Часть I. Духовные меры против раскола

“A wild plant of self-inflicted ignorance” 88, in its origin, is a schism and at the present time, “it is most based on ignorance” 89, wrote M. Filaret. This ignorance - especially the ignorance of women 90 - keeps the schism alive and feeds on it. With their own ignorance, schismatics take advantage of the lack of education of the Orthodox to seduce them into schism. “For an illiterate peasant, two words are enough: old faith, to seduce him from the church path” 91. That is why we notice that the schism is most widespread between the less developed classes of Russian society - “between the peasants and the bourgeoisie, and especially their wives,” of which “many hold the schism sincerely” 92 . But if schism is a product of ignorance, a delusion of the mind that deviates from the truth, then it naturally requires spiritual healing and counteracting it with spiritual means. “As long as the error of schism is not accompanied by turning away or seducing from Orthodoxy or violating civil law, until then, says M. Filaret, the possible and proper influence on him is spiritual and moral” 93. He writes the same thing in his opinion “on means to reduce splits.” “Admonition in true teaching,” he says in this opinion, “is, without a doubt, the most appropriate tool for the conversion of erring people of all kinds,” 94 and, consequently, for the conversion of schismatics. This opposition to schism by spiritual means constitutes “an essential duty of the ministers of the church” 95 . Such spiritual means of combating schism, according to Filaret, should be considered: 1) school, 2) educational activities of the clergy and monasticism, 3) the activities of special missionaries and, finally, 4) polemical literature. School as a means of combating schism. The best type of such school. Women's schools. Freedom of the parish school from secular control. The school’s objectives are in relation to Orthodox Christians and schismatics. Difficulty in attracting the latter to school. Means to overcome this difficulty. The success of the parish school. M. Philaret’s concerns about the development of school affairs in his diocese. “Since schism is most based on ignorance, schools should be a means against schism,” notes M. Filaret in his “thoughts and assumptions about means to reduce schisms” 96. That school and education are capable of weakening the split, hardly anyone will argue with this. The only question is what type of school is most suitable for this purpose? Some are inclined to think that any education at all, any school, even if it is schismatic, will kill the schism. M. Filaret did not share these views. In his opinion, only that school is capable of producing a beneficial educational effect on the schism, promoting “the spread of sound concepts among the common people,” in which education is based on religious principles, in which the main subjects of instruction are, along with reading and writing, the catechism, sacred history, etc. - in a word, that school that is currently known under the name of the parochial school, and which, in contrast to the “secular public schools” Philaret calls it a “priestly public school” 97. “If the schools of the common people,” he wrote as early as 1835 in the above-mentioned suggestions about the means to reduce schisms, “are in the hands of people who have received a secular direction of mind, what has been observed in England 98 may happen, that the spread of literacy will not improve morality, but will damage it through unfounded suggestions and harmful reading. Teaching reading, the rudiments of the catechism and sacred history, under the guidance of the clergy, in the simplest way and applied to national life and customs, is the safest means of spreading sound concepts among the common people" 99 . He expressed the same fear of a secular school, especially in relation to the children of schismatics, in his report to the Holy Synod on October 12. 1851 “Teaching the children of schismatics and Orthodox Christians through secular mentors who studied in gymnasiums, writes M. Filaret in this report, does not seem to be a reliable measure. In addition, one should expect that these mentors will alienate schismatics 100; teachers of secular education will impart the same education to children; and therefore we must be afraid that they will cool their attention to schismatic teachings, but will not inspire them with zeal for the teachings of the Orthodox Church, and this can lead to the loss of faith and morality” 101. In these same ways of spreading sound religious concepts among the people and thereby weakening the power of the schism, M. Filaret considered teaching literacy to female children “desirable.” “The education of children and the female sex is desirable,” he writes in the same opinion of 1835, because, as is known from experience, women, who are even more ignorant than men, and equally stubborn in their attachment to the hereditary and customary, keep their husbands in schism and even attract them into it” 102. He considered it most expedient to subordinate these women's schools, just like the men's, to the jurisdiction of the clergy. “The most convenient entry into this matter,” he says, “may be for the wife of a priest or deacon, if capable, to become a craftswoman for teaching girls literacy and handicrafts” 103 . Considering in this way it would be very useful to entrust primary schools to the clergy, M. Philaret armed himself against any control of secular authorities over these parish schools. He believed that it would be more useful for the cause “for the clergy to be given freedom in teaching children, under the supervision of the diocesan authorities, without claims from the directorates of the Ministry of Education” 104. Therefore, he considered it his duty to “repel” all attempts by these directorates to subjugate the parish school. “As for the school,” Filaret wrote to Archimandrite Anthony (Dec. 30, 1836), the Ministry of Education is trying its best to take control of everything; what is called school and teacher. They wanted to prohibit the parish clergy from teaching literacy unless someone sought permission from the secular authorities and submitted themselves to the supervision of the school director. This attack was repelled not without difficulty; but even then, in the event of a special order regarding the education of children in the houses of the clergy, it was required that information about the number of students be given to the secular authorities from time to time” 105. In the same 1836, two copies of the instructions of the school committee at Moscow University were forwarded to the Vereya dean - Archpriest Ivan Ivanov, with the request that the city of Vereya be declared sacred and to church servants with a subscription so that they would stop educating children without asking for permission from the school authorities. On April 28, at the report of Archpriest of Vereya, Metropolitan Philaret put forward the following resolution: “to present from me to the Holy Synod with the opinion that the right of primary education to be preserved by the clergy is useful and necessary in order to have a way to confirm those being brought up in the rules of the faith and protect them from schismatic suggestions 106. In this sense, a report was drawn up and sent the next day to the Holy Synod 107. At the same time, in the same year and on the same April 28, m. Philaret rules on allowing the clergy to teach children in private homes, which rules were approved by the Holy Synod (determined on May 4, 1836), and then received the Highest approval and were published on July 31. By these rules, the clergy in their teaching activities were completely freed from any dependence on the directorates of the Ministry of Public Education. Monitoring of this matter was entrusted exclusively to the diocesan authorities, who carried out this monitoring through the dean 108. It was up to the diocesan authorities to give certificates for the right to homeschool parishioners and those members of the clergy who did not have the right to this according to their educational qualifications; at the same time, the very test for obtaining a certificate had to take place, according to these rules, “in the seminary board, or, in case of local inconvenience, through clergy appointed by the diocesan bishop on the spot” 109. These parish schools, entrusted to the clergy, in parishes infected with schism, were supposed to pursue virgins' main goals. In relation to the children of Orthodox parents, “with whom, in M. Philaret’s opinion, education should begin” 110, he had to give them the correct initial religious concepts and thereby “protect them from being seduced into schisms and sects” 111, and in relation to schismatic children, whom it was also desirable to “attract them to school for the Orthodox” 112, they had to “instill in them respect for the Orthodox Church and her teaching” 113 and thereby imperceptibly prepare their union with the Orthodox Church. As for the first task of the school, it could and was accomplished at that time without much difficulty. “The effect of this measure (i.e., the establishment of parish schools) in relation to the Orthodox was, in some places, beneficial,” 114 testified M. Philaret: “children taught by the clergy willingly read and sang in church; introduced into families the reading of sacred books, sacred history, lives of saints and similar edifying books; from this there should have been a good moral and religious effect on the people” 115. In a similar way, current reports on the review of diocesan eminences of their dioceses and reports on church schools unanimously testify that “children of Orthodox parents who studied in schools can no longer gravitate towards schism” 116. It was much more difficult to accomplish the second task through the parish school. The Metropolitan knew well the extreme prejudice of schismatics against the Orthodox clergy and considered their attitude “very natural” 117; he also knew “the rule of schismatics to avoid relations with the Orthodox clergy” 118, “not to enter into conversation with him” 119 and in general “not to allow him to approach you” 120. He understood that a school in the hands of the clergy could also give rise to prejudice. Therefore, while recommending it as a means of combating schism, at the same time he wrote about it: “it is difficult to make this remedy usable in relation to schismatics, who, of course, would rather entrust their children to a schismatic than to an Orthodox priest.” 121 In order to destroy such an obstacle, he at the same time planned to use a purely external means against schismatic teaching; considered it “necessary” that “a barrier should be put in place for schismatic teachers by the force of the latest legislation of the Ministry of Education” 122. Obstacles were indeed put in place. But, probably, this measure did not bring the desired results, although M. Filaret resorted to it at that time, as evidenced by his two letters to the Moscow Military Governor-General, Prince D.V. Golitsin. In one of them, the Metropolitan asks “to take all possible measures so that Toritsyna (a peasant woman belonging to the schismatics of the Transfiguration Cemetery) does not spread schismatic teaching through teaching children” 123; and in another - “pay attention to the peasant (Bronnitsky district, village of Kladkova) Averky Ilarionov, so that he does not teach schismatic children, without having the right and permission to do so, and especially the Orthodox fathers of the children” 124. Both of these letters date back to the same year, 1835, in which the very project to ban the teaching of schismatic children by schismatic teachers appeared. Lack of further indications as to whether M. Filaret to take this measure in the future with the aim of forcing schismatics, out of necessity, to turn to the Orthodox school, may partly indicate that he himself had little hope for this external measure. And one could not expect good results from it in view of its impracticality - the difficulty of controlling home schismatic teaching 125 . Meanwhile, there is an indication that M. Philaret’s view on the difficulty of attracting schismatic children to the parish Orthodox school did not change at all subsequently. In his comments on the project of Bishop Vasily of Polotsk on the establishment of a spiritual-civil committee to manage schismatics, on the point of this project where it was said that “it will not be difficult for the committee to establish schools for the children of schismatics,” Metropolitan Philaret wrote in 1846: “hardly so. If schismatics do not trust the schools established by secular authorities; Moreover, they will not trust schools directly subordinate to the spiritual authorities” 126. Five years later, no longer presumptively, but categorically, based on past experience, he declares: “the establishment of education for schismatic children, as a remedy against the ignorance of schismatics, was already prescribed by the Holy Synod, by decree of October 29, 1836, only not through secular mentors, but through the clergy. The effect of this measure in relation to schismatics, as far as is known, is for the most part insignificant. The schismatics understood the purpose of the order and either do not allow children into church schools 127, or, while letting them in, at the same time persecute them with special force with schismatic suggestions 128 and, fearing a rapprochement with Orthodoxy, rush to take them out of the schools." 129 Things went somewhat better in Edinoverie schools. So, for example In the school, established at the Edinoverie Church of the Transfiguration Almshouse, in January 1856, among other students and schoolgirls, there were 5 schismatics and 7 schismatic girls, and in the new school year (in November of the same 1856) the number of schismatic boys had already increased to 14,130. Moreover, this training in a Edinoverie school managed to bring good fruits corresponding to the goals of the school: two students of this school - the children of the guild Vasily Lizunov, Sergius and John, “through the teaching of this school were convinced,” M. Philaret reported to the Eminence Gregory in 1856, not only themselves “joined the Edinoverie from the non-priest sense, but through them their whole family parent" 131. In order to lure schismatics into Orthodox parish schools and thereby achieve results similar to the above, some planned to use artificial means for this - the means of benefits and privileges. So, for example, the author of one of these projects, unknown to us, proposed: 1) schismatics, students under 18 years of age, to be exempt from taxes; 2) give schismatic fathers certificates of commendation for the fact that their children study well; 3) give successful children of schismatic peasants the right of burghers, philistine children the right of merchants, merchant children the right of honorary citizens, etc. Metropolitan Filaret is arming himself against such artificial luring of schismatics into a school they do not like, as a measure that is not only impractical, but even unfair in relation to the Orthodox. As for each measure in particular, the Metropolitan remarked regarding the first: “the measure is inconvenient to implement, and the advantage is excessive when the children of Orthodox Christians are not released from the duties of the state because they are studying” 132; about the second: “a measure that is not encouraging in that it will lead to the goal, but only capable of humiliating the dignity of certificates of merit” 133; about the third: “it would be immoderate generosity, not egalitarian for the Orthodox, confusing the legal rights of states and inconvenient to execute. To obtain the rights of a merchant, it is necessary to declare capital, and not to present a school certificate” 134. Not by such artificial means, and also not by police measures - through the police officer, as one rural priest of the Moscow diocese 135 did, it was necessary, in the opinion of M. Philaret, to attract children to school. In his opinion, only with a voluntary desire to receive an education is it possible to expect good results from school: “the earth, which in man and in human societies accepts any seed, he says, is free will. If this earth is loosened and moistened by voluntary desire and zeal, then it deeply accepts the seed and produces plant and fruit; and when there is no voluntary desire and zeal, then the seed that falls on hard and dry soil either does not produce a plant, or produces a weak one that quickly withers” 136 . The school itself, with its internal strength - “entertaining teaching” 137, “kind treatment” of children 138, “condescending attitude towards schismatic errors 139, was supposed to win the sympathy of the surrounding villagers, - by the way, schismatics as well. If the latter had wished to teach their children in no other way than from old printed books, or from old printed ones - published in a Edinoverie printing house, then M. Philaret advised them to make this concession - “to accept them with this condition and teach them from these books” 140. He recommended similar humanity and caution in dealing with the religious beliefs of schismatic children to others, as evidenced by his private correspondence. So, for example, he wrote arch. Anthony regarding the Lavra school is the following: “from the double-fingered constitution it is necessary to lead (the children of schismatics) to the church sign of the cross. But this must be done with reasoning and consideration of the circumstances. By understanding the teaching, the youth will correct himself easily and firmly; and if you suddenly demand a change, it may happen that the schismatic parents will throw him out of the school and deprive him of the opportunity to learn the truth” 141. In a letter to the vicar of Perm, Bishop of Yekaterinburg Evlampy (Pyatnitsky), Filaret condemns the tactless act of this eminence - joining the church of schismatic children, school students, as such an act that cannot instill confidence in the schismatics in the parish school, on the contrary, it will force them to run away from it. “Joining schismatic children and school students to the church,” Filaret wrote to him, is a very dubious step. Their schismatic fathers can argue, relying on parental authority; can seduce young children, or persecute them for their firmness in Orthodoxy. By adding one schoolchild, you put all schismatics at risk, and they will run around the schools” 142. Such were the views of the Moscow saint on the means of attracting schismatics to the parish school. And these means turned out to be as valid as possible. If at the beginning the parish school aroused fears on the part of schismatics, then over time, especially since the liberation of the peasants, when they urgently felt the need for education, these fears were significantly erased, and “public schools established by the clergy, as Filaret wrote in 1864, began to attract schismatic children. For example, in Bogorodsky district, in several schools there are already schismatic children. At the school of the Guslitsky Monastery, under the guidance of a teacher who completed the seminary course, 17 schismatic children study; some of their parents themselves express a desire for their children to learn not only to read and write, but also to understand and explain what they read, and parents were happy to attend the testing of their children at this school. It is natural to expect that the children of schismatics will emerge from such schools with sound initial concepts of faith, and not with a hostile, but with a peaceful disposition towards the clergy and the church” 143. Considering the parish school the best means, if not for converting schismatics, then at least for protecting the Orthodox from being seduced into sects and schisms, Metropolitan Philaret tried in every possible way to establish as many of these schools as possible in his diocese, which was densely populated by schismatics. When the establishment of parish schools was recognized by the government as a desirable phenomenon, and when in the secret decrees of the Holy Synod of October 29, 1836, the diocesan bishops were informed of the very “rules for the initial education of rural Orthodox and schismatic children for introducing them into use where there are schismatics and where the local clergy will agree to take on the responsibility of teaching free of charge” 144 ; Metropolitan Philaret, in a resolution dated November 13 of the same year, 1836, ordered: “the consistory, with the writing out of this decree, should send the same to the deans of rural churches so that, during the upcoming six-month inspection of the churches, they personally announce it to the priests and deacons of the parishes in which there are schismatics, and whoever wishes to have the prescribed education for children, they take testimony about this from them and presented me with their opinion about the trustworthiness of those volunteering, and before those accepting the training they gave me a list of rules, depicted in this decree for their own use, without any unnecessary publicity” 145. On December 9 of the same year, the decrees themselves were sent to the spiritual boards and deans of rural churches. The result of this was, as evidenced by the consistory report under consideration, the establishment in the Moscow diocese at various times of schools for rural children, some of which also educated schismatic children 146 . How small the number of the latter were at the beginning in the parish schools of the Moscow diocese, we already know from the above testimony of the Metropolitan of Moscow himself. But how large the number of schools themselves was by 1838, to which the consistory report refers, we do not see from this report. The fact that in this report we find a new urgent invitation to the clergy to “establish home schools on the basis explained in the rules” 147 may partly testify to the comparative small number of these schools in 1838. From the resolutions of Metropolitan Philaret that have been printed so far, it is clear that soon after the decree of 1836, schools were opened by the dean of the village. Pehra, Karacharovsky and Cherkizovsky priests 148; At the same time, a school arose at the Edinoverie Church of the Mikhailovskaya Sloboda, where the church elder, Bronnitsy merchant Vasily Kuznetsov, “expressed a desire to build a new house at this church, for a school for village children, and to buy with his own money the required number of copies of books for poor students; and about 20 parishioners, including schismatics, expressed a desire to place their children in this school” 149. Approving these and similar good undertakings and calling upon them the blessing of God 150, M. Philaret condemned those who refused to establish the said schools. On the report of the dean of Nikolorzhavsky (Moscow district) that the priests of his department do not find it possible to establish schools for parish children, the Metropolitan wrote: “the authorities do not demand that fancy schools be established, but simply that children be taught literacy and catechism. And the fact that everyone refuses this is disgraceful and disgusting to the priestly office. It is the priest’s job to teach the faith and the law of God, and he will have the most favorable opportunity to teach this to children if he is given the opportunity to teach them to read and write.” 