III. По делам нашей духовной миссии в Иерусалиме

May 15. Review of Metropolitan Philaret on the report of His Eminence Kirill389, Bishop of Melitopol, dated February 10, 1859 390 I. This report contains sayings of the Right Reverend, making it difficult to judge the correctness of his actions and the reliability of what he describes. “The anger of the patriarch 391 towards me.” Cruel, but unconvincing. Did the Patriarch act too harshly, or does His Eminence Kirill condemn too harshly? The word of malice in the mouth of a bishop about the patriarch condemns whom more, the one being reproached or the one reproaching? “It was impossible to directly interfere with the internal administration of Greek monasteries.” This means he would like to intervene. Is that right? Is it useful? "Secret deals between fans and a Greek monastery." What could they be? Why do Russian admirers sincerely treat Greek monasteries rather than the Russian bishop? "I couldn't believe my eyes." But what he saw is not visible. "A Sermon on the Meaning of the Flag." By using the word preaching in derision, you are insulting your own ministry. “I can’t be put on the same level as the last admirer.” But was it? How? And wouldn’t it be better to stand for the justice of the cause, and not for your own person? “It will be better if we don’t play blind man’s buff, catching each other.” This doesn't explain the matter. And is it consistent with the dignity of the apxiepe that he portrays himself as playing blind man's buff? II. But there is also something that is clear and worth thinking about. The Reverend Kirill writes: “the agency of the Shipping and Trade Society in Jerusalem, a city neither seaside nor commercial, is so anomalous that it itself cannot help but feel in a rather awkward position, without comrades, without business.” Is there any truth here? What is the shipping company doing or wanting to do? Not visible. It wants to build a church, premises and a hospital for worshipers. But doesn't this belong more to the spiritual mission than to the society of shipping and trade? Meanwhile, the shipping and trade society has in its hands the money collected for charitable institutions in Jerusalem, and is taking care to continue to receive it in large quantities into its own hands. Foreign governments spend hundreds of rubles per agency to ensure the movement and acquisition of thousands; What if we, having spent thousands on an agency, do not gain even hundreds? They say: greater acquisition is political influence. Let's delve into this idea. We can acquire or increase the goodwill towards us of the Arab tribe, Orthodox, kind, but oppressed, poor, uneducated, therefore we can have a moral influence on this tribe; but what kind of political influence can there be, and what fruit can it bear? Will this not only increase our obligation to protect this tribe religiously and politically, and this depends on our political influence not here, but in Constantinople. The word concerns here objects alien and unfamiliar; but this is because different objects are mixed, and one must try to present them in order. The ignorant gives those who know something to think about: how to more accurately balance the means with the ends, and put the religious, political, commercial types in order so that one promotes the other, and does not hinder, and is not absorbed by one another. III. His Eminence Kirill plans to support the construction of a church in Sula, where Orthodoxy has already disappeared. It is not clear how a church building can bring back Orthodoxy where it has already disappeared. IV. Speaking about the relationship of the Russian hierarchy to the Eastern one, His Eminence Kirill has little respect for the mother of his Church, the All-Russian Church, and for truth itself. “Finally,” he says, “the most well-intentioned participation of the Russian hierarchy in the common cause of Orthodoxy provokes more or less stubborn opposition from everyone.” There is no evidence for this. And in everyone’s words, of course, there is an exaggeration. He continues: “Perhaps the Greek hierarchy is also to blame; maybe we ourselves are to blame.” A hard word against the church or hierarchy: you are to blame. But if this can only be the case, then why do you pronounce a condemnation of which you yourself are not sure? He continues: “For 600 years we have been trying to defend our independence from the Patriarchate of Constantinople.” The word “troublesome” in important matters echoes with ridicule. It is unfair that the Russian Church has been strengthening its independence for 600 years. In this period there were many times of her obedience to the Patriarchs of Constantinople. Read the story of Saints Peter and Alexis: did they bother about independence from the Patriarch of Constantinople? If sometimes the All-Russian Metropolitan was appointed without any relation to the Patriarch, then this was in cases of inconvenience of relations, and for other valid reasons. The fall of Constantinople and the vastness of the Russian Church were fundamental reasons why the Eastern patriarchs agreed to recognize it as independent. His Eminence Kirill continues: “for almost three hundred years we consider ourselves a patriarchy between patriarchates.” Why do you say: we consider ourselves? We not only consider ourselves, but we really are, and are recognized by the Eastern Church. Read the patriarchal letters. Continues: “the matter is legal; but then a mistake crept in.” How easily one bishop condemns the church without questioning it. Or maybe she would show reasons independent of her for what you don’t like. Continues: “starting the matter in a feeling of dissatisfaction with the Greeks.” This is not certain. There were other important reasons for the case, which are indicated above. “Too much mistrust in the Greeks, too much faith in ourselves.” And that's not accurate. Could there be more complete trust in the Greek hierarchy, such as that which is visible in the matter of correcting liturgical books, and in the relations of Tsar Alexy Mikhailovich and Patriarch Nikon to the Patriarch of Constantinople during the misunderstandings between them? “We have moved away from relations with the East and have withdrawn into ourselves.” And that's not accurate. We never closed ourselves off. In the past and present centuries there was little communication, because there were no strong reasons for it. But there were friendly relations. For example, we gave the patriarchs of Jerusalem, Antioch and Alexandria metochions in Moscow, and helped them bring large benefits from Russia for their churches. There was a case that required a conference between the Eastern hierarchy and the Russian one, namely, when it was necessary to respond to Pius IX 392, but it is not our fault that the Eastern hierarchy did not invite us to this. This is her guess or arrogance, and on our part it is meekness that we did not reproach her for that. Further: “pathetic independence, which did not give us the strength not to do without others, nor to interfere in the common cause.” The exclamation is disrespectful to the church and offensive. In what sense do you say that the Russian Church does not have the power to do without others? Is it in internal management? It's not fair. Is it in relation to dogmatic questions that sometimes arise again? In this respect, the Russian Church is no more powerless than others; in this regard, every church needs to consult with other councils. So that Russia does not have the power to interfere in the common cause of the churches, this is also unfair. The church is not powerless; but the lack of skill or lack of zeal of its actors in relation to other churches can make its power little effective. Indicate clearly which of them, when, what they sinned, and give advice for correction; But is it fair, is it useful to burden the church of six centuries or the church of three centuries with vague censures? That we, as Eminence Kirill says, keep the church statutes even stricter than the Greeks, this is very good, and why was this introduced into the accusatory speech? That the Greeks made changes without the thought of sharing with us, we are not to blame for this. And was there anything to share? For example: they connect Matins with the Liturgy, omitting the end of the first and the hours; this happened, no doubt, from the fact that it was necessary to perform the service at night, hastily, secretly from the Mohammedans. Over time, this became common. There is nothing to share with us when our order is better; but we also have to look at this with tolerance and condescension. His Eminence Kirill says that some “people from the outside were amazed that one church did not know about the saints revered by another.” It is in vain that he joins in the surprise about what is not surprising in the space of the Universal Church. And there is no church rule that each church informs all other churches about its saints, and that each church is obliged to know all the saints of other churches. Look at the ancient calendars of different churches: you will see that some saints are included in some calendars, but not in others, and therefore some were not known to the churches, and no one was surprised at this, and no one reproached the church for this. His Eminence Kirill says that the Eastern and Russian churches “disagree on liturgical and partly canonical issues, and both are calm and do not think of correcting the matter.” By the force of words, this is an accusation of schism, an accusation that would have to be uttered not without fear if there had been evidence in mind. And it was said without evidence. This is also an accusation against the great churches that they do not care to heal the schism. Again the charge is serious; but without evidence. Above is an example of a liturgical question, namely, that the Russian Church celebrates Matins separately, and then the Hours and Liturgy, while the Church of Constantinople shortens and combines Matins with the Liturgy. But there is no need to blame the churches for looking at this difference calmly. An essential part of the divine service, the great sacrament of the Eucharist, is celebrated in agreement in both churches. The difference in additional rites does not constitute either heresy or schism. The Constantinople ministry is subject to correction. In order not to damage the agreement of the churches by a dispute about an unimportant subject, the Russian Church calmly waits until the Constantinople Church finds it convenient to improve its rite, according to the ancient model. His Eminence Kirill continues: “it is difficult to imagine repentance for sins for 600 years.” Fear God, lord! Where did you get the idea that the Russian Church has been sinning for 600 years? His Eminence Kirill also speaks about our actions in the East, as the last word that lies on the soul is the following: we “either rise to our full height, then lie in the dust before the Greeks.” Again, there is no evidence. And who are we? Ahead of all of us in the East are you, Your Eminence Kirill. In defense of your dignity, let me say that you have slandered yourself, and that you are not lying in the dust before the Greeks. “We alone,” says the Reverend Kirill, “can resolve the issue of the existence of the Eastern Church.” Let us be careful not to agree with this unhumble opinion. The solution to the question of the existence of the Eastern Church belongs to Him who created His Church, which is insurmountable through the gates of hell. I will stop these comments so as not to tire the reader. But I suppose they should have been made; because a person who does not have the convenience of documenting what Eminence Kirill says could be deeply outraged in his conscience at the sight of what grave accusations are laid on the Orthodox Church, and especially on the Russian Church, by a person whose rank is typical of defending it. It was also necessary to facilitate consideration of whether the thoughts proposed by His Eminence Kirill were correct, so that incorrect thoughts would not lead one into the wrong direction of affairs. V. However, one cannot ignore the following saying of the Right Reverend Kirill: “not to help the oppressed Orthodox flocks, but to introduce the Russian hierarchy into the cause of Orthodoxy in the East - this is the task imposed on the mission by force of circumstances.” Orthodox and philanthropic people, I hope, will not agree with the Reverend that it is not our business to help the oppressed flocks. And he himself does not abandon this matter, as can be seen from his report. And what does it mean to introduce the Russian hierarchy into the cause of Orthodoxy in the East? This would require an explanation from him. It's like making a cathedral out of the Eastern and Russian hierarchy. Can and should the mission lead to this? VI. Concerned about the rapprochement of the Russian hierarchy with the Eastern one, His Eminence Kirill seems to be moving away from his Russian hierarchy. He invented a project that should be implemented in all churches of Russia, but he did not address this project to the Holy Synod. The project is as follows: every year the Eminence will prepare 2,500,000 crosses, consecrate them in the Jordan, and send them throughout Russia for baptized infants, and receive 2 kopecks; prepare 800,000 rings, consecrate them at a source in Nazareth, send them throughout Russia to brides and grooms, and receive 2 kopecks for each. But before you rejoice at the discovery of a means to receive 10,000,000 kopecks annually, you need to take into account the following: 1) It is indecent to extract a tax or profit, even if it is insignificant, from the celebration of the sacrament. 2) The acquisition of this income cannot be considered at all easy and certain. In dioceses where the clergy uses income rather than salary, poor people sometimes have nothing to give to the priest; Consequently, they will not give for the cross, or the payment for the cross will be allocated from the small income of the clergy, and thus the invention will turn into a tax on the poor clergy. 3) With the space now given to schism, every church requirement, from which schismatics are free, turns into an incentive to move into schism. 4) Will there be any benefit? To buy crosses and rings, take them to the Jordan and Nazareth, send them to Russia, send them to consistories, to deans, to churches - won’t all this cost more than 2 kopecks for each item? 5) The Eminence says that there is no need for control here. Not true. If he sends out 2,500,000 crosses, but receives money only for 2,000,000, but does not receive money for 500,000, then it will be necessary to carry out 500,000 investigations in order to find out why which baby did not receive a cross, or, having received it, did not pay 2 kopecks? 6) Is it reasonable to consecrate the rings at the spring of Nazareth? According to the Gospel of St. Luke, the Annunciation took place in the church: an angel came to her. June 28. A note by Metropolitan Philaret about the Betsakur church and the dome of the Jerusalem temple Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A.P. Tolstoy, in reference dated June 21, 1861, No. 3638, forwarding to Metropolitan Philaret “the letter of the Most Reverend Kirill of Melitopol and all the dispatches of Prince Lobanov-Rostovsky,” asked him, “with the return of these papers, to inform” him his opinion about the assumptions contained in the mentioned papers. At the same time, the Chief Prosecutor did not hide from the Bishop that he was perplexed “how Prince Lobanov calls the same enterprise completely private and at the same time considers it capable of having important political consequences,” and that he “is worried about how the news of the complicity of the Sovereign Emperor and Napoleon III in the repair of the dome over the Holy Sepulcher will be received among the Orthodox clergy and people, in the East and here, removal from this Orthodox clergy"? On this letter, the Metropolitan wrote: “June 29. The letter and dispatch about the Betsakur church and the dome of the Jerusalem temple are returned with a note.” The metropolitan's note was reported to the Sovereign Emperor, who wrote several resolutions on it, which are given in the notes. About the Betsakur church and the dome of the Jerusalem temple 394 I. The case of the Betsakur church should rightly be protected from the claims of the French consul by the fact that there is no special material shrine here that would attract the worship of Christians of all confessions, that this Orthodox church, which belonged to the Orthodox village and now must satisfy the same need, that consequently this matter of the parish church is not connected with the general matter of the Palestinian saints. places. Apparently, this should also be helped by the fact that the matter is not about applying for permission to build a church, but about leaving the permission already given inviolable. II. In the case of the restoration of the dome of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, the judgments of the Right Reverend of Melitopol are surprising, who recognizes “on the Church of the Holy Sepulcher the rights of the Sultan, the rightful owner of St. land”, and considers it “a morally just demand that the Porte reward the general dishonor and insult of Christians in its possessions by restoring the first shrine of Christianity.” The Sultan, the legal ruler of Jerusalem, has no right to the house of the last inhabitant of Jerusalem, for this is the property of this person, not the Sultan. For the same reason, the Sultan has no right to the Jerusalem temple. He has the right to protect it, like any property in his possessions, with his own power and to protect it from unfair claims, but he has no right to dispose of it in it either. 395 For what general dishonor and insult to Christians “reward” the Eminence of Melitopol demands from the Sultan, he does not explain. But whatever the dishonor and insult, why should it be rewarded in no other way than by the restoration of the Jerusalem temple? This is also unclear. On the contrary, wouldn’t it be a dishonor and an insult to Christians if the Sultan, let’s say a beneficent, but not a Christian ruler, worked on the dome of the Holy Sepulcher, and the Christian sovereigns remained on the sidelines, inactive? 396 III. It is undeniable that the ownership of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher belongs to the Jerusalem Orthodox hierarchy. The violent temporary possession by the crusaders did not destroy this right. The Turkish government has constantly recognized this. The Orthodox Greeks, in order to protect this right, after the fire at the beginning of this century, carried out the restoration of the church on credit, not allowing the participation of other confessions. But when the efforts of the Western Church to shake this right are supported by a strong power, when the Turkish government, not wanting to violate the rights and not finding it convenient to refuse the insistence, decided on a middle measure - to restore the dome of the church with its own means, when this decision remains unfulfilled and the dome over the Holy Sepulcher is brought to such a state that it daily threatens with a sad and disastrous fall: then the best outcome from the difficulties of this matter can hardly be indicated, as the proposed idea to restore the dome of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher with the combined funds of the Russian Sovereign Emperor and the Emperor of the French 397. In order to prevent interference and disputes, it is necessary to base the matter on the danger of a disaster that daily threatens the great shrine of Christianity. The need for haste prompts us to remove all considerations from the enterprise except one: to avert danger and give the church its proper appearance. The matter will be of a pure nature as a matter of piety and beneficence, without affecting any rights recognized or subject to trial. 398 Lord, arrange good things for Your holy place. Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow. 14 July. Note by Metropolitan Philaret on the restoration of the dome over the Church of the Holy Sepulcher Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A.P. Tolstoy, June 9, 1861, wrote to Metropolitan Philaret: “upon sending to your Eminence the letter of Prince Lobanov about the correction of the dome of St. church, this important matter became the subject of many secret political considerations; as a result of which attention was paid to previous printed and written documents on this subject, of which the most remarkable is Caratheodorius’s pamphlet 400. It is so important that I ask Your Eminence to apologize for the untimely presentation of it. Meanwhile, an opinion on the same subject was received from the Metropolitan of Novgorod, after a private meeting with members of the Holy Synod. I make it my duty to present you, confidentially, with a copy of this opinion, with the most humble request that you honor me with your review and return the brochure, since it will be needed during the formal discussion that is likely to follow on this issue in the secret meeting of the Holy Synod.” 401 The list from the confidential letter of the Metropolitan of Novgorod and St. Petersburg said: “From the 402 papers presented to me by the actual state councilor Salomon, having seen that the Russian envoy in Constantinople, Prince Lobanov, on the subject of correcting the dome over the Holy Sepulcher, came to the conclusion that the correction of this dome, which threatens to fall, would be conveniently carried out jointly the care and support of His Imperial Majesty the Sovereign Emperor of All Russia and His Majesty the Emperor of the French, I consider it my duty to briefly state my opinion on this subject. The Church of the Resurrection of Christ, together with the Holy Sepulcher, has always belonged and belongs to the Eastern Greek Church, with the exception of insignificant parts of it ceded to the Latins and other infidels, and, despite all the efforts and machinations of the Latins, the right of the Greeks to own this church, on the basis of undoubted documents, was recognized by the Mohammedan government as legal and inalienable. Therefore, first of all, the question is: with or without the consent of the Patriarch of Jerusalem and the entire Eastern Greek Orthodox Church, the Russian and French envoys 403 began to find ways to correct the dome and made an assumption about the possibility of making such a correction under the joint care and support of their Majesties the Emperor of All Russia and the Emperor of the French? Prince Lobanov's dispatch says nothing about the consent of the Greeks. It can be concluded with certainty that either their consent was not asked at all, or the Greeks did not express it. In the latter case, the right to dispose of the correction of the dome is tantamount to the right to dispose of someone else's house, without the knowledge of the owner. In the latter case, the disagreement of the Greeks could not be considered unfounded, because the opinion established over time gives the one who corrected the dome the right to own the church building, and consequently, correcting it, through the means of Russia and France in the aggregate, is tantamount to the alienation of the property of the Greeks from their possession. No assurances that no one’s property will be violated can reassure the Greek clergy and population; they have learned through centuries of experience that the assurances of the West do not in any way ensure the safety and inviolability of the shrine that belongs to them. Therefore, one may fear that the implementation of the envoys’ assumptions will give rise to important unrest in the East. France, as the patron of Latin propaganda in the East, has long sought permission to repair the dome over the Holy Sepulcher, hoping, on the basis of the prevailing opinion in the East, to thus acquire the right to own the temple and eliminate the Greeks. And the Mohammedan government, not finding other ways to eliminate this unfair and offensive harassment for the Greeks, decided to restore the dome at its own expense. This has not been fulfilled. But for the Greeks such an assumption was less dangerous. Is it possible to eliminate the idea of ​​owning the church if the All-Russian Emperor, together with the French Emperor, decided to restore the dome of the church? The Greeks can rely on the generosity and selflessness of the Orthodox All-Russian Emperor with complete confidence, knowing that his father of blessed memory, while benefactoring the Jerusalem temple and being called the patron of the Holy Sepulcher, did not demand for this any special rights to own it. But can the Greeks, taught by many years of experience, have such confidence in the heterodox emperor of the French, the protector of Latinism and Western propaganda, which so persistently seeks a pretext for the alienation of the property of the Greeks and the Eastern Orthodox Church? Who can guarantee that the French emperor or his successor, who participated in the costs of correcting the dome, will not demand, in compensation for the costs, a division of the rights to own the church, if not by his own views, then by yielding to the public opinion of France? New difficulties that could arise from this would also respond as a reproach to the Orthodox monarch, who took part in the work of the heterodox sovereign in the cause of the Orthodox Church. The Greeks themselves would have fixed the dome if they had not encountered obstacles from the West. Therefore, diplomacy would then provide a significant benefit to Eastern Christians if it removed the obstacles presented to them; and the provision of material resources for the accomplishment of this holy work, with the appointment of a trusted person to monitor the correct use of donations, would be on the part of the most pious Sovereign Emperor the most decent participation in the restoration of the Jerusalem temple, of which his parent, the most pious Sovereign Emperor Nikolai Pavlovich, of blessed memory, was a ktitor. On the restoration of the dome over the Church of the Holy Sepulcher I. 404 Carathéodory’s answer to Boret’s pamphlet was delivered to me: Question des lieux-saints. 