Tag: iconoclasm

The Novgorod Doukhobor Elder, 1796

by Alexander Ivanovich Herzen

At the end of the 18th century, the Doukhobors were subjected to savage oppression by the highest levels of the Russian autocracy. In his autobiography, Russian writer and thinker Alexander Ivanovich Herzen (1812-1870) relates the story of a Novogorod Doukhobor elder who in 1796, when summoned before the soon to be crowned Tsar Paul (1754-1801), refused to doff his cap. For his impertinence, the insecure and unstable Tsar had the unfortunate Doukhobor immediately exiled and imprisoned.  The story illustrates both the the position of official notoriety achieved by the Doukhobors at this time, and the extent of their deep-seated belief in the equality of all men. Reproduced from “My past and thoughts; the memoirs of Alexander Herzen”, Constance Garnett (trans.) (New York: Knopf, 1968).

In Novgorod Province there were in the reign of Catherine a great many Doukhobors. Their leader, the old head of the posting drivers (yamshchiki or “coachmen” – ed.), in Zaitsevo, I think it was, enjoyed enormous respect. When Paul was on his way to Moscow to be crowned he ordered the old man to be summoned, probably with the object of converting him.

Portrait of Russian Emperor Paul I by Stepan Shchukin

The Doukhobors, like the Quakers, do not take off their caps and the grey-headed old man went up to the Emperor of Gatchina (suburb of St. Petersburg where Paul resided – ed.) with his head covered.

This was more than the Tsar could bear. A petty, touchy readiness to take offence is a particularly striking characteristic of Paul, and of all his sons except Alexander; having savage power in their hands, they have not even the wild beast’s consciousness of strength which keeps the big dog from attacking the little one.

“Before whom are you standing in your cap?” shouted Paul, breathing hard, with all the marks of frenzied rage: “Do you know me?”

“I do,” answered the schismatic calmly; “you are Pavel Petrovich.”

“Put him in chains! To penal servitude with him! To the mines!” the knightly Paul continued.

The old man was seized and the Tsar ordered the village to be set fire to on four sides and the inhabitants to be sent to live in Siberia. At the next stopping-place one of the Tsar’s intimates threw himself at his feed and said that he had ventured to delay the carrying out of His Majesty’s will, and was waiting for him to repeat it.

Paul, now somewhat sobered, perceived that setting fire to villages and sending men to the mines without a trial was a strange way of recommending himself to the people. He commanded the Synod to investigate the peasants’ case and ordered the old man to be incarcerated for life in the Spaso-Efimevsky Monastery.

The Spaso-Efimevsky Monastery, Vladimir-Suzdal, Russia.

He thought that the Orthodox monks would torment him worse than penal servitude; but he forgot that our monks are not merely good Orthodox Christians but also men who are very fond of money and vodka; and the schismatics (generic term applied to sectarians such as Doukhobors – ed.) drink no vodka and are not sparing of their money.

The old man acquired among the Doukhobors the reputation of a saint. They came from the ends of Russia to do homage to him, and paid with gold for admission to see him. The old man sat in his cell, dressed all in white, and his friends draped the walls and the ceiling with linen.

Portrait of Alexander Herzen by Nikolai Gay.

After his death they obtained permission to bury his body with his kindred and solemnly carried him upon their shoulders from Vladimir to the province of Novgorod. Only the Doukhobors know where he his buried. They are persuaded that he had the gift of working miracles in his lifetime and that his body is incorruptible.

I heard all this partly from the governor of Vladimir, I.E. Kuruta, partly from the post-drivers at Novgorod, and partly from a church-attendant in the Spaso-Efimevsky Monastery.

Now there are no more political prisoners in this monastery, although the prison is full of various priests and ecclesiastics, disobedient sons of whom their parents have complained, and so on. The archimandrite, a tall, broad-shouldered man in a fur cap, showed us the prison-yard. When he went in, a non-commissioned officer with a rifle went up to him and reported: “I have the honour to report to your Reference that all is well in the prison and that there are so many prisoners.” The archimandrite in answer gave him his blessing – what a mix-up!

The business about the schismatics was of such a kind that it was much best not to stir them up again. I looked through the documents referring to them and left them in peace.

Categories
Historical Stories and Articles

Travels to the Dukhobortsy Living on the Molochnaya River, 1818

by Ebenezer Henderson

Ebenezer Henderson (1784-1858) was a Scottish linguist, Biblical scholar and missionary who travelled extensively in Scandinavia and Russia from 1806 to 1832 on behalf of the British and Foreign Bible Society. In 1818, he travelled to the Dukhobortsy living on the Molochnaya River. He kept a journal and recorded his impressions of his visit. The following account is reproduced from his published memoirs, “Biblical Researchers and Travels in Russia: Including a Tour in the Crimea and the Passage of the Caucasus (London: James Nisbet, 1826). While brief, it is one of the earliest Western accounts of the Doukhobor colony on the Molochnaya and provides rare historic insights about their way of life and beliefs. Afterword by Jonathan J. Kalmakoff.

…The following day, we skirted the Moloshnaia [Molochnaya], in all probability Gerrhus, the seventh of the principal streams specified by Herodotus, and that which formed the boundary between the nomadic and royal Scythians. As has already been observed of most of the Russian rivers in these parts, its western bank is the higher, and exhibits, in some places, a free-stone projecting through the mould.

We also passed a remarkable assemblage of rocks in a valley [probably Kamennaya Mogila, a Scythian stone monument near the village of Terpeniye], standing quite isolated, but evidently connected with others which we could descry in the high bank at no great distance. The Moloshnaia flows in a southerly direction, and empties itself into a liman [estuary] connected with the sea [of Azov].

The right bank of this river is inhabited by the Duchobortzi [Dukhobortsy], a sect of Russian Dissenters; and the left, by the Mennonites. The former of these people eight villages, to which are attached 37,114 desiatines [an Imperial Russian unit of land equal to 1.0925 hectares] of land, independently of an island called the Isle of Wolves [Biryuchiy Ostrov] which makes about 1,000 desiatines more, and affords excellent pasturage for their cattle in winter.

Their number, in 1818, amounted to 1,153 souls [adult males]. We spent a few hours at one of their villages, and endeavoured to elicit some information relative to their peculiar sentiments and practices, but found them uncommonly close, and evidently influenced by a suspicion that we had some design against them.

They have been called the Russian Quakers; and much as the enlightened members of the Society of Friends would find to object to among this people, as opposed to their views of divine truth, it cannot be denied that many points of resemblance exist between them. Their name, Wrestlers with the Spirit, indicates the strong bearing their system has on mystic exercises, in which they place the whole of religion, to the exclusion of all external rites and ceremonies.

All their knowledge is traditionary [oral tradition-based]. On our urging upon them the importance of being well supplied with the Scriptures, they told us we were much mistaken if we imagined they had not the Bible among them – they had it in their hearts: the light thus imparted was sufficient, and they needed nothing more.

Everything with them is spiritual. They speak indeed of Christ, and his death; but they explain both his person and sufferings mystically, and build entirely upon a different foundation than the atonement.

They make no distinction of [Orthodox feast] days and meats; and marriage, so far from being a sacrament with them, as in the Greek [Orthodox] Church, is scarcely viewed as a civil rite, and it not infrequently happens, that proofs are given of a connection between the parties previous to any announcement of their mutual determination to marry. 



View Tavria Doukhobor Villages, 1802-1845 in a larger map

Afterword

Between 1818, Ebenezer Henderson travelled throughout Russia with the Rev. John Patterson in the service of the British and Foreign Bible Society, a non-denominational Christian charity formed in England in 1804 for the purpose of making affordable, vernacular translations of the Bible available throughout the world. Through their efforts and ministry, thousands of Russian language Bibles were distributed to the peasantry. It was under these auspices that Henderson, accompanied by a cargo of Bibles, travelled to Tavria to visit the Dukhobortsy living on the Molochnaya River in 1818.

