A History of Russian Christianity (Vol III) The Synodal Era and the Sectarians 1725 to 1894

A HISTORY OF RUSSIAN CHRISTIANITY Volume III

A HISTORY OF RUSSIAN CHRISTIANITY Volume III

The Synodal Era and the Sectarians 1725 to 1894

Daniel H. Shubin

Algora Publishing New York

© 2005 by Algora Publishing All Rights Reserved www.algora.com No portion of this book (beyond what is permitted by Sections 107 or 108 of the United States Copyright Act of 1976) may be reproduced by any process, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form, or by any means, without the express written permission of the publisher. ISBN: 0-87586-425-2 (softcover) ISBN: 0-87586-426-0 (hardcover) ISBN: 0-87586-427-9 (ebook) Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data — Shubin, Daniel H. A history of Russian Christianity / Daniel H. Shubin. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-87586-425-2 (pbk.: alk. paper) — ISBN 0-87586-426-0 (alk. paper) — ISBN 0-87586-427-9 (ebook) 1. Russia (Federation)—Church history. I. Title. BR932.S55 2004 274.7—dc22 2004012764

Cover photograph: Russian Orthodox Ceremony

Printed in the United States

To my wife, Anna Marie M. Shubin, without whose support this series would never have materialized.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PROLOGUE I. INTRODUCTION II. SOURCES III. ABBREVIATIONS

1 1 1 2

PART 7

3

THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY 118. EMPRESS CATHERINE I 119. EMPRESS ANNE 120. EMPRESS ELIZABETH 121. EMPRESS CATHERINE II 122. THE SECULARIZATION OF ECCLESIASTICAL PATRIMONY 123. METROPOLITAN ARSENI MATZEEVICH 124. PUBLICATION OF THE SLAVONIC BIBLE 125. THE OLD BELIEVERS — THE NON-PRIEST GROUP 126. THE OLD BELIEVERS — THE PRIEST GROUP 127. BACKGROUND OF THE SECTARIAN MOVEMENT 128. THE KHRISTOVSHIN (KHLISTI) 129. THE IKONOBORTZI 130. THE DUKHABORS 131. THE JUDAIZERS 132. THE MOLOKANS 133. DECLINE OF RUSSIAN ORTHODOXY 134. GRIGORI SAVVICH SKOVORODA 135. TSAR PAVEL PETROVICH 136. SAINTS AND ELDERS OF THE 18TH CENTURY 137. THE CORONATION OF RUSSIAN SOVEREIGNS

ix

5 5 8 13 17 22 24 33 35 41 43 45 60 62 69 70 80 83 87 88 91

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. III PART 8

93

THE NINETEENTH CENTURY 138. TSAR ALEXANDR I PAVLOVICH 139. THE RUSSIAN BIBLE SOCIETY AND THE PUBLICATION OF THE RUSSIAN BIBLE 140. THE OLD BELIEVERS 141. TSAR NIKOLAI I PAVLOVICH 142. TSAR ALEXANDR II NIKOLAEVICH 143. TSAR ALEXANDR III ALEXANDROVICH AND ATTORNEY-GENERAL KONSTANTIN PETROVICH POBEDONOSTSEV 144. THE KHRISTOVSHIN (KHLISTI) 145. THE SKOPTZI 146. THE MOLOKANS 147. THE DUKHOBORS 148. BROTHERHOOD OF THE RIGHT SIDE 149. THE NEW ISRAEL 150. THE STUNDISTS 151. THE PASHKOVTZI (CHRISTIAN EVANGELICALS) 152. THE BAPTISTS 153. THE PENTECOSTALS 154. BOGO-CHELOVECHESTVO 155. THE MALEVANTZI 156. THE RUSSIAN MENNONITES 157. THE MINORITY DISSENTERS AND SECTARIANS 158. COUNT LEO TOLSTOY AND THE TOLSTOYANS 159. MYSTICS AND MONASTERIES 160.ECCLESIASTICAL STATISTICS PERTAINING TO THE SYNODAL ERA

95 95

116 121 124 131 140 148 152 160 170 173 179 181 184 188 191 198 203 207

APPENDIX 161. INTRODUCTION TO CHRISTIAN MORALITY

211 211

ENGLISH BIBLIOGRAPHY

219

INDEX

221

x

101 105 109 113

PROLOGUE I. INTRODUCTION The content of this third volume of the history of the Christianity of Russia begins in the year 1725 with the death of Tsar Peter I the Great, when his wife Empress Catherine I ascended the throne of Russia. This volume concludes with the ascension of Tsar Nikolai II to the throne of Russia in 1894. The final chapter contains ecclesiastical statistics that pertain to the Synodal Era. The appendix is a translation of the most popular treatise of Ukrainian philosopher Grigori Skovoroda. The book is arranged in chronological and topical sequence. First it is divided into periods of major division within the history of Russia, and then each period is divided into its major characters, primarily sectarians and dissenters as they developed, in chronological order, along with topics of interest that apply to that period, at the end of the section. The dates utilized are all Old Style. The Reader is advised to first read volumes 1 and 2 as preparation for this third volume. All the preliminary notes location in the prologue of Volume 1 would likewise apply to this volume.

II. SOURCES This author in writing this third volume of the history of Christianity of Russia has relied upon the following Russian texts.

1

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. III Bonch-Bruevich, Vladimir, Novie Izrayil, St. Petersburg, 1911. Ivanovski, I., Rukovodstvo po Istoriya I Oblicheniu Staroobradcheskogo Raskola, Kazan, 1899. Kartashyov, Anton V., Ocherki po Istorii Russkoi Tserkvi, 2 volumes, 1932. Klibanov, Aleksandr Ilyich, Istoriya Religioznogo Sektanstva v Rossii, Moscow, 1965. Livanov, Feodor Vasilich, Raskolniki I Ostrozhniki, 5 volumes, 1871-1875. Margaritov, Sergei, Istoriya Russkikh I Misticheskikh I Ratzionalisticheskikh Sekt, Simferopol, 1914. Miliukov, Pavel Nikolaevich, Ocherki po Istorii Russkoi Kulturi, volume 2, 1930 (1994 reprint.). Novitzki, Orest, O dukhabortzakh, Kiev, 1832. Panchenko, Alexandr Alexandrovich, Khristovshina I Skopchestvo, Moscow, 2002. Prugavin, Alexandr Stepanovich, Nepriyemluschie Mira, Moscow, 1918. Prugavin, Alexandr Stepanovich, Religiozniye Otschepentzi, Moscow, 1906. Rybin, Semeon Feodorovich, Trud I Mirnaya Zhizn, San Francisco, 1952. Savinski, S.N. Istoriya Evangelskikh Khristian-Baptistov, 1867-1917, St. Petersburg, 1999. Sinitzin, N.V. Monashestvo I Monastiri v Rossii, Moscow, 2002. Skovoroda, Grigori, Sochineniya v Dvukh Tomakh (Collected Works in 2 Volumes), Moscow, 1973. Smolich, Igor K., Istoriya Russkoi Tserkvi, 1700-1917, 1996, 2 volumes. Stilling, Johann Heinrich (Jung-Stilling), Toska po Otchizne (Homesickness), St. Petersburg, 1808. Yuzov, I., Russkie Dissidenti, St. Petersburg, 1881.

III. ABBREVIATIONS Patr. Metr. ROC At-Gen

Patriarch Metropolitan Russian Orthodox Church Attorney-General (of the Holy Synod)

2

PART 7

3

THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY 118. EMPRESS CATHERINE I Upon Tsar Peter’s death on January 28, 1725, imperial Russia entered a period of weak supreme authority and the void was filled by an increase in power of court favorites. The period began with the reign of Catherine I, the wife of Tsar Peter, and lasted until the accession of Elizaveta Petrovna (Empress Elizabeth) in 1741. Such a political struggle for authority likewise and equally infected the constituency of the Most-Holy Governing Synod. Theofan Prokopovich took advantage of the situation to elevate himself and acquire more authority within Russian Orthodoxy, to the point of becoming an ecclesiastical despot. The spirit of sacerdotal megalomania that was inherent in Patr. Nikon was crystallized in archbishop Prokopovich and he violently defended himself to retain it, much as did Nikon. Prokopovich’s immediate goal was to vanquish his ecclesiastical enemies. The first one that Theofan Prokopovich subjected to the horrible fate of disgrace was vice-president of the Holy Synod Theodosius Yanovski. After the death of Tsar Peter, Yanovski had become more arrogant and had spoken out more strongly against the new Synodal system. Yanovski complained about the humiliation of the ROC (Russian Orthodox Church), the abasement of the clergy, and the plunder of their homes and monasteries; he discredited the deceased Tsar Peter, comparing his cruelty with that of Tsar Ivan the Terrible. Yanovski spread malicious gossip about Empress Catherine I and the powerful prince Aleksandr Menshikov and threatened them with national revolt.

5

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. III Toward the end of April 1725, Yanovski was arrested and interrogated. During the interrogation, abuses at his diocese were discovered and, in order to avoid apprehension, he had his domestics swear fidelity to him under oath. Because of such conduct, Yanovski was deprived of his rank and under the name of friar Theodor was exiled May 11, 1725 to Karelia Nikolski Monastery in the far north, and was confined to a cloister under guard. Confinement in a cramped and cold cell during the subsequent winter killed Yanovski on February 5, 1726. Prokopovich was promoted to Yanovski’s former cathedra as metropolitan of Novgorod and also became senior member of the Synod. Empress Catherine I proceeded to select a member for the Synod to fill the post left vacant by Yanovski. She decided in favor of a local Russian, Metr. Georgi Dashkov of Rostov, instead of a more talented or competent clergyman from Kiev. Dashkov was originally a monk of Astrakhan Troitse Monastery and had little education, but he was pragmatic and energetic, and had strong ties among the noblemen. He was also prejudiced against Ukrainians (or Cherkassians, as native Russians referred to them). Following Dashkov, another local Russian was assigned to the Synod: archimandrite Lev Yurlov of Goritzki Monastery (and subsequent Bishop of Voronezh). Conflict was now unavoidable between the two factions. A power struggle soon surfaced, with Yurlov as head of the native Russian members and Prokopovich leading those from Ukraine. In 1726, the Most-Holy Governing Synod was divided into two departments: the religious, made up of prelates who were to administrate solely religious matters; and the civil, now named the Economic College, or Bureau, composed of five state officials. The latter’s responsibility was the administration of the ROC’s economic affairs, including the ecclesiastical patrimony. The title of Most-Holy now seemed inappropriate for a Synod divided into a religious half and a civil half, so the name was altered to Religious Bureau. The first department essentially consisted of only four members: Prokopovich, Lopatinski, Dashkov and Yurlov. In 1727, Metr. Ignati Smola of Kolomensk was added to the Religious Bureau for a total of five members. Their specific titles were also deleted from use and all were considered equal members. After Empress Catherine I’s death, Peter II Alekseevich Romanov, the murdered tsarevich Aleksei Petrovich’s young son and Peter the Great’s grandson, ascended the throne of Russia on May 6, 1727 at the age of twelve. The affairs of the new Religious Bureau became worse because all state matters were now conducted by powerful families who were favorites of the Romanovs: first the Menshikovs and later the Dolgorukis.

6

The Eighteenth Century The native Russians in the Synod, namely Dashkov, Yurlov and Smola, united together in a political front against Prokopovich. Lopatinski, the remaining member, refused to take sides, even though he was a local Russian and the most educated of them all. Nevertheless, Lopatinski came under Prokopovich’s censure when he published the Rock of Faith in 1728, authored earlier by Stefan Yavorski. The book upheld traditional Orthodoxy and refuted the protestant influx into Russia and Orthodoxy. Indirectly this was an attack against Prokopovich because of his liberal and protestant inclinations. With the publication of the Rock of Faith, circles of the older noblemen and traditional clergy began to call for the restoration of the patriarchate. Prokopovich’s position in the Synod came under threat since he was the only member remaining of the original eleven personally nominated by Tsar Peter, as well as being author of the Religious Regulation. Prokopovich harnessed all his strength and skill to winning the struggle for power in the Synod. Prokopovich’s accusers resorted to questioning his orthodoxy. An educated Kievan, archimandrite Markell Rodishevski of Yurievski Monastery, was hired by Dashkov. Rodishevski had known Prokopovich since their days at the Kiev Academy and even served with him at one time at the Episcopal court at his Pskov diocese. Rodishevski had already made a complaint against Prokopovich in 1726 with a list consisting of 47 points. There were accusations that Prokopovich did not recognize ROC traditions and teachings of the Holy Fathers; did not venerate the holy icons and relics of the saints; that he rejected justification by works, mocked the rites and akafists and narratives in the euchology; that he rejected certain rules of the nomocanon; discredited liturgical singing while lauding Lutheran organ music; that he wanted to abolish monasticism; and other matters. The evidence was compiled from Prokopovich’s writings and sermons. However, Prokopovich was vindicated and Rodishevski was slapped in the Petro-Pavlovsk (Peter and Paul) Fortress in St. Petersburg. He was also admonished by Empress Catherine I to do no more harm to the Church but live in the manner that the rest of the Russian Orthodox lived. He was released after acquiescing to their demands. At the instigation of the Russian faction of the Synod, Rodishevski again attacked Prokopovich, now as a heretic. Again, Rodishevski’s arguments were refuted: all of Prokopovich’s compositions were based on Tsar Peter I’s thoughts and had been written during his reign and published with the approval of the Holy Synod. At the conclusion of matters, Rodishevski was again arrested and incarcerated, this time at Moscow Semeonov Monastery. Even though Prokop-

7

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. III ovich survived unscathed, his position was still precarious. Dashkov became stronger, but a change in rulers temporarily brought the struggle to truce. Tsar Peter II died of smallpox on January 19, 1730, at the age of 14 (Kartashyov says he died at age 15 from pneumonia as a result of exposure during a public appearance on a cold winter’s day). He was entombed at the Moscow Archangelsk Cathedral.

119. EMPRESS ANNE Empress Anne (Anna Ivanovna), the daughter of Ivan V (Alekseevich) and younger sister of Sophia, succeeded her cousin Peter II to the throne and reigned January 19, 1730–October 17, 1740. She was brought up as a Protestant in Germany, and converted to Russian Orthodoxy upon her ascension to the throne of Russia. She was the widow of Frederick Wilhelm, the Duke of Courlan, and they were childless. However, Anne brought her lover with her from Germany, Count Ernst-Johann Biron, and a retinue of Germans for her palace. In an edict issued February 25, 1730, shortly after her coronation, she proclaimed her desire to observe the regulations of Russian Orthodoxy and support and provide for its expansion. During her reign, Empress Anne was very concerned about the condition of the ROC clergy and requested an annual service on her behalf, calling upon Divine assistance for her reign. This service was required of all churches throughout Russia, and any priest not complying was prosecuted. In addition, every member of the ROC priesthood, from parish priest to metropolitan, was required to sign a codified oath of allegiance to the Empress. Rodishevski, confined at Semeonov Monastery, became friends with the confessor of Empress Anne, archimandrite Varlaam Vonatovich, and hoped to utilize him to continue his attacks on Prokopovich. Rodishevski began a compilation of new accusations; however, under Empress Anne the environment was different. An accusation of heresy was no longer enough to set off a prosecution; now the offense had to be political, and Prokopovich had the advantage here against his accusers. Prokopovich drew the German faction of Empress Anne’s government into the struggle and they immediately set aside Rodishevski’s accusations against him. The next to fall from grace was Lev Yurlov. A report was received from Voronezh that Yurlov failed to perform a thanksgiving liturgy on behalf of Empress Anne on February 15, 1730, the first Sunday during Lent, when news

8

The Eighteenth Century arrived that she had ascended the throne. Instead of mentioning the name of Empress Anne, Bishop Yurlov mentioned the name of former Tsaritza Evdokia Feodorevna, the first and legitimate wife of Tsar Peter I, who was still alive and living as a nun at a convent. The Russian faction of the Holy Synod felt she was legitimate heiress to the throne of Russia and preferred her over the German Empress Anne, who was distant from Orthodoxy. After hearing of her official ascension to the throne, Bishop Yurlov realized he had erred and immediately on February 20 performed a liturgy on behalf of Empress Anne’s ascension. He then sent a circular letter to all the parishes of his diocese to now commemorate the new Empress during liturgy. Pashkov, the vice-governor of Voronezh Province, denounced Bishop Yurlov but the denunciation was treated lightly by Dashkov and Smola, who procrastinated in investigating the matter and waited for further information from Voronezh. Prokopovich used the accusation to his advantage and with the support of the German faction he was able to dismiss the three Russian members of the Religious Bureau and fill their vacant posts with clergymen favorably dispose towards himself. These were Metr. Leonid of Krutitzk, archimandrite Platon Malinovski, Bishop Ambrosi Yushkevich of Vologda, and Bishop Joachim of Suzdal. Archbishop Pitirim of Nizhni-Novgorod was again nominated, but again wisely declined. Prokopovich’s three adversaries on the Religious Bureau were arrested and investigated and all three were found guilty of opposition to the realm of the Empress and were also found guilty of various trumped up charges of abuses in their dioceses. Lev Yurlov, Bishop of Voronezh, was exiled on July 8, 1730 to Astrakhan, and then was transferred on October 2 to Nikon’s Krestnoi Hermitage in the White Sea. Lev Yurlov’s name was changed to monk Lavrenti and he was deprived of his episcopacy. He survived, and was released from confinement in 1735; he regained his post of bishop, which he held until his natural death in 1755; he was buried at Moscow Znamenski Monastery. Giorgi Dashkov, Metropolitan of Rostov, sent a letter to Empress Anne on September 15, 1730, asking forgiveness and requesting her permission to return to his episcopacy. His goal was to remain at the Tolg Monastery near Yaroslav and live out the rest of his life as a regular monk. His request was delivered to Prokopovich and was denied. By Prokopovich’s order, Dashkov was brought to trial on December 5, 1730, and by Empress Anne’s order, he was sentenced to exile to Spasso-Kamennoye Monastery at Kybenski Lake near Kazan as a plain monk; his new name was Gedeon. He departed for the monastery on December

9

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. III 28, 1730. In 1734 he was transferred to Nerchinsk Monastery in Siberia near Lake Baikal, where he was held until his death in 1740. Ignati Smola, Metropolitan of Kolomensk, was exiled December 25, 1730 to the same Spasso-Kamennoye Monastery; and then he was then transferred to the local Sviyazh Bogo-Roditzki Monastery on February 2, 1731. He returned to Moscow in custody for further judicial proceedings on November 19, 1731, and then, on December 31, 1731, by Empress Anne’s order, he was transferred to Karelia Nikolski Monastery in Archangelsk Province, now as a plain monk. Ignati Smola was released from confinement in 1735 and died December 27, 1740. Prokopovich then turned his wrath against archimandrite Varlaam Vonatovich — Empress Anne’s confessor — and had him defrocked and exiled to Kirill Bel-Ozerski Monastery in 1730. Varlaam lived there under relatively comfortable circumstances until 1740, when he was allowed to return to Moscow. Aged and weak, he could no longer continue in the priesthood and retired to Tikhvinski Monastery near Novgorod for the rest of his life. One other clergyman whom Prokopovich suspected of supporting his ecclesiastical adversaries in this conspiracy against him was Metr. Sylvestr Kholmski of Kazan. Prokopovich denounced Sylvestr in 1731 and had him confined to a cloister at Aleksandr-Nevski Monastery in St. Petersburg. In March 1732, Sylvestr was relocated to Kripetzki Monastery near Pskov, and his history ends at this time. Likewise, Archimandrite Platon Malinovski was arrested in 1734 by Prokopovich’s order and was deprived of membership in the Holy Synod. He was first tortured and then was incarcerated at a local monastery (which one is unrecorded), where he spent four years. In 1738, Malinovski was exiled to Kamchatka in the Siberian Far East by order of Count Biron. Rodishevski remained in confinement at Semeonov Monastery these years, from about 1728, but Prokopovich was not finished with him yet. During the early part of 1736, Prokopovich brought him to trial before the cabinet of ministers, utilizing Rodishevski’s own notebooks as evidence against him. The accusation was his opposition to state authority and refusing to abide by the edicts of the Holy Synod. Rodishevski was exiled to Kirill Bel-Ozersk monastery. Then M.P. Abramov, director of the state publishing house, was tried by Prokopovich as a confederate of Rodishevski and exiled to Iverski monastery. The years of 1734 through 1736 became the years of Prokopovich’s ecclesiastical inquisition. Many clergy were arrested and tried: hieromonk Iosef Reshilov, abbot of Klobukovski Monastery, suspected of denouncing the Germans who were part of Empress Anne’s cabinet; archimandrite Joasaf May-

10

The Eighteenth Century evski of Kalyazinski Monastery, an educated Kievan; Archbishop Dosifei of Kursk; Archbishop Illarion of Chernigov; and Archbishop Varlaam of Pskov. They were all tried and defrocked. Along with the above, innumerable parish clergy and monks were arrested and exiled to various monastery prisons and fortresses, including those in Siberia. Catholic Jesuits were expelled from Russia by Prokopovich’s order. Theofilakt Lopatinski, president of the former Holy Synod, was arrested the first time on March 5, 1734. After interrogation, he was released and placed under house arrest in his own residence in Tver, and forbidden to conduct services or voice his opinion in church matters. His second arrest was April 10, 1735, for having published Yanovski’s book Rock of Faith. Lopatinski also had openly voiced his opinion advocating the return of the patriarchate, while exposing Prokopovich’s political corruption and opposing the Germans who were part of the state administration of Russia. He even censured Empress Anne because of her Protestant inclinations. Lopatinski was still campaigning for Peter the Great’s daughter, Elizaveta Petrovna. Lopatinski was placed under house arrest for the next three years, and under the same conditions. Then, by Count Biron’s order, he was defrocked December 13, 1738, and was incarcerated in Vyborg Fortress, north of St. Petersburg. Evfimi Koletti, archimandrite of Moscow Chudovski Monastery, was defrocked and incarcerated in an unrecorded military fortress in June 1735, as monk Eliferi. His crime was being an accomplice of Lopatinski. Monk Alipi Davidov was exiled to Siberia for association with Lopatinski. The effect of the Synodal system during the decade following Peter the Great’s death was devastating to the general condition of the ROC and specifically of parish clergy, as Livanov describes the era: At the beginning of the 18th century drunken priests lolled about in saloons, shouted obscenely in the streets, slept along the roadsides, arguing coarsely when attending dinner at the home of their parishioners, were ready to drink heavily whenever received as guests, and fell into great criminal behavior. The political opposition of the era — the aristocracy, noblemen and landowners — could no longer endure the greed of the clergy; the sale of sacraments to unworthy people; illegal weddings performed for money; embezzlement of government revenue; attending to the business of brandy distillation instead of their spiritual obligations; and incessant drunkenness. Monks in monasteries often acted together with criminals, just as did unqualified priests and the children of priests. They drank heavily and often fled from the hermitages to the dissenters, carrying away with them clothes and books. Vagrant friars wandered from door to door among private homes and rambled from monastery to monastery, not knowing where to

11

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. III roost. And so they disturbed the minds of the political opposition of Russia, who would threaten every protest using the whip.

This latest ecclesiastical inquisition terminated only with the death of the chief inquisitor. Theofan Prokopovich, author of the Religious Regulation and, later, despotic and ruthless head of the Holy Synod and self-designated inquisitor, died September 8, 1736, at the age of 55. He left the Russian Orthodox Church in shambles. After Empress Anne’s death four years later, on October 17, 1740, her niece Anna Leopoldovna, grand-daughter of Ivan V (Alekseevich), became regent on behalf of her son, Ivan VI (Antonovich). Two weeks later, Count Biron was arrested by order of Regent Anna and he was exiled to Siberia. The terror under Count Biron finally ended and Regent Anna granted an amnesty of all religious criminals. Anna was able to accomplish much for the Russian Orthodox Church during her abbreviated reign by attempting to restore its organization and importance. Subsequent to Theofan Prokopovich’s death, the Holy Synod became dormant, the members slowly returning to their dioceses, and by 1738 only one recognized member remained: Bishop Ambrosi Yushkevich of Vologda. Regent Anna Leopoldovna had Bishop Ambrosi ordained as archbishop of Novgorod in December of 1740, and he ascended to the position of president of the Holy Synod and initiated its reorganization. The two departments, consisting of the Religious Bureau and the Economic College, were combined into one to reconstitute the Holy Synod. During Regent Anna Leopoldovna’s one-year reign, Archbishop Ambrosi Yushkevich had complete control over the Holy Synod. Archbishop Theofilakt Lopatinski, who had been long considered dead, was released from his cell at the Vyborg Fortress by Regent Anna’s order on December 30, 1740. On his arrival in St. Petersburg, Metr. Ambrosi Yushkevich of Novgorod greeted him personally and, as president of the Holy Synod, extended to him the return of his monastic and Episcopal vestments and had the title of archbishop restored to him. Lopatinski moved to St. Petersburg, where he lived at Archbishop Ambrosi’s residence until his death just six months later, May 6, 1741. Theofilakt Lopatinski was buried at Alexandr-Nevski Monastery.

12

The Eighteenth Century 120. EMPRESS ELIZABETH Empress Elizaveta Petrovna (Elizabeth), the daughter of Tsar Peter I, ascended to the throne of Russia on November 25, 1741, in a palace coup that resulted in the arrest of Regent Anna Leopoldovna’s family. Tsar-designate Ivan VI (Antonovich), Regent Anna’s son, was incarcerated by order of Empress Elizabeth at the Schlesselburg Fortress for the next 20 years, during her reign. Elizabeth was 32 years old when she became Empress; she was unmarried. Her one attempt at marriage failed sorely when her fiancé, a German Lutheran bishop, died shortly before their wedding date. Within three weeks of her ascension, Empress Elizabeth ordered the Holy Synod to issue an edict of greater amnesty than that issued by Regent Anna the year before. Iosif Reshilov and Joasaf Mayevski were immediately released from monastery incarceration. Evfimi Koletti was not as fortunate, having died in 1739. Monk Alipi Davidov returned from Siberia, as did Bishop Platon Malinovski from Kamchatka. No sooner did Platon gain his freedom than Bishop Innokenti of Irkutsk offered him a position as a teacher at his newly-opened seminary. Platon refused the offer and continued to St. Petersburg, where he was granted his Episcopal office by the Holy Synod and was simultaneously elevated to Bishop of Sars and Podonsk, a region north of Moscow. In 1748, Empress Elizabeth personally offered Platon the Moscow episcopate, which he accepted. He died six years later in 1754 as metropolitan of Moscow. Empress Elizabeth was hailed as a hero for the amnesty and release of clergy who had been unjustly prosecuted and sentenced by Theofan Prokopovich and Count Biron. However, the release of these respected prelates was superficial, as Empress Elizabeth’s purpose was only to gain the favor and approval of ROC prelates and parishioners for future political endeavors. In the proclamation that she issued shortly after her ascension to the throne, there was no indication at all that Empress Elizabeth espoused Orthodox Christianity. Nonetheless, when the Empress was later asked about a resolution to permit Jews at the fairs and bazaars of Russia, she adamantly stated, “I have no interest in any income from the enemies of Christ.” Count Aleksei Grigorievich Razumovski married Empress Elizabeth; he was a friend of the members of the Holy Synod. Due to the absence of an Attorney General of the Holy Synod (At-Gen), he would act as intermediary between them and his wife, along with her confessor, Proto-priest Feodor Dubyanski. With these two men, the Empress did not see the need to appoint an At-

13

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. III Gen, and the position had been vacant since 1726 when Rayevski abandoned the office, unable to deal with the political machinations of Theofan Prokopovich. Empress Elizabeth increased the size of the Holy Synod, adding the respected Metr. Arseni Matzeevich of Rostov as well as several native Russians: Archbishop Dmitri Sechyonov of Ryazan, Archbishop Benjamin Grigorievich of Petersburg, Archbishop Ambrosi Zertis-Kamenski of Krutitzk, Bishop Palladi of Ryazan, Bishop Porfiri Krayski of Kolomensk, and archimandrite Lavrenti of the Troitse-Sergievski Monastery. With this addition of several members to the Holy Synod, Field-Marshall Nikita Yurievich Trubetzkoi, Minister-General of the State Senate, recommended to Empress Elizabeth that she select Prince Yakov Petrovich Shakhovski as At-Gen of the Holy Synod. Trubetskoi’s goal was to subject the Holy Synod to his State Senate. The Empress accepted his recommendation because she did not know ecclesiastical matters well enough at the time in order to make a selection of her own. Shakhovski held the office December 31, 1741–March 29, 1753. Over the eleven years that he held office, Shakhovski attempted to rule the Holy Synod with a firm hand to implement organization and responsibility, as ordered by Empress Elizabeth. Shakhovski got off to a difficult start as there had not been an At-Gen of the Holy Synod for fifteen years. No one could find a copy of Tsar Peter’s regulation for the office, and no records had been kept of any Holy Synod proceedings during this interval. Once a copy of the Regulation of 1724 was discovered in the archives of the State Senate, Trubetzkoi read it and he related it to the members of the Holy Synod, but they refused to submit to its provisions. In fact, their intent was to make Shakhovski’s job so difficult that he would eventually resign. The primary issue raised by Shakhovski was financial responsibility: the members of the Holy Synod were now required to provide records of ROC finances to him. Razumovski, who had been involved in the proceedings of the Holy Synod for some time, now recused himself from further participation, which turned Shakhovski against him. A second but equal issue was the attitude of the Holy Synod toward their disciplinary responsibility: they were inclined to overlook, justify or circumvent any civil, moral or ethical violation of ROC clergy that was brought to their attention for resolution. As time progressed, Shakhovski realized that he was their target, as well as being in the minority, and that he had little backing from the state. The senior member of the Holy Synod, Archbishop Ambrosi Yushkevich of Novgorod, until his very death on May 17, 1745, never ceased attempting to have the office of At-Gen of the Holy Synod

14

The Eighteenth Century officially eliminated. As much as he pressed Empress Elizabeth on the issue, she resisted just as much, and the archbishop was unsuccessful. The specific incident that eventually led Shakhovski to resign, and which the Holy Synod exploited to devour him, had to do with an abbot of a prominent monastery who was caught in an illicit affair with a local woman of ill-repute. (His name and monastery were expunged from the records.) The angry parishioners took both the abbot and woman into custody, and brought them to the Holy Synod offices for prosecution. Shakhovski was able to extract a confession from him and wanted to prosecute him to the fullest extent of ecclesiastical law. When the abbot appeared before the Holy Synod for a hearing, he claimed that the confession was obtained under duress, and then the abbot fainted in the meeting room. The Holy Synod postponed the hearing to buy time. They then reported to Empress Elizabeth the attempt of At-Gen Shakhovski to discredit the abbot — and the entire ROC clergy, indirectly — by manipulating disenchanted parishioners to turn against the abbot, and maintained that the woman was set up. The Empress fell for the ruse. A menial penalty was imposed on the woman and the accusing parishioners by the Holy Synod, while the abbot was removed to some distant monastery with no further reprisal. Shakhovski recognized the ploy but he was not about to let the Holy Synod get the better of him. He decided to plan a vendetta to be executed at an opportune time. Shakhovski then delivered various incomplete and outstanding business matters to the Holy Synod to be considered, but in reprisal, some members began to stay away from the meetings. The members who did show up would then further postpone the outstanding matters on the grounds of lacking a quorum. They utilized any ruse possible to keep matters in suspense. The Holy Synod still refused to deal with the finances of the ecclesiastical patrimony (the Russian Church by then owned a very high proportion of the country), so Shakhovski made arrangements for their wages to be cut by two-thirds. The members then approached Empress Elizabeth in unison, all in tears, and in a theatrical manner begged her to retire either Shakhovski or all of them. MinisterGeneral of the State Senate Trubetzkoi realized the defeat of his own intentions to place the Holy Synod under his control, and he recommended a replacement for Shakhovski. On December 18, 1753, Shakhovski was promoted to General Commissar of the Senate, and State Counselor A.I. Lvov was assigned to take his place. Lvov was no match for the Holy Synod, either, and realized even sooner than Shakhovski that he could not control them. The Holy Synod began to use the same

15

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. III tactics, postponing business matters indefinitely by failing to achieve a quorum at every session. To intimidate them, Lvov set out to make copies of the specific regulation dealing with the office of the At-Gen of the Holy Synod and have it distributed it to the bishops of all the dioceses of Russia. Lvov held back awhile, then demanded that the Holy Synod approve his request to distribute the regulation to the dioceses. They adamantly refused, claiming that the responsibility of the At-Gen was solely as intermediary between Empress and them, and that he had no right to claim jurisdiction or to interfere with the dioceses or the Episcopal administration over them. Prior to Shakhovski, the Holy Synod had answered directly to Empress Elizabeth, with whom they were on good terms; they resented having Lvov as an intermediary. The Empress seldom requested an audience with Lvov, anyway. To achieve their goals outside the presence of Lvov, the Synod often met at their private homes or Episcopal estates. Lvov reported this to Empress Elizabeth. She issued a directive to the Holy Synod on October 8, 1755, enjoining them to desist from meeting in private or without the presence of the At-Gen. This directive only annoyed the members of the Holy Synod further. They decided to destroy him. In 1757, Archbishop Ambrosi of Pereyaslav accused Lvov of accepting bribes from the monasteries of his diocese, which, incidentally, was next to the diocese of Rostov under Metr. Arseni Matzeevich, a member of the Holy Synod. Ambrosi requested a report from the Holy Synod that he could use to ask the Empress to curb Lvov’s interference in diocesan matters. A report was presented to the Empress, and on January 12, 1758, the State Senate presented the names of four candidates as a replacement of Lvov. Immediately, the Holy Synod extended to the State Senate its corporate right of participation in the selection of a new At-Gen, and recommended one of their candidates. But no evidence is available whether their request was considered. On April 17, 1758, the Holy Synod received an imperial decree assigning retired Major Aleksei S. Kozlovski, a somewhat nondescript person, to replace Lvov. Of course, in the meantime the politics, strife and atmosphere of vendetta within the administration of the ROC only caused further decay in the lower echelons, especially at the parish level. The dissolution of ecclesiastical patrimony (which was eventually accomplished by Empress Catherine II) was initiated by Empress Elizabeth in a directive to the Holy Synod of September 30, 1757. Empress Elizabeth’s directive required that ecclesiastical real estate and property now be handled by officers

16

The Eighteenth Century of the state; that income after direct expenses would be placed in a special fund which would be utilized by the state for charitable purposes, retirement pensions, and for construction of new monasteries and churches; and that interest from the money in the bank would be used to pay for the pension of retired clergy and other ecclesiastical officials. Over the subsequent four years much debate occurred between the Holy Synod and State Senate, but without a final resolution. Up to and including Elizabeth, no monarch had had the strength to overturn the system of ecclesiastical patrimony; the number and strength of ROC prelates who were opposed to its demise was beyond the capability of the monarchy to override. With no children of her own to succeed her on the throne of Russia, Empress Elizabeth nominated her nephew, the son of her widowed sister Anne, who had been married to the German Lutheran Count of Holstien-Gottorp. The boy’s name was Karl-Peter-Ulrich; upon arriving in Russia in 1742, he was baptized into the ROC and his name was changed to Peter III (Feodorovich). Empress Elizabeth likewise arranged a wife for her nephew: Sophia-AugustaFrederick, daughter of the Count of Anhalt-Zerbst. She arrived in Russia just prior to her marriage. She was baptized on June 28, 1744, and her name became Ekaterina (Catherine) Alekseevna. Both Peter and Catherine were raised in the German culture and the Lutheran denomination, and were both at the age of 16 when they married. The marriage was held in St. Petersburg on August 21, 1745, at the Virgin of Kazan Cathedral. Empress Elizabeth was dismayed, once she was better acquinted with her nephew. Only then did she realize her error, and she would break into tears and wail. He was distinctly not imperial calber. His wife Catherine bit her tongue, kept her own counsel, and secluded herself in the libraries of St. Petersburg where she devoured book after book on religion, politics and philosophy, in French and German. Elizabeth Petrovna died December 25, 1761, and her nephew, Peter III (Feodorovich), became Tsar of Russia.

121. EMPRESS CATHERINE II The throne of Russia was usurped by Catherine Alekseevna, with the eager assistance of imperial officials, in a coup on June 28, 1762, and she was declared Tsaritza (Empress) at the Virgin of Kazan Cathedral in St. Petersburg. Her timid

17

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. III and morally weak husband Tsar Peter III — viewing the circumstances — voluntarily abdicated the following day. Immediately, by order of his wife, he was arrested and incarcerated. One week later, on July 6, 1762, also by her order, Tsar Peter III was murdered by imperial guards under Count Aleksei G. Orlov’s supervision. Empress Catherine’s second act to secure her consolidation of monarchial power was to arrange the death of Ivan VI (Antonovich). He was Regent Anna Leopoldovna’s son, who shortly after his birth had already been recognized once as tsar of Russia. For the past 20 years he had been confined at Schlesselburg Fortress under continual guard, and Empress Catherine viewed him as her last remaining rival. He died at the prison in June 1764. Empress Catherine II reigned June 28, 1762–November 6, 1796. She emphasized her Orthodoxy on a regular basis in imperial edicts, not because of genuine personal affiliation but in order to increase her national reputation. The following passage is a selection of a proclamation issued June 28, 1762, the day of her official ascension to the throne as Empress of Russia. It is only so clear, to all upright sons of our Russian fatherland, the danger that faces the entire Russian state, namely, that our Greek Orthodox law has suffered due to the undermining and ruin of its ecclesiastical traditions. Our Greek Church has suffered extremely and has reached the dangerous limit of its departure from its ancient Russian Orthodox roots because of its acceptance of foreign tenets.

Such a declaration — right or wrong in its conclusions — was enough to secure an ecclesiastical blessing for her at her ascension, which she sorely needed (especially after the execution of her husband, Peter III). Empress Catherine understood the value of such public confessions of Orthodox piety and repeated it the following month in a declaration of July 17, 1762. Our obligation toward God, His church and holy religion, requires His discernment, because He, the All-high God, who possesses the realm and gives it to whomever He wants, views our just and pious intentions, and so for this reason has blessed it.

Although she referred to herself as a champion of the ROC, she was for the most part a disciple of Voltaire and corresponded with him regularly. Nonetheless, Empress Catherine II practiced Orthodoxy, as her new religion and the religion of her subjects, with conviction. The population had respected her predecessor, Empress Elizabeth, for her piety; Empress Catherine II had to demonstrate to the same people that her orthodoxy was equal to or exceeded Elizabeth’s. Immediately after her coronation, Empress Catherine II performed a pilgrimage to the ancient and highly esteemed Troitse-Sergievski Monastery and kissed the hands of the clergy there. She traveled to Kiev and venerated the

18

The Eighteenth Century tombs of the saints of Pecher Monastery. During her reign, she never failed to participate in any ecclesiastical service. Superficially, Empress Catherine did all she could to prove her tight bond with the ROC. She titled herself, “Governess of the Greek Church,” and made sure that there was no need for anyone to seek Byzantine or ancient Muscovite evidence to justify her relationship to the ROC. It became apparent that the new Empress not only wanted sole imperial authority but also sole ecclesiastical authority. As far as she was concerned, the prelates and the Holy Synod were the real Church, because they held the reins to the ROC and all ecclesiastical and political intervention into the ROC was performed through them. The reforms of Tsar Peter I had stabilized imperial ecclesiasticism in a firm administration and system, which Empress Catherine utilized to her advantage. Only Metr. Arseni Matzeevich posed a real threat to the final materialization of this system under Empress Catherine. But once she was able to rid herself of Metr. Arseni, in 1763, she took control of all ecclesiastical authority and rule. Having also gained the respect of the population, she had no reason to further fear the ROC. The postulate of previous sovereigns, which was sacerdotal approval of imperial authority, was not recognized in Empress Catherine’s agenda. During the reign of Empress Catherine II, the At-Gen was strictly her representative. On ecclesiastical matters that could not be postponed, Empress Catherine developed the custom of counseling with Metr. Gavril Petrov of St. Petersburg and Novgorod. If he had wanted to do so, the Metropolitan could have exerted considerable influence on Catherine II in regards to ecclesiastical government; but this was alien to his nature. Even with the secularization of ecclesiastical property in 1764, Empress Catherine continued persistently to subject the Holy Synod to imperial authority, utilizing the Attorneys-General she promoted. Even though never reaching an office of authority equal to that of the other state ministries, Ivan Ivanovich Melissino and Pafnuti P. Chebyshyov took advantage of the good nature and support of the Empress. This well-regulated and well-defined system doomed the Holy Synod to silence during her reign. They were subjugated to all decrees and wishes of the Empress. It is no wonder why Metro. Platon Levshin of Moscow wrote with heavy bitterness about his tenure on the Holy Synod. Namely to him [the Attorney-General], all authority is entrusted. We are considered as nothing. Not only do they want to subject us to them, but they treat us like their subjects. Truly, this is the wrath of God for our sins. It is especially grievous, because our government not only does not oppose them, but even cooperates with them.

19

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. III During one of her pilgrimages to Troitse-Sergievski, she took notice of the rector of the seminary there, Platon Levshin, and she assigned him as tutor for her son, the future Tsar Pavel, in order for the young heir to be nurtured in the environment of Russian Orthodoxy as heir apparent. In exchange, however, Platon was required to learn French, since Empress Catherine considered it the language of Russian higher society. The secularization of ecclesiastical patrimony occurred during the term of Aleksei S. Kozlovski as At-Gen. Once that was accomplished, Empress Catherine was happy, imagining herself as the heroine in the struggle against ecclesiastical reactionaries. Behind the scenes she decided that, for such a historic moment, “The eye of the emperor” (the term used by Tsar Peter I to describe the At-Gen of the Holy Synod) should no longer be an inconsequential lower-level official like Kozlovski, but a more innovative, anticlerical, and scholarly ideologue. Ivan Ivanovich Melissino, former director of the Moscow University, was just such a person. He was designated At-Gen of the Holy Synod on June 10, 1765, to replace Kozlovski. To affirm imperial influence over the Holy Synod, and to always have candidates available for the position of At-Gen of the Holy Synod, the Empress designated her close associate — and lover — Grigori Aleksandrovich Potemkin, Governor-General of Novo-Rossiya, as a type of special agent over the office of At-Gen. Potemkin would review all the activities of Melissino and take his place at meetings during his absence. With the installation of both Melissino and Potemkin, Empress Catherine felt that now she held the reins over the ROC in the way that Tsar Peter I had intended for the sovereign of Russia. Melissino was assigned a long list of radical reforms that Empress Catherine wanted to implement — and very liberal ones, in the light of her Lutheran education and French Enlightenment principles. Some of these were the following: freedom of religion for those foreign denominations invited into Russia by the state (indirectly referring to Mennonites); curbing the persecution of the Old Believers, and allowing them the option of performing their own services; reducing the number of fast days on the ROC calendar; purging the ROC of charlatans and hucksters; reducing the number of processions of the church, where icons are moved about from city to city; reforming the language of the ROC to the vernacular Russian; reducing the length of church services; and allowing divorces on a more reasonable basis. However, as an individual, Melissino was unable to initiate any of the intended reforms and what little the Holy Synod intended to do, having their own agenda, they accomplished by circum-

20

The Eighteenth Century venting him entirely. The responsibility and politics were beyond his ability to handle, and Melissino was removed on October 24, 1768. Melissino’s successor was an avowed atheist, Pafnuti P. Chebishyov, who was not shy to publicly state, “There is no god of any sort.” He was coarse and crude in his temperament and language, and use profanity when responding to members of the Holy Synod would did agree with his opinion. When the Holy Synod could no longer tolerate his abuse, they forbid his presence at their meetings. As a reprisal for Chebishyov’s arrogance and malice, the Holy Synod took every opportunity to expose his corruption, which finally led to his dismissal. On May 7, 1774, Chebishyov was accused of embezzlement of funds from the revenue of ecclesiastical patrimony in the amount of 10,440 rubles. Chebishyov was able to return 9,000 rubles, but he was dismissed before the balance was due. He held the office of At-Gen for almost six years. On May 12, 1774, just five days after Chebishyov was accused of embezzlement, S.V. Akchurin was already installed in his office. So little is known about Akchurin and the subsequent At-Gen A.I. Haymov (July 28,1786–July 26, 1791) and their activities on the Holy Synod, that nothing is recorded about them at all in Russian ecclesiastical histories. Empress Catherine II selected a final AtGen toward the end of her reign: Count Aleksei Ivanovich Musin-Pushkin (July 26, 1791–July 8, 1797). He was an antiquarian by profession and a popular Russian historian. Coincident with the office of At-Gen, he was also President of the Academy of Arts. Musin-Pushkin is remembered because of his circular letters to diocesan bishops dealing with the censure of parish sermons (some of which had to be censured, due to Catherine’s fear that the ideas that led to the French Revolution would somehow migrate into Russia). Musin-Pushkin required all sermons to include a summons of obedience to imperial authorities. The first of a series of decrees to reduce the longstanding practice of corporeal punishment on wayward ROC clergy began in 1776. The Holy Synod forbid corporeal punishment of priests by ROC prelates, “lest their parish lose respect for them,” as the edict read. The use of chains, shackles and fetters was also proscribed for clergy convicted of a crime, even if it was necessary for them to be confined to a jail or prison. Regardless of the legislation, bishops in outlying regions continued to have parish priests beaten or whipped if apprehended in criminal acts. Despite many decrees that were issued, it was not until 1905, with the edict of toleration of religion, that the practice ended entirely.

21

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. III 122. THE SECULARIZATION OF ECCLESIASTICAL PATRIMONY The secularization of ecclesiastical patrimony had its beginning with the reestablishment of the Monastery Ordinance by Peter the Great in 1701, but little land was actually appropriated by the imperial government. The effort subsided after Tsar Peter’s death and through the reigns of Empresses Anne and Elizabeth. Under the pressure of Empress Catherine II, her husband Tsar Peter III issued an edict on March 21, 1762, for the secularization of all ecclesiastical patrimony and its transfer to the Economic College of the Imperial Senate, which had replaced the Monastery Ordinance. After ascending the throne of Russia, Empress Catherine was determined to appropriate all real estate belonging to the ROC and transfer it to her domain. She issued an edict on August 12, 1762, as if to ameliorate the contents of the earlier edict issued by her late husband, but yet without altering its contents or her actual purpose. A second edict issued by her Majesty on October 8, 1762 confirmed the fears of prelates and parish clergy, although they were in no condition to oppose the confiscation of their property. On a few occasions, serfs and peasants loyal to the ROC attempted to thwart the efforts of soldiers and officials who entered their regions. The serfs of Donskoi Monastery in Moscow attacked a regiment of soldiers with rocks, home-made knives and sharpened poles, but to no avail. Another edict, issued by Empress Catherine on November 29, 1762, created a Special Commission whose purpose was to implement her edicts on secularization. A subsequent edict issued on December 12, 1762 further defined her intents. The Special Commission was composed of both prelates and imperial officials: Metr. Dmitri Sechyonov of Novgorod, who was also president of the Holy Synod; Pr. Aleksei Kozlovski, who was also At-Gen of the Holy Synod; Metr. Gavril Petrov of Novgorod; Bishop Sylvester of Pereyaslav; Count Ivan Illarionovich Vorontzov; Imperial steward Aleksei Borisovich Kuryakin; Pr. Sergei Gagarin; and, State Counselor Grigori Teplov.

22

The Eighteenth Century All the prelates selected were Russian, not Ukrainian; this helped mitigate the opposition of the ROC clergy. The most energetic and competent member was Grigori Teplov, who was involved in the affairs of the Holy Synod and ROC far more than At-Gen Kozlovski. It was also Teplov who issued the declaration by which Catherine ascended the throne as Empress of all Russia. In September of 1763, members of the Imperial Senate and Holy Synod — along with the Special Commission — met in Moscow and started planning to implement the secularization of ecclesiastical patrimony. The expected uproar of prelates in opposition to this imperial abolition of the age-old tradition of ownership of villages, farms, arable land and serfs, was not forthcoming; they were silent, much as they had been at the implementation of the Holy Synod by Tsar Peter I. The formal decree for the abolition of ecclesiastical patrimony was issued February 26, 1764 by Empress Catherine. All such property — farms, villages, and other real estate, and the serfs who populated them — were transferred that day to the Economic College of the Senate. The real estate comprised about onefourth of the arable land of Russia, and the serfs were now designated “economic” serfs and passed into the ownership of the imperial government, a total of 910,866 persons, about five percent of the population of Russia. The largest ecclesiastical owner of serfs was the Moscow patriarchate, with some 200,000; Troitse-Sergievski Monastery was second with 106,000. Under duress and out of fear for their life and safety, Orthodox prelates acceded to the demands of the imperial government and allowed the confiscation of all their property. Outside of Moscow, some 100,000 peasants became irritated at this meddling in the affairs of imperial Russia and especially of the ROC by a foreigner. These peasants were later to become ardent followers of Emelyan Pugachyov, in his abortive attempt to reclaim Russia from the domination of German rule and French political philosophy. During this period of preparation for secularization, Empress Catherine attained an ideological pinnacle, imagining herself as the great and glorious reformer who was able to accomplish what previous tsars since Ivan III Vasilich could not. She was the giant who had humbled the pride of ROC prelates, greedy exploiters of the feudal system. Empress Catherine wrote a letter of triumph to French philosopher Voltaire, flattering herself on her anticlerical authority. Only one prelate of the Russian Orthodox Church opposed — vociferously and actively — Empress Catherine II and this was Metr. Arseni Matzeevich of Rostov.

23

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. III 123. METROPOLITAN ARSENI MATZEEVICH The incidents surrounding the tragic fate of Arseni Matzeevich illustrate the profound fear that was inherent in the subconscious of ROC prelates of his generation. This attitude evolved as a result of the brutality and intimidation of Tsar Peter I toward those who opposed his reforms in the previous generation. Metr. Arseni was descended from Polish nobility, the son of a priest from the city Vladimir in Volin Province in the western Ukraine. His primary education was in Lvov, and then he had his religious training at the Kiev-Mogilyanskoi Academy. After graduation, Arseni moved north and was tonsured as a monk. His first position was as an examiner for candidates for holy orders in the Moscow diocese. In 1738, he became a teacher of law at the Academy of Science and examiner for candidates for holy orders in St. Petersburg. Archbishop Ambrosi Yushkevich then promoted him as archimandrite at an unrecorded monastery in his diocese. After becoming President of the Holy Synod, Ambrosi promoted Arseni to the episcopacy of Tobolsk in Siberia. Ambrosi valued Arseni because he was inflexible in his morality and convictions; he would break sooner than bend. In 1740, at the ascension of Anna Leopoldovna as Regent, Arseni was willing to swear allegiance to her son, Ivan VI, but not to his mother, because Arseni considered her a Protestant import from Germany. Only Arseni’s quick departure back to Siberia saved him from reprisal. When Arseni returned to Moscow the following year for the coronation of Empress Elizabeth, in 1741, archbishop Ambrosi arranged with the new Empress to have Arseni promoted as Metropolitan of Rostov — the second most important cathedra next to Novgorod — and become a member of the Holy Synod. The dogmatic inflexibility of Arseni led to another altercation, now with Empress Elizabeth. As a member of the Holy Synod, Arseni had to repeat the oath introduced by Tsar Peter I — who, incidentally, was the father of Empress Elizabeth — to acknowledge her as supreme judge in matters dealing with the ROC. Arseni felt this to be a betrayal to his convictions and so he altered the oath, stating that the supreme judge was Jesus Christ. The Empress permitted the exception at the insistence of Archbishop Ambrosi, but only to salvage the relationship; Arseni’s strife with the civil authorities began at this time. As far as she and the balance of the members of the Holy Synod were concerned, this was a stigma on the ecclesiastical career of Arseni. After the death in 1743 of Arseni’s patron and mentor, Archbishop Ambrosi Yushkevich, the Holy Synod again raised the question of the oath to Arseni, but

24

The Eighteenth Century he responded that he would swear an oath of allegiance to the Catholic Pope sooner than to Empress Elizabeth. This did not create a favorable impression, needless to say; but they let the matter drop, and Arseni returned to Rostov. Metr. Arseni accomplished much during his cathedra in both Tobolsk and Rostov. Nobody ever fought the Old Believers again as Arseni did, and he raised the level of the morality and ethics of parishioners in his diocese (as well as their economic prosperity). He refused to allow the State Senate to house invalids at a Rostov Monastery in 1742, and so was accused by members of the senate of insubordination. Arseni likewise refused to allow them to use a monastery in Rostov diocese as a prison for criminals. The Holy Synod sent a reprimand and warning to Arseni on April 13, 1743 for his “arrogant malice,” threatening him with interdiction and exile; and he was told to not further disobey the orders of the Holy Synod. Arseni was somewhat blinded by the conservativeness of his understanding of ecclesiastical patrimony, and he failed to see at the time a direct indication of the appropriation of such real estate in the Special Commission’s instructions. He still hoped for an amicable resolution. Arseni, being a firm advocate of feudalism, could not visualize life — either his own or his diocese’s — without a feudal estate with serfs and villages under diocesan control. This fixed view of life was typical in dioceses distant from Moscow. Arseni himself was one of the larger landlords among the prelates of the ROC, with 16,340 serfs as part of his diocesan patrimony. As a result he paid 4395 rubles per year into the Imperial Business Chancellery. Other prelates possessed fewer serfs: Vyatski diocese had 8,000; Nizhni-Novgorod had 4,000; and Ryazan had 3,000. As an advocate of the ecclesiastical feudal system, Arseni defended this means of diocesan security just as prelates of earlier ages had done. Other ROC clergy of the era were alarmed, as Arseni was, at the threat of property confiscation, and he became the personification of their fears and concerns. Prelates Ambrosi of Krutitzk, Afanasi of Tver, Gideon of Pskov, and even Gavril of Novgorod, agreed about the injustice of secularizing ecclesiastical property. Bishop Timofei of Moscow wrote a letter to Arseni about the disagreement in the Holy Synod over this “malicious proposal,” as Timofei labeled it. Three primary bishops — Timofei and Ambrosi, mentioned above, and Damaskin of Kostroma — called Arseni courageous, magnanimous and provident for being willing to speak in opposition to the edicts of Empress Catherine, yet themselves would not, out of fear for their own lives and property.

25

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. III The edict of Tsar Peter III of March 21, 1762, in regard to the secularization of ecclesiastical patrimony, vehemently agitated Metr. Arseni Matzeevich. At his Episcopal estate in Rostov, Arseni immediately composed a remonstrance using testimony from the Bible to justify his claims and had it personally delivered to the tsar by a resident hieromonk named Luke. A secretary read it to the tsar in the presence of the monk. Hearing its contents, Tsar Peter was outraged, and took out his anger on the messenger: he had Luke confined to a cell under continuous guard at the Alexandr-Nevski Monastery in St. Petersburg for six months. The monk then returned to Rostov. In his naive conviction that his supporters were sincere, and sensing divine confirmation of his campaign, Arseni wrote a denunciation of secularization of ecclesiastical patrimony to Empress Catherine. Two additional copies of his denunciation were made and sent: one to the empress’s confessor, protopope F. Dubyanski, and the other to Imperial Chancellor Count A. Bestuzhev, whom he felt were sympathizers. Arseni hoped they would recognize the gravity of the edict and defend the church from pillage by the state. Did Arseni think that such letters would help his cause? He seems not to have learned from history. His letter stoked a furnace of ire in the mind of Empress Catherine, the hot coals only to fall on his own head. To bolster his convictions in this matter, Arseni Matzeevich heard the voice of St. Dmitri of Rostov from beyond the grave on March 6, 1763, telling him to further pursue this matter. Once accepting the edict of Empress Catherine regarding secularization, the Holy Synod had no choice except to condemn and expel the irreconcilable opponent. They hoped exiling Arseni would silence the critic, which was the leaset they could do in order to protect themselves from a worse fate. The Synod condemned Arseni for composing and circulating his denunciation, but his fate they left up to the Empress. Catherine then wrote a letter personally to the Holy Synod, codifying her convictions and condemning Arseni. To the Holy Synod: In the report presented to me yesterday, it stated that archbishop Arseni of Rostov sent a denunciation to the Synod of March 6, where, among other items, it discredits her Imperial Majesty, for which reason he is subject to judicial discipline. You say that without my acknowledgement you cannot further proceed, and so you request my review and consideration in this matter. But as I feel, and so should the Holy Synod without doubt recognize, that the authority of all pious monarchs — among whom I am included and which my efforts so indicate — must be preserved and defended — as you are all witnesses — on behalf of all Christian posterity of the fatherland. In this regard, I have noticed in the denunciation written by Metr. Arseni and sent to me by you — and which I now return to

26

The Eighteenth Century you — incorrect and seditious interpretations of the words of Holy Scripture and the books of the saints. For this reason, henceforth for the preservation of my loyal subjects from Metr. Arseni, whom you have acknowledged as a criminal, I deliver him to the Holy Synod for justice to be served through judicial means.

Receiving the expected response from Empress Catherine, the Holy Synod ordered the arrest of Arseni and his transfer to Moscow. While the Holy Synod was deliberating and the Empress was responding, Arseni wrote a second denunciation and concluded it with a request for retirement or else resignation from his cathedra. Arseni sent the letter, but the Holy Synod had issued its order for Arseni’s arrest before the document reached its intended recipients. On Palm Sunday of 1763, after Vespers, several carriages entered the court of the Rostov Cathedral with an order for the arrest of Arseni. No time was allowed for Arseni to even pack for his trip; secretary of the Episcopal consistory Ivan Volkov, and his assistant Zhukov, were also taken. They arrived in Moscow on March 17 and were placed in custody under guard at Semeonov Monastery, where they were held through Easter week. In a letter to the Senate Minister-General Glebov the following day, Empress Catherine requested a personal confrontation with Arseni, hoping for an apology, reconciliation, and his voluntary subjection to her legislation. The meeting was held the following week, in the presence of Pr. Aleksei Orlov, Glebov and Pr. Sheskovski. Arseni was direct and tactless in his replies to Empress Catherine’s questions, held nothing back, and said all that was on his mind. Empress Catherine finally could hear no more from him, clasped her hands over her ears and shouted, “Shut his mouth!” Moscow was in turmoil over Arseni’s arrest, although the newspaper recorded that Metr. Arseni of Rostov’s protests, “From beginning to end were filled with poison in his discredit of her Majesty.” Arseni still relied on the intervention of his former friends who still had weight, although protopope Dubyanski no longer had the influence on the Empress he had had earlier. The others, to protect themselves, distanced themselves from Arseni and eventually turned against him. Count Bestuzhev wrote Empress Catherine a letter requesting clemency, but he received in reply a stern reprimand. The night before the defrocking of Arseni, Metr. Dmitri of Novgorod had a dream wherein a prelate resembling Arseni appeared and said to him, in Latin, “As our fathers, some of whom were saints, sacrificed various earthly acquisitions for the church, and pronounced a curse on those who stole such items, so do I, a sinful and unworthy prelate of the church of Christ. But not with my own

27

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. III lips, but with the lips of my fathers do I pronounce a curse and sudden death on you, a thief of the acquisitions of the Church.” The trial of Arseni by the Holy Synod began April 1, 1763, on Tuesday during the week after Easter. Present were Bishop Timofei of Moscow, Archbishop Ambrosi of Krutitzk, Bishop Gedeon of Pskov, Metr. Dmitri of Novgorod, Metro. Gavril of Petersburg and Bishop Afanasi of Tver. A couple of them had even been selected and promoted to the Holy Synod by Arseni himself. Arseni presented his defense in writing, and he shook in agitation as he attempted to write. He claimed he was not discrediting the Empress but the issue of secularization. If the Empress did feel offended, it was not his intent to do so, and Arseni apologized and requested forgiveness. The Synod hurried through the proceedings to satisfy imperial officials, but feared assigning a sentence to Arseni. The Synod delivered the report to Empress Catherine on April 7: Metr. Arseni, in opposition to divine and natural law, in the years 1762 and 1763, composed opinions regarding legislation pertaining to ecclesiastical property, which became a discredit of her Imperial Majesty. In them, he has provided incorrect interpretations of Holy Scripture. He cannot be forgiven, although he wrote in such a manner in his zeal for the law of God. It is prohibited to compose venomous propositions and opinions against [imperial] edicts and instructions of [imperial] departments. He wrote against the Religious Commission, and hoped to succeed using insidious means, directing letters to two important persons. For this reason, we agree to the edict regarding him dated April 13, 1743, to deprive him of his episcopacy and his cowl, and exile him to a distant monastery under strict surveillance and that neither paper nor pen be given him.

