Archbishop Macarius (Bulgakov) (later Metropolitan of Moscow)

(at the Lithuanian department - 1868–1879) “Paul planted, Apollos watered, and God increased” (1 Cor. 3:6). After the division (1448) of the Russian Metropolis into Moscow and Kiev-Lithuania, which was located within the Lithuanian-Polish state, the metropolitans of the latter established their see in the capital of Lithuania, Mt. Vilna. In 1596, the Kiev-Lithuanian Metropolis fell into union. The current Lithuanian diocese, with a see in Vilna, was established in 1839 by the ever-memorable Metropolitan of Lithuania and Vilna Joseph Semashko, the culprit of the reunification of 1½ million Uniates and Catholics of Lithuania and Belarus with the Orthodox Church. After 35 years of ruling the diocese, Metropolitan Joseph died on November 23, 1868. His successor, on December 10 of the same year, was appointed Archbishop of Kharkov Macarius Bulgakov, later Metropolitan of Moscow, a famous scientist, theologian and historian, author of a 12-volume History of the Russian Church and a 5-volume Dogmatic Theology, on which many generations were raised Russian clergy. Archbishop's length of service Makaria: Bishop of Vinnitsa, vicar of the Podolsk diocese 1851–1857; Bishop of Tambov - 1857–1859; Bishop of Kharkov - 1859–1868; elevated to the rank of archbishop in 1862; Archbishop of Lithuania - 1868–1879; Metropolitan of Moscow - 1879–1882. Honorary member of Moscow and Kharkov universities. Ordinary academician of the Imperial Academy of Sciences. His works, in addition to the mentioned Russian Church History and Dogmatic Theology: Introduction to the course of dogmatic theology, History of the Russian schism of the Old Believers, History of the Kyiv Theological Academy. Born in 1816, died in 1882. Buried in the Trinity-Sergius Lavra. The reader should keep in mind that the territory of the Lithuanian diocese, inhabited by Russian (Belarusian branch) and Orthodox people, for many centuries was part of the Lithuanian-Polish state - the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Here in 1596, in the mountains. Brest, a church union was born, which was spread and enforced by government measures. The overwhelming majority of the Russian population was forced to accept the union and over the course of several centuries became close to it, became Catholic and Polish. Lithuania was annexed to Russia in 1797, under the third partition of Poland. This means that by the time of his appointment to the Lithuanian See, Archbishop. Macarius, only 73 years have passed since the annexation of Lithuania to Russia and only 30 years since the reunification of the Uniates (1839). After joining Russia, the bloody Polish-Lithuanian uprising took place here twice (1830–1831 and 1863–1864), the nature of the struggle was similar to the civil war we experienced and was suppressed by military measures of the government. The uprisings were raised by Polish patriots with the goal of restoring an independent Poland. From the time of the last uprising until the arrival in Vilna, Archbishop. Macarius was only 4 years old. The time frame for introducing Russian influence and Orthodoxy into the dioceses was too short and the circumstances were too unfavorable for this. And after the suppression of the uprising, the Polish-Catholic influence here continued to remain powerful, painfully elevated and aggravated. Located on the outskirts of the state, among a solid Catholic population, and consisting of recently reunited Uniates and Catholics, the Lithuanian diocese (489 parishes) as part of the Russian Church was considered important and responsible, requiring the archpastor to be able to defend the dignity of the dominant religion and the interests of the Russian people and at the same time special tact to maintain good neighborly relations with the militant Catholic Church and Polish society. These relationships were with the predecessor archbishop. Makaria, Met. Joseph, who himself came from a Uniate environment, were quite normal and, if not friendly, then not openly hostile. The Catholic archbishop and his curia resided in Vilna, there were many churches and monasteries, many Polish intelligentsia and aristocracy lived, and several Polish newspapers were published. In general, there was a significant Polish cultural center here. Since the time of Catherine II, although the main administration of the region was in Russian hands, it showed clear preference for the Poles and the Catholic clergy and not only did not contribute to the revival of Orthodoxy and the Russian people, but even opposed it, to the detriment of the interests of the state. The overwhelming mass of the Russian people consisted of an illiterate, semi-poor peasantry, in serfdom under the Polish lords. There were, one might say, almost no Russian landowners and intelligentsia in the region. This was the reason for the inattentive attitude of the Russian authorities towards their own Russian people. The culprit of the suppression of the last Polish uprising, Governor-General of the North-Western Territory M. N. Muravyov, was rightly surprised how, under such conditions, Metropolitan. Joseph Semashko managed to maintain Orthodoxy and lay a solid foundation for Russian influence, which clearly had an impact during the uprising, when the Orthodox population did not join the rebellion and deliberately sided with the government. Metropolitan Joseph and M.N. Muravyov, restoring the importance of Orthodoxy and the Russian nationality, sought to ensure that the Russian people inhabiting the North-Western region were completely free from any Polish-Catholic influence, rightly believing that as long as Catholics and Poles held a dominant position in the region, until then Orthodoxy and the Russian nationality would be suppressed by the latter. Due to the circumstances that caused the Polish uprising, the civil authorities took extraordinary measures to strengthen Russian influence in the region, in which Muravyov’s successor, Governor General Kaufman, especially tried, and even “overdid it.” Thanks to these events, the conversion of Catholics to Orthodoxy increased, not due to the conviction of the superiority of the Orthodox faith, but in the hope of improving their financial situation, or in view of even stronger arguments from civil officials who arrogated missionary functions to themselves, which Metropolitan did not sympathize with and tried to resist. Joseph. An expert in the Northwestern region, professor at Kyiv University M. O. Koyalovich wrote: “There was such a movement at that time that entire villages of people asked to enroll them in Orthodoxy.” Entire Catholic parishes led by priests converted to Orthodoxy. So in the village of Podberezye, 28 versts from Vilna, priest John Streletsky converted to Orthodoxy with 1,500 parishioners. In the mountains In Shumsk, 653 souls converted to Orthodoxy. According to statistical data, in 1864, 1620 Catholic souls converted to Orthodoxy, in 1865 - 4254 souls, in 1866 - 25194 souls. In the year of the appointment of Archbishop Macarius (1868) - 1173 souls. Polish magnates also converted to Orthodoxy, for example, Prince Drutsky-Lubetsky, Oginsky, Radziwill, Despot-Zenovich, Voinatovich, Doctor Belinsky and many others. The Russification measures of the civil authorities caused acute discontent among the Poles and Lithuanians, under the influence of which the Russian authorities were forced to change the strict course they had adopted. Appointed to the post of Governor General almost simultaneously with Archbishop. Makariy A.L. Potapov was the first to take measures to weaken the state of exception introduced by Muravyov and supported by Kaufman. The patronage and coercion of civil authorities to convert Catholics to Orthodoxy ended. Due to the relaxation of government policies, a reverse movement began among converts to return to Catholicism. It began under Metropolitan. Joseph. Already in 1866, Emperor Alexander II, receiving converts in Vilna, said: “I am glad to see you Orthodox. Know that since I have converted to Orthodoxy, I do not allow them under any circumstances to return to Catholicism,” but this did not help either. The return to Catholicism continued throughout the archbishop's ministry. Macarius, causing him and the diocesan authorities a lot of worries and difficult experiences. At the head of the Russian administration at the time described was the above-mentioned Governor-General of the North-Western Territory, A. L. Potapov. Being Muravyov's assistant, Potapov was an opponent of his reforms, hiding his Polonophile convictions. Having support in the highest spheres of St. Petersburg, Potapov began to boldly carry out attempts to reconcile the government in relation to the Polish aristocracy, compromised by participation in the rebellion and support for the uprising. However, these attempts could not develop successfully while such a famous champion of Orthodoxy and defender of the interests of the Russian population as Metropolitan was alive. Joseph. Potapov marked his entry into the administration (1868) with the arrest and deportation within 24 hours, under the escort of gendarmes, to St. Petersburg, at the disposal of the III Department of His Imperial Majesty’s Own Chancellery (head of the state police and gendarmerie), the caretaker of the Vilna Theological School, the young, gifted and energetic hieromonk Smaragd Trinity, for saying 14 April, on the feast of St. Vilna martyrs Anthony, John and Eustathius, sermons in the Holy Spirit Monastery, which, according to Potapov, might not have pleased