405 Of course this is to direct or correct my opinion. But from Article III of my note on the 28th day of last June, it is already clear that I affirm and prove the same thing as Mr. Carathéodory, namely, that the ownership of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher indisputably belongs to the Orthodox Eparchy of Jerusalem. II. From this it goes without saying that this very bishopric has the right to restore the dome of this church. If she can do this, if she is not prevented from doing so by either agents of other religions, or the Porte, or France, or another power, then great: no reasoning is needed; let them get down to business. III. But this is not the case. The issue of holy places and especially the restoration of the dome was raised several years ago: it received urgent protection from Russia, but met such opposition that it became the reason for a coalition war against Russia. The Sultan saw the right of the Greeks, but did not have the power to put it into action; saw the unjust claim of France, but did not have the strength to resist it; In order to somehow get out of the difficulty, he took it upon himself to restore the dome, but still does not do this, perhaps for fear of encountering a dispute from the West. Meanwhile, they say that the dome can collapse every day and spill the blood of his worshipers near the Holy Sepulcher. This is the position of the question that must now be discussed. IV. Is there any reason to believe that France has changed or will change her mind and cease her claim, or that she has become weaker and cannot insist on her claim as strongly as before? Is there any reason to think that the Porte will be firmer in the truth, and will resolutely take the side of the Greeks, that it will be stronger than before, and will not be swayed by the harm of the claims of France? Can we at least hope that she will soon and unhindered fulfill her promise to restore the dome? All these questions can most likely be answered only in the negative. And from this we must conclude that in such circumstances, to resume the pursuit of a better solution to this matter, that is, to allow the Orthodox alone to restore the dome, would mean undertaking a hopeless task. When this demand is renewed, since this matter was already the subject of negotiations with France, the Sultan, no doubt, will consult with her: and the previous claim, dispute, stop will be resumed. So, with good reasoning, due to the unreliability of achieving the best, it was proposed to look for the mediocre, permission to renew the dome with charitable benefits from Russia and France. One can hope that the latter will come to terms with this matter when she is accepted into complicity and not completely repelled. V. They ask: is this with the consent of the Patriarch of Jerusalem? The answer is: if it has not already been proposed, it is proper to propose this assumption for the consideration of the Patriarch of Jerusalem, with an indication of the circumstances set out in the previous articles. At the same time, it is necessary to explain to the most blessed patriarch that (as was said in the previous note) the only motivation for this matter is to hasten to protect the church from the threatening danger; that therefore, from this matter any consideration of anyone’s or any rights, which would hinder the acceleration of the matter, is removed, that this will only be a matter of piety and gratuitous charity to the church. One can hope that the patriarch will agree to this average measure, instead of waiting for the dome to fall on him or his governor. VI. Isn't the consent of the entire Eastern Church still needed? Not a little. The church is located in the area of ​​the Patriarchate of Jerusalem, and other Orthodox patriarchs have never extended their power to this church. VII. But what if the Patriarch of Jerusalem does not agree to the proposed measure. In this case, the sacrifice of the most pious Emperor of All Russia will be offered to God in pure intention, and the patriarch will reap what he sows. VIII. They say: correcting the Jerusalem temple with the help of Russia and France would be tantamount to the alienation of the property of the Greeks from their possession.” It's not fair. The condition proposed above is that the consideration of someone else's rights is excluded from this case. If a dilapidated parish church was renovated by a member of another parish, would this really be tantamount to alienating that church from its parishioners? IX. The fear is expressed “that the implementation of the envoys’ proposal will cause unrest in the East.” Unnecessary fear. There was an example that the sultan near Constantinople restored a destroyed church; there was no excitement; Christians have consecrated it and pray in it. The restoration of the dome of the Holy Sepulcher by the Orthodox Sovereign of All Russia, with part of the expenses of the French emperor, connects a pleasant line for the Orthodox with another not entirely pleasant; but wouldn’t it be a hundred times more unpleasant if the dome had been built by a non-Christian sovereign? X. They say: “France is trying to correct the dome in order to acquire the right to own the church.” So. But for this she wanted to build a dome alone: ​​now Russia is included in this. Moreover, the above shows a condition against the claims of France. XI. For the Greeks, it would be “unfair, offensive and dangerous” if France alone built the dome. This is not the case when Orthodox Russia enters, and with a precautionary condition. If a dilapidated parish church is restored by the zeal of someone else’s parishioner, is this really offensive and dangerous? XII. They say: can the Greeks have confidence in the heterodox emperor of the French? Let's assume not. But they can have confidence in the Orthodox Sovereign of All Russia, and in the honest word of both emperors that they are restoring the dome without affecting anyone’s rights. XIII. The Emperor of the French “won’t he demand the rights to own churches as compensation for expenses”? It will not require it, because in this draft the condition is precisely that it does not affect previous rights. XIV. They say: “The Greeks themselves would have fixed the dome if they had not encountered obstacles from the West.” This is an undeniable truth. But the trouble is that the West has been presenting obstacles to this that have been insurmountable to this day for several years, which is why it turned out to be necessary to find a special way out of the difficulties. XV. They say: “diplomacy would then provide a significant benefit to Eastern Christians if it removed the obstacles presented to them (the West). It is easy to make demands; it is not always easy to fulfill them. Diplomacy is not omnipotent. Against Russian diplomacy in this matter is the diplomacy of other powers, which also has its own force. The diplomacy of Emperor Nicholas I, apparently, had a strong effect on this matter, when it was not overcome by the opposite diplomacy, and they called for war to help. Well? Should Russia now resume its previous diplomacy in all its strength and inflexibility, and attract a new war? The Orthodox Church wants to achieve its good goals through the ways of peace. Her wisdom and meekness do not want to lead the Orthodox state government into quarrels with other powers, which are useless, or perhaps even dangerous. XVI. When there is no hope of achieving the best, namely, the restoration of the Jerusalem temple by the Orthodox alone: ​​we must try, at least, to prevent the worst, namely, the fall of the dome on the shrine of the Holy Sepulcher and on the heads of the Orthodox, and for this an average measure is sought and proposed. August 25–28. Review of Metropolitan Philaret “on letter 407 of His Eminence Kirill of Melitopol, dated January 9, 1861, on the case of the Melchites” I. Speaking about the joining of the Grecounites (Melchites) 408 to the Orthodox Church through Chrismation, His Eminence Kirill cites the opinion of the Patriarch of Alexandria, “that the Chrismation performed this time is not a sacrament.” Where did he find in the Holy Scriptures, or in the church rules, or in the writings of the holy fathers, that there are two anointings: one is a sacrament, and the other is not a sacrament? II. Further, Eminence Kirill writes: “about which (about anointing) I consider it my duty to enter into an interview with the most blessed patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, upon their return to their sees. Perhaps time will smooth out the last feature that distinguishes the eastern rank from the one accepted in Russia. The beginning of rapprochement has already been made.” By the name of the “last feature,” the Reverend probably means the different views of the two churches on pouring baptism. The Greek Church recognizes it as invalid, and baptizes those baptized by it again. The Russian Church considers it imperfect in ritual, but not without the power of the sacrament, and therefore accepts those baptized in other faiths into the Orthodox Church through confirmation. It is in vain that the Eminence takes up this task and in vain he harbors hope. The Synod did not appoint him as a dogmatic mediator between the Russian and Greek churches. An interview with the Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem does not promise much. They either will not deviate from their opinion, which they have quite strong (although their own rules and examples speak against them), or they will cast an indecisive and weak voice, because a strong and decisive voice is given to the ecumenical patriarch; and it is known that the current ecumenical patriarch 409 is distinguished by his inflexibility of character. It fortunately happened recently that the Ecumenical Patriarch, in a conversation with Archimandrite Antonin, defended his way of acting, was prompted to say that the Greek Church acts according to the severity of the rules, and the Russian one according to lenient economy, 410 and that, consequently, although he recognizes the action of the Russian Church as not strictly corresponding, he does not condemn it. That's enough until better times. Disagreement is asleep. If His Eminence Kirill wakes him up at the wrong time, then instead of the desired peace, great discord may occur. III. But the main question, which is proposed in the letter of the Right Reverend Melitopol, is the question of providing him with the means to provide benefits in the form of maintaining Orthodoxy in the East. The Right Reverend writes that he found a means for this, “sincerely proposing a project about godsons from Bethlehem and rings from Nazareth, guided in part by the example of the Latins (although for them Jerusalem is smaller than Rome), and most importantly by the conviction that this measure would serve better than others to strengthen the faith among the people and to the spiritual union between the Orthodox North and between the Orthodox East.” I gave my opinion on the project of crosses and rings invented by the Right Reverend Melitopol, in a note dated May 15, 1859, in Article VI. Therefore, without entering into a new discussion about this, I am enclosing a list from the said article. 411 The Right Reverend attributed too much importance to the Jordanian crosses and Nazareth rings when he said that this was the best means for establishing the faith among the people and for the spiritual union of the Orthodox North with the East. This thought is a spark that promises neither light nor warmth. And if it happened to arouse among the common people the idea that the distant shrine of the Jordanian cross is more important than the close shrine of the sacraments taught in every church: this would not be a statement, but a damage to the faith. IV. The “best instructions” expected by Eminence Kirill are difficult to give him. It is desirable that good works be done in the East that are useful to the people and obvious, and that correct information about them reach Russia, through which the good deeds of good people would be attracted. It is unknown to what extent the Reverend Kirill follows this rule. It is heard in Russia that significant sums passed through his hands, but where they go is unknown, or little is known, and perhaps they are used in such a way that knowledge of this would not arouse sympathy. For example, in 1859 he decided to support the construction of a church in Sula, where Orthodoxy had already disappeared. Hardly anyone will believe that a stone church will restore Orthodoxy where it disappeared, and therefore hardly anyone will be disposed to such a benefit. His Eminence Kirill traveled around the East and received very solemn meetings. A magnificent trip, of course, costs more than a modest one. But will such demonstrations benefit the Orthodox? Will they arouse the envy of the Greek clergy? Will the Mohammedans become more violent against Christians? These thoughts will easily come to anyone, and, of course, they will not be inclined to help such enterprises. I repeat, it is desirable that benefactors in the East be, as much as possible, true and obviously useful, and that they acquire true fame in Russia. August 25–28, 1862 412 April 29. Report of Metropolitan Philaret to the Holy Synod, with an opinion “on the considerations and project for the management of charitable institutions in Palestine” His Imperial Highness, Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolaevich, with a rescript addressed to His Eminence Metropolitan Isidore, forwarded to him a copy of the project for managing Russian charitable institutions in Palestine. The draft states that the Palestinian committee, having recognized it as inconvenient to entrust the future extensive institutions for worshipers there to the direct supervision of the consul, suggests that it would be more useful to establish at the head of the Jerusalem Holy Trinity Lavra a special spiritual position of abbot, or abbot 413, who would be directly under the authority of the Holy Synod and directly through the consul would submit financial reports to the Palestinian committee; this abbot could be in the rank of archimandrite, and while the bishop is at the head of the Jerusalem mission, he would be in a relationship of spiritual and eponymous subordination to him, while maintaining direct relations with the Holy Synod; If over time the head of the spiritual mission will be not a bishop, but an archimandrite, then the presence in Jerusalem of two such Russian spiritual dignitaries will not present any difficulties, for each of them will have their own specific range of actions. In a rescript addressed to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, His Highness deigned to express the need to eliminate the difficulties that arise from the too high hierarchical rank of the head of the Jerusalem mission, and the desire that the Right Reverend of Melitopol receive another appointment, and that the spiritual mission be placed under the command of a pious and capable archimandrite. The Vice-Chancellor, for his part, responded that, in the opinion of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the establishment of the position of rector or abbot for the economic management of our charitable institutions in Jerusalem and the appointment of an archimandrite to this position would be extremely inconvenient and could have very unfavorable consequences; with great convenience, you can entrust the economic part of charitable institutions to a capable and reliable secular person, with the title of housekeeper or caretaker, for whom it is incomparably easier and more decent to fulfill these duties. As for the appointment of a clergyman with the rank of archimandrite as the head of the mission, the ministry responded that in general, from a political point of view, it does not consider it necessary for our Jerusalem mission to be headed by a bishop and does not foresee any inconvenience from entrusting the management of the mission to a person with the rank of archimandrite; but in view of the fact that many important issues are currently being raised, in which His Eminence Kirill took an active part, he believes that his removal at this time would be inconvenient. The Holy Synod, due to its close knowledge of the entire progress of the establishment of Russian charitable institutions, forwarded to the Metropolitan of Moscow a note with considerations on the mentioned subject and instructed him to present a conclusion. The note contained the following information: “The construction of Russian charitable institutions, which began in 1860 on Meydam, is now approaching completion. Worshipful institutions, as construction work on them ceases, must enter into the activities intended for them and be supplied with facilities. The establishment of economic order in them and, in particular, the further maintenance of it will constitute, despite its pettiness, a very difficult duty for the person to whom it will be entrusted; Therefore, the choice of a manager in this not brilliant, but no less requiring great care and conscientiousness, circle of actions must be made with careful caution, ensuring in the future the successful progress of the undertaken business in the Holy Land. Temporary shelters founded in Jerusalem are still under the supervision of the local Russian consul. Although the consuls in the East, being the diplomatic agents of the government, must, in order to preserve their dignity, act personally only in matters of real importance and avoid visible interference in minor interests, the supervision of temporary shelters could not until now be entrusted otherwise than to the consul, since the main business so far consisted in the founding of Russian institutions and ensuring their existence by diverting various local administrative difficulties. In addition, the activities of these small temporary institutions were not complicated, and the consul could easily manage them through his assistants, without descending to the details of management himself. Entrusting our future extensive religious institutions there to the direct supervision of the consul seems very inconvenient, firstly, because, by the force of things, he would be forced, to the detriment of his diplomatic importance, to enter into all the petty duties of the administrator of the shelters, that is, the manager of their economic part; 2, because our common people, when they come on pilgrimage, easily submit to the authority of a spiritual nature, which they are accustomed to seeing in Russia at the head of all hospitable laurels and monasteries, and look with distrust at the interference of civil authorities in such a matter, and 3, because the Russian consul in Jerusalem should be the highest and final authority, resolving all disputes and misunderstandings in all everyday matters fan affairs. If the consul were left as the immediate manager of the management of the shelters and the closest guardian of order in them, then the characters of both the manager and the chief judge would be combined in him. According to the same respects, but in an even broader sense, it is impossible to entrust the direct management of new shelters to the head of the spiritual mission in Jerusalem, who, by his rank, is invested with too high a significance, is considered locally the representative of the Russian Church in the East, and, so to speak, is accredited spiritually before the neighboring patriarchs - Antiox and Alexandria. The most reverend head of the mission must very often undertake long journeys, naturally occupy himself with his spiritual representation and the duties of a spiritual shepherd, and would not be absolutely in a position, without causing harm to his high situation, to take upon himself the daily concerns for the welfare of the material needs of the worshipers. The members of the mission, the hieromonks, with its limited composition, are so busy with regular and extraordinary services in the church, confessing fans and caring for their moral success, that even now they barely find the opportunity to fulfill the difficult duties that lie on them. Entrusting the management of shelters to one of the consul’s subordinates or sending a special civilian to Jerusalem for this purpose is also inconvenient, partly due to the indicated inclination of our admirers, it is much easier to obey the spiritual superiors, partly because the consul has only one secretary, and finding a reliable person to send to Jerusalem who would agree to serve there without any benefits or honors will be either very difficult or very expensive. The totality of all these respects leads to the conviction that it would be better and most useful to try to introduce into the management of the future Russian hospice Lavra the very order that brings such brilliant and at the same time completely Christian consequences in many monasteries in Russia, namely, to create at the head of the Jerusalem Holy Trinity Lavra a special spiritual position of abbot, viceroy or abbot, which would consist on a common basis and directly under the authority Holy Governing Synod and directly through the consul would count the money to the Palestinian committee, from which he would receive sums for the maintenance of shelters. The abbot, governor or abbot of the Lavra could be an archimandrite on the same basis on which all Greek monasteries in Jerusalem and the surrounding area are governed by archimandrites. As long as a bishop is at the head of the Russian spiritual mission, it is natural that the archimandrite-rector will be in the relationship of spiritual hierarchical subordination to him, which is determined by general church laws, but this subordination does not, as it seems, prevent the placing of the entire Lavra and its rector in a more direct relationship with the Holy Synod, for the Right Reverend, the head of the mission, does not and cannot have diocesan power in Jerusalem. If, over time, the head of the spiritual mission were not a bishop, but an archimandrite, according to the previously existing order, then the presence in Jerusalem of two such Russian spiritual dignitaries would not present any difficulties: the rector would have his own specific moral and economic circle of actions, and the head of the mission would continue to be in charge of the highest affairs of church relations between the Holy Synod and the Eastern patriarchs - Jerusalem, Antioch and Alexandria. All expenses incurred for the