Empress Catherine was relieved when she heard the sentence. She would not have to deal with Arseni any further. She had feared the Holy Synod would fail in its responsibility and she would then have to take the matter to a criminal court. Her acknowledgment of the sentence of Arseni was dictated on April 14, 1763. According to the sentence, the rank of metropolitan and priest are to be deprived him, but if the canons of the saints and other ecclesiastical legislature permit, then for a more expedient penance by the criminal — due to his old age — his monastic vocation will remain. Due to our humanity, we free him from trial by a civil court and any tortures, but order our Synod to send him to a distant monastery under surveillance by a responsible official, having instructions not to allow him to further lead astray weak or simple-minded people.

The Synod selected Therapontov Monastery as Arseni’s place of exile.

28

The Eighteenth Century The day selected for the rite of defrocking could not be hidden from Moscow residents and they flocked to the Synod Office at the Kremlin. Soldiers were required to keep the crowds away from the building as Arseni arrived and was led inside. By order of Empress Catherine, Arseni was in full Episcopal dress, with his prelate’s mantle and his panagia and staff. The entire membership of the Holy Synod was present and At-Gen Kozlovski, along with four archimandrites of Moscow monasteries, and the newly ordained Bishop Tikhon Sokolov of Voronezh. As Arseni entered, he was not allowed to sit. Standing, he heard the sentence read to him. A Synodal deacon removed the Episcopal vestments and symbols of his rank from Arseni, and gave him a simple monk’s cassock to wear. Important to note at this time is Arseni’s prophecy to certain members of the Holy Synod after his prelate’s mantle and panagia were removed. To Bishop Dmitri, he said. “You will die by your own tongue.” To Bishop Gedeon of Pskov he said, “And you will not see your own diocese.” To Archbishop Ambrosi of Krutitzk, who earlier had been friends with Arseni, he said, “You, who ate bread with me, have now exalted yourself as an obstacle to me. You will be butchered with a knife just like an ox.” After hearing these three predictions, the weak and elderly Bishop Timofei of Moscow cried uncontrollably. The three statements fulfilled in the following way. Within four years, in 1767, Dmitri unexpectedly died from an apoplectic stroke, suffocated by his own tongue. The young Gedeon, only 36 years old, died in an accident on the road home to Pskov after the trial. Ambrosi died in Moscow in 1771, knifed to death in an uprising during the cholera plague. All three died just as Arseni had predicted. Arseni, wearing a simple monk’s garment, was taken directly from the Chamber of the Cross to Therapontov Monastery, where Patr. Nikon had been incarcerated. During the journey, a supplementary decree was issued for the group to continue further north to Karelia Nikolski Monastery, where Theodosei Yanovski died in exile. Arseni was allowed to take with him a lay-brother and a cook, and all of his household items and kitchen utensils. An officer named Marvin was assigned as guard. Empress Catherine allotted the monastery 50 kopeks per day from the imperial treasury to pay for his food, and ordered the monastery to put Arseni to hard labor three days every week. He was permitted to read books, his own and those in the monastery library, but was not allowed pen or paper, and was not to correspond with anyone. Arseni was also allowed to walk about the monastery grounds and attend church services, but was always to be attended by four soldiers.

29

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. III Although silent for the most part — having brought Arseni as a sacrifice — a few prelates voiced their concerns, but perhaps out of guilt as well as fear. Archimandrite Theofilakt of Novotorzhski Borisoglebski Monastery spoke of the appearance of St. Dmitri to a deacon, who said to him, “Don’t you know that among us is a saint more blessed than I, and he is alive on earth: the venerable Metr. Arseni?” For disclosing this vision to others — which Empress Catherine considered an offence to her Majesty — archimandrite Theofilakt was defrocked and expelled from his office, and exiled to Irkutsk Monastery in Siberia. Another prelate, archimandrite Gennadi of Uglich Pokrovski Monastery, deleted the prayer for the royal family during liturgy on the eve of Epiphany because of his opposition to the edicts of Empress Catherine. This was reported to the Empress. Archimandrite Gennadi and some monks who defended his action were defrocked and exiled to Solovetski Monastery. In a shallow and narrow cell under the floor of Uspenski Church at Karelia Nikolski Monastery, Arseni made life as comfortable as he could. He was ordered by archimandrite Antoni of the monastery to chop wood, fetch water, sweep and wash floors. Even incarcerated, Arseni did not cease his criticism of Empress Catherine and his denunciation of secularization, while at the same time people began to consider him a martyr and his fame increased. Disregarding the austere regimen imposed by the Holy Synod on him, Arseni was received by archimandrite Antoni and resident monks visited him regularly. While at Karelia Nikolski, Arseni was interrogated by V.V. Narishkin, a prosecutor. After the interrogation, Arseni admonished him and then placed on the table next to him a 5-kopeck coin, telling him that it would be useful to him one day. Narishkin was infuriated; but, in later years, Narishkin became an official at a factory at the Nerchinsk mines in Siberia near Lake Baikal. After working there some time, he was investigated and found guilty of some crime, and was subsequently sentenced to a prison in Siberia. During his incarceration there and until he died, the government allotted the prison five kopeks a day for his subsistence. When news of the abolition of ecclesiastical patrimony reached Arseni, he told the monks, “There is nothing left to brew beer from. Even though Peter I decreed the appropriation of patrimony from monasteries, he decided it was better not to make such a change. Earlier tsars rewarded the Church with villages and other property; now, not only do they no longer reward, but pillage it all. In Yaroslav, they even confiscated all the appurtenances used during liturgy. Such coercion does not even exist among Turks. And Turks endow their mosques, but it has become like Sodom and Gomorrah among us. The gentry

30

The Eighteenth Century ignore their forefathers who gifted villages to monasteries. Now, viewing Empress Ekaterina Alekseevna, she does not even know Russian law or Russian custom, and so is in favor of appropriating villages for her imperial estate.” In this way did Arseni continue his denunciation of the imperial affairs of Empress Catherine, which news migrated from the monastery into her palace in St. Petersburg. As his reputation as a martyr grew, a tragedy in Moscow was attributed to this injustice: the dome roof of the Cathedral of the Three Saints in the Kremlin collapsed on June 4, 1763, two months after Arseni was tried. This edifice stood next to the Granite Chamber where Arseni had been defrocked and sentenced. As a result, a martyrdom cult developed around Arseni. Empress Catherine could no longer tolerate the presence of Arseni in Russia, and she decided to exile him from Russian society once and for all. She sent a message in the form of an imperial edict to the Holy Synod for the Arseni’s expulsion from Russia. The empress also demanded that he be defrocked and his named be changed to Andrei Vral (Andrew the Liar). Arseni’s departure from Karelia Nikolski Monastery was schedule for December 29, 1767. His head and beard were shaved and he was clothed in a peasant’s coat, which was too short and too tight for him. Arseni asked about wearing his monk’s cassock, which fit him better, but it was denied him. For some warmth, he was given a coat made of wool, two pair of warm stockings and a hat. Arseni left Nikolski Monastery incognito under the supervision of Captain Norken. In five days they arrived in Vologda. Arseni was referred to guards as a prisoner without a name, and he was shuffled from one location to anoterh in an enclosed private carriage as though he was an object. Leaving Vologda, they bypassed St. Petersburg and went straight to Revel in Estonia. After his departure from Nikolski Monastery, pilgrims began visiting Arseni’s former cell and turned it into a shrine where they would pray on his behalf. Witnesses related that as Arseni was passing through Rostov — his diocesan capital — church bells began to ring on their own in the middle of the night, and those attending Vespers saw a light suddenly shine in church with a vision of Arseni blessing the assembly. Arriving on January 8, 1768 in Revel, on the shores of the Gulf of Finland, Arseni was taken to Vishgorod fortress and secured in a cell in one of the towers. The other residents and officials at the monastery did not know his real identity. His cell was seven feet wide and ten feet long. Andrei Vral, physically exhausted after traveling 1,200 miles in twelve days by wagon, was hidden from public

31

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. III view. He was beaten by guards and his half-dead body was carried into the cell and thrown in a corner. Fearing his premature death, the fortress commander called a doctor the following day who also did not know his true identity. The orders given the fortress commander forbid Arseni to have any communication with anyone. Empress Catherine also threatened with death the priest who would attend to Arseni’s last rites, if he was to relate to anyone his identity and the conditions of his incarceration. After Arseni’s recovery from his journey and beating, he was given food and clothing and a lamp during the night. Empress Catherine had allotted the fortress ten kopeks a day from the imperial treasury for Arseni’s subsistence, and reports were delivered to the Empress on a regular basis regarding the conduct and health of Arseni. Somehow, Arseni was able to continue communication with the outside world. Local residents — Germans and Estonians — heard about the martyr without a name and supplied him with provisions: wood, water and clothes, by placing them in a basket and somehow with a rope reaching the small window of his cell in the wall of the tower. Through the steel grating over his cell door, Arseni would complain about his situation to passersby in the corridor, and begged them not to allow him to die from hunger or thirst. Empress Catherine continued to hear reports of Arseni’s communication with the outside world and demanded his isolation. Sometime in 1771, Arseni was entombed in his cell: the windows were laid in with brick; the door was removed and also filled in with brick, leaving an aperture only large enough to pass food and his latrine bucket. After a while, guards began to deprive him of food and Arseni migrated toward oblivion and starvation. Sensing his imminent demise, Arseni requested a priest for his final communion. Before the priest was allowed into the cell, he was required to sign a document stating that he would not ask the inmate his name or the conditions of his confinement, but would only perform Last Rites, and would not mention this incident to anyone to the end of his life. Bricks were removed to allow him into the cell, and the priest performed his obligation. Two days later, on the morning of February 28, 1772, Arseni Matzeevich died. For all practical purposes, he was starved to death. Arseni was buried that evening near a small church outside the wall, on the north side of the fortress. After this incident, Russian prelates held their tongues. For over 50 years, no further petitions were presented nor were any opposition voices heard again

32

The Eighteenth Century against either the Holy Synod or the monarch’s supremacy in ecclesiastical affairs.

124. PUBLICATION OF THE SLAVONIC BIBLE The most important of all theological effort of the first half of the 18th century was the emendation of the Slavonic Bible. Patr. Nikon had initiated the work to reprint the Ostrog Slavonic Bible along with emendations, but lack of time and competent scholars prohibited a complete revision. The most recent publication had been in 1663, but within a few years the Bible had become such a bibliographic rarity that in some parts of Russia it was difficult to find, even in a church. The first consideration of a new and emended edition fell to Archbishop Job of Novgorod (d. 1716), who began a preparation at his diocesan seminary. An edict of 1712 by Tsar Peter entrusted this work to Theofilakt Lopatinski and Sofronius Likhud, along with editors from the State Printing House; the work was to be accomplished under the auspices of then patriarchal-guardian Stefan Yavorski. The Septuagint was to be the basic text utilized in emending the existent Slavonic version, although Tsar Peter’s orders were somewhat ambiguous. The emendators conscientiously labored at the work and utilized other Greek texts, as well as Hebrew and Latin, to create a suitable Russian version. The work was left unfinished in 1720 for unknown reasons, then revived in 1723 by order of the Holy Synod; but its publication was again delayed due to unforeseen obstacles at the printing house and then was terminated entirely shortly after the death of Tsar Peter. Ten years later, in 1735, the Holy Synod again raised the matter while Lopatinski was himself on trial for religious subversion. The Synod made the decision to move publication of the Bible from Moscow to Alexandr-Nevski Monastery in St. Petersburg, and under the auspices of Theofan Prokopovich. Rather than expending more time in compiling a new emended version, they were to reprint the existing edition and add a few notes in those areas where the old translation significantly departed from the new. In 1736, Stefan Kalinovski, archimandrite of Alexandr-Nevski Monastery, was assigned to head the new team for the publication of the Bible, and he zealously devoted himself to the work. By mid-1738, typesetting was completed through the book of Tobit, and then, all of a sudden, the work ceased. The first

33

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. III reason was political. The Latin Vulgate had been utilized for the revised version of Tobit and a few other books, which was unacceptable to Kalinovski. The second reason was that so many notes had been added (between the lines and in margins) to account for variant readings and emendations; it had made the book almost illegible or undecipherable for the typical reader. Kalinovski wrote several reports on the matter to the Holy Synod, hoping for a resolution, but nothing came of it. In the early part of the following year, 1739, Kalinovski was ordained as Bishop of Tver, and he abandoned entirely the work on the publication of the Bible. The third plan of Bible publication was issued by the Holy Synod two years later, in 1741. First, the work was to return to Moscow to be undertaken by the Moscow Academy. Second, the Bible was to be printed in two columns: one column the existing Slavonic text, the second column the revised version. This third plan was quickly abandoned due to the immensity of work involved in publishing two versions of the Bible in the same volume. The revision of the text continued slowly and was completed in 1743 by archimandrite Thaddeus Kokuilovich and Kirill Florinski, the rector of Moscow Academy. The Holy Synod proceeded to review the text for approval for publication. Empress Elizabeth hastened the Synod to complete the review, and during Lent of 1744, she ordered them to meet twice a day to finish the work, having great faith in the initial efforts of Lopatinski, who was still alive at the time. The Holy Synod, however, in the tradition of Russian bureaucracy, moved slower, and finally had to assign the review to a special committee. Due to a lack of competent personnel, this committee was not formed until three years later, in 1747. There was only one person who had been working on the review of the revised text since 1744, and this was hieromonk Yakov Blonnitzki, a teacher at Moscow Academy. Two more monks were assigned to assist him in 1747, thus creating the special committee; these were hieromonks Varlaam Lyaschevski and Gideon Slominski, both of whom were Kievan academics. They relocated to Moscow from Kiev and went to work with Blonnitzki. In 1748, Blonnitzki retired from the work while the two Kievan academics continued, until finishing their review of the new Slavonic Bible. It was published and distributed in 1751 and became known as the Elizavetski Bible, named after the Empress.

34

The Eighteenth Century 125. THE OLD BELIEVERS — THE NON-PRIEST GROUP As a result of oppression by the Russian state, the Old Believers migrated to and concentrated in the northern provinces, the dense mountain forests of the Trans-Volga, and also the Urals and Siberia. The Old Believers fled from the “Kingdom of the Antichrist,” to the “wilderness,” where they formed their centers of colonization. As time progressed, the movement became less concerned with eschatological motifs and more with economic. The factories they established in these areas were employed exclusively by members of their own communities. This situation cannot be underestimted as significant in the development and expansion of the schism or dissent. The wealthy Old Believers became very influential in decisions made pertaining to the religious facets of their movement: the priesthood and problems of leadership. After their departure from official Orthodoxy, the Old Believer movement found itself in difficult straits: it had no episcopacy. Since it was a grass-roots movement and not even one consecrated diocesan bishop joined it, this left the Old Believers with no means for the ordination of new priests. Initially, the Old Believers possessed a few priests who were ordained by rites prior to the reformation of Patr. Nikon, but the validity of ordination according to reformed rites — those after Patr. Nikon — was highly disputed. Some of these Old Believer priests began to require re-ordination of those who joined the Old Believer community, if they had been ordained by the reformed rites. Disharmony surfaced: the Old Believer communities of the Don and Vyatka regions accepted priests ordained by the reformed rites while other groups would not, and since no bishop was available, then no new ordination could be performed. After the pre-Nikon priests died, and since no one was available to replace them, the majority of Old Believers adopted the view that priests were not necessary. Now, a new attitude developed toward priests and rites: either any capable person could perform a rite, or else the rite was no longer needed. This group became known as the Bez-Popovtzi (Non-Priest or Priest-less). The rest of Old Believers formed the Popovtzi, or Priest group, who were willing to accept fugitive priests from the ROC. The primary region of concentration of the Non-Priest group was known as Pomorye, meaning Seaside, referring to the region between Lake Onezhski (Onega) and the White Sea, northeast of St. Petersburg, and especially the region along Vyg Lake and its environs. Fugitive monks from Solovetski Monastery initially brought the dissent to this region, and among whom were a few

35

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. III priests. The residents had already accustomed themselves to live without priests, and the Non-Priest concepts, once introduced, incurred no protest. The Vygovski commune, located along Vyg Lake, became the center of Non-Priest activity. It was founded by the monk Kornili. After his flight from Moscow, the strict ascetic and preceptor of the ancient piety became a respected mentor in the north of Russia. Shortly prior to his death in 1695, he founded a monastery near Vyg Lake which soon ascended to represent Non-Priest theology in Russia. The followers of monk Kornili had no doubt in his holiness after his death and they enthusiastically read his biography, which attributed to him many miracles. As his successor, Kornili selected a former Psalm-reader, Daniel Vykulin. As time progressed, Vykulin was eclipsed by brothers Andrei and Semeon Denisov. Andrei’s father, Semeon Vtorushin, was from Novgorod and was likewise a preceptor among the dissenters. While a young man, Andrei selfishly read many religious books, and especially the Holy Bible and the Lives of the Saints. He moved to Kiev and there studied rhetoric, philosophy and theology, acquiring a foundation and apology for the Non-Priest movement. In about 1691, Andrei Denisov joined the commune of the fanatic hierodeacon Ignatie, the popular organizer of the self-incineration of 2,700 Old Believers who would not allow themselves to be arrested by a Moscow regiment that encircled their village. Andrei then moved to the Vygovski commune, and in 1694 was promoted by monk Kornili to abbot of the monastery. Andrei worked assiduously at the monastery until his death in 1739. His brother Semeon Denisov continued the work of his brother at the monastery, until his own death in 1746. The monastery of Kornili evolved into a great commercial center. Stockyards, farms, a carpentry industry, sewing workshops, lumbering, brick-making, a flour-mill, and a fishing industry, were among the enterprises of the Vygovski commune. The Old Believers began to trade merchandise with Moscow, the Trans-Volga, and St. Petersburg, while their new generation of leaders sought and concluded business deals with state authorities. Tsar Peter I, who became enthused whenever he heard about some new commercial enterprise, legalized the businesses of Old Believers in edicts of 1711 and 1714. Such financial success gave the Denisov brothers the means to purchase books and icons, and to start a school for ecclesiastical singers, writers and iconographers. The students were required to adhere to the ancient traditions and reject the innovations or reforms of Patr. Nikon. Thanks to the activities of the Denisovs, the Vygovski monastery long stood as the cultural and religious center of the Non-Priest Old Believers.

36

The Eighteenth Century The inner organization of the Vygovski Monastery was initially fragile and improvised. Although men and women lived in separate quarters, they were together during worship, but separated by a curtain in the dining hall. A family would live together in the same cottage, but the number of illegitimate children was considerable and did not diminish. In 1706, in Lesti, about 15 miles from Vygovski, a convent was formed, and in 1712, Andrei Denisov imposed on both monastery and convent stricter rules. A Father and Mother Superior were selected and attendance at services became mandatory; they often lasted eight to ten hours. Fasting was imperative. Denisov’s regulations pertained likewise to the economy, every monk and nun working at least enough to support his own existence. Liturgy was conducted by a preceptor of the Old Believers or by an elder designated a “blessed father,” who was chosen from among the residents and who knew the services. During the later years of the supervision of the Denisov brothers that the initial signs of decline of their ancient piety became noticeable, although their economy flourished. The commercial interests and enterprise of the Vygovski residents agreed little with the precepts of the preachers of dissent of the 17th century. The Old Believer movement of the latter 18th century was more oriented toward economics than religion. The eschatological views of the initial contenders of their ancient piety were no longer considering important; subsequent generations knew even less about the teachings of the invisible reign of the spiritual antichrist, the self-imposed incinerations of objectors, the alteration of the calendar by the antichrist Peter the Great, and the doomsday years of 1666 and 1700, and other events of the 17th century. Empress Catherine II especially extended economic and religious freedom to the community. At the height of the Vygovski commune, in the 1830s under Tsar Nikolai I, the residents numbered 3,000. Beginning in 1854, at the close of his reign, the community fell under the surveillance of the government and began its decline. The turn of events was due to the subtle maneuvers implemented by At-Gen Protasov as part of his campaign to suppress dissention from the official ROC. Eventually, by the late 1850s, all the Old Believer churches of the region were either closed or else were assigned to the local diocesan bishops. New residents who were loyal to imperial Russia were relocated to the Vyg Lake region from central Russian provinces, and the entire region reverted to official Orthodoxy. The teaching which was compiled by Old Believer preceptors to justify their dissent centered on the concept of the priest-less church, the idea that reli-

37

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. III gious perfection could be attained without an episcopacy. Attention was drawn to the Apostolic church during periods of persecution, when it existed without an episcopacy, and Old Believer mentors interpreted the passages of Apostle Paul’s letters dealing with the church as pertaining to the community of believers. According to the opinion of the Non-Priest group, the sacrament of ordination, which is performed by a bishop, was terminated when the “antichrist” took control of the ROC. From that time, they felt that the true church existed without priests, and the spiritual priesthood can be attained by every Christian who recognizes true faith. The institution of “blessed fathers” was based on this concept. Sacraments were divided into two categories: unavoidable and avoidable. This separation is defined by Andrei Denisov in his Pomorski Otveti (Seaside Answers), “Only baptism, penance and communion are unavoidable, while the rest of the sacraments, such as the ordination to the priesthood, can be done without.” He stated that any member of the body of believers could baptize or accept someone’s penance, while communion or the Eucharist was now allegorically interpreted. One question which was difficult for the Non-Priest group to resolve was whether prayer on behalf of the tsar should be performed. It seemed to them that, because the tsar was the protector and defender of the church of the “antichrist,” as they viewed the official ROC, such a prayer should be excluded. The passages in these prayers that pertained to the tsar were rewritten and were recited in such a way that they pertained to Orthodox Christians in general. But when Empress Anne sent a delegation to the Vygovski commune to observe them, they decided against self-imolation and preferred to accept her authority, and so they began mentioning the name of Empress Anne during liturgy. Marriage was likewise a difficult issue to resolve, although for the typical Christian it would appear more important than the previous one. Initially, the monastic vow of celibacy was required of all members of the Vygovski commune, but because of regular and sometimes flagrant violation of the vow of celibacy, marriage was eventually permitted. Discord was frequent in Old Believer monastic communities because of the debate regarding the dichotomy between marriage and celibacy, and this led to further dissension. As time progressed and dogma further developed in the scattered and detached Old Believer communities, discord spread and internally divided the Non-Priest communities. The more important of these splinter groups were the Theodosians, followers of Theodosie Vasilyev; the Novo-Pomorski (New Sea-

38

The Eighteenth Century siders); Filippovtzi, followers of the elder Filipp; the Netovtzi, who rejected all sacraments; and the Beguni or Stranniki, the Fugitives or Wanderers. Each of these groups also had their own independent resolution to the dilemma of marriage. When the Vygovski commune initiated prayer on behalf of the tsar — although it was actually Empress Anne — the group that came to be known as the Filippovtzi left the commune. Their leader was an elder named Filipp, who was tonsured as a monk when he joined the Vygovski commune as a young man. In about 1737, the group relocated to another village in the region and built a new hermitage there. The following year, Empress Anne sent a battalion of soldiers to the hermitage. Rather than allowing themselves to be arrested, they set the building on fire and all of the residents perished in the incineration. The Filippovtzi categorically rejected the authority of the state, marriage, and association with other Old Believers. The liberal measures taken by Empress Catherine II finally mitigated the extreme views of the remnants of the Filippovtzi, although they continued to refuse acknowledgement of imperial authority. Eventually, the members of the Filippovtzi died. During the fourth quarter of the 18th century, the monk Onufri founded a group of Old Believers in Archangelsk Province, which became known as the Onufriyevshin, or Onufri-community, and who were also called the Aaronic Accord. Onufri taught that laymen could perform all ecclesiastical rites and sacraments, and as with other Non-Priest groups, they rejected imperial authority. Onufri died in 1771. His successor was Andrei Zhukov, a merchant from Vologda, who died in 1798. Like the Filippovtzi, they soon dispersed toward the beginning of the 19th century. The leading role among the Non-Priest group gradually transferred from the Seaside community to the Theodosians, who were centralized in Moscow during the second half of the 18th century. The founder of this group was Theodosie Vasilyev, a Psalm-reader from Novgorod Province, who abandoned his residence at the Seaside commune sometime at the conclusion of the 17th century. He moved with several others to Vitebsk Province, near the Polish border, and founded another Old Believer commune. It only consisted of a monastery and a convent, in order to separate the genders. The commune then relocated to Pskov, where Theodosie was able to acquire more adherents. Theodosie developed a reputation as a zealot and passionately promoted the Old Believer ancient piety. He died in 1711, leaving behind adherents of his precepts all throughout Russia.

39

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. III In contradistinction to Andrei Denisov, Theodosie taught that wedding ceremonies performed both before and after the reform of Patr. Nikon were valid. Married couples tended to migrate to the Theodosians while the zealots of celibacy remained with Denisov’s Seaside group. Another point of variation pertained to his interpretation of antichrist, which Theodosie expounded in a tract in 1708. He described antichrist as a spiritual or allegorical entity, and said the appellation was not to be directly applied to any one particular individual. And, as mentioned above, the Seaside group reinstituted the mention of Empress Anne in 1736, but the Theodosians dissented, still applying the concept of antichrist to both tsar and tsaritza. Characteristic of the Old Believer attachment to the letter was the dispute over the inscription on the cross of Christ on icons. The Theodosians favored JNKJ (Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews), while the Seaside group preferred JNKG (Jesus of Nazareth, King of Glory). This fixation on letters gave rise to a new nickname applied to them by outsiders: the Titlovshins, or Title-people. The subsequent leader of the Theodosians was Ilya Koveilin, who died in 1809. As a result of his efforts, the Pskov group of Theodosians relocated to Moscow and established their center there, primarily in the area which later became known as the Preobrazhenski Cemetery. Koveilin was described by his contemporaries as gifted, bold, and exemplary in the Old Believer cause of ancient piety. He had exceptional abilities and could easily have attained to the patriarchal cathedra, had he lived during that era. Such character traits led Koveilin to acquire almost unlimited authority among not only the Theodosians but throughout the entirety of the Old Believer movement. In 1771, Moscow suffered from an epidemic of the plague so severe that imperial authorities were unable to deal with the number of sick and dying, and it spread throughout the region. Koveilin and his fellow Old Believer Zenkov, also a wealthy merchant, proposed to state authorities the construction of a dormitory to quarantine the sick, which would be built at their own expense. Koveilin was granted a plot of ground, where they built their quarantine dormitories, the labor provided by Theodosians of Moscow. The enterprise included a cemetery, where they buried as many as they could who died from the plague, and the entire complex became known as the Preobrazhenski Cemetery. After the plague ended, Koveilin converted the facility into the religious center of the Old Believer Theodosian group. The dormitories were converted into a monastery and convent; chapels and dining rooms were built, along with a

40

The Eighteenth Century school. Included was an orphanage for illegitimate children who resulted from the many violations of the vow of celibacy on the premises. At the turn of the 19th century, about 3,000 Theodosians lived in Moscow, with 500 at the Preobrazhenski Cemetery. In early 1809, Koveilin, in agreement with imperial officials, built workhouses and various industries began operation within the complex. By 1810, the year after Koveilin’s death, some 10,000 Theodosians lived in Moscow, with 1,500 at Preobrazhenski, including 200 children. The center had close relations and good communication with Old Believers throughout Russia. One other faction of the Old Believers Non-Priest group that must be mentioned is the Netovtzi or Netovshin, meaning, the Nothing group, which also possessed the appellation of the Salvation Accord. They evolved toward the close of the 18th century as a result of the preaching of a peasant named Kuzmo. The Netovtzi affirmed that the true priesthood no longer existed, and as a result, no sacrament or rite had any validity or efficacy. The services performed in the ROC were only empty gestures and futile maneuvers. Salvation was only to be granted by the unimpeded mercy of God. As opposed to other splinter groups of the Old Believers, the Netovtzi continued on for over a century in the rural regions of southern Russia, especially along the Don River. Melnikov states that in about 1880 their adherents numbered about 700,000, although still identifying themselves with the Non-Priest group.

126. THE OLD BELIEVERS — THE PRIEST GROUP The Popovtzi or Priest group recognized sacerdotalism and the episcopacy, although it was continuously searching for the resolution to the dilemma of the true priesthood and placed this issue above all other dogmatic considerations. The Priest group rejected the teaching of the Non-Priests — that the antichrist was presently reigning — a reversal in doctrine from their original precepts of the 17th century. They did not doubt in the validity and necessity of sacraments, as long as they were performed by a valid and ordained priest. The Priest group was inherently deprived of an episcopacy, but it was willing to accept fugitive priests who had been ordained by the official ROC. The authority of the episcopacy of the official ROC was recognized by the Priest group, although no priests were accepted unless they publicly denounced the reforms of Patr. Nikon. In one respect, the Priest group was viewed as the little step-sister

41

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. III of the official ROC. Some preceptors of the Priest group taught of the temporary desolation of the Ecumenical church. In the mid-19th century, the teaching of the temporary termination of grace appeared, as a result of divine grace being removed from the priesthood of the ROC. Even then, the concepts taught by Priest group elders, regarding the appearance of antichrist at the end of the age, did not interfere with prayer on behalf of the tsar, which also brought the Priest group into greater favor with the imperial government than the Non-Priests. A large faction of the Priest group migrated out of central Russia to Vetka, along the Polish border, and established a number of villages there. Their initial priests were those who had been ordained using pre-Nikon rites and who regularly performed all rites and ceremonies customary in the ROC. The leadership of this group was assumed by hieromonk Fedosie. The series of Old Believer villages in Vetka increased in population, and in material success, the residents numbering about 40,000 in 1730. As a result of both religious freedom and economic opportunity, the Vetka villages attracted fugitive soldiers and military deserters, peasants, and criminals fleeing authorities. Vetka evolved into the center of the Old Believer Priest group, and monks and priests from other Priest groups would travel to and visit Vetka. Empress Anne in 1733 ordered the Vetka group to relocate to central Russia. When they refused, regiments of Russian soldiers were sent by order of Empress Anne, and the residents were forcefully evacuated from their homes and transported to central Russian. The civil war between Augustus II of Saxony and Stanislaw I Leszczynski for the throne of Poland made it easy for Empress Anne’s troops to move into Poland and evacuate any Old Believers living there. The bishop of the Vetka community was Epifanie. He was initially a hieromonk of the ROC in Kiev but was arrested for embezzlement, and fled to Yassi, Walachia (Iasi, Romania). While there, he was able to acquire ordination as a bishop by Metr. Giorgi of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church. He returned to Russia in 1725, and was immediately arrested and exiled to Solovetski Monastery. Epifanie was able to escape from exile and made his way to Vetka, where he was accepted as their bishop. They recognized in him the valid authority to ordain Old Believer priests. However, Epifanie was arrested by Russian soldiers in 1733. He was transported to Kiev, and was sentenced to prison, where he died the following year. After the departure of the residents of Vetka in 1733, other Old Believers who were living in the local region migrated to the deserted villages and repopulated them. Again the area flourished, both spiritually and materially, until their

42

The Eighteenth Century second success alarmed imperial authorities. In 1764, by order of Empress Catherine II, the Russian army deported to Siberia about 20,000 residents of Vetka villages. This terminated Vetka as a center or even residency of the Old Believer Priest group. In 1771, during the epidemic of the plague in Moscow, the Priest group living in the city received a parcel of land to use as a cemetery, as did the NonPriest group. This parcel was named Rogozhski Cemetery, and in later years it became the center of the Old Believer Priest group of all Russia. By the end of the 18th century, the grounds were filled with churches of the highest architectural caliber, workhouses and cottage industries, orphanages and schools, including the largest library of Old Believer manuscripts and other valuable and rare codices. In 1800, the Rogozhski Cemetery had 20,000 residents; in 1825, some 68,000; and in 1845, it expanded to over 120,000, although many of them lived in adjoining neighborhoods.

127. BACKGROUND OF THE SECTARIAN MOVEMENT Native Russian sects, or denominations, as they should be properly called — can be divided into two categories: mystical and rationalist. The common denominator of all of these movements is that they rejected ROC rites, sacraments, priesthood, ecclesiastical paraphernalia, and authority. The sectarian groups of the Khristovshin (Khlisti), Skoptzi, and the later Malevantzi are in the mystical category. They teach an unimpeded relationship between God and human, the possibility for God to incarnate Himself in a human, for a person to identify himself with God. These members become a deity, Christ, prophet, prophetess and Theotokos. The secrets of their sects are held in strict confidentiality, but in the presence of plain people they refer to themselves as Orthodox Christians. The distinctive attribute of the second category — the rationalists — is that their adherents strive to take a rational and intelligent view. Molokans and Dukhabors, and their later factions, such as the Stundists and New Israel, are in the rationalist category. Rationalists referred to themselves as Spiritual Christians and allowed latitude in their interpretation of Scripture. These rationalist ideas appeared in early Russian history in the Strigolniks and Judaizers of the 15th century, Bashkin of the 15th century, and Tveritinov of the early 17th century.

43

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. III The concepts that led to the appearance of the sectarians evolved during the second half of the 17th century, during the era of the development of extreme religious ceremonialism and protocol. The attachment of many Russians to sacrament and rite in the popular view became purely superficial, and their attitude toward sacerdotalism became a formality. With such an attitude toward performance of rites, indifference and apathy soon surfaced, and many parishioners developed a passive contempt for everything ecclesiastical. This apathy was noticeable not only among the plain people but also among clergy, which engendered an embarrassing laziness and negligence toward fulfillment of their spiritual obligations. This solely superficial devotion and indifference toward ceremony eventually had its effects on the morality and ethics of Russian society. The life of the typical Russian was already plagued with many shortcomings: crude morals, domestic dissolution, excessive alcoholism, compulsive dishonesty, and disorderly conduct. The apparent indifference toward the ROC, along with moral deficiencies in the Russian general public, were some of the factors that gave rise to the sectarians. People who were not satisfied with the superficial performance of a rite, people who were looking for some satisfaction of their spiritual senses, and who, at the same time, found it difficult to accustom themselves to the low morality of the society, rebelled unconsciously against it by developing an attitude of apathy toward rite and religion as represented by the ROC. Indeed, the extreme emphasis on external signs of religiosity in the church, and the lack of the inner pious mood of the worshipper, the purely mechanical performance of the rite, the notion that the ceremony would lose its efficacy from the smallest modification, the thought that the rite was important on its own, all of this revolted certain parishioners. Individuals who acquired this new feeling, and who protested against extreme ceremonialism, abandoned the notion that the rite was important on its own and believed that what was important was an inner sense of reverence which, on its own, they felt, was able to draw divine grace to a person. Thus, they promoted the view that unimpeded communion with God could be achieved by natural means. Such individuals began to come together around a new idea. This movement began to coalisexce around men such as Danil Filippov, Ilarion Pobirokhin and Semeon Uklein. This new direction in Russian society quite naturally supported the appearance of the sects of the Khristovshin, Dukhabors and Molokans, and subsequent groups, and acted as a catalyst for their development and success.

44

The Eighteenth Century Many people viewed with dismay their own decline into religious negligence and apathy, but stopped far short of creating their own denomination, believing that the ROC was the only true church. However, they became fertile soil for the concepts of the sectarian movement. Questions of theology interested them very little, but their decline into apostasy caused them to sense that they were perishing. At the same time, they could not sunder themselves from the thought that enveloped all of orthodox Russian society: that without sacraments and rites, there was no salvation. Then, all of a sudden, the sectarian movements surfaced and offered a tremendous relief from the burdens of ecclesiastical ceremonialism and sacerdotalism. The sectarian movements did not demand their attendance at tedious and prolonged church services, did not require them to take communion or confess, and did not expect them to venerate the many prelates of the ROC. These individuals wanted salvation of their souls, and now discovered that they could find it without paying for a rite. No longer were serfs coerced into subsidizing the lavish life-style of prelates, all the way to up the patriarch. They also sought out educated pastors with a higher standard of morality. Under the difficult conditions of survival, for the majority peasant and serf population, who turned to religion to seek comfort and support, they acquired a personal worth and dignity in the Ships of the mystics and congregational services of the rationalists, an access to the Deity unimpeded by priest and sacrament, and a knowledge of the Bible which was understandable and useful. Living in conditions that approached slavery, under the feudal system, the peasantry and serfs were attracted to a religion they could apply to their lives. People sought for Biblical “truth”, not dogmatic theology which they could not fathom. The sectarian leaders answered their questions, gave them moral support and a purpose, and in spite of their destitution and illiteracy, and their helplessness as serfs and peasants, offered them an education in the Bible and a vision for the future.

128. THE KHRISTOVSHIN (KHLISTI) Modern and more reliable historians dealing with the movement founded by Danil Filippov refer to it as Khristovshin, meaning “Christ Community,” and this appellation is used in this history. The derivation of the appellation of Khristovshin is “Khrist,” the Russian form of “Christ,” because the sect was led by men whom the members considered the reincarnation of Christ. They held that every

45

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. III man could become an “anointed of God” or a Christ in his own right, just as any woman could become a Theotokos in her own right. The original appellation of Khrist was converted to Khlist, meaning whip or flagellant, by ROC historians of the late 17th century, who claimed that they flagellated each other using whips during worship services (the historical record that testifies to this is dubious). The members took offence at this ROC appellation of “Khlist” and began to refer to themselves as “People of God” (Ludi Bozhie), claiming that God resided among them as a result of their Christian mode of life. However, the appellation of Khlist still pervades literature. The movement was also referred to in different parts of Russia as Bogo-Moli (Pilgrims), Montani (Montanists), Shalo-Putov (Wayward People), Samo-Obozhatilei (Self-deifiers), and Bratya Korabelshiki (Brethren of the Ship). Danil Filippov, or Filippovich, was a peasant of the Kostroma Province whose family were members of the Non-Priest faction of Old Believers. The traditional account says that in his early years he was a disciple of Kapiton Danilovski. As a young man, Danil Filippov was conscripted into military service but he fled on account of his conviction of Christian pacifism. His religious inclination drove him to read, but after studying Orthodox books on religion he came to the conclusion that neither the old nor the new versions were needed for salvation. Danil concluded that only one book was necessary, and this was the “Book of the Dove,” which he said was a living book, one that was ethereal rather than material, and which manifested itself in prophesy and obedience to the Holy Spirit. In 1645, Danil Filippov is said to have received a new revelation that resolved the futile controversy that seemed to plague the ROC at the time, that is, the debate over which version of church service books was correct. He gathered his entire library and stuffed it into a bag, and then threw it into the Volga River. Soon after, according to the traditional Khristovshin account, Danil gathered a crowd around him, teaching them that the holy religion had some 300 years earlier lost its purity and that the antichrist had arisen from the monastic orders and destroyed true religion in the land. On Mt. Gorodin in Muron, Vladimir Province, a crowd gathered and prayed, cried, raised their hands, and beseeched God to descend from heaven to earth. According to the account, the powers of heaven then descended from the clouds, and God Sabaoth entered the immaculate body of Danil Filippov to reside there. After the incredible event, the powers of heaven ascended into the clouds, while Danil Filippov proclaimed himself God Sabaoth.

46

The Eighteenth Century Beginning with this event, Danil Filippov became a “living god.” He settled in the village of Staroi, Kostroma Province, and began to instruct any and all who came to him. As God Sabaoth, Danil Filippov bequeathed his disciples twelve commandments: • I am God, foretold by prophets, who has descended to earth for the salvation of the souls of humanity. There is no other God other than myself. • There is no other teaching. Do not seek another. • Upon what you have been founded, stand therein. • Drink nothing intoxicating. • Do not commit any sin against your body. • Do not marry; and whoever is married, live with your wife as though she was your sister. • Do not speak any profanity or vulgarity. • Do not attend weddings or child baptisms [of the ROC], and do not patronize any place where alcohol is served. • Do not steal. Whoever steals even one kopek, this will serve as evidence for his sentence to burn in the fire of hell until it is finally exhausted. Only then will he acquire forgiveness. • Retain these commandments in secret; do not declare them either to father or mother. If you are beaten with a stick or burned, endure it. Whoever endures [persecution] will be faithful and receive the heavenly kingdom, and while on earth will receive spiritual strength. • Visit one another; be hospitable with bread and salt; show lovingkindness to each other. Observe my commandments. • Believe in the Holy Spirit. The sin against the body, noted in commandment 5, is a reference to immorality as noted by Apostle Paul in 1 Cor. 6:8. In addition to the above tenets, Danil Filippov also advocated Christian pacifism, and he was himself a fugitive from the military. The Khristovshin Christ and Theotokos represented the Christian ideal of gaining the victory over sin and temptation. It was this high ethical standard of their movement that made their group attractive to both rich and poor, aristocrat and serf. The teachings of Danil Filippov did not deny ostensive respect for the ROC and its regulations and rites, yet they allowed freedom of conscience, and so expanded among the population without interference from ROC clergy. The morality of the Khlist movement far surpassed that of any other religious instruction available in Russia at the time, including philosophy, and that is noticeable in the austerity recommended in Danil Filippov’s commandments.

47

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. III These tenets aimed to raise the morality and ethics of both family and society and at the same time the believers did not have to deny membership or leave the ROC. Filippov devised worship services consisting of song and prophecy, and meetings in homes, which he designated “Ships” or “Arks,” and the worship services were called Radenya (Rejoicing). In about 1649, a few years following the initiation of the Khristovshin movement, Danil chose Ivan Timofeevich Suslov from Vladimir Province as his spiritual son and assigned to him the appellation of both “Christ” and “son of God Sabaoth.” Suslov became the new Christ to replace Jesus, the old Christ, while his wife was designated the first Theotokos. Suslov then selected twelve men whom he titled apostles, and through them the new teaching was disseminated further in the Vladimir, Kostroma and Nizhni-Novgorod Provinces. Suslov moved on to Moscow, where he acquired a home, which was used as a Khristovshin assembly. Suslov’s home in Moscow was referred to as the House of God, House of Zion, and New Jerusalem. ROC clergy eventually discovered Suslov and the Khristovshin assemblies at his home and they betrayed him to the police. Suslov came under suspicion and was arrested. After some short imprisonment, he was released in 1658 — the only reliable date in Suslov’s early ministry — and he continued to live in Moscow. Here, he established four houses of worship, which he designated Ships, and he installed prophets in each of them. Suslov also converted several monks from local monasteries to his movement; they also became Christs, even though they never left their monastic vocation. According to the traditional Khristovshin account, Danil Filippov ascended to heaven on January 1, 1700, from the walls of the Moscow Kremlin. Suslov, at about 80 years of age, died in 1716 and was buried at the Nikolski Church. His body was later exhumed and then interred at the Ivanovski Convent in Moscow. A tombstone was erected over his grave, bearing the inscription, “Here is buried a saint pleasing unto God.” The ministry of Suslov was inherited by Prokopi Danilov Lupkin, the first Khristovshin leader on whom concrete biographical material is available. Lupkin was originally from Nizhni-Novgorod Province. He was conscripted into the military service under Tsar Peter I and served in the Azov military campaign of 1695-1696. Military service took its toll on Lupkin and he deserted from the Royal Guards (Streltzi) in 1710, and moved to Moscow, where he took a job as a sales man. While in Moscow, Lupkin experienced a spiritual renewal and joined the movement of Ivan Suslov. This conversion affected him so much that he

48

The Eighteenth Century began to share it with every person he met, including other business people. Soon a circle of disciples surrounded him, including Nikita Antonov Sckharnikov and Eremei Vasilyev Burdayev, and they spread the tenets of the Khristovshin in the region and held assemblies. During the years 1716 and 1717, the assemblies of Lupkin were held at the home of Sakharnikov, and then later they were held at the home of Burdayev, in Uglich, near Moscow, until they were arrested. In June 1717, Antoni, a monk of the Uglich Pokrovski Monastery, heard of a Khristovshin Ship at the home of Eremei Burdayev. He reported this to archimandrite Andronnik and Bishop Dosifei of Rostov. The ecclesiastical officials decided to take measures against the dissenters, and on July 12, 1717, they ordered the arrest of all men and women attending the Ship at the home of Burdayev. Eleven men and nine women were then taken into custody, including Burdayev and Lupkin, to the Uglich Monastery. While under interrogation, they were beaten with clubs. The dissenters were then transferred to the Uglich Provincial Chancellery, where they were again interrogated. By the end of 1717, the majority of the internees were freed, including Lupkin. Their freedom did not come easy, as they had to pay a fine to the Uglich Military General in the amount of 300 rubles, a substantial sum at the time. The money was acquired from donations made by disciples of Lupkin. Lupkin, as a Khristovshin Christ, designated his wife, Akulina Ivanovna, a Theotokos, and the sect continued to spread. He preached the tenets of Danil Filippov from his home province, and then to Yaroslav and Moscow Provinces. The original humble and contrite posture of Suslov changed with the ascension of Lupkin, who enjoyed having people refer to him as “king”; some would fall at his feet and kiss his hands. Lupkin’s preaching was effective and he acquired adherents from the business classes as well as many ROC clergy. Lupkin then moved to Moscow with his wife and son, and there he was tonsured as a monk at a local monastery. His wife took the veil as a nun at the Ivanovski Convent with the new name of Sister Anna, and she established Khristovshin tenets and worship at the convent. As Lupkin’s teaching was accepted by more and more monks, he was able to penetrate many monasteries. The concepts promoted by him and his predecessors migrated into two other local convents, Varsonofei and Nikitski, where nuns would gather in their private cloisters to sing and dance in the Holy Spirit, but such activity was quickly suppressed by the father superior. The movement in Moscow included businessmen, village people, monks, peasants, factory

49

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. III workers and tradesmen. In the 1720s, the Khristovshin expanded rapidly, with Moscow Province having the largest number of adherents and thirteen established Ships, followed by Yaroslav, Kostroma, Pereyaslav and Rostov Provinces. Lupkin died November 9, 1732, and was buried at the Ivanovski Convent alongside Ivan Suslov. Such a rapid expansion of Khristovshin could not but attract the attention of authorities. In January 1733, hardly two months after the death of Lupkin, four Moscow Ships were raided, and 78 adherents were arrested. A commission under the auspices of the Imperial Senate and Holy Synod was established as an inquisition. Of those arrested, fourteen were sent to Petersburg for trial by the new commission. Theofan Prokopovich was judge and chief inquisitor. During the persecution of 1733-1734, 303 Khristovshin adherents were arrested and interrogated, including 126 from Moscow. Five of them: Anastasia Karpov of Ivanovski Convent, who was recognized as a Theotokos, hieromonks Filaret Muratin and Tikhon Strukov of Visoko-Petrovski Monastery, monk Savvati Strukov of Bogo-Yavlenski Hermitage, and nun Marfa Pavlova of Varsonofei Convent, were sentenced to death. Nun Nastasya and hieromonks Filaret and Tikhon were publicly executed by decapitation in St. Petersburg at the Sitnoi Marketplace. The sentence of the balance of the 303 varied: public beatings, excision of the tongue, exile to a distant city to hard labor, exile to some remote monastery for admonishment, conscription into the military against their will; a few were freed without further prosecution. Akulina Ivanovna was also arrested and convicted, along with other nuns of the Ivanovski Convent, for adhering to Khristovshin tenets. They were beaten and whipped, and then were exiled to the Dalmatovski Vvedenski Convent, in Perm Province in the Ural Mountains. Akulina Ivanovna died shortly after. One of the results of the persecution was the veneration of the vaults that contained the remains of Ivan Suslov and Prokopi Lupkin at Ivanovski Convent. Their burial vaults were decorated and bore the inscription “Beloved of God,” and ecclesiastical authorities noticed they were being turned into shrines. In 1736, by order of both the Imperial Senate and the Holy Synod, the inscriptions were obliterated. In 1739, the bodies of both Ivan Timofeevich Suslov and Prokopi Danilov Lupkin were exhumed. They were taken outside of the city to a field, and were cremated; their ashes were scattered across the fields by the wind. Their tombstones were also demolished and hauled away. This act of malice did not in the least curb the expansion of the Khristovshin movement. In 1740, a new Christ appeared in Moscow, the peasant

50

The Eighteenth Century Andrei Petrov. His home in Moscow was converted into a Ship for Khristovshin assemblies. Andrei Petrov, unlike any of his predecessor Christs, took upon himself the attribute of the ascetic fool in Christ of earlier ages. People of all classes of Russian society visited his home hoping to receive from him a special prophetic message or personal admonition. Andrei Petrov likewise visited the homes of famous and influential people, such as Count Sheremetiev and Princess Cherkasska. The fool in Christ spread his Khristovshin tenets among monasteries and especially among the ROC parish clergy. The Khristovshin adherents who had fled Moscow during the persecution of the years of 1733-1734 preached their tenets with greater zeal than ever, now expanding into Vladimir, Kostroma, Ryazan, Tver, Simbirsk, Penzen, and Vologda Provinces. Then the movement spread into the St. Petersburg region. This new wave of expansion caused a second wave of inquisition and persecution, beginning 1745, and continuing through 1752. When this second wave of Khristovshin persecution began, Ships in St. Petersburg and Moscow were raided by imperial soldiers by order of the Holy Synod. Under At-Gen of the Holy Synod Shakhovski, some 450 adherents of the Khristovshin were prosecuted at the time, among them many priests, monks and nuns. The inquisition was far more intense than the previous: after interrogation, five were burned at the stake in public, while 26 were publicly executed by decapitation; a few were executed by hanging; the balance were punished in the same way as those of the initial persecution of 1733-1739. Some of the nuns who were clandestine adherents of Khristovshin tenets were married against their will to members in good standing of the ROC. Ecclesiastical interrogators falsified many accusations against the Khristovshin, and considerable slanderous misinformation was published about the tenets and practices of the Khristovshin. The prosecutors were State Assessors Aleksei Grinkov and Afanasi Sitin, who were assigned to this job by Moscow State Councilor Vasili Karazinov in March 1745. But this likewise could not curb the Khristovshin movement. The new leader who arose after this second persecution was Stepan Vasilyev of Yaroslav, who was considered a Christ, and his wife Afrosina Ivanovna was considered a Theotokos. During the second half of the 18th century, after the recent persecution, the Khristovshin narrowed in size and became less noticeable. Their next period of expansion occurred under Tsar Alexandr I, who provided an environment that was conducive to the expansion of mystic ideals. At the same time, the growth of intellectualism during this period acted as a catalyst for Khristovshin expansion.

51

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. III There is no concrete evidence to conclude that the Khristovshin (Khlist) movement was imported from outside of Russia. However, the dualist views of Khristovshin in their teaching about humans could have been developed under the influence of pagan remnants of earlier ages and in part due to the influence of Bogomils and their apocryphal tales. The teaching of the perpetual reincarnation of Deity in a human could have been developed from their own mystic-pantheistic view of God and without outside influences. Khristovshin teaching holds that heaven and earth, as noted in the Bible, refer to the ethereal and material worlds respectively. The Holy Trinity, Theotokos, Archangels, Angels, and holy saints reside in the seventh heaven. But Khristovshin do not define their understanding of Trinity or Angelic entities, taking a more pantheistic interpretation of deity. According to the tenets of the Khristovshin, God can incarnate Himself in people an indefinite number of times, based on the moral condition of the people and the demands of the era. The Trinity as historically defined by Christianity vanishes with the concept of multiple reincarnations of God at regular intervals or even coincidentally. So in Danil Filippov, God the Father Sabaoth was incarnated; Christ the Son of God was incarnated in Suslov, Lupkin, and the other Khristovshin Christs. Upon others it was said that the Spirit descended and incarnated itself. Thus the Khristovshin speak of the reincarnation of Deity in humans: after one Christ passes away, another is incarnated. The incarnation or personification of a Christ occurs by the transfer of the Spirit: the Khristovshin Christ transfers the Holy Spirit into a Theotokos during the Radenya in a prophetic manner, and she, through the migration of the Holy Spirit into another member of the Khristovshin presents a new and another spiritual Christ to the Ship. Most often the reincarnation or personification of a new Christ occurs when a Khristovshin adherent attains this divine stature through prolonged fasts, prayer and virtue, as defined by Khristovshin tenets. It was not unusual for the widespread Khristovshin society to have several Christs simultaneously, each one personifying the original Jesus Christ. The same would apply to a female Khristovshin receiving the Holy Spirit from a Theotokos in order to become one herself. The inspirational and prophetic pronouncement of either a Christ or Theotokos had equal Divine authority and validity in the Ship, since each gender was considered equal in the eyes of God. The Khristovshin view of Jesus Christ also varied from historical Christianity. Jesus Christ was not the sole Son of God or the second person of the Triune Deity. He was, according to Khristovshin exposition, just one of the many

52

The Eighteenth Century Christs in whom the Deity resided. Essentially, Jesus Christ was an ordinary person, although possessing great spiritual capabilities, being a teacher and legislator strictly for his own era. His birth was not supernatural but followed the natural order of physical conception. He died a normal death and was subsequently buried and his body lies decayed in the earth somewhere in Jerusalem. The Khristovshin interpret all the miracles of the Biblical Christ allegorically. If Jesus Christ id depicted as having healed the sick and raised the dead, then this signifies that he instructed people to live a virtuous life. That Lazarus was “dead” was understood to mean that he lived in sin, not according to the Christian standard of morality. The resurrection of Jesus Christ is allegorically understood as a resurrection from the sinful life, or in another application, only his body died and returned to the earth, while his spirit migrated into another body. The Khristovshin interpret the resurrection of Jesus Christ as having occurred after his 40-day fast. Jesus “died” to sin, that is, he placed himself beyond the reach of sin, at the conclusion of his period of fasting while in the desert. When Jesus was assisted by Angels, after successfully defeating the temptation of the devil, the reference was to his spiritual disciples who assisted him in his spiritual resurrection. Khristovshin adherents seek to die to sin and resurrect in the same allegorical manner: by fasting and defeating temptation. The Bible is highly respected by Khristovshin, but it is not considered to be immutable divine revelation. The revelation proclaimed by Jesus Christ and codified in the Bible had a special significance only for the era in which he lived. What has significance at the present, Khristovshin believe, is the instruction of contemporary Christs and Theotokoses, which they receive by direct inspiration and enlightenment of the Holy Spirit. As Khristovshin view the Bible, it has a figurative application to their spiritual assembly, for example: Adam is the mind, Eve is the soul, the serpent is carnal temptation, paradise is the sectarian community, the trees of paradise are the adherents of their community, Adam and Eve eating the apple is sexual gratification, manna is the word of God spoken by Khristovshin spiritual inspiration, Mary of Nazareth the Theotokos represents the immaculate soul, Archangel Gabriel is the person worthy of grace, conception of the son of God is the residence of the Holy Spirit in the soul of a person, the birth of Christ is the revelation of the gift of prophecy. Khristovshin identify the ROC with the congregation of Israel of the Old Testament. The old rites and sacraments of old Israel have been replaced by a set of new rites and sacraments, while attitudes are the same. The ROC contains only a figurative portrayal of the spiritual church, while the Khristovshin con-

53

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. III sider their community as the true spiritual church of the New Testament. The sacraments of the ROC are transferred over to the Khristovshin festive Ship assembly in figurative fashion. The portraits of holy figures in the iconostasis of an Orthodox church are a portrayal of the festive assembly occurring in heaven. The rites performed in Orthodox churches are meaningless to the Khristovshin adherents. Such regulations and ceremonies of the ROC are shadows and representations, which only have significance for the imperfect, those who have not attained truth. The sacraments of the ROC are meaningless to the Khristovshin, because they no longer depend on them to receive grace. According to the Khristovshin, the Holy Spirit provides them with a spiritual communion and provides gifts to the members: to one, prophecy, to another, speaking in tongues, and to another, the interpretation of tongues. But not all Khristovshin adherents have this narrow view of the ROC. Some regularly attend a local ROC parish church and fulfill its rites and sacraments in all sincerity, while others do it to avoid suspicion of being a Khristovshin adherent, and so avoid censure or persecution. Although they consider themselves Khristovshin, the ROC provides for them a stability that they cannot find in the Ship assemblies, and so they still consider themselves true Orthodox. The lack of an organized priesthood, local established churches, and codified tenets, causes many insecure Khristovshin adherents to view the denomination as unstable and volatile. Such individuals attend both ROC and Khristovshin services. Khristovshin tenets prohibited oaths of allegiance and vows, tobacco smoking, alcoholic beverages, gambling, dancing, secular songs and music, and superfluous amusements and entertainment. Some Khristovshin adherents were vegetarian, as a result of their belief in the transmigration of souls into animals, while others would not eat pork. Conscientious objection to military service was also an important tenet. Danil Filippov and Prokopi Lupkin, both deserters from the military, advocated Christian pacifism. For many, the violence implied in military training and organized warfare was repulsive, while others believed that service to the Russian Tsar in his military was a capitulation to antichrist. Fasting as a means of subduing or mortifying the flesh is regularly practiced by Khristovshin adherents, not only the abstention of meat as the ROC practices a fast, but the complete abstention from food and drink for days at a time, on a regular basis. The Khristovshin commandment not to drink intoxicating beverages is likewise a means of taking spiritual control over the body. Elders of Khristovshin Ships did not tolerate promiscuity, adultery, homosexuality, or any

54

The Eighteenth Century sexual relations outside of a legitimate marriage — sins against the flesh (I Cor. 5:8), as per Danil Filippov’s fifth commandment. Much like the monastic clergy of the ROC, Khristovshin believed that sexual abstinence is the preferred and ideal state for both men and women, as the means to mortify the lust of the flesh and live in spiritual purity and holiness. The Khristovshin command of abstention from sex is based on this command, marriage notwithstanding. Not all Khristovshin adherents practiced celibacy, the sixth commandment of Danil Filippov. Many were married and did marry as Khristovshin adherents, but the number of each ahs not been quantified. Nonetheless, a sizeable portion of Khristovshin membership was married, and fidelity was maintained and expected of them as a requisite of their membership. In order for the soul of a person to transfer into the company of Angels after death, the Khristovshin teach that it must fulfill the moral tenets while living in a body. The basis of Khristovshin morality and ethic is the dualistic viewpoint: that the spirit is the origin of good, while the flesh is the origin of evil. Teachings of the Khristovshin also pertained to the future life, which begins with an awesome judgment. According to Khristovshin tenets, the first to appear in everyone’s sight will be Ivan Timofeevich Suslov, and immediately following the trumpet of God, the Lord Sabaoth Danil Filippov will appear. At this time, the present visible sky will collapse and a new heaven will appear. The souls of those who earlier passed from the earth and into the realm of the Angels will return and join their bodies in the earth, and then resurrect. They will gather in the east after their resurrection and then soar in the air toward the west. The earth will undergo a transformation and all Khristovshin adherents alive on earth will soar into the air to follow the resurrected. The first point of departure for the living Khristovshin adherents will be Moscow. When the Tsar-Kolokol (also called the Tsar-Bell, it is presently located inside the Moscow Kremlin) rings in Moscow, then all the people of the world will depart to St. Petersburg, where the awesome judgment will occur. The Christs and Theotokoses of the Khristovshin Ships will be the judges, under the direction of Danil Filippov. The first to be judged will be Khristovshin adherents, and then the rest of the world will follow. When the new heaven is unveiled, the radiant city Zion will appear. This city will be the residence of the mystic sectarians, and they will reside in bliss. They will stroll through beautiful gardens, live in crystal palaces, wear golden clothes, eat sweet pastries, experience constant joy, sleep in divine bedding, and

55

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. III so forth. The torment of sinners will be an experience of equal an opposite reality, painful and terrifying. As notd above, the individual congregations of Khristovshin are called Ships or Arks, and are independent from each other. Worship service is called a Radenya (Rejoicing). At the head of each Ship is a helmsman, who is also referred to as Christ or prophet; a Theotokos or prophetess could also be head of a Ship. Every helmsman in his respective Ship has extensive authority and much respect. He conducts services in his Ship, assigning a place and time, and arranges the order of worship. At the Ships, a female helmsman is also present, who is called the prophetess, Theotokos, Mother Superior, Conceiver, and similar appellations. She shares in conducting the worship service with the helmsman, and in his absence conducts services herself. She is responsible for training the young women to spiritually inspire those attending and to prophesize. At her death, one of these young women will ascend to replace her. Often, both male and female helmsmen will have an assistant or designated successor. Every Ship, likewise, has its ranks of angels, archangels, apostles, evangelists, preachers, elders, prophets and prophetesses. (Few Skoptzi had their own Ships, because there was too few of them; and, because the Skoptzi had evolved out of the Khristovshin, they would attend and participate in Khristovshin Ships.) The Khristovshin elders offered Russian society a standard of morality that was superior to that offered by the official ROC. Consumption of alcohol was prohibited. Parity among all members was promoted, and each recognized that he and she was an equal in the sight of God. Every person according to the grace and selection of God could attain the vocation of prophet or prophetess, and Christ or Theotokos. The wide extent of mutual assistance among Khristovshin, and their hospitality and philanthropy towards their own adherents, as well as their Orthodox neighbors, promoted their growth. Every member of the Ship was obligated to assist their brother and sister in faith. The attitude of one member of the Ship to another was to be that of friendship and love. As an indication of their brotherhood, Khristovshin adherents refer to each other using affectionate or endearing terms. When they greeted each other, they always displayed honor and respect expressed in a deep bow. In their conversations with one another and with an outsider, they adhere to the seventh commandment of Danil Filippov, and use no profanity, jesting, or swearing. They even refrain from use of the words “devil,” “Satan,” or “demon”; rather, in place of such defiling words, Khristovshin refer to “the enemy” or “the unclean entity.”