151 Obstacles to the establishment of parish schools were, of course, not only from the indifference of the clergy, but also from the parishioners themselves, who at that time were still poorly aware of the need for education, as can be seen from one letter of the Moscow saint to the Altai missionary Macarius, concerning by then. “Don’t think about establishing schools in the villages, no matter what they think here,” wrote Archimandrite Filaret. Macarius dated August 23, 1837. But it is easier to present an idea than to execute it. Many of my priests, at my invitation, volunteered to teach peasant children free of charge; but these children cannot be driven to them by force” 152. One zealous (not by reason) priest, as we already had the opportunity to report, even considered it necessary to resort to external force in this case, namely, he forced the parishioners to education through the police officer, for which he received a reprimand from the bishop: “the consistory should instruct the priest that children must be attracted to learning by kind treatment and instilling the benefits of learning, but through the police officer they should not be forced to do this” 153. At the same time, it is necessary to take into account the fact that “schools, according to the decree of 1836, were not provided with premises, salaries, or teaching aids” 154. Despite all this, schools, with the further insistence and encouragement of M. Philaret 155, began to “gradually” be established, so that in 1850 there were already up to 34 of them in the Moscow diocese; There would have been more of them, notes M. Filaret, but some of them had to cede their students to ministerial schools (established by the Ministry of State Property in state-owned villages) and therefore close 156. Similar parish schools were also established at monasteries. So in the Guslitsky monastery, founded with the special purpose of weakening the schism in Guslitsy, among other means for this purpose, M. Philaret designed a school for the children of surrounding villagers, “especially schismatics” 157, in which they could, in addition to basic literacy, receive - and this is the main thing - correct religious concepts; therefore, here, Filaret wrote in the “regulations on the establishment of the Spasopreobrazhensky Guslitsky Monastery,” “in simplicity, but with special care, the elementary teaching of the faith and commandments of God should be taught, taught to correctly and wisely put on the sign of the cross, know short prayers by heart,” 158, etc. True, this training did not open suddenly, due to the lack of persons among the monastery brethren “capable of teaching positions” 159, and having been established, it was initially carried out in a cramped monastery cell 160: but then a real school was built, and the teacher from the graduating seminarians managed the matter so well that this school was willingly attended not only by Orthodox children, but also by schismatics, as M. Philaret testified in 1864, as we have already talked about 161. Chapter II. Educational activities of Orthodox parish clergy and monasticism Educational tasks of the Orthodox clergy in parishes infected with schism. The means to accomplish these tasks: the personal impeccable life of the clergy. Sincere and orderly performance of worship. Church sermon. Home conversations. Official admonitions. M. Philaret's view of police measures in the hands of the clergy. His concerns for the missionary education of the clergy; on the appointment of the best pastors to parishes affected by schism and on the material support of such parishes. The importance of Orthodox monasteries and monasticism in the fight against schism. Founding of the Spasopreobrazhensky Guslitsky Monastery. The school activities of the clergy “having, in the words of M. Philaret, a significant connection with the duties of spiritual service” 162, is nothing more than a part of their general educational activities. The activities of the parish clergy should also be directed towards adults. The clergy, in the words of M. Philaret, must “try in every possible way to confirm the Orthodox in Orthodoxy, and to admonish and convert the lost” to the Orthodox Church 163, or, as he put it in another case, must, on the one hand, “guard the sheep from the wolves, i.e. to protect the Orthodox from heresies and schisms,” and on the other hand, “to look for the lost sheep, i.e. try to bring into the church those who wander outside it” 164. Not only the most suitable, in the opinion of M. Philaret, but also the only possible and proper action of the clergy to fulfill these tasks should be “spiritually and morally, with an edifying word and example” 165, i.e. the mental way and the moral way. The latter path has long been the subject of special attention 166: a good example always influences the immediate masses of people, accustomed to judging faith by life. This should especially be said about our schismatics. The life of a priest is always the subject of their special attention, and noticeable deviations from the rules of morality and church statutes give them reason to condemn not only the person of the priest, but also the church 167. It is also known how skillfully they know how to use the moral shortcomings of the clergy for their own propaganda purposes 168 . In view of this, M. Philaret points to the “good example” - to the personal impeccable life of the pastors of the church, fully consistent with their title - as one of the valid means in the fight against schism. Here are several examples of this. “True shepherds who proclaim the truth,” he writes in one of the resolutions, must be stronger than false shepherds who deceive with lies, and must strive for this... and an edifying life” 169. “Instruct the priest,” he writes in another resolution, that he should, by example of a pious life... try to attract those who are alien to the church and return them to its motherly bosom” 170. “To most urgently confirm to all members the clergy (p. Guslits), he writes in the third resolution, to refrain from everything illegal or giving rise to temptation and, on the contrary, try to act edifyingly both for the confirmation of Orthodox parishioners and for the conversion of the lost, in this coming numerous, under the fear that the authorities will find themselves obliged to remove unfaithful or careless workers in order to hand over the grapes to others, who will reap the spiritual fruits in their time" 171 . To one young rural priest, who justifies the futility of his anti-schismatic activities by the fact that the schismatics, due to his youth, do not yet have full confidence in him, the Metropolitan, recalling the apostolic admonition: “Let no one care about your youth,” at the same time notes: “With prudence and honest behavior, gain the attention of those no less mature in years; otherwise, the excuse of youth will not justify, but will condemn” 172. We could give many more examples of the insistence with which the Metropolitan recommends to his pastors the remedy in question in the fight against schism, 173 but even from those mentioned it is clear how highly he valued the “good example” in this regard. We must add to this that he placed it even above other means of acting to convince the erring; he preferred the moral path to the mental path, and this is because, as he himself put it on one occasion, “the door of the word opens temporarily; – the good life of a minister of the word preaches the truth day and night” 174. Therefore, in his “review of theological sciences” about accusatory theology, M. Philaret notes the following: “The Apostle Paul says about himself: “My word and my preaching are not in words that preclude human wisdom, but in the demonstration of the Spirit and power” (1 Cor. 11:4). He bequeaths to Timothy; “Do not pay attention to fables and endless genealogies, for they create strife rather than the building of God that is in faith” (1 Tim. 1:4). “From this example and testament, the teacher of theology should learn not to place high dignity in the classical art of arguing with those who think wrongly, whose real reproof is not so much the word as the spirit and life of a Christian” 175. At the same time, M. Philaret advised the clergy to strictly monitor themselves and their external behavior and avoid those actions that for some reason seem tempting to schismatics. He especially strictly persecuted the use of tobacco among the clergy, which so seduces schismatics and often pushes them away from the Orthodox clergy: “schismatics have no greater sin than smoking tobacco,” writes one convert from the schism 176 . Considering this habit in general for anyone to be “an unnatural and reckless luxury” 177, M. Philaret calls it positively “indecent for a person of clergy rank (“since this type of luxury is associated with uncleanliness and stench, indecent in priestly service”) 178, and especially intolerable in a parish where there are schismatics, who are thereby tempted more than Orthodox 179. Therefore, he instructs the clergy to refrain from this “unnatural whim” 180, recalling the advice of the apostle “to avert temptation, to refrain from what is permitted and the word of the Lord, which says that it is better to drown with a millstone around your neck than to cause one to stumble from these little ones” 181. And when these suggestions and reminders turned out to be invalid, then the metropolitan resorted to measures of severity - sending to the monastery “to exhort to behave in a manner befitting one’s rank” 182 - transfer to another parish 183, sometimes even indicating in the service record that he was transferred from the previous village “due to the displeasure of the parishioners, among other things, for using tobacco” 184. No less strictly did M. Philaret persecute another vice of the clergy, which tempted parishioners - drunkenness. What strict demands for sobriety he made on the clergy can be seen from the fact that he attributed another glass of wine to drunkenness 185. He demoted one priest, who allowed himself to get drunk during the first week of Lent, to a clergy position for two months, with a ban on priestly service, and then transferred him from a parish infected by schism to another, citing the fact that “to have such a priest in a parish infected by schism would be especially harmful and would be in disagreement with the instructions of the Holy Synod” 186 . The schismatics are also not a little tempted by the hasty and shortened services of some Orthodox priests, which are against the rules. The Moscow saint knew this well and took care of eradicating this shortcoming. “The rite of church worship, he wrote in 1856, is partly excusedly reduced, either due to time constraints for those serving, or out of condescension for the weakness of those present, is often reduced excessively, which reduces the dignity of church worship and its effect on the people, and gives schismatics an opportunity to criticize the Orthodox Church” 187. In view of the importance of this subject, M. Filaret places it among others requiring serious discussion, for which he advised taking advantage of the presence in Moscow of the diocesan bishops who arrived for the coronation of Their Majesties. Whether the Holy Synod took advantage of this idea of ​​M. Philaret, we do not know. It is only known that in the same year, in a report from St. He again suggested to the Synod that, among the orders “to establish church deanery,” it should also be done “so that church services should be performed by all participating in them with unflagging reverence, without haste, without cuts that violate the order, with intelligible reading and singing” 188 . Meanwhile, in his diocese, he himself ordered the clergy to use, among others, this means in the fight against schism - “by the example of reverent worship, try to attract those who are alien to the church and return to its motherly bosom” 189; and for “excessive haste and negligence in the priestly service” he imposed appropriate punishments and admonished them: “perform the service slowly and carefully” 190. Along with the “edifying example,” M. Philaret recommended the clergy also the “edifying word” as a means in their educational task, and recommended the latter no less persistently than the first, rightly believing that little can be done by one without the other in a parish infected with schism. Therefore, he presented both of these demands to the pastors of these parishes. “The parish of the village of Makarova (Bronnitsa district), he wrote in one resolution, is numerous and has schismatics, requires a priest not only with good behavior, but also with the ability to instruct and admonish” 191. To fulfill this educational task in relation to Orthodox parishioners - to instruct them in faith and piety, to protect them from sects and schisms, the church pulpit is a powerful tool in the hands of the clergy. Being himself a remarkable church speaker, M. Philaret, for this reason alone, should have been especially concerned about the development of church preaching among the clergy of his diocese. But he, like all diocesan bishops, was encouraged to do this by synodal decrees. And he really was persistent about it. He praised diligent preaching among the clergy and condemned careless preaching 192; he encouraged the first, and corrected the second with admonitions 193, reprimands 194, even a ban for the duration of the priestly service with the obligation that at this time the prohibited one should compose a sermon 195. As for the nature of the sermon addressed to the common people, M. Filaret advised to avoid the polemical element in it, and to reveal the positive Orthodox teaching, since, in his opinion, “reliable knowledge of the truth is the only means of exposing lies” 196. “In teachings,” he wrote in one report to the Holy Synod, it is better to use dogmatic and spiritual-moral teaching, which would attract attention and edify. Denunciations (of schismatic errors) are annoying. They can be used in teachings only with extreme caution and it is better to postpone them until special interviews at home” 197. If, due to some circumstances, the pastor of the church needs to introduce a polemical element into his word, then “the denunciation of errors should be peaceful” 198, alien to the grave and even more so unfair accusations that some preachers allowed themselves in the heat of polemical enthusiasm 199. “The language of teaching should be, if possible, simple” 200, alien to “refined and needlessly abstract expressions, which, due to their lack of understanding, are fruitless in relation to edification” 201; “but at the same time – protected from thoughts and expressions that are incorrectly common, rude, low, and contrary to common taste” 202. “The brevity of the teachings should also be used as a means to ensure that those who have become cold do not shy away from them until zeal for hearing longer teachings is aroused” 203. Church preaching does not exhaust the educational activity of the clergy in relation to Orthodox parishioners. The clergy should take advantage of every opportunity to instruct them in faith and piety, “to insist on teaching, according to the will of the Apostle, in timely and untimely times, forbidding and pleading with all long-suffering, warning those close to the temptation of error, strengthening the weak and wavering 204, etc. This method of confirming the Orthodox in the faith of Metropolitan. Filaret considered it even more convenient in view of the fact that not every priest is capable of preaching in the church. “For many (priests), he says, a home, conversational, edifying conversation is more convenient than continuous and concentrated teaching in church” 205. Metropolitan. Filaret does not dwell on these private conversations of shepherds with their flock, does not give any instructions or instructions on this subject, because their regulation is impossible: everything here depends on the circumstances of the time, place, character of the one with whom the shepherd is talking, and the nature and content of the conversation will depend on the experience of the latter and his pastoral tact. Only one thing M. Philaret notes is that in this case, the shepherd’s treatment of his flock should be “in the spirit of meekness, love and edification.” At the same time, he recommends special caution in dealing with those parishioners who, under the influence of schismatic propaganda, have already begun to waver in Orthodoxy, to cool down in visiting the temple of God and in fulfilling the Christian duty of confession and St. communion - which therefore M. Philaret called “semi-Orthodox”. “The semi-Orthodox,” he wrote to the Right Reverend Ioannikiy of Saratov, infected with a hidden inclination towards schism, are not the only ones making it difficult for you. You rightly fear that harsh and intense denunciation of those who waver will not decisively alienate them and make them less accessible to reason. I agree with your opinion that it is more appropriate not to suddenly take decisive measures, but to convincingly convince priests to correct their actions, so that, taking advantage of the remaining access to the imperfectly Orthodox, they try, through gentle admonition, to lead them to fulfill the duties of Orthodoxy” 206. He instilled the same thing in the clergy of his diocese in his resolutions. “We were not at confession and St. Communion, he writes in one of them, must be exhorted with meek and thorough conviction about the fulfillment of this Christian duty” 207 . “To instruct the parish priest, he writes in another, with solid and meek convictions, based on the truth of the word of God and the teachings of the church, to bow down those named in the certificate (the family of the merchant Korobov), so that they fulfill the Christian duty they have missed and at the same time provide proof that they do not break away from the one holy cathedral and apostolic churches” 208. One priest, who allowed himself to reprimand parishioners who did not receive communion, is ordered by Metropolitan Filaret to “reprimand himself.” “It is fitting for a priest,” he writes, to make gentle admonitions. Reprimands can be used to remove rather than attract to church and the sacraments” 209 . The act of another priest, who decided to bring some sense to a peasant who had lost interest in visiting St. The Moscow archpastor directly calls the church, who evaded confession, and the shrine in the house, penance, “unreasonable.” “Penance,” he notes, is given to a repentant sinner. And punishing someone who has lost interest in the church with penance means driving him away from the church.” Therefore, he instructs the said priest to “make a remark to the spiritual board so that he acts judiciously” 210. These admonitions to those wavering in Orthodoxy - home admonitions - differ significantly from another type of admonition - the so-called official admonitions, which are carried out by the clergy, on behalf of the diocesan authorities, over those who have completely fallen away from the Orthodox Church into a schism or sect. These admonitions in the Moscow diocese, as in all others, were carried out, according to the “statutory of spiritual consistories” (Article 21), initially at the place of residence of the person who had seduced himself and was subject to admonition through the parish priest, in case of failure of which a dean or one of the specialists in this matter was appointed “to help” him 211. If all of them were not able to convert the seduced person, the latter was called for admonition to the spiritual board or consistory, sometimes admonished personally by the bishop - in the Moscow diocese, usually a vicar 212. When calling someone who has seduced himself into the consistory, the following rules were observed in the Moscow diocese: 1) “a non-working time is chosen for the call”; 2) “every effort is made to ensure that many are not called into the consistory, especially many suddenly”; 3) “the admonition of those summoned is carried out without delay, as well as release to their homes”; 4) “in special cases, the admonished person is sent, in Moscow, to a monastery for one or two weeks, and the admonition continues there; This measure is adopted after a meeting with the secret committee.” 213 The meaning of the first and third rules is clear, this concern for the seduced, about his interests 214 which, we note, were not observed everywhere in other dioceses, so that in 1863 they caused a change in the order of exhortation - the prohibition of distracting those who have seduced for exhortation from their places of residence 215. As for the second point - exhortations separately, then in explanation of its purpose we can refer to the words of M. Philaret himself: “if circumstances require exhortation by special order of the authorities, he wrote to the Reverend. Joannikius, we must try so that this does not suddenly fall on many. Perseverance is reinforced by multitude” 216 . Finally, in explaining the last rule - sending to the monastery for exhortation, it is necessary to pay attention to the fact that M. Philaret in general attached important educational significance to monastic imprisonment 217 and in particular recognized the beneficial influence of monasteries on the schismatics themselves 218. All these admonitions, as well as all communications between the clergy and those who are in error, must be carried out “in the spirit of meekness, pity for those who are in error, and patient renewal thereof” 219 . M. Filaret constantly reminded the exhorters about this nature of exhortations 220. But despite the peaceful nature of the exhortations and the frequent renewal, despite all the precautionary rules adopted by Metropolitan Philaret in his diocese, the exhortations here, as in other dioceses, remained in most cases fruitless 221, those who were seduced did not return to Orthodoxy, “in the event of exhortations, they, according to Metropolitan Philaret, stand like a wall, not deigning the exhorters of attention and response.” 222; they “fearlessly go through this process in order to later be accepted in a schismatic society with honor, as having passed the test” 223. There were even cases of insult to the exhorter by the exhorter 224; sometimes the exhorter directly stated: “I don’t even want to listen to your arguments” 225; one who had gone astray did not appear for exhortation 226, the other fled from the exhorter 227. How the schismatics generally treated these official admonitions can be judged by one small handwritten schismatic essay entitled “Martyn’s Admonition, which was in the Moscow Consistory in 1825”; it says that one of the exhorters brought up a snuffbox and said: “here, schismatic, take a sniff!” and the following words are put into the mouth of another exhorter, the archimandrite: “Stop, my friend, talking too much; listen to us, go to church; If you don’t go, we’ll give you up as a soldier.” The archpriest said: “God is sending you to a settlement” 228. It is clear that this whole story was invented by schismatics for certain purposes; but at the same time, it well characterizes the attitude of schismatics to exhortations; the latter often evoked in them a feeling exactly the opposite of what the exhorters pursued: instead of reconciliation with the church, only greater embitterment. It is difficult to say why this happened, because we do not know the actual nature of the exhortations: perhaps from the fanaticism and perseverance of those exhorted, their blind confidence in the truth of their teaching, which should be said especially about schismatic proselytes; perhaps from the inability of the exhorters 229 ; more likely, from both together. At least that’s how M. Filaret looked at it. Regarding the report on the failure of one of these exhortations, he wrote to the Reverend. to Vicar Innocent the following: the peasant woman was seduced into the schism against her will; she doesn’t know anything, as she herself says, and yet she doesn’t want to leave the split. How can I explain this? Her persistence? So be it. But is it not necessary to add to the explanation of this the reason that in us, ministers of the true faith, there is little spiritual strength, and perhaps even spiritual intelligence?... Let us resign ourselves to our school learning, which does not have as much strength as ignorance; Perhaps God, who gives grace to the humble 230, will be merciful. These official admonitions were carried out in most cases over those who had again fallen into schism. Long-standing and inveterate schismatics were rarely subjected to them, except for promoting a schism 231 . Thus, there was only one way left for the Orthodox clergy to influence schismatics - the way of private relations with them. The clergy should, on the advice of M. Philaret, take advantage of “every opportunity to instill in schismatics the harm of excommunication from the Holy Church” 232 . But since schismatics usually try to avoid relations with the Orthodox clergy, and the shepherd, as may happen, is not quite looking for the fleeing sheep 233; Then M. Philaret suggests in one report to the Holy Synod “to urgently encourage the clergy to find opportunities in every possible way and use means to admonish schismatics” 234. By the way, in these same types of “relations between the clergy and schismatics for an edifying interview,” he considered it best to entrust the metric records of schismatics to the Orthodox clergy 235 . He also advised the civil authorities to “take advantage of the opening opportunities to bring schismatics closer to the Orthodox clergy. For example, “the rule that schismatics take a purifying oath in churches is useful, in his opinion, and should also be applied to the official oath” 236 . These relations between the Orthodox clergy and schismatics should be alien to any official superior relations and take the form of a friendly conversation, in which the priest “is not exhorting or teaching, but can simply enter into conversation with those alien to the Orthodox Church and offer them useful thoughts” 237 . But in order to be able to enter into friendly relations with schismatics, M. Philaret advises priests and clergy “to draw closer to those who have deviated from Orthodoxy by treating them meekly and peacefully” 238 . This treatment of priests with schismatics in the spirit of meekness, love and edification, he proposes to the Holy Synod and, for its part, to “strictly confirm” to the clergy 239; he insists on this in his resolutions. “It is the duty of a priest, he writes in one of them, to induce schismatics, by meek and good-natured behavior, to not be alienated from him, and as they draw closer to him, through thorough reasoning about the rightness of the Orthodox Church and the need for obedience to it, to bring them closer to it” 240 . To one priest, who allowed himself to be vehement in dealing with schismatics, he reminds him of the “sacred word” - to be peaceful with those who hate the world 241. Instructing his clergy to act on schismatics with a “word of persuasion,” M. Filaret at the same time arms himself against “the use of power and court in relation to them, which should be the business of the government and subordinate civil authorities” 242 . By using such measures, the clergy, in his opinion, “will further alienate schismatics from themselves, who will have reason to attribute persecution to them” 243. He also expresses this view about the harm of police measures in the hands of the clergy in his resolution regarding the denunciation of schismatics by one priest to the civil authorities. Noting that it is the priest’s duty to use spiritual means characteristic of him to convert schismatics, M. Philaret continues: “to report schismatics to the civil authorities, bypassing the clergy, and to enter into police investigations about their chapel is a violation of law and order on the part of the priest; and by such action he harms himself, irritating schismatics against him. For this, give him a severe reprimand in the presence of the spiritual government” 244. But in order for these relations between the Orthodox clergy and schismatics with the aim of converting the latter to the path of truth to have any good results, for this, of course, it was necessary for the clergy to have knowledge of the schism and its exposure. This, unfortunately, was what the parish clergy lacked, although the latter was not particularly to blame for this. Everything depended on the fact that for a very long time the question of studying the schism, the need for this study, was not even raised. “What caused this,” says Prof. Ivanovsky, it is difficult to say: from excessive self-confidence, that there is nothing to learn to fight the schism, that there can be nothing even akin to science here, that it is useless to talk with the schismatic, due to his extreme ignorance, or they intended to cope with the schism by external measures, easier than spiritual influences - measures that sometimes gave quick and visible results, or they preferred to act exclusively on the heart, perseverance overcome with patience and love, forgetting that schism is not only a disease of the heart, but also a disease of the mind. Probably, all the reasons were at work here in combination, and only at different times one or the other prevailed in particular” 245. Be that as it may, it is only under