Church-state views of Metropolitan. Philaret on schism and sects

Contents M. Philaret's judgments on religious tolerance and freedom of confession, on the relationship between church and state, on the need to protect the dominant church. Church-state point of view on the schism and the reasons for its persistence. Separation of sects. Means of combating split-sectarianism How should the government deal with heretics and schismatics? M. Philaret’s judgments on religious tolerance and freedom of confession, on the relationship between church and state, on the need to protect the dominant church. Church-state point of view on the schism and the reasons for its persistence His Eminence Metropolitan Philaret has long been recognized as the pillar and affirmation of the Russian Church of his time. His judgments on all issues, not only as wise, valuable information, but also as guiding milestones for the guides of our foggy time, who do not firmly know the straight roads of our church and state history. Nothing is so densely shrouded in our time in the foggy mist of crackling liberalism as questions about measures to combat schism and sects, about other faiths, foreignness, and so on. That is why it seems both timely and useful to look and think about how the great church-state man of his century thought about this. The views of Saint Philaret on the issue of schism and sects and on measures to combat them are closely dependent on his ideas about the degree of harm that the schism and its sects cause to the church-state good, which, in his opinion, has its main support in maintaining the inviolability of the principle of church-state unity in Russia. Expressing his opinion on the question of how schisms and sects should be separated before the law, Metropolitan Philaret, among other things, wrote that “the law should look at schisms and sects partly from an ecclesiastical point of view, because the Orthodox state power must protect the Orthodox faith dominant in the state, but closer from the state point of view, since the state must improve and protect itself 1.” The same conviction of Metropolitan Philaret that the key to the prosperity of the Orthodox Church and the Russian state is the preservation of the principle of church-state unity, also determines Metropolitan Philaret’s general view of religious tolerance, or the measure of religious freedom that can be applied in the Russian state to schism and various heretical sects and factions. Touching upon the question of the relationship of the church to the state, the saint does not examine any legal theories regarding this subject, but considers only that form of the relationship of the church to the state, the practical implementation of which he wanted to see. This form is a close union or, as the saint puts it, unity and harmony 2 of church and state. Metropolitan Philaret recognized such a close union of church and state not only as useful for both sides, but also as most consistent with the essence of the nature of the two institutions - church and state. “Yes, there is benefit,” says the saint in one of his sermons, “when the altar and the throne are united: but not mutual benefit is the first basis of their union, but an independent truth that supports both” 3 . As a consequence of the union with the church, the Christian state, according to Filaret, should have, among its other duties in relation to the church, the duty of protecting and defending the church 4 , then - care for its external welfare 5 and, finally, patronage of it in comparison with other religions 6 . Metropolitan Philaret did not want to see better relations between church and state in Russia either. And since the indicated typical features of the relationship between the state and the church were fully embodied in Russia, Metropolitan Philaret repeatedly expressed his approval of them. “In Russia,” he says, by the grace of God, the Orthodox Church and the state were and were in unity and harmony, not disturbed by any temporarily contradictory views, which the church and state often hinder each other among many other Christian nations.” 7 The only guardian of the harmony and unity of relations between the church and the state in Russia, based on mutual mutual assistance, is, according to the saint, the Sovereign. The attitude of the Sovereign to the church should be that he, as the chosen one and anointed of God, is obliged to be the defender of the church 8. “Russia is the only state in Europe in which both the government and the people fully recognize that “there is no power except from God.” The sovereign receives all his legitimacy from church anointing, from which it follows that the position of the church and its relationship to state power is not similar to the position of churches in Catholic and Protestant states: 9 The Tsar is the natural protector and patron of the Orthodox Church” 10. In a word spoken on the day of the coronation of Emperor Alexander II, M. Philaret thus represents the attitude towards the Church of the Monarch, crowned by God to the kingdom: “Rejoice brightly, Orthodox Church, the saint prayerfully calls, and may your collective prayer of faith, love and gratitude ascend to the throne of the Most High, when He places the seal of his election on the chosen one from His people, as on the longed-for firstborn of your sons, on your faithful and strong defender, on the successor executor of the ancient word about you destinies: kings will be your feeders” (Is. 49:22) 11 The close union of the altar and the throne, the church and the state and the mutual benefit arising from here for both institutions, according to M. Philaret, serves as a sufficient basis for eliminating any thought about putting into practice the principle of complete freedom of religion. Metropolitan Philaret found it inconvenient to apply complete freedom of religion in the church or, as he put it, “excessive religious tolerance” 12. He called the idea of ​​religious tolerance “plausible, but only fair then and its subject and limits are precisely defined” 13. Tolerance, according to Filaret, first of all, is not freedom of propaganda. He defines the nature of Orthodox Christian tolerance as follows: “our church is the one, true, apostolic church; it recognizes all other Christian and philosophical beliefs as schism and heresies. The freedom from now on to convert non-Christian tribes in Russia to one religion or another destroys the basic teaching of the Orthodox, Greek-Russian, Eastern, True Church of Christ: this measure, I will not say tolerance, but unbelief... will strengthen, intensify and again give rise to schisms 14. Tolerance does not mean consent to “all conversions”, not recognition of heresies, but only “the absence of persecution, allowing those of other faiths to remain in their natural religion, to remain stuck in errors: until the light of grace cooks them, whether it is a Quaker or a Jew, a Herrnhuter or a Muslim, a pagan or a pagan” 15. Tolerance, according to the Saint, should be limited by “justice and prudence” 16. The principle that in matters of faith and conscience all coercion must be eliminated... according to the requirements of justice... is subject to exceptions when it concerns a sinful conscience, such as. 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 concerning pagan faith and conscience 17. It is characteristic of Christian meekness 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 show excessive tolerance to evil means to give it a weapon against good 18. “If in the state,” argues M. Filaret, the broadest freedom is limited by law that protects the integrity of the state and the safety of its members; Is it less necessary that freedom of belief be limited by laws protecting the integrity of the church and the safety of its peaceful members” 19 . All of these considerations lead to the idea of ​​protecting the Orthodox faith, which idea, according to M. Philaret, should stand above the thought of religious tolerance and set limits to it 20 . That is why the Saint in 1865 expressed his displeasure that “for many, new euphonious words: freedom of belief, drown out the old strict thought: protection of belief” 21. He considered the preservation of the Orthodox faith on the part of the Orthodox state to be “a fundamental rule that has existed from the beginning” 22. “Since the time of Equal-to-the-Apostles Constantine,” the Metropolitan wrote in 1866 to His Eminence Alexy, later Archbishop of Tver, “state power has protected the world of the church with the stronghold of state laws. Then, when state power weakened in Rome, the popes decided, not content with the defensive help of the state, to act offensively on the state and succeeded in doing too much. Finally, opposition arose, and the states, trying to overthrow the papal yoke, began to destroy the strongholds protecting the church. Those prejudiced in favor of Western education brought such action to places where the church never burdened the state, but always helped it” 23. These are M. Philaret’s judgments about freedom of religion and the protection of the Orthodox faith dominant in Russia. What is a schism according to the views of Metropolitan Philaret, and what is its significance? The modern schism, according to the views of the Moscow Saint, is a church-state phenomenon in its significance, although it was born and grew on church soil. “In former times (he wrote in 1851, in response to a question about the significance of the schism in the Russian state), the schism had a predominantly ecclesiastical significance, and in the eyes of Empress Catherine II, schismatics could still seem more ridiculous or pathetic than dangerous. But at the present time the split is important mainly in civil terms. In both respects, he is a “disease”, “evil”, “ulcer”, constantly spreading more and more and requiring urgent and serious treatment 25. But what should be considered most condemning and harmful in schismatics is their alienation from the church and their rebellious disposition against it 26 . For what is schism from a church point of view? A deferred, damaged branch of the dominant religion, to which all schismatics previously completely belonged in their ancestors 27 ; “a society of people which, as a result of long-standing discord and intensely refined doubts about the universal Orthodox Church, has alienated itself from the universal Orthodox Church” 28. Having broken the union with the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and being quite rightly rejected by it for this, “the schismatics decided to create some other one, the foundation and supports of which would be fugitives of the priesthood and self-appointed mentors, never dedicated to anyone.” Thus, the existing churches are schismatic - “self-willed and self-made sentiments, erected in hostility to the Orthodox Church, the gates of hell, stopped to deceive the ignorant with a small semblance of the church” 29 . – With this nature, a schism is obviously a great evil, since it holds in its networks “thousands of unfortunates, alienating them from the church that leads to salvation” 30, which every deeply religious person should deeply regret. But the even greater evil of the schism lies, according to Filaret, in its attitude towards the Orthodox Church. Born from disobedience to her and from enmity with her, the schism hates her to this day, as in the first time of its existence. This hatred is expressed, among other things, in the names that schismatics give to the Orthodox Church: they call it “Nikon’s,” “heretic” and “Antichrist.” The main reason for this hatred is that the self-created schismatic churches transfer their main property - a graceless state - to the Orthodox Church and strive to take its place as the true and Christish church - this is an audacious cherished dream. Hence the intensified, completely windowless propaganda of the schism among the Orthodox, without which the schism might have ceased to exist long ago. Thus, Orthodoxy and schism, by their very essence, are so opposed to each other that the existence and growth of one can only occur at the expense and to the detriment of the other 31 . In this regard, “the schism,” says Metropolitan Philaret, “cannot compare with the confessions tolerated in Russia: they do not concern the indigenous Russian Orthodox population. On the contrary, schismatics, in the spirit of their proselytism, never distinguish themselves from the Orthodox. That is why there are a significant number of people wavering between Orthodoxy and schism” 32. Such an exceptional nature of the schism, hostile towards the Orthodox Church, as well as all its harm to Orthodoxy, is clearly revealed, in the opinion of Metropolitan Philaret, in the methods of its spread. The schism, in his opinion, is spreading more and more not because of any of its internal merits, but because, in part, the soil for its development is very favorable among the poorly educated Orthodox people, and most importantly because for many, its