Catholics. This deportation took place without the knowledge of Metropolitan. Joseph Semashko. If Potapov did not reckon with such an outstanding hierarch, who enjoyed deep respect in the highest government spheres, then one can imagine what Potapov’s attitude was towards ordinary bishops. From St. Petersburg, Hieromonk Smaragd was sent to Constantinople, without the right to enter Vilna, to the post of assistant rector of the embassy church. Smaragd returned to Vilna only 17 years later, in the rank of Bishop of Koven, and a year later in 1886 he died in Vilna. A big blow to the Russian cause was dealt by Potapov with the dismissal of the Trustee of the Vilna Educational District, Batyushkov, a great Russian patriot and figure in the field of Russian education. It’s not for nothing that Potapov’s time in office was called Potapovism. Thus the archbishop. Macarius needed to maintain good relations with Potapov and at the same time stand guard over the interests of the Russian Orthodox people. These were the conditions in which the Lithuanian diocese found itself at the time of its acceptance by archbishop. Makariy. The situation was reminiscent of the destruction of an old building and the construction of a new one on its ruins, using old rotten material with a layer of new material, which made the building not as strong and beautiful as the builders expected. Archbishop Macarius soon became convinced how difficult his high post was in comparison with his service in Tambov and Kharkov. Diocese of Podolsk, in which archbishop. Macarius was the vicar of Vinnitsa, was similar to Lithuania, as it consisted of former Uniates, but the title of Vinnitsa archbishop. Macarius wore it only nominally, remaining in St. Petersburg, as the rector of the theological academy. To get acquainted with the diocese, at the beginning of his ministry, Archbishop. Macarius made tours of monasteries and parishes, mainly located at or near railways, and then entrusted the visiting of parishes to vicars. At that time, there were two vicariates in the Lithuanian diocese, Kovno and Brest. The Kovno vicars were bishops: Joseph Drozdov (1868–1874), Evgeniy Shershilov (1875–1877), and Vladimir Nikolsky (1877–1881). The bishops of Brest were: Ignatius Zhelezovsky (1848–1870), Evgeniy Shershilov (1870–1875), Vladimir Nikolsky (1875–1877) and Ianuariy Popov (1877–1879). In the last years of the administration of the diocese, Metropolitan. Joseph, as a result of his long illness, diocesan affairs fell into disarray and involuntarily concentrated in the hands of the first-present member of the consistory, married to the sister of Metropolitan. Joseph, the cathedral archpriest Victor Gomolitsky, before whom not only the priests, but also the suffragan bishops were in awe, before reaching the metropolitan, they had to pass through the cleansing fire of the first-present member of the consistory. The appointment of the clergy of the diocese as archbishop. Macarius was greeted with joy, because it promised liberation from the oppression of the omnipotent archpriest. Gomolitsky, whose name became odious in the diocese. Having taken over the administration of the diocese, Archbishop. Macarius first of all drew attention to the unsatisfactory activities of the spiritual consistory and o.o. deans. The dissatisfaction of the consistory lay in the criminal slowness of considering and resolving consistory cases. The response to the Governor-General’s appeal on such an important issue as the construction of churches was even delayed for a long time. There were also abuses and injustices, inevitable under the almost one-man rule of the ruler. However, in his report to the Synod on the activities of the consistory, Archbishop. Macarius limited himself only to the formal side of the matter and, sparing the clergy, did not consider it necessary to inform the Synod of the discovery of abuses. Disorders in consistories of that time were common and became a proverb. Subjected to strict control, some members of the consistory and governors hastened to voluntarily resign. The dismissal of members of the consistory did not affect Rev. Gomolitsky, as a man of great intelligence, who knows the diocese well and has extensive experience. He was left in his place, and the archbishop. Macarius often used his experience and advice, but still Fr. the first present has lost its former influence forever. The unsatisfactory activity of the consistory inevitably reflected in the activities of the o.o. deans. The malfunction of the latter was in the insufficiency, or even complete absence, of proper management of the official activities of the parish clergy, and this was the reason for the latter’s failure to comply with the orders of the diocesan authorities on the revival of parish life, preaching, catechesis, on the correct organization of teaching the Law of God in primary schools, as well as on the careful conduct of church writing, on the correct maintenance of complex financial reporting for churches and even clearing sheets. In the sixties, during the era of government reforms, much was said and written about the need to introduce an elective principle into diocesan life, in particular, the choice by the clergy of o.o. deans, instead of appointing them diocesan bishops. The famous Moscow Metropolitan. Filaret was an opponent of the choice of dean and in 1866 wrote: “In Russia, the ability and inclination to adopt someone else’s, new and seductive things have been strengthened; They don’t stop to think whether this is suitable for us and how it can be done more reliably, but they hastily get down to business and produce only a ghost without content, without strength, without fruit.” About the election of deans, he said that such deans, created by voting, whose life as a dean is limited to only 5 years, will not have a beneficial influence on those under their subordination in discipline, morality and diligence in matters of service, in comparison with those elected by the bishops themselves from trustworthy persons, about whom a good concept was formed, in view of their diligence in matters of service and during review dioceses, and the opinion of the consistory was also taken into account. Archbishop Macarius, on the contrary, as he put it, “due to his personal convictions based on experience,” was a great supporter of the elective principle. He repeated his experience in the Lithuanian diocese, appointing elections of deans by meetings of the clergy of dean districts. 23 persons were elected from the previous deans, while the remaining 22 were elected from new people. But life soon showed that those chosen were not more careful than those appointed, and some of them were removed for malfunction. In connection with the election, the life of the diocese became livelier, congresses of the clergy began: deanery, school, diocesan. Issues were raised and discussed about the emeritus fund of the clergy, the diocesan candle factory, and the opening of new educational institutions, but not all of these issues were implemented during the period of management of the diocese by the archbishop. Macaria. For the organization of congresses of the archbishop. Macarius compiled the Rules. These rules were considered by some to be so perfect that in many dioceses they were adopted without any changes and were even included in collections claiming to have legal significance. Archbishop Macarius also allowed the clergy to elect the caretakers of theological schools, their assistants and members of the Board. “According to § 24 of the new school charter, the district school congress can, even without my prior permission, elect, through a closed ballot, candidates for the positions of the superintendent of the school, as well as his assistant and members of the school board from the clergy, if it recognizes the current superintendent, assistant and members of the board from the clergy as unsuitable for their appointment.” Many saw in this the archbishop’s derogation of his own power, since until that time the administration of the schools had been appointed by the bishop, but Bishop Macarius thought not about his own power, but about the benefit of the cause. That's it for the archbishop. Macarius did not stop, allowing, at the request of the clergy, the election of the head of the Vilna diocesan women's school. The head of this school was appointed and dismissed by the Empress, on the recommendation of the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod. These elections were declared illegal, and Archbishop. Macarius received their reprimand for admitting it, but nevertheless the candidate chosen by the clergy was approved. To the boards of religious educational institutions, Archbishop. Macarius provided freedom and independence in resolving issues, both educational and economic. In case of disagreement between members of the Board, Archbishop. Macarius invariably took the side of the majority. Archbishop's patronizing attitude towards religious educational institutions. Macarius crowned the establishment of a scholarship in his name for interest on the capital of 2 thousand rubles, which he donated to the Lithuanian Theological Seminary in 1878 on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of its opening. The Lithuanian Theological Seminary was opened in 1828, i.e. during the time of the union. Its first rector was Anthony Zubko, later Bishop of Brest, friend and collaborator of Metropolitan. Joseph Semashko in the matter of reunification of the Uniates. The seminary was originally located in the town of Zhirovitsy, but was transferred to Vilna in 1844. The most important task of the archbishop. Macarius was to strengthen the flock in the Orthodox faith and the Russian people. In this regard, his ministry presented many difficulties, which were partly mentioned at the beginning of the article. The diocese was poor. The manifesto of February 19, 1861 on the liberation of peasants from serfdom by the provincial administration was hidden from the peasant population. Attempts by the clergy to explain to the peasants the meaning of the manifesto were suppressed, as they were inciting the peasants against the landowners. The liberation of the peasants followed only after the pacification of the rebellion in 1864. In terms of nationality, the Belarusian peasant of that time was poorly aware of his belonging to the Russian people and rather considered himself a Pole than a Russian. In religious terms, Metropolitan himself. Joseph Semashko admitted that by the time of reunification, any difference between the union and Catholicism had been erased and there remained no obstacle to the transition from the union to Catholicism. The Uniate clergy itself was to blame for this. For material benefits, it was faked for priests and Poles. They wore the same clothes as the Catholic clergy and could serve both in Uniate churches and in Catholic churches. The liturgical vestments were the same. Orthodox rituals were replaced by Catholic ones. Slavic was considered the liturgical language, but it was distorted, and many priests asked to switch to Polish. The sermons were spoken in Polish. During the reunification of the Uniates, the priests were left in their places under the condition of signing a conversion to Orthodoxy. No attention was paid to the people, in the hope that the flock would follow the shepherds. Despite these subscriptions, many priests continued to remain Uniates at heart, being under strong Polish influence. Others were married to Polish Catholic women. In family life, the Polish language was used. In the absence of the Russian intelligentsia, the clergy often had to make acquaintance with the Polish gentry and inevitably imitate them. Although 30 years had passed since the reunification, the Polish-Uniate spirit was still strong among the old clergy and even stronger among the peasants. People often did not even think about actually returning to the fold of the faith of their distant ancestors. Due to the lack of candidates for the priesthood, they were discharged from the Great Russian provinces, but there were too few of them to be able to change the type of Western Russian priest. In view of the insufficient influence of the clergy on the people, Muravyov proposed a radical measure: to send out the former. Uniate clergy in different dioceses, and in return, write out clergy from internal dioceses, but Metropolitan strongly opposed this. Joseph Semashko. To resolve the conflict, the Chief Prosecutor of the Synod, Akhmatov, came to Vilna. To morally influence the flock, the reunited clergy was unable or unwilling to use the means that were in their hands. Preaching was weak. There were no non-liturgical conversations. All pastoral activities of the clergy were reduced to performing religious services and services on holidays and Sundays. Archbishop Macarius made the strictest impression to the pastors about the need to incessantly preach the word of God and to view preaching as their first and most important duty, for negligence in fulfilling this duty is accompanied by unfavorable consequences for the people, especially in view of the incessant preaching of the Catholic clergy. However, from the reports of deans and vicars it was clear that the strictest order was accepted by the clergy only for reading, and not for information and execution. Archbishop Macarius put a lot of effort into educating the people through schools. True, under him the number of parochial schools decreased. He found 107 churches in the diocese. prikh. schools, since 1996 students were boys and 107 girls, and when they left the diocese there were only 6 parish churches. schools, with 82 boys and 7 girls students. The reason for the decrease in the number of parochial schools was the massive opening of the People's Ministry of the People after the pacification of the rebellion. Educational schools; for example, in 1863, 100 schools were opened. However, in the ministerial schools, at the beginning, there were fewer children than expected, and the Directorate people. schools turned to the clergy with a request, at every opportunity, to convince peasants of the benefits of literacy and to encourage them to send their children to schools. Typically, ministerial schools opened in the central villages of parishes. So that children from remote villages could use the