to perform sacraments and conduct church affairs. In the Proceedings of the Pomorian Council, it is said: “Our spiritual fathers are elected by the community or parish. This election does not grant the right to be an overseer” (Proceedings, part I, p. 22). And what grants the right to be an overseer? Who transfers this authority to them? Here is who: “This right is received by the elected only when another overseer blesses them for the office. This blessing was called by some Christians ‘appointment.’ So our ancestors expressed it” (ibid.). “Appointment” is not some empty formality, like placing someone on a chair or table. By “appointment,” what is meant here is the transmission of special gifts for performing sacraments, the transmission of authority and power to govern the church. The priestless claim that this transmission is given through the blessing of leaders, using even the hierarchical term “appointed.” Therefore, I ask my interlocutor, as I did before: What Holy Scripture or church canons justify such a spiritual-ministerial and hierarchical condition and designation of priestless leaders? I have posed this question in three speeches and received no answer. I would like my interlocutor to answer this question at least now. Therefore, I pose it again and insist on it.

Fourth Speech by F. F. Rumyantsev

Esteemed assembly, I request your deep attention. F. E. states that the purpose of our conversations is to clear the path for unification and to decide around whom we should unite. This is a noble goal, and perhaps God will help us determine which side has preserved the true faith, to which we should join. I must say in advance that the issue is not about the outward appearance of the priesthood but its spiritual meaning. My interlocutor claims that we appropriate not only priestly rights but also episcopal ones. As I have already said and now repeat, we have not appropriated and do not appropriate what belongs to bishops and presbyters. This is imposed on us by the esteemed interlocutor himself. We only exercise the rights granted to unordained laypeople. There is no need for us to unlawfully seize what does not belong to us, and even more so, God has no need for such intermediaries. Can God not save the faithful without these mediators? But who appropriates what is unlawful will be discussed later. The esteemed interlocutor points out that I allegedly acted dishonestly in our conversation regarding his words about the seven deacons. Dear listeners, I draw your special attention: Did I give cause to liken the holy apostles to modern waiters? You did that yourself, and now, feeling the bitterness of your own words, you seek to justify yourself. I cannot help but draw your attention, dear listeners, to the contradiction of the esteemed interlocutor. In the first conversation, F. E. tried to prove, citing Holy Scripture, that the seven men had no sacred ordination, that these apostles had no ordination at all, that they were simple table servants, and thus he compared them to cooks and bread distributors. Now, he has abandoned this position and argues the opposite—that they were not only bread distributors, cooks, and waiters but were ordained and served at the altar. I believe those who attended that conversation and are present now have noticed how the esteemed interlocutor has diverged in his views. If anyone played on religious sentiments, it was F. E. Melnikov. Further, he says that our leaders received special rights, citing the resolutions of the council’s proceedings, sheet 10: “If these gentle measures do not heal them, then the spiritual fathers must correct such persons with measures appropriate to their authority, remembering the words of the Apostle.” Does this say that our spiritual fathers are granted the same rights as bishops and presbyters? You have invented this meaning yourself. The apostolic words are: “Remembering your own weakness when correcting a brother.” Do these words of the Apostle grant special rights—episcopal or priestly? These words instruct that if a sinner falls into transgression, they must be corrected with a spirit of meekness, but there is not a word about episcopal rights. Citing the words I read from the Book of Faith, that the first ordinance aligns with the last, or the last with the first, my esteemed interlocutor claims that on sheet 12 verso of the Book of Faith, it is said: “until the second coming of Christ, there will be a three-tiered hierarchy.” I must read it again to remind you that in the cited passage, there is not a single word stating that the hierarchy will persist until the second coming. I read from the Book of Faith, sheet 12 verso: “But if the adversary says that it was so from the beginning, and now the pagans have overtaken all those holy places, and all have been trampled.” Here, there is not a word regarding the three-tiered hierarchy or its eternal existence. By citing the Book of Faith, my interlocutor draws entirely incorrect conclusions—that is a matter for his conscience. F. E. tried to prove that the first apostolic men had ordained deacons who served at altars. But when was this? Do you distinguish the time? St. Chrysostom and Canon 16 of the Sixth Ecumenical Council explain: “Having called the twelve to the multitude of disciples, they said: It is not desirable that we should leave the word of God and serve tables. Therefore, brethren, select from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. On this basis, we proclaim that the aforementioned seven deacons should not be regarded as ministers of the sacraments, according to the stated teaching, but as those entrusted with stewardship for the common needs of those gathered then.” It is clear from this what dignity these men had and what ordination they received. There were no deacon ranks in the churches then, and if there were none, the apostles could not ordain them into these ranks. “Therefore, I believe that neither the name of deacons nor presbyters was known or used.” So says Chrysostom, and this is confirmed by the Sixth Ecumenical Council. F. E. initially agreed with this, which is why he likened them to waiters and cooks, but now he argues the opposite—that they were ordained and served in the sacraments. As for what my interlocutor read from the Nomocanon on sheet 30, that it is impossible to seize what is not granted, we have never asserted or confessed the opposite—that one should seize what is not granted or appropriate rights. If Philip baptized, it was not by his own authority but by that granted by the Lord God. Likewise, if we perform the duties necessary for the salvation of Christians, it is not because we seized what was not granted but because these rights were granted by Christ Himself. Dear brethren, that election for service and governance of the community is not contrary to the teachings of Christ’s Church, in addition to the testimonies I cited, I will refer to a historical fact. In the Kingdom of Poland, when Orthodox bishops deviated into false teachings, the faithful elected leaders from among themselves. In the Acts of Southern and Western Russia, a defender of Orthodoxy recounts this, page 210: “It is better for you to go to church without bishops and priests appointed by the devil and to preserve Orthodoxy than to be with bishops and priests not called by God, to be in the church and mock it, and trample Orthodoxy. For it is not priests, bishops, or metropolitans who save us, but the mystery of our Orthodox faith with the keeping of God’s commandments—that alone can save us. Therefore, choose your pastor thus: first, select several persons, attested by their life and reason, as pious and truly faithful; then appoint a day and fast, hold a vigil, gather in the church, and pray to God that He may grant and reveal a pastor to you, whose lot you test among those named. The merciful God will not despise your prayer, will grant you a pastor, and reveal him, whom you shall accept as your pastor.” Thus it says: Do not follow apostates, but choose a pastor from among yourselves. “Do not accept these accursed bishops, and pray that they be driven away.” So too, our ancestors of blessed memory, when pastors became apostates, did not follow them but, based on church practice, elected leaders from among themselves and continued their existence under their governance. To claim that we introduce something new is something only F. E. can do. Any imposition of what does not exist does not do honor. Recall that I asked my esteemed interlocutor whether Christians, upon the loss of the Orthodox priesthood, have the right to elect overseers of Christ’s Church from among themselves. Despite posing this question several times, my esteemed interlocutor provided no testimony and did not answer my question. I ask you again, F. E. My interlocutor says that we allegedly deviated from the Orthodox priesthood and, in defiance of it, elect our leaders and overseers. But you know well that we do this not in defiance of the Orthodox priesthood but because of its absence. To supplement this question, I wish to ask my interlocutor: Are we guilty for not following a heretical, false priesthood and instead governing ourselves with faithful people elected from among us? I must add that the practice of the holy Church shows that persons without sacred ordination were elected to govern the church. We see in the Prologue, February 23, the life of St. Alexander the Monk: “Alexander converted many from pagan delusion, baptized a robber, and departed to the desert, where he labored for 20 years, spending nights in the mountains and hiding in ravines by day. When they learned of him, four hundred monks from nine nations gathered to him and made him their abbot, and he divided them into ten monasteries, each separately.” Did he have priestly ordination? From what was read, it is clear that he did not. Simple monks elected him as their abbot, their overseer, clearly testifying that there is no contradiction with the teachings of Christ’s Church in electing from among themselves to govern the church. And Chrysostom says: “One is to command, and others to obey.” For what purpose? For order. The divine Apostle says: “Let everything in the church be done decently and in order.” My time is running out, and I again ask my interlocutor to answer the two questions I have posed.