networks are either very temptingly beneficial or the fight against it is unbearable. “The schism does not have the mind and feeling to live by them,” and in schismatics in general “it is not enough to have the strength of religious conviction, since the power of reasoning is little revealed and educated in it.” The “wild plant of self-inflicted ignorance” is a schism in its origin and currently holds on and feeds on ignorance. “With their own ignorance, schismatics take advantage of the ignorance of the Orthodox to seduce them into schism,” since “for an illiterate peasant, two words are enough: “old faith” to seduce him from the church path. Refuting these words is not so simple, and therefore it is not so easy to make an impression” 33. This explains that “between the peasants and the bourgeoisie, and especially their wives, there are many who maintain a split; but among the merchants and especially the young, very few believe in the schism, but remain in it either because of benefits, or because of inclinations towards self-will, permitted by their false beliefs, or out of fear of persecution by the most powerful elders 34. The last method - forcibly keeping former adherents in schism - is very often practiced by the leaders of a schismatic community. “There are many unfortunates,” says Philaret, who, through the cunning of their leaders, become stagnant in ignorance and depravity and alienation 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 elders, who rule them despotically 35 . Thanks to this power of embittered leaders weighing down on the schismatic multitude, it happens that “many, especially those who have little power, do not dare to reveal their disposition towards the Church, although they have it 36. But the main support of the split, according to Filaret, is, again, monetary power. “Money, money-bought patronage, worldly benefits, the domination of rich schismatics, freedom and impunity for crimes” 37 - these, in addition to ignorance, are other, even stronger and more reliable “supports” of the schism, replacing the fanaticism by which it initially lived and which has weakened significantly over time” 38. These “supports” of the schism are so effective that “the knowledge and zeal of the clergy are waging” a “futile struggle” against them, just as all government activities are completely paralyzed by them. The most stubborn, bitter, harmful elements in the schism are the “leaders,” “elders,” or “horse guides,” as well as the schism teachers. The most important of its supports are the public institutions of schismatics with enormous capital and real estate, the first place among which, in terms of their wealth and enormous influence on almost all of Russia, is undoubtedly occupied by two Moscow official charitable institutions, and, in common parlance, the Rogozhskoye and Preobrazhenskoye cemeteries. – Caring least of all about the truth, the leaders of the schism stubbornly remain stuck in it “solely for 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” 39. At the same time, for them there is another “charm” in the schism, which they cannot expect from the Orthodox Church, as alien to it, this is “independent and republican arbitrariness in church affairs.” Their priests and fathers, for the most part not strong in understanding and virtue, are always unquestioning executors of their will, since they are completely dependent on them financially and are elected by them. Therefore, powerful leaders have the opportunity to “make application” of any church rule. As a result of such benefits, the leaders of the schism not only stubbornly adhere to it themselves, but also zealously, by all means in their power, propagate it, cruelly hindering zealous anti-schism missionaries. The more frequently practiced method of propagating the schism and their usual means of strengthening it is that the leading schismatics, for example. managers and elders crowd out their subordinates, the rich - the poor, the owners - manufacturers - their workers, if these latter belong to the Orthodox Church or express a desire to leave the schism. Where the indicated method of action is of little use or turns out to be invalid, the leaders of the schism, in order to strengthen it and to counter the successes of Orthodoxy, use “prohibitions and curses”, and where necessary - even brutal violence. – Active assistants and leaders in the propaganda of the schism are schismatic teachers-false bishops and false priests in clericalism and the so-called mentors and fathers in non-priestly. 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 walk freely and safely everywhere and sow tares, meanwhile trying to avoid meeting with Orthodox priests, so as not to be exposed to their reproof,” and also indoctrinating those whom they manage to sway in Orthodoxy. “Thus the common people,” equally receptive to true and false teachings, in their extremely meager development, “become a more open field for sowing tares than wheat” 40. Then, the greatly multiplied Austrian false hierarchy, with its large population, frequent exactions, boldly open ceremonial services and its complete similarity 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, and, on the other, of the inviolability and truth of schism in general 41 . The harmful and lawless propaganda of the schism carried out by its leaders and clergy is given strength and stability, in the opinion of Metropolitan Philaret, by schismatic public institutions and mainly by the Preobrazhenskoye and Rogozhskoye cemeteries. “These two schismatic institutions,” he says, “since the beginning of this century, have become the center of two schools of schism, strong for its spread and for persistence against the actions of the government and the Orthodox clergy” 42. Like centers of schism. The Rogozhskoe and Preobrazhenskoe cemeteries, in the person of their elders and rectors, have influence on almost all areas of priestly and non-priestly behavior throughout almost the whole of Russia, they lead the spread of schism everywhere, using mainly the same means that are usually practiced by individual leaders, i.e. money and, where necessary, violence, only on a much larger scale - they support him with connections, appoint him at their discretion to out-of-town communities of false priests and spiritual fathers, resolve perplexed church issues, often serve as a place for crowded cathedrals, and so on. In turn, nonresident communities do nothing without their metropolises; they turn to them for advice, resolve disputes, and with their donations increase their already great wealth 43 . In parallel with the strengthening and development of the evil caused by the schism of the Orthodox Church, the harm it causes to the state also increases. The harmful state significance of the schism, according to Metropolitan Philaret, inevitably follows and is clearly revealed from his hostile attitude towards the Orthodox Church. “At all times, among all peoples, the dominant state religion,” he says, was, is and will be a bond, connection, cement, so to speak, the element of the people: language, law and morals, rights and customs. Where the unity of religion was violated, the elements of the nationality decomposed, fragmented, and disappeared. With them governments fell, peoples were separated.” The pious government of Russia recognizes the Orthodox faith as the dominant religion and one of the firmest foundations of state unity and strength.” “Consequently, Metropolitan Philaret concludes, what threatens harm to the unity of faith threatens the state” 44. The schism, with its intensified proselytism, constantly and clearly acts to the detriment of church unity, destroys church unanimity and unanimity and, thus, inevitably acts together to the detriment of state unity, for the destruction of church unanimity and unanimity, consistently entails the disorder and destruction of the unity of the national spirit in civil and patriotic relations, which is especially dangerous in Russia, in which the center of the national spirit since ancient times has been faith, as well as morality" 45. The political views and moral teachings of the schismatics fully confirm this conclusion regarding the dividing and demoralizing influence of the schism and leave no doubt about its great danger for the state. According to their political views, schismatics not only do not have a good disposition and heartfelt loyalty to the government, but they are the same irreconcilable opponents of it as of the Orthodox Church, because they completely transfer all their hatred of the church to the government for the patronage they provide to the church and agreement with it. A clear proof of this is that they transfer all their wicked names attached to the first to the last. As a result of this, all schismatics, without distinction of sects, agree that they do not recognize the Tsar as God’s anointed and do not respect any legal authority, which should be obeyed according to conscience, and therefore they evade some civil decrees by various illegal means, and implement others, in their expression, “for clarity, fear for the sake of the Jews” 46. In political terms, as well as in church terms, “for the most part they look at schismatics from the same point of view as at non-believers; 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” 47 . In general, due to the view of the government as heretical and anti-Christ, schismatics have “a clear desire to form themselves into a closed separation from the general state structure (Status in statu),” which, of course, nothing can be more harmful in civil terms 48 . At the same time, in contrast to the existing monarchical civil principle, as well as the hierarchical church principle, the schism develops the opposite democratic principle, as can be seen from the fact that schismatics “act as so-called trustees, arbitrarily elected, often also unauthorized deliberative assemblies, partly, in special cases, even public gatherings 49. Being direct opponents of the state in their political views, the schismatics, but in the court of Metropolitan Philaret, cause significant harm to the state with their moral, or more precisely, immoral in some respects, teaching. The lower, compared to the Orthodox, general level of moral views and actions of schismatics inevitably follows from their religious views mixed with errors. “A sect is never completely honest,” says M. Filaret. Religious and moral truth are rays of the same light: where the former is mixed with error, the latter is also impure.”50 By this he explains that all schismatics, without distinction of sects, consider all kinds of means permissible for themselves and not at all immoral for disseminating and establishing their teachings, as well as for counteracting church and civil measures directed against them - such as: bribery, deceit, violence, etc. But especially harmful for the state is the teaching of some non-priestly sects about compulsory celibacy, which also arose from the distortion of the Christian teaching about marriage. “Marriage, according to Filaret, is important in relation to the Providence of God, to the family and the state. God, having created the first people, entrusted to them and their descendants the further creation of people in the world, entrusted, as it were, the continuation of His creative action. What a great gift! exclaims the saint 51. How do schismatics use this great gift? They make up rules that inevitably lead to the destruction of family foundations, to infanticide and debauchery in its most diverse forms and, thus, at the very root produce a disorder of state life, of which “the beginning and the first knot is the family union.” An example of such rules can be, for example, the following: “Christians who are getting married are the serpent’s nest, Satan and his demons’ vile courtyard, that in the present last bitterly lamentable time and in the kingdom of Antichrist, God does not think about multiplying the human race, but Satan cares, and for the conception of a baby the soul is given from the devil 52. In confirmation of this, Filaret points to the gloomy picture of the immoral life of the schismatic virgins of the Preobazhensky cemetery, which he found in the report of the d.s. With. Ignatiev, whose testimony Filaret calls “the testimony of a direct, attentive and impartial observer.” Delving into the moral position of the non-priest schismatics, into their intimate home life and the sectarian concepts they had adopted,” this report says, “everyone, with full inquiries, is amazingly struck by the expression of ignorance, depravity and superstition.” The compiler of the report, by the way, discovers that old women mentors, fearing that the need for marriage would not serve as a reason for young people to move from the schism to the church, deliberately involve them in fornication, followed by infanticide, excused by the false wisdom of the mentors, and, if family ties are unstable, a disorder of morality for life.” “In priestless