the influence of all this that for a long time we not only do not see a systematic study of the schism and its denunciation, but even any teaching of the doctrine of schism in our theological schools. The result of this was such phenomena, which we know about from the resolutions of M. Philaret that one rural deacon explained the difference between Orthodoxy and schism by idolatry and said that schismatics bow to idols 246, and the priest did not know how to give the correct answer to the question of what the schism consists of, and among other things said that the schism consists in the violation of the commandments of God 247. Metropolitan Philaret understood that the unsatisfactory action of the clergy on schismatics also depends on a lack of knowledge, 248 and therefore, even at the beginning of his ministry (in 1820), as a member of the commission of theological schools, he proposed in his report on the state of the Moscow Theological Academy “to supplement the system of polemical theology with an article about the schisms that have arisen and continue in the Russian Church and about the way to expose them.” 249. The result of this presentation of his to the commission of theological schools was, as he himself later reported, that at the Moscow Academy, in the field of polemical theology, lessons began on the schisms that had arisen in the Russian Church, and the means to admonish those falling into them” 250. But in 1825, the commission of theological schools “took, as he put it, a reverse move from generally intelligible teaching to scholasticism, and ordered theology to be taught exclusively in Latin using books in which insufficient teaching is burdened with heavy school terminology” 251. With this order of the commission, the teaching of schism at the Moscow Academy was killed. Metropolitan Filaret was forced again and again to insist on the introduction of this important department into polemical theology 252. At the same time, he took care of the study of the schism by students of theological seminaries. Thus, in his “regulations on those who have completed the course of theological teaching,” among the activities for the latter, he recommends “reading books about the schisms that arose in the Russian Church and writing denunciations of various erroneous opinions with evidence of the true teaching” 253; and in particular, for Moscow seminarians, “when repeating the doctrine of schisms,” he advised “to pay special attention, as required by local circumstances, to the rumors that received their name here from the Rogozhskoe and Preobrazhenskoe cemeteries, and to the eunuchs” 254. But all these concerns of M. Philaret, it seems, remained without any results: missionary departments in theological academies and seminaries began to appear much later, and then thanks not to M. Philaret, but to the personal participation in this matter of the Rev. Gregory 255. But here, in all these projects of M. Philaret, what is important for us is how clearly, even in that distant time, he recognized the need for missionary education of the clergy and how persistently he stated this need. M. Filaret spoke about this need to study the schism in order to combat it at every opportunity. Thus, when a sect of wanderers was discovered, among the measures against it, he proposed “to give detailed information to academies and seminaries, for consideration when teaching the doctrine against schism and heresies” 256. Expressing in one place the desire that the diocesan timely publications “serve with their content for the edification and benefit” of the clergy 257, in another he notes that he considers the most suitable for this purpose that part of the diocesan bulletins in which “successes in conversion to Orthodoxy” were set out, if only at the same time “not only names and numbers were presented, but also the mode of action of converts, and methods beliefs, and the type of obstacles and means of overcoming them" 258. In his relations with the clergy, the Moscow archpastor also constantly reminded him of the need to acquire the necessary information for the conversion of schismatics. In his remarkable resolution on the case of the Rzhev schismatics, a resolution that represents a whole message to the Rzhev clergy, Metropolitan Filaret, then Archbishop of Tverskoy, urging the clergy to “take heed to themselves and the whole flock,” considers it his first duty to remind them of the need to acquire the knowledge necessary to act on the schismatics: “take heed to yourself,” he writes, whether you have and are trying to acquire, firstly, the knowledge necessary for the conversion of those who are mistaken” 259; To acquire this knowledge, he draws the attention of the Rzhev clergy to the anti-schismatic polemical literature existing at that time, especially to the “Admonition to the schismatics” by Metropolitan. Plato and to the “Answers” ​​of the Reverend. Nikifor, which he obliges to buy for each Rzhev church 260. We find similar orders regarding the acquisition by the clergy of books necessary for schism in M. Filaret and in his projects “on the compilation of libraries in churches” 261 and in numerous resolutions of the Moscow period of his ministry. At the same time, some inattentive priests even agreed to subscribe to purchase these books 262. At the same time, he also took care of distributing newly published books against the schism 263. Trying to assign to schismatic parishes persons who knew the schism 264, Metropolitan Philaret, when it was discovered in any parish that the Orthodox were drifting into schism, usually ordered that the priest of that parish be tested to see if he “has the information necessary to admonish the schismatics” 265. And if it turned out that he did not have such information, then he ordered “to confirm with a subscription, so that he would try to acquire the information needed by the priest 266 . But the parish clergy at that time was apathetic towards such insistence of their archpastor. There have been cases when polemical books purchased, by order of the diocesan authorities, for church libraries lay quietly on the shelves of these libraries, and the priest not only did not consider it necessary to become acquainted with their contents, but did not even know their names 267 . At the same time, the clergy lacked another quality in the fight against the schism - spiritual zeal. And in this regard, it is necessary to give preference to the propagandists of the schism. Despite civil laws that strictly punished propaganda, the latter not only did not weaken, but even intensified, and before the eyes of the spiritual and civil authorities, unexpected transformations of entire villages from Orthodox to schismatic took place 268 . The Moscow saint repeatedly complains about the lack of zeal in the Orthodox clergy and sees this as one of the reasons for the limited success of his activities against the schism 269. “It must be admitted,” he says, that the clergy is not free from the reproach of insufficiently intense zeal,” and therefore advises: “it is expedient that the Holy Synod, with instruction and conviction, encourage them to act with meek, but intense zeal and self-sacrifice to protect the Orthodox and to admonish the erring 270.” He insists on this in his direct appeals to the clergy. “Take heed to yourself,” he writes in a letter to the Rzhev clergy, whether you insist on teaching, according to the will of the Apostle, in time and in time, forbidding and pleading with all long-suffering; Do you use, as justice requires, more zeal for the defense and dissemination of the truth than what your opponents use to deceive you, etc. May the Lord give you the light of understanding and the fire of zeal, pure, strong and holy” 271! “The apostles and ancient fathers of the church,” he writes, in another case, organized and spread the church and destroyed the heap of heresies, not by the force of external laws, but by the force of strong faith, love and self-sacrifice. Let the clergy strengthen their zeal to act on the seduced by their example and prayer 272.” There were, of course, zealous shepherds in the Moscow diocese, and such deserved encouragement and approval from their archpastor 273. But such facts were rare; the majority of the clergy lacked the quality required by M. Filaret. However, the Moscow saint also excused this shortcoming of the clergy, limiting himself to mere suggestions and not resorting to the usual penalties - he excused it, probably, because he knew well how dearly this jealousy sometimes comes to the clergy, what persecution the more zealous of the shepherds are subjected to from schismatics 274 . Examples of such persecution, of course well known to the clergy themselves, naturally could not have caused the latter to be particularly zealous in the matter of anti-schism missionary work. The latter also lost a lot due to the fact that the worst candidates for the priesthood usually went to parishes infected with schism. The issue of the need to appoint the best pastors to such parishes, as an important measure to weaken the schism in them, was recognized by the government and was carried out in numerous resolutions of the Holy Synod 275. The resolution was quite expedient, but its implementation was met with the insurmountable difficulty that the parishes, infected with schism, were too upset and poor to attract the best candidates for the priesthood. This should especially be said about the Moscow diocese, in which many of the rural parishes had a significant predominance of the schismatic population over the Orthodox. Among them there were even those where there was not a single Orthodox soul 276. The material support of the clergy in such parishes was too unenviable and caused bewilderment in M. Philaret himself 277 . On the other hand, if we take into account that in the same Moscow diocese there were metropolitan parishes with very significant incomes, then it is not difficult to decide where the choice of candidates for the priesthood leaned in most cases. The latter agreed to serve better as deacons in Moscow than as priests in the villages. The result of this was that many rural places, with a schismatic population, remained idle for a long time, which, of course, had a detrimental effect on the state of the parish 278. To put an end to this abnormal order of things, it was necessary to provide financially for low-income rural areas. In this sense, Metropolitan Philaret made a presentation to the Holy Synod, which, agreeing with him, by decree of January 23, 1831 279 assigned such parishes “auxiliary salaries” from 300 to 400 rubles 280 . But the “passion to seek diaconal places in Moscow” was so strong in Moscow seminarians that these salaries did not help matters, and rural low-income places continued to be idle, and seminarians remained idle, waiting for Moscow places. “Thus, the diocesan authorities, wrote M. Philaret in a new submission to the Holy Synod dated October 27. 1831, to have two worries: places without people and people without places, and no matter how close the cessation of these worries is by one through the other, this is prevented from being achieved by the fact that there is no custom or rule to appoint places according to the spiritual department at the discretion of the authorities,” and about the difficulty that turned out to be, he asked for permission from the Holy Synod 281. The last decree was issued on April 22. 1832 “provided the bishop with seminarians brought up at the state kosht, if at the end of the training course they themselves do not express a desire to occupy the priestly places offered to them, assign them to them at their own discretion and so that they remain in those places for at least four years, and after this period, allow them to apply at will to other parishes”; 282 i.e. The Holy Synod only approved the measure that Metropolitan Philaret had once recommended for this purpose. 283 Following this order of the Holy Synod, Metropolitan Philaret began the practice of appointing the best government-funded seminarians to parishes infected with schism. So, for example in one of these parishes (the village of Troitsky, Klin district), the priestly place remained vacant for more than a year (since October 21, 1831), and there were no people willing to enter it. Then M. Filaret, by resolution on January 8, 1833, ordered “to inform the seminary (Bethans) board, so that from among those who completed the seminary course on government pay, a trustworthy candidate would be elected to this place” 284 . For lack of data, we do not know how long and how widely this method of appointing the best seminarians to parishes infected by schism was practiced by the Moscow Metropolitan. It is only known that the “passion to covet diaconal places in Moscow” did not diminish at all among seminarians subsequently, as M. Philaret complains about, more than 20 years after the synod’s order, in a resolution on January 8, 1854. 285 Only here he already recommends other measures against this: he recognizes it as necessary - “to arouse pure sense (2 Peter III, I) in candidates for the priesthood, which inspires that the duty of one prepared for church service is to choose primarily the place of service where, according to his knowledge and disposition, and at the discretion of the authorities, he can be more useful, and not where it is more profitable” 286. This is the meaning he advises Rev. the vicar (Alexy) “to edify the applicants for clergy positions who present themselves to him”; and the seminary boards - “to try in every possible way to give students, with a thorough education through teaching, the right spiritual and moral direction.” One can, of course, say a priori, without fear of falling into error, that such measures were even more unreliable than before, and the best seminarians, as before, continued to run from schismatic parishes as if they were upset and poor. The question of such an abnormal order of things not only in Moscow, but also in all dioceses, remains practically unresolved to this day, although the need for its resolution is recognized by everyone interested in the successes of Orthodoxy amid the schism, as evidenced by the large Moscow Congress of anti-schism missionaries (in 1887). 287 In conclusion of this chapter, we consider it worthwhile to consider the opinion of M. Philaret on the importance of Orthodox monasticism in the fight against schism. The Moscow saint attached very important importance to monasticism in this regard. That's really how it should be. If the parish clergy is delayed a lot in their anti-schism activities by various obstacles arising from the conditions of their family life, especially concerns about material support; the same cannot be said about monasticism. As people without family and, moreover, relatively financially secure, monks, of course, with great convenience can devote themselves to all missionary activities in general, and in particular to educational activities among schismatics. 288 But without mentioning this, monasteries, with their inner life, the completeness and accuracy of their worship, can contribute a lot, according to M. Philaret, “to weaken the spirit of schism.” “The ancient order of worship,” he says, in parish churches, by necessity, subject to reductions, is observed in monasteries with particular completeness and accuracy; and this serves as a strong refutation of the schismatic slander that ancient worship has been lost in the Orthodox Church. Experience shows that in villages close to monasteries there are almost no schismatics” 289. Recognizing such an important educational significance for monasteries in relation to the schism, M. Philaret showed this in practice. In his concerns about weakening the schism, especially in that area of his diocese, which is known under the name Guslits, and where the schism, patronized and vigorously spread by rich schismatic manufacturers, built a strong and comfortable nest for itself, from where preachers of the schism came out and are coming out even to different places in Russia, the ever-memorable archpastor took the intention of establishing a monastic monastery among Guslits, which would have a kind of missionary purpose - could contribute to the enlightenment and weakening of the local schism through earnest and orderly worship, the good life of the monks and, finally, a word of admonition from those among the brethren who acquire sufficient information about the schism and sufficient skill in interviews with the so-called Old Believers 290. The great archpastor indicated precisely this purpose of the monastery in his “regulations on the establishment” of this monastery 291, and then in his wonderful word at the consecration of the first newly built monastery church. “These places,” he said in this word, needed a monastery that would, through the rite of worship, the spirit of prayer, the good living life of the brethren, the mind and word of truth and Orthodoxy, reveal the light of Christ and offer the sweetness of the Church to people alienated from the Orthodox Church by ignorance and even coercion 292 and remaining in this alienation because they do not see and do not know the truth and beauty of the Orthodox Church.” 293. To carry out his intention to establish a missionary monastery in Guslitsy, Metropolitan Filaret chose a man who had himself come out of the schism and at that time acquired considerable fame for his writings about the schism, especially his “Tale of Wandering and Journey” - Abbot Parthenius, who then ruled the Berlyuk Hermitage. On his instructions, Fr. Parthenius traveled repeatedly to St. Petersburg to work on the case of the proposed monastery. The then Minister of State Property, M.N., took part in this matter. Muravyov: he found it possible to give a place belonging to the appanage department for the monastery (although, we note, not the one that M. Philaret desired), 294 the same place on which the monastery stands now, with the vast forest and lands surrounding it. On December 29, the proposal for this matter was approved by the Sovereign Emperor, who at the same time ordered 5,000 rubles to be given for the construction of the monastery. 295 But since these funds were far from enough, M. Philaret “decided to build a monastery with alms.” 296 It was decided, despite all the metropolitan’s dislike for collected books, to give one to the builder Parthenius for a year or more; 297 and at the same time the metropolitan “to invite some citizens to come and offer a subscription to the establishment of a monastery.” 298 Moscow's eminent citizens, imbued with reverence for the saint, and at the same time seeing the importance of the work he had undertaken, donated willingly and generously, so that capital was formed with which it was possible to begin building the monastery. This is what Philaret himself says about all these circumstances in the same word on the consecration of the monastery church: “It was pleasing to our most pious Tsar that this monastery should be founded on the land of the royal inheritance. According to this instruction, we chose this empty, unfamiliar place. The Most Pious Sovereign confirmed this election and laid the foundation for the monastery with royal bounties. God opened the hearts and generous hands of Christ-loving Moscow citizens, and the beginning of the work received hope of completion.” The place chosen for the monastery was in itself very convenient, both in terms of local conditions and in its almost central position among the Guslitsky schismatic population. Then it turned out that it was, as it were, intended for the establishment of a monastic monastery - that in ancient times there was a monastery here, which is why the place itself was previously called a “monastery”, that here was the appearance of the miraculous icon of Christ the Savior, which was preserved in a wooden church of one of the nearby villages, and that St. Photius, metro station Moskovsky. 299 Bishop Philaret pointed out all this in his speech as a sign of the highest destiny for the establishment of a monastery in this very place; and the miraculous icon of the Savior and the very wooden church in which it was kept, by his order, were transferred to the newly built monastery, as he put it, “for its initial consecration.” Meanwhile, the construction of the monastery did not occur without some difficulties, which caused M. Philaret a lot of worries and grief. 300 However, by the month of May, the construction of a new, extensive wooden church was completed. On the 24th of this month, Metropolitan Philaret himself, in the presence of His Grace Athanasius, Archbishop of Kazan, who unexpectedly arrived that morning, consecrated it and at the same time pronounced a word from which we have cited some passages above. 301 The next day, after the liturgy performed by Rev. Athanasius, the metropolitan and archbishop with a council of other clergy laid the foundation of a new church and consecrated the monastery, called Spasopreobrazhensky. 302 But the Metropolitan’s worries did not end there. On the contrary, the further things went, the more it increased. The impractical costs, 303 capital collected for the construction of the monastery, the large debt into which the monastery soon entered, 304 disagreements with contractors 305 and even in the construction commission itself, 306 - all this, in the most possible way, upset M. Philaret. “The Guslitsky monastery is a serious illness” 307, “The Guslitsky monastery is as bitter as it can be for me,” 308 he complained at different times to his friend. But be that as it may, the construction of the monastery was completed, although it cost four times more than the original assumptions of the builder Parthenius. 309 The question is, has the monastery achieved its goal, which was indicated to it by M. Filaret and with which it was built? How did the surrounding schismatics react to him, and did he have a beneficial influence on them? In response to this question, we can cite the testimony of M. Filaret himself from his letter to M. N. Muravyov. “The monastery,” the Moscow saint wrote to him, attracts the attention of the surrounding population and on holidays has many visitors, including many schismatics. Among them, those who are disposed towards Orthodoxy open up, but do not dare to join the church for fear of persecution from strong schismatics, especially those in charge in the villages, and wait for the disposition towards the church to spread among a larger number of those who are alien to it. Some zealots of Orthodoxy from the surrounding inhabitants notice a significant movement emerging among the schismatics of these places, produced, among other things, by the books written by the builder Parthenius against the schism. The schismatics, who previously turned away with hatred from these zealots, begin to peacefully enter into discussions with them about Orthodoxy. Quite a few schismatics began to shun the false priests of Austrian origin, whom they had previously accepted. I advised the builder Parthenius that, freed from the labors of construction, he should pay active attention to this situation of the schismatics and try to take advantage of it for the church.” 310 This letter was written by the Metropolitan shortly after the consecration of the monastery, 311 i.e. then, when the fanaticism of the surrounding schismatics had not yet had time to affect itself. Later, nameless denunciations were sent against the monastery, against its builder and against the brethren from the schismatics. 312 Finally, the schismatics, as Parthenius thought, and which is very natural, burned the monastery, and the wooden church that the Metropolitan himself consecrated, with all its treasures - with many precious ancient icons, also burned down 313. But this happened after the death of M. Philaret - in 1868 (March 26). Instead of this church, a stone cathedral was later built, which was consecrated on July 20, 1886. 314 As for M. Philaret’s desire to see missionaries who know their work among the brethren of the monastery, this desire has not come true to this day. Chapter III. Anti-schism missionaries Opening of anti-schismatic missions under Emperor Nicholas I. The attitude of schismatics towards missionaries. Setting up missionary work. Projects to improve missionary work and M. Philaret’s attitude towards them. M. Philaret’s views on the organization of missionary work. Missionaries in the Moscow diocese. A new movement in missionary work. The attitude of M. Philaret towards missionaries of a new type - monks Paphnutius and Paul. The unpreparedness of the parish clergy to combat the schism created a need for special anti-schism missionaries. Permanent anti-schism missions began to appear in various dioceses from the very first years of the imperial reign. Nicholas I. 315 So in 1828 missions were opened in the dioceses of Penza 316 and Perm; 317 in 1833 in the Saratov diocese, 318 in 1835 in the Dorpat district, 319 in 1838 in the Chernigov diocese, 320 in 1839 in the Irkutsk diocese, 321, etc. The number of missions began to increase especially quickly in the mid-fifties 322, thanks mainly to the concerns of the Reverend. Gregory, archbishop. Kazansky, for whom the fight against the split was the most sincere matter. Rarely among the dioceses with a schismatic population did not have “official” 323 missionaries. Among these few dioceses where there was no permanent anti-schism mission is the Moscow diocese. To explain this, at first glance, incomprehensible phenomenon, it is necessary, in our extreme understanding, to take at least a cursory glance at what the existing anti-schism missions were. The fact that anti-schismatic missions grew quickly, so that by the end of the fifties they existed in almost all dioceses with a schismatic population, apparently gives some reason to think that the missions were successful. We should also agree with this because we find evidence of their success in one of the synodal resolutions “on measures to strengthen the spiritual and moral influence on schismatics”, in which it is noted: “the work of the missions, especially in Siberia, by the goodness of God, does not remain unsuccessful” 324. But this increase - “especially in Siberia - casts some doubt on the success of the missions, because, if anywhere, then it was in Siberia that it was difficult to expect success from them due to the extreme lack of people suitable for this work there - a lack attested by the Holy Synod itself. 