Fifth Speech by F. E. Melnikov

Esteemed assembly! It is very easy to answer my interlocutor’s question. He asks what to do when the entire priesthood perishes—whether it is possible then to elect new leaders to guide the people. I have already answered this question in today’s speech. Such a question is unthinkable because the Church can never be in a state where the priesthood is completely destroyed in the world. It would be as if someone asked me: If all women stopped giving birth, is it forbidden for men to give birth? I would say: That is an absurd question. Men can never give birth, and of course, there is no prohibition against it. But let them try. Likewise, in Christ’s Church: since Christ established the priesthood for all eternity, it will exist until the end of the age. To ask what to do when it no longer exists is to strike at empty air. Or if someone asked: When Christ is no longer here, what then? Can one be saved without Christ? But that can never happen, and such a question is not only meaningless but blasphemous. Reference was made here to a testimony (without mentioning its author) from the Acts of Southwestern Russia, stating that one should not be guided by priests appointed by the devil and that it is better to remain without them. Absolutely correct. And since we, Old Believers who accept the priesthood, recognize that priestless leaders are not appointed by Christ but by His adversary, we remain without these leaders. Who, indeed, appoints leaders among the Pomorians? Not Christ, but simple peasants; they act not by the Holy Spirit. These are the ones “appointed by the devil,” and one can be saved without them. In the Book of Faith, an explanation is given for the situation when the church in Poland was in a difficult state for some time, which was resolved not by electing simple peasants as spiritual leaders but by the following: “No small miracle,” we read here, “in the restoration of holiness: for our holy church, lacking a metropolitan and Orthodox bishops, whom Jesus Christ Himself appointed with bodily eyes, was blind, like a body without eyes. But through the restoration of that holiness, it regained sight and sees by the grace of Christ. Truly, this is a glorious miracle” (Book of Faith, sheet 213). The church of that time, when only “priests appointed by the devil” remained, did not turn to self-appointed leaders but to a patriarch who ordained a hierarch, thereby restoring the church to a better state. You see how baselessly my esteemed interlocutor brings forth evidence in defense of his position. By all means, he tries to disown his leaders, saying, “They are simple laypeople,” while citing the Prologue of February 23, that Alexander the Monk was an abbot. True, in monasteries, it is permissible to elect an abbot by their own efforts, and such an election of an abbot to govern a monastery is possible. But when in the Church was there ever a case where simple peasants were appointed in place of pastors and considered to have successive grace from bishops? My interlocutor has not answered this question and never will. He accuses me of changing my opinion regarding the seven deacons. “Earlier,” he says, “Melnikov claimed that deacons served at tables, and now he states they were ministers of the sacraments.” Fortunately, I have the stenographic record of my speeches (it should be noted that the record is almost literally accurate). Here is what I said: “The apostles had authority from the Lord greater than even episcopal authority; they could establish the seven deacons in higher offices and duties. And so they did later” (see p. 21 in this book). Thus, the stenographic record supports me. I held the same view then—that deacons served at tables for a time under the apostles and later served at altars in the performance of sacraments. That is the entirety of my interlocutor’s speech. As you see, only pitiful scraps remain of it. There are no solid grounds for defending his leadership, nor can there be. He only disowns his leaders, saying they are not spiritual persons. Therefore, I find it necessary to remind you of the resolutions of the Pomorian Council. On sheet 2 of the council’s Resolutions, it is stated: “Our spiritual fathers should not be considered laypeople, as they receive, upon election by the parish and blessing by another spiritual father, the successively transmitted grace of the Holy Spirit for governing the church” (Proceedings of the Pomorian Council, sheet 2). It is indisputable that the Pomorian Council recognizes its leaders not as simple peasants, as my interlocutor portrays them when backed into a corner, but declares them spiritual persons with hierarchical qualities. In the proceedings of the Pomorian Council, Pichugin, the council’s inspirer, provides the following explanation of the state of Pomorian leadership: “The successively transmitted grace from our martyr Paul, Bishop of Kolomna, and other martyrs who died a martyr’s death in Solovki and on Lake Onega, grants our spiritual fathers the right to impart the grace of the Holy Spirit in the sacrament of holy baptism and to forgive sins in repentance” (ibid., part I, p. 6). They tell me that the right to baptize belongs to laypeople as well. This is permissible temporarily; in extreme cases, this right belongs to laypeople. But what kind of grace was discussed at the Pomorian Council? Listen to the important and precious words expressed by Pichugin for my conclusions: “Thus, our leaders, like all Christians, have the grace of the Holy Spirit and, in addition, successive blessing for governing the Church, and therefore they should be considered spiritual persons, not laypeople” (ibid., p. 6). This means they have grace, the same as all laypeople, and, in addition, successive blessing for governing the church, and therefore they should be considered spiritual persons, not laypeople. Here, two qualities and powers are sharply distinguished: one is worldly, through which the grace of the Holy Spirit is also imparted, and the other is hierarchical, successively graced, received from Bishop Paul. Here, the leaders seize authority even greater than that of a priest: they “appoint” spiritual persons, something priests have no right to do. The Pomorians tell an obvious falsehood about Bishop Paul of Kolomna. He could not have given them such a blessing; that would have been the greatest crime and lawlessness, the highest heresy. But the issue is not whether their historical reference is true, but that the Pomorians consider their leaders, through successively received episcopal grace, as special guides, spiritual persons, not laypeople. I ask: Where has the Church permitted such a state for leaders? What church canons justify their position? This is a newly invented, contrived hierarchy: it appoints not hierarchs but simple peasants. You give me no answer to this question. Remarkably, even at the priestless council, a dispute arose regarding the dignity of Pomorian leaders. We see that a certain Bezvodin stated that it is difficult for us to consider our leaders spiritual persons, “otherwise it would be ordination; let us replace this word with election” (Proceedings, part II, p. 20). Another council member, a certain Bolobkov, stated that this “significance is inherent only to bishops, and it is not possible for us to appropriate it” (ibid., p. 8). You see that at the Pomorian Council, the question of leaders was discussed, perhaps with greater detail and thoroughness than we are discussing today. They pointed out that it is impossible to consider them appointed leaders because that would imply they have episcopal authority. And yet, despite these protests and statements, the