56

The Eighteenth Century The Ships where Khristovshin assemble for worship services are also called the Chamber of Zion, New Jerusalem, or House of David. Either some member’s home, or a cellar, or another building located in the yard or garden, serves as the Ship. During assembly the shutters and windows are closed, and a member serves as a guard at the door. The assembly was held in a large room, benches were located along the walls with a table in the center or towards a corner, with a New Testament or Bible usually setting on it. Other books of religious content, such as the Writings of the Apostolic or later Church Fathers, or the Lives of the Saints, were often placed on the table or alongside it. Sometimes chairs were provided for the helmsman of the Ship and the Theotokos or senior prophetess. The floor was often covered with rugs. The walls contain shelves, which held candles or lamps. The walls of the Ship often had pictures drawn on them: Ivan Suslov, Akulina Ivanovna, George the Dragon Slayer, and perhaps an interpretation of paradise. Icons of the ROC style are occasionally hung on the walls: Jesus Christ, Blessed Virgin Mary, Nikolai the Miracle Worker, who is the patron saint of Russia, and others. But the icons are not venerated as they are in the ROC, but possess an allegorical meaning. Some Ships are bare of décor, containing nothing but benches and a table. The genders are not segregated and each person is considered an equal. The assemblies of the Khristovshin at their Ships were not held on a regular basis. They were usually coincident with the holidays of the ROC, and on other special occasions. The assemblies were held in the evening, and lasted often late into the night, especially during warm summers. July 26 is a holiday in honor of their Theotokos Akulina Ivanovna, while September 15 is in honor of Kondrati Selivanov. Assemblies were also held in honor of the selection of a new helmsman or ascension of a new Theotokos, in honor of a new member of the Ship, or the arrival of an honored guest from a distant Khristovshin Ship. At the beginning of services and while sitting, an elder or helmsman will read from the Bible, often the New Testament, or from one of the other books that set on the table or alongside it. The reading is accompanied by interpretation. Instruction and admonition is included in the readings as a sermon, the interlocutor speaking on self-denial, personal sacrifice, restraint, prudence, the vanity of worldly pleasures, and so on. Other elders of the Ship will also read, while hymns are sung between readings. Some hymns are Psalms, while others are composed by members of the Ship; the tunes could be original or were adapted from popular or folk songs. After several readings or sermons, the membership stands for prayer.

57

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. III The prayers recited by the helmsman or elder consist in beseeching the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the assembly. After several prayers are recited the singing begins, and the members participate in their spiritual dancing in the center of the room, individually, each as the Holy Spirit moves them. A person moved by the Holy Spirit will prophesy in the center of the room to the entire assembly or to some individual, and others may also speak in tongues. The sermons, songs, spiritual dance, and prophecy, continues until the members are exhausted, the typical services lasting four to six hours. Khristovshin claim that their services emulate King David, when he danced in the presence of the Ark of God (in I Sam 6:14), and imitates the joy of the Angels in heaven (Luke 15:10). The services of the Ship are very significant in the spiritual life of the Khristovshin: the passion of the flesh is mortified and the soul of the worshipper ascends to heaven. All thoughts and sensations are directed to striving toward the celestial world, ready to soar toward heaven and acquire the grace of the Holy Spirit. Often, the assembly performs a mutual kiss in the traditional Russian fashion, as a sign of brotherly love. On occasion, confession is practiced at the Ship. The men will confess their sins in private to the helmsman in another room, while the women do the same to the Theotokos. The procedure of services varies due to the distance that congregations are located one from another, but they all follow the above basic pattern. When the Ship receives a new member, he or she makes a promise to preserve the secrets of Khristovshin tenets and to observe the regulations. Pavel Miliukov described the movement as follows: It is impossible not to see how tightly interwoven the pure Old Believer motifs are with the motifs of spiritual Christianity in this traditional account. Danil Filippovich, throwing old books into the water and migrating to the preaching of the living Spirit, appears as the closest symbol for the sect, serving as a bridge from the Non-Priest to the later, more pure, spiritual Christianity. It is understandable that during the initial era it preserved in itself the old world view and their contemporary Old Believer interpretations. The twelve commandments of Danil Filippovich, closest of all, reminds us of the teaching which was accepted by the non-Priest commune of the Vyg, circa 1700. Such precepts as, “Bachelors do not wed; those wedded should divorce; drink not wine or beer; do not make the sign of the cross; do not attend rites at Orthodox Church; do not steal; do not quarrel,” were continually repeated at the Khlist services. Only coarsely can the theoretical development be explained with the hierarchical different between members. Through the villages a certain peasant walked, calling himself Christ, and accepting people’s veneration. Along with him was a beautiful young girl, whom he called his wife, while the believers in him called her Theotokos. This peasant-Christ was Ivan Timofeevich Suslov, adopted by God

58

The Eighteenth Century Sabaoth Danil. After the death of Suslov, the role of Christ transferred to a NizhniNovgorod honor guard Prokopi Lupkin. Beneath Christ and Theotokos stood the prophets and prophetesses. This appellation could be applied to any person who learned to travel about the floor during Khlist services, and so indicate the presence of the Spirit in him. During the services, they would comprise a choir and sing Khlist songs. One of these songs was used to initiate the services. Others began slow and coarse, then increased in speed and joy and were accompanied by the rhythmic movement of a traveling prophet and the personal movement of the choir. As a result of these movements, which continued until total exhaustion, the Spirit resided within the entire Ship. The prophet begins to prophesize: first to the entire Ship, and then a private message to each member individually. The environment of the cult is tightly interwoven with its past: white shirts and lit candles of the attendants, as though to remind them of the expectation of doomsday by the initial dissenters. The older songs, both in form and conduct, served as a means to project the national view of the awesome judgment, places of paradise, and other topics. The two-finger posture for the sign of the cross, and the 8-pointed cross used by the Khlists, likewise reminded them of the evolution of the sect from Old Believer ranks.

The Khristovshin were very hospitable, and in the absence of hotels it was common and expected of a Khristovshin family to offer their home to out-oftowners to spend the night. (This was also a normal part of Russian rural hospitality.) Bishop Dmitri of Rostov noticed flagellation on one occasion, and he recorded it in his polemic against the dissenters in 1709. He altered the appellation of Khristi to Khlisti, meaning flagellants, implying that they did nothing else during their Ship assemblies except to whip sin and the devil out of each other. (This way of subjugating the lust of the flesh was practiced by Catholic ascetics during the Middle Ages, and the practice migrated into Orthodox Russia, although its extent here was minimal.) The polemic against Khristovshin unleashed by the ROC to discredit them was not unlike the same that occurred against the Judaizers of the 15th century or that unleashed against the Jews of the Middle Ages by Catholicism. The history of the Khristovshin as written by both ROC and secular historians of the 18th and 19th centuries is filled with accusations of atrocities. The most prevalent tales related to communal sexual orgies, which were allegedly held at the conclusion of their Ship assemblies; the murder of illegitimate children born from an illicit relationship between a Khristovshin Christ and Theotokos; and the ritual execution of infants, whose blood was reported to be used in their Eucharist (even though they performed no liturgies). Such slanderous stories had their origin in the initial accounts of the activities of the Khristovshin

59

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. III reported by Bishop Ignati of Rostov, in 1692, based on his travels in the area, dating back to 1687. At the beginning of the 18th century, Bishop Dmitri of Rostov continued to disseminate the same misinformation about the Khristovshin, and this trend never abated. The custom of Khristovshin hospitality was also distorted by ROC inquisitors into accusations of immorality or promiscuity. According to ROC historians, reports of ritual orgy and ritual infanticide among the Khristovshin were acquired in 1745 from their testimony during the second wave of their persecution, and V.V. Nechayev published these accounts in 1889. Modern historians Panchenko and Klibanov state that these confessions were acquired under torture. After their release from prison, the victims retracted their statements; but their inquisitors went on exploiting their confessions. The research of ecclesiastical historians of the 20th century, such as Panchenko and K1ibanov, whose accounts are utilized here, provide a more impartial and objective account.

129. THE IKONOBORTZI In 1732, during the reign of Empress Anne, some religious dissenters appeared in Moscow, and they were identified as Ikonobortzi, or Iconoclasts. They were quickly taken into custody and interrogated. Their convictions were codified into twelve points that were published by the Holy Synod on July 17, 1734. These people believed in inner direct revelation of God; they recognized the Holy Spirit living within them, which led them to leap and dance and prophesy; they rejected the ROC rites of baptism and communion, and applied them allegorically or spiritually; and they rejected the use of icons and related paraphernalia in their worship services. Although some of these convictions parallel those of the Khristovshin, historian Rudnev identifies the Ikonobortzi as predecessors of the later Dukhabors. Traditional accounts relate that Pobirokhin and Kolesnikov were the first Dukhabors: the former in Tambov in central Russia, the latter in Ukraine. But they were no more Dukhabor than Abraham was a Jew, because the appellation of Dukhabor did not appear in print until 1785. According to Rudnev, the earliest history of the Dukhabors, or Ikonobortzi as they were known as at the time, is the following. In about 1740, a foreigner or stranger appeared in the village Okhochem, in Kharkov Province. He was retired from the military and for some unknown reason, selected this village for

60

The Eighteenth Century retirement. His name is lost in history. This man had developed a Christian philosophy over the years, and so began to spread it throughout the village and region. Some of this nameless mentor’s convictions were similar to those of the Quakers. Another account claims that he was a fugitive from the military, taking refuge in Ukraine; or else he was expelled from the military after being prosecuted for his pacifist convictions. Analzying the traditional accounts from a rational standpoint, one may well conjecture that the man was a deserter from the military because he preached Christian pacifism, took refuge in an isolated village far from Moscow, and refrained from divulging his identify. He may have been a Khristovshin or an Ikonoboretz who was conscripted into the military and then deserted. After this nameless preacher came Siluan Kolesnikov, in the neighboring province of Ekaterinoslav; he began organizing the scattered disciples and adherents of this Christian philosophy into a uniform community, with himself as leader and preceptor. Traditional accounts describe Ko1esnikov as austere and educated, and his way of life acquired the respect of the local population. He was kind and generous, and his natural ability to speak in public gave him an advantage as he continued to preach the tenets of his nameless mentor. Historically, Si1uan Kolesnikov was the harbinger of Spiritual Christianity in Russia, and spread the philosophy that led to the formation of what would become known as the Dukhabor in the next generation. On Sundays, Kolesnikov would gather together the local residents and instruct them. At his death, his sons Kirill and Peter continued his philosophy with identical zeal. As a result of these efforts, this new Christian philosophy spread out of the Ukraine and into southern and central Russia, and the provinces of Ekaterinos1av and Kharkov became the center of Dukhaborism in Russia for over a century. Subsequent to Kolesnikov in Ukraine was the preaching of Ilarion Pobirokhin of Tambov in central Russia. Although the sons of Kolesnikov continued his Christian philosophy, they were no match to the dedication, talent and scholarship of Pobirokhin, who became prominent in about 1775, after the death of Kolesnikov. Pobirokhin’s ministry in central Russia extended from about 1760 to 1790. During the reign of Empress Catherine II, in view of the popular dislike of the government and the ROC, it was easy for Pobirokhin and his listeners to

61

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. III accept iconoclast teaching that included the rejection of the imperial authorities and ROC rites and sacraments. The countryman Ilarion Pobirokhin was from the village Goreloi, in Tambov Province. He was a wool merchant, with business dealings in the counties of the neighboring provinces; he was well-read; he had traveled much and seen much. Pobirokhin was a short fellow with an appealing character; he was knowledgeable and persuasive. He was self-taught, as were all the other early sectarian preceptors, and he enjoyed discussions of faith and religion. It is understandable why such a person was averse to the ROC and became a threat to it. Pobirokhin’s home became a school, where he taught his new religious philosophy to the people who flocked to listen to him. Of course, Pobirokhin’s Christian philosophy was not formally compiled and developed more concretely until the subsequent generation. Accepting a persuasion based on the inner enlightenment of the GodWord, supposed to dwell in the soul of every man, Pobirokhin soon recognized himself as a prophetic teacher of the inner God-Word. Rejecting the status of Jesus Christ as a divine entity, he taught that Christ abided as the inner word in the righteous, so that all righteous people were sons of God, and that he, Pobirokhin, was likewise a son of God, and in this sense he called himself the son of God Jesus Christ. The Bible, which he called a “nuisance,” was not to be recognized as the absolute and infallible word, but was to be interpreted in accord with the inspiration of the inner word living in a man. Pobirokhin chose twelve apostles, whom he labeled archangels; he may have done this in order to increase his own authority. Captivated by his teachings, the people called him a prophet and the “foster-father who provided them with spiritual food.” In about 1790, Pobirokhin was arrested for preaching sectarian tenets and was exiled to Siberia.

130. THE DUKHABORS The early Dukhabors referred to themselves as People of God or True Worshippers; they were referred to as Ikonobortzi, or Iconoclasts, by outsiders, because of their rejection of icons. The appellation of Dukhabor was first used by Ekaterinoslav Archbishop Ambrosi Serebrennikov in 1785, who wanted to make clear that the tenets of the group were in opposition to the Holy Spirit. Dukh in Russian means “spirit,” while “borit’” means “to struggle.” Therefore they,

62

The Eighteenth Century according to Archbishop Ambrosi, fought against the spirit of the ROC. They accepted the appellation of Dukhabor, but reinterpreted it to their advantage. They proclaimed themselves to be struggling on behalf of the true spirit of Christianity, as well as struggling against spiritual enemies using spiritual means. Saveli Kapustin was a disciple of Ilarion Pobirokhin, and continued his movement after the latter’s exile to Siberia, developing what is today known as Dukhaborism. Kapustin was conscripted into the military as a young man but then he deserted, because it conflicted with his pacifist convictions. He took refuge among the iconoclasts of Tambov and there joined the movement of Pobirokhin. His capability of absorbing philosophic and divine knowledge, and his talent in speaking and admonishment, placed him at the forefront of all of Pobirokhin’s disciples, except for son-in-law Semeon Uklein. Kapustin was tall, handsome, and had a majestic appearance. Having acquired the unanimous agreement of the adherents of Pobirokhin’s philosophy to become leader after his exile, Kapustin began to refer to himself as a Christ, son of God; he demanded divine veneration from the community, and they provided it. Kapustin taught that the Bible was not a necessity, but all that was required was to listen to the spiritual word that proceeded from his living lips — although many areas of his theology did coincide with Christianity as preached elsewhere. According to the traditional account, Kapustin had a formidable memory: he memorized the entire Bible, and he remembered everything he read. Under Kapustin, the Dukhabor teaching migrated as far into Siberia as Irkutsk and Kamchatka; northwest to St. Petersburg and Finland, and north to Archangelsk. The preachers included merchants, tradesman, and farmers seeking new soil to cultivate. The historical record of Dukhabor beliefs was codified in a Profession of Belief presented in 1791 to Kakhavski, the Governor-General of Ekaterinoslav Province. The document was part of a petition compiled in order to acquire amelioration from persecution by the local ROC officials. Dukhabors recognize the unity of God in a trinity, calling it Spirit, but the Trinitarian division is understood in a special way. God is the spirit of strength, spirit of wisdom, and spirit of will. In another aspect, God is light; the Son is life, while the Holy Spirit is tranquility. When the Trinity resides in a person, the Father is memory, the Son is reason, and the Holy Spirit is the will. Dukhabors believe in one God, who is the creator of the world, redeemer of humanity, punisher of the criminal and compensator of the righteous. Within a person the Trinity discloses itself: the Father is memory, the Son is reason and the Holy

63

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. III Spirit is will. In the Old Testament, the Son of God was the wisdom of God Almighty, who, in the beginning, was disclosed in the nature of the world. In the New Testament, He is the spirit incarnation of wisdom and light. This spirit is born in the inner person through inner enlightenment. Dukhabors claim that redemption is no more than spiritual enlightenment. Regarding Jesus Christ, Dukhabors teach that he is only one of many righteous persons, except that he was most gifted with divine reason. He was a plain person in whom the Deity resided in a special way, which made him man and God. He was also son of God, but, in the same respect, all Dukhabors are called children of God. The goal of the martyrdom of Christ was only to provide an example of suffering for truth. The Jews who crucified Christ represent the ROC clergy. This, they say, is apparent because high priests and Pharisees crucified Christ, and the same type of people filled the ranks of the ROC priesthood. After his crucifixion, Jesus resurrected in spirit. The divine reason that resided in Jesus Christ was transferred into the apostles after his death, and then into their successors, and finally into Dukhabors. The soul of the deceased Christ, likewise, resides among Dukhabors, being incarnated in special individuals. In the Dukhabor understanding, the soul is the image of God and a reflection of the heavenly. This image constitutes itself in a person in memory, reason, and will. The soul existed prior to the creation of the visible world, and fell with the other spirits that fell from heaven. This is an allegory, where the following three representations are provided: the fall of the human soul with the other spirits that fell in heaven; the repetition of the fall of Adam at the beginning of the population of the world; the fall which now occurs and is repeated spiritually and physically. The fall of Adam and Eve recorded in the Bible must not be understood in its ordinary and literal sense. The result of the fall was the loss of the image of God. The sin of Adam in the garden on earth did not pass to his descendents. Every person sins or acquires salvation on his own. The descendents of Adam do not sin as result of his sin, but as a result of the fall of their soul in heaven, which occurred when the other spirits fell. Every soul born on earth is already fallen and brings with it the inclination to again fall in this world. Subsequent to the fall from heaven, God created the material world on man’s behalf as a course of trial. Here the soul is clothed in flesh, and follows its intellect and will, and accepts either good or evil. The flesh is a cage for the soul, where it has the opportunity to be cleansed and return to its pure and immaculate state. At the end of the age, God is to visibly appear in human form to judge

64

The Eighteenth Century sinners. Sinners will be annihilated from the face of the earth will and descend into eternal torment, while the righteous are to remain to live on earth with Christ. They predict the world will never end but will remain eternally as it is at present, but without sinners residing on it. Confessions of the Dukhabor belief define redemption similarly to historical Christianity. Knowing that men’s souls, which are imprisoned in the flesh, would be subject to a second fall and could not on their own be cleansed, God predestined His descent to the earth, His incarnation as a human, and the satisfaction of eternal rectitude through His martyrdom in the person of His son Jesus Christ, who the Dukhabors agree was simultaneously divine and human. Jesus Christ was son of God and was God. But the son of God, as viewed in the Old Testament, was the eternal and unattainable spiritual wisdom of God Almighty. In the beginning, this wisdom materialized in the nature of the world and then in the letter of the revealed word. But the son of God as viewed in the New Testament is none other than the Spirit-incarnation of wisdom, the knowledge of God, and truth; the Spirit-incarnation of love, benevolence, and friendship; the divine indescribable and holiest joy, comfort, joy of heart; sobriety, and the spirit of prudence, and moderation in food, drink, clothing, and all bodily enjoyment. The son of God is born in the soul of a person and resides in the wilderness of his flesh; he is tempted by Satan with the bread of passion and glory of this world. Coincident with this understanding of the inner birth of Jesus Christ within a person is the requirement of faith. To attain salvation, the Dukhabors require faith in Jesus Christ — but this is understood as the inner Christ, inner enlightenment. The son of God reborn in a person speaks words of instruction, endures persecution, and suffers even to the death by crucifixion; it is placed in the coffin of his flesh and resurrects in three days in the light of glory; it lights love in their hearts and brings upon the throne of glory a sacrifice that is holy, honorable, and fragrant. The divine son of God materializes on earth in the same manner that he did in Jesus Christ — on a regular basis. For Dukhabors, the miracles attributed to Christ are not to be literally accepted, but allegorically, and so are all the other supernatural events that are described in the Bible. The “living book” is considered by Dukhabors as the source of divine instruction; this book is not material but ethereal. It is the inner revelation, the enlightenment of God the word, which resides in the soul; it is the living divine tradition preserved in the memory and hearts of Dukhabors. The living book stands in contradistinction to the Bible, which is composed of letters. The living

65

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. III book, preserved in the heart, also possesses an ostensive appearance: hymns composed by Dukhabors from individual verses and words of the Psalms of David, passages of the Old and New Testaments, and prayers and songs of the ROC, and also, hymns of original Dukhabor composition. The living book, they say, originated with Jesus Christ and was handed down orally, intact and without alteration, generation to generation, father to son. According to this account, certain disciples of Christ wanted to codify his teaching but were deficient and were unable to complete the work. These were the three Gospel writers: Matthew, Mark and Luke. The inconsistencies and deficiencies in the Gospel accounts only increased as a result of incorrect translations into other languages. Other disciples of Christ preserved his teaching by memory, complete and unadulterated, in their heart and mind, until it finally was transmitted to the final generation, the Dukhabors. The residence of God the Word among Dukhabors, they believe, testifies to the infallibility of the living book in their possession. This account of the transmission of the living book sets it on a level above the Holy Bible. Pobirokhin referred to the Bible as “stuffed with cotton” (just as Martin Luther stated that the book of James was filled with straw), and also called it a dish rag that had lived out its days. Other adherents and leaders of the Dukhabors studied the Bible intensely, such as Vasili Kalmikov, who memorized vast portions of it and quoted from it regularly as the source of Dukhabor tenets, while Siluan Kolesnikov, according to the traditional account, memorized the entire Bible, although he denied its necessity. Dukhabors reject the authority of the ROC, feeling that the Church is the assembly of the elect people of God. They are not united into a denomination, but are an invisible church dispersed throughout the world and are members of many denominations. This invisible church includes even people who have not heard of Christ, but who are led by inner revelation and strive toward virtue and goodness. In a narrower sense, however, the concept of the invisible church applies more to the Dukhabor community, and many similarities exist between them and Quakers. The church, Dukhabors feel, cannot have a sacerdotal hierarchy, since Christ did not entrust such ecclesiastical authority to anybody but said that everyone in the church is an equal. That leaves Jesus Christ, alone, as priest and bishop. The true priest is the person who can sense the activity of the Word within himself, and Christ selects such a person and prepares him invisibly by enlightening his mind and heart. Such a person is a true priest. The responsi-

66

The Eighteenth Century bility of such a true priest is to instruct others in that word, or truth, which he himself senses inwardly. Priests of the ROC are considered useful only to perform rites, since they have no inner enlightenment and have no ability to lead anyone to salvation. Dukhabors reject the sacraments of the ROC. According to their teaching, the members of the true church have direct communion with Jesus Christ; therefore, they have no need for sacraments. The sacraments being superficial maneuvers, they possess no inherent efficacy and so must be understood spiritually. For example, baptism by water is a futile gesture, because true baptism, in this view, consists in suffering. In the same light, the Eucharist must be understood as occurring spiritually. Confession is the contrite heart before God, although to admit faults and errors to another person for purposes of inner cleansing is admissible. Weddings are performed without rite. What is required for a legitimate and divinely approved marriage is the spiritual and physical maturity of the couple, their mutual love, the consensus of the parents, and a sincere exchange of marital vows before the assembly. The couple must promise fidelity and unity through the end of their natural life. As Spiritual Christians, Dukhabors reject all ecclesiastical ostentation and superficiality. They reject, as a rule, all rites, veneration of the cross, icons, relics of saints, and also deny the intercession of saints. Rites were invented sometime after the apostolic era, Dukhabors claim. The use of icons, which Dukhabors equate with graven images, is proscribed by the second commandment. Saints should be honored, but it is futile to pray to them. The sign of the cross is, likewise, recognized as a human fabrication; prayer must be performed not with the hand, but in thought, spirit and word. The Orthodox fasts are rejected; Dukhabors interpret the fast as observing the commands of God, denying the flesh of lust, and avoiding idle and vain activities. The physical fast is the abstention from gluttony and alcohol. In general, Dukhabors have a high standard of morals, and their conduct is austere compared to Russian society as a whole. Because of their dualistic viewpoint, they claim the superficial world is a prison for the human soul. Lust or passion is the beginning of evil. Vices, alcoholism, immorality, theft, and crime are strictly forbidden. Dukhabors magnify benevolence and philanthropy and advise moderation in food and clothing. They avoid personal credit or glory, claiming that all people are equal and are subject to identical faults. The attitude toward the state varied among Dukhabors. Many saw no need to subject themselves to the dictates of the state, claiming that their spiritual

67

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. III community was the realm of God. Due to persecution, Dukhabors were cautious when in dealing with officials of the Russian empire. Siluan Kolesnikov taught subjection to state authority as long as their requirements were a benefit to his own community. Most Dukhabors agreed that the state was a necessary evil, because its role is to restrain the evil tendencies of the public. None of this applied to Dukhabors, they felt, because of their adherence to the higher laws of Christ. Dukhabors were conscientious objectors to military service, and refused to carry or possess a weapon. Any violence or injury against another was a violation of the command of Christ to love one’s enemy. They likewise refused to take oaths or pledge allegiance to the tsar. One Dukhabor who was interviewed gave the following testimony as his reason for leaving the ROC and joining the Dukhabors: When we were born, they performed a superficial Christian rite on us. Then we matured, became adults and then elderly. All our life we attended church. And so what? We will truthfully say, we stood in church wearisome, as did everybody else, not understanding the difficult and unrecognizable syllables read from the book, especially in their fast pace and tongue-twisted pronunciation. As a result of standing in church, our mind did not at all gain a knowledge of ourselves, God, or His holy will. And like many sons of the world, we resided in darkness, not repenting of our evils. But now, beginning to attend our own assembly, hearing there the word of God, and clearly explained, gradually understanding it, we with indescribable amazement have seen God and His holy will, and we have prayed for the Lord to help us. We have denied ourselves, that is, our evil will, to follow after His good will. Now, entering church, we understand more of that which is read than we did before, and we now see that the church recitations are not wearisome for those who have studied them at home. O how much better people would become, if they were to decide to spend hundreds [of rubles] in clearing all of this up for us, instituting peace and the holy word of God, rather than spending thousands [of rubles] on erecting large stone churches and their elegant grandeur.

The government’s attitude toward the later Iconoclasts and early Dukhabors was not consistent. Initially, the state paid them no mind, considering them just another of the many strands of Protestant thought or dissenters from the ROC. It was not until the expansion of the movement under Pobirokhin, in central Russia, that the ROC and imperial Russian authorities in Moscow took serious notice of them. In about 1790, Pobirokhin was arrested for preaching sectarian tenets and was exiled to Siberia. The first wave of persecutions began during the early 1790s, under order of Empress Catherine II, and many Iconoclasts and Dukhabors were exiled from central Russia to what is now Finland, and the Kola Peninsula, Siberia, and the Caucasus Mountains. They were sentenced to decades of hard labor at penal colonies. At their villages, Dukhabors were whipped or beaten, and their elders were imprisoned. The anti-

68

The Eighteenth Century imperialist part of the Dukhabor tenets ran head-on into Empress Catherine’s intention to establish total political control of Russia. Tsar Pavel continued their persecution, and especially because he felt their objection to military service to be a breech of loyalty to the imperial government. Their persecution did not end until the ascension of Tsar Alexandr I in 1801.

131. THE JUDAIZERS The State referred to Russian Judaizers, better described as the remnants of the Judaizers of the 15th century, as Subbotniki, the during this era. They had no particular elders as guides, although occasionally preceptors were mentioned. One example was Matvei Semeonovich Dalmatov, the last of the mentors noted in any historical account. These Russian Judaizers in general from the era of Skhari never were Jews and never based their thinking on the Jewish Talmud. This identity evolved as a result of their emphasis on tenets indigenous to the Old Testament, and their denial of the divinity of Jesus Christ. In essence, they were Russian rationalists, although in a very undeveloped form and without organization. During the 18 th century, there were actual too few Russian Judaizers to be considered a denomination. Living on the edge of an incompletely formed and still unstable Russian sectarian group, they quite often converted to Molokanism as the new movement expanded into their villages. According to the available historical record of F.V. Livanov, the teaching of the Russian Judaizers of the 18th century was openly professed in the following format: Instead of a clergy, the Judaizers selected special individuals from among themselves, primarily educated elders, to conduct worship services. They named their children after the national saints, and performed on them the circumcision of Moses. They selected elder-preceptors, who performed weddings and funerals. They observed Saturday, instead of Sunday, as the holy day. They did not recognize Jesus Christ as the genuine Son of God. They did not recognize as saintly the Blessed Virgin Mary and others who were traditionally venerated as saints. St. Nikolas the Miracle-worker, the patron saint of Russia, they called a commoner. They did not perform the sign of the cross.

69

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. III They did not venerate icons. They called those who bowed before icons idolaters. They did not recognize any of the rituals or sacraments. Their worship services consisted of the reading and singing of verses from the Bible and selections from the Psalms. They did not utilize any other books for this purpose. They performed their wedding with a ceremonial worship service appropriate for the occasion; and to confirm the union they read for edification selections from the Divine Scriptures to the newly wedded couple, to remind the couple that marital obligations were accepted from the patriarchs of Israel. They buried their dead with the reading and singing of Psalms, with all attending at the gravesite. They did not observe fasts in the way the Orthodox observed them. They would not harbor fugitives from military service, counting them as traitors. They counted as unnecessary any church building and related sacred utensils. Their worship services were conducted in the homes of designated peasants, which they also used as a school, where children learned to read and write. They did not recognize the writings of the Orthodox holy fathers and traditions; and neither were they familiar with the Talmud. These tenets are essentially identical to those taught by Judaizer preceptors at the time of Skari and in the decades following. The Russian Judaizers probably appeared in the Tambov region, and in other provinces of central Russia, at the time of their migration as fugitives away from Moscow and other metropolises, subsequent to their persecution at the beginning of the 15 th century. But nonetheless, the important fact is that Judaizer tenets were preserved in various places in Tambov Province up to the arrival of Uklein, and they provided him a fertile field for evangelism. Eventually, they all assimilated into the Molokans with their mentor Matvei Dalmatov, who was probably about the age of 80 at the time, and little is heard of the Judaizers after this point.

132. THE MOLOKANS The Molokans referred to themselves as Spiritual Christians; the appellation of “Molokan” was not utilized until 1765. Their primary profession was

70

The Eighteenth Century that Jesus Christ was the son of God, who was incarnated and died on the cross for the salvation of the world. They professed their belief in the living God as a spirit by refusing any ostensive identification, such as wearing a cross or icon, much like the early Iconoclasts. They professed the Holy Trinity only as a symbol, and did not venerate images of the Lord, or Mary, or any of the saints. They had no desire to attend the ROC, and neither did they go to the ROC priests for confession. They did not accept or participate in the sacraments, which were developed by men and, they felt, were performed by unworthy priests. They participated in the sacrament of Communion, but interpreted it as a communal meal or fellowship. They confessed their faults to elders who were consecrated within their own congregations. They accepted the Ten Commandments and honored them. They honored the saints, but they did not venerate their relics. They did not accept the sacrament of baptism of the ROC, but they interpreted baptism spiritually as immersion into the word of God. The early Molokans had the utmost respect for the Holy Bible, considering it a revelation given to humanity by God. The Bible was to be the sole reference for matters of belief and conduct, and moral perfection could be attained when a person adopted a lifestyle based on the morality defined in the Bible. The Old Testament was held to be a guide directing people to understanding their future Messiah, while the New Testament was known as the cornerstone of truth. They considered that the Holy Bible was the only book a person needed to acquire truth and salvation, and Molokans endeavored to interpret it allegorically, rather than literally. They did not deny any of the historical aspects or accounts of the Bible, but noted that they were unconfirmed. On the other hand, they taught that the essence was not in the letter, but in the intent. Thus, all the incidents and events recorded in the Bible occurred exactly as noted, but each also possessed an inner or moral application, an interpretation that transcended the literal. The religious dogma of Molokans was tightly interwoven with their understanding of community: they married among themselves and did not associate with other denominations, Molokanism appeared in Tambov Province somewhat earlier then Dukhaborism. By 1765, it had already expanded significantly; in this year the government initiated strict measures against it. During investigations, Molokans in 1765 declared that they accepted their faith from their forefathers. If forefathers are understood as grandfathers, then the beginning of the Spiritual Christian movement in Tambov Province reaches back to the first years of the 18th century, i.e. to the time of the expansion of rationalist Christian thinking by

71

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. III the followers of Tveritinov. And, indeed, this did occur at this time when the followers of Tveritinov, with notebooks in hand containing his selections from the Bible, spread his tenets to Nizhni-Novgorod and Kostroma on the Volga, and continued south to Tambov. In 1708, Bishop Dmitri of Rostov met Trofim, who lived in the Rostov outskirts, and discussed the Holy Bible with him. Bishop Dmitri’s account indicates that Trofim’s personal convictions were identical to those of the Molokans of later years. The Tambov diocesan episcopacy was unable to assign a label to the widespread movement of the Spiritual Christians in its diocese. The Tambov Consistory in its report to the Holy Synod in 1765, finally named the new sect Molokans (Milk People), because, rejecting the rituals of the ROC, they also rejected the fasts, and so consumed milk and milk products on these days. Although this identification hardly described the essence of the new denomination of Spiritual Christians, it stuck. Molokan preceptors accepted the new appellation, applying to it the passage of I Peter 2:2, that as Spiritual Christians they were nurtured by the milk of the Word of God. Semeon Matveich Uklein was not the founder of the Molokans, but under his direction it became a Christian denomination with codified Biblical tenets, churches services, and congregational organization, and one which extended throughout and permeated all of Russia. Semeon Matveich Uklein was a government peasant of the village Uvarov, of Tambov Province, a tailor by trade. In his early years, Uklein lived in Moscow, and while there he began his independent study of the Bible, probably the recently published Elizavetski edition of 1751. He soon rejected the ROC. He may have been influenced by local Ikonobortzi, judging by the similarity of their tenets. Because of his desire to propagate his new convictions, he was exiled from Moscow to Siberia, apparently during the reign of Empress Elizabeth. After some unrecorded term of exile, Uklein found an occasion to escape from Siberia. He returned to his home in the Tambov Province, and continued to preach his new convictions there. As a tailor sewing clothes, he constantly traveled throughout the various villages of the Tambov and Voronezh Provinces. As he went from home to home, he would naturally discuss the Bible and other ecclesiastical topics with the families. The fundamental points of his teaching, among others, consisted in the following: Not to affiliate themselves with the ROC; not to recognize any sacraments or rites of the ROC or its priesthood; and not to keep the fasts, nor honor the traditions or icons of the ROC. In civil matters he

72

The Eighteenth Century emphasized equity and liberty; he called the high imperial authorities oppressors of the people. When Uklein arrived in the village Goreloi, the daughter of the Iconoclast teacher Ilarion Pobirokhin fell in love with him. Uklein joined the community of Pobirokhin, whose tenets were similar to his own, and married his daughter. Uklein was quite popular up to this time among the Tambov Spiritual Christians he was referred to regularly by his nickname of Semushka, and he must have had special qualities to induce Pobirokhin to allow his daughter to marry him. Uklein, like Pobirokhin, was relatively well read and very fluent with the Holy Bible, possessing a captivating ability in his speech such that, even among the ROC membership, he was known as a blessed person. Certainly, Pobirokhin saw in Uklein a zealous and promising helper in the work of promoting his own iconoclast philosophy. Unfortunately, Pobirokhin did not take into account that Uklein’s further study in the Bible might cause him to rebel against his father-in-law. Eventually, Uklein, who was exceptionally strong in Bible knowledge and was lauded for his education and knowledge of the Word of God, could not leave Pobirokhin’s authority and pedagogical control unchallenged. Eventually, they began to argue. Dukhabor faith in the inner enlightenment from the God-Word living in the soul of every person gave Pobirokhin the right to interpret the Bible at his own discretion, and he often inserted contradictions and one-sided arguments into his interpretations, many of which seemed to Uklein contradictory to the Bible. Uklein, caught in the situation, was humiliated and was compelled to accept Pobirokhin’s interpretations as law; but he could not repudiate what he had acquired so far, and for which he was highly respected. On one occasion in a assembly, Uklein was vehemently reprimanding the Dukhabors for their lack of esteem for the Holy Bible. The outraged Pobirokhin decided to take vengeance against his son-in-law. Uklein had no choice except to leave. Abandoning Pobirokhin’s group of iconoclasts, and having no intention of returning to the ROC, Uklein migrated to the Molokans, who had long been in existence in the Tambov region as Spiritual Christians, and who rigidly held to the Bible. Uklein he hoped that he could find a home among them for his wife, three daughters and two sons, find acceptance as a mentor, and continue his vocation as a tailor. Prior to this time, the Molokans of Tambov Province had lived scattered in various areas. Uklein, taught by Pobirokhin to organize people, soon gathered the Molokans under his instruction. After the example of Pobirokhin, he chose

73

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. III for himself helpers from among his students, not twelve but seventy, and with them successfully organized the detached Molokan communities. The key to Uklein’s success in organizing the Molokans was that he offered people what they wanted: a theology that was rational and easily comprehensible; Biblical truth that was applicable to their personal, domestic and community life; stability in their local congregation, with elders who exhibited high morals; and church services in which they could be participants, and not just spectators. Uklein learned from other Molokan elders of the region and combined their tenets with what he had developed from his personal study of the Bible, and what he had learned from his iconoclast father-in-law. Uklein then became close friends with the last of the preceptors of the sect of the Judaizers, Matvei Semeonovich Dalmatov, who had an exceptional knowledge of the Old Testament and provided Uklein with additional instruction. Subsequently and without reservation, Uklein incorporated a number of Old Testament precepts into the rules of Molokanism, primarily the food laws promulgated by Moses and the holidays mentioned in the Old Testament. Uklein eventually converted Dalmatov over to Molokanism, and that became the catalyst for other Judaizer remnants to join Uklein’s new Molokan congregations. Combining existing Iconoclast and Spiritual Christian tenets with those of Dalmatov’s, Uklein composed a fairly complete Molokan profession of belief consisting of twenty-three points, which he expounded in the following form (quoted verbatim from Raskolniki I Ostrozhniki, F.V. Livanov, Volume 2, Chapter 12). 1. About God: God is a spirit in three features: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. 2. About the Persons of the Holy Trinity: The Son of God and the Holy Spirit, although consubstantial to the Father, are not equal with Him in the Divine dignity. 3. About the Incarnation of the Son of God: The Son of God, for the salvation of the human race, was born of the Virgin Mary, without sperm. 4. About the Death of Jesus Christ: Not possessing the totality of human flesh, Christ did not die the death typical to humans, but died in a special way. 5. About the Church:

74

The Eighteenth Century During the time of His earthly life Christ founded a church. Initially, it was composed of the apostles, and then all who believed in Christ. 6. About the Ecumenical Councils and the Church Fathers: The true church of Christ existed only to the fourth century, when the ecumenical councils and teachers of the church distorted Christianity as a result of their arbitrary interpretation of the Bible, and mingled it with paganism. 7. About Sacred Traditions: At the present time, the true Christian church is composed of only true spiritual Christians, who do not accept the traditions of the Russian Orthodox Church, or the decisions of the Ecumenical councils, or the writings of the teachers respected by the church; but only confess to that which is taught in the Bible. 8. About Final Judgment and the Resurrection of the Dead: Molokans can receive eternal salvation by the merits of the Son of God. 9. About the Sacraments in General: To attain moral perfection and receive eternal salvation, the graceful gifts of the Holy Spirit are given to the spiritual Christians, but not through anything visible or by some type of token, but spiritually. For this reason the Eucharist, regenerating and sanctifying the Christian, must be understood spiritually. 10. About Baptism: As a result, baptism in Christ must not be in water. John the Baptist baptized with water, but his baptism is distinct from Christian baptism. Spiritual baptism consists in instruction from the Word of God unto repentance and the remission of sins. 11. About Anointment and Unction: Cleansing the believer from sins, the Divine teaching invisibly endows him with a spiritual anointment. 12. About Repentance: Repentance is the contrition of the heart before God and the confession of sins before Him alone. 13. About Communion: The true communion consists in the acceptance of the teaching of Christ and in the fulfillment of the commandments of Christ. And if Christ commanded us to eat His flesh (John 6), then we must construe this to mean the Word or the teaching of the Savior. 14. About the Priesthood:

75

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. III Initiation to the priesthood is not a sacrament, and priests found in Orthodox churches are not necessary. For we have no other high priest than the one seated on the right side of the throne of majesty in the heavens (Heb 8:1). Therefore, on the basis of the teaching of the Apostle Peter (I Pet 5:1), Christians must have elders as guides in the faith and be obedient to them. 15. About Weddings: A wedding likewise is not a sacrament, and the words of the Apostle, “This mystery is great” (Eph 5:32), does not pertain to a marriage but to the mystery of the wedding of Christ with the church. Weddings must be performed in a manner as indicated by the example of Tobit, i.e. with the blessing of the parents; and not as presently performed in constructed [Orthodox] churches. There is also no command for a priest to marry a couple 16. About Worship Services and Rituals: It is said in the Gospels: God is a spirit and they who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth (John 4:24). For this reason, worship must not be superficial or ritualistic, but spiritual. 17. About Temples and the Sign of the Cross: All the rituals of the worship services of the constructed [Orthodox] churches, such as, making the sign of the cross, their prayers and songs, and the temples themselves, are not instituted by the Holy Scriptures, but devised by men. 18. About Icons and Relics: People at their own discretion decided to pray to and worship the Blessed Virgin Mary and the Holy Relics and icons. 19. About Petitioning the Saints: It is necessary to recognize the holiness of the Blessed Virgin Mary and the Apostles, but it is not necessary to pray to them. 20. About Fasts: The Orthodox Church has instituted fasts at certain intervals. It is true that fasting is quite necessary for the weak in spirit and is often commanded in the Word of God, but there is no indication in the Scriptures that the fast consists of abstention from only certain kinds of food on these specific days. The obligation to fast lies solely on the individual, whenever he feels his sinfulness and the flesh overpowering the spirit. A fast must consist in total abstinence from all food and drink, and not just from certain popular foods. This is how Moses, Elijah and Jesus Christ Himself fasted. 21. About Foods:

76

The Eighteenth Century We can consume all foods, except those animals that are prohibited by the Scriptures, such as, swine, fish without scales, and others. 22. About Christian Freedom: Where the Spirit of the Lord abides, there is freedom, says the holy Apostle Paul (II Cor. 3: 17). Subsequently, the basis for the moral life of a true Christian must be freedom, independence from the compulsions of men. [In other words, the Molokans rejected the ties of feudalism.] 23. About Oaths and War: Fulfilling the Divine commandments, Molokans do not need human laws, and must escape the fulfillment of those laws which are contrary to the teaching of the Word of God. So they must, for example, escape servility to landowners, war, military obligation, and oaths, and matters not permitted by the Holy Scriptures. 24. About Hospitality: Since is it not possible to openly oppose the clergy and government, then spiritual Christians in imitation of the first Christians can hide from them. And their brethren in faith are obligated to accept them and conceal them, fulfilling the command of the Scriptures: The old and young conceal between your walls (2 Esdras 2:22). And also imitate Abraham who accepted into his tent the three strangers; and Rahab who hid the Hebrew spies. Carried away by his new teaching and his success among the people (and even with some of the Orthodox clergy), Uklein concluded that the spiritual, non-ritualistic, evangelical religion was the true Christian religion which was destined to finally appear in Russia in the midst of the superstition and the ignorance of an illiterate people. And, he decided to present his creed as a concrete fact. In about 1770, surrounded with his seventy students, and with the singing of psalms, he jubilantly entered the city of Tambov to preach the new teaching. But the local police seized him and imprisoned them all. Uklein’s students were eventually set free but Uklein patiently remained imprisoned. Empress Catherine II was informed of his activities, and she commanded that he be handed over to the clergy for admonishment; and if he would not repent of his errors, then he should be brought to trial. Having by then spent a year in prison, and not wanting to waste away there with no benefit to his teaching, Uklein pretended to return to the ROC: he attended Orthodox Church for six weeks, fulfilled all the ROC regulations, and finally was released. After this one-year confinement for his jubilant entry into Tambov, Uklein saw what he could expect from preaching in public. He made a radical change in method-

77

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. III ology and began to expand his teaching secretly, instead. Fearing surveillance from the authorities and clergy, he now impressed upon his students that they must conduct themselves cautiously. Uklein went to the village Razskazov, within Tambov Province; and there, with renewed zeal, began to expound his tenets. But he was still being watched by the authorities, and they began to follow him. Noticing this, Uklein instructed his students to confirm the new teaching in the Tambov Province, while he himself traveled to the Voronezh Province and settled down for a time in the village Peskakh, where he had a house. The peasants living there accepted his teaching, and in turn began to disseminate it among their neighbors. After preaching in various villages of Voronezh Province, Uklein wanted to return to Tambov Province, but found out that ROC officials were looking for him there, and so he quickly withdrew to the neighboring Saratov Province and settled in the village Dyrnikin. Here, his preaching had such success that over half the residents of this village quickly accepted his teaching, and even the priest, Savva Ivanov, became a Molokan. With the assistance of his new followers, Uklein acquired a house in Dyrnikin and restarted his tailor business, and from this center began to travel throughout the province preaching Molokanism. The Molokans had no centralized authority or administration; every Molokan congregation was independent, and association with others was based on mutual respect. Having defined the system of Molokan profession of belief and the rules for his sect, Uklein also strove to develop its worship services. He developed Sunday services based on the Russian rural home tradition. He also wrote services for weddings, child christenings, and funerals, including all the prayers. Among other items, Uklein was intensely worried about the introduction of good singing. Under his direction, Molokans chose from among themselves their best singers, whom he obliged to listen to the songs of the common people and to adapt the better tunes and motifs into hymns. Visiting his congregations, Uklein listened to these new hymns, approved some for general use and improved others. He assembled young girls into a choir, which he sometimes took with him. Nonetheless, in keeping with the words of the Savior — that worship must be in spirit and truth — Uklein did not permit any ROC rituals, and the entire worship and prayer service consisted of only the reading and singing of psalms and the interpretation of the Holy Bible. Attaining his goal in three provinces, Uklein could have rested for a time and taken satisfaction in the fruits of the teaching as sown, but his nature was

78

The Eighteenth Century more energetic then the nature of his father-in-law Pobirokhin, and his drive to preach was intense. His steadfast belief in his own calling led him out of Saratov Province and further into Russia. Leaving behind the village of Dyrnikin, Uklein descended into the south of Russia, traveling through the Ekaterinoslav and Astrakhan Provinces, and the land of the Don Cossacks, and even reached the Caucasus. The success of his preaching was extraordinary. In the Tambov, Saratov and Voronezh Provinces, he had over 5,000 followers during his own lifetime. Uklein’s students also assisted the work of propagating Molokanism. There was no lack of new preachers and proselytes, because even in the very beginning of the sect’s expansion, almost all the Molokans began to fervently learn to read and write and learn the Bible, and this was required of them by the profession of faith itself. The novitiate Molokans, learning a few texts from the Bible by memory, assumed the work of publicizing the spiritual teaching. The publication of the Slavonic Bible, the Elizavetski edition of 1751, gave countless Russians access to scripture; and Semeon Uklein used the invaluable book as he criss-crossed central and southern Russia preaching the tenets of Spiritual Christianity and forming Molokan congregations in every village and town he entered. The church services of early Molokans and Dukhabors were nearly identical. Both preach the worship of God in spirit and truth; neither has any ecclesiastical appurtenances, and any ceremony is simple and unobtrusive. Church services of early Molokans and Dukhabors were performed in a plain room without any decor. In the center or corner of the room sits a table with a copy of the Bible, and sometimes a loaf of bread and dish of salt, based on the Evangelical words, “I am the bread of life,” and, “You are the salt of the earth.” Benches are set around the table and along the sides of the room. The genders are separated: with the Molokans, men sit at the sides of the table with the women toward the rear, while among the Dukhabors the women sit at one side of the table and men on the other. Everyone is seated by age: the eldest closest to the table. Elders give sermons, read from the Bible, then supplement the reading with a short exposition. Between sermons, psalms and hymns are sung, an elder reciting verses from the Bible to the congregation as they sing. Songbooks were unknown at the time, except for a few that were hand copied, and songs that were sung were often by memory. After a few sermons and hymns while sitting, the congregation stands and the benches are removed. The congregation then

79

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. III performs a holy kiss in the traditional Russian fashion as a sign of brotherly love. Then the minister recites prayers while the congregation is on their knees. After a few more songs or hymns are sung while standing, the minister ends services with a benediction. What is especially noticeable is congregational singing, and the number of hymns and songs sung at such services are from 10 to 20, as opposed to the ROC, where congregational singing did not exist. Among Dukhabors, the sermons were more philosophic, while Molokans preferred to read extensive passages from the Bible and then expound on it and apply it in a practical way to the lives of the parishioners. For special services, such as a wedding or funeral or child dedication, Molokans and Dukhabors sing hymns and songs appropriate for the occasion, and the minister recites prayers pertaining to the service. Molokan prayers are usually psalms or passages from the Bible, while Dukhabor prayers are often their own compositions. Both Molokans and Dukhabors gathered regularly on Sundays. Dukhabors also celebrated the major holidays of the ROC, while Molokans rejected these holidays and instead observed the holidays of the Old Testament, applying to them interpretations in light of the New Covenant of Jesus Christ.

133. DECLINE OF RUSSIAN ORTHODOXY The catalyst to the expansion and success of Molokanism and Dukhaborism was the deplorable state of the ROC in the provinces of central Russia, and especially Tambov Province, the cradle of the rationalist sectarians. The diocese of Tambov was started in February 1662, but the size of the diocese was immense and ROC officials could not suficently organize its own clergy. F.V. Livanov describes the decline of conditions of the ROC of Tambov Province. With such an extensive diocese, it was difficult for the ROC to do much to develop the people’s religious conscience, and this problem was deferred, to the detriment of the government and Church. Adding to the Church’s weakness was the continual absence of the bishop from the diocese. First example: Bishop Leonti of Tambov almost never saw his own diocese; he was either participating in the funeral of Tsar Feodor Alekseevich in Moscow, or at the coronation of Tsars Ivan and Peter Alekseevich, or at the ordination of the bishop of Voronezh, Mitrofani, or serving other appointments. The second bishop, Pitir, 1685–1698, was so inexhaustibly dedicated to daily worship services that he either per-

80

The Eighteenth Century formed them himself or participated in them, which he preferred over the work of enlightening the people. The third bishop, Ignati, 1698–1699, was convicted of participating with the dissenters, and was exiled and imprisoned by Peter I. Subsequently, the Cathedral of the Tambov episcopacy became desolate, and the Tambov diocese remained without any bishop at all for an entire 59 years, to 1758. During this interval, it was under the administration of the Metropolitan of Ryazan at some times and the Bishop of Voronezh at other times. During the second half of the 18 th century, when Molokanism and Dukhaborism were already formed, the condition of religious and ecclesiastic affairs in the Tambov Province became even worse, so that for the most part it contributed to the success of Uklein, Pobirokhin, and succeeding preachers. In the interval, even the home of the archbishop stood idle and was rented as a recordkeeping office by the military chancellor. The people of Tambov Province during this half-century became totally alienated from the bishop, and lost any sense of reverence for ROC prelates. Parish church services were conducted by aged priests who would walk from house to house asking for contributions. The diocese had no laws to guide it; Tambov parish clergy wallowed in complete ignorance. This alien condition helps to explain the rapid formation of Molokanism and Dukhaborism at that time in Tambov Province. Uklein and Pobirokhin equated themselves to the clergy, and there was no clear reason not to accept their tenets, especially when the parish clergy were no more moral than the people in general, were deluded in their practices, and looked to profit as their material objective. The Tambov parish clergy fell apart; they walked around in rags, and often had to walk to complain to the Holy Synod. The clergy finally ended up turning to robbery. Wives and daughters of altar boys walked to the Holy Synod seeking for just defense of their husbands and fathers. It is understandable that, after all this, the Tambov Orthodox clergy did not oppose the Tambov Molokans and Dukhabors but actually had sympathy towards them. To complete the humiliation of the position, Tambov Bishop Pakhomi in 1766 was tried for larceny, having withheld money from memorial services and from disbursements to an invalid who was receiving assistance from a monastery. Under the following bishop, Theodosei, 1766–1786, new assessments were levied against him, disgracing the clergy overall; to the point that in many villages not even one clergyman remained. During these very years, Uklein and Pobirokhin traveled openly throughout the province and began to install their own mentors and preceptors from among the people. Circumstances acted to promote the new preachers:

81

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. III Uklein and Pobirokhin preached that the word of God contained no commands regarding the necessity of ecclesiastical prelates, much less a hierarchy. In traditional Russian Orthodox congregations, unfamiliar, crude, and obscure tunes were sung; Uklein brought girls with him to lead the arranged singing of Biblical texts based on popular motifs. Idle monks, whom the public could see were not living at all in accordance with their monastic orders or monastery rules, persuaded the people that Uklein and Pobirokhin were right: monasteries of brick and mortar were not divine institutions but human, and are contrary to human nature. Monks and nuns, disdaining the statutes of the holy fathers and ascetics, would wander about the entire province, through the cities and private homes, through the market places and town squares, to the point that Bishop Theodosei of Tambov required the help of the Tambov battalion commander to return them to the monasteries. But Uklein initiated a church-family piety in the homes of the peasants on the basis of the Bible, and he affirmed that the Christian monastery must exist in the soul of a man. The monks in the monasteries fought, unwilling to accept the austerity of the monastic vows of chastity, poverty and obedience; Uklein and Pobirokhin preached to the people regarding freedom from monastic vows. The roofs of ROC churches glistened with gold, and bell towers rose to immense heights. Despite having taken the vowed vow of poverty, monasteries accumulated immense amounts of money and valuables as their personal gain. But Uklein and Pobirokhin preached the futility of the constructed churches and cathedrals, with all their beauty, emphasizing rather that the church of the living God lived inside man, and that its decoration increased according to the spiritual measure of the person. Based on Livanov’s account, it was under Empress Catherine II that the ROC provided the catalyst for the expansion of Spiritual Christianity and Tambov became its cradle. The era of Uklein’s success and the spread of the Ikonoclastic philosophies of Probirokhin and Kolesnikov, and the Khristovshin concepts of Ivan Suslov and Prokopi Lupkin, was coincident with the administration of the ROC by the avowed atheist, Pafnuti P. Chebishyov, At-Gen of the Holy Synod from 1768 to 1774. Her Imperial Majesty, Catherine II, may not have appreciated the extent of damage her alliance with French enlightenment would cause to the ROC, or may have miscalculated its effects. Her political selections for the position of At-Gen, such men as Melissino, Chebyshyov, Akchurin, Haymov, and Musin-Pushkin, covering the period 1765–1797, crippled the administration of the ROC. During these years, sectarian preaching and the

82

The Eighteenth Century development of Spiritual Christian congregations and Khristovshin Ships reached its climax, while the ROC decayed.

134. GRIGORI SAVVICH SKOVORODA Grigori Savvich Skovoroda was the most prominent Ukrainian philosopher, humanist, and published poet of the second half of the 18th century. His thinking had immense impact on the development of morality and ethics in philosophic circles in Russia and Ukraine. Skovoroda was born December 3, 1722, in the village Chernukh near Kiev, to a family of Cossack descent which owned a small parcel of land. When he was seven years old, his singing talent was recognized and he was placed in the choir at the local ROC. He received his primary education at the village school in Chernukh and then entered Kiev-Mogilyanskoi Academy in 1738. He was a student there until 1742, when he traveled to St. Petersburg, where he resided for two years, singing in an a cappella choir for Empress Elizabeth. He returned to complete his education at Kiev-Mogilyanskoi Academy from 1744 to 1750. After graduating he traveled to Hungary. He stayed there until 1753, returning to Ukraine after visiting Venice, Athens, and other European cities, to expand his knowledge of culture and philosophy. Upon his return to Ukraine in 1753, he accepted a teaching position at a seminary in Kievan Pereyaslav, where he stayed for just a year. Skovoroda went back to Kiev-Mogilyanskoi and took courses in theology. He was recommended by Metr. Scherbatzkim of Kiev as a teacher to one of the wealthiest landowners of the regions, Stefan Tomar, in the village of Kovrai, near Pereyaslav. He accepted an offer from Tomar and taught at his estate from 1755 through 1759. While thus employed, Skovoroda had the opportunity to visit Moscow and Troitse-Sergievski Monastery, where he befriended abbot Kirill. Recognizing Skovoroda’s talent, abbot Kirill attempted to persuade him to stay and accept a teaching position at the monastery seminary. Skovoroda declined, being homesick for Ukraine, and returned to Tomar’s estate at Pereyaslav. During this second period of teaching at the Tomar estate, Gervasi Yakubovich, abbot of a monastery in Pereyaslav, attempted to convince Skovoroda to become a monk and promised him a high position in the priesthood of the ROC. The idea was repellant to Skovoroda and he accused the abbot of trying to turn him into a

83

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. III Pharisee, telling him, “As if there were not enough already in the Orthodox priesthood.” From the Tomar estate, Skovoroda moved at the request of Bishop Joasaf of Mitkevich to Kharkov, to teach at a college, where he remained for the next ten years. At this point in his life his philosophic ideology began to deviate substantially from the established tenets of the ROC and he was forced to retire from his position. Most of Skovoroda’s literary works were composed in the 1750s and 1760s, when he was a teacher at various schools; his philosophic writings were composed in the 1770s and 1780s. Due to the revulsion toward the ROC that he developed while a teacher in Kharkov, Skovoroda changed his approach to interpreting the Bible, and he began to consider the historical accounts of the Bible as mythological. Skovoroda highly valued the Bible’s moral code, and his most famous single tractate is the Introduction to Christian Morality (translated in the Appendix). It was written in 1766 for the young gentry of Kharkov Province as an introduction to understanding morality through self-examination and the Ten Commandments. After its publication, the tractate was reviewed by the bishop of Belgrade, who censored it, claiming it departed from the standard ROC concept of morality. Skovoroda replied to the inquisitor that the aristocracy and gentry should have a moral standard identical to that which was required of clergy and serfs by ROC prelates, and nothing less. Under duress, Skovoroda left the college in Kharkov and began his tenure as an itinerant philosopher. This was his last teaching position, and over the next 25 years he wandered about Ukraine as an itinerant philosopher, disseminating his concepts and ideology. During these years of migration, Skovoroda was a welcome guest at the home of many ordinary people, as well as landowners and artisans scattered throughout the cities and villages, never leaving the region of Ukraine. Skovoroda’s philosophy can be encapsulated as the attainment of morality by constant self-examination and self-improvement. The loss of his teaching vocation caused him to lose what little respect still remained in him for the ROC. The greed and hypocrisy of the clergy and their lack of concern for the welfare of the people was repulsive to Skovoroda, and seemed to him to lead the people into further corruption rather than improving their morality. Skovoroda also noticed the cruel treatment of serfs by landowners and aristocrats, and their drive to increase their property and wealth and political domination, and he condemned them for it.