Henderson found a Doukhobor population of 1,153 adult males settled in eight villages (he erred as there were nine Doukhobor villages on the Molochnaya in 1818) along the right bank of the Molochnaya River. Their landholdings totalled 37,114 desiatinina, along with an additional 1,000 desiatina of land on the island of Biryuchiy Ostrov in the Sea of Azov. Henderson is one of the very few Western writers to reference the island among the Doukhobor landholdings.

Henderson spent a few hours in an unnamed Doukhobor village, where he “endeavoured to elicit some information relative to their peculiar sentiments and practices”. In response to his enquiries, he found the Doukhobors “uncommonly close, and evidently influenced by a suspicion that we had some design against them”.  What Henderson and Patterson did not take sufficiently into account, however, was the intensity of persecution that had made the Doukhobors evolve evasion as a means of dealing with authorities or with passing strangers.

Henderson observed that “many points of resemblance” exist between these so-called “Russian Quakers” and the Society of Friends in England, not the least of which was the exclusion of all external rites and ceremonies. They observed none of the Orthodox feast days and holidays. Unlike the Russian Orthodox, the Doukhobors did not view marriage as a religious sacrament but as a civil rite only. 

When Henderson urged upon the Doukhobors the importance of being well supplied with the Scriptures – the ostensible reason for his visit – he was advised that he was “much mistaken if we imagined they had not the Bible among them – they had it in their hearts”. This was a reference to the Doukhobors’ Zhivotnaya Kniga (“Living Book”), an orally-transmitted collection of religious psalms and precepts. The Doukhobors informed Henderson that the light imparted from thus was sufficient, and they needed nothing more. 

Consequently, Henderson’s main objective of distributing Bibles among the Doukhobors proved unsuccessful, and the Scottish missionary left the Molochnaya disappointed, having failed to dispense a single Bible to the Doukhobors.

To read more, search, download, save and print a full PDF copy of “Biblical Researchers and Travels in Russia: Including a Tour in the Crimea and the Passage of the Caucasus”  by Ebenezer Henderson (London: James Nisbet, 1826), visit the Google Book Search digital database.

Categories
Historical Stories and Articles

Visit to the Dukhobortsy Exiled in Finland, 1815

Passages by Robert Pinkerton and John Paterson

In 1815, two Scottish agents of the British and Foreign Bible Society, Robert Pinkerton and John Paterson, visited a group of Dukhobortsy exiles living in the Vyborg district of Finland. They recorded their impressions through a series of letters to friends and associates. The following accounts are reproduced from Pinkerton’s October 13, 1815 letter to Richard Phillips from St. Petersburg (Society of Friends Library, London, England) and Patterson’s September 28, 1815 letter published in “The Christian Herald” (Volume 1, John E. Caldwell, 1816) as well as his letter to Richard Phillips from St. Petersburg of October 12-24, 1815 (Society of Friends Library, London England). Taken together, they form one of the few surviving accounts of the Dukhobortsy in Finland, their history and beliefs, the circumstances of their exile, and the efforts taken by the missionaries, both openly and covertly, to assist them and ease their sufferings. Foreword and afterword by Jonathan J. Kalmakoff. 

Foreword

Between 1812 and 1822, Scottish missionaries Robert Pinkerton (1780-1859) and John Paterson (1776–1855) travelled extensively throughout Russia in the service of the British and Foreign Bible Society, a non-denominational Christian charity formed in England in 1804 for the purpose of making affordable, vernacular translations of the Bible available throughout the world. Through their tireless efforts, supported by the liberal-minded Tsar Alexander I, the Russian Bible Society was formed in St. Petersburg in 1812-1813. In the years that followed, Pinkerton and Paterson assisted in the formation of dozens of local branches of the Russian Bible Society, through which thousands of Russian language Bibles were distributed to the peasantry.

It was under these auspices that Pinkerton and Patterson, accompanied by a cargo of Bibles, travelled northwest of St. Petersburg along the Gulf of Finland to Vyborg in September of 1815.  The missionaries then visited a “famous waterfall” forty miles north of Vyborg.  Although not mentioned by name, this was almost certainly the Imatra Waterfall, located on the Vuoksijoki River between Lake Saimaa and Lake Ladoga; a prime tourist attraction in 19th century Finland.  There, they found a colony of Doukhobors who had been living in exile for several years. They recorded the following accounts of their visit. 

The Imatra Waterfall in Finland 1819 by Fedor Mikhailovich Matveev

Robert Pinkerton’s Account

St. Petersburg, 13th October, 1815.

We went forty miles to the north of Wiborg [sic, Vyborg] to see a famous waterfall, and then fell in with a colony of Duhubortsi [sic, Dukhobortsy], from the Cossack country, consisting of about ninety persons. From all we could learn concerning them they are truly a pious, intelligent people, well reported by all around them.

We had a long conversation with one of them, who himself could not read, but who has a more intimate acquaintance with the Scriptures than many I have met with. He answered all our questions in the language of Scripture, and explained some texts to us in a manner which would have done honour to an Oxford or Cambridge divine.

These poor, forgotten people had not a Bible among them – their persecutors had taken these away from them – nor indeed a book of any kind, although some of them could read. We furnished them with some [Bibles]. I most heartily wish you had seen how his countenance brightened when we told him of the Bible Society and what has been done for the extended promotion of the Redeemer’s kingdom. He could not believe for joy and wonder. ‘No person,’ said he, ‘has ever told us of these things before.’

John Paterson’s Accounts

St. Petersburg, 28th September, 1815.

In a short tour from Petersburgh [sic, St. Petersburg], we fell in with a Colony of Cossacks, consisting of about ninety persons, who are in these quarters for the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ. They belong originally to the Don, and are of the sect of Duhabertzy [sic, Dukhobortsy], of whom you will find some particulars in Pinkerton’s Greek Church. Since they came to Finland, they have had no books among them, not even a single copy of the Scriptures. We had a long conversation with one of them, who could not read, and yet he answered all our questions in the language of Scripture.

We asked if they had any priests among them? He answered, ‘Yes, we have a Great High Priest, who is holy, harmless, &c.’ Have you baptism? ‘We are baptised with the Holy Ghost and with fire.’ Have you Communion? ‘We have communion with the Lord Jesus daily.’ Have you churches? ‘I hope you do not think that churches are built of wood and stone; wherever two or three are met together in Christ’s name, there he has promised to be with them; and there, is a Church of Christ. We have now conversed about God for more than an hour, and are of one heart and one soul, we are a church when you will. With the so called churches we can have nothing to do, as they admit drunkards, &c. &c.; but a Church of Christ is holy, and all its members must be so too. You will find no such people among us.’

What is your opinion of the new birth?, reading to him the passage in John III. ‘We are born the first time when we are born of our mother, but the second time when our hearts are changed by the word and spirit of God, when we are led to hate what we Ioved, and love what we hated formerly, when we give over living in sin; not that we are perfect in this world, but we have no pleasure in sin as before.’  What do you think is meant by being born of water and of the spirit? ‘By water is not meant baptism, but the word of God; for we are born of the incorruptible seed of the word which liveth and abideth for ever; and as it is the Spirit by whose operation this is effected, so we are said to be born of the Spirit; that which is born of the flesh is flesh; so you see we are not Christians or born again as we come into the world, we do not inherit it from our parents.’

But seeing you cannot read, how came you to know all this? ‘I wonder you ask such a question. Has not Jesus promised to be with his people always, to the end of the world; and has he not promised to give them his Spirit to teach them all things? He has said, when you are brought before governors and kings for my sake, take no thought how or what you shall speak, for it shall be given you in the same hour what you shall speak; now I believe the promise. I have often been called to answer for my religion, and I have always found Jesus true to his word. And there now, when called to come before you, I prayed God to fulfil this promise to me, and he has done it. You see I speak freely, and you seem satisfied with me. You are the first we have ever met with in this place who understood us. You must be taught by the same spirit.’