sects, over time, all religious beliefs have been forgotten and destroyed, and everything moves and is based on immorality alone 53. Division of sects. Means of combating split-sectarianism 54 Recognizing the schism and all its sects as undoubtedly harmful in church and state relations, considering them an evil that violates the unanimity of the church and damages public life in Orthodox Russia, Metropolitan Philaret, however, establishes a strict gradation between them, according to the degree of their harm in the two indicated relations. He distinguishes three such degrees: 1) Judaizers. For this is worse than heresy. This is a complete falling away from Christianity and significant enmity against Christianity; 2) Molokans. Although, apparently, they adhere to the Holy Scriptures, they take from it only what they like. They do not recognize any sacraments, no hierarchy. They do not recognize the oath, they do not respect fidelity, they do not recognize any authority as God-ordained; They obey only because they cannot resist. The sect is destructive; 3) Doukhobors. As far as we know, they share the same spirit with the Molokans; 4) Khlystovism. It is a blasphemous heresy because, without rejecting outward communion with the Christian Church, one introduces human adoration; 5) eunuchs. Also a blasphemous heresy, because the leader of the sect is worshiped as Christ. Harm society by condemning marriage, distorting people and destroying offspring; 6) those non-priestly sects that reject marriage and prayer for the Tsar. They write and pronounce the present time as the Antichrist. By rejecting marriage, they introduce immorality” 55. Particularly harmful among the non-priest sects of this category in church and state relations, it is necessary, according to the court of Metropolitan Philaret, to call upon the Fedoseev sect, and also, due to the strength of bitterness towards the Orthodox Church and antagonism towards the government, “the daughter of the non-priest - the sect of wanderers. The Feodoseyevites, while sharing religious interpretations of the non-priestly type that are harmful to the Orthodox Church, at the same time more firmly, boldly and openly adhere to the harmful political views of the non-priestly type than other sects. Thus, along with others, declaring their dislike of the government by not praying for the Tsar, the Feodoseyevites “not only follow old sinful opinions, but again draw up harmful rules and distribute them even with the appearance of formality, signed by their superiors, as evidenced by a note and two handwritten books opened at the Preobrazhenskoye cemetery in 1844. The note, or the so-called “fatherly wills,” which in the original were signed by the senior trustees of the Preobrazhensky cemetery, Alexei Nikiforov and others, directly states that since 1866, “the royal power established by God has been abolished”; in the first handwritten book - in the “announcement of the consent of the monasteries or Manuels” - the prayer for the Tsar and the name of him as the most pious is proclaimed “ungodliness”: “by the faith of the pious,” it says, “and the king is pious, but by the impious faith the king is called the wicked,” and further: “for in this monastery they are wicked, even in the form of prayer the wicked are called faithful and pious and other titles of those who remain decent in piety”; finally, “in the testimony about the one common Christian path” - the second handwritten book, written in 1842 - the teaching that one should pray to God for the current royal power is called “a blasphemous tradition.” “No one, of course, will prove,” notes Metropolitan Philaret, citing these excerpts, that this teaching is not harmful to the state; on the contrary, it is not difficult to see that “these rules lead to rebellion” 56, which is actually confirmed by “the most harmful sect of wanderers.” For, in her political as well as religious views, she is completely aligned with priestlessism, but differs from it only in that “she multiplies the evil legacy of her mother to the extreme and brazenly proclaims and puts into effect the rules that she is trying to cover up.” Therefore, she is not content with secretly acknowledging the above-mentioned non-priestly view of the government, but promotes clear disobedience to him as the Antichrist. Hence, according to the teachings of the wandering sect, “it is not permissible either to enroll in an audit or to pay taxes, or to accept positions with an oath, or to enter into military service, or even to hire others as recruits for yourself. In order to enable its adherents to avoid the duties imposed on everyone by state power, and considering obedience to this authority to be a renunciation of Christ, the wandering sect elevates vagrancy to the level of dogma and thereby undermines the foundations of social well-being: work, family life, order, etc. In general, the teaching of the wandering sect “is not only contrary to the teaching of the Orthodox Church, but also rejects the supreme authority and laws and the fulfillment of all public duties and, Consequently, those who live according to this teaching resolutely refuse to bring any benefit to the state, and are committed to causing it only harm and disorder” 57 . “Those out of peacelessness who accept marriage (newlyweds) and do not renounce pray for the king. Based on these traits, they could be considered less harmful; but they are decidedly harmful because they reject the priesthood and the sacrament of the Eucharist and, in addition to what has been said, they borrow everything from the bad passions of priestlessness and, by the way, the democratic spirit” 58 . “Popovshchina. This is not a heresy, but a schism. It preserves more than the church and represents more hope” 59; but it is harmful because “it has recently formed a false hierarchy, the root of which is in a foreign state. Three or four false bishops, according to government information, and according to some private information up to 14, with the unsatisfactory action of the police, secretly for the authorities, but not secretly for popular rumors, go everywhere and make the worst, the most cunning and the most daring of the schismatics false priests and their missionaries” 60. If a schism in church and state relations is an evil, or, as Philaret puts it, an “ulcer”, a “disease” that is constantly spreading more and more and requiring urgent and serious healing,” 61 then what should this healing consist of and how should it be carried out? Metropolitan Philaret distinguishes two ways of acting on schism: “medical” in the proper sense and “protective” 62. To the extent that schism is a delusion of the mind, a deviation from the truth, it naturally requires spiritual healing, counteraction by spiritual means, since any delusion of the mind can only be stopped by “admonition,” conviction of the truth. But to the extent that a schism reveals a desire to manifest itself externally, to lure others into its networks, it is subject to the external influence of the government, limited by “measures existing in the laws of the state,” since it is natural for the state Orthodox authorities to take care of the protection of the Orthodox Church. Metropolitan Philaret saw the first most natural and, with proper use and zeal, the most effective means for weakening the schism in the teaching and admonition of schismatics by the clergy through his personal interviews with them. “Admonition of the true teaching of the faith on the part of the Orthodox clergy is, without a doubt, the most appropriate tool for the conversion of those who are erring of all kinds. But this general means of conversion is opposed by an almost equally general obstacle - namely, the rule of schismatics to especially avoid relations with the Orthodox clergy. At the present time, there is no reason to fear that the bishop will not want to talk with a schismatic or will address him with inappropriately reproachful or commanding words; It cannot happen that the shepherd is not contentedly looking for the fleeing sheep. Therefore, the Holy Synod needs to continue monitoring and reminding, at its discretion, that diocesan bishops carefully take advantage of all possible opportunities to enter into relations with those who have deviated from the Church and sow among them concepts and feelings that would bring them closer to the Church 63. Turning to the nature of interviews with schismatics, Metropolitan Philaret advises preferring a calm, peaceful disclosure of the truths of the Orthodox faith to disputes and denunciation of those in error, and in any case not limiting oneself to them alone, because one denunciation easily gives rise to reproach, and reproach - enmity: “to reproach means to irritate; and to irritate means to reduce the ability to accept the truth.” To avoid this, “the treatment of those who have different opinions and the very exposure of errors should be as peaceful as this can be done without insulting the truth and without tempting the Orthodox”; therefore, “tolerance, calmness, meekness, condescension, and caution are also needed in reproof, just like zeal” 64 . Metropolitan Philaret saw another effective remedy against schism, in view of the almost complete ignorance of the schismatics, in the establishment of as many schools for men and women as possible, and precisely in the spirit of today’s parochial schools and literacy schools. Here are his thoughts on this subject, made back in 1835. “Since schism is most based on ignorance, schools should be a means against schism. But these means must be carefully adapted to the goal. If schools are in the hands of schismatics, they will naturally be breeding grounds for schism, not Orthodoxy. If the schools of the common people are in the hands of people who have received a secular education of the mind, what is observed in England 65 may happen, that the spread of literacy will not improve morality, but damage it, through unfounded suggestions and harmful reading. Teaching reading, the rudiments of the catechism and sacred history, under the guidance of the clergy, in the simplest way and applied to national life and customs, is the safest means of spreading sound concepts among the common people. But it is difficult to make this remedy applicable to schismatics, who, of course, would rather entrust their children to a schismatic than to an Orthodox priest. For this it is necessary: ​​1) that the clergy be given freedom in teaching children, under the supervision of the diocesan authorities. without claims from the directorates of the Ministry of Education; 2) so that, on the contrary, schismatic teachers are prevented by the force of the latest legislation of the Ministry of Education. It is incomparably more convenient to provide education for children who come to the teacher from their parents’ homes than to establish schools in which children not only study, but also live. Therefore, the former should be adopted in a more general manner, and the latter should be established where there are sufficient means and hope of faithful supervision. The education of children and women is desirable because, as is known from experience, women, who are even more ignorant than men, and equally stubborn in their attachment to the hereditary and habitual, keep their husbands in schism and even attract him into it. But women's residential schools are even more difficult than men's to establish and provide with decent leadership and supervision. The most convenient suggestion in this matter would be for the wife of a priest or deacon, if capable, to become a craftswoman to teach girls literacy and handicrafts.” Finally, in order to counter the main spread of the schism regarding Orthodoxy due to the ignorance of the Orthodox often greater than that of the schismatics, and in view of the responsibility of pastors not only to convert those who err, but even more to protect the flock entrusted to them from all kinds of propaganda leading to alienation from the church, Metropolitan Philaret considered it necessary6 that the clergy, as far as possible, make efforts to educate and admonish them (the Orthodox), which should naturally lead to greater stability of their religious and moral views. The most convenient means for this, in his opinion, besides personal private interviews and schools, may be the obligatory pronunciation of catechetical teachings on Sundays and holidays, “in which catechetical truths would be presented in order with their main arguments and necessary explanations, with all possible applications of thoughts, feelings and language to the level of understanding and to the state of the listeners” 66 . At the same time, recognizing the difficulty of the proper implementation of these means by the clergy, on the one hand, due to its small number compared to the number of flocks, and in some places also compared to the number of schismatic false priests and fathers who greatly multiplied after the reign of Nicholas, and on the other hand, due to the burden of the clergy with other quite complex responsibilities, to alleviate this difficulty, Metropolitan Philaret considered it advisable in areas especially heavily infected with schism: a) the establishment of special anti-schism missionaries; b) multiplication of clergy; and c) the reopening of monasteries, which “are of great importance for weakening the schism by performing the ancient rite of worship” 67. While recommending various spiritual means to weaken the schism, M. Filaret did not attach decisive importance to them in this matter. In his opinion, certain conditions are necessary for their successful operation. He considered the first such condition in importance to be “the blessing of God” 68 and therefore inspired the shepherds under his command not to rely too much on their own strengths, but first of all to humbly ask for God’s help in their anti-schism activities 69 . M. Philaret considered another necessary condition for success in anti-schismatic activities to be the personal impeccable life of the church pastors, which was fully consistent with their title. Being the best factual proof of the truth of the preached teaching, the Christian life of a shepherd, he says, at the same time in itself can be a means of admonition and conversion for many, since “the door of the word is opened temporarily, but the good life of the minister of the word preaches the truth day and night” 70 . Then, the third necessary condition for the successful influence of the clergy on schismatics must be recognized, according to Filaret, “a sincere, impartial desire to know the truth of God” on the part of those who sincerely want to do the will of God, will understand the teaching that is from God” 71 . In addition to spiritual and moral means to eradicate heretical and schismatic errors, M. Filaret considered it useful to use measures of a purely state nature for the same purpose. Speaking, however, about the need and benefits of the church’s assistance in the fight against heretical and schismatic teachings on the part of the state authorities, 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” 72 . Hence, the tolerance characteristic of Christian meekness should also be characteristic of the Christian state. But 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.” How should the government deal with heretics and schismatics? 73 The Most Reverend M. Philaret answers this question like this: “fatherly”, what does this mean? To correct their children, earthly fathers use not only gentle admonitions, but also other measures. The Heavenly Father, with all his infinite goodness, converts those who have gone astray to the path of truth, mostly through strict measures, and sinners often begin to correct themselves first 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, should treat the people, who, due to their lack of education, 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 74 . From such a paternal point of view, or from the point of view of tolerance, tempered by caution, “for schismatics, in fact, 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 is the law in Russia” 75. Thus, the law tolerates the error of schism, unaccompanied by rejection or seduction from Orthodoxy or violation of civil law. “As long as it is decided not to 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, being cautious against the efforts of schismatics in the form of a special class before the authorities, and entering into friendly relations with them mainly before the Orthodox. The creation of a schism, the seduction of the Orthodox by schismatics, their violation of existing laws and rules, provide an opportunity for a stronger effect on the schism. 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 faithful discovery and exposure of the seducer, and the taking away from him of the means of seduction, the unrelenting action of justice on schismatics who violated existing laws and rules, weakening the courage and desire for such actions, lead to the decline of the spirit of the dissenters and the schism itself. The more timely and unrelenting the action of the authorities in such cases, the more reliable its consequences 76. Due punishment for causing a schism, for seducing the Orthodox by schismatics and for violating existing laws and rules, according to Philaret, cannot be considered torture and persecution in relation to heretics and schismatics. “If there were no prohibition against seducing the Orthodox into schism, they would seduce them into causing a schism; If those who disobeyed this were not persecuted by the law, then how else would the government protect the faith and those faithful to it? And if those who deviate from the legal order and contribute to the evasion of others are limited by law in their rights, abused or for the success of a sect to seduce the weak with worldly benefits, one legal consequence of social improvement is visible here: otherwise there will be no limits to self-will and seduction. Finally, the closure of secretly established hermitages and other sectarian places and gatherings is a simple necessity of any well-ordered state, in which such self-will is not allowed to people of the dominant faith. Without such laws, of course, unpleasant to the schism (as well as to all its sects and factions), “there would be no patronage of Orthodoxy and the slightest civil curbing of crimes against faith. But then the very statutes of the ecumenical councils, on the basis of which Orthodoxy is protected from heresies in the Christian empire, would be violated” 77 . Taking some monasteries from schismatics and converting them to fellow believers. Filaret justified from a different point of view. “If anyone had the idea to blame this action of the government, then he would have to blame many similar actions of the pious defenders of Orthodoxy, for example, he would have to blame Emperor Theodosius and Saint Gregory the Theologian for taking away the main church of Constantinople from the Arians, and the emperor brought the Saint into it under the protection of soldiers, as Saint Gregory himself says about this” 78. True, schismatics, as well as heretics, try to present any restriction on their actions as oppression and persecution. But if you look from the point of view of justice, then the government’s action against schismatics, which raises complaints, is very far from what in ancient times was called persecution. “If under Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich it was strictly dealt with the schismatics who locked themselves in the Solovetsky Monastery, and under Tsars John and Peter with the schismatics raging in the Kremlin and the palace itself: this was the taming of the rebellion, and not persecution. If a schismatic chapel built arbitrarily and illegally is not allowed to be repaired, but is only allowed to endure until destroyed by the force of time: this is not persecution, but condescension in the fact that what was illegal was not destroyed immediately. If a chapel is sealed because it was rebuilt contrary to the existing prohibition: this is not persecution, but the inevitable protection of the law so that it is not despised. If a schismatic priest is taken to court for seducing an Orthodox Christian: this is not persecution, but a defense of the ruling church from an attack made on it, and even leniency in the fact that the fugitive was not persecuted for escaping, but was brought to justice only after a new crime. If the schismatics are not given priests who are independent of the spiritual authorities, the schismatics cannot complain about this, because they have no right to demand priests from a church to which they themselves do not want to belong. If priests were taken from the church, against its rules, and given over to the schismatics, the name persecution and oppression would be more appropriate here than in all the above-mentioned cases; but this would not be in relation to the schism, but in relation to the church. Here we can point to the taking of some monasteries from schismatics and their conversion to co-religionists.” But “if one of the Orthodox would build a monastery without permission and tonsure the monks in it without legal permission, wouldn’t the legal authorities destroy this, as they would soon find out? Is it really only the self-will of the Orthodox that must be stopped, while the self-will of the schismatics must be left untouched? 79 In general, if tolerance should be allowed towards schismatics (equal heretics), then from the point of view of Philaret, “the Code of Laws has assigned fair limits to the application of this rule” 80. Given this general direction, the government’s measures to successfully achieve the weakening of the split must first and foremost be firm and constant. Once “having taken certain measures, the government must follow them steadily and unflaggingly, because the slightest weakening of them leads dissenters to be convinced of the powerlessness and weakness of the government and of their power, through intrigues and money, to make the measures taken against them futile” 81. Thus, “measures taken and not taken are often more harmful than if they had not been taken at all” 82. Failure to comply with the measures taken. Precise execution and “precisely keeping the secret where sometimes it is needed” are essential. Finally, “carefully selecting and training capable tools and vigilantly monitoring the accuracy of their action” is also a necessary condition for civil measures. This, in Filaret’s opinion, should be the general nature of the government’s relationship with schismatics, alien to extremes and harmful tolerance and cruelty unusual for Christianity. However, in its particular application to various kinds of sects and factions, this general character must be varied in accordance with the spirit and teaching of the latter and the degree of harm that they bring to the church and state. The more dangerous a sect is in church and state terms, the stricter the measures taken to eradicate it should be. “If the government’s attention were equally focused on all types of schisms, with the search and use of decisive taming measures, then a burdensome multitude and variety of cases and orders could open up, with which attention could be distracted, and from this it could follow that not all the measures taken would be sustained. Therefore, the attention of the government, between different types of schisms and sects, must be divided according to current circumstances as follows: 1) so that the schisms are less harmful, we continue to maintain vigilant supervision against their strengthening, and to weaken them, we act with undiminished observation of the rules hitherto adopted; 2) but so that more effective measures, legislative and administrative, are taken against sects that are more harmful and dangerous to the public good and peace. Regarding the priestly schism, the main points of observation are: 1) so that any construction and renewal of houses of worship... was either not allowed or destroyed places marked by disobedience to the law; 2) so that the local civil authorities explain to schismatics of this kind 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 time (on the basis of the secret rules of 1822) was provided only in the hope of admonition and appeal to order; 3) in particular, so that a schismatic priest who has seduced an Orthodox person into schism, or, what is the same, has performed any sacrament on an Orthodox person, should immediately be deprived of the tolerance that he had previously enjoyed and sent to the court of his legal superiors; 4) so ​​that local authorities do not shy away from implementing existing laws against causing a schism and against assigning leadership positions to schismatics; 5) so that those who seduce the Orthodox into schism, whoever they may be, are not left without responsibility, as violators of public peace and the rights of the dominant religion; 6) so that schismatics are not freer from the laws than Orthodox Christians, such as, for example, so that those who marry while underage, who bury those who died less than three days after death, and who bury those who died suddenly without notification from the police, are not left without responsibility. To those branches of non-priesthood in which prayer for the Tsar is accepted and marriage is not completely rejected, the same rules can be applied as are needed in relation to priesthood. Of the more harmful and dangerous sects, the Molokan sect requires special attention, which, due to the spirit of self-will and disrespect for everything revered, over time can threaten public peace if firm barriers are not put in place to its spread. The means of countering this harmful sect may consist partly in applying to it with special force existing laws against schisms, partly in new, special measures that would reduce the significance of members of this sect in society and influence on others, and thus take away the methods of