Treatises

Contents About neologism or rationalism A look at Greek philosophy The planting and success of Christianity in Ancient Kherson A look at our diplomatic relations with the Roman court on the affairs of the Roman Church About the oath of Catholic bishops to the pope About the newly established Roman Catholic diocese in Kherson About the education of Polish youth About the restoration of ancient holy places in the Crimean mountains The Kherson proposal Diocesan Consistory Proposal of the Kherson Diocesan Consistory Analysis of the essay by Bishop Macarius, Doctor of Theology, entitled “Orthodox Dogmatic Theology” The origin and fate of the Dnieper Poem “Don’t be discouraged” About neologism or rationalism Rationalists are those of the newest foreign theologians who do not allow anything supernatural in the Christian religion, and are called on the assumption that they act in the matter of religion in accordance with the dignity of reason: others much more justly and decently call them neologists, new-fangled theologians, the newest Socians and Christian deists. Rationalism is usually, although unfairly, contrasted with supernaturalism, or that way of thinking about religion that allows for the existence of supernatural revelation. Since this way of thinking has been professed in theology from the beginning of Christianity to our times, the rationalists who follow it are called paleologists or old theologians. Origin of neologism. The neologism originated in Germany at the beginning of the last half of the last (eighteenth) century. The immediate reason for its spread was the growing opinion among the theologians of that time that the system of church teaching among Catholics and Protestants did not agree in everything with the teachings of the Bible, and therefore their dogma, in its previous form, was completely unsuitable for modern times. As a result of this prejudice, many dogmas were subjected to criticism, which did not hesitate to declare some of them unproven and contrary to reason. The most moderate of the German neologians thought to be satisfied with the transformation of church teaching, in the spirit of the Socinians; but the majority, under the leadership of the secret society of the Illuminati, went further. Some, for example Eichhorn, cast suspicion on the authenticity and inspiration of the sacred books and sought ways to explain naturally everything that was supernatural in them. Others, like Ammon, slandered the history of dogmas, representing their formation in its present form as a consequence of the influence of Eastern and Neoplatonic philosophy, both on the teachers of the Church and on the most sacred writers; others defended the dignity of natural religion, supposedly unfairly humiliated in front of Christian religion; some, such as Bard and Edelman, tried to assimilate the very founders of Christianity into a rationalistic way of thinking, recognizing them as teachers of natural religion, misunderstood and disfigured by their followers. Having no common beginning, each neologist accepted and rejected what he wanted, until Kant confined religion within the limits of so-called pure reason. The main goal of neology. Holding to the main position of Kant's religion, that Christianity is nothing more than a symbolic representation of the ideas of natural religion, neologists directed all their efforts to, with the help of philosophy, discover in historical Christian symbols a pure religion under the name of Christian. The doctrine of neologians and its refutation. I. To achieve this goal, neologists: do not admit supernatural revelation. a) For,” they say, “in ancient times, due to a lack of psychological information, all extraordinary changes in the human soul were produced from the influence of higher beings. Answer 1. This unproven assumption might have some application to the sacred writers, if they demanded faith without proof; but they, speaking about their extraordinary relationship with the Spirit of God, cited as proof of this such deeds, which irrefutably testified to the extraordinary presence of the power of God in them. Were miracles really performed because they did not know the latest psychology? Answer 2. The sacred writers knew how to distinguish and distinguished in the matter of religion the works of their own mind from the inspirations of the Spirit of God (1 Cor. 7:10–12, 2 Cor. 11:17), and they themselves warned against such people who pass off as revelation the arbitrariness of their own mind and heart (Jer. 23:25–40, 27:16–18). b) In the sacred books, say neologists, there is nothing that cannot be explained from the natural abilities and information of their writers. But if it were really possible to explain everything in this way, then no one would have the right to encroach on that. For the sacred writers themselves repeatedly and decisively assert that they did not themselves invent their teaching, but received it from God through direct revelation (for example, 2 Pet. 1:21), so that sometimes they themselves did not fully understand what they had to say at the inspiration of the Spirit of God for future generations (for example, Dan. 12:6-9, Jer. 23:20). Moreover, it is impossible to explain all the teaching contained in the sacred books from the natural abilities and information of their writers. For these writers were simple and unlearned people: therefore, they could not invent any high teaching, such as we see in the sacred books. c) Inspiration, say neologists, is incompatible with the moral independence of a rational being. Answer 1. The origin of concepts in the soul from the impression of sensory objects does not destroy the moral independence of a person, much less can it be destroyed by the action of spiritual power on the human soul. Answer 2. Daily experience teaches that the flow of thoughts in our mind is not always arbitrary, and that often without our desire, even against our will, thoughts come through which sometimes lofty truths are revealed. Whoever believes in Providence will not deny that their involuntary flow is subject to the laws at the disposal of Providence, and therefore cannot doubt the compatibility of inspiration with human freedom. d) If revelation is necessary for the good of the human race, then it is incomprehensible, as the neologians say, why Providence did not communicate it to all people. Answer 1. Initially, the revelation was communicated, in the person of Adam and Noah, to all people. The history of religion shows that the peoples who descended from the family of Noah after the Babylonian pandemonium themselves gradually distorted and lost the correct concepts about it, indulging in fiction and passions. The Christian religion is also intended for the entire human race (Mark 16:15), and through the apostles it was proclaimed to the entire then known world (Rom. 10:18). Answer 2. The application of the saving truths of the Christian religion to peoples who remain ignorant of it cannot be limited to the brief boundaries of this life, because Holy Scripture itself presents an example to the contrary (1 Pet. 3:19-20). Answer 3. The neologist must resolve the same objection. In his opinion, knowledge and fulfillment of moral duties require a mind educated by philosophy. So, it is not clear why Providence left and is leaving so many peoples without philosophy? In a similar way, the neologist must answer why natural religion is not known to all peoples in its pure form? e) The one who has received revelation, say neologists, cannot have reasonable confidence that Divine revelation has been communicated to him; This requires a new revelation, and so on. But the very image and content of revelation may already contain many decisive signs of its direct origin from God. If, however, these signs are supplemented by external evidence consisting of some miraculous phenomena; then the Divinity of revelation exceeds all doubt. II. Neologists reject sacraments. For, they say, the sacraments are contrary to the purpose of revelation, which is to teach people. Answer. The sacraments are not only not contrary to this goal, but even more instructive than other objects, because they contain the highest truths. Their mystery does not lie in the fact that we have no idea about the thing we believe in, but in the fact that we do not understand the inner possibility of what is represented. b) It is impossible, say the neologists, to have a reasonable conviction in the truth of the sacraments, for reason cannot see their agreement with the laws of the mind. Answer. There are two ways to convince yourself of the truth of something: the path of reflection (philosophy) and the path of witnessing others (history). We reach conviction in the truth of the sacraments by the last route, which is as much in agreement with reason as the first. c) Sacraments, say neologists, even if possible, are useless. Answer. On the contrary: firstly, in theoretical terms they complement the shortcomings of natural religion and open up reason; secondly, in practical terms they serve as the basis for the most comforting and edifying truths, strengthening the will in the creation of good; thirdly, in general they elevate the human spirit, lift it above the narrow circle of limited existence and bring it closer to the infinite. III. Neologists do not allow miracles. a) Because, as they say, miracles transform the laws of nature. Answer 1. Miracles do not imply a complete transformation of the laws of nature, but only the production of such phenomena that cannot be explained by these laws. Answer 2. If a person, by his own freedom, can make some changes in the ordinary course of things without violating their fundamental laws; all the more is this possible for the Creator of the universe. Answer 3. The laws of nature are the best for achieving ordinary, universal goals, but this does not exclude miracles as a means to achieve higher goals. The moral kingdom, like the kingdom of freedom, could not be contained in the necessary laws of the kingdom of nature. If the relationship of rational creatures to their Creator is based on freedom, then the Creator’s relationship to them cannot be subject to the indispensable physical laws of natural necessity. b) In order to recognize any phenomenon as a miracle, say neologists, that is, as a direct expression of creative power, one must be sure that in the immeasurable series of natural causes there is no one that could produce such a phenomenon, and for this it is necessary to know the entire composition of the world, which is impossible. Answer 1. The demand is unfair! For this purpose, it is enough to know that the cause that produced the miraculous phenomenon is not such that it could produce it; for example, the resurrection of the dead in one word, and that all the causes known to us are also incapable of producing it. Answer 2. The assumption that in this case some unknown natural cause acted is unfounded, because, firstly, in this case the unknown will also be explained by the unknown; secondly, an insoluble question arises: why did an unknown reason appear to perform a miracle exactly when the miracle worker wanted, and in the form in which he wanted? And, thirdly, it is permissible to slander Providence, as if it allows certain natural causes to act completely contrary to moral purposes. c) Belief in miracles, say neologists, is based on the testimony of people; but people cannot testify to the supernatural nature of any event because the supernatural is not subject to experience, on which all evidence is based. But with every miracle, two things must be considered: firstly, did the incident that is presented as a miracle really happen, and, secondly, is this incident really a miracle, the basis of which is outside the visible world? In the first case, we are convinced by the testimony of other people, but in the latter we must be convinced by our own reflection on the nature of the incident itself and its relationship to the laws of nature. d) Most of the miracles described in the New Testament are nothing more, say neologists, than strange cases (miraculousness), which are considered miracles due to lack of enlightenment. But, firstly, this assumption is stranger than the supposed strangenesses. It is known that such an extraordinary confluence of circumstances, which could be considered a miracle, happens very rarely: by what miracle was such a confluence repeated almost continuously during the short time of the ministry of Jesus Christ on earth? Who made nature open up all the sources of the miraculous at this time? Secondly, if this were a matter of one case, then the actors could not have promised miracles with such confidence with which they promised. Thirdly, the certain correctness of their character demanded that they disabuse those who considered their actions to be miracles. Fourthly, faith, which Jesus Christ and His apostles constantly demanded, and without which they could not perform miracles (Mark 6:5), shows that miracles were psychological actions, say neologists. Answer. It is true that faith was a necessary condition for the performance of miracles, although they were also performed by the power of God; for this power produced them for the moral improvement of people, and such a goal could not be achieved without faith on their part. However, many miracles were performed without faith in those subjects over whom they were performed; for example, the fig tree could not have faith, but it withered; the storm also could not have faith, but it miraculously subsided more than once, and so on. f) If Jesus Christ and the apostles performed real miracles, then it is not clear, say neologists, why most of the Jews did not believe them. But if they didn’t do it, then it’s even more incomprehensible how most of the human race believed them. How could they themselves be so convinced of the Divinity of the religion they taught that they all almost suffered a painful death for it? The mind, blinded by passions, will always find reasons to doubt the truth of miracles. What is more wonderful than the visible world? However, an atheist does not believe in God. g) All peoples in a rude state talk about miracles and prophecies, say the neologists. But counterfeit miracles not only do not refute real ones, they also necessarily presuppose the existence of them, just as the existence of a counterfeit coin necessarily presupposes the existence of a genuine one. Concerning the perfectibility of the Christian religion. The perfectibility of the Christian religion can be either prepositional or subject. The essential perfectibility of religion lies in the fact that those who profess it try to acquire more and more knowledge about it, to comprehend the ideal of perfection contained in it. A religion is pre-improvable when the sum of the truths that make it up can either be increased, or some truths can be replaced by others or altered. In the first respect, no one denies the perfectibility of the Christian religion. Neologists consider it perfected even in the last sign, for the following reasons: 1. It is impossible to think, they say, that the human race at the time of the advent of Christianity stood at such a stage of revelation of mental and moral powers that the most perfect religion of which only man is somewhat capable on earth could be imparted to it. a) But the human race really stood then at a high degree of development of mental powers. The Greeks and Romans showed such experiments in their mental activity that they are surprised and imitated even in modern times. b) A person at a young age can learn all the main problems of any science and the main way to solve them, in order to embrace the entire circle of science. c) The wisdom of God could give a religion that, while satisfying the needs of people at a lower level of education, was at the same time capable of satisfying the needs of people of higher education. d) Religion should not contain the complexity of all knowledge about God; it should contain only the essence of this knowledge; but this essence is always the same. 2) The very property of the Christian religion shows that it is perfectible, say neologists, because, firstly, it has different images of representing things: higher (purely rational) and lower (symbolic), and secondly, some objects are not sufficiently illuminated, for example, the future life. a) But often neologists consider simple human ideas to be lower symbolic images, and often constitute higher objects that are not comprehended by the mind, but contemplated by faith, for example, the sacrament of redemption. In the teaching of the true Church these images are presented in perfect harmony with the entire economy of salvation; b) as for the darkness in which the future life is imagined; then the essential questions of it, the solution of which is necessary for the peace of the human race, are resolved quite sufficiently in the Christian religion, and incomplete coverage of this subject is necessary so that human virtue has more purity and selflessness. 