resemblance ceases, until it is again apparent in analogous results.
In the West, Dissent has generally proceeded from a spirit of investigation, doubt, and inquiry; from a desire for liberty, and from impatience of spiritual control; but in Russia it has sprung from diametrically opposite causes—the obstinacy of ignorance, persistent reverence for the past, and obedience to authority.
In the one case, the human soul has sought freedom from the trammels of form and ceremony to satisfy its aspirations towards an ideal, higher life; in the other, superstitious regard for ancient usages, devotion to external rites, have been the predominant influences. From a common starting-point the two movements have progressed in steadily diverging directions, but, while antagonistic in the principle of their development, they I have arrived at similar results, inasmuch as the Raskol, rejecting the authority of the Church, by which alone unity of faith could be preserved, has recognized the right of free interpretation of mysterious, though immutable, dogmas, and accepted all the vagaries of individual opinions regarding them, thereby creating infinite variety of belief.
In the Middle Ages, during the constant wars between the appanaged princes, heresies and religious controversies were rife in Russia, as elsewhere. Each petty sovereign, as he arrived at power, endeavored to enlist the influence of the Church in his own behalf; three metropolitans, in the twelfth century, claimed, at the same time, the ecclesiastical throne at Kiev; and the disturbances within the Church, from their rival pretensions, permitted the growth of heretical doctrines, which related, however, not to fundamental dogmas, but only to external observances. Nestor, bishop of Rostov, accused