school, dormitories for children were opened at the schools. It is clear that not all parents agreed to place their children in dormitories, especially girls or 6-7 year olds. It cannot be said that people do not understand and do not appreciate the benefits of literacy. This is evidenced by the irregular, primitive parish churches that existed in the parishes. literacy schools in villages remote from the central village. In such schools, the teachers were boys who graduated from public schools. Parents paid teachers 1–2 rubles. in winter for the student and alternately provided food. Under the supervision and guidance of priests, even such schools sometimes produced good results. Over the course of 2-3 winters, the children learned to read, write, count, studied prayers, basic information from the Law of God, and even sometimes read in church, to the great joy of their parents and fellow villagers. Then these children were sent to a public school for a year to receive a certificate of completion of a public school. Regular church congregations schools began to open only in the 80s with funds from the Synod. The only way to educate the people religiously was worship. Archbishop Macarius demanded from the clergy that the divine service be performed earnestly, clearly, intelligibly, without haste, and be accompanied by the delivery of sermons understandable to the peasants; that choral singing be introduced and superstitious Uniate customs eradicated; that statues should be removed from churches carefully, without offending religious feelings, and that pure wax candles should be lit in front of the icons. Young people were instructed to teach prayers. During Lent, during confession, it became a practice in the diocese to test young people in their knowledge of the initial prayers, the creed and the 10 commandments. In case of ignorance, confession was postponed until the prayers were studied. The old people still continued to pray in Polish and did not give in to relearning 1 . A year after the adoption of the diocese, in 1869, between the archbishop. An interesting correspondence arose between Makariy and Governor General Potapov, indicating the difference in views of the church and civil authorities on the position of the converts. Archbishop Macarius found it necessary for civil authorities to assist the Orthodox clergy in establishing converts in the Orthodox faith, just as they once provided assistance in converting Uniates and Catholics; that civil officials treat the Orthodox clergy with due respect and attention to their requests and that they do not show a clear preference for the Latin clergy; so that they do not refuse requests for the construction and decoration, repairs of churches and clergy houses and buildings; to suppress rumors about the government’s turn in favor of Latinism and the free transition from Orthodoxy to Catholicism, bearing in mind that the people “do not believe the Orthodox clergy as an interested party in the matter”; so that mockery and ridicule of converts is strictly persecuted and that an end is put to cases of seduction of Orthodox Christians by the Catholic clergy. In his response, Potapov indicated that he had ordered that the civil authorities treat the Orthodox clergy with due respect, so that ridicule and mockery of converts would not be allowed, as well as the interference of the Catholic clergy in performing religious services for the Orthodox, seducing them into Catholicism, or spreading rumors about a free transition from Orthodoxy to Latinism. As for complaints about the refusal of assistance for the construction and repair of churches and clergy houses and buildings, he does not have the funds for this, due to the financial difficulties of the government, and is concerned about finding local funds. Repairs are the business of the parishioners. The allocation of land to clergy depends on the Ministry of State Property. Improving the financial situation of the clergy depends on the clergy itself, on its moral influence on the flock and the acquisition of respect and trust. In a report on the state of the General Government, Potapov drew the Emperor’s attention to the fact that many of the Orthodox pastors were not fit for purpose and should be eliminated. Against these lines of the report, the Emperor wrote: “necessary.” Based on this, Potapov demanded the dismissal of 6 priests of the Grodno province. One - due to self-interest and lack of concern for the church and parishioners, the other - due to a lack of respect for him and trust on the part of the parishioners. Third - for his stinginess, which alienates everyone; he rarely even has servants. Fourth - for inability to deal with converts and for lack of a good influence on parishioners. Fifth - for the lack of proper care for