3. The patriarchal and Mosaic religions have been improved over time; why, say the neologists, not think that the Christian religion should also be improved over time? Answer. The example of such religions only proves that revealed religion can be perfected if it pleases its Originator. But it does not follow from this that she has always been like that. The perfection of the patriarchal and Mosaic religions was predicted in the Old Testament revelation itself (for example, Hag. 2: 7–9, n.: Heb. 12: 2–27). On the contrary, the New Testament religion must be unchangeable (Heb. 12:27–28), so that any change in it entails a curse, according to the word of the apostle (Gal. 1:8–9). Regarding the theory of adaptation. The device may concern either form or matter. The first kind of adaptation dominates throughout Holy Scripture, for it is written in a form simple and understandable for one and all. Material adaptation can be either negative, when some truths are kept silent, and positive, when errors are taught or approved. Negative adaptation is not alien to the sacred writers (John 16:12, 1 Cor. 12:22, Gal. 3:15). Neologists attribute to them a positive adaptation, thinking this way: if we assume that the apostles and Jesus Christ Himself did not use positive adaptation, then we must agree that they had the same prejudices that prevailed among the Jews of that time. For example, about the appearance of Angels, about the action of evil spirits, and so on. Answer. It is still necessary to prove that the opinions that neologians regard as prejudices are really prejudices. But none of the neologists can prove this. In this case, all their reasons lie in one thing: the mind does not understand the internal possibility of any teaching, for example, about the appearance of Angels, about the action of evil spirits, and the like. But according to this rule, it is possible to turn into prejudice, for example, the connection of the soul with the body, the relationship of the world to God, and the like; in the teaching about these objects, the mind also does not understand the internal possibility thereof. The theory of adaptation, in addition to the fact that it does not have a solid foundation, is also unsuitable because, firstly, the supposed adaptation is completely unworthy of the sacred writers, as messengers of God, who repeatedly and solemnly assured that they speak the same truth (John 18:37, 8:46). Secondly, it is completely unnecessary. The preaching of the Cross shook all prejudices, even the entire way of thinking about religion, both Jew and pagan. Having succeeded in this most difficult task, the sacred writers no longer had the need to spare any other prejudices among people, especially since the latter listened to them as if they were God Himself. If, apparently, adaptation was needed, it was in the teaching of moral rules, for the heart is always more persistent than the mind; however, even the most rationalists admit that the morality set forth in the New Testament is very pure and strict for sensuality. Thirdly, the theory of adaptation leads to the distortion and destruction of Christianity. Based on the theory of accommodation, everyone can accept or reject what he pleases in the Holy Scriptures; as happened with the neologians, who encroach on the rejection of the most basic truths of Christianity, such as, for example, the Divinity of Jesus Christ, the personality of the Holy Spirit, the fall of man, the spread of original sin, atonement, and so on. A Look at Greek Philosophy The golden chain of mental works, each of which bears the stamp of a special action of some mental faculty, and all together reveal clear traces of a genius, once tireless in work, always new in inventions, often astonishing with the very errors - this is the curious side in the survey of Greek philosophy! How much benefit there is from this review! Philosophy completed its circle among the Greeks under the continuous influence of laws to which the eternal mind subordinated the revelation of finite minds. The new philosophy completes its circle under the influence of the same laws. Knowledge of these laws is the only means to more accurately conform to them. But these laws, being clear in themselves, are always covered with some darkness during their operation. The reason for this is the limitations of the human mind, for which it is difficult, almost impossible, to act and notice the laws of one’s actions at the same time. So, necessity itself forces us to learn to know these laws from the experience of our predecessors. In this regard, consideration of the course of Greek philosophy can serve as a preliminary explanation of the course of new philosophy and, so to speak, an introduction to the latter. Greek philosophy, having ascended to a certain degree of perfection, began its return journey, humiliated itself, and fell. Such transformation of it is not a matter of chance, it is the bitter fruit of causes that produce disastrous consequences. Is the new philosophy completely safe from the influence of these causes? Doesn't looking at them serve as the best warning against them? Or does the necessity of rise and fall, which fetters visible nature, also extend to invisible works? But even in this case, precaution is not unnecessary: ​​it can at least postpone the fatal moment. Is this already impossible?.. Let us hasten to follow in the footsteps of Greek philosophy; Perhaps we will see from her very course that the deplorable end that befell her was the result of her arbitrary deviations from the straight path, and that this path in itself is nowhere blocked for a person. Philosophy, before it appeared among the Greeks in its own form, for a long time wore the clothing of fabulousness, which it brought from the barbarians. Despite the captivating diversity of such clothing, underneath it hid an ugly skeleton, made up of dissimilar bones, rotten over the centuries and not supported by blind faith in legends. However, the Greeks did not dare to touch these clothes for a long time, considering them to be the work of the gods. The mental state of these people was almost childish. Children are afraid of darkness: what is darker than legends? Therefore, their thoughts, without delving into the interior of the legends, flew on their surface, constantly scattering flowers, content with their smell and not caring about satisfying their inner hunger. The philosophy of imagination is undoubtedly not true philosophy. However, it has its perfections. The range of imagination is vast, although not defined: it cannot delve into objects, but it can freely rise above them. Especially the fables of the Greeks have a lot of wonderful things in them. Their imagination, governed by the taste for the elegant, which nature had so generously endowed them with, resolved, in its own way, almost the same questions on which their higher faculties subsequently worked. Having no principles of its own, it used internal premonitions instead. The leader is unreliable in further efforts to reveal known truths, but often faithful in the initial attempt to discover still unknown ones. For the repository of these premonitions is the heart, and the heart in general has retained more feelings about its purpose than the mind has retained concepts about the superiority of this purpose. How important must be those moments in the course of the unfolding of mental powers in any people, in which the power of such premonitions is apparently revealed! They are not children for long: the imagination of the Greeks, which had moved from Pindus to Parnassus, from Helicon to Styx, became tired and, intentionally or accidentally, sank into the noisy circle of political affairs. Having descended from Olympus, philosophy sat down, as if to rest, in a legislative place and, hitherto engaged in its own amusement, began to care about the good of the people, as if in order to leave a favorable opinion in its minds, when the inner voice of genius again called it to its lofty pursuits. Her genius poured out healing drops of moral sayings, which served as excellent medicine for mental ulcers. Turning around in the circle of the hostel, he, on the one hand, weaned himself from useless hovering, on the other hand, he got used to the attentiveness that his own benefit required in this circle, he managed to consider a person in his general form, to notice his needs, desires and hopes. The barbarians did not see such a change in their philosophy: they retained its pyitic clothing and lost the happiness of contemplating its very essence. Maybe Greek philosophy... Let us not obscure its clear dawn with gloomy guesses: let us rather hasten to meet its very luminary, which appeared under the clear sky of Ionia. Already the experienced wisdom of the seven sages could not satisfy the constantly growing desire for knowledge of nature, and the noble circle of self-thinking seemed to open up on its own before the eyes of lovers of wisdom, but they, out of a strange prejudice against themselves, considering themselves unworthy to enter into it, tried to redeem from other peoples the right that did not belong to them - by studying their mysteries. What could be more striking than the spectacle when these true children of Minerva leave their fatherland, sometimes wandering in the form of merchants in order to collect the treasures of their imaginary mother squandered among different nations? - At this time, the genius of the Greeks was, as it were, in the state of self-interested people who, not noticing the treasures before their eyes, look for them in foreign lands. All that was required was a solid mind, and the Greeks could find in themselves, in the best possible form, what they sought in vain among other peoples. Thales appears and lays the first stone at the head of Greek philosophy. Although this stone, having been laid, so to speak, by a trembling hand, was itself rather unsteady, however, similar stones were constantly attached to it, so that a fairly correct edifice of elemental philosophy was soon formed. Being vast in circumference, this building was very cramped in internal capacity. This capacity was measured by a thread of homogeneous fundamental substance, which kept the mind in the circle of material causes. Such inconvenience was shrewdly observed and happily averted by Anaxagoras. The order he discovered in the universe aroused its contemplators to a better order in their thinking, and the eternal mind, which he placed as the primary cause of all movement, showed the need to understand the essence of things to ascend from the visible to the invisible, from material to efficient and final causes. Guided by the feelings in the physical direction among the Ionians, philosophy could not make important progress, however, in the field of feelings it collected a great reserve for the concepts of reason. Nature itself, it seems, guided its still inexperienced observers in the exploration of its secrets. Naturally, they began with the things closest to their feelings, and she shied away from them as they followed her; and thus nature lured them into the interior of her sanctuary. While philosophy was struggling with great success in the field of physical research, its genius found a new organ in Pythagoras to demonstrate its powers. He inspired in him the desire to add to mental contemplation the concern for true activity, which, on the one hand, replenished the circle of philosophy, which had hitherto been as if half-filled, on the other hand, in some way marked the very source, which for a long time remained unresolved, but was subsequently supposed to shed abundant streams of true knowledge. Walking alongside the Ionian philosophy that was still continuing, the Pythagorean philosophy was separated from it by its strict rituals and numerical clothing, but in essence both philosophies had quite similar qualities. In general, it can be said that the refined and almost enthusiastic mind of Pythagoras embraced in abstraction, and therefore in unity, what the less flexible minds of the Ionians imagined in inseparability and, therefore, in multiplicity. In the entire philosophy of Pythagoras, a certain struggle of the genius with the state of the object on which he worked is visible; therefore, his philosophy can be compared to those plants that appear very early on the surface of the earth, revive the hope of the viewer, but, being struck by the cold, wither. When neither strict rituals and a plausible appearance, nor the accuracy of mathematical verification could protect philosophy, the former from external, and the latter from internal enemies, it, being squeezed into the circle of experience, took the most convenient step into the vast realm of the mind. This new direction, adopted by philosophy in the school of the Eleatics, shows that man has already sufficiently distinguished the spiritual from the physical being in himself, clearly understood the superiority of the former over the latter and, as if delighted with his dignity, tried to bring everything under his way of existence. However, the Elean sages, rich almost to excess in wit, were poor in intelligence. Therefore, leaving their own area without precise research, they rushed, with all the forces of mental weapons, to the opposite area of ​​experience, and in the devastation of alien bloodshed they tried to forget their own bloodlessness. But the irritated spirit of Empiricism, as if in mockery of its persecutor - idealism, which seemed already triumphant, summoned its defenders from its sanctuary, and with their hands erected an infinite number of worlds from dust particles and, what is most contrary to the idea, blind chance reigned in them. Such a system was like a random game of the genius of philosophy, who, at the end of his first career, wanted to show that he had already acquired so much strength and art that in his hands insignificant specks of dust produced not only worlds, but also the gods themselves. But for such a game, in which the moral sense was so grossly offended, philosophy had to undergo some rather strict purifications. People appeared who not only blamed her for the unsuccessful nature of her attempts, which in some ways she deserved, but also clearly rejected the very possibility of success and brazenly demanded that she give up the name of a seeker of truth that she had allegedly unjustly assigned. These were the sophists. Their attacks were all the more dangerous because the edifice of philosophy did not have a solid foundation, and therefore could easily shake and even collapse. However, the arrows they threw soon met a strong shield. It was Socrates. The genius of philosophy appeared in his person as an experienced old man who, with the rod of common sense, had to tame the ferocious riot of the young sophists. Sophistry is the shadow of true philosophy: it pursues when it recedes, and flees when it comes. Therefore, irony alone was enough to disperse all the hordes of sophists. The Sophists were sworn enemies of philosophy, but their hatred turned to its benefit. Her thin members, as a result of the shock produced from them, were torn away, but her healthy ones united more closely and began to unanimously act to protect her. To do this, it was necessary to descend through free reflection to the foundations on which philosophy was affirmed, to examine them impartially, and since they were either fragile or obscure, to replace them with new, more solid and clear ones. Greek philosophy owes all these services to Socrates. Abandoning subtle speculations, this philosopher turned to the suggestions of his constant mentor - common sense, and under his leadership he returned firmness to wavering truths, and calm to wavering minds. Ignorance, with which he began the chain of his knowledge, is the most precious discovery in the circle of knowledge, and served as an open door to the noble circle of self-thinking; but even later it was often used by geniuses, both ancient and new, and its use was always accompanied by the beneficial consequences of either the elevation, or the restoration, or the transformation of sciences. It will almost certainly contribute to the final improvement of the sciences. But in order for human knowledge, hitherto fragmented, to be able to close into one circle, for this it is necessary to accurately measure this very circle, starting from its center, in which ignorance should stand. Socrates brought philosophy out of the crossroads along which it wandered onto a straight path, and showed it a goal worthy of it, but did not give it a specific form. This latter depended on the quality of common sense, which he taught. To convince them of their truth, he had to, in accordance with the laws of meaning, refer his listeners to the suggestions of his inner, moral feeling. The disclosure of this feeling was the means, and the active fulfillment of felt truths was the goal of Socratic philosophy. The means closest to a person’s heart, a goal worthy of that heart! But philosophy, while satisfying the heart, must most importantly satisfy the mind. In Socratic philosophy these two duties seemed separate; Therefore, the genius of philosophy soon left the uncertain limits of common sense, and with renewed vigor rushed into a new field. Moved by its power, Plato penetrates into the inner sanctuary of the human spirit, touches the altar itself, finds on it a scroll of ideas inscribed by the finger of the Eternal, opens it and contemplates in amazement the order of the entire universe. The light of ideas soon dispersed the darkness that had hitherto covered the most important subjects of philosophical research; the laws of relations between the spiritual and physical worlds and both to the supreme being have been discovered; previously existing doubts are either resolved or brought to a state closest to resolution; particular phenomena are brought under general rules; the beginning and purpose of the human soul is explored, its virtues and means that serve to maintain this dignity are shown; the very darkness of the tomb is illuminated by rays of hope; in a word, all the objects of philosophy, hitherto fragmented both in the beginnings, and in the presentation, and in the goal, are combined into a single, harmonious whole, in which the action of the highest spiritual ability - the mind - is clearly