The Old Faith. -Pichugin

Apologetic Investigation by Lev Feoktistovich Pichugin

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

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

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

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

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

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

PREFACE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ic Xc Nī kā

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thus far concerning the finger-folding.

Chapter 2. Concerning the Naming of God as Darkness

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter 3. Blasphemy Against the Divine Name

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter 5

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thus far concerning the fugitive priesthood among the Old Believers.

Chapter 13. Concerning the Old Ritualists Holding the Belokrinitsa Priesthood

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thus far concerning the Spasovtsy.

Chapter 15. Concerning the Old Ritualists Fedoseevtsy and Filippovtsy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

The most lowly member thereof L. Pichugin

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

source