Can any among you read? ‘There are some among us who can read; but you seem to lay much stress on reading and being learned; Jesus Christ had no other learning than his parents taught him, and the apostles were unlearned men. It is enough if we are taught of the Spirit.’  We asked him if he crossed himself before these pictures? He replied, ‘That we cannot do; you know the commandments;’ and here he repeated the first and second.

Are you obedient to the laws? ‘As far as they do not interfere with our religion or our faith. We have sworn allegiance to our Emperor, and we serve in the army.’  You are called Duhabertzy? ‘Our gracious Emperor has been pleased to call us so, and we submit. We call ourselves true Christians; we are the same as from the beginning.’  Are there many on the Don of your way of thinking. ‘Oh yes, many thousands; but they are afraid to show themselves, or to avow their opinions. ‘Have you been persecuted? ‘If any man will live godly in Christ Jesus, he must suffer persecution.’

We then related to him what was going on in the religious world, and made him acquainted with the Bible Society. I wish you had been present while we related these things to him. He seemed to awaken as out of a dream: a heavenly joy beamed from his countenance, which melted our hearts. At last he exclaimed, ‘Now he is near. We have long been expecting him to come, and long been convinced it could not be far distant, but never believed that such preparations were making for his coming. No person has ever told us of these things. I will go home to my church, and relate to them all these glorious things. How will my brethren rejoice when they hear them.’

We gave him a Russian Testament, and some of our Society’s publications to carry home with him to his brethren, as he always called them. It seems they have all things common, or nearly so. Their conduct is most exemplary: they have a good report of all men, even of their enemies.

St. Petersburg, 12-24 October, 1815.

Perhaps friend Owen has informed you that I lately had an interview with some Duhobortsy [sic, Dukhobortsy] in whose situation I feel deeply interested. They belong originally to the country of the Cosacks [sic, Cossacks] on the Don.

The history they gave of themselves is very affecting and interesting. They say that there were three brothers who from their youth directed themselves to the meaning of the Scriptures by which means they obtained more light than their neighbours, and were convinced that some of the practices of the Greek church were not scriptural.

In one ward they went so far as to refuse to cross themselves before the images of the Saints, they refused to join in the sacraments and even denyed [sic] that the Greek church was a church of Christ or that her Priests were Christian pastors, together with many other principles they held and endeavoured to propagate brought them under the notice of the Powers that be.

They were represented as being disobedient to government and on this account were banished from their homes to distant provinces of the Empire. There they remained many years and their party seemed to have languished and almost died out.

At length they were allowed to return to their homes. They immediately began to spread their sentiments: their disciples increased rapidly. In a few years after their return, they died in peace; but as these edified themselves with whom we speke [sic], their party were convinced that they ought not to remain silent. They therefore propagated their opinions and again became obnoxious to government. About 100 of the ringleaders were sent to the government of Wiborg [sic] among the Finns who could neither speak with them nor understand them and where of course they could not propagate their opinions.

They were distributed among the poor peasants and at first were not allowed to move from the place of their abode to seek a livelihood in any way. All their religious books were taken from them and even the Bible so that they were entirely without books when we found them. Even their children were taken away from them that they might be educated in the true faith. In this state of distress they were kept for several years, but for some years past they have been better treated.

They are now permitted to seek employment where they can and to support themselves by the sweat of their brows. Their children are no more torn from them, so that they are now much better off. They have otherwise been subjected to many hardships. Still they are far from being comfortable. They wish to be permitted to return to their old homes again and the late Governor of Wiborg had taken in hand to procure this liberty for them; but he died before their petition could be presented.

You may have assured we will do every thing in our power for them as soon as the great and good Alexander returns, and we are convinced that we shall succeed if not in obtaining permission for them to return to the Don, at least to join their brethren in the Crimea.

They have an excellent character among the people where they now sojourn. We have already taken preliminary steps and made arrangements for hastening the business; but we are obliged to act with the greatest caution and must not appear in this affair. They are ill misrepresented to Government, perhaps owing in many instances to their own obstinacy, and their enmity to the church creates them enemies in their quarter.

What I have in mind in stating these things to you is to request that you will endeavour to do something for them. There are upwards of 90 of them and some of them very old, one 90 years of age. They have no heads among them and only two or three who can read: a little pecuniary support would have the utmost advantage to these poor people. And if we should get them permission to return, think how much they will require for such a long journey and to set them up again in the world.

Now I know thee friend, that thou art famous for managing an affair of this kind whence prudence is requisite. Nothing must be said publicly on the subject, all must be done among the Friends in private, and silence must be enjoined on all parties. Our names must never be mentioned and in case of help in your applications you must write me and only say you can draw on friend Redman for example for so much money to be applied as mentioned in your letter of such a date; but not a word must be said of the Duhobortsy.

Consider the situation in which we stand and you will see the propriety of all this. We will never appear in the business, we have friends amongst who will manage it better than we can. None will know whence the help comes, not even those who receive it. It must be literally Let not the right hand know what the left hand doeth. I am obliged to write in a hurry. I am sure thou does not forget they old friend. Salute thy partner and daughter from thy sincere friend.

Afterword

At the Imatra Waterfall, Pinkerton and Paterson found a colony of ninety Don Cossack Doukhobors who had been living in exile there since 1806-1807. Historical records indicate that these included the Lazarev, Markin, Abrosimov, Nazarov, Semenov and Chuval’deev families, among others.

When the Doukhobors first arrived at Imatra, they were distributed among the poor Finnish peasants, who could neither speak with them nor understand them. They were not allowed to move from their assigned places of exile nor seek a livelihood in any way. They were subjected to many hardships; their children were taken away and their religious books were confiscated.

In time, thanks to the benevolence of Tsar Alexander I, the families were reunited again and the exiles were permitted to seek employment where they could and support themselves. They formed a colony and lived communally, holding all things in common. However, they were still far from comfortable and wished to be allowed to return to their old homes on the Don River.

Pinkerton and Paterson learned that the Doukhobor philosophy originated among the Don Cossacks generations earlier, and was first taught by three brothers who from their youth ‘directed themselves to the meaning of the Scriptures’ by which means they ‘obtained more light than their neighbours’ and became convinced that the practices of the Orthodox Church ‘were not scriptural’. Their disciples increased rapidly, and many Don Cossack Doukhobors were cruelly persecuted and exiled to distant parts of the Empire for their faith.

The Scottish missionaries had a long conversation with one of the Doukhobor exiles who explained the basic tenets of their beliefs: that the spirit of God could be found in the soul of every man; worship of God in spirit and truth; and the rejection of all external rites, sacraments, dogma and ecclesiastic hierarchy and authority. While illiterate, the exile had ‘a more intimate acquaintance with the Scriptures than many they had met with’ and ‘explained some texts to us in a manner which would have done honour to an Oxford or Cambridge divine.’

Unlike their brethren on the Molochnaya, who were now living in a completely Doukhobor setting under the dynamic influence of their leader Kapustin and the exclusivist doctrines embodied in his psalms, the Doukhobor exiles in Finland did not possess the fully-developed version of the Living Book and still maintained the earlier Doukhobor tendency to follow the Bible as well as their own oral traditions. Accordingly, while only ‘one or two’ of them could read, they were most thankful to receive copies of the Russian Testament and publications from the Russian Bible Society.