325 This doubt about the success of the missions becomes more probable for us when we turn to other evidence of the same synodal decrees, evidence of a completely opposite nature. They note that “the schismatics, when the missionaries initially approached them, did not want to listen to them and tried to avoid even the very interview with them;” 326 that in other places schismatics received “prejudice against the name of missionaries” 327 and even “disgust” 328. In view of this last circumstance, the Holy Synod, when establishing missions in other places, forbade missionaries to “assume the name of missionaries” 329 and act too openly. The missionaries had to “try in every possible way to hide the fact that they were sent to convert schismatics.” 330 In the same way of maintaining peaceful relations between schismatics and missionaries, the Holy Synod sometimes appointed missionaries “as parish priests” 331. With such an attitude of the schismatics towards the missions, the latter could not count on any particular success, 332 could not have a lasting future; in the sixties, they somehow completely imperceptibly ceased to exist to give way to new ones, which, with the exception of the name and purpose, have nothing in common with those either in their composition or in the very setting of the missionary work. 333 The former anti-schism missionaries were elected by local bishops from the parish clergy, mostly “merited” 334. The instructions for Penza missionaries even directly state that the missionary must be the dean of churches that have schismatics in their parishes. 335 The Reverend also demands the same. Gregory in his “instruction.” 336 The purpose of this requirement is explained by the fact that in those days there were many things associated with the missionary’s duties that had nothing to do with missionary work: the missionary’s educational tasks in relation to schismatics included the duties of supervising the clergy in whose parishes there were schismatics. How complex the latter kind of duties were and how strongly they could hinder the very work of missionary work, distracting the missionaries from their main task, can be judged by the fact that the missionary was entrusted with observing not only the anti-schism activities of the clergy and leading the latter in this activity, which would have been quite natural and expedient, but also observing absolutely everything that in one way or another related to the pastoral activities of the clergy: 337 the missionary had to monitor the morality of the clergy, their mental development, his school activities, the performance of worship and services, his attitude towards parishioners 338, etc. And not only did the missionary have to strictly observe all this, but he had the right, if necessary, to “demand,” “encourage,” and “inspire” the clergy to be efficient in their pastoral duties. It goes without saying that for all these authoritative demands, suggestions and motivations of the clergy on the part of the missionary, the latter needed to have at least the title of dean. It also goes without saying that with such a relationship between the clergy and the missionary, the latter was far from a welcome guest not only for schismatics, but also for local clergy: the latter were burdened by these missionary visits, since such unpleasant audits and reprimands were associated with them. 339 How vaguely some of M. Philaret’s contemporaries understood missionary tasks, how falsely they looked at the organization of missionary work, can be judged by the fact that in the instructions to the Penza missionary, even purely police duties were included among the latter’s duties. He was instructed by this instruction to “observe that schismatics are not assigned to alniks, that schismatics do not build or repair chapels, that they do not gather in private houses to pray.” It was also prescribed that “the missionary should become a catcher of false priests and ask for the help of the police authorities for this.” He finally had to know “how many couples (schismatics) came together in adulterous cohabitation.” 340 We do not know whether this instruction was given to the Penza missionary after it was subjected to impartial criticism from the Moscow saint. From one of the latter’s letters to the Eminence of Penza, written about six years after the criticism, we only know that the missionary there understood his duties no better than the author of the instructions and preferred police duties to educational ones. The result of which was that “he failed, as M. Philaret testifies in his letter, to get close enough to the schismatics”: “he put the schismatics in fear of entering into open relations with him.” 341 Missionary tasks themselves were relegated to the background, and it cannot be said that they were carried out satisfactorily. Although the missionaries were chosen from among the archpriests and deans, this was somewhat unfavorable to their preparation for missionary work; in most cases, they were as little prepared for this great task as the other ordinary clergy. They acquired the necessary information regarding anti-schism polemics after being appointed to the position of missionary, or “having previously (of their missionary journey) been instructed by the Eminence” 342, or, having been “prepared by carefully reading those books in which the opinions of schismatics of clerical and priestless behavior are described and exposed.” 343 But not every bishop, of course, could be Arkady of Perm, so that in his instructions and letters to missionaries he could read entire lectures on anti-schism polemics; and not every missionary could have sufficient love for the work to devote time to studying this, for most, boring polemics; Yes, finally, even with a sincere desire to engage in it, it was difficult to expect any success from these studies, because the matter of studying anti-schismatic polemics presented insurmountable difficulties at that time due to the complete lack of guidance; some of the missionaries did not even have the old printed books needed for this 344. Therefore, it becomes quite clear that in the old days, with the same composition of missions, the usual form of missionary activity was private interviews between a missionary and a schismatic, which, as can be judged by the synodal resolutions, took the form of “exhortation” and “admonition,” i.e. such a form that is not tolerated by a schismatic who is convinced of the truth of his teaching, and therefore is completely fruitless 345. Public interviews, which have now usually become a form of missionary anti-schism activity, at which there is a free exchange of thoughts on both sides on a well-known controversial issue, were practiced, it seems, only in the Perm diocese, where the composition of the mission was better; but even here they were comparatively rare 346; Yes, they could not take place where missionaries had to act secretly, without revealing their missionary goals; and in other cases, these “public disputes about religion” between Orthodox Christians and schismatics were even prohibited by the Holy Synod 347. Some of the missionaries, seeing the futility of their missionary exhortations, were not averse to replacing the latter and actually replaced them with civil measures, resorting to the assistance of the police authorities for this; but by doing this they harmed their cause even more, inspiring understandable “prejudice” and even “disgust” among the schismatics 348 . What is especially characteristic of that time is that the said supplement of spiritual measures with police measures was not a kind of abuse on the part of the missionary: it was recommended by the diocesan authorities. So eg. Reverend Irenaeus, bishop Penza, finding that missionary “exhortations are more powerful where there is the assistance of the civil authorities,” asked the local Governor-General Bakhmetyev “to make a command order so that the city and zemstvo police provide assistance to those priests who have already been appointed to convert schismatics, in the form of missionaries, by their Eminences, or will be appointed in the future” 349 . In a later instruction to the Penza missionary, the latter was instructed to “ask for help from the secular authorities at any time of need” 350. The unpreparedness of the anti-schism missionaries was recognized at that time, and Rev. Gregory drew up a whole project for missionary education to prepare knowledgeable missionaries in local religious educational institutions. But since the implementation of this project would require too much time, meanwhile the need for educated missionaries was felt to be extreme, the Holy Synod, by decision of October 9/14. 1853, regardless of missionary teaching in religious institutions, he now decided to call one or two priests or monks from dioceses infected with schism to St. Petersburg for the purpose of their missionary education under the leadership of the Reverend. Gregory. The latter was supposed to “teach them within four months the history of the schism in its main features, the concept of all sects and instructions for dispelling their delusions”; and at the same time “to occupy these priests with the revision of schismatic books and manuscripts located in the Holy Synod.” His Eminence, the Rector of the St. Petersburg Academy, Macarius 351, was appointed as his assistant. At the appointed time, clergy from different dioceses - archpriests, priests, hieromonks and deacons - gathered in St. Petersburg. “They all listened to the instruction delivered at the end of classes by Rev. Gregory to the Holy Synod, very carefully and everyone, as he hopes, will do their job with due diligence” 352. In April the teaching of history 353 was completed, and by June 10 the polemics 354 were also completed. One could hope that under the leadership of such experts in schism as Gregory and Macarius, the missionaries would gain much. But the assistant Rev. Gregory Macarius frankly admitted that this experience of missionary education essentially ended in nothing. “Missionary priests,” he wrote to the Rev. Innocent of Kherson dated September 10, 1854, they left long ago, although, according to their own consciousness, they gained almost nothing” 355. On what did this depend, on the shortness of the education time, on the unpreparedness of the listeners, or on both; in this case it makes no difference. The only important thing is that the work of the anti-schism mission did not improve 356. One could hope that this matter would go better with the opening of missionary departments at academies and seminaries. But, unfortunately, these hopes were not justified. Academies, where the teaching of schism was more scientific and broader than in seminaries, produced only learned schism scholars primarily in the field of history, and not polemics - not practical missionaries. The seminaries produced too mediocre experts in schism to be good missionaries. Moreover, the teaching of schism in seminaries, less than 20 years later, with the reform of the latter, had to stop: for some reason this subject was crossed out from the new seminar course program. Metropolitan Philaret, giving due honor to the zeal and care of the Reverend. Gregory about the better organization of missionary work, at the same time did not expect any benefit from all this and therefore was rather skeptical about the projects of the Rev. Gregory. “I don’t think and don’t think that self-love should be involved in drawing up a project,” he wrote to Archimandrite Anthony, regarding one of these projects of the Kazan archpastor. The Most Reverend Gregory is zealous for benefit and does not seek himself. The temptation from direction is to do things scientifically, methodically. Behind the thought that some priests did not fully know the reasons for the schism, he had the idea of ​​setting out these reasons, and in order to make it firm, he made extracts from schismatic books and, looking at his work from this side, did not notice that they had other unfavorable aspects” 357. Since the said project by the Reverend. Gregory was sent “to all bishops demanding their recall” 358, in particular, he was sent to Metropolitan Philaret, then the latter did not fail to write to Rev. Gregory to write “objections” 359 to his project, in which he probably exposed the unfavorable aspects of this project. What were these objections and what exactly disadvantageous aspects did M. Filaret see in the projects of the Reverend. Gregory, we do not know, since the said letter from Rev. Gregory is not found in the previously published papers of M. Philaret. M. Philaret also had a negative attitude towards another project of that time to improve missionary work - the project “about wandering missionary readers”, owned by Rev. Innokenty Kamchatsky. Considering the then organization of missionary anti-schism work unsatisfactory, Rev. Innocent dwelled on the thought “if not for the conversion of schismatics, then at least to strengthen our own in the faith - to use the same measures and methods that schismatics use”; namely: “from time to time, send your own special readers, who, under the guise of travelers, would engage in Orthodox reading and conversations from the Divine in the villages.” He thought of choosing these readers not from the sextons and not even from the parish priests, but “from Solovki, from Kyiv and from other monasteries, people of the strictest and best spiritual life and mainly old men. Let them go around and bypass the villages and villages that are more susceptible to the invasion of schismatics than others.” “I am quite sure,” Eminence Innocent concluded his project, that a lot of good will come from this.” Communicating this project in a letter to A.N. Muravyov 360, he asked the latter to propose it to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod. The then Chief Prosecutor A.P. Akhmatov forwarded the project to M. Filaret for consideration. One might think that M. Philaret could not be more sympathetic to this project in view of the fact that he himself considered the monks, as we had occasion to mention, the people most suitable for missionary work; but the Moscow ruler did not agree with such a formulation of the missionary matter and in a response letter to the chief prosecutor (dated March 29, 1865) outlined his objections to the said project 361. Having noted at the beginning that this “project about a missionary reader, perhaps, would have found its way in Siberia, but in Russia it is doubtful,” M. Filaret puts forward two reasons for its impracticality for Russia. First: “a schismatic, a wanderer by taste or need, without having anything better in mind, goes through this kind of life even without self-sacrifice. The position of a hierodeacon or an elder who is forced into this, torn from the calm position is completely different.” Second: “a wandering schismatic simply enters the house of a stranger to rest from the journey or spend the night; prays, reads, for example, a book by Ephraim the Syrian taken out of a travel bag, as if for himself, inconspicuously gains attention; enters into conversations about Christian life and faith after this preparation, takes out a schismatic notebook. But let the Solovetsky hierodeacon appear in the schismatic village: everyone will greet him with wild eyes, and if anyone accepts him into the house, it will be as a beggar, and not as an interlocutor. And if he, having appeared in the form of a wanderer, then begins to show himself to be a righteous person, they will attribute duplicity to him and will be removed from him. Only a person with extraordinary dedication, patience and skill can endure a difficult and long struggle with obstacles in order to gain attention and some confidence and open the way to his business.” M. Filaret had nothing against the main idea of ​​the project. He was aware of the unsatisfactory organization of anti-schism missions, and sympathized with the idea of ​​​​missionaries for the Orthodox. “It is true that we need missionary action for Orthodox Christians,” 362 he wrote to Archimandrite. Anthony. He also wrote to the Reverend. Gregory: “It is true that we and the Orthodox people need some kind of missionaries; but it’s difficult to arrange this” 363. It was this last circumstance - the difficulty of finding suitable people for this matter - that forced M. Philaret to reject the project of the Rev. Innocent, as not appropriate. 364 A similar difficulty in finding people suitable for anti-schism missionary work must be explained by the fact that there was no anti-schism mission in the Moscow diocese. Opening such a mission as existed in other dioceses was, of course, not difficult; It was not difficult to find missionaries like those in other dioceses. But it was not such a mission and not such “titular” 365 only missionaries that M. Philaret wanted to have, but incomparably better and more knowledgeable ones. This is revealed from the rules he compiled for Perm missionaries 366, from his comments on the “instructions for the missionary in the Penza diocese” and on the “instructions for the dean missionary”, Rev. Gregory, as well as from private letters. As for the personnel of the mission, the requirements of M. Filaret in this regard were far different from the views of his contemporaries. In his opinion, missionaries should not only be chosen from archpriests, not from deans, but in general from priests “who live an honest and reverent life with solid information, both in the teaching of the faith in general, and especially in the teaching about the true antiquity and correctness of the rites of the Orthodox Church and about the falsity of the slander brought against it by schismatics” 367 . So, the main requirement from a missionary and the first condition for the success of his mission, in the opinion of the Moscow saint, is the missionary’s knowledge of anti-schism polemics, moreover, detailed knowledge, not superficial knowledge. The missionary must study this controversy so thoroughly and in detail that he will be able to immediately give a ready answer to any question or objection of a schismatic with reference to a book respected by schismatics. “To communicate with schismatics, the Metropolitan writes to Archimandrite Anthony, one must be quite willing to resolve various questions and objections, pointing to evidence that they cannot refuse. Not giving an answer and postponing it until they receive information means, according to their concepts, showing off their case to the weak” 368 . No less than knowledge, it is necessary, in the opinion of the Moscow archpastor, for the missionary to have “zeal and animation, which would make him capable of deepening the word of truth in the hearts and imparting to them the inner light and warmth in which it would vegetate and grow” 369, it is also necessary on the part of the missionary “a disposition to self-sacrifice and to endure difficulties and hardships” 370, which are quite natural in the missionary field. These are the requirements imposed by M. Philaret on missionaries. It goes without saying that, from the point of view of these requirements, it was completely indifferent who was the missionary - a dean or an ordinary priest; as long as it satisfies the above requirements. Therefore, the rule expressed in the instructions to the Penza missionary and in the instructions of the Rev. Gregory, that the missionary must necessarily be the dean of churches in which there are schismatics in the parish, M. Philaret found it “inconvenient” 371. “Will there not be cases,” he notes, when a non-dean turns out to be more capable of missionary work? 372. Metropolitan Philaret had nothing against the missionary activity of persons not even from the clergy, although, however, he was far from thinking of assigning them the title and rights of (state) missionaries, because he considered this phenomenon “strange.” Regarding the request of one merchant, a certain Minaev, to appoint him as a missionary with the rights of ordinary government missionaries, M. Philaret wrote to Rev. Arkady of Perm the following: upon Minaev’s call for missionary work, I spoke with whomever I should have, according to the subject and instructions of Minaev’s own letter; but no way is opened for this matter. If, out of selfless zeal for Orthodoxy, he wants to talk with schismatics, he can do this without demanding formal instructions and benefits from the government. How can a merchant, having remained a merchant, be defined as a missionary and therefore freed from public duties? It is difficult to find a person who would not find this strange. And the schismatics who are now entering into relations with him will not be more alienated from him when they see him as an agent of the government” 373? To another similar missionary, the peasant Efrem Goren, who with his exhortations contributed to the conversion of some of the peasants to Orthodoxy, M. Filaret advises to continue his missionary work, “if he really enjoys the trust of his brothers and has zeal for their spiritual benefit” 374. Presenting to missionaries, first of all, the above-mentioned demands of knowledge, animation and energy, M. Filaret, in missionary work, brings to the fore exclusively educational tasks in relation to schismatics. Everything else that Philaret’s contemporaries wanted to impose on the missionary work and that did not relate to this work, he either completely crosses out from the missionary’s duties or pushes into the background. Not to mention purely police duties of the kind prescribed by the instructions for the Penza missionary and which M. Filaret resolutely rejects as not only “inconvenient to perform” but even positively harmful for the missionary work, since their fulfillment would not only “block” the missionary’s “path to uncommunicative hearts” 375, but “would expose him to hatred and maybe even danger” 376 - not to mention these responsibilities, m. Filaret did not attach much importance to the missionaries’ leadership responsibilities in relation to the Orthodox clergy, which were set out in such detail in the instructions and manuals we examined. He did not attach any importance to some of these duties, as being completely impossible to fulfill and therefore meaningless, 377 he denied others because they put the missionaries in strained relations with the local clergy, which could have an unfavorable effect on the missionary work itself. Only with a good, normal relationship between the missionary and the local priest, whose help the missionary needs 378, can one expect good results from the missionary’s activities. As for the form of missionary activity, the best thing in this case, according to M. Philaret, is “homely, conversational, edifying conversation” 379. To convert schismatics, “a missionary priest, says the Moscow saint, will enter into a conversation with him about faith and rites on the basis of the word of God and the true tradition of the church” 380. This interview, in his opinion, should not be offered in an exhortation-doctoral tone, not brooking any objections, the tone that the missionaries of that time, unprepared for their service, liked to resort to in most cases; but to be in the proper sense an interview, i.e. calm reasoning from both sides about the subjects of disagreement between them, and the missionary, resolving the objections of his schismatic interlocutor, must, as proof of his thoughts, refer to books respected by schismatics, the evidence of which even his interlocutor cannot refuse. That's why M. Filaret advises to provide missionaries not only with polemical works of Orthodox writers, suitable for studying the schism and polemics against it, but for the above purpose, also provide them with books in early print and even ancient manuscripts. “It is useful,” he says in the instructions to the Perm missionaries, to first provide the missionaries with books written to denounce the schism and, as far as possible, with some old printed and old-written books that present evidence in favor of what is accepted by the Orthodox Church and in refutation of the supposedly ancient schismatic customs” 381. It goes without saying that a home, private conversation with schismatics is much easier for a missionary than a public conversation. Not everyone can undertake the latter, since it requires more preparation, a significant amount of patience, and a kind of polemical tact. M. Filaret was suspicious of the idea of ​​public conversations. So, regarding the proposal of the Eminence Leonid of Ekaterinoslav to hold such a public conversation, or, as the Metropolitan himself puts it, a “competitive council” with schismatics, he notes in a letter to Arch. Anthony: “the government is unlikely to decide on this; schismatics will not go voluntarily; and coercion would strengthen their stubbornness. Moreover, is it possible to reliably enter into competition with people to whom sometimes a stupid opinion seems better than the truth? Send people to them? Okay, we'll send it. They won’t let you into the chapels or into the house, they won’t listen on the street. What will happen? I’m not saying that this is impossible, but this requires people who would give themselves up to sacrifice for this cause, whom are difficult to find and take a lot of time to educate” 382. So, the main obstacle to public interviews at that time (letter dated December 9, 1853) was, in his opinion, not in the very nature of these interviews, but in the lack of people capable of this matter. Subsequently, when trained figures were found and began to conduct such conversations, m. Filaret was very sympathetic to their cause and even encouraged them in this field. The Moscow saint outlines the very nature of the interviews with the following features. “The word of man can be sharpened like a sword, and then it will wound and kill; and it can be softened like oil, and then it will heal” 383, this is the general view of M. Philaret on the use of the word in the healing of mental illnesses. And he applies this view wherever he speaks about a given use of the human word: to a church sermon, to an oral conversation, to a polemical work, etc. Regarding one sermon by Rev. Gregory, who was distinguished by a sharp character, M. Filaret, pointing out this shortcoming in a letter to him, notes among other things: “one is strength, another is sharpness. A strong word strikes, a sharp word teases. And whoever is teased will not