84

The Eighteenth Century Along with his own compositions, Skovoroda also compiled rural Ukrainian fables and tales, songs and rhymes. Fluent in mythology — both Greek and Roman — he utilized myths in his compositions. In resolving moral and ethical questions, Skovoroda turned to Pythagoras, Diogenes, Socrates, Epicurus, Plutarch, Seneca, Aristotle and Plato. He quoted the ancient philosophers in his compositions, as well as those of early Russia and Ukraine. The following selection is a sample of his philosophic-religious thought: Many seek Christ in the monarchs August and Tiberius; they wander about Jerusalem, along the Jordan, through Bethlehem: “Here is Christ,” they cry. I know that an angel cries to them, “You seek Christ crucified. But he is not here!” They seek him in high secular places, in elegant homes, on ceremonial tables; they seek; they gape at the blue vault of the stars, at the sun, at the moon at all the Copernican world. No, he is also not there. They seek him in long prayers, in fasts, in the rites of priest. But he is not there. So where is he? Perhaps where oratory is exercised in preaching, where they will ascertain prophetic secrets? No, not here. The unfortunate scribe, he read the prophets, sought a man and tripped over a corpse and fell with him. Christ is not in the kingdom of corpses. He always lives and that is where to seek him. If, first, you do not seek inside yourself, it is useless to seek in other places. Always, in every age and among all people, his voice has echoed in the heart of each person who did not extinguish within himself the spark of Divinity through carnal passion. Satan sowed seven evil deeds in the hearts of people, instigating their evil desires. The motivation to materialize these desires enslaves our flesh and suffocates the Divine fire. On the contrary, once defeating the flesh, the spirit ascends from servile obedience of nature to a ruling nature, to its initial birth and to its beginingless beginning. Having cleansed itself in this contact, the soul is discharged from the bodily earth and the earthly body from tight confines flies as spirit in freedom. The inner spirit exists, but all external items that are accessible to the senses are a passing shadow, a stream of water changing without interruption. Our residence in the world is the journey of a pilgrim, the journey of the generation of Israel to the Promised Land. The generation of Israel, the descendents of Abraham, who first saw truth through a bodily vestment, are those people who have recognized the spirit in themselves, or, recognized something. Such people are seldom met, less than a white raven; they are to be sought with the lamp of Diogenes. To their number belongs all who recognize the truth, regardless of what faith or nationality they adhere to.

Skovoroda’s exceptional talents provided him with the means for philosophic success: his profound mind, phenomenal memory, poetic and prosaic creativity, excellent singing voice, and his ability to play several musical instruments. Skovoroda composed music and was also an artist. Along with the Russian and Ukrainian languages, Skovoroda was fluent in German, Latin and Greek, and translated works of Cicero and Plutarch from Greek into Ukrainian. No historical record, however, mentions Skovoroda ever marrying or having a

85

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. III family. Pavel Miliukov, in Volume 2 of his History of Russian Culture, wrote the following about Skovoroda: It is impossible not to notice that the era prior to the reformation pertains to the lively preaching of the famous Ukrainian philosopher and mystic Gregory Savvich Skovoroda. Not affiliating himself with any sect, and not severing himself openly from the Orthodox Church, Skovoroda in soul was a sectarian. His views, with the exception of the teaching of the preexistence of souls, were completely aligned with the views of Dukhabors. In intimate letters to two or three friends, he straightaway identified himself as an Abrahamian, a student of Bohemian sectarians. “Let them get involved in whatever they want,” he wrote to his closest friend, “but I have dedicated myself to the search for divine wisdom. For this reason we are born, by this I live, of this I meditate day and night, and with this I die.” Many of Skovorodas’ compositions, valued highly by the sectarians, are nothing more than the inspired propaganda of Spiritual Christianity. Skovoroda considered himself among their number, equating his inner voice with the genius of Socrates, and was unconditionally obedient to all that the spirit commands him. His closest of friends were prepared to accept the command of this inner spirit as prophesy, as Skovoroda did himself. Skovoroda was not alien to that mystic perception of the inner fire that convinced Spiritual Christians of all eras that the spirit of God resided in their soul. After one such ecstasy, Skovoroda came to believe in his calling conclusively. His attitude in relation to superficial forms of Christianity can be deduced from his opinions. He decided to fulfill Orthodox rites prior to his demise only to condescend to the conscience of the weak. Scripture he interpreted according to spiritual intellect, viewing He who exists as though a literal thought. The Bible, according to his opinion, consisted of pictures and figures that had to be understood spiritually and interpreted allegorically.

Skovoroda died October 29, 1794, in the village Ivanovka, today known at Skovorodinovka, in Kharkov Province. Prior to his death, Skovoroda requested the following words to be inscribed on his tombstone, “The world tried to catch up with me, but could not.” However, the following verse was inscribed instead (it rhymes, in Ukrainian): A zealot for truth, spiritual worshipper of God, And a philosopher in word and mind and life, A lover of simplicity with freedom from vanity. An upright person without guile, satisfied always with everything. Attaining supreme knowledge, recognizing the spirit of nature. An example worthy of the heart, Skovoroda.

86

The Eighteenth Century 135. TSAR PAVEL PETROVICH The attitude of imperial ecclesiasticism imposed by Empress Catherine terminated with her demise. Her son Pavel Petrovich succeeded her. He had been brought up in the spirit of the ROC by his tutor, Metr. Platon Levshin, and was a devout and mystical person. Tsar Pavel’s religious piety was interwoven with his attitude toward imperial authority, much like the tsars of the 17th century. As heir to the throne, in earlier years, he wrote in his diary: The initial law of the emperor is his observance of all laws. Above him are two authorities: God and law. As far as my subjects are concerned, their primary law is the law of obedience, instituted as a religion, just as is nature and reason. For this reason, they must fear and respect their monarch, because he is the reflection of the All-high.

According to a traditional account, Tsar Pavel was so carried away by his own piety and mysticism that during his coronation, he would not accept communion from the priest but walked up to the altar and took communion on his own, like a priest. Tsar Pavel provided a magnanimous example of imperial authority for the new generation of Russian sovereignty by accepting it in a devout manner. He further defined his attitude in a proclamation dated April 5, 1797, where he stated that the Russian Emperor is the head of the ROC. Through this important declaration, Tsar Pavel emphasized the necessity of the monarch being a dedicated member of the ROC. Tsar Pavel installed Pr. V.A. Khovanski as At-Gen on August 7, 1797, to replace Count Musin-Pushkin, who retired from office shortly after the death of Empress Catherine II. Matters were ameliorated for the members of the Holy Synod under Tsar Pavel. The tsar had considerable respect for Archbishop Ambrosi Podobedov of Kazan, a member of the Holy Synod. Taking advantage of this, the Holy Synod presented a complaint to Tsar Pavel against At-Gen Khovanski, although no further information is available. The tsar understood the complaint and he gave plenipotentiary to the Holy Synod, under the auspices of Archbishop Ambrosi, to independently select a new candidate for the office of At-Gen. The selection was D.I. Khvostov, and he was confirmed by Tsar Pavel on June 10, 1799. This, however, was the sole occasion that an At-Gen was selected this way in the entire history of the Holy Synod. Because of his concern for the ROC, Tsar Pavel, during his reign, ordered the Holy Synod to issue several decrees to curb corporeal punishment of priests and deacons. He also decorated prelates with orders, a practice that was con-

87

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. III tinued by subsequent tsars. Metr. Gavril Petrov and Metr. Platon Levshin remonstrated against him. Metr. Platon, whom Tsar Pavel also intended to decorate, fell on his knees and begged the tsar not to do this. Tsar Pavel was the Grand Master of the Order of St. John of Jerusalem, and so he decorated several bishops with the order, while palace priests were elevated to the title of Knights of St. John of Jerusalem. Archbishop Irini Klementyevski (1798-1814) received even aglets of an Adjutant-General to wear over his monastic vestments. Some prelates received the Order of St. Vladimir. But Tsar Pavel could not tolerate Metr. Gavril Petrov of Novgorod, and forced him to confinement at his cathedral estate in Novgorod in 1799. The metropolitan died a year later, on January 16, 1801. Tsar Paul then selected Archbishop Ambrosi Podobedov of Kazan as his replacement, and he became president of the Holy Synod. The tsar loved Archbishop Ambrosi because he welcomed the decorations and other displays of generosity that the tsar offered him. Some in the capital even suggested that Tsar Pavel might make him patriarch. The day before Tsar Pavel was assasinated, Archbishop Ambrosi Podobedov was elevated to metropolitan of Novgorod and St. Petersburg.

136. SAINTS AND ELDERS OF THE 18TH CENTURY During the reign of Empress Catherine II, the supreme prelate of the ROC was Dmitri Sechyonov (1709-1767). Sechonyov was a graduate of the Moscow Academy, and after his graduation, he remained there as a teacher. He was then transferred to Kazan Province to assume the post of archimandrite of Sviazhki Monastery, and soon after was ordained as Bishop of Ryazan. He was then promoted to Archbishop of Novgorod, and later Metropolitan of Novgorod and President of the Holy Synod. It was he who crowned Empress Catherine II. Another prominent prelate of the era was Gedeon Krinovski, a graduate of the Moscow Academy, who later became archimandrite of Troitse-Sergievski Monastery under Empress Elizabeth, and then Bishop of Pskov. Gaviel Petrov, who was metropolitan of both Novgorod and St. Petersburg during the reign of Empress Catherine II, was the son of a parish priest in Moscow Province. He attended Lomonosov Academy in Moscow and after graduation, he became a teacher of rhetoric. By nature he was calm and restrained, and was in no hurry to be tonsured as a monk. Other members of the Holy Synod took notice of him, especially Dmitri Sechyonov and Gedion Krinovski, both of

88

The Eighteenth Century whom enjoyed the wealth and prestige that came with their positions as prelates in the ROC. They pressured Gavril Petrov to become tonsured in order to advance his career. He took their advice. In 1761, he was promoted to rector of Moscow Academy; in 1763, he was ordained as Bishop of Tver and became a member of the Holy Synod; and in 1770, he was promoted to Metropolitan of Novgorod and Petersburg, becoming president of the Holy Synod. The primary effort of Gavril Petrov was to reestablish traditional Russian monasticism. Metr. Gavril felt that the reforms of Tsar Peter I had suppressed monastic development, and that they routed the institution of monasticism and the energy of monks and nuns in useless directions. Metr. Gavril hoped to reverse this course. Russian society overall scarcely noticed his efforts, but within the Church he had considerable success by summoning prominent ascetics out of exile or dormancy. Such elders included monk Nazari from the Saratov Hermitage, who reorganized Valaam Monastery; elder Adrian of the Brinsk Forest, who renovated the Konevski Hermitage; and elder Ignati of Peshnosh, who rebuilt the Tikhvin Monastery. Metr. Gavril was also in regular correspondence with elder Paisei Vilichkovski and assisted him in the publication of his Dobroto-Lubya, the Russian translation of the Philokatia (Love of Goodness). The last of the Ukrainians to hold power in the Holy Synod was Ambrosi Zertis-Kemenski, Archbishop of Moscow. Ambrosi was actually Moldovan, although he was born in Ukraine in 1708. He graduated from the Kiev-Mogilyanski Academy and then attended a Jesuit college in Lvov. He then attended the Moscow Academy. Ambrosi was promoted to rector of the St. Petersburg Academy because of his fluency in several languages, and was further promoted to archimandrite of Nikon’s Voskresenski (New Jerusalem) Monastery. In 1768, Ambrosi was ordained as Archbishop of Moscow. Ambrosi did not hesitate to whip or beat wayward priests personally; he was not at all a popular figure. In 1771, during the outbreak of bubonic plague in Moscow, disenchanted clergy incited a large riot. They dragged Ambrosi out from a church inside the Donskoi Monastery and killed him, beating him for two hours. He died September 16, 1771. The most brilliant of ROC clergy during the era of Empress Catherine II is considered to be Metr. Platon Levshin of Moscow. He was the son of a deacon in a local Moscow parish and attended Moscow Academy, graduating in 1758. Platon was then hired to teach rhetoric at the seminary at Troitse-Sergievski Monastery, and he became its rector in 1761. Soon after her coronation, Empress

89

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. III Catherine visited the Troitse-Sergievski Monastery and met Platon. His brilliant reception impressed her, along with his oratory skills and scholarship. The empress immediately had Platon transferred to her palace to become tutor for her son, Pavel Petrovich, the young heir to the throne. Coincident with being imperial tutor, Platon was promoted to archimandrite of Troitse-Sergievski Monastery in 1766. Platon was hardly able to make his presence known at the monastery due to the demands at the imperial palace, where he also became tutor of the wife of Pavel Petrovich, Princess Wilhelmina of Hesse Darmstadt. She was baptized into the ROC just prior to her wedding in 1773, and received the new name of Natalya Alekseevna. After her death in 1776, during childbirth, Platon likewise became tutor for the second wife of Tsarevich Pavel, the Princess of Wittenberg, Sophia-Dorothea, who was renamed Maria Feodorevna after her baptism into the ROC. In 1768, Platon was promoted to bishop and assigned to the Holy Synod; in 1770, he was ordained metropolitan of Tver. Platon spoke French and Latin in addition to Russian, and he often played the role of arbitrator between Empress Catherine and other crown heads of Europe, such as Polish sovereign Stanislaw Ponyatovski and Austrian sovereign Joseph II. Platon Levshin was ordained Metropolitan of Moscow after the death of Ambrosi Zertis-Kamenski in 1771. During the seven years that Platon held the cathedra of Moscow diocese, he concentrated on improving the plight of the parish clergy, and building schools and monasteries. Tikhon Solokov of Zadonsk and Voronezh (d. 1783), who was also known as the Miracle Worker of Zadonsk, was born in 1725, the son of a poor deacon of Novgorod Province. His parents were able to send him to a seminary and then Tikhon was hired as an instructor. Later, he became rector of the Tver Seminary, and in 1763 he became a monk and was ordained as Archbishop of Voronezh. Having been raised in poverty, Tikhon led a humble life and was especially noted for his charity. Unable to effectively manage his diocese and the ecclesiastical politics, Tikhon took leave of his episcopacy and for the final sixteen years of his life, he lived as a recluse. Most of this time was spent at the Zadonsk Bogo-Roditza (Theotokos) Monastery, near Voronezh. Tikhon exemplified the austere ascetic of his era: praying for hours in his cloister, reading the Bible and writings of the Holy Fathers, and writing. He produced a total of fifteen published volumes. During these years he had a constant stream of visitors, while he also partici-

90

The Eighteenth Century pated in routine monastic chores such as chopping wood or mowing grass. In 1862, Tikhon of Zadonsk was canonized by the ROC. Seraphim of Sarov was born July 19, 1759, as Prokhor Moshnin. In 1778, he arrived at Sarov Hermitage; he was tonsured as a monk in 1786. For six years he was a hierodeacon, and three years a hieromonk. In 1794, Seraphim moved to an isolated hut in the forest to live. Other noted ascetics were Dimitri of Rostov (d. 1709) and Mitrophan of Voronezh (d. 1703). Female ascetics were Ksenia of St. Petersburg, and Aleksandra of Diveyev (d. 1789). Between 1700 and 1764, out of a total of 1200 monasteries and convents, 175 were closed, while 47 new ones were opened. Most of this was a result of the reforms of Tsar Peter aimed at reducing the number of monasteries by closing the smaller and ineffective ones. Others were closed under Empress Catherine II as a result of the secularization of ecclesiastical patrimony, which left many monasteries with no income.

137. THE CORONATION OF RUSSIAN SOVEREIGNS The ecclesiastical rite of coronation served as a radiant confirmation of the religious-mystical endowment of royal authority upon the tsar. The participation of the ROC in the ceremony of the coronation sanctified imperial authority. The ecclesiastical rite, “Holy Coronations according to the Statute of the Orthodox Ecumenical Church,” was expanded from the way it was performed during the era of Moscovite Russia. There are two moments that are especially important in the ceremony of coronation. First, the ceremony of coronation was to serve as an expression of the Emperor’s adherence to the ROC. Second, the entire ceremony displays the fact that the ROC blesses the sovereign, that is, the lesser is blessed by the greater, again confirming that the sacerdotal transcends the imperial. During the era of Moscovite Russia, the coronation rite did not include the Byzantine tradition of the tsar publicly reciting the Nicene Creed. This began with the coronation of Tsar Feodor Alekseevich in 1676. This change was implemented because of the struggles occurring at the time with the Old Believers, in order to encourage the tsar to realize his attachment and obligation to the official ROC.

91

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. III Tsar Peter I, at the age of 10, along with his brother Ivan V Alekseevich, would have recited the Nicene Creed during their coronation, as did all future emperors and empresses of Russia. Reciting the Creed, anointment, and partaking of the Eucharist during the rite of coronation, was intended to testify to the tsar’s membership and loyalty to the ROC. An element of imperial ecclesiasticism appears in the prayer of blessing that is part of the ceremony, which is recited by the metropolitan conducting the service: “Place Your fear into his heart, and compassion into his subjects. Preserve him in the immaculate faith; disclose to him the tenets of your ecumenical church. Confirm his kingdom; dignify him with activities pleasant to you; allow rectitude and much peace to radiate during his days; let us live a calm and serene life in all piety and purity.”

A special prayer recited in the presence of the entire assembly testified that the emperor held a responsibility that possessed a religious-mystical character. You have chosen me as tsar and judge over Your people. I recognize Your limitless surveillance over me and I give thanks for it. I venerate Your majesty. You, my Sovereign and Lord, admonish me in my work; enlighten me and direct me in this great ministry, since You have sent me to accomplish it. May Your wisdom always sit alongside me upon my throne. Send Your saints from heaven, so I would understand what is pleasing before You eyes, and for me to do what is right according to Your commandments. Allow my heart to be held in Your hands. I am blessed by the mercy and generosity of Your only-begotten Son, and by Your immaculate, benevolent, and life-giving Spirit for ever. Amen.

The entire rite of coronation consisted in portraying the tsar as the anointed of God, with authority that evolved from God, and indicating that he, as a person, was sanctified. From the standpoint of imperial Russia, the ROC was elevated to a privileged position in comparison with other Christian denominations and religions. The imperial support of the ostensive supremacy of the ROC had, as its goal, the preservation of the mutual relationship between church and state. This premise was instituted during the Moscovite era, that both the imperial and the sacerdotal realms of Russia were the legacy of Byzantium. The rite of coronation was to confirm the premise that the new generation of Russian tsars of the 19th century was still the continuation of the line of Byzantine emperors, and the ROC still preserved purity of belief.

92

PART 8

93

THE NINETEENTH CENTURY 138. TSAR ALEXANDR I PAVLOVICH Tsar Alexandr I (ruled March 12, 1801–November 19, 1825), had little loyalty or association with the ROC in his early years. The tsar had a dual personality that oscillated between his mystic-religious temperament and his role as sovereign over imperial Russia. His religious inclination was more apparent in the decade following the Napoleonic War of 1812-1814. As Pr. Nikolai Mikhailovich recorded, “Emperor Alexandr I was never a reformer, but in the initial years of his reign was conservative beyond any of the counselors who surrounded him.” His initial edicts and constitutional amendments and legislation involved the ROC very little, if any at all. Tsar Alexandr’s religious temperament led him to often discuss matters directly with the Holy Synod, instead of using his intermediary, the At-Gen, as did other Russian sovereigns of the 18th century. But the mood of the emperor often oscillated, and so did his attitude toward the Holy Synod, and as a result, in early 1803, the tsar replaced At-Gen Khvostov with A.A. Yakovlev, although he only lasted nine months, January 9– October 1, 1803. Yakovlev had an inclination toward order and legality. The first item on his agenda was to study the Religious Regulation in its entirety, but in his effort to put the regulation into practice, he collided with the members of the Holy Synod, and especially Metr. Ambrosi Podobedov of Novgorod and St. Petersburg. During his short tenure as At-Gen, he discovered himself having, “To defend myself against the poisonous arrows of the clergy,” as he described it in

95

his memoirs. The department of the Holy Synod in Moscow was in grave disorder, and while Yakovlev was attempting to organize it, Metr. Ambrosi Podobedov was attempting to incline Yakovlev to his side, first with admonitions and then with threats. Metr. Ambrosi was, however, unable to persuade the honorable and meticulous Yakovlev. The memoirs of Yakovlev are filled with complaints about constant conflicts with Metr. Ambrosi, the disorder of diocesan governments, the unrestrained despotism of the diocesan bishops, and their arbitrary conduct with parish priests. The metropolitan and other members of the Holy Synod tended to sweep such reports under a carpet, because some Synodal prelates were themselves despotic and ruthless toward parish priests in their own dioceses, and such reports incriminated them. As time progressed, the “poisonous arrows of the clergy,” increased in number, and the control over the Holy Synod evolved into a personal struggle between At-Gen Yakovlev and President Metr. Ambrosi Podobedov. In the end, it was Yakovlev who was defeated. A new chapter in the relationship between the church and state opens with Pr. Alexandr Nikolaevich Golitzin as At-Gen of the Holy Synod, October 21, 1803–November 19, 1817. With Golitzin and through the 19th century, the AtGen was the administrative head of the ROC, and which was now transformed into an official government bureau. The selection of Golitzin by Tsar Alexandr I was somewhat strange. Golitzin, hardly 30 years of age, was presented with a field of activity that he was quite unfamiliar with. Tsar Alexandr explained that Golitzin was part of his trusted circle of advisors, although knowing nothing about ecclesiastical matters. Now, with an At-Gen who was a personal friend of the tsar, and one of his intimate advisors, the members of the Holy Synod, and especially Metr. Ambrosi Podobedov, withdrew from any further debate or conflict. The protocol installed by Yakovlev remained in effect, while Golitzin began to concentrate all ecclesiastical affairs into his own personal chancellery, as much as practically possible. In 1807, Golitzin sent a circular letter to all diocesan bishops requiring of them a report of all important issues or events occurring in their diocese. This all the more increased the dependence of the members of the Holy Synod on Golitzin. In 1810, Golitzin became Minister of National Education, while still retaining the office of At-Gen of the Holy Synod, while in 1811 he was entrusted with the Department of Alien Denominations, a separate sub-division that dealt with non-ROC religions and denominations. Everything that dealt with Christian education in Russia was united under the sole authority of Golitzin. In

The Nineteenth Century Golitzin’s opinion, the undertaking of Christian education could be resolved by “Inner Christianity, agreeable to both imperial and sacerdotal authorities.” After the Napoleonic War, Golitzin began inclining toward mysticism. Taking advantage of his office of At-Gen, Golitzin, in the name of religious tolerance, contributed to the propagation of various veins of Protestant and sectarian persuasions. His enthusiasm for mysticism had its purposeful influence on the tsar. An edict of October 24, 1817, created the Ministry of Religious Affairs and National Education — also known as the Double-Ministry — and it was placed in the hands of Golitzin. The new minister on national education viewed the world through the glasses of a universal Christianity of the lowest common denominator. Such a response was conditioned by the mystical inclination of Tsar Alexandr I, which he developed after the defeat of the Napoleonic invasion of 1812–14 and the creation of the Holy Alliance in 1815. It then seemed natural for these two departments to be subject to one person, and the result was the Double-Ministry, merging religious affairs with national education, at the head of which was Pr. Golitzin. As stated in the edict creating the Double-Ministry, the two ministries were merged, “so that Christian piety would always be the basis of true education.” Nonetheless, the Ministry was still internally divided into two departments, that of Religious Affairs and that of National Education (but this only lasted until May 14, 1824). The At-Gen of the Holy Synod was now subject to the department head who was Pr. Golitzin. A subdivision of this ministry, the Department of the Orthodox Denomination, now had the administration over the Holy Synod. During this period, the activity of the department was defined by the religious program of Golitzin. Golitzin was required to leave his office of At-Gen of the Holy Synod to become Minister of the Double-Ministry, and P.S. Mescherski was appointed as new At-Gen (November 19, 1817–April 2, 1833). Any matters regarding the ROC were now delivered to the Double-Ministry by the At-Gen, and any matter required by the state was routed through bureaucratic channels to the members of the Holy Synod, and thence to the diocesan bishops and parish priests. The Ministry of Religious Affairs only existed for some short interval, but its significance for future history was decisive. The ecclesiastical reform of 1817 purposely caused more authority over the affairs of the ROC to be invested into the office of At-Gen. Archbishop Filaret Drozdov — later to become metropolitan of Moscow — was able to gain the favor of Tsar Alexandr I before the ecclesiastical reform of 1817. At the time, he was a bishop and active in the Commissary of Religious

97

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. III Schools. Filaret was very satisfied with the new reform and greeted Pr. Golitzin as the emperor’s guardian of the ROC, and Tsar Alexandr awarded Archbishop Drozdov the Order of St. Vladimir. Fortunately, Metr. Ambrosi Podobedov of Novgorod and St. Petersburg did not have to deal with the Ministry of Religious Affairs. He gave his notice of retirement on March 26, 1818, using his failing health as the reason. He passed away on May 21 of the same year. His successor was Metr. Mikhail Desnitzki, a sincere and pious person having a mystic nature; but the very Orthodox. Metr. Mikhail was a natural preacher and was widely respected among the people. For a long while, prior to becoming a monk, he had served as an ordinary parish priest with little vision of his future as president of the Holy Synod and champion of the rights of the ROC. The relationship between Metr. Mikhail Desnitzki and Pr. Golitzin was stretched thin, and their disagreements became insurmountable. As a result of his conservative views, conflict with the liberal Golitzin and other bishops was inevitable. In early March 1821, Metr. Mikhail presented Tsar Alexandr I a complaint against Pr. Golitzin. For unknown reasons, two weeks later, on March 24, 1821, Metr. Mikhail suddenly died. The successor to Metr. Mikhail Desnitzki was Metr. Seraphim Glagolevski (1821-1843), who held tenure on the Holy Synod longer than any other member of its history. Metr. Seraphim was an energetic man with conservative views. He was against the Russian Bible Society, against the translation of the Bible into the vernacular Russian language, and against those mystic elements that Pr. Golitzin wanted to accept into the realm of the ROC. Pr. Golitzin’s strength in these struggles was due to his close proximity to the tsar and their common religious views. Golitzin shared his ideas of a universal Christianity with Tsar Alexandr, which inspired him to create the Holy Alliance on September 14, 1815, after the Napoleonic War. But as time went along, Tsar Alexandr began to return to Russia’s roots of traditional Orthodoxy, and Golitzin’s view’s of universal Christianity gradually departed from the tsar’s agenda. This had a negative effect on Golitzin, because conservative Orthodoxy did not correlate with the concept of an inter-denomination Kingdom of Christ on earth, which would have consisted of the unification of Christian nations. Golitzin then took a change of course and conservative actions began to surface: the censure of mystical literature in 1818; the exile of Skopetz leader Kondrati Selivanov in 1820; and the banishment of the Jesuits entirely from St. Petersburg that same year. The Russian Bible Society and the effort to publish a translation of the Bible in the vernacular Russian surfaced as a point of contention between

98

The Nineteenth Century the liberals of Golitzin’s circle and the conservative bishops under Metr. Seraphim Glagolevski. Golitzin was likewise president of the Russian Bible Society. After the death of Metr. Mikhail Desnitzki, Seraphim Glagolevski was ordained metropolitan of St. Petersburg and Novgorod, subsequently becoming president of the Holy Synod, and he threw his weight against a Russian translation of the Bible. From the political end of the intrigues, Count Aleksei Andreevich Arakcheev, former Minster of War, impressed Tsar Alexandr with the thought that the mystical trends in Russia’s religious thinking were undermining political principles. The entrance of Masons into St. Petersburg and their establishment of halls were likewise of no benefit to the ROC. To assist him in his political intrigue to return to conservative Orthodoxy, Count Arakcheev was able to acquire archimandrite Foti Spasski of Yuriev Monastery as a confederate. Shortly before the death of Tsar Alexandr I, Metr. Seraphim wrote to him, explaining to him the danger threatening the ROC as a result of the views and activities of Pr. Golitzin. Metr. Seraphim informed him that Pr. Golitzin, as Minister of National Education, allowed the publication of books that were in opposition to tenets of the ROC. The metropolitan achieved his goal. On April 25, 1824, at the home of Count V.G. Orlov, archimandrite Foti encountered Pr. Golitzin and declared him anathema. Shortly after, Foti went to Tsar Alexandr and begged him on his knees to free the ROC from “this monster-heretic,” as he referred to Golitzin. On May 15, 1824, an Imperial Edict was issued, which resulted in the dissolution of the Double-Ministry and the removal of Pr. Golitzin from his offices of Minister of National Education, Minister of Religion, and President of the Russian Bible Society. Metr. Seraphim became president of the Russian Bible Society, while Admiral A.S. Shishkov became Minister of National Education. Another edict, dated August 24, 1824, stated that At-Gen Mescherski would remain as independent head of the Department of Orthodox Denomination. Future Attorneys-General of the Holy Synod likewise held the same concurrent position. Archimandrite Foti continued to press Tsar Alexandr about the dangers of religious liberalism in Russian, and especially mysticism, now that secret societies, such as the Masons, were beginning to establish themselves in Russia. Foti told Tsar Alexandr that this influx of mystic and secret societies would lead to revolution. Archimandrite Foti and Admiral Shishkov joined forces, and initiated a persecution and oppression of free religious thought. A legend persists that Tsar Alexandr I did not die in 1825 due to illness, but clandestinely withdrew from public life and retired to a monastery in Siberia

99

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. III under the name of monk Feodor Kuzmich. Communist sympathizers claimed that when they opened the vault containing the body of Tsar Alexandr in St. Petersburg, it was actually stuffed with a mannequin or large doll. Others claimed there was a similarity in physical features between Feodor Kuzmich and the Tsar. In 1740, Pietist theologian Johann Albrecht Bengal (1687-1752) published in Germany his theological work, wherein he attempted to date the second advent of Jesus Christ and the initiation of the millennium Kingdom in the year 1790. When the date proposed by Bengal arrived and passed, Johann Heinrich Jung (Jung-Stilling) reinvestigated Bengal’s calculations and arrived at the year of 1836 for the coming of Jesus Christ. People who had read a Russian translation of Jung-Stilling’s books became seriously concerned as they watched the events of 1805-1815 unfold: from Napoleon’s initial advance toward Russia through the formation of the Holy Alliance. Christians of both Russian and Europe referred to Napoleon Bonaparte as “antichrist” and “the beast from the abyss,” as his army invaded Russia and then withdrew to France in the years 1812-1814. Jung-Stilling never lived to see the year of 1836, as he died in 1817. Jung-Stilling’s book Triumph of the Christian Religion, published in Germany in 1799, was a commentary on the Bible book of Revelation. He states that the Church of the Moravian Brethren was the woman clothed in the sun (Revelation 12), which was to flee into the wilderness to escape the tribulation of the years 1816-1836. Another important composition of Jung-Stilling is Das Heimweh (Homesickness), written 1794-1797; it is a massive narrative of several thousand pages. These two books were very popular among Mennonite and Pietist communities in both Germany and Russia. A Russian translation of these books was completed by Alexandr Feodorovich Labsin during the years 1808-1818, and quickly became popular among the sectarians. According to Jung-Stilling, the wilderness (where the woman clothed with the sun fled to escape the great tribulation and await the coming of Jesus Christ) was in the east. No other specifics are mentioned, although in Book 4, Chapter 1, of Homesickness, the fictitious German Prince Evgeni is the leader of the new community when it arrives at its destination. His wife is Princess Uraniya (Uranus). Pietists and Mennonites contemplated on Novo-Rossiya, their area of colonization, as well as south-central Asia (Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan), the Caucasus, and even Iran, as possible fulfillments of the discourses of Jung-Stilling. Many readers considered his writings to be prophetic and some even moved to the area of south-central Asia.

100

The Nineteenth Century Tsar Alexandr I met with Jung-Stilling in Germany on his return to Russia from France for two days, on July 9 and 10, 1814. The tsar also met with Barbera Krudener (1764-1824), a Russian mystic and prophetess who was living in Germany. She was a member of the Moravian Brethren, as well as a personal friend and disciple of Jung-Stilling. During their meeting Krudener impressed the Tsar with the ideas that led him to form the Holy Alliance. After the meeting, Alexandr began to think of himself as possibly this Prince of the East, who was to provide a wilderness in Russia, which would be used as a place of refuge during the great tribulation. On his return to Russia, the tsar issued decrees permitting additional colonization in Ukraine. As a result of this latest decree, a wave of Pietists, Lutherans, Reformists, and Pietist-Separatists migrated to southeast Ukraine and the Caucasus from 1817 to 1822, some 800 families total. Barbera Krudener herself migrated to Novo-Rossiya in the year 1824, with the vision of creating a Christian commune based on her personal ideals. However, she died there later that year, at about Christmas time.

139. THE RUSSIAN BIBLE SOCIETY AND THE PUBLICATION OF THE RUSSIAN BIBLE During the decade following the publication of the complete Church Slavonic Bible in 1751 under Empress Elizabeth, the question arose regarding the translation of the Bible into the vernacular Russian. During the progress of several centuries of development of the Russian language, it had departed considerably from Church Slavonic. Passages read during services by the end of the 18th century were now unintelligible to the average parishioner. In 1767, just 16 years after publication of the Church Slavonic Bible, Tikhon Sokolov of Zadonsk translated the Psalms from Hebrew, and the New Testament from Greek into Russian. In 1809, another translation of the Psalms was published; this one translated by the Archbishop Ambrosi Zertis-Kamenski of Moscow, collaborating with Varlaam Lyaschevski. Tsar Alexandr I, during the period of his inclination toward mysticism, diligently read the Bible, utilizing both the Slavonic and the French versions. As a result, he ordered Pr. Golitzin to open a Russian branch of the British and Foreign Bible Society in St. Petersburg. In 1812, John Peterson, the first president of the British and Foreign Bible Society, arrived in St. Petersburg for this purpose. The initial undertaking of the Bible Society was the publication of the complete Bible in the languages of the non-Orthodox inhabitants of the Russian

101

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. III Empire. The tsar contributed 25,000 rubles at the Society’s inauguration, and offered to contribute a yearly stipend of 10,000 rubles. Other aristocrats and officials followed his example and soon the Society had acquired a considerable amount of capital. In 1814, the Society was reorganized into the independent Russian Bible Society, and several ecclesiastical figures joined to become its board of directors. Such clergy were Metr. Seraphim Glagolevski of Kiev, Metr. Ambrosi Podobedov of St. Petersburg, and Filaret Drozdov, Rector of the Petersburg Religious Academy at the time. There also members of the white clergy, such as G.P. Pavski, who became members. Translations of the complete Bible in German, Polish, Armenian, Mongolian, and other languages, were published by 1816. Because the Elizavetski Slavonic Bible had been almost unobtainable for several decades, as well as being excessively expensive for the common person, fifteen editions of it were published between 1816 and 1823. Translations of selections of the Bible were also published for use by missionaries among the Chuvashei, Cheremisov, Mordovians, Kalmyks, and Tatars, the remnants of the Mongols who still lived in central Russia. In 1815, Tsar Alexandr I expressed a desire to possess a complete translation of the Bible in Russian. The Commission of Religious Schools was ordered to find competent translators, while publication would be handled by the Russian Bible Society. By 1819, the four Gospels had been translated and were ready for publication; by 1822, the entire New Testament was ready, and it was published the following year. By 1825, the Pentateuch was completed. But suddenly, by order of Tsar Nikolai I, all work abruptly stopped on December 7, 1825. An open animosity toward inter-denominational tendencies in the Russian Bible Society had surfaced among several of its members. According to Bishop Grigori Postnikov, Ecclesiastical Vicar of St. Petersburg at the time, the actual goal of the Russian Bible Society was to implement a reformation in the ROC. To defend the interests of the ROC, prelates proceeded in a struggle against the president of the Society, Pr. Golitzin, who was simultaneously Minister of Religious Affairs and of Education. Pr. Golitzin had cooperated with religious groups that were outside the ROC and permitted the dissemination of their literature and tracts, and much of it was contrary to tenets of the ROC. From its foundation, the Russian Bible Society acquired many enemies, the most active among them being Metr. Seraphim Glagolevski and Admiral A.S. Shishkov, president of the Russian Academy and later Minister of National Education. The primary reason for their opposition was that the Bible society was

102

The Nineteenth Century not administrated by the ROC but was an independent business financed by the imperial treasury, with employees who were Lutheran and Catholic and of other denominations. A second reason was that the Society was also publishing literature that was not associated with the Christian faith in general, such as the writings of Jung-Stilling. The result of this intrigue was the termination of Pr. Golitzin as president, and Metr. Seraphim became his successor, as mentioned above. The new president immediately presented to Tsar Alexandr a report on December 11, 1824, regarding the danger of the Russian Bible Society, and on December 18, he demanded its closure. After the ascension of the new tsar, Nikolai I, Metr. Seraphim again insisted on its closure, with greater zeal, claiming that the Russian Bible Society’s political ties could foster revolutionary tendencies. It was not difficult to convince the new and suspicious tsar of this, since his brother had just been assassinated, and he had just faced the Decembrist uprising against his ascension to the throne of Russia. On April 12, 1826, the new tsar, Nikolai I, suspended all activities of the Society, and all its property was confiscated and transferred to the administration of the Holy Synod. On April 26, 1826, the Russian Bible Society closed its doors. During its tenure, the Society published no fewer than 670,000 copies of the Bible in 29 languages, and thousands of New Testaments. Even though the Russian Bible Society was shut down in 1826, the Foreign Bible Society in London and Leipzig continued to print the New Testament in Russian and distribute it. The new Minister of National Education, Admiral Shishkov, agreed with Metr. Seraphim, that a Russian translation of the Bible would be detrimental to the interests of the ROC. By order of Shishkov, the Holy Synod made arrangements to burn 1,000 copies of the Pentateuch that was translated by Metr. Filaret Drozdov and already published by the Society. Regardless of these events, many ROC clergy and students at the religious academies retained the conviction that a Russian translation of the complete Bible was an absolute necessity, even if it had to be translated and published piece by piece. The instructor of ancient Hebrew language and literature at the Petersburg Religious Academy, G.P. Pavski, an excellent researcher who was half-a-century ahead of his time, translated the instructive and prophetic books of the Old Testament. This was accomplished together with his students during his lectures. The translation was accompanied by a philological and critical commentary. The students subsequently gathered all their notes and were able to compile practically the entire Bible in Russian. They made 700 copies of their

103

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. III work, and distributed it to other academies and seminaries, and also to parish churches. In 1835, G.P. Pavski was relieved of his position at the Academy as a result of the dissemination of his lecture notes. Metr. Filaret Amfiteatrov of Kiev, a vehement opponent to the translation of the Bible into Russian, had received an anonymous letter describing the deleterious effects that such a translation could have on the interests of the ROC. Metr. Filaret presented a copy of the published notes and the translation and the letter to the Holy Synod, insisting on an investigation. Metr. Seraphim likewise pressured At-Gen Nechayev. At the conclusion of the investigation, Pavski gave his promise not to disseminate any further opinions or notes, and in 1844 the Holy Synod gathered as many copies of his lecture notes and translations as they could and had them burned. Voices that had supported the translation of the Holy Bible were still not silent, including Metr. Filaret Drozdov. To oppose such efforts, Metr. Seraphim wrote to At-Gen Protasov, stating that such a publication, even if it should contain notes or continuous commentary, would not eradicate apostasy, but, “Will introduce a new deceit, engendering in the mind the thought that the Holy Word of God has a need to be approved by people, and that now people can themselves be judges in matters of faith.” The opinion of Metr. Seraphim coincided with that of At-Gen Protasov, who presented the matter to Tsar Nikolai 1. Protasov turned the Tsar’s attention to Protestant interpretations of the Bible, which were contrary to ROC interpretations and which would cause dissent. The reaction of Tsar Nikolai was to order the Holy Synod to retain the Bible in its present condition, in Church Slavonic, and to prepare a guide for use among young people, which would explain the tenets of the ROC in Russian. Such opposition did not affect, for example, Siberian ROC missionary Makari Glukharev, who in 1840 presented to the Holy Synod his personal translation of the Old Testament, and emphasized its necessity for the entire Russian Empire. Metr. Seraphim called archimandrite Makari “An insane fanatic who should be locked in a monastery.” He wanted the Holy Synod to defrock Makari, but instead, they decided to require him to perform liturgy daily for six weeks, under the auspices of the bishop of Tomsk. Metr. Filaret Drozdov did not relent in his campaign for a Russian Bible. In 1856, when prelates gathered in Moscow to coronate Tsar Alexandr II, Filaret Drozdov took advantage of the event to convince them of the need for a Russian version. Despite the opposing view of Metr. Filaret Amfiteatrov of Kiev, which was approved by At-Gen A.P. Tolstoi, the new tsar gave a positive response.

104

The Nineteenth Century Beginning in 1858, with the approval of Tsar Alexandr II, underground and clandestine publishers began to reprint the older un-authorized versions of Pavski and Makari Glukharev. Later that same year, Tsar Alexandr II announced to the Holy Synod that a complete Russian translation was a necessity and a useful item. The work of creating a new translation, apart from those of earlier years, was assigned to four religious academies. The Gospels were newly published in 1861, while the entire New Testament the following year. In 1868, the Pentateuch was published; the historical books the following year; the instructional books in 1872, and the prophetic books in 1875. The complete Russian Bible, known as the Synodal version, was published in one volume in 1876. The Synodal version of the Bible is based on the Septuagint and includes the books known as the Apocrypha. For the distribution of the authorized Synodal version of the Russian Bible, the Society for the Distribution of Holy Scripture in Russia was formed in 1863 in St. Petersburg. From 1863 to 1885, no fewer than 1,223,000 copies of the Bible, New Testament, and Psalms were printed and distributed. Those who purchased the Bible were primarily the lower social levels: peasants, soldiers, tradesman, and common laborers. The availability of the Bible was the catalyst to the greater success of existing sectarian groups, such as the Molokans, as well as the basis for formation of new sectarian groups, such as New Israel, the Stundists, Baptists, and Evangelicals. People who were not content with the official ecclesiastical instruction of the ROC but who wanted to better understand the Bible on a personal level comprised a majority of those who purchased it.

140. THE OLD BELIEVERS The Edino-Veria, or Unity-Belief Movement, was instituted by imperial authorities to attempt to close the division between the official ROC and the Old Believers. The state’s purpose in initiating this was not so much religious as to control the social unrest caused by such a rupture in the state sanctioned and supported religion, and its effect on the political stability of imperial Russia. The rebellion of Emelyan Pugachov, the Solovetski mutiny, the massacres of the family of Tsar Peter, all had religious undertones that were tied to the Old Believer movement. Edino-Veria became the conditional unity of Old Believers with the Orthodox Church. Those dissenters who wished could voluntarily

105

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. III rejoin the official ROC, and it was under the condition that they still retained the old books and rites. More toleration toward the Old Believers surfaced during the reign of Empress Catherine II. At-Gen of the Holy Synod Melissino issued an edict to further reconcile the Old Believers with the official ROC. He supposed that ROC priests would be willing to perform services using the old books and rites, something that had not been done in 100 years. A joint session of the Holy Synod and State Senate on September 15, 1763 decreed that no person should be forbidden to make the sign of the cross with two fingers, if he should choose to do so, and should not be considered a dissenter. Of course, some clergy did permit and did perform old rites in their churches, but the gesture was to the benefit of the state, to preclude the persecution of these dissenters. It was actually not until October 27, 1800, that Edino-Veria was officially adopted by the ROC. Metr. P1aton Levshin of Moscow composed conditions for the re-entry of dissenters into the official ROC, and on this day, Tsar Pavel signed the decree. The result of the official recognition of Edino-Veria was the inclusion of some 50,000 dissenters back into the fold of the ROC by 1838, while by 1850, the number increased to a total of 135,000. The decree also permitted new churches to be built, designated as ROC, although the rites performed were old style. By 1850, about 150 of such churches were built. The Edino-Veria movement was especially promoted by Metr. Filaret Drozdov, who viewed it as the best opportunity available to weaken the Old Believers internally and to undermine their organization. He concluded this after realizing that missionary efforts to re-convert Old Believers were futile. At least this compromise accomplished half of Metr. Filaret’s objective. The Edino-Veria group was permitted to retain their own priests, although they were not allowed to have a bishop of their own. This rule hindered the migration of many conservative Old Believers, and especially those who saw no benefit in changing their status and were content living as dissenters. It was only in 1905, at an ecclesiastical council of ROC prelates, that the delegates warmed to the idea of the Edino-Veria possessing its own bishop; but no bishop was allotted them until June 1918, after the Soviets consolidated their authority. During the 19th century, Old Believers endured their share of persecution. Repressive measures against the Non-Priest group began as a result of the policies of At-Gen Protasov and his militaristic method of administrating religion. Protasov labeled the Old Believers detrimental to Russian society. The Preobrazhenski Cemetery complex ended up under state surveillance: chapels were

106

The Nineteenth Century closed and new members were forbidden to join. In 1857, the complex was reorganized under state control and became part of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, and a special committee was formed by the state to supervise the complex. Preobrazhenski Cemetery lost its role as the religious center for the Theodosians through 1905, except for a few monks, who continued services in the Old Believer tradition in one of the churches on the premises. With the edict of religious toleration in 1905, the state permitted the construction of a new church, which had an immense beneficial effect on the remaining Theodosians remaining in Russia. However, in 1918, the Soviets took over control of the complex. Beginning in 1854, the Priest group was also subjected to the repressive tactics of At-Gen Protasov. The Rozhgovski Cemetery was placed under strict surveillance. Indirectly, this promoted the success of the Edino-Veria, but at the expense of even more Old Believers who refused to capitulate. The population of the complex was decimated, and only a few people remained to conduct services for the next 50 years, until the edict of toleration of religion in 1905. The religious life of the Old Believers became unbearable while Protasov was At-Gen of the Holy Synod. The marriage ceremony performed by an Old Believer priest or blessed father was not recognized by state authorities. While Edino-Veria churches were being opened, existing Old Believer churches were being closed. During the period 1842-1846, 102 Old Believer churches were closed and another 147 were completely demolished; 12 of the 102 were subsequently converted to churches of the official ROC. In 1827, an edict was decreed forbidding the Old Believers from accepting fugitive priests from the ROC, and in 1832 another edict was issued which required the police to arrest any priest who left the ROC and joined the Old Believers. He was to be apprehended and taken into custody, and turned over to the diocesan bishop for prosecution. According to the same edict, residents of Old Believer monasteries and convents were to register with the state. In 1853, an edict was decreed to begin closure of Old Believer monastic facilities. The imperial government’s attempt to repress the Old Believers hardly succeeded. In 1825, Old Believers numbered 826,000; in 1850, there were 750,000. The difference between the two figures reflects the estimated 135,000 that joined the Edino-Veria and were now considered members of the ROC. Nonetheless, in 1850, the Minister of Internal Affairs had to admit that its census was flawed, and the actual number of adherents of the Old Believer communities of Russia was somewhat closer to ten million (This is further discussed in Chapter 162).

107

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. III With the ascension of Tsar Alexandr II in 1855 and coincident with the death of At-Gen Protasov, repressive measures against Old Believers subsided, but they did not attain freedom or religious tolerance for another fifty years. The Edict of the Toleration of Religion of April 17, 1905, granted freedom of religion to the Old Believers, and a subsequent edict signed October 17, 1906, allowed the Old Believers to build their own churches, and open schools and monasteries. The Beguni and Stranniki (Fugitives and Wanderers) evolved as the apogee of anti-establishment religious thought of the Old Believers. It was the inevitable logical conclusion of their conviction that the imperial government was under control of antichrist. According to their thinking, beginning with Tsar Peter I, the antichrist was incarnated in the tsar, and everything associated with imperial authority carried his mark or seal. The life of these religious wanderers, or pious derelicts, as they should be termed, was an aimless migration from town to town throughout Russia. They were enveloped in apocalyptical concepts of various types, none of which had any consistency or rationale. The Wanderers, as an unstable and disorganized dispersal of holy vagrants, have their place in history in contradistinction to the settled or landed Old Believers, who proved themselves a productive part of Russian society with their industriousness and material prosperity. The founder of the Beguni and preceptor of eternal relocation was a military deserter named Evfimi, who previously lived among the Filippovtzi. He portrayed himself as a zealous advocate for the ancient piety. Eventually, he began to preach his personal conviction that everyone should flee from the realm of the antichrist, which he described in one of his compositions: The beast of the Revelation is tsarist authority. Who specifically is this vile and genuine antichrist? I do not feel it is other than Peter I, the final enemy of God. For this reason, a person must hide and run, or enter into direct battle against him. God himself, through his prophet, commands us to run, saying, “Flee from the midst of Babylon,” referring to this world.

In his sermons and compositions, Evfimi demanded the highest morality and ethics of his adherents, but after his death in 1792, his admonitions fell by the wayside. The wide dispersal of his adherents, who were barely organized to begin with, declined in morality, and its organization, as shallow as it was, further crumbled. Many Beguni reverted to vagrancy while others passed themselves off as fools for Christ. To become a Wanderer was a way for a serf to escape the estate of his feudal landlord. Other Beguni were wanted criminals, and were traveling one step ahead of the police. Hospitality, a customary trait of

108

The Nineteenth Century the Russian rural society, included kindness to Beguni, allowing them temporary shelter, a place to sleep, food, and provisions to continue on to the next village. The hospitality of Russian peasants towards Beguni included the harboring of fugitives from justice. The Beguni might be an individual, or married or cohabitating couple, or an entire family, or several disconnected people traveling in a group. The motto of the group was the statement of Jesus Christ to the rich young ruler, “Sell what you have, give it to the poor, and follow me” (Matt 19:21). This was accompanied by their interpretation of another statement by Christ, “The foxes have holes, the birds have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head” (Matt 8:20). But, because not every person who agreed with this concept was able to sell his possessions, or leave them behind, and begin an aimless trek crisscrossing Russia, a dual level of membership or participation evolved. Many, if not most, of the adherents of Evfimi’s concepts were landed, but they were Beguni in heart. They would vicariously fulfill the role of a Wanderer by providing hospitality to the genuine Wanderer who would pass through their village. Sympathetic villagers would assist them, likewise hoping for the same reward from God, just as Christ said, “Whoever receives a righteous man, because he is a righteous man, will receive the reward of a righteous man” (Matt 10:41). Up to the conclusion of the 19th century, landed Beguni offered asylum to traveling Beguni regularly and many towns and villages had orphanages for children of such Wanderer couples. And they would propagate their tenets of Wandering in the homes that welcomed them. Modernization in Russian at the beginning of the 20th century caused the demise of the Beguni. All of them were eventually assimilated, one way or another, into landed Christian denominations.

141. TSAR NIKOLAI I PAVLOVICH Tsar Nikolai I (1825-1855) was Tsar Pavel’s third son. He received the throne only because his older brother Konstantin rejected it, and Tsar Alexandr left no heirs. For the most part, Nikolai was a career military officer. His early education in religion, as he records in his memoirs, consisted in knowing when to bow and make the sign of the cross during services, and learning a few prayers by heart, with little regard for the salvation of the soul. Although he considered himself an Orthodox Christian, it was in a manner different than his brother

109

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. III Alexandr. Nikolai was very simple and sincere in his convictions, and like the Moscovite tsars of earlier generations, Nikolai was convinced that his absolute authority was granted to him and consecrated by God above. He shared the opinion of Filaret Drozdov, who said, “God, in the image of His heavenly sole legislature, installed a king on earth. The autocratic king reigns according to His omnipotence. The legacy of the king is in accord with His unending Kingdom, which has continued from the beginning of time and will to the end.” But the views of Nikolai and Filaret, coincidental in their theocratic basis, depart in the sphere of ecclesiastical politics. During the course of the first decade of Tsar Nikolai’ rule, they treated each other with respect, but it was only superficial. Under Tsar Nikolai I, the authority of the At-Gen increased. Mescherski was an enemy of all innovations and changes, and because he was respected by both Metr. Seraphim Glagolevski and Metr. Filaret Drozdov, he ruled the Holy Synod lightly. The independence of Mescherski was relative, however, and depended on the mood and demands of Tsar Nikolai; his tenure eventually ended. Mescherski was replaced by S.D. Nechayev (April 10, 1833–June 25, 1836). The new At-Gen was a typical bureaucrat. He gained the early attention of the tsar with his meticulous and clear reports. His energy was directed at order and organization in the chancellery of the Holy Synod, and especially over its finances. As far as the ROC was concerned, Nechayev was able to make preparations for the Uniates to rejoin. All went well with Nechayev until political intrigues in the various ministries affected the Department of the Orthodox Denomination, and he was replaced. The new At-Gen, Major-General and Count N. A. Protasov (July 26, 1836– January 15, 1855), held his office for the next eighteen years. Of all the AttorneysGeneral of the Holy Synod, Protasov was the most notorious. He was a military career officer with no knowledge or experience in ecclesiastical matters, and based on his earlier personal life and career, he was the least likely candidate to be offered the position by Tsar Nikolai. The little religious education Protasov hada acquired was from a Jesuit priest who was hired by his father for a short while as his tutor, while he was still young. Once he accepted the office of AtGen, he ruled the Holy Synod the way a military officer would run his regiment. Protasov was an army general wearing sacerdotal vestments, and was viewed by the members of the Holy Synod as nothing more than an ecclesiastical despot. Priest M.Y. Moroshkin related the following about Protasov.

110

The Nineteenth Century Powerful as a result of having the trust of the sovereign, he poorly hid his drive for despotism in the Synod and control of all matters. Protasov held some type of prejudice toward bishops. The primary and somewhat clandestine goal of Protasov’s reorganization was to increase his personal authority at the sacrifice of the rights of the members of the Synod, and he was able to attain this, which then had a detrimental effect on all the proceedings of the Synod. Not just once did the Synodal Chancellery change the resolutions of the members, and it was Protasov or Voytzekhovich (a Chancellery official), or a secretary of the Attorney-General, who implemented these changes, while the Synodal secretary would record the opinions of the individual members regarding every matter presented in the Synod.

The administrative bureaucracy of the ROC became centralized, and all the strings were somehow attached to Protasov. One memo traditionally ascribed to Metr. Filaret Drozdov of Moscow states that Protasov, “Commanded the assembly of bishop the way he would his troops during exercises,” demanding military discipline and unconditional obedience. Such micro-management led to the necessity of Protasov’s sanction for even the most trivial matter presented to the Holy Synod. Protasov knew that Tsar Nikolai encouraged regimentation in all of his ministries, and as a result, Protasov attempted to impose the same on the entirety of the ROC. But imperial Russia was so immense that the new method of ecclesiastical government he introduced was extremely slow to be implemented in practice in distant dioceses, if it was even attempted. Protasov did provide a benefit for the Russian population by a decrease of fiscal corruption within the ROC, and an increase in quality of religious schools. He also improved the plight of parish priests, who were at the mercy of despotic diocesan bishops. Many of Protasov’s ecclesiastical contemporaries lauded him for such efforts. Shortly after taking command of the Holy Synod, on November 14, 1839, he opened the Economic Committee, made up exclusively of government officials, to control the finances of the ROC and especially the religious schools. Protasov managed to implement many projects that had stagnated during the weak and inefficient tenure of earlier Attorneys-General of the Holy Synod, for example: • The return and readmission of Uniates to the ROC. •

Providing financial security for parish clergy, which had suffered since

the secularization of ecclesiastical patrimony under Empress Catherine II. •

The creation of new dioceses in western Russia.

•

Publication of the Statutes of the Religious Consistories.

•

Modernization of the religious schools.

111

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. III •

Steps taken among the many dioceses to create a uniform government,

centralized in the Holy Synod. Protasov’s activities and his methods could not generally be counted as supportive of the higher clergy. The lower and parish clergy were on his side, because his measures tended to mitigate the authority of bishops. During the reign of Tsar Nikolai I, it was dangerous to display even the slightest opposition to a minister who had the unlimited trust of the tsar. As a result, Metr. Filaret Drozdov and Metr. Filaret Amfiteatrov regularly removed themselves from Moscow and secluded themselves in the security of their own dioceses. Other bishops who displayed opposition to Protasov were coerced into resigning from the Holy Synod. In 1836, the Holy Synod by order of At-Gen Protasov classified the sectarian groups and dissenters into two categories: less detrimental and especially detrimental. In 1842, a second report was issued, this time to the Minister of Internals Affairs. The Holy Synod identified remnants of the Judaizers, and Molokans, Dukhabors, Khristovshin and Skoptzi, as especially detrimental to Russian society and opposed to the tenets of the ROC. The less detrimental groups were the two divisions of the Old Believers, the Priest and the Non-Priest groups. This categorization of denominations initiated their persecution during Protasov’s tenure, and he attempted to suppress them. Protasov, as a career military officer, was especially harsh to the Molokans and Dukhabors, due to their objection to military service. Since Protasov failed to achieve his goal of subjecting them to imperial authority, using local persecution and repression, both these denominations were exiled out of central Russia by imperial order: the Dukhabors in 1839 and the Molokans in 1842. They were exiled to Georgia and Armenia, in the Caucasus and along the Turkish border. There, they were allotted free land for development, as well as freedom from religious oppression, including exemption from military service. On the day Count Protasov died, January 15, 1855, archimandrite Porfiri Uspenski of Solovetski Monastery, wrote, “So does worldly glory pass away. Truly, there is a God who summons people to His awesome judgment, those who infringe on the rights of the holy church.” Such was the epitaph and legacy left behind by At-Gen of the Holy Synod, Count N. A. Protasov. After his death, A.I. Karasevski, the senior official in the Synodal Chancellery, was appointed as At-Gen on December 25, 1855. His appointment followed the ascension of Tsar Alexandr II, but his tenure was short, only ten months, and he resigned in September of that year. 112

The Nineteenth Century One of the long-term members of the Holy Synod was Jonah Vasilyevski, Exarch of Georgia (Gruzia). He was installed as a member in 1821 and remained until 1849, the year of his death. This excellent administrator, who presented himself as an exemplary ecclesiastical organizer in his own diocese in the Caucasus, was little active in the Holy Synod. Another long-term member was Grigori Postnikov, initially bishop of Kazan from 1827, then archbishop of Tver, 1831-1848, and finally archbishop of Kazan. He sided in with Metr. Filaret Drozdov in opposing Protasov’s regimen and eventually he was ordered to retire. Metr. Antoni Rafalski (1843-1848) and Metr. Nikanor Klementyevski (1848-1856) succeeded Metr. Seraphim Glagolevski to the cathedra of St. Petersburg, but neither one was able to withstand Protasov and promote the independence of the ROC. During this era, the first half of the 19th century, a fear of innovation and reform pervaded the ROC. Metropolitans Platon Levshin, Ambrosi Podobedov, Filaret Amfiteatrov, and Filaret Drozdov, were all highly resistant to any progress or improvement of the ROC. When a reformist tendency began to surface in the 1860s, and gained momentum, Metr. Filaret Drozdov took action against any measures that seemed to be outside the bounds of the defined methods of ecclesiastical government. In essence, he overvalued the state as the source of the conservatism of the ROC and the repression of sectarians, in contrast to the view that the purpose of the state is to provide social and economic infrastructure and the restraint of anarchy, and not ecclesiastical intervention. One elder who was venerated and valued by the ROC was Filaret Amfiteatrov (1779-1857). He did not possess an academic education and climbed the Episcopal ladder slowly. Filaret became a member of the Holy Synod in 1837 after he was ordained as metropolitan of Kiev. Because of his disagreements with Metr. Filaret Drozdov and At-Gen Protasov, he quit the Holy Synod and returned to his diocese. Filaret Amfiteatrov was very ascetic and mystic, but he was little interested in administrative matters.