maintenance of the rector of the Russian Lavra in Jerusalem and for sending him to St. city, can be accepted without any difficulty once and for all at the full expense of the Palestinian Committee, which will have a permanent annual budget from the amounts of circle fees specifically established for this purpose. In the same way, it will be possible to accept at the expense of the committee the maintenance of the necessary clerk and housekeeper from the clergy under the rector. In all likelihood, it will be easy for the abbot to find ce6e assistants from among the fans visiting Jerusalem, just as the required number of reliable caretakers have now been found in temporary Russian shelters. There is no need to establish a special clergy for conducting services in the Cathedral of the Holy Life-Giving Trinity and the home church of the spiritual mission; for the service will be carried out by the mission itself, which specifically exists for this purpose in Jerusalem. The main qualities that will be required from the abbot of the Russian hospice monastery in Jerusalem should be: strict piety, strength of character, ability to deal with the Russian common people and experience in monastic management. From such a clergyman there is no need to demand at all any pompous scholarship, nor the ability to endure the conditions of sociability with foreigners, nor even knowledge of Greek and Arabic. The abbot will deal exclusively with Russian worshipers within the Russian monastery; therefore, the main condition is the ability to manage worshipers and the household on the same basis as is done in monasteries in Russia. All local relations with the Greek clergy and the Jerusalem authorities will remain the lot of the diplomatic representative of the government, that is, the consul, and partly the head of the spiritual mission. There is no doubt that the Holy Synod will easily find a completely worthy person who could be blessed for useful service to the Russian spiritual cause pleasing to God in Palestine, and would joyfully agree to strive for the Christian cause at the place of the suffering of the Divine Redeemer. By decree of the Holy Synod, dated March 12, 1863 (No. 686), I was ordered, according to a note containing considerations and a project for the management of charitable institutions in Palestine, to present a conclusion. In this note there are sayings based on inaccurate concepts about objects and the meaning of names. So that this inaccuracy from words does not turn into action and does not cause difficulties, there is an urgent need to consider both objects and names. I. The note assigns the name “Jerusalem Holy Trinity Lavra” to Russian charitable institutions in Jerusalem. The name Lavra is usually given to a large, highly comfortable monastery, abundant in the number of brethren. So on Athos there is the Iveron Lavra; So there are laurels in Russia, constituting the highest category of monasteries. But Russian charitable institutions in Jerusalem should accommodate: a spiritual mission, consisting of 1 bishop (or archimandrite), 2 hieromonks, 1 hierodeacon, 2 clerics and 6 choristers, and, at times, up to several hundred lay worshippers; This is not a monastery or a monastery. Since, according to church rules, the power of every patriarch, as well as the Holy Synod, extends no further than the boundaries of his region, the Holy Synod does not have the right to found a monastery in Jerusalem. According to the brotherly love of the Holy Synod, metochs, or metochions, of the patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem were allowed to exist in Moscow; but these are not laurels or monasteries, but modest shelters for temporarily residing monks of one or another patriarchy. If the Holy Synod had established a monastery in Jerusalem, then the patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, by right of reciprocity, could have demanded that three laurels be established from them in Moscow or St. Petersburg, which would have led to important difficulties and disorders in church administration. A high name will not elevate an institution if its structure does not correspond to its dignity, and with the improvement of the institution, its simplest name can become honorable. If for some reason the name of Russian charitable institutions in Jerusalem is not considered satisfactory, then one can assign them the name of a Russian hospice monastery, since this name is not strictly limited to the meaning of a monastery (Philim. 22), and in Russia it is also given to charitable hostels for those without monasticism. For this, it is proper to ask the permission of the Most Blessed Patriarch of Jerusalem. II. The note calls for Russian charitable institutions in Jerusalem to “create a special spiritual position of abbot, governor or abbot,” and further states that “the abbot could be an archimandrite.” The note further states that the head of the mission could be an archimandrite, and with him another abbot. Here names and objects are presented in an incongruous mixture. The head of the monastery is usually called abbot. Consequently, above the archimandrite, who is called the head of the mission, he is placed even higher, the rector. The resolution is inconsistent with the name of the head of the mission, as well as with the essence of the matter. It is offered to choose between creating an abbot or a governor. In monasteries, the viceroy is called the second person after the abbot, who, in case of need, takes his place? Consequently, if you create a governor, then it will be necessary to create something else above him; otherwise, who will have him as governor? What idea is contained in the saying: “the abbot could be an archimandrite” is not clear. III. In the note, the abbot does not rely on either clergy or the brotherhood of monastics, but only a clerk and housekeeper from the clergy, and assistants he finds from the fans. The organization does not correspond to the name of the rector. IV. The note sets out the following assumption: “the presence in Jerusalem of two Russian spiritual dignitaries would not present any difficulties: the rector would have his own specific moral and economic circle of actions, and the head of the mission would continue to be in charge of the highest affairs of church relations between the Holy Synod and the Eastern Patriarchs of Jerusalem, Antioch and Alexandria.” It seems that it is assumed here that the head of the mission with its members, and the rector with his clerk and housekeeper, will be two independent leaders from each other, and two separate societies in one institution. Such an organization of the establishment would lead to constant difficulties, clashes and confusion. The so-called abbot, who is supposed to be entrusted with moral and economic management, will really subject to his moral supervision both the members and the head of the mission, to whom the note entrusts “higher” relations with the patriarchs? Church worship note provides mission. But what if the rector, the independent head of the economic department, does not sufficiently and decently satisfy the church’s liturgical needs? What if the head of the mission says: prepare me some prosphoras for some fans I know, and the abbot answers: I can’t increase the consumption; will you buy prosphora from me? What if the head of the mission, due to cold or ill health, asks for heating of the cell, but the abbot refuses, saving firewood? Seek justice in the Synod? Is this very convenient? Will such a disorganization of dual leadership not expose the institution to offensive judgment both to the Jerusalemites and to the fans? V. True, in other words of the note, “while the bishop is at the head of the Russian spiritual mission,” the rector “is in a relationship of eponymous subordination to him”; but, subsequently, the diocesan authority of this bishop is denied. And from this it follows that subordination to the bishop of the “rector” is due only in the absence of the right to take the place of the bishop and give orders in the church, and that subordination will be completely destroyed when the head of the mission is not a bishop, and the above difficulties will follow. VI. The note states that the “abbot” accounts in money to the Palestinian committee “directly through the consul.” How will the abbot do this? The word “directly” gives him the right to send a report directly to the Palestinian committee, but this right is taken away from him by the word “through the consul.” VII. The note speaks of placing the rector “in a more direct” relationship with the Holy Synod. What does “in more direct” relations with the Holy Synod mean? What does “more direct” mean? Does that mean immediate? What subjects does it apply to? Not explained. VIII. Consideration of the project for the management of charitable institutions in Jerusalem leads to the need to present a special opinion about this, which may consist of the following: I. Russian charitable institutions in Jerusalem will take the name of the Russian hospice monastery, or the Holy Trinity hospice monastery. II. The head of the Russian spiritual mission in Jerusalem is the head or abbot of this monastery. III. He may be a bishop or archimandrite. IV. It consists of monastic clergy and clergy in the number required, determined by the Holy Synod. V. He governs the monastery with the same rights as the abbot of the monastery. VI. The eldest over him is called the governor, and will assist in all matters of administration, and, in case of need, takes his place. VII. The third official is the housekeeper, who is entrusted with the management of the monastery. VIII. In cases of particular importance, these three persons constitute a council and make decisions, signed by a common decree, under general responsibility. IX. The rector and the viceroy have spiritual and moral care for the fans, and economic care for them is entrusted to the steward. X. The amounts received by the monastery are divided into two categories: firstly, the amounts received from the Holy Synod and from sources other than the Palestinian Committee; secondly, the amounts coming from the Palestinian Committee. XI. Both categories of amounts, each separately, are stored in a safe place, for example, in the sacristy, behind the seal of the rector and behind the key of the steward, and are issued only in accordance with a note from the steward regarding their purpose, approved by the rector and the governor, which is then stored in the repository of the amounts itself. For petty expenses, the housekeeper is given a round sum, in which he is obliged to give an account before receiving the same amount again. XII. Amounts of the first category are recorded in special income and expenditure books, and a report is given about them to the Holy Synod. XIII. Amounts of the second category are recorded in separate income and expense books, and a report is given to the Palestinian Committee about their use. XIV. At the end of each year, the rector submits to the Holy Synod a general report on the state of the monastery in church, spiritual, moral and economic terms and in relation to the care of fans. XV. Relations with the Holy Synod may be direct or through the intermediary of a leading member, as the Holy Synod may wish to determine. 414 December 9. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, A.P. Akhmatov, with his opinion regarding the complaint of Bishop Kirill of Melitopol about his recall from the post of head of the Russian spiritual mission in Jerusalem The Holy Synod, after listening to the confidential attitude of the comrade minister of foreign affairs, dated June 4, 1863, No. 1769, “on the way of life” of the head of the Jerusalem spiritual mission, His Eminence Kirill, by determination on June 19–21 of the same June, decided to grant the synodal chief prosecutor to ask His Imperial Majesty’s highest permission for the following assumptions, 1) dismiss Bishop Kirill from his position as head of our spiritual mission in Jerusalem; 2) in the absence of a currently vacant diocesan see, appoint the Right Reverend Kirill, for the time being, at the disposal of Archbishop Athanasius of Kazan, granting him, the Right Reverend Kirill, to have premises in the Kazan Spasopreobrazhensky second-class monastery, which is in charge of the vicar of the Kazan diocese, with management thereof, and receive a rector's salary for maintenance for the said monastery the salary is 164 rubles. 6 kopecks ser., and, on top of this, the remaining free salary for the maintenance of the vicar of the Kazan diocese, in the amount of 857 rubles. 70 k. gray, a total of one thousand twenty-one rubles seventy-six kopecks. gray; 3) then elect a person in the rank of archimandrite to the rank of head of the Jerusalem spiritual mission.” This highest determination was approved on June 22, which was made known to Eminence Kirill by decree of June 28, No. 2055. Upon receipt of the decree, Eminence Kirill addressed the Chief Prosecutor with a letter with the following content: “With the last Russian mail I received a decree from the Holy Governing Synod of June 28. Even if there had not been preliminary solemn announcements regarding the streets of Jerusalem by the agents of the party hostile to me, who have long since established themselves both in St. Petersburg and here, who are here, it would not be difficult to understand from the first time that all the said orders are of a punitive and strictly punitive nature: at one time there are five punishments, of which you do not know which is more severe. But it is not about the quantity and quality of the punishments awarded to me that I, out of conscience, decided to say as many words as possible to Your Excellency. A Christian person can endure a lot, but there are things that even the best Christian cannot endure. The Apostle Paul suffered so much hardship and suffering that it’s scary to imagine, but he also had an occasion when he pointed out the dignity of a Roman citizen. A Christian monk must endure even more than others; but the obedience of a monk, which has no limits in relation to the commanded work, has its limits when it comes to protecting rights and honor: the interpreter of St. Paul. Chrysostom truly knew his duty, suffering even to death for his rights and honor. The end of the word: He Himself, Who gave the commandment to the one who beats the cheek to give up the other one, Who was obedient even to death, death on the cross - He Himself, indicated that there are times when the one who beats the cheek should not silently leave the other one: if you speak evil, testify about evil, or if you beat me with good. With the word of Christ I came to terms with my word, which lay like a heavy stone on my soul. Some strange trial was carried out on me, not fitting under any laws, neither divine, nor human, nor civil, nor church. At every trial, the defendant knows what he is accused of and what he is being tried for. For me, an incomprehensible exception was made in this regard. I have already read my verdict, but I still don’t know who my accusers are or what the charges are. During the entire time I served in the East, I did not have the slightest comment on my service from anywhere, and suddenly I am subject to condemnation. The decree itself, dated June 28, does not explain in the slightest hint what I was convicted of and why five punishments were awarded at once. The more I read into the verdict, the more perplexed I am. It goes without saying that with such an initial formulation of the case, there can no longer be any question of granting me the right to justify myself, granted to defendants from time immemorial and in all courts in the world. The law judges no one unless he first hears him; For me, an exception was made from this rule, striking with amazement not only me, but also everyone here, near and far, who only heard the rumor of a sudden sentence against me, in absentia and silently. I dare to turn to your Excellency, as the legal guardian of the correct course of church affairs in the Russian Church, and to most earnestly petition: a) that I be given the right to protect myself from unlawful condemnation without trial, which, in my conscience, conviction and right, I cannot recognize as a legal decision and cannot accept with humility, as I would accept a punishment five times more severe (if this is possible), awarded by a court based on law and truth. b) That I be given copies of the correspondence regarding the case about me, which would give me the opportunity to know where and what accusations fall on me, and to justify myself in the eyes of the Holy Governing Synod. c) So that this right of self-justification, no little, perhaps, hampered by the incorrect course of the case, I could carry out through the mediation of the Eastern patriarchs and hierarchs, who were witnesses of my six-year service before their eyes and who had the opportunity to arrange a correct trial on the strict basis of church rules, requiring an investigation of the case by twelve bishops. d) So that for this reason I would be given the right to stay here in the East, under the roof of the sacred patriarchal thrones, until I am acquitted by a legal court and my honor, as a Russian bishop, is protected: a desire that also has the basis that at the present time it would be difficult for me to risk traveling to the north, with a six-year habit of a warm climate. d) So that the gracious government would deign to pay attention to my sixteen years of service and grant me a well-deserved pension with the rank of Doctor of Theology and honorary member of the Imperial Academy of Sciences, as an inspector, and finally as rector of the village. Petersburg Theological Academy, as an ordinary professor of the academy, as a censor for six years, as a permanent employee in the Christian Reading magazine, and then as an assistant editor, as well as an assistant to the chairman of the committee, who was for the publication of edifying books, in the dignity of the author of Pastoral Theology, the books: Minutes of Solitary Reflection of a Christian, Life of St. the blessed Grand Duke Alexander Nevsky, Akathist to this saint, donated to the benefit of the Alexandronevsky Lavra, finally - with the rank of head of the mission, for six years he worked almost exclusively by correspondence from Aleppo to Cairo on the Greek-Unite matter and other church issues.” Jerusalem. August 22 days, 1863. No. 33. A. P. Akhmatov responded to this letter to His Eminence Kirill: “You divide the orders of the Holy Synod set out in the decree of June 28, Your Eminence, into 5 points and in each of them you want to see a punitive measure. Let me assure you that the Holy Synod, having decided, in agreement with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, to change the composition of the Jerusalem mission and therefore summoning you to Russia, not only did not attach a punitive meaning to its orders, but at the same time showed full attention to you. If you want to discuss these orders impartially, then, of course, see for yourself. Yes, there was and is no basis for punishment or punishment until you create it by obvious disobedience to the authority of the Holy Governing Synod and the Sovereign Emperor. There is no talk of judgment and condemnation, therefore, justification is unnecessary. To replace you, as the head of the Jerusalem mission, there was no need to resort to court; the occupation of this place is only a temporary assignment, given by mutual consent of the church and civil authorities, and terminated by it, upon recognition of the need and benefit. No other view is applicable, and during a calm discussion you, of course, will deign to admit this yourself. Agreeing on this with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Holy Synod, with the highest approval, found it necessary to change the composition of the Jerusalem mission, having henceforth at its head not a bishop, but an archimandrite; calling you to serve the Russian church, he assigned you, with sufficient means of support, in the absence of a vacant diocese, and an honorable residence in one of the first cities of Russia, where academic and university funds can serve as sufficient support for your accounting studies; Your Eminence Archbishop of Kazan, whom I recently visited, is waiting for you with love, hoping, until your new appointment, to have a sincere and enlightened collaborator. Where is the punishment and a number of punishments here? I repeat my confidence that with a calm discussion you yourself will change the view expressed under the influence of the first impression, and thoughts about the persons with whom you had disagreements and call us a party hostile to us, that with the intelligence and talents generally attributed to you, you cannot choose another path other than the only one in which these gifts of the Lord can serve for the benefit of His holy church and your own, the path of blessed obedience to legitimate authority. I know that the Holy Synod values ​​your abilities and, without extreme grief, will not want to lose them; therefore, the future depends on you. The decision of the government and the orders of the Holy Synod cannot be changed under any circumstances. Why now I have no opportunity to promote your desires, but I ask you to believe that henceforth you will find in me a complete and constant readiness to promote your successes on the path which the church has a right to expect from you to consistently follow. I have no doubt that you want to promote her triumph, and not those persons whom you recognize as hostile and who, of course, will joyfully point out your deviations from the true dictates of duty, and, consequently, conscience and honor. No. 6557. September 26, 1863. In response to this attitude, Eminence Kirill wrote to A.P. Akhmatov: “Your Excellency’s letter, dated September 26, No. 6557, I had the good fortune to receive with the last Russian mail, which arrived here at the beginning of this week. I cannot sufficiently appreciate your, dear sir, benevolence and gracious attention; even less able to fully express the feelings of my deepest gratitude to your Excellency for the truly kind desire to reassure me with your word, which you hastened to address to me immediately upon receipt of my paper, dated August 22, No. 33, graciously devoting to me a share of your precious time, amid the inconveniences and labors of travel. The best, it seems to me, expression and evidence of my heartfelt gratitude to your Excellency in the present circumstances can be my complete trust in your Excellency and complete frankness. And I consider it my sacred duty to respond with them to your philanthropic feelings, so necessarily expressed for me in your Excellency’s letter, No. 6557. Speaking with complete confidence and complete frankness, I cannot help but express that in your Excellency’s letter I found a comforting reflection of your kind, sympathetic heart and most pious spirit, about which I heard so much with deep joy, understandable to every faithful son of the Russian Church; but, forgive me generously, I did not find either what I expected, i.e., an answer to my paper, or what your Excellency so philanthropically promised me in the first lines of the letter, i.e., reassurance, instead of which, on the contrary, I encountered a series of new perplexities. I am passing over the first, in essence, of course, deeply kind and obligatory note from your Excellency about the disorder of my spirit that you noticed from the contents of my paper, under the influence of the first impression (probably from the decree). I will limit myself only to the assurance that my paper to Your Excellency was not written immediately upon receipt of the decree on June 28, but more than two weeks after that, with complete calm of spirit, strengthened by prayer, especially ardent at the tomb of the Queen of Heaven, with complete, clear and firm conviction, the fruit of long and serious thoughts and reflections. It is the kindness and participation of Your Excellency that pleases me, further, to console me with the assurance that it is only I who divide the orders set out in the decree of June 28 into 5 points and in each of them I wish to see a punitive measure. No, it was not I who chose this division and gave the indicated meaning to the content of the decree. I very much regret that your Excellency’s