take advantage of the instruction” 384. He writes almost the same thing and Rev. Filaret (Gumilevsky); “It seems to me that the inclination to speak strongly sometimes turns into a disposition to speak harshly. But the strong in a word is different from the harsh. A strong thought in a calm word conquers, a harsh word arouses opposition” 385. He also applies this view to missionary interviews with schismatics. And in these interviews, harsh expressions and reproaches are not appropriate, since instead of benefit they can only bring harm: “to reproach means to irritate, he says, and to irritate means to reduce the ability to accept the truth” 386. To avoid this, “the treatment of those who have different opinions and the very denunciation of errors should, in his opinion, be as peaceful as this can be done, without insulting the truth and without tempting the Orthodox” 387, therefore, “tolerance, calm, meekness, condescension and caution are also needed in exposing errors and those who err, as is zeal” 388. In addition, in the cruel, reproachful denunciation of M. Filaret, he saw a reception unworthy of a true Christian shepherd, a servant of truth. “I remembered some harsh expressions,” the Moscow saint writes to the already known abbot Parthenius, which you, speaking about your interviews in St. Petersburg, used about those who have deviated from the Orthodox Church and do not submit to it. And as you expected that you would soon visit places filled with such people, a caring thought came to me about how you would talk to them. Take into account that harsh words irritate people; and irritation hinders the acceptance of edification, and that, on the contrary, meek words soften the harsh. According to the Apostle, a servant of the Lord should be meek, a teacher, and kind. I know that with Christian love you use labor and care for the conversion of the erring; it is fair to combine jealousy with this, but let jealousy not be cruel, and let the words of jealousy be softened and sweetened by the word of love” 389. Regarding the way in which a missionary should attract schismatics for interviews, whether he can turn to the benefits of the local police authorities to attract Old Believers for interviews, M. Filaret held a strictly defined view, which he holds both in his instructions to missionaries and in comments on instructions compiled by others. He recognized it as desirable and necessary that the missionary, unless absolutely necessary, should not resort to the assistance of the police authorities, since any coercion in this case is harmful to the cause itself. Coercion, he noted in a letter to Arch. Anthony, can only strengthen the stubbornness of the schismatics. The missionary should care, in his opinion, most of all about conveying to his conversations with schismatics the nature of a free and unconstrained consideration of religious differences of opinion on both sides. “It is desirable,” he says, that the missionary, with the help of a local priest and well-disposed Orthodox parishioners, start (with dissenting) conversations about faith without any participation of the civil government, starting with those who are less bitter and, through their persuasion, gradually attracting others as well” 390. “You need to turn to the secular authorities,” he notes in another case, only in special need. Friendly, simple conversation will better attract a schismatic. Coercive measures are more repulsive" 391. The participation of civil authorities, in his opinion, will help to express themselves only in the fact that they should announce to the schismatics “the arrival and appointment of a missionary” 392. Everything else in missionary work must be left to the missionary himself; further police intervention in this matter is not advisable, except in the extreme case when “strong and stubborn schismatics will otherwise put up obstacles to entering into a conversation with the sent priest” (missionary) 393. “In this case,” says the metropolitan, the missionary will demand from the zemstvo court an official of the civil authorities to appoint, by mutual agreement, the place and time of the meeting and to maintain order when exhorting the lost” 394. The activity of a missionary in a certain place should not be limited to one conversation a year, as was suggested in the instructions to the Penza missionary, because, according to the Moscow Metropolitan, “an exhortation once a year does not promise anything.” “It is safer,” he says, for the missionary, having arrived in the village, to remain in it for some time, and the exhortations follow closely one after another. This way he will know better with whom he is dealing and to whom to adapt the admonition” 395. “A missionary can remain at the place of exhortation for some time continuously, he writes in one of his instructions to the missionary, or, if his permanent place of service is not far away, be in one and another place alternately, according to convenience and necessity, preferring, however, especially the mission task entrusted to him over parish affairs, in which for the duration of the mission he must have an assistant by his election, or by appointment of the authorities” 396. As for the “time of meetings for exhortation,” then, in the opinion of the Moscow saint, it should be appointed “without distracting the villagers from their legitimate labors, especially during field work,” the most convenient time, in his opinion, in this regard is holidays 397. This is in the interests of both those who are admonished and the missionary work itself, because with untimely exhortations the missionary will “bored rather than teach” the schismatics 398 . Considering the indicated demands of M. Filaret from a missionary and his views on the organization of missionary work, one cannot help but notice how far they differ from the views of his contemporaries. His views on this subject were ahead of life, they are already suitable for our time and are being realized in our time. To implement them in the past, there were no people who met the requirements of M. Philaret. The latter repeatedly complains about this. We have already seen what he wrote in 1853, Arch. Anthony regarding public interviews with schismatics. Pointing to the news of this weapon in the fight against the schism and the difficulty of implementing this measure on the part of the schismatics, in conclusion he noted: “I’m not saying that this is impossible, but this requires people who would give themselves as sacrifices to this cause, who are difficult to find and require a lot of time to educate” 399. More than ten years later (in 1864) after this, he says the same thing: “in the Orthodox clergy there are not many people to be seen who, with especially intense zeal and self-sacrifice, would devote themselves to a detailed study of all schismatic disputes and their resolutions and to missionary action” 400. Only by this circumstance, i.e. The lack of people prepared for missionary work can explain the fact that there was no anti-schism mission in the diocese of M. Philaret. M. Philaret did not want to assign people to this great task without thorough preparation, as was practiced in other dioceses, as he well understood that from such missionaries, instead of the expected benefit, only harm could occur. “The use of missionaries,” he wrote in 1842 to the famous fighter against the schism, the Reverend. Jacob of Nizhny Novgorod, requires great deliberation. If the missionary succeeds, good; and if he doesn’t have time, then it’s sometimes worse than if he hadn’t been sent at all” 401. However, in the Moscow diocese, instead of “official” missionaries, there were persons selected from the “most reliable” deans and priests, who in some way replaced the missionaries. They, as more experienced in this matter, were instructed to “support the parish priests in converting schismatics with advice and personal assistance,” and for this they were “sent to other parishes, where there was a need and hope for special success” 402. But these individuals also did not have success among the schismatics. “It is with regret that we must admit,” wrote M. Filaret in 1848, i.e. already after ten years of practice of the above-mentioned measure, - that the clergy of the Moscow diocese cannot boast of such successes in converting schismatics that would suddenly extend to a significant number of people” 403. Therefore, in the same year and in the same opinion from which the above words are borrowed, he recommends, among the measures to bring the Rogozh schismatics closer to the Orthodox Church, “the establishment at the Moscow bishopric see of two special clergy, from the monastic or white clergy, with assignment, depending on the circumstances, to the monastery or to the Edinoverie church and with decent content for their use as missionaries" 404. But this measure was not implemented then, probably because there were no people among the Moscow clergy prepared for this matter. Summoned that year “for experience” from the Chernigov diocese, the Edinoverie priest did not have any success among the Moscow schismatics and had to return “much before the time given to him” 405. Similarly, M. Philaret’s other later “experience” in this matter was not particularly successful. We mean the missionary activity among the schismatics of the priest Nikolai Gaidovsky-Potapovich, who at his very ordination (in 1865) expressed “a zealous desire to instill the truth of Orthodoxy in those who err from the faith” and who was therefore entrusted by Metropolitan Philaret, with the permission of the Holy Synod, “missionary activity in those places (Moscow dioceses) in which schism is widespread, or is beginning to spread.” 406. Ordained as a priest from retired lieutenant colonels in the 60th year of his life, Fr. Gaidovsky, of course, did not have the information necessary for missionary work; desire alone, even the most zealous one, is not enough for success in this matter. True, M. Philaret himself explained the failures of his missionaries in converting schismatics to the “presence of strong opposing reasons” lying “outside the missionaries” 407 . He saw these reasons in the special character of the Moscow schismatics, in their “special inaccessibility to the admonishing action of the clergy,” which depended on that “special type of independence that, since the last quarter of the last century, the Moscow schism was able to give itself to itself and continues to preserve to this day (opinion dated March 29, 1848)” 408. In view of this attitude of schismatics towards the missionary activities of the Orthodox clergy, M. Philaret had the idea of ​​using people who came from the midst of the schism itself for missionary work. For the first time, he expressed this idea in 1854 in a letter to the then chief prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Protasov, regarding the desire of Parthenius (Guslitsky, already known to us), who arrived at that time from Tomsk to Moscow, to be accepted into the Gethsemane monastery. Reporting this desire to the Chief Prosecutor, M. Philaret wrote at the same time about Parthenia: “Knowing him from correspondence and from the information of some of the monastery brothers who knew him abroad as a person with a good spiritual direction, I am disposed to accept him into the monastery as trustworthy and capable of being useful. He was born in a schism, through careful testing he learned the truth of Orthodoxy and converted his family from the schism, therefore it is advisable to make an experiment and use it to admonish schismatics, whose attention he can attract due to their special circumstances, while they stubbornly withdraw from ordinary mentors from priests, or try to remain in emotionless silence when they are told about Orthodoxy” 409. The experiment was made 410, but due to the character of Parthenius not suitable for missionary work, his temper and harshness in expressions 411, the experiment was not entirely successful. In addition, Parfeniy was soon distracted from this activity by economic concerns for the construction of the Guslitsky monastery. In any case, he did not bring anything new to our anti-schism missionary work. A new movement began in the mid-sixties. The year 1865 was a most remarkable year in terms of conversions to the Orthodox Church. On the one hand, prominent members of the Belokrinitsky hierarchy - Onuphry, Paphnuty, Filaret and others - entered the fence of the Orthodox Church; and on the other hand, at the same time, the rector of the priestless monasteries in Prussia, the monk Paul, called Prussky, who joined in 1868, followed the same path. All those who joined settled in Moscow. This is how a whole society of smart and well-read people converted from the schism was formed. Members of this society laid the foundation for a new type of missionaries, far different from the previous ones. Rich erudition in the field of old printed books respected by schismatics, together with an excellent knowledge of schismatic life, schismatic literature and their favorite objections and polemical techniques - all these are qualities with which the new missionaries have left far behind the old ones. Similar persons began to fill the ranks of missionaries in other dioceses. At the same time, figures who were fully prepared for missionary work began to emerge from among the Orthodox. The attitude of the schismatics towards the new missionaries also changed completely. True, even now there are still corners, especially in the outbacks, where schismatics run away from the missionary and, to all the latter’s proposals to talk about faith, they respond with refusal and even abuse 412; but such corners are becoming fewer and fewer every day: in most cases, schismatics are happy to attend conversations with missionaries and even thank the latter for the conversation. M. Filaret was very sympathetic to the converts and saw that his thoughts about missionaries emerging from the schism were beginning to come true. Informing the then Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count Tolstoy about the annexation of members of the Belokrinitsky diocese, Filaret wrote at the same time: “a comforting event and connected with the good hope of the Orthodox Church. It is desirable that those who have come to know the truth of Orthodoxy try to open its light to others, and especially to those whom their non-Orthodox service has removed from it, and with whom, more conveniently than with others elsewhere, they can enter into relations on the occasion of previous relations” 413. At the same time, M. Philaret began to take care of opening a Edinoverie monastery in Moscow for new converts, where they could have, as M. Philaret put it in a letter to His Eminence Isidore, “a firm place to stand for reuniting action on those wandering outside the saving fence of the Holy Church” 414 . The monastery was opened on May 16, 1866, at the Preobrazhensky cemetery 415; and soon became the center of missionary anti-schism activity throughout Russia. M. Philaret pinned especially many hopes on Paphnutius, the former schismatic bishop called Kolomna. He considered him, as it was in fact, one of the outstanding members of the Belokrinitsky diocese, “a man, at the same time, with significant abilities and knowledge” 416, with a strong influence on schismatics 417 and therefore the most capable and suitable for missionary work. Paphnutius's missionary activity was expressed in the fact that he began to conduct public conversations with schismatics, taking advantage of the ancient custom of the common people to gather on holidays in the Kremlin near the cathedrals and starting debates about faith here. M. Filaret was very sympathetic to the activities of Paphnutius. “To Monk Paphnutius,” he wrote in his resolution of June 27, 1866, acting as a missionary, to continue to act in this capacity” 418. Chernigov's Eminence Filaret Gumilyovsky intended Paphnutius to be the abbot of the Edinoverie monastery of his diocese. At his request M. Philaret responded on July 6 (1866): “The monk Paphnutius, capable and knowledgeable above all others who came to the same faith from the schism, can be a useful abbot of the monastery. But now he is doing the work of a missionary with us and this should not turn him away." 419 Paphnutius, reported M. Philaret to the chief prosecutor of the Holy Synod, "had success, and some schismatics, whose schismatic convictions were shaken by him in the square, began to come to his cell, with the desire to learn more about the true teaching" 420. We do not know how Paphnutius’s Kremlin conversations were conducted at first, but later they were so stormy that the police intervened in them, who demanded that Paphnutius not gather the people. Filaret came to the defense of his missionary. “Can you,” he wrote to his vicar, “Reverend. Leonid, to see Prince Vladimir Andreevich 421 and offer him the following on my behalf: for a long time there has been a custom that on holidays people gather in the Kremlin near the cathedrals and there are debates between Orthodox and schismatics. This debate, at times, was more or less significant, depending on how people appeared who were able to attract attention. When schismatics put forward more strident debaters, the police did not pay attention to this. When underground reformers arose in 1863, dubious people with dubious words appeared in Kremlin meetings; it was not clear that the police were paying special attention to this. Then these people went underground again. Now that a zealous and capable denouncer of schismatics has appeared in the Kremlin, the lower ranks of the police turn to the Chudov governor demanding that Paphnutius not gather the people. But he does not gather, but only comes to speak with the gathered people. If the police insist on their demand and the monk Paphnutius is forced to remain silent, the schismatics will not fail to give this an interpretation that will serve to encourage the schismatics. Therefore, I consider it my duty to ask His Excellency not to prohibit Kremlin conversations” 422). Thus, m. Filaret was still so convinced at that time of Paphnutius’s abilities that he even considered the police intervention to be oppression of the Orthodox, in favor of the schismatics. But at the same time, he considered it necessary, as a precaution, to carry out secret supervision over the conversations of Paphnutius 423. Meanwhile, Paphnutius did not at all think of changing his polemical methods. A particularly heated debate took place on September 11 over the book of St. Vinogradova: “Theodorite’s word on double-fingeredness.” The author’s somewhat harsh reviews of the old rituals, contents and co-religionists provoked fellow believer Paphnutius to defend the same faith, and this defense, in the words of Metropolitan Philaret, “extended to opinions disrespectful to general Orthodoxy and to insulting comments about some Orthodox individuals, and caused an unseemly dispute 424. Having received information about this conversation the next day from a “trustworthy” secular person, M. Filaret secretly ordered the Chudov governor to “inform the monk Paphnutius to stop his conversations on the Kremlin square pending discretion” 425. But while forbidding Paphnutius to continue his missionary activity, Philaret at the same time reassures him that “this order is considered necessary as a precaution against harm from exaggerated rumors about what happened and against the unpleasant clashes that he could have encountered if he had appeared in the square soon after the displeasure already aroused against him by the previous conversation” 426. Meanwhile, this whole story was announced in the press (in the Moskov. Vedomosti), and the chief of the gendarmes, Count P. A. Shuvalov, did not fail to report it to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count D. A. Tolstoy. The latter turned to M. Filaret for clarification. Then m. Filaret, in an extensive letter to the Chief Prosecutor, describing the missionary merits of Paphnutius and reporting the information already known to us about his last conversation, at the same time defends him, laying the blame mainly on the author of the book about the Word of Theodorite, who admitted “into this book on the origin of rituals used by both schismatics and co-religionists, opinions are unfounded, incorrect, excessively denigrating, and partly, out of ignorance writers who turn in favor of the schismatics, and therefore are not only offensive to fellow believers, but also come into conflict with the judgments of the Holy Synod, which blessed the use of the so-called old rites for the co-religionist church” 427). We do not know when Paphnutius’ Kremlin conversations resumed. It is only known that subsequently, in terms of his character, he was in no way inferior to the previous ones 428. Moreover, the extremely proud and arrogant character of Paphnutius, which soon quarreled with people close to his conversion, led him to the fatal step of returning to the schismatics 429. Metropolitan Filaret did not live to see this sad event, which probably would have resonated very painfully in his soul. But if the hopes of M. Philaret va Paphnutius, as a missionary useful for the Orthodox Church, did not ultimately come true, then his hopes for the monk Paul were more than justified. The latter’s relations with M. Philaret regarding his conversion to Orthodoxy began much later after the joining of the members of the Austrian hierarchy. On May 3, 1867, Pavel Prussky presented M. Philaret with an explanatory note about himself, and at the same time M. Philaret had the idea of ​​using him for missionary purposes. “Regarding this, M. Filaret wrote to the Chief Prosecutor about Paul, another question arises: whether to delay his accession for some time in order to write out from Prussia his disciples who are like-minded with him and whether he should visit like-minded people in some provinces in order to decisively induce them to join Orthodoxy or the same faith” 430. The annexation was postponed 431, and in the same month of May the monk Pavel, with the blessing of Metropolitan Philaret, went on a missionary purpose to the village of Paim, Chembar district, Penza province. Metropolitan At the same time, Filaret gave the missionary a letter of recommendation to the local bishop with a request to “provide Paul with protection” and to warn the local clergy and civil authorities to assist him in this matter 432. The blessing of God, given through the great archpastor of the Russian Church, apparently rested on this beginning of the missionary labors of the monk Paul. The seeds of Orthodox teaching that he sown among the Paim Old Believers bore good fruit 433. A few years later, even an entire parish of the same faith was formed here from the converts. Even before his accession, Monk Paul undertook similar missionary trips to other places. So eg. in the same month of May he went to St. Petersburg, where he lived for two months. This trip was also not without success 434. Meanwhile, M. Philaret wanted the monk Paul to “quickly establish himself” in the Moscow Edinoverie monastery 435, because from this, as he wrote to his vicar, the Right Reverend Leonid, “with the help of God, one can expect good fruits” 436. This wish of M. Philaret came true. Pavel settled in a Edinoverie monastery, where he served as abbot until his death, which followed this year. The hopes of the Moscow archpastor for good fruits from this figure were justified in the most brilliant way. Chapter IV. Polemical literature The meaning of polemical literature. M. Philaret's view of this literature as a means of combating schism. The state of this literature at that time. The requirements imposed by Metropolitan. Filaret to literary works of this kind. Conversations of M. Philaret to the so-called Old Believer. Anti-schism polemical literature is very important in the fight against schism. Recent experience has shown that it is no less important than missionary interviews with schismatics. Penetrating into places where, in the words of one schismatic who converted to Orthodoxy (E.G. Ugryumov), there are no missionary fathers, and in the parishes the priests are not familiar with the teachings of the schism, and the schismatics do not want to have any relations with them, noticing their weaknesses - penetrating into such places, polemical writings are here the only educational means by which the church can influence schismatics. The example of Ugryumov himself, who converted to Orthodoxy thanks solely to reading the polemical works of Orthodox writers, serves as the best proof of this. And here is another example of such a beneficial influence of polemical writings on schismatics, in the complete absence of other educational means - the example of the guide in the schismatic prayer house of one of the Starodub settlements (Voronka), I.P. Fedorov, who, in his letter to the famous hieromonk of the St. Nicholas Monastery of Edinoverie - Philaret, reports the following about this: “having started reading books about the Old Believers, I began to clearly see that our society has significant shortcomings.... And I’m not the only one, but several people in our settlement who, after reading polemical books, began to doubt the correctness of the Old Believers” 437. No less interesting data on this issue is reported to the same Hieromonk Filaret by another of his correspondents, a certain I. I. Kovalev. “I was an inveterate schismatic of the priestless sect,” the latter writes, among other things. “I was in two sects: in the first - Pomeranian, marriage - in it I married and spoke for it; then he moved to the sect of wanderers - he stayed in it for seven years. Oh, God, be merciful to me, a sinner! How many souls have I cast into the pit of destruction! Since there are few knowledgeable people on our side, i.e. familiar with the Scriptures, but I stood out from all my participants, learned all the crooked moves and conclusions, and plunged the few knowledgeable Orthodox into the ditch of destruction! I don’t know what else would have happened if I had not bought and read “Three Conversations” by Fr. Paul 438. From that time on, I began to look for truth in scripture and understand that hitherto I was in the darkness of ignorance” 439. A lot of such examples have become known recently 440. But these are enough to convince us of the importance of polemical works against the schism. At the same time, these writings are a very important weapon in the hands of an Orthodox priest who wants to engage in the conversion of his lost parishioners. They can conveniently replace in this case public interviews, for which most parish priests are completely unprepared. To prove this, we can point to the testimony of one priest of the Penza diocese, who, in a letter to prof. Subbotin, reporting on the joining of the church in his parish by 42 schismatics, notes: “it is impossible to describe in this letter how this event took place. I will only say one thing: the alpha and omega of this wonderful parish event are books and books, of which I acquired quite a few in the 20 years of my priesthood” 441. Polemical works provide a very important service to the missionaries themselves, preparing their listeners for a missionary interview and getting them interested even before the conversation, to which they therefore appear not with idle curiosity, but with “the desire to learn more from the missionary about their doubts” 442 caused by reading polemical works. This is the importance of polemical literature in the fight against schism at the present time. Now the question is, how did M. Filaret feel about this literature, what importance did he attach to it, and did he generally rank it highly among other educational tools in the fight against the schism? Turning to his numerous opinions and reviews on issues related to the schism, we, which is quite remarkable, do not find in any of them that M. Philaret recommends polemical literature among other spiritual measures against the schism. But that he was, in principle, not against moderate polemics, this can be seen from one remark he made regarding the publication of one polemical work, although not against the schism - “Notes on the disagreement of the Armenian Church with the Eastern Orthodox Church.” “I cannot agree with the idea,” he wrote on this occasion, that it is more likely to assume harm from the publication in the light of this work,” because it is “in a polemical spirit, although moderate.” 