142. TSAR ALEXANDR II NIKOLAEVICH The beginning of the reign of Tsar Alexandr II (1855-1881) initiated a period of unusual vivification of community life of the ROC. The unsuccessful campaign of the Crimean War forced the state to finally turn its attention to the faults of internal bureaucracy and recognize the necessity of reform. The ice was

113

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. III finally broken, although it was slow to dissipate, and journalism flourished as a result of the weakening of censorship. On the pages of magazines, questions and debates were published dealing with every aspect of Russian society. Bishop John Sokolov called these years, “Russia’s morning, signifying not only the approach of an epoch of community rebirth and replacement of the old, but also the rebirth [of the ROC] as a new body.” Officials in the highest offices of the government of imperial Russia likewise recognized that many facets of ecclesiastical life required improvement, even if such radical and needed reforms could never materialize. The words of Metr. Filaret Drozdov reflected the hopelessness: “The misfortune of our era is that the amount of error and negligence — which has filled not just one century — is beyond the strength and means of correction.” Nonetheless, Metr. Filaret used four metropolitans, four archbishops, and two protopopes who were present at the coronation of Tsar Alexandr II in August 1856 to present several questions for the consideration of an imperial and Ecclesiastical Council. These questions could not be resolved earlier by the Holy Synod due to the obstruction created by At-Gen Protasov. The following needs were presented: 1. Dignity and reverence during liturgy in the church. 2. Greater beauty and decor during liturgy. 3. Increased number of dioceses. 4. More resources invested in the struggle against the Old Believers 5. Removal of the interdict against the publication of the Bible in the vernacular Russian. In principle, the council approved the proposed measures. The successor of A.I. Karasevski as At-Gen of the Holy Synod was Lieutenant-General and Count A.P. Tolstoi (September 20, 1856–February 28, 1862). Tolstoi was devout and was highly respected by Metr. Filaret Drozdov. As a result, the metropolitan had considerable influence on the issues resolved by the Holy Synod. Following Tolstoi was Adjutant-General A.P. Akhmatov (March 1862–June 3, 1865). During Akhmatov’s tenure, Metr. Filaret Drozdov continued his influence and role in the Holy Synod, but few reforms were initiated. The short tenures of Karasevski, Tolstoi, and Akhmatov, meant they and the Holy Synod were inefficient in carrying out the necessary improvements and in conducting the general administration of the ROC. These years of 1855–1865 also correlated with the rise of sectarianism, especially with the publication of the New Testament in 1863 and the abolition of the feudalism in 1861. It was in about 1865, during the reign of Tsar Alexander

114

The Nineteenth Century II, that freedom of the press was granted, and that Russian theological literature, along with historians, canonists, and university jurists, openly explored the uncanonical nature of ROC administration of the entire imperial period. More promise of ecclesiastical reforms and expansion was expected with Count Dmitri Andreevich Tolstoi (June 3, 1865–April 23, 1880), who held the office of At-Gen for 15 years. Tolstoi was considerably closer to religious matters than his predecessors, but he was a disappointment due to his indifference to serious questions that affected the ROC. He was unfamiliar with Orthodox confession and harbored resentment toward monasticism and the episcopacy. Tolstoi was previously an official in the Department of Religious Affairs, and was Minister of National Education coincidental with his tenure as At-Gen of the Holy Synod, like his predecessor Pr. Golitzin. Tolstoi did much for the parish priest, but such reforms came not as a result of ecclesiastical effort but entirely due to imperial mandate. After his retirement from the Holy Synod, Tolstoi was promoted to Minister of Internal Affairs. Tolstoy also authored a book on Catholicism in Russia prior to Tsar Nikolai I. Archbishop Grigori Postnikov of Kazan was promoted to Metropolitan of St. Petersburg and Novgorod in 1856, after the death of Metr. Nikanor Klementyevski, becoming President of the Holy Synod as well. He became the single most powerful prelate in the history of the Synodal Era. With Protasov gone and an environment of reform now created, conversation over the reestablishment of the patriarch surfaced in several ecclesiastical circles. But this would be accompanied by an equal reduction in the authority of the At-Gen, of which Count A.P. Tolstoi was well aware. The issue of a renewed patriarchate was defeated not by imperial effort or the opposition of At-Gen A.P. Tolstoi, but by Metr. Filaret Drozdov of Moscow, who refused to pursue the matter. Having had considerable authority within the ROC during the decades of his ecclesiastical ministry, he decided not to risk the chance of being refused the offer of a renewed patriarchate, especially with Metr. Grigori as the choice of both prelates and imperial officials. His public justification was that Russia was headed by a metropolitan prior to Patr. Job, and as long as the metropolitan had the support of the clergy of the ROC and the royal family, all was well. Metr. Filaret stated that the same applied to the second half of the 19th century: as long as the metropolitans had the same support, the Holy Synod would do as well in ROC administration. Thus, at the hands of the second most powerful prelate in the ROC, Russia lost its sole opportunity between the days of Tsar Peter I and the end of the Synodal

115

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. III Era to reconstruct the patriarchate, and only because Metr. Filaret Drozdov would not cede it to another. His pride stood in the way. Innokenti Beniaminov became Metropolitan of Moscow after the death of Filaret Drozdov on November 19, 1867. Innokenti was well respected for his missionary efforts, and he sensed the need for bishops to work together for further reform of the ROC. He recommended to Tsar Alexandr II a summons of a regional council of all Russian bishops, and was able to convince At-Gen D.A Tolstoi of its necessity. The Tsar replied that they should not rush to plan such an ecclesiastical council; his reluctance suppressed any further notion of a council of Russian bishops, and any prospect of modernization was banished in the minds of ROC prelates. It was another fifty years before the subject of a council of Russian bishops was again resurrected, although criticism of the Synodal system did not stop. Metr. Arseni Moskvin of Kiev joined its opponents. He was able to improve the plight of parish schools in Ukraine, and in 1866, became Chairman of the Commission for the reform of religious schools. Archbishop Agafangel Solovyov of Volin also joined the ranks of the opposition. He was author of a tract titled, The Captivity of the Russian Church, which disclosed the opposition faced by bishops and the difficulty they encountered when trying to implement any improvements in their dioceses. The internal politics of the imperial government was more and more defined by anti-reformist tendencies, whose aim was to cut short any intended modification of the ROC. During the reign of Tsar Alexandr II, the motto was, “Autocracy, nationalism, Orthodoxy.”

143. TSAR ALEXANDR III ALEXANDROVICH AND ATTORNEY-GENERAL KONSTANTIN PETROVICH POBEDONOSTSEV The second most notorious At-Gen of the Holy Synod in its history — next to Protasov — was Konstantin Petrovich Pobedonostsev (March 4, 1880– October 19, 1906), the successor to D.A. Tolstoi. He held tenure as At-Gen for over 25 years, longer than any other. Pobedonostsev was the grandson of the ROC priest of a Moscow diocese and son of a professor at Moscow University. He was educated at a private school in Moscow, where he received a higher education in law and justice. In 1866, he became an official at one of the departments of the imperial Senate in Moscow, and for a while was professor of Civil Law at Moscow University. His 2-volume Handbook of Civil Law became a staple among attorneys and law students in Russia, garnering him some recognition. In 1871,

116

The Nineteenth Century Pobedonostsev became a member of the Government Council, and on April 24, 1880, he was promoted to At-Gen of the Holy Synod. As a jurist and lawyer, Pobedonostsev could not overcome his inherent mental formalism, much like the military regimentation of Protasov. Pobedonostsev was unusually conservative, so that he tended to value the past very hghly while having a skeptical attitude toward his own era. He seemed to posses a nostalgia for the era of Tsar Nikolai I and its regimented methods of government. This was the past that Pobedonostsev fantasized and presented as an ideal that Tsar Alexandr III should implement for his reign. In early 1883, Pobedonostsev wrote to Alexandr III, “The reign of Emperor Nikolai was the most lucid and brilliant era. There are some eras when the road ahead turns into a wide highway, and it is apparent where to drive. There are other eras when fog is ahead, and marshes surround you, and this is our present era. What a difference; how the whole world around us has changed.” The religious countenance of this figure who stood as a symbol of the epoch of ecclesiastical government of the ROC, and which also affected the government of imperial Russia, remains nebulous and enigmatic for biographers. Pobedonostsev was able to visualize much, but his ideals were far from reality. Russia appeared to him as cold and lifeless, yet he wanted to save it from the “dangers” of a constitution. “Russia, as immense as it is, consists of nothing but wilderness,” Pobedonostsev wrote to Tsar Alexandr III. Pobedonostsev labeled democracy as the great falsehood of the era and criticized the monarchs of Europe for yielding to the demands of the population. For Russia, as proven historically, according to Pobedonostsev, only a strong autocracy was the right government. The reforms of Tsar Alexandr II — such as the emancipation of the serfs — Pobedonostsev counted a “criminal error.” Pertaining to Count LorisMelikov’s project for developing a constitution, Pobedonostsev wrote to Tsar Alexandr III, “Blood will cool in the veins of the typical Russian with the first thought of what will occur from the materialization of the project of Count Loris-Melikov and his friends. The Constitution is a terrible danger which I foresee for my fatherland and personally for Your Majesty.” Such political views drew Pobedonostsev close to Tsar Alexandr III, who was an advocate of absolute monarchy and very much opposed the reforms implemented by his father, Tsar Alexandr II. No At-Gen of the Holy Synod in its history had as strong convictions regarding his office as did Pobedonostsev. Much like the patriarchs of the 17th century, he had developed his own theory of imperial Russian theocracy and the

117

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. III relationship between the imperial and the sacerdotal. This immense figure, who dominated the ecclesiastical thinking of two tsars — Alexandr III and Nikolai II — and held administrative control over the ROC for 25 years, built on the concepts of both Patr. Nikon and Tsar Peter I in order to develop his own. During their eras, the two of them had supplied the ROC as the ecclesiastical foundation of imperial Russia, while suppressing all others or subjecting them to ROC authority. Pobedonostsev believed that a strong religious base was necessary for the success of the empire, and strong leadership, which he personified in himself. A selection from the memoirs of Pobedonostsev will exemplify his concept of the true church: Out of the multitudes of religions, the state adopts and recognizes one as the true faith, which it maintains and protects exclusively, to the prejudice of all remaining churches and religions. This prejudice, in general, means that the remaining churches are not recognized as true, or entirely true, and [are subject to] nonrecognition, alienation, and persecution.

Pobedonostsev felt that the state would lose the respect and support of the people if a weak or unstable religion prevailed in the empire. According to him, other religions might work well for other nations, but only conservative Orthodoxy would strengthen Russia. Pobedonostsev had Russian nationalism as the purpose of both the ROC and the imperial monarchy. This was the 3-pillar foundation: Autocracy, Nationalism and Orthodoxy. Nothing was more important than the progress and defense of Russian nationalism, even if it meant the suppression of religious freedoms of minority sects and denominations. Many of such groups felt the wrath of Pobedonostsev in the 1880s and 1890s, and especially Stundists, Evangelicals, Molokans, Dukhabors, and Khristovshin. The forced militarization of Russian youth, under Tsar Alexandr II in 1874, was wholly supported by Pobedonostsev, because it revoked their right of conscientious objection to military service. Pobedonostsev felt that they weakened the authority of the state. (Pobedonostsev personally acquired from Tsar Nikolai II approval for Leo Tolstoy’s excommunication from the ROC; Pobedonostsev felt his philosophy was anarchistic.) Although he administrated the ROC, Pobedonostsev did little to rectify any of its faults or shortcomings. Although he sat at the head of ecclesiastical government, Pobedonostsev openly confessed that the religious life of the people evaded them even as they attended church. Pobedonostsev did not at all strive to supplement the religious diet of the people or deliver them from the Divine famine which he claimed enveloped them. Pobedonostsev was able to reconcile

118

The Nineteenth Century himself with the inescapable necessities of essential improvements to the ROC, such as improvement of local parish-run schools, but never risked implementing basic reforms. The moral-religious education of the people, retained within the control of the ROC, was to correlate with state ideology. There was hardly a departmental official to be found during the reign of Tsar Alexandr III who was as independent as was Pobedonostsev in the affairs of the ROC. The continual exchange or rotation of bishops in dioceses every 2–3 years implemented by Pobedonostsev prevented the development of any close relationship between the parish priests and parishioners with their diocese. He appointed insignificant people to the Holy Synod, and elevated them to metropolitan. Some of these men were scarcely respected by Pobedonostsev himself, such as the metropolitans of Moscow, Leonti Lebedinski (1891–1893), and Sergei Lyapidevski (1893–1898). (Leonti’s predecessor was Metr. Ioyanniki Rudnev [1882–1891], whom Pobedonostsev transferred to Kiev so his influence on other bishops would be minimized.) Pobedonostsev’s actual view of the ROC was somewhat pessimistic, and he had to superficially demonstrate the unity of the ROC by means of pompous celebrations. In 1883, there were three ecclesiastical festivities: the 500-year anniversary of the Icon of the Theotokos of Tikhvin, the 100-year anniversary of the Presentation of St. Tikhon of Zadonsk, and the dedication of the new Cathedral of Christ the Savior in Moscow, built to commemorate the victory over Napoleon in 1814. In 1885, they celebrated the l000-year jubilee of the memory of Sts Cyril and Methodius. In 1888, they celebrated the 900-year jubilee of the baptism of Russia. In 1889, it was the 50-year anniversary of the unification of the ROC and Unia in Belarus. With no less amplitude the dedication of the Cathedral of St. Vladimir was feted in Kiev in 1896. Of course, all new churches were designed exclusively in the ancient Russian or Byzantine style. Many parish schools were opened; they all aimed to interlace religion with national-monarchic propaganda. The Episcopal circle that surrounded Pobedonostsev, such as John Sokolov, referred to this era as the dawn of the ROC, while Pobedonostsev proclaimed such pompous celebrations to be part of the elevation of clerical prestige. But such ostensatious displays of ecclesiastical triumph could not whitewash or exonerate clerical apathy. The reality was recorded by Archbishop Savva Tikhomirov in his Chronicles, who saw the dusk of the ROC in these celebrations, the final rays of a setting sun prior to complete envelopment by darkness. The festivities were a desperate, superficial attempt to cover the

119

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. III morbid condition of the corporate body of the ROC. The development of the intra-community ecclesiastical society did not interest Pobedonostsev; it actually seemed threatening to him. As Giorgi Florovski noted, “He did not value within Orthodox tradition, that which made it alive and strong, but only its customs and traditional forms. He was convinced that the religion was firm, and he saw no need to reflect on its state. He valued what was old and imagined more than what was actually true.” Pobedonostsev knew his prelates better than his predecessors knew them. He was in constant correspondence with them, as if that would indicate that he had a sincere interest in their opinions. Nonetheless, as Archbishop Nikanor stated in his memoirs, no bishop replied to Pobedonostsev without first “Knowing what the direction the wind was blowing from Petersburg.” Prelates strove to avoid any type of altercation with Pobedonostsev, and so never expressed their true opinions to him. It is difficult to suppose that Pobedonostsev ever gained anything from the exchange of views of prelates. Metr. Evlogi Giorgievski wrote in his memoirs, “Pobedonostsev did not trust the Russian hierarchy, and in general, trusted little any person. He did not respect them and recognized only imperial authority.” This was no secret to ROC clergy. Herman Dalton, who was pastor of a Reformist Church in St. Petersburg during the years 1858-1882, knew Pobedonostsev well and recorded his character and dual personality. It is obvious that Pobedonostsev did not belong to the repulsive clique of royal sycophants. Even apparent foes and critics of his political talent must recognize that Pobedonostsev was never guided by avarice and personal gain to reach the high status of his position and his goal. Always and everywhere he was willing to disclose his feelings, not worrying about censure by others. He did not seek their favor and did not fear their inconsideration. He had immutably only one goal in sight, which he, as a dedicated Slavophil and defender of the dominant imperial church, considered was everything useful for Russia.

Pobedonostsev disagreed with the edict of religious tolerance of April 17, 1905, and fought against its implementation (This is discussed in a later chapter). Then the autocracy was replaced by a constitutional monarchy on October 17, 1905. Questions of ROC reform were fervently debated in ecclesiastical circles and in the press. These tendencies, of course, did not to any extent coincide with the views of Pobedonostsev. Regardless of his influence on Tsar Nikolai II, the tsar was under great pressure to replace him. Only two days after the edict was issued, on October 19, 1905, Pobedonostsev received an imperial mandate requesting his retirement from the office of At-Gen of the Holy Synod.

120

The Nineteenth Century The absolute monarchy had in the past supplied Pobedonostsev with the catalyst he so desperately needed for the retention of the primacy of the ROC and the security of his own office. Now, he was deprived of the foundation of his religious and political ideology. The life-long civil servant withdrew from public view, not only because of the edicts of religious tolerance but also due to the trend of the nation toward a constitutional monarchy. The retired Pobedonostsev died March 10, 1907, at the age of 80.

144. THE KHRISTOVSHIN (KHLISTI) In 1817, the circle of Baroness Ekaterina Filippovna Tatarinova appeared in St. Petersburg, which was known as the Brethren in Christ, or Union of Brothers and Sisters. Her maiden name was Buksgevden and she was born in 1783. She received her education at the Smolni Convent, which later became known as the Smolni Institute, a prestigious girls’ school for the daughters of the elite. After completion of her education, she was given in marriage to an officer in the Astrakhan Grenadier Regiment, Ivan Tatarinov. After the Napoleonic Wars of 1812-1814, her husband abandoned her and moved to Ryazan. Tatarinova remained in St. Petersburg, and went to live with her mother in an apartment in the Mikhailovski Palace. About 1815, Tatarinova began to attend Khristovshin Ship assemblies, and attended regularly over the next two years. In 1817, she converted from Lutheranism to Russian Orthodoxy and offered her apartment for Khristovshin assemblies; up to 70 members attended on a regular basis. She met Kondrati Selivanov at one of these assemblies. A few members of the Russian aristocracy began to attend the Ship services at her apartment: A.N. Golitzin, At-Gen of the Holy Synod and Minister of Education; A.F. Labsin, vice-president of the Academy of Art and the translator of Jung-Stilling’s mystic writings into Russian; R.A. Koshelev, vice-president of the Russian Bible Society; E.A. Golovin, GeneralMayor of Petersburg; and even Tsar Alexandr I is traditionally reported to have attended. Services were usually held at Tatarinova’s apartment on Sundays and on ROC holidays. The women wore long dresses, often white; and the men often wore white clothing. During services, Tatarinova and Nikita Feodorov and others would prophesize. According to one Russian historian, “Ekaterina Filip-

121

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. III povna would declare the thoughts and activities of each person, would disclose to them their vices, which no one else knew, and provide admonishment. To some, she forewarned of impending distress, and she foretold to others their future.” Although the religious assemblies at her home became known to the ROC officials in 1817, no repressive measures were taken. In 1822, an imperial edict was issued which prohibited secret societies in Russia, which included the Ship of Tatarinova (even though the edict was primarily directed at Masons, Rosicrucians, and such esoteric groups that were migrating into Russia), and she was prohibited from conducting any more assemblies at her apartment. Within a year, Tatarinova’s mother lost the lease and she was forced to move elsewhere in St. Petersburg. Ship assemblies were initiated at her new residence, now with a meager attendance and at irregular intervals, however, not nearly comparable to the assemblies she had held at her mother’s apartment. In 1830, Count Beckendorf demanded that Tatarinova desist and ordered that her home be made accessible for searches by the police, like any other home in St. Petersburg. The Brethren disregarded the order and continued their assemblies. Seven years later, the police discovered that Tatarinova’s gatherings were still taking place. In 1837, by order of At-Gen of the Holy Synod Protasov, Petersburg police began an inquiry into the Brethren. All the members that continued to attend Ship assemblies at Tatarinova’s new apartment were arrested, and she was, too. The members were tried in a court and sentenced to exile. Tatarinova was exiled to the Kashinski Sretenski (Assumption) Convent, to be confined; there she remained for ten years in a cloister under strict surveillance. In 1847, she signed a document admitting her guilt in activities opposed to ROC tenets and promised not to participate anymore in activities that would be detrimental to the interests of the ROC. She was released and went to Moscow, where she resided until her death in 1856. Nikita Feodorov was exiled to the Yuriev Monastery, and his wife was sent to the Svato-Dukhov Convent in Novgorod Province. The history of the Brethren of Tatarinova ends here. Uliyana Vasilyevna was considered a Theotokos by the Khristovshin and the final spiritual descendent of their god-incarnate Danil Filippov. She was originally a peasant from the village Staroi about ten miles outside of Kostroma, near Yaroslav in central Russia, and joined the Khristovshin about 1838. For a peasant woman she was very successful, and had a large home in the village and had the favor of the landlord and other reputable people in the area. She learned

122

The Nineteenth Century the teachings of the Khristovshin from adherents in Moscow, and began holding services in her home, with up to 60 people singing and dancing. She also traveled to Moscow, St. Petersburg and other cities, teaching the convictions of the Khristovshin, and inaugurating spiritual singing and dancing at prayer services in homes and apartments. In 1838, Uliyana was arrested for heresy by Orthodox authorities and was confined at the Florovski Convent in Kiev. In 1846, after eight years’ imprisonment, Uliyana was released, having performed a full repentance of her previous convictions to the satisfaction of the Orthodox diocesan authorities. She was ordered to return to the estate of her landlord, but she refused and settled in Kostroma. There, and in Moscow, she continued her involvement in the Khristovshin. Another Theotokos was Akulina Timofeevna, who was arrested and brought to trial on July 24, 1867. She was 40 years old at the time. Akulina was originally from the village Lybyanka in Vladimir Province. She enjoyed many gifts from devoted followers: flour, butter, honey, wheat and other farm products, and money. This aroused the interest of local ROC clergy, which initiated an investigation into her affairs and which led to her arrest. The Vladimir Criminal Court stripped her of all her rights and possessions, and she was exiled to the Transcaucasus, where she remained under police surveillance until the end of her life. The Khristovshin Ships of the latter 19th century were more organized than were those of previous generations. Many Ships by then had a developed priesthood or hierarchy: one group of elders prophesized, another group only gave sermons, and another group recited prayers. The modernization of the Khristovshin and its better education (due to the increased availability of the Holy Bible) also caused the sect to splinter and form smaller groups, although the original tenets of Danil Filippov still formed their moral foundation. In Tavria Province of southwest Ukraine, during the 1840s, the Maryanovski sect appeared which combined the mystic and prophetic elements of the Khristovshin with the Spiritual Christian concepts of the Molokans, both of which were active in the area. This movement was short lived. In the 1890s, in Kuban Province, Evdokin Kozin organized the Novo-Khlisti in an attempt to resurrect the Kd hlist movement in the form it had 200 years earlier. However, given the opposition posed by the Stundist influx and socialist influence, it was also short lived. The mystic nature which had propelled the original movement to success in earlier generations finally succumbed to progress.

123

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. III There were several prominent preachers of the Khristovshin movement during the 19th century. The prophet Vasili Radayev was active in NizhniNovgorod in the 1840s. The Christ Abbakum Kopylov was active at the turn of the century, and so were his successors, his son Filipp, and Perfil Katasonov. In the 1860s, the Khristovshin spread further to the south of Russian and into the Caucasus region. Perfil Katasonov became the primary preacher of the Khristovshin movement in the Caucasus, and he eventually created his own branch of the sect, known by the appellation of New Israel. The final Christs worthy of note in Khristovshin history are Osip Durmanov, who was exiled to the Caucasus in 1892, and the brothers Ivan and Semeon Yutitzki. Although the Khristovshin membership covered the entirety of the European portion of Russia, a few resided in the Transcaucasus and in Siberia. With the rise of the socialist movements at the turn of the 20th century, the original Khristovshin movement of Danil Filippov lost its meaning for the new and modern generation.

145. THE SKOPTZI The birth of the Eunuchs (Skoptzi, pl.; Skopetz, sing.) as a denomination is attributed to one man, Kondrati Selivanov. He was born of a peasant family in Stolbov village, Orlov Province, and was conscripted against his will into the military while a young man. Selivanov deserted and joined the Khristovshin while Prokopi Lupkin was Christ, and joined a Ship in Orlov Province where Lupkin’s wife, Akulina Ivanovna, was Theotokos. Selivanov dedicated himself to the Khristovshin, body and soul. He accepted the Holy Spirit, became an elder at the Ship, and was active as a prophet. Akulina Ivanovna took notice of Selivanov and his preaching and proclaimed him, “god above gods, king above kings, and prophet above prophets.” Akulina also announced Selivanov to be son of God, or Christ, whom she — as Theotokos — gave spiritual birth to by the transmission of the Holy Spirit that migrated through her and into Selivanov. This was about the year 1770. The interpretation of the fifth commandment of Danil Filippov, which was not to sin against the body, and the sixth commandment — not to marry but to treat a woman as a sister, was extended by Selivanov to imply that a male must be castrated so that lust or sexual arousal would not even exist in him. This physical emasculation would allow a person to become a eunuch for the Kingdom of God, according to the words of Jesus Christ in Matt 19:12. In this

124

The Nineteenth Century way, sin against the flesh, or sexual arousal and its consequence — sexual intercourse — would be automatically defeated. It was during Selivanov’s early years as an elder in the Khristovshin Ship in Orlov Province that he came to his conclusions regarding the necessity of emasculation in order to defeat lust in the flesh once and for all, and so Selivanov had himself castrated. He then began to preach his new tenet. The complex fabric of incredible tales that surrounded Kondrati Selivanov appealed to the superstitious and uneducated; the Skoptzi called him their Redeemer. His early biography, according to Skopetz tradition, was recorded by Livanov. The Skoptzi believed that Kondrati Selivanov was incarnated through Empress Elizabeth Petrovna, similar to the way that Jesus Christ was incarnated by Mary of Nazareth through the Holy Spirit. The legend they wove involved the son she gave birth to in Russia, who became Tsar Peter III. As a child, Peter had moved to Holstein, Germany, and lived there until he reached adulthood. Then, they say, he was castrated. He returned to Russia and, shortly before his mother’s death, he married Sophia Frederick, the future Empress Catherine II. In this version, Peter III escaped execution because another Skopetz sacrificed his life on his behalf. This allowed Peter III the opportunity to hide and later to continue his special embassy. For the next several decades, Peter III wandered about Europe and Russia incognito. He finally settled down in Tule under the name of Kondrati Selivanov. Selivanov found a zealous assistant in Alexandr Ivanovich Shilov, a peasant of Tule Province, whom he personally castrated. The two of them, working through Khristovshin Ships in Orlov Province, began to preach that castration was the means to preserve spiritual and physical holiness. After 13 men accepted his new tenet and were castrated — some of them personally by Selivanov — he was reported to the provincial police authorities. A formal investigation began in 1772. Selivanov and Shilov then fled to Tule Province and found refuge at the home of Emelian Retiv. Selivanov convinced Retiv of the truth of his new gospel, and castrated him and some of his servants. Retiv became a disciple of Selivanov’s and spread the Skopetz teaching in Tule and Tambov Provinces. In 1775, Selivanov traveled to the village Sosnovka, near the city Morshansk in Tambov Province, and there recruited 60 converts, who were all castrated. A Khristovshin Ship was established in Morshansk by Safon Popov, who also was castrated, and regular Khristovshin services were inaugurated which the Skoptzi regularly attended. Selivanov referred to his castrated converts as While Doves.

125

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. III The police authorities in Tambov were informed about the Skopetz movement and its teaching in late 1775 and proceeded to arrest Selivanov. He was confined in a jail under strict guard in Tambov for a short time, and then was transferred back to Sosnovka, where he sat in another prison two months. There, he was brutally whipped and his head was beaten. Selivanov was then sentenced to hard labor at a penal colony in Nerchinsk, near Lake Baikal, in Siberia. From Sosnovka, Selivanov walked for a year and a half in a chain-gang procession, but he was sidetracked during his journey to Nerchinsk and remained in Irkutsk. Alexandr Shilov was arrested in 1774 and exiled to Riga, to hard labor at the construction of government buildings. There, he managed to talk some of the sentries into being castrated; when the authorities discovered what had happened, he was transferred to Dvinsk in Latvia. The two other preachers of the Skopetz movement, Emelian Retiv and Safon Popov, were beaten with sticks and sentenced in about 1775 to exile in Riga, Latvia. There they remained inactive and under police surveillance for the next 20 years. Shilov, Retiv, and Popov were transferred from Riga to Schlesselburg Fortress in about 1795, at about the same time that Selivanov was returning from Siberia. Shilov died there in 1800, and a granite tombstone was erected at his grave, which became a shrine for other Skoptzi. Retiv and Popov were released in 1801 by order of Tsar Alexandr I. After five years of isolation in Siberia, the Skopetz community sent two of their members to Selivanov to convince him to escape and return to central Russia. The two delegates met with Selivanov in Irkutsk, but were unable to convince him to escape. He stated that he had had a dream the previous night that nets were scattered about the road to snare him on his return. While exiled in Irkutsk, Selivanov concocted a scheme. He decided to proclaim himself to be Peter III Feodorovich, husband of Empress Catherine II (who was assassinated by palace guards on July 5, 1762). In 1795, after 20 years of isolation, Selivanov left Siberia for Moscow. Arriving in that city, he announced to the waiting crowds that he was Tsar Peter III and claimed that he had miraculously escaped the murder and hid in Siberia until the death of Empress Catherine. The rumor finally reached the ears of Tsar Pavel, in St. Petersburg, that his father was alive and well in Moscow. Selivanov arrived in St. Petersburg on January 27, 1797, over 20 years after his arrest in Tule, and was presented to Tsar Pavel. The Tsar asked him, “Are you my father?” Selivanov answered, “It would be a sin for me to say that I am your

126

The Nineteenth Century father. Accept purification and I will recognize you as my son.” Tsar Pavel was not about to be led astray by a charlatan, much less to be castrated at Selivanov’s whim, and so had him assigned to a local insane asylum, where he was confined for about four years. He was then was transferred to a workhouse near the Smolni Convent in St. Petersburg, where he resided from March 6 through July 23, 1802. Aleksei Mikhailovich Elyanski, a former State Counselor, presented a petition to Tsar Alexandr for Selivanov’s release, which was granted. He was moved to the home of the St. Petersburg business family, the Nenastievs. Selivanov then moved to the home of another Petersburg businessman, Mikhail Nazarov Sokolovnikov, where he resided for 18 years. He preached his Skopetz tenets in St. Petersburg freely, and without interference castrated believers in his concepts. For the Skoptzi of St. Petersburg, the home of the Nenastiev family, along with the homes of the Kostrov and Sokolovnikov families, became the Chambers of Zion, while the city of St. Petersburg became the New Jerusalem, the celestial Zion. Khristovshin assemblies occurred regularly at these homes. Skoptzi from all of Russia journeyed to St. Petersburg to meet Selivanov, many of them remaining there to live as faithful disciples and opening more Ships in the city for their Skopetz assemblies. During their worship service, Selivanov would wear a green silk kaftan. Entering the Ship to begin services, he would wave a white handkerchief and proclaim, “My holy shelter is upon you.” The worshippers would answer, “Great god, great king.” Selivanov would select and ordain men who arrived from other regions to be leaders and prophets in their own Ships, while others he blessed, or gave them some prophetic message or instruction. Selivanov was also a regular member of the group attending services at Baroness Tatarinova’s apartment, and he used the opportunity to further propagate his Skopetz tenets. In 1819, the burgeoning Skopetz movement caught the attention of the police authorities. The Petersburg Governor-General Miloradovich discovered that two of his nephews had begun to attend the Skopetz worship assemblies, and that one of them had consented to castration, as had a few sailors of the Russian Navy and some enlisted soldiers. Miloradovich communicated this to Pr. Golitzin, the Minister of Internal Affairs, and asked him to relay this matter to the Emperor. When imperial officials discovered this, they became agitated and a judicial inquest began. A rumor was spread at about this time that Anna Feodorevna, the wife of Tsarevich Konstantin Pavlovich, was attending Khristovshin Ship assemblies in the company of Skoptzi. Once this rumor reached the

127

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. III ears of her brother-in-law, Tsar Alexandr I, Selivanov was sentenced to a lifeterm of imprisonment. In 1820, Selivanov was exiled to Suzdal, about 100 miles east of Moscow, and imprisoned at the Spasso-Evfimiev Monastery, arriving there on July 7, 1820. He was placed in a cell inside the prison complex, located at the north end of the monastery, in an area inaccessible to visitors, where his confederate Aleksei Elyanski was earlier imprisoned. Selivanov remained confined at Spasso-Evfimiev under constant surveillance, day and night, until his death twelve years later, on February 19, 1832; he was buried the next day in an area on the east side of the Nikolski Church, inside the monastery. In later years, once the area of the cemetery was accessible to visitors, his grave became a shrine. There is no indication as to his age, except that he was very old; the father superior reported that he remained firm in his convictions until death. At the time of Selivanov’s death the total number of Skopetz adherents, those actually castrated, may have been as high as 5,000. According to Yuzov, as of the year 1880 there were only about 2,000 to 3,000. Even with Selivanov’s arrest and incarceration at Spasso-Evfimiev, the Skopetz movement continued to spread. Faithful adherents would not accept the news of his death, but felt that he was hiding at some undisclosed and isolated spot until the quantity of Skoptzi would reach 144,000, the number of those in Revelation 14:5 who had not been defiled by women. They felt that once this number was reached, Selivanov would appear in Moscow and proclaim himself king. In order to reach this goal the sooner — which would hasten the new glorious advent of their exiled leader and herald the triumph of the Skopetz movement — each Skopetz adherent, Christ and prophet, had the obligation to increase the number of castrated in their respective provinces and among the members of Khristovshin Ships that they attended. Skopetz tenets agree with those of the Khristovshin in the essential theological points, except that the former teach the necessity of castration and do not accept the continuous re-incarnation of the Deity. The basis for Skopetz morality, much like the Khristovshin, is the dualistic view that the spirit is the rule of good, while the body is the rule of evil. Although Khristovshin teach the mortification of the flesh by spiritual means, Skoptzi affirm the necessity of placing the body in that state where it is impossible for it to sin. This state is castration. In their view, the initial human creation — Adam and Eve — were created with ethereal bodies, not material, and without sexual organs. When they violated the commandment of God, then their bodies

128

The Nineteenth Century developed the distinct features of the masculine and feminine genders. Their bodies transformed from an ethereal state to a material. Because the genitalia on the human body evolved as a result of sin, then they must be obliterated. Castration is the baptism by fire, the whitening, the acceptance of purity. It is the sign of God that Skoptzi will possess when they appear at judgment. Only by means of castration can a person preserve himself from immorality and attain complete purity. Castration applies equally to men and woman, and there are two extents. The first level is the Lesser Seal, which consists of the removal of the testicles and scrotum on men. Applying to women, it is the removal or excision of the clitoris and the removal of the nipples on the breasts. The second level is the Royal Seal, which consists of the removal of the entire penis on men, and the removal of the entire breasts on women. A poorly performed operation will result in infection, pain, and even death, which did occur regularly. Skoptzi had men trained especially to perform such surgical procedures, and medicines to alleviate the pain. Skoptzi referred to this state as angelic, based on the words of Jesus Christ in Matt 22:30. Those possessing the Lesser Seal have the Angelic rank, while those possessing the Royal Seal have the Archangelic rank. Even with the Royal Seal, women were still able to bear children, because the reproductive organs were not affected. Toward the end of the reign of Tsar Alexandr I (1801-1825), the authorities changed their attitude toward the Skopetz movement and began to deal harshly with them. At the beginning of the reign of Tsar Nikolai I (1825-1855), a law was enacted which prohibited further proselytizing by Skoptzi, and even the existing membership was subject to trial and imprisonment. This legislature, however, did not curb the spread of the Skopetz movement, although many fled to Moldova and Turkey to escape prosecution in the early 1830s. The next Skopetz movement of record occurred in the southeast Ukraine and Moldova region. The group became known as Novo-Skopchestvo, or New Eunuch Group. Kuzma Fedoseyev Lisin was a peasant, originally of Moscow Province, and a tailor by trade. Migrating to Romania, Lisin became a member of a Khristovshin Ship in the Galitzia region, which was conducted by a Skopetz, Efim Kupriyanov, and he was castrated there. Lisin was convinced without a doubt that Selivanov was Tsar Peter III, and that his soul had ascended to heaven, where it was awaiting its re-descent to earth.

129

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. III Similar to the event that had occurred with Danil Filippov 200 years prior, on June 1, 1872, during a Khristovshin assembly, Lisin prophesied that he was himself the beloved son of God Sabaoth. That day, the soul of Selivanov, a.k.a. Tsar Peter III, descended by decree of God Sabaoth and resided in the body of Lisin. He then proclaimed himself Tsar Peter III Feodorovich and the second redeemer (the first redeemer having been Kondrati Selivanov). His purpose was now to travel throughout Russia and gather all the Skoptzi, and proclaim their ascendance and their liberty from oppression. While in Moscow, Lisin would also meet with Tsar Alexandr II, whom he would recognize as his grandson. Lisin then turned to Ivan Filippovich Kovalyov and said that God Sabaoth proclaimed him to be the new Apostle John the Divine, while another member, Vasili Ivanov, was declared to be St. Basil the Great. On June 4, another member (known to history only by his surname, Kartamishiv) was proclaimed to be the new Gregory the Theologian, while Efim Kupriyanov was proclaimed the new Moses and Mikhail Petrov was the new prophet Elijah. Kovalyov, who was castrated in early 1872, became his closest associate. As Lisin’s fame spread, Skoptzi of Russia, and especially those in the nearby southern Ukraine, spreading across to Odessa and Melitopol, began to accept his claim. His disciples now conveyed the message wherever they could. A renewal movement of Khristovshin and Skoptzi began, and their earlier practice of spiritual dancing and prophesying again became prominent at Ship assemblies. Unlike the Khristovshin of earlier ages, who continued to adhere superficially to the ROC, the renewal movement rejected ROC rites and sacraments and refused to attend the regular church. The renewal movement magnified Kuzma Fedoseyev Lisin as the awaited Skopetz second redeemer, who was to fulfill the promises of Kondrati Selivanov. The movement progressed with great success for four years in southwest Ukraine, although its committed membership could only have been a couple of thousand at most. In 1876, Lisin made plans to travel to Moscow to fulfill his divinely assigned embassy and to meet with Tsar Alexandr II. Entering Russia from Moldova, Lisin was accepted as tsar by local Skoptzi. Thinking that the time of triumph for the Skopetz movement had arrived, Lisin departed for Moscow to accept the reign of the Russian Empire from Tsar Alexandr II. Upon reaching Voronezh, he was taken into custody along with 136 of his disciples. Lisin was tried abnd sentenced to six years hard labor at a penal colony, while his disciples were released after spending over a year in jail in Voronezh. Lisin’s story ends at this time.

130

The Nineteenth Century The next generation of Skoptzi accepted the Khristovshin concept of the appearance of new Christs, new redeemers. According to them, Selivanov was not the sole redeemer, but the second, while the third appearance of the redeemer was in the person of Kuzma Lisin. But his appearance would not necessarily be the last. Many of the new generation of Skoptzi following Lisin were not castrated until the age of 40 or later, after marrying and raising a family. They adhered to the Khristovshin and considered themselves spiritual eunuchs, but waited until their later years to become physical eunuchs. Novo-Skopchestvo as a movement did not fully end with the exile of Lisin, as the leadership was taken over by Ivan Filippovich Kovalyov, a.k.a. St. John the Divine. His efforts could not keep pace with the modernization and rationalism infiltrating their small group, and the aged Skopetz eventually died. Novo-Skopchestvo died along with Kovalyov in about 1910; it had probably only had 2000 to 3000 adherents at the height of Lisin’s popularity. The Skopetz movement nonetheless continued in Russia until the end of the empire in 1917, but in meager numbers. One record indicates that 30 men were castrated in 1908 in Kharkov Province in Ukraine. The few who were discovered by imperial officials were exiled to eastern Siberia or to the Transcaucasus. Of all the sectarian groups of 19 th -century Russia, the Skoptzi were identified by imperial decree as the most detrimental to society.

146. THE MOLOKANS As a result of persecution by the ROC at the beginning of the 19th century, three Molokans traveled to St. Petersburg and presented a petition to Tsar Alexandr I. Semeon Uklein, now aged, wrote the Profession of Faith that accompanied the petition. The presentation to Tsar Alexandr I was successful, and was in accord with his desire to ameliorate the persecution of sectarians. On July 12, 1805, the Molokans were granted freedom to practice their faith without interference or repression from the ROC. Uklein died about 1810. From 1811 to 1814, Molokans in quantities began to migrate from central Russia to the lower Volga steppe, along the Akhtuba River, and as far as Astrakhan. In 1818, they were allowed to migrate to the Molochnaya River, where Dukhabors were already living. In 1840, Protasov, as At-Gen of the Holy Synod, began a repression of the Molokans of central Russia, and especially those of Tambov diocese, the cradle of Spiritual Christianity. Protasov exiled the

131

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. III Molokans as a corporate body to the Transcaucasus, distant from any areas of influence. The relocation was decreed by imperial order by Tsar Nikolai I on December 14, 1842. They migrated to Georgia and Armenia, areas that had been Christianized early on, and were allotted free land by the local Civil Governor of the Caucasus as well as receiving an exemption from military service. Much like the Molokans of the 18th century, the congregations of the 19th century were tightly interwoven communities: they married among themselves and did not associate with other denominations. They did not have a central organization and each congregation was independent, although all of them held to the original precepts and church services of Uklein. After Uklein’s death, new branches began to grow out of conservative Molokanism and splinter groups emerged, of which five are notable. The Judaizer Molokans, or Subbotniki, were the first to separate from Uklein’s body, as result of a Judaizer influence. Uklein did incorporate into Molokan theology several rules of the Old Testament, such as the food laws and holidays, which were not recognized by either the ROC or other Spiritual Christian groups. This new group, however, went further in adapting tenets of the old Judaizers into Molokanism. They referred to themselves as Subbotniki, or Sabbath Keepers. They began to observe the Saturday as the Sabbath, rather than Sunday. Then, the new group began to preach that Christ was a plain person whose authority was beneath that of Moses. Remnants of the earlier Judaizers, a few still scattered through central Russia, joined the new group in order to preserve as well as strengthen their prior tenets. In all other respects, Uklein’s basic tenets were observed. The Bible was still considered the sole source of belief and conduct, and Jewish books such as the Talmud were still rejected. The adherents of this group were somewhere in the 3,000 to 5,000 range; they eventually dissipated due to their unstable organization. (This group is not to be confused with the Seventh Day Adventists, who did not migrate into Russia until the end of the 19th century, and who were also called Subbotniki.) The Don Molokans (that is, those near the Don River) returned to many of the ROC rites and tenets that were originally rejected by Uklein. This group most resembled the Protestant denominations of Europe, and may have developed as a result of association with Lutherans who migrated to Ukraine during the later years of the reign of Empress Catherine II. The two denominations are similar in theology. The founder of this branch was Andrei Salamatin, a preceptor of the Molokans in the lower Don River basin of southern Russia. About 1823, Salamatin began to refer to his congregation as Evangelical

132

The Nineteenth Century Christian, as opposed to Uklein’s appellation of Spiritual Christian, and he rejected the inclusion of Old Testament food laws and holidays. Salamatin instituted sacraments into the worship service and many nearby Molokan communities adopted his new tenets. The five rites that Salamatin incorporated into his new body were: baptism, penance or confession, communion, marriage, and unction. Molokans who disagreed with Uklein’s espousal of the Old Testament food laws and holidays found the new group very much in line with their convictions, and so they joined the new branch. Baptism was performed by immersion; children were immersed into water three times while the minister recited a baptismal prayer over them. Communion was instituted as a sacrament, and the bread and wine were recognized as the essence of the body and blood of Jesus Christ. The sacraments of marriage and unction were adapted from ROC service books and modified to fit Molokan tradition. Don Molokans prayed on behalf of the tsar of Russia, accepted military service, and swore allegiance to the tsar. They spread throughout southern Russia in the 1820s and were more easily accepted by the general population, because the transition from the ROC to Salamatin’s Molokanism was simpler than the transition to Uklein’s Molokanism, or to any of the other rationalist or mystic denominations of the era. Eventually, the group abandoned the appellation of Molokan, since they had departed from so many of Uklein’s original tenets and the only resemblance that remained with the original Molokans was the traditional Sunday services. The estimated number of adherents was in the area of 20,000 to 50,000. The Communal Molokans — the Obshikh — were the brain child of Mikhail Akinteevich Popov, whose dream was to create a society based on the concept of the Apostolic commune of Acts 2:44. He taught that the benefit would be both economic as well as spiritual. Popov’s group was extremely small, only three or four communes in the area of Lenkoran in Bakin Province (Azerbaijan). There were probably never more than 100 families in total during the short interval of their existence, about 1830 to 1860 (even though Popov was exiled to Siberia in 1843, no doubt as part of the oppression of sectarians under At-Gen of the Holy Synod Protasov). Denis Shipilov started at about the same time to introduce his own personal interpretations pertaining to the Communal teaching, and the followers of his newly introduced group were called Shipilovtsi. Then Mikhail Akinfeev converted them to his own persuasion. In 1843, both Mikhail Akinfeev Popov and

133

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. III Denis Shipilov, by sentence of the criminal courts, were exiled to Siberia, to the province of Enisei. There they converted some 50 individuals, but the commune in Siberia was short lived. The few communes that they had formed in Bakin Province prior to their exile continued to operate for the next 20 years or so, as a result of good leadership and strong tenets. Some members who were interviewed stated that they were persuaded of the truth of communal living by Popov and Shipilov, and so joined the sect in the year 1839. Their primary tenet was that all possessions were community property, and as such were handled by a council of 12 elders: nine males and three females, who were the administration of each commune. The use of tobacco or wine, laughter, and secular songs were prohibited. The elders of the communes started schools for children. The local authorities of the Caucasus wrote to the Minister of Internal Affairs describing the sect. The followers of Akinfeev Popov for the most part held to the original tenets of Semeon Uklein. They also observed the yearly holidays of the ROC, except for those days dealing with the saints. They did not recognize icons. Their worship service was similar to that of the regular Molokans; they sang hymns or from the Book of Psalms, or those composed by their officials or by themselves. Their fasts consisted of fervent prayer, and not consuming any food from morning to sunset. They did not consume any wine, vodka, pork or sturgeon. They performed their marriages with the blessing of one of the members, and did not easily permit divorce. The members of the Communal group held to high moral standards, and they were devout, meek, submissive, hospitable and industrious. There was no notice of any crime; and lying, profanity, and slander were considered sin. Their women and girls were excessively modest. The detriment to the Communal Molokans was that all followers of the sect were not always sincere. Some abandoned their parents under the guise of piety, while those who were lazy led a life of idleness, dependant on those who were industrious. Eventually, with the subsequent generation of Communal Molokans, their original preceptors long since exiled, the communes dispersed and the members assimilated into local Molokan congregations. The Jumpers group — Priguni — was created as a result of the prophetic ministry of Lukian Petrovich Sokolov. His birth name was Anikei Egnatievich Borisov, and he was born about 1753 in Tambov Province. As a young man, he accepted the preaching of Semeon Uklein and joined the Molokans with his family. His Christian zeal led him to become one of Uklein’s closest disciples, and he began to preach Molokanism in central Russia. In about 1805, Anikei

134

The Nineteenth Century Borisov was arrested and exiled to Siberia, where he spent 30 years. Over that period, he spent time in some 60 different prisons. After his release, Anikei Borisov returned to his former family and friends in Tambov. Upon his return, he changed his name to Lukian (after the Evangelist Luke) Petrovich (after the apostle Peter) Sokolov (after the falcon, sokol in Russian), and continued his prophetic ministry among the Molokans. In 1836, when the ROC began its renewed persecution under Protasov, he and his family migrated to Tavria, near the Crimea, with many other Molokans of the region. That year, it is said, the Holy Spirit descended upon the Molokans of Tavria and the Transcaucasus (Armenia and Georgia) in the same way as it did upon the Apostles and the 120 on the Holiday of Pentecost. Sokolov was among them in Tavria, and he was anointed by God as the leader and head prophet of the new Spiritual Christian Molokan Jumpers community. The movement held to the original tenets and church services of Semeon Uklein. (Some historians claim that the Molokans Jumpers originated from the Khristovshin/Khlisti, but there is no evidence to support this.) Sokolov migrated from Tavria to Elizavetpol Province in the Transcaucasus (Georgia) about 1845, along with many members of the new Molokan Jumpers community, and this was coincident with the migration of Molokans from central Russia. There he expanded his preaching and prophetic ministry, and created many Molokan Jumpers congregations in the region, reaching a peak membership in the region of about 10,000 under his leadership. In 1855, Sokolov anointed a zealous member of the Molokan Jumpers as his successor, Maxim Gavrilovich Rudometkin. Sokolov died in 1858 at the age of 105. Rudometkin was born in 1819 near the city Morshansk in Tambov Province. He married a Molokan girl named Maria Feodorevna in about 1840, and they had three children. The Rudometkin family migrated in about 1842 with other Molokans during their transplantation to the Transcaucasus. The ministry of Rudometkin lasted for about thierteen years, 1845–1858, and was primarily in the city Nikitino (today known as Fioletovka, near Yerevan, Armenia). As Rudometkin defined his prophetic ministry, he was directed by God to create a Spiritual Christian community that would be ready to meet Jesus Christ at his coming. Then they would directly enter the millennial Kingdom, which would be established near Mt. Ararat, not far from his home city. Rudometkin identified the Molokan Jumpers community in Nikitino with the woman clothed with the sun of Revelation 12, whom he interpreted as the wife of Christ. At the same time, he did not hesitate to identify the ROC with the prostitute of Revelation 17, and the government of imperial Russia with the beasts of Revelation 13.

135

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. III Rudometkin preached the imminent collapse of both the ROC and government of imperial Russia, which he identified with the destruction of both the prostitute and beast as described in Rev. 17-18. Rudometkin was assured of Christ’s return during his lifetime. In March 1858, Rudometkin presented a petition to representatives of Tsar Alexandr II who were passing through the city. The petition requested the cessation of persecution from ROC authorities, and included several prophetic messages: that eventually the ROC would collapse to anti-Christian forces; that imperial Russia would end its existence and be replaced by an atheistic government; and that the royal family would incur a horrible death. After the culmination of these events, Christ would return and establish his millennial Kingdom. The representatives of the Tsar did not take the petition and statements lightly, and he was immediately arrested and taken to a jail in Alexandropol, about 120 miles away, and then was transferred to Tiflis (Tbilisi), where he spent the next six months. Rudometkin’s petition was sent to the Holy Synod along with a report written by the Civil Governor of the Transcaucasus. Rudometkin was visited in prison by a constant stream of Molokans, which annoyed both imperial Russian and ROC officials. By order of the Holy Synod, he left Tiflis on September 12, 1858, and was taken by carriage to a prison in St. Petersburg, arriving about two weeks later. Shortly after Rudometkin’s arrival in Petersburg, proceedings were held by the Holy Synod. Their decision was to exile Rudometkin to Solovetski Monastery, there to be incarcerated. Tsar Alexandr II issued an Imperial Decree for Rudometkin’s exile on December 25, 1858. The order from the Holy Synod was issued January 12, 1859, and signed by At-Gen Count A.P. Tolstoi, but there was no length of term specified for his exile. Rudometkin spent the next year and a half in a jail in Petersburg, and then was transferred to Solovetski Monastery, arriving April 30, 1860. He was assigned to a cell in the prison building inside the monastery, where he was confined under continual guard for the next nine years. Molokans in Armenia and Georgia continued to send petitions to imperial officials in both Tiflis and Petersburg for his release, but they were met with little response. It was not until the summer of 1868 that the plight of those incarcerated at Solovetski Monastery for their dissent from the ROC was brought to the attention of the Holy Synod. D.A. Tolstoi visited the monastery that summer, and inquired into the situation of Rudometkin — having read the several petitions on his behalf — and spoke with him in his cell. Tolstoi became concerned

136

The Nineteenth Century about Rudometkin, and at his return to Petersburg brought up the matter to the Holy Synod. Finally, an imperial order was signed by Tsar Alexandr II on March 31, 1869, for Rudometkin’s transfer to another monastery for confinement, but under considerably better conditions. After nine years, Rudometkin left Solovetski Island on May 9, 1860 for Archangelsk, where he stayed two weeks at a local police station. From Archangelsk, Rudometkin was transferred by carriage, accompanied by two sentries, to the Spasso-Evfimiev Monastery in Suzdal, arriving May 27, 1869. He was placed in a cell in the prison building in the northeast corner of the monastery. Molokans from his home city visited regularly during this period. Rudometkin remained in this cell for another nine years, until his natural death the morning of May 13, 1877, at the age of 59. After a total of almost 20 years exile and confinement for his beliefs, he never rescinded his conviction that Christ would return during his lifetime to establish the millennial Kingdom. Rudometkin was buried later that day at the Zlato-Yustovski Cemetery outside the monastery. After the arrest of Rudometkin, the leadership of the Molokan Jumpers was assumed by David Yesseyevich Bulgakov, another prominent and dedicated Spiritual Christian prophet. His early life was also affected by persecution: he spent two years in a local jail in the years 1836–1838 for his prophetic ministry, which was followed by his conscription into the military. As a result of his pacifist convictions and failure to adapt to the military regimen, he was sentenced to execution, but was let go at the last minute and discharged from service. Bulgakov was still not free from persecution, but was exiled to Tulch (Tulcea), Romania for two and a half years, from 1842–1845. After his return to his Molokan community, Bulgakov again continued his prophetic ministry until his death in 1878 at the age of 67. He was succeeded by minister Vasili Vasilich Morozov, and after his death, by minister Nikolai Yakovlevich Borisov. In 1904, Molokans of the Caucasus region began to migrate out of Russia, the migration ending just prior to the beginning of World War I. The Molokans, much like the Dukhabors, were threatened with conscription, and America offered them religion freedom. During the years 1904–1914, about 3,000 Molokans migrated to the United States. Like the conservative Molokans of Uklein’s era, this group held to his tenets and continued to preserve a strong moral base. A small community of Armenian Molokan Jumpers was formed toward the close of the 19th century. Many of them followed the Molokans to America at

137

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. III about the same time. The best-known of them is the Shakarian family, although they preferred to use the term Pentecostal. A small Baptist-Molokan movement had its origin with certain Molokans in Lenkoran region, in southeast Azerbaijan, along the Caspian Sea. They returned to a literal interpretation of baptism, as opposed to the spiritual baptism of the Molokans. This Baptist-Molokan movement appeared about 1850, and its main preceptors were N.I. Severov, Yakov I. Tarasov, and V.M Sotnikov. The group also returned to the literal interpretation of communion, utilizing bread and wine during services, as opposed to the spiritual interpretation of the Molokans. All else among the Baptist-Molokans remained the same as the traditional Molokans of Uklein’s tenets. During the early 1880s and as a result of influence from emerging Stundist and Don Molokan congregations, another splinter group was formed, which became known as the Novo-Molokani, or New Molokans. Their spiritual guide was Zinovei Zakharov, who in later years became a representative to the Third State Duma. The center of the group was the village Astrakhanka in Tavria Province, in southeast Ukraine, where Zakharov met with Stundists, Mennonites, and Don Molokans. By 1900, there were Novo-Molokani congregations in Kuban, Stavropol, Orenburg, Samara, Vladimir and Moscow Provinces. The adherents of Zakharov’s Novo-Molokani combined elements of Baptist, Mennonite and Molokan tenets: they practiced water baptism, communion of bread and wine, and confession. They accepted military service, allegiance to the state, and the anointment of the sick on their deathbed. For all practical purposes, the new denomination was actually Baptist enveloped in Molokan tradition and culture. Zakharov was the delegate of his own denomination to the All-Russian Evangelic Christian Congress. Zakharov’s departure from conservative Molokanism caused his ostracism, although he attempted to use his talents and association with the Evangelicals to gain more influence among Molokans. The Congress of Evangelical Christians had little effect on the conservative Molokans, because they, like the Dukhabors, married among themselves, did not associate with other denominations, and held strong convictions including an objection to military service and allegiance to the state. In 1862, F.V. Livanov had the opportunity to visit a typical Molokan village of the Ryazan Province, and left the following account. Not too long ago as we traveled through Russia, we had the opportunity to visit one Molokan village of the Ryazan Province. On the streets of this village, we did

138

The Nineteenth Century not meet with even one beggar or drunk. No one in this village appeared to be in poverty. The atmosphere was different because of the serenity and the courtesy of the residents, nothing like an Orthodox village. With the presence of trees, water and many domestic animals, the streets had a pasture-like character. We did not meet with any noise, or violence, which is an inherent attribute of our Orthodox villages. We saw no slovenly dressed women, no children wearing rags; no drunks or any men cursing. Because the Molokan men never drink distilled liquors and seldom smoke tobacco, their sole diversion during holidays is to listen to the singing of religious verses by choirs in the homes and in the street under the trees. Molokans have made the attempt to reconcile religious sentiment with enjoyment, and have been successful. They have created their own personal civil law, their own theology, their own social environment, significantly different from the dominating theology and civil institutions in Russia. They do not accept any visible images in their prayer services. And all the rituals, the entire superficial facet of the sacraments of the Orthodox Church, they explain in an allegorical sense, a spiritual one. They say that the church is an assembly of true Christians. Likewise they explain all that pertains to the worship service in an allegorical manner. Neither the men nor the woman know anything about wine, nor about obscenity. There is not one Molokan or Dukhabor village in Russia that has a bar. Even to this date the sectarians do not consider the use of wine, and their hospitality consists of tea with honey and snacks made with raisins. This is not only where there are many of them living, but also places where only a few families live. They have collections of community contributions to support the needy among themselves; and so there are no poor among them. They provide the necessities for people to get started. They conceal any obvious discord or disorder that may evolve among themselves, and in this manner they avoid any possibly inquiries from the local authorities. There has never been even one complaint from them against another colleague. They also have high standards pertaining to ethics and the management of business conducted among themselves. They pay all state taxes correctly and fulfill all obligations imposed upon them, and are in strict subjection to orders of the State authority.

One event of note is the 100-year anniversary of the liberation of Molokanism from repression, which was decreed by Tsar Alexandr I. As mentioned above, three Molokan elders visited the Tsar in Petersburg with a petition, and on July 12, 1805, they acquired an imperial order for the ROC to desist any further persecution of the Molokan denomination. The All-Russia Congress of Molokans began July 22, 1905, lasting for about a week, was held in the city of Vorontzovka, near Tbilisi, Georgia. Unlike the congresses of the Baptists and Evangelicals, the purpose of this congress was not matters of doctrine and theology, or political issues or missionary work — such topics did not concern Molokan elders or parishioners, because all of these issues were earlier defined by Semeon Uklein. The congress was a thanksgiving festivity. A tent was

139

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. III erected, which housed rows and rows of tables and benches for a communal meal, with interspersed songs and sermons. Most statistics give the number of adherents of Molokanism at about 1 million at the turn of the 20th century, and concentrated in the rural regions. This number includes central and southern Russia, Ukraine, Transcaucasia, and Siberia. Their activity in politics or missionary work was negligible, and imperial officials viewed the Molokans as non-pretentious after the edicts of religious tolerance in 1905.