expressed. If Plato in some cases extended the action of this ability beyond the proper limits, if he assumed a lot without proving, and, having proved a lot, did not explain, finally, if in his philosophy traces of some lack of differentiation in objects and inaccuracy in expressions are visible, then all these shortcomings should be attributed to the different quality of his writings and the fate of philosophy itself, rather than to his genius, which in all respects deserves the name Divine. It is impossible, however, not to notice the predominant action of fantasy in his philosophy. This ability, bordering directly on the mind and depending on it, almost always accompanies it in action, and often with more harm than benefit. It brings the ideas generated by the mind closer to the general understanding, but removes the mind itself from this understanding, and having removed it, it often teaches its own inventions instead of its laws. This is a flying ball on which you can rise high, but you can also fall deep if it is not controlled skillfully. The art of controlling such a ball, it seems, has not yet been brought to perfection either in physics or in philosophy. Despite the brilliant successes of philosophy in the field of the mind, there still remained a gap between this region and the feelings, which for the genius of Platonov, soaring in the heights, could seem like a small point, and even not be noticeable at all, but for those who stood below, it naturally seemed like a great space, and even one in which, for some unknown reason, it was necessary to look for the top of human knowledge, without extending further into the heights. This is what Aristotle thought. Fleeing from the light of Plato’s ideas, intolerable to his dry sense, he entered the working church of reason and, accusing his teacher of blind adoration of mental ideas, he himself bowed his knees before the forms of reason, recognizing them as the very essence of things. Thus, the ideal direction of philosophy changed into a formal one, the consequence of which should have been a restriction of the circle of philosophy, and especially of its transcendental part. However, these disadvantages were long averted by the continuity of moral character in the followers of Aristotle, and the benefits arising from this change were revealed with the change itself. Philosophy received a certain form, the best weapon to repel its opponents, a circle of action on other sciences, and the immediate right to be included in general school use. Aristotle rendered important services to philosophy with a detailed study of the field of reason, from ignorance of the laws of which all almost hitherto former errors of philosophers arose. For the surest success in this matter, he had to, at least for a while, refuse to trust the ideas of his teacher, especially since they attributed a lot to them from reason. Aristotle did this by completely contrasting reason with mind, or better, confusing reason with mind; but in his biased views the imaginary opposition soon turned into a real one (this was required by the forms of reason). Reason is justified and proclaimed the judge of everything that a person can know, and the mind, as a self-made ability, is condemned to expulsion from the circle of philosophy, with the exclusive right of inviolability. The realm of reason is open to everyone and everywhere; but getting out of it is very difficult. This is an area that has, or thinks to have, its own light in itself; therefore those in it assume that there is no light outside their area. To believe in the existence of external light would mean to doubt the internal. How many people would dare to entertain such doubts? However, Greek philosophy happily escaped from the forms of reason, which would later become age-old chains for thoughts, and with hasty steps rushed towards its goal, which with its approach inflamed its jealousy. As if anticipating its approaching end, philosophy asked about the end of man, showing thereby that the circle of true philosophy should be determined by the circle of human existence, and that philosophy is knowledge not so much of nature for man, but of man himself for man. It is impossible not to notice the gradual continuity of questions with which philosophy has been concerned throughout its existence. The first of them were more related to knowledge, the subsequent ones were especially inclined towards activity, and in the latter one can see the participation of hope. But philosophers, although they disagreed on the laws of knowledge and activity, could not agree on hopes. Some, having forgotten their own pride, or being consumed by it, were not ashamed to reduce a person to the circle of the dumb, cutting off all hopes for him in the future. Others raised these hopes to the point of oblivion of the real condition of man. Others, not seeing the success of others, decided, with their eyes narrowed for all purposes, to calmly await everything that might happen. Others finally decided to stay in the middle, neither moving forward nor retreating back, and being indifferent spectators of all changes. In these latest attempts at philosophy, one can see experienced wisdom, which prefers the constant radiance of prudence to the momentary brilliance of wit, which prefers to know a little, but thoroughly, rather than a lot, but mixed, and which teaches to know in order to fulfill what is known by deed itself. But at the same time, the exhaustion of the genius, which until now seemed unremitting, is also noticeable. The gift of ingenuity was noticeably depleted, and was replaced by a rich supply of predecessors. But soon a deficiency was discovered in other gifts of genius. Rich reserves were poor in proper arrangement, the forced combination of the opinions of various philosophers, giving rise to monstrous systems, on the one hand, took away the value of these very opinions, and on the other, aroused enemies against philosophy. Its defenders, being weak in themselves, had the misfortune of alienating all means of reflection from themselves. Thus, the skepticism of the new Academy, which by its nature could serve as a reason for better philosophy, served as its final limit. Seeing the exhaustion of his opponents and knowing that his fall was inseparable from him, in vain this skepticism, in the person of its representatives, moderated its objections, entered into many conditions, as if wanting to prolong the existence of its enemies, and with it its own existence; the fateful moment was approaching, and he, having turned almost into a friend of the philosophy he was persecuting, fell along with it. The light of the fire of the Persian magicians rushes into the light of philosophy, and cannot be extinguished by the negligence of one, or even many, guardians. The altar of philosophy was abandoned by its lovers, the winds of political change blew on it from all sides, but the sacred fire had not yet been extinguished; finally, merging into one flame, like a meteor, rushed out of the unfortunate country, hovered over various peoples, caused surprise in some with its appearance, horror in others, flared up and again hid from unclean eyes, and finally stopped in the foggy atmosphere of Alexandria. The Greeks, who had lost philosophy, rejoiced at the news of the appearance of its luminary in a foreign country, hastily flowed to meet him. But, not hoping for the constant radiance of this luminary in a country subject to the yoke of despotism, they thought to bring themselves into a state of not needing it, collecting its fragmented rays into a glass of syncretism, invented for this purpose. In fact, concentrated light was stronger than individual rays, but it was only capable of burning, not illuminating. As the sun set, the collected light also disappeared, and only glass remained in the hands of the collectors. Thus, Egypt, which served as the cradle of Greek philosophy, also provided it with a coffin. Her coffin, like her cradle, was decorated with flowers. But soon this evening star disappeared into the land of night, and deep silence fell, occasionally interrupted by the wild cry of night birds. However, this silence was not complete inaction; nature, in its depths, was preparing new tools for philosophy, after which its genius was aroused and, like a giant, rushed on its way. The introduction and success of Christianity in Ancient Kherson Around the year 63, Saint Apostle Andrew from the western Caucasus appears in Chersonis, preaching the Gospel. In 94, Pope Clement, at the command of Trajan, refers to “imprisonment in Pontus, to a deserted place near Cherson.” He is accompanied into exile voluntarily by many of the faithful Roman Christians. At the place of his imprisonment, he finds more than two thousand Christians condemned to hew stone in the mountains. Through the prayer of the saint, the Lamb indicates the place where to open a source of water, which the prisoners had previously brought for themselves for six races. As a result of this miracle, in one summer “the faithful multiplied, as 75 churches were created, and the whole country accepted the holy faith.” In the year 100, the news of Clement's extraordinary successes in the Kherson country forced the emperor to initiate a persecution of Christians there, and many Christians accepted the crown of martyrdom, and the holy pope was drowned in the sea, so that believers had no consolation - to receive his relics. In the 2nd and 3rd centuries there is no information about the state of Christianity in Kherson and Crimea. It is incredible that it was all exterminated, especially if the exile of Christians from Rome to Crimea continued. In 310, during the reign of Diocletian, two missionary bishops arrived in Tauroscythia from the Patriarch of Jerusalem Hermon: Basil and Ephraim. Saint Ephrem, leaving Kherson to Vasily, goes to preach to the Scythians near the Danube, and there he receives the crown of martyrdom from them, March 7. Saint Basil, struggling in Kherson for the faith and the Gospel, is subjected to beating and exile, retreats to a mountain and a cave, as if a hundred stadia from Kherson, to a place called Parthenit, or the maiden mountain, because on that mountain stood the church of the Hellenic goddess - the maiden. By raising from the dead the already buried son of one of the princes (chiefs) of Kherson, he converts him, and with him many, to Christ, but, at the instigation of the Jews, the pagans rise up against him and put him to death “in the place where the Christians” (the former) “set up a pillar and a cross on it.” This happened on March 7th. Miracles over his body and burial (secret) by Christians. In place of the preacher-martyrs, there are three bishops: Eugene, Elpidius and Agathodorus, who, having also been sent by the Patriarch of Jerusalem to preach the Gospel, had hitherto labored in the countries of the Gelespont. After a year of apostolic work and success, they, also on March 7, receive the crown of martyrdom from the pagans and Jews, and their miraculously preserved bodies are buried with honor by the believers. The new Bishop Epherius, also sent from the Patriarch of Jerusalem, at first does not find the opportunity to do his job, but then, being provided with a letter from Emperor Constantine to the people of Kherson about their unrestricted confession of Christ, he gathers Christians there, establishes a Church, and on the way to Byzantium to the Emperor, to express gratitude, he ends his life on the island of Aas, where he is buried with honor by the Christians there. The Kherson Christians themselves already ask Constantine and receive Bishop Kapiton. To convince the pagans, he, at their request, enters the fiery furnace with the Gospel and comes out unharmed. A report on this is read by the fathers at the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea. The death of the holy bishop from the barbarians at the mouth of the Dnieper, where he was carried by a storm, on the way to Constantinople, December 21. Henceforth, the Kherson diocese continues continuously until recent times. Among the bishops known: 381 - Epherius II, who was present at the II Ecumenical Assembly, where he signed instead of Kherson - Tersonsky. 451 - The Council of Chalcedon, by its 28th rule, subordinated all dioceses within the barbarian borders to the Patriarch of Constantinople, and therefore Kherson, although its bishops bore the title of self-important. 448 - Longinus, whose name is read twice under the acts of the local council of Constantinople. Stephen, who sat at the V Ecumenical Council of Constantinople - in 535, 655 - Pope Martin, imprisoned in Kherson, suffers there both from the rudeness of the inhabitants and from the lack of food, writes two letters about this to Constantinople, in the same year he died and was buried in the Church of the Virgin of Blachernae, near Kherson. George I, who signed the acts of the Council of Trullo as the bishop of Kherson of Dorant, or the country of Dorant. George II, who ruled the Kherson Church when Cyril and Methodius, traveling to preach to the Khazars, found the relics of St. Clement in Kherson (about 861). Cyril and Methodius in Kherson study (according to St. Demetrius) the Khazar and Hebrew languages, convert some Samaritan and his son to Christianity; encourage them to find the relics of Saint Clement and, upon discovery, take part of them with them. From Kherson to the Khozars, priests also go with them, whom they leave with the Khozars after converting them to Christianity. The relics of St. Clement are placed in the Apostolic Church. It is unknown who was the bishop of Kherson at the time of the Baptism of St. Vladimir there; but, without a doubt, there was someone. The Kherson diocese was considered among those subordinate to the Patriarch of Constantinople, either fifty-eighth, then twenty-fifth, or sixteenth. Around the 10th century, the bishops of Kherson received the title of archbishops. The series of bishops probably ceased with the destruction of Cherson by Gediminas. In the 18th century, the last Metropolitan of Crimea was called Kefaisky and Gotfeysky. The name of Kherson was no longer heard in hierarchical titles, as it had long been abolished. The space of the Kherson diocese for a long time included the entire Crimea; but then, with the establishment of other dioceses in Crimea, it was limited to its surroundings, sometimes associated with the title of Bishop of Dorant, and thus encompassing the entire southern coast of Crimea - to Sudak, or Surozh. This diocese consisted mainly of Greeks, and with them the ancient native inhabitants, among whom were the Slavs. A look at our diplomatic relations with the Roman court on the affairs of the Roman Church Our relations with the Roman court represent a very strange and perhaps unique phenomenon in the history of the popes and ours: they began and developed as a result of our successes and victories; and yet we constantly remained defeated in them, so we can say that what Poland lost against us, Rome won for it and took back with interest. How this happened can be seen from the following historical information and explanations. Until 1773, although we had Latin churches in some places, they did not constitute any independent hierarchy, and priests were received from abroad, mostly from Poland. These receipts and their certain dependence on the foreign hierarchy seemed, by their very number, so unimportant that they did not pay special attention to them. With the return of Belarus under the scepter of Russia, the view on this subject has changed. Latin churches in Belarus did not have their own bishop and belonged in parts to various adjacent Roman Catholic dioceses: Vilna, Lutsk and others. Since the latter remained under the rule of Poland, it was considered dangerous for the State that Belarus should be subject to the dependence of bishops located outside the Empire. They decided to ask the pope to establish a new archbishopric for Belarus and all of Russia in Mogilev. Despite all the plausibility of the action, in this case two important mistakes were made. a) The very establishment of the new bishopric. If Belarus was destined to remain alone for a long time under the scepter of Russia, then, naturally, the government should have taken care of liberating it from the department of the foreign hierarchy with the establishment of its own. But even a ten-year-old diplomat could easily foresee that this situation was temporary, that after Belarus other Russian regions that still remained under Poland would join Russia, and along with them the Latin bishops located in them, on whom the Belarusian churches depended, would come under the Russian state. Given this situation, why bother about establishing a new archbishopric? Why not wait a few years? Then everything would remain as it was before, that is, the Belarusian churches under their former bishops, without increasing their number. Even if (if they could not remain without their own Latin hierarchy) they should establish a bishop, but only one requested bishop, and not an archbishop with two vicars. Why was Latinity so suddenly elevated? His reasons were self-praise and, one might say, opposition to our entire Europe of that time. It is known that the Pope and Catholicism were not in fashion at that time and suffered failures everywhere, the Jesuits were even persecuted: and so we, in order to show our generosity and some kind of special mind, opened the doors wide to the Jesuits, and after that we hastened to beg for an archbishop, thus, unwisely, giving all of Belarus under the influence of Rome. Isn’t it obvious that in this case dad took revenge on us for Poland and took, one might