443 It was not harmful that the Apostle Paul wrote polemically against the Galatians “about the misunderstanding of Galatians” and so on. It was not harmful that Athanasius the Great wrote and published polemical writings against the Arians in the world, and many fathers against many unjust thinkers. The fact that “Armenians live within the borders of our fatherland” does not prevent us from telling them the truth against their sinful opinions. And how will we lead them to the truth if we do not expose erroneous opinions?” 444 So, polemics with those who think wrongly, according to M. Philaret, are not only not harmful, but even positively necessary. As for the anti-schism polemics in particular, the attitude of the Moscow saint towards it is sufficiently characterized by the fact that he encouraged workers in this field, for example. Hegumen Parthenius 445 to the monk Paphnutius 446 that he himself, despite his many-sided activities, combined with his high position, found it possible, albeit “in fragments, stealing time from other urgent matters,” 447, to write the famous “Conversations to the Verbal Old Believer.” But along with these positive facts, one cannot help but point out the negative ones, which indicate that M. Filaret did not attach the importance to polemical literature that it enjoys at the present time. One can find several expressions on this subject from him, where he even seems to deny the importance of polemical works in the fight against schism in view of the fact that schismatics do not read the works of Orthodox writers aimed at exposing them. So, in one of his letters to the Reverend. Evlampius (Pyatnitsky), instructing him to write church history “to admonish schismatics” and at the same time giving instructions on what the nature of this history should be, he notes: “if you write directly polemically, you must be afraid of the same disaster to which polemical works in general are subject: they will run around writing such writings and will not know the truth and will not come to their senses” 448 . In another letter to the same Eminence, examining one of the latter’s polemical articles against schism, he agrees with his opinion that “it is quite difficult to talk with schismatics, because the rigid among them have little ability to reason and are afraid of new learning” 449. In the same way, in one of his opinions, he testifies: “schismatics for the most part are looking for an excuse to stand in their alienation, and they repeat their resolved objections, not paying attention to the resolution that has already been made.” 450 Whatever evidence we present to them, “against the evidence of truth, they have the evidence of benefits, which seems better to them. We establish ourselves on arguments, and they on money” 451. It is impossible not to see that in these judgments of the Moscow saint there is a significant amount of truth, especially for that time. The schismatics, indeed, are reluctant to take on the polemical book of an Orthodox writer; and the most fanatical of them are positively afraid of these books, “considering it a great sin not only to read, but even to pick them up” 452. And only recently have such prejudices begun to be eradicated little by little, especially among the younger generation of schismatics. “Polemical books, testifies one missionary (I. A. Dolgov), have a great influence on young Old Believers, who read them with particular curiosity” 453. “It’s true,” says another missionary – already known to us, Fr. Pimen, the Old Believers are at first reluctant to take the books; But they will take one or two more intelligent ones, read them and tell others what they have read, begin to discuss among themselves, and little by little they will develop a desire to learn more about their doubts from the missionary” 454. “When I, he gives an example from personal experience, in 1884 began to have conversations with the Old Believers closest to us and began to distribute books to them, they did not want to take them, they called the books false, and they called me a false teacher: but, persistent, with suggestion and patience, I achieved the point that now they willingly take, even ask themselves, if only there was something to give” 455. Thus, for polemical works to achieve their goal, it is not enough just to write them; no, it is still necessary to take care of distributing them among the Old Believers; it is necessary to open anti-schism libraries and book warehouses in areas infected with schism; we even need to distribute such works freely 456. This is something that was least of all taken care of during the time of Metropolitan Philaret. That is why the schismatics did not read polemical books. In view of this, the negative judgments that we encounter in M. Philaret also become clear to us. It should be added to this that at that time the number of useful polemical works was insignificant. It is known that a new movement in anti-schism literary polemics, as well as in missionary work, began only in the mid-sixties and, again, thanks to the same people who gave impetus to missionary work, i.e. thanks to the same society of newly joined Old Believers, led by the monk Paul. Until this time, looking into history, we will say in the words of Prof. Ivanovsky, for almost two centuries we have not seen what is called the scientific struggle against schism, scientific polemics. True, during that time essays were written against the split. But firstly, there are so few of them that over the indicated period of time you can count everything on your fingers; secondly, they were purely random in nature and taken together do not represent anything systematic; thirdly, they mainly concern ritual issues, almost completely ignoring the emerging schismatic doctrines - so that based on them it is not only possible to refute the teachings of the schismatics, but also to study the schism only in the most general, or purely random terms. With all this, a significant part of this literature, due to its harsh nature, not only could not be useful, but even brought harm, giving rise to criticism from schismatics against the Orthodox Church - we mean the issue of the so-called “cruel censures” of old rituals. In addition, in some polemical works of the indicated time, one can see not entirely accurate judgments, the substantiation of evidence on unreliable documents - which is now recognized by everyone. Therefore, some modern teachers and defenders of the schism do not like to take on anything more than polemical books, exposing not only the censures contained in them, but also pointing out mutual contradictions, and equally dubious evidence 457. Metropolitan Filaret understood as well as possible the weaknesses of the polemical anti-schismatic works existing in his time. His demands from literary polemics of this kind diverged significantly from what he saw before him. In his opinion, polemical literature must satisfy two main requirements in order to achieve its goal - influencing schismatics. Since the task of the literary struggle against schism, in the words of the Moscow saint, is not “to defeat the enemy, but to take him into saving captivity with the weapon of peace”; 458 then works polemical against schism should first of all be distinguished by a “spirit of patience and peace” 459, i.e. the same qualities with which, in his opinion, all spiritual measures against schism should be imbued. Therefore, he constantly arms himself against harsh expressions and censures in polemical writings of this kind. “The manuscript and the list of comments on it (Reverend Leonid), he writes in one resolution, will be forwarded to the builder (of the Guslitsky Monastery - Father Parthenia); and remind him of what was said to him before, that the manuscript requires correction in thoughts and expressions, that the censures must be eliminated” 460. After some time, he reminds Fr. of this again. Parthenia. “Perhaps you,” he writes in a letter to the latter, should pay more attention to my warning against the use of censures. Due to lack of time, I was unhappy with your latest works. I do not postpone my intention to promote their movement by becoming more familiar. Shimei throws stones at David, and David, without answering him, goes his own way. Go your own way, without grieving or being angry at unappointed judges.” 461 In other cases, he also expressed the reason for such a demand, namely, the fear that schismatics would abandon and not read the book because of such expressions. “I’m starting to read sheets about the schism,” he wrote to A.N. Muravyov, meaning the latter’s essay – “The Schism Convicted by Its History.” “On the first page of the preface I find the expression: “schismatic crowds.” Is it necessary to tease people with a reproachful word at the very beginning of a speech if you want them to listen to you? And it is desirable that schismatics do not abandon their books after reading only the first page, and become curious to read further.” 462 Similarly, in the comments on the “Admonitory Epistle (Bishop. bonfire Vladimir) to the Pomeranians and re-baptized people,” he, among other things, writes: “and since the work is full of reproaches rather than arguments, one can rightly fear that they will either not read it, or that it will produce irritation rather than edification” 463 . Similarly, M. Filaret is arming himself against paintings that “mockery” the schismatics. “That the non-Orthodox create mocking pictures is a matter of their enmity and dark superstition. It is proper for Orthodoxy to speak about enemies without mockery” 464. Even in writings that were not directly related to the schism, he did not tolerate ridicule and mockery of schismatics. Thus, regarding the expression “the holiness of the Rogozh concoction” used by the Eminence Philaret (Gumilevsky) in his “History of the Russian Church,” he noted in his review of this story: “this is said about the imaginary holy world, which the schismatics of the Rogozh cemetery illegally attempted to compose and consecrate. Although their work is extremely wrong and unseemly, however, since this is a religious matter and an effort to imitate the sacrament of the church, it would be undesirable to encounter a rude and mocking word from a sedate Orthodox historian.” 465 On the other hand, polemical works must be demonstrative. “Condemnations of the schism, uttered in general and at random, will not be according to the thoughts of the schismatics,” wrote Metropolitan Philaret to His Eminence Evlampios. 466 Regarding the “very heavy, but not very reliable accusations” made by this Eminence in one polemical word against the schismatics, he advises him to “ask himself more often whether it is quite indisputable that I am speaking against those who disagree” 467. The most evidence given in works of this kind. must be thorough, correct and not borrowed from any dubious documents. Therefore, the stretches and inaccuracies in one polemical work by the Reverend. Evlampy received a remark from M. Philaret. 468 How strictly he looked at this matter in general is shown by his attitude towards the famous conciliar “Act against the heretic Martin,” which was still considered by many at that time to be one of the main evidence against the schism. 469 It cannot be said that in “Conversations to the Verbal Old Believer” there was no talk at all about Martin the Armenian; it was also mentioned there, but it was said with noticeable caution, and the Act itself was not mentioned at all. This is precisely this very remarkable passage in the “Conversations”: “some people borrowed this (the inscription of the name of the Savior Jesus) in the second tenth century after the Nativity of Christ, from the Armenian monk Martin, about which I will not go into the study now: because this would require a short and polysyllabic study. However, do not be afraid, lover of antiquity; I do not agree to give many of our good and venerable Great Russian ancestors as disciples to a foreign false teacher who appeared in Kyiv, was denounced, anathematized, exiled to Greece, and burned there. The members of the Hundred Glavny Cathedral are certainly not Martin’s disciples.” 470 And so, in his “Conversations to the Verbal Old Believer” M. Filaret did not reject the historical reality of the personality of Martin the Armenian, as a foreign false teacher who appeared in Kyiv in the 12th century without suffering a known fate; but even here he has already very clearly stated that he does not agree to find a genetic connection between schismatic opinions and the teachings of Martin, and that in any case, the study of whether such a connection exists should be “short and polysyllabic,” and therefore inconvenient in a short conversation on the private issue of the name Jesus; M. Philaret did not mention the Council Act, from which the evidence against the schism was actually borrowed. This special caution with which he spoke in his “Conversations” about Martin the Armenian, M. Filaret explains in one letter, written shortly after the publication of the first edition of his “Conversations” 471. This is what he writes here: “I thank you for encouraging me in the matter of conversations with the Old Believer. Are you mentioning the conciliar action against Martin to remind me of my pass about it? I have not forgotten about him, I do not say it with intention: and not only because for the sake of brevity I am not saying everything, but by choice, but also for another reason, which seems more important to me. I would like my doubts about the authenticity of this act to be satisfactorily resolved. Then I would refer to it. The Reverend Nicephorus, a thorough researcher, attracted me with the power of attorney that I have for him, writing in his answers that there is evidence about Martin from Greek writers; but I wandered with his instructions through Byzantine historians, and this is one case in which I did not find the instructions of the Right Reverend Nicephorus accurate. The legend he pointed to does not resemble the Kiev story about Martin” 472. Three years later, in a letter to the Reverend. He speaks out even more decisively regarding this “Act” to Evlampius: “I will also say this is my opinion, about which I am very sure that many people share it. I would not put forward (in church history “to admonish schismatics,” which Rev. Eulampius) so sharply the case of the heretic Martin; The more importance given to this matter in history, the more damaging the rather strong objections that exist against it can be. It is difficult to draw clear and convincing conclusions from a dark beginning." 473 Subsequently, having finally become convinced of the inauthenticity of the “Act”, from examining the very original of the latter, stored in the Moscow Synodal Sacristy, 474 Filaret even expressed a desire for Orthodox writers to treat this Act critically and acknowledge its inauthenticity in print. “It would be worth the effort,” he wrote to A.V. Gorsky, regarding one article by Prof. Subbotin, - to write about the Act on Martin with more free criticism than the new ones... Is it possible to put the matter this way? The act presents signs of inauthenticity; those who used it against the schismatics were not familiar with archeology and critical techniques, and therefore trustingly took advantage of the favorable document. The significant fault lies with the unknown, who decided to serve the truth with untruth.” 475 Of the other requirements imposed by M. Philaret on polemical works, we point out the following. Firstly, he advised “to draw the opinions of those accused from the correct and original sources and to explain them according to the spirit and understanding of those who accept them, so as not to have the vain labor of fighting with the idols that we ourselves have erected 476, and therefore “the lack of accurate indications of the sources” he considered “taking away part of the dignity and strength of the composition.” 477 Further, “in the chain of errors connecting any society,” in this case a schismatic one, in his opinion, “one should try to discern the first link and destroy the beginning, so that the consequences would be cut off with the same blow” 478. Therefore, he considered it unnecessary to dwell in polemical writings on unimportant issues, which only “uselessly confuse the matter” 479; therefore, as we mentioned earlier, when admonishing schismatics, he advised not to pay attention to trifles, but to talk only about the more important - pointing out the harm of removing schismatics from the church, etc. Finally, in order to have practical value, polemical works must meet the needs of the time 480 and be appealing to the common people 481. These fair demands were far from being satisfied by the existing polemical literature, which the schismatics therefore did not read. Meanwhile, in the schism, more and more new writings appeared, directed against the Orthodox Church and in defense of the schism, which secretly spread and did their job in their circle and the circle of the common people close to it. Such a sad situation for Orthodoxy in the literary struggle against the schism forced M. Philaret to enter this field himself, which resulted in the famous “Conversations to the Verbal Old Believer.” It is precisely with these motives that he explains his literary activity against the schism. “Noticing,” he writes in a letter to Metropolitan Seraphim, that the schismatics published to admonish them from St. They do not read the books of the Synod, and some of them write essays against the church and secretly distribute them, and from this I concluded that it is necessary to write again to admonish schismatics, and, moreover, in such a way that the work on the presentation of the subjects can be easily understood by any reader, and so that it attracts the attention of lovers of antiquity with indications of the antiquity that they themselves respect, either forgotten or unnoticed” 482. The first three conversations: “about the worshiped name of Jesus and about true church antiquity”, “about the symbol of faith”, “about the four-pointed cross” - were written in the spring of 1834 and initially appeared as they were written in Christian Reading. At the beginning of 1835, two new conversations were written: “an additional conversation about the worshiped name of Jesus” and “a conversation about the hundred-domed cathedral and about true harmony with the Orthodox Church,” in addition, at the same time an addition to the previous conversation about the four-pointed cross was written. All these conversations and additions, according to the definition of the Holy Synod of April 4 / March 5, 483, were published in the same year as a separate book. This was the first edition of “Conversations to the Verbal Old Believer.” Subsequently, new conversations were included in the new editions: “about the grace of the bishops and priesthood”, “about ancient manuscripts and especially about Svyatoslav’s selection”, “about the second collection of Svyatoslav”, “about folding fingers for the sign of the cross and for blessing” and “about five-prosphoria and seven-prosphoria” - and also new additions were made to the previous and newly compiled conversations. As can be seen from the very titles of the conversations, in most cases they consider ritual issues 484. This is their similarity with the polemical works existing before M. Filaret. They are also similar to some of them in that they borrow the Old Believers’ view of these rituals from the so-called “Solovetsky Petition” 485. The main difference and at the same time an important advantage of “Conversations to the Verbal Old Believer” is the abundance of evidence taken by M. Philaret from ancient Slavic manuscripts and early printed books; Moreover, we note that the question of the inscription of the name of the Savior Jesus, as well as the name-and-name blessing, is particularly rich in evidence. Another advantage of the conversations is their - to say the least calm - loving tone, calling schismatics to peace and unity. “This is the voice of a mother,” said the Reverend. Arkady Permsky about Conversations,” painful for her children, seeking their eternal salvation.” 486 The conversations, upon their very appearance in the Christian Reading, made an impression on the schismatics, “noticeably aroused their attention,” as M. Philaret himself testified at the same time in a letter to His Eminence Seraphim 487 . Subsequently, when a separate edition of these conversations appeared in 1835, M. Philaret took care of distributing them as widely as possible among the schismatics of his diocese. For this purpose, he sent out several copies of them in the same year (Aug. 23) to some deans in Moscow and districts where there are more schismatics, so that “they would try in a decent manner, directly, or through favorable means, to bring these books into the hands and reading of those who have deviated from the church, who can read and hear them with reasonable attention and, consequently, with the hope of benefit.” At the same time, he asks that the results of this measure be reported to him and “demand them (conversations) and, if they see cases, use them usefully” 488 . He also gave similar instructions to distribute polemical works against them to schismatics to the governor of the Sergius Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony. “I am sending you 50 copies of conversations with the said Old Believer, each printed separately,” he wrote to him in 1840, with a new edition of these conversations. Use it and tell me what this experience shows” 489. “I am sending, taking this opportunity,” he wrote to him in a letter of 1855, several printed notebooks and, by the way, about the curse, because schismatics sometimes come to you, for whom this solution to their doubts was written” 490. “Conversations” of M. Philaret have not lost their significance to this day; they still make a strong impression on the schismatics, as can be judged by the testimonies of the schismatics themselves, which we find in some stories about life in the schism of those who converted to the Orthodox Church. For example: what the Arkhangelsk peasant, former schismatic Evdokim Yuzhakov, writes about this in his autobiography: “I with all zeal began to read both the “Diary” (of a missionary of the Vyatka diocese) and “Conversations to a Verbal Old Believer,” where the falsity of the Solovetsky petition, which I had previously respected so much, was exposed. This reading completely confirmed my disposition towards the Orthodox Church, and I liked the books so much that I I went again to the Verkolsky monastery and began to ask the novice (who gave books to read) to sell them to me” 491. That the “Conversations” have not lost their significance to this day is evidenced by the fact that they continue to be published again and sold in significant quantities 492. With this we end the section on spiritual measures against schism. We examined all four spiritual ways of influencing the schism that have existed for a long time and are still practiced today: we tried to show how M. Philaret treated each of these methods and what he did in the area of ​​each of them. In order to better understand M. Philaret’s view of this or that spiritual weapon in the fight against schism, we tried, as much as our acquaintance with the literature on this issue allowed us, to indicate the contemporary situation of M. Philaret in this matter. Letter from M. Philaret to the Reverend. Ignatius of Voronezh. Read total loves. spirit. enlightenment 1871 No. 4, p. 44. Assembled. opinion and review vol. 11, p. 363. Ibid., vol. V, part 2, pp. 741–742. Ibid., vol. III, p. 529. . Ibid., vol. II, p. 364. Resolution. Aug 13 1829 Shower floor. Thurs. 1890 Part I, 123. Assembled. opinion and review vol. II, p. 409. Ibid., vol. III, p. 285. Assembled. opinion and review Vol. V Part I, p. 344. See Minister's Journal. adv. enlightenment 1833 November, p. 3. Review of foreign-language newspapers and magazines in Russia. Note. m. Filareta. Assembled. opinion and review vol. II, p. 365. Four years later, he writes about the schismatics’ distrust of secular mentors as an undoubted fact. see Collection. opinion And. review vol. IV, p. 164. The same fact was stated recently by the Moscow anti-schism missionary congress of 1887. Brother. Slovo, 1887. II vol. pp. 47–48. Having collected. opinion and review vol. III, p. 406, § 3. Letters of M. Philaret to Anthony, vol. I, p. 225. Soulful. Thurs. 