147. THE DUKHOBORS Taking a more condescending attitude toward the Dukhabors than his grandmother, Empress Catherine II, Tsar Alexandr I wanted to protect them from further persecution by the ROC. He issued edicts for the transplantation of all the Dukhabors of central Russia to the southeast Ukraine. In 1801, Senators Lopukhin and Neledinski-Meletski were entrusted to survey Ukraine and other regions of Russia, which were distant from the metropolises of central and northern Russia, searching for the best area of settlement for the Dukhabors. The region selected was Tavria (Taurida) Province in Ukraine. The Dukhabors were ordered to relocate to the area between Maryupol and Melitopol, along the Molochnaya River, north of the Sea of Azov. The migration was executed under the surveillance of imperial authorities during the period 1804–1816. About 4,000 Dukhabors migrated to the designated area, while some 2,300 relocated to Elizavetpol Province, or Georgia, in the Transcaucasus. In both regions, the imperial government allotted the Dukhabors large tracts of virgin but fertile soil and abundant room to create their own settlements. Dukhabors from as far as Finland, Kola, Archangelsk, and Siberia, made the journey to their new promised land. (Their settlement there was similar to that of the German Mennonites during the same period.) The government offered them freedom of religion and — the most attractive to them as serfs and peasants — free land and liberation from the feudal system. Any Dukhabors who refused to go were threatened with possible persecution and fines, and ultimately, exile. Some Dukhabors of Kharkov and Ekaterinoslav Provinces also migrated the short distance to take advantage of the offer of free land, but most of those stayed in place, since they were already distance from Moscow and were never threatened with any persecution.

140

The Nineteenth Century In 1807, Dukhabors in Siberia of military age were conscripted into service, while the adults were sent to hard labor at mines in Nerchinsk, near Lake Baikal. Some of the young men refused to dress in uniform or pick up a rifle. These were then sent to hard labor at the Nerchinsk mines. Saveli Kapustin migrated to Tavria along with other Dukhabors from central Russia, and after settling in, he gained the support of the wealthier families of the Molochnaya region, who elected him as the new Dukhabor leader. Saveli Kapustin died in the village of Terpenya (Patience) in 1820. The role of leader was assumed by his son, Vasili Savelich, but he changed his family name to his mother’s maiden name, Kalmikov. Vasili Savelich had an excellent knowledge of the Bible, but did not possess the leadership qualities of his father and often conducted himself inappropriately. During his rule the Dukhabors declined in membership and morality. His son, Ilarion Kalmikov, assumed the position in 1832 after the death of his father. Ilarion possessed even less of the qualities of his grandfather and the leaders of earlier generations. He led a relatively dissolute life, rather then one of holiness. Still, the Russian empire took little notice of the Dukhabors during the years following their transplantation to Tavria Province, and the communities grew and prospered economically, domestically and spiritually. Even though the leaders during this era: Vasili Kalmikov, from 1820, and Ilarion Kalmikov, from 1832, were not to be compared with their predecessors of earlier generations, this had little impact on the moral condition of the Dukhabor community as a whole. Entire villages scattered through the region were considered Dukhabor and retained the high moral standards of their community. Much like the Molokans, Dukhabors only associated with and married their own. A second wave of persecution of Dukhabors began about 1838, initiated by At-Gen Protasov in his attempt to suppress the successful sectarian community. To again remove the Dukhabors from areas of influence, an edict was issued by Tsar Nikolai I on February 17, 1839, for their second transplantation, now to the region of the Transcaucasus. The forced migration of some 4,000 was headed by Ilarion Kalmikov. The industrious Dukhabors created new and prosperous settlements. Ilarion Kalmikov died in 1841, shortly after their arrival. The leadership was taken over by his son, Peter Kalmikov, who later married Lukeria Vasilyevna Gubanova; he was 20 and she was 16. The newly arrived Dukhabors were assigned 15 villages, and all the surrounding land, near the Turkish border in present-day Armenia. They again adapted to their new environs and developed another strong spiritual com-

141

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. III munity accompanied by economic and domestic advancement. The transplantation of the Dukhabors served to the benefit of imperial Russia; it was their means of developing isolated out-lying regions. Because of their rejection of state authority, Dukhabors never turned to the capital with complaints or to seek a handout: Dukhabor villages were always economically independent. It was during this era that the Dukhabors motto was proclaimed, “Toil and the Peaceful Life.” Although they were conscientious objectors to military service, Dukhabors assisted soldiers with care, provisions, and other necessities during the RussoTurkish War of 1877-1878. The tranquil life of Dukhabors continued in the Transcaucasus through the death of their leader, Peter Kalmikov in 1864. The leadership was then claimed by Lukeria Kalmikova, his widow, and her strong will guided the community for 22 more years until her death December 15, 1886. Her residence was in the village of Goreloi — named after the original village of Pobirokhin in Tambov Province. For the safety of their settlements and cooperation with imperial authorities, Kalmikova was paid regular visits by the officials of the local provincial government. It was during this era that Dukhabors ceased eating meat and became vegetarian. Their population in the Transcaucasus was about 20,000 at the time of her death. At about this time, the religious writings of Russian author Count Leo N. Tolstoy began to circulate among Dukhabors. There were many similarities between their religious convictions and Tolstoy’s philosophy. His book, The Kingdom of God is within You, an exposition of Christian pacifism, was especially popular among Dukhabors. This influx of the philosophy of Tolstoy rejuvenated the Dukhabor community, which had begun to become lax in the latter years. Peter Vasilyevich Verigin, a talented young man with strong faith, was hand-picked by Kalmikova as her successor. Soon after his marriage to Evdokia Grigorievna Kotelnikova, and while she was expecting their son, the future Petro Petrovich, he was taken under the tutelage of Lukeria, who began instructing him in the organization and tenets of their community. Verigin acted as her assistant and confidant in matters pertaining to the administration of the Orphanage (Sirotski Dom), and the Dukhabor settlements in general. The governing council of elders that surrounded Kalmikova were brothers Mikhail and Ignati Gubanov, I.V. Batyrin, Aleksei Zubkov, A.F. Vorobyev, and Maria Tikhonova, a female confidant and close associate.

142

The Nineteenth Century Lukeria left no children of her own. After the death in 1886, the community divided and only half accepted Peter Vasilyevich as successor, while the balance favored Aleksei Zubkov, senior elder of the village of Goreloi. Verigin had the advantage, since he was known by the people as Kalmikova’s hand-picked and trained successor, as well as being heir to her possessions and wealth. Zubkov, however, was an elder of many years experience. Zubkov was favored by most of the circle of elders, such as the Gubanov brothers and Batyrin, and the older members of the community. Verigin, on the other hand, was in control of the Orphanage, which had immense capital in reserves, due to the many contributions it had received over the years. On December 17, 1886, the day of Kalmikova’s funeral, Verigin was ordered by Zubkov, Batyrin and M. Gubanov to relinquish control over the assets of the Orphanage to the elders (referring to themselves). Verigin complied reluctantly and Mikhail Gubanov became director. Verigin took reprisals against his three opponents by informing the settlements of their exploitation of the Orphanage and seizure of the assets. Verigin was immediately hailed as an apostle of justice in the matter, defending the orphanage of behalf of the settlements. The people were grateful for Verigin’s intervention into the matter, to curb Gubanov and the other wealthy elders from infringing on assets that were reserved for times of disaster or economic failure. January 26, 1887 was the designated day for a memorial service on behalf of Kalmikova and to designate her successor. Each side vied to win the favor of the Dukhabors attending the services from all the villages. Verigin was obviously the favorite; Zubkov and the Gubanovs turned to the police to intervene. The local police chief Sumbatov arrived that morning with a group of policemen. After the conclusion of the memorial services, one of the elders of the Dukhabor community, Ivan F. Makhortov, presented Peter Vasilyevich Verigin as the successor to Kalmikova, their new spiritual guide and denominational administrator, and then asked everyone attending to salute him. The vast majority of the attending crowd fell on their knees in the snow, but a few would not. Peter Verigin was arrested later that day and taken into custody, along with Makhortov, Feodor S. Rybin, and a few others who were supportive of Verigin. For the next 16 years, Peter Verigin was in custody. He was first exiled to the city of Shenkursk in Archangelsk Province, arriving there in October 1877; and then during the summer of 1890, he was transferred to Kola, south of Murmansk. In 1892, Verigin was returned to Shenkursk where he lived another three years. On November 4, 1894, he left Shenkursk for the village of Obdorsk in Tobolsk Province, today

143

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. III known as Salehard, at the mouth of the Ob River in Siberia, where he remained for the next six years. The five Dukhabor elders who were arrested with him were eventually released. Verigin’s exile ignited a bombshell of agitation and commotion among the Elizavetpol, Kars and Tiflis Dukhabors and caused the denomination to split into two factions. The “Larger” group supported Verigin, whom they accepted as their official and divinely appointed leader. The “Smaller” group supported the Gubanovs and Zubkov. The actual number in the larger group was 14,000 adults, while the smaller group consisted of about 2,000 adults. The local judicial authorities then ordered custody of the finances of the Sirotski Dom to be transferred to the smaller group, and primarily the Gubanov family. While in exile, Verigin began regular correspondence with the active members of the larger group, who also on a few occasions visited him and related to him news and events that had occurred in the community. Accepting him as their leader-in-absentia, his visitors would return to the settlements and relate his orders and counsel to them. To pass the time while in exile, Verigin read the book, The Kingdom of God is within You, by Leo Tolstoy. Verigin’s ideals of a Christian community coincided with many of Tolstoy’s, and Verigin likewise incorporated Tolstoy’s view into his own, namely, that the true Christian faith must maintain a high moral standard and should be a practical religion, based on practice and conduct, and less on rites and theology. Verigin’s correspondence with his community reflected those concepts of Tolstoy that Verigin could apply to Dukhabor culture. Especially confirming for Verigin was Tolstoy’s anti-war and anti-imperialistic stance, which coincided with the traditional Dukhabor tenets. In about 1890, Verigin conceived the idea of a migration of Dukhabors from the Transcaucasus to some remote Province of Russia. From prison, Verigin entrusted his close associate and brother-in-law, Ivan Konkin, with the responsibility to seek out an acceptable region for resettlement. Konkin traveled through Siberia and the Far East, and returned with no good news. On his return from visiting Verigin in exile in 1894, Konkin was arrested and sent into exile to Yakutsk in Siberia. Practices that had been unacceptable in the past, such as using alcohol and tobacco, had entered into the custom of the Dukhabors during the latter years of Kalmikova’s leadership. Now, Verigin wrote from prison adjuring Dukhabors to abstain from alcohol and tobacco. In addition to this, meat was no longer to be eaten, and Dukhabors were to return to vegetarianism. These new rules created

144

The Nineteenth Century another division, now within the larger group. Konkin, on Verigin’s side (which had a majority), implemented vegetarianism. The opposition, still tolerant of alcohol and tobacco and meat, was led by Vorobyev and was now designated the Middle group. The term Postniks — fasting people — were applied to Verigin’s vegetarian faction. The Dukhabor tenets of refusing to pledge allegiance to the tsar, and of objection to military service, now created a struggle with imperial authorities, and would eventually force them to leave Russia. In 1894, during the reign of Tsar Alexandr III, Dukhabors of the village Terpenye in Kars Province (which is now part of Turkey), as a sign of protest, refused to swear allegiance. The local military commander attempted to recruit young Dukhabor men into the army and they refused. Several dozen were arrested and taken into custody, and they were subjected to military discipline: humiliation and torture. Nine died, the rest were freed. One of the most important single events in the history of the Dukhabor community was the burning of arms on the Holiday of Apostles Peter and Paul, June 29, 1895, also the birthday of Peter Verigin. Leader-in-absentia Peter Verigin wrote to encourage them to protest both the oath of allegiance required by Tsar Alexandr III, and his intention to institute universal national conscription. (Although Nikolai II was now tsar, the laws legislated under Alexandr III were finally being implemented.) Dukhabors gathered all their guns and rifles, whether they were used for hunting, or for self-defense, and in several villages of Armenia they destroyed them in large bonfires. No reprisal was felt in Kars Province, but in Elizavetpol, the Dukhabors who burned their arms were arrested. In Tiflis, a regiment of Cossack soldiers was dispatched to the Dukhabor settlement. They attacked a peaceful crowd of about 2,000 Dukhabors, wounding many. The soldiers pillaged the villages, ransacked the homes and raped Dukhabor woman. Later during the day of June 29, Shervashidze, the governor of the province, ordered the representatives of the Larger and Middle groups to appear before him (the Smaller group was not involved in the arms burning). Vorobyev and a few elders from the Middle group met with the governor, telling him to not confuse them with the Larger group, which was responsible for the arms burning; Vorobyev also asked the governor to treat the Larger group as criminals, to arrest and prosecute them. The representatives of the Larger group refused to meet with Governor Shervashidze, so he sent some soldiers to their settlement. They arrested 24 Dukhabors. Interrogating them, Shervashidze concluded that their anti-military

145

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. III demonstration was detrimental to the interests of the state, as well as uncalled for. His sentence upon the entire Larger group was harsh: they were to be resettled in the mountains, distant from any communication or interaction with anybody else. About 4,300 men, woman and children of Tiflis Province, from the various Dukhabor settlements, were rounded up and moved about 100 miles to the north, to the remote high mountains valleys of Kakheti and Kartalini, in eastern Georgia, along the Azerbaijani border, accompanied by soldiers. They did not even have time to sell their property or possessions, or they sold them at a fraction of the value. After their departure, the members of the Middle group, led by Vorobyev, appropriated what was left behind. Neither Peter Verigin nor Ivan Konkin, who were both in exile, had expected anything like this to occur. Now, the Larger group was destitute and isolated from civilization in two valleys, surrounded by the highest peaks of the Caucasus Mountain range. Restrained by principles of non-violence and selfsacrifice, the Larger group was paralyzed and at the mercy of the Middle group and the imperial authorities. Verigin’s ideals for his community were as remote as the people were. In August 1896, Verigin addressed a letter to Empress Alexandra Feodorevna, the wife of Tsar Nikolai II, with several proposals that he hoped would resolve the matter, and allow the Dukhabor Larger group to gain their freedom. Verigin asked for either a migration to some remote province of Russia, provided they still be allowed release from military service, or to another country, perhaps England or America. At about this time, some close associates of Count Leo Tolstoy, namely, V.G. Chertkoff, P.J. Berukoff, I.M. Treguboff, D.A. Khilkov, and others, made a plea to the people of Russia and other countries to assist the Dukhabors in their plight, and Tolstoy personally intervened. After two years in the new region, the Dukhabors petitioned the government for permission to migrate. In 1898, Ivan Nikolaevich Durnovo, the Minister of Internal Affairs, agreed to release the Dukhabor Larger group from their internment and allow their exodus from Russia. With the assistance of English and American Quaker organizations, and the financial support of Count Leo Tolstoy (the income from his latest novel, Resurrection, was donated to this purpose), Dukhabors began their migration. A total of 7,500 men, women and children migrated from the valleys of Kakheti and Kartalini, and from Elizavetpol and Kars Provinces. They departed in four groups from December 1898 to April 1899. The first group to migrate was routed to Cyprus, where they suffered considerably for about a year before

146

The Nineteenth Century moving on to Canada. The second and later groups went directly to Canada from Russia. The total number that migrated was about one quarter of all the active Dukhabors in Russia, in fact, the foundation of the denomination. (According to census figures, in 1880 about 12,800 Dukhabors lived in Georgia, Armenia, and Kars regions; while in 1897, the number increased to 20,000.) Of the 7,500 that migrated, 3,300 were from the Larger group, while the balance were from the Middle and Smaller groups. Peter Verigin was freed from exile in the autumn of 1902, after sixteen years, and he too migrated to Canada, arriving there in December. Dukhabors continued to migrate from Russia into Canada after 1900, but in meager numbers. In 1899, Ivan Konkin was released from exile in Siberia. In 1905, 200 Dukhabors who had been exiled to Yakutsk in Siberia by imperial order in earlier years, were allowed to migrate to Canada. That same year, another group, consisting of the balance of the Verigin family, migrated to Canada. Now, the denomination remaining in Russia began its decline, to almost a point of extinction. The lack of strong leadership, the feuding Middle and Small groups, and a lack of organization among the remaining Dukhabors of southern and central Russia al contributed to the decline. As early as 1905, former Dukhabor villages of Elizavetpol Provinces were now void of them and most of the village residents were now Baptist. Other Dukhabors joined either Stundist or Molokan congregations, which they could closely identify with (some adaptations had to be made in terms of dogma, but this was considered a minor issue). In 1906, a delegation consisting of six Dukhabors, including Peter Verigin, returned to Russia to investigate the possibility of a return now that religious toleration had been legislated. In St. Petersburg, Verigin and the delegation met with Peter A. Stolypin, Minister of Internal Affairs, and other ministers. They offered the region of Altai in Siberia as an area for settlements, should the denomination decide to return, with free land provided for agricultural development, and, in addition, the Dukhabors would be released from any military obligations. Tsar Nikolai II personally confirmed the offer to the delegates. Verigin and the other Dukhabor delegates came to a quick conclusion, which was not to risk returning. Although Tsar Nikolai expressed regret for what had occurred just ten years earlier, Verigin and the others could sense the turmoil in the country and felt that any impending upheaval would only place the Dukhabors in a more hazardous situation. That being the case, their fight for survival would be easier won in Canada. In March 1907, the delegation left Russia, never to return again.

147

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. III Among those Dukhabors remaining in Russia after 1905, no further word or action of protest against the imperial government was heard or seen. When military conscription was legislated at the entrance of Russia into World War I in 1914, the question of Christian pacifism again arose among young Dukhabors but the anti-militaristic fervor of the earlier generations was absent and few objected to conscription. From the beginning of World War I through April 1, 1917, there were 837 Court Martials of individuals who refused military service due to religious convictions. Only 16 of them were Dukhabors, and not one Dukhabor from the provinces of Elizavetpol, Tiflis and Kars, where the conservative groups resided, objected to conscription.

148. BROTHERHOOD OF THE RIGHT SIDE The Brotherhood of the Right Side, who were also known as the Jehovists, was the creation of a retired staff captain from the military, Nikolai Sazonovich Ilyin. His restless search for dogmatic truth conceived this movement, and they announced their teaching as the “Scholarship of Zion,” while referring to themselves as the Dyosnoi Bratstvo, or, Brotherhood of the Right Side, a reference to Matt 25:34. Ilyin was born in 1810, the son of General Patkyl, a career military officer and ballistics expert for the Imperial Russian Navy. Ilyin graduated from a Jesuit college in Polotz and enlisted in the military at the suggestion of his father. In 1834, he was designated an ensign, and up to 1845 he was a loyal member of the ROC, although inclined to mysticism. After his retirement from the military in about 1854, he accepted a position as an engineer at the Barachinski factory near Sverdlovsk, also known as Ekaterinburg, in Perm Province in the central Ural Mountains, where military medals and related decor were manufactured. He was disenchanted with the ROC and the effects that the military had on him as a Christian, and he reacted by studying and writing, and proposing a new religious cosmology. While employed at Barachinski, he severed his ties with the ROC and wrote his treatise Sionski Vest (News of Zion), containing coarse and crude denunciations of the ROC and a stern criticism of the imperial government. His tract was hand-copied and circulated in the region, which upset some people and inspired others. His religious community, which he called a New Testament Judaism, slowly formed. His initial followers were those who worked with him at the office: his daughter Aleksandra Nikolaevna and her

148

The Nineteenth Century husband Budrin, the Collegiate Assessor; Laletin, the sub-lieutenant of the forest-ranger corps and his wife, and Protopovich, the local Councilman. While Ilyin is much mentioned by sources on Russian religious history, the actual membership of his group was barely as high as one hundred, if that, during the three or four years of his activity in Perm Province. His adherents were few, yet his convictions interested an audience from the Urals to Ukraine and from St. Petersburg to the Caucasus. His views were much discussed by mystics and religious eccentrics throughout central and southern Russia. Of the hundreds, if not more, of such eccentric and self-proclaimed messiahs who appeared and subsequently disappeared (and most of them without a record of their ministry or convictions, or even their names), Ilyin is remembered because of the extreme imbalance and illogic of his views. Sensationalism surrounded the trial and subsequent exile of Ilyin and his family. Their prosecution by ROC authorities was not so much for his unorthodox convictions as for his mental imbalance. No other sectarian group with a historical record in Russia consisted of such a hodge-podge of doctrinal sensationalism and such an absurd eschatology as the Jehovists’. Ilyin claimed to have uncovered the secret to salvation, which was to be found in the proper application of the Tetragrammaton — the name of God, in Hebrew — as well as the process of the final judgment upon the unChristian world and historic Christendom, as revealed in the Book of Revelation. Ilyin’s concepts were based on a reformulation of the doctrine of the Trinity: the Father was the Jewish God of gods, who possesses both divine and human features; God the Son was the god Jehovah, who governs the solar system and retains a special place in the cosmos; God the Spirit is not considered a person, but the state or condition of the person who becomes a Jehovist. Jehovah is the god of the immortal, while Satan is the god of mortal people. Gods, in this schema, are people who have attained immortality and have been enlightened by the secrets of nature. The Hebrew God of gods was a person who spoke with our ancestors, and walked, ate and drank with them, and wrestled with Jacob; He possessed a typical human body and a soul. His name is Jehovah, which means the Most Wise of the Wise of all the Wise. Jesus Christ, the Messiah, is also Jehovah, the god-man who was crucified. The revelation of the greatest truth of God for all people was that the God of the Hebrews, who ate with Abraham and walked and stood near Sodom with him, was crucified under the name of Jesus Christ. Ilyin realized that such a god could not be a creator of the universe, so he taught the existence of the universe from the

149

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. III infinite past and into the infinite future in a series of cycles. Each cycle consisted of dissolution of the material universe into the elements, and then its reassembly by the reconstitution of the same elements. His view of humanity was much the same, like a repeat revolutionary process: from the basic elements into basic organisms and then the evolution into humans. With the dissolution of the material universe, humanity will simultaneously devolve back into its elemental form, until the next cycle. Eventually, the cycles of universal dissolution and evolution will terminate with the establishment of the 1000-year Kingdom on earth at Jerusalem. The present world is in a continual process of a spiritual and invisible division of all persons into a right side and left side: the Jehovists and the Satanists. When the time arrives for the 1000-year Kingdom of Christ to materialize, then the Lord will visibly begin to gather and unite all Christians and subsequently separate them into the right and left sides. When the separation is completed, those on the right — the Jehovists — will lie with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the prophets, apostles and martyrs, in the graceful Kingdom. Gold and silver, gardens and forests, and an abundant harvest will fill the Kingdom at Jerusalem. There will be no need for education, schools, authorities, or judges, because all people will be equal and holy. Jehovah will divide the Kingdom into twelve sections; beginning from the Mediterranean Sea and east to the Pacific Ocean, a railway line will be built from Jerusalem to Canton, China, and will be lined with gardens and beautiful railway stations. After the conclusion of the millennial Kingdom, Jehovah will completely annihilate Satan and the Satanists and create a new world, a million-fold larger than the present one. The Jehovists will settle there to live for 280,000 years. At the conclusion of this era, the world will again be renovated and so on, for eternity. In another tract, Ilyin taught a more historical Christian concept, stating that 6,000 years were assigned for the struggle between Jehovah and Satan. At the conclusion of this period, Jehovah is to defeat Satan, place him in chains, and throw him into the abyss. Consequently, Jehovah will initiate peace and liberty for all nations for the millennial reign of the republic of Jerusalem. Regarding liturgy, Ilyin rejected all rites and had no definite organization. The few adherents of Ilyin’s group gathered on Saturdays. No church services are known to have been composed or conducted by Ilyin, other than a few songs and prayers that were plagiarized from the ROC with some modifications of his own. Ilyin considered the Old Testament the sole source of instruction for his Jehovists. He preached circumcision rather than baptism, advocated observance of

150

The Nineteenth Century the Sabbath, and forbid consumption of pork. However, he called Jews “Satan’s gang.” With equal zeal, Ilyin repudiated the ROC, all of its sacraments, rites, veneration of saints, relics, and the entire priesthood. Ilyin taught that a person did not need a church in order to worship God, nor rites nor priests, but taught that every person was a king and priest. Ilyin labeled the ROC the “prostitute of Babylon” and worse. He called the ROC clergy “the children of Jezebel,” “wolves in sheep’s clothing,” and related to the number 666. He refered to Orthodox churches as idol temples; icons as painted boards; and priests as peddlers. His attitude toward imperial Russia was the same. Ilyin beseeched God for His vengeance upon them to be fulfilled. Ilyin called the Holy Synod and State Senate destroyers. With such an anarchistic cosmology, it is no wonder that Ilyin was more of a cause célebre than a serious sectarian preacher. Still, imperial and ROC authorities saw danger in his preaching and took measures to curb it. In 1858 a judicial investigation was begun, and it concluded that Ilyin’s teaching was not only incompatible with the dogma of the ROC, but that he went so far as to reject all religions. On this basis, Ilyin was accused of apostasy from the ROC and of disseminating teachings that were in conflict with the dogmas of the ROC. Along with Ilyin, his adherents were also arrested and sentenced. In 1859, they were initially confined in the Ekaterinburg prison, Perm Province. Ilyin was subsequently transferred to the Petro-Pavlovsk Fortress in St. Petersburg, and then to Solovetski Monastery, arriving September 25, 1859. He was held in solitary confinement in a cell in the prison building for fifteen years. The severity of incarceration and solitude did not have the desired effect. His persuasions, however, did have an effect on the other monks living at the monastery, and he unsettled their belief in monasticism. One of Ilyin’s listeners left the monastery and traveled to the Urals, seeking out the remnants of his followers; he married the daughter of Laletin. During the latter years of Ilyin’s incarceration, he began to show signs of psychological deterioration, and his son and daughters petitioned that he be transferred due to his health. At a meeting on November 6, 1870, the Holy Synod decided not to free Captain Ilyin from Solovetski until he exhibited complete and sincere repentance of his religious convictions. Tsar Aleksandr II, however, felt that the conditions at Solovetski were too severe and he preferred a transfer to Spasso-Evfimiev Monastery in Suzdal. On June 11, 1873, the Holy Synod ordered that Ilyin be transferred to Suzdal, and he arrived there the following year. His psychological condition con-

151

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. III tinued to deteriorate while he was imprisoned there, and, after a request by his relatives, he was finally released on July 18, 1879. This 20-year term of imprisonment left him with a severe mental disorder. He was sent with relatives to the town Mitav, or Jelgava, in Kurlandski Province (Latvia). Even so, he was still firm in his persuasions and continued to teach his beliefs, and so the Holy Synod ordered the police to conduct strict surveillance of his activities. The 70-year-old Ilyin continued to compose his declarations and was again brought to trial. The Religious Consistory of Riga issued the following report regarding Ilyin: Ilyin imagines himself as the worldwide religious reformer, chosen by God himself to destroy all the existing established religions on earth, and to disseminate the sole true faith and a general peace and love among people.

Eventually, he was freed. Ilyin concluded his life in Mitav, Latvia in about 1888, residing with relatives. (The author met with perhaps the last of Ilyin’s disciples, in 1970, a woman then about 90 years old who had migrated to America as a young lady and was residing in Los Angeles. She was very excited and pleased to know that someone was interested in Captain Ilyin and planned to write about him.) Budrin, ill with tuberculosis, could not endure the initial prison confinement and soon died, probably at Ekaterinburg prison. His wife was exiled to the Novgorod Svato-Dukhov (Holy Spirit) Convent. In 1859, Laletin was exiled to the Sviazhski Monastery, where he died after a ten-year imprisonment.

149. THE NEW ISRAEL One splinter group of the Khristovshin was the Postniki, or Fasters group, founded in the 1810s, by Tambov peasant Abbakum Ivanovich Kopylov. They magnified the ascetic practice of fasting as a means of subjecting the flesh to the spirit and attaining godliness. It was not unusual for their members to fast anywhere from one day to seven days, at regular intervals, eating and drinking nothing at all. Abbakum Kopylov announced himself as the sole living Christ, as opposed to earlier Khristovshin tenets wherein Christ was a spirit residing in every member of the Khristovshin. Once, Abbakum Kopylov ate nothing and drank nothing during a 40-day fast. He is said to have subsisted only on prayer. As a result, he was raptured in the Spirit into heaven by two Angels, while his flesh remained on earth, and his soul was presented to God. Other Postniks say that Abbakum was taken alive into the seventh heaven. There, he conversed per-

152

The Nineteenth Century sonally with God face to face. While in the presence of God, He said to Abbakum, “You are My beloved son, in whom I am well pleased.” Abbakum was also allowed to read certain books while he was in Heaven, which pertained to salvation from sin, the way to save one’s soul, and what a person should teach his neighbor. During his ministry, his adherents referred to Abbakum as teacher, confessor, and Christ; the peasant woman Tatyana Makarova was their prophetess and Theotokos. Abbakum died in the 1840s. One of Abbakum’s disciples, Perfil Petrov Katasonov, assumed the role of spiritual guide and was likewise considered the sole Christ. The group became known as the New Israel, although the ROC referred to them as the Shaloputov (Wayward People). The New Israel movement is probably the final mystic denomination in the list of those that began appearing in Russia with Danil Filippov’s Khristovshin in the 17 th century. The appellation of New Israel was based on their belief that Old Israel was the nation of God under the old covenant of Abraham and Moses, while New Israel was the nation of God under the new covenant of Jesus Christ. Katasonov was a peasant who at one time had worked under Kopylov. He initiated reforms among the Postniks, the first of which was the relaxation of the rule of compulsory fasting; then the rules of diet were relaxed, and meat was permitted. The New Israel still held to the moral principles of the Khristovshin, although the spiritual dancing and prophecy were no longer the primary identifiable traits of the group and the organization had improved. The Ship assemblies were modernized: spiritual dancing and prophecy declined, while sermons and hymns became more prevalent. The ascetic ideal of celibacy was no longer promoted as it was in the past, and was slowly replaced by marriage. They considered themselves the spiritual chosen nation of God, and their community they labeled the Kingdom of God. Centered in the 1840–1860s in Tambov and Voronezh Provinces, by the 1870–1880s, the New Israel community under their Christ Katasonov expanded to the Ekaterinoslav, Stavropol, Don, and Kuban Provinces. The New Israel observed all the original regulations of Danil Filippov and taught that a 40-day fast was required for a person to become a Christ or Theotokos. The number of members of the New Israel under Katasonov was estimated to be at 25,000, in all of central and southern Russia. In 1885, Katasonov died. One of the prophets of Katasonov’s community was Vasili Feodorovich Mokshin. During his ministry as a prophet in the New Israel, Mokshin was persecuted by the ROC and spent time in prison for his religious beliefs. After Kata-

153

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. III sonov’s death, the lesser leaders of his denomination could not unite to keep the New Israel intact but began to struggle for the pre-eminent position of denominational leader; this eventually caused the denomination to splinter. Some of these congregations became independent, while others either assimilated into Russian society or into other more stable sectarian denominations. The shortlived and scandal-wrought Russian Israel under Aleksei Scheetinin also appeared at about this time. A revitalized community under Vasili Feodorovich Mokshin of Voronezh Province arose soon after Katasonov’s death. Mokshin was sincere and humble and could not tolerate the strife among the other leaders, and led the new group with strong organization. The New Israel under Mokshin espoused tenets similar to those of the Molokans and was highly organized. The spiritual dancing and prophecy of the early assemblies declined, while Biblical scholarship increased. Members now recognized that a person could possess the gift and baptism of the Holy Spirit without physical manifestation. The new community under Mokshin was more educated and pragmatic than their mystical forefathers, and ascetic and monastic ideals were entirely abandoned in favor of marriage. Meat became part of their staple diet, and alcohol was no longer taboo, although its consumption was kept to a minimum. Vasili Feodorovich Mokshin died in 1894, and Vasili Semeonovich Lubkov, also a peasant of Voronezh Province, assumed leadership over New Israel. Lubkov was born December 24, 1869, in the village Bobrova, to ROC parents. He was baptized in the ROC in the traditional manner, four days after his birth. As a teenager, he began to attend New Israel assemblies, and at the age of 17 was born again. In 1886, the year of Lubkov’s rebirth, he was arrested by ROC officials for preaching sectarian ideas, and was placed in a local prison. This occurred during the wave of sectarian persecution initiated by At-Gen Pobedonostsev. His mother died due to the psychological impact of his arrest and imprisonment. Lubkov was transferred to the Caucasus, to a prison in Tiflis, Georgia, where he encountered Baptist and Molokan preachers. Lubkov was finally released in 1894, shortly after Mokshin’s death, after eight years in prison. When Lubkov was released from exile he traveled to Voronezh to attend a Congress of New Israel elders, where he was recognized as the new Christ in the succession of Kopylov, Katasonov, and Mokshin. Lubkov, known as a man of great energy and strong will, immediately presented his plans for New Israel’s modernization and revitalization, and dedicated himself to its accomplishment. That year, Lubkov energetically proceeded to organize his community, which

154

The Nineteenth Century was now legal and was dispersed throughout Russia, and especially to make his home in Tiflis, Georgia, the new capital of the New Israel. Lubkov married Natalya Grigorievna Orobinskaya in 1905, also a native of Voronezh Province: she was 19, and he was 36. Even though he was warned by the authorities not to preach his convictions, Lubkov moved about Russia, preaching as he went. He was one step ahead of authorities as he traveled first to Siberia, then to Moscow, St. Petersburg, central Russia, and back to the Caucasus, until the edict of toleration was issued in 1905. Lubkov considered the entirety of Russia as the New Israel Kingdom of God, with a division into seven regions. Each region was represented by a capital church, to which New Israel congregations would be subject. Lubkov would govern the seven regions of his Kingdom using seven archangels, one from each region. These archangels would keep Lubkov, the Christ of the New Israel, informed of all that was occurring. Elders would be selected by the members of the individual congregations to perform services and have the primary administration over its spiritual and material success. Surrounding Lubkov would be four evangelists, twelve apostles, twelve prophets, and seventy-two men designated as apostolic-equals, along with the seven archangels mentioned above. Lubkov took personal control over the New Israel congregations and dealt with them as an administrative officer. About 1895, Lubkov organized his hierarchy, but not without extreme difficulty. During Lubkov’s early years, he was opposed by Vasili Grachev, who considered himself a Spiritual Christian and who wanted to route the community back to the more traditional style under Katasonov. Many abandoned the strict rule of Mokshin and joined Molokan or Stundist congregations, which had similar tenets but were more loosely organized and had no central authority. Much like the Khristovshin of the 18th and 19th centuries, the members of the New Israel were diligent, hardworking and honest. They developed a solidarity among themselves and were ready to assist each other at any time. Their prime concern was the abolition of poverty; all members contributed immensely to the central fund, which in turn distributed charity to the poor, the sick and the lame. Unlike the Khristovshin of earlier ages, in 1904 the New Israel publicly announced its dissolution from the ROC and refused to further attend rites or accept sacraments. To generate enthusiasm, Lubkov initiated theatrical performances on Biblical themes and performers traveled about the New Israel congregations. The first was based on the Last Supper, with Lubkov playing the part of Christ. In

155

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. III 1900, there was a performance of the Sermon on the Mount, and in 1905, a performance based on the Transfiguration. In 1907, a theatrical performance called “Ascent to Mount Zion,” was produced. The topic of this performance was the history of the New Israel. Lubkov attracted thousands to his congregations using these novel theatrical performances. Fear of a repeat of the religious suppression of the 1890s, and rumors of impending revolution, led Lubkov to plan a migration out of Russia. He developed this plan in about 1900, and the area he chose to relocate to was the Golodnaya Steppe, a sparsely populated desert region in eastern Uzbekistan, just west of Tashkent. The selection of the site may have been based on JungStilling’s voluminous Homesickness, as others in the past had also migrated to the areas of Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, seeking a paradise on earth. New Israel elders called his idea adventurous, since he had given very little real thought to the difficulty of migration and resettlement, or to the economics of the venture. This unrealistic notion turned many members of New Israel against the dictatorial rule of Lubkov. One elder of the New Israel, Endovitzki, of Voronezh Province, began to preach that the divine mission of Lubkov and his leadership of New Israel had now reached its end. Endovitzki did not have much success, especially after the edict of religious toleration. The edict promulgated on October 17, 1905 that converted imperial Russia into a constitutional monarchy was triumphantly hailed by Lubkov as the dawn of a new era of expansion and prosperity for the New Israel. Only five weeks later, on November 25, 1905, Lubkov issued a circular letter titled, “Summons of New Israel Communities,” to all the elders of the scattered congregations, inviting them to a special congress. Lubkov had visions of promoting his New Israel to the position of supremacy above all other Christian denominations in Russia. The congress was held on February 3, 1906, in Taganrog, near Rostov-onthe-Don, with 450 delegates from 200 congregations in central and southern Russia. Lubkov emphasized his Christian-Socialist agenda as the future for the New Israel in Russia. He rejected revolution as the means for reform in Russia and warned the delegates, telling them not to join any of the new political parties emerging Russia. The New Israel as a corporate body would still recognize the Tsar as the divinely selected sovereign of Russia. By 1909, the New Israel had so radically changed from its roots that the Holy Synod announced that they no longer considered it a branch of, or successor to, the Khristovshin of earlier ages. By now, the New Israel was closer in

156

The Nineteenth Century practice and tenets to the Evangelical Christian denominations. Long lost and severed from its Khristovshin roots and practices, Lubkov turned the community toward a Christian-Socialist agenda, as he wrote in his memoirs. Christ’s Messianic ministry on earth is still not complete. He descended to earth to ameliorate the sorrow and suffering of people, to establish an intelligent and excellent manner of life here on earth. He wanted all people to become brethren and for all nations to unite into one divine family, where there would be neither lord, nor slave, and that only His Holy, intelligent Spirit would guide the nations.

The unsuccessful attempt to migrate to Golodnaya Steppe of 1900 did not stop Lubkov from planning another migration out of Russia proper, even after the edict of religious toleration. The several attempts at political revolution in 1905–1906 inspired many people to leave. Beginning in 1908, some 5,000 members of the New Israel migrated from central Russia to the Transcaucasus. They sold what they had, and abandoned what they could not sell. They had enough capital to purchase large tracts of prime farmland in Georgia, which was then part of the Russian empire. Lubkov made the capital of his Kingdom of God of New Israel in the village Elizavetinski, near Tiflis. With a smaller and more concentrated community, Lubkov’s control was tighter and he strove to improve moral, religious and economic conditions in the New Israel settlements. In a short time, the hardworking settlers were prospering. Even with the edict of religious toleration, elders were still subject to arrest and prosecution by officials of imperial Russia and the ROC, which caused Lubkov further alarm. He was likewise apprehensive of the rumors of another attempt at revolution, as well as the arms build-up in Russia and Europe. In 1910, Lubkov devised another plan for migration, this time to Uruguay. There, he hoped he could find religious, political and economic freedom for the New Israel that would extend far into the fuutre. The group still objected to military service, as they had since the earlier ages of Khristovshin; this rule had been difficult to observe in the past and was becoming more difficult to observe as socialist and revolutionary groups grew in Russia. Somewhere on earth, Lubkov sought to establish the Kingdom of God in the way he and other New Israel elders understood it; Russia no longer looked like a possible option. Molokans had already begun to leave the region for America, and Dukhabors had long since left for Canada, both seeking freedom from military conscription.

157

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. III Persecution surfaced and intensified for the New Israel, as the vice-regent of the Caucasus issued a circular letter to police stations under his jurisdiction. From December 1910 to May 1911, six New Israel settlements were closed down in Kuban Province, and such closures continued in other provinces. The New Israel membership met Lubkov’s latest proposal with mixed emotions. About two-thirds of the New Israel settlements of the Transcaucasus decided to assimilate into other denominations that were not being persecuted. As pacifist Christians, they could not use force or violence to defend their ideals, so migration was the remaining choice for the conservative one-third of the New Israel membership. Lubkov communicated with the government of Uruguay and secured approval for a migration and resettlement. New Israel was allowed to purchase and farm land along the Uruguay River, about 300 miles from Montevideo. The first migrants left Russia in 1911, and the migration continued through 1914. Some 2,000 members of the New Israel migrated to Uruguay. The start of World War I closed the borders to further emigration, and any remaining members who had intended to leave were now forced to remain. According to Russian historians, about 10% of New Israel adherents migrated to Uruguay. Some 20,000 New Israel adherents are estimated to have been residing in central and southern Russia in 1910. Historian Bonch-Bruevich estimated their membership at 100,000 at the movement’s height. Without their leader Lubkov, and due to the weakness of existing leaders, the New Israel congregations of central Russia now began a decline, the members assimilating into Russia society or into other denominations. By the end of the civil war in 1922, the New Israel was extinct in Russia. In Uruguay, the group still survives to the present day, albeit in small numbers. Much like the Khristovshin Ship of earlier generations, New Israel members assembled in a plain room which they called the Chamber of Zion. Their assemblies possessed no decor or icons, and no rites were performed as in an Orthodox Church. A table stood in the corner of the room, and upon it rested a Bible and New Testament, and sometimes a vase with flowers. The services consisted of sermons and songs. The spiritual dancing and prophecy of earlier generations slowly diminished. Under Lubkov, the services of the New Israel matched those of the Molokans, with short sermons presented by respected elders and interspersed with traditional Khristovshin hymns. New songs composed by Mokshin and Lupkin incorporated themes of the new and modern concepts of their New Israel, and these tunes were mellower in nature than the fast

158

The Nineteenth Century rhythmic chants of earlier generations. Gone were the white robes of the men and the long flowing dresses of the women. New Israel tenets followed the original 12 commandments of Danil Filippov, as well as pacifism, and the mystic foundation was still very apparent. The one modification involved celibacy: marriage was now the acceptable norm for the membership, while celibacy became the exception. The rest of their theology was adapted from local Molokans and Stundists. The New Israel believed that God is a spirit: intelligent, holy, only-begotten, eternal, impassable, gracious, creative, and unrestrainable. God is all-encompassing and retains wisdom as His affiliate, His great architect. God, using His wisdom, sketched with His hand the expanse of the abyss and created the material world out of nothing. God is the beginning of all beginnings. God, who created the visible and invisible worlds, is incomprehensible to humans. The human is the residence that God selected for Himself and He required an intelligent soul in that human. God materializes only in the soul and conscience of a person. The New Israel understanding of Jesus Christ is closer to the Evangelical, rather than the early Khristovshin, idea. Jesus arrived on earth to assuage the sorrow and suffering of people. He wanted everyone to become brethren and to unite into one divine family, so not one would be considered a ruler or slave, and so that only the holy, intelligent will of God would reign upon earth. Jesus wanted ruthless people to become kind; he wanted to raise peoples’ souls to a higher level where they would be willing to sacrifice themselves for one another. As a result of his ministry, Jesus was prosecuted by the authorities of this world: high priests, scribes, Pharisees; but it was the common people who attached themselves to him and who elevated him. The New Israel recognized the Holy Bible, and especially the Gospels, as the sole source of theology and morality, unlike the Khristovshin of earlier generations who considered the active prophecy of the Holy Spirit as the principal revelation. This new attitude tended to direct the New Israel toward the doctrinal interpretations of Spiritual Christians, but in the same light as their predecessors they sought the spiritual intent of the passage (which was not apparent to people who were unenlightened or were spiritually immature). All the miracles recorded in the Bible were also interpreted as allegorical, in the belief that a spiritual meaning was hidden in each of them. The New Israel rejected icons, relics of saints, and all related ecclesiastical appurtenances of the ROC. They rejected its sacraments, allocating to baptism and communion a completely different and allegorical interpretation. The

159

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. III wedding ceremony is not accepted as a sacrament, but marriage is seen as a union founded on mutual love and marital fidelity. They interpreted baptism as the spiritual conception or the rebirth of a person in Christ; through this spiritual rebirth a person was to receive the grace of God and every believer in Christ received the spirit of renovation to become a new creation. This moral endowment is acquired through the birth pains of the heart. All rite and ceremony of the ROC is entirely rejected by the New Israel as incompatible with the sound reason of Scripture. The true method of worship of God was implemented by Christ during his ministry, and it lasted for three centuries. During the fourth century, gentiles in the Church subjected it to the demands of the state and so it ended up compromising belief. This led to its moral and spiritual decline and later the division into various denominations, although the truth of Christ persisted in smaller congregations, which were rejected and subsequently persecuted by the ecumenical church. Angels and angelic spirits, or any entity outside the sphere of humanity, were not recognized by New Israel. The appellation of Angel was identified with the genius of goodness, while Angels in general applied to the soul and conscience of a person. Angels represented goodness, kindness, sensitivity, and a person who inspires honor and purity. A person with undefeatable faith, who was on the path of moral perfection, could attain the glorious appellation of Angel. The New Israel denomination considered itself the legacy of the ministry of Christ. They viewed their purpose as preserving true religion, while ignorance and superstition reigned elsewhere. At the same time, they were willing to sacrifice themselves rather than compromise their beliefs.

150. THE STUNDISTS The differences between the groups known as Evangelical Christians, Baptists and Stundists were more geographic and cultural than theological; all of them held to Anabaptist doctrines in general. The Stundists were Ukrainian, and were conscientious objectors to military service, a tenet they absorbed from local Mennonites. However, some Stundists also referred to themselves as Evangelicals, and they derived some of their tenets from local Lutherans. During one period, which will be mentioned later, Stundists referred to themselves as Baptists to escape persecution.

160

The Nineteenth Century The Pashkovtzi were Russian and originated in St. Petersburg, with most of their membership coming from northern Russia; they referred to themselves as Evangelicals, but Pashkov evaded the entire question of military service. The Baptists were Russians originating from the Caucasus and southern Russia, but they accepted military service due to influence by English Baptists and German Lutherans. The rest of the tenets were, for all practical purposes, identical among the three groups, following historical Christianity in regards to the Trinity and deity of Jesus Christ, and Protestant teachings of communion, baptism, and eschatology. Russian Baptist historian Savinski, in magnifying the Baptist denomination of Russia, tends to lump all three groups together, ignoring cultural and theological differences. The manner of baptism also varied among them, from sprinkling to total immersion. Stundists begin a new section of the sectarian movements and denominations of Russia that evolved after the edict of Alexandr II on February 19, 1861, which abolished the feudal system in Russia. Emancipation also meant greater religious liberty. The publication in 1863 of the New Testament in Russian, and the entire Bible in 1876, opened the doors of scriptural knowledge to all of Russia. By this time, the Church Slavonic was so archaic that few of the population could understand it. The floodgates of independent Christian thought burst open once the Bible was distributed in the vernacular, and without censure of those who would read it. The peasants’ disdain toward the ROC remained consistent or grew during the second half of the 19th century, as it did in previous generations. The standard of morality or competency did not rise for ROC clergy, and that only motivated people to seek their own inspiration by studying the Bible themselves. Slavinski describes the condition of Russian Orthodoxy in the 1860s: Rural priests, submerged in the abyss of worry over subsistence for themselves and their families, were limited in most situations to acquiring voluntary donations for performing rites. Their ministry was restrained for the most part to ecclesiastical liturgy. Voluntary contributions by parishioners were commonly withheld. Then payment for the performance of a rite was imposed arbitrarily by the parish priest. This caused the priest to incur censure and distrust from parishioners, since it placed an unnecessary financial burden on them. Parishioners wanted to see in their pastor a person who possessed moral qualities that placed him above the local populace, but such were very few. The ideal of a pastor, which parishioners carried in their heart, faded away. Services continued to be performed in the Old Church Slavonic language, which was unintelligible to parishioners, and sermons were poorly prepared. Archbishop Nikanor of Kiev once testified that because the priest

161

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. III themselves read little, and had no sermon outlines, they were unable to provide anything for their parishes. This ignorance of the Christian faith so prevalent among the common masses, and its distrust of ROC parish clergy, was accompanied by the moral decline of the population. The parish clergy themselves, as a result, were infected by alcoholism, theft and embezzlement.

European Christian groups settled in Ukraine to escape persecution, and this was allowed by the Russian government because it permitted development of previously uninhabited and isolated areas. Mennonites, for example, migrated by the thousands to Ukraine to escape persecution by Catholicism and the German state, and especially because of their objection to military service. Imperial Russia allotted them land, as it did to Molokans and Dukhabors, and the Mennonites established many villages and colonized the region. Other European denominations, such as Baptists, Lutherans, and Catholics, sent preachers and missionaries to Russia, where they built churches and proselytized the native residents. Such Protestant thought easily infiltrated Russia after 1905. The sectarian movement of Stundism was the result of the influence of German Mennonite colonies on local native Ukrainians. The appellation of Stundist is derived from the German word “stunde,” meaning hour, because German Anabaptists gathered to study the Bible at specific hours of the day, which the local Russians also began to do. These Bible meetings were also called stunde by the local residents and regional officials, and the individuals who attended them were subsequently called Stundists, although some preferred to call themselves Evangelical Christians. Karl Bonekemper, a German Anabaptist preacher in the village Rorbakh, in Kherson Province in Ukraine, distributed New Testaments in the vernacular Russian to local Ukrainians and invited them to read them. The residents noticed a difference between the ROC and local Anabaptists teachings. As more New Testaments were distributed, more residents read them, and the German pastors spread their Protestant views even more. The Ukrainian Stundists ceased attending ROC churches. Perhaps the first Stundist was Feodor Onischenko, a local Kherson Province peasant. In about 1858, at about the age of 40, he began attending Bible studies that were held in the homes of Germans in the village Rohrback, about eight miles away. Mikhail Ratushni also began to attend, and by 1862, they created their own Bible study in Osnova, a village near Odessa with apopulation of about 220 families. Ratushni became the first Russian preacher of the

162

The Nineteenth Century movement that came to be known as Stundism, and he began giving regular church services consisting of reading and singing passages from the Bible. Mikhail Ratushni was baptized by immersion into water into the Anabaptist faith by a local German pastor, and so took this sign of faith to his fellow villagers, whom he baptized in turn. As the movement spread to other villages, new preachers arose, and by 1868, the Stundist movement spread into Kiev Province, the preacher Pavel Tzibulski preaching in the village Plotskom. The earliest Stundists did not consider themselves a distinct sect or denomination. They slowly increased in size, but at the same time continued to associate with the ROC. Bonekemper advised them not to reject any of the tenets of the ROC, as long as it did not interfere with their Bible study. They were urged by Karl Bonekemper to continue to retain their membership in the ROC, attend services, keep icons in their home, and fulfill the rites required of them, but at the same time to meet together in their homes to study the Bible. Onischenko, however, very early abandoned association with the ROC. Some sources state that other denominations began the Bible studies in Osnova, such as the Mennonites. Indeed, Karl Bonekemper did not arrive in Rohrback until 1865 and these Stundists were already meeting independently by 1862, and had incorporated the Mennonite tenet of objection to military service into their own. In 1862, in Staroi Danzig, a Lutheran colony, seven Russians from the village of Karlovka accepted Protestant tenets from attending a Lutheran Bible study. The first Stundist of this area was Ivan Grigorievich Ryaboshapka, from Lubomir. Ryaboshapka moved to Lubomirka in 1857. His introduction to the Christian faith occurred as a result of his employment by a local German. Martin Gubner, a resident of Staroi Danzig and German Reformed preacher, who converted Ryaboshapka and began his education in the Bible. Once Ryaboshapka begin his independent Stundist ministry, he was twice arrested by local ROC authorities, in 1867 and 1868. By 1870, Ryaboshapka organized Stundist Bible studies in eleven villages, all of which during that decade severed ties with the ROC and created their own Evangelical congregations. Gerasim Balaban was born 1832, and arrived in Osnova in 1867. He immediately joined the Stundist Bible study and became an ardent assistant of Ratushni. Balaban founded a Stundist Bible study in the village Chaplinka in the same region. Balaban spent 1870–1872 in a prison in Kherson for preaching Stundist beliefs.

163

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. III The Stundists’ initial defense before civil authorities occurred on July 8, 1868, as a result of their persecution by local ROC priests. Four Stundists, Ratushni, Kapustin, Balaban, and Osadki, appealed to Von Totzebu, the Governor-General of Novo-Rossiya, for protection. But nothing resulted from this appeal. It was not until 1870 that Stundist preachers of Kherson and Kiev Provinces were organized enough, had codified a sufficient theology, and had sujfficiently developed church services, that they formally severed ties from the ROC. This was done under some influence of local German Mennonites, who disdained the ROC. Severing the Stundist Bible study groups from the ROC in 1870 created the Evangelical Christian denomination. That year, Stundists performed their own ceremonies and services without the participation of an ROC priest, and they abandoned their icons. Parallel with their break from the ROC was their acceptance and practice of water baptism by immersion. On June 11, 1869, Efim Tsimbal was baptized by a German reformed minister, Abram Younger (or Unger). In 1870, Tsimbal baptized Trofim Khlistun and others in Karlovka. By October 1869, Karlovka headed a Stundist congregation consisting of 58 baptized members. In April 1870, Tsimbal went to Lubomirka and baptized Ivan Ryaboshapka, Peter Griv, and Yakov Taran. By the end of 1870, eleven villages in Kivorograd (Elizabetgrad) Province had Evangelical congregations. Ryaboshapka in turn baptized Ratushni and Onischenko in 1871. The Ukrainian village Karlovka formed a Stundist congregation in the early 1870s, led by Trifon Klistoff and Efim Tsimbal. Another congregation was simultaneously formed in Lubomirka by Maxim Kravchenko and Ivan Ryaboshapka. Other villages in Ukraine simultaneously created Bible studies and were influenced in their understanding of the Bible by local Mennonite and Pietist colonies, but the association of the new Stundists with Mennonites and Pietists proved a failure. The German denominations had been provided special rights and privileges by the Russian government, but the Stundists were now considered sectarians and had no such privileges. The German denominations did not want to risk the loss of their privileges, especially their exemption from military service, by defending or associating with the new Stundists. On the other hand, German Reformed and Lutheran congregations were willing to assist them, so the new Stundists developed a theology that combined elements of the Mennonite and Lutheran credo and adapted it to their native Ukrainian culture. Most of the members of the Stundists — now known as Evangelical Christians — were peasants who were disenchanted with the ROC, who were now

164

The Nineteenth Century freed from the feudal system and had access to a Bible in their vernacular. Members of other denominations also joined new Evangelical Christian congregations that were appearing in their villages. Although distinct theological differences did exist between the new Stundists and the long-existing Molokans and Dukhabors, such as water baptism versus spiritual baptism, many villagers did not consider these differences of great importance; social and family attachments often dictated which congregation a person should attend. Stundists were considered insignificant by imperial Russia or the ROC during the first three decades of their development. The Stundists seemed to be a branch of the German Anabaptists. In was not until 1894 that the ROC realized that the Stundist denomination was a threat, with a considerable number of ROC parishioners now attending Bible studies and services, especially in the Ukraine. A report was issued by At-Gen of the Holy Synod Pobedonostsev identifying the Stundists as a denomination more detrimental to Russian society, and he recommended that they be forbidden to conduct services. The Committee of Ministers relayed the recommendation to the Minister of Internal Affairs, who issued an Imperial Edict on July 4, 1894. The circular letter distributed to Orthodox churches was dated September 3, 1894, and it stated the following: The adherents of the sect of the Stundists, rejecting all ecclesiastical rites and sacraments, not only do not recognize any authorities and oppose oaths and military service, but are similar to those criminals undermining the defenders of the fatherland, and who preach socialist principles, for example material equality, distribution of possessions, and etc., and their teachings tear at the root of the basic principles of the Orthodox faith and Russian nationalism. This sect of the Stundists is one of the most dangerous and detrimental in its attitude toward the [Orthodox] Church and Empire. Rights and privileges assigned to dissenters, or those lesser detrimental sects, can no longer be applied to Stundists, and any community prayer assembly can no longer be permitted from this time and for the future.

Bishop Nikanor of Kherson and Odessa wrote a letter on November 12, 1884, to the Kherson Governor, stating, “Stundists undermine the very root of not only the Church but all levels of society and government. This is an inherent principal of their teaching.” The bishop asked the governor to implement state repression of the Stundist movement. He also expressed his fear that the fate of both ROC and imperial Russia will be terrible if measures were not taken to curb their expansion. A more objective view was published in an investigative report by the Odessa Police Chief on May 14, 1883. The published observations and investigations of priests and other persons living in the localities populated by Stundists, and likewise, local city officials, have

165

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. III not testified that ideas of socialism have appeared among Stundists. Recognizing themselves as equal with others and spiritual brethren, they at this time, without complaint or reproach, fulfill all the regulations and ordinances imposed on them by government officials and institutions, including those of local police and village authorities. They fulfill conscientiously and meticulously all obligations expected of them by society.

