Часть II. Гражданские меры против раскола

Metropolitan Philaret dwells in particular detail on the issue of civil measures against schism, devotes most of his opinions on the schism to it, and examines it comprehensively. This was partly due to M. Philaret’s sympathy for measures of this kind; This is partly explained by the nature of the issue itself, which is extremely complex and confused by the very historical course of government relations towards a split and therefore requires special consideration; Mainly, the character of the time to which the activities of the Moscow saint relates is reflected here. The beginning of M. Philaret’s activity in this area, as is known, dates back to the second half of the reign of Alexander I, when (1817–1825) there was a significant turn in government relations towards the schism, when the government, after a rather indifferent attitude towards the schism, finally paid serious attention to it - “noticing that the schism was raising its head high, felt the need to counteract it” 493. At this time, around 1817, the first secret committee for schism was established. This committee, as reported by M. Filaret in a letter (dated December 9, 1853) to Archimandrite Anthony, consisted of only three members - Archbishop of Chernigov (later Metropolitan) Mikhail, Filaret himself and Prince A. N. Golitsyn; “and only its director,” the Moscow saint notes, was both the secretary and scribe of this committee, and no one knew about its existence” 494. Established with the aim of counteracting the split, the secret committee “opened” its activities, as reported by M. Filaret in another place, with a definition approved by the Highest, is “to destroy the cross and the head at one schismatic prayer house in the Yaroslavl province” 495. This definition, one might say, marked the beginning of a new direction in government relations towards a split. Since that time, we have noticed a whole series of decrees that are embarrassing for schismatics. These are: the prohibition of provincial governors from giving permission on subjects belonging to the spiritual department (regarding the establishment of the Old Believer Church in the city of Volsk with the permission of the Saratov civil governor) 496; reprimand to the former Saratov and Slobodsko-Ukrainian civil governors for their inattentive attitude towards the illegal construction of an Old Believer monastery near the city. Saratov and chapels in Chuguev and Borovsk 497; the closure of the Klintsovskaya and Makhnovskaya printing houses for old printed books and the prohibition of the import of such books from abroad 498; establishing strict supervision over the schismatics of the Fedoseyevsky consent 499 and especially over the center of this consent - the Preobrazhensky cemetery 500; preference for the Orthodox over schismatics in merchant and petty-bourgeois elections and the complete removal from office of all schismatics who do not accept marriage and do not pray for the Tsar 501; finally, a strict ban on building schismatic churches again under any pretext 502. It is not difficult to see what a broad task lay before all administrative officials in relation to the schism and in what spirit it had to be carried out. The measures against the split apparently took on a new character against the previous one 503. And in fact, government interest in the issue of schism not only did not decrease during the period of further activity of the Moscow saint, but during the following reign of Emperor Nicholas I increased significantly. This reign was, as is known, the time of the busiest government activity in relation to the schism. The widespread establishment of secret advisory committees, the study of the schism in the places where it existed and according to archival data, the abundance of civil orders in this regard - all this, in the best possible way, testifies to the importance that the then government attached to this issue. During the following reign of Emperor Alexander III, the issue of civil measures against schism was also the subject of serious discussion in various committees and commissions: the government decided to change the entire previous system of legislation in relation to the followers of those sects that would be recognized as less harmful. During the life of M. Philaret, the first attempt was made to revise the resolutions on the split in the famous committee of 1864. Meeting the demands of the time, the activities of the Moscow Archpastor are very diverse and complex. Chapter I. The necessity and legality of civil measures against schism. The nature of these events and the way they are carried out The insufficiency of the spiritual world alone against schism and the need for civil measures against it. The reasons for this lie in the nature of the schism itself; the inertia of many in the schism for the sake of material gain, the despotism of the schismatic elders and the schismatic communities themselves, the propaganda of the schism and its character. The legality of civil measures against schism: canonical grounds, patristic opinions, historical evidence. The nature of civic events is tolerance limited to fair limits. M. Philaret's polemic with the defenders of the liberal system of governmental relations towards a split: the question of freedom of conscience and the equalization of schismatics in rights with followers of heterodox and heterodox religious societies. The method of carrying out government measures against splitting: gradualism, consistency and precise keeping of secrets. According to M. Philaret, spiritual measures alone are not enough to weaken the schism. He expressed this primarily in his opinion on A. N. Muravyov’s note “On the state of the Orthodox Church in Russia” 504. The Moscow saint expressed his agreement with the view of the “note,” although in his opinion he was aware of all the “bitterness” of the fact that the church alone, without the assistance of civil authorities, “is powerless to counteract the schism” 505. After that, in a letter to the arch. Anthony, he says: “You write that I ask the Eminence of Ekaterinoslav how he thinks of converting schismatics through church action, eliminating secular people; but he had already left. I would bow to him to the ground if he taught me this” 506. As proof, and at the same time as an explanation of the powerlessness of spiritual measures alone in the fight against the schism, Metropolitan Filaret in both cases points to “experience from his diocesan practice” - to the missionary activity of Archpriest Berezkin. “In the local diocese,” says the Moscow archpastor, I found 200 souls living in Judaism in two villages and, sending a priest to admonish them, suggested to him that he should go with prayer and not demand a police official. He did just that and, with God’s help, both parishes were cleansed of other faiths. The same person has no success in exhorting schismatics” 507. “It is a significant sign,” he notes in this regard elsewhere, that the reasons for the failure (of the missionary among the schismatics) must be sought outside the missionary” 508 . This means that the insufficiency of spiritual measures to combat schism is determined not by the nature of these measures, but by the nature of the schism itself, which is not accessible to the admonishing influence of the clergy. The success of spiritual measures depends a lot on how much “sincere, impartial desire to know the truth of God” is found in the schismatics themselves; for according to the word of Christ, only those who sincerely desire to do the will of God will understand the teaching that is from God” 509. This sincere and impartial desire to know the truth is what so many of our schismatics lack. The fact is that ignorance alone cannot explain the existence of the modern schism. Not all schismatics are so ignorant as not to see all the lies and destructiveness of the schism; on the contrary, many and even very many, in the opinion of M. Philaret, go into schism and remain in schism, fully aware of its dark sides, so there can be no question of their sincerity; for example, “among the merchants and especially the young, he says, very few believe in the schism, but remain in it either because of the benefits arising from their commercial connections, or because of the inclination towards self-will and debauchery allowed by their false beliefs, or out of fear of persecution from powerful elders” 510. Sometimes m. Filaret so widely extends the power of such motives to touch schismatics in their errors that he completely ignores the main reason that gave rise to the schism and by which it has been maintained for more than two centuries, i.e. ignorance of the Russian people, their attachment to the letter, ritualism. “Experiments show,” he says, that among schismatics it is not so much religious conviction that has power, since the power of reasoning is little revealed and educated among them; They are kept away from the church not so much by delusion of mind as by stubbornness of will, as well as selfish connections, dependence on strong like-minded people, the all too widespread confidence in their integrity, hope in the power of money and in certain schismatics who have become publicized patrons.”511 For others, schism is dear because living in a schism is not only more profitable, but also much more convenient than in the Orthodox Church. “An Orthodox priest, he says, will not agree to solemnize a marriage when a minor is underage, or in a close relationship, or left by her husband without a legal divorce; will not agree to bury the deceased on the king’s day, or the deceased suddenly without research, etc. For schismatic false priests, these difficulties do not exist” 512. So, “money, money-bought patronage, worldly benefits, the dominance of rich schismatics, freedom and impunity for crimes” - these are, in addition to ignorance, other, even stronger and more reliable “supports of the schism, against which the knowledge and jealousy of the clergy wage a fruitless struggle” 513, because “the obviousness of benefits to schismatics seems better than the obviousness of the truth” 514. And if so, if a significant part of the schismatic society is represented by people without convictions, guided by extraneous calculations, or simple habit; then to convert such people “no means of persuasion are valid; here other means are already needed” 515 - an external law is needed - civil events that can influence such people directly and directly. In particular, this should be said about the “elders” or “horses” of the schism, as well as about the teachers of the schism. Caring least of all about the truth, the leaders of the schism stubbornly remain stuck in it not out of delusion of mind, but solely out of earthly unclean motives - simply because it is beneficial for them in all respects: they owe it to him and retain their influence, honor, respect, wealth, etc.; in a word, “schism is their trade, bringing them great benefits and honor” 516. At the same time, for them there is another “beauty” in the schism - this is “independent and republican arbitrariness in church affairs” 517. Because of this, “no pastoral instructions can have a beneficial effect on schismatic elders” 518. Thus, civil measures against them are necessary 519; are necessary, according to M. Philaret, especially since the leaders of the schism not only stubbornly adhere to the schism themselves, but also keep the “lower strata” “under their oppression” 520. “The dissenters,” he says, are trying to show their strength to the common people of schismatics and thereby keep them in their dependence, feed them with exaggerated hopes and prevent them from joining the co-religious church” 521. “The power of the rich and bitter dissenters weighing down over the schismatic multitude,” he says in another place, is indeed such that many, especially the weak, do not dare to reveal their disposition towards the church, although they have it” 522. “Thousands of unfortunates, he notes in the third place, through the cunning of their leaders, become stagnant in ignorance and depravity and are alienated from the Church of God, which leads to salvation, not through their own fault, but through the slavery in which they are kept by their trustees and their elders, who rule them despotically” 523. The rich schismatic-manufacturers also represent a great force that holds many back into schism. “Of those sent to the consistory for admonition, most of them, the Moscow archpastor testifies, especially those who depend on rich schismatics, despite any convictions, remain stubborn in their delusion” 524. “Recently, in one locality of the Serpukhov district,” wrote M. Filaret in 1867, several Orthodox Christians were seduced by schism. A priest was sent from Moscow to admonish them. He talked with them for several days, with everyone together. There was no action. When he began to speak to them separately, some were convinced to return to the church. But when he finally invited them to do this openly, they refused, saying that through this they would lose their food, for they lived by working in a factory for the schismatic owner” 525. Finally, the very cohesion of schismatic communities very often poses insurmountable obstacles for many who are weak in their will to escape from the networks of schism. Often “the power of the schismatic crowd suppresses reasonable conviction in favor of the church” 526. “It has been noticed,” says M. Philaret, that those who are exhorted to reconcile with the church in the Preobrazhensky almshouse, immersed here in schismatic crowds, are subject to strong opposition from schismatics and reproaches if they show a disposition towards common faith” 527. The same should be said about the Moscow Rogozh schismatics. “Among them, the Moscow Metropolitan testifies, there are very significant persons in terms of prudence, good intentions and position in society; but the Rogozhsky schism still has untamed champions, strong in wealth and habitual influence on others, and excited by selfish views; and these people try to upset those who are disposed towards peace with the church, either with false reasoning, or with reproaches, or with an attempt to harm or harm in business” 528. How, indeed, the great “power of a schismatic crowd” is and what an insurmountable obstacle it poses for those who want to join the church; as proof of this, M. Filaret points to the example of the Moscow merchant Bogdanov. Among others, personally convinced by the Metropolitan of Moscow to join the Orthodox Church and alone of all convinced of this, he “soon after allowed his daughter to join the Edinoverie and get married in the Edinoverie Church; but he himself could not resist the power of the schism and did not join the church” 529. M. Filaret conveys similar facts of despotism among schismatic communities regarding rural schismatics. In the sixties, he says, in some areas many of the prudent schismatic priests, seeing strife and temptations throughout their false hierarchy, expressed an inclination to join the Orthodox Church; but no one dared to start, “for fear of revenge from schismatics, which was a very regrettable experience” 530. “In some villages, some inhabitants, M. testifies. Filaret in another place, to the invitation of their clergy to the same faith they answer: if the king orders, we will all go; and without this we will go to church if the whole village goes; but to go separately we are afraid of insults and revenge from those remaining in the schism. This answer can be considered sincere. This fear is a consequence of bitter experiences" 531. There were quite a few such regrettable, bitter experiences in the anti-schism practice of the Moscow saint 532. “For such unfortunates,” says M. Filaret, i.e. for those who are in one way or another detained against their will in schism, “measures used by the government to curb the willfulness of schismatics would be a true blessing, because without these measures they cannot extricate themselves from the networks of schism” 533 . “In these circumstances,” he notes in another place regarding the state of affairs at the Rogozhsky cemetery, where “untamed champions of the schism” put strong pressure on other schismatics inclined to reconcile with the church, “in these circumstances it is necessary to clearly show that the schism is not invincible; and to the captives of the schism, in the very places of their captivity, open free entrance to the church" 534. Finally, the split must be subject to the external influence of the civil government also because it not only holds “thousands of unfortunate captives” in its networks, but also reveals a desire to manifest itself outwardly, to lure others into its networks. The usual method of schismatic propaganda in the hands of the leaders of the schism is the same “seduction of the weak with worldly benefits” 535, which they use, as we have already seen, to keep the “unfortunate captives” in the schism. So, for example, the elders of the Preobrazhensky cemetery, in order to increase the number of followers of their sect, use “a means of cunning charity”: “they buy some out, give others ways to hire recruits for themselves, lend money without interest and, as the debtor strives for a schism, sometimes forgives them; debts are paid for some; shelter fugitives and criminals pursued by the government" 536. The schismatic factory owners use for the same purpose the means of economic oppression and seduction of their Orthodox workers; they “usually oppress the Orthodox who work for them, and by oppression for Orthodoxy, and on the other hand, with the promise of benefits in a schism, they seduce into a schism” 537. “For example, an Orthodox manufacturer pays Orthodox and schismatic workers equally according to serviceability and merit of the work; a schismatic manufacturer gives schismatics higher wages than Orthodox Christians and, on top of that, gifts” 538 . The active assistants of the leaders of the schism in propaganda are schismatic teachers—false bishops and false priests in clericalism and the so-called mentors and fathers in non-priestly behavior. Despite their ignorance, they are having great success in seducing the Orthodox into schism. The main reason for this is that “supported and protected by rich schismatics,” they freely and “safely walk everywhere and sow tares, meanwhile trying to avoid meeting with Orthodox priests, so as not to be exposed to their reproof,” and instilling the same in those whom they manage to shake in Orthodoxy. “Thus the common people,” equally receptive to true and false teachings in their extremely meager development, “become a more open field for the sowing of tares than of wheat” 539 . Then, the great closeness of the false priests and fathers to the people, both in external position and in development, and their external piety, which usually appeals to the common people, also greatly enhances the success of their propaganda. Finally, the greatly multiplied Austrian false hierarchy, with its large number of people, frequent councils, solemn services, religious processions and its complete likeness, in appearance, to the Orthodox clergy, does a lot of harm to Orthodoxy, instilling in schismatics and Orthodox believers the idea, on the one hand, of its state and church legality, on the other, of the inviolability and truth of schism in general 540. Therefore, according to M. Philaret, civil measures are necessary against schismatic propaganda. It is necessary, he says, “to establish vigilant supervision over proselytism and manifestations of schism and to relentlessly use legal measures against them. Just as leaving such cases unattended gives the schism greater courage and strength, so, on the contrary, the destruction of the revealed evidence of the schism, the correct discovery and exposure of the seducer and the deprivation of the means of seduction from him should weaken the courage and desire for such actions, leading to the decline of the spirit of the schism leaders and the schism itself. The more timely and unrelenting the action of the authorities in such cases, the more reliable its consequences" 541. – These are the main arguments of M. Filaret in favor of the need for civil measures against the schism. And this assistance to the Church from the state in the fight against schism is not only necessary, but also completely legal. Metropolitan Philaret develops and proves in great detail the idea of ​​​​the legality of civil measures against schism in his extensive note (1860) - “on the decrees of the church on the subject of the assistance of Christian governments against heresies” 542. Without presenting this note in all its details, we will indicate only the main grounds on which the Moscow saint’s thought here is based about the legality of assistance to the church on the part of the civil government in the fight against the schism. The Church, according to M. Philaret, has, firstly, full canonical right to assist the state in the destruction of heresies and schisms. “The holy fathers of the Council of Carthage (the rules of which were approved by the VI and VII Ecumenical Councils) decided,” he says, “to ask the kings to eradicate the remnants of idolatry, to destroy idols, to destroy temples, to prohibit pagan feasts and in general about everything that they consider useful against heretics and Hellenes and against their superstitions (right 69, 71, 95, 120); it is also considered decent to ask the heads of regions for assistance from the common mother, the Catholic Church, against heretics (right 78). The same Carthaginian Council by Rule 59 and the VI Ecumenical Council by Rule 23, Antioch by Rule 5 and 11, and Rule 9 of Constantinople decided: “Those who violate the church order should be removed involuntarily from the reigning city; those who create disturbances and sedition in the church and do not want to submit to the meek admonition of church pastors to convert, as rebels, to order by secular power.” The one hundred and fourth rule of the Council of Carthage was decided to ask the pious kings, Arcadius and Honorius, to restore the law of Theodosius V. on the recovery of 10 pounds of gold from heretics, ordaining and ordaining, as well as prohibiting heretics from transferring or receiving anything under a will. “The royal love for mankind (it was said at the same time) must strive so that the Catholic Church, which gave birth to Christ and raised them with the strength of faith, would be protected by their invention. Against the fury of the renegades, we ask you to give us divine help, not extraordinary and not alien to the holy scriptures. For the Apostle Paul, as shown in the true Acts of the Apostles, compared the complicity of disorderly people with military aid” 543. Pointing to these canons of the universal church regarding the assistance of the Orthodox Church on the part of the civil government in its concerns about the weakening of heterodox and heterodox religious societies, M. In other cases, Filaret expresses the desire that the very nature of civil measures against the schism and these very measures “be strictly consistent with church rules” 544; and therefore, in the absence of “civil curbing of crimes against faith” he sees “a violation of the very statutes of the ecumenical councils, on the basis of which Orthodoxy is protected from heresies in the Christian empire” 545. In explanation of this, it should be noted that the Moscow saint looked at the canons of the universal church not at all as a mere historical monument, not as examples of only church legislation, currently needed only as general guiding principles - a view that is increasingly becoming fashionable - but, on the contrary, directly as an active practical source of law. The opinion of many church fathers also speaks for civil measures against schismatics, given the existence of purely church ones, of which, as the most clear and expressive, M. Philaret points to the opinion of Blessed Augustine. “If heretics (says Blessed Augustine in a letter to Vincent) were only frightened (by state laws), but were not taught, then this might seem like injustice and violence. And if only they were taught, but at the same time were not frightened by the law, then among them, habits hardened by rigidity would be weakly encouraged to enter the path of salvation. But saving instruction is added to useful fear, so that not only the light of truth drives out the darkness of error, but also the shackles of bad habit are broken by the power of fear. I myself was previously of the opinion that we should not use any external incentives for unity with the church and that we must act only with words, fight with reasoning alone, and win with evidence, so that we do not have false Orthodox in those very people who were previously open heretics. But this opinion of mine was challenged not by words, but by facts. Many, convinced by the obvious truth, had long wanted to be Orthodox, but, fearing their own, daily put off their conversion. Many were held back by force of habit or negligence. Many thought that there was no difference whether one belonged to the Orthodox community or not, and remained in the heresy only because they were born into it and that no one encouraged them to convert to Orthodoxy. All of these were returned to the bosom of the church by the laws (issued against heretics) and those whom security made negligent, were converted by the care of the church and the government for them, and now they celebrate their conversion as the brightest holiday. So, let the kings of the earth serve Christ, also making laws in favor of the teachings of Christ.” “It is better,” says the same church teacher in another letter: “it is better, of course (who doubts?), to lead people to true piety through teaching alone and not to motivate them through fear of punishment. But just because some people are better, those who are worse should not be left without care.” “Experience has proven that it was useful for many to first be forced by fear, so that later they could either learn or actually carry out what they learned in words. Of course, those who are controlled by love are better, but those who are corrected by fear are more numerous. Not everyone who spares us is our friend, and not everyone who does not spare us is our enemy. Who can love us more than God? However, He does not cease not only to gently teach us, but also to frighten us with salvation. Sometimes a thief, sprinkling food, lures them away from the herd, and sometimes a shepherd, hitting with a whip, drives wandering sheep to the herd. If someone, seeing his enemy in a fever and unconsciousness running towards the abyss, did not grab and tie him up, but allowed him to escape, would he not repay him with evil for evil? How many heretics, upon their conversion, cursed their former life and pitiful errors, while they were brought to this saving consciousness by strict laws? Some have not benefited from these laws; but should one throw away the medicine because the madness of some cannot be cured? Augustine says: “to tame and correct heretics” through the authorities established by God does not seem to me useless. And since the apostle says: “There is no authority except from God,” then, without a doubt, when kings provide help to the church, this help is in the name of the Lord, who created heaven and earth.”546 Further, the history of the ancient Christian church speaks in favor of the assistance of the church on the part of Christian governments in its struggle against heresies and schisms. “During the triumph of the church during the reign of Constantine the Great,” says M. Philaret, all the forces of power, hitherto directed against the church, are turned to protecting its internal and external prosperity. Christian emperors assisted her by eradicating the remnants of idolatry and overthrowing heretics... In relation to heretics, the emperors understood that a mother should have mercy on her children and protect them, and that she would be unmerciful and cruel if, while guarding wolves, she destroyed sheep... Only one emperor, under the pretext that faith does not tolerate coercion, abolished all laws against heretics, returned the exiles and compared them in rights with the Orthodox. It was Julian the Apostate. With the exception of him, all the emperors were aware of the benefits and necessity of laws protecting orthodoxy and the faithful." 547 Finally, the historically established relationship of the Russian state to the church also gives the latter the right to count on the assistance of the former in the fight against schism. “Until now,” wrote M. Philaret in 1863, in Russia, by the goodness of God, the Orthodox Church and the state have been and are in unity and harmony, not violated by any mutually contradictory views” 548; and “the most pious kings are the defenders and guardians of orthodoxy and all holy deanery in the church” 549. “How else, asks M. Philaret, can the government comply with this fundamental rule that has existed from the beginning, if not by acting against the schism with the measures that have always been taken by Orthodox kings and which are approved by the universal church?” 550 Speaking about the necessity and legality of the assistance of the church in the fight against schism on the part of the civil government, M. Filaret was far from thinking about persecuting schismatics for their religious beliefs. Such attitudes towards those who differ in their views, in his opinion, should not and cannot take place in a Christian state, for “Christian love for mankind does not allow freedom to be taken away from anyone unnecessarily” and “the heavenly farmer himself leaves the tares until the time of harvest is imminent” 551 . Hence, the tolerance characteristic of Christian meekness should also be characteristic of the Christian state. But although it is characteristic of Christian meekness to show tolerance to those of different opinions, he says, “prudence should determine the measure of tolerance.” For “good can tolerate evil, but evil will not tolerate good; Consequently, to show excessive tolerance to evil means to give it a weapon against good.” Thus, if in a Christian state “torture and persecution should not be tolerated, as being contrary to the spirit of the Church of Christ,” then there should also be no place for “excessive tolerance,” or, what is the same, complete unlimited freedom in matters of faith and conscience, as inevitably leading to the increase of evil 552. How, then, asks M. Filaret, “should the government deal with schismatics?” And he answers: “fatherly.” What does it mean? Earthly fathers use more than gentle admonitions to correct their children; But also other measures, the heavenly father, with all his infinite goodness, turns the lost to the path of truth, mostly through strict measures, and sinners often begin to correct themselves out of fear of God’s wrath and punishment, and not out of zeal and love for virtue. The government, paternally concerned about the welfare of those entrusted to it, must deal with the people, who, due to their lack of education, do not know how to distinguish truth from error, useful from harmful, as with small children who rarely learn anything useful and good without being forced, and then remember it with gratitude 553. From such a paternal point of view, or from the point of view of tolerance, tempered by caution, “for schismatics, actually in their favor, one law is needed, that they are not persecuted for their opinions about the faith and private prayer according to their ritual, which law exists in Russia 554. “As long as the schism does not go beyond these limits, the possible and proper action on it is spiritual and moral, with an edifying word and example from the clergy, an example and admonition from those in power, as well as preventing schismatics from gaining power over the Orthodox, preferring the Orthodox to schismatics in public relations, caution against the efforts of schismatics to appear before the authorities in the form of a special class, and to enter into friendly relations with them primarily before the Orthodox.” “But as soon as the manifestation of a schism is allowed to occur, the seduction of the Orthodox by schismatics, their violation of existing laws and rules, a stronger action on the schism on the part of the civil government is necessary, for just as leaving such cases without attention gives the schism greater courage and strength, so, on the contrary, the destruction of the revealed evidence of a schism, the correct discovery and exposure of the seducer and the taking away from him of the means of seduction, the unremitting action of justice on schismatics who have violated existing laws and rules, - must weaken the courage and desire for such actions, which leads to the decline of the spirit of the dissenters and the schism itself. The more timely and unrelenting the action of the authorities, the more reliable its consequences” 555. M. Filaret calls such a system of governmental relations towards the split not only fair, but also lenient and fruitful. “The policy used in relation to schismatics since 1826,” he wrote in one of his opinions in 1848, seems to some to be embarrassing, because they look only at its attitude towards schismatics; and if you look at her attitude towards the laws, then she should be considered lenient.” “For example,” he explains his thought, “a fugitive priest is prohibited from moving from province to province and from district to district. There is no oppression here, because the action of a legitimate priest is limited even more closely; and even this is more than lenient, because, according to the law, a fugitive priest, like any other fugitive, should be immediately caught and sent to trial, but he is left calm in the wide field of the whole district.” “It cannot be said,” the Moscow saint further notes, “that this policy does not have the desired consequences. She gained the unity of the church a large number of fellow believers” 556. When, during the then new reign, sensing the approaching new order, “the Rogozh schismatics began to act with greater courage and self-reliance than before,” which was expressed in their persistence in taking the oath to the new Sovereign under the Orthodox priest, M. Filaret, reporting this fact to the then-correcting the post of Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, A. I. Karasevsky, at the same time speaking out for the need to preserve the previous system reign. “In these circumstances,” he writes, it means especially much to preserve the rules given in Bose by the late most pious Sovereign Emperor Nikolai Pavlovich in relation to the schism. If these rules remain unchanged, the revealed evidence of a schism will lose its meaning and will remain without consequences” 557. And on other occasions, he repeatedly spoke out for the preservation of this old system 558 as one that was based on “many years of observation and experience” 559, and considered any change in it “discrepant with the dignity of the government” 560. The new Sovereign, indeed, approved the previous system, pointing out that the difficulties encountered do not arise from the said system, but from the inaccurate and incorrect execution of it 561. Thanks to this, all articles of the previous time remained intact in the code of laws. But life was doing its job. The character of the Sovereign, the breath of a new spirit after the Crimean company gave rise to liberal reforms in almost all branches of government. These reforms did not affect only the situation of the split from the legal side, but in reality a lot of new things happened here too. Some articles of the law have lost practical application; The schismatics began to enjoy much greater freedom than was stated in the law. The schismatics even submitted addresses to the Tsar on behalf of their societies and were awarded personal representations. This state of affairs had a depressing effect on M. Filaret. His letters from that time are filled with complaints about this. “Various news from St. Petersburg on the matter of the schism,” he wrote to A.N. Muravyov on March 7, 1858, can make one’s head spin, and therefore sometimes we don’t know what to say about it, and we hold back the waves of thoughts that hit our head heavily” 562. “The matter of schism,” he wrote to the Reverend. Alexy on December 15, 1857, is exaggerated by some and arouses concern. Pray for peace and unity of God’s holy churches” 563. “The matter of schism,” he wrote to the Reverend. Ioannikiy on December 31, 1859, everywhere it is difficult for Orthodoxy, and not for schism, as it should have been in fairness” 564. “It’s difficult with a split” 565; “voices are strong in favor of a split” 566; “there is no help in matters of this kind” 567 - he wrote to Archimandrite Anthony at this time. When the idea of ​​changing the laws regarding the schism then came up, when in 1864 even a special committee was established to consider this issue and when the journals of this committee, by order of the Sovereign, were presented for discussion to M. Philaret, the latter directly and decisively expressed his view in one of his notes. “If the current state of the schism is found to be anomalous,” he wrote, then isn’t a new anomalous state being prepared by the proposed law? The proposed new legislation on schismatics and their administration will not lead to the fact that what was considered illegal yesterday will be called legal today, and that people whom the church and state yesterday considered false priests will today be legal priests in the eyes of the state, while in the eyes of the church they will remain false priests? Will this be consistent, harmonious, in accordance with the pure principles of morality and the dignity of government? And is there any need to come to this?” 568 Therefore, he advised “do not rush into new legislation” 569 . He was against any concessions that “only encourage, in his opinion, a split and nourish in him the hope of a great victory over those who are inferior” 570. He was against any “retrograde step” in legislation as “unfavorable”! because any retreating step “gives, in his opinion, courage to the enemy and reduces respect for the retreating government” 571. However, along with M. Philaret’s view on the issue of the nature of governmental relations towards a schism, there was another completely opposite view, which consisted in the fact that the more lenient the external laws, the more external freedom is presented to the schism, the sooner it will be destroyed. During the reign of the Emperor. Nicholas, this view was shared by only a few government officials 572. But with the advent of the new reign, this direction gained greater strength 573. At the same time, the defenders of the new direction referred to what, in their opinion, was an undoubted historical fact that “nowhere did the constraint of sects stop their success, but, on the contrary, contributed to their spread” 574 . It goes without saying that M. Filaret, in defending his view, had to stand on historical ground. This is what he does in his remarkable “note on the consequences of oppression of sects and leniency towards them” 575. This note is nothing more than a series of historical references on this issue. “Examples from history show that if sects grew stronger due to restrictive measures, it was only where these measures were not firm, where they were subject to changes; and where they were firm, there the success of the sects was stopped and even destroyed,” this is the general idea of ​​the note of the Moscow archpastor. To prove this idea, he first of all cites the role of facts from the history of religious movements in the West. “The first most remarkable sect in Central Europe, the Hussites,” he says, at first assumed enormous proportions, then was suppressed by energetic government measures so that Bohemia, where it arose, completely turned into a Roman Catholic country. A hundred years later, the emerging Protestantism had success only where the sovereigns themselves clearly took its side. But in France, where this did not exist and where the government finally strongly opposed Protestantism, it, after the repeal of the Edict of Nantes, was so limited that it could no longer spread. The same consequences occurred in Belgium, where the government made every effort to prevent the spread of Protestantism; and for this very reason it could not even penetrate into Spain and Italy, although the horrors of the inhuman Inquisition cannot in any way be justified. In England, Protestantism was finally established by the cruel measures of its patron, Queen Elizabeth. From then until our time, the Latin confession had no success there; but as soon as the government equalized its followers in rights with other citizens, the number of adherents of the pope more than doubled and is now constantly and rapidly multiplying. In Prussia, 12 years before this, neo-Catholic societies appeared, but almost nothing has been heard of them since the government put a barrier to their lawless spread.” Defenders of the opposite opinion, as proof of the correctness of their view, usually pointed to the first centuries of Christianity, when the latter, despite the most severe persecution, quickly spread throughout the Roman Empire and eventually took the position of the dominant religion in it. Considering this historical fact, M. Philaret noted: “if the true holy faith of Christ spread in the first centuries in the midst of severe persecution, then this was an irrefutable sign of the divinity of the Savior’s teaching, and to apply such a miraculous spread of it to ignorant sects would mean to humiliate the action of the highest grace.” In another opinion of a later time, the Moscow saint adds to this that even at this time one can partly notice the influence of certain attitudes of the Roman government towards it on the spread of Christianity. “And here,” he says, fishery sometimes chose as its instruments even some of the pagan emperors, who, with their peaceful disposition towards Christianity, contributed no little to its successes. On the contrary, although the persecutors could not destroy the faith of Christ, they often and very significantly stopped its spread” 576. The further history of Christianity testifies that “with the adoption of the holy faith by the Roman emperors, its spread became much more rapid and widespread.” Likewise, “in all European powers, as well as in our fatherland, the spread of Christianity was especially facilitated by the patronage of sovereigns.” That, on the contrary, restrictions do not spread, but suppress, if not forever, then for a long time, even the true teaching of the faith, this, says M. Philaret, “our Orthodox Church has become convinced of through bitter experience.” “So it was in the western region of Russia, where the persecution of Orthodoxy created a union and could have ultimately subjugated the entire people to Rome, if Providence had not been pleased to return that region to the bowels of Orthodox Russia; So now in the Austrian possessions, Orthodoxy, constrained by the local government, is gradually becoming impoverished.” Finally, M. Filaret turns to the history of the schism, and here he also finds facts to confirm his view of the nature of government relations towards the schism. “As for our schism,” he says, everyone knows that the number of his followers at first, despite the most daring troubles that arose from them, was very insignificant, with the exception of those who fell into schism as a result of European customs introduced by Emperor Peter I; but only from the time of Peter III, the successes of the schism began to increase in a special way as the government’s leniency increased, and finally reached unexpected proportions towards the end of the reign of Emperor Alexander I. After this, the schism intensified only in those provinces where the local authorities gave him an encouragement: it weakened where strict attention was paid to its actions, to seduction and other abuses.” Even earlier, in his opinions, the Moscow saint used statistical data to prove the expediency of the system that existed during the reign of Emperor Nicholas I. “Since the first years of the current century,” he wrote in 1849, with excessive religious tolerance, the falling away from Orthodoxy in general has multiplied, and in particular the priestly and non-priestly schisms have increased in the number of followers, prayer houses and schismatic institutions. During the present reign, with tolerance limited by justice and precaution, Orthodoxy acquired from the schism, as is known from the reports of the ecclesiastical department for eleven years, 182,328 souls, and in total for all the years, of course, no less than 200,000.”577 “And so,” he concludes his historical information, leniency towards the schism has contributed and continues to contribute to its strengthening much more than oppression.” Further, opponents of measures that are restrictive in relation to the schism usually point out their disagreement with the idea of ​​freedom of conscience, by virtue of which “in matters of faith and conscience, all coercion must be eliminated.” Metropolitan Philaret was well aware of this objection and he responded to it as follows: “To this, justice requires saying, firstly, that this very principle (i.e., the idea of ​​freedom of conscience) is subject to exceptions when it concerns a sinful conscience, as for example. Christian Greek emperors, of course, did not sin when they ordered the destruction of pagan temples and strictly prohibited sacrifices, without consulting with the pagans about matters relating to pagan faith and conscience; secondly, that the above beginning does not lead to the intended conclusion. The schismatics have their own wrong faith and sinful conscience, but the government with the entire church and Russia has its own right faith and conscience. Therefore, it is necessary to spare, if possible, the wrong conscience of schismatics; but incomparably higher is the duty not to disturb the conscience of the entire Orthodox Church and Russia” 578. “The idea of ​​religious tolerance, he says in another place, is a plausible idea, but fair only when its subject and limits are correctly and accurately defined. The thought of protecting the unity of religion that prevails in the state must stand above the thought of religious tolerance and set limits to it” 579. He therefore arms himself against those who “abused” this religious tolerance and “wanted to humiliate it to shameful weakness” 580. “At present,” he writes in 1865, for many new euphonious words: “freedom of belief” drown out the old strict thought: “protection of belief.” But if in a state the widest freedom is necessarily limited by law, protecting the integrity of the state and the safety of its peaceful members; Is it less necessary that freedom of belief should be limited by laws protecting the integrity of the church and the safety of its peaceful members? Turning to the church-state life of the West, whose religious tolerance was set as a model for our government, M. Filaret proves with factual data that even where religious tolerance is subject to legal limits. “And let us not be disturbed by the thought,” he says, that the example of Europe obliges us, in the name of religious tolerance, not to do anything against schismatics. And in European states, religious tolerance has limits” 582. “England is a state that knows how to use freedom better than others. It has several million not schismatics who have betrayed the established church, but Roman Catholics belonging to a church that is older than the Anglican and from which the Anglican descended. But how does she deal with them? For example, they still pay church taxes in favor of the dominant Anglican Church in the state. Lovers of freedom of belief have repeatedly proposed in parliament to abolish this tax. But the guardians of the church did not allow this abolition” 583. “In France itself, only recognized religions are allowed, and recognition requires positive knowledge of what exactly the teaching of this confession is and that it does not threaten public order” 584. The French government arose from revolution and unbelief, but it also tames harmful sects. It closed the meetings of the Saint-Simonists and the sect dispersed. It closed the services of the so-called “French Church” and the sect dispersed” 585. “In Sweden, a Protestant land, no one except Protestants has the right to public office” 586. “And to allow, M. Filaret concludes his parallels, the free existence of societies similar to our schism, hiding their secret actions from the government, demanding tolerance when they themselves have no tolerance, constantly shaking the people’s concept of the legitimacy of the supreme authorities - this cannot be found in any European land” 587. Comparing the above examples of Western European religious tolerance with the religious tolerance of Russia, the Moscow saint even finds that the latter “can boast before foreign states of religious tolerance towards recognized Christian religions and even non-Christian ones” 588. The latter circumstance, as is known, gives a new reason to object to the system of governmental relations approved by M. Filaret for a split. From this point of view, it is usually objected that the government, which tolerates in its state not only heterodox religious societies, but even non-Christian societies, acts inconsistently when it does not recognize the right to legal existence for a schism that differs from Orthodoxy only in rituals. This objection to the split-shy system was also expressed at that time 589. The government pointed out this inconsistency and this equalization of rights with followers of heterodox and other faith confessions was repeatedly sought by the schismatics themselves 590 . Metropolitan Philaret, considering the objection from this side as well, finds it also untenable. He recognizes the position that there is indeed a difference between the schism and the confessions tolerated in Russia, but this difference is far from being in favor of the schism. The fact is that the Moscow saint establishes the difference between the schism and the confessions recognized in Russia not on the confessional attitude of both to the dominant Orthodoxy in Russia, as is done by the defenders of the recognition of the schism, but on completely different grounds. The first difference between our schism and the heterodox and heterodox confessions recognized among us lies, in the opinion of M. Filaret, in the anti-government and anti-state nature of the schism. “For the most part,” he says, they look at schismatics from the same point of view as at people of other faiths; but this is a big misconception. Gentiles, differing with us in dogma, have nothing against the government and follow the rule: “God’s Gods, Caesar’s Caesar’s,” and schismatics express it this way: “God’s Gods, and demons’ demons” 591 . “It is very, very sufficient for Christian tolerance to tolerate beliefs that are harmless to morality and to the state in general, but schism undermines the foundation of the state and spreads immorality under the guise of belief” 592. Another “great difference between the so-called foreign faiths and schism,” according to the Moscow saint, is that schism is “a broken off branch of the dominant religion”—our national illness, which, of course, cannot be said about people of other faiths. “Roman Catholics and Protestants, he says, came under the Russian state with their religions in a legal way, and therefore, in fairness, they are given the freedom of their religions; on the contrary, schismatics are apostates and falling away from the Orthodox Church, condemned by state law prohibiting such apostasy (Sod. Zak. vol. XIV, art. 47 and 60). If the state were to give those convicted by its law the same rights as those who are innocent before the law, then it would be in conflict with its own law and justice in general” 593 . Finally, and most importantly, the close connection of the schism with the common people, who constitute the main contingent for its spread, and the desire of the schism for propaganda, which is always and everywhere revealed, also do not allow, in the opinion of M. Philaret, to implement the idea of ​​equating the schism with the position of the various faiths existing in the state. “The schism,” he says, cannot be compared with the confessions tolerated in Russia, which do not hide their teachings before the government and do not concern the indigenous Russian population. On the contrary, the schismatics do not give an account to the government of their actions and, in the spirit of their proselytism, will never differentiate themselves from the Orthodox. That is why there are a significant number (up to 600 thousand) wavering between Orthodoxy and schism. These people still go to Orthodox worship, do not exclude themselves from the church, are afraid of responsibility before the law, the clergy still has access to them, their secret deviation from Orthodoxy does not yet have impudence; but with the weakening of the laws, they will all become quick and returnable prey to schism, and their obvious falling away will show the way to others” 594. Speaking so decisively for the well-known system of governmental relations towards a schism, the Moscow saint at the same time speaks quite clearly in his opinions about the best, in his opinion, way of carrying out governmental measures in practice. Having begun his anti-schism activities at a time when a significant change in government relations towards the schism had just begun to be noticed, when the previous system, which began from the time of Catherine II, began to change little by little, and fully sympathizing with the turn that had begun, which took place not without a significant share of his own influence, Metropolitan Filaret at the same time well understood that the matter could not be carried out too hastily, that the turn in relations towards the schism was too sharp promises nothing but harm, and therefore, first of all, demanded that new measures against the split be carried out gradually. Thus, in his famous note “on means to reduce schisms,” written in 1835, which later formed the basis of legislation in relation to schism, the Moscow saint, proposing several new, more restrictive rules for schism, at the same time wrote that “these rules should be implemented gradually” 595. And after this, almost twenty years later (in 1853) - when, with the advent of Bibikov’s ministry, strict reprisals began against the Moscow schismatic centers, M. Filaret again recalls this rule of gradualism, advising the new minister - “as long as there is a special case regarding the Preobrazhenskoye cemetery, do not do anything special regarding Rogozhsky” 596. “The matter calls for strong measures,” he again writes to Bibikov a few days later regarding the Preobrazhenskoe cemetery, but the rule of gradualness is very rightly connected with it, which, I think, will be applied to time, and to places, and to persons.” “When the shaking of a significant nest of schism makes some noise, he notes in explanation of this, of course, it is better that it does not spread far and that other places remain silent” 597. Further, no less, if not more, important, according to M. Filaret, is that government measures taken to weaken the split are carried out with restraint and unremittingly. “Having taken certain measures to curb the split, the government must unswervingly and unremittingly follow them, because the slightest weakening of them leads the schismatics to become convinced of the impotence and weakness of the government and of their power, through intrigues and money, to make the measures taken against them futile” 598. Moreover, the inconsistency of government measures not only does not bring any benefit in the fight against the split, but can be and is often accompanied by positive harm for this cause. “Measures taken and not taken are often more harmful than if they had not been taken at all” 599. What, indeed, importance the Moscow saint attached to the fulfillment of this requirement, we have already seen from his capital note “on the consequences of embarrassment of sects and indulgence in them,” in which, as we already know, he proves with historical facts that only inconsistency in measures harmed the success of the cause and that, on the contrary, where government measures against sectarians were strictly adhered to, there the dominant religion always emerged victorious from the struggle with dissidents. And our Russian schism, in his opinion, is mainly because it still exists, despite all the measures taken against it, because “these measures were not permanent, but soon, after taking them, the schismatics managed to paralyze them through tricks and sophisticated patronage” 600. Finally, for the success of civil anti-schism measures, it is also necessary, according to M. Filaret, “precise storage of the secret, where sometimes it is needed” 601. As proof of how violation of secrecy in matters of schism sometimes greatly harms the cause, the Moscow saint liked to point out the unsuccessful government policy of converting the famous Gorodets schismatic chapel (Nizhny Novgorod province) into a co-religious church. The matter, according to Filaret, happened like this. At the end of the 20s, the government decided to convert the Gorodets chapel into a Edinoverie church. Most of the schismatics who belonged to it did not oppose this. The matter was thus settled very simply; All that remained was to carry out the government decision. But the latter, of course, was secretly entrusted to the Balakhna police officer, who, according to Filaret, had previously been seen indulging in the schism and for whom, of course, “it was more profitable to have schismatics with their illegal monks and passportless vagabonds than co-religionists for whom everything is in legal order.” Having received the matter into his own hands, this “disinterested patron of the schism” first divulged among the schismatics of many villages about the order of the highest government, and also designated the very day on which he would come to demand the keys to the chapel. It is clear that by the appointed day, schismatics in huge numbers (according to one edition, several hundred, and according to another, several thousand) gathered from different villages in Gorodets and surrounded their chapel. The police officer appeared, looked and reported to the governor that for fear of harmful disorder, he could not carry out the secret order of his superiors. The matter ended with the fact that a new church was built for the co-religionists from the treasury, the chapel again remained with the schismatics and the schism, therefore, was not weakened, but strengthened, because it triumphed over the government’s orders. What if, notes M. Filaret, in carrying out this task, it was acted prudently; if the secret had not been untimely broken, then, after the successful execution of a certain task, probably a minority of schismatics would not have followed the majority into the same faith for a long time 602. Chapter II. On the civil rights of schismatics I. On the limitation of public and personal rights of schismatics The government's attitude towards the schismatic community. M. Filaret’s view on this subject: non-recognition of her right to legal existence; non-recognition of her attorneys and trustees; the need to limit her right to own real estate. On the limitation of the personal rights of schismatics - the rights to public positions and distinctions; about the registration of schismatics in icon painting workshops. The government's negative attitude towards the schismatic community and its non-recognition of the right to legal existence followed quite logically from the government's view of the schism as an abnormal phenomenon and therefore not desirable, as a religion that does not enjoy the rights of citizenship. It should be noted, however, that during the long period of existence of the schism, this connection between the two above-mentioned facts was sometimes broken: the schism continued to be considered an unrecognized phenomenon, and schismatic communities enjoyed not only tolerance, but even the protection of the law. But this was only when church considerations, when determining government relations to the schism, were completely ignored, giving way to state-economic ones; - when the very question of a split lost in the eyes of the government the significance of a state issue 603. On the contrary, in those eras when the government, in the issue of schism, brought to the fore church considerations, and when the fight against schism was elevated to the level of an important state matter, then the above connection between the non-recognition of the schism and its communities was elevated to a kind of dogma and was carried out to the last extreme in government decrees. We mean the reign of Emperor Nicholas I. We do not need to prove this idea in detail here; It is enough to point out one characteristic fact in this regard, which shows in the best possible way how consistently the above principle was carried out in government orders of that time. For a long time, the trustees of the Rogozhskoe cemetery delivered a significant donation in favor of the prisoners heading to Siberia. Finally, in 1840, they built a wooden house with the appropriate services near the Rogozhskaya outpost, equipped it with dishes and offered, through the Moscow Governor General, the Prison Trustee Committee to accept this donation, promising at the same time to take at their own expense both the maintenance and heating of that house, as well as the delivery of hot food to all prisoners sent through this stage. When the said donation from the Moscow schismatic Rogozh society was brought to the attention of the Tsar, the latter issued the following order on February 16, 1841: “make it a rule that no donations on behalf of schismatic societies, as not recognized by law, should be accepted” 604. For his part, Filaret fully shared the Tsar’s view on this subject, since he well understood the entire logical inconsistency of recognizing schismatic communities and non-recognition of the schism itself, as well as the truth that only by breaking up schismatic corporatism can one successfully fight the schism. Therefore, in his opinions, he constantly demanded that the principle of not recognizing schismatic communities as legitimate should be carried out with all logical consistency in government relations to the schism. In particular, the Moscow saint insisted that the civil authorities should not enter into any relations with schismatic societies, because this, in his opinion, would be tantamount to recognition of the said societies. Thus, in his letter to the newly appointed minister Bibikov, remarkable in the sense that it serves as a response to the minister’s request to honor him with “wise advice” in matters of splitting into which the Sovereign, upon the very appointment of Bibikov, ordered him to pay special attention - in this letter, outlining for the new minister a general program of desirable government relations towards the split, the Moscow saint, among other things, recommends special “caution against the efforts of schismatics to appear before the authorities in the form of a special class and enter into friendly relations with them” 605. And at one time, when the Moscow Secret Committee, at a meeting on March 29, 1848, without coming to any decision regarding the granting of independent priests to schismatics, decided to enter into relations with the Rogozh schismatic society to negotiate the terms of such a grant, Metropolitan Filaret, departing from the principle of non-recognition of schismatic societies, made a decisive protest against such a decision. “The government is legitimate,” he wrote regarding this in his note submitted to the above-mentioned committee, “without prejudice to its dignity and can reliably enter into relations only with such a society that legally exists. And entering into an agreement with a society that has fallen away from the legal authority and does not have a legal existence is not quite consistent with the dignity of the legal authority and can be harmful, because the illegal society, entering into negotiations with the legal authority, through this very thing in some way acquires the character of a recognized class and, moreover, receives the consciousness that they see in it enough strength to contradict and resist, and thus it can become more unyielding than it was before the negotiations” 606. If the relations of ordinary authorities with schismatic societies seemed so harmful to M. Philaret for the cause of the fight against the schism, then it is clear how he should have looked at such relations of schismatic societies directly with the person of the Sovereign, especially if we also take into account the fact that the Moscow ruler sympathized with the ancient Byzantine law, which forbade heretics and schismatics to contact the emperors personally and bother them with petitions - law, in which he saw an example of the emperors’ jealousy of Orthodoxy 607. And indeed, when the special circumstances of the time (1863), which aroused the expression of patriotic feelings from all classes, gave the opportunity for schismatics to appear before the face of the Sovereign Emperor with all-submissive letters, separately from the sect that accepted the priesthood and did not accept it, Filaret saw bad omens in this; “Caring thoughts were aroused in him about preserving the peace and tranquility of the Orthodox Church” 608. Coming from the same principle of non-recognition of schismatic communities, M. Filaret also demanded that the government not recognize any trustees and attorneys of these societies. Thus, when the famous merchant Ryazanov appeared as an attorney for the Ekaterinburg schismatics with a request to grant them priests independent of the spiritual authorities, and the Moscow saint was entrusted by the government with considering this request; then in his note on this issue he wrote among other things: “Ryazanov should not be recognized as the schismatics’ attorney at all and should not be allowed to have any relations in this capacity with the authorities. If another person appeared as a common attorney from schismatics in different places, do not recognize him in this character and do not enter into relations with him” 609. The diocesan practice of the Moscow Metropolitan also left us with several cases showing that he himself strictly followed the specified rule. So, for example, sending the petition of the attorney of the Old Believers of the village of Pavlov for consideration by the consistory, he orders in his resolution, which accompanied the petition, to “pay attention,” among other things, to the fact that “who is called the attorney of the certified power of attorney did not represent that those who signed the verdict do not constitute any legal society, and therefore it is not known where they gathered, at whose call, or, perhaps, by agreement, and what had the right to draw up a verdict" 610. Likewise, regarding another petition “signed by F. Ivanov and others who call themselves trustees of the Old Believer society,” the Moscow saint wrote, among other things, in his resolution: “no Old Believer society has been recognized by legalization and no trustees have been established under it” 611. But denial alone, or rather, ignoring schismatic societies, of course, was still too insufficient to weaken them. For this purpose, some more radical measure was necessary. He proposed such a measure, which, in Filaret’s opinion, was quite sufficient for this purpose, to the government in his note of 1835 - “on means to reduce splits” 612. In this note, drawing the attention of the government to the existence of schismatic public property among schismatics, such as houses, shops and lands, and proving that this property serves as the main strength of the schismatic community - “an open and firm support of the schism,” “the soil on which schismatic public institutions are planted, strengthened and grow, which then serve to maintain and spread the schism in private individuals,” - The Moscow saint now proposes that schismatic societies should be prohibited from acquiring anything into their own property in the future, and that the existing property should either be returned to the private individuals from whom it came, or sold “within a reasonable time,” and the proceeds given to charitable institutions. It is all the easier to implement this measure, according to M. Filaret, since it is completely fair. The fact is that social schismatic property, being extremely harmful, is at the same time “inconsistent with the spirit of state laws,” and, if it exists, it is only thanks to the “illegal permission of subordinate officials and authorities.” “The Church of the dominant religion,” says the Moscow saint in proof of this, can only acquire real estate only with a special, each time, Highest permission. From this, without a doubt, it follows that a schismatic society, which itself is not recognized by law, cannot legally acquire real estate.” Now advising the government to “restore the force of the law,” Filaret sees this as one of the sure “means to reduce splits”; “As much force as the law on this subject would be restored,” he says, “the schism would lose so much force.” – Not recognizing the right of schismatic societies to own real estate, the Moscow saint, as one case from his diocesan practice shows us, did not recognize their right to rent other people’s property. Thus, regarding the request of one clergyman (of the village of Cherkizova, Moscow district) to lease part of the clergy land to the “Moscow Preobrazhensky Old Believer House”, M. Filaret put forward the following resolution: “The Reverend (vicar) will give instructions to the priest how to look at this subject. Dissenters do not constitute a class recognized in the state, and therefore, if they appropriate a public house for themselves, then this will probably be done arbitrarily, and not by legal right. There is a government-recognized Preobrazhenskaya almshouse. and not an Old Believer house, but even that one hardly has the right to occupy land.” 613 As for the limitation of the personal rights of schismatics, M. Filaret dwells in more detail only on a few, and first of all and most often on the limitation of the rights of schismatics to public positions. Fully sympathizing with this restriction, as “serving for the benefit of Orthodoxy, oppressed by the machinations and wealth of schismatics” 614, he constantly insisted on the need for especially careful monitoring on the part of the subject authorities for the most accurate implementation of existing laws regarding this subject 615. The reason for this special insistence of the Moscow Metropolitan in this regard lies in the fact that “from business and privately” he knew well how unscrupulously schismatic leaders use their official position in the interests of the schism, how, “using their positions of authority in villages, they try to seduce the Orthodox” 616; how “some peasants suffered from schismatic leaders through slander and arbitrary oppression for joining Orthodoxy” 617. What really important importance the Moscow saint attached to the implementation of the rule in question can be seen from his diocesan practice in this regard, which has preserved for us in his letters to the civil authorities and in resolutions many indications that he himself vigilantly monitored the exact implementation of the instructions on this subject. Thus, in one letter to D.V. Golitsyn, the Moscow military governor-general, he asks to remove the schismatic from the post of village headman on the estate of the landowner Balk-Polev 618; in another - to remove from the post of patrimonial head on the Shuvalov estate, “who turns out to be partial to the schism” 619. In a letter to another Moscow military governor-general, P. A. Tuchkov, he makes a similar request regarding officials of the village of Guslits. “In the Bronnitsy district, in the village of Guslits, some Orthodox parishioners of the Church of the Resurrection of Christ,” he writes in the aforementioned letter, “presented to me the following: they were liberated from the detractors of Orthodoxy, the schismatic burgomasters were replaced, but not for long. Therefore, they again ask for the protection of the Orthodox Churches and the Orthodox Church by removing schismatics from positions in which the law does not allow them to be placed.” Bringing this to the attention of the Governor-General, the Moscow Bishop asks him to pay attention to this “authoritative attention to protecting the peace of the Orthodox Church” 620. In his resolutions, M. Filaret also advises his parish clergy to keep an eye on officials inclined to schism, “try to confirm them in Orthodoxy, and in case of actions harmful to Orthodoxy, report them definitively, outlining the circumstances” 621. M. Filaret considered the restriction of the rights of schismatics to social differences to be no less fair and also useful in the fight against schism. The idea of ​​such a limitation is the thought of M. Philaret, which later entered the legislative system. In his famous note “on means to reduce schisms,” the Moscow saint proposes that “among the general measures of not strengthened, but prudent counteraction to schisms, include the rule so that people who are strong among schismatics are no longer strengthened by satisfying their ambition.” “The honor and some power of rich and clever schismatics in their society,” says the Moscow saint in proof of the validity of such a demand, “is an advantage that they are very sorry to part with if they join the church. This advantage increases when they achieve civil distinction. Through this, their ambition suddenly doubles, gaining significance in the civil circle in general and at the same time increasing their honor in the circle of the sect. A lenient government, adorning schismatics, sometimes more out of benevolence and generosity than out of demand for merit, quietly creates supports for the schism.” In view of all that has been said, he recommends introducing into the existing legislation two such clauses regarding the subject under consideration: “1) so that members of more harmful sects do not have the right to social distinctions at all, and 2) so that members of less harmful sects are not adorned with honorary titles and distinctions in those cases where this is not strictly required by excellent merit or a generally useful feat” 622. The government fully agreed with the reasonableness of these reasoning, and both points of M. Philaret, through the Highest command on February 13, 1837 623, received the force of the current law, confirmed by the new Highest command on February 28, 1850 624. Among other restrictions on the personal rights of schismatics, the Moscow saint dwells only on limiting their right to enroll in icon painting workshops. He was forced to do this by the proposal of the 1864 committee 625 to abolish the existing prohibition on this subject in the existing legislation 626 . In his note examining the journals of the said committee, the Moscow saint took up arms against the abolition of this prohibition and put forward his views in favor of maintaining the existing prohibitory orders in this regard. And first of all, he points out that “the existing prohibition does not pose a great burden for schismatics,” since “the number of them engaged in icon painting is a very small proportion of the number of the schism.” But being not burdensome for the schism, this prohibition nevertheless serves, in his opinion, as an important protective measure in favor of Orthodoxy and in favor of art itself, and its abolition would therefore be harmful not only for the former, but also for the latter. Even now, “with the ban, schismatics are engaged in icon painting,” says Filaret, not only for schismatics, but partly for Orthodox Christians; and, having received this right by law, they will spread with greater force their works, which are harmful to Orthodoxy and art itself.” The fact is that “they do not learn icon painting according to the rules, but they paint icons from old sketches that they have in large numbers and produce images that are not correct, often ugly, based on false traditions.” In addition, “even now, when painting or renovating icons in Orthodox churches, they are increasing, especially with the favor of some parishioners, to spread the double-fingered sign of the cross on the icons; and it is difficult for priests to preserve icons that testify in favor of Orthodoxy. With the strengthening of schismatic icon painters, things may come to the point that in some churches all the icons will take on a schismatic appearance and become clear evidence in favor of the schism to seduce the Orthodox.” “So,” concludes M. Filaret has his own opinion, the existing prohibition for schismatics to join icon-painting workshops can be preserved without difficulty and with benefit, as a protective measure in favor of Orthodoxy and in favor of art itself.” 627 II. On the limitation of family rights of schismatics Question about schismatic marriages. About marriages of priests, performed among them through priests recognized by them. About the so-called step marriages. About the wedding of schismatic marriages in Orthodox churches. About priestless marriages. About the marriages of schismatics with Orthodox and Gentiles. Resolutions of the Committee of 1864 regarding schismatic marriages and comments by M. Philaret on these committee resolutions. The issue of schismatic marriages is one of the most difficult issues on schism that M. Philaret touches on in his opinions; and therefore, for the convenience of its consideration, it can be divided into several particular questions, which we will present each separately. 1) As for, first of all, the marriages of priests, performed among them through illegal priests recognized by them, then M. Filaret placed these marriages, as it should be, above all other schismatic marriages, because he considered such marriages to fully guarantee the strength of the family union, or, in his expression, to be completely “reliable for the family.” 628 “The marriage of a schismatic, he says, who accepts the priesthood, performed by a priest, binds his conscience by the power of God’s law, and thereby puts a barrier to the rampant passions and protects morals.” 629 When in 1867 the question arose whether one convert from the schism, a certain Malyshev, who was “married by a schismatic false priest,” could be ordained as a priest, and when someone, armed against his ordination as the reason for this, pointed out the illegality of his marriage in the schism, expressing that “Malyshev lived with a girl and gave birth to children,” Metropolitan. Filaret called such a judge a “slanderer,” noting for his part the following regarding Malyshev’s marriage: “Malyshev lived in a marriage that was wrong before the court of the church, but which, out of ignorance and delusion, he considered correct in his conscience, albeit a sinful one. Fornication is an act of passion combined with contempt for the law; but Malyshev entered into marriage in a schism, wanted to act and acted according to the law, as he understood it at that time. Consequently, one cannot accuse him of fornication, which does not allow him to enter the priesthood.” 630 But no matter how highly M. Filaret valued the marriage of a schismatic priest, he did not attach importance to this marriage equal to the marriage of the Orthodox, performed by a legitimate priest, not only from a church point of view - in the sense of the sacrament, which is quite natural - but also from a legal point of view “in civil terms,” as he puts it. 631 Like the civil government of the time, he recognized these marriages as tolerable as long as the spouses were in schism; but when it came to the recognition of such a marriage, upon the transition of the spouses from the schism to Orthodoxy, M. Filaret demanded for this re-wedding in the Orthodox Church; this was what he decided regarding the aforementioned Malyshev; This is what he did in his diocese and in other cases when it came to recognizing a marriage performed by a schismatic priest in a schismatic chapel. As an example, we can point to the case of the marriage of a peasant from the village of Ostashkova, Ivan Petrov, who was married to a peasant maiden, Fevronia Dementieva, in a schismatic chapel by an unknown priest. They lived together for about 11 years, were considered spouses in their circle of society and had two children. After they joined the Orthodox Church, “for their own spiritual purification and salvation and that of their children,” the Moscow Consistory decided to “marry them according to the rite of the Greek-Russian Orthodox Church,” to which the metropolitan agreed. The wedding was performed by the parish priest. 632 M. Philaret made only one concession to the weak conscience of those applying, this was the lack of publicity and any formalities when performing such a marriage. “Give the priest instructions,” he writes in a resolution on one such case, that confirmation of a marriage (performed in a schismatic chapel) can be carried out without a public meeting, because what is needed is legal consecration and reconciliation of consciences, and not publicity.” 633 On the other hand, about the non-recognition of m. Filaret behind the schismatic priestly marriages, the power of real marriages is also evidenced by the fact that when the schismatic spouses converted to Orthodoxy and when they did not want to continue the marriage contracted in the schism and consecrate it with a wedding in the Orthodox Church, they were allowed, if they wished, to “enter into a new marriage with an unhindered person.” This was precisely the decision of M. Philaret in the case of the conversion to Orthodoxy of the schismatic spouses, the Moscow merchant Nikolai Andreev Ivanov and Martha Ilyina, who were married in the schismatic chapel and who, after converting to Orthodoxy. did not want to continue this marital cohabitation. 634 Likewise, when one of the schismatic spouses converted to Orthodoxy and if the other did not want to do the same and sanctify their marriage, married in a schismatic chapel, with an Orthodox wedding in an Orthodox church, the converted spouse “was allowed to enter into a new marriage with an Orthodox person without hindrance.” These are the decisions of Metropolitan Philaret, with which St. Synod, in the case of marriages: 1) the merchant son Pyotr Brusnikov, married at the Rogozhskoye cemetery in the chapel with the bourgeois daughter Stepanida Ivanova, 635 and 2) the Moscow tradesman Fyodor Vasilyev Razuvaev, married to Ekaterina Fedorova in the chapel at the Rogozhskoye cemetery. 636 Stepanida Ivanova and Ekaterin Fedorova, who converted to Orthodoxy, were allowed to enter into new marriages, since their husbands did not want to join the Orthodox Church and confirm their marriage according to the rank of the church. 2) The strict regulations of Nicholas’s time regarding fugitive priests produced, if not “the ultimate impoverishment of the fleeing priesthood” among the priests, then a significant reduction in it: only in the centers of the schism, such as for example. at the Rogozhskoe cemetery, in Chernigov settlements, etc. there were several elderly priests tolerated by the government, and also several secret ones who moved from place to place with the greatest precautions. But this small number of fugitive priests could not satisfy the needs of the priests. As a result, they had so-called “step marriages”, i.e. by definition m. Philaret, such “marriages which, instead of a church wedding by a priest, in the absence of one, were carried out by a self-appointed officiant, a commoner, contrary to the rules and order of the church.” 637 There is no doubt that this was a movement for the worse, some approach to priestlessness, allowed, although not due to a change in doctrine, but for reasons of extreme necessity, but nevertheless had a harmful effect on the family life of the priests, depriving their marriages of that stability, that “reliability for the family,” which M. Philaret recognized for them when they were performed by priests, albeit illegal ones. This is exactly how M. Filaret looked at the disadvantages of the new type of marriage among the priests. “Such marriages,” he says about step-marriages, cannot be respected and firm and, consequently, lead to disruption of family life; Moreover, they move from the priestly sect to the worst non-priestly sect.” 638 The civil authorities also looked at them this way, and therefore took decisive measures against such marriages. “When information about this new disorder (i.e. about the emergence of step marriages among the priests) reached the highest power, M. Filaret later wrote, - it was contrasted with the provision of November 28, 1839 on the non-recognition of such marriages as valid, on the legal responsibility of the marriage partners and the couples, and on the invitation of the latter to facilitate the legalization of marriage by getting married in a church.” 639 This first resolution on step marriages took place in relation to the Tobolsk and Perm provinces, 640 since it was only from here that the government initially received information about the appearance of such marriages; Subsequently, these rules were extended to other provinces in which step marriages appeared. However, Met. Filaret did not see anything new in this decree on step marriages. “This was, in his opinion, an application of the general law corresponding to the subject (Consolidated Law Vol. XIV, according to the 1842 edition, Art. 86), who are ordered to send to court those who are disgusted with legal marriages, because priestly marriages avert marriages performed by a priest and introduce an imaginary marriage through a commoner.” 641 But despite the law’s persecution of marriage partners and consummators, despite the concession made by the government, allowing such marriages to be sanctified in Edinoverie and Orthodox churches, “without special conditions,” 642 as M. Philaret puts it, i.e. Without the obligation to join the Orthodox Church, step marriages did not stop, and the government remained preoccupied with this issue. Metropolitan. Filaret explains this ineffectiveness of government measures against step marriages by the inept implementation of these measures. “If only,” he wrote later (1848) regarding the new initiation of this issue, the situation on November 28 on the first few cases of priestly step marriages was directed with speed and accuracy: one could hope that the disorder would have been stopped, which the first marriages, of course, dared with bewilderment, and which seemed wild in the eyes of schismatics, from ancient times accustomed to a marriage performed by a priest. But the slowness in the use of this rule allowed the number of procurers and consummated marriages to multiply. The novelty, which at first few dared to embrace with bewilderment and shame, began to seem less strange, spreading to many. The multiplication of those subject to trial before clear examples of justice were shown, as a natural consequence, should have reduced the fear of the court and made justice more difficult, even if it was initiated.” 643 By the same reason he explains the failures of civil measures against step marriages and in a letter to the Reverend. Arkady Permsky. “I would like to know better,” the Metropolitan wrote to him in the same 1848, to what extent have your so-called step marriages decreased and by what means? This evil threatens our region too; and it is difficult to use protection when in matters of this kind the execution usually does not correspond to the assumed measures. The unsteadiness of the authorities in rules and in action is noticed by disobedient schismatics and they become confirmed in disobedience.” 644 But it does not follow from this, in his opinion, that the measures taken by the government were inappropriate and should be canceled. “A rule that is fair and based on the law, he says, does not cease to be fair and legal because its local execution corresponded to the direction given from the highest authority.” “Besides,” he adds, to retreat back in the orders of power would mean not sufficiently maintaining its dignity and giving food to the hopes of self-will.” Therefore, without changing the rules of 1839, it is only necessary, in the opinion of M. Philaret, “eliminate, if possible, difficulties and instill precision in execution.” In particular, he advises that in order to counteract step marriages, especially in those, in his opinion, “many” provinces, for which “the time has not yet passed to stand vigilantly on guard, on which the justice of Perm was not sufficiently vigilant,” and “where evil is only being revealed for the first time,” “to stop the beginners at the first steps.” And “where it has already spread, turn the speed and force of justice primarily on those who act stronger and more extensively, so that the strongest are stopped by justice, and the weakest by fear of justice.” In addition to this general application of previous measures, M. Filaret recommends observing the following rules in cases of step marriages: 1) “To punish the marriage partner, removing him from his place of residence is preferable to imprisonment, which would give him greater glory among schismatics.” 2) “The taming of the landowner peasants who turn out to be marriage partners should be left to the landowners, according to the rights given to them; and, if the measures they take stop evil, then they replace the need for a formal court.” 645 3) As for another measure taken to counteract step marriages by the decree of November 28, 1839 - attracting schismatics to perform marriages in churches of the same faith, we will consider it in connection with the general question of the wedding of schismatic marriages in Orthodox churches. The general rule regarding this subject was that schismatic marriages should be celebrated in Orthodox churches only under the condition that the schismatic spouses join the Orthodox Church; 646 otherwise, they were positively refused to consecrate their marriage with an Orthodox wedding. 647 These rules guided M. Filaret in his diocesan practice. “The sacraments,” he says, to prove the validity of such views and such practices, are either introduced into the church, such as baptism, or act within it, as a manifestation of the grace of God living in it. So to the point; so according to the rules of the church. Those who are alien to the Orthodox Church, therefore, do not have the right to use its sacraments” 648. But when step marriages appeared among the priests, which threatened to destroy their family life, which was, of course, not in the interests of the state, then, in order to counteract these marriages, it was decided to make it easier for schismatics to perform their marriages in Orthodox churches 649. “Under these circumstances,” says M. Philaret, not by the Holy Synod, but by a secret committee, secretly, it was given to the Eminence of Perm and, perhaps, some others, that, at the request of schismatics who did not join the church, their marriage could be celebrated in the church without special conditions, in compliance with church rules regarding kinship and civil laws” 650. Much earlier than all these decrees, back in 1820, when Philaret was Archbishop of Tver, he also allowed exceptions to the general rule regarding schismatics performing religious services, and in particular marriage, in Orthodox churches. At that time, in Rzhev, “the fugitive priests of the local schismatics were detained by the police and transported to their diocesan authorities” 651; The Rzhev schismatics, therefore, found themselves in the position in which all the priests subsequently found themselves. “Then those of the (Rzhev) schismatics, reports M. Filaret, in whom some had less strong prejudices against the church, held the schism more out of habit and connections, without delaying for long, they turned to the Orthodox priests with demands; These, according to this instruction, did not stop doing them, without distant conditions on both sides. The matter was done without petitions, relations and reports to the governor, to the bishop, to the Holy Synod” 652. “If in another of these cases,” he notes, leniency was extended far, one could hope that the judgment of God would cover the good intention with leniency, and it was inconvenient for the enemies of the church to extract reproach against it from private actions or to base their right on them” 653. – This is how M. Filaret looked at these particular deviations from the general rule. This is how he looked at the permission given by the decree of November 28, 1839 for the Perm and other dioceses, precisely as an exceptional measure, allowed only in special cases, when one can hope that this indulgence will be accompanied by good results. Therefore, he himself proposed it in other cases and again in the form of a private measure - to counteract step marriages 654. M. Filaret did not see any other remedy against step marriages; he doubted that “it would be possible to successfully attract to a wedding with full accession and thereby sufficiently counteract step marriages” 655. But while allowing schismatic marriages to take place in Orthodox churches, without the condition of joining, as a private, exceptional measure, M. Philaret was far from thinking of turning it into a general rule: he certainly denied the possibility of formal permission to perform such marriages without the condition of joining. When, in 1840, Rev. Arseny of Tambov, regarding the request of the Old Believers of the city of Spassk, turned to the Holy Synod for formal (“even to the point of excessiveness,” in Filaret’s words) permission for Orthodox priests to perform services for schismatics, without the latter joining the church; Metropolitan Filaret, who was entrusted with discussing this matter, rejected this request, because such permission, in his opinion, 1) “would be inconsistent with the rules and with the dignity of the Orthodox Church and its sacraments,” and 2) “it would give the schismatics a new weapon against the church; they would look at this not as condescension, but as recognition of their rightness.” But without giving formal permission, he still advises that marriages should be allowed on the basis of the same “secret order that was made before this Eminence of Perm,” i.e. allow as a private measure 656. In 1864, the question of “conducting marriages of schismatics in Orthodox churches, without requiring them to testify about their religion and obligations about the continued affiliation of themselves and their children with Orthodoxy,” was again raised in government spheres. It was proposed to “restore the custom that existed back in the twenties of this century,” according to which such marriages were allowed to be performed in Orthodox churches 657. This proposal was submitted to the Holy Synod for decision, and the latter entrusted this issue to the preliminary discussion of the diocesan eminences and, by the way, M. Philaret. The Moscow saint categorically spoke out for a negative solution to this issue. In his opinion written on this matter 658, he first of all exposes the inaccuracy in the very formulation of the question. “The celebration of marriages of schismatics, he says, in Orthodox churches, without special conditions about belonging to Orthodoxy, was not a custom, but was allowed solely as required by circumstances.” “After this, the question should take the following form: can this exceptional order be turned into a general rule?” Answering this question decisively - “cannot”, the basis for this he puts forward the same considerations about the nature of the sacraments as manifestations of the grace of God living in the church - which therefore “strangers to the Orthodox Church” do not have the right to use - which we pointed out earlier. Because of this, he proposes to the Holy Synod to make the following order: “the marriage of a schismatic and a schismatic in the church is not permitted by church authority.” But while speaking out in this opinion so decisively against formal permission to perform marriages of schismatics in the Orthodox Church, M. Filaret at the same time agrees, although he does not express it directly, to allow exceptions to this general rule as a private measure. “Let it be permitted,” he says, to quote here the reasoning of one of the oldest bishops of the Russian Church, who has already accomplished his feat and passed on to the future life. He said: if I find out that the priest, at the request of the schismatics, performed their marriage in the church; I leave this wrongness without persecution. For them, of course, a blessed marriage in the church is better than a marriage without grace outside the church. May some secret action of grace extend to their family life; may their children be children of a blessed marriage.” It is clear that Met. Filaret sympathizes with this and has nothing against such a particular deviation from the general rule. And the further words of the opinion of the Moscow archpastor in question show that he was not averse to allowing an exception, for he did not see in this any humiliation of the Orthodox sacrament. “At the same time, it is appropriate,” he says, to take into account that for the sake of an Orthodox person marrying a non-Orthodox person, a person of a non-Orthodox confession is allowed into the Orthodox Church to solemnize marriage.” That this is, indeed, the purpose of this indication of the existing practice in mixed marriages, let us compare these words with similar ones also said when discussing the issue of free marriages. Reverend Arkady of Perm was against allowing schismatics to perform marriages in Orthodox churches, as, in his opinion, it demeaned the sacrament of marriage. In response to this, in one of his private letters to him, the Metropolitan writes the following: “You say: do not weaken the concept of marriage as a sacrament. I think that they did not think of weakening this concept (i.e. by allowing schismatics to get married in the Orthodox Church), just as they did not think of it when they agreed to allow half of the married couple to get married in the church, even if they did not recognize the sacraments in marriage, i.e. Protestant or Reformed" 659. The latter cannot be said about the schismatic priests; they recognize marriage as a sacrament; therefore, they can all the more be allowed to perform marriages in Orthodox churches - this is the meaning of M. Philaret’s indication of the existing practice in mixed marriages. Much more briefly and at the same time more clearly, he expresses the same thoughts in a secret letter to the Reverend. Alexy, written in the same 1864 and on the same occasion - the raising in government spheres of the issue of schismatic marriages. “The sacraments have been established, the Moscow archpastor writes to him, for those entering the church and for those in the church. Consequently, it is impossible to draw up rules for marrying schismatics in the church. But if, on some occasion, schismatics are married in the church, their marriage can be considered valid. For the grace of St. is not in vain. church in the sacraments and for those who are not entirely worthy” 660. – The general conclusion from everything that has been said on the issue of the wedding of schismatics in Orthodox churches is that M. Filaret admitted the possibility of individual cases of the wedding of schismatics in the Orthodox Church, but he certainly denied the idea of ​​a general formal permission for such a wedding. 4) Closely related to the question of step-priest marriages is the question of non-priest marriages. The government, in view of their close similarity, did not consider absolutely any difference between these and other marriages, treating them under the same general name of step-marriages and using the same measures against them, recommended by the Highest Order on November 28, 1839 661. Metropolitan Filaret, although he does not believe such a sharp line between one and another marriage, however, does not confuse them. “Marriages among priestless people, committed by commoners,” he says, also fit the name of stepbrothers; but they have a slightly different attitude towards Article 86 of the XIV volume of the code of laws, because schismatics of the non-priestly persuasion usually do not recognize marriage at all, they consider fornication less criminal than marriage, and subject to penance for marriage; consequently, their branch, which allows marriage through a commoner, has a direction from worse to better, although not yet to the legal state of affairs, from complete hatred of marriage to the recognition of some kind of marriage” 662. From this it is clear that M. Filaret believed there was a significant difference between marriages without priests and step-marriages of priests when he considered them, so to speak, theoretically - in general connection with the historical life of priests and without priests: in step-marriages of priests he saw some regression, while in marriages without priests - “a direction from worse to better.” But as soon as the matter concerned the practical side of the issue and, thus, the interests of the state, M. Filaret changes his theoretical point of view and already considers them as a fact that exists independently, without connection with the historical course of priesthood and lack of priesthood. It goes without saying that he then comes to the government’s view of them, i.e. does not believe there is any difference between them. “There is a branch of schism,” he says, that rejects marriage in the church, but accepts marriage by family agreement. Conscience speaks strongly about a marriage performed in church that to break it is both sinful and shameful. Marriage by family agreement does not have the same effect on conscience and is easily separated by quarrel and passion and does not ensure a good family union” 663. Here m. Filaret characterizes a non-priest marriage in civil terms with the same features as a step-marriage of priests, and therefore advises them, like step-marriages of priests, “to be recognized as invalid before the law, and incapable of ensuring the rights and civil consequences of legal marriages for the couple” 664. In other cases, considering a non-priestly marriage from a church point of view, he interprets it as “illegal cohabitation” 665, as “fornication” 666, for which the perpetrators must “subject to church repentance” 667, for which he advises them to “send under penance to the Orthodox spiritual authorities, who in this case will have the opportunity to exhort the schismatic to return to Orthodoxy" 668. Thus, not recognizing any power or significance for the marriages of non-priests, he therefore wanted to attract these schismatics to the consecration of their marriages with an Orthodox wedding, so that they would thus “turn illegal cohabitation into legal” 669. M. Filaret considered strict “monitoring” measures to ensure that “illegally cohabiting schismatics of the non-popovshchina sect were not registered as their wives,” so that, in particular, “Moscow schismatics of this sect were not registered in other cities with false testimony of their wives and children, under the guise of being legitimate, which has already happened.” 670. We examined the different types of marriages existing among schismatics and M. Philaret’s attitude towards them. It remains to consider the issue of mixed marriages among schismatics, on the one hand - about marriages between schismatics and Orthodox Christians, and on the other - about marriages of schismatics with people of other faiths. Let's turn to the first question. 5) The question of marriages of schismatics with Orthodox Christians. The diocesan practice of M. Philaret regarding the conclusion of mixed marriages in Orthodox churches was quite consistent with the existing decrees on this subject, i.e. he allowed such marriages to take place in Orthodox churches “not before the schismatic has joined Orthodoxy according to ecclesiastical status and has taken a signature from him that he will remain in Orthodoxy for the rest of his life and will raise his children in the Orthodox faith” 671. “Without this (annexation), the Orthodox Church, according to him, cannot bless the marriage” 672. When one peasant turned to the metropolitan with a request to marry his schismatic son, according to the Rogozhskoe cemetery, with an Orthodox bride according to the rite of the general Orthodox or Edinoverie church and, in support of his request, said that his son promised to go to church and baptize children in Orthodoxy, Filaret was not satisfied with this and made it an indispensable condition for this marriage to take place in the Orthodox Church, “proper to her joining" of the schismatic groom. But since the latter did not agree to this, the marriage between these persons did not take place 673. When M. Philaret discussed the famous “instructions for dealing with schismatics” of 1858, he advised including in it, in addition to § 6, the rule: “if a schismatic is solicited to marry an Orthodox person, definitely refuse” 674. In 1864, in his opinion on the issue of performing schismatic marriages in Orthodox churches, M. Filaret also touches on the issue of mixed marriages of schismatics with Orthodox Christians, and already makes some concession: without saying anything about the accession of the non-Orthodox half, he only demands “the obligation to raise children (from such a marriage) in Orthodoxy” 675. As for the marriages of schismatics with Orthodox Christians, concluded according to schismatic rites, i.e. “in schismatic churches, houses and chapels,” then the government did not recognize them as legal and called them “fornicating relationships” 676. Moreover, “with schismatics who combined such marriages, as well as with their priests, or other persons who performed such marriages,” the government acted “on a general basis, as with seducers” 677. M. Philaret’s judgment on this issue and his diocesan practice in this regard completely coincides with the above-mentioned government view. Thus, in a report to the Holy Synod (dated 1837) on the case of the marriage of a schismatic of the Bronnitsy district, appanage department, village of Gzhel, peasant Pyotr Dmitriev, with the daughter of a peasant, of the same department, village of Konyashina Semyon Tikhonov Irina, Orthodox confession, performed in a schismatic chapel, - M. Filaret noted that such couplings are “illegal and untrue”, which therefore do not prevent “Orthodox persons from entering into new legal marriages.” Regarding Dmitriev, he added: he “is guilty of attracting an Orthodox girl to illegal cohabitation, allegedly marrying her in a schismatic chapel” 678. Regarding a similar marriage at the Rogozhskoye cemetery, Moscow. merchant A. B. Kuznetsov, a schismatic priest, with the widow A. G. Labutina of the Orthodox faith, M. Filaret, excusing the latter’s illegal act (i.e., a wedding in a schismatic chapel), as “a matter of sinful conscience,” takes up arms against the act of the fugitive priest who married this marriage, as an act that “is not tolerant." “For if an Orthodox priest, argues the Moscow saint, is punished for marrying a person from someone else’s parish, then a schismatic priest, tolerated only by the condescension of the civil government, is all the more not protected from justice for marrying and seducing an Orthodox person into a schism; The first action of justice against a fugitive is to no longer tolerate him as a fugitive, but to escort him to the authorities from whom he escaped” 679. This was also the decision of M. Filaret regarding the marriage of the bourgeois Fedosya Ermolaeva, an Orthodox Christian, with the schismatic tradesman Dolganov, which took place at the Rogozhskoye cemetery. When Fedosya Ermolaeva turned to the Moscow diocesan authorities with a request to release her from cohabitation with the schismatic Dolganov and allow her to enter into a legal marriage with a person of the Orthodox confession, M. Filaret, in a resolution on this case, recognized this marriage as “insignificant, since it was not performed in the church, by a priest who does not have the right to officiate, with the seduction of an Orthodox person into schism,” and therefore allowed the “petitioner to enter into a legal marriage.” At the same time, “about the discovered act of a schismatic priest who performed (marriages) without legal right, and especially illegally accepted a person belonging to the Orthodox Church,” he ordered “to be taken to the consideration of the Moscow Military Governor-General” 680. Finally, in the case of the marriage of the Orthodox peasant Aksenov, concluded with a schismatic woman at the Rogozhskoye cemetery, m. Filaret, in relation to the Moscow military governor-general, asks “to direct the authority’s attention and justice” not only “to the priest who crowned” this marriage, but also “to the chapel itself,” “who, in violation of the rights of the dominant religion and public peace, seduced and did not accept a member of the Orthodox Church into their jurisdiction” 681. 6) On the issue of marriages of schismatics with persons of heterodox Christian faiths, the opinion of M. Philaret differed significantly from the government’s view on this subject. The Sovereign Emperor, when it was brought to his attention about the marriages of Riga schismatics with persons of the Lutheran and Roman Catholic confession, decided that neither the civil nor the spiritual authorities cared about these marriages; the general principle of the government - “not to enter into the proceedings of marriages of schismatics committed among themselves” - should be applied to these mixed marriages. As for persons of heterodox confessions who marry schismatics, this is a matter for their spiritual superiors, since “the Roman Catholic and Lutheran confessions have their own statutes.” Therefore, Emperor Nicholas I ordered “to leave this matter (about the marriages of Riga schismatics with heterodox persons) without consequences” 682. – M. Filaret did not agree with this point of view on this subject. “Schismatics,” he says in his opinion (1836) on the question: “whether to allow marriages of schismatics with Lutherans” 683, “constitute a broken branch. The dominant religion to which their ancestors completely belonged.” Coming out of this view of the schism, he further proves that the question of marriages of schismatics with Lutherans is a question that is far from indifferent to the Orthodox Church. “If you leave their marriages with Lutherans without attention and restrictions,” he continues, “then it can easily happen that their children will be raised in the Lutheran confession, and consequently this confession will be extended to the account of the dominant religion, which is contrary to the fundamental state law, which gives the right to the dominant religion to acquire from others, and not back. A further consequence of this may be that Lutheran education, grafted onto the schism through marriage and the upbringing of children, will give it new strength and greater independence.” M. Philaret expresses this same idea about the marriages of schismatics with persons of heterodox confessions, and even in the same expressions, in his other opinion about the Riga schismatics 684. Considering the note about these schismatics and the newly drawn up rules for stopping immorality in their marriages and families (the author of this note and rules is unknown), M. Filaret against rules 47 and 48, which gave the Riga schismatics “the right to baptize children, according to the confession of their mothers, in the Roman or Lutheran confession,” notes: “this right is contrary to state law, according to which tolerated confessions cannot accept people from the dominant religion; schismatics are a branch of the dominant religion, albeit a damaged one.” Only here does M. Filaret express more serious concerns about the consequences of such marriages; - He fears not just the strengthening of the split, but fears for the very nationality of the schismatics. “Assuming this (rule), he says, while schismatics are especially alienated from Orthodoxy, and have become close to the people of other faiths in Riga due to local circumstances and adopted their customs, there is reason to fear that the schismatic population of Riga would begin to overflow into the other faith, thereby losing their national character.” Metropolitan Filaret also considers the measures that should be taken against such quite possible consequences. “How to prevent this?” he asks in the first opinion. “To demand that a Lutheran and a schismatic (in this opinion he concerned only these marriages, saying nothing about marriages with Catholics) raise children in schism? Strange. In Orthodoxy? "Inconvenient." Therefore, he advises that in order to “divert” schismatics from marriages with people of a non-Orthodox confession, “it is possible to make it easier for them to enter into marriages with Orthodox Christians” 685. In conclusion to the question of schismatic marriages, we will consider the turn in government views on this subject at the beginning of the reign of Emperor Alexander II, the resolutions of the committee of 1864, and the attitude of Metropolitan Philaret to these resolutions. The legal instability of marriages between schismatics had an unfavorable effect on the “family well-being” of the schismatics themselves (we mean the recognition of the legitimacy of children and rights to inheritance) and, being a kind of punishment for sectarianism, at the same time gave rise to a great social evil. “The complete non-recognition by the civil authorities of marital unions between sectarians, not sanctified by a wedding in the Orthodox or Edinoverie church,” testifies the committee of 1861, “by removing the home life of schismatics from the operation of general laws, opening a vast field to self-will and unrestrained revelry of passions, has a destructive effect on the morals of people” 687. The law that protects the strength of the family, in this case, gave the right to complete arbitrariness; even more, it seemed to justify this arbitrariness. A husband who drove away his wife, a wife who ran away from her husband, remained completely unpunished in the face of the law: the law excluded any claim, any complaint from the offended party. What is persecuted in others remained without persecution here. This unsightly side of the legal lack of rights of schismatic marriages performed according to their rites was recognized even in imperial times. Nicholas I. The unknown author of the “rules for stopping immorality in the marriages and families of Riga schismatics” designed (rights 5–10) for this purpose the measure now adopted (since 1874) by the government, i.e. proposed to recognize schismatic marriages as legally legal, and this legality was to be determined by their police records in a special form. But then this measure could not be adopted by the government, since it was too contrary to its views on this subject. As for M. Philaret, he wrote the following about this: “this would mean introducing a new type of marital union, unknown and contrary to the laws, recognizing what is not recognized by the laws, legalizing what is illegal, turning what is tolerated out of necessity into something protected. This would serve as a strong reinforcement for the split and would create new difficulties in relation to existing laws” 688. Denial, or - or rather - ignoring the fact of marriages between schismatics, concluded according to their ritual, could and sometimes had the consequence of incest, condemned not only by moral and religious, but also by physiological laws. Let us assume that the schismatic couple lived together for many years; then one of the spouses left sectarianism and, turning to Orthodoxy, declared a desire to enter into a legal marriage with the sister of his former wife, or with the brother of his former husband. The law, both church and state, prohibits such marriages in the second degree of property as incest. Meanwhile, such a union, while ignoring schismatic marriages, was possible 689. The government was aware of the abnormality of this order of things and sometimes tried to prevent this evil. There is a known case where it forbade a schismatic who had converted to Orthodoxy to marry a person who was closely related to him through a previous marriage concluded during the schism 690. But such isolated cases could not eradicate evil. During the reign of Alexander II, significant changes took place in the legislation regarding the marriages of schismatics. The government, among other civil rights, decided to grant the schismatics family (and in connection with them, property) rights. How clearly the need was felt to change the attitude towards schismatic marriages that existed in the past, how strongly the harm of their non-recognition was realized, can be seen from the fact that of all the changes in the system of government relations to the schism projected during the reign of Alexander II, only an exception was made regarding this subject. While other changes did not leave the scope of projects and were carried out after the death of Emperor Alexander II, the legalization of marriages of schismatics was rushed as much as possible; schismatic marriages were legalized through registration in special records in police and volost departments. The legality of these marriages does not depend on the performance of any rituals used by schismatics, but is determined precisely by the entries in the metric books and has a purely civil meaning. This legalization of schismatic marriages was Supremely approved on April 19, 1874 691. M. Filaret was no longer alive at that time. His participation in this matter was expressed during the preparatory work for this act of national importance. We will therefore consider these preparatory works on the issue of recognizing schismatic marriages in the committee of 1864 and M. Philaret’s comments on these committee judgments. We have already seen on what grounds the committee comes from when introducing significant changes to the legislation regarding schismatic marriages. These reasons are quite reasonable, and M. Filaret does not deny their significance. The idea (of the committee) that “the complete non-recognition by civil authorities of marital unions between sectarians, unsanctified by a wedding in the Orthodox or Edinoverie church, opening up a vast field for self-will and unrestrained revelry of passions, has a destructive effect on morals, contains a strong incentive to recognize such marriages, if it is fair.” Without denying the “damage to the morals of the schismatics,” M. Filaret, however, sees the reasons for this damage in a completely different way from what the committee believed. He finds the committee's idea unfair. “The firmness of marriage,” he says, which provides a barrier to rampant passions, depends on religious conviction in the sanctity of marriage, and not on its recording in a philistine police book. The marriage of a schismatic who accepts the priesthood, performed by a priest, binds his conscience by the power of God's law, and thereby puts a barrier to the rampant passions and protects morals, regardless of whether it is recognized or not recognized by the civil authorities. The marriage of a non-priest, bound only by the will of the parents, or an uninitiated high school student, does not have such a protective effect on the conscience; The complete non-recognition of marriage, according to the teachings of the sect, is even more conducive to the rampant passions. And so, it is not from the recognition of sectarian marriages by the civil authorities that their rampant passions and corruption of morals arise, but from the spirit of the sects themselves, and the civil law on marriages will not heal this evil, because it will not change the spirit of the sects” 692. Disagreeing, therefore, with the committee’s view of “the reasons for the damage to the morals of schismatics,” M. Filaret quite logically disapproves of the government’s new step on the issue of schismatic marriage. With this new step in this matter, “the legislation, according to M. Filaret, is entering a dubious path” 693. He recognizes as “unreliable” the very basis for the recognition of schismatic marriages - an entry in the police book - unreliable because, in his opinion, this does not sufficiently guarantee the legality of the marriage. The absence of obstacles to registering a marriage should be certified, according to the committee, by at least two witnesses. But “to tell a lie in favor of a schism,” says M. Philaret, schismatics either do not consider it a sin, or consider it such a sin that their mentors will easily forgive them, or will cleanse them with a few prostrations to the ground. So, schismatic witnesses will come to the police record of the marriage and hide the fact that there is a close relationship between the bride and groom, or that one of them has been in three marriages and is entering into a fourth, or that they have joined the Orthodox Church: and the marriage will be recognized to the detriment of Orthodoxy and to the temptation of the Orthodox.”694 Particularly unsatisfactory, in the opinion of the Moscow saint, was the resolution of the committee on the issue of dissolution of schismatic marriages. The dissolution of a declared schismatic marriage, according to the rules of the committee, is left to the jurisdiction of the chambers of the civil court 695. In the application of this rule, M. Filaret sees great inconveniences. “Before the conscience of schismatics who accept the priesthood,” he says, marriage is a church sacrament, just like marriage in the Orthodox Church. For the chamber of the civil court to terminate the effect of the sacrament and take away from the marriage the grace and blessing given to it by the sacrament, this is an incongruity that strikes religious thought and religious feeling” 696. “But if this inconsistency becomes a practice,” continues the Moscow Archpastor, and as a result the idea spreads that marriage is a union that can be degraded by civil authority, like a contract or other civil act, then respect for the sanctity of marriage will be undermined, and the most reliable support for the firmness and purity of the marriage union will be crushed. And this temptation will threaten not only schismatics, but also the Orthodox, especially given the already spreading weakness of morals” 697. Finally, “in divorce cases there will be a need to take into account church rules. But this, by the nature of church legislation, is not as convenient for the civil chamber as applying articles of the code of laws to the case” 698. In order, at least partially, to eliminate the inconveniences shown, M. Filaret recommends that the proposed rule on the civil dissolution of schismatic marriages be replaced as follows: 1) “Cases about the crimes of schismatics against the firmness and purity of marital unions are subject to the jurisdiction of a chamber of the civil court. 2) If in these cases there are cases that require the application of church laws, then the chamber will communicate with the Orthodox spiritual authorities on which church law should be applied to the case presented in the case. 3) If the spiritual authorities declare that the present opportunity leads to the dissolution of the marriage, then the chamber declares the marriage destroyed” 699. Question about schismatic metrics The recording of births and deaths of schismatics at different times was carried out differently. “In former times, M. Philaret testifies, schismatics recorded their dead and born in the church registers of the parish in which they live. Taking advantage of the far-reaching tolerance, they had the audacity to gradually stop this legal custom, and the secret rules of 1822 gave their self-will the appearance of legality” 700. These rules allowed the schismatics to have fugitive priests, the latter were ordered “to keep metrics for the sake of order and submit reports about this to the civil authorities” 701. But while allowing the priests to keep metrics themselves, the government of that time the following year refused to keep such metrics for the non-priests of the Preobrazhensky cemetery, “so that, as stated in the resolution on this subject, this would not be taken as the approval of a schismatic society” 702. During the reign of Emperor Nicholas, the previous practice regarding the metric records of the Bespopovites, confirmed again 703, was extended to the priests - first to the Rogozhskys 704, and then to all priests in general 705. Maintaining schismatic records was entrusted exclusively to the local police. M. Filaret fully agreed with the idea of ​​the Nikolaev legislation that maintaining lists of born and dying schismatics cannot be entrusted to the schismatics themselves. “The general rule,” he says, for Christian subjects is that metrics are kept in churches through priests. Since schismatics do not have a legal priesthood, they cannot have legal church metrics” 706. But regarding who should be entrusted with maintaining schismatic records - the local police, as was decreed, or the Orthodox parish clergy, as was practiced before the publication of the rules of 1822 - regarding this, the opinion of M. Philaret differed from the government’s view on this subject. When in 1839 the question of schismatic metrics arose in government spheres, M. Philaret strongly spoke out in favor of the old “custom” of recording dead and born schismatics by Orthodox clergy in the church records of the parish in which the schismatics live. “The schismatics,” the Moscow saint wrote in his opinion (dated January 19) on this issue, cannot consider the restoration of a custom that existed for them and in which there is nothing contrary to their beliefs to be oppression, for it is simply a record made by the hand of a priest or a clerk, and not a clerical servant” 707. In his opinion, “Orthodoxy can derive the benefit from the restoration of this custom that parish priests will have the opportunity to communicate with schismatics for an edifying interview” 708. And besides, “those schismatics who doubt the rightness of their parents, and are prevented from having intercourse with the priests by their prohibitions and curses, would have an opportunity to have intercourse with them, which they now desire, but do not dare to seek” 709. These, in the opinion of the Moscow Archpastor, are the beneficial aspects of the previous practice. On the contrary, the establishment of any special metrics for schismatics can be accompanied, in his opinion, by only harm: this would be tantamount to recognizing schismatics as a “special class in the state” 710. These same thoughts are given by M. Filaret in his opinion of 1854, when the question of recording born and dying schismatics in the metrics of Orthodox parishes was again raised in government spheres, but at the initiative of the Yaroslavl Advisory Committee. “The Code of Laws,” wrote the Moscow saint, “orders police records of birth, marriage and death to be verified with consistory records, but this verification of schismatics is impossible when they are not written in consistory records, and it is difficult to dispute that the law recognizes police records as requiring verification. So, the state has reasons, if not for the benefit of the church, then for the benefit of the state, to insist that the birth and death of schismatics be entered in the parish registers” 711. The state benefit from the introduction of these records, in the opinion of the Moscow Metropolitan, will be expressed in 1st way that with their introduction “the population account will be more complete and correct”, and 2ndly “it will be more difficult for schismatics to make forgeries that are now being noticed, such as. increasing the age for premature marriage, decreasing the years for evading conscription due to youth, increasing the years for evading conscription due to old age, increasing the years for avoiding severe punishment in old age” 712. Finally, the benefit of this measure will also be expressed in the fact that “the clergy - the Metropolitan repeats his thought of 1839 - will be brought into some contact with the schismatics” 713. The opinion of M. Filaret was not respected by the government. When the question of “whether information about dying and born schismatics should be delivered to parish priests” was proposed for decision by the supreme authorities, the Sovereign Emperor on the 30th day of December 1855 deigned to command: the old procedure for maintaining nominal lists of born and dying schismatics by local police “to be preserved for the future without any change; in order to provide the ecclesiastical department with the opportunity to have correct information about the number of schismatics, instruct the civil authorities to report copies of the said statements annually to the local diocesan authorities" 714. Finally, when the question of metrics for schismatics was again raised - among other questions about the schism - by the committee of 1864, M. Filaret, in his comments on the committee's journals, speaks out for the expediency and convenience of the measure previously recommended by him. The 1864 Committee restored the old practice of keeping these records by the local police. At the same time, detailed rules were drawn up for statements to the police about the birth and death of schismatics, and uniform forms for these entries in the police book were also determined, issued annually for this purpose from the provincial government, laced and sealed on sheets by the secretary and signed by the adviser of this government 715. Metropolitan Filaret, pointing out in his comments the complete inconvenience of fulfilling some of the requirements of these rules, for example. requirements to indicate, when applying for birth and death, the hour of the event itself 716, at the same time, there are many inconveniences in the very keeping of these records by local police. “For this operation of statements,” he says, an increase in offices, police departments and bailiffs will be required and, consequently, special costs from the treasury” 717. “It is difficult to expect,” he further writes, that the records of statements would be correct; and in case of infidelity, it is difficult to find a means of verification” 718. Meanwhile, “the correct birth record is important in many respects and, among other things, in relation to recruitment” 719. To eliminate these difficulties, M. Philaret recommends a measure “although also not free from the difficulty, but at least somewhat relieving”: to entrust the keeping of records of the birth and death of schismatics to the Orthodox “parish, at their place of residence, clergy, in the same way as the metric books of Orthodox forms in the form of a separate addition to them” 720. The fidelity and safety of these records, as well as records of births and marriages and deaths of the Orthodox population, is sufficiently ensured, in the opinion of the Moscow Archpastor, by the fact that “a parish priest with three or at least two members of the clergy are responsible for them; that the dean supervises the correctness of these records twice a year; that, at the end of the year, one copy of these records remains in the church, and the other is presented to the consistory or spiritual board, where it is controlled, gives statistical tables and is stored” 721. In addition, the recommended m. Filaret's order of recording the birth and death of schismatics has, in his opinion, other important advantages for the schismatics themselves, for the state and for the church. First, to declare birth and death, “in the greatest number of cases it is closer and more convenient to go to the rural parish priest than to the bailiff” 722. The second “it is more convenient from one source than from different ones to obtain the necessary information, certificates and an account of people” 723. Finally, what is important for the church is that “the priest gets the opportunity to come into contact with schismatics, so that by friendly and benevolent treatment of schismatics he can gain their favor and open the way to a religious conversation with them, instead of the fact that now schismatics, at the instigation of their mentors, do not accept priests into their homes, and priests do not find opportunities to enter into communication with them” 724. But this time too the government did not agree with M. Filaret’s arguments. Records of the birth and death of schismatics were considered the responsibility of the local police, not the parish clergy. III. The question of an independent schismatic school M. Philaret’s opinion on this issue in one of the official notes of 1835. The Nikolaev government has a negative attitude towards this issue. Closing of the last schismatic schools. Changes in government views on this subject during the reign of Alexander II. The committee's resolution of 1864 on the opening of schismatic literacy schools and M. Philaret's remark on this committee resolution. The question of admitting schismatics to general schools and educational institutions without the obligation to study the Law of God. The question of admitting Orthodox children to schismatic schools. In conclusion of the section on the civil rights of schismatics, we will outline the judgment of the Moscow saint on the issue of granting schismatics the right to have their own schools. We have already noticed in our place where we talked about school as a means of combating schism that some agree to consider any school, even a schismatic one, as a suitable means for weakening the schism. Those who reasoned in this way proceeded from the general idea that any education, weakening schismatic fanaticism and exclusivity, can little by little bring schismatics closer to the Orthodox Church. 725 M. Filaret, as we have seen, did not share these utopian dreams. And if, as we have seen, he considered even an Orthodox school, but only a secular one, to be an unreliable means for achieving this goal, then for this reason alone one can judge how he looked at a schismatic school. In his “thoughts and assumptions about means to reduce splits,” having spoken out for the school as one of the real means against splits, he immediately continues: “these means (i.e. schools) must be carefully adapted to the purpose. If schools are in the hands of schismatics, they will naturally be breeding grounds for schism, not Orthodoxy.”726 These words were written by Filaret in 1835. In the same year, the only schismatic schools located at schismatic cemeteries in Moscow were closed, “as institutions contrary to the published decrees” 727, and three years before that, the same school in Riga was closed, also on the grounds that “it was established contrary to the principles on which public schools were established” 728. It goes without saying that the question of an independent schismatic school could not arise during the reign of Emperor Nicholas I. The subsequent reign raised, among many other issues, the question of the emancipation of the schismatic school. The 1864 Committee unanimously resolved this issue in a positive sense, favorable for the schismatics. They decided to allow schismatics of less harmful sects to establish literacy schools in which teaching would be limited to reading, writing and the four rules of arithmetic, so that these schools, both with regard to the selection and appointment of teachers, and with regard to the supervision of teaching, would be run by those institutions that would generally be under the jurisdiction of public schools, however, without any encouragement or support from the government 729. When considering the journals of the Committee of 1864, M. Filaret in his note “on the proposed changes in the current resolutions on schismatics” dwells on this resolution of the Committee. As one would expect, he now speaks out as decisively against the schismatic school as in 1835. Only here, for greater persuasiveness, he gives reasons in defense of his view. In his opinion, “the establishment of independent schismatic schools comes closer to recognizing the class of schismatics and leads to an increase in their separatism, while it is more useful for the state that their separatism decreases and does not create cracks in social unity” 730. “If,” he continues, means were sought to strengthen the schism, then, among other things, it would, of course, be proposed: to establish schismatic schools, the founders, maintainers and patrons of which would be schismatics” 731. Such are the fears of the Moscow saint from the establishment of independent schismatic schools. Apparently, these fears, if not completely unfounded, are at least significantly exaggerated in view of the fact that the committee’s permission for schismatics to establish their own schools means only literacy schools, the program of which does not include the teaching of the Law of God, and in which, therefore, no indoctrination of religious concepts of schism can take place in children. Indeed, this is partly expressed in the above-mentioned resolution of the committee, but it is emphasized with particular force in the note of the majority, which stands for the admission of children of Orthodox parents to these schools 732, which will be discussed below. Apparently, we repeat, this circumstance does not speak in favor of M. Filaret’s fears. But this is only apparent. In fact, let's say in the words of Prof. Ivanovsky, “no matter what position a schismatic school is placed in regarding the methods and scope of teaching, the religious element will inevitably be inherent in it, and from here it will always, to a greater or lesser extent, develop and strengthen schismatic separatism” 733. And our people’s view of learning itself is strictly religious. “Without teaching religious things, but a belief that has long been rooted in our people, and teaching is not about teaching” 734, hence his love - to study from church books (and from schismatics - from books of pre-Nikon editions). – All this is such means in the hands of schismatics, school leaders, which can very easily be directed against the Orthodox Church. This is what the Moscow saint rightly feared. The teachers appointed by the government will not be able, in the opinion of M. Philaret, to help this evil, “depending for their content on the schismatics, he says, these teachers will not dare to counteract the schismatic trend, and under their shadow it will be possible to place active schismatic teachers, whom the government cannot but allow, for example, to teach hook music singing” 735. The Committee of 1864, intending to allow schismatics to establish their own literacy schools, under the highest supervision of the government, motivated this permission by the following: that such education of schismatic children in permitted schools is the best, perhaps the only, remedy against the growing influence of another type of education, by which the schism primarily lives and feeds - education at home, secret, escaping any control, carried out through mentors and literati, who, along with the rudiments of literacy, convey to the students all their enmity towards the Orthodox Church and all the stubborn rigidity in their false thinking 736. M. Filaret finds this motivation for the case not “strong enough.” “The education of schismatic children through elders and elders, not authorized by the government,” he says, is not widespread. The elders and elders teach children to read the alphabet, the Book of Hours and the Psalter and produce ignorant ignoramuses. But in the proposed schismatic schools there will be more or less educated teachers, and they will influence the development of the mental abilities of schismatic children, which can produce educated teachers of the schism and opponents of Orthodoxy with a strong influence on the masses of schismatics” 737. That in these judgments of M. Philaret there is nothing exaggerated, it is enough to recall the Kovylin school at the Preobrazhensky cemetery, which educated the most important mentors and defenders of the Fedoseevsky persuasion 738. “If, says M. Philaret, school education shakes children’s confidence in the schism, without correct teaching of the Law of God, then people will emerge without religious and moral convictions, harmful to themselves, to the schism and to the state” 739 . “There is a way,” the Moscow saint continues his reasoning, to provide education to schismatics in a more reliable way. Public schools established by the clergy are beginning to attract schismatic children” (as proof of which, M. Philaret refers to the example of parish schools in Bogorodsky district and the school of the Guslitsky monastery; - which we have already mentioned). The same applies to some civil schools in Moscow. 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. If such training spreads, then there will be no need for special schismatic schools; on the contrary, if these are established, then one cannot help but fear that the dissenters will kidnap schismatic children from church schools and drag them into their own, hostile churches” 740. In conclusion, he advises “not to establish schismatic schools, or, at least, to postpone this measure until we see whether church and civil schools will provide schismatics with the desired education that is not marked by the nature of separatism” 741. When, two years after this note was written, the former Minister of Public Education A. M. Golovin, pointing to the charter of the Grebenshchikov school in Riga for schismatic children 742, confidentially asked for an invitation to schismatics living in the Moscow province to enter with requests for the establishment of similar educational institutions for their children, and when this became known to M. Philaret, the latter proposed his own for consideration by the Moscow provincial school council the opinion that the schismatic school existing in Riga cannot serve as a model for the same throughout Russia, that “the establishment of a schismatic school in Riga has special local reasons,” and that “the question of establishing schismatic schools in general requires not Riga, but completely different considerations. At the same time, he cited the same considerations that he cited when considering the committee's journal of 1864 743. Petitions by Moscow schismatics were indeed submitted, first to the trustee of the Moscow educational district, and then to the Minister of Public Education, only not in 1866, but two years later, when M. Philaret was no longer alive; but schools were still not allowed 744. In connection with the question of the emancipation of schismatic schools, the committee of 1864 raised the following questions: 1) about the admission of schismatics to general schools and educational institutions, without making it mandatory for them to study the Law of God, and 2) about the admission of Orthodox children to schismatic schools - of which the first was unanimously decided in a positive sense, and regarding the second, there was disagreement between the members of the committee; the majority of the members, with the chairman of the committee, were in favor of admission, and four members (Rev. Filofei, Protopresbyter Bazhanov, Akhmatov and Prince Urusov) were against this and submitted a special note in which they outlined their concerns if this issue was resolved in a positive sense 745. Metropolitan Filaret also considers both of these issues in his reserve. The solution to the first question in a positive sense aroused in him the same fear as the schismatic school of literacy, i.e. that admitting the children of schismatics to general schools, without the obligation to study in them the Law of God, can produce people without any religious and moral convictions, which they will not be able to acquire in the parental home, where “they will find only ignorance and, perhaps, a bad example.” Therefore, he recommends, for his part, to slightly change this rule, which would not be offensive to the schism, but would be spiritually beneficial for the children of schismatics,” and to express it this way: “children of schismatics are admitted to general educational institutions without the obligation to listen to the lessons of the Law of God, however, with the obligation to study the Creed, the Lord’s Prayer and the Ten Commandments, using, if they wish, old printed books” 746. In resolving the second issue of admitting Orthodox children to schismatic schools, M. Filaret takes historical ground, which, in his words, “can help judge this issue.” In 1856, as a result of a denunciation by the head of the Preobrazhensky almshouse, the official Potulov, about the false, in his opinion, handling of the case at the Preobrazhensky Edinoverie School 747, the question of admitting Orthodox children to this school was raised in government spheres. The journal of the secret committee, approved by the Highest on the 20th day of May 1857, decided: in the future, Orthodox children will not be accepted into this school. Pointing now to this decree, M. Filaret notes: “if the stay of Orthodox children in a Edinoverie school, in which the teacher (Edinoverie, or what is the same, in relation to the teaching of the faith) is an Orthodox priest, which is outside the influence of schismatics, in which Orthodox children are in the majority, is recognized as not safe from being seduced into schism; then how can one not recognize the presence of Orthodox children in a school that was founded, maintained and patronized by schismatics as dangerous, in which Orthodox children will be immersed in the majority of schismatic children, removed from the leadership and supervision of the Orthodox clergy, in which a secular teacher, more or less dependent on schismatics, occupied with the majority of schismatic children, of course, will not pay special attention to protecting Orthodox children from schismatic propaganda, which, intensively operates in homes and factories; of course, it will not be inactive at the most opportune occasion in a schismatic school” 748. The majority of the members of the 1864 committee, deciding the issue under consideration in a positive sense, considered such fears of school propaganda, expressed earlier by Philaret in a special note from the minority, as too exaggerated, on the one hand, in view of the fact that schools maintained at the expense of schismatics should neither bear the names nor have the meaning of schismatic schools; they should be simply literacy schools in which, with the special permission of the government, the teaching would be limited to the circle of secular elementary education; that, on the contrary, a mandatory order not to admit anyone into them except the children of sectarians would inevitably give them exactly the character that it is most desirable to avoid; it would develop in both teachers and students a spirit of exclusivity, characteristic of any closed circle and weakened only by the collision of persons with different views and habits. This is on the one hand. On the other hand, such fears are also unnecessary because Orthodox parents sending their children to schools maintained by sectarians can only be a rare exception and should only occur in those places where, apart from the school maintained by the schismatics, there is no other school in close proximity; where there will be a schismatic and an Orthodox school in close proximity to one another, the former will be unable to withstand competition simply because it will not have enough religious teaching, without which, according to the conviction that has long been rooted in our people, there will be no teaching 749 . M. Filaret does not recognize both of these judgments as valid. And firstly, the idea that the schools established by schismatics should not have the name and meaning of schismatic schools is essentially “an unfulfillable thing.” “If the school,” he says, is named after the schismatic founder, of course, not the unfamous one; By this name everyone will know that it is schismatic. And even no matter what other name is given, the fame that this is a schismatic school will not decrease. The absence of a priest-teacher of the law will be a clear expression for everyone that the school has the significance of a schismatic school. And so, by immersing Orthodox children in such a school, the character of a schismatic school will not be removed from it and the spirit of exclusivity will not be driven out of it, but only these children will be exposed to the danger of being seduced into schism” 750. The second thought, that sending Orthodox children to schools run by schismatics can only be a rare exception, M. Filaret also finds “unsettling” in view of the fact that the issue of competition between an Orthodox school and a schismatic school can be decided in practice by completely different considerations than those put forward by the majority of committee members - economic considerations, not religious ones; and therefore will not be decided in favor of the Orthodox school, as the experience of the Preobrazhensky cemetery showed at one time, which managed to attract Orthodox children to its school with material benefits and seduce them into schism. “At the so-called Preobrazhenskoe cemetery,” says M. Filaret, the schismatics had a school in which they gave full maintenance to many poor children, in order to train them as followers and agents of the schism. Without a doubt, they will do the same again if they are given the right to maintain schools. Therefore, one cannot help but fear that for many poor Orthodox children, subsistence in a schismatic school will be a bait that draws them into the network of schism” 751. “And so, the Moscow saint concludes his opinion, even if schismatic schools were destined to exist: Orthodox Christian love for mankind would require protecting Orthodox children from them, as from those who are caught in a net.” 752 Chapter III. On the religious rights of schismatics I On schismatic prayer buildings and liturgical objects Government relations to schismatic prayer buildings under Alexander I and Nicholas. M. Filaret's view on this subject. His diocesan practice in this regard. Changes in government attitudes towards schismatic chapels during the reign of Alexander II. Resolution of the Committee of 1864 regarding schismatic prayer buildings. Review of the journals of this Committee by M. Filaret and his proposed edition of the new rules on this subject. About schismatic monasteries and monasteries. About schismatic books, manuscripts, icons and liturgical utensils. The relationship of the government of the reign of Alexander I to the prayer buildings of the schismatics, at first somewhat vague, was concluded, at the end of the reign, by the rules of March 26, 1822. According to the meaning of these rules, old chapels should be left alone and not searched for, and the construction of new ones should not be allowed under any circumstances 753. The government of the subsequent reign at the very beginning confirmed these rules 754, even taking care to collect information about all the existing prayer buildings of the schismatics. 755 Soon it took a new step towards restrictions on schismatic chapels, prohibiting the very repair of them. 756 But since, despite all the clarity and persistence of these government decrees, there were probably cases of non-compliance with them: then m. Filaret, who fully shared the government’s view on this subject, in his note of 1835 (already cited more than once by us) “on means to reduce schisms,” again reminds “that any construction and restoration of houses of worship after the time in which the preceding actions were covered with highly royal condescension, was either not allowed, or subjected to destruction places marked by disobedience to the law” 757. This opinion was taken into account by the government, and was again confirmed “for unremitting execution” so that illegally built houses of worship were destroyed 758. The government hoped through this, if not completely destroying the schismatics’ prayer buildings, then at least reducing them as much as possible. M. Filaret also thought so, who considered “the gradual closure of schismatic prayer houses, especially those reopened that do not exist without permission,” “a necessary measure” 759, and armed himself against the opening of new ones. When in one project regarding the schism it was proposed to “allow the existence and even the re-building of schismatic prayer houses,” he remarked to this: “it is not clear how this measure could be proposed and for what purpose. What is the benefit to Orthodoxy if schismatic prayer houses multiply and if it is possible to build them more freely than churches” 760. The Moscow saint demanded a particularly strict attitude towards the prayer buildings of wanderers or runners; he advised, without inquiring about how long they had existed, to directly “destroy” them. 761 The harmful significance M. Philaret attached to schismatic chapels for Orthodoxy can also be seen from his diocesan practice. True, at the first stages of his ministry in the Moscow diocese (in Alexander’s time), his activities regarding the reduction of schismatic chapels did not meet with sympathy in the civil authorities, as two cases of that time show: about the addition of a schismatic chapel to the Edinoverie Arkhangelsk Church in the village of Mikhailovskaya Sloboda, existing in the same village 762, and about the schismatic chapel at the Chulkova tree 763. Both of these affairs ended contrary to the wishes of the Moscow archpastor: the chapels remained in their original form and in their original position. From the practice of M. Philaret in the Nikolaev time, only one letter from him to D.V. has survived. Golitsyn, in which, bringing to the attention of the said governor-general about the existence of four schismatic chapels in different villages of the parish of the village of I-va, Bogorodskaya district, in which services are held by various schismatic mentors and monks, he asks “to prohibit the obligations of the schism that are not permissible by law,” citing the fact that “in all the said villages, together with the schismatics, there are also Orthodox Christians, who, when serving in the chapels of the service, first enter out of curiosity and therefore they are tempted, especially when incited by schismatic mentors” 764. Metropolitan Filaret also kept a vigilant eye on other diocesan schismatic chapels located in the vicinity of the Moscow diocese and which in one way or another influenced the Moscow schismatics. In the Kaluga province, the schismatic chapels in Borovsk were of great importance and influence. This is what M. Philaret wrote about it to Bishop Nikolai of Kaluga, who was formerly the Moscow vicar: “Your schismatic chapel of Borovsk offends our diocese too. Is there any way to calm her down? 765 “I complained about the Borovskaya chapel precisely because of the wedding of Orthodox Christians from Vereya. And now I’m complaining that another fugitive priest, whom they were afraid to keep in Moscow for a long time, was confined there. About such cases, if relations with the governor are unsuccessful, please write to the Metropolitan of Novgorod in secret, asking him to assist in ways known to him. Without this, why would the Minister of Internal Affairs threaten or appease?” 766. One might think that the civilian authorities during this period of time did not oppose M. Filaret and paid serious attention to the fulfillment of his legal demands in this regard. “And which of the schismatic prayer buildings during this time, as M. Filaret later reported, were indeed “destroyed due to dilapidation or closed due to abuse” 767. But during the new reign (of Emperor Alexander II), the government’s attitude towards the schism changed significantly, and at the same time the attitude towards schismatic chapels also changed. Although the old laws regarding them remained in force, although in a note to the Highly approved “Instructions for dealing with schismatics” of 1858 (Oct. 15), it was said that “the reopening of schismatic prayer houses” refers to the public manifestation of a schism 768; nevertheless, in fact, the government turned a blind eye to their opening: “chapels, wrote M. Filaret in 1864, have been multiplying in recent years, before the eyes of the authorities, in the form of household ones, and for the population as public ones.” 769 As an example, he points out some of them, especially remarkable ones. “For example,” he says, in the Bogorodsky district in the village of Tsaplina, instead of a chapel that burned down last year, a new one, more magnificent than the previous one, has now been built, and this is not out of necessity, because there is another warm one right there. Here, in the same district, in the village of Selivanikha, even a stone chapel was built with royal doors and a throne, in which a false priest of Austrian ordination serves. Here, in the Rogozhsky, as the government puts it, an almshouse, and in the words of the schismatics, in the Rogozhsky cemetery, a huge chapel, which the schismatics look at from everywhere, as a beacon of their safety, is being restored with a change of roof, and this is done in large numbers, with haste, probably for fear that the law will not come and stop things.” 770 It should be noted that M. Filaret, even during its construction, brought the first of the mentioned chapels to the attention of the head of the Moscow province, Prince A.V. Obolensky, asking him to “pay attention to this authority to prevent a new schism, prohibited by law,” 771 but this request probably remained without consequences. Also, his communication with the Moscow civil authorities regarding the restoration of the Rogozh chapel did not lead to any consequences. 772 Finally, in 1864, the question arose about changing the existing legislation in relation to the schism in general and in particular regarding the prayer buildings of schismatics. The 1864 Committee proposed to allow the correction of schismatic chapels and prayer buildings, the opening of closed ones, and, in extreme cases, the opening of new ones. Two motives were put forward for this decision. The first is that the number of schismatic chapels existing at that time did not correspond even to the most extreme need. 773 The second was that “schismatic services in public chapels, in some parts similar to the worship of the Orthodox Church, should, of course, have a more beneficial effect on the moral mood of the erring than secret prayer in huts, which, as experience shows, is always much more removed from the rites of the true church, and on the other hand, loses any religious character.” 774 M. Filaret, in his note examining the committee’s journals, did not agree with this reasoning of the case and proposed his own version of the new rules on this issue. As for the first reason in favor of allowing schismatics to open new chapels, M. Philaret doubts its validity and cites as proof of the legitimacy of such a doubt the example of his diocese, in which, “according to local observations, in some places there is even an excess of schismatic chapels, so that sometimes in the parish of one church there are several of them, but there are more of them in short supply in villages in which the schism has spread again or is small in number.” 775 In particular, regarding the Bogorodsky district, he proves with statistical data that here “schismatics are more generously endowed with chapels than Orthodox churches.” 776 “In addition to this,” he says, the schismatic false priests have camp churches, which they set up in houses and perform all church services. And so, if in some places schismatics feel a lack of places for general prayer, then in others there is a noticeable surplus; and the more there are, the more temptation and harm there is for Orthodoxy” 777. M. Philaret also does not agree with the second impulse to multiply schismatic chapels, because it, in his words, “is in no way based on experience and on correct inquiry of the subject.” And first of all, he disagrees with the idea that praying in huts removes schismatics from the rituals of the church. “The false priest,” he says, in a spacious hut, sets up a silk altar for the camp church with the royal doors and small icons, sets up a throne inside it, places an antimension, a cross and the Gospel on it, and performs the service according to the same service manual as it is performed in the church.” 778 Having painted this picture of a schismatic service in a hut, he asks: “Where is the distance from the rituals of the church, which would be performed in a large public chapel? Why is there a loss of any religious character here? 779 Also in disagreement, in his opinion, with the essence of the matter is the idea that schismatic services in public chapels should have a more beneficial effect on the moral mood of the erring than worship in huts. “Or, according to the sameness of service,” he says, the moral action must also be one; or a service in a well-arranged public chapel, satisfying the sensual taste of a schismatic, will bind him more firmly to the schism than a service in a hut.” 780 “And to seduce the Orthodox, M. Philaret adds to this, schismatic propaganda can have a stronger effect through a service in a public chapel arranged splendidly than through a service in a hut.” 781 However, he does not deny the fact that in some sects the service has lost any religious character, such as the whirling and dancing of the Skoptsy and Khlysty, but he rightly explains this fact by far from the reasons pointed out by the committee. “This is not from the hut,” he says, but from the absurd teaching, which will act just as absurdly in a magnificent chamber as in the hut.” 782 In addition to this consideration of the reasons put forward by the committee as motives for allowing schismatics to increase the number of existing prayer buildings - reasons that he finds far from sufficient, M. Filaret draws attention to the very terminology used by the committee in its acts to designate the prayer buildings of schismatics. In the Committee's journals the expression was used: “public chapels.” 783 “This expression,” says M. Filaret, is new. The schismatics, not realizing their right to publicity, built their chapels behind the scenes, not in plain sight, not in squares, but in courtyards and cemeteries. Only the prayer chapels of the Rogozhsky and Preobrazhensky cemeteries raised their tops so high that they were visible far away through the fences of the cemeteries; and in some villages, prayer houses are placed in plain sight, although without external signs. If the law does not recognize a hierarchy among schismatics and does not allow public processions, then would it be consistent with this to legitimize prayer houses as public?” 784 In contrast to the committee's reasoning, M. Filaret puts forward his reasons against the increase in schismatic prayer buildings. “For some time now,” he says, schismatics, with obvious disregard for the law, have been intensifying to multiply and set up their chapels” 785, and as evidence points to the illegal construction of new magnificent chapels in the villages of Tsaplina and Selivanikha and to the illegal renewal of the large Rogozh chapel - facts already known to us. “With such a direction of schismatics, what should we expect, he asks, if the law proclaims the right to have and multiply public schismatic chapels and prayer houses”? - and answers: “one cannot but agree that many provinces will be covered with schismatic chapels and prayer houses, stationary and mobile, so densely that Orthodox Christians belonging to the common people, especially those living far from churches, on the way to church, will stumble over chapels and, as a result, easily fall into schism.” 786 Based on all of the above, he comes to the conclusion that “in the present circumstances, for the Orthodox government there is neither a moral nor a political obligation to take care of the multiplication of schismatic chapels, but there is a religious, moral and political obligation to take care of the protection of the Orthodox population from the increasing temptation and the growing danger of seduction, due to the excessive, willful multiplication of schismatic chapels and camp churches carried everywhere by false priests.” 787 Therefore, the Moscow saint recommends slightly changing the wording of the new rules on schismatic prayer buildings, which, in his words, “would not be embarrassing for the schism, but would be protective for Orthodoxy.” He recommends the following rules: 1) “schismatic chapels and prayer houses, according to the Highest command of 1826, included in the lists and enjoying tolerance to this day, can enjoy it in the future, with permission to restore their dilapidation, but without allowing external church accessories, such as domes, domes, crosses, bell towers and bells.” 2) “In areas where the schismatic population is small, and there is no chapel of 1826, if a home chapel open for public use is provided, tolerance, the same as the chapels of 1826, can be extended to it, with the permission of the Ministry of the Interior, with the supervision that this is not allowed unless absolutely necessary.” 3) “Chapels and prayer houses, which, contrary to these rules, were built without permission or converted from residential buildings, are subject to closure, and those responsible for this are subject to liability as violators of the law.” 4) “Schismatic camp churches are not tolerated; and if they are seen in action anywhere, this will be recognized as a sign of schism, and those guilty of this will be held accountable according to the laws.” 788 Thus, the significant difference between these rules of M. Filaret and the rules proposed by the Committee is that; that the former are not allowed in any case to open new prayer buildings, while the latter are permitted, although in extreme need. Therefore, the rules of M. Philaret could not be used by those of the schismatic societies that would have been formed after these rules. On the other hand, M. Filaret introduced a rule about camp schismatic churches, which was not mentioned at all by the committee. ') In a new note “on proposals for drawing up a new law on schismatics,” written a few days after the first, M. Filaret again returns to the issue under consideration. And here he also takes up arms against allowing schismatics to build new prayer buildings “without restrictions,” and insists “to give schismatics the right to preserve only those of their churches and chapels, which, according to the Highest command, were compiled in 1826 and which have enjoyed limited tolerance since that time.” 789 Here M. Philaret no longer says anything about the conversion of private home chapels into public ones, which he previously considered possible to allow. At the same time, here he gives new reasons against the unlimited increase of schismatic churches and chapels - the example of Orthodox churches and chapels, the construction of which is limited by law, and on the other hand, the fear of the harmful influence of schismatic churches and prayer houses on the Orthodox population. “Orthodox churches, he says, are allowed by law to be built under special conditions, one of which is that the church should not be built again unless it can have at least 400 male souls in its arrival Orthodox Christians are allowed to build chapels only for special valid reasons and at the discretion of the Holy Synod. It is not convenient to apply such restrictions to the right of schismatics to build churches and chapels; and the admission of this right without restriction will, without a doubt, lead to such a proliferation of schismatic churches and chapels that will make them an instrument of propaganda for the schism, just as the excessive number of Roman Catholic churches and chapels served and serves in some dioceses as an instrument of Latin propaganda.... If the schism should not multiply, then its churches and chapels should not multiply. This is the same rule. Only for the multiplying schismatics is it necessary to multiply their churches and chapels.” 790 However, M. Filaret in the same note again returns to the issue under consideration and makes some concessions to the committee’s assumptions in case “if it turns out to be impossible to stay on this subject within the limits indicated above” 791. He agrees to allow the schismatics, if they request, to build a church or chapel for themselves, but “not otherwise than upon inquiry that this is really necessary, and upon certification, through communication with the chief prosecutor of the Holy Synod, that this will not be dangerous and harmful for the Orthodox population.” 792 Much more harmful than schismatic prayer buildings were their monasteries and monasteries, and therefore the government during the reign of Emperor Nicholas I took a whole series of measures to gradually close these centers of schismatic propaganda. Metropolitan Filaret completely agreed with this measure, as it was fruitful in its consequences not only for the church, but also for the state. “The closure of monasteries built secretly,” he wrote in one of his notes, is a simple need of any well-organized state” 793. “The government’s inattention to this,” he notes in his opinion about the note from Fr. Savva, (who reported in it, among other things, that “fugitive soldiers and landowner peasants were housed in monasteries”) may have the consequence that rebel regiments are formed in schismatic dens” 794. At the same time, in private correspondence with Rev. Jacob, Archbishop of Nizhny Novgorod, gave him the following instruction regarding this subject: “if schismatic monasteries are aggregations of self-will and temptation, which, of course, is true, then it is necessary to correctly and firmly, but not in a passionate manner, bring these disorders to the attention of the authorities. This gives the authorities a legal way to tame the schism and weaken its strength” 795. In his comments on the journals of the committee of 1861, he approves of the latter’s idea “in no case to allow the opening of schismatic monasteries and hermitages” 796, although at the same time he makes some additions regarding the closure of existing ones. “It is fair,” he says, and in accordance with the rules already adopted, to prohibit schismatics from establishing monasteries, monasteries and hostels, and, if possible, to gradually abolish existing ones.” 797 Regarding manuscripts, books, icons and liturgical utensils taken from schismatics, M. Philaret in his practice fully followed the existing legal provisions, i.e., what was permitted from all this he ordered to be returned to the schismatics to the owners of these things 798, and what was forbidden was to be destroyed or (books) sent to the synodal office. Therefore, despite the numerous resolutions and letters of Filaret on matters of this kind, we will dwell only on a few, especially interesting ones, characterizing, however, not so much the attitude of M. Filaret to this subject, which, as we have noticed, does not represent anything special, but the state of the matter itself. From here we learn that the confiscation of schismatic books was so frequent at that time that the synodal office, where the works of prohibited schismatic printing houses taken from schismatics were supposed to be sent, was overflowing with them. 799 Further, not to mention the ignorance of the officials who selected the books, who did not know how to distinguish a liturgical book from a non-liturgical one, 800 interesting facts are reported in the resolutions of the Metropolitan and about the clergy who are in charge of the analysis of books taken from schismatics. So, for example, from the books taken from the peasant Lobov, a book entitled “Cyril of Jerusalem”, printed in Moscow in the summer of 7152 under Patriarch Joseph, was subject to consideration by the consistory. In the preface of this book the following couplet was printed: “Even though we sinners may suffer the Holy Scripture with torment, but the Lord God will not destroy His mercy for the sake of His creation.” The consistory considered this couplet heretical, but the bishop wrote in the margins of the consistory protocol (December 2, 1854): “don’t the Orthodox also say: Lord, save us sinners”? 801 In other cases, members of the consistory reported to the metropolitan that the books were “unedifying,” 802 that one of the notebooks was “written with spelling errors,” 803 etc., which, of course, was not at all relevant to the matter and “did not lead, as M. noted. Filaret, to no conclusion.” In such cases, he ordered a review of the case. Once, not understanding M. Philaret’s remark in the margins of the register of selected books, members of the consistory wrote in their ruling on this case about some Nikon’s gospel 804. It goes without saying that such employees made M. Filaret a lot of trouble. There were cases when among the books taken from schismatics there were those belonging to the Orthodox churches; he ordered such to be returned to their previous owners; so eg were sent to the Soligalitsky Resurrection Monastery belonging to him, as the signature meant, “Teachings of Abba Dorotheus,” found during a search of a schismatic 805. The consistory decided to “send the books belonging to the patriarchal publications and, judging by the inscriptions, belonging to the (schismatic) churches, “to send for storage to the cathedral sacristy, where they can be conveniently used if necessary.” Metropolitan Filaret added to this decision: “for churches of the same faith and for archaeological research in relation to the doctrine of admonishing schismatics.” 806 M. Filaret was especially strict about the selected manuscripts of schismatic literature. He ordered the consistory to pay “special attention to manuscripts to see if there is any schismatic admixture in them, or the services and lives of saints not recognized by the church” 807, since such stories about dead schismatics as saints “can be a reason for superstition and temptation, but spiritual regulations and the bishop’s oath are commanded to observe so that false there was no honoring and so that the coffins that did not bear witness were not considered sacred” 808. These last words were inserted by M. Philaret into the decision of the consistory in the case of one notebook, selected among others in a schismatic chapel, entitled: “The Life and Deeds of John the Noble (according to Kozmich),” containing a legend about an Old Believer of the non-priestly persuasion, who allegedly labored in foolishness for more than 40 years, prophesied and 1840, buried at the Preobrazhenskoe cemetery. This notebook, along with others, especially harmful ones, selected from the schismatic chapel, served to begin an entire investigation. By decision of the consistory, she was “conducted to Moskov. to the military governor-general to draw attention to who wrote it, and whether the schismatics were giving false honor to Kozmich, who was buried in the Preobrazhenskoe cemetery (near the chapel)” 809. A similar investigative case arose regarding a manuscript containing wandering teachings taken from the merchant Karpachev during a search; but, it was terminated partly for lack of “means for further inquiry,” mainly because Karpachev converted to Edinoverie 810. Among the selected books there were also books of a different kind, such as, for example, “Pheatron” (or historical shame) and some translation from a foreign language. About the first of these books, M. Philaret ordered “to make a careful examination, as it was subject to controversy, despite the permitted publication” 811; and the second, as “imbued with the spirit of Lutheranism and subsequently prohibited by the Holy Synod,” should be forwarded, according to the consistory decision about it, to the Moscow Synodal Office for storage 812. Icons that could be revered at home and suitable for use were returned; icons of rough writing, as well as those too dilapidated, so that the images on them were not visible, were withdrawn from use and destroyed 813. Candlesticks, lamps, etc. things such as belongings to schismatic prayer houses were not returned, but were given to Orthodox churches 814. “Vestments, which, according to Philaret, were in the sacrilegious use of a deprived priesthood,” were (sometimes) consigned to fire 815. Two interesting facts are preserved in the metropolitan’s papers and testify to the abuses of the police and the clergy in matters of this kind. So, for example, one day M. Filaret received a chest with things taken from schismatics, and, after examination, it turned out that the rope with which the chest was tied and the ends of which were sealed to it had knots and therefore could be untied and tied again and allow the chest to open while preserving the seals. 816 Another time, the priest did not present some of the icons taken from the schismatic chapel according to the inventory given to him, but instead presented others and, moreover, such that it was impossible to make out the face on some of them, and to justify himself he only said that “out of some inner unspeakable delight he accepted the icons brought by the peasants, and instead of them he gave out those listed in the inventory” 817. II. About persons who perform divine services and spiritual needs for schismatics The issue of persons performing divine services and spiritual services for schismatics due to the demands of the time is considered in particular detail by M. Philaret and can conveniently be divided into several particular ones: a) about fugitive priests, b) about granting schismatics priests independent of the spiritual authorities and, finally, c) about persons of the Austrian hierarchy. 1) A. Question about fugitive priests The government's attitude towards fugitive priests during the reign of Alexander I. Secret rules of March 26, 1822. The circumstances that, according to M. Philaret, gave rise to these rules. An attempt by the St. Petersburg Secret Committee to limit (in 1823) these rules. M. Filaret's view on the harmful consequences of these rules. Changes in government relations towards fugitive priests during the Nikolaev era. The first restrictions at this time were the lenient rules of Alexander's time towards the schismatic clergy. Opinion of M. Philaret (1827) on the question of what crimes in relation to fugitive priests should be considered criminal: his view on the anti-canonical nature of fugitive priesthood. Further restrictions and complete abolition of the 1822 rules on fugitive priests. The government’s attitude towards fugitive priests during the long period of M. Philaret’s activity was far from the same. Condescending to the extreme under Emperor Alexander I, it gave way, albeit gradually, to a very strict one during the subsequent reign of Emperor Nicholas I. The attitude of the government towards them during the reign of Alexander I, at first somewhat vague, was expressed at the end of the reign in secret rules on March 26, 1822, according to which schismatics were allowed to have open fugitive priests if they had not committed any criminal offense before their escape. To the demand of the diocesan bishops to expel such priests, they were ordered to answer that they were in their places. 818 Paying attention to these rules in connection with the general nature of government relations towards a split at the end of the reign of Alexander I, one cannot help but notice that they seem to be in contradiction with him. It seems incomprehensible how the government, which has embarked on the path of limiting schismatic arbitrariness - which is reflected in a whole series of orders unfavorable to the split, legitimizes what it previously considered illegal, and which was only looked at with condescension “with a blind eye”? We find the answer to this question in M. Filaret, who reports extremely interesting information about the origin of these rules, favorable to the Beglopopovites. It turns out that these rules were caused by purely random circumstances. “In 1822, it was discussed,” says M. Philaret, how to make it convenient for schismatics to enjoy the performance of Christian services” 819. “It was proposed to the Committee of 820 to send Orthodox priests to the schismatics, who, apparently, would join their society, but, having gained their trust, would try to reconcile them with the church. This assumption was accepted, and the determination about this, signed, among other things, by Metropolitan Seraphim, was awarded the Highest approval. But when the Metropolitan was given the opportunity to carry this out, he saw that this could not be agreed with the church rules and the purity of the clergy conscience.... Under these circumstances, when the Highest approved definition turned out to be unenforceable and it was difficult to decide to imagine the complete destruction of it, it turned out to be necessary to find a measure that would represent not the complete destruction of the Highest approved definition, but changing it into an easily executable one. view So it was decided: not to send priests from the government to the schismatics, but to leave the fugitive priests found among them by the civil authorities, in case these priests are required by the diocese to answer in a criminal case. This is the origin and essence of the secret rules of 1822, coveted by schismatics and glorified among them.” 821 That these secret rules regarding fugitive priests were not an expression of any specific government view of fugitive priesthood and the result of any government program specifically developed in relation to it, but appeared, as M. Filaret testifies, purely by accident, this can also be seen from the fact that in the very next year (1823) and, moreover, in the same committee to which the secret rules of 1822 owe their origin, the idea arose about a significant change in these rules. At a meeting of this committee (June 22, 1823), 822, among other government measures against the schism, the committee proposed to limit both the freedom of schismatics to acquire fugitive priests, and the freedom of these priests themselves. It was decided to assign the fugitive priests to the chapels at which they serve, allowing them to leave only after presenting valid reasons to the civil authorities and with written permission from that authority 823; whoever violates this rule is to be removed from the chapel and sent to be examined by the authorities from whom he fled. 824 It was decided to punish the fugitive priests just as strictly for promoting the schism - performing any kind of demand on an Orthodox person, as well as for a public procession and for any public display of schism in general. Upon discovery of this by the civil authorities or in relation to the spiritual authorities, the fugitive priest is renounced from the chapel forever and brought to trial. 825 At the same time, it was decided to limit the freedom of schismatics in the very acquisition of fugitive priests. Pointing to the rapid multiplication of schismatic priests, especially in the centers of the priestly schism, for example. at the Moscow Rogozhskoe cemetery, where up to seven of them appeared, and if they appeared where there were none before, the committee recommends reducing them at the Rogozhskoe cemetery; “at least up to three, but no more”; “at other chapels, where they were before, allow no more than one at a time, and at those where they were not before, do not allow them in the future. If a fugitive priest appears somewhere who is excessively against this rule, then immediately send him to the authorities from whom he fled.” 826 It is not known how the government reacted to these new rules of the committee, which significantly changed the previous ones. One can only think that they were still not without influence on the government’s further relations with the fugitive priests, as can be seen from one case of that time. We mean the case of the schismatics of the Porkhov district, which took place the following year (1824). 827 The schismatics of this district asked to be allowed to reclaim one of the runaway priest’s cemeteries in Moscow at Rogozhskoye for the prayer house existing in the village of Korkhovoy. The request was quite natural, and did not contain anything contrary to the rules of 1822, since they were not allowed to have priests only where there were no houses of prayer and churches 828. Therefore, the Pskov civil governor ordered the Porkhov Zemstvo Court to respect the request of the schismatics, and at the same time brought this to the attention of the Pskov Governor-General. The latter did not agree with the opinion of the civil governor and instructed him to stop the execution of the order given to the Porkhov Zemstvo Court, communicate with the local eminence “about the state of opinion on this subject” and then submit it to him for his further orders. The then Eminence of Pskov, Archbishop. Eugene, in response to a request from the civil governor, decided to “completely prevent the above-mentioned peasants from demanding and having a priest in the village of Korkhov, who had not been there before.” He motivated this decision by the fact that the opinion of the Committee of Ministers, approved by the Highest (December 22, 1817), “fugitive priests are allowed to be kept at schismatic houses of worship only those who were there before the rules of the Highest approved about this.” The Holy Synod recognized this decision and this motivation as “founded and legitimate.” The rules of 1822, which allowed schismatics to have fugitive priests at existing houses of worship, were not even mentioned in this entire matter. Of course, it would be too hasty to draw any conclusions from this fact regarding the change in the rules of 1822, but here one can see some influence of committee reasoning on the course of this matter. The restriction and then complete abolition of the secret rules of 1822 followed in the next reign. Emperor Nicholas I, paying serious attention to the schismatics, adopted the firm intention, if not to destroy, then at least to weaken the schism, in particular, to stop the “deplorable for the Orthodox Church” fugitive priesthood. And it was time to take care of this, because year after year the consequences of the rules of 1822, sad for the church and undesirable for the state, were becoming stronger and stronger. M. Filaret subsequently depicted the bitter fruits of these rules. “After a few years,” he says, these rules bore fruit unexpected by the government, which wanted to calm the schismatics, and not strengthen the split.” 829 “Secret rules have become more widely known than many non-secret laws. The schismatics considered them to be a law in their favor, and they strengthened themselves and became bolder in their actions and harassment. Previously, they were pleased if they could use a fugitive priest with deep confidentiality, and, if he was detained, they modestly complained and could not argue with the fact that catching a fugitive was a legal matter. With the introduction of the rules of 1822, they recognize it as a right to have a runaway priest and consider it an oppression to capture him for insulting the Orthodox Church, or for another proven violation of the laws, except for escape. It is impossible to determine with exact information how great a temptation for spiritual management and what harm to the morality of the clergy lies in the fact that every priest who is subject to responsibility for offenses against office and good behavior (except for criminal ones), without fear, could, through escaping to the schismatics, not only get rid of punishment, but also enter into a position independent of the supervision of spiritual authorities and incomparably more profitable than in the diocese, but it is self-evident that this temptation and this harm is not small” 830. “Schismatics began to turn more freely to Orthodox priests and invite them to come to them, enticing them with benefits and independence. Those seduced and carried away by them, having already had experience of benefits and independence, intensified the seduction of others. Thus, the successful escape of a priest from any diocese entailed others, so that some previously blameless priests were seduced, as found out when priest Pyotr Nikiforov fled from the Kaluga diocese to the Rogozhskoe cemetery, who, with honest and modest behavior, enjoying respect and benefits from schismatics, was finally brought to prison by remorse for betraying the Orthodox Church. Moscow diocesan authorities to return to it. In some dioceses the number of fugitive priests has greatly increased. Dissenteric proselytism has intensified.” 831 These are the consequences of the secret, but not kept secret, rules of 1822, according to M. Philaret. These rules, in his opinion, not only contributed to the strengthening of the schism, but also had a demoralizing effect on the Orthodox clergy. He carried out this last thought earlier in his opinion “on remedies against the shortage of worthy priests,” written in 1826 by the Highest order of Emperor Nicholas I. Among the reasons contributing to the development of vices among the Orthodox clergy and paralyzing any good undertakings of the diocesan authorities to improve the parish clergy, Metropolitan Philaret also puts forward here the freedom of escape of priests to schismatics. “Unworthy priests,” he says in this opinion, have a sure means of complete impunity in escaping to the schismatics at the very time when the diocesan authorities want to use corrective measures against them.” To prove this, he refers to personal experience. “For example,” he continues, in the Moscow district, the village of Vladykina, priest Feodor Borisov, from the unlearned, was put on trial for drunkenness in June 1824, in September of the same year, having lost hope of covering up his guilt, he fled to Starodub, as it became known in October of the same year from the attitude of the Starodub police chief. but the demands of the consistory that the fugitive priest be sent to complete his trial remained in vain. Thus, the unworthy priest, through his escape to the schismatics, acquired impunity, a kind of independence and worldly benefits, no doubt incomparably greater than those that he enjoyed under the authority of the legitimate spiritual authorities, and this leadership, by making an effort to correct the unworthy, brought only benefits to the schismatics.” “It’s worth the effort to think about the consequences of such an allowance,” he ends his opinion. At the same time, he proposes here a measure against “tempting impunity”: “decree that a priest who, during an investigation or trial on any matter, runs over to the schismatics, will certainly be returned to the spiritual authorities to complete the trial and deal with him according to the laws.” 832 The government did not take advantage of this measure, but instead accepted the idea of ​​the harmful influence of fugitive priesthood on the Orthodox clergy and decided to limit the rules of 1822, or, as M. Filaret puts it, “to return to general legality from the rules, due to excess leniency, allowed in violation of the laws.” 833 The first restriction on the freedom of the schismatic fugitive priests was a government order to prohibit them from traveling from one place to another. On the question raised during the previous reign by the Perm civil governor: “can Old Believer priests leave their places to correct the needs of other provinces,” the committee of ministers on May 10, 1827 decided in an opinion: “the transfer of schismatic priests to correct the needs from district to district, and especially from province to province, is decisively prohibited; proper species, treat them like vagabonds.” The Emperor approved this opinion, writing: “very fair,” which was announced to the committee at a meeting on the 24th of the same May 834. It goes without saying that the schismatics looked at this restriction as a direct constraint. But “here” in fact “there is no oppression,” says M. Filaret, because even a legitimate priest’s action is limited to even narrower limits, and even this is more than lenient, because, according to the law, a runaway priest, like any runaway, should be immediately caught and sent to trial, but he is left calm in the wide field of the whole district.” 835 In the same 1827, the Ministry of Internal Affairs arose the question of what crimes in relation to fugitive Old Believer priests should be considered criminal, since this was not indicated in the secret rules of 1822, and the provincial authorities were at a loss in their orders regarding the expulsion of such priests, at the request of the diocesan eminences? To resolve this perplexity, the manager of the ministry turned to the Holy Synod. In response to this, M. Philaret wrote a detailed opinion, which was adopted by the Holy Synod, and on behalf of the latter it was communicated to the head of the Ministry of Internal Affairs 836. “In runaway priests, this opinion said, criminal offenses requiring the mandatory deportation of the perpetrators to trial (should) be considered crimes under the name of atrocities, named in the decree of the Governing Senate of May 1725, 3 days, in which, after the gravest public and private crimes, church rebellion, retreat into schism and theft, discovered by being caught red-handed, are mentioned.” 837 But to these crimes m. Filaret adds others, for which, in his opinion, the fugitive priest should also be expelled to the court of his diocesan authorities. These are: 1) the loss of something discovered after his escape from the church property entrusted to him, for which he must be held accountable for theft or embezzlement; 2) any crime in general for which he was under trial, investigation or penance during his flight; otherwise, not expelling the fugitive to complete the investigation, trial and penance “would be contrary to all concepts of justice and,” the Metropolitan repeats his previous thought, “harmful for subordination and good morals; this would be a kind of hope that crimes will not be punished.” 838 “Finally,” he says, and what is especially remarkable, “St. The Synod, as a place entrusted with the protection of the inviolability of sacred rules and church deanery, cannot fail to recognize the very escape of a priest from his place and position to the schismatics for a serious crime, requiring immediate justice according to the following respects: a) 15 rule of the holy apostles, a presbyter or deacon or cleric who willfully left his place and does not return at the request of the bishop is subject to eruption. The same is confirmed by: Antioch Council rule 3, Sardician Council - 20 and the Seventh Ecumenical Council - 10. b) since, on the basis of the Spiritual Regulations (add. clause. 5), the priest, in the oath pronounced before being appointed to this dignity, by the way, undertakes to reprove schismatics with the word of God and the holy fathers of the Scriptures with the spirit of meekness and lead them to conversion and union with the church, about those who are not corrected and persist in their stubbornness, especially about the libertines and about others who distract from the union of the church, where they should be represented in writing and verbally; then a priest who runs from the church to the schismatics is a clear violator of the same oath in which he owes allegiance to His Imperial Majesty, and therefore it is necessary to preserve the sanctity of the church and state oath as much as possible, as for the sake of the highest holiness of the name of God by which one swears; So, for the sake of the safety of all public relations, it is equally necessary to observe that such an oathbreaker is not sheltered from justice by any concessions. This perjury of the fugitive priests is further increased by the fact that, joining the schismatics, they give them the opposite (as can be seen from the sample presented by St. The Bishop of Penza took an oath to the Synod, in which the teachings and rituals of the Orthodox Church are called heretical, evil, and even some civil customs adopted by the government are cursed.” 839 We have cited this remarkable part of M. Philaret’s opinion in its entirety, because here his views on the illegality of fugitive priesthood are expressed more clearly than in other places. It is unknown how the Ministry of Internal Affairs, approved by the Holy Synod, viewed this opinion of M. Philaret. The historian of this ministry says that based on his sources it is not clear whether the Ministry of Internal Affairs made a decision on this issue from the spiritual authorities 840. It was, of course, impossible to argue against the canonical and practical considerations put forward in it, because their justice was too obvious. But on the other hand, to fully accept this opinion into the leadership would mean completely canceling the rules of 1822, that is, to act too abruptly and thus come into conflict with the general principle of Nikolaev’s policy in relation to the schism, which, as we already know, was also the principle of M. Philaret, that all new repressive measures in relation to the schism should be carried out gradually. In these, probably, types, M. Philaret’s considerations did not receive the force of a general law, although, however, in particular cases they were taken into account. Here is an example of a case from that time, all the more interesting for us because one of its characters is M. Filaret himself. One priest of the Moscow diocese - Stepan Kozmin (village of Merzlova, Klin district) - “for actions indecent to his rank” was removed from office in 1827 with a ban on priestly service and assigned to a place of priesthood in the village of Znamenskoye of the same district, “from where, for not correcting him in life, at the request of Lieutenant General Neklyudova, he was removed until the opening priestly place was sent to the Serpukhov Vysotsky Monastery.” From here on June 10 of the same year he fled to an unknown destination. But on September 27 of the following (1828) year, the Metropolitan received a secret message from the Smolensk governor, who asked “for some consideration” to inform him whether Stepan Kozmin, who was ordained a priest in 1803 by the vicar of Moscow, His Eminence Seraphim, was the priest of the Klin district in the village of Merzlov, and whether, after leaving this rank, he had done anything illegal or criminal act and does the Moscow diocesan authorities know where he is now? Such details in the questions of the Smolensk governor - knowledge of the name and circumstances of the previous service of the fugitive priest led M. Filaret to think, “does the said fugitive enjoy the holder of the pier” in the Smolensk province? Therefore, having informed the governor in a letter dated October 12 of this year 841 of the above information and his guess, M. Philaret at the same time asks, if the latter is correct, by the way, about the following: 1) “so that, on the basis of 15 and 16 rules of St. Apostle, an order has been made. so that the banned and fled priest could not perform any sacred act anywhere in the province entrusted to you (i.e. Smolensk)”; 2) “that, on the basis of the addition to the Spiritual Regulations (clause 23), it would be ordered, to whomever should, to catch the said fugitive priest Kozmin and transport him to the Moscow Spiritual Consistory to deal with him according to the laws.” What is remarkable here, firstly, is the identity of the grounds used by M. Philaret to prove the legality of his demands with those to which he referred in the above-mentioned opinion of 1827, to prove his thought that the very escape of a priest from his diocesan superiors is already a crime. Remarkable, secondly, are these very requirements, which do not fit the then existing legislation regarding fugitive priests: the fugitive priest Stepan Kozmin did not commit a criminal crime in the proper sense - his entire guilt was “his actions indecent to his rank” and “the malfunction of his life.” This is probably why the Smolensk governor refused to fulfill M. Filaret’s request. Then the latter turned to the minister about this matter, and this one “forced the Smolensk governor to expel” the Moscow fugitive priest 842. This means that the minister in this case was guided by canonical considerations presented by M. Philaret back in 1827. But such isolated facts, of course, cannot speak in favor of the fact that the government accepted the opinion of M. Filaret at this time. It, on the contrary, followed the path of restricting schismatic fugitive priests gradually, prohibiting the admission of new fugitive priests first to the Rogozhsky cemetery 843, then to the St. Petersburg and Perm fugitive priests 844, until finally in 1832 it extended this prohibition to all Old Believer societies in Russia. 845 Before these rules, fugitive priests who were accepted were left and enjoyed the rights of tolerance, only secret police surveillance was established over them. 846 It is clear that the schismatic priests met with displeasure these government orders that were restrictive for them. Therefore m. Filaret, in his note “on means to reduce schismatics,” advises “that it should be explained to schismatics of this kind by the local civil authorities that just as any escape is a crime against public order and the law, the escape of a priest from his rightful place cannot but be considered a crime, and that therefore state justice cannot forever allow that leniency towards fugitive schismatic priests, which until now was granted only in hope admonition and appeal to order" 847. This advice was accepted by the government and, among other measures against schism recommended by M. Philaret in the said note, was approved by the Highest for unremitting implementation. 848 This council ends the activities of M. Philaret in terms of limiting the rules of 1822. The government finally changed these rules. On the issue of fugitive priesthood, a reverse move begins - schismatics begin to try to achieve the abolition of the restrictive rules of the Nicholas era about fugitive priests - attempts that met with sympathy from some government officials, and for M. Philaret there are new concerns to resist these attempts and preserve the existing rules. B. The question of granting schismatics priests independent of the spiritual authorities Preliminary remarks. History of the issue under consideration. Initial petitions of the Rogozh Old Believers (1827–1852) and the government’s attitude towards these petitions. Harassment of Ekaterinburg and other Old Believers. Consideration of their petitions by Metropolitan Philaret and the government’s refusal. New raising of the issue at the initiative of the government itself. Discussion of it in the Moscow Secret Committee in 1848–1849. Note from M. Philaret dated March 29, 1848. Petition of the Rogozh Old Believers. Note from Count Zakrevsky dated February 6, 1849. New opinion of M. Philaret on this issue dated October 10, 1849. The significance of this opinion in relation to the resolution of the issue by other members of the Moscow Committee. New petition of the Rogozh Old Believers of 1854. The history of the issue under consideration during the reign of Alexander II. New harassment of the Rogozh Old Believers and new notes from Count Zakrevsky, favorable to the split. Consideration of the issue of independent Old Believer priests in the St. Petersburg Secret Committee in 1857–1858. Philaret’s opinions on this issue relating to this time. Resolution of the St. Petersburg Committee on March 31, 1858, as the final act of this whole story. M. Filaret’s judgment on the above issue. The impossibility of granting priests to schismatics on the terms they propose. It is uncanonical for them to seek to obtain priests independent from their spiritual superiors. Practical inconveniences and harmful consequences for the church and state from granting such priests to schismatics. M. Philaret’s projects satisfy schismatics in correcting church requirements. The question of Old Believer priests, independent of the spiritual authorities, is one of the most serious issues regarding the schism that have ever occupied the civil government and church authorities during the long period of anti-schism activity of the Moscow metropolitan Philaret. Owing its origin to the decisive measures of the Nicholas time regarding the fugitive priests, this question, having been raised initially by the Rogozhsky Old Believers, soon covered almost the entire priesthood and worried it for more than thirty years. The Moscow saint occupied a prominent place in the discussion of this issue. M. Philaret has not written as much on any issue concerning the schism as on the issue of granting schismatics priests independent of the spiritual authorities. Evidence of his extensive activity on this issue is provided by more than ten opinions, most of which examine the issue under consideration in great detail. And what is especially characteristic of this is the remarkable consistency of the Moscow Metropolitan: in all his numerous opinions, starting with the first, written in 1829, and ending with the last, which appeared in 1859, he acts as a decisive opponent of the granting of priests to schismatics independent of the diocesan authorities, in whatever form this grant may be presented, i.e., in the form of a simple restoration of the known rules of March 26, 1822 year, or in the form of some new, “unified faith” unlike the existing one. In all his opinions, M. Filaret thoroughly proves the harm of giving schismatics independent priests. Since in many of these opinions his arguments are the same, and sometimes repeated even with literal accuracy; then we do not need to cite each of these opinions separately, but rather bring them together and, thus, present M. Philaret’s general view on this issue. But before that, we need to outline his history - in order, on the one hand, to judge how truly serious this issue was at that time, and on the other, to understand the importance that the opinions of the Moscow saint had in resolving this issue in government spheres. At the same time, with historical coverage, we will better understand the origin of this or that opinion of Filaret, as well as the specific features by which one of his opinions differs from another. The beginning of schismatic petitions for the granting of priests to them dates back to the same year (1827) in which the government made the first attempts to limit the rules of Alexander’s time, which were lenient to the Old Believer clergy. The first, as we have already noticed, were the Moscow Old Believers, parishioners of the Rogozhskoe cemetery, who were primarily affected by the new events that were embarrassing for the schismatic clergy. As soon as there was a ban on accepting new priests to the Rogozhskoe cemetery, in the same year 1827, the leaders of this cemetery, on behalf of the Moscow priests, “had the courage, as they themselves later wrote, to submit a loyal petition to the feet of the Great Sovereign Emperor,” in which, explaining the “oppressive circumstances” that followed as a result of the issuance of a new order about their priests, and “with thinking with grief" about even greater "disorders" in the future, "they begged his goodness to allow them, as before (based on the rules of 1822), to receive priests and deacons who came to them." There was no response from the government to this request. Meanwhile, the order of November 8, 1827 to prevent new fugitive priests from entering the cemetery was affecting itself more and more sensitively, so that the Moscow priests in 1831 considered it necessary to remind them of their request again. But no longer daring to turn to the Tsar himself, they submitted a new petition addressed to the Minister of Internal Affairs Novosiltsev, and not for the restoration of the rules of 1822, but only for a private, temporary deviation from the decree of 1827. They now asked only “to accept into a diminished position a supernumerary priest who had been dismissed from his superiors... who had voluntarily agreed to live at the Moscow Old Believer Rogozhskoe cemetery and conduct worship and Christian sacraments according to old printed books.” But this request of the Moscow Old Believers was not respected by the government. Emperor Nicholas, drawing attention to the deliberately used ambiguity in the expression of the request indicated here, ordered the Old Believers to be asked whether they would like to accept the priest, “as correctly dismissed by the spiritual authorities, according to the rules of the churches of the same faith.” It is clear that the schismatics refused: “We do not want to accept a priest based on the rules of the churches of the same faith,” they said, “and in the future, according to our conscience, we cannot accept priests based on such rules.” Having received such a response, the government, for its part, responded with a new refusal. But these failures did not stop the Old Believers. Since the difficulty in acquiring priests had already had an impact in other places of the priestly schism, therefore, no later than in January of the following 1832, memorable for the extension of the prohibitive decree on fugitive priests to all Old Believer communities, a whole council was held at the Rogozhskoye cemetery, at which representatives of the priestly schism from Vetka and Starodubye, from Irgiz and Kerzhenets, from the Volga region were present and other cities, to discuss the issue of means to avert difficulties regarding the acquisition of fugitive priests. At this council, it was decided to again ask the government on behalf of the Moscow Old Believers to restore the rules of 1822, and, moreover, through the closest superior, the Moscow Governor-General; and at the same time, it was decided to involve the St. Petersburg priestly society in this matter, which at that time was among its prominent members who were in close ties with many dignitaries of the capital. A detailed petition addressed to Prince Golitsyn, skillfully drawn up by Affony Kochuev, famous in the history of priesthood, was submitted at the end of May of the same year 849, but it also did not have any success; just as their petitions to the highest dignitaries in St. Petersburg were not successful. One of the latter, closest to the person of Emperor Nicholas, Count Benckendorf, directly declared to the Old Believers that the Emperor would in no way agree to the cancellation of his order regarding the fugitive priests, and that therefore all their harassment would remain without consequences. This is how the first attempts of the Rogozh Old Believers to achieve the abolition of restrictive measures regarding fugitive priests ended unsuccessfully. Whether M. Filaret had any influence on the stated course of the case, there is no data on this. One might, however, think that the Moscow saint did not take any direct part in this whole matter; his participation was not required here. The fact is that the question of Old Believer priests, in the form in which the Rogozh schismatics posed it in their petitions, at this time no longer needed any clarification; from the very beginning of the reign of the Emperor. Nicholas I was fundamentally decided by the government in a negative sense. Strict measures against fugitive priests, systematically following one after another, directly indicate that the government’s view of fugitive priesthood had been fully formed by this time and it had developed a definite program of action in relation to it. So, let us repeat, M. Filaret hardly took any part in this matter. We mentioned these petitions of the Moscow Old Believers only to note the original form in which these first petitions for Old Believers priests were expressed, and the indifference with which the government reacted to the Moscow petitions. We notice a different attitude of the government and a slightly different formulation of this issue in the history of the harassment of the Old Believers of Yekaterinburg, who, led by Yakim Ryazanov, made their petitions for priests independent of the spiritual authorities in the wake of the Moscow schismatics 850. The petitions of the Ekaterinburg priests, which also began at the end of the 20s, were caused by the same reasons as the above petitions of the Moscow Old Believers, i.e. the impoverishment of the fleeing priesthood among the Yekaterinburg Old Believers. Even in Alexander's time, the diocesan authorities summoned three fugitive priests who were in Yekaterinburg to their dioceses. All attempts by the residents of Yekaterinburg to achieve the return of these priests remained in vain: the government in December 1827 abruptly refused them this. 851 Meanwhile, it also became not easy to obtain fugitive priests from other places, since a similar lack of fleeing priesthood began to affect the priesthood almost everywhere. 852 In view of such circumstances, the Yekaterinburg Old Believers made their petitions for the granting of priests to them, independent of the spiritual authorities. But despite the identical reasons that gave rise to both petitions, the Ekaterinburg Old Believers have, as we have already noted, a slightly different form compared to the above petitions of the Moscow schismatics. There they were talking about a simple restoration of the well-known rules of Alexander’s time about fugitive priests; Here, entire projects for a new structure of schismatic communities are proposed, projects that supposedly have the ultimate goal of reconciling the Old Believers with the Orthodox Church. In view of this, the petitions of the Yekaterinburg Old Believers under consideration should not be identified with the harassment of the Moscow priests; they, on the contrary, stand in close connection and serve in some way as a continuation of the petitions of the same Ekaterinburg Old Believers, which on behalf of their society the same Ryazanov submitted to the government in Alexander’s time, before the publication of the rules of 1822. 853 Both at that time and now, the Ekaterinburg Old Believers strive for one goal: in matters relating to faith, to completely separate schismatics from the spiritual department, to have their own priests, independent from it, their own churches, chapels and prayer houses, and thus to form special schismatic parishes, which in their church and social life would be under the direct control of the elders and the supreme supervision of the civil government. Thus, “they demand, as the Moscow saint rightly noted in one of his opinions on their petitions, not only what was allowed to them by the well-known secret rules of 1822, but also much more.” 854 True, in seeking these benefits for themselves back in Alexander’s time, the Ekaterinburg schismatics motivated their harassment with the desire to get closer to the Orthodox Church, although on a different basis than the principles of common faith. In all these petitions, they present themselves to the government as pursuing the same goals that the church authorities had when establishing unity of faith. And what could not and cannot, in their opinion, be fulfilled by unity of faith, will certainly come true thanks to the measures they recommend. “Your Excellency is not unaware,” they wrote to the Minister of Spiritual Affairs, Prince A.N. Golitsyn, at the beginning of their harassment (in March 1819), “when the government, calming the Old Believers, based on various complaints before, allowed to have churches at the points of Metropolitan Plato. What came of it? Of these churches, some were abandoned, others remained with several families - therefore, they only resettled the Old Believers, and if it had then allowed us to get closer to our fundamental position (of course, independence from the diocesan bishops), there would not have been a single division, and now, the closer and more unchanged we have what was before the years of Patriarch Nikon, then not only all the Old Believers will unite with the original, ancient (church), but even the most rebaptized people, non-priests and others will be reliably convinced (they were produced by the same persecutive time of Patriarch Nikon); and the spiritual government will see only the Old Believers directly, not according to any of their own speculations, but according to the same holy traditions, dogmas and statutes, from the baptism of Prince Vladimir to the years of Nikon, holy and revered by all” 855. Ryazanov himself, the leader and tireless figure in the affairs of the Ekaterinburg schismatics, back in 1816, at the first explanation of his case with the Perm Bishop Justin, with whom he was on close terms, revealed to the latter his intention “little by little to win over the Old Believers to the Orthodox Church.” 856 He later stated the same thing to Prince Golitsyn, to whom he turned with a request to help him in his petitions before the Emperor, proving to him at the same time that “the leniency made to the Old Believers will be the beginning of the rapprochement of their communities with the church” 857. How this, in his opinion, could come true, he spoke little about this, so as Melnikov claims, not to harm his business; and only later, being a zealous son of the Orthodox Church, on the occasion of the reunification of the Uniates (in 1839), he expressed his failed program to his confidants. “The Uniates,” he said, were taken away from Orthodoxy by bishops and priests, and after two and a half centuries the bishops and priests were brought back into the bowels of the church; similarly, in the time of Nikon, a significant part of the people were also led away from the church by bishops and priests, and only one, so far independent of the synod and diocesan bishops, the Old Believer clergy, can over time, with the help of God, bring those who have separated into communion and restore church peace. The Uniates had an independent clergy, governed by a special spiritual college, which at first depended on the Catholics, then was independent, then was under the Holy Synod, and finally a union followed. There is also no other way or other methods for the reunification of the Old Believers: whoever leads, he will lead.” 858 It may very well be that Ryazanov’s intentions were quite sincere; but to what extent the measures recommended by them were appropriate, this is another question, which can hardly be answered in the affirmative, especially if we take into account the fact that the majority of Ekaterinburg leaders - not to mention others - in their petitions pursued goals that were far from similar to Ryazanov’s: they did not dream of unity or reconciliation with the church, but, on the contrary, to more firmly establish the split with it, setting it, so to speak, on legal grounds - about, as M. Filaret expresses in one of his opinions regarding their harassment, “to organize into a separate society with special forms, and thereby forever separate from the church.” 859 How, in fact, the very ground on which Ryazanov thought to implement his plans was not prepared can be seen from the fact that some of the Ekaterinburg schismatics did not even agree with the very project of organizing their societies on new principles and therefore condemned the very petitions of their elders for priests independent of the spiritual authorities, finding in these petitions an anti-canonical apostasy from the traditional practice of fugitive priesthood 860 . What, one wonders, would these strict followers of the fugitive popeism say if they knew the true intentions of their main leader? At the same time, it is worthy of note that the same Ekaterinburg Old Believers who were trying to grant them legal priests under the supervision of civil authorities were not averse to being satisfied with just fugitive priests. At least, when the government in 1822 allowed the free maintenance of such priests, they stopped their petitions and, one might think, would not have raised them again if not for the constraining measures of Nicholas's time regarding their clergy. Now they are starting their petitions again, which are met by the new government even less favorably than in the past. However, whether due to the original form of their petitions, or because the government itself is beginning to worry about this issue, only the requests of the Ekaterinburg Old Believers are no longer met in government spheres with such silence as happened with the petitions of the Rogozh Old Believers, but are subject to various discussions, in which the Moscow saint also takes an active part. The first petition from the Ekaterinburg Old Believers to grant them priests independent of the spiritual authorities was submitted at the beginning of 1829. 861 To submit this petition, Ryazanov himself went to St. Petersburg, and presented himself here “in the eyes of the government” as “an agent of eighty-one thousand souls of schismatics living in the Perm, Orenburg and Tobolsk provinces, and in some cases even an agent of all schismatics of the priestly sect in Russia.” 862 We do not know the details of this petition, since it was not published anywhere, and only based on the opinion of M. Philaret expressed regarding it, one can think that it, in its content and character, differed little from the previous harassment of the Ekaterinburg Old Believers, which the same Ryazanov submitted to the government on their behalf during the reign of Alexander I. Both there and here they talked about the “official”, in the words of the Moscow saint, granting them priests independent of the spiritual authorities; 863 Moreover, a desire was expressed to completely separate the schismatics from the Orthodox, subordinating the former to the special “provincial committee on schismatics” they were projecting 864. Both there and here, Ryazanov exposes to the government that this measure can have the most beneficial consequences for the church, that the satisfaction of his project will entail the joining of many of the schismatics to the same faith. 865 Metropolitan. Filaret, whose discussion, together with the Metropolitan of Novgorod and the Archbishop of Ryazan, was entrusted with this request, gave a negative answer to it, with which his collaborators agreed. In his opinion about Ryazanov’s note 866, the Moscow saint, without considering the very request of the Ekaterinburg schismatics, dwells mainly on the fact that Ryazanov presents himself as a representative of such a multitude of schismatics, and, with a number of considerations and through the testimony of Ryazanov himself, tries to prove that such a number is completely fictitious, that “Ryazanov randomly puts forward large numbers of people in order to present his imaginary embassy more important” 867 that “it was not 81,000 souls who elected Ryazanov as a representative of their opinion, but he and some like-minded people are trying to subordinate, if possible, all schismatics to their opinion and influence” 868. This is the main content of the opinion of the Moscow Metropolitan. As for the actual main subject of the request - the granting of priests to the Old Believers independent of the spiritual authorities - Metropolitan Philaret limits himself in his first opinion on this issue to one general remark that the satisfaction of this request “is as contrary to church rules as it is to state regulations; for, in this case,” he says, “the priests and their service would be handed over to the self-appointed leaders of the schismatics” 869. Finally, in Ryazanov’s assumptions that the satisfaction of their request will lead to the joining of many schismatics to Edinoverie, the Moscow saint sees nothing more than a trick of a cunning schismatic who “flatters with the hope of Edinoverie in order to attract the government to his goals” 870. Metropolitan Filaret, on the basis of a report from the Perm missionary, Archpriest Lukanin, proves, on the contrary, that the granting of priests to schismatics will entail a halt in the progress of the Edinoverie, that the very rumor about new harassment of the Yekaterinburg elders noticeably suspended the development of Edinoverie in the Perm diocese 871. In conclusion of his opinion, the Moscow saint recommends measures against the unlawful harassment of the Yekaterinburg elders, in one of which he interprets these harassment as a rebellion against government measures, as an indignation of public peace 872. This is how M. Philaret looked at the first petition of the Ekaterinburg schismatics for independent priests. The government fully agreed with his arguments and refused Ryazanov’s request. The latter realized that at this time it was even more difficult than in Alexandrovskoe to achieve the implementation of his plans and therefore, returning from St. Petersburg without any success, he resigned the title of schismatic foreman. 873 But despite all this, Ryazanov, even after this, for nine years, did not cease to be the leader of the schism and intercessor in various cases of his fellow believers. Later, the peasant Egor Kataev (or Kitayev), who managed the Verkh-Isetsky plant, became his worthy employee. Yakovlev 874. Ryazanov's last effort to achieve the goal he so persistently pursued dates back to 1837 875. This year, the chief head of the Ural mountain factories, General Glinka, surveying the factories entrusted to him, saw with surprise that the majority of their population, consisting of Old Believers, remained without priests and for about ten years without performing spiritual services at all. Struck by this situation of these people, he gathered schismatic elders everywhere in factories and tried to persuade them to accept the same faith; but everywhere I heard only reviews from schismatics that they looked at the main merchants of the city of Yekaterinburg as people who had influence on them with their intelligence, wealth and once zealous participation in the affairs of the Old Believers. Then General Glinka made the same proposals to the main Ekaterinburg schismatics. These, of course, also resolutely refused such a proposal; but at the same time they did not fail to use it for a new petition on the previous subject, i.e. about independent priests. Among the five people, who were later joined by thirteen more, they submitted a petition to Glinka to have priests independent from the diocesan department with their subordination to him, as the main head of the mining factories of the Ural ridge. At the same time, in their petition they clarified in detail both the very method of receiving these priests from the diocesan authorities, and their further relationship with the diocesan bishop and with them, the Old Believer elders. Precisely: they asked freely, or, as they put it, “openly” to “receive priests and deacons from all Russian dioceses, where the Old Believers themselves find such and where those priests and deacons, according to their own disposition, wish to join them.” Having chosen a well-known priest or deacon for themselves and secured his consent, they, the Old Believers, were, according to their project, to submit a request for the transfer of this priest or deacon to the main head of the mining factories, who would relate to the diocesan authorities under whose jurisdiction the clergyman who agreed to transfer to them is. Then the diocesan authorities - in that case, however, only in the case "if the priest or deacon did not commit any crime and for that they are neither under investigation nor on trial, since these reasons could prevent their transition to the Old Believers" - had only to exclude them from their department and report this to the chief head of the mining factories, and it was up to the latter to allow the Old Believers to accept and maintain them "in a public manner", "than and, according to the Old Believers, the will of the Sovereign Emperor would have been fulfilled to prevent arbitrarily excommunicated priesthood from joining the Old Believers.” These priests were given an indispensable duty, in the form of a general civil order, to keep metric records of births, marriages and deaths, which statements should be delivered to the main director of the mining factories; and through this latter, report this metrical reporting, as well as the lists of priests entering the Old Believers and leaving them on various occasions, and to the diocesan authorities, if the latter wishes this. At the same time, they also ask to refuse those priests and deacons coming to them who, “due to some actions and deeds contrary to the conscience of the Old Believers,” will turn out to be unnecessary for them; in place of each dropout, again allow them, according to the same rules, to elect another. 876 General Glinka reacted very favorably to this project of the Yekaterinburg Old Believers and, presenting their request to the highest authorities, added his own petition, written, according to Melnikov, in strong and energetic expressions 877. Exposing the “truly disastrous” situation of the Old Believers and the troubles, quarrels and litigation that stem from the differences of faith between managers and workers in private factories, which is why the very management of these factories “extremely suffers,” he, for his part, added a petition to satisfy this request of the Old Believers. At the same time, as motives for this, Mr. Glinka argued: 1) that even in the current situation, the chief head of the factories is more than an intermediary person between the Old Believers and the spiritual authorities; 2) that, according to the request of the Old Believers, he will limit his mediation only to the fact that he will transfer papers coming to him on the spiritual side and not related to him in the course of civil administration to the Perm Archbishop for permission and for information, or where they will go; that, finally, 3) “this measure will, in his opinion, only be temporary, and that the Old Believers will little by little get used to the main clergy.” 878 The new petition of the Yekaterinburg Old Believers for independent priests and the petition of General Glinka were entrusted to the consideration of the Moscow Metropolitan, which resulted in his new opinion on the issue of Old Believers priests independent of the spiritual authorities 879. In this opinion, the Moscow saint, with much greater detail than in the previous one, dwells on the very question raised by the Old Believers in their petition. As he himself notes in his opinion, he was now forced to this mainly by the fact that the schismatics’ proposal for independent priests had already “appeared plausible to the boss to whom they reacted,” i.e. General Glinka. In view of this, “it requires, according to Filaret, even more careful consideration” 880. And, indeed, noting at the beginning the “amazing courage”, “broadness and unparalleledness” of the claims of several “schismatic leaders”, “to choose priests from all Russian dioceses”, he further in detail - and not generally, as in his first opinion - on the basis of canonical and practical considerations, proves the entire impossibility of fulfilling this, in his words, “new method” for schismatics to receive priests, all the harm and inconsistency of them "daring" undertaking. And this evidence later formed the basis for all subsequent opinions of M. Filaret on this issue. As for the consent of the Yekaterinburg Old Believers, expressed in this petition of theirs, to give information to the diocesan authorities, albeit through the head of the mining factories, about schismatic metrics and priests coming to them and leaving them; then in this M. Filaret, as earlier in Ryazanov’s first harassment, which mentioned the same faith, “with regret I saw” nothing more than the cunning of the dissenters, “boldly counting on the lack of insight of the authorities.” “They know,” he says, that the government’s goal is to bring them closer to the Orthodox hierarchy. They don’t want this, but they have to pretend that they are not completely against it. For this purpose, they inserted an insincere article into their rules that the secular boss can give the spiritual authorities information about schismatic metrics and about the priests coming to them and leaving them, and they think that they will be deceived by this sign of rapprochement, while they do not concede to the spiritual authorities either trial, or supervision over their priests, or even the right to call and ask their priest what may be necessary in matters of business” 881. “From all these considerations - this is how the Moscow saint concludes his opinion - it follows that both in order to preserve the good and tranquility of the Orthodox Church, and equally for the preservation of the good and tranquility of the state, the articles proposed by the dissenters must be instilled in them so that they will refrain from ideas that are so incompatible with legal order and improvement” 882. Emperor Nicholas, to whom this case was presented, fully agreed with the arguments set out in the opinion of M. Philaret 883. He ordered to “report” the reasoning of the Moscow Metropolitan to General Glinka “so that, as stated in the Highest Command (dated March 10, 1838), he could see all the twists of the schismatics and, accordingly, would personally impress upon the petitioners that their request, as having been repeatedly rejected, cannot even now be satisfied.” At the same time, the Emperor ordered that the petitioners be required to sign signatures so that in the future they would not dare to bother the authorities with such “cunning” requests 884. Thus, the new harassment of the Ekaterinburg schismatics, despite Glinka’s petition, ended in failure and M. Philaret had every right to write in April of the same 1838 to Arkady of Perm regarding this matter: “a new invention of those stubborn in error, which the head of the factories did not look at very insightfully, before the deep penetration of the eye of the Monarch appeared to be what it is. The cunning ones are exposed, and the one who has not penetrated the cunning receives instructions to be careful” 885. The Yekaterinburg elders, now obliged by subscriptions, have lost final hope of fulfilling their desires; and their head, Yakim Ryazanov, seeing his long-term petitions failed, at the end of the same 1838 joined, together with his family and some other Ekaterinburg and neighboring Old Believers, to the Orthodox Church on the terms of common faith. The Trinity Chapel he built in Yekaterinburg was converted into a Edinoverie church. But even after all this, the Yekaterinburg Old Believers did not stop their harassment, they only took a different path to this goal; namely: through the same Yakim Ryazanov, they sent their request to the chief prosecutor of the Holy Synod, N.A. Protasov, written in the form of a letter from the Ekaterinburg honorary citizen Ryazanov, a schismatic, with ten others to Yakim Ryazanov, in which they set out their new conditions on which they agree to accept priests from the diocesan authorities. 886 Demanding the continued right to choose, at will, priests from all dioceses 887 and to send “for some reason” those they dislike (to send “with a bonus of half the salary”), 888 Ekaterinburg Old Believers are currently agreeing to “submit to the diocesan department” 889 and “to submit metric books directly to the consistory” 890; but at the same time they put forward a lot of conditions, along with which their consent to be in the diocesan department turns out to be a simple fiction and from which the schismatic nature of their request clearly follows. So, not agreeing to be called co-religionists, they demand that the name Old Believers be left to them. 891 Determining the relationship of their future priests to the diocesan authorities and the Orthodox clergy, they ask that the bishops have Old Believer priests “not as affiliated”; so that they do not force the priests (as well as the Old Believers themselves) to accept a blessing from the bishop, providing according to their conscience; 892 so that their priests not only do not go to general meetings of the Orthodox clergy on highly solemn days, but do not unite for prayer even with the clergy of the same faith 893. Finally, among the conditions for accepting priests from the diocesan authorities, they also set forth that they “be allowed to use the ancient holy myrrh that the Old Believers have, without any inquiry about it.” 894 Metropolitan Philaret, who was entrusted with considering this new request of the Yekaterinburg Old Believers, in a response letter to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod (dated March 5, 1843), step by step considering the above conditions of their request and noting its purely schismatic nature, proves that “the proposed conditions are inconvenient and dangerous.” “Everything shows,” he writes at the conclusion of his analysis of this petition of the Old Believers, that the drafters of these conditions wove a network into which they could catch the priests and draw them to themselves, and did not at all think of getting closer to the church. They want to preserve the schism by giving it the honorable name that the law took from them. Under the name of Old Believers, they want to strengthen and legitimize the ugliest news - a schismatic republic in the Orthodox Church." 895 In this case, Yakim Ryazanov also gets it from the Moscow saint, who took upon himself in this matter to mediate between the spiritual authorities and the Yekaterinburg Old Believers. “It is not clear,” writes M. Filaret, “what the mediator is looking for and hoping for. In his eyes, the unity of the Yekaterinburg Church with many feats and patience of the priesthood and hierarchy is preserved in the form of three divisions: 1) Orthodox, 2) old co-religionists and 3) Ryazanov’s co-religionists, who do not communicate with the old co-religionists. Does he want another fourth section? Or does he want to further remove his new co-religionists from the church and turn them into newly invented Old Believers”? 896 After such an answer from M. Philaret, this new request of the Ekaterinburg Old Believers, as one would expect, remained without any consequences. During the period under review, the above-mentioned issue was not exhausted by the petitions of the Moscow and Yekaterinburg schismatics. There are also other schismatic petitions of a similar kind, which suffered the same fate as the above-mentioned harassment. Such, for example, is the request of the Old Believers of the city of Spassk for permission to one of the parish priests to correct the services for them in the local Old Believer chapel, without joining them to the Orthodox Church. Metropolitan Philaret, who was entrusted with considering this petition of the Spassky Old Believers, in a response letter to Chief Prosecutor Protasov (dated July 31, 1840) 897, found out that such permission for Orthodox priests to perform all the services of schismatics, in the chapel, precisely without the latter joining the church, is not only “inconsistent with the rules and dignity of the Orthodox Church and its sacraments”; but “it would have given the schismatics a new weapon against the church,” since they, according to Filaret, would have looked at it “not as condescension, but as recognition of their rightness,” and would have stopped the successes of the same faith, since “many who are on the path to the same faith would have stopped, seeing a way to satisfy themselves without joining the church.” But suffering refusal after refusal, all these requests and harassment of the Old Believers taken together, 898, along with other phenomena in the priesthood that accompanied the impoverishment of its fleeing priesthood - phenomena far from desirable for the state, such as, for example, step marriages - could not help but lead the government to serious reflection about the fate of the priests. And, indeed, the question of “satisfying the essential spiritual needs of those who do not exist in the courtyard of the church” (to put it in the words of the Moscow saint), just three years after the last petition of the Ekaterinburg Old Believers, was put on the agenda as one of the most important issues regarding the schism, and was seriously discussed in the secret advisory committees on schism matters in both capitals. Rumors about the newly-minted foreign hierarchy that began to penetrate government spheres, together with the new intensified harassment of the Old Believers about independent priests, brought this issue to the forefront and gave it the acute form that it took at the end of the 40s. Initially posed at the end of 1846 in the St. Petersburg Secret Committee, this question was soon transferred to the discussion of the Moscow Committee, since it most closely related to the Rogozhsky cemetery, this only metropolis of the Beglopopovsky at that time, and it was posed at that time in a purely local form, namely: “what measures are more convenient, according to local circumstances, to take to bring the Rogozh schismatics closer to the Orthodox church and teaching them spiritual needs in the event of the departure of their current priests”? 899 Discussions on this subject took place in the secret Moscow Committee over the course of two years, in 1848 and 1849. At the very first meeting of this committee, on March 29, 1848, when discussing the issue of granting priests to schismatics, it was clearly discovered that all secular members of the committee were in favor of a positive solution to this issue. “The idea of ​​giving schismatics priests of their choice,” the Moscow Archpastor subsequently wrote to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Protasov, who depend not on the spiritual, but on the secular authorities, captivated all the secular members, who looked at it only from the secular side” 900. And only one Metropolitan Filaret, “the only, as he himself notes, member of the committee of clergy” 901, still had a negative attitude towards the issue under consideration, still believed that giving the schismatics priests from the civil authorities would be neither correct, nor convenient, nor useful. At this first meeting of the committee, he presented an extensive note in which he very thoroughly answers the question posed by the St. Petersburg Committee. 902 Deciding at the beginning (pp. 224–229) the first half of the question, the Moscow saint surveys the local circumstances of the schism in Moscow and, in accordance with the conclusions to which he comes from this review, recommends a number of measures to bring the Rogozh schismatics closer to the Orthodox Church. and then (pp. 230–234) he considers the second half of the question posed by the St. Petersburg Secret Committee, which is currently of interest to us, i.e. the issue of granting priests to schismatics. Without touching on the fundamental side of the issue, he takes a historical point of view and, first of all, notes here some strangeness of the very raising of this issue at the initiative of the government itself. “It would not suddenly seem necessary and appropriate,” he says, to explore the idea of ​​weakening the power of the law, through leniency in favor of schismatics, if this idea had not already been put in mind as possible and, out of necessity, permissible for execution. For a hundred and fifty years there was a schism, and the government did not take upon itself any concern about whether the schismatics were conveniently using the performance of Christian services. Those who have deviated from the lawfully established path do not have the right to entrust anyone but themselves with the responsibility of whether they can travel safely.” Dwelling further on the only fact of this kind in the history of governmental relations towards the schism, namely, the initiation of such “concern” about the priestly schism in the secret St. Petersburg committee of the early 20s, M. Filaret recalls that even at that time “immediately” the impossibility of issuing a law on the free maintenance of priests who had fled from the Orthodox Church by schismatics was recognized - recognized on the basis that “the idea of allowing an official to desert with impunity and hide wherever he wants is destructive to public order.” “For these reasons,” he continues, in 1822 no law was issued, but secret rules were given in order, out of leniency towards schismatics, to allow them to shelter fugitive priests from the law, unless they were found guilty of another crime other than escape.” But experience did not justify this rather cautious solution to the issue under consideration, as proof of which the Moscow Metropolitan points to those bitter fruits of secret rules, their demoralizing influence on the clergy, which we have already noted in its place. “If it happened,” he concludes this historical note, that the rules of 1822, abolished in 1827, were restored again; according to the natural course of affairs, one cannot help but expect that with this second victory the schism would be encouraged and strengthened more than before, and the legitimate clergy would be subject to greater temptation than before, with the increasing poverty of the rural clergy and with the increase in many dioceses of people seeking a place and daily bread.” Finally, in conclusion of this note of his (pp. 232–233), m. Filaret also considers the practical considerations that defenders of an opposing opinion on this issue put forward as sufficient motives for granting priests to schismatics, and finds them unfounded. And 1, the idea that schismatics can be given priests without fear in the hope that the ignorant and damaged clergy in life, who make up the main contingent of schismatic priests, is more capable of disrupting their society than strengthening it - the Moscow saint finds this idea not only unfounded, since “past experiences do not speak in favor of this hope,” but in some way even immoral and anti-Christian. “Even if there was hope,” he says, by allowing unworthy and disreputable priests among the schismatics, the consequence would be the disorder of their society; this would, of course, be more a disorder of morality than a disorder of sectarianism. Is it typical for a government that honors moral and Christian principles and recognizes the providence of God to act in this direction? This would mean saying: let us create evil, so that good will come. The apostolic word speaks menacingly against such a way of thinking and acting.” As for the other thought, which, “like a bogeyman,” is presented against a negative solution to the issue under consideration - the thought that “schismatics of the priestly kind, having lost the fugitive priests, will turn into non-priesthood”; then M. Filaret considers this idea unsubstantiated. Such fear, “in the light of experience,” significantly “changes its appearance”; besides, “the barrier separating schismatics who accept the priesthood from lack of priesthood, according to Filaret, is so strong that it is difficult to imagine uniting them into one court.” - Based on all the considerations set out in the said note, the Moscow saint comes to the general conclusion that “it is not necessary to undertake anything similar to the rules of 1822 in favor of the schismatics of the priestly persuasion, because such a measure would be in conflict with both church rules and civil law and with the constancy and firmness of government action, and because it would be accompanied by more danger of harm than hope of benefit.” The stated note of M. Philaret was presented by him to the meeting of the secret committee on March 29, 1848, and is considered here. Despite all the arguments of the Moscow Metropolitan, however, the secular members of the committee were far from convinced by his reasoning, but, on the contrary, “everyone, as Philaret subsequently wrote to Archimandrite Anthony, was united in the opposite opinion.” 903 Thanks to this, even after the said committee meeting, the question remained open; Having not come to any definite decision, the committee only decided: in view of the difficulty of the subject, to have further judgment about it in the future and for this purpose to enter into secret communication with the schismatics of the Rogozh cemetery. 904 Meanwhile, the latter, well aware of the progress of the committee's deliberations on the issue of interest to them, 905 resumed their harassment with the same force. At the beginning of 1849, and perhaps at the end of 1848, they submitted a request 906 that they be allowed to “receive priests and deacons who wish to come to them voluntarily from parishes or from those outside the state and who are neither under trial nor under prohibition.” The Old Believers were obliged to report such priests and deacons to the civil department (the Moscow Military Governor-General) every time for proper communication with the spiritual authorities. At the same time, they set one of the main conditions for the reception of such clergy, so that during the entire period of their service with them, until they commit any crimes, they would be in the civil department, and not the spiritual one. This, at least, was how Count Zakrevsky formulated the wishes of the Moscow priests, to whom this request was probably submitted. 907 Already from this brief message from Count Zakrevsky it is clear that the current harassment of the Rogozh Old Believers was completely different from the petitions that they submitted to the government in the first five years after the publication of orders that were restrictive for their clergy, and in the essence of the matter they came very close to the petitions of the Ekaterinburg Old Believers. To more clearly characterize the current harassment of the Rogozh Old Believers, we will use one of their petitions on this subject, known in the press, dating back to the end of the 40s. 908 The conditions under which the Moscow Old Believers agree in this petition to accept priests and deacons from the Orthodox Church are almost literally similar to those set forth in the petition of the Ekaterinburg Old Believers, submitted in 1837 to the head of the mining factories, Glinka. Moscow Old Believers ask “to allow the monasteries, churches and chapels that have been established for a long time to receive priests and deacons who come to them at their own request - those who, having received dismissals from their diocesan authorities, are free from the place of their service and, not being on trial, are considered supernumerary, and therefore are completely free, because they do not have due duties for them, therefore, and are fugitives.” cannot be revered." Further, in the spirit of the Yekaterinburg Old Believers, they promise to accept each clergyman who agrees to come to them, to ask in advance for permission from the civil authorities, who, for their part, “to certify the authenticity of the dismissal and the integrity of his behavior,” must communicate with the diocesan authorities from which the newly coming one was dismissed, and, upon confirmation, leave him to live with them, the Old Believers, and “to the local to inform the diocesan authorities about such a transition.” Like the Yekaterinburg Old Believers, the Rogozh schismatics at the same time ask that the clergy who come to them be “imposed to keep metrics and submit them through their elders or trustees to the civil authorities.” Until now, as can be seen, the petition of the Moscow Old Believers only repeats a similar request of the Ekaterinburg schismatics. Some news in the petition under consideration, in comparison with the petition of the Yekaterinburg Old Believers of 1837, is represented by paragraphs 5 and 6 of this request, which, with greater accuracy than in any of the previously considered petitions of the Old Believers, determine the procedure for legal proceedings over accepted clergy. “In minor faults and actions,” says paragraph 5, “Old Believer priests and deacons are judged and sorted out through their spiritual fathers or by elders, chosen priests from among themselves; in criminal cases they will be sent to the local civil authorities to deal with them according to the laws.” 909 In the case of a crime against church rules, as stated in paragraph 6, entailing the prohibition of priestly service, as well as in the case of a violation of the rules of ancient church worship depicted in ancient printed books, or generally reprehensible behavior of an admitted priest or deacon, the Old Believers ask to be allowed to freely refuse such, “by announcing it to the local civil authorities who send him according to his belonging, where he will follow,” and in his place, in the usual manner, elect another. Count Zakrevsky was very sympathetic to the request of the Rogozh Old Believers and, for his part, on February 6, 1849, entered the Moscow Secret Committee with a note in which he argued for the need to satisfy their request. 910 Paying attention here, first of all, to the fact that government measures that were shy in relation to fugitive priests not only did not contribute to the achievement of the goal pursued by the government of bringing the schismatic priests closer to the Orthodox Church, but, on the contrary, “having aroused in the ignorant concept of the schismatics a dangerous feeling of fanaticism, they further confirmed them in error” and even gave rise to a new false teaching, “convincing them of the possibility of committing marriages should be dispensed with without any religious rites,” he comes to the conclusion that in order to avert all these undesirable consequences of the Nicholas system, one must return to the former tolerance of Alexander’s time. Pointing, further, to the critical situation of the Rogozh schismatics, who, with the departure of the two elderly priests they now have, will be forced to either convert to Orthodoxy, or turn to the denial of all religious rituals and in particular to step marriages, and noting that “for the first, in his opinion, judging by the previous 25 years of experience, there is no hope, and the second is not at all desirable,” he again insists on the need to satisfy the present request of the Rogozhskys Old Believers - to grant them priests dependent on the civil authorities, and not on the spiritual. The satisfaction of this request of the Old Believers, in addition to those beneficial consequences that he noted above, will have, in the opinion of Zakrevsky - an opinion that serves as a repetition of the remark expressed at one time by General Glinka - and another result that will serve as “the most reliable and even undoubted means .... subsequently to a constant rapprochement and finally to the perfect reunification of these schismatics with Orthodoxy.” 911 “The mass of schismatics,” says Zakrevsky in explanation of this assumption of his, accustomed until now to see in fugitive priests their shepherds, independent of our spiritual hierarchy, will gradually get used to the idea and to the conviction that they cannot have other priests except those who will be determined with the knowledge and consent of the authorities, and cases of jurisdiction will convince over time the mass of schismatics that their priests are not seized and from subordination to our spiritual authority.” “The opinion,” notes the Moscow Military Governor-General to M. Philaret, who considered justice to be the most important obstacle to the granting of priests to schismatics, “the opinion that schismatics of the priestly persuasion, accepting fugitive priests, subject them to the so-called suspension, which consists in cursing the statutes of the Orthodox Church, is not sufficiently confirmed by facts.” “These are my assumptions,” Zakrevsky concludes his opinion, “regarding the means of bringing the Rogozh schismatics in Moscow closer to Orthodoxy. If these assumptions are considered worthy of attention, then they should begin to be implemented no other way than by allowing the Moscow military governor-general to enter into a preliminary secret meeting with some of the elders of the cemetery. This meeting should look completely private.” However, the count’s note does not end there yet. To prove the validity of his opinion, he cites several considerations of a political and civil nature, from which, in his opinion, the need to grant priests to schismatics also clearly follows. And first of all, he draws attention to the emergence abroad of a new schismatic hierarchy, which, according to his fair remark, is capable, if it spreads, of delaying the rapprochement of schismatic priests with the Orthodox Church for a long time. Stating, further, the fact of secret relations between our schismatics and the Austrian ones, very dangerous relations, in his opinion, in view of the special fermentation of minds abroad at that time, he recommends that the government “must take all necessary measures to deprive schismatics of even any need for such relations by providing the necessary amenities and the opportunity to correct their spiritual needs.” Count Zakrevsky also sends the conclusion of his note to M. Philaret, namely, against the civil reprisals recommended by the latter in the opinion of March 29, 1848 against the Moscow schismatics. Such events, “arousing, according to Zakrevsky, anxiety of conscience in religious feelings and feelings of fear and distrust in hearts accustomed to obedience, love and devotion to the power that protects them,” are especially dangerous at the present time, “when, unfortunately, we see that unbelief, riotousness and seditious willfulness of unbridled passions are agitating the minds of our neighboring peoples.” To embark on repressive measures in relation to the split at such a time - “this would, in his opinion, be a criminal preparation of elements for a disastrous violation of the existing order.” These are the main arguments of the opposing Metropolitan. Philaret of the party on the issue of granting priests to schismatics, dependent on the civil authorities. The arguments from a certain point of view are undoubtedly stronger, and the Moscow saint himself, one might think, recognized a certain degree of thoroughness in them. It is known, at least from his private and, we note, the most frank, correspondence with Archimandrite Anthony, his close friend, that M. Philaret himself at that time hesitated a lot in resolving the issue that occupied the government so much, seeking ways to reconcile the strictness of church canons with the practical requirements of the time. “Your thought about priests for those alienating the church occupies me,” he wrote on July 25, 1849 to the Lavra governor, and I regret that it was not conveyed in words on the spot. Do you think that it is possible to give on the terms on which they are supposed to take? How can this be reconciled with the church rules? How can you give while being sure that they are taking it not to bring you closer to the church, but in order to strengthen your alienation from it? Show me, if you can imagine, a way to turn the stubborn path into the right one.” 912 But not finding such a way, being far from the thought of any compromises, not wanting to sacrifice church rules to the demands of the moment, the Moscow archpastor entered the Moscow Committee with a new, extensive note 913, in which he again resolutely rebelled against a solution to the issue favorable to the schismatics and, in particular, against the note of Count Zakrevsky. Armed at the beginning of this note, which serves as a kind of introduction to it, against the alleged secret relations with the Rogozh schismatics on the issue of priests, and noting that these relations between the government and the schismatics are not only inconvenient and unreliable, like any official relations between the legal authorities and a society that does not have a legal existence, but in the essence of the matter it is decidedly useless, since the conditions under which they agree to have priests are well known from their repeated petitions; - M. Filaret, further, moves on to a fundamental solution to the main question: should schismatics be given priests on certain conditions? In the first part (pp. 287–291), where the issue in question is interpreted from a canonical and historical point of view, this note by the Moscow saint does not represent anything new in comparison with his other opinions, in which the issue of Old Believer priests is considered from these points of view. Canonical considerations given by M. Filaret in this note of 1849, are very similar to his opinion on this issue, written back in 1837 regarding the then harassment of the Old Believers of Yekaterinburg. Both there and here, the Moscow archpastor proves the anti-canonical nature of the schismatic undertaking and the practical, insoluble from the point of view of church rules, inconveniences that should follow if the schismatics are granted priests independent of the spiritual authorities. Both there and here, he points to the existence of the schismatics, the so-called correction, which serves, in his opinion, as the most important obstacle to the granting of priests to them and which, in Philaret’s opinion, they will under no circumstances refuse to perform on the priests who come to them. The historical information given by M. Filaret in this note of his, i.e. the indication of an example found in the affairs of the St. Petersburg Secret Committee of 1821 or 1822 serves as nothing more than a repetition of the same thing that he said in a note dated March 29, 1848. In both opinions, the essence of this reference to history comes down to the conclusion that the official granting of priests to schismatics independent of the spiritual authorities was condemned by our ancestors as being inconsistent with church canons. Complete news with all the previously stated opinions of the Moscow Metropolitan on the issue of granting priests to schismatics is represented by the second half of the note under consideration, where M. Philaret for the first time resolves the said issue “from the political side,” from which point of view the secular members of the Moscow Committee judged this issue. But even here he comes to conclusions completely opposite to those reached by Count Zakrevsky, the main proponent of a positive solution to the question of Old Believer priests, who, as we have seen, in his note on this issue emphasized precisely that the government, both in general in its relations to the schism, and in particular in this case, should be guided by more political and civil considerations than religious and canonical ones. In conclusion of his opinion (pp. 297–298), M. Filaret also touches on Zakrevsky’s note with the goal, as he himself notes, “so that silence does not serve as a reason for some misunderstandings.” Dwelling only on the final words of the note of the Moscow Governor-General, he notes: “it is not clear to me what it means to “take measures that arouse the alarm of conscience” and to what kind of actions or assumptions does this strong judgment apply that “this would be a criminal preparation of elements for a disastrous violation of the existing order.” But just as when a strong blow falls somewhere, and someone standing on the side with an involuntary movement is removed further, so I withdraw from the stated judgment, not having on my part the misfortune of seeing anything close to this either in the measures taken or proposed by the government and the authorities, or in the reasoning about these measures.” This opinion of M. Philaret, read at the meeting of the committee on October 10, 1849, made a significant impression on the members of the committee with its canonical considerations, so that “three of them, against two, as the Moscow Saint N.A. Protasov wrote, recognized the significance of this view” 914, and wavered in their previous views on this subject. Although these three still agreed on the need to grant priests and deacons to schismatics; but they already abandoned the idea of ​​​​the independence of these priests and deacons from the spiritual authorities. So, one of them, Prince. S. M. Golitsin noted that “the condition of independence of these clergy from the spiritual authorities is not consistent with the hierarchical order and can serve not to reduce, but to strengthen and multiply the schism”; the other, Count S.G. Stroganov considered it necessary to demand from the schismatics at least an ambiguous recognition of the spiritual authority over their priests (namely, that when the schismatics were allowed to accept a priest or deacon, it should be expressed that they were accepting him from the civil authorities with the assistance of the spiritual), without which condition he did not foresee that the concession made to the schismatics could contribute to bringing them closer to the church; and, finally, the third of the members, General S.V. Perfilyev, recognizing the need to provide priests to the schismatics, refused to set out the conditions under which, in his opinion, this could be done, he only noted that by giving the schismatics the opportunity to freely perform their rituals, through the priests they choose, the schism will take deeper roots and multiply more. Count Zakrevsky and the Moscow civil governor remained of the same opinion. 915 Metropolitan Philaret was very pleased with the results achieved by his note. “Bow for me at the feet of St. Sergius,” he wrote the next day after the meetings of Archimandrite. Anthony. Although I am unworthy, I must admit that the matter, which has concerned me a lot, is not entirely without patronage. Although the opinion did not reach general agreement; but even then there is more expectation that the majority of those participating in the judgment wavered in the opposite opinion, and more or less recognized the justice of what was proposed now, after previously everyone was united in the opposite opinion.” 916 With a meeting on October 10, the meetings of the Moscow Committee on the issue of granting priests to schismatics ended, and it was decided that all opinions on this issue of the committee members, in the originals, with a copy of the journal, should be sent for a final decision to the St. Petersburg Committee. The execution of this was entrusted to M. Philaret. Sending all these papers to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod N.A. Protasov, M. Filaret accompanied them with a letter in which, setting out the essence of the opinions of the secular members of the committee and his fears in the event of a favorable resolution of the issue for the schismatics, at the same time he asks Protasov that the whole matter be presented to the Sovereign Emperor “not too much in an abbreviated report.” “The heart of a king,” he notes at the same time, is in the hand of God; but nevertheless, one must try so that the different sides and consequences of the matter about which the royal word should be uttered are clearly presented to his bright gaze.” 917 Filaret’s wish was probably fulfilled by the chief prosecutor. His opinion on the issue of Old Believer priests triumphed. “Privately,” the Moscow saint later reported, “it was known that the Sovereign Emperor Nikolai Pavlovich wanted to leave this matter without consequences.... The Sovereign Emperor did not find it convenient to give the schismatics priests from the civil authorities.” 918 Likewise, those repressive measures in relation to the Rogozh schism that M. Filaret recommended in the first half of his note on March 29, 1848, soon began to be implemented. The Bibikov Ministry, so famous in the history of government relations for the split in relations, began. The fruit of these events in relation to the Rogozh schism, in connection with the turmoil in the cemetery itself on the issue of accepting a new foreign hierarchy, is an increased movement towards unity of faith. Then, in order to stop this movement, “stubborn dissenters, through their trustees Vinokurov and Zelenkov,” submitted a new request to Count Zakrevsky at the beginning of 1854, with which they “sought to obtain priests at their disposal outside the legal hierarchical order.” 919 The Moscow military governor-general forwarded this request to the Minister of Internal Affairs, Bibikov, and the latter, on May 6, submitted it to the discretion of the Sovereign Emperor. It is clear that Nikolai Pavlovich, so consistent in his actions, responded with a decisive refusal: “one should not agree to such whims of schismatics,” he wrote in the minister’s report; to be considered in the secret committee, inviting Count Zakrevsky as well.” The matter was considered in the committee and, according to its decision, approved on May 13 by the Sovereign, the Rogozh Old Believers, through the Moscow Governor-General, were denied their request, with the suggestion that “this request could not be taken into account, because they are seeking something that is contrary not only to church, but also to civil decrees.” 920 This was the last time in Nikolaev’s time that schismatics tried to obtain priests independent from the spiritual authorities. A new reign has begun. The Rogozh schismatics, very sensitive to all sorts of new trends, “began to act,” as Metropolitan Filaret and I reported on March 7, 1855. Deputy Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, A.I. Karasevsky, with greater courage and self-confidence than before.” 921 For two days they stubbornly refused to take the oath of allegiance to the new Emperor in the Orthodox Church and under the Orthodox priest and agreed to this only after the “meek admonitions” of M. Philaret to fulfill this legal requirement; but at the same time, in order to somehow express their protest, they “did not obey the order of the spiritual authorities in appointing a priest, but chose the Karacharovsky priest themselves.” 922 At the same time, they wanted to win this priest, whom they respected for his prudence, honesty and meekness in his behavior, “to win over with money and ask him for themselves in the same position as they had for runaway priests.” 923 But the said priest, upon hearing one rumor about this intention of the schismatics, “to protect himself from criticism,” himself reported everything to his metropolitan. Then the Rogozh schismatics decided to follow the usual path towards this goal - through increased harassment of the new government, now fully counting on success - especially since public opinion and their closest superiors, in the person of Count Zakrevsky, were on their side. The latter, during his stay in St. Petersburg, “had the good fortune, as he himself wrote, to personally explain” to the new Emperor all the disadvantages of the Bibikov system of actions regarding schismatics, and then, on the instructions of the Sovereign, he outlined his comments on this subject in a special note, which was soon (March 20, 1855) presented to Alexander Nikolaevich 924. In this note, the Moscow Military Governor-General also touches on the clerical split. Pointing here to the establishment by our priests of a foreign metropolitanate, which would supply them with priests, Count Zakrevsky sees in this a mistake of the previous government, which did not warn this enterprise of the schismatics in time by granting them some means to fulfill their needs, although he, the count, for his part, “from the very moment he took over the management of the Moscow capital,” constantly insisted on this. 925 Along with this memorandum, Zakrevsky submitted another one, relating exclusively to the issue of the trade rights of schismatics. 926 The notes of Count Zakrevsky, of course, could not immediately change the system of government relations towards a split, but still made a certain impression on the Sovereign Emperor. Thanks to them, in the very next month, there followed, albeit in the form of a special royal favor towards the Moscow schismatics - capitalists, the abolition of the order of the Nicholas time, which was very embarrassing for them, about the reserve of schismatics in the guild on a temporary basis. 927 The schismatics considered this an important victory for themselves and decided to seek new concessions from the government. In the same April 1855, the schismatics of Rogozh (on the 23rd), and after them (on the 26th) and at their instigation, 928 and Bogorodsky, submitted, with numerous signatures, petitions to the Highest Name, in which, among other things, complaining that they had no one to perform services, they asked that they be allowed to “elect from unstaffed or multi-staffed parishes and from those located in the priests' chamber for the administration of the sacraments." 929 Metropolitan Filaret, who was instructed by the Minister of Internal Affairs, Bibikov, to consider the said requests of the Moscow priests, contrary to his custom, hesitated for a long time to answer, “perhaps confused by the changing government attitudes towards the split,” 930 and only in September, at the new request of the new minister - Lansky, “to speed up the communication of information and conclusions on the mentioned petitions,” 931 forwarded to him his review of schismatic petitions. As for that point of their request, where they seek to obtain independent priests, the Moscow saint did not say anything new regarding it in his answer, probably because he considered this issue to be completely settled during the previous reign. He found it necessary to point out at the present time only that there were quite a few similar petitions for the granting of priests by schismatics in different places during the previous reign and that all of them were rejected as impossible to fulfill. To further clarify the question of what motives guided the previous government in its refusals, he sent an extract from his opinion of 1849. 932 After such a response, the schismatics’ petitions were abandoned without any consequences. But despite this failure, the Rogozh schismatics did not even think of abandoning their harassment, especially since they saw happy omens for their petitions in the subsequent resignation of Minister Bibikov and in the removal from service at the cemetery of the no less unpleasant caretaker Mozzhakov. 933 As recently as April of the following year (1856), through the same trustees Vinokurov and Zelenkov, they renewed their request for the granting of priests independent of the spiritual authorities, this time inviting the schismatics of the Tver province to participate in the request. 934 The petition was again submitted to the Highest Name; but this time it suffered the same fate as the previous ones. On the memorandum on this subject from the State Secretary of Prince Golitsin, the Sovereign Emperor put the following resolution: “to announce that I strongly disagree with this.” 935 Meanwhile, the matter was transferred to a secret committee, which decided: “to instruct the Right Reverend Metropolitan of Moscow, in conjunction with the Moscow Military Governor-General, to call upon the elders of the Rogozh cemetery, to decisively announce to them, and through them to all Rogozh schismatics, that their desire to have priests independent of the bishop will never be accepted by the government, as being contrary to the laws of the church and state, and that they can only join the church or unconditionally or on the rules of unity of faith.” 936 This decision of the secret committee on June 16 was approved by the Sovereign Emperor 937 and was soon carried out. The Rogozh bosses, after much persistence, signed off on hearing the Highest approved resolution of the committee. Metropolitan Philaret subsequently described this event as follows: “to carry out the committee’s instructions, two trustees of the Rogozh cemetery and four people from other significant schismatics were called to the house of the Moscow military governor-general. After reading to them the Highly approved opinion, the Metropolitan explained to them that the division of the church is not pleasing to God, that they themselves recognize the need for a bishop when they ask for priests ordained by the bishop; that from the beginning of the Christian Church, holy councils and holy fathers never allowed priests to leave their dependence on their church authorities, and those who were alienated from them were condemned; that the rules of the same faith are lenient and sufficiently satisfying to those who are attached to old printed books; and finally invited them to further conference to resolve doubts and to achieve reconciliation. One of them expressed his disposition to join the church on the rules of the same faith; the others were silent and, when it was demanded that they sign only in hearing the Highest approved opinion, they did not agree to this and agreed only after a long admonition. Afterwards it was privately heard that there was a preliminary intention not to agree to anything, and those who poorly understood it did not agree to a simple subscription to hearing. 938 But despite their subscription, despite all the failures in their efforts to obtain priests independent from the spiritual authorities, the Rogozh schismatics did not stop their petitions of this kind. “Knowing that a drop pierces a stone, and thinking that by importunity and some refined ideas, such as pointing out their exaggerated numbers, they can shake the firmness of the government and achieve the goal of strengthening them,” 939 they came out at the end of the same (1856) year with a new, all-submissive petition for independent priests. Having received no answer to their request, the Rogozh schismatics at the beginning of the next year turned to the mediation of Count Zakrevsky and, presenting him with a copy with the most humble forgiveness, asked to bring their request to the attention of the Sovereign Emperor. Count Zakrevsky verbally refused them this mediation, “not wanting, as he himself wrote, to give the schismatics a reason to think that the local authorities recognize their request as valid, and ordered the Chief of Police to announce to the petitioners that, due to the repeated Highest commands to refuse such requests, he cannot do anything to satisfy their present solicitation.” In fact, he recognized the schismatics’ request as fair and made a new petition for them before the Sovereign Emperor. 940 In his most humble note dated April 11, 1857, 941 Count Zakrevsky again insists on the positive need to satisfy the schismatics’ request for independent priests, and as motives for this he still points to those political and civil considerations, i.e., to those phenomena harmful to the state and therefore undesirable for the government that should follow the refusal of the schismatics’ request, which he put forward back in 1849 to the Moscow Secret Committee in his note dated February 6. “With the refusal of this request,” he wrote, among other things, in this new, all-submissive note, “one can expect a huge resettlement of schismatics to other states, internal unrest and the formation of new schismatic sects, much more harmful than the clerical one. In order to prevent and avert the possibility of disaster, the government in its actions regarding schismatics should not be carried away by religious principles alone, but harmonize them with the benefits of political and civil aspects. The government will act completely prudently if, taking advantage of the real harassment of the priestly schismatics, it gives them priests subordinate to the civil authorities.” Then pointing out three ways to satisfy the schismatics’ extreme need for priests, i.e., either to grant them priests from the Orthodox Church on their later terms, or to return to the rules of 1822, or, finally, to call upon the Austrian hierarchy, Count Zakrevsky stands for the first method, as, in his opinion, the most appropriate. The latter method, according to Zakrevsky, presents the inconvenience that makes our schismatics dependent on the highest foreign clergy, giving them a reason to move abroad and transfer capital there to support a foreign metropolitanate. The second method is inconvenient in that it gives schismatics fugitives and criminals as shepherds; and the government, says Zakrevsky, cannot help but want the clergy of its subjects to be as moral as possible. All of the above-mentioned inconveniences are eliminated in the third method of bestowing priests on schismatics, which method is therefore the best, having, in addition, the good side that fully corresponds to the desires and needs of the petitioners themselves. The considered note of Count Zakrevsky is not exhausted by the presented evidence of the need for state forms of satisfying the requests of the Rogozh schismatics. At the same time, they are trying here, although very unsuccessfully, to prove that the government is currently even obliged to satisfy the schismatics’ demands for priests, that schismatics have the right to demand that their request be satisfied. “As long as the schismatics,” he says, “requested to be given priests subordinate to the civil authorities, without expressing either their right to do so, or that their rituals and sacraments did not offend the Orthodox Church, the government could still leave their said requests without respect under the pretext of protecting the Orthodox Church. But as soon as the schismatics saw that in their own cemetery the metropolitan himself was doing everything that they were forbidden and called an insult to Orthodoxy, they received the conviction that prohibiting them from worshiping and not giving priests subordinate to the civil authorities, as well as depriving them of civil rights, was unjust persecution on the part of the Orthodox clergy, and that, consequently, the government could no longer leave their request, like the previous ones, without any respect, in which their The word of Your Imperial Majesty, expressed in the most merciful manifesto of March 19, 1856, is encouraging: everyone, under the canopy of laws that equally protect everyone, may enjoy the fruit of innocent labors.” This note from Count Zakrevsky was carefully read by the Sovereign, it was covered with his own handwritten notes, from which it is clear that the part in which the Moscow Governor-General expressed his state concerns in the event of a possible refusal to the requests of the schismatics, his note made a strong impression on the Emperor, who completely agreed with his arguments, and caused the following rather alarming resolution of the Sovereign; “This matter must be submitted immediately to the secret committee for consideration, to which I draw the attention of Mr. members on the importance of this state and, one might say, vital issue for us and I expect their full and frank opinion, to calm my wavering conscience in this important matter, i.e. how to reconcile the benefits of our church with the benefits of the state, for the matter is about calming the minds of five million people.” 942 By virtue of this Highest Resolution, the question of granting priests to schismatics, in connection with the general question of the system of government relations to the split, also raised by the note of Count Zakrevsky, was submitted for discussion to the St. Petersburg Secret Committee, where it was considered for about a year. Unfortunately, we do not know the details of the committee’s discussions about the Old Believer priests. It is only known that this question at the present time, as in the Moscow Secret Committee in 1848 and 1849, caused heated friction between the civil and ecclesiastical members of the committee. The latter, led by Metropolitan Gregory of St. Petersburg, still stood for a negative solution to the issue; while the former, together with the chairman of the committee, Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolaevich, demanded that the schismatics’ request be satisfied at all costs. How lightly secular government officials looked at this issue at that time and what brilliant hopes they pinned on simplifying further relations with the schism, with a solution to the said issue favorable for the schismatics - this can be seen from one of the later letters of Metropolitan Philaret, in which he, according to Metropolitan Gregory, informs Governor Anthony that “the Minister of Appanages, like others, says that it is necessary to somehow give priests to the schismatics and that then everything will go well.” 943 The ecclesiastical members of the committee far from sharing these pleasant expectations, but, on the contrary, still thought that with the granting of priests to the schismatics, the affairs of Orthodoxy in the fight against the schism would only worsen. Such a radical difference in the views of members on the same subject discussed in the committee - a difference noted in one of the Highest commands of that time, 944 naturally could not lead the committee to any definite solution to the issue and only delayed the matter. To put an end to this and bring the issue to some definite solution, the Emperor ordered the temporary removal of the clergy members of the committee from its meetings. 945 The situation was very critical. The entire previous system of government relations to the Beglopopovshchina, for which M. Filaret had so long and energetically advocated, was in the most serious danger. Then the Moscow saint, probably notified by Metropolitan. Gregory about the progress of the committee's deliberations, 946 having at hand a note from Count Zakrevsky, on whose arguments, one might think, the secular members of the committee mainly relied in their demands for a positive solution to the issue, 947 decided to raise his voice and speak out in defense of church interests, which the secular members of the committee, when discussing the issue, were almost completely ignored. M. Philaret’s three opinions on the issue of granting schismatics priests independent of the spiritual authorities date back to this time. In the first in time 948 and the most extensive in content of these opinions, the Moscow saint sets out in some detail the history of the issue under consideration, analyzes the last note of Count Zakrevsky and points out the practical difficulties that must inevitably follow the satisfaction of schismatic harassment. We will not dwell on the first part of the said note of the Moscow archpastor, since it partly contains historical information already known to us from his other opinions on this issue from government relations with the fugitive priests during the reign of Alexander I, but for the most part it is presented, although for the first time, in comparison with all the previously considered opinions of Metropolitan Philaret on this issue, but already well known to us, the history of schismatic harassment to receive independent from spiritual superiors of priests and the government's attitude towards these harassments. Therefore, let us move directly to the second part of the said opinion of the Moscow saint (pp. 276–282), which examines the last note of Count Zakrevsky and is therefore of particular interest. “There is nothing hidden that cannot be revealed,” this is how M. Filaret begins this part of his opinion. Dissenters often skillfully and quickly penetrate even the secret actions of the authorities and the government itself. From them this information sometimes passes on to fellow believers who stand on the border of the schism, and then to the Orthodox. There is information that some officials or persons in Moscow have drawn up notes favorable to the harassment of schismatics and submitted them to the government for consideration. The first thought from these notes that became known was this: “fortunately, the displeasure of the schismatics is directed only at the clergy.” Over time, thoughts and considerations have become known more and more accurately, from which some draw the conclusion that it is necessary to give the schismatics priests from the civil authorities.” To consider these thoughts and considerations M. Filaret moves on, and, making literal extracts from Count Zakrevsky’s note, step by step follows his arguments and proves their groundlessness. And first of all, he dwells on those arguments of the Moscow Governor-General, in which the latter, based on the fact of the metropolitan serving in the Edinoverie Church according to old printed books and ignorantly confusing the priestly schism with Edinoverie, tries to prove the legality of the very demand of the Rogozh schismatics to grant them priests independent of the spiritual authorities and to present the dissatisfaction of this legal demand as unfair persecution by the Orthodox clergy, which, allegedly, “deliberately obscures the truth and hides from the government the identity of the split with the same faith.” Here is M. Philaret’s answer to these strange arguments of Count Zakrevsky. “From the fact that the metropolitan served in the Edinoverie church according to the order of the Old Believer books,” the Moscow saint wrote, “to conclude that schismatics have the right to ask priests would mean drawing a completely incorrect and false conclusion.” “The bishop served with the blessing of the Holy Synod,” he explains his thought, “with priests serving in this rite also with the blessing of the Holy Synod, and schismatics ask for priests who are independent of the Holy Synod and dependent on the secular authorities.” “Moreover, the service according to the order of old printed books,” he adds to this, “did not begin now, but has existed for 55 years, and the bishop’s service according to the order of these books began a long time ago; there was such a service not far from the Rogozhsky cemetery, in the Trinity Edinoverie Church, in 1840. But until now, neither the schismatics nor anyone else has derived from this any right in favor of the schismatics; Consequently, the conclusion now put forward about the right of schismatics to ask for priests independent of their spiritual superiors is only a schismatic effort to give themselves the appearance of justice through false reasoning.” As for the reproach thrown by the author of the note in the face of the Orthodox clergy, that the latter deliberately hides the truth from the government - the identity of schism with unity of faith, the Moscow saint, indignant at such an unfair accusation, rather sharply remarks on this: “what a low concept of government is attributed here to schismatics, as if the clergy can present to the government a false opinion under the guise of the true one, and the government will not understand and will allow itself to be deceived! The schismatics have a better understanding of government than the note ascribes to them. When communicating directly with schismatics and inquiring about their opinions through fellow believers, it is not heard of them recognizing the identity of the schism with the same faith and complaining about the clergy hiding this from the government. And here is the proof: if schismatics recognized the identity of schism with unity of faith, then there would be no reason for them not to join unity of faith.” 