They could not explain it otherwise than by supposing him to be the Devil in disguise， and they saw in all his important measures convincing proofs of his Satanic origin. The newly invented census， or "revision，" was a profane "numbering of the people，" and an attempt to enrol in the service of Be雔zebub those whose names were written in the Lamb's Book of Life. The new title of Imperator was explained to mean something very diabolical. The passport bearing the Imperial arms was the seal of Antichrist. The order to shave the beard was an attempt to disfigure "the image of God，" after which man had been created， and by which Christ would recognise His own at the Last Day. The change in the calendar， by which New Year's Day was transferred from September to January， was the destruction of "the years of our Lord，" and the introduction of the years of Satan in their place. Of the ingenious arguments by which these theses were supported， I may quote one by way of illustration. The world， it was explained， could not have been created in January as the new calendar seemed to indicate， because apples are not ripe at that season， and consequently Eve could not have been tempted in the way described！*
I found this ingenious argument in one of the polemical treatises of the Old Believers.
These ideas regarding Peter and his reforms were strongly confirmed by the vigorous persecutions which took place during the earlier years of his reign. The Nonconformists were constantly convicted of political disaffection--especially of "insulting the Imperial Majesty"--and were accordingly flogged， tortured， and beheaded without mercy. But when Peter had succeeded in putting down all armed opposition， and found that the movement was no longer dangerous for the throne， he adopted a policy more in accordance with his personal character. Whether he had himself any religious belief whatever may be doubted； certainly he had not a spark of religious fanaticism in his nature. Exclusively occupied with secular concerns， he took no interest in subtle questions of religious ceremonial， and was profoundly indifferent as to how his subjects prayed and crossed themselves， provided they obeyed his orders in worldly matters and paid their taxes regularly. As soon， therefore， as political considerations admitted of clemency， he stopped the persecutions， and at last， in 1714， issued ukazes to the effect that all Dissenters might live unmolested， provided they inscribed themselves in the official registers and paid a double poll-tax. Somewhat later they were allowed to practise freely all their old rites and customs， on condition of paying certain fines.
With the accession of Catherine II.， "the friend of philosophers，"
the Raskol，as the schism had come to be called， entered on a new phase. Penetrated with the ideas of religious toleration then in fashion in Western Europe， Catherine abolished the disabilities to which the Raskolniks were subjected， and invited those of them who had fled across the frontier to return to their homes. Thousands accepted the invitation， and many who had hitherto sought to conceal themselves from the eyes of the authorities became rich and respected merchants. The peculiar semi-monastic religious communities， which had up till that time existed only in the forests of the northern and western provinces， began to appear in Moscow， and were officially recognised by the Administration. At first they took the form of hospitals for the sick， or asylums for the aged and infirm， but soon they became regular monasteries， the superiors of which exercised an undefined spiritual authority not only over the inmates， but also over the members of the sect throughout the length and breadth of the Empire.
The term is derived from two Russian words--ras， asunder； and kolot， to split. Those who belong to the Raskol are called Raskolniki. They call themselves Staro-obriadtsi (Old Ritualists)
or Staroveri (Old Believers).
From that time down to the present the Government has followed a wavering policy， oscillating between complete tolerance and active persecution. It must， however， be said that the persecution has never been of a very searching kind. In persecution， as in all other manifestations， the Russian Church directs its attention chiefly to external forms. It does not seek to ferret out heresy in a man's opinions， but complacently accepts as Orthodox all who annually appear at confession and communion， and who refrain from acts of open hostility. Those who can make these concessions to convenience are practically free from molestation， and those who cannot so trifle with their conscience have an equally convenient method of escaping persecution. The parish clergy， with their customary indifference to things spiritual and their traditional habit of regarding their functions from the financial point of view， are hostile to sectarianism chiefly because it diminishes their revenues by diminishing the number of parishioners requiring their ministrations. This cause of hostility can easily be removed by a certain pecuniary sacrifice on the part of the sectarians， and accordingly there generally exists between them and their parish priest a tacit contract， by which both parties are perfectly satisfied. The priest receives his income as if all his parishioners belonged to the State Church， and the parishioners are left in peace to believe and practise what they please. By this rude， convenient method a very large amount of toleration is effectually secured. Whether the practise has a beneficial moral influence on the parish clergy is， of course， an entirely different question.
When the priest has been satisfied， there still remains the police， which likewise levies an irregular tax on heterodoxy； but the negotiations are generally not difficult， for it is in the interest of both parties that they should come to terms and live in good-