Each reporter looked at the effect Stundists had on his own sphere of responsibility: they were a threat to the ROC, but were non-pretentious and in fact contributed positively to local society. Initially, and for some time after the repression efforts, the Stundist movement quieted down and lost some of its zealous character. To circumvent the prohibition of assembly, some Stundists turned toward a law that was issued in 1879 to allow Baptists freedom of religion, although the intent of the law was to apply to German Anabaptist colonies of Ukraine. Stundists temporarily abandoned the popular appellation of their denomination, and now began to call themselves Baptists. Again, they began to gather regularly and continued proselytizing. In 1886, Stundist preachers Ryaboshapka, Ratushni, and Khlistun, were placed under police surveillance and were ordered not to leave their home towns. The Minister of Justice issued a circular letter on April 3, 1900, sent to all the courts of Russia, stating that the exemption for Baptists specifically applied only to the German colonists of Ukraine and not to any other group. The local courts were ordered to enforce the edict of 1894 and to forbid Stundists to assemble. This circular began a second wave of persecution against Stundists: many of their leaders were beaten by local officials, others were arrested and sentenced to prison, and a few were exiled to forsaken areas of Siberia. The situation of the Stundists changed with the Imperial Edict of April 17, 1905, regarding toleration of religion, and the subsequent edict of October 17, 1906 regarding official registration of sectarian congregations in order to acquire official recognition from the state. The Stundists, as well as all other denominations, now acquired religious freedom and again began assemblies, and took additional advantage of these edicts and to open their own schools in their villages. Stundists, and the later Evangelicals, recognized the canonical books of the Holy Bible as the sole source of belief and conduct. (The Synodal version of the Bible is based on the Septuagint and includes the books known as the Apocrypha.) Much like European Protestant denominations, they place heavy emphasis on the New Testament. Their manner of interpretation is to first

166

The Nineteenth Century interpret a specific passage of the Bible literally, and then second, to interpret the passage allegorically, and then apply this interpretation to other similar passages. As an example, the garden of Gethsemane is accepted as a real place and the events that occurred there are accepted as having taken place exactly as stated in the Biblical account. In the allegorical interpretation, the garden represents the world, while those disciples who slept represent people prior to their entrance into the Stundist community. Those who rejected Christ and crucified him represent Russian Orthodoxy. The scribes and Pharisees of Matthew 23 represent ROC clergy who likewise wear long robes with wide sleeves. Stundists accepted the historical Christian view of the Trinity. Regarding the creation of humanity, the original people were created virtuous, holy and innocent, but after their fall, due to sin, they became incapable of doing good and inclined toward crime. Only those people who are selected by God the Father and are given into the hands of the Redeemer will be saved, and who cannot be torn out of the hands of Christ. These saved individuals are assigned eternal life in Jesus Christ. The rebirth of a person occurs not at baptism but at the time he accepts the message of the Gospel, when he realizes his sinfulness. The person is joined to the Church of Christ through baptism, a symbol of the forgiveness of sins and a sign of the entrance of the repentant into the membership of the church. Only adults are baptized, and a member joining from another denomination is re-baptized. Baptism is performed with the complete immersion of the candidate into water. The Last Supper was celebrated to commemorate the suffering and death of Jesus Christ, and as a sign of communion with him and fellowship with one another. Bread and wine symbolized the body and blood of Jesus Christ, and were not considered a sacrament. Repentance was spiritual, when a person confessed his sins and faults before God. They rejected the priesthood in the ROC sense, and Stundists selected men as ministers or pastors, and teachers and deacons. Other elders prayed over them and ordained them by the imposition of hands. As with Molokans and Dukhabors, Stundists rejected the veneration of angels, saints, and relics of saints, and the cross. Stundists conceived the fast as a spiritual fast, consisting of patience and restraints placed on inappropriate conduct. Stundists also were conscientious objectors to military service, and refused to give oaths of allegiance, a tenet which they adopted from their mentors, the Mennonites. For church services, Stundists gathered on Sundays, and celebrated the holidays of Easter, Christmas, Circumcision of the Lord, Epiphany, Annunci-

167

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. III ation, Ascension, Pentecost, Transfiguration, and the Holiday of Apostles Peter and Paul. Some Stundist congregations also celebrated the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin. The room where Stundists conducted their church services followed the same pattern as the traditional Russian, and similar to Molokans and Dukhabors: a large room was filled with benches surrounding a table, which had a Bible and other holy books on it, and also their hymn book. The elders sat around the table with the pastors at its head. Services consisted of the pastor and other elders reading the Bible and interpreting it to the congregation. Between sermons, hymns were sung. After several sermons, the benches were removed and the pastor recited prayers while the congregation knelt. Prayers were Psalms or passages from the Bible, or were composed by their own elders, while some were improvised. Prayers were sometimes recited by other elders for special reasons anytime during services. Although baptism was not performed on the newborn, a special prayer was performed as soon as the child was born, and the child was given a name, usually one from the Bible. Stundists harbored a strong animosity that bordered on malice toward the ROC, identifying the ROC clergy with the Sadducees and Pharisees who crucified Christ. They criticized ROC priests for having long hair and for keeping their heads covered while performing service, a violation, they claim, of the words of Apostle Paul. The attitude of Stundists toward the state was identical to that of the Molokans. They observed all rules and regulations legislated by the state to the practical extent possible, as an obligation, with the exception of military service and oaths of allegiance. It was a result of these exceptions that the first wave of persecution was launched against them in 1894. Soon after the beginning of World War I, the ultra-patriotic paramilitary group known as the Black Hundreds began to attack denominations that were conscientious objectors to military service, and especially the Stundists in Ukraine, labeling them German agents and traitors. The Black Hundreds were strong adherents of the ROC and the monarchy, and they had dissident churches quickly closed down. The ROC provided them with the addresses and locations of such churches. A letter written by the Kiev Police Chief to the Kiev Governor on April 15, 1915, explained the situation more objectively. In regard to the agitators (i.e. Stundists) against war, there have not occurred any disturbances of note. But it is based on vague rumors, and the fact that the sectarians are in general against the violation of the commandments, “Do not kill,” and

168

The Nineteenth Century in conversations state that war is murder, but must be accepted as a divinely-sent test and punishment. In this matter of repetition of various rumors that are directed at blaming the Stundists of anti-governmental activities, the primary, if not greater, role is played in most regions by the local clergy.

The clergy of the ROC exploited the pacifist stance of Stundists as a means to initiate persecution against them. As with the other sectarian groups, branches of the Stundists developed as soon as they, as Evangelical Christians, developed into a stable and recognized denomination. The Novo-Stundists evolved primarily in Tavria Province in the Ukraine, where many Molokans also lived. They considered themselves Spiritual Christians rather than Evangelical. They followed an interpretation of baptism and communion similar to that of the Molokans, interpreting them in a spiritual sense. Baptism was no longer by water, but was a spiritual baptism into the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. In communion, the bread and wine were interpreted as the Word of God and the Holy Spirit, which were consumed in a spiritual manner. The priesthood of pastors, teachers and deacons, was likewise rejected in favor of a spiritual priesthood, where every person had equal participation in the services and the community was governed by the unified cooperative effort of all the members. In southern Russia, a variation of Novo-Stundists arose who called themselves Stundo-Molokans. They were identical to the Novo-Stundists except that they conducted their congregational services the same way the Molokans did. Many of the Stundo-Molokans were former Molokans who joined a local Stundist congregation, but they could not accept the Protestant influx that dominated the Ukrainian Stundists. Rather than completely returning to the Molokan community, they created a hybrid of the two. The small denomination existed in scattered areas in southern Russia during the 1880s. One Stundist, Daniel Kondratski, in the village Ignatovka in central Ukraine, also turned his congregation away from Anabaptist tenets toward those of the Molokan. He called his congregation “Spiritual Stundists.” They refused water baptism and communion, although the general ecclesiastical services followed the pattern of the early Stundists. The members were Ukrainians who could not adapt to the Protestant inclinations that prevailed in the Stundist congregations. A similar congregation was formed toward the end of 1873 in Chaplinka, Kiev Province, and its minister was Yakov Koval. By 1881, the group claimed 1,000 adherents, over two-thirds of the Evangelicals of that province, and Koval became the central authoritative figure of his own group. The movement rejected 169

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. III the hierarchal organization and ceremony of the Evangelicals, and replaced it with the understanding that the Holy Spirit is the invisible guide of believers. As Koval taught, the Holy Spirit is in direct communion with believers and utilizes their mouths for the pronouncement of its will. Koval did not possess the conservative Russian culture and tradition, but was more adapted to European influences present in Ukraine. By the late 1880s, within the same decade, the excitement surrounding Koval dissipated, and the members assimilated either back into the Evangelical congregations or into the newly formed movement of Malevanni. These splinter groups were short-lived and possessed few adherents.

151. THE PASHKOVTZI (CHRISTIAN EVANGELICALS) Grenville Augustus William Waldgrave (1833-1913) became Lord Redstock upon inheritance of his family’s estate. He was a soldier in the Crimean War of 1855–1856. After he was wounded, he changed his way of thinking and decided to become a Christian minister. His long-term intention was to return to Russia, the country he had fought against in the war, and to minister there, preaching the salvation that was in Jesus Christ. In 1874, Lord Redstock arrived in Petersburg and began circulating through the city, preaching his fundamental Evangelical beliefs. He taught the love of Christ, while denying the effectiveness of sacraments, liturgy, organized clergy, and the ecclesiastical organization of the ROC. Redstock was very eloquent and inspiring. Redstock was persecuted by officials of the ROC, who accused him of corrupting Russians with his evangelism. He was forced to leave Russia in 1876, but not before converting Vasili Aleksandrovich Pashkov (18311902). Pashkov was a wealthy Russian aristocrat, a former soldier of the Royal Guard. In his early years, Pashkov was indifferent toward religion, but then he evolved into a zealous adherent and preacher of Redstock’s tenets. Pashkov began services in his home, and he gained a considerable following. He preached the needlessness of the ROC, the supremacy of the Bible, and the necessity of active love toward one another. After Lord Redstock decamped from Russia, Pashkov found himself at the head of a nascent movement that became known as the Pashkovtzi (although the members preferred to call themselves Evangelical Christians).

170

The Nineteenth Century In 1875, Pashkov started the magazine, Russki Rabochi (Russian Worker), and built a dining hall to furnish affordable meals to workers and students. Pashkov would preach to the diners while they ate. The movement spread in Petersburg, and then expanded into the local regions. In 1876, a petition was presented to the government to allow them to begin, as they named it, The Society for the Encouragement of Religious and Moral Instruction. Their petition was approved and immediately the printing presses began to roll out tracts promoting their Protestant convictions. Mostly, these were Russian translations of English and German Baptist literature. Pashkov invested much of his personal capital into his Society, which also reprinted and distributed the New Testament. Along with Russki Rabochi, other monthly magazines also were published during the course of their Evangelical movement: The Christian, and Faith. At-Gen of the Holy Synod Count D.A. Tolstoy and Minister of Internal Affairs A.E. Timashev, who was also Pashkov’s son-in-law, were initially tolerant toward his organization, but when its expansion into a recognized denomination began to pose a danger to the interests of the ROC, the Holy Synod in 1877 issued an order prohibiting them from any further gatherings or services. The rector of the Petersburg Religious Academy, Proto-priest I. Yanishev, publicly proceeded against the activity of Pashkov and in 1881, under his direction, the new monthly magazine Society of Instruction of Religious-Moral Education in the Spirit of Orthodoxy appeared. In 1880, Pashkov was forced to leave St. Petersburg, so he relocated to Moscow Province, and there, with his own means, created his own settlement, which he named Kreshino (Baptism), opening up schools and continuing his preaching. His adherents, who migrated out of St. Petersburg, and who received their religious training from Pashkov in Moscow, moved on to other locations and preached there. Pashkovtzi congregations were formed in Moscow, Tambov, Nizhni-Novgorod, Tule, Voronezh, and other provinces in central Russian. Pashkov came in contact with other Evangelical groups, and he secured the approval of At-Gen of the Holy Synod, Pobedonostsev, to hold a Congress of Evangelical Christians in Petersburg in 1884. Pashkov attempted to unite Evangelical Christianity under one roof in Russia; and he was largely successful. Persecution against Pashkov began after the conference, since by now the Russian Baptists and Evangelicals were considered a sectarian group and detrimental to both Russian society and the ROC. Under the sectarian oppression initiated by Pobedonostsev, Pashkov refused to

171

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. III sign a declaration stating that he would desist from preaching; as a result, he was forced into exile from Russia in 1884. An imperial decree of May 24, 1887 required closure of the Society for the Encouragement of Religious-Moral Instruction and all the congregations associated with Pashkov. His books and property were confiscated by the state. In 1892, Pashkov returned to St. Petersburg for six weeks, to care for his son who was dying of tuberculosis. After his son’s demise, Pashkov left Russia for good. He traveled about Europe, preaching, for some time, and lived in London for a while, then moved to Rome, where he died in 1902. After his exile from Russia, Pashkov’s denomination split into two groups due to influence from other denominations. Half joined the Evangelical Christian Union, which was associated with Stundists and Don Molokans, while the balance assimilated into Russian Baptist congregations. Pashkov’s departure to London did not end the movement that first bore his name, but rather led to their being reorganized more firmly as Evangelical Christian, and they increased their missionary work in Russia. The Pashkovtzi initially had no creed except for the very fundamentalist teachings that comprised the content of their tracts and literature. A formal Profession of Faith was composed in 1897 at the third Russian Missionary Congress held in Kazan. In essence, Pashkovtzi identified themselves with the Anabaptist profession of faith, since they referred to themselves as Evangelical Christians. Pashkovtzi denied the rites and traditions of the ROC, and taught justification by faith, and faith alone without works. They only recognized two sacraments: baptism and communion, although they taught that they are purely ceremonial, while grace is received by faith. Baptism — complete immersion into water — was a public display of the individual as he entered into the flock of Christ the Shepherd, while communion was seen as the commemoration of man’s redemption by the death of Jesus Christ. Pashkovtzi church services were similar to those of the Anabaptists, consisting in sermons based solely on the Bible, and songs and hymns. For a while, Pashkov attempted to unite his denomination with Stundists and Molokans into a single cooperative association (with themselves at its head), but the attempt was a sore failure. Molokans, as Spiritual Christians and native Russians, could not identify themselves with the European Protestant inclinations of the Pashkovtzi, while the Stundists were Ukrainian.

172

The Nineteenth Century 152. THE BAPTISTS Parallel with the introduction of Anabaptist tenets into Ukraine was the introduction of the Baptist movement in the Caucasus. Johann Gerhard Oncken was a German Anabaptist and a preacher from Hamburg, Germany. He would recruit volunteers and send them to Russia as missionaries. Martin Karlovich Kalviet was a missionary sent by Oncken to Tiflis, Elizavetpol Province (Tbilisi, Georgia), in 1863. The first Russian Baptist was Nikita Isaievich Voronin, formerly a Molokan, who was baptized by Kalviet on August 20, 1867, in the Kur River in Tiflis. Voronin accepted the tenets of the Baptists and was very successful in preaching them throughout the Caucasus, and especially in Georgia. Voronin in turn baptized Vasili Gurevich Pavlov, on April 9, 1871, who was 17 years old, and also Vasili Vasilyevich Ivanov on October 31, 1871; he was 25. Vasili Gurevich Pavlov was born 1854 of a Molokan family. At the age of 16 he went to work for Voronin, was converted by him and was water baptized. At age 21, Pavlov was sent to Hamburg to further his ecclesiastical education under Oncken, who ordained him as an Anabaptist minister and returned him to Russia in 1876. After his return to Tiflis, he worked with Voronin in the Transcaucasus region in the 1870s, and then moved north; first into southern Russia, and then further north as far as Moscow, preaching throughout central Russia. Pavlov worked hard to merge the two movements —the Stundists of Ukraine and the Baptist of the Caucasus — into one, but he was not successful. The zealots of the early Baptist movement from the Caucasus, Vasili Gurevich Pavlov, Nikita Isaievich Voronin, David Mazaev and brother Gavriel, and V.V. Ivanov, journeyed north to central Russia to spread their gospel. By 1880, Baptist congregations appeared in eastern Siberia, and by 1881, there were Baptist congregations in almost every Province of European Russia. The teachings of Lord Redstock, accepted and promulgated by Pashkov, followed the same basic principal tenets as the Baptists, and many Pashkovtzi joined the Baptist movement after Pashkov left Russia. Russian Baptist leaders had as their goal the unification of all Russian Evangelical sects under their administration. In 1874, the Baptists gained the freedom to preach and erect churches in Russia as a foreign denomination. A flood of Baptist preachers entered the country, all of them trained in Hamburg, Germany. The accommodation of Baptists to the conditions of life of the typical Russian made it easier for them to acquire members. As with the ROC, the Russians Baptists taught the Doctrine of the Trinity, angels and saints, and ordi-

173

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. III nation of priests. Rites, pertaining to baptisms, funerals, and wedding, which the Russian could identify with, were introduced. Baptist churches were adorned with pictures of Russian saints. In 1884, the Union of Russian Baptists was formed, although the administrative center was in Germany. The first attempt to unify the scattered Evangelical and Baptist congregations was a congress held in the village Ruikenai in Novo-Rossiya Province on May 20-23, 1882. It consisted of 50 representatives of congregations in Ukraine, Caucasus and southern Russia. The primary goal of the Congress, organized by the Mennonite Brethren members, I. Willard and P.M. Frisen, was to establish cooperation and communication among the scattered congregations, and to coordinate future missionary work. An additional seven congresses were held through 1891, with the same goals intended. The decade of the 1890s was especially harsh for sectarian denominations a result of the oppression imposed by At-Gen of the Holy Synod, Pobedonostsev. The implementation of the motto, “Autocracy, Nationalism, Orthodoxy,” meant war against all liberal and independent religious thought. On September 3, 1894, a circular letter issued by the Minister of Internal Affairs, which was supported by At-Gen Pobedonostsev, labeled Stundists and Russian Baptists especially detrimental sects, and the congregations were required to stop holding services. A wave of Baptist and Evangelical preachers were exiled to Siberia and central Asia. Vasili Gurevich Pavlov and Nikita Isaievich Voronin, and an Armenian Lutheran preacher, A. Amirkhanyanstz, were arrested and confined in Metekhski Fortress in Tiflis. They were then exiled to Orenburg in western Siberia for various terms, to be under constant police surveillance. While there, Pavlov’s wife and three of his four children died, all daughters. After his release, Pavlov was forced to migrate to Tulch (Tulcea), Romania, with his remaining nine-year-old son. (He remained there until 1901, when he returned to Tiflis.) The persecution subsided in 1898; however, ROC officials were unable to stem the tide of the Baptist-Evangelical movement. At-Gen Pobedonostsev finally held a Congress of Orthodox Missionaries from June 22 to August 17, 1897, with 200 attending. Pobedonostsev hoped that with additional training and education, these missionaries would spread out over Russia and curb the population from leaving the ROC and joining the sectarians. However, such an effort was a day late and a dollar short. At the close of the era of Pobedonostsev’s vendetta, in 1898, the exiles and inmates who survived were able to return home. But Delyakov died in 1898 in the Amur region of the Far East; Ryaboshapka died in Romania in 1900; Pashkov

174

The Nineteenth Century died in Rome in 1902. Pavlov returned from Romania in 1901, and Voronin from Orenburg in 1900; and Khlistun was freed from police surveillance at his home town. Ivan Stepanovich Prokhanov (1869-1935) is the primary name associated with the rise and success of the Russian Baptist movement of the early 20th century. He was born in Vladikavkaz, in the Caucasus, of a Molokan family. In 1887, at age 18, he joined a local Russian Baptist congregation and was baptized. Prokhanov attended the Petersburg Technological Institute in the years 18891893. After graduation, he moved to the Crimea, where he founded a short-lived Christian commune called Vertograd (Garden). As a result of persecution, Prokhanov left Russia in 1895 and traveled through Europe, and then to England, where he entered the Baptist College in Bristol. Prior to returning to Russia in 1898, Prokhanov visited Cypress, where the Dukhabors were residing who had been stranded temporarily in their migration to Canada. Dysentery had affected some 1,150 of them, and Prokhanov, who was an engineer and technician, assisted them for several months; then he returned to Odessa. From 1902-1904, Prokhanov was abroad, working as an engineer for Westinghouse. Immediately after his return, in 1905, he began registering Baptist churches for recognition by the government. The first church was Prokhanov’s own in St. Petersburg. With the decree of religious toleration of 1905, Prokhanov dedicated himself to organizing Evangelical congregations and registering them with the state. After the edict of religious tolerance of 1905, Russian Baptist leaders abandoned the centralization of administrative control in Germany, and the denomination rapidly expanded. A Baptist-Evangelical Congress was held in May 1905, in Rostov-on-the-Don. Subsequent congresses were held December 1906 in Kiev; January-February 1907 in St. Petersburg; and several more, until the final congress in Moscow, September-October 1911. The Union of Russian Baptists was the most active and was the majority body, while the second largest was the Union of Evangelical Christians, composed of Don Molokans, Stundists, and Novo-Molokani. In August 1906, Prokhanov sent a letter to Baptist and Evangelical churches with his thoughts on the creation of a Union of Russian Evangelicals. He had in mind a religious renovation or revival in Russia, and to unite the two Christian bodies. The Minister of Internal Affairs allowed them to create the Union of Russian Evangelicals with the goal of uniting the various minor denominations into a larger corporate body. With 27 members, Prokhanov created the Union of Russian Evangelicals on May 16, 1908, although its initial session was

175

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. III not held until January 13, 1909. Not all Baptists or Evangelical congregations inclined toward the formation of Prokhanov’s Union, and many refused to attend at all. They rather preferred independent congregations with regular congresses, rather than a central administration. The organizers of the Congress had in mind a united Baptist-Evangelical front against Orthodoxy, and especially with religious toleration now permitted in Russia. There were three All-Russia Congresses of Evangelical Christians held under the chairmanship of Prokhanov, all in St. Petersburg. The first was September 1909, with only 24 attending; the second was December 1910 — January 1911, with 47 attending; the final and largest congress was held January 1912, with 167 attending. The meager number of delegates testified to the BaptistEvangelical opposition toward Prokhanov’s centralizing of denominational authority. Prokhanov opened a Bible school in 1914 in St. Petersburg. However, it closed after a year, due to the onset of war. The ROC clergy was invited to participate in the above-mentioned Congresses; but as much as Prokhanov tried over the successive years, he made little headway. Many felt that his attempt to centralize the entire authority of the Baptist-Evangelical Christian movement in Russia was misguided, and that less administration was better than more. In 1913, Prokhanov published his book in St. Petersburg, titled, Short Exposition of Tenets of Evangelical Christians. In 1911, a World-Wide Congress of Baptists was held in Philadelphia, PA, which was attended by David Mazaev and Vasili Ivanov. At this Congress, the Union of Russian Baptists and the Union of Evangelical Christians joined the World-Wide Union of Baptists, and Prokhanov was elected vice-president. Although his residence and ministry were in Russia, Prokhanov had close ties with Baptist leaders in England and America. In 1912, according to the Ministry of Internal Affairs, there were 115,000 Baptists and 31,000 Evangelicals, with almost 300 congregations in Russia. By 1914, the combined total was close to 200,000, but the expansion was quickly curbed by the start of the war. Prokhanov was convinced that the expansion of Baptist-Evangelical congregations in Russia would soon swallow up the Molokans and Dukhabors, even though they numbered one million. Prokhanov felt that these old and traditional sectarians would be no match to his modern Christian denomination, with its ties to Europe and America. However, Prokhanov was wrong on this issue and his efforts in this direction were futile. Nonetheless, from 1906 through 1916, Prokhanov preached intently and organized Baptist congregations, only increasing his fervent efforts as response to the signs of war.

176

The Nineteenth Century A turn of events occurred at the beginning of World War I. From 19141916, by order of the Russian government, Baptist and Evangelical churches were closed in order to strengthen and consolidate the sense of unity within Imperial Russia. Immediately, all churches in Odessa, Kherson, and Tavria Provinces were closed. Additionally, many churches in Ryazan, Astrakhan, Pskov, Revel, Petersburg, and Ekaterinoslav, were closed and their ministers were exiled to remote parts of Russia. Prokhanov, who held strong monarchial convictions, sent a circular letter on September 1, 1914, one month after the beginning of the war, to all Baptist churches in Petersburg and Moscow Provinces. He requested all members to pray on behalf of Tsar Nikolai II and his entire family. Simultaneously, St. Petersburg Baptist congregations created a charity called The Good Samaritan, whose purpose was to assist the Red Cross during the war. Prokhanov’s zeal was likewise expressed in his patriotism. On August 4, 1914, just three days after the beginning of World War I, he sent a letter to the Baptist congregation at the village Kamen in Tomsk Province in Siberia, which was typical of his letters to other congregations over the following weeks. Our homeland is living through a difficult era. Germany has attacked Russia, which has destroyed peaceful life in our homeland and for each of us as individuals. We are fully assured that those of our brethren who are summoned to serve on behalf of the fatherland will bear their cross in patience, and if it be necessary, with joy they will sacrifice their own lives.

Prokhanov wrote a letter to Tsar Nikolai II stating that the Baptist denomination in general supported the war effort, and that young Baptists readily volunteered for service. But not all Baptists were willing to enlist or accept conscription, because some had beliefs inherited from the sectarians, who objected to military service. Data recorded as of February 1, 1917, indicated that of 15,000 Baptists and Evangelicals who were in the Russian army, 343 had refused conscription as religious objectors. An article appeared in the Baptist magazine, Morning Star, requesting contributions to supply each recruit with a New Testament. The proposition was quickly rejected by imperial authorities, which felt that such evangelistic efforts by the Baptists during wartime would engender anti-military sentiment among soldiers. Simultaneously, Prokhanov fought against the rise of revolutionary parties in Russia. He wrote to Baptist congregations, instructing them to not participate in any violence against the state. Prokhanov wrote, “Christ executed and today executes the awesome revolution, the revolution of the spirit. Social-

177

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. III economic problems are likewise close to the heart of Baptists, but their revolution, in accord with the teachings of the Gospel, must progress through the preliminary stage: the revolution of the spirit.” About this time, Prokhanov began his short political career, although in some respects it was in contradistinction to his earlier Evangelical convictions. On March 17, 1917, Prokhanov gathered 22 fellow adherents in Petrograd (formerly St. Petersburg), and proposed to form a new political party, to be called the Christian Democratic Party, Resurrection. His proposal was confirmed and a party central committee was selected, with Prokhanov as its president. The platform of the newly-formed party was published in the Morning Star the following week. Unlike Vasili G. Pavlov’s attempt to construct a party on a Christian Socialist platform, Prokhanov was more politically oriented. His idea of a perfect government was exemplified by the image of the United States of America, with the ideals of democracy, individual and economic freedom, defense of workers and the needy, and equal rights for women, including education. Freedom of conscience, meaning religion, was high on the list of Prokhanov’s ideals for his new state. Prokhanov’s Christian utopia did not end here, as he called in his sermons for: “The unification of all governments into one World-wide United Nations with the necessary departments to regulate worldwide life.” The Provisional Government was conducive to the Baptists and Evangelicals, and their incorporation was blessed by the World-Wide Baptist Union, which was watching the political events in Russia with interest. They supported Prokhanov’s venture into politics, hoping that the result would be a democratic government in Russia. Not all Baptists favored the participation of members of their denomination in the realm of politics, side by side with Social-Revolutionaries and Social Democrats. It seemed to them to contradict the spirit and teaching of the Word of God. The Baptist magazine Slovo Istini (Word of Truth) reprimanded Prokhanov and other representatives of the Baptists for forming a political party, accusing them of alliances with revolutionaries. Other articles proposed the question to Prokhanov, “Could not the salvation of Russia be attained on the wave of religious reformation?” The reference was to Prokhanov’s proclamation at the 1908 Baptist Congress. Such authors called for the dissolution of the Christian Democratic Party, claiming that all it did was to reflect the decline of the religious-moral foundation of the nation. With his entrance into the political arena of the fourth State Duma, now that Tsar Nikolai II and his family were in

178

The Nineteenth Century exile and the Provisional Government had taken over as effective authority over Russia, Prokhanov’s attitude toward the monarchy changed. As much as Prokhanov spoke at the fourth State Duma, the more his ideas were unrealistic. He met personally with the head of the Provisional Government, Alexandr Kerenski, who told Prokhanov that the more he listened to him, the less he believed. Prokhanov’s last communication with Kerenski was on August 17, 1917, when he told Kerenski to stand firm in his struggle against revolution. September and October issues of Word of Truth magazine spoke harshly against the rise of the Bolsheviks. The tide turned against the Baptists when the Bolsheviks took total control of the fourth State Duma. This deprived the Christian Democrats of any authority that they thought they might have had, although Baptist-Evangelical leaders in general continued to stand firm in their convictions.

153. THE PENTECOSTALS Pentecostalism migrated to Russia via the Evangelistic and Pentecostal revival work of Wesleyan Methodist minister Thomas Barrak in Norway in 1906, which expanded quickly into Finland. Pentecostalism in Russia, in the form that it is known at present, was introduced by A.I. Ivanov. Ivanov visited Helsinki in 1908–1910, attended Pentecostal revivals there, and himself preached to Russian-speaking residents living in Helsinki as well as at a church in Vyborg, north of St. Petersburg. He then returned to St. Petersburg, with ever greater zeal. Ivanov’s initial penetration into Russian Christianity was via an article in the magazine Khristian (The Christian), in the February 1908 issue, which dealt with the subject of the initial chapters of the Book of Acts. Six months later, in the same magazine, appeared another article, which was titled, “Should we await another Pentecost?” This article, as the title suggests, dealt with the possibility of a return of an apostolic era to Russia. Ivanov moved to Petersburg in about 1910, with his family, and began preaching Pentecostalism in St. Petersburg. Ivanov quickly impressed Ivan Stepanovich Prokhanov with his religious zeal. In 1910, a new congregation of Evangelical Christians was opened in St. Petersburg by the Methodists, but it was organized by I.S. Prokhanov, and in the following year he handed the reins to Ivanov. By 1913, a rupture occurred within Evangelical Christian congregations, with the result that Ivanov was now min-

179

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. III ister of his own congregation, although it was still under the administration of the Methodist office in Helsinki. Ivanov preached Pentecostalism in his own new congregation, and he called his movement the Christian Pentecosts. Much like the Russian sectarians of earlier generations, Ivanov taught objection to military service as part of his gospel. Everything was going well until some sailors of the Russian Imperial Navy accepted his gospel. These born-again Pentecostals refused service on their ship on June 19, 1915, and they were immediately taken into custody and court-martialed. The former sailors were sentenced to various terms at hard labor camps, distant from central Russia. Refusal of military service by members of the Imperial Navy due to new religious convictions was, needless to say, alarming to imperial authorities. They considered Ivanov’s preaching to be anti-military and opposed to the interests of the Russian government, and in November 1915, Ivanov and several Pentecostal ministers of Petersburg (F.A. Tuchkov, A.K. Chemukhin, and K.I. Vetzgaver) were arrested. They were sentenced to a long-term exile to Torgai Province, a remote area in the geographical center of present-day Kazakhstan, and thus ends their story. The reaction at the Methodist Church headquarters in Helsinki was negative; Ivanov and the other ministers were excommunicated in absentia from the Evangelical Christian Church, and they were labeled cowards. As a result of the exile and excommunication of Ivanov and his fellow ministers, the congregation loyal to them in St. Petersburg severed ties with Helsinki. They began their own independent movement under the spiritual guidance of Maslov and Stepanov (complete names not available). In 1914, I.S. Prokhanov, once the mentor of Ivanov, in his own denominational magazine, Utrennaya Zvezda (Morning Star) published several articles attacking Ivanov and warning the members of the Evangelical groups to beware of the Pentecostals. Prokhanov specifically warned against the Pentecostal prophets Maslov and Stepanov, saying that the Pentecostals were no different than Khlisti (sic), and that they were cowards. One individual who arose to defend the new Pentecostal movement was V. Fetler. He became the lightning rod, willing to accept all the fire hurled at them by the Methodists of Helsinki. Fetler, originally a Baptist, created a new organization in 1910 called The Brotherhood of the Acts of the Apostles. His intent was not so much to defend Ivanov and Russian Pentecostalism, as much as it was to stop the rupture or disagreement within the entire Evangelical Christian movement. The inroads made by socialism and atheistic Marxism were already an apparent threat by 1910, and Fetler felt that internal fracture of the denomi-

180

The Nineteenth Century nation would weaken the entire foundation of Christianity in Russia, making it easier for socialism and atheism to succeed. Fetler incurred the dissatisfaction of Prokhanov, which only further undermined the success and unity of Pentecostalism.

154. BOGO-CHELOVECHESTVO For researchers of Russian Christian history, Bogo-Chelovechestvo, or the God-people group, has tremendous interest. The goal of its founder was to develop a religion of the highest moral character, and he dedicated himself to its success in heart, body, and soul. The Bogo-Cheloveki, or God-people, were also known as Malikovtzi, after the founder of the group, Aleksandr Kapitonovich Malikov. He was originally from Vladimir Province, where his family had acquired considerable wealth. He was educated at Moscow University and, after graduation, went to work at the Civil Court in Kaluzhski (Kaluga) Province, but only for a short interval, and then he moved to Orlov. Somehow, in his early years, Malikov was connected with Dmitri Vladimirovich Karakozov, who, on April 4, 1866, attempted to assassinate Tsar Alexandr II. The assassination attempt failed, and Karakozov was executed by hanging. Malikov, along with his close friend, Aleksei Alekseevich Bibikov, were also arrested and tried. They were exiled to the remote city of Kholmogorsk, in Archangelsk Province, to live under continuous police surveillance. Malikov and Bibikov suffered under the worst of conditions for the initial two years of their exile. They were then transferred to Archangelsk, where Malikov was able to find work as a secretary at the Archangelsk Governor’s Census and Statistics Office. Life in Archangelsk took a severe toll on Malikov’s health; in 1872, after six years of exile, he was finally released from police surveillance, and left the Russian far north for to return to Orlov. Settled in his new home, Malikov devoured religious and social literature; his reading, and his experiences, molded him into a person rather different than he had been before exile. The hardship conditions in the far north had developed in him a stamina and drive for survival. Malikov’s intense study of the Bible motivated him to serve the people of Orlov, and slowly but surely he acquired a small circle of listeners. Revolution, concluded Malikov, could not be accomplished violently or politically, but solely morally and spiritually. One day in 1874, while discussing social and religious topics with a group of young people, Malikov

181

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. III began to develop his concept of Bogo-Chelovechestvo, the God-People group. The sincerity of his convictions kept many people at his feet, and eventually Malikov strayed out of his home and into the streets with his new concepts. Malikov’s closest friend and advisor during this time was Nikolai Vasilyevich Chaikovski. Malikov’s concepts finally materialized into a semi-logical dogmatic system that valued Christianity highly, claiming that all current civilization and all cultural progress was the product of the Christian teaching, and that Christianity had provided colossal merits throughout the history of humanity. But now, Malikov and Chaikovski concluded, Christianity had provided as much as it could provide to humanity. Christianity, they felt, had finally lived out its usefulness and could not resolve the new generation of problems and questions of contemporary social and political existence. The time had now arrived for Christianity to be replaced by Bogo-Chelovechestvo, a necessary and new, practical religion, whose purpose was to fervently enlighten the hearts of people, and to renew their life and their religious and moral standards. The new concepts of Bogo-Chelovechestvo would install genuine harmony in the complex and disturbed soul of humanity, and provide it happiness and prosperity. The moral basis of Bogo-Chelovechestvo did not deviate far from the philosophy of Leo Tolstoy, and the tenets of the Molokans and Dukhabors. Malikov’s motto was the statement of Jesus Christ, later to be identified with the philosophy of Leo Tolstoy, “The Kingdom of God is within you.” Establishing this theorem as their point of departure, the aim of Bogo-Chelovechestvo was personal perfection. They affirmed as their primary tenet the point that benevolent inclinations lived in every person: love toward close associates and the readiness to sacrifice oneself for a cause. They taught that this divine spark lay dormant in every person, and that it had to be ignited through preaching, which could initiate in each person a divine beginning. They preached the necessity of a moral and spiritual renewal and rebirth of a person. Inner personal perfection was insufficient; the Bogo-Chelovek (God-person) had to attain behavioral perfection. Peace, harmony, love and rectitude had to pervade and envelop every facet of a person’s community and social involvement and his political relations with the state. Bogo-Chelovechestvo continued the trend of esoteric Christian groups, where the members, and specifically the leader, inclined toward self-deification. They felt that as a plain person gradually advanced morally, freeing himself from all of flaws, weaknesses, addictions and vices, he could attain a supreme ideo-

182

The Nineteenth Century logical excellence. Accomplishing this, a person would draw near to God on a personal basis, fuse with Him, and unite with Him. To provide evidence for this possible accomplishment, Bogo-Cheloveki referred to the supernatural and mystical, purely divine state a believer experiences during his religious rebirth or renewal. Once attaining this state, people were to naturally curb and banish antagonism, crime, war and military service, from their life, including the struggle of the classes and membership in political parties, which was becoming very popular. Harmony was to prevail, not only in the soul of a person, but in the superficial and external areas of his community life. As the Bogo-Cheloveki (God-people) taught, all of this could be acquired by the attainment of divine piety. They rejected the use of force or coercion in any situation, and refused participation in, or advocacy of, revolution or rebellion. As Malikov stated, “To use violence to suppress violence is like using kerosene to extinguish a fire.” Malikov himself was filled with such an extraordinary enthusiasm that he often experienced periods of religious ecstasy. Malikov’s proselytizing had wide success in his Orlov Province, due to the altruistic facets of his practical religion: service to the community, self-denial, refusing civil privileges, and intervention to help those in need. Young adults who absorbed these concepts became crusaders for the cause of Bogo-Chelovechestvo: moral excellence. Malikov’s success in the city of Orlov attracted the attention of imperial authorities. His group was placed under surveillance by the government, and soon after, a few of his crusaders were arrested. In September or October 1874, Malikov was arrested and brought to Moscow for trial. At his hearing, rather than answering the questions presented by the prosecutors, Malikov presented a fervent sermon on the divine principles of Bogo-Chelovechestvo: the necessity of moral perfection, the expansion of personal religious knowledge, the recognition of his supreme ideology, all of which would draw a person close to God. What prosecutors heard amazed them; it was something extraordinary and novel. Most people in the courtroom considered him a religious fanatic or a nut, and harmless. Soon after the hearing, Malikov and his followers were released from custody. They returned to Orlov. Suddenly, Malikov announced that the Bogo-Chelovechestvo would have to migrate out of Russia, and establish a perfect commune in another area. The place he chose for this paradise was the state of Kansas. In December 1874, Malikov, Chaikovski, and thirteen other families sold all their possessions and left for Kansas.

183

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. III Of course, their fantasy never materialized. Their alienness, in a strange land with a language and customs they could not adopt to, presented obstacles they could not overcome. Working conditions as prairie farmers overwhelmed them, and the soil and crops were surprisingly different from those in central Russia. Their neighbors were afraid of them and offered no help. The high standard of living in America, and the high cost of tools, food, shelter, and clothing, took their toll. After two years, the migrants were destitute. Arguments broke out over the control of the group’s affairs, and some members moved away from the commune. Competition arose between families as they struggled to survive. Deep in debt and in utter despair, they sold what they had, depending on the charitable nature of their neighbors to come up with enough funds to be able to return to Russia. Most of the original fifteen families — Malikov included — reached their hometowns. A few others, including Chaikovski, remained in Europe. During their two-year absence, Bogo-Chelovechestvo had dissipated in Orlov Province and nothing remained to testify to its earlier existence. By now, the former disciples of Malikov had assimilated back into their previous associations, or else joined established denominations, while their dreams of a morally perfect society had vanished into the air. The Kansas remnants returned morally and psychologically, as well as financially, destitute, and thus ends the history of Bogo-Chelovechestvo as a movement. Vasili Ivanovich Alekseev, a disciple of Malikov who migrated with him to Kansas and returned to Russia, found work at Yasnaya Polyana, Count Leo Tolstoy’s estate. Still fervent in his convictions, he discussed the concepts of Bogo-Chelovechestvo with Tolstoy in 1878-1881. Tolstoy eagerly absorbed these ideas into his own philosophy. Tolstoy also met with Malikov, and corresponded with him regularly, which letters were later published as part of Tolstoy’s memoirs. From Orlov, Malikov moved with his eldest daughter to the city Mikhailov in Ryazan Province, where he secured work in his previous occupation, in a railway station.

155. THE MALEVANTZI Kondrat Malevanni was a cooper from the village Taraschi in Kiev Province. In 1884, he abandoned the ROC and was baptized into a local Stundist

184

The Nineteenth Century or Evangelical congregation and immediately became a disciple. About the 1889, Malevanni began to receive revelations and felt the Holy Spirit descend upon him. As a result of these experiences, Malevanni felt he had attained personal and direct communion with the heavenly Father. The following year, Malevanni announced himself to be the Messiah, Jesus Christ, Savior of the world. Malevanni claimed that all he said and did was by inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Convinced that he was Christ, Malevanni began to preach that the awesome judgment of God was about to occur, and so he invited everybody to repentance. As his fame and self-appointment spread, crowds were attracted to hear him speak, and he would prophesy of the coming turmoil on earth. Enveloped with religious ecstasy, the people would fall on their knees before him in his home. They would wail and beseech him to pray on their behalf. Malevanni would graciously receive all who visited him, lifting up his hands and passionately sermonizing about the reign of evil on earth, and calling on the people to repent and be reborn. In 1890, Malevanni and four families who were disenchanted with the Protestant inclination of their Evangelical congregation detached themselves from it and began their own. They were soon joined by many remnants of Koval’s earlier group and received the appellation of the Malevantzi. Malevanni taught belief in the personal revelation of the Holy Spirit, direct communion with God without the need for intermediaries (and especially without the need for rites or sacraments, theologies or pre-composed prayers). Malevanni’s critics stated that his concentration on personal inspiration of the Holy Spirit indirectly reduced or minimized the authority of the Bible as the sole source for morality and theology. The crowds were mesmerized by Malevanni, and their belief in him as a Christ intensified. The conviction of the imminent arrival of the Kingdom of God on earth was spreading. A movement that was largely a personality cult around Malevanni took hold in many villages and towns in central Ukraine. Malevanni’s disciples wandered into the fields in the middle of winter, and on snowy nights men and women would bathe in the icy water of local lakes, baptizing themselves and their little children in preparation for that awesome judgment. Others quit their jobs and thought about nothing but the future. Many of Malevanni’s followers sold their possessions or distributed them to the poor, in order to free themselves from material worries. They did not sow their fields, convinced that the world would end within the season. In 1892, Malevanni was arrested and, as a result of fraudulent reports provided by state-funded doctors, he was confined to an insane asylum in Kiev.

185

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. III Refusing to admit defeat, Malevanni continued to correspond with adherents from his cell. In 1895, Malevanni was transferred to an insane asylum in the city of Kazan, having been diagnosed by doctors in Kiev as psychologically ill. The movement bearing his name nonetheless spread from central Ukraine into neighboring provinces of central and southern Russia. In 1898, Ivan Lisenko, a resident of Kiev and a disciple of Malevanni, was inspired to take up Malevanni’s mantle and continue the movement. Lisenko, traveling through the Caucasus and the south of Russia, familiarized himself with the tenets of other denominations, and especially the Khristovshin, although only a few adherents were to be found by 1890. As he traveled, Lisenko informed those he met that he was an apostle of Malevanni and foretold of the martyr’s coming release from confinement. Lisenko drew an ugly picture of the future material condition of the peasants, and predicted that both imperial Russia and the ROC would soon come to an end. In his sermons, Lisenko preached that Malevanni would be the individual who was to destroy the Russian political hierarchy, beginning from the lowest petty official to the highest ranks of the imperial government and royal family, and then Malevanni would confiscate the treasures and wealth of the ROC and distribute it among the believers in his new Kingdom. Lisenko taught that the land would produce abundant harvests on its own without the need for cultivation or human labor, once Malevanni’s Kingdom materialized. With such fantasies, Lisenko acquired the faith and confidence of his listeners. Lisenko created assemblies in various villages and towns, where people would gather and sing and pray, in the expectation that their present woes would be resolved by the advent of such a Kingdom. Lisenko’s assemblies developed more in the direction of Khristovshin spiritual worship and less in the Anabaptist tradition. Adherents of the new movement began to travel to Kazan as pilgrims to visit Malevanni. They returned from their pilgrimage more convinced than ever that Malevanni was the true Christ, who would soon unveil the Kingdom on earth. The intensity of their conviction reached a climax in the year 1899, as Malevanni’s adherents believed his prediction that the end of the world would occur on November 1 of that year. A Russian astronomer named Falke verified Malevanni’s prediction using scientific logic and data. Doomsday came and went, but the Malevanni movement did not subside. Many people had sold their farms and possessions and only intensified the fervor of their belief in imminent redemption. But over the next couple of years, the

186

The Nineteenth Century excitement waned, and the believers, stranded on the shores of reality, veered back toward the original Stundist-Evangelical pattern of belief and lifestyle. With the edict of tolerance of religion of April 17, 1905, Kondrat Malevanni was released from the asylum in Kazan and returned to Kiev. He revived in spirit and began traveling throughout the region to his former assemblies with the intent of building stability and founding a viable denomination, minus some of the fantasies and sensationalism of his original prognostications. The theology of the Malevantzi is an eclectic mixture of Anabaptist and Khristovshin doctrines combined with their own eschatology. Because they reject the Christ of the Gospels, what is recorded about him is interpreted in purely subjective terms and is mainly understood as a moral code in allegorical terms. The Christ of the Bible represents truth, which has existed from the creation of the world, while the Bible is a compendium of parables which must be understood spiritually. The rebirth is the birth of Jesus Christ within a person, and if a person apostatizes, then Christ within him is crucified. The actual Christ was Kondrat Malevanni, the savior and redeemer, and who had the preeminence over everything. All that was foretold by the prophets in the Old Testament, and of which the New Testament speaks in parables, materialized in Kondrat Malevanni. His preaching was the newest testament and inscribed by God Himself upon the heart of the elect — the disciples of Malevanni — because he affirmed faith and law upon humanity. The communion of bread and wine was interpreted as the immolation of the believers themselves, referring to their own martyrdom. All sacraments of the ROC and the ecclesiastical priesthood were rejected by Malevantzi. Instead, communion with God was to be attained through fasting and prayer. The direct and immediate enlightenment of a person by God would be the result of this struggle against the flesh. Malevantzi did not recognize the resurrection of the dead in a physical manner, but in a spiritual manner. A person was “dead” when he resided in his sins, but when he was cleansed from sins, he broke the bonds of death and so resurrected. The end of the world was interpreted as that era to be ushered in by Malevanni, as described above. Malevantzi church services, for the most part, were designed and promoted by Lisenko, and were patterned after the Khristovshin service. Songs and hymns were interspersed sermons, during which the congregation remained seated. As services progressed, individuals might prophesy and others would speak in tongues.

187

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. III Similar to the Malevantzi was the sect of the Enochists or Novo-Verov (New Believers), who appeared in 1896 in Astrakhan. Their persuasion mixed the Old Believer concept of antichrist materializing in the imperial government with the Khristovshin concept of the reincarnations of Christs, which they now extended to Enoch. One of their leading preachers, M. Shashkov, announced that the First World War and Bolshevik Revolution marked the beginning of the end of the world. This sect continued until the last of it adherents died, in 1924.

156. THE RUSSIAN MENNONITES Empress Catherine had issued an edict on July 22, 1763 (shortly after her ascension to the throne of Russia) permitting Germans to migrate to Russia; she was aware that her industrious countrymen, with their farming skills, would be of value to the economy and improvement of Russia. The edict was directed toward the Mennonites; however, there was no need for the Mennonites to migrate at the time. Later during the reign of Empress Catherine II, Russia went to war against Turkey to recover land along the Black Sea that had been part of its domain in earlier periods. In 1774, Russia recovered wide expanses of southern Ukraine, and in 1783, the areas comprising the Crimea and Kherson, Tavria (Taurida) and Ekaterinoslav Provinces. This region was referred to as Novo-Rossiya and was opened to colonization by decree of Empress Catherine; Grigori Potemkin was installed as Governor-general. A letter was delivered to Mennonites living in Prussia on August 7, 1786, again inviting them to migrate to the Ukraine. The specific terms of their residence was detailed in a document dated March 3, 1788, which allowed them free land for the purposes of development; freedom of religion; self-government; exemption from civil service; and exemption from military service. Such privileges were very attractive to the Mennonites and now, many of them decided to take advantage of the offer. (In later years, the extension to the Mennonites of privileges exceeding the rights of Russian subjects would backfire on the Russian government.) On September 8, 1800, an edict of Tsar Pavel confirmed these privileges. In July 1789, the first group of 228 Mennonite families migrated from Prussia to central Ukraine along the Dnepr River, forming eight colonies which became known as Chortitza. Additional families migrated in the period 1793 to 1796, with a total of 462 families settling here. From 1803 to 1806, during the reign

188

The Nineteenth Century of Tsar Alexandr I, an additional 362 Mennonite families migrated to NovoRossiya. Tsar Alexandr I granted the Mennonites the same privileges, by confirming them in an edict of February 20, 1804. The migration of Mennonites to Novo-Rossiya continued through 1835, eventually a total of 600 families. The parallel migration of Lutherans was small, and primarily over the period 1812-1835. Hutterites were offered the same privileges as their Mennonite brethren. They first arrived in 1770 to settle on the estate of Count Rumiantzev, near Kiev. After his death in 1796, the Hutterites appealed to Tsar Pavel, who confirmed their privileges just as he did those of the Mennonites in 1800. In 1828 they moved off the Rumiantzev estate to a parcel of land provided by the Russian government a few miles away. Their number at this time was only about 200. In 1842, the Hutterite commune was relocated to the Crimea region, where they were allotted additional land for development. The second migration of Mennonites to Russia occurred in the early 1850s, after the Prussian government cancelled their exemption to military service. The new settlement was near Samara in central Russia, and was comprised of about 500 families that migrated from Prussia. The total number of Mennonites that had migrated to Russia since 1789 had now reached 9,000, but their population increased with each generation, resulting in a total of about 50,000 in 1870. In addition to the Mennonites, about 23,000 other Germans also migrated to Russia. These were Lutherans, Pietists, Hutterites, and Anabaptists, and other groups seeking a new start in life with the promise of free land and exemption from civil service. Tsar Alexandr II inaugurated a policy of universal military service, which became effective on January 1, 1874. Non-combatant service was provided for Mennonites; nonetheless, many began considering migration out of Russia. A second and equally ominous threat was the intent of the Russian government to Russify the German Mennonites. The motto of the era of Tsar Alexandr II was, “Autocracy, Nationalism, Orthodoxy.” Many of the Mennonites had lived in Russia all their lives and still did not speak Russian, and they operated their own schools. The Russification of the German Mennonites was to begin on July 16, 1870, with a 10-year plan to complete the job. This effort intensified under Tsar Alexandr III and especially heated up with the oppression of alien denominations that was being implemented by At-Gen Pobedonostsev. The Mennonites became a particular target because of their conscientious objection to military service, which Pobedonostsev called anti-imperialist and anarchist. Beginning 1881, the Mennonite schools were to be operated by the Russian state and

189

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. III courses were to be taught in the Russian language. As a result of this trend, about 18,000 Mennonites, about a third of all the Mennonites in Russia, migrated to either the United States or Canada. The Hutterites of Ukraine also moved to the United States at the same time, and only a handful remained behind. For those who stayed in Russia, the Russian government allowed some amelioration in regard to alternative service in lieu of military service, primarily forest service. This was decreed in an edict of May 14, 1875, primarily aimed to curb any further migration out of Russia. The loss of a third of the Mennonite population was recovered within the subsequent generation. By 1917, the Mennonite population of Russia reached 120,000, with three million acres of land under cultivation, and they adapted to the new Russian-oriented environment. Things were going well for the Mennonites until World War I began, and popular resentment toward the German-speaking minorities arose in Russia. No longer was the German language to be used in public; its use was punishable by a fine, and German-language newspapers were prohibited. The Russian government then implemented the liquidation of property owned by Germans; the majority of Mennonites managed to trace their background to Holland or Prussia. The few who were from Germany lost their assets. Military-age Mennonites were sent to perform their service in hospitals to care for the wounded Russian military and German prisoners-of-war. Many Mennonites served in the medical corps on the battlefield during the war. Some space in this history must be dedicated to the migration of the Bride Community of Claasz Epp, Jr. to south-central Asia. While many Mennonites in 1874 were debating the issue of migrating to an area that would allow them religious freedom, and especially exemption from military service, Claasz Epp Jr. was deeply studying Jung-Stilling’s Das Heimweh (Homesickness). Epp was from a dedicated Mennonite family living in one of the villages near Samara. His father was one of the leaders of the Mennonites who had migrated from Prussia to Russia in the 1850s after losing their exemption to military service. The 1874 requirement of military service divided the Mennonite community in Samara. Claasz Epp Jr. felt that the coming of Jesus Christ was near, that the era had arrived for the tribulation, and that the refuge was in the east, based on the writings of Jung-Stilling. In 1874, the year of the migration from Russia, Claasz Epp Jr. separated from his father, deciding to remain in Russia and follow his vision, convinced that America would suffer during the season of temptation.

190

The Nineteenth Century In 1879, he began to preach his apocalyptic views among the local Mennonites, which were combined with his study of Jung-Stilling’s writings. His influence spread to Mennonites residing in Ukraine and the Caucasus. Epp’s vision of the place of refuge was the eastern portion of Turkmenistan or some locale. In August 1880, about 600 people, consisting of 100 families from Ukraine, 100 families from Samara Province, and a few from the Caucasus, sold all their possessions and left to travel eastward. Epp called them the Bride Community, and the first group arrived at Tashkent, Uzbekistan, on December 2, 1880, after four months of travel. The groups were divided into five wagon trains. After they gathered together, the group pushed on to the city Turkestan, in south-central Kazakhstan, arriving December 17, where they decided to spend the winter. Dissension set in, and the Bride Community divided: some left to Aulie Ata, today known as Dzhambul, also in south-central Kazakhstan, while another group went to Kaplan Bek, a small city just north of Tashkent. The balance of followers of Epp migrated to Lausan, along the Amu Darya River, in Turkmenistan, where they remained through 1884. Economic failure in Lausan forced Epp to move again, now to the final place of refuge, Khiva, in central Uzbekistan, near the Turkmenistan border. Only 39 families remained with Epp, but after arriving at Khiva, several more abandoned him, deciding to make their way somehow to the United States. To secure the faith of his remaining disciples, Epp announced himself to be one of the two witnesses of Rev. 11, and the fourth person of the Godhead, and predicted the arrival of Jesus Christ on March 8, 1889. When this date came and went, he predicted another date exactly two years later, March 8, 1891. This day also came and went. By this time, only ten families remained to follow him blindly, and as time progressed they also left him, one by one, until he died on January 19, 1913.

157. THE MINORITY DISSENTERS AND SECTARIANS One indirect effect of the publication and distribution for general use of the Russian Bible was the sudden rise of small indigenous Christian communities throughout Russia, each with its own perspective, personal interpretation, and unique following. Preachers of denominations from Europe and America also made inroads into Russia, now that the Bible was available in the vernacular. A catalyst to the expansion of small sectarians groups was the demise of feudalism, which allowed the serfs freedom to travel at their conve-

191

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. III nience and to live wherever they wanted. Individuals who abandoned the ROC as a result of their own personal religious philosophy and who did not adhere to some other established group or denomination were now rampant throughout Russia. Just a handful of such individuals who had similar goals and convictions were enough to create their own independent religious body. The Old Believer dissent was not immune, either, to the formation of splinter groups, as small as they often were. The imperial reaction to this chaotic rise of religious fervency was its repression by the ROC, especially under At-Gen of the Holy Synod Pobedonostsev, who considered it a threat not so much to the interests of the ROC as to the imperial authority. Many of the small splinter groups referred to the tsar as antichrist, rejected military service, would not pledge allegiance, and often refused taxation. Characteristic of the Russian search for divine truth was the group that surrounded the peasant Vasili Sutayev. He was no preacher of his personal religious concepts, except in conversations with local residents and friends. They would ask him his advice and question him, and his responses admonished and educated them. After a while, a small group developed around him. Sutayev’s group rejected the ROC rites of marriage and infant baptism, preferring to have a prayer service conducted by one of their group on behalf of the couple of child. Sutayev and his circle would have passed into history along with the countless of others, had the local ROC priest not complained to the Tver Religious Consistory when Sutayev refused to baptize his grandson into the ROC at his birth. In 1876, the Consistory held an investigation, and Sutayev was arrested and placed in custody. The result of the hearing was only to admonish Sutayev, since there was insufficient evidence to convict him of any crime. According to the transcripts of the hearing, Sutayev sought truth by constant study of the New Testament, which he knew almost by memory. The dogmatic questions the Consistory posed to Sutayev did not interest him; what was important to him was the practical matter of developing a lifestyle consistent with the Holy Bible. Sutayev responded that faith existed where love exists, because love is God. All mutual relations are dependent on love, which engenders trust. Sutayev taught a communal lifestyle because he felt that all a person possesses actually belongs to God. A person who lives according to God’s moral principles has no need of sacraments, neither ceremonies nor liturgy. Sutayev suggested that none of these rites did any harm, but they were super-

192

The Nineteenth Century fluous. True religion had to be practical to be effective. Sutayev corresponded regularly with Russian author Leo Tolstoy, who in turn reflected several of Sutayev’s concepts in his own religious philosophy. As with most such groups, Sutayev’s movement passed into history with his death. In the 1820s, along the Don River basin in southern Russia, the movement of the Dukho-Nostzi, or Spirit Possessors, appeared. It was founded by a former captain of the Cossacks, Evlampi Kotelnikov. In his early years, he became interested in religious topics and had the desire to attain the truth and perfection of the ROC. He managed to purchase a Slavonic Bible from the Russian Bible Society, which he read and studied, and this inspired Kotelnikov to begin to preach. Kotelnikov formed his own circle of adherents, and their assemblies followed the Khristovshin pattern of spiritual dancing and prophesy. His sermons were eschatological in nature, declaring that the anti-christ had arrived and that the official ROC had reached the fulfillment of the abomination of desolation. ROC officials soon found it necessary to curb the fervency of this preacher with his reformist views by a stay at the Yuriev Monastery. After some period of confinement in a cloister, Kotelnikov decided to compose a repentance, and he was released. But hardly was Kotelnikov out of the monastery that he entered the role of an Old Testament prophet: he began to reprove heresies, liberal thinking, and the misconduct of people. Noting that Kotelnikov had feigned his penance, the ROC officials sent him north Solovetski Monastery for incarceration. In 1826, Evlampi Kotelnikov was sentenced to Solovki by Imperial Order, for “disseminating dangerous interpretations of the [Orthodox] faith.” He endured a 28-year incarceration at the monastery prison and lived to the age of 80. He died March 3, 1854, still steadfast in his beliefs. As time progressed, groups splintered from the Old Believers, most of them going unnoticed. One that left a faint historical record was the Nemolyaki (Prayer-less), who officially called themselves The Disciples of Christ of the Faith of Christian Catholicism (not to be confused with the Roman Catholic Church). The founder of the group was a Cossack of the Don River, Gavril Zimin, whose grandfathers were members of the group of Theodosians. Zimin was raised an Old Believer, and joined the Non-Priest group as an adult. His zeal and intense study of the Bible and ROC ecclesiastical and apologetic literature led him to conceive ideas that were foreign to his Old Believer community. Zimin gathered a considerable following, but in 1837 he was arrested and sent into exile to the Transcaucasus. His history ends at this time.

193

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. III According to the Prayer-less, Patr. Nikon created the apostasy that led to the age of the Holy Spirit. As Zimin taught, four chronological spiritual eras or seasons exist in history: Spring is associated with the period from the creation to Moses, or the Patriarchal Age; Summer is from Moses to Christ, the Parental Age; Autumn is from Christ to the year 1666, the age of the Son; Winter began in 1666, and they were now residing in the age of the Holy Spirit. The Old Testament was the Kingdom of God the Father; the New Testament was the Kingdom of God the Son, which lasted until 1492, the beginning of the 8th millennium, according to the ancient Orthodox calendar. The present era was the Kingdom of the Holy Spirit. The Prayer-less taught that, beginning in 1492, truth was extinguished and faith had secluded itself. Since the age of the Holy Spirit had now arisen, there remained only one hope for the salvation of the soul: the observance of those dictates that are required to be fulfilled in spirit. Such dictates cannot be observed by material means, or by rites, or even in a verbal service to God. Convinced that they resided in the age of the Holy Spirit, all commands, rites, and ordinances of the ROC and Holy Scriptures were spiritualized. All rites and sacraments reached the end of their usefulness and purpose at the conclusion of the seventh millennium, in 1492. The present ROC priesthood, from deacon to patriarch, was not valid, because in the age of the Holy Spirit they were no different or better than any lay person. Orthodox churches and their appurtenances likewise had reached the end of their validity and utility, and no longer had any purpose on earth. The cross, icons, and relics, were categorically rejected by the Prayer-less. The true Church for the age of the Holy Spirit was the temple of the human body, because the Holy Spirit resided in it. They even reached the extreme to interpret the incarnation of Christ, his suffering, death, resurrection, and ascension, as spiritual events, and not literal. There was no material or physical return of Christ, because they resided in the era of the Holy Spirit. The group no longer performed rites or recited prayers. They saw no value in reciting prayers that were pre-composed, but felt that prayers should evolve from personal feelings generated by the spirit of mind, and so had to be improvised. Even to pray at all, some Prayer-less felt, was superfluous, because the heavenly Father already knows what is needed without requests being voiced. Their justification was Christ’s instruction to enter a closet when a person needed to pray, in this case, the closet of the mind. When a child was born, no sacrament was performed; the parents did nothing more than announce his name. There was no marriage ceremony among the Prayer-less. There would be a

194

The Nineteenth Century meeting of the parents on both sides, and the couple. If there was a mutual consensus, then the couple was considered married. Some religious admonishment was provided, adjuring them to preserve fidelity, and nothing more. Funerals followed the same vein: their deceased were buried without any song or prayer, and in the simplest way, and no requiems were performed. Not all the Prayer-less stringently observed all the concepts of the spiritualization of religion. Members might well perform a wedding or funeral according to traditional ROC rites, because of custom or because of the presence of relatives. Since there was to be no second advent of Christ, according to the Prayer-less, there would be no judgment day either, and nothing more to await in the future. Once a person died, that was the termination of his existence. Their attitude toward the state followed the same vein. They took no oaths, refused military service, and did not utilize the judicial system. They observed those rules and regulations of the state that did not conflict with their convictions. No information remains to indicate the number of Prayer-less, and their presence was mainly in villages that followed the Don River in southern Russian. A liberal estimate would allow 3,000 to 5,000 adherents. Eventually, the group dispersed in the early 1870s, within 40 years after the initial efforts of Gavril Zimin. The Vosdikhantzi (Sigh-ers), another group of about equal size, had similar beliefs. The group of the Neplatelshiki, or, Non-Payers, consisted of a handful of families in Perm Province, along the western slope of the Ural Mountains in central Russia. Their group was agrarian and their dissension was initially baed on political and economic differences, but then evolved into religious differences. Their presence became known shortly after the abolition of feudalism by Tsar Alexandr II in 1861. Prior to this time, the serfs living at this particular estate had been granted certain privileges, such as not paying taxes and exemption from the military. These privileges disappeared with the abolition of feudalism, and the group previously living under the shelter of the state found themselves defenseless. They filed a complaint with local authorities, but it was dismissed. They then turned to the ROC for support. Much to their disappointment, the ROC sided in with imperial authorities against the the peasants. The conclusion of the small group was that the justice of God had vanished from the ROC. As a result, the group severed its association from the ROC. The Non-Payers’ next concluded that the imperial government was not instituted by God, but by antichrist, and they immediately refused to pay taxes.

