Page:Russian Church and Russian Dissent.djvu/137

122 The latter had increased in numbers as a result of the changes and innovations introduced in the State and Church; they enjoyed, at times, a precarious immunity as a consequence of the constant wars in which Peter was involved. When not engaged in weightier matters, he pursued them with relentless severity; less, however, from any religious motive, than from a stem determination to crush all opposition to his reforms.

Fanaticism grew with persecution; discontent among the people became hatred of the oppressor, and the traditional veneration for the tsar turned to pious horror. Serious outbreaks, which required a strong force for their repression, occurred in different parts of the empire, and even in Moscow. The frontiers of Poland and Livonia, the neighborhood of the great lakes, the marshes of Olonetz, the wilds of Perm and Siberia, the shores of the White Sea, the forests of Nijni-Novgorod, the banks of the Volga and of the Don, were thronged with colonies of schismatics, all at variance one with another, and proclaiming doctrines as extravagant as their enthusiasm was fervid, but all animated by a fanaticism stronger than death. Thousands left their homes to perish in the wilderness; whole families deliberately sought voluntary martyrdom in the flames of their burning houses, kindled by their own hands.

Against the fervor of this popular spiritual uprising the efforts of the Church and the power of the State were exerted in vain. Dissent was rooted in the hearts of the people, never again to be extirpated.

The relations between the tsar and the exarch were no longer harmonious. Peter was exacting and arbitrary, impatient of clerical control, and inclined to use ecclesiastical patronage in furtherance of his political plans. Yavorsky, while faithful and loyal, was indepen-