say, back what we took from her? The Roman hierarchy was increased by an entire archbishopric. What we said above happened after no more than five years, that is, other Russian provinces returned from Poland to us. Here was an excellent opportunity to correct the mistake, namely, with the new delimitation of the Latin bishoprics, relying on the fact that we had recently established a new archbishopric, that a small part of the flock of our Latin bishops went either to Austria or to Prussia, we, by right, could and should have reduced their number, at least their suffragans; but we did the opposite. In addition to the fact that not a single episcopal see has been closed, Minsk has also been re-established. What were we up to on this occasion? In the bull about Minsk, as well as about other dioceses, everything is said that a bishop with suffragans is needed for the most convenient teaching of needs to the flock. But this flock, compared with the Orthodox flocks in the same country, is barely a fifth. If such concern is for the salvation of souls, then why is it not applied to the Orthodox? If anyone had to be taken care of, then for them, who suffered so much under Poland, they expected signs of attention and love from returning to Russia; and yet nothing has been done for them in this regard. There are only three Orthodox bishops in the entire Western country, and not one has been given a single vicar. Is it not clear after this that the Roman court in this case also took revenge on us for Poland, and took back for itself what we returned from it? On the oath of Catholic bishops to the Pope This oath is in many respects a pitiful anachronism. It was formed at a time when the papacy had not yet abandoned its vision of world political dominion, and partly as a result of these very views, and even more because of its internal disorders, it was exposed to all kinds of dangers not only from strangers, but also from its own. All this was fully felt by the Catholic courts themselves, especially the Protestant ones, and they, with the consent of the pope himself, changed it; and with us it still remains in its ancient monstrous form. The whole absurdity of this oath will be revealed from the following notes: not only 1) in relation to the autocratic power, but also 2) in relation to the pope himself, and 3) in relation to those taking this oath. I. In relation to autocratic power In this oath, the one giving it swears allegiance to the pope as a sovereign, therefore he has two sovereigns: the All-Russian Emperor and the Pope. Is this an insignificant contradiction both in words and in thoughts?.. And who demands this, if I may say so, senseless concession? Nobody except our own illiteracy. The expression “our lord”, “to our sovereign” is used by cardinals and those who belong to the so-called Roman region, or Papal dominions. Naturally, they cannot express themselves differently, because for them the pope is also the sovereign, by right of his temporal power over this region. But this expression is completely inappropriate for subjects of a foreign power, which is why this expression is not used in the oaths of Austrian, French, Spanish, and others, despite the fact that these are areas of the Catholic faith. Why on earth should we use it?.. And why do we use it? It’s a shame to say, but it should be: simply due to the lack of knowledge of the Latin language in the office of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Dominus, which we translate as “sovereign,” in Latin means nothing more than “lord, lord.” It is very natural that the subjects of the Papal States - mostly cardinals living in Rome - translate it with the word sovereign, for the pope for them is both a ruler in the spiritual sense and at the same time a temporal sovereign; but for others who are not subject to the pope in a secular sense, he must remain dominus in the ecclesiastical sense, that is, a spiritual ruler, which constitutes the greatest difference. They will say that “the spiritual Roman Catholics must know this, and in this sense take the oath.” Let us assume that even if they knew all this (which is very doubtful when the entire Ministry of Foreign Affairs does not know this), there still remains an important reason for misunderstanding. And at the same time, how many reasons for intrigue, for defending oneself against the unloved government? And is it not the duty of a prudent government to remove this stumbling block from the road? Almost all expressions in relation to the pope are directed against the indignation or plans of the subjects against the sovereign. This is appropriate and, perhaps, still necessary in the papal region. But what is the need for this for other states, especially for Russia, in which he is considered the head of the Church by Roman Catholics, but by no means a sovereign? Other expressions even serve to humiliate papal dignity. When a Roman Catholic bishop swears that he will not encroach on the life of the pope, or the deprivation of his members, then the moral feeling of even a simple person involuntarily shudders. Doesn't such an oath mean that I will not be the last of the monsters? And the bishop gives it! Is this worthy of a bishop? Is it proper for the pope himself to accept such an oath from a bishop, since he has found him worthy of the bishopric? All this is a product of the Middle Ages, when, by order of the popes, the bones of dead popes were recalled, they were cursed, thrown into garbage pits, and living popes were poisoned, deprived of members, disgraced and killed. For this reason, the very dignity of papal power requires the elimination of these strange and seductive formulas for the feelings of the people; since this has already been done in other states, it is all the more forbidden to do it here. 3. In relation to those taking the oath The one who gives this oath is in complete contradiction with himself, for he gives the same oath to his natural sovereign. Which of the two should I perform? By fulfilling one, he will violate the other. The only way to not violate either is to not do both. Let's explain all this with an example. The bishop learned that the pope intended to do something, for example, issue some kind of bull that was not in favor of Russia; he is obliged, by oath, to let his government know about this, therefore, to break the oath to the pope. He also found out about some treaty on the part of Russia with any power, which (the treaty) is harmful to the papal possessions; he must let the pope know about this, therefore, break the oath given to his government. This contradiction arises from the fact that in the oath given to the pope, the pope is not interpreted as it should be. He should be interpreted only as the head of the Church, to whom the bishops owe obedience, and he is interpreted as a secular sovereign, relations with whom are incompatible with relations with his own sovereign. In foreign oaths this is understood and eliminated, but in ours there is still the same confusion, confusion of concepts, and hence the contradictions and nonsense. About the newly established Roman Catholic diocese in Kherson As a result of the convention concluded with the pope in 1847, as is known, a new Roman Catholic diocese was established, with the name Kherson, and with it (for now) two suffraganries with a chapter and a seminary. Without a doubt, the government, for its part, had important reasons for this and, in any case, agreed to the establishment of a new diocese for Catholics not for the spread of Catholicism in Russia. However, the newspaper news about the establishment in Kherson of a new Latin diocese throughout Russia made (and could not help but make) an unfavorable impression. It was not easy for Russian feelings to see how the concept of Rome and Latinity would henceforth be forever connected with the name of Cherson, sacred to Russia, in which the baptism of St. Vladimir took place and from where the light of the Orthodox faith shone across the entire Russian land. The new institution, of course without intention, but nevertheless, on our part, provided a significant reason for a new proclamation of the historical lie that Roman Catholics have long been accustomed to disseminating throughout Europe in various works - proving that Russia was allegedly converted to Christianity originally by Roman missionaries, and that it was then in obedience to the pope... Those who are more familiar than others with Catholicism and the position of Roman Catholics in Russia, who are therefore confident in the obvious surplus of the Latin dioceses that hitherto existed among us, and firmly know how difficult it is for the government itself to cope with this restless hierarchy, otherwise they could not explain to themselves the new phenomenon, except by the assumption of some special, further, hidden views of the government; since it was not easy to imagine what exactly he could have in mind when using a means so unsafe as the elevation and expansion of the Latin hierarchy, we involuntarily came to the thought whether our diplomats in this case, instead of a far-sighted political calculation, had made a rash and simple-minded concession to Rome under the influence of some special circumstances, either misunderstood or not properly assessed? In fact, how could it be possible to agree with certain types of government to create out of nothing, propvio motu, without any special need, suddenly three Latin bishops, through which a way was opened up for Latin propaganda, never imagined in a dream, to take from now on the entire south of Russia under its dangerous influence, how to take the entire West? If, they reasoned, “for a very small number of Latin churches scattered throughout the south, immediate hierarchical supervision was really needed, then for this it would be enough to add one suffragan to any Roman Catholic see, with his placement, perhaps, somewhere in the south.” All these and similar impressions received great strength from new European events and upheavals that fell over the Vatican with such extraordinary thunder and lightning that many of the Catholics themselves could not help but recognize in this case the punishing finger of God. “Is it really,” they reasoned and continue to reason, “that Orthodox Russia should, not for its own good, raise to heights, strengthen and expand in its depths that which God’s Providence itself apparently predetermines for weakening, diminishment, and perhaps even destruction even in the West?..” Especially, as was to be expected, the feeling of the Orthodox residents of Kherson and surrounding areas was alarmed by the establishment of a new Latin bishopric. Until then, in this city there was only one Latin priest, lost in the crowd and almost unknown to anyone; and suddenly, in the middle of last summer, a Latin bishop appears before them with a retinue of priests specially gathered from afar, presents himself as a person specially sent from the government for some important, completely unknown purposes, establishes and consecrates a cramped Latin church into a cathedral, makes a national spectacle out of his service, over the course of several days, preaches about the mercy of the All-Russian Emperor to the Catholics and at the same time - in accordance with the papal bull - about the even greater mercy of some Roman sovereign (about which many of the Catholics did not know at all) to the Russian people, with the announcement that all this is only one beginning, that, after his departure, not one, but two or three Latin bishops, with a considerable number of canons, with a consistory and seminary, and that their city (Kherson), by the grace of the Vicar of Christ, the head of all Christianity, will henceforth be converted into the capital of the true faith (that is, Roman) in the south. One can imagine, even without being in Kherson on this occasion, how all this must have affected the Orthodox people!.. “Do they really want to make us Catholics? - some asked. “For it is necessary that the three new bishops have at least some kind of flock, but among us there is none for them!” “Rather than introduce Latinism among us,” others reasoned, “wouldn’t it be better, following the example of other provincial cities, to give an Orthodox bishop to us, who live among all non-Christians, and therefore are in the ever-present danger of losing the purity of the faith?” “How many hundreds of thousands to the treasury, and at the same time, how much trouble, difficulty, displeasure for the government itself this new institution of the Latin bishop with its vicars, canons and seminary, taken from God knows where and for what purpose,” noted others. The situation in this case was not without difficulties for the local civil authorities, who did not know what relation to place themselves in relation to the newly-appointed Latin bishop, and even less found the means to respond satisfactorily to the rumors and opinions of the people, although they saw an extreme need to say something to calm the alarmed religious feeling. Even the Jews, with whom the whole of Kherson is now filled, were not left behind others in guessing about the new event and, what is noteworthy, agreed on the same conclusion that the Poles are gaining the upper hand, and misfortune is coming to the Russian priests... With such a general confusion of thoughts, the most reasonable and more devout of the Orthodox inhabitants of Kherson came more than once to the determination to ask for higher power, so that, if the installation of bishops among them is inevitable Latin, then, at least for some consistency, an Orthodox bishop was given to Kherson. But most of all, the schismatics were embarrassed by the new institution, and after them the co-religionists, of whom there are a significant number in different places of the Kherson province, starting with Odessa, Kherson, Nikolaev and Eliza-vetgrad. In the eyes of these children, young in spirit, such a solemn introduction of Latinism among the Orthodox south fell to an anti-Christian act, threatening disaster not only to the Orthodox faith, but also to the Fatherland, and therefore apparently was a consequence of some kind of wrath of God. Were the Catholics themselves, at least, happy with the new institution? We can affirmatively say that they were not - to the extent that should have been expected. The new gift from the government was too great and apparently not commensurate with the local need, which is why it involuntarily forced doubt and suspicion in every reflective person about the types of government and the true purpose of its actions. A Latin suffragan with two canons in the form of dean would have been received from the heart and with gratitude; and suddenly three bishops, with a tactile lack of need and in one thing, seemed - and will seem for a long time - something unnatural, so to speak, anti-government, and therefore suspicious. “Is it possible,” the Catholics reasoned, “that the Russians would decide to do for us unnecessarily what, when there was a visible need, they have never done and are not doing for their own? They probably want to introduce into our hierarchy, hitherto purely Polish, a new element - the German - so that, by dividing it in composition, spirit and type, thereby imperceptibly weakening it. But it’s not up to the Muscovites to outwit the Jesuits! With prudent actions on our part, from each new Catholic bishop (and, thanks to Russian simplicity, there are three of them) it will be possible to make a new fortress in the south against the Russian spirit.” All such and similar impressions produced by the new establishment of the Latin diocese in Kherson obviously do not speak in favor of the new institution, and can only be redeemed by some very important benefit expected from it, which, to tell the truth, is not easy to find for someone who is not privy to all the secrets of politics. Meanwhile, the disadvantages of the new institution lie, one might say, before everyone’s eyes. And, firstly, it is already very important that by the establishment of a new Latin diocese, unnecessary according to the court of all, even Roman Catholics, in such a vast composition and size, which (comparatively) none of our Orthodox dioceses have, despite the large number of their flocks, our diplomacy was and will continue to be subjected to criticism in the face of all of Russia for its compliance with the court of Rome (extended beyond the necessary limits), and to what extent time? When this court itself, as a result of its centuries-old sins and errors, by the irresistible judgment of God, apparently falls apart and approaches final desolation. Secondly, apart from criticism, in the present case and not without loss, the establishment in Russia of a new diocese of Rome for the papal court is the same as the conquest of a new region. Hence, new rights for him over a significant part of Russia, from which he will not be slow to extract for himself new benefits and new reasons for disputes and complaints to the ears of the whole world about Russia. An example of all this is Poland and Lithuania. How many difficulties the Roman court has always raised and still faces with the mere appointment of bishops! Is it not because of a similar difficulty that Kherson was sacrificed?.. Meanwhile, this sacrifice is of such a kind that it itself, in turn, will require new sacrifices with each appointment of new bishops. Thirdly, there is another kind of fear, even greater. The south of Russia, hitherto free and unquestioned by Orthodoxy, with the new establishment inevitably falls under the influence of Roman propaganda, which, like a shadow behind a body, follows Latinism everywhere. In Kherson, due to the extremely small number of Catholics, the bishop with his suffragans by their very position, that is, from having nothing to do, will involuntarily be disposed to multiply by all means their spiritual flock. Meanwhile, if it is inconvenient for any region to fight Roman propaganda, then our southern one, partly due to its very youth and diversity in the population, partly due to the influence of adjacent provinces filled with Poles, partly due to its geographical position, open, due to trade and seaports, to everything Western, especially Italian, partly, finally, due to the recent establishment of Orthodox cathedras there and their extremely limited methods of action. Fourthly, we cannot completely forget that it will take more than one million to arrange premises for the new bishop with his suffragans, for the consistory, chapter and seminary and to ensure their maintenance, which could have been used for more necessary and useful things. since, as the experience with the St. Petersburg Roman Catholic Academy shows, it is accepted, unknown why, as if as a rule, that the amount produced from the treasury for the maintenance of Roman Catholics should be much higher than that produced for the maintenance of Orthodox departments and seminaries, this circumstance, in addition to costs, will also serve as a constant reason for exaltation for Catholics and a temptation for Orthodox. Fifthly, if the government really intends, through the Latin seminary in Kherson, to form a new German element from the children of our southern colonists within the Roman Catholic hierarchy, then it must be said that this element will be little better than the Polish. Not to mention the fact that the new pupils will receive an education from Polish mentors, who will not fail to pass on their spirit to them, the southern colonists themselves still constitute a visible status in statu, living in almost complete separation from the Russians, not trying to become acquainted, even in schools, with the Russian language. Hitherto looking at themselves as foreigners, Russians mean nothing in comparison with their own, they never stop dreaming of Germany and are ready to surrender to any foreign influence. What, they will ask, should we do when we have already committed ourselves by force of a treaty to the Roman court? Without committing ourselves to a complete solution to this question, which obviously belongs not to those who look from below, but to those who stand above, we can, instead of answering, make a few notes. If you really can’t go back, then: 1. It would be unwise to rush forward, especially when, walking step by step, it is impossible to go except with considerable effort. On paper, a new Latin diocese could be established in one minute; but in fact, its construction inevitably requires several years, already because there is not a single ready-made building, but several of them are needed and of significant size. Where, then, can we find persons for the three episcopal mitres, when it turned out that one, destined to head the rest, had to first be baptized and then promoted to bishop? Where to recruit the chapter and canons when there is only one priest in Kherson? How to form a seminary? Is it really the duty of the government in this case to create everything out of nothing, when Latinism itself does not provide the necessary materials? Who can demand this and by what right? Meanwhile, two or three years will pass, and who knows what will happen to Catholicism in Rome itself? In any case, you can limit yourself for a long time to one bishop without suffragans, even for the time being - without a chapter, in that extensive and sophisticated composition and form, as Roman Catholics like to paint it. 2. Instead of unnecessary Latin suffragans, it is necessary to hasten with the establishment of a suffragan bishopric for the very extensive Orthodox diocese of Kherson, with its location in Kherson. This will calm the spirit of the local Orthodox population, provide the necessary bulwark against Roman propaganda in Kherson, and mark the beginning of immediate actions against the Muslim Crimea. At the same time, in order to eliminate comparisons unfavorable for Orthodoxy in the eyes of people, not only spiritual, but also secular, it is necessary to increase the staff in the Orthodox department of Kherson to the extent to which they are now determined there for Catholics, as well as to provide the Orthodox archbishop with the same right that the Latin biscup will enjoy regarding the secondment, in case of need, of deans at public expense. 3. If it were possible (and why not?) to place a new Latin bishop not in Kherson, but in another place, for example in Stavropol, which forms the center of his diocese, then this alone would be useful in various respects. Thus, this bishop, firstly, would be closer to the Saratov province, where the largest part of his, generally small in number of souls, flock; and on the other hand, to his own peace of mind, he would be far from the Black Sea ports and, therefore, from voluntary and involuntary, not always safe connections with many foreigners, who crowd these ports almost all year round and can become, of course not in favor of the government, permanent intermediaries between Rome and the Roman Catholic Cherson. In this case, what would remain in favor of Orthodoxy is that the Russian feeling would not suffer, seeing how Latinism with such force places the Roman roof at the very cradle of the Orthodox faith. Regardless of all of the above, one cannot help but make one more note regarding some thoughts and expressions that the Curia Romana allowed itself to use in the founding bull about the bishopric of Kherson. Beyond all expectations, it is directly stated here in the ears of the whole world that supposedly our Fatherland first heard preaching about the Christian faith from Latin missionaries, that some of them were even honored to supposedly receive the crown of martyrdom at the hands of our ancestors. Tell me please, who are these martyrs? And how can we see that the light of the Gospel came to us from Rome? When such lies were proclaimed from time to time by the champions of the papacy in various unimportant little books, one could look at it indifferently, as if it were the antics of a school polemic; but now that we have allowed and, therefore, accepted as truth this lie that is offensive to our Orthodoxy, in the papal bull, which has the force of a treatise in the face of the whole world, what position are the defenders of Orthodoxy placed in, and what remains for them to do? And due to what extreme is all this allowed in the new bull? There was no mention of this in the previous bulls; it could remain so now. In addition to this error, which is obviously very important on our part, there are so many expressions in the bull that the pope could only use in relation to any city in his Roman region. In general, poor Kherson, with whose name among Orthodox Russians the memory of the baptism of St. Vladimir and the conversion of all Russia to Christianity is inextricably linked, is treated in this bull almost as an idolatrous city, to which now only, by the grace of the Vatican, is granted the chair of a Christian bishop, with the grant of unknown rights and advantages. This is not how the founding acts for seventy years for the Archbishopric of Mogilev were written; there the city is not promoted to any new rank, but only says that such and such a church in the city has become a cathedral, or archbishop's. They will say that “these are technical words and expressions at the Roman court, which in the essence of the matter mean nothing and do not oblige anyone to anything.” No, the technique of words and phrases is in full command at the Roman court, and no one knew how to extract benefits from it for themselves like the Vatican. How many now immutable rights over the entire Western clergy has Roman diplomacy developed for itself from apparently unimportant and commonly used expressions of courtesy and devotion, which in the simplicity of their hearts were once used by Western bishops in relations with Rome! Once the expression has been conceded, the Vatican immediately turns it almost into a dogma, and giving it, through dialectics, an exaggerated appearance, makes it a law for itself. In any case, why was it necessary to allow in the new bull such expressions, which are associated with criticism for the ruling Church, and on the basis of which, a hundred years later, any historian, according to all the rules of science, can admit that in 1847 in the Novorossiysk region the dominant religion was Catholicism, and Eastern Orthodoxy, if it was there, was in such a small and weak form that, in comparison with Latinism, it was nothing meant... On the education of Polish youth It is historically known that Poland, even in its flourishing time of the Batory and Jagiellonians, no longer prospered as under the scepter of the Russian Tsar. But in order for her to be completely happy, the Poles lack only the consciousness and conviction that the political existence of Poland separately is impossible, that she is the adopted daughter of the good father of the great and good family of the Russian people. Such a sincere conviction, leading to the direct happiness of the Poles, is hindered by their natural gullibility, fanaticism and prejudice towards us, which they absorb, so to speak, with their mother’s milk. Therefore, the Poles are accustomed to looking at every Russian as their personal enemy, and at the most general necessary and beneficial orders of the government as oppression of their rights and freedoms. It is impossible to re-educate adult Poles morally, but the younger generation can and should be influenced through education. Only by careful and prudent education can one, so to speak, Russify the Poles, merge them with us into one family, make them fall in love with the meek, fatherly rule of our sovereigns. For this purpose, the government has taken several effective measures. 1) Polish schools have been transformed and the teaching of subjects has been adapted to domestic education. 2) Teaching of sciences and subjects has generally been introduced in Russian instead of Polish. 3) Common apartments have been established, where, when entering, Polish youth should become closer to them from their treatment of Russians and, not having the opportunity to repeat the absurdities heard in childhood, at home, about Russia and everything Russian, should naturally move away from all inveterate, so to speak, national prejudices. But the last order, for some reasons, does not achieve its goal, because: a) The poor free class of Poles, due to the high cost of maintenance, is deprived of the opportunity to provide children with a public education; Consequently, his moral education, in relation to the government, stopped at the same point. b) The rich Poles, considering it humiliating for themselves to raise children in shared apartments, calling them Moscow barracks (local expression), turned to Odessa, to which this order does not apply. Proof of how the Poles do not tolerate rapprochement with us can be seen from the fact that out of a whole third of the lyceum and gymnasium students, Poles, there is not a single self-sufficient student in the gymnasium boarding school. Moreover, another important evil arose here: a whole class of Polish industrialists was formed, people of the most ambiguous reputation, businessmen who, sensing the spoils, flock to Odessa from everywhere and rush to educate Polish youth, like birds of prey to prey. The Ministry of Public Education, realizing the importance of educating youth, since 1842 has even limited the number of teachers, giving the right only to the most trustworthy of them, and then with the permission of the trustee of the educational district, to support boarders, no more than ten, whom the directors of schools must often check, and teachers deliver reports on the condition of their boarders. Meanwhile, Polish industrialists: Donidai, Zheliborski, Jacobi, Wicherski, Tabarovski, Podlewski, Stoyanovski and many others, without any right and without giving anyone an account, use the rights of educators. All the best and richest nobility from the Western provinces send their children to them, of course, with the goal of maintaining the old national spirit in them. It is very natural that such educators, themselves looking with hostility towards Russia, can instill in children false and harmful thoughts in relation to the government, not to mention the fact that they allow them various liberties, cards and even debauchery. And since some Polish educators have more than twenty boarders, in some way a whole society can be housed in one house, where other young people they know can gather; and such a society, without active, experienced, conscientious and government-trusted supervision, can take a dangerous direction and character, and entail harmful consequences. The unmistakable conclusion from this assumption is in fact justified in some way by the fact that Polish youth constitute a special circle, and, which had not been noticed before: students and younger pupils on the street, in society and even in classes and lyceum auditoriums speak Polish loudly. From all that has been said, since its conclusion is based on long-term observation and experience, it follows: 1) To prohibit Poles in general, and in Odessa in particular, from both the home education of youth and the maintenance of boarders attending classes in public and private educational institutions. 2) Since the national language of each people reminds them of their character, duties and attitude towards others, and the Poles in particular, because of their gullibility, fanaticism and hatred of the government, the authorities of the educational department would be obliged to prohibit speaking Polish on the streets, in societies, and even more so in classrooms. On the contrary, it would be prudent to instill in them the use of the language of the dominant people in the empire. 3) The upbringing of Poles must be social and begin from a very young age, before the heart has become coarse and the mind has not yet become ingrained in national habits. And if the government, wishing to give national direction to youth through public education, prohibited the admission of students with home education above the 4th grade of the gymnasium, then all the more should it be prohibited to admit them directly as students at the lyceum, where they enter already at full age, with which ingrained habits, directions and their own view of things are closely connected. 4) The priest-teacher of the law must, under the frequent supervision of the head of the educational institution, instill in Polish youth a love for the Fatherland, Russia, to look at the Russian as a brother, and to our common domestic interests as their own, to have complete confidence in the government; To consider the existence of Poland separately as a stupid, harmful, unrealizable, childish dream, to see in Russia our own mother, and in our Sovereign - a kind, caring and generous father of the people. On the restoration of ancient holy places in the Crimean mountains Anyone who has been to Crimea and traveled through the Tauride Mountains cannot help but know that among these mountains there still appear to be the remains of not only churches, but also monasteries. We don’t even know the names of some of them for certain; and other tracts continue to be hitherto the subject of national respect, with an annual gathering to them, on certain days, together with Christians and the Tatars themselves, who in the southern part of the Crimea, as is known, almost all were once Christians and have not yet completely lost the memory of their former faith, expressing this by timely gatherings to places sanctified by the Christian faith. It is all the more regrettable to see that these holy places remain neglected, left to the mercy of chance, not to honor, no doubt, for Christianity and not without temptation for the faithful and even the infidels. Restoring them in a decent form, without costs to the treasury, would therefore be a very good deed in many respects: a) This would support, especially in the eyes of non-believers, the honor of the Christian faith and the Russian government. b) Places that, for many reasons, are worthy of the attention of every enlightened person would be preserved from final destruction. c) Inconspicuously, centers of the quiet, beneficial effect of the Christian faith on the surrounding Tatar population would have formed and - who knows? – perhaps they would have prepared a gradual rapprochement between the Crimean Muslims and Christianity. d) It would be pleasant for travelers in the Crimean mountains themselves, instead of dead and silent ruins that induce sadness and despondency, to find, in some places, sacred refuges, where the spirit could rest along with the body. Everything stated here was felt and realized, one might say, by the entire Christian Crimea, as can be seen from his petition (this petition was not communicated to the editor) to the diocesan authorities, attached to this, which in all respects deserves the attention and participation of the government. But what exactly can be done to satisfy this request? Gradually begin the restoration of sacred places scattered throughout the Crimean Mountains. Which ones exactly, and in what form? Naturally, the first objects of restoration should be those places that, firstly, are most respected by the people and deserve it due to their inner sacred character, and, secondly, which are easier and faster to restore, as they do not require special costs. 