195

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. III The small group, numbering less than 100 families, began to develop their own religious dogmas, and a negative attitude toward the state and ROC. Local Old Believer Non-Priest groups pressured them to join them, but to no avail. The influence of local Spiritual Christian groups led them to reject the sacraments, rites, icons, and in general, the entire ostenstatious liturgy of the ROC. The new group began to gather in the evenings for a community Bible study, and developed simple services for regular worship, and for marriages and funerals, which were now to be conducted by elders of their own group. The concept of objecting to military service, once a privilege allocated them by the state, was absorbed into their new theology. It became a rallying point in their refusal to acknowledge the authority of the state. For the Neplatelshiki, to join the military was to capitulate to antichrist. For the next decade or so, the little group went unnoticed, in spite of their anti-imperial and anti-ecclesiastical tenets. The trial of their faith began in 1874, when universal conscription was legislated by Tsar Alexandr II. A regiment of Russian soldiers entered Mikhailovski suburb of Perm and impressed into service 38 young men. Their initial refusal to submit to conscription forced the local military commander to place them in custody. After a short stay in jail, a hearing was held. Of the conscripts, eleven agreed to military service while twenty-seven refused. They were immediately incarcerated. By the time of a second hearing, another eight men were persuaded to enlist. The remaining nineteen were relocated from Perm and incarcerated in Kazan until a military court could convene and court martial them. All nineteen died over the next three years as a result of the miserable conditions at the prison where they were confined. After this incident, the state acceded to the requests of the Neplatelshiki. However, within the next generation, the Neplatelshiki faded into history. Aleksei Artemyev was a peasant of Tver Province. He was reputed to have an irreproachable character and conduct, and led an austere life. He was married, and cared for a 16-year-old niece. Initially he was a member of the ROC in good standing, but left to join the Priest group of Old Believers. For the next five years Artemyev visited several monasteries in the region, seeking religious enlightenment and Scriptural support for his newly conceived view of Christian maturity. He then realized that he could only accomplish personal Christian excellence by leaving the ROC, and denying its superficial observances. In 1862, Artemyev became discontent with the Old Believer priests of his community, as well as those sent from the Moscow Rogozhki Cemetery, their

196

The Nineteenth Century center. He could no longer tolerate their alcoholism, fist fights, perversion and pretensions. As Artemyev viewed the matter, their conduct was demoralizing the entire membership. Artemyev began to publicly announce his convictions and he attracted a few like-minded individuals. They severed themselves from the Old Believers community in order to create a new community with a higher moral standard. Other discontents of the local ROC left with him. He and his new circle called themselves The Disciples of Christ of the Faith of Christ Catholic (not to be confused with the Roman Catholic Church). Similar to the Nemolyaki, Artemyev’s group swung to the opposite end of the pendulum and rejected all external or ostentatious observance of religion. They labeled the performance of rites and ceremonies child’s play, and suggested that such pageantry was unnecessary for the mature Christian. They took as their motto the words of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount, “Be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” All that the mature Christian required for his salvation was to read the New Testament, to pray in the spirit, and to distance himself from all defilement. Because of his zeal in preaching this new concept of Christian maturity, Artemyev was arrested and incarcerated in the local Kalyazinski prison. He was then transferred to the Tver fortress, where he died a short time later. His movement dissipated into history. In the 1870s, a splinter of the Khristovshin group began their own independent community, calling themselves Seraphimovshin, or Seraphim Community. The founder was abbot Seraphim of the Pskov Nikandrovski Monastery, who was formerly an instructor at the Kiev-Mogilyanski Academy. He announced that the end of the world was at hand, and preached asceticism and prayer, while referring to himself as the re-incarnation of Elijah. These sectarians gathered at night, prayed together, and took communion, but at the same time they would attend the local ROC. In about 1880, Seraphim was arrested and exiled to Solovetski Monastery. At the end of May 1884, by decision of the Holy Synod, Seraphim was transferred to a monastery in Archangel. After arriving there, Seraphim submitted a request that he be released from his monastic vows. After a formal examination, Seraphim was released in the same year. He journeyed to Serbia, where he acquired a position as a teacher at a religious seminary. After Seraphim’s arrest, the leadership of his small community was assumed by a former nun, Elena Petrovna, called Elenushka by her close associates. The Seraphimovshin considered her the bride of Christ, and she was ven-

197

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. III erated in the same manner as a Theotokos. The community dissipated soon after her death. The Belo-Riztzi, or White-Clothes people, appeared about 1836 in the village Sadkakh, in the Donets region of Ukraine. The founder was Boris Margunov, a house painter. They called themselves Belo-Riztzi because one of their principle tenets was to wear only white, men, women and children. “All that is black,” say the Belo-Riztzi, “evolves from the black spirit, the devil, while Angels soar in white clothes. Our Lord Jesus was also wrapped in white when he was placed in the sepulcher.” The idea of white extended even to their animals: they traded in or sold their black horses, cattle and sheep, for white ones. The number of Belo-Riztzi adherents throughout the sect’s existence was hardly enough to fill a room during services. Margunov conducted liturgy at his home on a regular basis in the ROC tradition, with a few old icons and some worn-out holy books. In 1858, Boris Margunov moved to Novo-Cherkassk, and extended his vocation to painting icons. All the individuals on his icons were portrayed with blond hair and wearing either light blue or red clothing. According to Margunov, light blue was the color of heaven, while red symbolized the blood of Christ. In his old age, Margunov fades into history in about 1865, and a spiritual successor ascends, Nikolai Lukin, a peasant of Petrovoi village in Vladimir Province. The adherents of Lukin were likewise hardly enough to fill his home for services. Lukin and his Vladimir Belo-Riztzi rejected the rite and liturgy of the ROC, but they still possessed icons, and especially those painted by Margunov. The group following Lukin dissipated once he grew old, in the late 1870s.

158. COUNT LEO TOLSTOY AND THE TOLSTOYANS Count Leo Nikolaevich Tolstoy’a concepts regarding Christianity are recorded in his later writings, and especially his books, Kingdom of God is within You, The Four Gospels Harmonized and Translated, A Confession, and, What I Believe. Never a sect or even a movement, the Tolstoyans were scattered individuals who adhered to Tolstoy’s Christian philosophy. Asked about his religious convictions developing into a concrete philosophy with dedicated adherents, Tolstoy said, “I am Tolstoy, not a Tolstoyan.” The Christian philosophic movement that originated with his writings was called Tolstovstvo, in Russian. His convictions were based on an ethical teaching derived from the Gospels, rather than a theological or liturgical basis like that of the typical sec-

198

The Nineteenth Century tarian groups. Tolstoy’s earliest comment regarding the development of a new religious philosophy was a record in his diary of March 4, 1855. Yesterday a conversation regarding divinity and faith led me to recognize an immense concept, the materialization of which I felt myself capable of dedicating my life to. This thought was the basis for a new religion, one that would be pertinent to the development of humanity. It would be the religion of Christ, but purged of theology and sacraments; a practical religion that would not promise a future bliss, but provide bliss on earth. It seems to me that the only manner to bring this concept to fulfillment would be the effort of successive generations consciously working toward this goal. One generation will bequeath this concept to the next and at some time, either fanaticism or intelligence will bring it to its materialization. To act consciously to unify people with this religion is the thought that I feel will drive me.

This dream of Tolstoy’s did not leave him for the next 50 years of his life, and it forms the substance of his book, The Christian Teaching. What motivates me to do what I am doing is not greed or credit or worldly recognition, but the fear of not fulfilling that which is required of me by Him who sent me into this world, and every hour I await my return to Him. So I am convinced that I will not find a resolution to my question and amelioration of my suffering in existing denominations. I reached such despair that I drew to suicide, but then my salvation arrived. My salvation consisted in the fact that since childhood, I retained a vague notion that the Gospel contains the answer to my question. I sensed truth in this teaching, the Gospel, disregarding all the distortion to which it has been subjected in the teaching of the Christian Church. And I, as my final attempt, rejecting every interpretation of Evangelical teaching, began to read the Gospel and delve into its concepts. And the more I delved into the concepts of this book, the more that something new was unveiled to me, something unlike that which Christian churches taught, but it was the resolution to the question that my life sought for.

Tolstoy rejected the authority of the ROC, its sacraments, veneration of saints, icons, and priesthood. He likewise rejected the deity of Jesus Christ and the historic definition of the Trinity. As Tolstoy wrote, “I believe in the God that I understand, as a spirit, as love, as the beginning of all. I believe that He is in me, and I am in Him. That God, who is recognized by the person in whom He resides, is the desire for benevolence for all that exists; He is the beginning of all life, and He is love.” Christ, according to Tolstoy, was not the only-begotten son of God but was a plain person who had attained a supreme level of divine cognizance and who then preached this in his world. Christ did die in the manner the Gospel record indicates, but his resurrection was spiritual, not literal. As Tolstoy mentioned in his memoirs, “If Christ knew about the fabrication of his resurrection, he would roll over in his grave.” Tolstoy labeled the Eucharist “sacerdotal sorcery,” while the services of the ROC, the decor of the church, and its appurtenances, he decried as, “Stupefying motions and presentations whose

199

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. III purpose is to impress deceit upon the soul of the parishioners, passing all of this off as true faith.” Christ, according to Tolstoy, was one of many enlightened leaders throughout history; others included were Moses, Isaiah, Confucius, Buddha, Socrates, and Paschal. Tolstoy’s interpretation of the teachings of Jesus Christ is summarized in his short book, What I Believe. Tolstoy develops his morality based on the Sermon on the Mount, considering it the pinnacle of divine instruction. He summarizes it in five commandments. 1. Do not oppose evil (this is interpreted as pacifism, or conscientious objection to military service). 2. Do not judge (an advocacy of the abolition of the judicial and penal system, which Tolstoy felt should be replaced by arbitration as a means of settling disputes). 3. Do not anger (interpreted as cooperation between people of all races and nationalities, and the denial of violence at any occasion.) 4. Do not be immoral. (This especially pertained to marital fidelity.) 5. Do not swear (referring to oaths of allegiance). Tolstoy taught that if a person would conform his life to these five commandments, the Kingdom of God on earth would materialize, the Kingdom of which Christ spoke. A secondary effect of his teaching was political disassociation. A true Christian must sever himself from the government, because the state is the cause of all evil on earth: it demands oaths of allegiance, operates the judicial and penal system; enforces laws using coercion; implements the conscription of recruits; and commands a military for the purpose of wagging war. A political or military career, or any career in the government, Tolstoy felt, was inappropriate for a true Christian. Tolstoy developed the concept of passive resistance based on the Gospel record of Jesus Christ, who did not resist when he was taken prisoner, and then he rebuked disciple Peter for using violence to defend him. Jesus never used coercion or showed resistance during his arrest, interrogation, trial, and execution by crucifixion. The contemporary disciple of Jesus Christ must not observe any laws or regulations that conflict with the teachings of Jesus Christ, and must refuse to observe such laws, even if compelled to do so, even at the cost of persecution, oppression, or even execution, because this is what Christ taught and exemplified in his ministry. Passive resistance to unjust laws and especially to conscription was a very important tenet for Tolstoy, and it influenced many political leaders of future generations. Private property and feudalism were likewise inherently evil, and Tolstoy attempted to resolve the conflict first on his own estate. Tolstoy tried

200

The Nineteenth Century to liberate his own serfs and allow them to farm privately on his estate, but they could not understand what he was up to. Tolstoy could not accomplish his dream on his own estate, because his serfs resisted it. In later years, Tolstoy gave up all royalties for his books, except for a minimum which his wife demanded to support the family. He donated the income from his Resurrection to help pay for the migration of the Dukhabors from Russia to Canada. Tolstoy was a rationalist, striving to free Christian teaching from everything “remarkable, unbelievable, unintelligible, and contradictory.” He felt that people needed religion in order to understand what prosperity in life consisted of, to which a person strove; but it was the inherited sins of humanity, both personal and public, and traditions, regulations and protocols, which hindered the prosperity of life. Tolstoy defined six sins which he felt interfered with a person loving his close associates: lust, lethargy, ambition, greed, immorality, and alcoholism. He also espoused vegetarianism. Tolstoy especially felt that the deception of organized religion played a large role in promoting civil corruption, and simultaneously depriving individuals of personal prosperity. This deception of religion consisted of several points: 1. Distortion of the truth; 2. Belief in the supernatural; 3. Installation of intermediaries; 4. Manipulation of a person’s emotions; and 5. Teaching pseudo-religion to children. The dilemma of death, however, was not a point that Tolstoy attempted to rationalize. He described it in the following words, “What is reliable and indubitable, is what Christ said when he was dying, ‘Into Your hands I deliver my spirit.’ Meaning that, in dying, he was returning to where he originated.” Twice Tolstoy visited Optina Pustin, in 1877 and in 1881. After his conversation with Elder Ambrosi, Tolstoy recorded the following in his diary: Recently I was at Optina Pustin, and saw there people burning with sincere love toward God and people, and in addition, considering it an absolute necessity to stand in church for several hours daily, take communion, bless and be blessed, and then paralyze within themselves the active strength of love. How can I hate such superstitious people?

After his first visit to Optina Pustin, Tolstoy read the Dogmatic Theology of Makari Bulgakov, and critiqued it in an article in 1880. His conclusion was the following:

201

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. III I found in this teaching not only nonsense but a recognizable lie being provided to people who have selected this religion as a means to attain some specific goal of theirs. And I firmly understood that all of these dogmas, which at one time seemed to me to express the faith of the people, was not only a lie, but a deception formulated over the ages by unbelieving people.

According to Tolstoy, the ecclesiastical teaching of the Trinity was inherently contradictory, and it also contradicted sound human reasoning. Tolstoy rejected the divinity of Christ, calling it fantastic, and he labeled the ROC an institution of the antichrist. He claimed that the ROC promoted idolatry in its use of icons and veneration of saints, and that it taught concepts alien to the truth of the Gospel. For decades, Tolstoy refuted the ROC, and summoned its members to abandon it in favor of an unadulterated understanding of the Gospels. Pobedonostsev, At-Gen of the Holy Synod, considered Tolstoy a religious anarchist and a threat to the polity of imperial Russia, and called him an arch-enemy of the ROC. Indeed, Tolstoy’s exposés persuaded many people to leave the ROC. The final straw was his publication of Resurrection in 1899, the last of his major literary accomplishments. It is highly autobiographical. A persistent undertone of Resurrection is its ridicule of the ROC, especially the liturgy of Eucharist performed in a mechanical way at the prison chapel by an alcoholic priest whose primary concern was his pension at retirement. Pobedonostsev is parodied in Part 2, where the At-Gen is surnamed Toporov (derived from the Russian word topor, which means axe or hatchet). Tolstoy shows him as a hatchet man in his attitude to Russian sectarians. The final chapter reiterates Tolstoy’s five commandments mentioned above. The novel also attacks the political, penal and judicial systems of imperial Russia, and exposes their flaws and corruption. It is no wonder that the ROC directed a vehement vendetta against Tolstoy shortly after the publication of Resurrection. When the writ of excommunication was drawn up, Pobedonostsev personally visited Tsar Nikolai II to acquire his approval, which he obtained. The Holy Synod excommunicated Count Leo Nikolaevich Tolstoy from the membership of the ROC on February 20, 1901. The writ of excommunication listed the points of his departure from the tenets of the ROC, and it was signed by President Metr. Antoni Vadkovski of St. Petersburg; Metr. Theognost of Kiev, Metr. Vladimir of Moscow and four bishops. The writ was also personally subscribed by At-Gen of the Holy Synod Pobedonostsev as a special gesture.

202

The Nineteenth Century Tolstoy, in his personal correspondence, characterized the excommunication as, “Arbitrary, unfounded, and unjust,” and added, “That I rejected the church, which calls itself Orthodox, is entirely correct, and I am convinced that the teaching of the [Orthodox] Church is a theoretically insidious and detrimental lie, and in practical terms a collection of the most coarse superstitions and fairy tales, completely veiling the concepts of the Christian teaching in the process. All the sacraments I consider crude magic.” Some have considered Tolstoy’s attempted final trip to Optina Pustin as his attempt to reconcile himself to the ROC, but there is no evidence to support this. His purpose was to again temporarily withdraw from society and public exposure, in order to rest and regain his strength. Tolstoy died at the Astapovo train station of pneumonia on November 7, 1910, while en route to Optina Pustin. While the family was deciding on funeral arrangements, Tolstoy’s son Andrei told Bishop Parfeni of Tule that his father had no intention of reconciliation with the ROC or of having a funeral conducted by the ROC. Tolstoyans applied his philosophy in their personal lives, and many denominations found in it additional resources to support their own tenets. Dukhabors profusely assimilated the teachings of Tolstoy, seeing a parallel in almost every facet of their beliefs in his philosophy. Molokans utilized Tolstoy’s arguments for Christian pacifism to supplement their own. Tolstoy’s personal disciples, as many as there were (and no estimate can be quantified), eventually dispersed after his death in 1910.

159. MYSTICS AND MONASTERIES The Vvendenski Optina Pustin (Hermitage) is far from metropolitan centers and hidden from the view of travelers by the thick forests that surround it. It is three miles from the nearest city Kozelsk, in Kaluzhski Province. The initial hermitage of Optina was built during the first half of the 15 th century, during Mongol occupation, by feudal prince Vladimir Andreevich Khabrov. This account is based on the opinion of Optina archimandrite Leonid Kavelin. Another local account is that a repentant criminal named Optoi became a monk and built himself a chapel, which developed as time progressed. The earliest reliable record regarding Optina states that the hermitage was already functioning in the year 1589. The first recorded father superior was Abbot Sergei, mentioned in a document dated December 1625. The actual size of the facility

203

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. III can be measured by an account of the late 17th century, which infers the number of its residents to be between 12 and 20. Tsar Peter I brought no benefit to Optina. In an edict of March 25, 1704, the hermitage was deprived of its sources of income: a mill in Kozelsk; a fishing business long the Zhisdra River; and a ferry that crossed the river. The hermitage was also required to house retired soldiers, by an edict of January 28, 1723, but no evidence indicates that it was ever used for this purpose. The following year, Optina was threatened with closure, small as it was. However, it was delivered from this fate by Andrei Shepelev and other patrons as a result of a petition presented to the Holy Synod on June 26, 1723. Its survival was precarious because of its dependence on charitable contributions, but it was able to stay open. The stabilization of the hermitage during the 18th century began with hieromonk Abraami, who was father superior until 1760. He was able to enlist patrons from wealthy families for the support of the hermitage. Metr. Platon Levshin of Moscow visited Optina in 1796, and made arrangements for the hermitage to acquire more land in the region. At the time, there were 26 residents at Optina. Optina acquired renown during the 19th century due to the efforts of Bishop Filaret Amfiteatrov, of Kaluzhski diocese, beginning 1819. He was able to acquire the residence of the famous scholar and ascetic Paisei Vilichkovski, which attracted other monks and neophytes. Many of them were former disciples of Vilichkovski who relocated from their abbeys in 1820. This new community under the abbacy of Moisei Putilov built the hermitage into a magnificent complex that transformed it into one of the more venerated monasteries in all of Russia. In 1857, the hermitage housed 100 residents. The most respected of Optina elders were archimandrite Leonid, hieromonk Makari Ivanov, and Staretz (elder) Ambrosi. A convent was constructed a few miles away in Sharmordino in the 1880s, under the direction of Elder Ambrosi. Elder Ambrosi, or Aleksandr Mikhailovich Grenkov, before his tonsure, was born in 1812. He attended a seminary in Tambov, and became a teacher there. Ambrosi did not care for teaching and entered Optina as a monk. There, he was tutored by both Leonid and Moisei, and became archimandrite in 1860, although the residents preferred to recognize him as elder. All went well with Optina until 1917, when the Soviet government deprived it of its sources of income. In 1923, the hermitage was converted to a museum. In 1928, Optina became a prime target of Stalin’s vendetta against the ROC. Many of its buildings were demolished; its residents were sent away, the

204

The Nineteenth Century museum was closed and the library was confiscated and books distributed to warehouses. The facility was left in shambles. Adrian Pushkin was a popular mystic who had founded a sectarian group that rejected the rites and sacerdotalism of the ROC. He had been a feudal peasant of the estate of Count Strogonov. He was a tall man, stately in appearance, with a long grey beard. In 1853, he was released as a free man by Count Strogonov, and became a merchant in Perm. Although he was a member of the merchants’ guild, he did not conduct trade, but worked as an attorney, which provided him with an excellent income. In 1858, he began to experience revelations and mysterious dreams. Once, in a dream, the Savior appeared to him the way he is depicted on icons, and said to him, “They have not recognized me.” From this point on, Pushkin received an inspiration that totally enveloped him with the thought of restoring religion. It seems to him that the advent of the Savior to the earth had not brought people a renewal in their life. What existed was animosity, strife, exploitation of the weak by the strong, and murder, and every possible of calamity seemed to reign. And so, in order for peace, love and brotherhood to reside among mankind, the Messiah would have to appear again on earth. If he did not consider himself the Messiah, at least he was a prophet proclaiming His imminent advent. Pushkin attempted to express his religious ideas allegorically by creating a large picture with the inscription, “Banner of the reigning faith.” The first print of this picture he sent to the Uspenski Cathedral, and subsequent prints were sent to many individuals of high standing. In 1861, Pushkin traveled from Perm to St. Petersburg to personally present to the Holy Synod his picture, together with an explanatory text. Entitled Great Joy, his picture was rejected and his manuscript was recognized by the Holy Synod as being in conflict with the tenets of the ROC. This failure did not distress Pushkin. In 1863, he again journeyed to St. Petersburg to obtain a review of his work and to seek the approval of the At-Gen of the Holy Synod to present them a new manuscript, entitled Judgment of God. Unable to obtain an interview with the Holy Synod, Pushkin presented his creations, both picture and manuscript, for review by the Senate through the Perm Provincial Administration. The governor and Count Strogonov advised Pushkin to desist in this matter, but he was determined to do whatever had to be done to gain serious consideration. Feeling that such conduct was abnormal, the Perm police secured him in an insane asylum for examination and held him there for several months. A committee of doctors, after examining Pushkin, wanted to diagnose him as mentally ill. Doctor Korobov disagreed, and would have diag-

205

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. III nosed Pushkin as mentally stable and ready for release; but his decision was overridden. On November 19, 1866, Pushkin was arrested at his apartment and, accompanied by two policemen, was quickly transferred to Solovetski monastery for incarceration. Pushkin spent the next 16 years in monastery incarceration; when he exited his prison cell, he was just as firm in his teaching as he was when he entered the cell. Like a nightingale in a cage, Pushkin initially comforted himself with song, which gathered a crowd of pilgrims to his prison window during the summer months. In the subsequent years, to curb these assemblies, Pushkin was moved to the third floor of the prison, to the side of the building which faced the inside wall of the fortress, with the prison yard beneath him. In 1882, after 16 years of tight confinement, Pushkin was released and transferred under police supervision to Archangel, due to illness. As soon as he arrived in Archangel, and his wife and children met with him, he became nervous and feared for his health; periods of calm were interspersed with fits of wild agitation. This forced Pushkin’s wife to have him transferred to a local hospital; but they did not have a psychiatric specialist and had no way of efficiently treating Pushkin. Mrs. Pushkin quickly removed her husband from the hospital, and he was fortunate enough to die in the arms of his loving wife. Especially venerated among the Russian prelates and mystics of the 19th century was John Ilyich Sergeev of Kronshtadt (October 18, 1829–December 20, 1908). He was born in Archangelsk Province to a peasant family that was involved in the local ROC parish church. His father wanted John to become part of the clergy, and sent him to seminary in Archangelsk. Later, John attended the Petersburg Religious Academy from 1851–1855, and upon graduation was appointed to the Morskoi Cathedral in Kronstadt, the Imperial Naval Base at St. Petersburg. He ministered at the same church for the next 26 years. Thousands upon thousands from all over Russia flocked to his church to listen to his sermons and watch him perform liturgy and recite prayers. The parishioners were mesmerized, believing that Fr John took their prayers during liturgy and delivered them directly to God. Pilgrims asked him regularly for his counsel and blessing, and opened their hearts to him. John of Kronshtadt’s ministry was focused on philanthropy, assisting the needy of St. Petersburg. He opened work houses for the unemployed, schools for children, a dining hall with meals at inexpensive prices, an orphanage, a shelter for abused women and abandoned children. Much work at his parish was dedicated to helping men with alcohol addiction.

206

The Nineteenth Century Toward the end of the life of John of Kronshtadt, in about 1906, a group of local Khristovshin created a personality cult surrounding him, although at the same time they were zealous supporters of the conservative ROC. They recognized him as a reincarnation of Christ, or a Christ in the Khristovshin manner. The number of adherents of this group was probably in the 100-200 range, and they dissipated after the rise of Soviet authority. Back in 1797, Tsar Pavel had granted 80 acres of arable land per monastery to compensate for the imperial government’s appropriation of ecclesiastical patrimony under his mother, Empress Catherine II. The amount increased in 1838 under Tsar Nikolai I, varying from 135 to 400 acres of land per monastery, and again monasteries began to acquire real estate. By the conclusion of the 19th century, the ROC had amassed property in quantities that came close to the era prior to the secularization of ecclesiastical patrimony. In 1905, for example, Solovetski Monastery possessed 180,000 acres, and Alexandr-Nevski Monastery had 35,000 acres. All in all, by 1905, two million acres of prime real estate and farmland was back in the hands of monasteries, not counting Siberia, where land was seemingly infinite. Dioceses and parishes had managed to acquire a total of five million acres. The bank accounts held by monasteries were immense, more than twelve of them had 100,000 rubles in 1909. Nil Sorski Hermitage had 300,000 rubles; Solovetski had 320,000 rubles, while Novgorod Yurievski Monastery had 750,000 rubles. This was during an era when most of the working class population had an income of a ruble per day, or less. At the onset of World War I. in 1914, 207 monasteries were immediately converted into hospitals.

160.ECCLESIASTICAL STATISTICS PERTAINING TO THE SYNODAL ERA The difficulty in providing accurate statistical data for the Synodal era of Russian history is apparent even to the casual observer. The immense mass of land that Russia covers, with a population of low density dispersed throughout it, poor communication, and the inaccuracy of the sources of local information all complicate the acquisition of sound statistical data. Diocesan prelates regularly inflated the size of their dioceses, the number of parishes, churches, chapels, monasteries and convents, and their memberships, while coincidentally

207

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. III reducing the number of Old Believers, sectarians, and other dissenters, as well as those who failed or refused to attend the local parish. The Old Believers, whether Priest or Non-Priest group, had no genuine concern for the number of their adherents, and there was really no way for them to even begin to determine their sizes. The sectarians of the 19th century were likely more honest in the figures that they related to local researches and investigators. Even then, the margin of error could be as large as 50%. For most of the history of imperial Russia, as far as the ROC was concerned, the population of the country, or at least 90% of it, was the membership of the ROC. But an important point in understanding the statistics is the extent of participation or membership of a person in that particular corporate body: did they participate only on Easter and Christmas? Or was it regular Sunday attendance? As is the case with churches in America, today, the rolls are the basis of membership, whether the parishioner is seldom in attendance or is a regular participant. Viewed in this light, the active membership of the ROC was probably in the area of 10% of the roll membership. The information supplied in the following table pertaining to the Russian Orthodox Church is based on I.K. Smolich, Istoriya Russkoi Tserkvi, and Pavel Miliukov, Ocherki po Istorii Russkoi Kulturi. Year

1738

1840

1890

1915

Population of Russia

16 million

44 million

72 million

112 million

ROC Churches

16,901

31,333

45,037

66,000

Parish clergy

124,923

116,728

96,829

112,000

Monasteries and Convents

948

547

724

1,025

Monks and Nuns

14,282

15,251

40,286

94,629

The following incident recorded by ecclesiastical historian Yuzov illustrates the quality of data that was available regarding dissenters and sectarians. In 1852, Count L.A. Perovski, Minister of Internal Affairs, was requested by AtGen Protasov to quantify the number of dissenters and sectarians. He discovered that the diocesan offices were using two sets of data: one that was provided him, and published, and one that was considered accurate. As mentioned above, bishops inflated the size of their diocesan memberships, while coincidentally reducing the number of sectarians and dissenters. In his report to Tsar Nikolai I, Perovski selected three dioceses to exemplify this corrupt practice, along with the summation. The three representative dioceses were Nizhni-Novgorod, Kostroma, and Yaroslav.

208

The Nineteenth Century Dissenters and Sectarians, 1852 Diocese-Provided Data

Actual Data

Nizhni-Novgorod

20,246

172,500

Kostroma

19,870

105,572

Yaroslav

7,454

278,417

All of Russia

910,000

10 million (estimated)

The entire population of Russia in 1852 was about 50 million. By publishing a figure of only 2% of the population dissenting from the ROC, the dissension is rendered insignificant, and the ROC could continue to promote its primacy. The ROC would be hurting its own cause if it ever acknowledged an actual dissension of 20%. Such data would disclose its failure as the official state church, and then the ROC would have to deal with the consequences. Seen from another perspective, if the active membership of the official ROC was only 10%, then there were twice as many dissenters and sectarians as there were active members of the ROC. The northern provinces had a greater percentage of Old Believers than the provinces of central Russia. In 1863, an additional investigation was made in Archangelsk diocese, and the results contained a similar discrepancy: the official number of dissenters and sectarians was set at 4,428, while the number determined by hieromonk Donat was more like 90,000. The Holy Synod published an official account of the membership of the ROC in 1859: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Confessing and taking communion35,081,097 Confessing, but not taking communion2,196,714 Not confessing due to minority of age9,232,234 Not confessing for any reason819,915 Not confessing due to negligence3,417,231 Not confessing due to inclination to the dissension726,983

The sum of the above figures, 51,474,209, is the total population of Russia that year, and the apparent conclusion is that the membership of the ROC is 97% of the population. The ROC only considered Category 6 as dissenters, and in a quantity similar to the above example for the year 1852. Yuzov furthered his own investigation of the ROC census of 1859 and concluded that the number of dissenters was actually about 8,500,000, including people of all ages. Melnikov, another historian of ROC dissension, gave a figure

209

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. III of 9,500,000 dissenters. Yuzov, who wrote his history of Russian Dissenters in 1881, extrapolated the above figures and compared them to the most recent of diocesan data and compiled the following table: Dissenters and Sectarians for year 1878 Old Believer Priest group

3 million

Old Believer Non-Priest group

8 million

Spiritual Christians (Molokans and Dukhabors)

1 million

Mystical Christians (Khristovshin and Skopetz)

100 thousand

Other minority sectarian and dissenter groups (Baptists, Evangelicals, New Israel, Mennonites, Lutherans, and etc.)

1 million

Roman Catholics and Uniates

1 million

Total number of dissenters and sectarians:

14 million (about 20% of the population)

Among the Non-Priest group, Melnikov estimated that the Netovtzi faction, or Salvation Accord, numbered about 700,000. The high figure for Molokans and Dukhabors should not surprise the reader, because Yuzov states that Tambov diocese alone had 200,000 Molokans in the year 1846. The other minority groups would include those listed in the chapters on Minority Sectarians and Dissenters. Historian Vladimir Bonch-Bruevich estimated 100,000 New Israel in 1905. According to Yuzov, the number of Skoptzi included in Category 4 was in the 2,000 to 3,000 range for that year, although in 1820, they were at a high of about 5,000. The number of adherents of the Evangelical and Baptist denominations in 1905 was 23,000; by 1909, the number was 90,000; by 1912, the number increased to 145,000, with almost 300 congregations. I.S. Prokhanov claimed in 1917 that the number of Baptist-Evangelicals, which would include Stundists, had reached 200,000. Although the figures are notable, they were still less than the over 1 million Spiritual Christians (Molokans, Dukhabors and related groups). The statistics for other sectarians and dissenters are related in their respective chapters.

The fourth and concluding volume of this History of Russian Christianity will cover the Soviet Era, up to 1990.

210

APPENDIX 161. INTRODUCTION TO CHRISTIAN MORALITY1 by Grigori Savvich Skovoroda Foreword Give thanks to the blessed God, for He has made easy that which is necessary, and made difficult that which is unnecessary. There is nothing sweeter for a person and nothing more needful than happiness, and there is nothing easier to acquire than that. Give thanks to the blessed God. The Kingdom of God is within us. Happiness is in the heart, the heart is in love, love is in the eternal law. There is always a bright, unsetting sun that enlightens the abyss of the darkness of the heart. Give thanks to the blessed God. What would happen if happiness, so needed and so loved by all, was dependent on place, on time, on flesh and blood? I will say it more clearly: What would happen if God were to confine happiness to America or the Canary Islands, or to Jerusalem in the Middle East, or to the chambers of a king, or to the age of Solomon, or to wealth or to the desert or to rank, science, or good health? Then our happiness would be paltry. Who can travel to those places? How can everyone be born in the same era? How can we all fit in one rank and file? What type of happiness would it be, if it were founded on the sands of someone’ s flesh, or in limited space and time, or on a mortal person? Is this not difficult? Yes. Dif-

1. Translated and abbreviated by author.

211

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. III ficult and impossible. Give thanks to the blessed God, because he has made the difficult unnecessary. Do you want to be fortunate in the here and now? Do not seek happiness across the sea; do not ask it of a person; do not journey across the planet; do not ramble from house to house; do not haul yourself across the earth; do not fret over Jerusalem. With gold you can buy a village, something hard [to get] and that you could not live without; but happiness, as an indispensable necessity, is everywhere free, a gift that is always available. The air and sun are always with you, everywhere, and free of charge. Everything that flees from you, know that it is someone else’s and do not consider it yours. All of it is alien and superfluous. Give thanks to the blessed God. Happiness is not from heaven, nor does it depend on the earth. Say, together with David, “What do I have in heaven? And what do I want from you on earth?” (Ps 73:25). What is that you need? The easiest thing of all. But what is it that is easy? O my friend, everything is difficult, and hard, and bitter, and evil and false. What is there that is easy? That, my friend, which is needful. What is needful? Only one thing is needful. One thing only is necessary for you, one thing only that is good and easy; all the rest is labor and disease. What is this one thing? God. All material creation is dispensable. But that which is useful and needful is the same everywhere and always. And all of this you can hold in your hand and the dust of your flesh will retain it. Give thanks to the blessed God, for he allows us everything, and makes everything difficult for us except for that which is needful, agreeable and necessary. Many bodily needs await you, but happiness is not there. But for your heart only one thing is required, where God and happiness reside. It is not far away. It is close at hand, in your heart and in your soul. Into this ark our sermon of ten chapters will lead you, as if through ten doors. And I wish for your soul that which the dove of Noah represents, unable to rest anywhere else and returning to the heart, to that which rests in your heart. So the Scripture would be fulfilled, “Your foundations will be eternal, generations after generation, and you will be called a builder of walls, and you will be at peace as you go your way.” This desires Grigori, son of Savvi Skovoroda.

212

Appendix Introductory Sermon: The truth of the Lord abides forever. Forever, Lord, does Your word abide. Your law resides in my inner person. The Word became flesh and resided with us. In the midst of You stands one whom you know not.

Chapter 1 About God The entire world consists of two natures: one is the visible, the other is the invisible. The visible nature is named creation, while the invisible is named God. This invisible nature, or God, penetrates and infuses all of creation; it did exist and will exist everywhere. For example, the human body is visibly apparent, but what penetrates and encompasses the mind is not visible or apparent. For this reason the people of antiquity called God the universal mind. They had various names for Him, for example, nature, the Genesis of things, eternity, time, fate, indispensability, fortune, and others. But among Christians the most popular names are the following: The Spirit, Lord, King, Father, Mind, Truth. The latter two names appear to be more personal than the rest, because the mind is entirely immaterial, while truth with its eternal residence is completely opposed to temporal material. Even at the present, in another land, God is called Truth. Likewise, we have more than one name for visible nature, for example: the material world, or objects, the earth, flesh, shadow, and others.

Chapter 2 About the Ecumenical Belief Just as there are few today who comprehend God, so it is not surprising that in antiquity they often venerated objects as God; this was a common error, and for that reason their entire worship service was ludicrous. However, throughout the ages people still believed and were in agreement that there is a secret someone, a power infusing everywhere and everything. For this reason, to honor and remember Him throughout the entire earthly sphere, buildings were publicly dedicated to testify to his omnipresence. And although, for example, the subject may in error display veneration to the personal attendant instead of to

213

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. III the master, he does not argue that there is a lord above him, who perhaps has never shown his face. Nations are His subjects, and all of them recognize their servility in His presence. This type of faith is common and simple.

Chapter 3 About the Common Providence This most blessed nature or spirit keeps the entire world in motion, just like the ingenious mechanism of a mechanical clock on a tower. The existence of all creation follows the consideration of the Father. He Himself enlivens, feeds, arranges, repairs, and protects according to His own will, and then all of it returns to its origin, the soil, which we call death. For this reason, thinkers in ancient times equated it with mathematics or geometry, because it could always be arranged proportionately or measured, or molded into various figures, for example: grass, trees, animals, and everything else; while the Jewish sages compared him to a potter (Rom 9:21).. This is common providence because it pertains to the welfare of all creatures.

Chapter 4 About Providence Especially for a Person This most pure, universal mind of all ages and all nations has poured out upon us, as from a fountain, all the wisdom and culture to accompany the existence of that which is necessary. But in no way is any nation in debt to Him, inasmuch as He has given to us His supreme wisdom, which is His natural portrait and seal. It surpasses other intellectual spirits or understandings as surely as the family scion surpasses the servant. It is identical to the most elegant architectural symmetry or model, expanding throughout all of matter, and though it is imperceptible, it makes every structure firm and pleasant. So it migrates from word to word, throughout all members of a political confederacy, made up of people, not of stones, secretly spreading, making it firm, peaceful and prosperous. If, for example, some family, or city or government is founded and established on this model, at that time it becomes a paradise, heaven or house of God, and so on. And if some person or other should build his existence according to it, then it becomes in him the fear of God, holiness, piety and so forth.

214

Appendix

Chapter 5 About the Ten Commandments I. “I am the Lord your God; Thou shalt have no other gods.” More clearly stated: I am the source of your good-fortune and the enlightenment of mind. Take care that you do not base your life on other counsels, thinking or reasoning, even if they should evolve from the minds of angels. Follow me blindly. If you should stray from me, you will be mortgaging your eternity to some other wisdom, which then will be your god, but not a true one. Then your happiness will be like stolen money. II. “Do not make for yourself any idols.” If I command you not to base your life on crude stone, even more so you must not build upon manifestations of the material word. All that is perceptible is [like] flesh; all that is visible is an idol. III. “Do not use the Name in vain.” Beware, first, lest you fall into a trap of thinking that there is nothing in this world but what is visible, and that His name, God, is an empty word. In this abyss reside false oaths, hypocrisy, deceit, guile, treachery, and all the secret and the obvious abominations. Rather, inscribe upon your heart that the secret judgment of God abides everywhere. IV. “Remember the Sabbath Day, to keep it holy.” You must everywhere and inwardly cower before the majesty of God and not to forget to glorify Him with faith and reverence on Sunday. Do not worship Him in meaningless ceremonies, but in conduct, imitating Him in our heart. His only activity and His only pastime is to meditate on the benefit of all creatures. From you He does not require anything more except that you have a sincere, kind heart toward those who are close to you. V. “Honor your father and mother.” Before anything else, honor your father and mother and attend to their needs. They are visible portraits of the invisible entity to whom you owe so much. And who are your father and mother? First, be loyal and zealous subjects to the Sovereign, obedient to the city mayor, polite to the priest, submissive to

215

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. III your parents, grateful to your teachers and benefactors. Here is the true path to your eternal and temporal prosperity and to establishing your family name. VI. Do not murder. VII. Do not be fornicate. VIII. Do not steal. IX. Do not witness falsely, or, do not slander. We sentence the guilty and slander the innocent. This is the most terrible malice, and “slanderer” in Greek means “Devil.” X. Do not envy. Evil intentions are the root of all evil actions. For the course of your life for you to be honorable, allow God to give a rebirth to your heart. Dedicate this to unfeigned love. Then crime will be consigned to the abyss within you. God, the word of God, love toward His word — it is all the same. The heart set aflame by the Trinitarian fire will never sin, because they cannot possess the evil seed or intention.

Chapter 6 About True Faith If a person could quickly understand the invaluable price of this great counsel of God, he would immediately accept and love Him. But because corporal and crude reasoning is an obstacle, for this a person needs faith. Moreover, hope is needed, too, which blindly and sharply supports the human heart in the presence of His only-begotten truth, not allowing it to be troubled by the ill winds of outside opinions.

Chapter 7 The Difference between Piety and Ceremony All the power of the ten commandments can be encompassed in one appellation — love. It is the eternal union between God and a person. It is an invisible fire, which burns in the heart that is ardently seeking the word or the will of God, and for this reason is itself God.

216

Appendix

Chapter 8 The Difference between the Law of God and Tradition The law of God abides forever, while the traditions of people are local and temporal. The law of God is the tree of Paradise, while tradition is its shadow. The law of God is the fruit of life, while tradition is like the leaves. The law of God is God in the heart of a person, while tradition is the leaf of a fig tree, often covering a viper. The door of the temple of God is the law of God, while tradition is the vestibule connected to the temple. As far as the entrance is to the altar, and as far as the tail is from the head, so is the distance of tradition from the law of God.

Chapter 9 About Passions or Sins Passion is an infection of the soul. It is immoral desire for that which is visible, and is called an impure or tortured spirit. The worst of them all is envy, the mother of other passions and crimes. It is the chief center of the crevasse where the soul is tormented. The sting of hell is the entire generator of sins, and these are its names: hatred, vengeance, pride, deceit, dissatisfaction, melancholy, regret, boredom, grief and the other insatiable vices that reside in the soul.

Chapter 10 About Love, or Candor Candor, a pure heart, is a calm breath in the soul, the breath of the Holy Spirit. It is like a beautiful garden, soft winds, fragrant flowers and fulfilled pleasures, where the imperishable tree of life blossoms. And these are its fruits: goodwill, gentleness, a good disposition, meekness, sincerity, assurance, security, satisfaction, confidence, and other inalienable traits. Whoever has such a soul, peace be upon him, and mercy, and eternal joy upon the head of this true Christian!

217

ENGLISH BIBLIOGRAPHY Baron, Salo W., The Russian Jew Under Tsars and Soviets, New York, 1964. Bolshakoff, Serge, Russian Non-Conformity, Philadelphia, 1950. Bolshakoff, Sergius, Russian Mystics, Kalamazoo, MI, 1980. Brandenburg, Hans, The Meek and the Mighty, New York, 1977. Conybeare, Frederick C., Russian Dissenters, New York, 1962. Cunningham, James, W. A Vanquished Hope, New York, 1981. Eastern Mennonite Publications, The Russian Mennonites, Ephrata, PA. 2002. Figes, Orlando, A People’s Tragedy, The Russian Revolution, 1891-1924. New York, 1996. Florinsky, Michael T., Russia, a History and an Interpretation, New York, 1953. Heard, Albert F. The Russian Church and Russian Dissent, New York, 1887. Hosking, Geoffrey, Russia, People and Empire, Cambridge, MA. 1997. Latimer, Robert Sloan, Under Three Tsars, Liberty of Conscience in Russia, 1856-1909, New York. Lincoln, W. Bruce, The Romanovs, Autocrats of all Russia, New York, 1981. Pipes, Richard, Russia under the Old Regime, Penguin Books, 1995. Konstantin P., Reflections of a Russian Statesman, Ann Arbor, 1968. Pospielovsky, Dimitry, The Orthodox Church in the History of Russia, Crestwood, N.Y. 1998. Preobrazhenski, Alexandr, Ed., The Russian Orthodox Church: 10th to 20th Centuries, Moscow, 1988. Shubin, Daniel H. Monastery Prisons, New York, 2001. Stilling, Johann Heinrich (Jung-Stilling), Menace Eastern-Light: the Man in the Grey Suit, New York, 2002. Unger, Walter, Mennonite Millennial Madness: A Case Study, Toronto, 1999.

219

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. III Woodcock, George, and Avakumovic, Ivan, The Dukhabors, Toronto, 1968. Wright, J.F.C., Slava Bogu, The Story of the Dukhabors, New York, 1940. Zernov, Nicolas, The Russians and their Church, Crestwood, New York, 1994. The Russian bibliography is located in the Introduction, under Sources.

220

INDEX

Christian, 26, 38, 46–47, 53–54, 61–62, 68, 71– 72, 74–75, 77, 82–84, 92, 96–98, 100–101, 103, 109, 123, 132–138, 142, 144, 148–150, 155–157, 161–165, 167, 170–172, 175–176, 178–182, 191, 193, 196–201, 203, 211, 217 Christianity, 1, 13, 52, 58, 61, 63, 65, 75, 79, 82, 86, 97–98, 131, 161, 171, 179, 181–182, 198, 210 Communal Molokans, 43–44, 70–73, 75, 77–81, 105, 112, 118, 123, 131–141, 154, 157–159, 162, 165, 167–169, 172, 176, 182, 203, 210

A Akchurin, S.V., 21, 82 Akulina Timofeevna, 123 Alexandr Golitzin, 96–99, 101–103, 115, 121, 127 Alexandr I, 51, 69, 95–99, 101–102, 104, 108, 112– 114, 116–119, 121, 125–126, 128–131, 136– 137, 139–140, 145, 161, 181, 189, 195–196 Alexandr II, 104, 108, 112–114, 116–119, 130, 136– 137, 145, 161, 181, 189, 195–196 Alexandr III, 116–119, 145, 189 Alexandr-Nevski Monastery, 12, 26, 33, 207 Anabaptists, 162, 165, 172, 189 Artemyev, Aleksei, 196–197

D Dalmatov, Matvei, 69–70, 74 Delyakov, Yakov, 174 Denisov, Andrei, 36–38, 40 Desnitzki, Mikhail, 98–99 Dmitri of Rostov, 26, 59–60, 72 Don Molokans, 132–133, 138, 172, 175 Donskoi Monastery, 22, 89 Dukhabors, 43–44, 60, 62–68, 73, 79–81, 86, 112, 118, 131, 137–138, 140–148, 157, 162, 165, 167–168, 175–176, 182, 201, 203, 210, 220 Dukho-Nostzi, 193

B Baptist-Molokans, 138 Baptists, 105, 139, 160–162, 166, 171, 173–179, 210 Barbera Krudener, 101 Barrak, Thomas, 179 Bashkin, 43 Beguni, 39, 108–109 Belo-Riztzi, 198 Bengal, Johann Albrecht, 100 Bible, 26, 33–34, 36, 45, 52–53, 57, 62–66, 70– 75, 78–80, 82, 84, 86, 90, 98–105, 114, 123, 132, 141, 158–159, 161–166, 168, 170, 172, 176, 181, 185, 187, 191–193, 196 Black Hundreds, 168 Bogo-Chelovechestvo, 181–184 Bonekemper, Karl, 162–163 Brotherhood of the Right Side, 148

E Ecumenical Councils, 75 Edict of the Toleration of Religion, 99, 108, 165–166 Edino-Veria, 105–107 Elder Ambrosi, 201, 204 Elizabeth Petrovna, 17, 125 Elyanski, Aleksei, 127–128 Evangelical Christians, 79, 132, 138, 157, 159– 160, 162–164, 169–180, 185, 187, 199, 210 Evangelicals, 105, 118, 138–139, 160–161, 166, 169–171, 175–178, 210

C Catherine II, 16–19, 21–23, 37, 39, 43, 61, 68, 77, 82, 87–89, 91, 106, 111, 125–126, 132, 140, 188, 207 Chebyshyov, Pafnuti P., 19, 82 cholera plague, 29

221

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. III Khvostov, D.I., 87, 95 Kolesnikov, Siluan, 60–61, 66, 68, 82 Kopylov, Abbakum, 124, 152–154 Kornili, 36 Koval, Yakov, 169, 185 Koveilin, Ilya, 40–41 Kozlovski, Aleksei, 16, 20, 22–23, 29 Kuzmich, Feodor, 100

F Filaret Amfiteatrov, 104, 112–113, 204 Filaret Drozdov, 97, 102–104, 106, 110–116 Filippov, Danil, 44–49, 52, 54–56, 122–124, 130, 153, 159 Filippovtzi, 39, 108 Florovski, Giorgi, 120, 123

G

L

Glagolevski, Seraphim, 98–99, 102, 110, 113

Labsin, A.F., 100, 121 Leo Tolstoy, 118, 144, 146, 182, 184, 193, 198 Leopoldovna, Anna, 12–13, 18, 24 Levshin, Platon, 19–20, 87–90, 106, 113, 204 Lisenko, Ivan, 186–187 Lisin, Kuzma, 129–131 Lord Redstock, 170, 173 Lubkov, Vasili Semeonovich, 154 Lupkin, Prokopi, 48–50, 52, 54, 59, 82, 124, 158 Lupkina, Akulina Ivanovna, 49–50, 57, 124 Lutherans, 101, 132, 160–162, 189, 210 Lvov, A.I., 15

H Holy Alliance, 97–98, 100–101 Holy Synod, 2, 5, 7, 9–16, 19–31, 33–34, 50–51, 60, 72, 81–82, 87–90, 95–99, 103–107, 110– 117, 119–122, 131, 133, 136, 151, 156, 165, 171, 174, 192, 197, 202, 204–205, 209 House of David, 57

I Iconoclasts, 60, 62, 68, 71 Ikonobortzi, 60, 62, 72 Ilyin, Nikolai Sazonovich, 148–152 Irkutsk Monastery, 30 Ivanov , A.I., 78, 130, 173, 176, 179–180, 204

M Malevanni, Kondrat, 170, 184–187 Malevantzi, 43, 184–185, 187–188 Malikov, Aleksandr Kapitonovich, 181–184 Malikovtzi, 181 Maryanovski, 123 Matzeevich, Arseni, 14, 16, 19, 23–24, 26, 32 Mazaev, David, 173, 176 Melissino, Ivan Ivanovich, 19–21, 82, 106 Mennonites, 20, 100, 138, 140, 160, 162–164, 167, 188–191, 210, 219 Mokshin, Vasili Feodorovich, 153–155, 158 Molochnaya River, 131, 140 Molokans, 43–44, 70–73, 75, 77–81, 105, 112, 118, 123, 131–141, 154, 157–159, 162, 165, 167– 169, 172, 176, 182, 203, 210 Monastery Ordinance, 22 Moscow, 2, 7–11, 13, 19–20, 22–25, 27–29, 31, 33–34, 36, 39–41, 43, 48–51, 55, 60–61, 68, 70, 72, 80, 83, 88–90, 96–97, 101, 104, 106, 111–112, 115–116, 119, 122–123, 126, 128–130, 138, 140, 155, 171, 173, 175, 177, 181, 183, 196, 202, 204, 219 Moscow Kremlin, 48, 55

J Jehovists, 148–150 John of Kronshtadt, 206–207 Judaizer Molokans, 132 Judaizers, 43, 59, 69–70, 74, 112, 132 Jung-Stilling, 2, 100–101, 103, 121, 156, 190, 219

K Kalinovski, Stefan, 33 Kalmikov, Ilarion, 141 Kalmikov, Peter, 66, 141–142 Kalmikova, Lukeria, 142–144 Kalviet, Martin Karlovich, 173 Kansas, 183–184 Kapustin, Saveli, 63, 141, 164 Karelia Nikolski Monastery, 6, 10, 29–31 Kartashyov, Anton Vasilyevich, 2, 8 Katasonov, Perfil, 124, 153–155 Kerenski, Alexandr, 179 Khlisti, 43, 45, 59, 121, 123, 135, 180 Khovanski, V.A., 87 Khristovshin, 43–61, 82, 112, 118, 121–125, 127– 131, 135, 152–153, 155–159, 186–188, 193, 197, 207, 210 Khristovshin Christ, 47, 49, 52, 59 Khristovshin Ship, 45–46, 48–52, 54–59, 83, 121–125, 127–130, 153, 158

N Napoleon Bonaparte, 100 Nemolyaki, 193, 197 Neplatelshiki, 195–196 Nerchinsk mines, 30, 141 Netovtzi, 39, 41, 210 New Israel, 43, 105, 124, 152–160, 210

222

Index New Testament, 54, 57, 64–66, 71, 101–103, 105, 114, 148, 158, 161–162, 166, 171, 177, 187, 192, 194, 197 Nicene Creed, 91–92 Nikon, 5, 9, 29, 33, 35–36, 40–42, 89, 118, 194 Nil Sorski Hermitage, 207 Non-Priest Group, 35 Novo-Molokani, 138, 175 Novo-Pomorski, 38 Novo-Rossiya, 20, 100–101, 164, 174, 188–189 Novo-Skopchestvo, 129, 131 Novo-Stundists, 169

R Ratushni, Mikhail, 162–164, 166 Razumovski, Aleksei Grigorievich, 13–14 Rogozhski Cemetery, 43 Rudometkin, Maxim Gavrilovich, 135–137 Russian Bible, 98–99, 101–105, 121, 191, 193 Russian Bible Society, The, 98–99, 101–103, 121, 193 Russian Israel, 154 Russian Orthodoxy, 5, 8, 20, 80, 121, 161, 167

S O

Scheetinin, Aleksei Gregorievich, 154 Schlesselburg Fortress, 13, 18, 126 Sechyonov, Dmitri, 14, 22, 88 Selivanov, Kondrati, 57, 98, 121, 124–131 Septuagint, 33, 105, 166 Seraphim of Sarov, 91 Seraphimovshin, 197 Shakhovski, Yacov Petrovich, 14–16, 51 Shilov, Alexandr, 125–126 Shishkov, A.S., 99, 102–103 Siberia, 10–13, 24, 30, 35, 43, 62–63, 68, 72, 99, 124, 126, 131, 133–135, 140–141, 144, 147, 155, 166, 173–174, 177, 207 Skovoroda, Grigori Savvich, 1–2, 83–86, 211– 212 Slavonic Bible, 33–34, 79, 101–102, 193 Sokolov, Lukian Petrovich, 134 Sokolov, Tikhon, 29, 101, 114, 119, 135 Solovetski Monastery, 30, 35, 42, 112, 136, 151, 193, 197, 207 Spasso-Evfimiev, 128, 137, 151 Spiritual Christians, 43, 67, 70, 72–73, 86, 159, 169, 172, 210 St. Petersburg, 2, 7, 10–13, 17, 19, 24, 26, 31, 33, 35–36, 50–51, 55, 63, 83, 88–89, 91, 95, 98– 102, 105, 113, 115, 120–123, 126–127, 131, 136, 147, 149, 151, 155, 161, 171–172, 175–180, 202, 205–206 Stepan Vasilyev, 51 Stolypin, P.A., 147 Stranniki, 39, 108 Strigolniks, 43 Stundists, 43, 105, 118, 138, 159–169, 172–175, 210 Stundo-Molokans, 169 Subbotniki, 69, 132 Suslov, Ivan, 48, 50, 57, 82

Obdorsk, 143 Old Believers, 20, 25, 35–37, 39, 41–42, 46, 91, 105–108, 112, 114, 193, 196–197, 208–209 Oncken, Johann Gerhard, 173 Onischenko, Feodor, 162, 164 Onufri, 39 Optina Pustin, 201, 203

P Pashkov, Vasili Aleksandrovich, 9, 161, 170–174 Pashkovtzi, 161, 170–173 patriarchate, 7, 11, 23, 115 Pavel, 2, 20, 58, 69, 86–88, 90, 106, 109, 126, 163, 188–189, 207–208 Pavski, G.P., 102–105 Pentecostals, 179–180 Peter I, 1, 6–9, 13, 17–20, 22–24, 26, 30, 36, 48, 81, 89, 92, 108, 115, 118, 125–126, 129–130, 204 Peter III Feodorovich, 126, 130 Petrov, Andrei, 51 Pobedonostsev, Konstantin Petrovich, 116–121, 154, 165, 171, 174, 189, 192, 202 Pobirokhin, Ilarion, 44, 60–63, 66, 68, 73, 79, 81–82, 142 Podobedov, Ambrosi, 87–88, 95–96, 98, 102, 113 Popov, Mikhail Akinteevich, 133 Postniki, 152 Potemkin, Grigori Aleksandrovich, 20, 188 Preobrazhenski Cemetery, 40–41, 106 Priest Group, 41 Priguni, 134 Prokhanov, Ivan Stepanovich, 175–181, 210 Prokopovich, Theofan, 5–14, 33, 50 Protasov, N.A., 37, 104, 106–108, 110–116, 122, 131, 133, 135, 141, 208 Provisional Government, 178–179 Pushkin, Adrian, 205

T Tambov, 60–63, 70–73, 77–82, 125–126, 131, 134–135, 142, 152–153, 171, 204, 210 Tatarinova, Ekaterina, 121–122, 127 Theodosians, 38–41, 107, 193

Q Quakers, 61, 66

223

A History of Russian Christianity, Vol. III Verigin, Peter, 142–147 Vilichkovski, Paisei, 89, 204 Voltaire, 18, 23 Voronin, Nikita Isaievich, 173–175 Vosdikhantzi, 195 Vyg Lake, 35–37 Vygovski commune, 36–39 Vykulin, Daniel, 36

Theotokos, 43, 46–53, 56–59, 90, 119, 122–124, 153, 198 Therapontov Monastery, 28–29 Tolstoy, D.A., 171 Tolstoy, Leo N., 118, 144, 146, 182, 184, 193, 198 Tolstoyans, 198, 203 Troitse-Sergievski Monastery, 14, 18, 23, 83, 88–89 Tveritinov, Dmitri, 43, 72

Y

U

Yakovlev, A.A., 95–96 Yanovski, Theodosei, 5–6, 11, 29 Yavorski, Stefan, 7, 33 Yesseyevich, David, 137 Yurievski Monastery, 7, 207 Yushkevich, Ambrosi, 9, 12, 14, 24

Uklein, Semeon, 44, 63, 70, 72–74, 77–78, 81– 82, 131–134, 137–139 Uspenski Cathedral, 205 Uspenski, Porfiri, 112

V Vadkovski, Antoni, 202

224