council resolved to consider its leaders spiritual persons, not laypeople. I cited from sheet 10 of the council’s Resolutions, where it is said that leaders “must correct such persons with measures appropriate to their authority, remembering the words of the Apostle (chapter 297), and only in extreme cases excommunicate them” (Proceedings of the Pomorian Council, sheet 10). My interlocutor tried to explain that these rights are not episcopal; whose then? I, for example, a layperson, do I have the right to excommunicate others from the Church? They will answer: You have no right. Even priests do not have this right. The Pomorian Council refers to chapter 297 of the Apostle, which speaks of Bishop Timothy, who had a hierarchical rank. The right to excommunicate belongs specifically to a bishop, not laypeople, as the Pomorian Council itself indicates. My interlocutor keeps trying to reduce the Church of the early times to a non-hierarchical state. I do not have the opportunity to elaborate on this in detail, but I will point out that both in the Gospel Commentary and in Blessed Theophylact’s Commentary on the Acts and Epistles, it is stated in many places that in apostolic times, there were deacons, priests, and bishops with the authority we know them to have now. On pages 61, 828, 829 (Commentary on the New Testament by Blessed Theophylact, Soykin edition), it is clearly established that there were deacons then; on pages 109 and 136, it is established that there were presbyters; on pages 825 and 884, it is established that there were bishops. Who does not know that in the Epistle to Timothy, the Apostle Paul writes that “a bishop must be blameless, the husband of one wife” (1 Timothy 3:2)? How dare Mr. Rumyantsev claim that there were no bishops in apostolic times? There were. Therefore, the quote he read from the Book of Faith, that “the last ordinance shall follow the first,” indicates the hierarchical state of the Church until the end of the world. Priestless leaders even have a rank. I have in my hands a priestless Book of Needs: “How, brother,” it says to the leader coming for confession, “and lord, and father, and even more so, child, are you without blemish and worthy to be a spiritual overseer? How long ago, and by whose desire, and by whom were you raised to this rank? Did you not seek this rank in any way?” (Priestless Book of Needs, sheet 161 and verso, 7421 edition). On sheet 162 of the Book of Needs, the following questions are posed to the leader: “Have you not transgressed your overseership, the teachings, and the apostolic traditions? Have you not renounced the name or duties of an overseer? Have you not sworn not to perform spiritual duties and, having transgressed, acted again?” “Have you not voluntarily abandoned the church in which you were appointed, and your flock, and have you not transferred to another without necessity or for some worldly gain?” (ibid., sheet 162 and verso). From this, it is clear that the Pomorians consider their leaders not simple peasants but hierarchical persons with a spiritual rank. Such a state of laypeople in the Church cannot exist. But this is not all—that leaders have appropriated spiritual authority and seized it for themselves. Leaders are in yet another position. I read from sheet 67 of the Nomocanon: “Question: If non-ordained men or women, or monks, baptize, what should be done? Answer: If the baptized dies before a priest can reach them, divine grace completes it; but if they live, a priest must place them in the font again and perform the prayers and chrismation according to custom.” There are only two ways for an infant baptized by a layperson to receive the grace of the Holy Spirit. The first is when the infant dies; only then is the grace of the Holy Spirit imparted to them in the next world. Thus, priestless leaders, as baptized by laypeople, even if they were faithful, would receive grace only after death, yet they, still living, perform baptisms. So, for those baptized by laypeople, simple peasants, who have not received the grace of the Holy Spirit (which is granted after death), I ask: Is it possible for them to perform sacraments? No. The second way to receive grace, as defined in this Nomocanon, is through the completion of the sacrament with the arrival of a priest. But the priestless never wait for a priest, and this way of receiving grace is unthinkable for them. Through their leadership, the priestless destroy the fundamental principles of church life. Their leadership goes against Christ’s stewardship. The power and authority to perform sacraments are granted only through the priesthood. On sheets 34 verso and 35 of the Small Catechism, it is said: “The priesthood, established by Christ in the apostles, through their laying on of hands on bishops, and from bishops on priests, who are consecrated by church rite for the performance of holy sacraments and the teaching of Christ’s saving doctrine”; “no one has the power of ordination except bishops” (Small Catechism, sheets 34 verso and 35). But the Pomorians have appropriated ordination, or, as they call it, “appointment,” to simple peasants, who were never baptized by a spiritual person and who, even if pious, could receive grace only after death. Such a state is doubly deadly and triply criminal. Blessed Symeon of Thessalonica says: “If some, by God’s allowance, are so bold as to impiously and without faith (for this is unbelief) take upon themselves the priesthood without being ordained and perform priestly duties, there are no words to express the severity of the condemnation awaiting such a person. Their actions are worse than those of the most impious and are akin to demons, who transform into angels of light without being so, and mimic God’s actions while being godless and adversaries of God. Thus, such people will face the greatest and inexpressible punishment for so blaspheming divine things. Their words and actions are not divine: since they lack the grace of ordination, they will bear punishment for those they deceive—those baptized or ordained by them—since they themselves are neither ordained nor baptized. He who has nothing gives nothing, and no one receives anything from one who has nothing, even if they think otherwise. Thus, the deceived, thinking they are baptized or ordained, have neither, and their perdition is the fault of the deceiver” (Book of Blessed Symeon of Thessalonica, Russian translation, vol. III, pp. 147–148). You see from this statement of the blessed father that if anyone in Christ’s Church, by God’s allowance, takes upon themselves pastoral duties without being ordained, they are considered the most heinous criminal, so grave that the holy father cannot find a fitting word to condemn such a state. It is akin to the state of a demon who deceitfully transforms into an angel. Such is the judgment and condemnation pronounced on priestless leadership. They may say that Pomorian leaders do not wear vestments. But consider that Blessed Symeon of Thessalonica directed this condemnation against Protestants, whose pastors (leaders) do not wear sacred vestments (just like Pomorian overseers) and perform their sacraments in simple coats. Nevertheless, the blessed father considers them worse than all impious people because they have appropriated authority without sacred-hierarchical ordination. Therefore, I pose the question to my interlocutor: How is such a lawless state of priestless leadership justified—by what Scripture, by what patristic saying? If my interlocutor is unable to answer this question, his conscience obliges him to admit sincerely and openly that this criminal state cannot be justified by anything or in any way.

Fifth Speech by F. F. Rumyantsev

Deeply esteemed assembly, the justification for electing leaders and overseers has been proven by church practice and the words of Christ the Savior Himself—that governance of the church is entrusted to those who remain faithful. It is interesting, dear listeners, that my esteemed interlocutor claims, “They have unlawfully seized authority for themselves, as if in defiance of the Orthodox priesthood.” But the Orthodox priesthood strayed into false teachings in 1666, and you agree with this. Thus, for 180 years, the Austrians had no bishop until they found Ambrose. You accuse us of proclaiming in the present time the non-existence of the Orthodox priesthood, calling such a claim blasphemous. But how did it happen that for 180 years there was no episcopate? If there is no episcopate, there is no priesthood. I have proven that the true priesthood will fall, as foretold by the prophet Daniel, chapter 12: “When the scattering of the power of the holy people is complete, all these things will be fulfilled.” Show me where it is written that those who do not follow a heretical, false priesthood are guilty. Regarding the historical fact I cited about the Kingdom of Poland, F. E. said, “Who appoints them? They are appointed not by Christ but by the devil.” Esteemed interlocutor, our spiritual persons are elected by the people, and as for false priests, indeed, they are appointed by the devil. F. E. claims that we refuse to call our leaders and overseers spiritual persons. I do not say they are not spiritual, but they are not sacred persons. My interlocutor pointed to sheet 2 of the Proceedings of the Council, saying they are called spiritual, not worldly. To show you that the words “not worldly” are not in the cited passage and were added by F. E. himself, I will read the passage: “Our spiritual fathers should not be considered laypeople, as they receive, upon election by the parish and blessing by another spiritual father, the successively transmitted grace of the Holy Spirit for governing the church.” Where does it say not to consider them worldly? That is your invention. As I said, our spiritual fathers are so because they perform spiritual duties, which can be fulfilled not only by sacred persons but also by laypeople. F. E. says, “The faithful receive grace only after passing from this life to the next.” But that is your justification. You act dishonestly, taking detours instead of going straight. The cited words refer to a time when the Orthodox priesthood still existed, meaning that if a person is born and there is no priest nearby, they can be baptized by a layperson and later chrismated by a priest. Is baptism by a layperson considered true? That is another question, which I now address. St. Theodore the Studite, in part II, page 82, says: “For the unbaptized, it is better, if no Orthodox person is found to perform baptism, to be baptized by a monk or, in the absence of one, by a layperson, pronouncing: ‘Such a one is baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,’ rather than depart unillumined; and they become truly baptized.” See, esteemed interlocutor, your argument does not withstand any scrutiny. It is stated here that if there is no Orthodox priest, one can be baptized by a layperson, and this will be a true baptism, through which grace is received. You are discussing the wrong aspect. You ask where there is a church rule allowing laypeople to govern it. John Chrysostom says that it is bad to be without a leader. I read from page 3113 in his Homilies on the Fourteen Epistles: “Anarchy is evil everywhere, the cause of many troubles, and the beginning of disorder and confusion: especially in the church, it is exceedingly unstable.” But it is even worse if the leader is evil: “But let no one say to us that it is a third evil when the leader is evil. I know this is no small evil, but it is far worse than anarchy.” It is better to have no leader than to be led by an evil one: “For it is better to be led by no one than by an evil one. The former may often be saved, and often fall into trouble; the latter will certainly fall into trouble, being led into a pit.” Following such a heretical, false pastor will lead straight to the pit. Regarding the need to obey leaders, the Apostle Paul says: “How then does Paul say, ‘Obey your leaders and submit to them’? What then, he says, if the leader is evil, should we not obey? Evil, you say? If it is regarding faith, flee from him and reject him, not only if he is a man but even if he is an angel descended from heaven; but if it is regarding life, do not judge.” It is better to have no leader than to be under the authority of an evil pastor. From this, my esteemed interlocutor, it follows that your argument is unjust and crumbles to dust. You mentioned the Book of Needs of the Preobrazhensky community, but I must say that discussing it is not relevant to our conversation. When you converse with the Preobrazhensky community, then mention it. In general, in our conversations, you touch on parties whose views are not subject to discussion here, so I, valuing time, leave them unaddressed. As for my interlocutor’s claim that deacons were altar servers, that was when bishops already existed. Before that, the seven deacons were entrusted with household management and caring for the sustenance of widows and orphans. The validity of my claim is proven by the Sixth Ecumenical Council: “There was no bishop, only the apostles alone… The seven deacons should not be regarded as ministers of the sacraments.” See, esteemed interlocutor, you are not opposing me but the Sixth Ecumenical Council. When bishops appeared, then priestly ranks emerged. My esteemed interlocutor does not wish to distinguish these different times—when there were no bishops and when they appeared. “According to the stated teaching, they were those entrusted with stewardship for the common needs of those gathered then.” I already mentioned that evangelists were greater than bishops; they labored in divine work, as St. Chrysostom tells us. I read from page 1688 in his Homilies: “Those who did not travel everywhere but only preached, such as Priscilla and Aquila. Pastors and teachers, to whom an entire people was entrusted. What then? Were pastors and teachers lesser? Indeed, greatly so; those who traveled and preached, sitting and laboring in one place, like Timothy and Titus.” This shows that pastors were lesser than “those greatly traveling and preaching,” who labored more than bishops because the latter sat in one place, while they preached the Gospel everywhere, endured various troubles and hardships, and bore countless burdens, as the Apostle Paul says. Thus, dear brethren, my esteemed interlocutor says that Bishop Paul of Kolomna could not have blessed the leaders, as that would, in his opinion, violate church order. But you only mentioned Paul of Kolomna without providing any evidence. You should know that Paul of Kolomna could not restore the priestly rank because he was deprived of his rank by Patriarch Nikon and exiled. By citing Symeon of Thessalonica, my interlocutor showed how unjustly he uses excerpts from the works of the holy fathers. Symeon of Thessalonica, on sheet 392 verso, says: “If some, by God’s allowance, come to such boldness as to impiously and faithlessly (for this is such unbelief) take upon themselves the priesthood without ordination, performing priestly duties, there are no words to express the condemnation for such a state: it is worse than the deeds of the most impious and akin only to demons, who transform into angels of light without being so…” Now the question arises: Are we taking upon ourselves the priesthood unlawfully? If anyone tries to prove this, it is solely F. E. Nowhere, neither in the time of our ancestors nor among us, nor in our council proceedings, will you find that we seize the priesthood. “For their words are not divine, nor their deeds divine, since they lack the grace of ordination, and they will face punishment for those they deceive or ordain. For they are neither ordained nor baptized.” What does a bishop do? He ordains. A presbyter celebrates the liturgy. Do we perform such deeds? We perform what the holy Church allows for the unordained. In the absence of an Orthodox priesthood, the right to baptize is granted to laypeople. I ask you, where is it said that people are subject to punishment for exercising this right? “He who has nothing gives nothing, and the deceived, thinking they are baptized or ordained, are neither, and the deceiver is guilty of their perdition.” Those who, without true ordination in the succession of the holy apostles, pass themselves off as priests to deceive the people are indeed subject to this condemnation: they are worse than demons. Dear listeners, as far as possible, I have addressed the testimonies cited by my interlocutor, though they are irrelevant. Now I ask my esteemed interlocutor: Let him show where in Scripture it is forbidden, when the Orthodox priesthood ceases, for Christians to elect overseers from among themselves, and where it is written that if people do not follow a heretical and false priesthood, they are subject to church punishment.