1879, part II, p. 127. Ibid., 1891, part II, p. 286. Assembled. opinion and review t. add. p. 600, § 5. Assembled. opinion and review vol. III, p. 362, § 8. Ibid., vol. III, p. 362, § 8. Ibid., vol. III, § 10; Wed vol. IV, p. 56, § 8. Ibid., vol. III, p. 403, § 2. Ibid., vol. III, p. 363. Church Bulletin, 1891 No. 7, p. 106. Assembled. opinion and review vol. IV, p. 278. Soulful. read 1890 Part I, p. 356. Ibid., 1892, part 1, p. 147. Committee Journal 1864 p. 46. Assembled. opinion and review vol. III, p. 180. Here’s a fact from that time to illustrate: “When I grew up,” says one former Old Believer, Kozma Ladoikin, in his autobiography, it was desirable for my father to send me to school; but the mother did not want this and insisted on her decision. “I will not give my son, she said to the father, to the heretics to study heretical sciences.” Brother. Slovo, 1886, vol. II, p. 175. How strong the influence of relatives on a schismatic student really is in this regard, and how difficult it is to combat this influence of schools, can be indicated by the example of another Old Believer, who also later converted to Orthodoxy: - Kirill Iosifov Korelin, who in his “narrative of life in a schism” writes: “I studied well; in the third year he even became the first student. Our teacher was good, he demanded that we fulfill our Christian duty, and the priest taught us to read and sing in the choir. I performed all this; but in my soul I was alienated from the church, remembering my uncle’s stories.” Brother. Slovo, 1888, vol. I, p. 440. Assembled. opinion and review vol. III, pp. 405–406, § 2. Ibid., p. 158. True, the influence of this school was limited only to schismatics, less bitter; The schismatics, who were more bitter, did not send their children to this school either, as the head of the Preobrazhensky almshouse, the official Potulov, testified and which M. Philaret did not deny. Ibid., p. 163, VIII. Ibid., vol. III, p. 406, § 4. Resolution dated March 18, 1837 Soulep. Thurs. 1875 vol. III, p. 127. Assembled. opinion and review vol. V, part I, p. 313. Resolution dated March 3, 1855 Orlov. ed. page 25. Resolution dated March 18, 1837 Soulep. Thurs. 1875 III, p. 127. Collection opinion and review vol. III, p. 362, § 10; Wed vol. IV, p. 58, § 8. Assembled. opinion and review vol. III, p. 362, § 9. Letters to Antony, vol. I, p. 303. Thurs. total love spirit. enlightenment 1877 dept. III, p. 10. Assembled. opinion and review vol. V, part 2, p. 587, § 4. The said rules are placed in the “collection of resolutions regarding the schism” under October 17. 1836, pp. 177–178 by ed. 1875; they are also given in Varadinov, pp. 318–320 and in the “Report of the Muscovites. Consistory Metropolitan Philaret": "spiritual measures against schism." Readings in the imperial total history and ancient Russian 1875 III book. V department 136–137 pp. Let us note by the way that by decree of May 12, 1837, the establishment of such schools was recommended by the Holy Synod “not only in parishes infected with schism to weaken the schism, but also in others to protect against schism by early instruction in the spirit of Orthodoxy.” See report, page 133. See consistory report, page 138. Right there. At the same time, in his “draft instructions for the dean of churches,” the drafting of which dates back to 1838, Filaret included among the duties of the dean: to observe “that priests try to establish home schools to teach village children reading, prayers and the rudiments of the catechism.” See dept. IV, § 64 of this instruction, Dushep. Thurs. 1872 1 vol. p. 451. Resolution March 30, 1837 Shower. Thurs. 1877 III vol., p. 246. Resolution 16 Sep. 1837 Orlov. ed., pp. 42–43. Resolution January 25, 1837 Soulep. Thurs. 1877, part III, p. 245. Read total loves. 1872 book. V, dept. III. page 95. Resolution March 18, 1837 Soulep. Thurs. 1875, part III, p. 127. Assembled. opinion and review Vol. III. page 362. See eg. resolution from 11 Oct. 1843 in Orel. ed. pp. 20–21; from 10 Jul. – Aug 10 1843 in Dushep. Thurs. 1891 vol. I, p. 185; dated December 23, 1855 Shower. Thurs. 1872 vol. I. 117 pp. Assembled. opinion and review vol. III, p. 363. Letter from M. Filaret to M. N. Muravyov. Thurs. General love spirit. enlightenment 1878 dept. III., materials, p. 222. In the same way, and in the convent designed for the same purpose - to fight the schism, although not founded - it was planned to start a similar education for girls, which the capable nuns were supposed to study “without the establishment of a special school, in cells with the blessing and order of the abbess.” Letter from Filaret to M. N. Muravyov. Thurs. in general love spirit. enlightenment 1883, part III – materials, p. 38, § 27. Assembled. opinion and review t. additional p. 461, § XXII. See cit. pis. Muravyov on Thursday total love d. pr. 1878 Letter from M. Filaret to M. N. Muravyov, ibid., p. 224, 1878 About the trust of local Old Believers in this school in later times, see correspondence: “from Guslitsy” in “Rus. Vedom", 1880 No. 84 and 102. Quoted. according to A. Prugavin, “Split-sectarianism”, vol. I, Moscow. 1887, p. 122, no. 738. See also Brother. Word 1891 vol. II, p. 236. Letter from M. Philaret gr. S. G. Stroganov. Shower. read 1891, part I. p. 317. Resolution 29 Jan 1829 Soulep. Thurs. 1890. I vol. p. 123. Words from the speech of M. Philaret to Leonid, Bishop. Dmitrovsky, see the works of M. Filaret, vol. V, ed. 1885 p. 493. Assembled. opinion and review. vol. III, p. 529. What importance was given to this means in the fight against schism in the past can be seen from the following examples: in one synodal resolution on affairs. Schism (Book II. p. 70), dating back to 1807, directly prohibits the priests of the city of Uralsk from converting schismatics to the path of truth “by competition (which is now an interview), and for this purpose only “meekness of example” and “holiness of life” are recommended; in the secret decree of St. Synod of 1800 (March 22) and in a circular manner by the St. Petersburg Metropolitan. Ambrose, the clergy were forbidden to enter into any kind of relations with schismatics. See "Report" in Moscow. Consistory Metropolitan Philaret. Thurs. in general history and ancient 1875 book. III. dept. V, p. 134; Wed collected. opinion and review vol. IV, p. 221. It is known that during interviews, one of the important arguments that schismatic rabble-rousers like to resort to, proving the heresy of the Greek-Russian Church, is the fact of the existence of “unworthy” priests in the latter. In view of this, as is known, in Ozersky’s “Extracts”, in contrast to the schismatic argument, a number of extracts are placed under one of the headings on the topic that “grace also acts through an unworthy priest” (Part I, pp. 127–148, according to the 1887 edition). See eg. Brother. Slovo, 1893, vol. I, p. 323, where a very instructive example in this regard is told from the history of a schism in one parish of the Saratov diocese (the village of wide Buerakh). The schism here intensified in the 60s and 70s of this century, thanks to the harsh treatment and drunken life of the local priest. According to the testimony of one former schismatic propagandist of that area, now Orthodox, he, together with another schismatic peasant, seduced about 400 souls into schism in one year. Resolution 10 Apr 1834 Orlov. ed. page 524. Resolution 3 Sep. 1830 Jubilee. Collection vol. I, p. 265. Resolution November 5 1835 Soulep. Thurs. 1892 Part III. page 696. Resolution 27 Jan 1844 Soulep. Thurs. 1891, part II, p. 439. See eg. resolution March 18, 1841 ibid., 1873, part II. p. 459; resolution 29 Jan 1829 ibid 1890 part I. p. 123; there's a project there. dean's instructions. § 53, ibid., 1872, part I. p. 450; Letter from M. Philaret Vysoch. Special Part II. p. 205. Assembled. opinion and review Vol. II. page 444. Ibid., vol. I. p. 144. This view of M. Philaret on the comparative merit of a good example over polemics in the fight against wrong-minded people was later carried out in the “Draft of the Rule of Spirit. academies", St. Petersburg. 1823 Part I. page 57, §168. We also consider it worth noting that from the archpastors themselves, who were placed in close relations with the schismatics, M. Philaret demanded not just an impeccable, but even a strictly ascetic life. Pis. to Vysoch. Special Part 2, page 203. E. G. Ugryumov in a “frank explanation about himself”, Brother. Slovo, 1888 vol. II. page 387. It should, however; note that the more developed of the schismatics disdain tobacco not because they see in it a “demonic potion,” but based on other very reasonable grounds. See P. D. Shestakov’s conversation with one schismatic priest. Church Led. 1893 No. 1, p. 26, note. Recently, even among schismatics, you can find people who smoke: “they themselves smoke tobacco and remain in the schism,” wrote M. Philaret back in 1864. Collected. opinion and review T. . Part 2, page 642. V. Assembled. opinion and review vol. V. part 2 p. 642, V. Resolution November 5, 1830 Soulep. Thurs. 1886 part II. page 2o1. M. Philaret makes similar thoughts about smoking, its unnaturalness, indecency especially for the clergy and seductiveness in his famous letter to the rector of Moscow. Academy of Archimandrites Evgeniy. Soulful. Thurs. 1863 Part III, pp. 83–85. Resolution 18 Apr 1858 Soulep. Thurs. 1886 Part III p. 502; Wed resolution Aug 24 1834 Jubilee. Collection. pp. 108–109. Resolution 2 Sep. 1864 Soulep. Thursday, 1889, part III. page 382. Resolution 18 Jun 1853 Soulep. Thurs. 1871 part III. dept. II. p. 72. To avoid temptation, he advises that the “article about the granted snuff box” be excluded from Archpriest Nikitsky’s service record. “If the schismatics,” the Metropolitan notes, “were to come across this list, they would tear it out and show it to their own as a reproach to us.” Pis. Philaret to Rev. Nicholas, bishop Dmitrovsky. Read in general love spirit. enlightenment 1870 kg. 10, dept. 2, page 27. Resolution 18 Apr 1858 Soulful. Thurs. 1886 Part III. page 502. Resolution May 24, 1834 Jubilee. collection, page 109. Resolution November 5 1850 Soulep. Thurs. 1880 Part II. p. 252. If M. Filaret looked so strictly at this deficiency in the parish clergy, then one can judge how bitter he was for one bishop (Archbishop of Astrakh. Afanasy Drozdov † 1876), to whom, as M. Filaret wrote to L.I. Karasevsky, “smokes tobacco in front of guests and offers it to guests, and this in a diocese infected with schism?” Pis. to Vysoch. Special Part II. p. 28; Wed letters Filareta to Chief Proc. A.P. Akhmatov, ibid., p. 243. Resolution March 15 1855 Soulep. Thurs. 1872, part II, p. 325; Wed resolution 18 Jun 1856. Ibid., 1890, part II, p. 120. Resolution 7 Jun 1837 Soulep. Thurs. 1873 Part III. page 378. Assembled. opinion and review Vol. IV. page 117. Resolution 3 Sep. 1830 Orlov. ed. p. 524; Wed resolution 29 Jan 1829 Soulep. Thurs. 1890, part 1, page 123. Resolution 29 Jun 1852 Soulep. Thurs. 1887, part I. p. 386. Resolution 28 Dec 1837 Ibid., 1877 Part III. page 253. Resolution 15 Feb. 1850 Orlov. ed. page 16. Resolution Oct 31 1866 Soulep. Thurs. 1880 Part II, pp. 494–495, §§ 2 and 7. Resolution 15 Sep. 1838 Jubilee. collection page 170. Resolution 6 Jan 1833 Jubilee. collection. page 167. Assembled. opinion and review Vol. I. p. 127. Soulful. Thurs. 1889 Part III. p. 249; Wed instructions missionary against Judaism. ibid., 1872, part I, p. 226, § 6. Collected, opinion. and review vol. II, p. 443, cf. vol. 1, p. 145, §2. Letter from M. Philaret to the Reverend. Eulampia. Read in general loves. spirit. enlightenment 1877 dept. III-materials, page 6. Resolution Oct 31 1866 Dushep, Thu. 1880, part II, p. 495, § 5; Wed letter from M. Philaret to the Reverend. Eulampius, where he writes the following regarding simplicity in his word to the people: “it is necessary to lead the people to spiritual activity, but with simple, clear, active instruction, and not through the dark paths of fortune-telling. We who speak to the people often need to remember the apostolic things; “not a lofty thinker, but a humble leader.” Read in general love spirit. enlightenment 1877 dept. III–materials, p. 8. Resolution Apr 7 1830 Orlov. ed. p. 13. Met. Filaret especially armed himself against dry school scholarship in his sermons to the common people, which the pupils of the old theological school so loved to resort to and even flaunt before the people. See M. Philaret’s resolutions in the “notebook for recording plans for Christian teaching.” Read in general history and ancient 1874 book. IV. Resolution Oct 31 1866 Soulep. Thurs. 1880 Part II. page 495, § 5. Resolution Oct 21 1844. Ibid., 1891, part I. p. 184. Resolution M. Philaret on the case of the Rzhev schismatics. Tver dioceses. Gazette of 1882, part II – unofficial, p. 582. At the same time, we consider it useful to point out here the meaning that M. Filaret attached to the word “untimely.” Regarding one article in the instructions to the Penza missionary, which was ordered to exhort schismatics “untimely,” he noted: “This word is subject to different interpretations. A missionary should teach untimely in relation to himself, when he is tired or weak, and a favorable opportunity presents itself. If he untimely bothers schismatics, he will bore him and not teach him.” Soulful. Thurs. 1889, part III, p. 250. Assembled. opinion and review vol. IV, p. 454. Read in general loves. spirit. enlightenment 1878 dept. III–materials, p. 10. Resolution September 3 1830 Soulep. Thurs. 1891, part II, p. 524. Resolution 6 Sep. 1830. Ibid., 1876, part II, p. 123. Resolution May 11, 1862. Ibid., 1886, part II, p. 254. Resolution 12 Sep. 1864. Ibid., 1885, part III, pp. 253–254. In the Moscow diocese there were special exhorters, to which persons from the city clergy were appointed; There was even a weekly rotation between them in holding their positions. See resolution. March 27, 1838 Soulep. Thurs. 1891, part II, pp. 593–594. The order of exhortation in the Moscow diocese can be seen both from the numerous resolutions of M. Philaret on this subject, and in the collected ones. opinion and review t. will add, p. 270. See eg. resolution, dated December 15. 1854 Soulep. Read 1892 Part I, p. 159. Assembled. resolution regarding the split. 1875 pp. 601–602. Read in general love spirit. enlightenment 1878, dept. III page 10. Anniversary collection vol. I, p. 744. This will be discussed in detail below. Resolution 15 Jul. 1866 Soulep. Thurs. 1883, part II, p. 373. See eg. resolution March 17 1836 (Dushep. Thu. 1891, part III p. 157), October 27. 1836 (ibid., part I, p. 509), October 15. 1835 (ibid., 1872, part III, p. 472) December 9. 1854 (Ibid., p. 349), etc. No less than twenty cases of exhortations of schismatics in Moscow. dioceses known to us from the resolutions of M. Philaret, only two were crowned with success: resolution. 1836 March 17. Aug 18 (Dushep. Thur. 1891, part III, pp. 157–158). Pis. m. Philaret to Rev. Nicholas (vicar). Read in general love spirit. enlightenment, 1869 book. VIII, dept. II, p. 88. Letter from M. Philaret to Rev. Gregory. Read in general loves. spirit. enlightenment 1877 dept. III, p. 164. Assembled. opinion and review vol. V. part 2, p. 606; Wed t, III. page 181. Resolution March 17 1843 Soulep. Thurs. 1889, part I. p. 256. Letter from M. Philaret to D.V. Golitsin, ibid., part III, p. 493. Jubilee. collection page 649. The above-quoted letter from M. Philaret to D. V. Golitsin. Escapes of schismatics from exhorters were generally a common occurrence, so the government was forced to find measures against this, as can be seen from one synodal resolution on this subject. Collection regulation, book. II, p. 493. Orthodox interview, 1883, part III, p. 16. In this case, one resolution of M. Filaret is curious. “If the exhorters,” he writes in response to a report from two priests about their unsuccessful exhortation of a schismatic, “spoke to the schismatic (peasant) in learned language, as they write, about the fundamental truths of the faith, then it is not surprising that their speeches hit the wall like peas.” Resolution Oct 19 1866 Orlov. ed. page 64. Add. to creativity St. father Part 37, pp. 330–331. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret D.V. Golitsin. Soulful. Thurs. 1887, part II, p. 121; resolution March 18, 1854 Orlov. ed. page 41. Project instr. Dean churches § 63. Shower. Thurs. 1872 1, 451; Wed resolution 3 Sep. 1830 “to instruct the priest that in all possible cases he should, with an edifying word, try to attract those who are alien to the church and return them to its maternal bosom.” Anniversary collection, p. 265. Assembled. opinion and review vol. II, p. 364. Ibid., vol. IV, p. 329, § 2. Ibid., vol. II, p. 453, §9; III, p. 407, §13; t. additional 369, § 3. Letter from M. Philaret to Archbishop. Tver. Alexy, Moscow, 1883, p. 149. The same attitude towards schismatics, i.e. alien to all authority and officialdom, M. Philaret recognizes them as the most appropriate on the part of the bishops. “It is more convenient,” he writes in one of his opinions on issues of schism, and less threatening with difficulties, not in an authoritative and formal manner, but in a simple, voluntary relationship between a bishop and a schismatic, whom the bishop, out of love for the salvation of souls, will carefully seek and in which he will meekly and peacefully accept the dissenter, in which the schismatic will have less reason to act irritably, in which, finally, an offensive word or action a schismatic will be less important as a nuisance in a private relationship than an insult to a direct superior.” Collection opinion and review vol. III, p. 182. The same way to get closer and talk with schismatics: “my dear, in the community,” M. Philaret advises in a private letter to the Reverend. Evlampius of Yekaterinburg. Read, in general, love. spirit. enlightenment 1877 dept. III – materials, p. 5. Project, instr. dean., § 63. Soul. Thurs. 1872, part II, page 451; Wed Collected, opinion. and review vol. V, part 2, p. 583, § 3. Assembled. opinion and review vol. II p. 453. Resolution May 16, 1851 Soulep. Thurs. 1891, part II, p. 440. Resolution 23 Dec 1865. Ibid., 1888, part II, p. 357. Assembled. opinion and review vol. II, p. 409, c. Ibid., vol. III, p. 180. Resolution May 16, 1851 Shower. Thurs. 1891, Part II. 440 pp., cf. resolution June 28, 1835 Shower. Thurs. 1872, part I., p. 350. M. Philaret advises the bishops the same; see his letter to Evlampius (Pyatnitsky), bishop. Ekaterinburgsky, in which he writes: “the benefits of the secular authorities to Orthodoxy should be carefully and moderately demanded.” Thurs. in general love spirit. enlightenment 1877 III department, materials, p. 9; Wed pis. him to the Reverend. Alexy Tverskoy (p. 269), where he writes: “help from the civil authorities must be asked (only) against exposed seducers and against causing a schism.” Right Interview 1883, Part II, p. 203. Resolution July 30, 1838 Orlov. ed. page 271. Resolution 10 Dec 1856 Shower. Thurs. 1872 Part III. p. 349, Similar examples can also be seen in the resolutions of April 28. 1851 (Dushep. Thur. 1890, part III, p. 460), March 30, 1850 (Dushep. Thur. 1892, part II. p. 289), etc. Letter from M. Philaret to Innocent Kamchatsk. Rus. Archive, 1881, part II, p. 26. Assembled. opinion and review vol. II, pp. 49–50. Ibid., pp. 160, 210, 220. Likewise, he repeatedly insisted (in 1828, 29, 31 and 37) “on the liberation of Orthodox theology from the yoke of pagan and papal Latin”; but I encountered first “disputes” and then “hesitations.” See his letters to Filaret Gumilevsky. Read General loves. 1872 book. III, dept. III, pp. 50 and 52. Collection opinion and review t. add. p. 36. At the same time, we consider it worthwhile to clarify somewhat the position of seminarians who have completed the course, as projected by Philaret, in order to understand the essence of the measure he recommends. These seminarians, according to Philaret’s aforesaid project, although they were considered to have completed the course, before being assigned to places, they had to “be on the seminary lists and belong to the seminary department.” Some of them, the poorest - having neither parents nor relatives - had to live at the seminaries on government support. All of them, as well as those living with relatives, were obliged to use this time before being assigned to places “for further education of themselves and for preparation for their future service”; Moreover, within a certain time frame they had to report on their studies to the seminary authorities (Collected opinions and reviews of additional volumes, pp. 35–37; cf. Vol. II, p. 220). The commission of theological schools approved this project, and the latter, although with some changes, was implemented in the 40s in the so-called “special preparatory classes for candidates for the priesthood who have completed the course of seminary studies” (Collected opinions and reviews of additional volumes, pp. 125–127; resolutions of March 30 and October 24, 1850 in Orlov. ed., pp. 632; resolution December 22, 1855 Read. 1883, part 3, p. 379). “Regulations on the preparatory class for the priesthood in the Moscow diocese.” Soulful. Read 1872, part II, p. 226, XI. The first resolution of the Holy Synod on the opening of missionary departments (at the St. Petersburg Academy and the seminaries of its district) dates back to September 15, 1853. Collected. decided regarding the schism, book. II, pp. 534–540. Assembled. opinion and review t. additional page 387, § 4. Pis. to the rector of Perm. family arch. Alexandru. Soulful. Thurs. 1886 Part I, p. 257. Assembled. opinion and review t. add. page 155. Tver dioceses. Gazette, 1882, part II, No. 22, p. 582. Assembled. opinion and review vol. V, part 2 pp. 968–972. For example resolution Apr 28 1851 (Dushep. Thur. 1890 III, 461), March 30, 1850 (Dushep. Thur. 1892 II, 289), etc. Resolution 27 Dec 1866 Soulep. Thurs. 1882 III, p. 507. Resolution December 28, 1837 Soulep. Thurs. 1877 III, p. 253. Resolution Apr 29 1855 (Dushep. Thu. 1890 II, 234), April 28. 1851 (Dushep. Thu. 1890, part III, p. 460), April 28. 1855 (Shower. Thursday 1892, part II p. 142), etc. Resolution 10 December 1856 Soulep. Thurs. 1872, part III, p. 349. Resolution Apr 28 1851 Soulep. Thurs. 1890 Part III, p. 460; Wed resol. March 30, 1850 (Dushep. Thur. 1892, part II, p. 289). Eg. the falling away into schism of the peasants of the village of Ivashkova (Volokolam. Uyezd), in the amount of 637 people. Resolution 12 Oct. 1861 Orlov. ed. p. 69; You can also point to the village of Sopelki - the main center of the wandering sect. Assembled. opinion and review t. additional page 384. See the letter of M. Philaret to Innokenty Kamchatsky. Rus. Archive. 1881, part II, p. 26. Assembled. opinion and review Vol. V. Part 2, p. 579. Tver. Eparch. Led. 1882 p. 582. Letters to Alexy, Archbishop. Tverskoy, p. 269. Resolution 21 Feb. 1839 Soulep. Read 1891 II part p. 301; Resolution 16 Sep. 1854 Soulep. Thurs. 1890 III, p. 138. Several examples of such persecution of zealous pastors by schismatics are reported by M. Philaret himself in his letters. “Recently, one priest, wrote M. Filaret in 1855, who reported on a schismatic gathering, suffered such harm in his home life and threats from embittered people that it turned out to be necessary to transfer him to another place in order to free him from persecution.” (Collected opinions, vol. IV, pp. 42–43. M. Filaret writes about the same priest, probably, in a letter to the Synodal Chief Prosecutor A.P. Tolstoy; Collected opinions and reviews, vol. IV, p. 230). “In one parish, infected by schism, Filaret wrote to Innocent of Kamchatka, instead of an inactive one, I identified a zealous and active priest, however, meek and cautious; After a few months, a rumor came to the village from which he was transferred that he would be burned, and after a short time his house was burned, and the culprit was not discovered.” (Russian Archives, 1881, part II, p. 26). Two priests of the village of Sopelok “died, according to the testimony of the wanderers during the investigation, not by their own death,” and were thus, in the words of M. Philaret, “victims of fidelity to their duty.” (Collected opinions and reviews, vol. additional, p. 385). These are the resolutions: May 7, 1824 (Collected resolutions, book II, pp. 168–169), April 12. 1836 (ibid. p. 298), May 23, 1853 (ibid., p. 528 - § 5), May 31, 1837 (ibid., p. 743) and others. See also “considerations of the St. Petersburg Secret Advisory Committee on government measures against schismatics” (1823, June 22). § 25. Shower. Read 1883, part II, p. 364. Eg. Bogorodskaya district, Vozdvizhenskaya Church in Selinskaya volost, see resolution. Oct 21 1821 (Anniversary collection, p. 171). Subsequently, as can be seen from the resolution of September 23, 1830 (Dushep. Thur. 1876, II part, p. 244), three Orthodox souls appeared here. In addition, one can also point to the famous “Guslitsy” in this regard, almost entirely populated by schismatics. See the above resolution, dated. 23 Sep. 1830. Resolution 8 Jan 1833 Soulep. Thurs. 1883, part III, p. 122, cf. resolution 30 Jan 1832 Orlov. ed. p. 574. Let us note that no less harmful, in relation to the matter of fighting the schism., M. Philaret considered the “long widowhood” of the diocese. “How long will the Nizhny Novgorod diocese be a widower?” he asks the Reverend. Gregory in letters dated December 12. 1850 regarding the long failure to appoint a successor to the Reverend. Jacob († May 20, 1850). Reverend Jacob began to make his way into the previously impenetrable schismatic sects there; Now, without a bishop, the schismatics have the opportunity to again block them, strengthen their strength, and shake or crush those whose ears and hearts have opened to Orthodoxy. “Read. in general loves. spirit. enlightenment 1877 dept. III, p. 165. M. Filaret tried to obtain the same allowance the following year (1832) for those low-parish churches of the Moscow diocese “that were assigned to the registration; (see letter to the Reverend Nicholas Vicar Reader in the general love spiritual enlightenment 1869 quarter VIII, department II, p. 74) and the existence of which M. Filaret, however, defended, proceeding from those local considerations that “the proximity of large schismatic nests, Rogozhesky and Preobrazhensky cemeteries, and from there the efforts and tricks extended to seduce the Orthodox are made It is very necessary that even in small villages there should be shepherds close by, guarding the verbal flock from being plundered by wolves.” Resolution March 28, 1832 Read. in general loves. spirit. enlightenment 1878 Part III. page 129. cf. letter from M. Philaret to Rev. to Vicar Nicholas from the same March 28, 1832. Ibid., 1869 Prince. VIII, dept. II, p. 52. And in general, M. Filaret was against the reduction of parishes. “As a precaution, the idea was given to those who need it that the clergy should not be reduced, but partly multiplied, partly placed with the convenience of the people,” he wrote. Ave. Arkady of Perm, who feared the reduction of clergy in factories with a schismatic population; pis. High Special Part I, p. 95. Anniversary Collection. pp, 470; Wed resolution 30 Jan 1832 Orl. ed. page 574. Collection opinion and review vol. II, p. 232, § 10 and p. 233, § 12. Soulful. Thurs. 