Shortly after Pinkerton and Paterson’s visit, the Doukhobor exiles in Finland submitted the following letter to the Russian Bible Society (Elkinton, Joseph The Doukhobors, Their History in Russia, Their Migration to Canada (New York: Ferris & Leach, 1903), p. 267-268):

“We, the under-named, make known that we have received the most precious and divine gift of seven copies of the Holy Scriptures from the Bible Society, according to our desire. We account it our duty to return thanks to God for His unsearchable mercy and condescension to us in having put it into the hearts of the members of the Society thus to strengthen mankind against sin. We present our ardent petition to the Society, that they would unite with us in thanksgiving to the Almighty God, who has bestowed upon them the spirit of Light and Wisdom and Grace, to lead us by the right knowledge of Himself, from the path of ignorance into the way of truth and salvation. We offer up in our prayers in union with you for the life of our great monarch, Alexander, and for his brethren and the allies. May they who love his life live as pillars of the world, and may their days be as the days of heaven, because they are called to do the work of God. May the Lord of Hosts help them, and preserve them from all their enemies, that righteousness and peace may abound in their days, and may the Lord number them among His elect forever and ever. Along with this we send each of us, the under-named, according to our promise, two rubles in aid of the Bible Society, in all twenty rubles from nine peasants.”

The Scottish missionaries, in turn, were deeply moved by their meeting with the Doukhobor exiles. John Paterson, in particular, endeavored to ease their sufferings and to obtain permission for them to either return to the Don or else join their brethren on the Molochnaya. To this end, he wrote Richard Phillips, a prominent London member of the Society of Friends (Quakers) to request financial aid for the Doukhobor exiles in Finland. It is probable that Paterson also lobbied Tsar Alexander I to release the Doukhobors from exile. However, he took great pains to conceal these efforts, so as not to damage the reputation and standing of the British and Foreign Bible Society in Russia as a neutral, non-denominational organization.

Two years after Pinkerton and Paterson’s visit to Finland, in 1817, the Don Cossack Doukhobors were released from exile and allowed to join their brethren on the Molochnaya. Unbeknownst to even the Doukhobors themselves, it seems that the British and Foreign Bible Society, together with the Society of Friends in England, played a direct, albeit clandestine, role in securing their liberation and in financing their relocation.

Note: for a detailed account of Robert Pinkerton’s subsequent visit to the Molochnaya Doukhobors in 1816, see A Visit to the Dukhobortsy on the Sea of Azov.

Categories
Historical Stories and Articles

Doukhobor Interfaith Relations in South Ukraine, Late 18th and Early 19th Century

by Anastasia Buchnaya

While residing in Tavria in the early nineteenth century, the Doukhobors invariably came in contact with members of other religious creeds, notably Orthodox, Mennonites, Molokans and Muslims. In this Doukhobor Genealogy Website exclusive, Anastasia Buchnaya, a Postgraduate of the State University of Zaporozhia in Ukraine, explores the influence of inter-creed relations on the belief system and socioeconomic life of the Doukhobors, based on archival records from the State Archives of Crimea and other Russian and Ukrainian language sources. Translated from the original Ukrainian by Yana Sermyakova with further translation and editing by Jonathan J. Kalmakoff. Published by permission.

One of the peculiarities of the south of Ukraine in the second half of the 18th century through the first half of the 19th century was the closer coexistence of different ethnic groups and religious creeds than in other parts of the country. This was primarily due to the historical conditions under which colonization of the country was taking place. The south of Ukraine became the centre for the emergence and dissemination of a variety of Christian sects, prominent among which was the Doukhobor sect which arose in the second half of the 18th century and gradually spread.

The coexistence of the Doukhobors with representatives of other religious creeds had an influence not only upon some aspects of their material life but also upon their religious doctrine.

According to the opinion of Orest Novitsky, an early researcher of Doukhoborism, the existence of Quaker elements in the Doukhobor belief system is explained by the fact that the first teacher of the sect was a Prussian corporal. Originating from Orthodox Christianity, under the influence of contacts with Anabaptists, the Doukhobor sect absorbed the features of this movement.

Studying the origins of Doukhoborism, 19th century researchers adhered to the view that the teachings had mainly spread amongst peasants of Russian origin, however, the fact that there exists a considerable quantity of Ukrainian surnames among the Doukhobors points to the propagation of the belief system among Ukrainian inhabitants, primarily among the Cossacks. The government of Catherine the Great, when it attempted to discover the source of Doukhoborism, came to the conclusion that the centres for the dispersion of this teaching were Zaporozhian Cossack villages. As the historian Nikolsky contended, this became one of the forms of protest against the persecution of the Cossacks by Catherine the Great. Further to this, modern research suggests that Cossacks introduced elements of their own ideology when joining the Doukhobor sect.

Beginning in the second half of the 18th century, Doukhobor teachings began to spread in the central and southern regions of Ukraine. The number of followers of the sect was rapidly increasing, a fact which could not but bother the government. The persecution of Doukhobors for resistance to the government and divergence from the state religion began in the times of Catherine the Great, whose practice was to evict them to Siberia. It is worth noting, however, that it was exactly in the time of Catherine the Great that the laws relating to punishment of religious dissidents were relaxed. A series of edicts during this period were directed to calming relations between representatives of different creeds. Religious intolerance was censured, foment of religious hostility was prohibited, and heresy was to be treated as nothing more than a civil affair, since ‘persecution stirs the mind’.

Nevertheless, at the end of the 18th through the beginning of the 19th century, wherever Doukhobors lived, in addition to persecution from officials and clergy, they also faced negative treatment from the Orthodox population. Local officials often received complaints from Doukhobors relating to the fact that wherever they lived together with Orthodox peasants, the Doukhobors were frequently harassed, forced to pay crippling taxes and recruited into the army out of turn. The Imperial Senator Lopukhin, in his report about the life of Slobodsk-Ukrainian Doukhobors, confirmed these conditions, emphasizing that the “settlers are intolerant of them, the same of which can be said of the rest of the inhabitants”. It cannot be determined whether the Doukhobors’ own behavior resulted in conflict with their neighbours; however, given their teachings about the equality of all people in the face of God, it can be assumed that they were inclined toward peaceful coexistence with representatives of other creeds. On the other hand, the Doukhobors considered themselves the “sons of Abel” wrestling against the “sons of Cain”, a synonym for all other people. Such an attitude of opposing other inhabitants within their own communities could have brought about their negative treatment by Orthodox peasants. Such attitudes towards the Doukhobors may also be explained by the fact that Doukhobor teachings, especially during the ascendancy of the sect, were largely embraced by free landowning peasants – the most independent and economically successful of the peasantry.

Eventually, persecution from government and local officials led to the poverty and ruin of many Doukhobors. The Doukhobors’ unbearable living conditions drew the attention of Tsar Alexander I, whose rule proved to be the most comfortable period for the Doukhobors. The primary thrust of Alexander’s policy towards the Doukhobors was their separation from the rest of the Orthodox population as a means of “containing their heresy and preventing their influence on others” as well as protecting them from persecution. To this end, by Imperial Decree No. 20 123, on January 25, 1802, Doukhobors were resettled to Tavria province along the Molochnaya River. At the beginning of the 19th century, these lands were thinly populated; therefore the founding of Doukhobor settlements was deemed favorable for the development of the region and would also lessen the sectarians’ contact with the Orthodox population.

Among the Doukhobors’ neighbours in Tavria were the Mennonites, religious nonconformists who, fleeing persecution in Holland and Germany, settled in the south of Ukraine.

It is entirely possible that the Anabaptist elements in the Doukhobor belief system took shape as a result of long-term relations with the Mennonites. In Novitsky’s opinion, however, the influence of Anabaptist beliefs began long before the Doukhobors’ sojourn with the Mennonites on the Molochnaya. In the 18th century, captive Prussian soldiers had brought these elements of Protestantism to Tambov province, a centre of early Doukhoborism. In this way, the resemblance of the doctrines of the Doukhobors and Mennonites is demonstrated by the denial of baptizing children, prayer ritual, and wedding and burial ceremony. The traditions of a communal economy, common property and aversion to secular and ecclesiastic authorities were common as well.

In 1804, the Mennonites, alongside other German immigrants of Catholic and Lutheran faith, established settlements in the Melitopol district on both banks of the Molochnaya River, close to the settlements of the Doukhobors.

In their homeland, the Mennonites had been principally engaged in farming, and with their resettlement to the south of Ukraine, they brought progressive farming practices which resulted in their colonies becoming the most rich and advanced.

The Doukhobors eagerly adopted the advanced expertise of their neighbours in farming, gardening and cattle breeding, whereas most other settlers were indifferent to such experience. The Doukhobors of Melitopol also took up some of the niceties of the Mennonites’ lifestyle, incorporated German elements in their clothing and began to build their houses in the German style.

From time to time, the Mennonites stepped forward as mediators between the Doukhobors and local authorities, delivering petitions from the people of the Doukhobor settlements and standing as witnesses during court investigations.

At the beginning of the 19th century, the Tsarist government, having no detailed descriptions of the Doukhobor and Molokan belief systems, frequently misidentified the two religious groups. This fact significantly complicates the study of Doukhobor history, as in many official reports, bulletins and other documents, the two groups were often confused. In actuality, while the two beliefs shared similarities in their outward expression, they were diametrically opposed to each other in basic principles, such as their attitude towards the Holy Bible, which was highly respected by the Molokans, whereas among the Doukhobors, spiritual insight was considered the source of religious truth. The historical development of the Molokans and Doukhobors is closely connected. It is significant that one of the first Molokan teachers, Semyon Uklein, was the son-in-law of the Doukhobor leader Ilarion Pobirokhin, a fact which leads researchers to regard the Molokans as an offshoot of the Doukhobor sect.

Nevertheless, frequently while living together, the sectarians of these different creeds occasionally quarreled over religious matters. The representatives of both sects kept a vigilant watch on not being confused with the other. When in 1804 through 1804, the Molokans were resettled on the banks of the Molochnaya River, the government having considered them to be Doukhobors, the latter refused to incorporate them into their community. In addition the Molokans’ settlements were situated close to those of the Mennonites.

During the coexistence of the Doukhobor and Molokan settlements along the Molochnaya River, there were cases where Molokans departed from their religious beliefs and joined the Doukhobors. This is supported by archival records about the Molokans of Novo-Vasilyevka village, who claimed to be Doukhobors. On May 6, 1831, a report from the Melitopol regional court was filed with the Tavria official expedition, according to which twelve Molokans and their families professed the Doukhobor religion and requested to join the Doukhobor villages of Rodionovka and Tambovka. The Molokan community of Novo-Vasilyevka did not mind their conversion and the Doukhobors were eager to accept them. It was accepted that these people could no longer stay at their present place of residence because of differences in belief, and a portion of them, to avoid reproaches from the Molokans, had already moved out to the aforementioned Doukhobor villages. The list of persons who claimed themselves to be Doukhobors is given in two records – a nominal list and a list of recruits in four sections. In the latter list, it is evident that the family of Vasily Zhmaev, a resident of Novo-Vasilyevka village, was on the recruit roll under the second row. Based on the Recruit Regulations issued in 1831, families whose members were on the recruit roll in the first two rolls couldn’t be resettled until they had served their time. The fact that other Molokan families were allowed to join the Doukhobors was confirmed on October 4, 1833 by the Minister of Internal Affairs’ letter to the Governor of Tavria.

In 1807, the Nogai tribes of the Bucak horde, who professed Islam, migrated to the Molochnaya River. Orest Novitsky recounts that there were many conflicts between the Doukhobors and the Nogai concerning land ownership: while enlarging their farmlands the Doukhobors seized a portion of their neighbors’ pastures. In response, the Nogai complained to local officials, but “the quick-witted and largely affluent Doukhobors, through lies and false arguments and quite possible using bribes, managed to absorb the disputed lands into their landholdings, thus the Tatars, numbering 600 people, having lost the pastures necessary for their herds, had to resettle to the banks of the Danube”. Unfortunately, the author omits references as the sources used; therefore it is difficult to confirm the reliability of this information. However, it can be assumed that quarrels over land could arise between landlords and communities, regardless of religion.

It is interesting to note that the Doukhobors frequently hired the Nogai as workers. The government didn’t object to such contracts between the Doukhobors and Muslims, as their conversion to the sect was not prohibited. In accordance with the Imperial Decree No. 15543 of February 8, 1834, the Doukhobors of Tavria province were permitted to accept Muslims into their communities after paying all taxes and duties, and to hire them to perform military service on their behalf. For this reason, the Doukhobors of Tavria and other provinces actively exercised this right. As a result, by Imperial Decree of May 8, 1839, this option was cancelled.

We have already highlighted the Doukhobors’ ambiguous relationship with the Orthodox prior to their resettlement to the Molochnaya River. Although the Doukhobor resettlement was carried out in order to insulate them from the Orthodox and to settle the region, such contacts could not be avoided. The historian A. Skalkovsky has pointed out that while the Doukhobors lived in isolation from others “except for the Mennonites and Nogai, there were no complaints or denunciations against them. However, with the establishment of Russian settlements near Nogaisk and the newly established port of Berdiansk, the Doukhobors had to face rivals and covetous people”. Once again, the Doukhobors’ land ownership was a matter of dispute. Hence, one man, Efimenko, proposed that the Administration of State Property should confiscate the farmlands which the Doukhobors obtained during their resettlement to the Molochnaya River (15 desatnias per person). This man proposed to purchase the Doukhobor land for 20 kopeks per desiatnia, and to sell it for 60 kopeks (he later increased the proposed price to one ruble per desiatnia). However, his proposal was rejected, which resulted in many denunciations against the Doukhobors.

It should be noted that at the time of Alexander I, practicing the Doukhobor faith was not considered a crime; however, proselytizing among the Orthodox was punishable by law. On account of cases of Orthodox conversion to Doukhoborism in the Melitopol region during the first quarter of the 19th century, the government vigilantly monitored for Doukhobor proselytization. Revealing in this regard is the 1816 archival case, “On the settlers Mikita Yashchenko and Gordei Oborovsky, and others who converted to the Doukhobor sect, as well as the Doukhobor teacher Savely Kapustin’s proselytization among the Orthodox”. The case contains a letter of July 25, 1815, in which Iov, the Archbishop of Ekaterinoslav, informs A.M. Borozdin, the Governor of Tavria, that the priests of the Pokrov Church in Orekhov had notified him about Savely Kapustin’s propagation of the Doukhobor faith amongst the Orthodox population of the Melitopol region. The priests, in turn, received their information from their parishioners, Arkhip Baev and Ivan Bazilevsky, who had converted from the Doukhobor faith to Orthodoxy. In the course of investigation, it turned out that these reprobates had converted to Orthodoxy only to escape their recruitment call, and the guilt of the 73 year-old Kapustin, who had been imprisoned, was not established. The Doukhobors themselves, in a petition to the Emperor, described this case among many others.

Accordingly, when Langeron, the military governor of Kherson, devised a proposal for the resettlement of the Doukhobors from Tavria because of the threat of the further spread of their teachings among others, the Emperor issued a Decree No. 26550 of December 9, 1816, stating that “Over several years, the Government did not receive any complaints or accusations of disorders” caused by the Doukhobors, therefore “we should be thinking not about the resettlement of these people, but rather of protecting them from persecution. Thus Alexander I acknowledged the fact that the Doukhobors were still persecuted by the Orthodox population and officials.

Still, there existed another basis of relations between the Doukhobors and Orthodox. Occasionally the Orthodox, while employed for work, lived in the Doukhobor communities; as well, Doukhobors could be employed in the homes of the Orthodox or persons of other confessions.

Some aspects of these contacts and of quarrels with local clergy are depicted in the case investigation of the crime of Alexei Nalimsky, a priest from Tokmak, against the Doukhobors of Terpeniye village. According to the case, the priest, being drunk in the house of the Doukhobor Nikolai Zakharov, offended the hose and tried to beat him, breaking his wooden cross and accusing Zakharov of this. In the course of investigation, the priest pled guilty and it was also concluded that during the inquest, the Assessor of the Melitopol regional court, Yakov Kovtunovsky, had made a series of mistakes. Namely, the testimonies of the colonist Ivan Belgart and the settler Emelian Plokhiy, witnesses in favour of the Doukhobors, had not been verified. Since the witnesses resided in the employ of the Doukhobors, therefore their testimonies could not be considered trustworthy. It was noted that the Orthodox Emelian Plokhiy had not attended confession for several years, therefore it should be investigated as to whether he had been affected by the Doukhobors.

The above demonstrates that the Doukhobors readily availed themselves of the laws allowing them to employ laborers of other confessions. In addition to hired workers, those Doukhobors belonging to the landowning class could have had Orthodox peasants as their property.

Nevertheless, after Nicholas I sharply altered the state’s policy towards religious sectarians, a number of governmental decrees were passed to restrict their influence on the Orthodox. In particular, the Imperial Decree of January 17, 1836 prohibited Molokans and Doukhobors from hiring Orthodox workers nor being employed by the Orthodox. A further decree of April 17, 1842 strictly prohibited Molokans and Doukhobors from owning serfs of any religious confession.

Certainly, during the Doukhobors sojourn in Tavria province, they established close commercial relations with representatives of other religious confessions: the Doukhobors sold their produce and goods at the fairs of Melitopol and other regions; and when preparing to resettle in the Caucasus, they sold their property to the inhabitants of neighboring non-Doukhobor villages.

Having thoroughly examined aspects of the Doukhobor belief system, it may be concluded that they reflected certain elements of other confessions, which they had contact with during the formation of their own religious doctrines.

While residing in the Tavria region, the Doukhobors, living in isolated settlements, could not avoid contact with members of other religions (Orthodox, Mennonites, Molokans and Muslims). Such relations influenced both the socio-economic and material life of the Doukhobor community, as well as the lives of their neighbours.

Bibliography

  • Boyko, A. “Tserkva ta Mizhkonfesiini vzaemini na pivdni Ukraini v ostannii chverti XVIII ct. // Mizhkonfesiini vidnosini na pivdni Ukraini XVIII-XX ct.” (Zaporozhia, R.A. “Tandem-U”, 1999).
  • State Archive of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, Fond 26, Opus 4, Spr. 473, 755; Fond 27, Opis 1, SPr. 1572, 1574.
  • Druzhinina, Y.I. “Yuzhnaya Ukraina v 1800-1825 gg.” (M.: Nauka, 1970).
  • Zapiska o Nekotorykh obstoyatel’stvakh zhizni I sluzhby deistvitel’nogo tainogo sovetnika, senatora I.V. Lopukhin (M.: 1860 – t.3 – s.84-172).
  • Klibanov, A.I. “Istoria Religioznogo Sektantstva v Rossii” (M.: Nauka, 1978).
  • Livanov, F. “Molokane I Dukhobortsy v Ukraine i Novorossii” // Vestnik Evropy (Kn. 12, 1868, c. 809-836).
  • Liman, I.I. “Do pitannya pro zv’yazok viruvan’ ta obryadovosti dukhoboriv ta zaporiz’kogo kozatstva.” // Zaporoiz’ke kozatstvo v pam’yatkakh istorii ta kul’turi. Materiali mizhnarodnoi naukovo-praktichnoi konferentsii (Zaporoizhzhyz, 2-4, zhovtnya 1997 r.) – Sektsiya, III, IV, V – Zaporizhzhya,: R.A. (Tandem-U, 1997). S. 47-51.
  • Miliukov, P.N. “Ocherki po istorii russkoi kul’tury” (Srb, 1905, 407 s).
  • Nikolsky, N.M. “Istoria russkoi tserkvi” – 3-3 izd – (M.: Politizdat, 1983, 448s.).
  • Novitsky, O. “Dukhobortsy. Ikh istoria I verouchenie”. (K., 1882, 282s).
  • Polnoe sobranie zakonov Rossiiskoi imperii, Sobr I, T. XXVII, s.733-735, TXXXIII – s. 1110-1112; Sobr II, T. IX, s. 548, T. IXVII, s. 327.
  • Skalkovsky, A. “Russkie dissidenty v novorossii.” // Kievskaya starina – 1887. t.17, No.4 – s.771-782.
  • Kharlamov, I.I. “Dukhobortsy. Istoricheskii ocherk.” // Russkaya Mysl’ – kn. XI – M. 1824 – s.138-161.
Categories
Historical Stories and Articles

Conversation Between the Rector of Alexander Nevsky Seminary and Three Kharkov Dukhobortsy, 1792

Translated by Robert Pinkerton

In 1792, a deputation of three Doukhobors from Kharkov – Mikhail Shchirev, Anikei and Timofey Sukharev – was sent to the Governor-General of that province, ostensibly to petition for protection from persecution and harassment by local authorities, clergy and their Orthodox neighbours. They were summarily arrested and sent to the Alexander Nevsky Seminary in St. Petersburg. There they were admonished and persuaded to recant their faith, to no avail. The following is a record of their “conversation” with the rector of the seminary, Archimandrite Innokenty (Dubravitsky), contained in a May 12, 1792 letter from Gavriil (Petrov), Metropolitan of Novgorod and St. Petersburg to the Governor-General of Kharkov. This invaluable historic material contains one of the earliest recorded accounts of the Doukhobor religious doctrine. Reproduced from Robert Pinkerton, “Russia: or, Miscellaneous Observations on the Past and Present State of that Country and its Inhabitants” (London: Seeley and Sons, 1833). Afterword by Jonathan J. Kalmakoff.

Letter from the Metropolitan of Novgorod and St. Petersburg to the Governor-General of Kharkov

Sir,

Mikhail Shchirev, Anikei and Timofey Sukharev sent by your Excellency from the vicinity of Kharkov have been admonished by Innokenty, rector of the Nevsky Seminary and Archimandrite. The conversation which took place between them I forward to you, along with this letter.

I knew this sect as early as 1768. I then admonished them, and succeeded in turning several to the Church; but on their returning home, they again fell into their former errors. Since I became Archbishop of St. Petersburg, I have also spoken to some of the Don Cossacks; but they remained obstinate. Their obstinacy is founded on enthusiasm: all the demonstration which is presented to them they despise, saying that “God is present in their souls, and He instructs them: – how then shall they hearken to a man?” They have such exalted ideas of their own holiness, that they respect that man only in whom they see the image of God; that is, perfect holiness. They say that every one of them may be a prophet or an apostle; and therefore they are zealous propagators of their own sect. They make the Sacraments consist only in a spiritual reception of them, and therefore reject infant baptism. The opinions held by them not only establish equality, but also exclude the distinction of ruler and subject: such opinions are therefore the more dangerous, because they may become attractive to the peasantry. The truth of this Germany has experienced. Their origin is to be sought for among the Anabaptists or Quakers. I know the course of their opinions; and we can have no hope that they will desist from spreading abroad this evil.

These are my thoughts, which I have considered it my duty to communicate to your Excellency.

With sincere respect,

Gavriil
Metropolitan of Novgorod and St. Petersburg
May 12, 1792

Conversation Between the Rector of Alexander Nevsky Seminary and Three Kharkov Dukhobortsy

Conversation between Innokenty, Archimandrite and Rector of Alexander Nevsky Seminary in St. Petersburg and three Doukhobors from Kharkov province – Mikhail Shchirev, Anikei and Timofey Sukharev, May 1792.

Archimandrite: By what means are you come into this state, that people confine you as men dangerous to society?

Dukhobortsy: By the malice of our persecutors.

Archimandrite: What is the cause of their persecuting you?

Dukhobortsy: Because it is said that all who will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.

Archimandrite: Whom do you call your persecutors?

Dukhobortsy: Those who threw me into prison, and bound me in fetters.

Archimandrite: How dare you, in this way, speak evil of the established Government, founded and acting on principles of Christian piety? Which deprives none of their liberty, except such as are disturbers of the public peace and prosperity.

Dukhobortsy: There is no higher Governor than God, who rules over the hearts of kings and men : but God does not bind in fetters; neither does he command those to be persecuted who will not give His glory to another, and who live in peace, and in perfect love and mutual service to each other.

Archimandrite: What does that signify, “Who will not give his glory unto another”? – To whom other?

Dukhobortsy: Read the Second Commandment, and you will know.

Archimandrite: I perceive, then, that you mean to throw censure on those who bow before the images of the Saviour and of His holy ones?

Dukhobortsy: He has placed his image in our souls. Again, it is that those who worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth.

Archimandrite: From this it is evident, that you have brought yourself into your present condition, by falling into error; by misunderstanding the nature of piety, and entertaining opinions hurtful to the common faith and to your country.

Dukhobortsy: It is not true.

Archimandrite: How, then? Do you not err, when you think that there are “powers that be” which exist in opposition to the will of God; whereas there is no power but of God? Or that Government, which is appointed to restrain and correct the disobedient and unruly, persecutes piety; “whereas he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil”?

Dukhobortsy: What evil do we do? None.

Archimandrite: Do you not hurt the faith by your false reasoning concerning her holy ordinances, and by your blind zeal against God; like the Jews of old, whose zeal was not according to knowledge?

Dukhobortsy: Let knowledge remain with you! Only do not molest us, who live in peace, pay the taxes, do harm to no one, and respect and obey earthly governments.

Archimandrite: But perhaps your paying the taxes, harming no one, and obeying earthly governments, is only the effect of necessity, and of the weakness of your power; while your peace and love respect those only who are of your own opinion.

Dukhobortsy: Construe our words as you choose.

Archimandrite: At least, it is far from being disagreeable to you, I suppose, to behold your society increasing!

Dukhobortsy: We desire good unto all men, and that all may be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth.

Archimandrite: Leave off your studied secrecy, and evasive and dubious answers. Explain and reveal to me your opinions candidly, like men who have nothing in view but to discover truth.

Dukhobortsy: I understand you; for that same Spirit of Truth which enlightens us in things respecting faith and life, assists us also to discern affectation and deceit in every man. Nevertheless, in order to get rid of your importunity, and with boldness to preach the true faith, I shall answer your questions as I am able.

Archimandrite: By what way – by the assistance of others, or by the use of your own reasoning powers only, did you obtain this Spirit of Truth?

Dukhobortsy: He is near our heart, and therefore no assistance is necessary. A sincere desire and ardent prayers are alone requisite.

Archimandrite: At least, you ground your opinions on the word of God, do you not?

Dukhobortsy: I do ground myself on it.

Archimandrite: But the word of God teaches us, that God has committed the true faith, and the dispensing of his ordinances, and of instruction in piety, to certain persons, chosen and ordained for this purpose: “According to the grace of God given unto me,” says St. Paul, “as a wise master-builder I have laid the foundation.”

Dukhobortsy: True: and such were our deputies who were sent hither in 1767 and 1769. But what did the spirit of persecution and of wrath do to them? Some were taken for soldiers; others were sent into exile.

Archimandrite: You doubtless intend, by these deputies, some well-meaning people like yourself?

Dukhobortsy: Yes.

Archimandrite: But you, and people like you, though well-meaning, cannot be either ministers or teachers of the holy faith.

Dukhobortsy: Why not?

Archimandrite: Because a Church cannot be established by individual authority; as is manifest from 1 Cor. iii. 5. Secondly, because special talents and gifts from above are requisite, “to make us able ministers of the New Testament:” 2 Cor. iii. 6. And, thirdly, it is absolutely necessary to this lawful and gracious calling, that we possess that ordination which hath remained in the holy Church from the times of the Apostles; as it is said: “And he gave some Apostles, and some Prophets, and some Evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:” Ephes. iv. 2.

Dukhobortsy: There is no other calling to this office required, than that which crieth in our hearts: neither doth our learning consist in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but in “demonstration of the Spirit and of power.” Are the gifts which you require such as to be able to gabble Latin?

Archimandrite: You do not understand the Holy Scriptures; and this is the source of all your errors. The Apostle, in the words quoted by you, does not reject the talents and gifts of acquired knowledge, but contrasts the doctrines of Jesus Christ with the wisdom of the heathen, which was in repute at that time. And that the calling of pastors and teachers always depended on the Church by which they were chosen, is manifest from the very history of those pastors and teachers of the Church who are eternally glorified.

Dukhobortsy: What Holy Scriptures? What Church? What do you mean by Holy Scriptures?

Archimandrite: Did not you yourself say that you founded your opinions on the word of God? That is what I mean by the Holy Scriptures.

Dukhobortsy: The word of God is spiritual, and immaterial; it can be written on nothing but on the heart and spirit.

Archimandrite: Yet when the Saviour saith, “Search the Scriptures,” and gives us the reason of this command – “for in them ye think ye have eternal life,” – can He really understand thereby any thing else than the written word of God? This is the treasure which He himself hath entrusted to his holy Churchy as the unalterable rule of faith and life.

Dukhobortsy: And what do you call a church?

Archimandrite: An assembly of believers in Jesus Christ, governed by pastors according to regulations founded on the word of God, and partakers of the ordinances of faith.

Dukhobortsy: Not so: there is but one Pastor, Jesus Christ, who laid down his life for the sheep: and one Church, holy, apostolical, spiritual, invisible, of which it is said, “Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them;” in which no worship is paid to any material object; where those only are teachers who live virtuous lives; where the word of God is obeyed in the heart, on which it descends like dew upon the fleece, and out of which it flows as from a spring in the midst of the mountains; where there are no such noisy, ostentatious, offensive, and idolatrous meetings and vain ceremonies as with you; no drunken and insulting pastors and teachers like yours; nor such evil dispositions and corruptions as among you.

Archimandrite: You have here mixed up many things together: let us consider them one by one.

First, that the Saviour Christ is the only chief Pastor and Head of the Church, is a truth: for He hath founded it by His own merits under His Almighty providence it exists, is guarded and protected; and “the gates of hell shall never prevail against it.” Spiritually, Christ is united to it; for “behold! I am with you, even to the end of the world:” and by the power of His grace He helpeth the prayers petitions of believers. But it does not seem good to the wisdom and majesty of God, that all, without distinction, should be engaged in the external state and service of the Church, which is so closely united to the internal; and therefore, from the very first ages, this has been committed unto worthy pastors and teachers, “as stewards of the mysteries of God.”

Secondly, I said that the external state of the Church is very closely united to the internal. Certainly it is so. Who does not know how powerfully the passions and the flesh work in us, both to good and evil, according to the nature of the object presented to them? We have need to recruit the efforts of our minds by such salutary aids; and to stir up the expiring flame of piety within us, by memorials of the goodness of God, and of the example of holy men. Here is the whole of what you so improperly style “material and idolatrous worship”. So long as we are united to matter, that is, to the body, we can never reach that pure and inward spiritual worship of God which the holy angels present unto Him, or such as that of the eternally-glorified saints; and on this account, when God requires that we should worship Him in spirit and in truth, it is to warn us against shameful hypocrisy, or other dispositions of mind not corresponding with our external worship.

Thirdly, with respect to the scandalous lives of some pastors, they can never harm the essence of faith; for that is not the cause of their bad conduct. And that their irregularities can never excuse those who on this account leave the Church and despise her doctrine, is witnessed by the Saviour Himself, in his discourse with the Pharisees: “The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat,” saith he: “all therefore, whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works; for they say, and do not.” Moreover, Christian humility should have deterred you from judging so rashly concerning general corruption and evil dispositions. But I have purposely not yet answered several of your expressions, such as “idolatrous meetings and vain ceremonies,” that I might first ask you what you mean by them?