Sixth Speech by F. E. Melnikov

Esteemed assembly! In his last speech, my interlocutor tried to evade my question and not only the question but the very subject of today’s conversation. He began speaking about the priesthood not being eternal. I could gather a thousand proofs that the priesthood will endure forever, but I cannot present them in this conversation, as there will be a specific conversation dedicated to resolving that question. He also spoke about how we, Old Believers, had no bishops for 180 years. I declare that there will also be a separate conversation on this matter, and let my interlocutor present his evidence then. I will not address this point today. Furthermore, he tried to prove that in apostolic times there was no division of the hierarchy into three ranks: bishops, priests, and deacons, citing a single passage from Chrysostom’s commentary on Canon 16 of the Sixth Ecumenical Council. But it does not say there was no hierarchy in apostolic times; it says there was no division in names, which is a vast difference. We know that Catholics call their supreme hierarch, the universal patriarch, “pope.” This title applies to every parent: every father is called a pope. But in Rome, this word carries an entirely different meaning: there, “pope” denotes not an ordinary parent (as we understand it) but the supreme hierarch. Similarly, in apostolic times, at the very beginning of apostolic life, although there was no division into bishops, priests, and deacons by name, in reality, in essence—in authority and power—this division existed. Here, St. Chrysostom says on sheet 135 of his Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles: “Although there was not yet a single bishop, only the apostles themselves.” This refers to the moment when the apostles had not yet ordained their successors. Absolutely correct, since they had not ordained them, they did not exist. I read further: “Hence, I believe neither the name of deacons nor presbyters was yet known or defined; but then they were ordained for this. And the authority was not simply given to them; they prayed over them to grant them strength” (Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles, Homily 14). The same Chrysostom, whom my interlocutor cited, explains here how his words should be understood. The apostles ordained a whole series of bishops. I will name the well-known ones— Titus and Timothy. In the Book of Faith, on nearly the same sheet cited by my interlocutor, it is said: “As the holy Apostle Luke the Evangelist writes about this: There was, he says, at that time a great persecution against the Jerusalem church, not the one built by Solomon, which the Jews then controlled, but the one of those who believed in Christ, understand persecution. For then, the churches of the faithful were not yet being built. And from this, it is well understood that it was revealed there. At that time, King Herod laid hands to harm some from the church, killed James, the brother of John, with the sword; the same would have happened to Peter, had not the church’s prayer aided him. Another James, the Lord’s brother according to the flesh, the first bishop of Jerusalem, appointed by Christ Himself, was killed by the cruelty of the Jews” (Book of Faith, sheet 24). Christ Himself appointed bishops. How, then, does Mr. Rumyantsev deny their existence? They were the apostles. I consider the question of the state of the hierarchy in apostolic times resolved. I have indisputably established that bishops, priests, and deacons existed then, and if my interlocutor himself cites the Book of Faith, that the last ordinance will follow the first, then it follows that this hierarchical state in three ranks will exist until the end of the world. Therefore, I declare that my interlocutor’s question about what to do when the priesthood is destroyed is unacceptable; it cannot exist. It is as if one asked: What will shine when there is no sun? Such a state will not exist until the end of the world. Further, my interlocutor refers to the Proceedings of the Pomorian Council, noting that I allegedly misread sheet 2. Allow me to read it again. The question posed is: “Resolve collectively whether to consider our spiritual fathers as spiritual persons or as laypeople like the rest of the laity. Do they possess the successively transmitted grace of the Holy Spirit?” The question is clear. My interlocutor said: We did not resolve such a question, but I say: Yes, you did. And here is the council’s response: “Our spiritual fathers should not be considered laypeople” (ibid., sheet 2). They should not be; they are not laypeople. This is emphasized repeatedly, almost in every resolution of the council regarding leadership. After the question was adopted in the sense of considering leaders not as laypeople, the council chairman addressed the leaders with these words: “Beloved spiritual fathers! I dare to greet you not as ordinary mortals but as our spiritual persons. We entrust to you our entire spiritual life; we recognize you as physicians who, according to the statutes of the holy Church, heal our spiritual ailments” (Proceedings of the Pomorian Council, part I, p. 31). Tell me honestly, is this a worldly state? Is this how one speaks of laypeople? No. It is clearly and definitively established here that among the priestless, there exists a distinct hierarchy, spiritual persons with hierarchical rights, which are compared to priestly and even episcopal rights. In this case, I am fully entitled to condemn Pomorian leaders with the words of Symeon of Thessalonica as self-appointed persons without episcopal ordination. I read from the priestless Book of Needs that the Pomorians have a special rite of confession for their leaders, as for spiritual and sacred persons, which asks about the ranks and degrees of leadership. My interlocutor said that I am reading not a Pomorian Book of Needs but a Fedosian one. True, it was printed by the Fedosians. But here is what is said, for example, on sheet 13 of the Proceedings of the Pomorian Council: We need “to print a single Service Book and Book of Needs,” and then they resolve that the books printed by the Preobrazhensky community can be used. If our interlocutor does not trust the Book of Needs I cited, which priestless leaders follow, he should have pointed to his own Book of Needs, but he did not. Leadership for the priestless, and especially for my interlocutor, is like a noose that, no matter how you pull it, will still strangle. F. F. fears to acknowledge his leaders as spiritual persons because I ask: How can such a hierarchy be established and justified? And there is no answer to this. Yet, at the same time, he fears to reject his council, which so clearly and definitively resolved that leaders are hierarchical persons. Remarkably, the same F. F., when addressing issues outside the context we have now, gives different explanations for his leaders. Here, gentlemen, yesterday in Russkoe Slovo, it was reported that my interlocutor, Rumyantsev, filed a complaint with the Senate against the Minister of Finance, who subjected Rumyantsev to paying an apartment tax in Moscow. Rumyantsev argues in his petition that he is a spiritual person and should therefore be exempt from the tax. When it comes to money, F. F. declares himself a spiritual person to avoid the apartment tax, but when I corner him and ask: On what basis do you act as a hierarchical person?