1) The so-called Assumption Rock, which is near Bakhchisarai. It has a ready-made church with everything necessary for worship, and with cells attached to it for housing servants. The paths to this rock are quite well leveled and finished; there is even a fountain of living water drawn from the neighboring mountain. All this was a consequence of the special respect for this place of the people, who, on the day of the church holiday (Assumption of the Mother of God), flock in large numbers to this rock on pilgrimage, at the same time producing a kind of fair that lasts until the holiday is celebrated, that is, until August 23. The Assumption Rock received such respect among the people because it was the last seat of the Orthodox Metropolitan of Crimea under the rule of the Tatars, who, as is known, moved from here in 1779 to Mariupol. In addition, there is an icon of the Mother of God on the wall here, highly respected by the people. According to all these respects, the Assumption Rock is the first to be taken into account and requires some restoration, for it has been rather restored, but, one might say, has no proper use, for now it is in the care of the clergy of the Bakhchisarai church, who cannot hold constant services there and observe it as they would like for the honor of the holy place, using the income not to decorate it, but for their own needs. 2) Church of St. Anastasia, with a source, located between Chatyr-Dag and Bakhchisarai. This place is also visited by people, as a result of which the landowner Khvitsky, to whom it belongs, restored with his own money the ancient Greek church that once existed there. since there is no one to form a parish for this church, the only way to preserve and maintain it, after the death of this landowner, remains to turn it into a monastery under the dependence of the monastery in the Assumption Rock. To house two or three monks at this church, the house of a landowner will be used, who happily donates it to the future Assumption monastery - and with a fruit garden, wanting only to end his days in this place in the form of a monk. 3) The source of Suluk-su, or the holy unmercenaries Cosmas and Damian, located at the tops of the Alma River, at the foot of Chatyrdag. This tract is considered sacred, and the source is healing not only in the opinion of Christians, but also of the Tatars, which is why on July 1 - the day of remembrance of the holy unmercenaries - a considerable number of Christians and even Tatars with their families flock here, who bring their sick and children here to bathe in the healing waters. This place, once, in all likelihood, marked by the presence of some holy ascetic there, is now empty and presents nothing but an unskillfully constructed spring and rough baths. To bring it into decent shape, you need to arrange: a) a chapel over the well; b) two comfortable baths for men and women separately; c) two or three cells for housing the pious elders, and at least one room for visitors. To arrange all this, one pious person in Simferopol has already been found, obliging himself to present a plan and façade for this within a short time. After this, all that remains is to obtain consent from Mr. Minister of State Property to cede several acres of land in favor of the church, so that the vicinity of the holy source with the chapel, revered by the people, is not subject to cutting down forests and damage from shepherds. 4) Foundation of a church between the ruins of Chersonesos. Between these ruins the foundations of four churches can still be seen: three smaller ones and one larger one, which is not without reason recognized as the cathedral church in which Saint Vladimir was baptized. Here, by the same token, there should have been a church proposed to be built on behalf of all Russia in memory of the baptism of Vladimir. Now, as we know, the nearby city of Sevastopol has been chosen as the location for this church. Without touching on the importance of the reasons for which this advantage was granted to him, it should, however, be noted that each of the travelers, having visited the new church in Sevastopol, will make it a sacred duty to visit the ruins of Chersonesus, meet there the foundations of the ancient church in which Vladimir’s baptism took place, and will probably regret that it is not marked by anything sacred. How to commemorate it? Some kind of monument?.. But what could be the most fitting monument to the holy Equal-to-the-Apostles, if not a church in his name? Since the foundations of the ancient church on the ruins of Chersonesos are still intact and even parts of its columns and ornaments have been preserved, then the latest architecture is able, according to this data, to restore it in the ancient form as it was under Vladimir, which will constitute the most decent monument at the site of his baptism. It seems that Providence Himself expects this from us, for, by His secret order, among all the vicissitudes of time, a plaque from the throne of this church has still been preserved, now located in the museum of the Odessa Society of Antiquities. Let her lie down again on the throne in this very church, and let her, after the lapse of eight centuries, begin again to offer a grateful sacrifice on behalf of all Russia to the Lord, who, in the person of Vladimir, brought the entire Russian land out of the darkness of idolatry into the saving light of the Gospel! Here, except, perhaps, for the founding of an ancient church, it will be necessary to do everything again, namely: in addition to restoring the church itself in its ancient form, it must: a) arrange premises for the clergy with a special room for visitors; b) restore the ancient cistern located near the church; c) plant trees around the church and make a fence. One person in Odessa has already been found to arrange all this at his own expense, and the place, as empty and lying unused, for such a purpose will probably be gladly ceded to the naval department. 5) Church in the Inkerman rock. This place is sacred according to the legend that Saint Clement, the Pope of Rome, labored here in captivity, whose relics, miraculously found in the sea near Chersonesus, were taken for blessing by Grand Duke Vladimir from Korsun to Kyiv. The restoration of this place should consist of the renovation of the church and the cells located near it, so that divine services could be performed. The traces of Greek painting that still remain on the walls make it possible to restore its interior in a form close to that which was at the very beginning of its construction. Thus, anyone visiting this place (and few travelers to the Crimea do not visit it) will not, to his regret, find sheep within the walls of this church, driven there at night and from the heat of the day. 6) Chapel in the name of St. John the Baptist, built above the source, near the road leading from the Baydar Valley to Sevastopol and Balaklava. This place is also respected by the entire surrounding area, and due to the zeal of the Orthodox people, especially the surrounding Greeks, it has been so decorated that all that remains is to build a few small cells to make a beautiful cenovia. The leadership of the Balaklava battalion will probably not find it difficult to cede a few acres of land for the residence of hermits, who for this place will be selected from the Greeks, so that the Greek element will be part of the spiritual brotherhood of Taurida, as a sign of the fraternal union according to the faith of both peoples and as a spiritual refuge for those of the Greeks of Tauris who are looking for a desert life. 7) Church of St. Matthew, in the Sudak Valley, where there was an ancient Genoese fortress, and then, at the end of the last century, a Russian one. Another goal is the iconostasis of this church. Its resumption does not require much, and meanwhile the monastery, established under it, will take control of two sacred and revered tracts by the people: a) near Mount Kiziltash - the source of John the Baptist; b) at the foot of Mount Agermysh - St. George, and thus will enclose in the south the district of the future spiritual brotherhood of Taurida. After describing the localities and what is supposed to be done on each of them in material terms, two questions remain to be resolved: a) Who will fill these renewed holy places, that is, who will live and perform sacred acts in them, and who will look after them? b) How to support these people, and how to maintain the buildings built or restored in these places? Considering the first question, one can immediately see that to fill the above-mentioned places, especially some of them, it is impossible to use persons from the white clergy. For how can one conclude at the source of Cosmas and Damian, in a wild and deserted gorge near Chatyrdag, families of priests and clergy? As well as placing these families in the cramped cells of Inkerman, even in the Assumption Rock? This would lead to the need for extensive buildings for residence and to high costs for the maintenance of prints. Even the Orthodox people themselves, accustomed from time immemorial in their concept of connecting sacred places with the idea of ​​monastic monasteries, would not be satisfied with such an order. On the other hand, to turn each of the sacred tracts proposed for restoration into a monastery, according to the rank of Russian monasteries, would mean, in addition to the above, to encounter a new difficulty, namely: where to recruit for so many places people who are completely capable of organizing and maintaining the monastic rank in all rigor, even in the most limited form? Therefore, necessity itself dictates that we turn to another solution to the problem. There is a monastic way of life, different in appearance (not in small ways) from our monastic way of life, although completely equivalent to it in spirit, which was in great use in the ancient centuries of Christianity, not unfamiliar to Russia, especially in past centuries, hitherto preserved in full force in Greece, on Mount Athos, for which, for the same reason, throughout Russia, lovers of the monastic life have great and lasting sympathy, as a result of which every year those seeking a strict desert life, not satisfied with domestic forms of monasticism, flow, both open and secret paths, to Athos. The peculiarity of the image of Athonite monasticism consists mainly in the fact that there, at each of the monasteries, there are, at different distances from it, the so-called monasteries, or monasteries, in which live several monks (mostly elders), who, without leaving the monastery, spend a deserted life, engaged in the thought of God and works, and gathering, from time to time, in their small church or chapel for prayer. To establish and strengthen this image of monastic asceticism in Tauris would be one of the important services to the Church, and even, one might say, to the state. For Russia is strong and is supported primarily by faith and a sense of piety, and piety in our people, in accordance with their morals, is nourished by the most holy monastic monasteries. In most of Russia, this undertaking, in the spirit of Athonite asceticism, is almost impossible, due to their very physical location among a populous country, with the exception of one Solovetsky Island, the monasteries on Valaam and Konevets and the Sarov desert. But our Tauride mountains represent a rare and perfect convenience in all respects. If the hermits on Athos are attracted by the mountains under the clouds, the perfect silence and distance from human rebellion, the proximity of the boundless sea, the blessed abundance of the fruits of the earth: grapes, olives and fig trees, living and babbling springs, then our Tauris is favored by the Lord with all this, in the same perfection. If Athos is replete with sacred monuments and memories, then the Russian Athos, Tauris, is not inferior in this to the Greek Athos. Here are the holy footprints of St. Andrew the First-Called; here is the blood of the holy popes - Clement and Martin; here are the exploits of Stephen of Sourozh and the Slavic chief apostles - Cyril and Methodius; here is the memory of St. Vladimir and his baptism; how many examples of faith and virtue! Meanwhile, in relation to Russian hermits, Tavria will far surpass Athos (we say this not out of rivalry, for which there can be no place in this holy matter, but out of necessity, to clarify the matter) in peace and convenience for those of our compatriots who are now seeking the deepest silence for themselves in the monasteries of Athos. It is difficult, and it must be said, that a devout Russian person, seeking peace for his soul in Athos and imagining to find a spiritual paradise there, often encounters severe oppression, which is why many return back, spreading throughout Russia, not in favor of faith and Orthodoxy, unfavorable rumors about Athos. How good it would be, therefore, for our part to provide Russian ascetics with all the means, benefits and conveniences, so that with God’s blessing they can establish their own Russian Athos! How many souls would find refuge for themselves, so to speak, at home, without leaving their homeland, without exposing themselves to oppression by the Turks! Our Taurida, with its mountains and sacred memories, represents the only means for this. Therefore, to fill the Crimean sacred places proposed for restoration, it seems most convenient and best to use not the white clergy, but the monastic one, in the following form: 1. Without starting any monastery, but adhering to the form of desert habitation of Athos, to establish from all the sacred places of Crimea one monastic brotherhood, the center of which will be the Assumption Rock, under the name of the Assumption Skete; other sacred places with their churches and chapels will be venerated by its branches, called cinnamonium. In the main monastery it is enough to have one abba with a hieromonk, a hierodeacon, and three novices. Other sacred places will bear the name of cenovium: St. Vladimir, St. Clement, St. Anastasia, and others, each under the command of one elder hieromonk and two or three novices, as old as possible, elderly and of proven behavior. Thus, for the entire Crimean Athos, no more than nine monastics will be required; the other persons with them may not be tonsured into monasticism, but elders of truly monastic life, numbering no more than twenty. 2. The diocesan authorities will take measures so that for the hermits, after fulfilling fraternal obedience, each has benefits and means for activities consistent with his character and abilities. Whoever can, let him collect historical legends and describe antiquities; let another devote his free time to painting holy icons; the third - for collecting medicinal herbs and providing assistance to the sick; the fourth - for receiving and guiding wanderers; the fifth - for growing grapes, figs, and so on. It is not useless for some to at least become familiar with the Tatar language, so that they can speak with the Tatars on occasion. Hospitality to travelers, no matter who he is, even a Tatar or a Jew, should be one of the first virtues of all desert dwellers. Regarding all these and many other subjects, they will be provided with special guidance. In response to the last question: how to support desert servants and how to maintain sacred places, the following appears: First of all, it should be noted that maintaining the members of the supposed monastic brotherhood, on the one hand, due to their small numbers and deserted way of life, and on the other, due to the abundance of local works, cannot require significant costs. According to the most accurate calculation, ten thousand rubles in banknotes will be enough for this. This will be used for: 1. Offerings from pilgrims and visitors, which in the Assumption Rock, in the Church of St. Anastasia, St. John's Chapel and the Kosmo-Damianovsky spring, still extend annually to no less than five thousand rubles in banknotes. There is no doubt that other sacred places, having been renewed and consecrated by churches and worship, will also not fail to receive offerings from visitors as an aid. There cannot be a place more remote and wild than the spring of Cosmas and Damian, but in it in one day (July 1, the day of remembrance of the holy saints) they receive up to six hundred rubles in banknotes for candles and prayer services. 2. Contributions from zealots of piety for the maintenance of holy places. Some of these deposits are already in mind and will amount to at least fifty thousand rubles in banknotes for the first time. Judging by this, we can confidently hope that from these deposits capital will be formed in a short time, the interest from which will provide security for the maintenance of the Tauride brotherhood. Meanwhile, no one forces us to open the holy places proposed for discovery all at once: things can and should proceed gradually, in accordance with the means for action. This is, in brief, the plan for the future of Russian Athos in Taurida! It would only be intended, as it should, by people, and the Lord would a hundredfold prosper to the good undertaking, and He Himself would see for Himself faithful servants and zealous ascetics who, without leaving the desert, would spread the glory of His name throughout the world and would serve as the spiritual fence of the Fatherland, calling upon it in their prayers day and night a blessing from above. May the Lord grant that this destiny will be fulfilled in one form or another, fully or partially, with our hands and with us, or with the hands of others and at another time - it doesn’t matter, as long as everything that has to happen turns to the glory of God, to the benefit of the Holy Church, for the good of humanity, to the honor of the Monarch and the name of the Russian! Proposal of the Kherson Diocesan Consistory As a result of my review of a significant part of the local diocese and the comments made, I find it necessary that the consistory, by circular, prescribe the following to all ecclesiastical boards and deans: 1) Immediately make bars everywhere in the churches, around the iconostasis and pulpit, in accordance with the power of the Highest Decree from the Holy Synod of 1841, and do not allow any of the people to stand behind bars, in accordance with the force of the same decree. 