the spiritual needs of parishioners and patience and for preferring one’s own benefits to the benefit of the church. Sixth - because he, although a kind and gentle soul, is little aware of his position among Catholics and is “very awkward in receptions.” Having received confirmation from the suffragan bishops that the descriptions of these persons were given absolutely correctly, Archbishop. Macarius invited them to change places with other priests. Thanks to the care of Muravyov, the Orthodox clergy was relatively well provided with salaries, land plots and quitrent articles, such as mills, lakes, etc. Despite this, the clergy was very often accused of extortion and extortion for the correction of demands and of oppressing the lower members of the clergy, psalm-readers, who in those days did not receive a certain content, but had to be content with what they were pleased to give them o.o. abbots. The psalm-readers complained to the diocesan authorities, who found their complaint to be well founded. Archbishop Macarius proposed to the consistory to develop rules for the division of income between members of the clergy, but while these measures were being drawn up, the issue was resolved by the Highest approved Presence for the improvement of the life of the Orthodox clergy. The shortcoming of the Orthodox clergy is Archbishop. Macarius considered its practical direction, passion for material interests, often rude attitude towards the flock, clashes with civil authorities, in return for the previous humiliated position, and most importantly, insufficient spiritual nourishment of the flock. There was often no internal spiritual connection between the clergy and the people, the people felt alienated from the shepherds, and the shepherds did not have sufficient influence on the people. Orthodox churches that survived from the time of Polish rule, when the construction and repair of Orthodox churches were prohibited, could not attract the attention of the people either with their appearance or internal splendor. For the most part, the churches were wooden, the utensils were insufficient. Having just been liberated from heavy lordship, the people were poor and unable to build or repair churches and maintain their splendor. In the era of Muravyov, many stone churches were built at the expense of the treasury, but under Potapov, church construction stopped due to the lack, as mentioned above, of funds. In these same villages and towns, sometimes near modest Orthodox churches, majestic churches built by lords, often made of stone, stood. Services were performed daily, the organ thundered, the sounds of which burst out into the street and involuntarily attracted attention. Priests delivered inspired sermons, frightening the followers of Russian schism with all the torments of hell. The Orthodox clergy in these sermons were portrayed in the most unsightly colors, as ignoramuses, rude people, whom one must be careful of in every possible way and not enter into any relationship with them, since they act through the police. It is quite understandable that many of the reunited, due to insufficient pastoral guidance in the Orthodox faith, gravitated towards the church and turned to the Catholic clergy for the performance of services and sacraments, while they visited their Orthodox churches occasionally, so as not to be recorded as one of those who deviate. There were many cases of secret and obvious return of those reunited to their former religion, for which the government was also guilty, at first paying a lot of attention to the converts, and then leaving them to their fate. In this regard, Archbishop. Macarius gave the following instructions to the clergy: “Orthodoxy is light and should not at all spread along the paths of darkness. For this, use only the weapon of light, instruction, admonition, persuasion, meekness, love and your own example of a pious life.” The priests were instructed, regardless of the teachings in churches, on Sundays and holidays, to alternately visit the more populated and remote areas of the parish and there, “without resorting to any violent measures, attract parishioners to listen to the teachings.” But the efforts of the clergy were of little success, and at the end of 1870, Governor-General Albedinsky addressed the Eminence Macarius with a letter, asking him to “take measures to retain converts in Orthodoxy.” Archbishop Macarius replied: “Since officials converted them to Orthodoxy, let the officials find means to keep them in Orthodoxy.” Metropolitan Joseph for some reason found it inconvenient to open Edinoverie parishes among the Catholic population, and His Grace Macarius opened several Edinoverie parishes, at the request of the Old Believer population. During the persecution of the Old Believers, tens of thousands of them moved to Lithuania and Poland. Mostly these were non-priests, but some of them wanted to be reunited with Orthodoxy on the terms of common faith. In the Lithuanian diocese at that time there were many monasteries inherited from the union, with a limited number of monastics. There were no rules for monastic life in the diocese. These rules were drawn up by the archbishop. Makariy. Some sparsely populated monasteries were abolished, and schools were opened in the premises of the monasteries. The ten-year stay of the archbishop. Macarius at the Lithuanian See was accompanied by significant favorable results, such as the revival of the pastoral activities of the parish clergy, the improvement of the situation of religious educational institutions and the normalization of administrative bodies, consistory and deans. Perhaps more should have been expected from him, as a scientist, but this did not depend on him: in the diocese he was more of a rare guest than a host. For six months, and sometimes more, he lived in St. Petersburg, as a member of the Holy Synod, and fulfilling various assignments, such as auditing theological academies and chairing various commissions, which took up a lot of time that he could have devoted to the diocese entrusted to him. Like his predecessor, Bishop Macarius spent the summer at the bishop's dacha Trinopol, located near Vilna, compiling the History of the Russian Church, the 9th volume of which is dedicated to the Lithuanian Metropolis. He performed divine services only on Sundays and holidays, and not always. Visitors were received from 10 to 12 o'clock in the afternoon and only on especially important occasions from 5 to 6 o'clock in the evening. Leaving for St. Petersburg, the management of the enarchy by the archbishop. Macarius entrusted his first vicars, the bishops of Kovno, who were based in Vilna. He gave the vicars full power, but reserved for himself the most important things that the vicar replacing him would find as such, as well as all the consistory journals, the movement of clergy around the city of Vilna, and from matters related to the spiritual and educational part, only those on which it was necessary on his behalf to communicate with the Synod or the Chief Prosecutor of the Synod. Of course, one cannot compare the archpastoral activities of the archbishop. Macarius with that of his predecessor, Metropolitan. Joseph Semashko. Metropolitan Joseph is a true apostle of the Lithuanian Church. He returned the former Uniates, who had crossed the threshold to merge with Catholicism, to the faith of their ancestors, and from the newly converted and still little strengthened in the Orthodox faith of yesterday's semi-Catholics, he created an Orthodox diocese with all diocesan institutions, a consistory and spiritual educational institutions. He protected his flock during the uprising, and more than once his life was in mortal danger. For 35 years he steered the ship of the Lithuanian Church through the politically unstable and stormy sea of ​​life. His all-encompassing genius touched everything, started everything. He had every reason to say: “Everything portends for the Lithuanian flock the future desired for the Orthodox Church and Russia, unless some circumstances, God forgive me, interfere with that.” Metropolitan, tireless in his energy. Joseph still considered his activity insufficient: “Do not forget your shepherd and do not judge him by what he did not do and could not do, but by what he really did for the good of his flock, his Church, his Fatherland.” Although Met. Joseph was officially the head of only the Lithuanian diocese, but in fact he continued to be the head of all the reunited dioceses. The initiative came from him, and other reunited dioceses followed and acted according to his diocese. If according to the word ap. Metropolitan Pavel Joseph Semashko was the “planter”, then Archbishop. Macarius was a zealous “waterer,” but his activity was the usual activity of a diocesan bishop of the Russian Church. In 1879, Archbishop. Macarius was transferred to the Moscow See with his elevation to the rank of Metropolitan. Living in Moscow, Metropolitan. Macarius recalled with joy the time of his service in Vilna, and among the clergy of the Lithuanian diocese, the Right Reverend Macarius left a good memory for his attentive attitude to his needs: he met all his legitimate desires. Metropolitan Macarius is great in the field of church science - dogmatic theology and the unsurpassed History of the Russian Church. Also, when visiting peasants with Epiphany holy water, the priests tested the children’s knowledge of prayers and gave brief instructions. Parents prepared their children for these visits and considered it shameful if their children did not know the prayers.