—he denies it with hands, feet, and especially his tongue: “No, I am not a spiritual person.” God forbid the Senate finds out—it might increase the apartment tax even more. My interlocutor tried to prove with the words of John Chrysostom that when the church’s leaders are evil, it is better to be led by no one. Why did he cite this testimony of the holy father? If by no one, then why have you established self-appointed leadership when it is possible to remain without pastoral guidance? Where does Chrysostom command having self-appointed leaders and entrusting them with “your entire life,” as Mr. Pichugin expressed it? If Chrysostom allowed a state where the Church might temporarily lack pastoral guidance, he also says: Nevertheless, you must not remain without the priesthood. “It is truly madness not to respect such authority, without which we cannot attain salvation or the promised blessings. If no one can enter the kingdom of heaven unless born of water and the Spirit (John 3:5), and he who does not eat the flesh of the Lord and drink His blood is deprived of eternal life (John 6:53), and all this is accomplished by no one else but these sacred hands, that is, the hands of a priest, then how can anyone escape the fire of hell or receive the prepared crowns without their mediation? Priests are those men to whom spiritual birth and regeneration through baptism are entrusted; through them, we are clothed in Christ, buried with the Son of God, and become members of that blessed Head” (Works of St. John Chrysostom, vol. I, p. 418). Chrysostom, in his letters to Olympias, writes that if circumstances arose where there were no pastors, the Lord would again return the erring to Christ’s Church and restore with greater splendor what was “destroyed to its foundations and grown old” (Letters to Olympias, p. 15). It is clear that Chrysostom could never preach the lamentable, impious state in which the priestless find themselves. He believed that the priesthood must exist in the Church, and if he allowed for a temporary deviation of bishops, he said that God would restore them. Priestless leaders have seized not only priestly and episcopal authority but even more: they have seized conciliar authority. For example, on sheet 2 of the same council’s Proceedings, it is said that spiritual fathers must be granted the right to depose, excommunicate, and judge spiritual fathers. On page 22 of the Proceedings, it is indicated that the question of the right to judge spiritual persons has indeed been pre-resolved among the Pomorians: “Let it (the commission) also establish rules for the election and appointment of spiritual fathers. Establish the form of the letter of appointment for spiritual fathers. Determine who has the right to judge, excommunicate, and depose spiritual fathers in case they commit any unlawful act.” Further, on page 110, it is said that leaders even have sacred ranks: “A marriage, as lawful, must be duly blessed with prayer. But if anything is found contrary to this consideration, such a marriage, as unlawful, must not be blessed with prayer, under penalty of deposition from the overseer’s rank or stricter punishment” (Proceedings of the Pomorian Council, part II, p. 110). On page 148 of the same council book, a resolution is recorded regarding one leader. The council resolved: “The leader of Troitsk, Orenburg Province, Mikhail Nikiforovich Stepanov, is found guilty of deliberately improper marriage of his daughter to Feodor, the son of Alexei Ivanovich Polyakov, in the fifth degree of spiritual kinship, and is deposed from the duties of leader and spiritual father.” “Our resolution, in a copy, is to be announced to the deposed leader M. N. Stepanov, the dismissed council chairman S. Z. Egorov, and the interested Christian community of Troitsk under signatures, which are to be attached to this case.” You see that, by elevating their simple peasants, who have not even received lawful baptism, to a spiritual rank with the rights of priesthood and episcopacy, the Pomorians have also appropriated the right to depose them from that rank. If they are laypeople, on what basis do they judge, excommunicate, and depose their leaders for sins? Who gave them this right? At the Stoglav Council, the question of episcopal judgment was addressed and thoroughly resolved. In chapter 53, it is said: “It is not fitting for princes, boyars, or any Moscow judges to summon priests or monks to judgment, nor to judge such persons; no layperson shall have authority over them, only the great conciliar church has authority over them and judges such persons according to the law of sacred canons. No prince, boyar, or worldly judge shall have authority over a priest, monastery, or monk, for all these are consecrated to God” (Stoglav, p. 179, Kozhanchikov edition, 1863). On page 189 of the same Stoglav Council, condemnation is pronounced on those laypeople who judge spiritual persons: “If any of them does not believe this to be so, being untroubled, they will be held under eternal condemnation and subject to eternal torments, and they will have as their adversaries in this age and the next the holy apostolic authorities Peter and Paul, and in the depths of hell they will be tormented, perishing with the devil and all the impious” (chapter 60). On page 199, it is said: “If any king, prince, or anyone of any rank judges an episcopal judgment or seizes or takes anything from holy churches or monasteries dedicated to God as an inheritance of eternal blessings, such persons, according to divine canons, will be condemned by God as sacrilegists and are under eternal anathema by the holy fathers” (chapter 63). On page 202, laypeople are condemned by the words of Cyprian, Metropolitan of Kyiv, for taking upon themselves episcopal judgment and judging spiritual leaders (chapter 65). Priestless leaders are considered spiritual persons in their community; as spiritual persons, if they commit a crime or sin, someone must judge them. They judge them themselves, being laypeople, thereby committing a series of crimes and lawlessness. In the Nomocanon, it is said that spiritual persons—bishops, priests, and deacons—can be judged only by a council of bishops. In Canon 12 of the Council of Carthage, it is said: “A bishop accused of some fault, if not judged by the entire council of that region, should be judged by twelve bishops; a presbyter by six; and a deacon by three” (Slavic Nomocanon, sheet 122 verso). In Canon 121 of the Nomocanon, it is said: “It is not fitting for a layperson to reproach, strike, revile, slander, or accuse a priest in person, even if the accusations are true. If a layperson dares to do this, let them be accursed, excommunicated from the church, separated from the Holy Trinity, and sent to Judas’s place. For it is written: You shall not speak evil of the ruler of your people. Likewise, one who dishonors an overseer.” Priestless leaders are considered overseers, spiritual persons, granted not only priestly but also episcopal authority; they are church governors and performers of sacraments. Pichugin says that the entire church life is placed in their hands. And yet, such eminent persons are judged by simple peasants, laypeople, among the Pomorians. Thus, they condemn themselves on two counts: on one hand, for seizing the episcopal rank; on the other, for deposing these hierarchs themselves while being laypeople. Therefore, the words of Symeon of Thessalonica apply precisely to them: “If some, by God’s allowance, are so bold as to impiously and without faith (for this is unbelief) take upon themselves the priesthood without being ordained and perform priestly duties, there are no words to express the severity of the condemnation awaiting such a person. Their actions are worse than those of the most impious and are akin to demons, who transform into angels of light without being so, and mimic God’s actions while being godless and adversaries of God. Thus, such people will face the greatest and inexpressible punishment for so blaspheming divine things. Their words and actions are not divine: since they lack the grace of ordination, they will bear punishment for those they deceive—those baptized or ordained by them—since they themselves are neither ordained nor baptized. He who has nothing gives nothing, and no one receives anything from one who has nothing, even if they think otherwise. Thus, the deceived, thinking they are baptized or ordained, have neither, and their perdition is the fault of the deceiver” (Book of Blessed Symeon of Thessalonica, Russian translation, vol. III, pp. 147–148). In this speech, I have presented another aspect of the state of Pomorian leaders, namely their spiritual judgment, and I ask my interlocutor: On the basis of which church canons do they judge and depose their spiritual, hierarchical persons, being themselves laypeople, simple peasants, and moreover, not baptized by lawful priesthood?

Sixth Speech by F. F. Rumyantsev

Esteemed assembly! My interlocutor asks what right we have to judge our overseers, being laypeople. The Church itself judges and grants this right to all who belong to it. Regarding your claim that we are not baptized by a lawful priest, I must say: We have true baptism upon us and perform this sacrament due to the absence of an Orthodox priesthood. We have true baptism from Christ’s Church. As for baptism by a heretical or false priest, such baptism is false, leading not to salvation but to perdition, and it is considered not baptism but rather defilement. To my interlocutor’s question—who granted us this right—I must say, dear listeners, that much has already been said about this in previous speeches, and for greater clarity, I will repeat once more. First and foremost, Christ the Savior Himself speaks about the right to govern the church: “And the Lord said, ‘Who then is that faithful and wise steward, whom his master will make ruler over his household?’” Christ the Savior says that this right will be given to those who are faithful. My arguments are based on these words of Christ the Savior. In 1666, only our ancestors of blessed memory remained faithful to the tradition of the holy Church. They did not follow the heretical and false priesthood, and since they remained faithful, by the word of Christ the Savior Himself, they received this right. Further: “Peter asked, as one who cares for all and is fervent for those who obey, and as a lover of brethren, and as one to whom the church has already been entrusted, whether this parable is spoken to all. The Lord did not directly answer his question but spoke covertly, saying that the parable is general, applying to all and to the faithful.” The Commentary also speaks of this: “What then, He said to the apostles; to those entrusted with teaching or protection, listen: ‘Who then is the faithful and wise steward and manager?’” It is clear and definitive: it is said that the right to govern the Church is given not only to the twelve apostles but to those who are faithful. “The parable, He said, is fitting for many.” From a certain time, the pastors strayed from the true path, and therefore our spiritual fathers, elected by the people, govern the Church not arbitrarily or voluntarily but according to the prophecy of Christ the Savior Himself. Despite the resolution of the 1909 council regarding spiritual fathers, stating that they should not be considered laypeople but spiritual persons, this was corrected, as F. E. himself noted and wrote in his book Is the Unification of Old Believerism Possible? I read from page 81. In the Proceedings of the Council, it is printed: “unacceptable,” but this was a misprint, corrected by the first All-Russian Pomorian Congress (see Proceedings of the Congress, p. 14). Despite all this, my interlocutor continues to point to this passage, completely forgetting the correction. Speaking of me, claiming that I deny spiritual rank with hands and feet, yet in my petition regarding the apartment tax, I stated that I belong to the spiritual rank. In saying so, F. E., you act in the highest degree unjustly. I do not deny being a spiritual father, but I deny sacred rank. Spiritual and sacred are different matters. You know well that spiritual fathers can be those without any sacred ordination. We call them spiritual persons because they perform spiritual duties, but to claim that our spiritual persons hold priestly ranks is your desire, arbitrarily imposed on us. Catching your interlocutor on words and trying to elicit laughter from the audience is unworthy of a decent interlocutor. Regarding my claim that the priesthood will cease, F. E. offered to provide a series of testimonies that this will not happen, but he did not do so. He pointed to the Book of Faith, asserting that it says the three-tiered hierarchy will endure until the end of the age, but that is not there. Comparing the priesthood to the sun, F. E. says that just as the sun will never cease to shine, so the priesthood will always endure. Regarding the sun, that is true, but it is foretold that the priesthood will fall, which came to pass in 1666. Pointing to Pichugin, F. E. says that he called our overseers not ordinary mortals but spiritual persons. I see nothing unlawful in Pichugin’s words. He greeted them as spiritual persons, as guardians of spiritual matters, a greeting they earn through their service. My esteemed interlocutor drew your attention to the words of Symeon of Thessalonica: “If some, by God’s allowance, come to such boldness as to impiously and faithlessly take upon themselves the priesthood without ordination, performing priestly duties…” This is indeed true. But we not only do not take it upon ourselves but condemn those who do so arbitrarily. We would rather remain under the governance of simple faithful persons than agree to recognize an unlawful hierarchy. As for the three ranks of the hierarchy, as if I deny their existence in apostolic times, this is not so—I never denied that there were bishops in apostolic times, as they were appointed by the apostles. I only pointed out the time when, under the apostles, there was not yet a three-tiered hierarchy, when the titles of bishops or presbyters did not yet exist, and the Church was governed by faithful persons who had no sacred ranks yet preached the Gospel and baptized, and you cannot dispute this in any way. As for your claim that only Chrysostom says they had no ordination, as Chrysostom said, so too did the Sixth Ecumenical Council confirm. Stronger proof is not required. St. Chrysostom and the Sixth Ecumenical Council speak of the time when priestly ranks did not yet exist, at the beginning of the Church. And as it was at the beginning, so, as said in the Book of Faith, it will be at the end. In his speech, F. E. compared us to Protestants, but this is another contradiction. In his book Is the Unification Possible?, he argues that there is no similarity between us and Protestants, yet here he says the opposite. Here are your words, I read from page 15: “Priestless Old Believers recognize the ancient priesthood as true, a genuine institution of Christ; they believe that this priesthood should exist in Christ’s Church, and if they do not have it in reality, it is only, as they claim, due to the unfortunate event that occurred with the hierarchy in 1666. Pomorian Old Believers believe in the ancient priesthood—L. F. Pichugin assures us—confessing it as true and divine, but they do not accept the priesthood that arose from the year 1666, and due to extreme necessity, they elect worthy persons for the spiritual service of their church.” Where do you speak the truth, F. E.: now, or in this book? You say that priestless Old Believers accept the true priesthood but, due to historical circumstances, recognize that such a priesthood no longer exists as it strayed from the true path, and there is no basis to accuse us for lacking a priesthood, as you have proven by not answering my repeatedly posed question—where is it written that we are guilty if we do not follow a heretical, false priesthood. Instead of answering this, you kept saying that whoever arbitrarily seizes priestly rank is subject to church punishment. This is clear without your explanations. As for the resolutions of our council, which our interlocutor repeatedly mentioned, I must say that in the resolutions of our first council, there is absolutely no mention of us appropriating priestly rights, which is especially clearly proven by the resolution of the second All-Russian Council. I read: “The spiritual rights and duties of leaders are determined by Holy Scripture pertaining to unordained pastors and by the customs left to the church by our ancestors of blessed memory.” Where here, esteemed interlocutor, is there even a hint that we appropriate priestly rights and rank? Like our ancestors of blessed memory, we, in the present time, recognize that overseers were and remain laypeople. As for spiritual persons, as they were spiritual fathers, so they remain spiritual fathers today. There is no arbitrary seizure here, as St. Theodore the Studite says: “In the absence of a priesthood, a layperson can do this, i.e., hear confession.” I have said this in previous speeches as well. Thus, dear listeners, my time is coming to an end, and as far as possible, I have addressed the testimonies cited by F. E. The crux of the matter is that I have proven that after that lamentable period when the Orthodox priesthood fell and was utterly destroyed, the truly faithful elect overseers from among themselves, in accordance with the Lord God’s decision. In the Gospel of Luke, it is said that faithful people can be stewards of the house, the Lord’s estate, and overseers of the community. As for your priesthood, the upcoming conversation will show whether it is true.