2) Baptismal fonts and holy water bowls should be tinned more often and kept in perfect neatness. 3) The lamps at the top of the iconostasis with iron slabs and ropes should be abolished, according to the decree of 1835, as dangerous for the people standing below them. 4) Replace broken glass with new, solid glass, and do not have glass made up of pieces in churches, and wash dusty glass from time to time. 5) Have decent arks for storing the holy world; clean them and free the scissors from dust and rust. 6) Do not have cobwebs in churches under any circumstances. 7) Pots of honey (from eves) are strictly prohibited in churches. 8) Clean church utensils from time to time, and change outdated velvet on the Gospels. 9) Have two spears on the altars, large and small, according to the Church Charter. 10) Holy icons donated to the church should be decently placed where possible, and not piled one on top of the other, to the disgrace of the churches. 11) By no means have damasks and bottles on the altar for church wine, but have other types of vessels for this purpose that do not resemble taverns. 12) Have decent banners, and tidy up those that are in tatters and unnecessary. 13) Cover the plates for collecting money around the church with cloth so that inappropriate ringing does not occur, and go with them not during the most important moments of the Sacrament. 14) Immediately bind church books that break, so that the pages do not fall before the people from the hands of those holding the book. 15) Try to plant decent trees around churches, not chasing fruits that cannot be preserved, but seeking shade and beauty. 16) Clerks should wear short caftans with a belt and hats, and not in caps slanted, and not in short Cossacks. 17) Priests should have young, inexperienced clerks under special paternal supervision in the hope of gratitude from their superiors for their improvement, as well as punishment for the contrary. 18) It is unacceptable to read short teachings throughout the churches during the liturgy, choosing for this purpose edifying and generally useful articles from books published by the Holy Synod and other generally respected spiritual works, among other things, from the Menaion and Prologue, as long as all this is as short as possible. 19) Conduct confession during Lent with proper diligence, reverence and spiritual prudence, remembering that confession is one of the most powerful means for a beneficial effect on the morality of the people and at the same time for gaining spiritual respect and love from parishioners for the priest. The shortcomings on all these points, which I, unfortunately, noticed in large numbers, are not indicated here, in the annex to the persons and churches where they were encountered, in the hope that upon my second review of the diocese, they will not be encountered again. May the Lord grant this hope to be fulfilled! When reviewing a diocese, various local information is needed, which the dean, for the most part, does not have. For this purpose, immediately order all deans to have the following statements ready at all times: 1) About churches, meaning stone, wooden, dilapidated, under construction or renovation, sealed, and others. 2) About persons who have been awarded any awards, who have been fined for something, who are on trial and have faulty behavior. 3) About idle places of the clergy and clergy, with an indication of when it became idle. 4) About state and landowner schools, with the meaning of teachers and the number of students. 5) About supernumerary clergy and orphaned families, receiving and not receiving benefits from trusteeship. 6) About miraculous icons, healing wells, special places respected by the people, and remarkable church antiquities. 7) About church property, consisting of houses, shops, fishing, forests and other things. 8) About investigative details, according to their district, with the meaning of their beginning and quality, and to whom it is entrusted, as well as about processes with secular persons in favor of churches. 9) About the amounts belonging to churches, showing their quantity, place of storage, need or non-need for the church, and so on. 10) About those who have completed the course, but are not assigned to a place, about expelled students, about those studying at home and in schools, about those who have reached the age of ten, but are not enrolled in schools. 11) About church elders, indicating the time of their service and the awards they received. 12) About the state of metrical and confessional books and church libraries, indicating which books are lacking. 13) In general, about the needs of their district on the part of churches, clergy, and others, with an explanation of what is required to satisfy them, and how this can be done. Analysis of the work of Doctor of Theology Bishop Macarius, entitled “Orthodox Dogmatic Theology” The work we are considering is a rare and most gratifying phenomenon in our theological literature, the like of which it has not seen on its horizon for a long time and, in all likelihood, will not see again soon. The most foreign theological literatures, despite their long-standing development and centuries-old improvements, do not represent, especially in modern times, creations with such merits as the Orthodox dogma of the Right Reverend Macarius. Theology, as a science, has been moved far forward by this multi-learned creation and has gained a lot by the fact that it has been completely freed from scholasticism and the Latin language and thus introduced into the circle of Russian literature and offered, so to speak, for general use for all lovers of theological knowledge. But the greatest merit of the author is that in his work, for the first time, he depicts with all the power and persuasiveness, in a learned and at the same time in an easily understandable language, those dogmas and provisions by which the Eastern Orthodox Church differs from all other Christian faiths. After this, a foreign theologian cannot say that in the Eastern Church they are accustomed to believing in their opinions unaccountably, for the new Orthodox dogma contains such an account in everything, the like of which most of the non-Orthodox Churches, starting with the English one, have not yet presented. Let the following undoubted information and considerations serve to support these opinions. 1) All previously published experiments in Russian theology can be divided into two classes: some are compiled without a strict system, in the form of separate treatises, not closely connected with each other by any common thought visible in the book, just as the late scholastics did in their works. This includes the dogmatists of the archimandrites: Joseph Karpinsky, Sylvester Lebedinsky, Makariy Petrovich and Hieromonk Juvepalius Medvedsky. Other eminences, such as: Irenaeus Falkovsky, Theophylact Gorsky, Archpriest Ternovsky and Archimandrite Anthony - adhered to a well-known system, following the plan outlined by Feofan Prokopovich, who divided dogma into two halves: the doctrine of God in himself (de Deo ad intra) and the doctrine of God outside, that is, in His actions (de Deo ad extra). The plan is very good, but not in application to Christian theology, for it is not at all taken from the essence of Christianity, as it should be, which is why it is not convenient for a systematic presentation of Christian dogmas. For the second part of theology according to this plan, there are too many subjects left in comparison with the first; and, moreover, in this case there is no thought that could connect and penetrate all the treatises included in it. The Right Reverend Macarius was able to fully notice and successfully avoid this deficiency common to theologies. As the starting point for dogma, or as the beginning of it, he accepted the very concept of the Christian religion, which, in its essence, is not just a primitive religion, or the natural union of man with God, as it was before the fall of man, but religion in its supplemented through revelation and corrected form - as the union of fallen man with God, restored supernaturally through the Sacrament of Redemption and Grace; and therefore it consists of two kinds of dogmas, some of which belong to it as a religion in general, others as a restored, supernatural, Christian religion. The first sets forth the doctrine of God and his relationship to man - natural and general, which God had towards him even in the primitive, natural religion and has equally to all other creatures of the world, as their Creator and Provider. Others set forth the doctrine of God as the Savior of fallen men, and about His special, supernatural relationship to the human race, which God has exclusively for us, sinners, in the restored religion, as our Redeemer, having completed the work of salvation on the cross, as our Sanctifier, who assimilates this salvation to us through the grace of the Holy Spirit, and finally, as our Judge and Rewarder, who has to reward each by death, depending on how he took advantage of the salvation acquired for him. This division of dogma and dogma, which, one might say, comes from the very essence of the Christian religion, being distinguished by its naturalness, is fully consistent with its subject: there are no inconveniences of the previous plan; parts of the system are equal, derived from one beginning, imbued, down to the smallest details, with one dominant thought and, thus, truly represent a harmonious and self-developed matter - science. This division of dogma, while fully satisfying the requirements of logic, receives a new value because in this way the ancient method of presenting Christian dogmas, which was constantly adhered to (as the author himself shows) by the holy fathers and ecumenical teachers, was brought out of hiding and put into use again, and which fell out of use and was left in oblivion only because they did not know how to adequately evaluate it and give it a scientific, systematic treatment. 2) The dogmatics we are considering have even more advantages over all previous dogmatic creations in relation to the method or method of revealing theological truths. Here each dogma is examined and revealed from all sides from which only it can usefully appear in science; An attentive reader, after reading each treatise, is able to judge for himself (the dogma) both in its beginning and foundations, and in its historical development, and in its relation to the principles of reason, and in its practical consequences for the heart and life. The examination always opens with a detailed presentation of the subject of the teaching of the Church, as the guardian of Orthodoxy, a condition without which Orthodox theology would obviously not be worthy of its name, and which, however, was very little fulfilled in all previous theologies. The author, on the contrary, fulfills it with all constancy and diligence, not only in relation to each treatise, but also each chapter, and sometimes even paragraph. Thus, his teacher of dogmas is the Church itself, and he serves her only as a faithful interpreter and obedient instrument. This is what many have long wanted to see in dogmatics and have not seen before: now this desire has been completely satisfied. For the author did not limit himself in this regard to citing only the main points of church teaching regarding the main dogmas, but presented it (the first) with clarity regarding all others, even in relation to some particular truths. In this way, the completely sad necessity, after reading any theological treatise, is eliminated to ask: is this exactly what the Holy Church teaches? The author’s presentation of the teachings of the Church is always followed by confirmation of it from the Holy Scriptures, for the Church does not teach us its teachings or from itself, but conveys only what is revealed by God Himself through the prophets and apostles in their writings or traditions. All previous compilers of dogmas were concerned with this presentation of the biblical teaching on dogmas, and most of them limited the whole matter to this. Despite the fact that this side of dogma is more excellent in the Reverend Macarius than it is in the previous ones. Not only the abundance of texts, but also their choice, especially the disclosure and application to the subject being proven, deserve full praise and leave nothing more to be desired. Something similar to this could previously only be found in Feofan Prokopovich, and then on a smaller scale and not with such skill. The presentation of dogmas within the meaning of the Holy Scriptures is elevated and always receives a new assessment from the Right Reverend Macarius in that, following the indication of their existence in the Holy Scriptures, it is always presented in detail how these same dogmas constantly existed in the tradition of the Universal Church. For this purpose, in each chapter there are whole rows of witnesses to this tradition - the fathers and teachers of the Church of the first six centuries. Without this, the question could always arise in the reader’s mind: did the Ecumenical Councils and former teachers of the Church understand the Holy Scriptures in the same way as it is explained in dogmatics? The Reverend Macarius (the first) fully answered this important question, with all completeness and thoroughness, and in this way rendered an important service to theology as a science. It also serves a lot to explain the author’s dogmas that he (which has not been done before, with the exception of two or three cases by Feofan Prokopovich) calls for help the history of dogmas, which, due to its importance, has long constituted even a special science in foreign literature, but in our country remained in oblivion. Thanks to the extensive historical information, examples of which were shown in the previous historical works of the author, in his Dogmatics we see on every occasion how and why the teaching of the Church regarding well-known dogmas was defined from one side or another, in such and not other expressions, which helps a lot to a deeper understanding of Church teaching. Bearing in mind the property of the spirit of the time, the author also acted prudently, giving in his dogma a place for the impartial gaze of common mind on Christian dogmas. On the one hand, this serves to calm mental inquisitiveness, especially in young listeners, on the other hand, it constitutes constant proof that faith and revelation are not afraid of any judgments and objections of reason, and in any case only exceed its concept (logical), but never contradict its principles, which themselves, when deepened by thought at their source, all ultimately come down to faith in the truth of what necessarily appears as such in our consciousness. The author's theoretical considerations about the truths of Christianity are always distinguished by maturity, clarity, thoroughness and often a wealth of the most diverse information, especially in those cases where he refutes the objections of the unthinking, borrowed from various branches of natural science, history and other sciences. In these considerations, which in previous dogmatists had almost no place at all due to their very brevity, the author very successfully avoided two shortcomings: the rationalistic trend, now dominant especially in Germany, which, rejecting the authority of the Church and the Bible itself, makes reason the supreme judge of faith and, as a result, rejects everything that is incomprehensible in Christianity; and the scholastic direction, according to which those who discussed dogmas according to the principles of reason usually delved into unnecessary dialectical subtleties and dealt with issues that not only did not relate to the positive teaching of the Church and the Bible, but also did not contain any importance. In the moral conclusions from the dogmas, which the author contains in each chapter, there is, of course, no news, since this has often been done in our dogmatists before; but in previous experiments they were usually presented in the form of short and dry statements; but here they appear each time in decent fullness, imbued with a Christian feeling and, like a ripe juicy fruit, make you want to experience them with your own taste. Thus, the method followed by the author is the most complete and comprehensive, satisfying the requirements of the most curious reader, and therefore very suitable for the academic department where the author taught his lessons. 