949 Finally, regarding the words of the most merciful manifesto cited in Zakrevsky’s note, as strong, in his opinion, evidence of the need to reassure the Old Believers by granting them priests; then these words, notes M. Filaret, “are given here not according to their true reason, but according to a misinterpretation. The most merciful manifesto encourages the fruits of innocent labors to be equally protected by laws for all, and not sects and schisms harmful to state unity.” Also unfounded, in the opinion of the Moscow archpastor, are the brilliant hopes of the author of the note for the favorable consequences that should supposedly result from the granting of priests to the schismatics on the terms they requested. We already know that the main advantage of the method of meeting the needs of the Rogozh schismatics advocated by Count Zakrevsky is the fact that with the granting of priests to the schismatics independent from the spiritual authorities, the Austrian hierarchy in Russia will fall, as no longer necessary here, the reasons for the resettlement of schismatics abroad and for the transfer of capital there to support the schismatic metropolis there will be eliminated. Despite all the temptingness of such hopes and expectations, M. Filaret nevertheless finds them not solid and not of great importance. And firstly, in the opinion of the Moscow Metropolitan, it is difficult to expect that with the gift of priests to schismatics, bishops and priests ordained abroad will become unnecessary for them. “Some schismatics,” he says, who used capital to acquire false bishops, will not want to throw away with shame what they bought at a high price. The most sensible of schismatics will not accept false bishops: but these even now do not recognize them. But false bishops and false priests are gradually entering the simple schismatic people, and, having received their affection, they will not easily be abandoned by them.” Likewise, in the opinion of M. Philaret, Count Zakrevsky’s other expectation is not of great importance, that with the satisfaction of the schismatics’ request, the reasons for their resettlement abroad and for the transfer of capital there for the maintenance of the Belokrinitsky Metropolis will cease. “Large capital was needed,” he notes to this, for the establishment of a foreign false metropolitanate and they were used, but now such is not needed. Those who have recognized the false hierarchy abroad now have no need to either move or send capital abroad, because they already have their own false archbishops and many false priests, whom they will have for a considerable time.” The last part of the considered opinion of M. Philaret, in which he, in contrast to the brilliant expectations of Count Zakrevsky, puts forward his thoughts on the difficulties and unfavorable consequences that should inevitably open up following the satisfaction of the schismatics’ request for priests dependent on the civil authorities - this part does not represent anything new, hitherto unknown from other opinions of the Moscow saint, but serves as a simple repetition of canonical ones previously and more than once expressed by him and practical arguments against a solution to the issue under consideration that is favorable to the schismatics. At the end of his opinion, M. Filaret sums up everything that has been said. “From everything stated here,” he writes, “it is impossible to draw any other conclusion than that in response to the solicitation of schismatics, to receive from the civil authorities of priests independent from the bishop a refusal, repeatedly made in Bose by the late Sovereign Emperor Nikolai Pavlovich and repeatedly confirmed by the now safely reigning Sovereign Emperor Alexander Nikolaevich, is a matter of royal truth and insight, a matter of the unshakable firmness of the sacred the royal word, the work of truly the most pious defender and patron of the Orthodox Church.” At the end of October 1857, the Moscow saint sent this opinion to St. Petersburg Metropolitan Gregory with the goal, of course, that the latter would consider it himself and introduce others to its contents. What impression M. Philaret’s arguments made in St. Petersburg, we do not know. One can only think that this energetic protest of the most authoritative of the Russian hierarchs against the note of the guardian of schismatic interests served, at least for the spiritual members of the committee, as considerable support in the fight against the secular members, who were strongly in favor of satisfying schismatic demands. Having not received any favorable news from St. Petersburg regarding the results of his note, meanwhile having learned on the basis of private rumors that the situation was worsening, that “the schismatics’ hope of taking advantage of the government’s indulgence beyond measure and tearing priests away from the church is intensifying” 950, Metropolitan Philaret sends a new “official attitude” to the Bishop of St. Petersburg 951. With even greater decisiveness than before, pointing out here the impossibility of sacrificing church rules to please the schismatics and the enormous harm to the unity of faith in granting priests to the schismatics on the terms they requested, the Moscow saint, out of fear that the illegal solicitation of the schismatics would not triumph, proposes his project to satisfy the schismatics - a project, in his opinion, not connected with either the violation of church rules or the fear of upsetting the hierarchy. Without setting out this project in its details, since we will have occasion to return to it, we will only note that its essence boils down to the establishment of a special Edinoverie bishopric, as the second vicariate of the Moscow diocese, and to the granting to the Rogozh schismatics, at their request and with the consent of the Moscow diocesan bishop, from one to three casual priests, who should be dependent on the project co-religious bishop. Sending this project to M. Gregory, the Moscow Archpastor wrote to him at the same time: “I present these assumptions for testing to your Eminence and, if you find them not inconvenient to implement, to other members of the Holy Synod, may there be, according to the word of Scripture, salvation in many councils. I repeat that I submit it for testing, because I tried to open a way out of the difficulty, but whether I achieved this, I do not dare to say decisively.” Metropolitan Gregory did not agree with this project of the Moscow archpastor and returned to the latter his “official attitude about this, not shown to anyone else.” The first believed that the establishment of a special bishop of the same faith was harmful to the church and useless in relation to schismatics, since the latter would not accept him. 952 Therefore, the said project of Metropolitan Philaret did not receive further movement, and the Moscow saint himself no longer insisted on its implementation. Metropolitan Philaret came out with a new opinion 953 on the issue of granting schismatics priests independent of the diocesan authorities in March of the following year (1858). For what reason was this opinion written by the Moscow archpastor, whether at the suggestion of Metropolitan Gregory, on behalf of the government, or on his own initiative, there is no information about this. The peculiarity of this opinion is that here M. Filaret quotes the current journals of the St. Petersburg Committee on the issue under consideration, from which it is partly false to conclude about the official origin of the said opinion. As for the content of this opinion of the Moscow saint, it does not represent anything new: here the issue is considered exclusively from a canonical point of view, here, as in most of his opinions on this issue, it is proven that “the Orthodox Church cannot, without wavering the sacred rules with which it is firmly established, give priests to schismatics, with the condition they propose of independence from the church hierarchy.” 954 There is no doubt that M. Gregory made extensive use of M. Philaret’s arguments for his note on “what system to follow in relation to the schism,” which he submitted to the committee meeting on March 31. This note, in which Bishop of St. Petersburg, among other things, refutes the arguments of Count Zakrevsky and proves the impossibility of granting schismatics priests independent of the spiritual authorities, had a decisive influence on the committee’s reasoning on the issue under consideration. Thanks to this note by M. Gregory, at the said meeting on March 31, it was decided, and on April 24, for consideration in the Council of Ministers, it was Highly approved: and the request of the schismatics of the priestly sect for the granting of priests, independent of local bishops, to be refused, as being contrary to the apostolic and ecumenical rules on which the Orthodox Church is founded.” 955 This order was the final act of the long-drawn-out history of schismatic attempts to obtain priests outside the legal hierarchical order at their disposal. The opinion of the Moscow Metropolitan ultimately triumphed. Reporting this (July 17, 1858) to the Right Reverend Alexei, he wrote to him at the same time: “the many-year secular solicitation to give the schismatics priests from the civil authorities, after a strong struggle in the highest region, due to the wise caution of the most pious Sovereign, was rejected. And this is the mercy of God, for by this the church rules and the conscience of the bishops are protected.” 956 Having outlined the history of the issue under consideration, noting the important influence on the solution of this issue that the Moscow saint had with his opinions, we will now move on to presenting the motives that guided the latter in his negative activities on this issue and which he put forward in his notes as weighty arguments against granting priests to schismatics on the terms they proposed. We already know in part that the first and most important reason for refusing the schismatics’ advances was that M. Filaret presented the anti-canonical nature of their undertaking. Thus, already in his first opinion on this issue, the Moscow saint directly states that “the demand of Ryazanov and his like-minded people, who signed the Yekaterinburg verdict, that they be officially given priests independent of the spiritual authorities is contrary to church rules.” 957 What exactly he found against the canonical in such harassment of schismatics, he clarifies in detail in his subsequent opinions on this issue. He notes two main inconsistencies with church canons. And first of all, in his opinion, the very idea of ​​releasing Orthodox priests into a clearly schismatic society is not consistent and in no way can be reconciled with church rules. “There is some connection between the schismatics and the Orthodox Church,” he says, in that they want to have priests who have received successive ordination from the apostles; But they completely dissolve this connection when they demand priests who are independent of the church hierarchy, or, what is the same, rejected from it, and, recognizing them as coming from a heretical church, they think to cleanse them with a special prayer or false anointing. Those who call the Orthodox Church heretical and refuse to obey its hierarchy through this are completely separated from it and become the opposite of it. The Orthodox Church should not have communication with such people, because church rules prohibit this; should not because this would be incompatible with her dignity, firmness and purity; it should not because it would create a temptation, that is, it would show the appearance of a concession to the opinion of those who call it heretical, and would give them a reason to assert themselves in this opinion; it should not because such a deviation of the Russian Church from the rules of the church could be subject to denunciation by the Eastern Church to the detriment of church unity; finally, it should not and cannot because church communion is possible only with the mutual consent of those entering into communion; but schismatics do not want to communicate with the Orthodox Church. To whom the Orthodox Church gives a priest, a performer of church prayers and sacraments, with whom it obviously has communion. So, since she should not be in communion with schismatics, she should not give them priests from herself.” 958 And if the Orthodox hierarchy allows something like this, then it will be guilty, in the opinion of M. Philaret, 10th Apostolic Canon, which prohibits, under threat of excommunication, praying with those who have been excommunicated. 959 Not only that. An Orthodox bishop, according to church rules, not only cannot release his priest to the schismatics, but must even condemn him if the latter went over to a schismatic society - “is obliged to prohibit him from serving in the priesthood, subject him to admonishment and, in conscience, do everything possible to prevent his transition from the Orthodox Church to the schismatics.” “If the bishop neglects this duty,” the Moscow saint notes, then other Orthodox bishops, according to the same church rules, will be obliged to break off communication with him, and thus, to please the schismatics, a division will be made in the Orthodox hierarchy.” “And will, he asks, be useful to the church and the state if they open themselves to bishops of such a weak conscience who, neglecting church rules, decide to hand over priests to schismatics?” 960 As the main obstacle why full communication with schismatics cannot take place, and therefore their request for the granting of priests to them cannot be respected, M. Philaret pointed to the existence of a so-called correction of priests coming to them, i.e., he explains in one of his opinions, “an imaginary anointing, or the uttering of an imaginary curse on heresies, including Nikon’s, i.e. on the Orthodox Church, how they think to cleanse the priest who comes to them from the unclean, in their opinion, Great Russian Church.” 961 How much serious importance the Moscow saint really attached to this circumstance can be seen from the fact that there is almost not a single opinion of his in which he does not point out this important obstacle. “This correction must be taken into account here,” he noted in one of his first opinions discussing the issue under consideration. If a priest who goes over to the schismatics refuses it, he will not be accepted by them; and if he allows it to be done to himself, he will become an apostate from the church.” 962 Citing in another opinion the very form of this ritual, invented by schismatics, of renouncing the Orthodox Church and joining their society, as if to the true church, which they perform on a priest who comes to them, M. Philaret writes: “When releasing a priest who wants to join them to the schismatics, what permission will we give him about the above-mentioned curse? Shall we allow us to say it? Then he will curse the ancient true rites of the church, he will curse the civil custom introduced by the power of the government, he will even personally curse the hierarchy, the government and all the true sons of the Orthodox Church. Shall we not allow it to be said? In this case, he will not be accepted by the schismatics and, as a result, will be released to them only in order to return from them with humiliation of the authorities who made such an order. Or will we not tell him anything about this curse? But closing your eyes to the upcoming difficulty does not mean eliminating this difficulty, but, on the contrary, aggravating it. A conscientious priest, as soon as the schismatics demand the above-mentioned curse from him, will decisively abandon this ritual and return to his superiors with the question of what to do; and the one who allowed this ritual to be performed on himself would turn out to be the same hypocrite and violator of the true priestly oath as the fugitive priests, and the authorities would have no sign left in him to distinguish whom he was deceiving, the church or the schismatics; Consequently, he would be an instrument, no matter how clean, just as unreliable.” 963 The government was well aware of the importance of the above obstacle to satisfying schismatic demands to receive priests from the Orthodox Church on certain conditions; The secular members of the capital’s committees understood this perfectly well, wanting at all costs to appease the schismatics by fulfilling their petitions. “Giving priests to schismatics so that these priests would go into schism would obviously be illegal and harmful. This is recognized by everyone,” 964 – the Moscow saint testifies. And so some, according to Filaret, wanting to get around this obstacle, proposed a means for the priests to join the schismatics on certain conditions, but not go into schism. “This remedy,” he says, is considered to be the demand from schismatics that when they receive a priest, they do not commit so-called corrections on him. 965 Such a compromise with the schismatics was proposed at one of the meetings of the Moscow Secret Committee in 1848, for which it was even decided to enter into secret relations with the Rogozh schismatics. The Moscow archpastor did not expect any fruitful results from all this. According to his sincere conviction, which he expressed more than once and before this proposal from some members of the Moscow Committee, the schismatics will not agree to the abolition of this correction. “If they were inclined to agree not to make corrections or, which is the same, not to condemn the Orthodox Church, under the name of heretics - Nikonians,” he wrote back in 1838 regarding one of the petitions of the Ekaterinburg Old Believers, “then there would be no reason for them not to accept the name of co-religionists; but they don’t want this. As long as they do not agree to be called co-religionists, then the promise not to make corrections, if they did it in words, will only mean the intention to do it secretly, why it is impossible for the authorities to see.” 966 Almost the same thing, only in a harsher tone, he repeats 10 years later, regarding the proposal of the secret committee to demand that schismatics, as a condition for granting them priests, not to carry out corrections on the latter. “It is not difficult to foresee,” the Moscow saint writes here, that schismatics will either remove this demand from themselves with some evasive answer; or, although they will not renounce it, they will continue the correction in secret, which even now, if possible, is not allowed to come to the attention of the authorities.” “A sect is never completely honest,” he further notes, as proof of the validity of this assumption. Religious and moral truth are rays of the same light: where the former is mixed with error, the latter is not pure either. The sect, with its not quite free position, thinks to excuse the use of deceit in its defense before the government”; 967 “and a priest who perjures himself before the church,” he adds to this in another opinion of the same year, will easily calm the conscience of a layman who has betrayed his word of honor before the government with permission.” 968 Having exhausted the question to the end, M. Philaret raises another objection, which, apparently, reduces the significance of the fact of correction of priests who come to schismatics. “It may be objected,” he says, “that a priest should not allow himself to be corrected.” But he also finds this thought unsettling. “Having received the priest into their hands,” he says, the schismatics will no doubt use all means of oppression to seduce him so that he will perform the curse they desire, and this temptation will be very difficult for a person who, according to their custom, will be placed under the strong influence of their elders and in complete dependence on their society for his food. 969 “And it is impossible to guarantee,” the Moscow saint notes in another place, that out of the many priests in Russia they will not find those like the current fugitives who will follow their seductions; for even under the apostles there were troubles among false brethren.” 970 If a conscientious and faithful shepherd to his priestly oath resists these temptations and does not agree to allow himself to be corrected, then “in this case, according to the Moscow archpastor, the schismatics may send him away under some pretext or even with slander.” 971 But even besides this correction, the very conditions under which the Old Believers ask for priests from the Orthodox Church clearly reveal, in the opinion of M. Philaret, their schismatic tendencies - the desire to stand in relation to the church is still isolated, and therefore prevent the granting of priests to them: the transition of the latter on the terms proposed by the Old Believers is tantamount, in his conviction, to a transition to schism. “Even if we assume, he says, the possibility of eliminating the correction, the transition of the priest to the schismatics in order not to be dependent on the hierarchy, in order to depend on them and be judged by them, is this not already the transition of the priest to the schism?” 972 Since the schismatics, asking the government for priests, put this independence of the latter from the Orthodox hierarchy, as we have already seen, among the most important conditions for the fulfillment of their requests, then M. Filaret had the opportunity to very often return to this point of their petitions and proved in detail the impossibility of satisfying it. In his opinion, this projected independence of schismatic priests from the Orthodox hierarchy and their dependence on the schismatics themselves and on the secular authorities is another incongruity that in no way can be reconciled with church rules and an example of which cannot be found “in the entire ancient history of the church.” 973 “If we assume, he says, that the rules proposed by the schismatics will be in effect, and that the schismatics, on the basis of them, will take a priest from the bishop through a certain authority in a certain place, according to the rules of the church, the bishop should not remain an inactive spectator of this case. According to the 15th Apostolic Canon and the 3rd Council of Antioch, the bishop must demand back a priest who has left the authority of his bishop, and in case of non-return, declare him deprived of all priestly ministry and the rank itself. If the bishop does not fulfill this, then he will act contrary to the rules of the church; and if it is fulfilled, then the civil authorities will be in conflict with the spiritual authorities, recognizing as a valid priest and patronizing among the schismatics the one whom the spiritual authorities consider deprived of the rank.” 974 Pointing in other opinions to the 39th apostolic canon, which says: “without the will of their bishop, let the presbyters or deacons do nothing, for the people of the Lord are entrusted with them,” the Moscow saint noted: “to release a presbyter to the schismatics for church action, independently of the bishop, means to act contrary to the apostolic canon; means introducing the Lutheran element into the Orthodox Church.” 975 Strictly adhering to the canonical point of view, M. Philaret did not agree to this kind of political deal with the schismatics, in which the independence they demanded for their priests from the diocesan bishops would be purely external and nominal in nature. Some members of the Moscow Secret Committee, wishing to satisfy the request of the schismatics and at the same time get out of the above-mentioned canonical difficulty, proposed that the priest, when approaching the schismatics, should not in his heart renounce the hierarchy and obedience to church rules, but only outwardly should be out of touch with the hierarchy and perform the rites of the schismatics out of condescension towards their prejudices. Metropolitan Filaret did not agree with this measure; according to his conviction, and under this condition, concession to schismatic desire does not lose its anti-canonical character; in addition, it would put the priest in an extremely ambiguous and double-minded position, least of all characteristic of a servant of the faith, who, according to the Apostle, must live “in the simplicity (sincerity) and purity of God.” 976 To make it more convincing of the unsuitability of the measure under consideration, the Moscow saint points to a fact from the past - an example found in the affairs of the St. Petersburg Secret Committee of 1821 or 1822. “It was proposed to the local committee,” he says, to make an experiment, to send skilled priests to the schismatics, who would appear among them not as sent from the church, but as if they had come to them at will, and were disposed to be in communion with them; and who, having entered into communication with them and gained their trust, would make them suggestions favorable to Orthodoxy. The good intentions of this proposal captivated the committee, and it drew up a definition about this, which, by the way, was signed by Metropolitan Seraphim of blessed memory and awarded the approval of the Sovereign Emperor Alexander Pavlovich. But when Metropolitan Seraphim was given the opportunity to carry this out, he saw that this could not be agreed with church rules and with the sincerity of action characteristic of servants of the faith, and proposed his difficulty to the committee; The committee took the liberty to submit to the Sovereign Emperor the cancellation of the made and approved determination, and the most pious Emperor deigned to do this, respecting the inviolability of church rules and the purity of the clergy conscience.” 977 Defending the church canons against schismatic attacks on them, noting the extreme canonical difficulties that would occur if the proposal to give schismatics priests from the civil authorities was carried out, Metropolitan Filaret was guided by the thought of the inviolability of church rules, which he expressed in one of his official letters to Metropolitan Gregory. “It is difficult to imagine,” he wrote to the latter in 1857, when the issue had escalated to the extreme and the government was ready to satisfy the schismatic demands, “it is difficult to imagine that these (i.e. canonical difficulties in carrying out schismatic requests) no attention was paid to the fact that changing civil laws at the request of some unruly party would be harmful and inconsistent with the dignity of the state government, and even more so to violate church rules at the request of schismatics; that, however, changing some civil laws depends on the state power, but changing church laws based on the word of God and on the rules of holy councils does not depend on the current church power; that to shake the church rules relating to the hierarchy would mean to shake the hierarchy itself, and to create a chasm in the spiritual building of the church. It is known that a minute of an earthquake can create such a crack in a century-old building that for a long time, or at all, will not allow it to return to its former perfect integrity” 978. So, here is the first, in Filaret’s opinion, reason for refusing the schismatics to satisfy their request - this is the anti-canonical nature of granting them priests on the terms they propose. The second reason why, in the opinion of the Moscow saint, the harassment of schismatics should not be respected by the government is that the fulfillment of their conditions is practically inconvenient. “It is impossible to give priests to schismatics on the terms they propose, he says, without causing confusion and difficulties in administration and legislation that have no outcome.” 979 Without setting out in detail all these difficulties pointed out by M. Philaret, we will note only the main ones, the most striking ones, and at the same time we will dwell first on those of them that stem from the first and main condition of schismatic harassment - the condition of independence of their priests from any higher spiritual authority. The question of control over schismatic priests is the first and significant difficulty if the above condition is met. It is not clear who will monitor the behavior of these independent priests, from the spiritual authorities; and this lack of control, meanwhile, should inevitably lead to undesirable results in relation to the morality of such priests - results for which, in the opinion of M. Philaret, the spiritual authorities, who agreed to put the priests in such an abnormal position, will also be guilty. “Suppose,” he says, that a priest independent of the bishop lives and serves with schismatics for several years without instruction, without supervision, in excess, with a conscience that is not strict, because selfishness alone can prompt one to accept this wrong position. There are many reasons for damaging morality; and if it is damaged, doesn’t the spiritual authority also give an answer to God for this, which would agree to put the priest in a position as wrong, as dangerous?” 980 It is practically insoluble, in the opinion of the Moscow saint, who among the schismatics will monitor the correctness of the actions of the independent priests granted to them. “Who, for example, will see to it,” he asks, that these priests do not marry young people, relatives, from living wives or husbands, that they bury the murdered without informing the police? A mining (or any other secular) boss cannot personally do this. So, will the secular superior determine deanship over schismatic priests? Will he establish schismatic spiritual boards?” 981 “The schismatics themselves demand that their priests keep metric records,” writes M. Filaret in another opinion. “More often, or less often, but it inevitably happens that metric records turn out to be incorrect, and as a result the rights of the estate or the rights of inheritance are called into question. Cases of this kind are judged by the diocesan authorities. But who will judge them among the schismatics? Will a schismatic consistory really be established? Who will approve its decisions? At the same time, schismatics do not like consistories. Their elders, the common people, love to make themselves the administration, by the way, over the priests.” 982 Further, there are ecclesiastical affairs that in no way can be subject to the jurisdiction of a simple priest, but require episcopal permission. What, one might ask, would a schismatic priest who does not recognize any higher spiritual authority over himself, to whom he could turn for a solution to such a matter, act when one of these cases arises? “For example, according to church rules,” says the Moscow saint, a priest has the right to perform the sacrament of marriage, but the power to terminate this sacrament, that is, to dissolve a marriage, belongs to the highest hierarchical degree of the bishop. Let us assume that a priest independent of the bishop is given to schismatics, and that a parishioner comes to him, for a legitimate reason, asking for a divorce. What will the priest do? This question is insoluble. It would be incongruous to give a schismatic priest episcopal and even more episcopal power, because the bishop will not decide on the dissolution of a marriage on his own, but asks for synodal permission” 983. To give such power to a priest, “this would mean, the Moscow archpastor adds to the above in another place, to betray church rules and laws to unpunished violation, and to make schismatic freedom from the laws by which the Orthodox are bound a means for attracting the Orthodox into schism” 984. Meanwhile, such cases, i.e. Similar to the above, for which priests have the need to strictly ask for permission from the bishop, quite a few happen in priestly practice. Among them there are those relating to shrines and sacraments, “which do not allow publicity.” “How can they be produced, asks Filaret, through the secular authorities?” 985 Such are the practical difficulties that inevitably arise from the condition of the schismatics, according to which the priests bestowed upon them must be dependent on the secular, and not the spiritual, authorities. No less, if not greater, inconsistencies and practical inconveniences are presented by another condition on which schismatics agree to accept priests and according to which they have the right to return a priest they do not like back to the diocesan authorities from whom they received him. And above all, the fulfillment of such a condition is humiliating for the Orthodox Church and offensive for the church hierarchy. “The schismatics more than once proposed, as if an innocent matter, says the Moscow archpastor in one of his opinions in 1848, that the spiritual authorities give them priests at their disposal and receive them back when they prove worthy of condemnation. If it were a question of a necessary thing, wouldn’t someone who doesn’t have it be ashamed to offer it to a stranger who has it: give me this thing for my independent use so that you can take it back when it needs to be repaired, or throw it away completely? But schismatics make such a proposal not about a thing, but about a priest, with his faith, conscience and moral life. This is offensive to the church hierarchy.” 986 But let us even assume that this circumstance is not important, “but let there be no dissatisfaction with this,” 987 says the Moscow Archpastor. There are other inconsistencies in the specified condition of the schismatics. Their very demand for the right to refuse to serve in their church to a priest they dislike and send him to the bishop is tantamount, according to Filaret, to “demanding the authority to exercise arbitrariness,” 988 the immediate result of which would be “unparalleled enslavement of the priest.” 989 “The priest, he notes in explanation of this, is subordinate to the spiritual authorities, is sued for incorrect actions and, if he is dissatisfied with the local court, can transfer the case to the higher authorities. The schismatics want the right to impeach a priest without trial, or to judge him themselves, and without appeal.” 990 At the same time, it is also necessary to take into account the fact that “the first crime for which a priest will suffer in this way, without a doubt, will be when he shows an inclination towards rapprochement with Orthodoxy, or refuses the so-called correction among schismatics.” 991 Finally, the result of fulfilling the said demand of the schismatics will also be very important practical difficulties, the way out of which is positively impossible. And firstly, how will the diocesan authorities judge a priest returned by schismatics as worthless? “Without research, relying on the accusatory report of the schismatics would, in the opinion of the Moscow saint, be illegal; and the investigation, which according to the law must be carried out by the spiritual authorities, is not possible in a circle of schismatics inaccessible to them.” 992 “Thus,” he adds to this in another place, the diocesan authorities will get the lot not to judge, but only to execute the accused of the schismatics; and a priest who speaks before them in favor of Orthodoxy will most easily be subject to accusation from them, and even a general one.” 993 Another important difficulty when schismatics send unfit priests away will be where the diocesan authorities should put such priests? “If you just return them to the Orthodox diocese,” says M. Filaret, answering the question posed, this would be difficult, harmful, and unseemly for the dioceses. For wouldn’t it mean giving schismatics free rein to take from the dioceses what is right for them, and throw what is unsuitable for them back into the dioceses, as into a defenseless and disrespected place? 994 Moreover, “are the close children of the holy church (i.e., Orthodox), he notes in another opinion, less imaginary Old Believers worthy of care in order to give them priests whom they recognized as unfit?” 995 “Thus, the Moscow saint summarizes in some of his opinions what was said regarding the intricacies and difficulties inevitable when granting priests to schismatics on the terms they propose, it is thus revealed that the establishment of special priests among schismatics, independent of bishops, would require a new legal provision on church-schismatic structure and administration, in any case not reconciled with both church rules and the code of laws.” 996 To eliminate all these inconveniences, in one of the meetings of the St. Petersburg Secret Committee, as we have already noted in its place, it was proposed by the secular members of the committee to subordinate the Old Believer clergy directly to the Holy Synod, as is the case with respect to the court and army clergy. Metr, Filaret did not agree with such a measure. In one of his letters to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, he explains the motives for this. 997 Not to mention the fact that it is still a question whether the schismatics will accept the said condition; meanwhile, “to receive a refusal from them is humiliating and harmful,” since “the dissenters will not fail to spread the idea everywhere that we admit that we were wrong and offered a concession, but that they did not accept, remaining firm in the faith; not to mention this, the position of the court and army clergy in no way can serve, in the opinion of the Moscow archpastor, as a sufficient example of the granting of priests to schismatics directly from the Holy Synod. “Here there is no doubt about Orthodoxy,” he says in explaining this, but there (i.e. schismatics) have.” At the same time, “the special administration of the court clergy is based on reverence for the Sovereign, the army clergy is based on local inconvenience for diocesan administration, valid reasons”; Meanwhile, “the supposed position of priests among the schismatics would be based on an open or hidden thought about the non-Orthodoxy and waywardness of the schismatics. It would be harmful to give in.” Further, “the court and army clergy are governed by persons of high position, members of the Holy Synod.” “Is it really possible,” he notes, that something similar will be established to supervise and manage the schismatics, to satisfy the democratic demands of the schismatics? But even if the proposed project were to come true, even in this situation of the schismatic clergy, the above difficulties, in the opinion of the Moscow archpastor, are completely irremovable. The fact is that “the court and army clergy are not completely cut off from the dioceses, and in this there is both unity and convenience. Diocesan bishops ordain. Some cases, for example, divorce cases, go to consistory.” “What will the schismatics need to do,” asks M. Philaret, in such cases? Will the Holy Synod really become the first instance of judgment for them? Last but not least, such an example of independence of schismatic priests from the diocesan authorities may have, according to Filaret, the harmful consequence that it will be contagious for the Orthodox. “It sometimes happens,” he says, that an entire parish is dissatisfied with the priest and bishop, for example, in the event of a dispute about the allocation of land to a church. What if such a parish asks for a priest of its own choice, independent of the bishop, and presents as proof of its request an example of such priests given to schismatics, and adds the conclusion: we Orthodox, of course, have a greater right to receive what is given to schismatics?” The third and final reason why the schismatics’ request for priests independent of the diocesan authorities cannot be respected by the government, M. Filaret puts forward, is that the fulfillment of this request on the terms proposed by the schismatics is harmful for the church and for the state. The Moscow saint distinguishes two harmful consequences in relation to the Orthodox Church. First of all, he points out, as a completely natural consequence of the new order of supplying schismatics with priests, the strengthening of the schism and the increase in corruption into it. It is precisely this strengthening of the schism in the essence of the matter that, in the opinion of M. Philaret, the petitioners seek when they petition for the official granting of priests to them. “They want to maintain the split,” he notes about one of these petitions, giving him the honorable name that the law took from them. Under the name of Old Believers, they want to strengthen and legitimize the ugliest news, a schismatic republic within the Orthodox Church.” 998 “The schismatics, who are now just a crowd,” he writes in another opinion, will little by little organize themselves into a separate society with special forms, which is what they want and which will forever separate them from the church.” 999 “As a result of this concession,” he says in the third place, a separate church, schismatic, will be formed in front of the Orthodox Church, and more will be lost for Orthodoxy than what was gained by the reunification of the former Uniates.” 1000 The immediate result of this strong organization of the schism will be the strengthening of schismatic propaganda and the multiplication of seductions into the schism of the Orthodox. “The schismatics, with this new proposal, do not accept the name of co-religionists,” wrote M. Filaret in 1838 regarding the harassment of the Ekaterinburg Old Believers. From this, their intention is clearly seen to remain, as before, in the form of a society separate from the church, and consequently, as before, to be at enmity against the church and, if possible, to separate the Orthodox from it. If they have succeeded in this through the power of wealth and social connections until now, when the non-recognition of their priests by the government more or less hampers and humiliates them, then, without a doubt, they should fear an increase in corruption when their priesthood receives the appearance of legality before the civil authorities.” 1001 This fear of increased seduction into schism is especially likely, in the opinion of the Moscow saint, in view of the greater conveniences, compared with the Orthodox, that schismatics will receive with the granting of priests to them, dependent on themselves and independent of the diocesan bishops. “Having received such priests,” he says, the schismatics would in many cases have an advantage over the Orthodox, because such priests, by their dependence on the schismatics, would be strongly forced to please them with disregard for church rules and laws, which would also result from the lack of supervision from the spiritual authorities. So, for example, a marriage under age, or otherwise incorrect, is easier to accomplish through a schismatic than through an Orthodox priest. So, the idea that in the Old Believer faith there is more convenience for various worldly cases, wouldn’t it be a new temptation for the ignorant to go into schism, especially with the multiplication of priests among schismatics? 1002 At the same time, this official granting of priests independent from the spiritual authorities to schismatics, firmly organizing their communities, should, in the opinion of the Moscow Archpastor, have a detrimental effect on the further successes of the same faith. As we already know, he expressed this thought in his first opinion on this issue. Here he, based on the report of the Perm missionary, Archpriest Lukanin, notes that just one rumor about such a gift of priests to schismatics noticeably stopped the success of the Perm mission. 1003 Not only that. According to his conviction, expressed much later after this opinion, “with the supposed provision of a schism by priests, it is especially necessary to fear that even the most “co-religionists, recently reconciled with the Orthodox Church,” will waver. 1004 He speaks out even more decisively about this in 1857, when the government was ready to satisfy the harassment of the Rogozh priests. “It must be assumed,” he wrote to Metropolitan Gregory at the end of this year, that the immediate unfavorable consequence of providing schismatics with priests independent of the spiritual authorities will not go unnoticed: the shock may even lead to the destruction of churches of the same faith. The mere rumor that the idea of ​​civil priests for schismatics enjoyed strong patronage, due to the influence of numerous, rich, powerful schismatics, caused a considerable number of new coreligionists to waver and even, contrary to clear evidence and handwritten subscriptions, against their conscience, declared themselves not to be affiliated with the coreligionist church. Therefore, when these numerous, rich, strong schismatics open their services in the two huge and magnificent chapels of the Rogozhsky cemetery, one cannot but fear that the numerous parishioners of the small Edinoverie St. Nicholas Church, oppressed and now, as the Holy Synod knows, will be subjected to extreme temptation. The effect of such a predominance of schism over common faith cannot but reverberate throughout Russia. And experimental proof of this can be seen in the letter of the Yekaterinburg co-religionist: the Rogozh schismatics hold a service of thanksgiving for including illegal marriages in the audit, and the Siberian co-religionists suffer; and the Siberian schismatics are encouraged in their perseverance.” 1005 Another, no less strong, fear of M. Philaret from satisfying the request of the schismatics to grant them priests on the terms they proposed, is the fear of such a disorder of church discipline, which, although on a small scale, was already observed when granting them fugitive priests. “For the breakdown of discipline in any kind of administration,” the Metropolitan of Moscow wrote back in 1838, it is difficult to invent a remedy other than to open the way for subordinates to leave the authority of their boss, without even asking him, and move to where it is more profitable, where there is more will and less supervision and reporting.” “This means,” he adds, is already being used by schismatics against church discipline, accepting fugitive priests, and now they are even trying to legitimize this means” 1006. “From diocesan bishops, he writes in 1857, when this question arises again, about the priests asked from the civil authorities, it is only supposed to demand information and, thus, the Orthodox bishop is not given the right to express consent or disagreement to the dismissal of a priest to schismatics; one is supposed to simply take those approved from him. This should lead to the weakening of church power. To present the nature of the matter more clearly, let one diocese be taken as an example. In the Moscow diocese, there are 138 schismatic chapels known to the government of the priestly and non-priestly interpretations, not counting the half-known ones, which, under favorable circumstances, of course, will seek equal rights with those. This includes a strong majority of priestly chapels. Therefore, the schismatics will suddenly wish to have 50 or more priests, and will scour the diocese and tempt the priests with offers that are more profitable than the usual position of the majority of rural priests.” “We must hope,” he notes, that the Orthodox government will not dare to expose Orthodox priests to this devilish temptation and will not issue a law that would invite priests to sacrifice their priestly conscience for selfish gain.” 1007 Some of the secular government officials did not share these fears of the Moscow Metropolitan. On the contrary, they, as we have already seen, considered the satisfaction of schismatic desires to obtain priests independent from the spiritual authorities not only harmless for the Orthodox Church, but even positively beneficial for it, since such a measure, according to them, should serve as the most reliable and even undoubted means subsequently to a gradual rapprochement and finally to the complete reunification of these schismatics with Orthodoxy. This opinion, as is known, was expressed at one time by General Glinka, and then by Count Zakrevsky. Metropolitan Filaret did not agree with this opinion. In his opinion, such a political measure to bring schismatics closer to the Orthodox Church is very unpolitical; because it is not only inconsistent with the dignity of the legal authorities, but at the same time it is not thorough and not reliable. To prove this, he gives an analogy. “The word apostolic,” he preliminarily notes in explaining the legitimacy of the analogy itself, sometimes explains the state of Christianity through its likening to the army. Now, by the way, it would be useful to use this method of explanation for the subject under consideration.” “If the military leader, seeing part of the army disobedient, and at the same time in need of officers, and hearing the desire of the disobedient to borrow officers from those in a legal position, with their removal from the legal authorities, except in the case when the disobedient return them as unfit, agreed to this in the hope that the officers who had left the power would bring the disobedient under the power; What would such a policy be? Would she be consistent with the dignity of her legal authorities, thorough and reliable?” “But this is exactly the case,” he concludes his analogy, if there were a policy that would give schismatics from the spiritual superiors of priests at disposal independent of the spiritual superiors. 1008 As a representative of the church, as a defender of its interests against schismatic encroachments, the Moscow archpastor, when deciding the issue of granting priests to schismatics, naturally considers it mainly from the church-canonical point of view and, as we have already seen, comes to negative conclusions. But, quite understandably, M. Filaret could not ignore the other side of the issue - the state-political side, he could not simply because the opposing party, represented by the secular members of the capital committees, which stood for a positive solution to the said issue, judged this issue from the latter point of view, almost completely ignoring ecclesiastical considerations. And one of the representatives of this party, the main supporter of a solution to this issue favorable to the schismatics, Count Zakrevsky, in his official notes on this issue, as we already know, directly emphasized that the government, both in general in its relations to the schism, and in particular in resolving this issue, should be guided by more political and civil considerations than religious and canonical ones. In view of this, we repeat, the Moscow saint had to touch upon this side of the issue. But here too he comes to conclusions completely opposite to those reached by the secular members of the capital’s committees. Not to mention the fact that such a distinction between the interests of the church and the state, even to the point of their opposition, which is made by secular members of the committees, is, strictly speaking, not conceivable, according to the Moscow Metropolitan, in the Russian Orthodox state, where “the royal love for Orthodoxy, and in accordance with it, state policy, gave the Orthodox Church in Russia the advantage of the dominant religion over other recognized faiths”; not to mention, further, that such a demand from the Orthodox Church to grant priests to schismatics, a demand that cannot be fulfilled “in good conscience and without violating church rules,” is characteristic only of a policy that in no case can be considered “sound and useful”; 1009 not to mention all this, direct political considerations require, in the opinion of M. Filaret, a negative solution to the issue under consideration. “Political considerations,” he asks, “don’t they require that we not favor the schismatics’ desire to form a separate society? But to place priests at their disposal, and their own court over them, and the formal formation of parishes, doesn’t that mean favoring their individuality?” 1010 “We must fear,” the Moscow saint answers this elsewhere, that the political independence of the schismatics will be more strengthened when they have priests recognized by their superiors, who, as is their custom, will be under the authority of strong schismatics, trustees of the chapels; when their priests will be connected with each other and by the influence of the elders on the younger, and the trustees of different chapels and different cities and villages will remain, as now, mutually connected by the spirit of the sect and the influence of the rich Rogozh schismatics.” 1011 The strengthening of the separatism of schismatics is especially dangerous in view of the fact that “they, according to Filaret, strive for democratic forms.” 1012 “Even now, the schismatics have quite formed into a special sphere in the state, in which the democratic principle dominates over the hierarchical,” notes the Moscow saint in another place. “Usually,” he explains his thought, several arbitrarily chosen or self-appointed trustees or elders manage the priests, income and affairs of a schismatic society, depending on the need, collect money from it and, contrary to the laws, sometimes en masse draw up petitions to the government from many thousands of souls.” 1013 With the gift of priests independent from the spiritual authorities, their society will undoubtedly be more strongly organized in this democratic character than now.” 1014 “Is it consistent with monarchical policy,” asks the Moscow archpastor, to strengthen this democratic trend by the formal formation of schismatic parishes, with priests subordinate to schismatic elders-laymen? 1015 But not agreeing to satisfy the request of the schismatics on the terms they proposed, M. Philaret found it possible, although as an exception, a more direct measure of leniency towards the zealots of the old rite, namely, permission for Orthodox priests sent for missionary purposes to the schismatics to perform for them divine services and church services according to old printed books. He proposed exactly this measure in 1827 in relation to the schismatics of the Perm diocese. “It is not subject to any controversy,” he wrote at the same time, “that both for everyone, due to their love for humanity, it is painful for the church itself, due to its maternal compassion, to see schismatics leaving their children without baptism, due to the lack of fugitive priests.” 1016 In order to alleviate these “consequences of stubbornness and bitterness, in which the leaders of schismatic societies try to keep souls enslaved by them through simplicity and ignorance,” the Moscow saint advised, as an experiment, to send three missionary priests to the Perm schismatics, who, in addition to missionary work, would be entrusted, “if it turns out to be necessary,” with “performing divine services and church requirements according to old printed books on the rules of the churches of the same faith" 1017 with the limitation, however, that the sacraments, excluding baptism, which should be performed on schismatic children "without any other proceedings", at the sole desire of the parents, 1018 - "shismatics should be accepted only by conviction of those wishing to unite with the church, or simply and unconditionally, or at least according to the rules and regulations prescribed for churches of the same faith." 1019 The government, as we have already said in its place, agreed with this measure, and then extended it to other dioceses with schismatic populations. In other cases, M. Philaret found it possible to give such permission even to ordinary parish priests, in addition to any missionary purposes. He did this back in 1820, when he was Archbishop of Tver. At that time, the fugitive priests of the Rzhev schismatics were detained by the police and transported to their dioceses. The Rzhev schismatic priests found themselves in a critical situation; and then those of them who had less strong prejudices against the church, immediately and for a long time, turned to the Orthodox priests with demands. These latter, according to the instructions of their archbishop, did not stop performing them, “without distant conditions on both sides.” “The matter was done without petitions, relations and reports, to the governor, to the bishop and the Holy Synod.” “If in another of these cases, M. Philaret notes that leniency was extended far, it was false to hope that God’s judgment would cover the good intention with leniency; and it was inconvenient for the enemies of the church to extract a reproach against it from private actions, or to base their right on them.” 1020 However, allowing this measure as an act of condescension, Metropolitan Philaret was far from the idea of ​​elevating it to a general rule, because, in his opinion, “to accept this as a rule would mean confusing schism with Orthodoxy.” “This would give schismatics a new reason to seduce the Orthodox with the assurance of the superiority of early printed books, as if recognized by the Orthodox clergy” 1021. Guided by these considerations, as we have seen, he rejected the request of the Old Believers of the city of Spassk to allow one of the parish priests to correct their services in the local Old Believer chapel, without joining Orthodoxy. Proving in a letter to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod that such a formal permission would not only give the schismatics a new weapon against the Orthodox Church and would stop the successes of the common faith, but “would be inconsistent with the rules and dignity of the Orthodox Church and its sacraments,” he advised refusing this request and making, according to the already established definitions of the Holy Synod, an exception for only two sacraments - baptism and marriage. 1022 At one time, M. Filaret, as we already know, was ready to even further expand the limits of government leniency in relation to adherents of the old rite, so that the obviously illegal case about which the latter were fussing would not triumph. We have already mentioned earlier that in 1857, i.e., at a time when in the St. Petersburg Secret Committee things were already leaning towards a concession to schismatic harassment, the Moscow saint, fearing such a concession, proposed his project “to satisfy the most necessary spiritual needs of those who do not exist, in the church yard” 1023. They were asked to establish a special Edinoverie bishop, to whom, first of all, the Moscow Edinoverie clergy should be subordinated. At the same time, to allow this bishop, as an experiment, at the request of the parishioners of the Rogozhsky cemetery and with the consent of the Moscow diocesan bishop, to elect from one to three of the supernumerary priests of honest behavior, who will be allowed, after being instructed in the rank of church service according to old printed books, to perform divine services and church sacraments in the chapel of the Rogozhsky cemetery, excluding the liturgy. Each of the priests assigned in this way to the Rogozhsky cemetery, before accepting this commission, “must, before the Holy Gospel and the cross, give the bishop a promise that, having accepted, by condescension, the commission given, to perform service among those not affiliated with the Orthodox Church, he remains and will remain in union with the Orthodox Church, which he will not commit on anyone, and even more so will not allow any action to be performed on himself that would marked alienation from the Orthodox Church, or condemnation and curse on it.” These priests must present an account of their service and the fruits of it to the bishop of the same faith. If it is noticed that the parishioners of the Rogozhsky cemetery will react sympathetically to such a measure and to this kind of priests - if they reverently listen to the divine service performed by them, receive blessings from them, confess to them, and if, according to the examination of their conscience due at confession, they are recognized as worthy and receive remission of sins through priestly prayer and blessing; “then in such persons the alienation from the Orthodox Church can be recognized as having ceased,” and, after being satisfied with them in this mood, “it will be possible to honor them with the communion of the holy mysteries, at which point they will be given to the priest to perform the liturgy in one of the churches of the same faith, for the preparation of reserve holy gifts.” When there are a significant number of such members of the Rogozhsky cemetery who have reconciled with the church, “it will be possible to begin discussing how to turn one of their chapels into a church by consecrating it on the ancient antimension.” Depending on how successful this measure will be at the Rogozhsky cemetery, it should, in the opinion of M. Philaret, “gradually apply to some other significant chapels, located among many other ordinary people in need of the church, and enjoying tolerance since 1827.” This project of the Moscow saint, despite the fact that, in his conviction, was not associated either with a violation of church rules or with the fear of upsetting the hierarchy, did not receive further movement, since, as we have already mentioned earlier, it was rejected by M. Gregory as inappropriate. Yes, there was no longer any need for it, because soon after this the schismatics were finally denied their advances. Metropolitan Filaret, speaking so decisively on the one hand for refusing the schismatics in their advances, and on the other hand advising in every possible way to facilitate their access to the Edinoverie and Orthodox churches in order to fulfill church requirements, was guided, in addition to the above-mentioned grounds of a negative nature, by those positive practical considerations that the schismatic priests, forced by necessity, would little by little bow to union with the Orthodox Church. This is what he expressed in one of his opinions on the issue under consideration. Reporting here, on the basis of information he received from those who knew the situation of the schismatics of the Rogozh cemetery, that in a significant number of these schismatics there is a disposition, after the death of the remaining priests, to get closer to the Orthodox Church on the conditions existing to this day, and the hope is revealed that “some will form a co-religious church in the cemetery itself, while others will join the pan-Orthodox church; pointing out further that rural schismatics, invited to unite with the church, also more than once responded that they expect this to begin from the Rogozhsky cemetery,” he at the same time notes: “nothing, in my opinion, prevents the government from extending its firmness in the present rules of its action in anticipation of this near limit of time, and making efforts to take advantage of it” 1024, Another way out of the difficulty for schismatic priests M. Filaret didn’t know. He, as we have seen, considered it impossible for the priests, with the deprivation of fugitive priests, to become priestless, for the barrier separating both, in his opinion, is so strong that “it is difficult to imagine uniting them into one courtyard.” “The first (i.e., the priests),” he said to prove this, “calling themselves Old Believers, the latter are called and revered as schismatics. The first recognize all seven sacraments as existing, others only two. The former respect the laws of family life, and for them the opinion of the latter is disgusting, supposedly there should be no marriage at all and supposedly fornication is less criminal than marriage. Therefore, even if it were to be the first to be left without priests, one must assume that they will not unite with priestlessness and will not accept the wrong rules according to which it is especially harmful” 1025. These words of M. Philaret came true. Popovshchina remained true to its principles and did not turn into lack of priesthood. But she did not join Orthodoxy, but found an outcome in the so-called Belokrinitsky or Austrian hierarchy. We now turn to the question of this hierarchy. B. Question about the Austrian hierarchy The first news of the Austrian hierarchy received by the government and the initial measures against it. Canonical relations with the Patriarch of Constantinople, undertaken by the Holy Synod on the advice of Metropolitan Philaret. Civil measures against the said hierarchy under Emperor Nicholas. A look at this subject by the Moscow saint and his attitude towards the Austrian hierarchy at the indicated time. Changes in government views on the schism during the reign of Emperor Alexander II. Unsuccessful, thanks to M. Philaret, attempts of the Rogozh Old Believers to bring the Bolokrinitsky priesthood to their cemetery. Law of April 24, 1858, proclaiming toleration of the Austrian hierarchy. The position of this hierarchy after the said law. Fruitless protests of the Moscow Metropolitan against the excessive freedom of the schismatic clergy. The question of recognition of the Austrian hierarchy. Resolutions about it of the committee of 1864 and the judgment of M. Filaret about these resolutions. The first rumors about the plans of schismatic priests to found their own bishopric within Austrian borders were received by our government relatively very early, even at a time when the famous seekers of the “Old Orthodox bishopric,” Paul and Alimpiy, did not begin negotiations with the Greek Metropolitan Ambrose, but only secured the consent of the Austrian government to establish an episcopal see at the Belokrinitsky monastery. In this sense, that is, that the Austrian authorities agreed to satisfy the said request of the schismatics, and our government received the initial news of the plans of the priests 1026. It is clear that the government, which did not expect anything like this, was very alarmed by these rumors. To check their justice on the spot, in 1845 it sent to the Austrian, especially Slavic, possessions of an official of special assignments at the Ministry of Internal Affairs, N.I. Nadezhdin, who was familiar with those lands. Soon these alarming rumors reached M. Filaret. We do not know how the Moscow saint treated them. It is only known that he was dissatisfied with the appointment of Nadezhdin for such a serious assignment. “Unexpectedly,” he wrote at the beginning of 1846 to the Reverend. Ryazansky Gabriel, from whom he probably received the first information about the government’s rumors and Nadezhdin’s business trip, 1027 - it was unexpected that Nadezhdin, who did not usually enjoy the power of attorney of the authorities, was used for an assignment that required a person who was primarily trustworthy. May the Lord arrange something useful” 1028. Nadezhdin arrived in Belaya Krinitsa at a time when Pavel and Alimpy had just returned from their first wanderings through the Slavic lands. The rumors received by the government were completely confirmed. “There is no bishop yet,” Nadezhdin reported in his note about foreign schismatics, which was the result of his business trip, “but he is being sought very actively and persistently, and all the necessary preparations are being made for his reception” 1029. It is not known that the government took any measures against the plans of the schismatics after receiving this report from its official. The first, but already belated, measures were taken on the initiative of the Moscow saint at a time when Metropolitan Ambrose not only settled with the Austrian schismatics, but had already managed to strengthen the continued existence of the Belokrinitsa hierarchy by appointing Kirill as his successor. Metropolitan Philaret, having received the first news from the Klintsy Ratman Baryshnikov at the beginning of 1847 about the appearance of a fugitive bishop among schismatics abroad, “immediately (January 3) forwarded” this news, “without using it in Moscow as a precaution against unfavorable publicity,” to the synodal chief prosecutor, Count Protasov 1030, and this latter reported it to the Minister of Internal Affairs 1031. The report of the Moscow archpastor was so early and unexpected that it served, together with a note delivered to the Minister of Public Education (dated December 12/24, 1846) on the same subject by the Lemberg correspondent of the archaeographic commission - Zubritsky 1032, the first news about the schismatic bishop for the government itself, which now only began to make inquiries about Ambrose through the Russian mission in Constantinople and entered into negotiations with the Austrian government in 1033. Meanwhile, M. Philaret, not receiving any news regarding how the government took advantage of his message, and at the same time well understanding the sad consequences of slowness in such a matter, three months later sent a new report to the Holy Synod 1034, in which, clarifying the harm to the Russian Church of the newly-minted foreign hierarchy, he proposed to use the canonical means “to secure the world of the church and to crush the support that thinks to create a schism by forming its own schismatic hierarchy.” Reporting here about the establishment of a schismatic bishopric within the Austrian borders and about the beginning of relations between Moscow schismatics and those abroad - that “a messenger from a schismatic foreign bishop was already sent to Moscow, entered into relations with the Rogozh schismatics and received financial benefits from them,” the Moscow saint further clarifies the meaning of this fact in relation to the priestly schism: “no doubts that the Moscow dissenters of the priestly persuasion look at this as a bright dawn for themselves.” “Now they can inspire their followers that their society is strengthened and elevated because it already has a bishop and, moreover, recognized by the government; that now their fear of losing priests, who, if necessary, can be obtained from abroad, is significantly reduced; that under such circumstances it is possible to move away more decisively than before from all relations with the Russian pan-Orthodox priesthood.” “Obviously, he concludes his thoughts, that here is a new strong obstacle to the rapprochement of the Rogozh schismatics with the Orthodox Church.” Having noted these harmful consequences of the schismatics establishing their own bishopric, he further recommends measures against their newly appointed bishop. Pointing to the church rules (10 Apostolic Council, 2 Councils of Antioch and 35 Councils of Laodicea), according to the judgment of which M. Ambrose, as having entered into communion with schismatics, should be subject to condemnation and excommunication if he does not correct his error, perhaps committed out of ignorance, M. Philaret now advises turning the force of the said rules against this case. Quite rightly assuming that the bishop found by the schismatics belongs to the department of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, he offers St. The synod “to enter into canonical relations with the Patriarch of Constantinople and the synod, and, depending on the need, with other Orthodox patriarchs, so that the bishop who communicated with the schismatics would be corrected for this error and cease communication with them, and otherwise be subject to the force of the above-mentioned church rules.” Along with this report, the Moscow saint forwarded to the Holy Synod his draft message to the Ecumenical Patriarch 1035. In this message, informing the Patriarch of Constantinople about the accomplished fact of the flight of Bishop Ambrose to the schismatics in Bukovina, a fact “as offensive to the dignity of the hierarchy of Constantinople as it is unfavorable for the Russian Church,” M. Philaret further writes: “your wisdom does not require us to explain what kind of judgment on such unrighteous, violating the peace of the church, workers pronounce the sacred rules and especially the tenth of the holy apostles, the second of Antioch and the thirty-fifth canon of the Laodicean councils.” “But out of the general duty of preserving the peace of the Church and as a precaution so that the evil of schism does not spread, we,” he continues, “cannot remain inactive spectators of such a daring violation of sacred rules, and for this reason we convince and pray your Holiness to use the power of these most sacred rules and the power given to you by God in order to stop this temptation, in order to induce the rebellious bishop to repent, reject and condemn schismatic communion and return to true church communion; otherwise, condemn him with the self-condemned ones, to whom he joined, and, if he dared to perform unblessed ordinations, then abolish them too by the force of church rules.” The Holy Synod fully agreed with the arguments of the Moscow Metropolitan, recognized the measure recommended by him as expedient and sent on June 30, through the Minister of Foreign Affairs, a message compiled by M. Philaret to the Patriarch of Constantinople Anthimus 1036. In the same year, and perhaps at the beginning of the next, a response letter was received from Constantinople condemning Ambrose, to which letter the Moscow saint, as can be judged by his letter to the Right Reverend Arkady of Perm, attached very important importance. Informing the said Eminence with an extract from the letter of Patriarch Anfim concerning the subject under consideration, M. Philaret wrote to him (dated March 10, 1848) the following: “I think it would not be useless to inform all the Eminences about the schismatic bishop’s rumors. I don’t know why this thought did not come to those on whom this depends” 1037. It is clear that the said measure no longer had a more practical significance than that indicated here by the Moscow archpastor; just as the energetic protest of our government before the Austrian government against the establishment of the Belokrinitsa Metropolitanate was not of significant significance, despite the fact that this protest was fully respected by the Vienna Cabinet. The existence of the Austrian hierarchy was already consolidated at that time. Fully understanding this, the government has now directed all its concerns to blocking the access of this hierarchy to our borders, and for this purpose, if possible, to prevent relations between our schismatics and those abroad. To achieve this unrealistic goal, the most energetic measures were taken: in some places, especially densely populated by priests and located near the Austrian border, for example, in Chernigov posads and settlements, the police were strengthened 1038, “unrelenting” secret surveillance was established over the actions of our schismatics 1039, immigrants from abroad were arrested 1040 , or sent back abroad 1041, letters from our schismatics to Seret, to the Belokrinitsky monastery and from this monastery to Russia were reverse-colored and reported in copies to the ministry 1042, etc. Metropolitan Filaret, for his part, completely agreed with the government’s view on this subject and also spoke out for decisive measures against the Austrian hierarchy. Moreover, either not knowing about the measures taken by the government, or perhaps noticing that the execution did not correspond to the intentions, he even expressed dissatisfaction with the insufficient, in his opinion, energy of the government in this matter, i.e., in stopping the harmful relations of our schismatics with foreign ones. So, in one of his opinions in 1848, pointing to the fact of relations between the Moscow schismatics and the Belokrinitsky bishop, - to the fact that “they sent two deputies from themselves to inquire about this bishop, which could have no other purpose than accepting ordination from him” 1043, and drawing here the same lines as in last year’s report of St. To the Synod the harmful consequences of “these events,” he at the same time notes: “while the fame of such actions of the schismatics raises the hopes of the schismatics, the unknown that any measures have been taken to stop the illegal movement maintains the appearance of independence and inviolability of the schism” 1044. And, indeed, despite the decisive measures taken by our government against the Austrian hierarchy, the latter penetrated into Russia very soon after its establishment and had its representatives here not only in the person of many priests, but even several bishops. The Moscow archpastor, having received on March 2, 1850 by mail from some unknown correspondent the first news of the appearance within the Moscow diocese of the first bishops of the Belokrinitsky hierarchy 1045, the next day personally reported this unpleasant news to the Moscow Governor-General 1046, giving him at the same time the very letter in which the place of residence of the schismatics was indicated bishops 1047. But despite the “sudden, at dawn of the day” searches were carried out in the apartments indicated in the letter, nothing confirming the denunciation was discovered, which Count Zakrevsky hastened to inform the Metropolitan about 1048. The latter was dissatisfied with such unsuccessful activities of the civilian authorities, seeing in this the connivance of the Moscow police with the Austrian hierarchy. Probably, this incident was also what the Moscow archpastor had in mind when, two years after the above-mentioned events, he wrote to Archimandrite Anthony: “there is information and there have been indications about the schismatic false hierarchy, but those who are entrusted with this are unable or unwilling to find abuses” 1049. In view of this, having received a few days later from the same person, probably, another letter about the same subject, confirming the previous one, M. Filaret, no longer relying on the local civil authorities, sent this letter, as well as the previous one, to the synodal chief prosecutor, in the hope that this latter, “having more abundant sources of information about the schism,” can more conveniently check whether the information received is worthy of attention 1050. Likewise, the Moscow saint hurried to report every new news he received concerning the Austrian hierarchy where it should be so that the necessary measures could be taken. True, all his reports to the Moscow civil authorities remained in most cases without any results, which he complained about in 1852 to his friend, Archimandrite Anthony. “I once told the former governor-general,” he writes to him on October 17, that a schismatic archimandrite had come from Bukovina and was living in the house of a widow named Rivers. He said that he could handle it and then said that the house was empty and that someone had been in it two weeks ago. I told the current one that the schismatic bishop would serve in such and such a house, on such and such a day and hour. Nothing turned out, in all likelihood because the chief’s confidant was a more trusted representative of the schismatics. What to do here? Let us pray to the Lord for those who are erring and for those who protect the erring." 1051 Likewise, in especially important cases, M. Philaret continued to send his information to the Holy Synod. So, in 1854, on the basis of the news he received from Ryazan, he (dated September 25) reported to the Holy Synod that “there (i.e. in Ryazan) a letter was opened from a schismatic false bishop to a layman, apparently a schismatic leader, in which the false bishop informs about the appointment of a new false bishop by the Belokrinitsky false metropolis, with the name Archbishop of Vladimir 1052, expresses confusion whether to recognize him, because he was installed without the consent of the first two false bishops.” Bringing to the attention of St. Synod, at the same time, that these false bishops of the Austrian hierarchy, “under civil names and titles, secretly visit Moscow and other cities and install false priests for schismatics,” the Moscow saint notes: “there is no need to explain how dangerous it is for the verbal flock when wolves no longer visibly attack from the outside, but among the sheep, in sheep’s clothing, unnoticed by the watchmen, walking" 1053 . As if in response to this report from M. Philaret, after some time a new Supreme Order was issued, directed against the Austrian hierarchy, which charged the Moscow Governor-General with the obligation to “take secret but active measures” to find persons of the said hierarchy 1054. The result of this order was an intensified search for Austrian priests and bishops, and Mozzhakov, an official appointed as the caretaker of the Rogozhsky cemetery, showed particular energy in this matter shortly before this time 1055. True, all these strictnesses of the Nicholas time in relation to the Austrian hierarchy did not stop, and could not stop, its existence in Russia, because instead of the arrested priests, new ones immediately appeared in abundance 1056. Their only consequence was that the said hierarchy, having penetrated into Russia, did not dare to declare itself openly here until the very end of this reign, so that at that time it could rightly be called, in the apt expression of M. Philaret, “a false hierarchy hiding in holes” 1057. With the advent of the new reign, significant changes occurred in the position of the Austrian hierarchy, as well as in the situation of the schism in general, which did not happen suddenly, however, but gradually. We can say with confidence, without fear of falling into error, that the death of Emperor Nicholas was a joyful event for schismatics, especially for those in the Austrian hierarchy who were persecuted during his reign. Sensing more favorable times have arrived, people from this hierarchy begin to come to Moscow with less caution. Soon the head of this hierarchy in Russia, Antony Shutov, returns here, having been forced to leave Moscow during the last reign. At least less than a month after the death of Nikolai Pavlovich, Metropolitan Filaret is already reporting the arrival of a schismatic bishop in the ancient capital. “According to rumors,” he wrote on March 7, 1855, to A.I. Karasevsky, who was then serving as chief prosecutor of the Holy Synod, “last year the false bishops left Moscow; but, according to current rumors, one of them is again in Moscow” 1058. Meanwhile, the leaders of the Rogozh schism wanted to strengthen the existence of this hierarchy in Russia, putting it, so to speak, on a legal basis; and for this it was only necessary, taking advantage of the new trends that had come, to somehow lead her to the Rogozhskoe cemetery - this center of the all-Russian clerical split. They moved towards this goal boldly and energetically from the very first days of the new reign. First of all, they decided to use for this the same method, thanks to which they achieved, but only later (in 1881) the specified goal - i.e. refused to take the oath of allegiance to the new Emperor in the Orthodox Church under an Orthodox priest, in the hope that they would be allowed to take the oath in the Rogozhsky cemetery under the priest of the Austrian hierarchy, which, although indirectly, would recognize the right to exist of the latter. But they made a mistake in their calculations, forgetting that they were being vigilantly watched by the watchful eye of M. Philaret. Thanks solely to the latter’s insistence, what they succeeded in 26 years later did not materialize in 1855. The Moscow saint, having received news of the reluctance of the Rogozh schismatics to take the oath in the manner prescribed by law and well understanding where their plans were heading, energetically rebelled against their idea. Having invited some of the more prominent representatives of the Rogozh schism, he, yielding to their desire to take this oath in one of the chapels of the Rogozh cemetery 1059, convinced them to abandon the second condition, i.e., that their oath should be taken without an Orthodox priest, motivating this, among other things, by the fact that “they now do not have a priest, who alone has the right (which they cannot deny) to touch the holy gospel and the holy cross and bring them for kissing" 1060. The schismatics, realizing that their plans were clearly visible to the metropolitan, did not object to this, silently agreed with his arguments and only asked the pan-Orthodox priest of the village of Karacharov to take the oath, and not the co-religionist, as Filaret suggested to them - they asked for the purpose, as the latter notes, at least in some way to show their independence 1061. The Moscow saint gladly gave in to them in this, rejoicing that he managed to achieve his goal - “to get them to swear allegiance in front of the priest.” “Otherwise,” he notes in a letter to Arkady of Perm at the end of the story about this event, “they would have been allowed to swear allegiance in front of a peasant, or a false priest of an Austrian factory. It would be very harmful" 1062. This incident, at the same time, gave M. Filaret a reason to decisively speak out for maintaining the previous system of government relations both to the split in general and to the new hierarchy in particular. Reporting everything that happened to the then-correcting post of synodal chief prosecutor, also bringing to his attention the appearance of Anthony Shutov in Moscow, repeating at the same time his remark made in last year’s report to the Holy Synod about the enormous harm of the Austrian hierarchy for the Orthodox Church, the Moscow archpastor immediately continues: “thus, they are not opening unimportant signs that the Rogozh dissenters are beginning to act with greater courage and self-reliance than before. In these circumstances, it means especially much to preserve the rules given in Bose by the late Sovereign Emperor Nikolai Pavlovich in relation to the schism.... If the schism leaders had achieved, in the form of leniency, some withdrawal from them in their favor, then... and the false hierarchy lurking in the holes might be more emboldened to continue its harmful actions.” Having outlined these considerations, the Metropolitan proposed at the same time for Karasevsky’s consideration “whether it is necessary to bring these to the Highest information” 1063. We do not know whether the above considerations of M. Philaret were brought to the attention of the Sovereign. In any case, this voice of the Moscow archpastor at this time already sounded in sharp dissonance with the new spirit of the times. Although Emperor Alexander Nikolaevich himself, at the beginning of his reign, spoke out in favor of the previous system of relations to the schism, there is no doubt that he did not sympathize with the former strict measures. As for the government officials surrounding the Emperor, and especially the so-called leaders of public opinion, completely new trends, radically opposed to the spirit of the past reign, began to manifest themselves very noticeably in them. From the very first days of the new reign, the Moscow civil authorities, in the persons of Count Zakrevsky, came to the defense of the Old Believers, especially Rogozhsky. This change in government views on the schism was most likely understood by the Old Believers themselves. Having failed in their plans to bring the Austrian priesthood to the Rogozhsky cemetery by refusing the oath of allegiance, they now went to this goal in their usual way - through intensive petitions to the highest dignitaries of the capital. A whole series of trips to St. Petersburg began for the then main Rogozh figures - Sveshnikov, Butikov, Muravlev and Garanin. While Bibikov was minister, all the efforts of the Moscow Old Believers to obtain permission to open services in the chapels of the Rogozhsky cemetery, which had ceased since 1854 due to the lack of fugitive priests, were unsuccessful. But in August 1855, Bibikov received his resignation and Lanskoy was appointed in his place, “the last of the most prominent representatives of Freemasonry, which was dying out in Russia, and of course not alien to the religious and social teachings that dominated Freemasonry” 1064. From this time on, the affairs of the Moscow Old Believers went much more successfully: on January 15, 1856, the long-awaited message from the new minister addressed to Count Zakrevsky finally followed, allowing the Rogozh Old Believers to open services in cemetery chapels. The Old Believers rejoiced and decided to perform this opening of the service in their cemetery on the next Sunday with the solemnity appropriate for such an occasion. On Saturday, the 21st, Vespers was served in the warm chapel of the Rogozhsky cemetery, and on the next day Matins and Hours were served: there were up to 3,000 schismatics at the service, even according to official information 1065 . From then on, regular services began at the cemetery. The priests of the Austrian hierarchy begin to appear here to officiate church services, but they serve, however, at first with some apprehension, not even daring to put on priestly vestments. But fears would probably have gradually ceased among the Austrian clergy - especially in view of the lenient attitude of the local authorities towards the Rogozh Old Believers, the Austrian priests would have put on vestments during services, and, perhaps, over time, a huge permanent staff of clergy would have been formed at the Rogozhsky cemetery, befitting such a place - in a word, and at this time everything that happened in 1881; but then events arose that ended very sadly for the Rogozhsky schismatics, which for a long time ruined their dreams of actually strengthening the Rogozhsky cemetery as the center of the all-Russian priesthood for the Belokrinitsky priesthood. We do not need to tell this whole story in detail, especially since it has been known for a long time, 1066; we will only note its main points and dwell in more detail on the participation of M. Philaret in this whole matter. The matter began with a letter from Hieromonk Parthenius, already known to us. Having worked a lot in the fight against the schism, and strongly rebelled in his literary works against the newly emerged hierarchy among the schismatics abroad, Parthenius was outraged by the latest events at the Rogozhsky cemetery and wrote about them to St. Petersburg to a person close to the person of Emperor Alexander II. The letter was presented to the Emperor. The latter personally handed it over to the Minister of Internal Affairs to make appropriate inquiries about the circumstances stated in it. The minister, in turn, forwarded a letter to Fr. Parthenia to Count Zakrevsky, asking him for an explanation of the contents of the letter; and this latter demanded a written report about everything that happened from the caretaker of the Rogozhsky cemetery, Longinov. The result of these gradual relations are three official notes - the report of caretaker Longinov to the Moscow Governor-General, a confidential letter from Count Zakrevsky to the minister and the most loyal report of Lansky to the Sovereign 1067. The minister decided to “submit all these three official reports on the matter to the Highest discretion.” The general impression from them was the most favorable for the schismatics: the previous prohibition of Rogozh schismatics from holding services in cemetery chapels was presented here as an unheard-of and illegal arbitrariness of the former caretaker of the cemetery Mozzhakov; the present permission, which the minister directly attributes to himself in his report, to resume this worship service is a completely legal and fair matter; and the letter from Hieromonk Parthenius was an unfounded denunciation, “inspired, as Longinov put it, by impotent anger against the latest fair and useful measures taken by the government regarding the schismatics.” Thus, the whole matter should have ended with an even greater triumph of the Rogozh Old Believers. But before the minister had time to submit his report and two other papers to the Emperor, a report from Metropolitan Philaret arrived to the Holy Synod, turning the whole matter completely in the opposite direction. Having received news of the solemn opening of the service at the Rogozhsky cemetery and the appearance there, as clergy, of priests of the Austrian hierarchy, the Moscow saint, rightly seeing in these events dangerous signs for the church of the beginning strengthening of the Rogozhsky schism, which had previously been significantly weakened, and especially being alarmed by such a rapid transition in the position of the Austrian hierarchy, decided to raise his voice in defense Orthodoxy and spoke in a report to the Holy Synod on February 16 with his protest against the latest events at the Rogozhsky cemetery 1068. Having noted at the beginning of his report the fact of the weakening of the Rogozh schism since the conversion of one of the local chapels to the Edinoverie Church, he further mentioned the subsequent joining of the last schismatic fugitive priest to the Orthodox Church and the cessation - “either by order of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, or perhaps by itself”, due to the lack of fugitive priests - of “correct, according to the charter, worship” in the remaining two chapels of the Rogozhsky cemetery, finally pointing to the trips to St. Petersburg of the main Rogozhsky figures that began to be practiced in the spring of 1855 and their spreading of false rumors “about new supposed benefits granted to their cemetery,” M. Filaret proceeds to present the main subject of his report. “Finally,” he writes, “after several trips of significant schismatics to St. Petersburg, on January 21, 1856, in the warm chapel of the Rogozhsky cemetery, with a gathering of many schismatics, the service of Vespers opened, in which the clerk Ivan Kruchinin was in charge, and for 22 days, Matins was served in the same way, and since then a similar service has continued. In the following days, it was noticed that during the service the royal doors were opened, and the servant made exclamations; and since a layman cannot do this, they conclude that the servant was a false priest. He was wearing bourgeois clothes, and he had a bourgeois haircut; but it could be that he was hiding the stole under his outer clothing. It is believed that this is Krinin, who lives near the Rogozhskaya outpost.” Having briefly noted further about the rejoicing of the schismatics and the sadness of fellow believers and Orthodox Christians over these incidents at the Rogozhsky cemetery, the Metropolitan continues: “if we take into account that the schismatics previously did not dare to open a divine service in the chapel without a priest, but now they have opened and continue it, and if we put this in connection with the trips of significant schismatics to St. Petersburg, then it is not without reason that the question may arise: did they not receive permission for this? from the authorities? This would be a sad case, the consequences of which are not easy to measure. This would have the appearance that the authorities themselves are planting and taking root a new branch of schism, priest-less, priest-less talk, priest-like talk based on their continued recognition of the need for the priesthood and holy communion, and in public worship - priestless, and, what is especially harmful, this would be the most convenient opportunity for schismatics to hide false priests abroad under the guise of laity false hierarchy"... Having further recalled the special significance of the Rogozhsky cemetery as the central government place for the entire priestly schism, due to which both strengthening and weakening of the schism here is equivalent to strengthening or weakening it everywhere, the Moscow saint, for his part, recognizes it as desirable and most expedient to “deny schismatics the pleasure of solemnly performing services in the Rogozhsky chapel.” M. Philaret ends his report with the following words: “finding that the service that opened in the Rogozh chapel goes beyond the limits of tolerance shown to schismatics, has already had an unfavorable effect and can have harmful consequences, and noting that schismatics are trying to conduct their affairs to success in secret from the secret committees, I recognize it as due and the only possible thing to bring this good to the attention of those who are in charge of the good of the holy church. Holy Synod." Having received this report from the Moscow Metropolitan and recognizing the importance of the facts and considerations set out in it, the Holy Synod instructed the then-correcting chief prosecutor, Serbinovich, to present this report in the original to the Highest view, with the addition that, for its part, the Synod intends to submit this report to the secret committee to discuss the measures that should be taken to eliminate the harmful consequences of the event mentioned in the report. According to this order, Serbinovich had a report to the Sovereign on March 4, during which he presented the report of the Moscow Archpastor to the Highest View. This report also made a strong impression on Emperor Alexander II and prompted a resolution that ordered that this matter be “considered immediately in the secret committee and urgent measures taken to curb the criminal willfulness of the schismatics.” At the same time, the Emperor’s special attention was drawn to the part of this report where the Metropolitan makes an assumption whether the schismatics had received “permission from the authorities” to open services in the cemetery chapels. Against these words, the Emperor wrote in his own hand: “from which”? The day after the Imperial report, Serbinovich submitted the metropolitan’s report to the secret committee in relation to which he outlined the subsequent resolution of the Holy Synod on this case and the circumstances surrounding the presentation of the report to the Sovereign Emperor 1069. Meanwhile, the report of the Moscow saint was communicated in a copy to the Minister of Internal Affairs. Having become acquainted with its contents, the minister came to the conviction that the previously prepared all-submissive report on this matter was now completely unsuitable, since now it was no longer necessary to deal with Parthenius’s letter, which, based on the reviews of Longinov and Zakrevsky, could be unceremoniously called an unfounded denunciation, - he had to deal with the metropolitan’s report, which, due to the importance of its content and, most importantly, the special attention paid to it by the Sovereign, demanded treat it with all care and caution. In view of this, a new, all-submissive report was drawn up, its content having nothing in common with the previously prepared one, but just like this last one, decisively aimed at protecting the Rogozh schismatics, demanding that they be granted freedom in the performance of worship 1070. What is especially characteristic in this new report of the minister in comparison with the previous one is the complete silence about the fact that permission to open chapel services was given to the Rogozh Old Believers from him, the minister, which was stated directly and positively in the previously prepared report. After the Sovereign’s resolution on M. Philaret’s report, the minister considered it best to avoid this sensitive issue in absolute silence. On April 20, 1856, the said report was presented to the Emperor by Lansky. The latter and this report ordered to be attached to the case being carried out on this subject in the secret committee. “On this very matter,” the Sovereign wrote in his own hand on the minister’s report, “the other day I received through the Synod a formal protest from the Metropolitan of Moscow and ordered this matter to be urgently submitted to the secret committee. Due to the importance of the subject, it is necessary on your part to inform the committee of all the information you have received and, having discussed it together, submit your conclusions for my approval. I ask you not to delay this matter.” 1071 The secret committee met three times to judge the matter in question - on March 12, April 5 and May 16, 1072. According to the Highest Resolution on the report of the Moscow Metropolitan, he set his task: 1) to find urgent measures to curb the criminal willfulness of the schismatics and 2) to resolve the question: which of the schismatics of the Rogozh cemetery should be found guilty of arbitrarily causing a schism? As for the second half of the program, which the committee set as the subject of its deliberations, it could only be implemented through an on-the-spot inquiry. those. at the Rogozhsky cemetery. All committee members agreed with this. But regarding another question, i.e., what measures should be taken to curb the willfulness of the Rogozh schismatics, the opinions of the members were divided. While alone - Metropolitan Nikanor, Archbishop Gregory, Protopresbyter Bazhanov, Secretary of State Taneyev and the current Chief Prosecutor of St. The Synod recognized as the best measure, as such, the sealing of the Rogozh chapels so that the main one would be consecrated into an Orthodox or Edinoverie church; others - Count Bludov, Count Kiselev, Minister Lanskoy and Count Panin, believed that, until a preliminary study, it would be enough to limit ourselves to prohibiting schismatics from ceremonial gatherings for worship at the Rogozhsky cemetery. However, only three of these last four members remained true to their opinion until the very end of the discussion of the issue; the fourth of them, Count Bludov, at the last meeting of the committee joined the opinion of the majority, as soon as it proposed an average preventive measure, i.e. sealing only the altars, and not the chapels themselves. “The Rogozhsky chapels,” the majority of the members of the secret committee believed, “although they should be closed, but solely out of condescension towards the schismatics being looked after in the almshouse, only the altars should be sealed in them, as it is completely unnecessary without priests and inaccessible to the laity, and Rogozhsky schismatics should be allowed to come to the designated chapels only to pray silently, without reading and singing, as this has been going on since November 1854 until January 21, 1856.” The Sovereign Emperor, having examined the journals of the committee on the said case on June 12, not only approved this opinion of the majority, but also wrote in his own hand: “to execute according to the opinion of six members, especially since since there are no priests at the Rogozhsky cemetery and should not be allowed unless they join Orthodoxy or Edinoverie, then altars for the service are not needed” 1073. Metropolitan Nikanor on June 21 enthusiastically notified the Moscow saint about this resolution of the Sovereign, “believing,” as he wrote, “that the defenders of the priestly sect will not soon inform you of a decisive statement, very comforting and encouraging for the Orthodox and co-religionists... It would be comforting for the Orthodox and co-religionists, he added at the end of his letter, if it were possible to inform them of the Supreme decision in favor Orthodoxy and to the weakening of the schism" 1074. This news brought great consolation to M. Philaret. “With gratitude to God and to the most pious Sovereign Emperor,” he wrote, “I accept the justice rendered by His Imperial Majesty and the government to Orthodoxy and Edinoverim” 1075. Fulfilling the advice of the Bishop of St. Petersburg, he hastened, through the dean of the Edinoverie, to convey this joyful news to the priests and elders of the Edinoverie churches in both Old Believer cemeteries, ordering at the same time, “if possible, to secretly observe and find out, through the priest Simeon Morozov, when and how the order of the Sovereign on sealing the altars in chapels, Rogozhsky cemetery, and inform him about this 1076. Soon the Sovereign's command was carried out with all precision; The altars in both chapels of the Rogozhsky cemetery were sealed, and access to them by the Austrian clergy was blocked. Thus, thanks mainly to M. Philaret, this new attempt of the Rogozh Old Believers to bring the newly-minted priesthood to their cemetery ended unsuccessfully. In their later efforts, under various plausible pretexts, to achieve the cancellation of this highly unpleasant order of the Highest Authority for them, remained in vain 1077. The altars of the Rogozh chapels have not been unsealed to this day. But besides this outcome, undesirable for the Rogozh Old Believers, the case under consideration about causing a schism in the Rogozh cemetery also had another side, very comforting both for them and in general for schismatic priests in the Austrian priesthood. Thanks to this case, Emperor Alexander Nikolayevich for the first time proclaimed the idea of ​​​​the need to appease the schismatic priests by granting them some priests - an idea that, due to circumstances, then inevitably led to the well-known law of April 24, 1858, which radically changed the position of persons in the Austrian hierarchy. By sealing the altars at the Rogozhsky cemetery, only one half of the program set by the St. Petersburg Secret Committee for its activities in the case of the Rogozhsky schism was completed. To execute the other half of this program, i.e. To find out the degree of guilt of the Rogozh Old Believers in this act, it was decided, as we already know, to carry out an investigation at the Rogozh cemetery. This matter was entrusted to the Moscow authorities, under the direct supervision of the local secret committee 1078. This investigation, as was to be expected, did not reveal anything about the essence of the case - neither who was the main culprit of the Rogozhsky act, nor who performed the sacred act 1079. It was only known, as four of the majority members of the St. Petersburg Committee (Gregory, Bazhanov, Bludov and Taneyev) testified in their certificate submitted to the Highest discretion, that “the coachman Krinin is a false priest who accepted this rank at the request of the Old Believer society.” Bringing this to the attention of the Sovereign, the said four members noted, among other things, in their certificate that “the circumstance leads to the conclusion that among these schismatics there may be other priests besides Krinin” 1080. This remark by the committee members gave rise to Emperor Alexander II to express his thought about the need to appease the schismatic priests by granting them some means to satisfy their spiritual needs. “It is very likely,” the Emperor wrote regarding this assumption by the compilers of the certificate about the existence of schismatics other than Krinin, priests of the Austrian hierarchy, “it is very likely that this is a consequence of the law of 1827, which forces them either to become priestless, or to resort to foreign schismatics to ordain secret priests. This is the main question to which I have repeatedly drawn the attention of the members of the secret committee, but so far I have not been presented with a single measure on how to get out of this difficult and harmful situation” 1081. Thus, a very important and significant question was put on the agenda by the Supreme Authority, behind which the private case of the murder of the Rogozh schismatics was already obscured and completely merged with it. The emergence of this issue was greatly facilitated by the fact that the schismatic priests themselves constantly reminded the government of their abnormal situation, submitting request after request to the Highest Name for priests to be granted to them. These intensified harassment of the priests, in connection with the petitions of some government officials on their behalf, aggravated the issue under consideration at this time to the extreme and the Sovereign himself maintained an unrelenting interest in it, which the latter expressed in the resolution already known to us on the note of Count Zakrevsky dated April 11, 1857. This resolution again brought home to the members of the St. Petersburg Secret Committee the full importance of “this state, in the words of Emperor Alexander II, and, one might say, vital” issue, i.e. the question of calming the schismatic priests. We already know what a strong rebuff from the spiritual members of the capital’s committees, especially in Metropolitan Philaret, was caused by the proposal of some secular government officials to resolve the issue raised by the Sovereign in the sense of granting schismatics priests from the Orthodox Church, but independent from the spiritual authorities. This energetic protest of the spiritual authorities was respected by the Emperor and the granting of independent priests to the schismatics was categorically refused. Instead, it was then decided, in order to appease the priests, to slightly change the position of the Austrian priesthood. In the same year and at the same meeting of the Council of Ministers (April 24, 1858), which resulted in the final refusal of the schismatics to grant them priests from the Orthodox Church, the question of their newly-minted hierarchy was raised and resolved in a favorable sense for them. True, even at this time the Sovereign Emperor called it impossible to allow the Old Believers to clearly perform divine services and spiritual needs through the Austrian priesthood; he also left in full force the previous law on strict supervision over the exclusion of persons of the said hierarchy from abroad; but at the same time, “he deigned to recognize the widespread secret search and discovery of false priests hiding among schismatics as useless and untimely” 1082. Thus a change took place in the position of the Austrian hierarchy: from that time on, from persecuted and wanted, it turned into tolerant, although unrecognized. So, in the end, “defeated on the right wing,” i.e. in efforts to obtain priests from the Orthodox Church, it was possible, in the words of M. Filaret, to “strengthen the left.” “A look at the false hierarchy of foreign origin,” he wrote shortly after this decision to Rev. Alexy, from that time on he became “not strict” 1083. Thanks to this weakness of supervision, the Austrian clergy very widely took advantage of the above-mentioned order of the Sovereign Emperor and, under the protection of local authorities, began to allow themselves many things that decidedly went against the Highest will. The rapid proliferation of persons of the Belokrinitsky hierarchy, their open services, public religious processions, finally, numerous councils, to which, contrary to the clearly expressed command of the Sovereign, foreign representatives of the Belokrinitsky hierarchy, even its head himself, the Belokrinitsky Metropolitan, appeared - and, as a direct result of this order of things, the increase in seductions into schism - all this, in connection with the indifferent attitude of the civil authorities towards such phenomena, not a little embarrassed M. Filaret and caused him to constantly protest against violators of the law. His diocesan reports and reports to the Holy Synod are filled with these protests; He constantly complains about this in his private correspondence. So already in the report for 1859, i.e. Following the Highest order, we read: “after reviewing the state of the diocese, it would be possible to move from the past year to the present with good hope, if the schism did not arouse strong fears. False priests of Austrian origin are multiplying and roaming freely through cities and villages, disseminating false teachings among the common people, and not content with schismatics, they are intensifying to seduce the Orthodox." 1084 He writes almost the same thing in reports for 1860-1085, 1863-1086 and 1864, expressing at the same time his wish in the latter: “may the Lord, in an abundance of grace, send His light and His truth to the Holy Synod, may they instruct him in finding the most effective means for preserving the Orthodox faith among the people, and may his zeal for intercession about this before the most pious Sovereign Emperor, defender of the Orthodox Church" 1087. The Moscow Archpastor expressed similar thoughts about the weakness of supervision over the Austrian priesthood and about the enormous harm of such a position for the Orthodox Church in his reports to the Holy Synod. Thus, in one of these reports in 1861, written about the deviation into schism of a significant number of parishioners of the village of Ivashkov, he, finding out the reasons for this unfortunate phenomenon, wrote among other things the following: “a strong temptation and reason for falling into schism is the fact that everyone knows where schismatic false bishops live and where they come, where they serve and even sometimes perform prayers and religious processions in the open air false priests; they see peasants who, by growing their hair, prove themselves to be priests - and all this is not subject to any responsibility” 1088. But all the protests of the Moscow saint turned out to be fruitless at that time. As factual proof of this, two characteristic cases can be pointed out. One of these cases dates back to 1859, the other to 1865. In 1859, the peasant Fedotov was taken in priestly vestments, and they found a genuine document with the signature and seal of Archbishop Anthony. “Isn’t this a solemn manifestation of the schism?” - the Moscow Metropolitan notes regarding this. However, the civil court looked at this case differently. He acquitted this peasant and did not touch the schismatic archbishop, saying that there was no evidence of a schism. Metropolitan Philaret was not satisfied with this decision and made his protest against it. He sent Fedotov’s letter to the Synod with a report in which, pointing to laws condemning those who falsely appropriate someone else’s title or rank, he put forward this kind of consideration: “if a peasant or guild worker called himself a general and issued another peasant a patent for the rank of officer, would he not be condemned according to the law? Didn’t the guild worker Andrei Shutov commit the same crime when he called himself an archbishop and issued a certificate to a peasant for the title of priest?” But this report, transmitted by the Synod to the secular authorities, had no consequences; Filaret's consideration was not respected. "St. The Synod, the Moscow saint reports to Archimandrite Anthony, returned the letter to me and said in a decree that the Minister of Internal Affairs ordered the false priest to be supervised, but not a word about the false archbishop and the laws indicated"; - “and the peasant, he notes in another place, calmly continues to be a false priest, and Shutov continues to be a false bishop” 1089. A similar incident occurred in 1865. This year, another priest of this hierarchy was arrested - a tradesman from the Klintsy settlement, Chernigov province, Vasily Konstantinov Shtapakov. From under arrest, he sent a petition to Metropolitan Philaret, in which, informing about his appointment as a schismatic priest at the request of the residents of his town, and about the subsequent arrest, he asked the Moscow Metropolitan to petition for his release. As proof of his belonging to the Austrian priesthood, he also presented his commissioned charter, given to him upon initiation by Moscow Archbishop Anthony. Having received this naive request, the Moscow saint was outraged by the insolence of the schismatic priest and submitted a report to the Holy Synod, in which, outlining the above circumstances, he presented them as a clear indication of a schism, requiring legal satisfaction. “Isn’t it a clear indication of a schism,” he wrote in the report in question, that a tradesman in a formal petition declares himself a schismatic priest, indicates the ordained false bishop Anthony, and presents as indisputable evidence a formal act - a charter signed by the false bishop Anthony, who calls himself the archbishop not only of Vladimir, but of all Russia.” “The law prohibits causing a schism,” Filaret continues his report. Therefore, it is my duty to present the said petition and letter to St. Synod to take measures so that the guild Anthony Shutov, who illegally arrogates to himself the title of Archbishop of Vladimir and All Russia that does not belong to him, is subjected to legal liability” 1090. The Holy Synod sent the petition presented by the Moscow saint and Shtapakov’s letter to the Minister of Internal Affairs, asking at the same time for his order to bring Anthony Shutov to trial and bring him to legal responsibility. But this protest of M. Philaret and the petition of the Synod did not have any success. The matter ended in nothing. Anthony Shutov remained free and continued to serve as a bishop and appoint schismatic priests throughout Russia. If at this time the Austrian priesthood was looked at in this way in the highest government spheres, then one can judge how the local civil authorities should have treated it afterwards: if there they refused to assist the spiritual authorities in matters of schism, then here they clearly also patronized its hierarchy. This should especially be said about the Moscow civil authorities, which have long been famous for such an attitude towards the schism; the Moscow saint repeatedly complains about this. So, for example, reporting in one of his letters to the synodal chief prosecutor Akhmatov about the former council of schismatic bishops, he notes at the same time: “the civil authorities, it seems, have the good fortune of not knowing this” 1091. Letting the said Chief Prosecutor know in another letter about the arrival of the Belokrinitsky Metropolitan in Moscow and pointing out the special importance of this event, he further writes: “This has been brought to the attention of the Moscow Governor-General; but he is unlikely to do anything. Those in the know think that the local police will not open it. Dissenters know how to recognize government measures early and take measures against them” 1092. These assumptions of the Metropolitan of Moscow were fully justified. “The Belokrinitsky schismatic false metropolitan Kirill, let’s say in the words of Philaret himself, came to Moscow, performed false priesthood here, held false councils; everyone knew it; if all this was not considered illegal, at least they could have paid attention to the fact that he came with a false passport. No attention was paid to this” 1093. In particular, how fair is the last remark of the Moscow Metropolitan, expressed in a letter to the synodal chief prosecutor, how skillfully the Rogozh schismatics knew how to organize their affairs, quickly finding out about the orders of the civil authorities directed against their hierarchy and no less energetically taking appropriate measures against these orders, this is shown by a new case from the anti-schismatic practice of Metropolitan Philaret during the indicated time. Having received in September 1865 the news of the arrival in Moscow from Belaya-Krinitsa of the monk Alimpiy and Archimandrite Euphrosynus on a very important church-hierarchical matter - for a conference with the Moscow spiritual authorities on the election of a new vicar of the Belaya-Krinitsa metropolis, in view of the prosecution of M. Kirill by the Austrian government for a trip to Russia, for which position he was intended Euphrosynus arrived - M. Philaret hastened to “confidentially” report this information to the synodal chief prosecutor D. A. Tolstoy “to take, as he himself wrote, measures so that the dying Belokrinitsa metropolis does not revive in greater strength Euphrosynus, who is not as restless as Kirill, and therefore more capable than Kirill of propagating the schismatic false hierarchy” 1094 . How did the civil authorities react to this important news? This is what is reported about this in the Brotherly Word. The Minister of Internal Affairs, to whom the letter was handed over for further orders, forwarded it in copies, also for further orders, to the Moscow police authorities; and Sechinsky, who was then filling the position of chief police chief, sent a copy of the letter to all private bailiffs with a confidential circular order that “their nobility take the most active measures to search for and arrest” Alimpy and Euphrosyne. After this, as soon as possible, exact copies of all these confidential documents were already available in the schismatic “Spiritual Council”, where they were read with a chuckle. Anthony and other authorities from whom Alimpius and Euphrosynus received the order to be more careful for a while - not to walk too carelessly along the Moscow streets 1095. But if all these reports of the Moscow Metropolitan about the illegal actions of the Austrian priesthood and all his protests against the excessive freedom that this priesthood enjoyed, contrary to the law, at the time in question, had no success; for this reason, his arguments against the recognition of the said hierarchy did not remain without consequences. Attempts by schismatic priests to achieve recognition of their newly-minted hierarchy - to grant it the same rights as heterodox and heterodox clergy enjoy in Russia - began soon after the issuance of the order of the new emperor, which was lenient towards the Austrian priesthood. The first of these attempts, which belonged to the famous Paphnutius, Bishop of Kolomna, and his supporters, dates back to 1859. On the initiative of the said schismatic bishop, at the beginning of this year a petition was submitted to the government, signed by three hundred Old Believers, to recognize the Belokrinitsa hierarchy as legitimate. But, as one might expect, the government responded to this request with a decisive refusal: at that time it was still too far from such an idea. Thus, Paphnutius’s idea, to his great chagrin, ended in complete failure 1096. In the 60s, with the extremely lenient attitude of the civil authorities towards the schism, these hopes of the schismatic priests for recognition of their hierarchy were again aroused. Having received the opportunity through their deputies to introduce themselves to the Tsar and present him with addresses expressing their loyal feelings, the schismatics took advantage of this opportunity to present their demands, and in their addresses, often very lengthy, asked, among other things, for recognition of their hierarchy 1097. We do not know how the government treated such harassment of the Old Believers at that time. In any case, the matter was so serious that the Moscow saint recognized the need to take them into account, and decided in 1863 to speak before the Highest Authority, regarding one of the similar presentations to the Sovereign by schismatic deputies, with his note - “on the schism at the present time” 1098, in which he mainly considers the issue of recognizing the schism in his hierarchy. Sending this note through the synodal chief prosecutor, in a letter to the latter he also expresses the motives that prompted him to take this decisive step. “The view of schism,” writes the Moscow Metropolitan, “is currently arousing thoughtful thoughts in every devotee of Orthodoxy. From this source came the attached note about the schism at the present time” 1099. Based on this, it can be assumed that M. Filaret, in view of the significant change that had occurred by that time in government views on the schism, feared that the demands of schismatic priests for recognition of their hierarchy could easily come true. He probably knew well that some government officials were not averse to satisfying the said request of the Old Believers. At least in his note resulting from these fears, he positively states that the schismatics hope to receive the recognition of the Austrian priesthood that they now desire. In view of these circumstances, the Moscow saint came out with his protest against the said harassment of the schismatics. Curious are the motives that he puts forward in the above note, as well as in other opinions, as arguments against the recognition of a schismatic hierarchy. The first of these motives lies in the hierarchy itself - in the fact that it has recently been divided into several parties, that at that time several “elements” were “in ferment” in it - namely: 1) the Russian false hierarchy, adjacent to the same Austrian one, and 2) the Russian false hierarchy, separating from this one. “When the Austrian false priesthood appeared in the Moscow diocese,” says M. Philaret, at first few accepted it, and the best and most of the schismatics rejected it as illegal. Over time, his influence spread, especially in the villages, due to the lack of something better. Now that the proclamation of the Russian false hierarchy, independent of the Austrian, has been revealed, some continue to adhere to the Austrian priesthood, some are already rejecting it and accepting a purely Russian one.” So, is it really possible to recognize, he asks, both schismatic hierarchies and, if I may put it this way, two schismatic churches? 1100 But besides this difficulty, which lies in the nature of the hierarchy itself and at the present time, as we know, not only has not been destroyed, but with the even greater fragmentation of the Belokrinitsky priesthood into new parties has even increased - and besides this, official recognition of the Austrian hierarchy, in the opinion of the Moscow Metropolitan, is not possible in the interests of the Orthodox Church and the state. And, first of all, it will inevitably give rise to so many different “inconveniently resolved questions and difficulties” administrative and practical that, according to M. Philaret, it is difficult to even count them. If in one city there are two cathedras, two bishops (and even more, since there may be more than one Old Believer bishops, as there already is), two diocesan administrations, in one village two parishes; then “how many, asks Filaret, are there cases of clashes and entanglements. Where will the boundaries of dioceses and parishes be? But the practical inconveniences of recognizing the Austrian hierarchy do not end there. “Now,” he continues, false bishops and false priests from the bourgeoisie and peasants are listed in these ranks and walk around with passports of these ranks; Will they then remain in these ranks or will they be singled out, either individually or with families and descendants, and then, as they complain about the large number of Orthodox clergy, a new numerous extra-Orthodox clergy will be created, especially if it receives both deacons and clerics? Will ex-Orthodox bishops have consistories and on what content? Or will they be left with the current arbitrary governance, not limited by laws and correct forms, so that uncontrolled self-will will more conveniently seduce and attract the Orthodox to them? From what sources and in what amounts will ex-Orthodox bishops and priests be supported? and so on." 1101. Thus, recognizing a schismatic hierarchy is practically inconvenient. This is the first thing, but this is not the main thing, according to the Moscow Metropolitan. Much more important is that this recognition will be harmful for the Orthodox Church, and at the same time harmful for the state - harmful in the sense that with the recognition of the Austrian hierarchy, which is tantamount to the recognition of the schism, schismatic propaganda will intensify and the falling away of the Orthodox into schism will significantly increase. This desire for propaganda, according to the Moscow saint, is much more developed among schismatics than among Orthodox Christians; but at present it is still somewhat limited by the lack of protection of the law. But when the schismatic hierarchy is called upon, and therefore the schism receives the right to legal existence, then “his habit of promoting obstacles will have less than the current one, but more means and, therefore, can be more harmful to the Orthodox Church.” To prove his fair assumptions about the sad consequences that the centralization of wrong religious societies and their authorization by laws leads to, M. Filaret points to the example of Mohammedanism and Lamaism in Russia, which, since the government organization of their spiritual administration, became completely inaccessible to the influence of Orthodox missionaries 1102. No less harmful is this official recognition of the schismatic hierarchy, according to the Moscow archpastor, and should affect the state. “To recognize a schismatic hierarchy,” he says, would mean splitting the integrity of the Russian people, would harm not only church unity, but also state unity,” because “the destruction of the unanimity and unanimity of the church would entail the disorder and destruction of the unity of the national spirit in relation to the civil and patriotic” 1103. The last and strongest reason why the Austrian hierarchy, in the opinion of M. Philaret, should not be recognized by the government is that this recognition will inevitably be accompanied by “inconsistent diversity of views that mutually complicate the Orthodox Church and the state” 1104. The fact is that the Orthodox Church, for its part, due to canonical considerations, cannot in any way recognize the Austrian hierarchy as legitimate. “Cyril, who, contrary to the first apostolic canon, was ordained by one bishop and, moreover, who did not have the right to ordain, the Orthodox Church,” says the Moscow archpastor, “cannot recognize as a true bishop, and as a result of this, all the bishops and priests ordained by him” 1105. “From this it follows,” continues M. Philaret, that if ever the civil authorities, in relations with the spiritual Orthodox, mentioned Anthony, Archbishop of Vladimir, the spiritual authorities would be obliged to answer that they do not know Archbishop Anthony, but only know the guild Andrei Shutov. How could one get out of such a contradiction? Should the Orthodox hierarchy be forced to recognize what is contrary to church rules and its conscience? But this would mean violating the state law in Russia, which grants freedom even to non-Christian religions, and the Orthodox hierarchy would be obliged to suffer rather than submit to such coercion, according to the apostolic word: it is fitting to obey God more than man (Acts V, 29)” 1106. These are the arguments of the Moscow Metropolitan against the recognition of the schismatic hierarchy. Probably, partly these arguments of his, and perhaps other considerations unknown to us, forced the government to refuse the schismatics’ advances. The Belokrinitsky hierarchy remains unrecognized to this day. In concluding the question of the Austrian priesthood, it remains for us to consider only the resolutions of the 1864 committee on this subject and the comments of M. Philaret on these committee resolutions. The Committee of 1864 did not establish anything new in the essence of the matter about the Austrian hierarchy, but only projected to legally strengthen for it those rights that it had long already enjoyed in fact, i.e. the right to freely perform divine services and perform spiritual duties among schismatics, without subjecting persons of the designated hierarchy to any persecution or restrictions, except in cases where they incur the action of general criminal laws 1107. As one might expect, M. Philaret was dissatisfied with this resolution of the committee, finding it too lenient for the schismatic clergy. Pointing in his comments to the journals of the Committee 1108, to the recent rapid proliferation of the Austrian priesthood and, in close connection with this, the increase in the falling away of the Orthodox into schism, the Moscow saint in the said committee resolution sees nothing more than the recognition of such an abnormal order of things as legally legal. “It is characteristic of Christian meekness,” he says, to show tolerance to those of different opinions, but caution should determine the measure of tolerance. Good can tolerate evil, but evil will not tolerate good. Consequently, to provide excessive tolerance to evil means to give it a weapon against good... To provide the schismatic false hierarchy with unlimited freedom of action means to give the wolves the freedom to kidnap sheep. The timber wolf, having kidnapped one sheep, will be satisfied and, albeit temporarily, will leave the herd alone. The spiritual wolf will not be satisfied with hundreds of sheep, but will steal away day and night.” The committee’s clause, according to which the Belokrinitsa priesthood should be subject to general criminal laws and, therefore, responsibility for causing schism and seducing the Orthodox, is not considered by the Moscow Metropolitan to sufficiently guarantee the Orthodox from the propaganda inclinations of the schismatic clergy. The fact is that, in his opinion, “it is mostly not convenient to pursue certain cases of seduction into schism: the seducer is denied, the schismatic over whom and under whom the seduction was committed will confirm his denial.” And from here it logically follows that the criterion by which they think to measure the harm of one or another person in the schismatic hierarchy in relation to the Orthodox Church, i.e. the number of proven seductions is of no use. “A false priest, who is not exposed in the seduction of one well-known person, but around whom they are obviously multiplying and who, through his official actions, constantly supports schismatics in schism, does the Moscow Archpastor ask less evil to the Orthodox Church than the one who is exposed in the seduction of one Orthodox”? In view of all that has been said, it is necessary, according to M. Filaret, in the new legislative act to put “at least some limits” on the schismatic hierarchy. He, for his part, retains the rule of tolerance towards persons of the Austrian priesthood, at the same time proposes to limit this tolerance to the following limits: 1) “if one of them allows himself to cause a schism, for example, by commanding and serving in a public procession, he is subject to liability all the more severe because by his official action he involves many others in causing a schism”; 2) “if an act is opened by which one of them gives someone a church title, for example, a priestly charter, then both of them are subject to responsibility for taking on a title that does not legally belong to them, and the first for drawing up, and the other for accepting, an illegal act.” Assembled. to me. and review vol. IV, p. 270. Letter from M. Philaret to Anthony, vol. III; p. 242. Usually, the establishment of the St. Petersburg Secret Committee on Schism Affairs is dated, on the basis of a well-known resolution (Collected Posts on Part of the Schism, p. 78), to 1825. Meanwhile, this year there was only a reform of the previously established committee “this institution, as M. Filaret reports in the same letter to Anthony, passed (only) into an order form, under the name of secret it became public, and was filled with people as it happens. Collection opinion and review vol. IV, p. 270. Collection resolution according to the schism, p. 50; resolution of November 1817 Ibid., pp. 51–52; High command of December 22 1817 Ibid., pp. 52–53; resolution August 27, 1818 Ibid., pp. 58–60; postan 11 Apr. 1820 Ibid., pp. 63–65; regulation 3 Jul. 1820, pp. 70–72. – post. March 21 1823 Ibid., pp. 61–62; resolution May 27, 1820 Ibid., p. 69; resolution March 26 1822 As for the permission for priests to have open fugitive priests (decreed on March 26, 1822), apparently contradicting everything that has been said regarding the oppression of schismatics that began in 1817, this resolution, as we will see in its place, owes its origin to an accidental circumstance, and did not flow from the government’s view of the schism. Printed in Rus. Archives 1883 vol. II, pp. 173–203. Collection opinion and review vol. IV, p. 145. Letters of M. Philaret to Anthony, vol. III, p. 226. Letters of M. Philaret to Anthony, vol. III, pp. 226–227; Wed Assembled. opinion and review vol. IV, p. 146. Assembled. opinion and review vol. V, part 2, page 399. Ibid., supplementary volume, pp. 229–230. Ibid., vol. IV, pp. 298–299. Ibid., pp. 21 and 146; Wed page 13. Ibid., vol. V, part 1; p. 136, cf. vol. III, p. 291. Letter from M. Philaret to Innocent Kamchatsky. R. Archive. 1881 II vol. p. 26. Letter from M. Philaret to the Reverend. Nikolai Kaluzhsky. Read, General love, spirit pr. 1870 book. XI, dept. II page 13. Letter from M. Filaret to M. N. Muravyov. Thurs. General love 1883 dept. III. page 33. Assembled. opinion and review vol. IV, p. 299. Ibid., vol. III, pp. 22 and 291. Ibid., p. 330. pp. 3 and 4. Ibid., vol. III, p. 566; Wed p. 551; vol. IV, p. 280. Letter from M. Philaret to Moskov. citizen Governor I.V. Kapnist. Thurs. General love d. pr. 1881 dep. III, p. 531. Collected, opinion. and review vol. V, part 2, pp. 924–925. Soulful. Thurs. 1888, part 1, page, 510 – resolution. from 19 Sep. 1857 Assembled. opinion and review vol. III, p. 565. Ibid., vol. V, part 2, pp. 924 and 669–670. Ibid., vol. V, part 2, p. 599; Wed Letter from M. Philaret to I.V. Kapnist. Read General love 1881 dept. III, p. 531. See eg. resolution dated May 22, 1852 Soulep. Thurs. 1872, part II, page 122; letter from M. Philaret to Count Zakrevsky, in the same place, 1890, part II, pp. 741–742. resolution from June 1 1857 Ibid. 1888, part 1, pp. 253–254. Letter to Count Zakrevsky. Thurs. General love 1874 book. IV, dept. III, pp. 13–14; Resolution from 7 Jul. and 12 Aug. 1860 Soulep. Thurs. 1888, part I, page 510. Ibid., vol. III, p. 566; Wed page 551. Ibid., vol. supplement., p. 465. Ibid., vol. V, part 2, p. 925: cf. vol. IV, pp. 328 and 267. Ibid., vol. V, part 1, p. 407. Ibid., vol. V, part 1, pp. 79–80, 156; vol. V, part 2, pp. 595, 591–592; vol. IV, pp. 512–513, etc. Assembled. opinion and review Vol. IV, p. 329 and Vol. III, p. 529, cf. Vol. V, Part I, pp. 497–498, Vol. IV, pp. 330. Ibid., vol. IV, pp. 462–470. Assembled. opinion and review vol. IV, pp. 468–469. Assembled. opinion and review vol. V, part 2, page 601. VII. Ibid., vol. supplement, p. 465. Assembled. opinion and review vol. IV, pp. 465–468. Assembled. opinion and review Vol. IV. pp. 462–465. Ibid., vol. V, part I. p. 495. About this “mutual harmony” between the church and the state in Russia, as one of the most important grounds for the assistance of the church by the state in the fight against schism, see also in Collected. opinion, and opinion, vol. V, part 2. pp. 556 and 605. Ibid., vol. IV, p. 469. In another case, Philaret calls Orthodox kings “external bishops of the church,” Letter Phil. to A. N. Golitsin. Work. Kyiv. Spirit. Academician 1868, part II, p. 187. Collection opinion and review t, IV. page 469. Letter from M. Philaret to Ave. Joseph of Orenburg (later Voronezh). Thurs. General Love. 1871 No. 9, p. 41. Collected. opinion and review vol. II, p. 70. Assembled. opinion and review vol. V, part 2. p. 594. Ibid., vol. V, part 2, p. 605; Vol. III. page 293. Ibid., vol. III, p. 529. Assembled. opinion and review vol. III, p. 255; Wed vol. IV, p. 272. Assembled. opinion and review t, IV, p. 10. Ibid., vol. supplement., p. 462. Assembled. resolution regarding the schism, pp. 545–546 and 556. resolution. 24 Apr and 15 Oct. 1858; see also collected. opinion and review M. Philaret, vol. V, part 2. pp. 599–600. Letters from M. Filaret to A. N. Muravyov, p. 532. Letters from M. Filaret to Archbishop. Tversk Alexy, page 170. Read General love 1878 dept. III, p. 13. Letters from M. Filaret, Archbishop. Anthony, vol. III, p. 372. Assembled. opinion and review vol. V, part 2. pp. 604–605. Letter from M. Philaret to ob.-pr. Holy Synod to Akhmatov, dated February 20. 1864 Letters from M. F. Vysoch. Special vol. II, p. 230. Collection opinion and review vol. IV, p. 47. It was carried out in a note by Moskov. military general-gub. Zakrevsky dated February 6. 1849 Rus. Vestn., vol. 156, p. 647. See, for example, extraction from all-subjects. notes min. ext. affairs (Valueva) from 4 Oct. 1863 p. 9. Journal. Committee. 1864 p. 59. Assembled. opinion and review vol. additional, p. 462. Assembled. opinion and review vol. IV, p. 462. Having collected. pl. and from vol. III, p. 296; Wed t. additional page 232. Ibid., vol. III, pp. 251–252. Ibid., vol. IV, pp. 330–331. Ibid., vol. V, part 2, p. 742. Assembled. pl. and review vol. V, part 2, p. 742; Wed Vol. IV. p. 331; vol. V, part 2, p. 874. Ibid., vol. IV, pp. 469–470. Ibid., vol. V, part 2, p. 874. Ibid., p. 331. cf. page 398. See eg. note from gr. Zakrevsky dated March 20, 1855 Rus. West. vol. 156, p. 674. Assembled. pl. and review vol. III, pp. 178; vol. IV, pp. 41, 274; vol. V, part 1, p. 494. Ibid., vol. IV, pp. 300–301. Ibid., vol. V, part 1, p. 494. In the same place, t. will add. pp. 465–466. Assembled. opinion and review vol. II, p. 367, paragraph 5. Letters from M. Filaret to D. G. Bibikov dated August 12, 1853, collected. opinion and review vol. III, p. 330. Ibid., page 533, letter dated August 21. Ibid., vol. IV, p. 300; Wed v. supplement., p. 223; vol. IV, p. 47. Ibid., vol. II, p. 368; Wed Read total love 1877, dept. III, p. 123. Assembled. opinion and review vol. V, part 2, p. 598. Ibid., vol. III, p. 182. Assembled. opinion and review vol. III, pp. 183, and 511–512; vol. II, pp. 266–268. This was the case, for example, in the time of Peter the Great in relation to the Vygov schismatic community, which at that time, under the personal patronage of the Tsar-Transformer, had reached a flourishing state. This was the case in the age of Catherine, when schismatics summoned from abroad settled in vacant places in the south and southeast of Russia and formed strong schismatic communities here. Assembled. resolution according to the schism of 1875, p. 295. Assembled. opinion and review vol. III, p. 529. Ibid., vol. V, part 1, pp. 493–494. Resolution 28 Feb. 1827 Soulep. Read 1876, part II p. 252. Resolution September 3, 1828 Soulep. Read 1875, part III, p. 517. Assembled. opinion and review vol. II, pp. 366–367. Resolution November 6 1833 Soulep. Read 1872, part III, p. 227. Pis. to Rev. Arkady Permsky. Shower. Thurs. 1877, part III, p. 525. Collection opinion and review Vol. II, pp. 369 and Vol. III, pp. 408 and 529. Pis. Filareta to Vel. book Konstantin Nikolaevich in the Collection. to me. and review vol. IV, p. 267. Letter from Filaret to the Minister of State. property M. N. Muravyov. Ibid., p. 414. One of the most characteristic facts in this regard, see the letter of M. Filaret to A. Zakrevsky. Thurs. General loves. 1874, dept. III, p. 14. Soulful. Read 1892, part I, page 146. Soulful. Read 1891, part II, p. 129. Soulful. Read 1888, part I, pp. 378–379 (letter dated September 7, 1861). Soulful. Read 1890, part I, p. 363 – resolution. August 14, 1857; Wed resolution November 14 1830 Shower. Thurs. 1876, part II, p. 123. It is remarkable that in the last resolution he motivates the illegality of electing schismatics to public positions not by existing civil legislation, but by Spiritual Regulations. Assembled. opinion and review vol. II, pp. 367–368. Assembled. regulation according to the schism of 1875, p. 192. General Journal of the Committee 1864, p. 10, § 6. Collection resolution according to the schism of 1875, pp. 348–349; regulation 5 Jan 1845 Assembled. opinion and review vol. V, part 2, pp. 585–586. Ibid., vol. V, part 2, p. 556, VII. Ibid., vol. V, part 2, page 580. Anniversary Collection pp. 259–262. Resolution March 25 1838, Dushep. Read 1883 Part I, p. 126; Wed anniversary collection page 261. Assembled. opinion and review t. additional page 221. Ibid., vol. V. part 2, p. 568. In the same place, t. will add. page 221. Assembled. resolution in terms of coloring page 270. Assembled. opinion and review t. additional pp. 221–222. Assembled. opinion and review t. add. pp. 222–223. Soulful. read 1877, part III, p. 530. Assembled. opinion and review t. add. page 223. Decree Holy Synod of August 7 1836 Jubilee. Collection page 488. Assembled. resolution in terms of coloring book II, pp. 241–242. Assembled. opinion and review vol. V. ch, 2, p. 568. An exception in this case was made only for the sacrament of baptism on the basis, as M. Philaret noted, that “before baptism, a baby does not belong to the schism any more than to the church.” Collection opinion and review t. add. p. 238. § 7. For the views of the Holy Synod on this subject, see Collected. resolution in terms of coloring book II, pp. 252–253. The decree of November 28, 1839 permitted schismatic marriages only in churches of the same faith, but for some dioceses it was later extended to Orthodox churches; eg in 1841 for Vyatka (Collected resolutions on part of the disposition of book II, pp. 380–381), in 1842 – for Orenburg (ibid., pp. 387–388). Assembled. opinion and review vol. V, part 2, p. 568. Ibid., vol. III, p. 21. Details of this case are in the Tver dioceses. led 1882 - unofficial. pp. 577 et seq. Collection opinion and review vol. III, pp. 21–22. Assembled. opinion and review vol. III, pp. 23 and 63–64. Letter from M. Philaret to the Reverend. Arkady Permsky Dushep. Read 1877, part III, p. 530. Assembled. opinion and review vol. III, pp. 21–23. General magazine. Committee 1864 p. 4. Assembled. opinion and review vol. V, part 2, pp. 568–569. Soulful. Read 1877, part III, p. 530. Letters from M. Philaret to Archbishop. Alexy, page 257. It is known that in these rules of 1839, issued regarding priestly step-marriages, the latter were not distinguished from non-priestly marriages, so this circumstance even gave rise to bewilderment in the executive authorities: “from the newly introduced stepmarriages in the priestly step-marriages, says M. Filaret, justice turned its attention to the not new cases of non-priestly marriages and, instead of action, took up bewilderment on the application of this rule to another, but unspecified subject.” (Collected opinions and reviews, supplementary page 223). In the new Highest command of April 11. 1840 (Collected resolutions on the part of the settlement, pp. 582–584), published to resolve these perplexities, there was no distinction, however, as was done subsequently, when the rules of 1839 extended to other provinces. Finally, in other cases, the decree of 1839 was directly applied to non-priest marriages, for example. in 1841 - to the Novocherkassk Bespopovites. (Collected rulings on part of the layout, book II, pp. 381–384), in 1842 - to the Riga (Collected rulings on part of the layout, pp. 311), which is to say directly that the government did not believe there was any difference between these and other marriages. Assembled. opinion and review t. additional page 222. Assembled. opinion and review vol. V, part 2, pp. 555–556. We took these words from one classification of schismatic sects. It is remarkable that dividing all schisms in this classification into two categories, more and less harmful, M. Filaret classifies the schismatics of the non-priests who accept marriages into the first category, i.e. among the more harmful, and in the second place only priests who perform marriages through priests. From this we can partly judge what a low opinion he had of priestless marriages. Assembled. opinion and review t. additional p. 224, § 7. Resolution May 6, 1854 Soulep. Read 1890 III part p. 293; also a resolution. November 15, 1856 Soulep. Read 1886, part I. pp. 133–134. Assembled. opinion and review t. additional pp. 111–112. Soulful. Read 1886 Part I, p. 133. Assembled. opinion and review t. additional page 112. Resolution May 6, 1854 Soulep. Read 1890, part III, p. 293. Assembled. opinion and review Vol. IV. page 330, § 6. Moscow. diocesan Gazette, 1870 No. 32, p. 3, cf. Collection resolution regarding the schism, pp. 173–174. Resolution May 20, 1832 Jubilee. collection page 260. Resolution 11–30 Oct. 1846 Soulep. Read 1886, part I. pp. 388–389. Collected opinions. and review Vol. IV. p. 337. This rule, however, was not included in the “instructions.” Ibid., vol. V. part 2, p. 569. § 2. Assembled. resolution regarding the schism, book. II, pp. 83–84. Assembled. resolution regarding the split. p. 148. High. led July 7, 1835 Assembled. opinion and review t. add. pp. 609–611. Anniversary Collection pp. 156–157. Resolution 28 Dec 1832 Read. total loves. spirit. enlightenment 1878 dept. III, p. 130. Assembled. resolution regarding the schism, p. 258; The highest command of March 17, 1839. Assembled. opinion and review vol. II, pp. 373–374. Assembled. opinion and review vol. III, p. 63. Assembled. opinion and review vol. II, p. 373. Expression of the Committee of 1864 See General. zhur. Committee page 5. Prof. Ivanovsky points to one case that was carried out in the Kazan consistory as factual proof of this. Right Interview. 1875 Part I, pp. 67–68. Assembled. resolution regarding the schism, book. II, pp. 352–353. Assembled. resolution regarding the schism, pp. 672 et seq. Assembled. opinion and review vol. V. Part 2. pp. 580–581. Assembled. opinion and review vol. V. part 2. p. 581. Magazine. committee, p. 53. rights. 13. Assembled. opinion and review vol. V. part 2. p. 582. Assembled. opinion and review Vol. V. Part 2, p. 582. Assembled. opinion and review Vol. II. pp. 452, 6. Assembled. resolution regarding the schism, p. 69. Ibid., p. 158; resolution 17 Jan 1836 Ibid., pp. 203–204; resolution 4 Apr. 1837 Ibid., p. 263; resolution May 5, 1839 Assembled. opinion and review vol. II, p. 452. § § 2 and 4. Assembled. opinion and review vol. II, p. 453, § 8. Assembled. opinion and review t. add. pp. 367–368. Assembled. resolution regarding the schism, p. 505. The Nicholas government avoided special forms of information about schismatics, “so that, as stated in the Highest command regarding this, it would not give them (the schismatics) any reason to think that their lawless life is being clothed in legal form before a civil court, like the Orthodox, who use it through metrics.” Ibid., p. 286; (decreed April 11, 1840). Assembled. opinion and review vol. V. part 2. p. 583, §2. “The peasant does not have a watch,” says M. Filaret; and the question of the hour, especially of a long winter night, will not be resolved for him.” Assembled. opinion review vol. V, part 2, p. 585, § 1. It is remarkable that the schismatics themselves, when submitting petitions for permission to open their own schools, motivated this petition, among other things, by the desire to “eradicate” “fanaticism and exclusivity” in their midst. (General. Journal. Commiss. 1875, p. 36). “But this is the same identity of means and ends,” says the professor. Ivanovsky, expressed from two opposite sides, makes us assume some kind of underlying misunderstanding. After all, one cannot, in fact, agree that schismatics pursue the eradication of even “exclusivity”, in other words, desiring a merger with the Orthodox? An official note on the granting of rights and freedom to schismatics in the performance of worship. Wanderer 1887 vol. III, p. 658. Assembled. opinion and review vol. II, p. 365. Assembled. resolution regarding the schism, p. 142; order on March 14. Right there. page 112. order May 14, 1832. General Journal of the Committee, p. 10; conclusion 9. Assembled. opinion and review vol. V, part 2. p. 586. VIII. § 1. Committee Journal, p. 46. Official note. Wanderer, 1887 vol. III. page 662. Committee journal. pp. 46–47. Assembled. opinion and review vol. V. 2. p. 586; VIII, § 2. Committee Journal, pp. 42–43. Assembled. opinion and review vol. V. part 2. p. 587. Collection of Kelsiev, vol. I, p. 14. History of the schism by Rev. Makaria, page 273. Assembled. opinion and review vol. V. ch, 2, p. 587. This charter was published in the “Collection of resolutions regarding the split that took place in the Ministry of Internal Affairs,” St. Petersburg. 1875 pp. 628–629, resolution 4 Feb. 1866. Soulful. Read 1872 Part I pp. 222–224; Wed letter to the Reverend Leonid (vicar) was assembled. opinion and review vol. V, part 2, pp. 875–876. General Journal of the Commission of 1875, p. 37. Here, on pp. 35–36, the petitions of the schismatics are also placed. Committee Journal, pp. 43–47. Assembled. opinion and review vol. V. part 2. p. 588. IX. The main points of this denunciation, as well as a detailed consideration of them by M. Philaret, are found in the latter’s letters to Metropolitan. Novgorod. Gregory. Collection opinion and review vol. II, pp. 154–164. Assembled. opinion and review Vol. V. 2 p. 589. Committee Journal, pp. 46–47. Assembled. opinion and review vol. V. part 2. pp. 589–590. Assembled. opinion and review vol. V, part 2, p. 590. Assembled. resolution according to hours 1875, p. 69. Ibid., p. 89; High led Aug 19 1826 Ibid., p. 88; handwritten resolution Sovereign Aug 17 1826 Ibid., p. 92; resolution 5 Jul. 1827 Assembled. opinion and review vol. II, pp. 368–369. Assembled. resolution according to hours 1875, p. 194; resolution 13 Feb 1837 Assembled. opinion and review vol. IV, p. 330, paragraph 5. Ibid., vol. III, p. 408, paragraph 15. Ibid., vol. supplement., p. 388. Anniversary Collection, pp. 257–258; Wed Filaret's letters to Moscow. military Governor General D.V. Golitsin in Reading. General loves. 1873 dept. III, pp. 4–8. Anniversary Collection, pp. 258–259; Wed Filaret's letters to D.V. Golitsin and to Moskov. citizen governor G. M. Bezobrazov in Reading. General loves. 1873, dept. III, pp. 8–11. Read in general loves. spirit. enlightenment 1876 ​​dept. III, p. 123. There is also a letter (dated August 31, 1849) to Count Zakrevsky, another Moscow military governor-general, in which M. Filaret brings to the attention of this governor “for his consideration and order” about the effect of a schism in the village of Turaeva (Bronnitsky district) by hanging a bell at the chapel. Soulful. Reading, 1890, part III, p. 284. Pis. from 31 Dec. 1834 Thu. in general love spirit. enlightenment 1870 book. XI, dept. 2, page 9. Pis. from 21 Apr. 1835 Thu. in general love d. enlightenment 1870 book. XI, dept. II, p. 10. Assembled. opinion and review. vol. V, part 2, p. 391. Assembled. regulation regarding the schism, page 588. It should be noted that in the original edition of the “Instructions” there was no such paragraph; it was introduced thanks to the insistence of M. Philaret. See Collection of Opinions and Reviews, vol. IV, p. 337. Collected, opinion. and review. vol. V, part 2, p. 591. Soulful. Read 1888 Part III, pp. 377–378. Letter to Prince S. N. Urusov; Assembled. opinion and review. vol. V, part 2, pp. 376–378, 609; also in letters. to Vysoch. Special Part II, p. 305. General Journal of the Committee, page 7. According to the testimony of the then Minister of the Interior, based on the approximately correct information available in the ministry, there were then up to 222 open schismatic prayer houses in the Empire. Journal Committee, page 59. Zhur. Committee p. 62; Wed page 7. Right there. In Bogorodsky district, there is a total of one Orthodox church for every 1,682 Orthodox souls, and one schismatic chapel for every 1,196 schismatic souls. True, it should be noted that the statistics of M. Philaret are based on the list of 1826 and can only be accepted if his guess is correct that the decline in chapels (destroyed due to dilapidation or closed) is equal to those built illegally since that time. Assembled. opinion and review. vol. V, part 2, page 592. Committee Journals 1864 p. 62; Wed page 7: “public buildings.” Assembled. opinion and review vol. V, part 2, p. 592. Assembled. opinion and review. vol. V part 2, p. 593. Assembled. opinion and review. vol. V, part 2, p. 594. Assembled. opinion and review vol. V, part 2, p. 602. Assembled. opinion and review. vol. V, part 2, page 6; Wed his letter to ob.-proc. A. P. Akhmatov. Sending him his opinion, he writes: “some remarks, such as, for example, about the construction of schismatic churches and chapels, were written not in the sense of complete agreement, but in case of need for concession.” Pis, to Vysoch. Special Part II, p. 255. Assembled. opinion and review. vol. V, part 2. p. 607. In the same place, t. additional. page 465. Assembled. to me. and review. vol. IV, pp. 346–347. Notes of Sushkov, page 184. Journal Committee pp. 12 and 63. Assembled. opinion and review. vol. V, part 2, p. 107. What was taken from the schismatic chapel was considered the property of the chapel and, due to the general principle of not recognizing the schismatic community, it was all taken away and not returned to the schismatics. See resolution. Phil. 30 Jun 1858 Soulep. Thurs. 1882, part II, p. 238. Pis. Filar. to A. N. Golitsyn. Shower. Thurs. 1800, part I, page 121. Ibid., part III, pp. 461–462. Ibid., 1890, part III, p. 292. Ibid., 1882 III, p. 128 – resolution. May 3, 1860 Ibid., 1890 I, p. 360 – resolution. 24 Jul. 1858 Ibid., 1890, part V, p. 477 – resolution. March 29, 1855 The register contains a legend taken from one manuscript about the conversion of Loggin the centurion and the miraculous deliverance of Joseph Arimatheus from prison. Vladyka noted in the margins: “from the apocrisy. ate Nick.", i.e. from the Epocryphal Gospel of Nicodemus. Shower. Thurs. 1890, part III, p. 140 – resolution. March 20, 1854 Ibid., p. 141, – resolution. 4 Dec. 1854; gr. resolution Apr 30 1853. Ibid., p. 292. Ibid., 1891, part II, p. 438 – resolution. 26 Sep. 1845 Ibid., 1890, part III, p. 464 – resolution. 13 Sep. 1850 Soulful. Read 1890, part III, p. 464 – resolution. 13 Sep. 1850. The underlined words were written by the Metropolitan himself. Soulful. Read 1890, part II, pp. 477–478 – resolution. 22 Dec 1854 and 17 Aug. 1855 Ibid., 1891, part I, p. 183 – resolution. July 28, 1845 There, - resolution. 24 Dec 1845 Letter from Filaret to Moscow. citizen governor I. V. Kapnista. Soulful. Read 1890, part II, pp. 474–475. Resolution July 3, 1852. Ibid., 1891, part II, p. 439. Resolution 1 November 1846. Ibid., 1892, part II, p. 289. However, M. Filaret did not always follow this rule. See his letter to A. Zakrevsky. Soulful. Read 1879, part III, page 518. Letter to A. Zakrevsky. Ibid., 1890, part III, p. 283. Resolution Oct 17 1854. Ibid., p. 648. Assembled. resolution regarding the schism, p. 68. Assembled. opinion and review. t. additional page 230. Of course, the committee that we mentioned earlier (pp. 2 and 145), and information about which we find in Metropolitan Philaret, and not the committee of 1825, as noted in the note to this place in the Collection of Opinions and Reviews of Metropolitan Philaret. Assembled. opinion and review vol. IV, pp. 270–271. The journal of this meeting was preserved in the papers of M. Philaret and published in Dush. Readings for 1883, part II, pp. 354–365. Soulful. Read for 1883, part II, p. 359 § 7. This matter is set out in the Synodal Resolutions regarding the schism, book. II, pp. 171–174. Assembled. opinion, and review. vol. IV, countries. 271. Assembled. opinion and review, etc. page 231. Ibid., vol. IV, pp. 271–272. Assembled. opinion and review. vol. II, pp. 163–164. Assembled. resolution regarding the schism, pp. 90–91. Assembled. opinion and review. vol. III, p. 255. Assembled. resolution on the schism, pp. 199–203. Assembled. opinion review. vol. II, pp. 460–461. Assembled. opinion and review. vol. II, pp. 461–462. The letter from which we borrow information related to this matter was published in Read. in general love d. enlightenment." 1873 dept. III, pp. 11–13. See Pis. Filar. to Rev. Vicar Innokenty dated December 12. 1828 “The Smolensk governor, Filaret writes here, the minister forced to expel our fugitive banned priest: tell the consistorists to seriously think about what to do with this desperate one. The weak actions of the authorities in relation to the fugitive priests did a lot of harm to the church and a lot of profit to the schismatic elders.” Assembled. fast. regarding the schism, p. 95 of the resolution. 8 Nov 1827 In 1834 (Jan. 4), a new Imperial decree was issued regarding the Rogozhskoye cemetery, which prohibited the temporary stay of fugitive priests coming from other places at the Rogozhskoye cemetery, and even more so their performance of worship and spiritual needs here. (Ibid., p. 123). Ibid., p. 111. The order regarding the Perm province also took place in 1827. See Varadinov, page 209. Assembled. regulation regarding the schism, pp. 110–111, post. 31 Jan Ibid., pp. 138 and 144, regulation. 24 Dec 1834 and 2 April 1835 Assembled. opinion and review vol. II, p. 369. Assembled. fast. according to hours p. 194; fast. 13 Feb 1837 This petition was published by Melnikov in “Historical Sketches of Priesthood” (Russian Vestn. 1866, vol. 63, pp. 40–46). This petition also speaks of previous petitions of the Moscow Old Believers on this subject. The history of these petitions is outlined based on archival data in Nadezhdin’s article - “The Elders of the Ekaterinburg schismatic society.” Brother. Word of 1889 vol. II, pp. 741–763. Brother. Word 1889 vol. II, pp. 746–749. True, two of these priests managed to hide in advance and were never found anywhere afterwards. So, at least, the elders of the Yekaterinburg society themselves testified in their district letter to “Christians of various volosts and villages.” Assembled. opinion and review. vol. II, p. 264. The history of these petitions is outlined by Melnikov in “Historical Sketches of Priesthood” (Russian Vestn. vol. 51, pp. 23–43) and indicated above. Art. Nadezhdin (Brother Slovo 1889, vol. II, pp. 673–689). Assembled. opinion and review vol. II, p. 406. Letter of 15 Ekaterinburg merchants - from Melnikov Russk. Vestn. vol. 51, p. 21. So the Right Reverend Justin himself testified to this in the letter of recommendation he gave to Ryazanov. Brother. Word 1889 vol. 2, p. 679; Wed Russian Vestn. vol. 51, p. 26. Russian Vestn. vol. 51, pp. 28–29. Assembled. opinion and review vol. II, p. 405. Brother. Word 1889 vol. II, p. 751. Arch. Palladium. Review of the Perm Schism, pp. 64–65. Assembled. opinion and review vol. II, pp. 260 and 261. Assembled. opinion and review t, II, pp. 260–266 – opinion dated February 18. 1829 Assembled. opinion and review vol. II, p. 262. This particular Kitaev is mentioned in a letter from M. Philaret to the Reverend Arkady. Letters from M. Philaret to Vys. Special Part I, p. 95. Even earlier than this, some of the Ekaterinburg schismatics, such as. schismatics from the Kaufman factories submitted requests to the government for priests independent of the spiritual authorities, but were refused. Brother. Word. 1889 vol. II, pp. 749–730. Brother. Word. 1880 vol. II, pp. 752–754. Russian Vestn. vol. 51, p. 43, note. Brother. Word. 1889 vol. II, p. 755. Collection opinion and review vol. II, pp. 402–407 – opinion dated February 23. 1838 Collection pl. and review vol. II, pp. 406–407. Collection fast. regarding the split in St. Petersburg. 1875, pp. 218–222. Letters from M. Philaret the Highest. esp., part I, pp. 96–97. We learn about this request of the Ekaterinburg Old Believers and its content exclusively from M. Philaret’s letter to Protasov, in which the said request is considered. Collection pl. and review vol. III, pp. 94–98. There were probably other similar harassment against priests independent of the diocesan authorities; Varadinov has, for example, an indication of a similar request from the St. Petersburg priests (see Historical Min. Internal Affairs, part VIII, p. 399). Russian Vestn. 1881, v. 156, p. 642. – Article by N. Petrov “Cases about the Moscow Old Believers a quarter of a century ago”, from which article we will borrow further information on this issue. Assembled. opinion and review vol. III, pp. 303–304. Ibid., add.; pp. 224–234. By this time, i.e. dated March 29, 1848, there is another note by M. Philaret on the issue of Old Believer priests independent from the spiritual authorities (ibid., vol. III, pp. 251–256). For what reason it was written we do not know. It is only known that it was presented by the Moscow saint in the same year to the St. Petersburg Secret Committee (See the note to this note in the collection of copies and reviews, vol. III, p. 256). Due in part to this uncertainty of its origin, and mainly to the fact that it was included in its entirety, almost without any changes, in one of the subsequent opinions of the Moscow Metropolitan on this issue, we consider it unnecessary to dwell on it. Letters from M. Philaret to the architect. Anthony, vol. II, p. 497. Assembled. pl. and review vol. III, pp. 285 and 251. Subsequently, M. Filaret mentioned the filing of this petition. Assembled. pl. and review vol. IV, p. 46. See note from Count Zakrevsky dated February 6, 1849 Russian. Vestn. vol. 156, p. 648. “Rules of the Old Believers of the priestly consent on the reception of the priesthood. Read total history and ancient 1870 book. 1 department V, pp. 194–195. The author of this petition is Pavel Dm. Fomin, Moscow merchant, who later joined Edinoverie. The date placed under this petition shows that it was written March 20, 1847; but whether it was submitted at this time, nothing is known about this. It is very possible that the schismatics, having learned that the issue they were interested in had been raised on the initiative of the government itself, temporarily postponed submitting this prepared petition, and submitted it when they learned that the solution to the issue was heading in a direction favorable to them. Comparing this point of the Old Believers' request with the remark of M. Philaret in his note dating back to the end of 1849, where he almost verbatim repeats this condition of the Old Believers about the procedure for legal proceedings over their clergy (collection of plural and ot. III, p. 287), we find new reason to think that this is precisely a petition, or at least very close in content to him, and was served by the Rogozh Old Believers at the indicated time. In its entirety, this note by Count Zakrevsky is given in Russk. West. vol. 156, pp. 647–630; see also collection. pl. and review vol. 111, pp. 300–301. Assembled. opinion and review vol. III, p. 301. Letters from Metropolitan Philaret Anthony, part 2, pp. 489–490. Assembled. opinion and review vol. III, pp. 285–298. Assembled. opinion and review vol. III, p. 304. The journal of this meeting of the Moscow Committee was preserved in the papers of M. Filaret and published in Sobran. pl. and review vol. III, pp. 299–303. Letters of M. Philaret to Anthony, part 2, page 497. Ibid., p. 8; Wed vol. III, p. 551. Collection resolution by part. split. St. Petersburg. 1875, p. 491. Assembled. pl. and review Vol. IV, p. 10. Russian Vestn. Part 156, pp. 671–672. Russian Vestn. Part 156, page 674. Collection regulation according to the split. St. Petersburg. 1875 p. 500, – regulation. 17 Apr 1855 Collection pl. and review vol. IV, p. 13, where M. Filaret, even before the schismatics submitted petitions, informed the Holy Synod about the sending of agents by the Rogozh schismatics to the Bogorodsky district. Ibid., vol. IV, pp. 46–47. The author’s assumption of the article is “From the History of the Rogozh Cemetery” - Brother. Word 1891 vol. II, p. 462, note. 2nd. Collection pl. and review vol. IV, p. 38. Brother. Word 1891 vol. II, p. 463. Russian Vestn. Part 156, page 688. Assembled. regulation regarding the split. St. Petersburg. 1875, p. 515. Assembled. pl. and review vol. IV, p. 275. Assembled. pl. and review vol. IV, pp. 275–276. Russian Vestn. 1881 Part 156, pp. 692–669. Russian Vestn. 1881 vol. 156, pp. 697–698. Letters to Anthony, part IV, p. 137. Collection regulation according to the split. St. Petersburg. 1875, p. 537. Resolution. 20 Jan. 1858 § 2. Russian Vestn. 1881, part 156, page 699. Based on the opinion of M. Philaret dated March 19, 1858 (Collected copies and reviews, vol. IV, pp. 309–311), one can think that he knew a copy of the committee’s journals. See Collection. pl. and review vol. IV, p. 276. Collection pl. and review vol. IV, pp. 269–284 – opinion dated Oct. 27. 1857 It is remarkable that Melnikov, in his note on the Russian schism, compiled specifically for the chairman of the committee, Prince Konstantin Nikolaevich, allowed the same confusion of the priestly schism with the same faith; between the one and the other he believed “absolutely no difference.” See this note from Melnikov in issue I. Collection of Kelsiev; indicated location on page 197. Assembled. opinion and review vol. IV, p. 292. Collection pl. and from vol. IV, p. 306; Letters to Anthony, vol. IV, p. 137. Assembled. pl. and review vol. IV, pp. 309–311. Also known from 1858 (April 7) is a letter from M. Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod regarding the issue being considered in the St. Petersburg Committee. (Collected plurals and reviews, vol. IV, pp. 316–318). In one of the meetings of this committee, in order to reconcile the differences between its spiritual and secular members, it was proposed, as an average measure, to give the schismatics priests subordinate directly to the Holy Synod, i.e. in the position of the court and army clergy (Russian Vest. part 156, p. 699, note) It is this project that the Moscow Metropolitan objects to in the aforementioned letter to the chief prosecutor. Assembled. regulation according to the split. St. Petersburg. 1873 p. 545. Letters from M. Philaret to the Reverend. Alexey, pp. 183–184. Collection pl. and review vol. II, p. 265. Assembled. pl. and reviews, vol. IV, pp. 309–310. Ibid., vol. III, pp. 252 and 288. Collection pl. and review, vol. IV, pp. 282–283. Ibid., vol. III, p. 287. Collection pl. and review, vol. additional, p. 236. Ibid; vol. III, p. 287. The only exception, it seems, was Count Zakrevsky, who, as we have seen, in one of the official notes on this issue categorically denied the very existence of a correction of fugitive priests among the schismatics. Ibid; Wed vol. III, p. 251. Collection pl. and review vol. II, p. 405; compare t. additional pp. 236–237. Ibid., vol. III, pp. 287–288. Assembled. pl. and review, vol. supplement., pp. 236–237. Ibid., vol. III, p. 288. Ibid; compare Vol. II, 405, § 6. Ibid., vol. 111, p. 288. Ibid., vol. supplement., p. 497. Ibid., vol. III, pp. 252 and 288; Wed t. additional page 497. Ibid., vol. III, p. 289. Collection pl. and ot.. vol. III, p. 289; Wed Vol. IV. pp. 270 and 271. Assembled. pl. and review, vol. IV, p. 291. Ibid., vol. III, p. 290. Collection pl. and review, vol. III, p. 253. Ibid., vol. III, p. 291. Ibid., vol. III, pp. 252–253 and 290. In the same place, t. will add. page 489. Collection pl. and review vol. III, p. 252. Ibid., Wed, vol. III, p. 97; vol. IV, p. 284. Collection pl. and reviews, vol. III, pp. 290 and 253; Wed vol. II, p. 406. Ibid., vol. II, p. 406; Wed vol. IV, p. 284. Collection pl. and reviews, vol. III, pp. 291 and 253. Ibid., vol. IV, pp. 317–318. Collection pl. and reviews, vol. III, p. 98. Ibid., vol. III, p. 304. Collection pl. and reviews, vol. II, p. 403; Wed vol. III, p. 296. Ibid., vol. III, p. 291; Wed vol. supplement., pp. 234 and 487. Collection pl. and reviews, vol. II, pp. 264–265. Ibid., vol. III, p. 296. Collection pl. and reviews, vol. IV, pp. 291–292. Collection pl. and review, vol. IV p. 283. Collection pl. and reviews, vol. III, pp. 254–255, 294–295. Collection pl. and review, vol. III, pp. 253–254. Ibid., vol. III, p. 294. Ibid., vol. III, p. 254. Ibid., vol. supplement., p. 233. Ibid., vol. III; pp. 21–22. Collection pl. and review vol. III, p. 408. Ibid., vol. IV, pp. 292–294. Collection pl. and review vol. III, p. 397. In the same place, t. will add. p. 233; Wed page 504. This information was received by the government through N.I. Nadezhdin, who was informed about this by his foreign correspondents. See his note on this subject, submitted in 1845 to the Minister of Internal Affairs Perovsky, in Russk. Archives of 1872 pp. 441–444. Reverend Gabriel, earlier than others, learned about all this from Nadezhdin himself, who on his way abroad stopped in Ryazan, saw Gabriel there and “confidentially” revealed the said information to him. See letter from Rev. Gabriel to the archbishop. Kherson Innokenty in “Materials for the biography of Innokenty Borisov”, collected by N. Barsov, vol. 2, page 17. Read total history and ancient 1868 book. 2, dept. V, page 183. Nadezhdin’s note is included in issue I. Collection Kelsieva, pp. 75–137; specified place on countries. 110. Collection pl. and review vol. III, p. 231. Collection Kelsieva, vol. I page 139. Ibid., vol. I, pp. 152–153; issue II, 293–296. Report dated April 10. 1847 in collection pl. and review vol. III, pp. 231–232. Collection pl. and review vol. III, pp. 233–234. Assembled. resolution regarding the schism, St. Petersburg. 1860 book. II, pp. 436–443. Shower floor. read 1877, part III, p. 531. Assembled. resolution according to the split. St. Petersburg 1875, pp. 379–380 – Highest command of 11 September. 1847; see also resolution. special secret committee of May 23, 1853 Russian. Vestn. 1881 vol. 156, p. 658. Assembled. resolution according to the split. St. Petersburg 1875, p. 378 – High. order of May 13, 1847 Right there. About the arrest of some of these foreigners in Varadinov, pp. 587–588, in Kelsiev in the first issue, pp. 145–148. Details about the arrest and interrogation of Gerontius, abbot of the Belokrinitsky monastery, in Reading. total ist. and ancient 1871 book IV. Assembled. resolution according to the split. St. Petersburg 1875, p. 364. Collection Kelsieva, vol. I page 145. Probably, this refers to the trip to Belaya Krinitsa by Rogozhsky deputies – Vasily Borisov and Fyodor Zhigarev. For a description of this trip, see Russian. Vestn. 1864 vol. 50, pp. 42–78. Assembled. opinion and review vol. supplement., pp. 228–229. Assembled. opinion and review vol. III, p. 337. Ibid., pp. 336–337 – letter from Count Zakrevsky to M. Filaret. Letters to Antony, vol. III, p. 133. Assembled. pl. and review vol. III, pp. 337–338. Letters to Antony, vol. III, p. 167. Here, obviously, of course, is the later so famous Moscow Bishop Anthony Shutov, promoted by Metropolitan Kirill on February 3, 1833 “to the bishop of the city of Vladimir.” Collection pl. and review vol. III, p. 566. Assembled. resolution regarding the split. St. Petersburg 1875 p. 496 – High. pov – December 15, 1854 Assembled. resolution according to the split. St. Petersburg 1875 pp. 493–494 – The highest order of August 9, 1834. For information about Mozzhakov’s energetic activities, see Art. - “From the history of the Rogozhsky cemetery.” Brother. Word 1891 vol. II; pp. 452–454. Monastyrev. “Historical. sketch of the Austrian priesthood after Ambrose." Kazan, 1877, p. 51. If you believe Shvetsov, the biographer of Anthony Shutov, then this latter in the first two years of his ministry (1853–1854) appointed more than fifty priests. Brother. Word 1883, p. 219. Assembled. pl. and review vol. IV, pp. 10–11. How, indeed, it was difficult for the people of the Austrian hierarchy at that time, especially the false bishops, from police persecution, in what wanderings and concealments they were forced to spend their lives, can be partly seen from the same biography of Anthony Shutov. Bp. Word. 1883, pp. 155–160, 212–219. Assembled. pl. and review vol. IV, pp. 6–7. Assembled. pl. and review vol. IV, p. 12. Letter from Rev. Arkady dated March 2, 1855 Read. total loves. spiritual education, 1878, dept. III, p. 219. Letter to A.I. Karasevsky dated March 7, 1855. Collected. pl. and review IV vol., pp. 7–11. Brother. Word 1891, vol. II, p. 463. See the report of the caretaker of the Rogozhsky cemetery, Longinova, gr. Zakrevsky. Brother. Word 1891, vol. II, p. 628. See the article we have already cited more than once - “From the history of the Rogozhsky cemetery” (Brother Slovo, 1891, Nos. 16–18), where this story is presented very thoroughly, on the basis of documents that are attached to the article, excluding its final moments. There is information about the latter in Petrova’s article, already known to us - “The Cases of the Moscow Old Believers.” Russian Vestn. 1881, part 156, pp. 684–691. All these documents are printed in Brat. Slovo 1891, vol. II, pp. 617–635. Assembled. opinion and review. vol. IV, pp. 79–83. Serbinovich's attitude to the secret committee was published in Brother. Slovo 1891, vol. II, pp. 639–640. For this report, see Brother. Word, pp. 640–646. Russian Vestn. 1881, vol. 156, p. 686. For the progress of the committee's deliberations, see Art. Petrova. – Russian. Vestn. 1881, vol. 156, pp. 686–689; instructions on this subject are also in the Collection. pl. and review vol. V, part 1, page 211. Russian Vestn. 1881, vol. 130, pp. 689–690. Collection pl. and review vol. IV, p. 124. In the same place, pp. 123–124 - a secret order from M. Philaret to the dean of the Edinoverie churches. About these attempts of the Rogozh Old Believers, see Sobrann. pl. and review vol. V, part 1, pp. 210–213; vol. V, part 2, pp. 873 and 977. Russian Vestn. 1881, vol. 136, p. 688. Some information about this investigation is found in letters from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, A.P. Tolstoy. Collection pl. and review vol. IV, pp. 229–233. Russian Vestn., p. 690. M. Filaret testifies in his letters to Tolstoy that Krinin, having been arrested, declared himself a “priest” to his superiors. Assembled. resolution according to the split. St. Petersburg 1875, pp. 547–548. This Highest order to stop the search for the opening of the Austrian clergy was communicated by the Minister of the Interior, according to a new order of the Sovereign on October 2 of the same year, to all ministers and heads of individual parts of the civil administration, as well as to governors general for their own personal information and guidance. Ibid., p. 556. Letters from Rev. Alexy, p. 184 – letter dated July 17, 1858. Assembled. pl. and review vol. IV, p. 512. Ibid., vol. V, part 1, p. 34. Soulful. read 1876 ​​h, I, pp. 272–275. Assembled. pl. and review vol. V, part 2, pp. 669–670. Ibid., vol. V, part I, p. 156. Assembled. pl. and review; vol. IV, pp. 512–513; vol. V, part 2, p. 925; letters to Anthony, part IV, p. 244; letter to the Reverend Evgeniy, Russ. Archive, 1893, book. VI, pp. 173–174. Assembled. opinion and review vol. V, part 2, p. 737. Letters to the Highest. persons, part 2, page 137. Assembled. opinion and review vol. V, part 2, p. 925. Brother. Word 1876, book. 2, p. 137, note. Monastyrev. Historical sketch of the Austrian priesthood, pp. 56–57. So eg. The Perm Old Believers, in their address to the Sovereign, included the following among other requests: “so that our priesthood of the highest and lowest ranks, especially through your merciful patronage, having received permission to remain unrestricted in the Russian kingdom, would be recognized by the local authorities and, freed from the duties of the tax-paying class, would be placed alongside the ministers of the church of other confessions recognized in Russia.” Letters from M. Philaret Vysoch. special part 2. page 233. Collection opinion and review vol. V, part 2, pp. 492–498. Appendix to Gavrilov's index: page 31. Collection opinion and review vol. V, part 1, pp. 494–595. Collection pl. and review, vol. V, part 1. pp. 496–497. Collection pl. and review Vol. V, Part I, pp. 497–498. Ibid., vol. V, part 2, pp. 741–742. Ibid., vol. V, part I, p. 495. Ibid; Wed letters from M. Filaret to Archimandrite. Anthony vol. III, p. 325. Collection opinion and review Vol. V, Part I, pp. 495–496. Journals of the 1864 Committee, pp. 64–65. Collection pl. and review vol. V, part 2, pp. 594–596.