Seventh Speech by F. E. Melnikov

Esteemed assembly! My interlocutor’s last speech was very characteristic. Previously, he consistently denied his spiritual rank, or rather, state; now he says he is a spiritual person but not a sacred one. In this final speech, let him explain what a spiritual person means and what a sacred person means. For example, I, Melnikov, am a simple layman engaged in spiritual matters (these conversations); I could call myself a spiritual person. But am I an elected person for pastoral duties? Am I appointed as a leader to govern the church? Do I have the right and authority to excommunicate sinners from the Church, depose my spiritual peers, or remove them from their dignity and rank? I have no such right, even though I am considered a spiritual person. But are the spiritual persons among the Pomorians in such a state? Not at all. In the state I am in, even a woman could be, if she engages in spiritual matters. But in the state that priestless leaders are in, only lawfully ordained priests and bishops—or those who have arbitrarily seized hierarchical authority—can be. My interlocutor again refers to apostolic times, and here, to my fortune, he acknowledged that in apostolic times there was a three-tiered hierarchy but claims there was a moment when the apostles did not appoint bishops, when the Church was without hierarchy. This position has already been refuted by me, but I find it necessary to reiterate my evidence. I read from the Enlightener (p. 491) that the apostles, by their rank and hierarchical authority, were even above bishops and patriarchs. In the book of Blessed Symeon of Thessalonica, I read that the apostles were ordained by Christ before the day of Pentecost, as hierarchs and priests (vol. II, pp. 303–304). My esteemed interlocutor, of course, did not address these passages from patristic writings, which clearly confirm that the apostolic office, that is, hierarchical authority, existed in the Church before Pentecost. My interlocutor repeatedly referred to Christ appointing faithful and wise servants. “We are those faithful and wise servants,” says F. F. about himself, emphasizing this. But this is precisely your unfortunate predicament, from which you cannot escape: not all laypeople are considered faithful servants among you, and not they are given the right to govern the church, but only certain persons are singled out who appropriate the title of spiritual, hierarchical persons. Thus, this reference to faithful servants not only fails to justify the position of priestless leaders but further condemns them. My interlocutor pointed out that I, Melnikov, in my book Is the Unification of Old Believerism Possible? said that priestless Old Believers recognize the Orthodox priesthood. Yes, I said that priestless Old Believerism carries in its soul the idea of recognizing the lawful priesthood that existed before Patriarch Nikon. They do not reject the period from Nikon back to the apostles; but in their current life, they have taken such a wide step that they may have surpassed the Protestants with their pastors. They have seized even episcopal authority—that is the extent of the priestless usurpation. My interlocutor claims that the first Pomorian council erred, and the second corrected this error. First, my interlocutor speaks falsely: the second Pomorian council was not a council but the first congress. These are not the same. He says the council made a misprint. What kind of misprint is it when the Proceedings of the council clearly and definitively state before all Old Believerism that priestless leaders are not laypeople or simple folk but spiritual persons? Pichugin directly declares: “Our spiritual fathers are elected by the community or parish. This election does not grant the right to be an overseer. This right is received only when another overseer blesses the elected for the office. This blessing was called by some Christians ‘appointment.’ So our ancestors expressed it” (Proceedings of the Pomorian Council, part I, p. 22). “Appointment,” that is, ordination, the laying on of hands. Is this an error? This is heresy, worse than Protestant heresy; it can only be washed away when the priestless repent of this delusion. I summarize, brethren, our conversation on leadership. I have established that priestless leaders have seized hierarchical authority. Thus, in the council’s Proceedings (sheet 2, pp. 6, 24, 35, part I, and pp. 76, 77, part II), three characteristics of the Pomorian hierarchy are established: election, appointment, and succession. I have proven that leaders appropriate the keys, supposedly received from Bishop Paul of Kolomna (as stated in the council’s Proceedings on pp. 6, 8, 22, etc., part I). From the council’s Proceedings (sheet 10), it is clear that Pomorian leaders have the episcopal right to excommunicate from the church, have the right of “appointment” and succession (as stated on sheet 2, pp. 6, and 22, part I). In short, a new hierarchy with priestly and episcopal authority has been established among the Pomorians. Finally, I pointed out that the Pomorians have also seized conciliar rights, as they judge and depose their sinning leaders from their rank. On the other hand, it was proven, based on Holy Scripture, patristic books, and canonical resolutions, that such a state is unlawful, that this is the usurpation of what is not granted, that, as the apostles say in their second canon, it is a struggle against Christ. In a word, it is self-will and self-appointment, punished so severely by the Church that Blessed Symeon of Thessalonica says: I cannot even find fitting words to condemn such a state more strongly. What does our conversation on priestless leadership lead to? There are both positive and negative aspects. We see that the Pomorians, in their souls, strive for the priesthood. This idea lives deeply within them, and to realize it in life, they establish a new priesthood, thereby drawing closer to us, those with priests. By striving to establish a priesthood among themselves, they are already transforming into those with priests. The priestless state that was once led by simple peasants has passed into eternity; the priestless themselves are singing its requiem. This, I said, is the positive aspect, and it brings us closer to them. But here is the negative aspect. The Pomorians have fallen into a noose, as I put it: in conversing with us, they fear to acknowledge their leaders as the council recognized them. They now say that their leaders are laypeople, simple peasants. Yes, indeed, these are not only simple peasants but persons who have arbitrarily seized spiritual authority. These are criminals, condemned by the Church in the strictest manner. Moreover, these are persons who were not baptized by spiritual persons, never absolved of sins, never confessed to sacred persons, never anointed with chrism, and never partook of the Body and Blood of Christ. This is the negative aspect of the priestless state. I do not pose a question now, of course, but conclude that Old Believerism cannot unite around such clergy. We must seek another path for unification: a true, lawful priesthood!

Seventh Speech by F. F. Rumyantsev

Deeply esteemed assembly! F. E. calls us to unite around the priesthood, but this is a grave delusion: we must unite not around priests, many of whom are heretical and false, but around the faith of Christ. My interlocutor repeatedly claimed that we seized authority by electing overseers; but the church elects them, and since the church elected them, there is no unlawful usurpation. My interlocutor’s assurances that his testimonies against us are strong and irrefutable are in vain. This is merely self-assurance; he speaks so confidently not because he feels the indisputability of his evidence but because he is an adversary of our community. As for my interlocutor’s claim that we have surpassed Protestants, you wrote your book Is the Unification Possible? after our council, and in it, you argued that there is no similarity between us and Protestants. We hold to everything that came before us and seize nothing new, steadfastly following what our ancestors of blessed memory followed. If anyone has surpassed Protestants, it is those who, without lawful ordination, appoint bishops and priests. F. E. calls those who elect overseers and leaders criminals. Dear listeners, what crime have we committed, and which church canons have we violated? In all your speeches, you have not proven this. One can say anything, but that is not enough; it must be proven. As far as possible, I must remind you of the testimonies I cited in defense of our leadership. Dear listeners, in this conversation, I began by citing the words of Christ the Savior, who granted the right to govern the Church to those who preserve the purity of true faith. Then, I cited the words of John Chrysostom, who says that among brethren, one should command and others obey, which we follow due to the absence of a true priesthood. I also read several testimonies that, since the priesthood has ceased, the right to elect is granted to the faithful. I also read from the Acts of Southern Russia about the state of Christianity in the Kingdom of Poland. I will conclude the conversation with the words of the Book of Faith: “The last ordinance shall follow the first.” Dear brethren, those who listened attentively to this conversation will carry in their hearts and seal the understanding that if we suffer the need for a priesthood, it is only because it no longer exists, and we will not follow a heretical and false priesthood. I offer you my sincere gratitude for your attentive engagement with our conversation.