3) With such scholarly treatment and completeness, the work of the Right Reverend Macarius accomplished exactly what our theological literature lacked. Feofan Prokopovich began, as is well known, to expound dogmatics on an extensive scale; but he himself did not bring it even halfway. Subsequent treatises, completed according to his plan by others, are generally brief and not so thorough; moreover, the size of the very first volume, especially that of Theophan, depended, among other things, on the fact that here he also placed preliminary general treatises on the principles of theology, which the Right Reverend Macarius formed the subject of a special extensive and multi-learned work: “Introduction to Orthodox Theology.” The experiences of the Right Reverend Irenaeus Falkovsky and Sylvester are also quite extensive, but inferior to the work of Theophanes, especially the Reverend Macarius. There is no need to mention other, even briefer experiments. Such completeness, in addition to the vastness of the method by which the author examined the same dogmas of truth in new, previously untouched sides, depended on the fact that he gave a place in his dogmatics to some subjects that were completely unprecedented in it, such as an outline of the gradual revelation of dogmas in the Orthodox Church, the history of dogmatics itself, and others; and, secondly, because he, with particular thoroughness and strength, tried to reveal and affirm those dogmas that constitute the distinctive character of the Orthodox teaching of the Eastern Church and are rejected or transformed in other Christian faiths, such as: the doctrine of the eternal origin of the Holy Spirit from God the Father, about the seven Sacraments of the Church, about the veneration and calling for help of Angels and saints, about prayers for the dead, and others. In general, the dogma of the Right Reverend Macarius represents a system of Orthodox dogmatic theology from which anyone can study the truths of our Orthodox faith thoroughly and in its entirety, not only in relation to faith, but also in application to life. 4) This is all the more convenient and easier because the entire system is written in clear and generally understandable language. Of the previous dogmas, the largest part was written, in accordance with the then custom, in Latin, in the form of a textbook, according to a more or less scholastic method, and therefore could only be accessible to people familiar with the Latin language and accustomed to the forms of scholasticism, and for society, for the entire Orthodox Russian people, as if they did not exist. Other, later experiments, although written in Russian, were also in the form of actual textbooks and using a more or less school method, not easy and understandable for everyone. On the other hand, these experiments, due to the very brevity and conciseness of the style, do not always present the truths with the clarity and completeness that are necessary for the majority of our Orthodox readers. The dogmatics of the Right Reverend Macarius eliminated all these inconveniences. It is written in pure, correct, modern Russian language, which can be easily understood by every somewhat educated and intelligent Russian person; written not so much in the form of an academic textbook, but in the form of a national guide for the study of Orthodox dogmas, and therefore freed from all boring and heavy forms of scholasticism, almost inevitable in short school textbooks. Finally, with the completeness that the author chose for himself in presenting the truths of faith, with his special gift of expressing himself about the most sublime subjects simply and clearly, he was able to achieve in his work the highest degree of general intelligibility. With all fairness, we can say that the science of Orthodox dogmatic theology, which hitherto as a science was exclusively the property of the school, was brought by the author out of its close walls into the realm of real life and proposed for public use.” With such tangible advantages over all domestic dogmatists without exception, the work of the Most Reverend Macarius does not lose anything, and even gains if we compare it with similar foreign works. Take any system of dogma of the English, French and even Germans and you will see that the best of them will be inferior to ours in considerable respects. Currently, Western literature recognizes the best dogmatists as John Perrone, Heinrich Klee and Staudenmaier. Each of them has its own merits, and each, however, must yield priority to our author, as can be seen from those places in his system where he rejects the opinions set forth in these dogmatics. In addition to this, the following should be added: Perrone's dogmatics was compiled without a special system, according to the plan of the famous scholastic Thomas Aquinas, in the form of separate treatises, not connected by any internal common connection, presented by the most strict scholastic method, and therefore - heavy and tedious for living thought - increases the lack of soy by the fact that on almost every page it goes into dialectical subtleties and verbal disputes about subjects often of the most unimportant. If, under the forms of medieval scholasticism, Perrone’s book did not reveal rich modern information in the writer, then it could easily be attributed to the 12th or 13th century. Kle's dogmatics is free from scholasticism and has the appearance of a system, but in fact it is more of a dogmatic collection than a system. Many texts of Scripture and paternal testimonies have been collected about each dogma, but all this is not imbued, as it should be, with the thoughts of the author, not captured by the author’s initiative, not enlivened in the least by artistic creativity. Here, one might say, rich material has been prepared for the building, a significant part of which has been processed by a skillful hand, but the building itself has not yet been built. Staudenmaier's dogmatics satisfies the requirements of the system, but has another opposite drawback. Just as there is too little mental initiative in Kle’s work, there is already too much of it here. Staudenmaier is not one of the German rationalists and writes Roman Catholic dogmatics; but he does not so much set out the positive teaching of his Church about dogmas as his own thoughts about them; does not so much theologize as philosophize about the subjects of theology according to the principles of modern philosophy, and even the most sublime and incomprehensible truths of faith are treated as truths completely contained within the limits of the human mind. Our compatriot (as we have already seen, speaking about the plan and method of his dogmatics) skillfully and prudently avoided all these shortcomings of the best modern relations of the same kind, and therefore his dogmatics has an undeniable advantage over them. Let us not mention its main irreplaceable advantage for us in the fact that it is written in the spirit of our Church and is Orthodox-dogmatic theology, whereas, of course, all foreign dogmatists are written in the spirit of their faiths. In this respect there can be no comparison between them. In general, the “Orthodox Dogmatic Theology” of the Right Reverend Macarius, which we are considering, represents: 1. The most perfect work of all that we have seen so far in the same field; and not only equal in scientific treatment to the best modern foreign experiences, but also in many respects far superior to them. 2. The work is independent and original, because the author, neither in the system, nor in the method, nor in the way of presenting the truths, did not follow any of the domestic and foreign theologians, but followed his own path, deeply thought out and correctly measured, drawing information from the first sources, from which he himself found many and all of them were significantly developed by him, and thus, with tireless work, a harmonious and enormous whole was erected, which, with all the desire for such phenomena, in all likelihood, it remains the only one for a long time. 3. A work that satisfies all modern requirements of science, in terms of a harmonious system and the derivation of all parts and truths from one beginning, in terms of the deep and extensive scholarship of the author, in terms of the dominant historical direction, so akin to theology as positive science, in terms of excellent clarity and intelligibility in the way of revealing truths, even in a purely Russian style, which, moreover, constantly bears the stamp of sound taste. 4. A work that constitutes an important merit not only for the science of Orthodox theology, which the author undoubtedly moved very far forward, - not only for our spiritual education, in the history of which the emergence of its dogmatics will once serve as one of the most remarkable eras, but also for the entire Russian Church in general, for all Orthodox compatriots, who receive in this work what they have long desired, perhaps a complete, harmonious, thorough and publicly accessible presentation of the distinctive the dogmas of their Church, so precious to their minds and hearts. For all these merits, the “Orthodox Dogmatic Theology” of the Right Reverend Macarius, in my opinion, has the full right to the full Demidov Prize, which the author’s previous historical and theological works, which attracted the attention of everyone involved in the movement of science and education in our Fatherland, have long deserved. The origin and fate of the Dnieper After Noah's flood in Rus', Alaun was the first to emerge from the abyss and, accustomed to dozing under the waters, did not think of competing with the clouds in height, stretching out lazily, not high, but at least long, a ridge from West to East. Anyone who would have looked then from the clouds (there was no other place to look) would have thought that it was a huge whale swimming in the ocean, whose whiskers and paws were increasing and growing from day to day. Driven by whirlwinds, the waves of the flood quickly disappeared from the face of the earth; within a few days, land and land appeared in all directions from Alaun. Everything wanted to take on some form when emerging from the waters; but nothing had yet a definite image and outline: now it’s water, and tomorrow it’s dry land; Now it’s like dry land, and tomorrow it’s an abyss again. Pregnant with moisture inside, scorched by the sun from without, Alaun poured rivers and streams from himself in all directions. And now there are many of them, but then there were ten times more. More important than all the other children were two daughters and one son. The eldest of the daughters was called Volga, the second after her Dvina; The father gave his son the name Dnepr. The father looked at all the children, looked a second and third time and, pointing to the Volga, Dvina and Dnieper, said: - These are my children! True Alaunovychi! – What do you prophesy for us, parent? – they all three asked. – How should we live, where should we flow and where should we end? “Live,” answered Alaun, “as God commands; flow where the wave leads; do not be afraid of storms and winds, mountains and rapids; Be afraid of one thing - to meet the sea: where it is, there will be an end for all of you! The young ones didn’t think long! The Volga, like the eldest, looked in all directions and flowed east, towards the sun, which then was even brighter and more beautiful than now. She soon became friends with the lakes and swamps, took with her all their strength, flowed like a wheel around the entire Russian land, outlived all her brothers and sisters, and died of old age: either the sea swallowed her, or she herself spilled wide into the sea; it is only clear that the Volga and the Caspian are like the beginning and the end of the same thing. Dvina, who did not love her older sister, immediately turned to the West; like her, she looked everywhere for a groom, and like her, whimsical, she did not find him; Neman went left from her, Embah went to the right; and then the sea soon met and swallowed her up with all the waters, without saying “hello”! There was no flow to the West: not only the rivers, but also the sun would end there! The Dnieper had nothing to choose from - it had to flow north or south. From the first there was a blast of cold, and Slovutich rushed south. Here it’s not like the Volga and Dvina: not a single lake, not a single swamp; all the mountains and forests, forests and hills. It can be seen that the dry side. The Dnieper jumps and plays, plays and swallows streams and rivers. He's already doing great; watered Smolensk, washed Orsha, bordered the Mogilev mountains. It's time for a bride! But where can I get it? Dubrovka is small, Orsha is weak; Dnepr looked at them slightly and ordered them to keep to themselves; but he flows and thinks about something else; The young man is already bored alone! Suddenly, unexpectedly, out of the sands and swamps, the quiet and modest Berezina emerges from the right, almost the same age in years and waters. The Dnieper has never seen anything like it before; Berezina had never met her equal before; merged and flowed together. Dnieper, like a man, swore allegiance to the grave; Berezina, like a woman, believed in the Dnieper; but experience prepared - and soon - something else. Unfortunately for the Berezina, out of nowhere, on the left side is the Sozh - full of water, strong in stature, a fellow countrywoman of the Dnieper and similar in character; Slavutich forgot his oath and united with Sozh. Now the three of them are already flowing. It’s time, it’s time for the Dnieper to settle down: otherwise a bad reputation will pass throughout the Russian land. But here comes the Pripet - rich in waters no less than the Dnieper itself. Our young man is no longer touched by love alone, he also counts on benefits: “The whole name of Pripeti,” he thinks, “will belong to me,” and takes her as his wife. “Now,” he thinks, “I’ll live a glorious life, I’ll do without foreign waters, I’ll carry whole ships on me, especially in the spring.” An, - here is Desna before my eyes. What to do here? The bride is nice and looking for a groom. Dnieper to her; she is from him. “I see,” she says, “how fickle you are! But I’m not that gullible, you can’t fool me; but so that from now on you don’t have a new wife. I will be the last, or I won’t and will flow to the Don.” The Dnieper made a vow and united with the Desna; it was under the Kiev mountains. Since then, the Dnieper has settled down; He still collected a lot of rivers, but all for servants, and not for spouses. Desna looked after her husband strictly, and there were no more temptations; a different time and a different fate has come. Before, wherever the Dnieper turns, everywhere is wide and free: the sands crumble, the forests part. Now something on the right is starting to harden and persist. The Dnieper felt granite beneath it. Now he has already poked his head to the surface. The Dnieper has deviated to the left and flows further; and the granite follows it and cuts harder. The Dnieper is all to the left, and he thinks: “He can’t catch up with me.” Suddenly he sees the enemy not only on the right, but also on the left: on both sides there are huge buildings and cliffs; there is nothing to choose from. The Dnieper straightened and bowed his head and rushed forward: he broke through the rocks and cliffs, but was completely broken himself. There was no more strength and strength; the same, but not the same. The banks sank, the rapids disappeared, and gray hairs appeared like an old man’s – reeds and floodplains. And the heat?.. What’s next is stronger, it bakes like in an oven. Do not eat the same food for long; there is no new sucurs. In some places ravines and hollows appear, but all are dry; not a drop of water. He sees the Dnieper, which is not good, but continues to flow, where he doesn’t know. Do not return to Alaun. Thank God that there is no sea yet! But something is suspicious: something ahead is preventing you from going forward. The Dnieper is widening and getting thicker, but it is not a good thickness, as happens to old people before death. Poem "Don't be discouraged" So that, being born poor, Through hard patience and labor, Then be submissive, patient, When it pleases the Creator, So that you eat your bread in sweat, Bow before Him humbly, When for zealous jealousy You are assigned a small circle, And within its borders is cramped Your spirit is boiling with gusts - Show yourself in good deeds, Illuminate this world with their brilliance, Tame jealousy with humility, When by the will of Providence, Working all my life, day and night, You're not getting any encouragement Overcome obstinate anger, And strengthened by piety In your painful struggle, Do not honor with fall and dishonor Follow your destiny; But strive to be faithful in little things, There is an all-good Providence, Witness of your righteous deeds, Desires, thoughts, patience, Place all your hopes in them, In the hand of His heart are the mighty, He who created this world from those who bear it, In creative, good deeds, You and wickedness are in conflict, When, according to the word of God the Word You will be persecuted for the truth, Follow her again, And if you can save them, Forgetting your affection and merits, Do not take revenge on them for their treachery, Repay them with good for evil, He will send temptation to your home Oh! shed rivers of tears for them, Remember them in your prayers, Whatever your destiny, Donate everything to your earthly homeland, Be brave to perform a feat for the Tsar, Revere the Church, Behind the grave there is the Heavenly Land: The reward is there - don’t be discouraged! When divine goodness He will reward you for your valor, Will give you health sweetness, He will bestow wealth and fame, Protected by meek humility, And turning my heart to God, In this life you will have Know how to forgive your enemies, Rush to their aid without calling, Transform their sorrows into joy, Don’t be discouraged when working for them. But if the companions of the happy Flatterers will crawl into your yard, Arrows of proud gazes Don’t forget to drive them out; Bring the truthful into your house, Sit them at the table with you, Heed their harsh truth, You might be interested in: