millenarian utopianism was widely diffused. In the Book of Faith (Kniga o Věrě), published in 1648, the year of the peace of Westphalia, the end of the world is announced and the coming of antichrist is anticipated. An apocalyptic interpretation is given to the spread of Jesuit Catholicism (the union). The pope is represented as the precursor of antichrist, and it is indicated that antichrist himself will appear in the person of a pope. Nikon's reforms led to a revolution in this apocalyptic philosophy of history. Hitherto the coming of antichrist had been looked for in the west, but the expectation was now transferred to Holy Russia, conservatives regarding Nikon as the impersonation of antichrist. Should Russia, should the Russian church, become a stage for the activities of antichrist, there would no longer exist an Orthodox church, there would be no hierarchy and no priests—this apocalyptic logic corresponds to the fact that by the dying out of its priests the schism was compelled to dispense with priests. We have here a striking contrast with the Protestant reformation. In the west priesthood was overthrown, but in Russia the institution died out physically, certain sections of the raskolniki becoming a sect of the priestless (bezpopovcy). Simultaneously the priestless raskolniki were forced into opposition with the authority of the state. The tsar was described as tool and servant of the antichrist; the raskolnik was forbidden participation in the life of the state, laws and lawcourts being banned as the work of the devil. These anti-political tendencies of the schismatics became accentuated in the reign of Peter, who was denounced as antichrist in person, and the raskolniki took an active part in Pugačev's revolt.
The anti-state tendency of the raskol found its most radical expression in the protopope Avakkum (Habakkuk), Nikon's personal opponent. In fearless and vigorous terms he apostrophised Nikon's patron Alexis, declaring that the tsar, like Nebuchadnezzar, regarded himself as God. In the year of Nikon's death the religious father of the raskol had to pay for his boldness at the stake.
Such uncompromising dissent was soon restricted to a small and dwindling minority of raskolniki. Raskol philosophy was not properly speaking radical. If we are living in the closing days of the world, let us give to the emperor, let us give to every one, that which he demands—such was the conclusion actually drawn by the teachers of the raskolniki.