1879 Part III, p. 522; Wed resolution 8 Jan 1833 Soulep. read 1883 h, III, p. 122. “Whoever feels no other incentive to enter into spiritual service other than mercenaryism in order to have bread, it is better not to enter into it,” - this is M. Philaret’s advice to candidates for the priesthood in a letter to his nephew (Soul Reading, 1863, Part III, p. 82); Wed Assembled. opinion and review vol. IV, pp. 424, XVIII. Brother. Word, 1887 No. 11 p. 40; Wed also “the resolution of the Kazan Congress of Bishops is right. churches." (1885), Brother. Word, 1886, No. 7, p. 504, § 8; reasoning of the first (small) Moscow Congress of anti-schismatic missionaries (1886) Brother. Word, 1886 No. 16, p. 441. Assembled. opinion and review vol. II, p. 311, § 7. Assembled. opinion and review vol. II, p. 311, § 9. For this purpose, it was planned to establish only four monasteries in the Bogorodsky district: two for men and two for women (see the Report of M. Philaret to the Holy Synod. Reading in the general love spiritual enlightenment of 1883, part III, p. 30; also his letter to M. N. Muravyov, ibid., p. 31); for the first time it was decided to build one at a time (ibid.). But this decision was not implemented either. M. Filaret, despite urging from M. N. Muravyov (Letter to Anthony, vol. IV, pp. 204, 223, 228), did not dare to build a convent, wise from the experience of building a monastery. Assembled. opinion, and opinion, t. additional. p. 458, § 1; Wed Report of Metropolitan Philaret to the Holy Synod. Thurs. in general love spirit. enlightenment 1883, part II, p. 31; letter from M. Filaret to M. N. Muravyov, ibid., p. 25, § 2; Anniversary collection page 739. When speaking of “coercion,” the Bishop meant, of course, the forced methods of converting Orthodox Christians into schism in local factories owned by wealthy schismatics. See e.g. assembled. opinion and review t. And pp. 267, 328; Vol. V. Part I, p. 497. This word is published in the works of M. Philaret, vol. 7, pp. 494–500, according to ed. 1883 Pis. to Anthony, vol. IV p. 114, cf. page 120. Assembled. opinion and review t. additional pp. 512–513; Wed pis. to Anthony, vol. I, p. 149. "Provisions" § XII. Assembled. opinion and review t. additional page 460. Pis. to Anthony, vol. IV, p. 150. See information about the consecration of the Transfiguration of the Savior. Guslits. monastery, collected. opinion and otz t. additional. page 314. “What a time of darkness and gloom! M. Philaret complained about one of these difficulties to his friend, Archimandrite Anthony, “you want to get out of an unclear situation and you find yourself in a darker one.” Pis. from 10 Oct. 1858. IV vol. p. 119. “I continue to think,” he wrote to him the next day, how the path is open, and I still don’t go out into the light,” ibid. p. 121. “The builder Parthenius is becoming bitter!” Vladyka wrote much later. Pis. dated March 30, 1859; ibid., p. 173. A little earlier than this (April 4), in the lower part of the church, the boundary of the Resurrection of Christ was consecrated, “hastily built in order to quickly provide the brethren with the consolation of church services.” (Letter from Filaret to M.N. Muravyov). Thurs. in general love spirit. enlightenment 1878 Part III, p. 221; Wed pis. Anthony, vol. IV, p. 178. Collection opinion And. additional pp. 513–514; The Metropolitan also described his trip to Guslitsy to illuminate the monastery in a letter to A.N. Muravyov (dated June 3), pp. 554–555. The Moscow saint repeatedly complained about this impracticality of the builder. See writing. High Special Part II, p. 257; pis. A. N. Muravyov, p. 560. This debt extended up to 23,000 rubles, as it turned out according to the presented accounts (Letter to Anthony, IV volume 228 pp.), and even up to 40,000, as the Metropolitan wrote to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod (Letter of the High. Special Part II, p. 257). Pis. Anthony, vol. IV, p. 199. Initially, Parthenius thought to build a monastery with 25 thousand, but at the end of the work, it turned out that the monastery was built with 100 thousand (Ibid., p. 228). Thurs. in general loves. spirit. enlightenment 1878, part III, p. 222. Approximately in September or October 1859, as can be judged from the contents of the letter, and not on May 21, as shown in the General Readings. loves. See eg, Collected. opinion and review Vol. V Part I pp. 217–224. These icons were purchased from a fellow believer - the overseer of the Preobrazhensky cemetery, A. E. Sorokin. Collection opinion and review vol. V, part I, p. 213, note. Pis. Anthony, vol. IV, p. 150. Brother. word, 1886 vol. II; page 128. The missions that existed before this time were of a random nature; These are, for example. missions of Pitirim and Neophytos at the beginning of the 18th century; These are the temporary Perm missions of 1738, 1788 and 1800. For the latter, see works. arch. Palladium: “review of the Perm schism,” pp. 55–57. St. Petersburg. 1863 Assembled. resolution according to the part of the schism, book. 2, p. 209; resolution 10 Apr Ibid., p. 211; resolution 24 Apr Ibid., p. 256; resolution Aug 19 In 1835 this mission was strengthened by two new missionaries, ibid., p. 271. Ibid., p. 287; resolution Aug 19 Ibid., p. 331; resolution 8 June–11 July In 1840 this mission was strengthened by four new missionaries, ibid., p. 375. Ibid., p. 362; fast. Oct 14 So in one year, 1855, four missions were founded: Arkhangelsk (p. 606), Kaluga (p. 615), Courland (p. 626) and St. Petersburg (p. 713). These missionaries are called “government” in contrast to the missionaries of the present time, because they were all on government salaries. Assembled. resolution regarding the schism, book. II, p. 526. Ibid., book. II, p. 740. Ibid., p. 376; Wed 350. The only exception, it seems, was the Perm mission, which, mainly thanks to the vigilant care of the Rev. Arcadia (1831–1851), which he did not abandon and moved to another diocese (Olonets), was established so rationally and firmly that it was a huge success. An observer of the Perm schism testifies that thanks to her, in the Perm diocese in the period from 1836 to 1851, more than 61 thousand were converted from the schism. (Review Perm. rask. p. 83). And how great were the concerns of the Reverend. Arkady about the mission, as evidenced by his entertaining correspondence, published in Chr. reading and Brother. word, from which it is clear that Rev. Arkady was not only ex officio, by virtue of his position, but in fact the first missionary in his diocese. To characterize the organization of the missionary work of that time, we will use the instructions and instructions to the missionaries known to us: 1) instructions to the Arkhangelsk missionary priest Pavlovsky (printed in the collection of instructions according to Part II, book II, pp. 780–785), 2) instructions to the Simbirsk missionaries (ibid., p. 787), 3) instructions to the missionary in the Penza diocese and 4) “instruction to the godly missionary.” The last two instructions were not sanctioned by the Holy Synod, as they were subjected to thorough criticism by Metropolitan Philaret. But they are also important for us because they express the views of the Moscow saint’s contemporaries on missionary work. The Penza instruction was presented to the Holy Synod with a report from the local archbishop. Varlaam. it was published with M. Philaret’s comments on it and, within the limits of these comments, in Dushep. reading 1889, part III, pp. 249–251. “Admonition to the dean missionary,” with M. Philaret’s comments on it and again within the limits of these comments, is placed in the Collection. opinion and otz vol. IV, pp. 433–435. In its entirety, it is located between the manuscripts of the Church and Archaeological Museum in Kyiv. spirit. Academy and published in the “Guide for Shepherd Villages.” 1882 Part II, pp. 407–416. The publisher of this manuscript attributes the composition, or at least the editing, of this manual to Rev. Gregory, which is quite natural, as can be judged from M. Philaret’s letter to Rev. Gregory. Read in general love spiritual, enlightenment 1877 dept. III, p. 182. So, for example in Dorpat district. the missionary was the dean (Collection of regulations, p. 287, also in the Arkhangelsk diocese (p. 727); in the Simbirsk and Saratov dioceses - city archpriests (pp. 786 and 273), etc. See note. m. Philaret § 1. How. The side responsibilities of the missionary were complex, one can judge from the fact that in the extensive “instruction” of Rev. Gregory, only one § 9 treats missionary tasks in the proper sense; yet the remaining paragraphs are devoted to detailing the secondary duties of the missionary. To what impossible extent these demands extended can be seen from Article 8 of the instructions to the Penza missionary, who was instructed to ensure that the clergy were distinguished by the gift of “the word.” “It’s not clear how he can do this,” M. Filaret remarks with irony. He cannot dismiss everyone who does not have the gift of speech and replace them with others who are excellent.” According to the testimony of the modern Saratov missionary K. A. Popov, the clergy in those days even taught schismatics how to respond to the admonitions of the “official” missionary and how to generally behave in front of him in order to save themselves and them from his frequent attacks, which were equally unpleasant for both the clergy and the schismatic. Church General Vestnik, 1880 No. 128, p. 5 - “from Volsk.” Art. 19 and 21 as presented by M. Philaret. Assembled. opinion and review vol. V, part 2, p. 967. We consider this letter addressed to the Eminence of Penza, and not to Kazan, as it is written in the Collected Opinions of Metropolitan Philaret. It was written by Filaret about a missionary trip to the village. Paim, (Penz province of Chembar district) Paul of Prussia was a letter of recommendation for the latter. The publisher assigned the village of Paim to the Cheboksary district (Kazan province). Hence the further error in the address of the letter. Assembled. resolution regarding the schism, book. II, p. 210. So eg. The Kaluga missionary was denied these books by the Holy Synod, due to the lack of them in the library of the Holy Synod. Collection regulation by hour, color book, book. II, p. 806. A highly interesting example of interviews with schismatics of former missionaries is described in the Church. total Vestn. 1880 No. 128; see cit. article by K. Popov. This is what the historian of the Perm schism testifies, - arch. Palladium, page 81. Assembled. resolution book II, p. 414. That the missionaries of that time did not shy away from police measures to convert schismatics, this can also be seen from the fact that Rev. Gregory, sending the missionaries he trained to their dioceses, recommends that the bishops instruct the missionaries to act on the schismatics “while standing on the apostolic foot, i.e. without any benefit from the local police." (Collected regulations, book II, p. 586). If police measures had not previously been practiced by missionaries, such advice would have no meaning. Assembled. resolution in terms of coloring book II, p. 211. This request of Rev. Irenea is in many ways reminiscent of the request of Rev. Evgeniya, archbishop. Yaroslavsky, about sending police officials to be present at official admonitions to those seduced into schism, since, according to the observation of the bishop, only under this condition the admonitions were valid. (Ibid., p. 505). Assembled. regulation according to the part of the schism, book. II, pp. 548–550. Letter from Rev. Macarius to Innocent, Archbishop of Kherson, Christ. Read 1881 vol. I, p. 812. Assembled. resolution according to the part of the schism, p. 586. Christ. Read 1884 1 part p. 815. It is known that one of these missionaries, Kaluga priest Dimitry Belyaev, subsequently fled even to the schismatics. Dov. detailed information about it is reported to Bratsk. Slovo, 1884, vol. II, pp. 447–453. Subsequently (in 1838) Rev. Gregory, at that time already Metropolitan of Novgorod. and St. Petersburg, a permanent missionary institute of 5 or 7 widowed priests of the “dioceses entrusted to it” was founded “in the monastery belonging to the Alexander Nevsky Lavra.” Collected, decreed. page 815. Letters of M. Philaret to Anthony, vol. III, p. 142. About this letter to Rev. Gregory with objections to his project M. Filaret mentions in a previous letter to Anthony, p. 141; Wed, page 133. Pis. from November 19 1864 Add. to creativity St. father Part 44, pp. 107–108. Letters to the Highest. Special Part II, p. 282. Letters from M. Philaret, arch. Anthony, vol. IV, p. 231. Read in general loves. spirit. enlightenment 1877 dept. III, p. 186. What's in the project Rev. Innocent there was nothing utopian; the best proof of this is the example of one Starodubsky Edinoverie monk, Fr. Pimen, wandering “on foot with a bag” for missionary purposes through the settlements of Starodub. Moreover, this example of Fr. Pimen even gave birth to a project about a “team of traveling missionaries”, similar to the project of St. Innocent. The only difference between them is that the present project sets the tasks of such missionaries much broader. See Bratsk. word, 1889. I, pp. 68–69. The expression of Filaret himself in a letter to Archbishop. Ryazan Gabriel. Read General history and ancient 1868 book. 2 dept. V page 152. Assembled. opinion and review t. additional pp. 237–238. Here, the composition of these rules is erroneously attributed to 1848; These rules are also placed in the synodal resolution on the opening of the Perm mission (Collected resolutions, book II, pp. 212–214) and in the architect. Palladium in “Review of the Perm Schism” (pp. 56–58). The whole difference between the Filaret edition of the rules and the Synodal (as well as Palladian) is in the period for which missionaries were appointed for experience in the Perm diocese: at M. Filaret: “for three or four months,” to the synod. resolution: “for six months” (see § 2). However, this point was not fulfilled. Since the experience turned out to be successful, the mission, formed for a while, turned into a permanent one. Letters of M. Philaret to Anthony, vol. IV, p. 327. Assembled. opinion and review vol. IV, p. 535. Note. at 6 tbsp. instr. Penz. missionary. Note. for instructions Gregory Ave., § 1. Read General loves. spirit. enlightenment 1878, dept. III, p. 217. Resolution 27 Jan 1840 Orlovsk. ed. pp. 71–72. Assembled. opinion and review Vol. V. Part 2. Page 968. Note. on 8th and 11th st. Instr. Penz. mis; note for instructions Gregory Ave., §§ IV. V and VIII. Instructed mis. against the Jews. § 7. Note. for instructions Grig Ave. § III. Letters of M, Philaret to Anthony, vol. III, p. 243. Letters from Metropolitan Philaret, stored in the collection of autographs of the Emperor. public libraries, S.P.B. 1891 p. 35, no. 21. Read General love spirit. enlightenment 1877 dept. III, pp. 137–138; Wed page 180. Assembled. opinion and review vol. IV, pp. 181–182. Letter from M. Philaret to the Reverend. Archbishop Gabriel Ryazansky. Read V. total history and ancient 1868 book. II, dept. V page 142. Letters from M. Philaret to Vysoche. Special Part 1, pp. 205–200. Mentor. mis. Prot.Jews. § 7. Note. at 22 st. instr. Penz. mis. Instructed mis. against. Jews § 8. Note. at 14 st. instr. Penz. mis. Instructed mis. prot. Jews § 11. Note. at 12 tbsp. instr. Penz. mis. Letters of M. Philaret to Anthony, vol. III, p. 243. Collected, opinion. and review vol. V part 2, p. 599. Notes of Sushkov, page 184. Moscow report. Spirit. Consistory 1838 Read. General history and ancient 1875 book. 3, dept. V. page 142. Assembled. opinion and review t. additional page 224. Ibid., § 3; vol. III, p. 299. Ibid., vol. V. part 2. p. 692; About the failure of his mission among the Serpukhov schismatics, see ibid., pp. 924–925. Ibid., vol. V, part 2, p. 599. In the same place, t. will add. p. 225. Pis. High Special Part II, page 13. Pis. Anthony, part III, p. 289. “I am returning the letter from the Berlyukov builder, M. Filaret, arch., wrote about him. Anthony. I did not expect that he could give so much vent to anger and tongue; and I grieve when I see this.” Pis. to Ant. IV. page 136. See writing. m. Philareta to Parf. pis. to Vysoch, Special. Part 1. pp. 205–206. See eg. a letter about the missionary journey of the people's teacher the Righteous, to Brat. Slovo, 1888 No. 3, Chronicle, p. 226. Assembled. opinion and review vol. V. part 2. p. 703. Ibid., p. 736. The absence of a Edinoverie monastery in the Moscow diocese had previously concerned M. Philaret. Back in 1848, he recommended it among the measures to weaken the schism in the Moscow diocese. Collection opinion and review t. additional p. 229, § 2. It should be noted that M. Philaret considered Edinoverie monasteries the most convenient centers from which missionary activity could spread to the surrounding schismatics. This is what he wrote about this back in 1851, Archimandrite. Anthony: “The builder of the monastery demanded my opinion on the conversion of the Edinoverie monastery into a pan-Orthodox one. This monastery was one of the most notable schismatic monasteries. One must think that having turned from a schismatic to a fellow believer, he still attracts some attention from schismatics, and his surroundings are filled with them. Consequently, it represents a point from which it is more convenient than from other places and more necessary to act on schismatics. Having become pan-Orthodox, he will become more alien to schismatics than he is now and, consequently, less useful for influencing them. Therefore, I advised the Edinoverie abbot to remain with the Edinoverie monastery, not to doubt the blessing of the Orthodox Church given to him, and to try to make a sacrifice to God for his previous deviation from the Church by converting those who deviated. To the objection that there were no capable people, I replied that we could ask the authorities, not as a general rule, but as an exception due to a special need, to identify several people from the Orthodox clergy, or from seminary students, who would be diligent in acting missionarily from the monastery against schismatics. Pis. to Antony, vol. III, pp. 69–70. On one occasion, he asks Rev. Jacob, bishop Saratovsky, “to inspire the monastics and the authorities of the Edinoverie monastery (its diocese) that their duty leads from schism to unification with the Orthodox Church.” Thurs. in general loves. spiritual enlightenment 1876 ​​III vol. p. 111. Therefore, M. Philaret took care of the founding of such monasteries in other dioceses. See letters to the Reverend. Evlampius, bishop Ekaterinb. Thurs. in general love spiritual enlightenment 1877 dept. III, pp. 5 and 9 Soulful. Thurs. 1866 XI, known. and notes, page 44. Collection opinion and review vol. V. part 2. p. 677; Wed 702 pp. also a letter to Archbishop Philaret (Gumilevsky); approx. to creation St. father Part 33, page 342. Pis. to Chief Proc. Akhmatov, writer. High Special vol. II, pp. 292–293. Soulful. read 1886, part II, p. 484. Add. to creativity St. father Part 33, page 342. Assembled. opinion and review vol. V. part 2. pp. 912–913. M. Filaret mentions these cell conversations between Paphnutius and his former co-religionists in a letter to the Reverend. Leonid (from July 30, 1866, Dushep. Read. 1883, part I, p. 399) and even advises to write down these conversations: “for the monk Paphnutius, I think it would not be difficult and it would not be useless if he briefly wrote down who from their former society comes to them and what dispositions and opinions they express.” Dolgorukov, the then Moscow Governor-General. Soulful. Thurs. 1883, part 1, pp. 529–530, writing. from 2 Aug. 1866. Assembled. opinion and review vol. V part 2, p. 902. Assembled. opinion and review vol. V, part 2, p. 913. See Brother. Slovo, 1876 dep. III, p. 386. See “open letter” by Rev. Philaret, in Dushep. read 1882, part 3, pp. 120–124. Assembled. opinion and review vol. V, part 2 p. 965. It took place after the death of M. Philaret, on February 25, 1868. Assembled. opinion and review vol. V. part 2 pp. 966–968. Here, wrong s. Naim is assigned to the Cheboksary district and the letter is inscribed to the archbishop. Anthony Kazansky. This is probably the publisher's mistake. Assembled. composition archim. Paul, ed. fourth, vol. I, p. 506. Soulful. Thurs. 1883, part II, p. 109 note. Assembled. opinion and review vol. V, part 2, p. 965. Soulful. read 1883, part II, p. 109; – letter dated June 7. Brother. Slovo, 1885, vol. 1, pp. 115–117. Here, of course, is a book published in 1878: “Notes about three conversations with priestless mentors in the city of Rezhitsy, Vitebsk province.” Brother. Slovo, 1886. I vol. p. 405. Brother. Slovo, 1886, vol. I, p. 483. Ibid., vol. II, p. 63. Brother. Slovo, 1887 p. 626; Brother. Slovo, 1891, vol. I, p. 340; ibid., vol. III, pp. 308, 605. Truth, book. 71; mis. information about the schism, p. 40. Brother. Word, 1885, vol. I, p. 65. cf. Brother. Slovo, 1886, vol. I, p. 41. Brother. Slovo, 1888, vol. II, p. 548. Rector S. Peter considered the publication of this work harmful. seminary, Archimandrite Ioannikiy, whose review of this book was forwarded by the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod to Metropolitan Philaret together. with a book. Assembled. opinion review vol. III, p. 453. Letters to Parthenius, Dushep. Read 1808 Part II, pp. 159–166. Letters to Rev. Leonid, Dushep. Read 1881 Part I, p. 514. Letter from M. Philaret to Rev. Arkady Permsky. Soulful. Read 1877, part III, p. 526. Read in general loves. spirit. enlightenment 1877, part III, materials, p. 12. Assembled. opinion and review vol. IV, p. 348, X. Letter from M. Philaret to the Reverend. Nicholas, bishop Kaluzhsky. Thurs. in general loves. spirit. enlightenment 1870 book. XI, dept. II; page 13. Brother. Slovo, 1887, vol. 1, p. 102; Wed vol. II, p. 384 and 1886 vol. II, p. 374. Brother. Slovo, 1887, vol. II, p. 303. Brother. Slovo, 1888, vol. II, p. 548. Brother. Slovo, 1888, vol. II, p. 549. This particular measure was recognized as the most appropriate by the Kazan Congress of Archpastors (1885). See the resolutions of this congress in Brother. Slovo, 1886, vol. I, p. 503, §§ 3 and 4. Right Social security 1883, part II, pp. 204–205. Letter to the Reverend Leonid. Soulful. Read 1883, part I, p. 516. Assembled. opinion and review vol. I, p. 145. Resolution from 7 Oct. 1862 Orlov. ed. page 653. Letter dated March 30, 1865. Soulep. Read 1868, part II, p. 163. Letters to A. N. Muravyov, pp. 431–432. Assembled. opinion and review Vol. II. page 455. Resolution from 21 Dec. 1856 Soulep. Read 1881, part III, p. 127. Assembled. opinion and review vol. III, p. 389. Read in general loves. spirit. enlightenment 1977 dept. III, p. 17. Thus, even later than the publication of M. Philaret’s “Conversations,” the Right Reverend Ignatius of Voronezh, in his “History of the Schisms of the Russian Church,” published in 1849, attached a whole treatise on the authenticity of the conciliar Act on Martin the Armenian, subsequently, according to the testimony of the Reverend. Varlaam, even “strengthened with new arguments.” Letter from Varlaam to A. Tolstoy. Read in general loves. spirit. enlightenment 1879 dept. III, p. 43. Page 21–22 on Thursday. publication, (1850). Letter dated 29 Dec. 1835. It is difficult to judge with certainty who it is addressed to. The person who reported this letter to the editor is Soulful. Readings, archim. Gregory believes that it was written to Parthenius, Archbishop. Vladimirsky; but prof. Subbotin, with much greater probability, thinks that it is addressed to Arkady, Archbishop. Permsky (Brotherly Word, 1884, vol. I, p. 43, note). Shower floor. Reading, 1883, part III, pp. 500–501. Read in general loves. spirit. enlightenment 1877 dept. III, p. 12. Assembled. opinion and review vol. III, pp. 306–308. Add. to Creation St. father 1882, part 30, pp. 429–430; Wed page 427. Ibid., vol. III, p. 453. Ibid., vol. III, p. 549. Ibid., vol. III, p. 549, cf. resolution 12 Dec 1853 Orlov. ed. page 651. There, t, additional. pp, 584; Wed, ibid., p. 619. Assembled. opinion And. additional, p. 584. Assembled. regulation regarding the schism, book. II, p. 273. According to Sushkov (Notes, pp. 84–85), M. Philaret intended to touch upon in these “Conversations” not only ritual, but also all dogmatic and historical issues, and subsequently regretted that he did not have time to complete this work, as he would have wanted. This is the fifth petition of the Solovetsky monks, which until recently was the only one known under the name “Solovetsky Petition.” It was published more than once by schismatics; in 1862 it was published by Kozhanchikov, and then by prof. Subbotin in volume 3 of “Materials for the History of the Schism,” pp. 213–226. M. Filaret quotes it from the well-known printed collection, beginning with “The History of the Solovetsky Fathers and Sufferers,” in which the “petition” makes up the second part (L. 69–92). Letter from Rev. Arkady to priest Stepan Epiphany. Christ. Read 1891, part I, page 63. Collection opinions and feedback t. additional page 585. Anniversary collection pp. 485–486. Letters to Antony, vol. I, p. 379. Ibid., vol. III. page 327. Brother. Slovo, 1886, vol. II, p. 118; cf. ibid p. 263; 1888 vol. II, p. 382; 1889 vol. II, p. 298. Soul. Thurs. 1873, part 2, p. 302. This can be seen, for example, from the reports of the Moscow Anti-Schismatic Brotherhood of St. Peter, published in the Brotherly Word.