inclusion and attraction to the sect; somehow: any activity of the Molokan sect should not only be prohibited, but also, if possible, prevented by supervision, and if done, it should be immediately stopped and accompanied by responsibility for violators of the law. Molokan meetings for worship and teaching of the sect, both in special prefabricated huts built for this purpose and in private houses, are not permissible. Molokan prefabricated huts, as soon as they are determined, are subject to demolition, and the material is to be sold in favor of public charity. A meeting of Molokans in a private house of more than ten people, in addition to those belonging to the family of that house, is recognized as a sect, and therefore impermissible. The police, having noticed a Molokan meeting, immediately dissolved it for the first time, and explained to the owner of the house and the leader of the meeting that it was impermissible, obliging them by subscription not to hold future meetings. Anyone who has received a Molokan assembly into his house or who is in charge of it, after the above-mentioned personal prohibition, is subject to seven days of arrest, or being subjected to public work for the same number of days. Anyone caught doing the same for the third time is subject to similar punishment; with an increase in the period of detention from two to four weeks, depending on the circumstances. Spotted for the fourth time, he is put on trial as a distributor of the Molokan sect. A Molokan who publicly preaches the Molokan teaching aloud to the Orthodox, for the first action of this kind, is put on trial as a distributor of the sect. A Molokan who has seduced an Orthodox Christian into his sect is put on trial as a distributor of the sect, and the seduced person is sent to the spiritual authorities for admonition and conversion. A Molokan, brought to trial for one of the above actions, is also sent to the spiritual authorities for exhortation to conversion; and if he turns to the church, he receives forgiveness for those sectarian actions for which he was put on trial. The exhortation can take from one to three months, and, depending on the need and for the convenience of the exhortation, the exhorted person can be kept in a monastery during this time. The distributor of Molokanism, who was endowed and did not accept exhortations to abandon his error, must be removed from the society in which he turned out to be harmful. In order to deprive the sect of those methods of strengthening and spreading, it is necessary to limit these rights and relations. A Molokan should not have the right to enroll in merchant guilds. (To block the entrance even to the philistinism would be inconvenient in relation to those who until now belonged to urban societies). A Molokan belonging to a peasant society should not have the right to move to an urban society (even if he received freedom from the landowner). A Molokan should not have the right to accept Orthodox Christians into permanent dependence, such as having them in service, as apprentices in a craft, or as workers in a factory or other establishment. A member of the Molokan family who belongs to or has newly converted to Orthodoxy must be accepted into the protection of the authorities against oppression by non-Orthodox family members. The unseparated son of a Molokan who converted to Orthodoxy must receive the right of a separated son, and, as an allowance for initial food and establishment, a share from the common property of the family to which he belonged. A temporary benefit from taxes for those converting from Molokanism does not seem at all a convenient means of conversion. An Orthodox Christian always pays taxes. How happier is one who has been a Molokan in order to gain temporary freedom from taxes? This can be granted only to those who, when turning to the church, separating from the Molokan families, are not suddenly able to arrange their economic condition and be able to pay taxes. The same can be said about conscription. Encouraging with distinctions and honorary titles those of the Molokans who convert and convert many with them can, in some special cases, be used as the highest mercy; but it is hardly convenient and useful to accept and announce this as a general measure 83 . The same measures that the government authorities, according to Filaret, should use in relation to the Molokans sect, can be applied with equal right to the Doukhobors sect, for “the Doukhobors, as is known, are of the same spirit as the Molokans” 84. “To the Judaizers,” in the same way, “measures intended for the Molokans can be applied, either at the same time, or with some gradualness, after testing them over the Molokans.” “Regarding the eunuchs. Since the hoarders exterminate the offspring of the hoarders, would it not be useful to declare the act of the hoarders in the law a crime close to murder, not so much in order to increase the severity of the punishment, but in order to show it as a lower and more despicable crime? 85. M. Philaret justified the legality and benefit of protective measures regarding heretics and schismatics not only by the fact of recognition of their harm in the church and state, but also: a) by the example of other Western European states that support and protect the dominant religion in their country, b) by the facts of history and the fact of the spread of the schism itself and its heretical sects and factions, showing that restrictive measures, strictly adhered to and steadily, are capable of not only stopping the success of one or another emerging creed, but also completely suppressing its spread and, conversely, measures of meekness and condescension towards it are capable of strengthening it; c) the example of the ancient universal church, which in the person of Christian emperors, St. fathers and ecumenical and local councils approved repressive measures against heretics and schismatics and, finally; d) the need to avoid those sad results for the church and the state that will follow if the schism, with all its ramifications, is recognized as a separate religion in the state and completely free in its external manifestations. The idea of ​​complete religious tolerance of Western European states, according to the court of M. Filaret, is completely unfair and only exaggerated optimistic views of everything Western could create it. Or rather, not the West for Russia, but “good and noble Russia” for Western states can serve as a model of religious tolerance. She can boldly “boast” before them of her religious tolerance “toward recognized Christian faiths and even non-Christian ones,” since there are no such restrictions for these faiths that exist, for example, in England, a country that “boasts of its free institutions.” The principle of preserving the unity of the national ruling church, in the form of preserving the unity of the national spirit in England, “acts strongly, even excessively, which, apparently, could not be expected from a state that enjoys freedom more than others. Thus, 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 what does she do with them? Moreover, “to this day Catholics (like all dissidents in general) 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 88, “seeing in church taxes the connection of unity between the church and the state” 89. Here is what Israel said in his appeal to the voters: “The preservation of the national church involves the question: should the principle of religion be an element of our political constitution, should the state be sanctified, and, with the destruction of sanctification, which appeals to the highest feelings of man, should not our system of government become a mere police system? In all this I see only one corruption of nations and the fall of kingdoms. I trust that the Constitution will be upheld in its provisions concerning church and state." 90 “With this foreign example, it is not useless to compare the opinion in Russia of those who are still in favor of the schism, in condemnation of the government, with bitterness recalling the long-destroyed double tax on the schismatics, as if persecution extends to the current schismatics” 91, while the point is not “that the schismatics should pay a tax in favor of the Orthodox Church, but only that they should not plunder its spiritual property” 92 . Except England m. Filaret also points to other European states where there are limits to religious tolerance. “In France itself,” he says, only recognized religions are allowed, and recognition requires political knowledge of what exactly the teaching of this confession is and that it does not threaten public order. In Switzerland, a Protestant land, no one except Protestants has the right to public office. And to allow the free existence of societies similar to our schism, hiding their secret actions from the government, demanding tolerance when they themselves do not have any tolerance, constantly shaking the people’s concept of the legitimacy of the supreme authorities - this cannot be found in any European land. Hence it is obvious that the Orthodox government of Russia, in order to protect the unity of the dominant religion, prohibiting by law only apostasy from Orthodoxy and on this basis taking a number of restrictive measures against the schism and its sects, as having fallen away from the Orthodox Church, can in no way be accused of exceptional intolerance in comparison with Western states. It is equally obvious that if the government allows freedom of foreign religions and does not include the schism and its sects, then through this it does not violate the law of justice and does not contradict itself, for it does so because of the just mentioned “great difference” in origin and character between the first and the last. “Roman Catholics and Protestants came under the Russian state with their religions in a legal way: and therefore, in fairness, they are given freedom of their religion; On the contrary, schismatics are those who have fallen away and are falling away from the Orthodox Church, condemned by state law, which prohibits such falling away. If the state, condemned by its law, were to give the same rights as innocent people before the law, it would be in conflict with its own law and justice in general.” Then, with an origin independent of the Orthodox Church, foreign confessions are alien and intolerant towards it, as well as harmful political views, as a result of which they are again rightly recognized by law. If, however, they strive to manifest anything similar, the law prosecutes them for such crimes on an equal basis with schismatics. True, according to some defenders of the schism, the fact of its long existence seems to be sufficient in itself to speak in favor of granting schismatics freedom of religion. In a situation of schism, says Filaret, some see “a strange phenomenon - non-recognition of 200 years of existing fact.” If this saying is taken in its exact, literal sense, then it is not only strange, but even impossible. There has been a schism for 200 years and the government does not recognize it as existing, does not see it, thinks that it does not exist! Come on, is that true? It seems that the government looks at the split as an existing fact when it says in laws, for example: local police are obliged to keep registered lists of born and dying schismatics, and to submit reports of their number annually to the civil authorities. So, to be more precise, the government recognizes the schism as an existing fact, but as a fact that exists illegally, because the schism generally exists through a violation of the legal obedience of the Orthodox Church, and priestlessness, moreover, teaches a teaching that is contrary to the law, state power, and morality; the government does not recognize the actual existence, but only the legality of the schism. This phenomenon does not seem very strange. Therefore, if it is necessary to recognize the split as an existing fact, at first glance it is fair and easy. But when delving into the meaning of this requirement, it turns out that it is required to recognize as legal what, not without reason, was previously recognized as illegal. And this is not easy to agree with justice, and not easy to fulfill.” Further, the facts of history, in Philaret’s opinion, do not at all justify the position, “as if nowhere the restriction of sects stopped their success, but on the contrary, it seemed to contribute to their spread, and that for this very reason the existing regulations on schismatics should be abolished, as restrictive for them.” A similar phenomenon, according to Filaret, if it occurred anywhere, it was only where “the measures were not firm, where they were subject to change; and where they were firm, there the success of the sects was stopped and even destroyed. The first remarkable sect in Europe, the Hussites, 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 was successful 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 about them since the government put a barrier to their lawless spread. 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 divine teaching of the Savior, and to apply such a miraculous spread of it to ignorant sects would mean to humiliate the action of the highest grace. But God’s providence subsequently used the patronage of the authorities to further spread Christianity: with the adoption of the holy faith by the Roman emperors, its spread became much faster and more widespread. Finally, in all European <…> Christianity was especially promoted by the patronage of sovereigns. And our Orthodox Church has learned through bitter experience that restrictions do not spread, but suppress, if not forever, then for a long time, the true teaching of the faith. 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 God’s providence had not wanted to return that region to the depths of Orthodox Russia, so now in the Austrian possessions Orthodoxy, constrained by the local government, is gradually becoming impoverished. As for our schism, everyone knows that the number of its followers, despite the most daring unrest 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 during the time of Emperor 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 by the end of the reign of Emperor Alexander I. After this, (i.e., during the reign of Emperor Nicholas) the schism intensified only in those provinces where the local authorities gave him an indulgence; weakened where strict attention was paid to his actions, to seduction and other abuses. So, leniency towards the schism has contributed and is contributing to its strengthening much more than oppression” 93 . If sometimes the restrictive measures against schismatics did not achieve their goal, i.e. were not able to suppress the development of any heretical or schismatic teaching, then from here it is still impossible to derive objections to these measures. “Man has the freedom to err, not yielding not only to human prudence, but also to the wisdom of God: not only to human limited power, but also to God’s omnipotent rule, which therefore only a smaller part of the human race acquired Christianity and an even smaller part of this part - Orthodox Christianity.” Then, the example of the ancient Christian church, which in the person of Christian emperors, St. fathers and ecumenical and local councils motivated the solution to the issue of restrictive measures in relation to heretics and schismatics in a positive sense, which, according to Philaret, clearly demonstrates the legality and suitability of such measures. “With the triumph of the church during the reign of Constantine the Great, all the forces of power, hitherto directed against the church, were turned to protecting its internal and external prosperity. Christian emperors assisted her by eradicating the remnants of idolatry and deposing heretics. It is highly instructive to become more closely acquainted with the laws issued against pagans and heretics by Constantine the Great and his successors Theodosius, Justinian and other pious emperors. When Christianity triumphed, the pagan priests, quite naturally, could no longer remain with their former advantages, but in addition, all pagans were deprived of access to the highest honorary and court positions, as those that would increase their influence over the people - it was ordered to crush idols, destroy temples, or turn them into Christian churches, or lock them, prohibiting entry into them, under fear of heavy penalties, sacrifices and pagan rites in general were strictly prohibited, and those who resumed pagan worship were threatened with punishment. The severity of these measures was caused by the clear consciousness that without it it would have been impossible to save the faithful from constant temptation. Therefore, Blessed Augustine, mentioning the laws aimed at eradicating pagan rituals, says: “of course, there is no one among us who would not approve of these laws.” And in relation to heretics, the emperors remembered that “a mother must have mercy on her children and protect them, and that she would be unmerciful and cruel if, while protecting the wolves, she killed the sheep.” In choosing the means to protect the faithful from heresies, the pious emperors took into account the circumstances, used prudent but firm measures to convince the erring, and in the event of resistance and violence, they did not extend severity to everyone, but only to the main false teachers, and generally did not undertake anything that would not bring benefit, but would only embitter their opponents more. Heretics were subject to the death penalty only if they reached the point of violent resistance to the authorities or committed crimes. The main laws issued by the emperors to preserve Orthodoxy and curb heretics were as follows. Heretical gatherings were strictly prohibited and those who violated this prohibition were subject to expulsion or punishment. It was forbidden for heretics to build churches; and the houses in which they gathered were confiscated. It was forbidden for heretics to ordain anyone as bishop, priest or deacon. We dealt with those who seduced others with particular severity. False priests were subjected to heavy penalties, expulsion or exile. Special laws protected those Christians who had heretics among their relatives. Heretics had no right either to transfer their estates to others by will, or to accept what was bequeathed. Adherents of some sects (eg Manileans) and in some cases all heretics were expelled or penalized. 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. Realizing that laws must not only be issued, but also executed, and seeing the harm and danger from the lawless and selfish indulgence of some rulers towards heretics, the emperors determined a heavy penalty and deprivation of office for rulers and judges for their deviation from these laws; they themselves showed an example of zeal for Orthodoxy. The laws prohibited heretics from addressing them personally and bothering them with petitions. At the same time, the emperors protected the purity of public morals, prohibiting spectacles on holidays, etc., realizing, however, that the assistance of the government is, although necessary and essential, but not the only condition for the affirmation of the faith. While the sovereigns tried through various laws to bring those who had rejected themselves to unity with the church, the shepherds of the church did not cease to exhort and teach those who had gone astray. “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 weakly encouraged to take 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 of the obvious truth, have long wanted to be Orthodox, but fearing their own people, they daily postponed their conversion. Many were held back by force of habit or negligence. Many thought that there was no difference whether someone belonged to the Orthodox community or not, and remained in 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 fold of the church by the laws (issued against heretics), and those whom security made negligent, were converted by the care of the church and government for them, and now they celebrate their conversion as the brightest holiday. And so, let the kings of the earth serve Christ, also giving 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 by 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, digs them out 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 without memory <...> of his former life and pitiful delusions, while they were brought to this saving consciousness by strict laws? These laws did not benefit some, but should the medicine be abandoned because the madness of some is incurable? Those who do not want to see laws against their wickedness say that the apostles did not ask for help from earthly kings. Whoever says this forgets that there was a different time then, and that everything should be done in its own time. For what emperor then believed in Christ and wanted to serve him by issuing laws in favor of piety against impiety? Then another prophetic saying was fulfilled: “The nations are reeling, and people have learned in vain. The kings of the earth and the princes came together to gather together against the Lord and His Christ.” ( Ps. 2:1-2 ). At that time, what is said in the same psalm a little lower was not yet put into effect: “And now the king understand, punish all those who judge the earth. Work for the Lord with fear and rejoice in Him with trembling.” How then do kings serve God with fear, if not by forbidding and punishing with pious severity that which is contrary to the commandments of the Lord? For the king serves God differently as a man, and differently as a king. As a man, he serves God by living a Christian life; but since he is also a king, he serves God by making laws commanding what is righteous, and prohibiting what is contrary to it with decent severity. This is how Hezekiah served the Lord (2 Kings 18:4), who destroyed oak groves and pagan temples. This is how kings serve the Lord, since they are kings, when they do for the glory of God what only kings can do. No sane person would dare to tell kings that they do not care whether their subjects are chaste or depraved; and who, except a madman, can tell them: do not worry, no matter what condition the Church of the Lord is in your state, whether it enjoys the world or suffers disasters from its enemies; is the piety and wickedness of your subjects not subject to your scrutiny? Church shepherds ask for help from Christian emperors, not avenging themselves, but protecting the flocks entrusted to them. If they did not do this, they should be blamed for negligence. For the waters of the bl. Augustine says: “It seems to me not useless to tame and correct heretics through the authorities established by God. And since he says: “there is no power except from God,” then, without a doubt, when kings provide help to the church, this help to us is in the name of the Lord, who created heaven and earth.” Except bl. Augustine, one could cite more testimonies of St. John Chrysostom, who advised to destroy the gatherings of heretics, and the testimonies of many other saints. fathers." “Let us turn to the rules of ecumenical and local councils. The Holy Fathers of the Council of Carthage (the rules of which were approved by the VI and VII Ecumenical Councils) were pleased to ask the kings to eradicate the remnants of idolatry, to exterminate idols, and to destroy temples; the prohibition of pagan feasts and, in general, everything that is considered useful against heretics and Greeks and against their superstitions (pr. 69, 71, 95:120), it is also considered proper to ask the heads of the regions for assistance from the common mother, the Catholic Church, against heretics (pr. 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 structure 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 them as rebels to order by secular authority.” The 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 the Great on the recovery of 10 pounds of gold from heretics who ordained and ordained, as well as on the prohibition of heretics transferring or receiving anything by will. “The royal love for mankind (it was said at the same time) is subject to care, so that the Catholic Church, which gave birth to Christ and raised them with the strength of faith, would be protected by their industry. Against the fury of the renegades, we ask you to give us divine help, but unusual and not alien to the holy scriptures. For the Apostle Paul, as shown in the true Acts of the Apostles, the complicity of people without protective measures in relation to the Orthodox Church will enable the state to avoid a whole series of intractable questions and difficulties that must inevitably arise if it, abandoning the policy of restriction and constraint in relation to the schism and its sects, decides to officially recognize it as a special religion, despite its harmful nature in many respects. Having decided to recognize the schism, the government must first of all, as M. Philaret notes, be greatly perplexed by the question: should all schismatic sects, of which there are countless numbers, be given freedom of religion, or only some of them? and if so, which ones? The government cannot and will not dare to recognize all the sects, in view of the obvious and strong anti-state direction of some of them, not to mention the anti-church, and by recognizing only a few sects, it will not only not solve the difficult issue, but will also give a direct reason for unrest among the schismatics themselves, who, seeing the example, will all, without exception, with persistence and even insolence begin to seek freedom. “The schismatics of the Belokrinitsky branch will come before the government and say: recognize our bishops and the priests they supply. For this, the New Russian schismatics will come and say: we have abandoned the Belokrinitsky bishops; We think that the government does not like them either: recognize our Anthony, Archbishop of Vladimir, about ten other existing and many future bishops and the priests they supply. Then the old priests will come and say: we understand that the Austrian bishops and priests appointed by them are illegal; and therefore we wish to have the old Russian fugitive priests legitimate. Then the non-priests of various persuasions will appear and say: recognize our leaders, present and tomorrow, since perhaps tomorrow we will replace the current ones and install others. For this, the runners may come “and say: recognize our leaders, the fugitive peasants and the fugitive soldiers. When such freedom of schisms and sects is glorified, will not the eunuchs and whips decide to come and their relatives? It is difficult to find an end to this series of sects demanding rights for themselves. What will happen in the villages? An Austrian false priest, a Russian false priest, a fugitive Russian priest, a priestless priest will come to the village and with impunity they will plunder and divide one village into several parishes of different faiths. It will be difficult for one lawful shepherd to overcome many wolves. And there will be a lot of them. The Austrian and Russian false bishops will multiply without measure, as they are already multiplying, and without measure they will turn peasants and burghers into false priests. Where will the church unity of Russians be then? But can such a great loss of church unity be harmless for the unanimity of the people in the state? Not being able to give freedom of religion to all schismatic sects without obvious and great damage to national unity, the government cannot give this freedom to the least harmful sects in church and state terms, for example, the clerical sect. For in this case, difficult perplexities would again arise, primarily in view of the fragmentation of the priestly schism itself. “At present, three elements are in ferment in his false hierarchy: 1) the Russian false hierarchy, adjacent to the same Austrian one, 2) the Russian one, separating from this one, 3) the fugitive priesthood of the Russian Orthodox ordination. When the Austrian false priesthood appeared in the Moscow diocese, 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 Austro-Russian false priesthood, some are already rejecting it and accepting the purely Russian; and where possible, they leave both and turn to a fugitive Russian Orthodox priest for ordination. So, is it really possible to recognize three schismatic hierarchies and, if I may put it this way, three schismatic churches? Even if we reject the Austro-Russian styria, there will still be a false Russian hierarchy and a priesthood running away from the Orthodox Church. Can guild worker Andrei Shu become a bishop? Is it possible to form a hierarchy of fugitive priests? Is this possible both on the part of the government and on the part of the schismatics themselves, according to whose concept bishops are necessary for a complete hierarchy? Is there really a way to create more fugitive bishops” 94? But the above difficulties do not end the list of them. The most important difficulty lies in the uncertain position in which, with the recognition of schismatic false hierarchies, the main pillar of state unity and strength - the Orthodox Church - will have to become. Neither “Cyril, who, contrary to the first apostolic canon, was ordained by one bishop, and who did not have the right to ordain, can be recognized by the Orthodox Church as a true bishop,” 95 nor the priests he ordained. “From this it follows that if at any time the civil authorities, in relation to 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.” Likewise, “if the civil authorities decided to look at the fugitive priests as legitimate among the schismatics, the spiritual authorities, nevertheless, would be obliged, according to church rules, to recognize them as prohibited from sacred service and subject to defrocking, and then it would turn out that the state provides impunity for those guilty before the Orthodox Church and encourages desertion from church service. How could one get out of such contradictions? Should the Orthodox hierarchy be forced to admit 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 right of the main hierarchy would be obliged to suffer rather than submit to such coercion, according to the apostolic word: and it is fitting to obey God, rather than man” (Acts 5:29). Thus, it is also recognized that it leads to a violation of the unity and harmony that currently exists between the Orthodox Church and the state and has not hitherto been violated by any mutually contradictory views - to the destruction of the harmony between them that has existed from time immemorial in Russia, which other Christian nations do not have, and by which Russia alone can be strong - therefore, to such destruction, the consequences of which are difficult to weigh. Finally, together with the indicated very important difficulties, church canonical and state, the official recognition of schismatic false hierarchies should arouse many administrative and practical perplexities, although not particularly important, but not easily resolved. If “in one city there are two sees, two bishops: there may be more than one Orthodox of the latter kind; two diocesan administrations, in one village two parishes: Orthodox and ex-Orthodox, in one village or hamlet one courtyard of an Orthodox diocese, the other of an ex-Orthodox one - how many cases lead to clashes and confusion? Where will the boundaries of dioceses and parishes be? Now 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 remain in these ranks then, or will they be singled out, and moreover, alone, or with families and offspring, and then, as they complain about the large number of the Orthodox clergy, a new, numerous ex-Orthodox clergy will be created, especially if they receive both deacons and clerks? Will ex-Orthodox bishops have consistories and on what content? Or will they be left with the current government, arbitrary, unlimited 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. The resolution of all these issues with the recognition of the priestly split is necessary to eliminate the numerous reasons for clashes and confusion; but is it easy to do? In the previous chapters, we determined what, from the point of view of M. Philaret, should be the general nature of the influence of state power on the schism and its various heretical sects and factions, how this general character should be modified in its particular application to the schism and its sects and factions in accordance with the direction and spirit of the teachings of the latter and in which it finds its justification. This definition showed us that measures of state power directed against heretics and schismatics must exclude, according to Filaret, any thought about the possibility of granting the latter the right to absolute individual religious freedom or, what is the same, unlimited freedom in matters of faith and conscience. Wanting to see the application of the Christian principle of tolerance in matters of faith as the basis of the religious policy of the Russian state, at the same time, Filaret demanded from him that this principle be moderated, limited by other principles, the principles of “justice and caution.” The limitation of the schism and its heretical sects and factions in the rights of religious freedom follows, according to Filaret, from the recognition of its harmfulness in church and state terms, but this same recognition, in his court, serves as a sufficient basis for limiting the legal capacity of the schism and its sects and factions, not only religious, but also any other political and civil. “Rights in an Orthodox state,” says Filaret, belong to an Orthodox Christian and a loyal subject. One who acts out of obedience to the Orthodox Church, like one who deviates from the obligation of loyalty, more or less loses his rights, or exposes himself to restrictions on his rights, and does not acquire any rights in his position 96. As a matter of fact, according to Filaret, the question of the rights of schismatics cannot even be raised. If, due to such or other circumstances, the question is raised for resolution, in this case it is appropriate to speak “not about the rights of the heirs, but about the possible reduction of those restrictions in general rights to which the schismatics subjected themselves and were subjected to laws, acting out of legal relations with the Orthodox Church” 97 . Thus, the question of the rights of schismatics can be resolved not in the sense of “what schismatics can rightfully demand,” but in the sense of “what state power can give them in its spirit of tolerance and love of freedom.” From the point of view of these general principled judgments, M. Filaret denied some civil rights of schismatics, for example. family law or the legality of schismatic marriage unions. From a church point of view, marriage is a sacrament that schismatics either completely reject, or even if they recognize it, they perform it outside the Orthodox Church by arbitrarily appointed priests, through which, according to Filaret, they deprive themselves of the right to recognize its legitimacy. Therefore, when the question arose about the recognition of the legality of such unions between sectarians by the civil authorities, based on the latter’s right to approve in special forms schismatic marriages without a wedding (by recording such cases in special police books), Metropolitan Filaret reacted negatively to this project. This project was based on the idea that the complete non-recognition by civil authorities of marital unions between sectarians, not sanctified 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. M. Filaret agreed that this idea, if true, would give a strong incentive to recognize such marriages. But is this idea really true? M. Filaret answers this question as follows. “The firmness of a marriage is a religious conviction in the sanctity of marriage, and not from recording it 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; and even more conducive to the rampant passions is the complete non-recognition of marriage, according to the teachings of the sect. 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.” Recognition of the legality of a schismatic marriage by the civil authorities would put this very authority in conflict with the principles of justice and legality, for to allow such recognition “would mean introducing a new unknown and contrary to the laws kind of conjugal unions, recognizing what is unrecognized by the laws, legitimizing what is illegal, and 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.” So, if, from the point of view of the church, a schismatic marriage must be recognized as illegal, if civil recognition of the legality of this marriage does not lead to the purpose for which its legality is recognized, and also puts civil power in conflict with justice and the laws of the country, then, according to the court of M. Philaret, a record of schismatic marriages should not be made not only in church records, but also in civil or in police books specially designated for this purpose. But Philaret’s idea about the illegality of recording schismatic marriages in police books receives special evidentiary force when he draws the government’s attention to those highly abnormal, from the church point of view, consequences that entail the most <…>unions, Filaret talks about the form of these records, not consecrated by a wedding in the church, but recorded in special police books, it is supposed to “not be recognized subject to dispute." The last expression must be considered inaccurate. In addition to the fact that such marriages in certain cases can be challenged before a church court, they can, of necessity, be challenged if, after being recorded in the police books, it turns out that they are related in a very close relationship, or that the husband entered into marriage with a living wife, etc. It would be more accurate to say that marriages not married in a church, but only recorded in police books, are recognized as not entirely correct, but nevertheless valid for the enjoyment of civil rights.” The very correctness of schismatic marriages, according to Filaret, is not sufficiently guaranteed by an entry in the police book. The record is not a reliable basis for correctness. “Schismatics either do not consider it a sin to tell a lie in favor of schism, or they consider it such a sin that their mentors can easily forgive them, or cleanse them with a few prostrations to the ground. So, witnesses will appear at the police record of the marriage, schismatics will hide 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 he has joined the Orthodox Church: and the marriage will be recognized to the detriment of Orthodoxy and to the temptation of the Orthodox. However, here it is easier to show what dubious path the legislation is taking than to indicate the undoubted path.” Just as much as, from the point of view of M. Philaret, the recognition of the legality of schismatic marriages, made by recording the latter in police books, should be considered an abnormal phenomenon in its consequences, the dissolution of such marriages with the help of civil authorities should be considered just as abnormal in its consequences, according to the court of M. Philaret. According to the rules drawn up in the draft, the dissolution of a declared schismatic marriage was submitted to the jurisdiction of the chambers of the civil court. In the application of these rules, M. Filaret saw many inconveniences. “Before the conscience of schismatics who accept the priesthood, it is like marriage in the Orthodox Church. For the civil chamber to terminate the effect of the sacrament, and to 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. But if this incongruity enters into practice, and as a result the idea spreads that marriage is a union that can be destroyed 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. 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 civil authorities as applying an article of the Code of Laws to the case. In order, at least partially, to eliminate the inconveniences shown, would it not be possible to replace the proposed rule on the civil dissolution of schismatic marriages as follows? 1) Cases of schismatics’ crimes 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 requiring the application of church laws, then the chamber will communicate with the Orthodox spiritual authorities on how church law should be applied to the case presented in the case; 3) if the spiritual authorities declare that the present case leads to the dissolution of the marriage, then the chamber declares the marriage destroyed.” If, from a spiritual point of view, according to the court of M. Philaret, schismatic marital cohabitations must be recognized as illegal unions, then it is natural that in his eyes both the wives in such unions or marriages and the children born in them should have been recognized as illegal. Therefore, if it is not typical for the clergy to keep a record of marriages that are incorrect in the eyes of the church, then in essence the matter should not have been entered into the church birth records by the authorities, for such a record of the birth of schismatic children does not correspond to the purpose of church metrics. “The purpose of church metrics,” says Filaret, and the church’s need for them, is so that the Orthodox Church correctly knows her children adopted by her through baptism, and therefore can correctly and undoubtedly teach them the sacraments that follow. From this it is obvious, Filaret continues, that the priest is obliged to register only Orthodox Christians who have been baptized in the church, and is not obliged to register schismatics.” But this, according to Filaret, is only one side of the matter, which, due to its significance, should definitely be taken into account if there were no circumstances on the opposite side that deserve respect. The first motivating reason for recording the births of children of schismatics in church metrics is the fact that “baptism, even performed by schismatics in the name of the Most Holy Trinity, has its force in the Orthodox Church” 98 . The second similar reason should be considered the important practical significance of these metrics for the state. “Church metrics are of no small importance in civil and state administration and are used for the annual number of people, since audits are rare; to verify the audits themselves, to certify that people belong to states, to determine the age for entering into adulthood and for performing conscription duties. It is nice to think that the church brings this service to the state free of charge, placing this burden and rather difficult responsibility on its servants. With zeal for the common good, there is no reason for the state to want its own national metrics” 99: for maintaining them “will require an increase in the offices of police departments and bailiffs and, consequently, special costs from the treasury”; such metrics “would be difficult for the people.” According to the rules drawn up for these metrics, “for each case of birth in the village, the applicant and two witnesses must go to the police officer, often 20 or more miles away, and, if he is absent on duty, wait for him, not knowing how long; or return, not knowing when it would be more reliable to come again” 100. Finally, civil metrics “would hardly reach not only the highest, but also the same degree of fidelity as church metrics achieve under hierarchical discipline,” 101 because “it is difficult to expect that the records of statements would be correct.” The accuracy and safety of the records in church records is ensured by the fact that the parish priest with three or at least two other members of the clergy are responsible for them, and that the correctness of these records is supervised by the dean 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, provides statistical tables and is stored.” The third motivating reason for recording the births of schismatic children in church records is the fact that “schismatics are not recognized in the state as a special legal class,” which means “it is not possible to make a special institution for schismatic records, for such an institution would be the calling of schismatics as a special class in the state.” The last two reasons for recording the births of schismatics’ children in church records serve as sufficient grounds, in Filaret’s opinion, for recording the deaths of schismatics in these metrics. Regarding the very method and form of recording the events of the birth and death of schismatics, according to Filaret, the following rules could be established. 1) “The record of the birth and death of schismatics is kept by the parish clergy at their place of residence, but in the same way as the metric books of Orthodox forms, in the form of a separate addition to them. 2) A statement about these events is made in the presence of two witnesses, or, in villages, in the presence of a member of the village administration, who sign the record along with the clergy. 3) It is announced about those born: whether they were born in marriage or out of wedlock, but <...> it is not included in the inquiry into the legality of the marriage. If you subsequently need a certificate of legitimacy, then it will be possible to establish yourself on the police record of your parents’ marriage. 4) It is announced about the deceased, at what age he died, whether he died a natural death, and, if they know, from what disease. Such an order would have the following advantages: 1) For the applicant of birth and death and witnesses, in the greatest number of cases, it is closer and more convenient to reach the village parish priest than to the bailiff. 2) It is more convenient to obtain the necessary information, certificates and people count from one source than from different ones. 3) 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. Denying family rights in the schism, Metropolitan Filaret also spoke out against the admission of schismatics to icon painting workshops. And when it is prohibited to engage in icon painting, schismatics do not abandon this craft; “And having received the rights to this by law, with greater force they will distribute their works, which are harmful to Orthodoxy and to art itself. They do not learn icon painting according to the rules, do not paint icons from old sketches, which they have in large numbers, and produce incorrect, often ugly, images based on false traditions. Even now, when painting or renewing icons in Orthodox churches, they intensify, with the favor of some parishioners, to spread the two-fingered sign of the cross on the icons; and it is difficult for priests to preserve unchanged 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 icons will take on a schismatic appearance and become visual evidence in favor of a schism, to seduce the Orthodox.” According to Filaret, schismatics also have the right to establish their own schools. “Such an institution comes close 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.” Likewise, M. Philaret denied the right of schismatics to send their children to general schools without compulsory training in the Law of God. If a schismatic son in school does not think at all about the Law of God, and in his parents’ home he finds only ignorance and, perhaps, a bad example, then what will happen to his religion? Therefore, the children of schismatics can only be admitted to general schools when they, refusing to listen to the entire course of the Law of God, at least give the obligation to “study the Creed, the Lord’s Prayer and the Ten Commandments, using, if they want, old printed books.” Collection opinions and feedback, according to the church. state question V, part 2, p. 555 p. Collection of many and reviews, vol. V, part 2, p. 556. State teaching of Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow, 2nd ed. Moscow, 1885, 42 pp. Collected, pl. and review, vol. V, part 2, 605,555 pp. Ibid., Vol. 1, part 1, 238,251 pages, part 2, 601 pages. Collection pl. and review, vol.V, 1st, 495 pp.; middle part 2, 556 pages and letters to the Highnesses. persons, part 1, 3 pages. Collection pl. and review, vol.V, 1st, 362 pp.; Wed letters to high persons, part 1, 3 pages. Collection pl. and review, vol. V, 1st, 362 pp. Collection pl. and review, vol.V, 1st, 362 pp.; State Academician Filaret, 126 pages, see about the same in letters to the Highness. persons, part 1, 11 pages. Collection of many and review III vol., 296,293 pp. The saint here refers to the order of the Caucasian Committee, which in 1860 allowed heterodox missionaries to convert pagans living in the Caucasus to their confession. Collection of many and review IV vol., 557–558 pp. Ibid., III, 216, cf. 293 pp. Ibid., vol. V, part 2, 594 pp. Collection of many and rev., IV, pp.330–331 Ibid., vol. V, part 2, 742 pp. Letters to the architect. Tversk. Alexy, 268–269 pp. Collection pl. and review, IV vol., 297 pp. Collection pl. and review II, 373 pp.; III. 63 pp. Collection pl. and reviews, II, 410–411 pp. Collection pl. and rev., II, vol. additional, 463 pp. Collection pl. and review, vol.V, 579, 441 pp.; Vol. IV, 21 pp. Collection pl. and review, IV, 299 pp. Letters from Filaret to Ignatius of Kamchatka. Collection pl. and review, IV, 579 pp. Collection pl. and review, IV, 299 pp. Collection pl. and review, IV, 230 pp. Collection pl. and review, VI,512–513, V,924–926 pp. Collection pl. and review, V, 598 pp. Collection pl. and review, IV, 328 pp. Collection pl. review, IV vol., 330–331; 556, 89 pp. Collection pl. review, V, 742,417 pp., add. 7. 466 pp. Collection pl. review, IV, 281, 297–298 pp. Collection pl. Review IVv., 10 pp. Collection pl. Review Ill, 254 pp. also III. 107–109; IV t. 40–41 pp. Collection pl. Review III vol., 288 pp. 251 pp. Collection pl. Review V vol., part 1, 69–70 pp. Collection pl. Review III vol., 107–108, V vol., 555 pp. Collection pl. Review IVt., 327–3 p.82 See Mission. Review 1900 February pp. 216–218. Collection pl. and review III vol., 92 pp. Collection pl. and review III, 109 pp.; IV, 40–41 pp. Collection pl. and dept., additional volume 379–383. Collection pl. and review III vol., 93 pp. Collection pl. and review IV vol., 267 pp. Collection pl. and review IV vol., 297 pp. Collection pl. and review II vol., 264 pp. Collection pl. and review II vol., 442–443 pp. letter of Metropolitan Philaret to Gabriel, 29 pp. See journal. minister enlightenment 1835, November. Review foreign language newspapers and magazines in Russia, p. 3 Pedagogy. Collection pl. and review additional v., 229 pp. Arr. to creativity Holy Fathers 37 parts 330–331 pages. Collection pl. and review II vol., 22–24 pp. Psm. High Special I, 26 pp. Collection pl. and review II volume, 441 pp. Collection pl. and review II volume, 70 pp. “Missionary. Review." March, 390–397. Collection pl. and review IV vol., 300 pp. Collection pl. and review III vol. 29 pp. Collection pl. and review II volume additional, 465 pp. 292–273, V volume 2nd part 605 pp. Collection plural and review 292–293 pp. Collection pl. and review III vol. 292 pp. Collected information and reviews IV vol., 300 pp. Collection pl. and reviews, II vol., 369–372 pp. Collection pl. and review, III vol., 92 pp. Collection pl. and review, vol. II, 372 pp. Collection pl. and review V vol., 2 hours, 742 pages. Collection pl. and review IV vol., 331 pp. Collection pl. and review V vol. 2 hours 742–743 pp. Collection pl. and review V vol. 2 hours 743 pages Ibid., vol. 2, 743 pages. Collection pl. and review, volume will be supplemented. 463–165 pp. Collection pl. and review V vol., I part., 494 pp. Collection pl. and review V vol., part 2, 580 pp. Ibid., V vol., part 2, 215. p. Collection pl. and review." II volume 454 pp. Collection pl. and review V vol., 2nd part, 583 pp. Collection pl. and review III vol., 216 pp.