Dukhobortsy: You may conjecture that yourself.

Archimandrite: Well: do not even you show becoming respect for the characters of those, who have been distinguished for holiness, and after death glorified by God, as patterns of faith and virtue ?

Dukhobortsy: Where and whom hath God thus glorified?

Archimandrite: Are the names of Chrysostom, Gregory the Great, and such like, unknown to you?

Dukhobortsy: I know them.

Archimandrite: What do you think of them”?

Dukhobortsy: What do I think? – Why, they were men!

Archimandrite: But holy men, whose faith and lives were agreeable to God; and on this account they are miraculously glorified from above.

Dukhobortsy: Well, let us suppose so.

Archimandrite: Now it is to them that the Church is indebted for all those offices and ceremonies, which you denominate “idolatrous” and “vain”; and the worship of images has been declared not to be sinful by the Council of the Holy Fathers; – how then will you make this agree with your views?

Dukhobortsy: I know not. I only know that hell will be filled with priests and deacons, and unjust judges. As for me, I will worship God as he instructs me.

Archimandrite: But can you, without danger, depend upon yourself? Are you not afraid, that sometimes you may mistake your own opinions, and even foolish imaginations, for Divine inspiration?

Dukhobortsy: How? To prevent this, reason is given unto us. I know what is good, and what is bad.

Archimandrite: A poor dependence! With the best reason, sometimes, good appears to be evil, and evil to be good.

Dukhobortsy: I will pray to God: He will send His word” – and God never deceives.

Archimandrite: True, God never deceives: but you deceive yourself, assuring yourself of that, on His part, which never took place.

Dukhobortsy: God does not reject the prayers of believers.

Archimandrite: Believers – true: those requests which are agreeable to the law of faith. Divine Wisdom will not reject: but “ye ask and receive not, because ye ask amiss.” For this purpose hath He given us the Book of his divine word, that in it we may behold His will, and that our petitions may be directed according to it. But it is vain to expect in the present day miraculous and immediate inspirations, without sufficient cause, particularly such as are unworthy of Him: and to pretend to such inspirations and revelations, is very hurtful to society, and therefore ought to be checked.

Dukhobortsy: But to me they appear to be very useful, salutary, and worthy of acceptation.

Archimandrite: What? To break off from the society of your countrymen, though united with you by the same laws and the same articles of faith, and to introduce strange doctrines, and laws of your own making? To begin to expound the doctrines of the Gospel without the aid of an enlightened education, disregarding the advice of such men as are most versed and experienced in those things; and out of your own head, to found upon all this a separate society? Is it not also to rise against your country, when you refuse to serve it where the sanctity of an oath is required? Should not the simple command of the higher powers be sufficient to unite you with others to defend your country, your fellow-citizens, and your faith?

Dukhobortsy:

Archimandrite: Why do you make no answer to this?

Dukhobortsy: There is nothing to say. I am not so loquacious as you, neither have I need of it.

Archimandrite: But do you not see, at least, whither your blind zeal is leading you, and that you deserve to suffer much more than all that has yet befallen you? – We look for your repentance and amendment.

Dukhobortsy: Do what you choose with us: we are happy to suffer for the faith: this is no new thing. Did you ever hear the old story?

Archimandrite: Tell me, I pray you, what story?

Dukhobortsy: “A certain man planted a vineyard, and set a hedge about it, and dug a place for the winefat, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country. And at the season he sent to the husbandmen a servant, that he might receive from the husbandmen of the fruit of the vineyard. And they caught him, and beat him, and sent him away empty. . . . And again he sent another; and him they killed, and many others; beating some, and killing some. Having yet therefore one son, his well-beloved, he sent him also last unto them, saying, They will reverence my son. But those husbandmen said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and the inheritance shall be ours. And they took him, and killed him, and cast him out of the vineyard. What shall therefore the Lord of the vineyard do? He will come and destroy the husbandmen, and will give the vineyard unto others:” Mark xii. 1 – 9. Now I have done with you.

Archimandrite: At least, answer me this: How can it be reconciled, that you reject the Holy Scriptures, and at the same time endeavour to support yourself upon them?

Dukhobortsy: Argue as you will. I have spoken what was necessary, and shall not say another word.

Afterword

The “Conversation” of 1792 is one of the earliest recorded accounts of the Doukhobors and demonstrates that they were already well established as a sect in Kharkov province, having sent previous deputations to state authorities as early as 1767 and 1769.

At the time of the “Conversation”, the Doukhobors of Kharkov province were outwardly characterized by their peaceful living, payment of taxes and their respect and adherence to the state. At the same time, they had “broken off from their countrymen” and formed their own society, with “laws and doctrines of their own making” based on the “Spirit of Truth”. The Doukhobors had already formed a distinct identity as a people set apart, within whom the “image of God” resided, in contrast to the “vain and idolatrous” Orthodox. This trait made the Doukhobors “zealous propagators” of their sect, reflected in the fact that their numbers in Kharkov were rapidly on the rise.

It is clear from the “Conversation” that persecution was “no new thing” to the Kharkov Doukhobors. Their belief system, compounded by their refusal to attend church, swear oaths or perform military service in defense of their country, invariably led to conflicts with local officials, clergy and their Orthodox neighbours. Previous deputations in 1767 and 1769 had been imprisoned and admonished by state authorities, after which some were taken for soldiers while others were sent into exile. The present deputation had ostensibly been sent to plead for protection from this “spirit of persecution and of wrath”.  For this, they, too, were imprisoned. The discrimination and maltreatment they suffered does not appear to have deterred the sect, however, and even in the midst of admonishment at the Alexander Nevsky Seminary, the three Doukhobors were “happy to suffer for the faith”.

Throughout the “Conversation”, the Kharkov Doukhobors showed a marked reluctance to discuss and explain their doctrines, sidestepping some questions, and refusing to answer others altogether. For this, the Archimandrite accused them of “studied secrecy” and “evasive answers”. Their reticence regarding their beliefs is understandable, however, given that in Russia at the time outside inquiries as to their faith were, in general, mere preliminaries to banishment and imprisonment. At the very least, such inquiries occasioned ridicule and derision.

At the same time, the Doukhobors adopted a decidedly defiant tone in response to questions raised by the Archimandrite; stubbornly resisting his theological arguments, showing a “boldness to preach the true faith”, and at times, displaying open contempt and derision for their captor and interrogator. Inherent in their bearing and response is the Doukhobor rejection of ecclesiastical and state authority, since “there is no higher Governor than God”. At the same time, their fearlessness in the face of official punishment and sanction can be ascribed to the Doukhobor axiom “fear not, but trust in God”.

For all of their reticence and stubbornness, however, the three Doukhobors from Kharkov provide us with one of the earliest statements of the Doukhobor faith, setting out, briefly and simply, in their own words, the basis of their beliefs, which can be summarized as: the belief that the spirit of God can be found in the soul of every man; worship of God in spirit and in truth; and in the rejection of all external rites, sacraments, dogma and ecclesiastic hierarchy and authority.

At the end of the admonishment, the Archimandrite demanded that the Doukhobors repent and amend their “erroneous beliefs”. Not surprisingly, the Doukhobors refused. The available records are silent as to their fate. In all likelihood, they remained imprisoned or were exiled, like many of their brethren during this intense period of persecution.

To read more, search, download, save and print a full PDF copy of “Russia: or, Miscellaneous Observations on the Past and Present State of that Country and its Inhabitants”  by Robert Pinkerton (London: Seeley and Sons, 1833), visit the Google Book Search digital database.

Categories
Historical Stories and Articles