attention did not stop at one note in my paper, dated August 22, about the preliminary solemn disclosures on the streets of Jerusalem by the agents of the party hostile to me who are here, a note to which I would only have to add that the orders concerning me were made public here and in the sense mentioned above, even before the decree of June 28 reached Jerusalem. But leaving aside for now the views and actions of the party hostile to me, as it seems, too little known to Your Excellency, leaving aside my personal convictions, no matter how firm and fundamental they are and no matter how important they are for me in the entire structure of my life, I allow myself the courage to draw Your Excellency’s gracious attention to the fact, of course, which is no longer unknown to you, that the East does not share your reassuring view of the orders concerning me. On this occasion, I could tell Your Excellency about some not uninteresting events that happened not yesterday. But I do not dare to abuse the generous patience of your Excellency and I postpone this until another, more convenient time, I only dare, in order to justify the perplexed East, to note here that in fact, no matter what language you translate it into, it will not work out in any one, that the exile of a bishop to a monastery is in some sense a reward, that the placing of one bishop at the disposal of another, so that this one entrusts his disposed person with activities at his own discretion, that such provision, especially at this time of liberation of the peasant from personal orders and discretion, punitive measures, or something of this kind, did not have any meaning in relation to the bishop, and not some other, more comforting one. I was deeply consoled when I read the next line in your Excellency’s letter: “yes, there was and is no reason for punishment or punishment.” But a moment of deep consolation led me to no less deep bewilderment. I am already completely lost in conjecture, what do the orders made in relation to me mean, which created a scandal in Russia and in the East and without reason tempting the inexperienced and throwing into bewilderment even respected elders and entire populations? Again I apologize. On this occasion, I would have to say something that is not unworthy of attention, but I do not dare to burden your Excellency too much and, postponing this until another, more convenient time, I hasten to turn to the continuation of your letter. I was very touched by the expressions of courtesy inspired by your kind heart to Your Excellency, no less deeply concerned about the proper understanding of some, especially serious, thoughts and expressions of Your Excellency. I consider it my duty to express to Your Excellency my deepest gratitude for the pleasant news about the favor of His Eminence, the Archbishop of Kazan, towards me, which fully confirmed my convictions, which I openly expressed in one of my official papers. I consider it an even more sacred duty to bring to your Excellency my most sincere gratitude for your assurance of the merciful attention to me of the Holy Governing Synod. This assurance reminds me of the sweetest time of my life and service and arouses in me energy and readiness to serve His Holiness, if not with the same vivacity, then with the same tirelessness and zeal for the benefit of the Holy Church. But, forgive me for my complete frankness, which constitutes my natural weakness, and is especially now called by your kind and sympathetic word, there is something in your Excellency’s most obligatory letter that I could not understand, despite all the tension of my thoughts, although not unaccustomed to work. Following the assurance that there was and is no basis for punishment or punishment, Your Excellency deigned to add: “until you create it by obvious disobedience to the authority of the Holy Governing Synod and the Sovereign Emperor.” I confess that this expression completely puzzled me. Where does this idea come from? Where does this word come from? In the name of our merciful and truth-loving Monarch, I asked Your Excellency to pay some attention to my lines of August 22, and suddenly - obvious disobedience to the authority of the Sovereign Emperor!!! I asked Your Excellency to use your agency to send me copies of the correspondence regarding the case about me, which would give me the opportunity to know where and what accusations fall on me, and to justify myself in the eyes of the Holy Governing Synod, and suddenly - obvious disobedience to the authority of the Holy Governing Synod!!! This is incomprehensible to me. Further, after the line about the unprecedented trial and condemnation and the superfluity of justification, your Excellency deigned to expand on the significance of the position of the head of the mission in Jerusalem, about the rights of civil and ecclesiastical authorities in relation to him, and so on, with the conviction that, in a calm discussion (believe me, Your Excellency, I never discuss restlessly), I myself admit that no other view is applicable. Who would not admit this (with the exception, perhaps, of some articles that do not concern personalities) even during a restless discussion. But it is not clear what caused these accusations. There was not a word or a hint in my paper about the position of the head of the mission. On the contrary, continuing my frankness to the utmost, I must say that, amid continuous work, I was already so exhausted by the confusion of affairs and domestic intrigues that at the beginning of this year I decided to ask for resignation and was barely restrained from this by the spiritual influence of the local elders on me and my ancient rule resurrected by them: “not to interfere with your destiny” without special, calling for it, circumstances. So, for my part, I did not and could not even give any reason for speaking about the position of the head of the mission, and this speech, naturally, remained incomprehensible to me. It would be too immodest and unpretentious to the generosity of your Excellency if I began to respond in detail to your reassuring assurances. It would take up too much space on paper and would take away your Excellency’s precious time if 1) I began to make excuses about, for example, the expressions: “with sufficient means of support,” and to assert that here the measure is very relative, that six years ago I, when I was still an archimandrite, etc., had at the academy, excluding my income from the sale of my books, 2500–3000 rubles, that, finally, with my complete disdain for money and any kind of acquisition, I have never asked for alms from anyone and do not intend to ask, even if I had to go in rags “poor for the pathetic cross”; if 2) I began to raise the question of the existence or non-existence of vacant dioceses during a certain period and with the usual frankness began to explain that, according to information that reached here, the Vladimir diocese was vacant and replaced two weeks after the decree of June 28 about me; if 3) I began to explain my and others’ concepts of an honorable residence in one of the main cities of Russia, etc., etc., or began a speech about the fact that for my academic studies I never asked for a corner, nor sufficient or insufficient benefits and did not look for them especially in Kazan, considering myself no longer very capable, at the age of 40, to begin studying, for example, the Tatar language. Leaving all this aside, at least until circumstances prompt me to provide more extensive explanations, I cannot help but dwell on the following points: 1) Your Excellency shows me that my only path, useful both to the church and to me, is the path of “unconditional obedience.” I confess that I have never been a Jesuit and, God have mercy, I will not be; and neither in our church rules, nor in the Code of Laws of the Russian Empire, anywhere do I remember such a decisive provision. How I, in conscience and extreme understanding, understand obedience, even purely hermitic, I explained to our Excellency in the communication dated August 22, No. 33. I do not believe that it is possible to confirm a view opposite to mine by reference to positive legal decisions. And why would there be laws and courts given the existence of such decrees, which are hardly possible, at least in our time and in the most despotic countries, even in the most uneducated societies, with the exception of one Jesuit. 2) Your Excellency deigned to write: “I know that the Holy Synod appreciates your abilities and, without extreme grief, will not want to lose them; therefore, the future depends on you.” What is this? Threat? Guidance? Is there permission on all four sides? Hey, Your Excellency, I don’t understand, forgive me, and, if possible, bring some sense to me. 3) The last point of your Excellency’s letter is absolutely incomprehensible to me. Your Excellency expresses: “the decision of the government and the orders of the Holy Synod cannot be changed in any case.” What is the solution? About the mission? Yes, I didn’t say a word about it. What orders? So that I go to Kazan, at the disposal of the local Eminence Archbishop, etc.? But what if I, like the whole world, consider this a punishment without trial, and otherwise an undeserved insult? But what if, finally, without condemning anything, I only ask for a legal trial and dismissal from service with a well-deserved pension, and not with alms? Is it really possible that by this I offend someone, to whom am I making myself guilty? 4) Your Excellency, in continuation of the last paragraph of the letter, promises me “from now on, that I will find in you complete and constant readiness to promote my successes on that path, etc.” I fully believe your word, noble in every sense and respect, the echoes of which have sometimes reached me before, and for the kind, truly Christian feelings of your Excellency I cannot help but bring you true gratitude. But, as a Christian, I cannot help but remember on this occasion some suggestions from Scripture, like this: man is like grass, etc., and I cannot help but assure you from the bottom of my heart that I have never hoped for a prince or for the sons of men and in no case will I give, against the convictions of my conscience, into anyone’s hands my temporal and eternal fate, which I, with filial frankness and with the deep conviction of faith, solemnly testified before myself The Holy Governing Synod in its speech on October 11, 1857. 5) Your Excellency, in conclusion, points out to me some danger from those persons whom I recognize as hostile and who, of course, will happily point out my deviations from the true dictates of duty (to whom?), and, consequently, conscience and honor!!! Forgive me, Your Excellency, if I quite frankly say that all human talk is absolutely worthless to me: there will be a day of general judgment. In particular, I most humbly ask you not to be afraid of the gentlemen you mentioned, whom I know, unfortunately and with contrition of heart, too closely and well. Do your Excellency really think that these gentlemen, who would not have been calm even after my death if they had not themselves carried me to the cemetery and buried me in the ground with their own hands, that these gentlemen suddenly, on the occasion of my obedience to orders incomprehensible to me or to others, will glorify me as a meek lamb, and will not begin to scream God knows what, as they have already done here minions have barely received the first news of the success of their common intrigues! Thus, being deeply indebted to your Excellency for your gracious participation in me and the desire, if possible, to calm me down, I nevertheless, and after all possible expressions of my gratitude to your Excellency, am forced to bother you with my most humble request - to pay attention to my paper dated August 22 and to provide me with gracious assistance in my requests, the legality of which, it seems to me, is beyond any lawyer, no judicial authority, no intermediate court could fail to recognize it. I dare to hope that, after the strictest discussion that followed the first impressions, your Excellency found in my paper not only a reflection of the painful mood of the soul, but a serious word based on a mature and unchanging conviction, and you will not refuse her an answer based not only on personal, gracious complicity, but also on a more general discussion of the matter on strictly legal grounds. I did not and do not touch on the previous decisions that your Excellency so resolutely defend. I expect, with the good hopes you have given me, decisions on my own requests, which are probably already known to the Holy Governing Synod, as well as your Excellency’s answer to me, and as, of course, the present most grateful and respectful attitude towards Your Excellency will be known.” No. 47, November 17 days, 1863 Jerusalem 415. The above letters were forwarded, with a “very confidential” letter from Prince S. N. Urusov, for the conclusion of Metropolitan Philaret, who on December 9 wrote to Chief Prosecutor A. P. Akhmatov: Your Excellency, dear sir! The two attitudes of His Eminence Kirill, Bishop of Melitopol, that were reported to me both surprised and saddened me. I have not come across an example of such an understanding of affairs by a bishop of the Russian Church, or of a similar relationship to the Holy Synod. I will speak, if possible, about what requires special attention in these letters, in the own words of the Reverend Kirill. The Holy Synod of the Most Reverend Kirill, bishop of the district city of Melitopol, consequently equal to the vicars (for diocesan bishops are usually assigned to provincial cities), moved from Jerusalem to Kazan, to a position similar to the vicar, and placed him “at the disposal,” or in church language, in the obedience of the Right Reverend Archbishop of Kazan 416, according to 9 rule of the Council of Antioch. His Eminence Kirill took this administrative action of the Holy Synod as a judicial one, and in one place of his statement dated August 22, he says that “some strange trial was carried out” on him, and in another that he suffered an “illegal condemnation without trial.” In the said “order” of the Holy Synod, he finds “five punishments, of which you don’t know which is the heaviest.” He says that “some kind of strange trial was carried out on him, which does not fit under any laws, neither divine, nor human, nor civil, nor church.” That is, he says that the Holy Synod acted in opposition to divine, human, civil, and ecclesiastical laws. Such an accusation would be a grave insult to a subordinate official; and for it to be raised at the Holy Synod, it would have been difficult to imagine possible if His Eminence Kirill had not decided to prove it in practice. He says that the order of the Holy Synod, which he calls a condemnation, “cannot be accepted with humility.” It is advisable to interpret this in such a way that it is not a decisive refusal of obedience to the Holy Synod, which His Eminence Kirill swore on oath at his ordination. Unfortunately, it turns out that he really does not comply with the decree of the Holy Synod, even after a kind reminder from your Excellency. His Eminence Kirill demands that “he can carry out the right of self-justification through the mediation of Eastern patriarchs and hierarchs, who have the opportunity to arrange a correct court.” Here lies the unfavorable judgment of Eminence Kirill, that in the Russian hierarchy he does not see “the opportunity to arrange a correct court.” Russian civil laws prohibit the removal of an entire public office from the court, even if it was of the lower instance. His Eminence Kirill does not hesitate to divert the entire Holy Synod from judging himself when he wants to transfer his case to the Eastern patriarchs and hierarchs. He did not take into account that every patriarch, and the Patriarch’s equal, the All-Russian Holy Synod, has the right of trial within his region, and consequently the Jerusalem or other patriarch does not have the right to judge Bishop Kirill, who belongs to the region of the All-Russian Holy Synod. If his demand is an appeal to the court of a great council, or ecumenical, then this is inappropriate in the present circumstances. His Eminence Kirill himself says that there was no proper trial against him, and he has not yet announced or received an announcement about the subject on which he wishes to bring acquittal. He only mentions the party hostile to him without a name. So, according to the order of both ecclesiastical and civil courts, he must first of all declare to the Holy Synod the subject on which he wishes to justify himself, and present the arguments for his justification. Then the Holy Synod, after considering the case, will pronounce judgment and decision, and then only the time will come for His Eminence Kirill to consider whether it is necessary to take an appeal to the ecumenical court. As an unusual combination of subjects, one can notice that the Right Reverend Kirill, in response to the decree on the transfer, asks for a trial over himself and a pension for himself; and between the rights to a pension he supplied random literary pursuits and the publication of books, from which he received from 2500 to 3000 rubles of income. According to this, stated here, it must be recognized as peaceful and protective from responsibility for the Most Reverend Kirill that your Excellency did not propose his relationship, dated August 22, to the Holy Synod, and turned to the Most Reverend Kirill with advice and persuasion so that he would obey the decree of the Holy Synod. Unfortunately, from his attitude on November 17, it is revealed that he did not heed this, remained with his previous judgments and demands, and his views on your reasoning turned out to be not what one could have hoped and expected. He says that the order of the Holy Synod about him “caused a scandal in Russia and in the East.” When you pointed out to him the path of “unconditional obedience” (that is, obedience to the decree on moving from Jerusalem to Kazan), he answered: “I confess, I have never been a Jesuit, and, God help me, I will not be.” And further, “why would there be laws and courts, given the existence of such decrees, which are hardly possible, at least in our time, and in the most despotic countries, even in the most uneducated societies, with the exception of one Jesuit.” In this and other places in the relationship of the Most Reverend Kirill, were the spirit and tone of speech characteristic of a monk-bishop in official relations before the Holy Synod observed? I am speaking in front of the Holy Synod, because His Eminence Kirill writes: “I ask for a lawful trial.” And further: “I am awaiting a decision on my requests, which are probably already known to the Holy Governing Synod.” Thus, Eminence Kirill himself creates the need for his relations to be proposed to the Holy Synod on August 22 and November 17. What can we expect from the Holy Synod? Probably, first of all, measures of condescension and protection for the Reverend Kirill. Would it not, for example, please the Holy Synod, without proceeding to consider the relationship of the Eminence Kirill, to allow the leading member to enter into confidential communication with him; explain to him that his actions and his relationships can, according to church rules and laws, expose him to important responsibility, but that the Holy Synod wants to protect him from this, and therefore convinces him that he strictly obeys the Holy Synod, and, if it is difficult to change the climate, then at least arrive in Crimea or Odessa, and report this to the Holy Synod, and, together with those, if he has any requests, brought them to the Holy Synod in the form established by the laws. This would give the Holy Synod the opportunity to give legal movement to such requests, and to cover with leniency what is wrong in the relations between August 22 and November 17. So, in my opinion, it would be possible to find a way out of the unpleasant situation into which His Eminence Kirill puts himself and the Holy Synod. I return the attitude of November 17th. With the utmost respect and devotion, I have the honor to be your Excellency’s most humble servant, Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow. The Holy Synod, at a meeting on March 16, 1864, having listened to the letters of His Eminence Kirill and the Chief Prosecutor, decided: “to inspire Bishop Kirill of Melitopol to immediately proceed to his destination, with the permission of His Imperial Majesty, indicated by the Synod.” 418 February 4. Metropolitan Philaret’s opinion on the “Russian spiritual mission according to the letter of January 3, 1864” 419 I. The Russian spiritual mission in Jerusalem and the construction of church and hospice buildings there, which should be one in subject and purpose, were carried out by two actors: 1) the spiritual authorities, with the consent of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and 2) the Jerusalem committee, composed of secular persons. These actors each followed their own separate path; and it is not surprising if they did not come to unity. A letter dated January 3rd this year, 1864, discusses the emerging inconveniences, and proposes a reformation of the mission. It is difficult to be satisfied with both what exists and what is supposed. II. The letter expresses fear that the huge church will overwhelm the modest face of the archimandrite with its splendor. This remark will not seem strong if we take into account the following: 1) It would be impossible to recognize as reasonable and agree with church rules that since the church is huge and magnificent, then there should be a bishop with it. 2) The service of a bishop, with an insufficient retinue, is almost more of a form of church poverty than the service of an archimandrite with a small retinue. 3) If the archimandrite, the abbot of the monastery (according to the proposed project), is not overwhelmed by the enormity of the church, then equally the archimandrite, the head of the mission. It is true that it would have been better to initially place an archimandrite at the head of the mission, who later would not be difficult to elevate to the rank of bishop, under circumstances that require and are favorable to this, rather than to come to the need to replace the bishop with an archimandrite. The former would be the ascent of strength into strength, and the latter has the appearance of a fall. III. Another concern: “if one hieromonk or hierodeacon falls ill, then it will be difficult to even offer daily everyday service. It is possible to serve without a hierodeacon. When one hieromonk is ill, another, or a third, or, if necessary, an archimandrite can serve without a council, and this will be a venerable and edifying feat. IV. “They want to spend up to 80 thousand rubles on one wall painting.” This casual remark of the letter is worthy of full attention. Such use of money collected by the penny in Russia can rightly be considered an unnecessary luxury and wastefulness. This may be useless, because it is doubtful how long wall paintings on stone can withstand the eastern winter dampness, which is worse than the northern frost. This may even turn out to be harmful, due to the usual self-will of modern painters, who dissatisfiedly follow tradition in icons, and in wall paintings allow themselves fantastic images that disagree not only with tradition and decency, but even with ordinary modesty. What if on the walls of the Russian temple in Jerusalem images of this kind are presented to the eyes of local Orthodox Christians and visiting Orthodox pilgrims? V. “The Synod of Jerusalem, which previously saw in this a violation of its ecclesiastical rights, has now reconciled with the rank of bishop.” This is the justification for the current order of the Holy Synod, which appoints an archimandrite instead of a bishop. The Synod of Jerusalem reconciled, probably reluctantly, because it needed the favor of Russia, although, however, it could have reconciled sincerely if it had better understood the church rules with the present circumstances. VI. The letter proposes to convert the mission into a monastery; and this idea is supported by the fact that this should be “compared to other nationalities and confessions.” There is a misunderstanding in this comparison. Roman Catholics are building a monastery in Jerusalem, and Protestants are building a church and school, taking permission from the Turkish government, and without looking at the Orthodox Patriarch and the Synod, because they have no obligation to them. Not so with the Russian Synod of the same faith, which, according to church rules, does not have the right to build a monastery in a foreign region, without the consent of the local hierarchy. Thus, the establishment of a Russian monastery may be subject to greater difficulties than the embassy of a bishop who had a see in Russia, and was sent to Jerusalem on a business trip or temporarily sent. VII. Here the danger appears to be more important than those expressed in the letter. If the Holy Synod, through intensified solicitation, achieves that it will establish its own monastery in Jerusalem, then it may happen that the Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem will arrogate to themselves the same right in a foreign region and demand permission to build their monasteries in Moscow and St. Petersburg; and the ecumenical patriarch would have demanded that the St. Nicholas Greek monastery in Moscow depend solely on him, without any relation to the local diocesan authorities. So in both capitals, there would be three church administrations, mutually independent, which would lead to a lot of confusion and disorder in church government. Therefore, a Greek monastery is allowed in Moscow, subject to the condition of dependence on the local diocesan authorities, and for the patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, not monasteries are allowed, but metokhs, or metochions, also depending on the local diocesan authorities. And therefore, the Moscow Metropolitan, dated April 29, 1863 (No. 173), reported the following to the Holy Synod: “If for some reason the name of Russian charitable institutions in Jerusalem is not considered satisfactory, then we can assign them the name of a Russian hospice monastery, since this name is not strictly limited to the meaning of a monastery (Philim. 22), and in Russia it is also given to charitable hostels for those without monasticism. For this it is proper to ask the permission of the Most Blessed Patriarch of Jerusalem.” VIII. “Our mission, consisting of four members, is wretched.” If this is true, it is meager and inconvenient. IX. On the contrary, to compose a mission of 12 monks and 12 novices would be broad, and it would be difficult to gather so many people corresponding to the purpose. There it is not pleasant to have people who would perform church services and sleep in the cell. There is a need for those who are capable and zealous to edify pilgrims, care for the sick, study local languages, teach children, collect church information and report it to Russia. At least for the first time, it is necessary to give the head of the mission not a very small, but not a very large number of people, so that he can fully embrace them with his leadership. When they get into the business well and establish themselves in it, then, depending on the need, it is more convenient to get used to them. Other notes to Article IV that the fear of indecency on the part of self-willed artists is not in vain, this can be confirmed by deeds. Under the monthly calendar for the current year there is a drawing of the royal doors of the newly built church in Jerusalem. On this gate, as usual, there is an image of the Annunciation: in the middle there is a large cross, and above the cross there is a double-headed eagle. How did the artist not understand (as all Orthodox Christians understood) that on the royal doors one can depict only what should be the subject of pious worship? Did he really want to give the non-Orthodox, who slander us that we idolize icons, a reason for a new slander that we idolize the two-headed eagle? In one of the churches of the Sergius Lavra there is a double-headed eagle in the altar behind the throne; but in what position? He holds an altar cross on his shoulders, as if it were proper for the church and significant. This conveys the idea that the Orthodox state honors and supports the Orthodox Church. 420 February 22-April 27. Notes of Metropolitan Philaret on disturbances in the spiritual mission in Jerusalem 421 I. Note about. Archimandrite Leonid 422 makes a difficult impression. The case is about the disobedience of two hieromonks and a hierodeacon. But the presentation of the case begins by pointing out the beliefs of Mr. Mansurov, 423 allegedly equating Jerusalem with Paris, and the state of the women's shelter. The head of the mission does not say whether he paid attention to the order of the men's shelter, which is closer and more convenient, and how the women's shelter would be protected; but with effort he penetrates into the unclean secrets of the latter and discovers them. By building a system of conspiracy against himself, he either knows too much, or guesses too much, and also tells too much, without reasoning that without evidence, stories are not evidence. It is strange that he himself prepared all those who rebelled against him by his election, without taking with him anyone well-known enough. “Holding malice in my heart.” Are you a heartbreaker? Isn't it hard? Could such an appeal to loved ones lead to sincere intimacy, peace and obedience? “I don’t remember whether at the same time (with the words against unclean life) there was an indication of you.” It is not surprising if the one who heard this took it almost as a confession. By speaking in this way about the consul 424 in absentia and justifying himself in this way, the archimandrite aroused hostility against himself. Members of the mission demanded verification of the amounts. The archimandrite was silent. Why didn’t he tell them that the verification was, and should be, at the legal time? If there was no monthly account of the amounts in front of witnesses, then he filed a case for an unpleasant demand. Here he had to follow the law of precaution, to protect the boss’s actions from criticism, and not the Optina rule of unconditional trust and submission to the boss. On Sunday, January 3, when the archimandrite was putting on the altar for the liturgy, and orders were given that did not correspond to the vestments, and Hieromonk John unpleasantly refused to change them, the archimandrite felt unwell and did not serve the liturgy. John belongs to the bad middle of this incident, and to the archimandrite himself the bad beginning and the bad end. The archimandrite should not have paid attention to the difference between the braces and other vestments, especially knowing the lack of obedience in his fellow servants, and then the service would have been accomplished in peace. And having heard John’s unpleasant refusal, the archimandrite had to not continue the dispute, and perform divine services in the world, even if those who hated the world were near him. In temptation one should have sought the sacraments of the Lord’s help, and not run away from Him. However, in the face and actions of the archimandrite one can see his difficult treatment of those around him, a stern insistence on the rights and advantages of his superior, imprudent words and actions, but not lawless deeds. II. Is the action of his opponents better than his? Their denunciation begins with the fact that the archimandrite’s face turns purple at times, now swelling, now falling, and so on. But this could be discussed with a doctor, and not reported to the consul. It is noticeable that they want to present him as mentally damaged; but they do not dare to say this, because both his actions and his correspondence contradict this. They report that the archimandrite in his priestly service shows absent-mindedness and forgetfulness, and it is often necessary to prompt him to shout. If it were true, it would be decent to talk about this with the archimandrite’s confessor, and not report it to the consul. They report that the archimandrite, while serving as bishop in the Church of the Resurrection, started a quarrel with the hieromonk of the previous mission; but before communion of the Holy Mysteries, he bowed at his feet, asking for forgiveness, and then complained about the same monk to the priest. What right and what need did the informers have to intervene in the case of the hieromonk of the previous mission, which was foreign to them, and tell the case without evidence, without even naming this hieromonk? And if the archimandrite fell into the temptation to insult his brother, but immediately asked for his forgiveness, bowing at his feet: shouldn’t this incident have been covered with Christian love? Is it good intentions to make a denunciation against the boss out of this? They report that the archimandrite, just before communion at the altar (though not being an official), reconciled the hierodeacon with the regent. Inappropriate, if true: but was it necessary for the consul to report this? They report that the archimandrite in Arseny's cell uttered blasphemy, and the same Arseny, the informer, is called a witness to this incident. Is there any common legal sense here? They report that once, in Gethsemane, the archimandrite did not want to allow Hierodeacon Arseny to serve in the priesthood without confession. What is there to report here? And is it proper to report this to the consul? They report that the archimandrite slandered the highest Jerusalem bishopric. The denunciation is unsubstantiated. They report that he interfered in the administration of Greek monasteries. Firstly, this is incredible, and secondly, what does the subordinate members of the mission care about? It was up to the monasteries to complain; but this is not visible. They report that the archimandrite did not allow teachings to be read in the church. If this is true, it does not require denunciation, and does not go to the consul. An archimandrite, a pupil of a desert monastery, probably supports the full and extended rite of worship, and therefore does not find it convenient to prolong the service time with teaching, which is not entirely convenient for pilgrims of different languages ​​and languages. They report that the archimandrite forbade Hieromonk Gideon from accepting officials to confession. There could be reasons for this, which it is not for the consul to judge. The hieromonk has no reason to complain about this; for in general, permission for monastics to go to confession is given at the discretion of the authorities. And there is especially no reason for three to report something that concerns one; this is a matter of crowds. They report that the archimandrite is oppressing Kaminsky 425. This is an unsubstantiated, unfounded denunciation, and interference in someone else’s business. Kaminsky does not complain, but three monks complain for him. They report that Archimandrite Hierodeacon Arseny scolded and thereby harmed his health, and did not allow him to serve more than two days a week. And here three people enter the business of one person in a crowd; and what is there to complain about, that the archimandrite does not order the hierodeacon, who is in poor health, to serve every day, perhaps precisely to spare his health? The conjecture about the archimandrite's intention to increase his staff has not been proven. They report that Archimandrite Hierodeacon Arseny, against his will, intended to introduce him to hieromonasticism. There is nothing to prove that he intended. And what crime would it be if he intended to? And is it necessary to complain about this, what I intended to do, but what I didn’t do? And why should three people interfere in this insignificant circumstance? There is not a shadow of justice here; and only complicity is visible, which, being blinded by ill will, sees a crime where there is none at all. They report that the archimandrite does not satisfy the singers with their salaries and treats them inhumanely. If this is true, then the right to complain belongs to the choristers, and the three monks, interfering in this, only reveal their rebellious disposition against the head of the mission. They report that the archimandrite kept the table money of the mission members for December. This is one point on which the three monks have the right to complain. But you also need to ask the archimandrite whether the money was withheld and for what reason. They report that the archimandrite disposes of church funds selfishly. The denunciation is unsubstantiated and unfounded. III. It is further clear from the case that two hieromonks and a hierodeacon, informers against the archimandrite, and defendants in his denunciation, made themselves investigators in their own case; They interrogated two of the archimandrite's cell attendants, and their interrogation was presented to the consul. They also interrogated three monks about the incident that the archimandrite had put on his vestments and, due to dissatisfaction with the order, did not perform the liturgy, and with the addition of these interrogations, they reported for consideration to the patriarchal governor, Metropolitan Meletius, that is, to someone else’s superiors, and not their own. Hieromonk John, during the report, presented the controversial orders to the same metropolitan and asked to forward them to the consul for reference to the Russian authorities. Instruct the consul! Instruct the Russian authorities, both through the Greek metropolitan and through the consul! How can such strange actions be explained, if not by the prevailing ill will, which obscured sound reasoning? IV. It would be tiresome to pursue all the features of this matter, in which the truth of the matter is obscured by illusory views and inconsistencies. But the above seems to open a fairly solid path to the following conclusions. 1) Archimandrite Leonid, who was a difficult leader, subjected to the ill-will of his subordinates, and, when their disobedience was revealed, did not show magnanimous prudence, but allowed himself to do things that present him in a strange way, cannot usefully remain the head of the mission. 2) Hieromonks Gideon and John and Hierodeacon Apsenius, who showed disobedience and insult to the head of the mission, and made denunciations against him, partly unfair, partly inappropriate, mostly unsubstantiated, addressed not to the proper authorities, should be, as intolerant, removed from the mission and subjected to legal liability. Continuation of the unrest in the spiritual mission in Jerusalem I. The previous note discussed the actions of the clergy of the mission. It was advisable not to touch other persons who were affected in various ways by this matter. But it turns out that it is necessary to cleanse this contact, if possible, from darkness and ghostly views. II. G. Consul Kartsov, in a letter dated March 6 of this year, wrote about the Patriarch of Jerusalem: “some of the actions of Fr. Leonidas seemed to him so reprehensible that they inevitably demanded church punishment, that is, temporary excommunication from sacred rites.” Neither the patriarch nor the consul explains what these actions are. The Patriarch, in a letter to the envoy dated March 11, expresses confidence that the Holy Synod “will hasten to make the necessary correction, restoring the required order and harmony.” In these words there is no thought about actions worthy of removal from the priesthood. Not a single such act is indicated in the denunciations of the three monks that form the basis of this case, as can be seen from the previous note. III. The consul notices that during the patriarch's visit to the Russian church, “Leonid locked himself in his apartment.” The archimandrite explained this by saying that the patriarchal governor, Metropolitan Meletius, and the patriarch himself advised him to keep himself aloof so as not to publicly reveal the antagonism of his subordinates against him, to the temptation of the people. IV. In a letter dated March 30, the consul says that the patriarch, speaking cautiously, “still apparently attributes the blame for the disagreement to Archimandrite Leonid.” Here, firstly, the consul presents the opinion of the patriarch not at all as strict and decisive as he presents it in the previous letter. Did His Beatitude the Patriarch, due to any new information, change his strict judgment, or did the consul in the first case convey his judgment in an enhanced form? Secondly, the speech of the consul shows that he wants to find out the truth of the matter from the patriarch. But who better than the consul could know her? And wasn’t it from him that the patriarch should have received correct information to correct, perhaps, the infidels who had reached the patriarch? And is it really possible that the Mr. Consul, relying in the case on the fact that the patriarch thinks “apparently,” could not himself understand in the denunciation of the three monks whether the archimandrite is really worthy of heavy condemnation for demanding confession from the hierodeacon before the priesthood, or for the fact that the hierodeacon, without his consent, intended to present him for the work of hieromonk, etc.? V. Further, in the letter, the consul says that, “under current conditions,” the stay of Archimandrite Leonidas in Jerusalem is hardly useful. But it does not explain what these real conditions are. VI. The archimandrite writes that during his absence from Jerusalem to the monastery of St. Savva, members of the mission, using the keys they picked up, entered his office and rummaged through all his papers. This incident is such that it is difficult to imagine witnesses to it. But the archimandrite gave no reason to not trust his word of honor. Moreover, he confirms the matter by subsequent circumstances, the theft of secret reports to his superiors, bringing them to the attention of the most blessed patriarch, and his subsequent indignation. A protective spirit, impartiality and insight, it seems, could have given the consul the opportunity either to prevent this unworthy deed, or to expose it, and alleviate the consequences. VII. If the city consul read the letter written to him by Hierodeacon Apsenius, in which he speaks of his disagreement with Archimandrite Leonid “in terms of arbitrary poverty, humility, prayer, patience, fasting and much more”; An example of the archimandrite’s views, which disagree with the Orthodox, is that the archimandrite did not eat beef: he expresses ridicule about his boss, which even in the mouth of a secular person would be indecent: “wrapped in the skin of an innocent lamb; “trying to act with the double-edged sword of civil and spiritual power, forged in Rome”; “I don’t know how I smuggled this contraband”; "Blessing Fr. Leonida is becoming cheaper and boring, like Demyan’s ear”; "O. the archimandrite was led astray by the tempting idea of ​​becoming a king-landowner in a cenobitic Jerusalem Russian monastery,” etc., - without evidence he makes such denunciations against the archimandrite and attributes to him such speeches that, at their very extreme, go beyond the limits of probability; - if Mr. read this letter. The consul did not feel any distrust of the informer’s moral character or the content of the denunciations, but unconsciously accepted them with confidence: this is truly worthy of surprise. It seems that he could act according to the Gospel: expose him between you and that one. Otherwise it would have been explained simply, and the denunciation would have been exposed. For example, the archimandrite withheld table money, probably in order to arrange a common table, so that the monks of the mission would not go to the tavern for dinner. VIII. The matter was conducted in secret, and without giving the archimandrite a chance to justify himself, it was brought to the point that through the secretary of the consulate the will of his beatitude was announced to the archimandrite, that until the end of the matter he forbade the archimandrite to visit him and participate in church celebrations and the service of Holy Week. Unfortunately, in this case, the archimandrite himself increased the unpleasantness of his position. The Patriarch forbade him to come to himself: this was, undoubtedly, in his will, like every householder. The patriarch had the right to prohibit him from participating in church celebrations and services of Holy Week, that is, the cathedral services of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. But he did not prohibit the archimandrite from serving in the priesthood, which, in relation to a clergyman in a foreign region, he could only do in emergency circumstances, with the confidence that the Holy Synod would find this done out of necessity. The archimandrite needlessly expanded the question; contacted the consul for a written response; did not receive it, and was tied up in bewilderment. He, without question, could serve in his church; and if the other members of the mission had not yet allowed him in, then this would at least have provided new proof of his innocence and their guilt. IX. The reference to the decree of the Holy Synod is unclear in the case. It is not clear what decision came from the Holy Synod regarding non-peaceful members of the mission; it is not clear whether the archimandrite announced this decision to them. He announced to the consul; this one answered that he knew, and the decree, apparently, remained unannounced, what the head of the mission had to do in order for either the decree to be carried out, or disobedience to the Holy Synod to be exposed. Now, don’t the rebellious heeders of the decree remain covered by the fact that it was not announced to them? X. From what is stated here, the question should arise: will they act in accordance with the latest circumstances of the case as suggested at the end of the previous note on this matter? And is it not necessary, having removed the rebels from the mission, to leave the archimandrite for some time in order to maintain his dignity and, in his person, the dignity of the Russian hierarchy: otherwise the rebellious thinking may consider him killed, although it cannot take credit for the victory. XI. I believe that the Holy Synod cannot remain silent about the actions of the city consul. Illegally, the city consul accepted a denunciation of subjects subject to consideration exclusively by the spiritual authorities, such as the fact that Archimandrite Leonid did not want to allow Apseny to enter the priesthood without confession, that Gideon was not allowed to be admitted to confession, etc. The city consul illegally accepted a denunciation in which informers interfere in other people's affairs, having a voice about themselves, such as, for example, that the archimandrite is oppressing Kaminsky. Illegally accepted a denunciation made en masse; because many cases involving denunciation concern one person, who has the right to denounce or complain, but three denounce. The Holy Synod could have passed through this with patience and silence, if great harm had not resulted from this; but great harm occurred. If the consul had not acted on the denunciation, the disobedience of the members of the mission would have been stopped at the first step, and order could have been maintained. But when he not only accepted the denunciation into action, but also, as can be seen from Apseny’s letter to him, “was curious to know all the events,” and “with repeated reminders” encouraged the continuation of denunciations, and thus showed the disposition to support the informers: this led to the fact that the rebellious ones wrested power from the head of the mission and willfully took it upon themselves. This happened before the eyes of the city consul, and from nothing it is clear that he supported the legitimate commander against the rebels. If this type of behavior on the part of the consul continues, then no spiritual mission in Jerusalem can exist in order. One has only to present an illegal and unjust denunciation to the consul, and the legitimate boss will be overthrown, and the illegal informers will become rulers. I believe that the duty of justice and the preservation of order will not allow the Holy Synod to look at this inactively. April 26–27, 1865 426 In April. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to A.P. Akhmatov, with a review of the inappropriate installation of the throne of the Patriarch of Jerusalem in the Russian Church, in Jerusalem Was there a meeting with church rules when the idea was born in the Russian Church, in Jerusalem, to establish the throne of the Jerusalem Patriarch? Here he is sent from St. Petersburg; the patriarch personally appointed a place for him in the church. Following this, he does not allow the legitimate head of the Russian mission into his church, but allows rebellious monks. His Beatitude the Patriarch would do well if he said: in this church, according to church rules, my throne should not be, but the throne of the All-Russian Synod. Now the matter is posed differently. The time may come when the patriarch will say: in this church is my throne, and therefore my leadership; prohibit the archimandrite of the Russian mission from serving in the priesthood and expel him from Jerusalem. And thus there will either be a clear humiliation of the All-Russian Church, or a clash and bickering between the two churches, sad and disastrous for all Orthodoxy. The Holy Synod must decide how to deal with the unpleasant things that have already happened, in order to block the way to the worse things that may come. 427 May 26. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, with a draft message to the Patriarch of Jerusalem on the matter of unrest in our spiritual mission in Jerusalem The Patriarch unmercifully responds to the honor shown to him by placing his throne in a church belonging to the Russian Synod. It is not an ecclesiastical matter that he directs the action of secular power to the Holy Synod. 428 The opinion required of me is as follows: 1) Immediately call Hieromonk John and Hierodeacon Arseny for service matters. 2) Gideon may remain until further notice. 3) So that the disobedience of the two monks does not extend to the Holy Synod, ask the Minister of Foreign Affairs that the consul facilitate their immediate departure. 4) To respond to the unpleasant message of the Patriarch 429 not from the Holy Synod, but, on its instructions, through the leading member, in an explanatory and conciliatory manner. To show this idea more clearly, I am attaching a draft of what and how one could write to the patriarch. An extract from the case must be attached to this statement and to the message. It can be compiled from my previous two notes, omitting what concerns Archimandrite Leonid, in addition to the essential circumstances of the present case, and what is said about the illegalities of the consul. 5) D. send the same extract from the case to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, with evidence of the illegality of the consul. I think it is fair and necessary to ask that the consul be given another post, and another appointed in his place, in order to stop the patronage of the indignant members of the spiritual mission. 6) Interrogate two monks in St. Petersburg following a denunciation, and send questions to Archimandrite Leonid. 7) Request the assistance of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs so that the consulate will contribute to the return to the legitimate head of the mission of the power wrested from him by the indignant. 8) What will be revealed according to this will show what the further movement and end of the matter should be. 430 Your Beatitude, Highly Honored Archpastor. The Holy Governing All-Russian Synod, accustomed to receive from your blessedness and extend to you the word of peace and mutual brotherly love, and wishing to preserve this comforting communication with you, most blessed Bishop, unclouded by any extraneous shadow, allowed me to utter before us a word of deep sorrow, with which he listened in your message to the expression of a very unfavorable view of the head of the Russian spiritual mission in the holy city of Jerusalem, Archimandrite Leonidas. Surprise was added to the sorrow that this man, who had once served with dignity in the imperial service, then, after renouncing the world, for a long time, also with undoubted dignity, spent monastic life in a monastery, mainly known for spiritual well-being, in the short time of his stay in Jerusalem was accused of disorderly and lawless behavior, however, without a specific indication; who he is accused of, what illegal actions he allowed himself to take, and whether the accusations are supported by legal evidence. The Holy Synod has information based on documents that hieromonks John and Gideon and hierodeacon Apsenius submitted complaints and denunciations to the consulate against Archimandrite Leonid, some of which could not be considered by the secular authorities, some of which did not involve any actual guilt, some of which revealed their illegal interference in affairs of strangers to them, and consequently accused them themselves; The archimandrite is not legally convicted of anything. The most important fault of the said two hieromonks and the hierodeacon is that they arbitrarily removed Archimandrite Leonid from command and assumed power. In order not to burden your blessedness with details here, but in order to clearly provide you with evidence of the truth, an extract from the case existing in the Holy Synod is attached. 431 The Holy Synod has no doubt that if your Beatitude had in mind this information, based on undoubted documents, then, with your characteristic generosity and foresight, you would have refrained from decisively condemning Archimandrite Leonid until the matter was brought to legal clarity. Apparently, the fact that Archimandrite Leonid is the spiritual son of His Eminence Meletios of Peter, the viceroy of your throne, could have disposed you towards this. This venerable man, without a doubt, would not have decided to have a man of “disorderly and lawless behavior” as his spiritual son. Based on everything stated here, the Holy Synod found it fair to allow me to most respectfully ask you, Most Blessed Bishop, not to deprive Archimandrite Leonid of your merciful view, until the matter about him and his subordinates receives legal clarity. The Holy Synod will not allow any of the clergy of the Russian Church to appear in your face who is truly unworthy of your merciful view. Your goodness and love for the Lord will not allow the mistakes of the lesser brethren to fall even like a speck of dust on the pure, age-old, mutual love of the hierarchy and churches. June 9. A note from Metropolitan Philaret regarding the “very confidential letter” of our envoy in Constantinople N. P. Ignatiev about the disorders in the Russian Jerusalem spiritual mission The letter, dated the 18th day of May 433, gives a somewhat new perspective to the matter of the Jerusalem spiritual mission, but is unclear, and, in my opinion, dissatisfied with the persuasive. The letter of the most blessed patriarch was not meant; but, it seems to me, it says more than just that he does not allow Archimandrite Leonid to serve in holy places. And if only that, why was it even necessary to say this? Even without these words, the Russian clergy sometimes does not want to serve in the Jerusalem temple without the permission of the patriarch or his deputy. Consequently, the patriarch’s words meant rebuke and punishment. However, if an archimandrite serves, then either he was not prohibited by the patriarch, or the prohibition was softened and limited. Information about Archimandrite Leonid is disappointing; but do they not come from one source, from the intensified ill-intentioned disclosures of indignant monks, as unfair as their self-incriminating written denunciations? For an archimandrite to be unfaithful in the use of the money entrusted to him is incredible. The patriarch’s irritation comes, no doubt, partly from suggestion, partly from secret reports stolen from the archimandrite concerning the Jerusalem hierarchy, and consequently little is proven against the archimandrite. If you do not decide to believe the incredible, then you must doubt the accuracy of the testimony that the archimandrite, not showing any hostility at the council, answered that he was acting on the basis of instructions, and that Saruf 434 was actively engaged in inciting the Arab population against the Greek clergy. What purpose and what hope can Saruf have in this, being himself right? If Archimandrite Antonin 435 is sent to Jerusalem, then with what assignment? If as a mediator and conciliator, can one expect success? Acting modestly and peacefully, will he decide to say some firm words to the patriarch in order to resolve his prejudices against Archimandrite Leonidas, and to the consul in order to explain to him the direction of accepting the denunciations transmitted from him and the investigation? Will it have enough power to make the indignant monks obedient? It is difficult to decide to say this. Is it reliable to appoint Archimandrite Antonin as the head of the mission for a while, and transfer Leonidas to his place for the same time? In this case, Leonid's lot will not be burdened; the displeasures of the patriarch and consul are deprived of food; Antonin will only need to accept the mission and manage it, learning from the unfortunate experience of his predecessor the rules of caution. To announce to the monks, informers, that before they are sent on a journey 436, they must appear either to the Synod or to its leading member to explain their affairs, for which purpose they should be sent 437 immediately, with the assistance of the consulate. 438 July 26. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod A.P. Akhmatov about the need to interrogate, separately, Hieromonk John and Hierodeacon Arseny in the case of disturbances in our spiritual mission in Jerusalem From the attachments to your Excellency’s attitude, dated July 16 (No. 3739), it is clear that Hieromonk of the Russian spiritual mission in Jerusalem John and Hierodeacon Arseny traveled through Constantinople to Odessa. This somewhat reduces the difficulties in the matter of mission problems. Now it would be useful to entrust a skillful and benevolent person to incite John and Arseny to a frank explanation of the matter. To do this, you need to ask them separately, with caution against agreement in the answers. You can persuade each of them to give a frank explanation by thinking that the illegality of their denunciations is obvious, and that they will present themselves in the best possible way when they openly explain what led them to the illegal path. For example, what prompted Archimandrite Leonid to charge a crime, which was in no way alien to monastic discipline, with the requirement to precede the priestly service by cleansing the conscience through confession? And if they found guilt in this, was it possible not to understand that this matter was not subject to consideration by the consul, but by the spiritual authorities? Why did you contact the consul with this? Many circumstances of the case require such questions, and if it is possible to persuade those asked to be frank, the discovery of the sources of the case can explain its phenomena. For this reason, for those parts of the denunciation that do not expose themselves, you must demand evidence, also from everyone separately. Such a course of action would be consistent with both the usual procedure and the peculiarities of the present case. 439 September 4–6. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to Count D. A. Tolstoy, with feedback on the assumption of the Russian envoy in Constantinople, N. P. Ignatiev, regarding the reconciliation of Patriarch Kirill of Jerusalem with Archimandrite Leonid In relation to your Excellency, dated August 26, No. 4344, I was informed, in the list, of the attitude of the envoy in Constantinople, from which it is clear that he convinced the consul in Jerusalem to reconcile the most blessed patriarch with Archimandrite Leonidas, and that he wants expedited notification of the final appointment of Archimandrite Leonidas. If reconciliation can take place, then it must take place during the archimandrite’s stay in Jerusalem; for otherwise it would have no meaning and would not make the desired impression. Therefore, one should not be in too much of a hurry with Archimandrite Leonid’s departure from Jerusalem. As for the final decision about Archimandrite Leonidas: for this it would not be useful to know whether the testimony was taken from John and Arseny, as supposed in relation to mine, on July 26, and what was revealed from it. Further, the issue of recalling Archimandrite Leonid is related to the issue of appointment in his place. I think that Archimandrite Juvenaly 440, who is now in the Kursk diocese, could be used for this purpose. He was a hieromonk in Jerusalem as part of the mission of His Eminence Kirill, and more than Leonidas he is able to use prudence and caution in dealing with people, where they are especially needed. September 4–6, 1865 441 September 10. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to Count D. A. Tolstoy, with an opinion about the members of the Jerusalem spiritual mission who were the cause of unrest in it Excellent count, dear sir. I am responding to the information provided by the relation, dated September 2, No. 106. So, the case of Archimandrite Leonid, which seemed to be set on a clear path, is again eclipsed. It is not clear why the attitude of the leading member of the Holy Synod towards the Patriarch of Jerusalem was stopped on the way 442. Shouldn’t the Holy Synod give a fair response, with all modesty, to those who defend the unjust side and negligence of those serving in someone else’s territory? It is a pity that it is not known whether the informers who returned to Russia against Archimandrite Leonid were asked and what they showed. They do not believe the letters of the archimandrite, who present him as well-disposed; but on what basis do they believe otherwise? They safely believe the words of people who, obviously, did not enter into the matter from the right side, who accepted and defend a denunciation that was illegally accepted and which exposes the denunciators themselves. The archimandrite is accused of greed. But, firstly, there is nothing to prove this; secondly, this is a vice worthy of condemnation, but not such persecution as the archimandrite is subjected to; thirdly, it is difficult to imagine how his selfishness could act to the detriment of others. Isn’t it just his greed that he thriftily gave money to the members of the mission in order, if possible, to prevent improper and luxurious use? The state of affairs that has been discovered so far is such that the informers are unjust, which is exposed by their very papers; The archimandrite’s guilt has not been proven in any way, except for one unreasonable, but harmless act, that he, indignant at the sacristan’s disobedience, did not perform the liturgy for which he had already dressed. Deign to use all possible assistance so that the truth is revealed in its true measure and protected, and so that untruth does not prevail. 443 December 8–10. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to Count D. A. Tolstoy, with an opinion on “the report of Archimandrite Antonin, October 18, 1865, on the case of disturbances in the Jerusalem spiritual mission” In response, dated November 23, 1865, No. 5981, having forwarded to me a copy of the report of Archimandrite Antonin to the Holy Synod, dated October 18, No. 6,444, regarding the disorder that occurred in the Jerusalem spiritual mission, your Excellency deigned to demand my opinion on the contents of this paper. Reading this report left me with a feeling of sorrow, both about the fact that the unpleasant matter does not get out of the confusion, and about poor Archimandrite Leonid, on whom alone the whole burden of this matter is being thrown, past those more guilty than him, and finally about Archimandrite Antonin himself, serving with signs of dignity and with the hope of a more significant and more useful service, but in the present case he presented experience that does not correspond to his dignity. In the name of justice, I humbly ask your Excellency to pay attention to the attached note, which sets out the analysis of the report and my opinion, and more than one, because Archimandrite Antonin introduced into his report such items as were not prescribed to him in the decree of the Holy Synod. If we take into account two notes on this case, based on the original papers of Archimandrite Leonid and his opponents, which I previously forwarded to your Excellency’s predecessor, and the question I supposed from John and Arseny: then this, in my opinion, will be enough to in this shortest way come to a resolution of this matter, and, probably, the Holy Synod considers more than one Archimandrite Leonid guilty, John and Arseny is many guilty, and Gideon is capable of receiving pardon, as not so much acting as being passionately carried away by others. Archimandrite Antonin had it before his eyes; approves of it; Consequently, he is capable of giving sincere testimony, and if Archimandrite Antonin had asked him, in all likelihood, he could have received information that would serve to provide a fair explanation of the case. On the report of Archimandrite Antonin on October 18, 1865, on the case of disturbances in the Jerusalem spiritual mission I. In order, when considering this act, to be in an impartial position at the very beginning and to bring the present consideration into relation with the previous parts of the case, it must first of all be said that Archimandrite Leonid cannot be considered innocent in the disorders that have occurred. One undoubtedly well-known act of his in the church strongly exposes him. Having entered the altar to celebrate the liturgy, having begun to put on, for an insignificant reason, only one part of the vestment that was not festive, he entered the altar into an imperious argument with the sacristan, and was so indignant that he deprived himself of the service, and untimely left the church. If in church, in preparation for priestly service, he did not retain patience and power over himself, then it becomes probable that even more so in other cases his actions with his subordinates could not be peaceful, capable of arousing displeasure, and giving rise to disorder. However, what other illegal actions there were on his part remains to be discovered and proven. But, on the other hand, his subordinates, informers on him, in their own reports and letters, which were in the hands of their superiors, discovered that they complained about actions that were not subject to complaint, that they brought complaints inappropriately, that they interfered in matters that had a voice about themselves, that they used insulting and mocking expressions about Archimandrite Leonid, unworthy not only of a clergyman, but also of a layman, revealing a low and restless spirit. And, what is even more important, in a rebellious manner they took away from the head of the mission his superiors, the church and the public treasury. II. The Holy Synod instructed Archimandrite Antonin to collect information about the disturbances that had occurred in the Jerusalem spiritual mission. His report should reveal whether he collected information, and whether it was about what was prescribed. III. He “finds himself forced to admit that he is unable to present them (disorders) historically.” How will he present them? If it is ideal, based on guesses, based on suspicions, then it will not do what the administrative and judicial case requires. IV. “According to one side, Fr. Archimandrite Leonid was already coming here in order to take revenge on whomever he considered necessary, if not for the face, then for the official position of his predecessor.” Expressions: one side, whoever considered it necessary, are not businesslike. The case needs names. This is not information about troubles, but a guess and suspicion. This suspicion is beyond the bounds of probability. Archimandrite Leonid is not a supporter of his predecessor 445; because he left his mission due to dissatisfaction, and in Russia did not turn out to be his adherent. And how could his actions with his own chosen subordinates (since all the troubles were between him and his subordinates) involve revenge for his predecessor? In the same way, it is inappropriate to mention the report of the other side about some kind of “instruction” that allegedly tended to oppress Archimandrite Leonid. V. As one of the reasons for the disorder, the archimandrite speaks of “the seemingly exorbitant passion of the archimandrite (Leonid) for money, evidenced, to the surprise, by everyone here unanimously.” Here the accusation of Archimandrite Leonid of self-interest is refuted by the word “as if”, and at the same time proven by universal testimony. What to believe? An unnamed testimony has no force before the law, and only the testimonies of named and recognized as doubtful witnesses are valid. The members of the mission, who are all involved in the confrontation with Archimandrite Leonid, are not undoubted witnesses: but how can outsiders know about his selfish actions? The archimandrite's greed could lead to disorder if he withheld salaries or any income from members of the mission: it was necessary to ask who, when, how much, and consult the records, which should contain receipts for receipt. Without this inquiry, the slander of greed does not matter. VI. Archimandrite Antonin condemns the names: missions, mission members, large salaries, as reasons for disorder. Thus, he criticizes the orders of his superiors, and even mocks, calling the name of the mission illusory, instead of, by order, collecting information. The name of the mission does not lead to disobedience, and the name of the missionaries as members of the mission is given by Archimandrite Antonin inappropriately. An embassy is called a mission. But those serving in the embassy are not called missionaries: so are the members of the spiritual mission in Jerusalem. VII. Archimandrite Antonin teaches us by presenting propaganda monasteries as an example. This was not assigned to him and is not relevant to the present case. VIII. Not close to the present matter, but not without relevance to it, the archimandrite points out a distant source of disorder in the fact that the mission, previously independent, has recently lost its independence under the authority of the consulate. He writes: “with the transfer of all Russian institutions in Jerusalem to the consulate, the mission, which had hitherto been considered, if not the owner, then the manager of everything that was ours here, suddenly saw itself without property, without rights, without power, without strength, even without an advisory voice in the organization of our Palestinian affairs! Such a revolution in the mutual relations of the two departments should naturally have aroused in one side regret about the lost significance, and in the other a certain amount of arrogance over it. Hence the mutual coldness of the two authorities.” This explains, for example, the absurdity that the hierodeacon, from whom the archimandrite demanded confession before the clergy, finds this offensive to himself and complains about this not to the spiritual authorities, but to a secular person, the consul. This is because he considers the consul to be omnipotent and the archimandrite to be insignificant. The Holy Synod, no doubt, will pay attention to this in order to correct the relationship between the head of the spiritual mission and the consul. IX. But the archimandrite goes beyond the limits of the truth when he says: if the clergy “makes a boss out of a consul, then who is to blame for that? No one except the state of things itself.” Not true. Members of the mission - clergy, more than other ranks, are obliged not to evade their superiors, and are personally guilty when turning to the consul, and especially on spiritual subjects. X. Archimandrite Antoninus goes very far beyond the limits of the assignment given to him, planning that the head of the Jerusalem mission should be in Constantinople and have a governor in Jerusalem. The business of the Jerusalem mission is of such a nature that it needs to be managed in Jerusalem, and not in Constantinople, and if the power of the consul paralyzes the actions of the head of the mission, then how much more so than his governor. XI. Archimandrite Antonin makes the following review about Archimandrite Leonid: “Fr. The archimandrite has a commendable zeal for the morality, good name and interests of the Russians who visit and live here (in Jerusalem). If this is true, then it is impossible to justify those grave complaints, reproaches and humiliating acts to which Archimandrite Leonid was subjected from subordinates and non-subordinates. XII. As distant reasons for the Patriarchate's reluctance towards the mission, Archimandrite Antoninus points out the mention in the instructions of the ambition of the Greeks and the need to teach them order, the splendor of the mission and its clash with the interests of the Patriarchate. It's a shame if that's what the instructions say. At other times, it is a pity that secret instructions are proclaimed. It’s a pity if the patriarch’s view of this mission is not spiritual. XIII. Archimandrite Antonin cites a review from the Metropolitan of Peter that the archimandrite laughed at his title, and turns away fans from him as a confessor; and the opinion of the most blessed patriarch that Leonidas advised the fans not to donate to holy places. Here the fulfillment of the order of the Holy Synod actually begins. This evidence is important, according to the importance of the persons; but Leonid, of course, did not speak in the presence of the patriarch and metropolitan of the speeches that are shown above, therefore the patriarch and metropolitan testify by ear, and, perhaps, by ear from the very people whose increased antagonism against Leonid is so obvious in the case. So, here it is necessary to apply the law regarding those who testify by hearing. XIV. Again Archimandrite Antonin goes back to the introductory speeches and says that the mission was set in relation to the patriarch, as equal to equal. It's not fair. No one thought of making Archimandrite Leonid equal to the patriarch. When the patriarch forbade Leonid to serve in the Church of the Resurrection, Leonid, doubting the scope of this prohibition, did not dare to serve even in his church. XV. Archimandrite Antonin quotes the words of his blessed patriarch, “that he does not recognize any outside boss here, that the only Orthodox boss here is himself.” Let it be allowed to say that if the most blessed patriarch recognizes the abbot of the monastery of his department as the head of his monastery, without prejudice to his supreme superiors, then why not recognize the archimandrite of the mission as the head of the brethren of the mission? When the Eastern and Western churches were in communion, the Patriarch of Constantinople, the head of the Roman apocrisiary in Constantinople, had no difficulty in recognizing the Roman patriarch; Why shouldn’t the Most Blessed Patriarch of Jerusalem recognize the Holy All-Russian Synod as the head of the archimandrite of the mission? The Most Blessed Patriarch, of course, will not agree for the Moscow diocesan bishop to say to the Archimandrite of the Jerusalem courtyard in Moscow: I am the only boss here, and I do not recognize the authority of the Most Blessed Patriarch over the courtyard. XVI. He also cites the words of the patriarch: “it was not possible with the bishop; failed with the archimandrite; Let’s try to get along with ordinary priests.” The last words mean nothing more than that it is easier to make a simple priest mute and turn him into a novice to the patriarch, and not to the Holy Synod. It is surprising that the archimandrite deduces from this that it is necessary to remove the leadership of the mission to Constantinople from Jerusalem. This means removing from Jerusalem the head of the mission, who has some power, and leaving there a simple priest, so that, according to the word of the Apostle, he will be trampled upon by all. XVII. Archimandrite Antonin exclaims: let the Constantinople mission not bear its name in vain! This is not clear. In Constantinople there is an imperial mission and with it an archimandrite, the rector of the embassy church, but there is no spiritual mission. XVIII. Archimandrite Antonin strongly criticizes the instructions of the head of the mission for the fact that he is entrusted with the supervision of pilgrims, and draws various unfavorable conclusions from this. Anything can be abused. But as it is known that some Russian pilgrims in Jerusalem behave in a way that brings shame to the Russian nation, the head of the mission is blessedly entrusted with spiritual and moral exhortation to correct the outrageous, to protect others from their example, and to allow the consul to take appropriate measures against the incorrigible and intolerant. XIX. If it is true that Archimandrite Leonid aspired to be a confessor, then this is guilt. But it is not clear how this is proven. XX. “Hieromonk John was forbidden to confess under the pretext of his youth.” But how is it proven that this was an excuse and not the real reason? XXI. If Archimandrite Leonid truly relied on information received spiritually, that is, through confession, as the basis for this prohibition: this is again guilt, and important guilt. But again it is not clear how this is proven. XXII. The testimony that “the idea of ​​shepherding haunted Archimandrite” Leonid, and the description of the consequences of this were made ideally by Archimandrite Antonin, without any indication of specific actions or evidence. XXIII. Not content with being an investigator, Archimandrite Antonin wants to be a legislator, and will forbid fans to go to Jerusalem another time before ten years after the first; prohibit living beyond six months. This is inconvenient and can hamper the good instead of the bad. XXIV. Once again, with very dark features, Archimandrite Antonin depicts the moral character of Archimandrite Leonid: “his bitterness against his enemies applied to his direct enemies, and to the friends of his enemies, and even to the non-enemies of his enemies, and was expressed in a merciless way.” “The feeling of revenge, unfortunately, is not only inherent, but also seems pleasant, almost even legitimate to a person (Leonid), who is otherwise generous.” What is this strange description based on? Archimandrite Antonin was not in Jerusalem during the unrest of the Jerusalem mission: he only came to escort Archimandrite Leonid out of there, already deprived of any effect on others. From his report it is clear that he very trustingly listened to those whom he represented as not being well disposed towards Archimandrite Leonid. And he didn’t bring a single legally correct witness about anything. All the proof of the strange description is that Archimandrite Leonid in the Church of the Resurrection insulted Hieromonax Benjamin, and immediately bowed to the ground and asked for his forgiveness, and again scolded him, and wrote to the Holy Synod; and this is based on the words of the consul. But did the consul himself see and hear this, did he receive this information from the mouths of the rebellious members of the mission? What did Leonid write to the Holy Synod? It is clear from the case that it was not Archimandrite Leonid who enjoyed the confidence of the consul, but his opponents. XXV. Archimandrite Antonin writes: “by fierce persecution (Archimandrite Leonid) brought, as many here are convinced, the great writer Kaminsky to the grave.” Who are many? What was the cruel persecution? Did the archimandrite even have the possibility of such persecution? How hastily a spiritual brother throws the crime of murder at another brother. XXVI. Another accusation: “as if in Odessa hundreds of fans are sitting and waiting for the minute when Fr. Leonid." It is regrettable to see that this fabulous accusation was also included in the official report. XXVII. “Archimandrite (Leonid) himself said that in Yafa our fans were frightened (by the Greeks) with the fact that the archimandrite would take away all their things at their “buildings.” That is, Archimandrite Leonid told how they were slandering him, and Archimandrite Antonin cited this as proof that Archimandrite Leonid was guilty. XXVIII. For this, Archimandrite Antonin concludes: “such, at my extreme discretion, I found the position of the local mission.” But, apart from extraneous discussions, he spoke almost only about the head of the mission. The mission is not carried out by one chief, and it is not only in him that disorder has been discovered. Nothing is said about the merits or unworthiness of the other members of the mission, about the justice or injustice of their complaints and denunciations; not a word is said about why and how it happened that they stopped obeying the head of the mission, took away from him the management of the church, the treasury and income, to what extent this was arbitrary, or happened from any combination of circumstances, why they turned to denunciations about even spiritual matters not to the spiritual, but to the secular authorities, why they entered into matters that did not concern them and had a voice about themselves. Thus, it turns out that the proper information has not been collected on the most important parts of the case, and the order of the Holy Synod has not been fulfilled. This would have been too unexpected from a person who had already enjoyed the good opinion and trust of his superiors for a long time, if it were not partly explained by the effect of his deep respect for the reviews of high-ranking persons, which blinded the researcher to the idea that their reviews could be the result of ill-intentioned, skillfully carried out, suggestions on the part of members of the mission who were hostile to Archimandrite Leonid. XXIX. The last part of Archimandrite Antonin’s report consists of ten articles, which he calls conclusions. In the first of these articles, he attributes an “arrogant attitude” to the patriarch, and finds it necessary to “support the significance” of the mission. Here is an indirect admission that Archimandrite Leonid was oppressed and suffered. XXX. In the second article he says: “the current consul in Jerusalem could be offered another position of equal honor.” Here again is a secret confession that Archimandrite Leonid suffered more from the consul than order and justice would allow. XXXI. Archimandrite Antonin finds it necessary to remove the consul from Jerusalem in accordance with the policy of prudence, “according to which it is not considered a particularly praiseworthy thing to unite with a stranger to conquer one’s own.” Here is another secret confession that the disobedient members of the mission united with the consul to overcome Archimandrite Leonidas. XXXII. The third article asks: when appointing the head of the mission, “would it not be found tolerable to sacrifice in some way the merits of strict monastic asceticism in favor of the practical wisdom of life”? It seems about. Archimandrite Antonin said here, more than he thought, that the practical wisdom of life requires the sacrifice of monastic virtues, and that the harmful consequences of cenobitic monasticism include inappropriate bowing at the feet. XXXIII. Meanwhile, in the same article the following review is found about Archimandrite Leonid: “returning to the face of Fr. Archimandrite Leonid, one can wish with all my heart that both his dignity, as a true monk, and his zeal, holy and venerable, find themselves a completely open, unrestricted field. Wherever monastic life requires in our fatherland an organizer, a corrector, an examiner, and even just a scientific researcher, Fr. Archimandrite Leonid can be considered an excellent figure.” If this review is fair, then can the reviews made by Archimandrite Antonin about the excessive greed, bitterness, and vindictiveness of Archimandrite Leonid also be fair? This contradiction can only be explained by the fact that approval was pronounced according to one’s own inquiry, and condemnation according to trustingly accepted suggestions. XXXIV. In the fourth article, Archimandrite Antonin considers it best to give the mission the appearance of a purely monastic institution, not communal, not like regular monasteries, with a general ascetic character. Doesn't express exactly what he wants; but isn’t that what Archimandrite Leonid also wanted? XXXV. In the fifth article, for the third time, it is proposed that the head of the Jerusalem mission should be in Constantinople. And the inconveniences of this assumption have already been mentioned above. XXXVI. In the sixth article, Archimandrite Antonin agrees to be rector of the mission; in the seventh he appoints himself a viceroy, and in the eighth and ninth hieromonks and other members for the mission. In the tenth article he talks about singers and the type of singing. Here the word was accidentally uttered that singing missions go only to the liturgy, and do not go to other church services, and that they must be forced to go to church. These are the people who rebelled against their boss: while all the blame was placed on him alone. XXXVII. It must be assumed that the Holy Synod will find the inquiry of Archimandrite Antonin unsatisfactory, and will take measures to further openly reveal the truth of the matter. The closest in the very order of the matter and not a hopeless measure would be a detailed questioning of the two rebellious members of the mission who are already in Russia, separately, on points of question carefully drawn up. December 8–10, 1865 447 June 25. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to Count D. A. Tolstoy, with a draft message to Patriarch Kirill of Jerusalem on behalf of the leading member of the Holy Synod about the disorders of the Jerusalem spiritual mission Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count D. A. Tolstoy, in reference, dated May 31, 1866, No. 3351, transmitting to the Metropolitan of Moscow copies of: a) the response letter of the Patriarch of Jerusalem addressed to the Most Reverend Metropolitan of Novgorod and St. Petersburg dated April 21; b) notes from the vice-chancellor regarding the letter from the patriarch, c) letters from Count N.P. Ignatiev, and d) private letter from Archimandrite Antonin on the case of disturbances in the Jerusalem spiritual mission, asked the archpastor to provide “instructions on the further direction of the matter.” Most Excellent Count, Dear Sir. From what was communicated to me (dated May 31, No. 3351), in the list, the message of His Beatitude the Patriarch of Jerusalem, dated April 21, the question inevitably arises: what should be the further direction of relations with his beatitude regarding the disorder of the Russian spiritual mission in Jerusalem? The question is difficult not because it is difficult to see the truth, but because the already presented and proven truth is not met with peaceful confrontation; and after such an experience a new frank presentation of the truth may promise no success, but only an increase in disagreement. The Russian hierarchy, on its part, is invariably positioned to guard, according to the Apostle, the unity of the spirit in the union of peace, no matter how the Jerusalem hierarchy is located. But, on the other hand, one should not betray the truth. The defenselessness of truth should not give rise to the predominance of untruth, which is harmful both now and in the future. To protect the dignity of the most blessed patriarch, it must be assumed that he signed the letter on April 21, due to the excess of trust in the one who inspired and composed it. No attention was paid to the truth presented in the message of the leading member of the Holy Synod and its evidence in the message of the Patriarch. Archimandrite Leonidas is described in the epistle with ugly features, such as: throwing himself at this or that, which was not written in the denunciations of the disobedient monks, and, instead of evidence, it points to countless statements and complaints of an entire people, while all of Jerusalem does not constitute an entire people. The Patriarch says in his message: “we never thought that we had disrespected the Holy Russian Synod.” This means that the Synod does not stand up for the truth of the matter, but because it considers itself offended, and, moreover, in such a way that the patriarch did not expect this, that is, the Holy Synod in vain considers itself offended. Can the Holy Synod retain such an accusation? The Patriarch writes in his message: “by acting in the spirit of justice, we incurred the wrath of the Holy Synod.” There are two accusations here: first, that the Holy Synod acts against the justice that the patriarch defends; second, as if the Holy Synod acts out of the passion of anger. These examples of the content and expression of the patriarchal message are shown here to demonstrate that the message cannot be left unanswered, and that the response should not be slavishly compliant, but, with possible peacefulness, exculpatory for the Holy Synod. A draft of such a response is attached. At the same time, the papers related to the present case are returned with the inventory in which they were sent. Your Beatitude, Most Revered Archpastor. The message of your beatitude was greeted by me with deep respect, and with the hope that from it the light of perfect peace will shine between the two Orthodox hierarchies, so beneficial for the perfect peace of the Orthodox churches. But, with the sincerity befitting our service, I must confess before you, most blessed Bishop, that this light was revealed to me not free from some sad shadows. In the message of your beatitude, with an expression of deep sorrow, it is said that you never thought that you had disrespected the Holy Russian Synod. Let me explain the truth, and bring justification. Neither the All-Russian Synod instructed me to write, nor did I write in my message that you disrespected the All-Russian Synod. In my message, the view of the All-Russian Synod on the matter of Archimandrite Leonid was set out, which is different from your view, which often happens in affairs, without violating the mutual respect of the two parties who have different views. In conclusion, on behalf of the Synod, most respectfully, I asked you, most blessed Bishop, not to deprive the archimandrite of your merciful view until the matter about him and his subordinates receives legal clarity. The action of the All-Russian Synod was obviously guided by the spirit of peace, reverence for the holy throne of Jerusalem and perfect respect for your blessedness. Here in your message it is mentioned about Archimandrite Leonid that he fled from your presence. If you pay attention to the detailed statement of the matter included in my message, in a special note, then you will be pleased to see that he did not flee recklessly, but avoided as a precaution so that his subordinates, who had gone out of obedience, would not reveal confrontation against him in your face and would not cause temptation in the solemn assembly; and he decided on such an evasion on the advice of your governor, Metropolitan Meletius. If Archimandrite Leonid had such respect for your governor that he obeyed his leadership, then there can be no doubt that he maintained due reverence for your blessedness. With difficulty I submit to the need to utter another word found in the message of your beatitude: you attribute anger to the All-Russian Synod. I firmly testify that there was nothing of the kind either in the orders of the Holy Synod or in my humble message. In unfortunate circumstances, it is natural to feel sorrow; but as far as the Bcepoccian Synod is from allowing anger to be involved in its actions, it is just as unexpected that it should be exposed to such a charge. The Synod knows the word of the Apostle that the anger of a man does not accomplish the righteousness of God. In order not to bother our attention any longer with my explanations, I will limit myself to admitting that I am at a loss as to whether it would be useful to offer the message of your beatitude to the All-Russian Synod, or whether it would not be more useful for me to bear the burden of grief alone, and, in the hope of a perfect word of peace, to preserve a world of silence for both clergy. However, I am sure that, in any case, the All-Russian Synod will not allow Archimandrite Leonid to return to Jerusalem, who, having the misfortune of losing your favor, will leave Archimandrite Antonin in Jerusalem, at least until another one is found that meets the requirements of the ministry there. I humbly place this matter and these communications at the foot of the Most High Archpastor of our Lord Jesus Christ. Who is the source of peace, and I pray to Him that by His all-effective grace, the Mother of Churches, the Jerusalem Church and the All-Russian Church would unceasingly preserve in perfect unity of peace and love until the end of the age. With this thought and deep respect for your blessedness (which feelings are shared with me by the entire All-Russian Synod), I have the heartfelt duty and consolation to be and remain unchanged. September 29. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to Count D. A. Tolstoy, with an opinion on the interrogation of Hieromonk John in the case of disturbances in the Jerusalem spiritual mission Comrade Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Yu. V. Tolstoy, in two respects dated August 21 and 27, 1866, forwarded to Metropolitan Philaret a copy of the most loyal note, with a detailed statement of all the disturbances and clashes that arose in the Jerusalem mission during the recent administration of Archimandrite Leonid, and a copy of the correspondence on this matter with Patriarch Kirill, at the same time, delivered to the Metropolitan a copy of the report of the Archbishop of Kherson 449 to the Holy Synod and the attached explanation of the former member of the Jerusalem mission, Hieromonk John, on the case of unrest in the mission, and asked for an opinion “on the contents of the said papers.” Most Excellent Count, Dear Sir. In the long-produced case about the unrest of the Jerusalem spiritual mission, finally the first interrogation of Hieromonk John is meant. In the most ordinary cases, interrogations are carried out through gradual questions, so that the respondent is encouraged to answer without cunning, sometimes without foreseeing where the proposed private question will lead. But this precaution was not taken in such a matter where special diligence is required to bring the truth to light from the darkness of complicity. Hieromonk John, instead of answering about himself and his affairs, begins his testimony by pointing out the first disorder caused by Archimandrite Leonid, without explaining what it consisted of; expresses his displeasure to his superiors for the length of the case; attributes seductive and terrifying riots to Archimandrite Leonid, and, instead of explanation and evidence, lists the titles of 13 papers of disobedient members of the mission, as if caring only that the paper, in which rude ridicule of Archimandrite Leonid and blasphemy against the blessing of the priesthood are written, is not hidden from the authorities. Further, Hieromonk John expresses displeasure at the Holy Synod for the order that he and Hierodeacon Apseny were removed from Moscow, and Hieromonk Gideon was left. Further, John tries to justify the disobedient members of the mission in that they addressed denunciations past the Holy Synod, presenting incorrect and self-contradictory evidence, such as the fact that they doubted whether they had the right to write to the Holy Synod (which, in necessary cases, every son of the church has) and that they were afraid of being accused of silence (consequently they recognized the obligation and had the urge to appeal to the Holy Synod). Thus, in the entire testimony of Hieromonk John, there is no personal interrogation, but a lawyer and a judge, and not the interrogated. However, if not the love of truth, then the desire to justify ourselves brought to light a significant truth in this matter, in the following words of Hieromonk John: we asked the consul who we should contact with papers in important cases, and he answered that you, except me and Fr. Leonidas, there are no other Russian commanders in Jerusalem, and he promised to forward our papers where they should. The validity of this testimony is confirmed by the course of the case. I believe that the city consul did not have the right to so decisively and in such a broad sense declare himself the head of the spiritual mission, but should have said that in matters requiring spiritual orders and court, members of the spiritual mission should turn to the Holy Synod, and to him, the city consul, only in matters requiring orders and civil court. Thus, the city consul, with his review and subsequent action in the sense of this review, led the disobedient members of the mission onto an illegal path, and confirmed them in the disobedience that they showed not only to the head of the mission, but for some time to the Holy Synod. The accusations against Archimandrite Leonid are for the most part unfounded, except for one main and proven fact that he, outraged in spirit by the sacristan’s disobedience to change part of his vestments, did not perform the liturgy and left the church. This act deserved nothing more than spiritual admonition and admonition. But the few who were guilty, the many who were guilty, were subjected to severe and widespread criticism, were sadly driven out of Jerusalem, and at the same time, surrounding the most blessed Patriarch of Jerusalem with prejudice, they incited him to such actions that were not far from breaking the peace between the two epochs. If, as before, the consul recognizes himself as the head of the spiritual mission, if he accepts complaints that the archimandrite sends the hierodeacon to confession, that the archimandrite demands festive vestments from the sacristan, etc.: then the correct leadership of the archimandrite, the order and dignity of the spiritual mission and the benefits of its activities will not be ensured. It must be assumed that the Holy Synod will draw firm conclusions from the circumstances of this case to protect the dignity and strength of church government, under the shield of the sovereign defender of the Orthodox Church, the most pious Sovereign Emperor. Meanwhile, it is not superfluous for the case, and even necessary, that a correct and insightful interrogation be taken from Hierodeacon Arseny on questions drawn from the case, capable of clarifying it. Apparently insignificant questions can also serve to reveal the inner side of the matter, such as the following: why did the members of the mission, among the denunciations against Archimandrite Leonid, include this denunciation that his cheeks were puffed out, whereas this does not involve any violation of order, and no offense is caused to anyone? October 21. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to Count D. A. Tolstoy, with an opinion on the assumption of the closure of the Russian spiritual mission in Jerusalem Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count D. A. Tolstoy, in a letter dated October 4, 1866, wrote to Metropolitan Philaret that he had come to the conviction that further correspondence on the Jerusalem case “would lead to only fruitless bickering, that the church is powerless before the authority of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, but that it cannot and should not bow before it and reduce its Jerusalem representative to an obedient subordinate Jerusalem consul. For these reasons, I do not find any other way out, consistent with the dignity of the church, than the complete destruction of our Jerusalem mission. I submit this thought to the respect of your Eminence, and I ask you to honor me with your advice.” For the sake of the truth, it is not superfluous to explain here that everything said in this brief summary of the case is based on papers issued by informers, the consul, and the patriarch, and not on the words of Archimandrite Leonidas. From the hitherto hopeless difficulties of this matter, the outcome could have been revealed if a new consul had appeared, who would have recognized the true state of the matter with an attentive and impartial eye, ordered his actions accordingly, who would have helped the most blessed patriarch to have a more correct view of the matter, and thereby promoted the peace of the hierarchy, who, having placed his power within legal limits, would himself ensure the firm position of the head of the spiritual mission, and the observance of subordination and order in it. But if this is not the case, the situation remains hopeless. From here the thought may arise, should the spiritual mission be completely removed from Jerusalem? The following considerations may prevent you from doing this: 1) In this case, the peace of the hierarchy, disrupted by the patriarch, would remain unrestored. 2) The Patriarch, who placed his actions somewhat higher than fraternal relations with the All-Russian Synod, would see his strength and his victory in the destruction of the spiritual mission, and this, of course, would not lead to an improvement in relations between the hierarchies, and to maintaining the dignity of the All-Russian Synod in the face of the Patriarch. 3) It is another thing not to establish a mission, and another thing to destroy an established one. The first, in the face of an unfavorable view, may subject one to a minor reproach for lack of activity; the second would have the unpleasant appearance of falling. 4) Western envy of Russia, which does not leave the Orthodox Church alone (of which a recent example is the disclosures about the union of the supposed Patriarch of Constantinople with Rome), in the destruction of the Russian spiritual mission in Jerusalem would find a happy opportunity for this to have offensive and harmful implications unfavorable for Orthodoxy. 5) If the spiritual mission in Jerusalem were destroyed, what would happen to the church that was built for it there at great expense and splendor? This church was a sad monument to the fall of the mission. What, finally, should be done in a hopeless state of affairs? There is hardly anything better than leaving the mission in the current transitional state, awaiting a better time, since Archimandrite Antonin, although unsatisfied with the explanation of the matter, has no difficulties for himself on the part of the consul or on the part of the patriarch. October 23. Metropolitan Philaret's opinion on the unrest in the Jerusalem spiritual mission There is a Russian spiritual mission in Jerusalem, established, firstly, for close communication with the Eastern Orthodox hierarchy and to strengthen Orthodoxy in tribes weakened by lack of education before the power of Western propaganda; secondly, for the moral guidance of Russian admirers of the Palestinian shrine, all the more necessary since a considerable number of them insult the dignity of the Russian name with their behavior. For some time this mission was under the command of a bishop; its types have been expanded, and its resources are abundant. However, the fruits of her action did not quite live up to her hopes. Then it received a more limited composition, under the command of an archimandrite. Disorders emerged within this mission and spread to its external relations. Two hieromonks and a hierodeacon made denunciations against the head of the mission, Archimandrite Leonid, and by their very content, without further investigation, denouncing them of illegality and injustice, they addressed them, not according to their affiliation, to the consul, and, more importantly, outrageously took away the power and everything that was under his jurisdiction from the head of the mission. The Most Blessed Patriarch of Jerusalem was presented with such false information about this disorder of the mission that he forbade Archimandrite Leonid to serve in holy places, and in a letter to the Holy All-Russian Synod he condemned him, and approved of those who were indignant, and even proposed one of these to be the head of the mission, thus going beyond the boundaries of his region. On behalf of the All-Russian Synod, its leading member, in a letter to the Patriarch, in the most meek terms, tried to present the matter to him in its true form, asking him nothing more than to refrain from displeasure towards Archimandrite Leonid until the Synod had fully considered the matter. But what followed on the part of the patriarch was first a long silence, then in a new way an even more strongly expressed condemnation of Archimandrite Leonid, partly unsubstantiated, partly based on a reinterpretation of the innocent actions of the archimandrite. Such a course and such a state of affairs seem inexplicable, and can only be explained by taking into account the participation of the consul in this matter. One of the disobedient members of the mission upon returning to Russia, in a statement taken from him, stated that they asked the consul who they should contact with papers in important cases, and that he answered: “from you, except me and Fr. Leonidas, there are no other leaders in Jerusalem,” and promised to forward the papers to the appropriate place. And since the disobedient ones wanted to destroy the leadership of Archimandrite Leonidas, the consul, with his recall, established himself as the sole and complete head of the mission, not excluding spiritual affairs. From the letter from Hierodeacon Arseny to the consul himself, which is on file, it is clear that the consul was “curious to find out all the events” and “with repeated reminders” encouraged members of the mission to denounce. On the contrary, it is not visible that the consul addressed Archimandrite Leonid in writing or verbally on denunciations, the illegality and groundlessness of which the archimandrite could explain without further research. And even without an explanation from Archimandrite Leonid, the consul could understand the groundlessness and even indecency of other denunciations, such as, for example, that the archimandrite sent Hierodeacon Arseny to confession, that he wanted to present him for ordination as a hieromonk, without his consent, etc. However, the consul accepted such denunciations and gave them a go. This action of the consul naturally turned into encouragement of the rebellious, and gave them a reason to wrest from the head of the mission his power and everything that was in his jurisdiction; the consul did nothing to stop their rebellious actions. What followed was that even before the eyes of the most blessed patriarch, the bad deeds of the disobedient members of the mission were covered with a shadow, and the actions of Archimandrite Leonid were presented in a distorted form; and the consul did nothing to restore the truth to his beatitude. A copy of Bishop Kirill's report, dated February 10, 1859, was not found in the papers of Metropolitan Philaret. Kirill 2nd. About him, see above, note 5. See about this above, approx. 383. From a copy, storing in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 13; document No. 4. On the original His Imperial Majesty’s own hand is written: “All this is so clear and fair that I don’t understand how it is possible to look at this matter differently.” "A very fair point." Words of Emperor Alexander II. “Completely fair, and I don’t understand how anyone could look at it differently.” Remarks from Emperor Alexander II. “I am very glad to see that our thoughts are completely in agreement.” Remarks from Emperor Alexander II. “That’s how I look at this matter.” Words of Emperor Alexander II. From his own handwritten drawing. original, with a lithographed copy of the Metropolitan’s report, with the resolutions of the Sovereign Emperor. Inventory No. 60, document. 1–3. About him, see above, Metropolitan Philaret’s Opinion on the Acts of the Church-People’s Assembly in Constantinople, Chapter V. At the top of Count A.P. Tolstoy’s letter, the Metropolitan wrote: “July 14. Responsible with a note and the return of the brochure.” The draft letter in which the “note about the restoration of the dome over the Church of the Holy Sepulcher” was forwarded to Count A.P. Tolstoy was not preserved in the metropolitan’s papers. Salomon, P.I., former. manager chancellor Holy Synod; now the first presence. citizen Cass. dept. Right Senate, acting secrets council Marquis of Lavalette (I. M. F. marquis de Lavalette), from May 21, 1860, to August 28, 1861. See Gotha's Almanac, 1861 and 1862. Published in Constantinople in 851, Note. Metropolitan Philaret. See above, Metropolitan Philaret’s review of the letters of the rector of the Russian Embassy Church in Constantinople, Archimandrite Peter, on the issue of transformations in the eastern hierarchy, approx. 175. From a copy, stored. in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 60, document. Nos. 4 and 5. This letter is not in the papers of Metropolitan Philaret. The reunification of the Greekuniates (Melchites) took place in Constantinople on November 26, 1860, in the presence of the patriarchs: Joachim Constant., Kallinika Alexander, Hierotheus Antiochus. and Cyril of Jerusalem. See years. church personal page 821–822. Joachim 2nd, See about him above. See above Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod A.P. Akhmatov, with an opinion on communication with the Ecumenical Patriarch in the case of the Bulgarian-Uniate Archbishop Joseph. See above, Metropolitan Philaret’s review of the report of His Eminence Kirill, Bishop of Melitopol, dated February 10, 1859. From a handwritten draft original, kept. in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 74; document Nos. 24 and 25. What is printed in italics is marked by the Moscow saint himself. From a handwritten draft original, on which at the end of the opinion, in pencil, in unknown handwriting, is marked: “No. 173. April 29, 1863.” Inventory No. 41; document Nos. 4 and 5. Genuine storage. in the file of the archives of the Holy Synod, 1857 No. 4214; ll. 359–363. File of the Archives of the Holy Synod, 1863, No. 1068; ll. 1–15. Afanasy (Sokolov), from November 3, 1856, archbishop. Kazan; Nov. 9, 1866, discharged. to rest; † Jan., 1868, in Kizich. mon. From a copy, stored. in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 13; document Nos. 7 and 8. File of the archive of the Holy Synod, 1865, No. 1068; l. 77. The letter, dated January 3, 1864, was not preserved in the papers of Metropolitan Philaret. From a handwritten draft original. Inventory No. 13; document No. 12. At the bottom of the sheet, by the hand of Metropolitan Philaret, it is marked: “No. 71, February 22, 1865.” Leonid (Kavelin), nobleman. Kaluga gub., was brought up in the 1st Moscow. cadet body; since 1840 service. in the guard; in 1852 he entered obediently. in Kozelsk Optina is empty, where in 1854 he was tonsured. to the monastery and handicraft in hiero.; since 1854 in 1859 he was a member. Jerusalem spirit. mission, and since 1863 to 1865 – initial this one. Mansurov, B.P., now member. state owls Kartsov, Andr. Nikol., cons. in Paris. Kaminsky, Viktor Kirillovich, colonel, author of op. "A Worshiper's Recollection of the Holy Land", ed. twice, in 1856 and 1859; † in 1863 From a copy, stored. in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 13; document Nos. 16 and 17. The same copy is stored. in the case of chancellor Holy Synod, 2nd department, 1st article, to this day. register No. 119; ll. 115–130. From a copy, storing in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 13; document No. 19. Of course, the letter from Patriarch Kirill to A.M. Gorchakov, in which the patriarch asked the vice-chancellor to provide his assistance in the recall of Archimandrite Leonid from Jerusalem. A translation from this letter is in the chancellor's file. Holy Synod, 2nd department, 1st article, to this day. register No. 119; ll. 137–138. Holy Governing Russian Synod, beloved and longed-for brothers and co-servants of our dimension in Christ God! Your beloved Eminence, we embrace you brotherly in the Lord, in holy love we kiss and warmly greet you. When, more than a year ago, the Most Reverend Archimandrite Mr. Leonid was sent here by the head of the Russian spiritual mission here, in the place of our Eminence brother in Christ, Mr. Kirill, Bishop of Melitopol, accompanied by new personnel, we received his Eminence, as equipped with letters of recommendation to us from the Holy Governing Synod, as it should, with paternal love and heartfelt with joy, and, while they were temporarily in Constantinople, in the same spirit they recommended him to our vicar, His Eminence Metropolitan of Petra of Arabia, Mr. Meletius, feeding themselves with pleasant hopes that the newly identified persons would set themselves the goal of maintaining the necessary connection of friendship and goodwill in relation to the spiritual communities located here and worthily representing the Russian Church. But, unfortunately, our hopes were disappointed. Even when we were in Constantinople, we heard from various Russian pious admirers of the All-Holy Sepulcher many complaints about the local Russian spiritual mission, and especially about the behavior of its head, Archimandrite Leonidas. We spoke with sorrow about him with the excellent envoy, General Ignatiev, regarding the reports that reached his excellency about various gossip, which had their source mainly in the disorderly behavior of his eminence. And when, some time ago, we arrived in the holy city, we received countless verbal complaints from many Russian admirers of both sexes, and, among other things, clergy of the spiritual mission, about the disorderly and lawless behavior and actions of Archimandrite Leonidas, against whom complaints were also received by the Imperial Russian Consulate, with which His Reverence is in open rift. The general displeasure of Russian admirers against him and the sworn accusations against him are of such a nature that they forced us, in order to tame the general irritation, by virtue of the patriarchal power belonging to us, to prohibit his eminence from taking part in the sacred ceremonies performed in holy places. With mortal sorrow in our fatherly hearts about this state of affairs, we are now fulfilling the duty of sincere brotherly love, bringing the above to the attention of the Holy Governing Synod, partly because we yield to the general voice addressed to you, the voice of the most pious Russian worshipers who came this year to venerate the all-holy tomb, and partly out of confidence that the Holy Governing Synod, in its prudence and prudence, completely will take care to put an end to such a bad state of affairs by replacing the said Archimandrite Leonid with some other person, since his high reverence with his bad behavior not only arouses displeasure and dislike among Russian admirers, but also gives the non-believers in our region a reason to complain about the honor of the glorious Russian name, about which we have never ceased and will never cease to care. In conclusion, we recommend to your fatherly love the most reverend hieromonk Mr. John and the most reverend hieromonk Mr. Arseny: both of these members of the spiritual mission undeservedly suffer from the unfair cruelty towards them of the said archimandrite Mr. Leonid, and we fraternally ask your eminence to be merciful to us and paternally grant them forgiveness if they, as people, have sinned. Without the slightest doubt that your Eminence will appreciate, as it should, the importance of what we have written, we stop speaking, asking you from God for long, healthy, saving days. Your highly respected Eminence in Christ God, beloved brother and completely devoted. (sub.) Patriarch Kirill of Jerusalem. In the holy city of Jerusalem April 13, 1865 Gram., original. and in the translation. available on file clerical Holy Synod, 2 departments, 1 article, on the table. register No. 119; ll. 133–134. From a copy, having in the case of chancellor Holy Synod, 2 departments, 1 art. to this day register No. 119; ll. 144–145. With the message signed on June 25, 1865, an extract from the case of the Holy Synod about the disorders in the Jerusalem spiritual mission was sent to the patriarch; but this note was not in the Metropolitan’s papers. From a copy, stored. in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 13; document Nos. 18 and 24. We are talking about a letter from our envoy in Constantinople N.P. Ignatiev, from May 18–30, to Comrade Minister of Foreign Affairs, in which N.P. Ignatiev, by the way, reported “that the Patriarch of Jerusalem did not even think of imposing a ban on Archimandrite Leonid, but, considering himself offended by the actions of the head of our spiritual mission, did not allow him to participate in worship in holy places directly dependent on the patriarch.” See a copy of this letter in the chancellor's file. Holy Synod, 2 departments, 1 article, on the table. register No. 119; ll. 147–149. Saruf, Georgiy Spir., b. in Syria from rights. priest, first image. received in jerus. Arabic school; upon transition to Russian. subd., graduated in 1863. training course in St. Petersburg. medico-chir. academician, with title doctor, and in the same year archimandrite was taken. Leonid on the mission, as an extra piece. mission doctor and dragoman. In this case, we are talking about a reservation before the envoy that he was “actively engaged in arousal. Arabic population against the Greek clergy." See the case of chancellor. Holy Synod, 2 departments, 1 art. to this day register No. 93; l. 136. In the said letter, N.P. Ignatiev proposed to Archimandrite. Antoninus will be summoned from Constantinople to Jerusalem, and Leonidas will be appointed. embassy churches in Constantinople. Ibid; l. 148. Hieromonk John and Hierodeacon Arseny, having received in Jerusalem the decree of the Holy Synod appointing them to the disposal of the Khers. diocesan bosses, turned from there to this bosses with requests to dismiss them on leave to St. places in Palestine. These circumstances Metropolitan. This is what Filaret means here. The metropolitan's present demand was fulfilled by Hierom. John was placed among the brotherhood of the Chers. arch. at home, and Arseny - Odessa Uspensky. mon.; ll. 156, 175. From a handwritten draft original, kept. in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 13, doc. Nos. 21 and 22. Copy of this doc. available on file clerical Holy Synod, 2nd department, 1st article, to this day. register No. 119; ll. 152–153. From a copy, having in the case of chancellor Holy Synod, 2nd department, 1st page, to this day. register No. 119; l. 162. Yuvenaly (Polovtsev), nobleman, graduated. artillery course taught, now an academy, and until 1847 comp. in military service; March 15, 1857 def. obedient Kozelsk wholesale empty., in which in 1855 he was tonsured. in mon., and in 1857, conscript. in hiero.; from October 22, 1857 to April 14, 1861, comp. member jerus. spirit. missions; from December 31, 1867 to June 26, 1871, was in charge. alexandronevus. laurel; from May 21, 1884 governor Kiev-Pech. laurel. From a handwritten draft original, kept. in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 13, document. Nos. 26 and 27. A copy of this letter is available in the office file. Holy Synod, 2nd department, 1st article, to this day. register No. 119; l. 190. “The relationship is stopped in its tracks,” as ordered by the Asia Department. From a letter from N.P. Ignatiev to the director of the said department, dated July 20, by the way, it is clear that Consul Kartsov, “having learned the contents of the message, became extremely embarrassed, and said that the patriarch would be very offended and angry.” See synod case. stationery, 2 dept., 1 tbsp., on tabletop. register No. 93; l. 184. From a handwritten original, kept. in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 13; document No. 28. A copy of this letter is available in the office file. Holy Synod, 2nd department, 1st century, to this day. register No. 119; l. 193. Archimandrite Antonin keeps the original report. in the file of the office of the Holy Synod, 2nd department, 1st century, to this day. register No. 119; ll. 213–262. Kirill, Bishop of Melitopol. At the bottom of these words, in the hand of the Metropolitan, is written: “monastic correction.” The letter to Count D. And Tolstoy was written by the Metropolitan in his own hand. on the relationship, and the note was rewritten by the hand of a scribe. Document stored. in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 13; document Nos. 31, 32 and 33. From a copy, stored. in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 13, document. Nos. 36 and 37. Dimitry (Muretov); †November 14, 1883 From a copy, stored. in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 13, document. Nos. 39–41. From a handwritten original, stored. in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 13; document Nos. 43 and 44. From a copy, corrected. Met.'s own hand Filaret. Document storage in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 13, document. No. 42. You might be interested in: