The activities of Metropolitan Philaret in the fight against the schism

“The schism is a rather old disease and therefore its healing is not easy.” (Collected books and from. III, 511). For a whole half-century, under three sovereigns, Saint Philaret, enjoying well-deserved authority, was the most zealous guardian and guardian of Orthodoxy against the propaganda of schism and the most zealous anti-schism missionary, not only in his diocese, but throughout Russia. Not a single more or less important state or church event regarding the schism during his activity passed by his hands without first being comprehensively examined and impartially assessed by him; and many of them, in their entirety, were his work, as can be seen from the fact that some of his “opinions and reviews” without any changes were included in the Collection of Resolutions on the Schism, both from the Ministry of Internal Affairs and from the department of the Holy Synod 1. In the same way, almost none of the high-ranking officials, forced by their position to deal with the schism and sincerely devoted to the interests of Orthodoxy, could do without his “wise instructions,” “advice,” and “profound considerations” 2. Finally, almost none of the Russian hierarchs contemporary with Philaret, in the difficult circumstances of the difficult struggle against the schismatics, also did without his advice, consolation, instructions and encouragement. Very often, Saint Philaret himself prevented certain perplexities of the archpastors, being closely familiar with the state of the schism in this or that locality, as evidenced by the expressions often found in his letters: “it has come to my attention,” “I have already heard about this,” 3 etc. And all this extensive activity of the Moscow saint is imbued with the general properties of his unusually clear mind, unshakably strong will, fiery zeal for the interests of the church and state and wise caution. Therefore, without exaggeration, we can say that to set forth the history of the anti-schism activity of St. Philaret means to set forth the history of the schism during his fifty years of activity. The proposed presentation of this activity of his is only the first experience of its kind - the work is far from complete and does not exclude the need for a new, complete and comprehensive presentation of the works and activities of the ever-memorable archpastor in the fight against the schism. In anticipation of this, the little, incomplete, that is offered will, we hope, serve to benefit the readers. I. Metropolitan Philaret’s general view of the schism and measures taken against it by spiritual and temporal authorities 1. A distinctive feature and one of the main advantages of the anti-schism activity of Metropolitan Philaret must be recognized as its extremely solid stability, its essentially identical character from beginning to end, despite the sharp changes in attitudes towards the split in the supreme power. What was said in the thirties is firmly repeated and defended by him as true and appropriate in the sixties, although his voice in these years becomes almost lonely and forms a noticeable dissonance with the spirit of the time. This property of the anti-schism activity of Saint Philaret, in addition to the naturally necessary firmness of will, is explained by the fact that it logically and consistently followed from his general, firmly established, under the influence of careful study and experience, views on schism. Thus, before actually presenting it, it is necessary to keep in mind these general views of St. Philaret on the schism as its basis and starting point. The most important, fundamental and at the same time general question regarding the schism is, of course, the question of its essence and meaning. In solving this question, Saint Philaret does not go into subtle historical research about the beginning and causes of the schism, etc., but, where necessary, he uses ready-made or, more precisely, well-known historical data. His method of reasoning is simpler and more visual. He takes the schism that is contemporary to him and draws evidence for his views in most cases from his time and even from his anti-schism practice, which is why they breathe vitality and persuasiveness. So, what is a schism according to the views of Metropolitan Philaret and what is its significance? The modern schism, in the opinion of the Moscow saint, is a church-state phenomenon in its significance, although it was born and grew on church soil. “In former times (he wrote in 1851 in response to a question about the significance of the schism in the Russian state), the schism had a predominantly ecclesiastical significance, and in the eyes of Empress Catherine II, schismatics could still seem more ridiculous or pitiful than dangerous. But at present, the split is important mainly in civil terms” 4. In both respects, it is a “disease,” “evil,” “ulcer,” which is constantly spreading more and more and requiring “urgent and serious treatment” 5 . For what is schism from a church point of view? “A broken off, damaged branch of the dominant religion, to which all schismatics completely belonged before in their ancestors” 6; “a society of people which, as a result of long-standing discord and intensely refined doubts about the universal Orthodox Church, has alienated itself from the universal Orthodox Church” 7. Having broken the union with the one holy catholic and apostolic church and for this, quite rightly rejected by it, “the schismatics decided to create some other one, which the fugitives of the priesthood and self-appointed mentors, never dedicated to anyone, serve as mastery and supports for them.” Thus, the existing churches today are schismatic - “unauthorized and self-made structures, erected in hostility to the Orthodox Church, the gates of hell, decorated with a small semblance of a church to deceive the ignorant” 8. – Given its nature, a schism is obviously a great evil, since it holds “thousands of unfortunates” in its networks, alienating them from the church “leading to salvation,” 9 about whom every true believer should deeply regret, with all his might contribute to their return to the bosom of the church they abandoned and pray to God about it. But an even greater evil of the schism lies, in the opinion of Metropolitan Philaret, in its relationship to the Orthodox Church. Born from disobedience to her and from enmity with her, the schism still hates her, although not as fanatically as in the first time of its existence. Dividing into numerous sects, all schismatics nevertheless agree on this point. The names of the Orthodox Church - “Nikon”, “heretical”, “Antichrist” - are common names among all schismatics. Closer to the Orthodox Church in its views and external similarity than other sects is clericalism. But it is enough to read “the ritual invented by its followers of renouncing the Orthodox Church, as if it were a heretical society, and joining their society, as if it were a true church,” to see that the priests are no different from the non-priests in this respect. In this, so-called curse of Nikon’s heresies, which every priest who comes to them must take in the form of an oath, “the ancient true church rites, the hierarchy, the government and all the true sons of the Orthodox Church” are cursed. The main reason for this hatred and enmity is that the self-created schismatic churches transfer their main property - a graceless state - to the Orthodox Church and strive to take its place as the true Church of Christ - this is their daring cherished dream. Hence the constant complaints of schismatics about imaginary oppression on the part of the Orthodox Church, “which can only cease when they triumph.” 11 Hence their intensified, completely lawless propaganda among the Orthodox, without which the schism, perhaps, would have ceased to exist long ago. Thus, by their very essence, Orthodoxy and schism are so opposed to each other that the existence and growth of one can only occur at the expense and to the detriment of the other. In this regard, “a schism,” says Metropolitan. Filaret, - cannot be compared with the confessions tolerated in Russia: they do not concern the native Russian Orthodox population. On the contrary, schismatics in the spirit of their proselytism will never differentiate themselves from the Orthodox. That is why there are a significant number (up to 600 thousand) who waver between Orthodoxy and schism” 12. Such an exceptional nature of the schism, hostile to the Orthodox Church, as well as all its harm to Orthodoxy, are clearly revealed, according to the opinion of Metropolitan. Philaret, in the ways of its dissemination. The schism, in his opinion, is spreading more and more not because of any of its internal merits (which it does not have), but partly because the soil for its development is very favorable among the poorly educated Orthodox people, and most importantly because for many either its networks are very tempting and beneficial, or the fight against it is unbearable. “The schism does not have the mind and feelings to live by,” and among schismatics in general “religious conviction has little power, since the power of reasoning is little revealed and educated in it.” The “wild plant of self-inflicted ignorance” is a schism in its origin and currently holds on and feeds on ignorance. “With their own ignorance, schismatics take advantage of the ignorance of the Orthodox to seduce them into schism,” since “for an illiterate peasant, two words are enough: old faith, in order to seduce him from the church path. Refuting these words is necessarily not so simple, and therefore not so easy to make an impression” 13. This explains that the schism is predominantly and firmly held between peasants, bourgeois and especially their wives, and many of them hold it completely “sincerely” 14 . But, of course, not all schismatics are so ignorant as not to see all the lies and destructiveness of the schism and the truth of Orthodoxy. On the contrary, many, very many, go into schism and remain in schism, fully aware of its dark sides, so there can be no question of their sincerity; for example, “among the merchants, and especially the young, very few believe in schism.” The reason for their concern is that for such a split has a special kind of tempting sides and benefits, as well as punitive means for deterring. “Money, money-bought patronage, worldly benefits, the dominance of rich schismatics, freedom and impunity for crimes” 15 - these, in addition to ignorance, are other, even stronger and more reliable “supports” of the schism, replacing the fanaticism by which he initially lived and which over time has weakened significantly 16. “Raskolnikov, writes St. Philaret in another place, is kept at a distance from the church not by delusion of mind, but by stubbornness of will, as well as selfish connections, dependence on strong like-minded people, the all too common confidence in their integrity, hope in the power of money and in certain publicized patrons of it” 17 . These supports of the schism are so strong and effective that against them “the knowledge and zeal of the clergy wage a fruitless struggle,” just as all government activities are almost completely paralyzed by them. The most stubborn, bitter, harmful elements in the schism are the “leaders,” “elders,” or “horse guides,” as well as the schism teachers. The most important of its supports are the public institutions of schismatics with enormous capital and real estate, the first place among which in terms of their wealth and enormous influence on almost all of Russia is undoubtedly occupied by two Moscow officially charitable institutions, and in common parlance the Cemeteries - Rogozhskoe and Preobrazhenskoe. Caring least of all about the truth, the leaders of the schism stubbornly remain stuck in it “solely for earthly unclean motives” - simply because it is beneficial for them in all respects: they owe him and hold on to their influence, honor, respect, wealth, etc.; in a word, “schism is their trade, bringing them great benefits and honor” 18. At the same time, for them there is another “beauty” in the schism, which they cannot expect from the Orthodox Church, as alien to it - this is “independent and republican arbitrariness in church affairs.” 19 Their priests and fathers, for the most part not strong in understanding and virtue, are always unquestioning executors of their will, since, moreover, they are completely dependent on them financially and are elected by them. Therefore, power dissenters have the opportunity to apply any church law “for the sake of need,” that is, to make, for example, a wedding earlier than the legal number of years, or in a prohibited degree of kinship, etc. This “republican arbitrariness of schismatics in church affairs,” says Metropolitan Philaret, “is the main charm of the schism,” which the schismatics value (which is clearly evident from the repeated intensified attempts of the Ekaterinburg and Moscow schismatic priests to have priests independent of the church authorities), and the Orthodox are greatly tempted, because the position of the former in this regard is much more advantageous than the position of the latter, for whom these liberties are almost inaccessible and do not apply with impunity" 20. “An Orthodox priest will not agree to solemnize a marriage if a minor, or a close relative, or one who has been left by her husband without a legal divorce; will not agree to bury a person who died on the king’s day, or someone who died suddenly without research, etc. For schismatic false priests, these difficulties do not exist” 21 . As a result of such great benefits, the leaders of the schism not only stubbornly adhere to it, but also zealously, by all means in their power, propagate it, cruelly take revenge on those who apostate from it, and put all sorts of obstacles in the way of zealous anti-schism missionaries. The more frequently practiced method of propagating the schism and their usual means of strengthening it is that the leading schismatics, for example, managers and elders, push their subordinates, the rich push the poor, the factory owners push their workers, if these latter belong to the Orthodox Church, or express a desire to leave the schism 22. “Raskolnik-manufacturers,” says Metropolitan. Filaret, - they usually oppress the Orthodox who work for them; or oppression for Orthodoxy, and on the other hand, with the promise of benefits in a schism, they are seduced into a schism 23. “For example, an Orthodox manufacturer pays his workers equally according to the serviceability and dignity of the work; a schismatic manufacturer gives schismatics higher wages than Orthodox Christians and, on top of that, gifts.” And cases are not uncommon when schismatic factory owners accept Orthodox Christians as workers only under the condition of converting to the schism, and in the event of a second conversion to Orthodoxy, they are deprived of their jobs. Thus, “recently 24 in one locality of the Serpukhov district, several Orthodox Christians fell into schism. A priest was sent from Moscow to admonish them. He talked with them separately for several days: some were convinced to return to church. But when he finally invited them to do this openly, they refused, saying that through this they would be deprived of food, for they lived by working in a factory for a schismatic owner” 25 . Where the indicated method is of little use or turns out to be invalid, the dissenters, in order to strengthen the schism and to counter the successes of Orthodoxy, use “prohibitions and curses,” and where necessary, outright brutal violence. In the sixties, says Metropolitan Philaret, many of the prudent schismatic priests, seeing strife and temptations throughout their false hierarchy, expressed an inclination to join the Orthodox Church; but no one dared to start for fear of revenge from schismatics, “of which there were very regrettable experiences” 26 . “In some villages, some ordinary people,” he also says, “to the invitation of the clergy to the Unity of Faith, they answer: if the king orders, we will all go; without this, we will go to church if the whole village goes; but to go separately we are afraid of insults and revenge from those who remain in the schism, the strong members with wealth and power. This answer can be considered sincere. This fear is a consequence of bitter experiences” 27. There were indeed quite a few such “regrettable, bitter experiences” of violence and vengeance on the part of the dissenters in the anti-schism practice of Metropolitan Philaret, and not only over common people, 28 but often also over Orthodox priests, who with their fruitful activities became the dissenters in the way, and even over Orthodox churches, in the centers of the schism which served as a stronghold of Orthodoxy. Metropolitan Philaret cites an outrageous experience of violence of the first kind - against an Orthodox priest - in a letter to His Grace Innocent, Archbishop of Kamchatka dated November 25, 1857. “In one parish, infected by schism,” he wrote, instead of an inactive one, I appointed a zealous and active priest, however, meek and cautious: after a few months, a rumor came to the village from which he was transferred that he would be burned, and after a short time his house was burned, and the culprit was not discovered” 29 . Metropolitan Philaret speaks about another experience of the dissenters’ vengeance on the Orthodox Church in a letter to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A.P. Tolstoy dated April 20, 1857: “One rural priest discovered a crowd of schismatics, and some of them were arrested. At the beginning of last Holy Week, he came to me with a report that his parish wooden church had burned down without a trace and without the possibility of saving anything; when I told him that this gave rise to suspicion of negligence and that he could be punished, he answered: “I will bear it if God pleases.” But when I insisted that he say whether he had any guesses about the cause of the fire, he replied: “I have, but I cannot show it in action: I have suspicions about schismatics who were released from arrest a few days before the fire, but I cannot prove it; and if they burned the church, how much more will they burn my house if I declare suspicion against them.” “These are,” Metropolitan concluded his story. Filaret, – our relationship to the schism. Meanwhile, the dissenters cover themselves and their friends with a plausible mask, and, looking at it, many say: “There is no need to bother the schismatics” 30. The active assistants of the leaders in the propaganda of the schism are the dissenters - false bishops and false priests, in clericalism, and the so-called mentors and fathers - in non-priestly. Despite their ignorance, they are having great success in seducing the Orthodox into schism. The main reason for this is that “supported and protected by rich schismatics, they freely and “safely go everywhere sowing tares, trying meanwhile to avoid meeting with Orthodox priests, so as not to be exposed to their reproof,” and instilling the same in those whom they manage to shake in Orthodoxy. “Thus the common people,” equally susceptible to true and false teachings in their extremely meager development, “become a more open field for sowing tares than wheat” 31 . Then the greater proximity of the false priests and fathers to the people, both in external position and in development, and their external piety, which is usually liked by the common people, also greatly enhances the success of their propaganda. Finally, the greatly multiplied Austrian false hierarchy, with its large number of people, frequent councils, boldly open solemn services and its complete similarity in appearance to the Orthodox clergy (which, although strictly prohibited by law, thanks to the “golden policy” of schismatics, remains unpunished) does a lot of harm to Orthodoxy, instilling in schismatics and Orthodox believers the idea, on the one hand, of its state and church legality, on the other, of its inviolability and the truth of schism in general 32. The harmful and lawless propaganda of schism by leaders and schismatic teachers is given strength and stability, in the opinion of Metropolitan Philaret, by schismatic public institutions and mainly by the II Reobrazhenskoye and Rogozhskoye Cemeteries. “These two schismatic institutions,” he says, “since the beginning of this century, “have become centers of two schools of schism, strong for its spread and for persistence against the actions of the government and the Orthodox clergy” 33. “Two empty places, begged from the authorities in the year of the plague for a hospital and for cemeteries, gradually turned into two concentrated places of schism, priestly and non-priestly, with magnificent houses of worship, with many buildings, with a populous population, with extensive funds. The splendor and riches of these places flourish in the sight of the capital, constitute a charm and support for the dissenters, and have a charming effect on the schismatic people, sensually presenting to them the inviolable firmness of the schism” 34. As centers of schism, the Rogozhskoe and Preobrazhenskoe Cemeteries, in the person of their elders and deans, have an influence on almost all branches of clerical and non-clericalism throughout almost the whole of Russia, they direct the spread of schism everywhere, using mainly the same means that are usually practiced by individual leaders, i.e. money, and where violence is needed, only on a much more extensive scale - they support it with connections, they appoint false priests and spiritual fathers to out-of-town communities at their discretion, resolve perplexed church issues, often serve as a place for crowded councils, etc. In turn, out-of-town schismatic communities do nothing without their metropolises, turn to them for advice, resolve disputes, and with their donations increase their already great wealth 35 . As proof of how strong and far the influence of the Rogozhsky Cemetery extends, Met. Filaret cited an extract from a letter to him from the Rev. Innokenty Kamchatsky dated November 17, 1855: “I tried to get to know the schismatics living along the Maya River,” wrote the Rev. Innocent. Many of them agreed with me in their error. It seems to me that if it were not for their accursed teachers, who enjoy honor and income among them, then all the others would have converted quickly, and even unconditionally. I consider one thing worthy of attention, namely: they all consider themselves subordinate to the Moscow Rogozhsky fathers, as they call them” 36. 0 similar attitudes towards non-resident communities of the Preobrazhensky Cemetery of Metropolitan. Filaret presents a certificate found here in 1844, “an authentic letter from the elders of this Cemetery, signed and sealed, given to a mentor assigned by them to another city in another province,” namely, to a certain Afanasy Antonov to govern the schismatics in Saratov, in which (the letter), among other things, it is said that their country is subject to the local Moscow department 37 . Thus, “this act,” he says, “convicts the administration organized by the Preobrazhensky schismatics, which extends its power not only beyond Moscow, but also beyond the borders of the province.” The indicated supports of the schism and the methods of its propaganda make it, in the opinion of Metropolitan Philaret, precisely a disease that is difficult to treat spiritually, and further enhance the harm and evil it causes to the Orthodox Church. They not only complicate, but also reduce to almost nothing the action of the Orthodox clergy on schismatics, although not always satisfactory, but in general quite significant, which under other conditions would undoubtedly achieve much greater results than they are. At the same time, the Moscow schismatics naturally display “a special inaccessibility to the admonishing action of the clergy”, due to that “special type of independence that, since the last quarter of the last century, the Moscow schism was able to give itself to itself, and continues to preserve to this day” 38. That the blame for the inertia in the schism of the Moscow schismatics does not entirely lie with the Moscow clergy, M. Filaret cited the following experiments as proof of this. “One of the Moscow clergy 39, having been sent, by the Highest command, to the Vyatka diocese, returned to the church many hundreds of people who had fallen into paganism. Another 40, within a few months, managed to convert about 200 Judaizing souls in two parishes of the Moscow diocese, without any assistance from the civil authorities. The same persons, in contact with the Moscow schismatics, did not have such a strong effect, the latter even in his own parish. There is also news that a Edinoverie priest 41, by order of the Holy Synod, sent last year (1847) from the Moscow diocese to Kherson, decisively won over several hundred schismatics to Edinoverie and founded a church among them; then the Zybkovskys, after competitions that lasted several days, bowed to a similar determination; but in the Moscow diocese, having served for a long time in the Edinoverie Church, in whose parish, in addition to fellow believers, about 1000 souls of schismatics live, he did not achieve any such success” 42. These three cases are “significant signs that the causes of failure often lie” and must be sought “outside the missionary.” Following the Moscow schismatics, due to their close connection with them, the rural ones also persist; as well as non-resident “rural schismatics have repeatedly responded to admonition like this: let’s see what will happen from the Rogozhskoe Cemetery: if they are there, then we will go to church” 43 . In the same way, “when the Reverends, when reviewing dioceses, visiting schismatic villages, with their archpastoral conversations sometimes, with the help of God, manage to bring schismatics into a good disposition, and on this favorable occasion invite them to join the Orthodox Church, then, as a rule, they receive the answer: we have no power in this; let them tell us from Moscow” 44. The clergy, in the opinion of Metropolitan Philaret, could successfully act on the lower strata of the schism, that is, on those who remain in it out of ignorance, and not through conscious material calculation; but the upper strata are preventing this with all their might, i.e. first of all, Moscow schismatics, then local leaders and schismatic teachers: only a very few, strong in will and spirit, make their way through the networks they set with the help of the clergy, while the rest, willy-nilly, perish in alienation from the church 45. Such is the evil of the schism for the Orthodox Church, according to the court of Metropolitan Philaret. Being evil in its very essence, as an arbitrary and graceless society, the schism is an even greater evil in its relationship to the church: it hates it, tears off its children by all possible means and at the same time avoids its light, preventing it from dispersing the darkness surrounding itself. Finally, all the indicated harm of the schism for the Orthodox Church becomes even more serious and dangerous in view of its firm stability, which successfully counteracts not only spiritual, but also civil measures aimed at weakening it. The assistance provided to the Orthodox Church in the fight against the schism by the civil government, which is necessary and legal, given the violent and illegal methods of promoting the schism, would, in the opinion of Metropolitan. Philaret, incomparably greater actual success in weakening evil, if all government measures were applied to the matter with skill, due accuracy and perseverance; but this, according to him, is far from being noticed, again due to the cunning, resourcefulness and “golden policy of schismatic politicians,” and also, unfortunately, due to the strange patronage of the schism and especially the self-interest of some of the leading Orthodox, which for many of them is “more kind than law and order” 46. On January 12, 1867, the year of his death, expressing, as it were, the last word of his long-term experience, the saint wrote: a greasy means for strengthening the schism and for seducing into schism “serves the dissenters in the widespread belief that they enjoy the patronage of the authorities,” for which “they can also present evidence” 47 . Through the disinterested benevolence of some high-ranking officials and the “illegal patronage of corrupt officials” who “value schismatic money more than Orthodoxy” 48 , schismatics, first of all, “know how to penetrate into the affairs of the authorities and, using this art of finding out, opportunely use their measures against the measures of the authorities” 49 . This art of finding out is developed among the schismatics, he says, to such an extent that “everything that is done that concerns them in the highest authorities is the most secret, they usually know before everyone else” 50. Therefore, many of the government’s best measures aimed at limiting their self-will not only do not bring the expected benefit, but even cause harm, as shown by the case cited by Metropolitan Philaret that occurred on November 17, 1828: “In the Nizhny Novgorod province, in the village of Gorodets, an exhortation to Edinoverie reached a majority of votes, wanting to convert a schismatic chapel into a Edinoverie church, and about this a decisive decision was made command. How the spirit of the rest of the schismatics would have fallen (exclaims M. Philaret) if this had been skillfully performed! And the whole art consisted in not spreading preliminary rumors about this among the surrounding schismatics. Then the majority of Gorodets residents who want Unity of Faith would have made this decision with joy, and the minority would not have had the courage to raise their voices against it. But the disinterested patron of the schism, police officer Massarius, previously divulged among the schismatics of many villages what would happen, and on what day he would come to demand the keys to the chapel. And when he arrived, several thousand schismatics stood near the chapel. He, without doing anything, reported this to his superiors, and the matter ended with the fact that the chapel was left in the hands of the schismatics, and as a result, the schism was not weakened, but strengthened, because it triumphed over the government’s orders” 51. The well-known secret rules of 1822 about fugitive priests did not bring the expected benefit, and even brought harm, in the opinion of Metropolitan Philaret, again mainly due to a violation of the secret. Thanks to the same ability of schismatics to find out everything related to them through their patrons, these rules, says Metropolitan. Filaret, “received more publicity than many non-secret laws. The schismatics considered them to be a law in their favor, and they strengthened themselves and became bolder in their actions and harassment. Previously, they were pleased if they could use a fugitive priest with deep confidentiality, and if he was detained, they modestly complained, unable to contradict the fact that catching a fugitive was a legal matter. Since the reign of 1822, they began to recognize it as a right for themselves to have a runaway priest and considered it an oppression to take him for an insult to the Orthodox Church, or for another proven violation of the laws, other than escape” 52. Further, in the hope of relief and intercession from their own and selfless and selfish patrons, schismatics, as Metropolitan Philaret notes, often with insolence and impunity do not want to know the government’s orders aimed at protecting the Orthodox Church. In confirmation of this, he points to numerous reports about this from local spiritual and civil authorities. All this, he adds, instills in the schismatics “the conviction of powerlessness in the weakness of the government, and in their power - through intrigues and money to make the measures taken against them futile” 53, and also contributes to the establishment among the common people of very harmful rumors spread by the schismatics about the secret patronage of the schism on the part of the higher authorities - in the dark environment of the schism, there are even rumors that “you have in St. Petersburg a great minister who does not give the king his will, and does not indulge the local judges, and is holding on to us in secret for now, and the time will come, he will reveal himself,” that in general, “among the highest state dignitaries there are secret followers of the schism - “Nicodemus”, who satisfy the Antichrist and create careless Christians” 54. Finally, with their machinations, slander and connections, schismatics often also cause all sorts of difficulties to the defenders of Orthodoxy, who curb their willfulness with the precise execution of government measures, and even achieve their removal, which is why it often happens that the good fruits of their useful activity that are ready to be revealed disappear, and the schismatics become confident “that any measure taken by the government that concerns them cannot in any way be continued in the same spirit until results, with types of which are being undertaken” 55. “And in Saratov they think,” Metropolitan Philaret wrote to Bishop Nicholas of Kaluga on April 29, 1837, “that the schismatics there will rejoice at the change of governor. It has happened more than once and in more than one place that schismatics, noticing the cessation of favor for their self-will, expressed an inclination to communicate with the church, but as soon as the solicitation of the strongest, or by chance, something is revealed that gives them hope of maintaining their former self-will, the strongest and most embittered drown out the voice of the prudent, and rigidity continues. Now in Volgsk, where the schism is very strong, there are many inclined towards the Unity of Faith; but probably the most persistent will rely on the hope of winning something under the new governor” 56 . Metropolitan Philaret was especially indignant (as can be judged from his numerous complaints and reports) by the overt corruption of Moscow officials, mostly petty ones, by the unceremoniousness of Moscow schismatics, who, in his opinion, here, as elsewhere in similar cases, by their art of finding patrons, finding out and circumventing government events and harming the defenders of Orthodoxy, occupy the first place, serving as a harmful example for others. “Congratulations on the success of Edinoverie in Borovsk; and we are ashamed before you (he complained to the Most Reverend Nicholas, Bishop of Kaluga). But what to do? The golden policy of Rogozh and Preobrazhensk knows how to preserve itself undefeated from the wise policy of the government, achieving no small goals through small people...”, “Borovsky schismatics refer to the Rogozhskys (he wrote to the same eminence a little later), and you can therefore complain about our inactivity. What do you want me to do? The policy of the Moscow schismatics is golden. Recently they have been brought to attention through a person who is quite highly trusted. And against this they sneaked in with slander, and the Minister of Internal Affairs thinks that they need to be patronized" 57 . The most just and necessary law for the protection of Orthodoxy, which prohibits the creation of a schism, the Moscow schismatics, according to him, do not even want to know, and likewise the Moscow civil authorities, in view of the most obvious cases of its violation, also “have the happiness of not knowing” what is happening. “The law prohibits causing a schism,” he wrote to the Moscow Secret Committee on March 29, 1848, “and for this reason does not allow schismatic chapels to have domes, crosses and bells. But the Rogozhskoe and Preobrazhenskoe Cemeteries do not allow this law into their fences, and show the capital high heads and crosses on their prayer houses, and allow the sound of their bells to be heard, which on Rogozheki are so large that sometimes with premature bells they cause confusion in the bells of Orthodox Moscow churches" 58 . “In the face of the law, in the face of Orthodox Moscow,” (he wrote in 1863), at the Rogozhsky Cemetery there are huge schismatic chapels with high domes, domes and crosses. In Moscow and in the villages of the Moscow diocese, many false priests are known who set up a silk tent with a throne in houses and perform the rite of the liturgy, in some places secretly, and in others so that you can hear singing from the street, and Orthodox Christians can see the service. In February of this 1863, the following were present in Moscow: Belokrinitsky false Metropolitan Kirill, Vladimir false Archbishop Anthony, his locum tenens Onuphry, and four more false bishops whose names are not known... So in the Moscow diocese there are more schismatic false bishops than Orthodox bishops; and schismatic false bishops constitute a council, to which Orthodox bishops are not granted the right” 59 . The obvious cases of patronage of the schism by the Moscow civil authorities, cited by Metropolitan Philaret, are even more numerous and outrageous. Here are some of the more notable ones. “I once told the former governor-general (he wrote to Governor Anthony) that a schismatic archimandrite had been sent from Bukovina and was living there. He said he could handle it, and then said that the house was empty and that someone had been in it two weeks ago. He told the current one (Count Zakrevsky) that the schismatic bishop would serve in such and such a house, on such and such a day and hour. Nothing turned out to be the case, in all likelihood because the boss’s confidant was a much more trusted confidant of the schismatics. What to do? “Let us pray to the Lord for those who go astray and for those who protect those who go astray” 60. Another time, “a peasant in priestly vestments was taken, declared himself a priest, and a priestly letter was found in his name, signed by Archbishop Anthony (guild Andrei Shutov), ​​with the bishop’s seal attached. The court acquitted this peasant and did not touch upon the false archbishop, saying that there was no evidence of a schism...” Finally, “The Belokrivitsky schismatic false metropolitan Kirill came to Moscow; here he acted as a false priest, held councils; everyone knew it. If all this was not found illegal, they could at least have paid attention to the fact that he came with a false passport. No attention was paid to this. But when he returned to Austria, he was put on trial there for acting in Russia against Orthodoxy, and, probably, only resounding justifications helped him get rid of lifelong arrest. Russian schismatics know this, and is it surprising if they conclude that the Russian schism is persecuted in Austria, but protected in Russia” 61. The strengthening and spread of the schism, by the above stated methods of action on the part of its members and its patrons, “arousing caring thoughts in everyone devoted to Orthodoxy,” should arouse, according to the court of Metropolitan Philaret, the same thoughts in every loyal subject, since in parallel with the strengthening and development of the evil caused by it to the Orthodox Church, the harm from it to the state also increases. The harmful state significance of the schism, in the opinion of the Moscow archpastor, already inevitably follows and is clearly revealed from his hostile attitude towards the Orthodox Church. “At all times, among all peoples, the dominant state religion,” he says, “has been, is and will be the bond, connection, cement, so to speak, of the elements of the people: language, law, morals, rights, customs. Where the unity of religion was violated, the elements of the nationality decomposed, fragmented, and disappeared. With them governments fell, peoples were separated.” The pious government of Russia recognizes the Orthodox faith as the dominant religion and one of the firmest foundations of state unity and strength. “Consequently, concludes Metropolitan. Filaret, who threatens to harm the unity of faith, threatens to harm the state” 62. The schism, with its intensified proselytism, incessantly and clearly acts to the detriment of church unity, destroying church unanimity and unanimity, thus inevitably acting together to the detriment of state unity, with the destruction of church unanimity and unanimity, it consistently entails the disorder and destruction of the unity of the national spirit in relations - civil and patriotic, which is especially dangerous in Russia, in which the center of the national spirit since ancient times has been faith, as well as moral 63 .– The political views and moral teachings of the schismatics fully confirm this conclusion regarding the dividing and demoralizing influence of the schism and leave no doubt about its great danger for the state. According to their political views, the schismatics not only “do not have goodwill and heartfelt loyalty to the government,” but they are the same irreconcilable opponents of it as of the Orthodox Church, because they transfer all their hatred of the church entirely onto the government for the patronage they provide to the church and their agreement with it. A clear proof of this is that they transfer all their wicked names attached to the first to the latter. As a result of this, all schismatics, without distinction of sects, agree on the point that “they do not recognize the sovereign as God’s anointed and do not honor any legal authority, which should be obeyed according to conscience, and that is why they evade some civil decrees by various illicit means, while others are carried out according to their expression, only for the sake of clarity, fear for the sake of the Jews” 64. In political terms, as in church terms, “for the most part they look at schismatics from the same point of view as at people of other faiths; but this, says Metropolitan. Filaret, this is a big misconception. Gentiles, differing from us in dogmas, have nothing against the government and follow the rule: God's God, Caesar's God; and the schismatics express it this way: God’s God, and the demon’s demon.” In general, due to the view of the government as heretical and anti-Christ, there is a clear desire among schismatics to form a closed separation from the general state structure (status in statu),” which, of course, nothing can be more harmful in civil terms 65 . At the same time, in contrast to the existing monarchical civil principle, as well as the hierarchical church principle, the schism develops the opposite democratic principle, as can be seen from the fact that schismatics “act partly as so-called trustees, arbitrarily elected, partly also in unauthorized deliberative meetings, partly in special cases even in public gatherings.” Thus, in priesthood, usually several arbitrarily chosen or self-appointed trustees or elders manage the priests, income and affairs of the schismatic society, depending on the need, collect money from it, and, contrary to the law, sometimes en masse draw up petitions to the government from many thousands of souls, as the Ekaterinburg schismatics did more than once. The same responsibility for representatives of thousands of schismatics, scattered almost throughout Russia, is often taken on by non-priest leaders, especially the heads of the Preobrazhensky Cemetery. This democratic direction of the split, of course, is not harmless for a state with a monarchical policy 66. However, not all schismatic sects are equally harmful, according to the court of Metropolitan Philaret, in this regard: non-priestly sects, especially those who do not pray for the Tsar, in his opinion, are much more harmful than priestly ones. “The rule of some schisms is not to pray for the Tsar,” he says, “a consequence and expression of the schismatic theory that the current state government is the Antichrist. Whoever does not want, therefore, to pray for the king does not wish him well, and cannot be firmly faithful to him, even if he promised this in words. Therefore, the schism of those who do not pray for the Tsar is extremely harmful for the state” 67. In turn, among the non-popovshchina sects, the first place in terms of their strength and degree of harmful influence is occupied by the Fedoseevites, mainly, of course, Moscow; In terms of the degree of bitterness and antagonism towards the government, the “daughter of the priestless sect - the sect of wanderers” stands out sharply from all of them. Constituting the richest and most numerous sect, the Fedoseevites more firmly, boldly and openly adhere to the harmful political views of priestlessness than other sects. Thus, along with others, declaring their dislike of the government and not praying for the Tsar, the Fedoseevites “not only follow old sinful opinions, but again draw up harmful rules, and distribute them even with the appearance of a formality, signed by their superiors,” as evidenced by a note and two handwritten books opened at the Preobrazhenskoye Cemetery in 1844. The note, or the so-called Fatherly Wills, which in the original were signed by the senior trustees of the Preobrazhensky Almshouse, Alexei Nikiforov and others, directly states that since 1666 the royal power established by God was abolished; in the first of the handwritten books - in the Announcement of the consent of the Monastic and Manuels - praying for the king and calling him the most pious is proclaimed ungodliness: according to pious faith, it says, and the king is pious, but to ungodly faith and the king is called wicked... And further: for in this monastery they are ungodly, even in the form of prayer they call the wicked faithful and pious and with other titles of those who remain decent in piety; finally, in the Testimony on the One Common Christian Path - the second handwritten book, written in 1842 - the teaching that one should pray to God for the current royal power is called an abominable tradition.” “No one, of course, will prove it,” notes Metropolitan. Filaret, citing these excerpts, said that this teaching is not harmful to the state; on the contrary, it is not difficult to see that these rules lead to rebellion” 68, which is actually confirmed by the “most harmful” sect of “wanderers”. For she, in her political as well as religious views, is completely aligned with priestlessness; differs from her only in that “he multiplies the evil legacy of his mother to the extreme, and brazenly proclaims and puts into effect the rules that she tries to cover up.” Therefore, she is not content with secretly acknowledging the above-mentioned priestless view of the government, but promotes clear disobedience to it as the Antichrist. Already its founder Euthymius, who was originally a follower of the Philippian consent, in his writings reproached the Philippians, Fedoseyevites and others that although in their souls they do not recognize earthly power, considering it antichrist, they obey it and thereby deceive God. Hence, according to the teachings of the wandering sect, “it is not permissible to register. audit, nor pay taxes, nor accept positions with an oath, nor enter into military service, nor even hire others as recruits for yourself.” All this is clearly evident from the personal testimony of the sectarians given at the investigation carried out by Count Stenbock, “consequently under such circumstances,” notes Metropolitan. Filaret, - when they not only had no reason to exaggerate, but had strong incentives to hide or soften their opinions, leading to the severity of justice.” “The mentor of wanderers, Mokey, says that, according to the rules of their teaching, he refused to obey earthly authority. The wanderer Apollinaria says that wanderers, excluding themselves from being subject to the king, that is, in their opinion, the Antichrist, should not be included in the records, civil laws do not exist for them, and they do not recognize any authority. The wanderer Methodius says: from the years of Nikon, the Patriarch, I do not recognize the kings as pious, but as apostates, resisters, antichrists, the civil authorities are also servants of the antichrist. The wanderer Vassa says: wanderers accept in agreement all fugitives and vagabonds, and, on the basis of the main dogma of the teaching, those who have a emancipation document, or a passport, are obliged to exterminate them in advance... The wanderer Irina Nikiforova says: they do not recognize the authorities, therefore they do not pay taxes. In the work of mentor Nikita, under the title “Small Image of Heresies,” among other things it is written: 3rd Heresy, the Inventory (that is, by recording it in the revision) was concluded to inevitably be from the realm of the ruler of the world, and thus they renounced the freedom of the Gospel content. Heresy 7. Tribute to all powers became wiser. Heresy 21. One enters the leadership with an oath. Heresy 22. In the wickedness of the military yoke, all those who participate, even if not by themselves, are hired, all one, even worse, to send someone else to wickedness instead of themselves.” “Thus, the teaching of the wandering sect is not only contrary to the teaching of the Orthodox Church, but also rejects the supreme power, and laws, and the fulfillment of all public duties, and as a result, those who live according to this teaching resolutely refuse to bring any benefit to the state, and have the tendency to cause only harm and disorder to it” 69. As for the schismatics of the priestly sect, they, although not in such sharp terms, imagine the government as the schismatics without priests, in “equally wicked and harmful.” They admit (as can be seen from the report of the Ministry of Internal Affairs for the Nizhny Novgorod province) that “the Russian government since the time of Tsar Alexy Mikhailovich has become graceless, and as if the Antichrist reigns in Russia spiritually, being invisibly present in the Orthodox Church, and the sovereign emperor and government officials who worship him rule the people according to the secret and unconscious suggestions of the devil.” Then, factual evidence is provided about the insincere, always ready to turn into hostile, disposition towards the government of the schismatic priests. “During the French invasion of Moscow, when loyal Russians were leaving it, sacrificing their property, the Rogozh schismatics entered into favorable relations with the French. This is proven by the fact that these schismatics then received from the French a camp church left in Moscow by one of the Russian regiments, which they erected in their chapel in 1823, which was then carried out according to the Highest command.” And in the near future, “in 1855, after the accession of the Sovereign Emperor Alexander Nikolaevich to the throne, the Rogozh schismatics did not take the oath for two days; and then by the Metropolitan 70, at the invitation of the elders of them, they were persuaded to swear the oath, and they swore the oath in front of an Orthodox priest.” “Sincere loyal zeal,” the Metropolitan wrote on this occasion, “would not have allowed them to be stubborn, and would have prompted them to take the oath in front of an Orthodox priest on the very first day, to which they agreed two days later” 71 . In the opinion of Metropolitan Philaret, everything that has been said regarding the hostile disposition of the schismatics towards the government is not at all contradicted by the various expressions of their loyal feelings through deputations, solemn prayers, etc., which began to be frequently practiced since the reign of Alexander II, because all these deputations in prayers do not at all testify to the sincerity of feelings and do not prove the political unanimity and unanimity of the schismatics with Orthodox, but are based only on their personal interests, the desire to obtain greater existing benefits and concessions. “Schismatics,” he says, “usually try to unnoticeably direct each of their actions, by which they express their zeal for the Sovereign Emperor and for the Fatherland, towards their schismatic goals” 72 . He provides clear evidence of this in an incident that took place on April 10, 1866. On this day, Moscow co-religionists performed a prayer of thanks for the deliverance of the Sovereign Emperor from the danger that threatened him. The schismatics, although they also had the opportunity to perform a prayer service in the middle of the chapel with the altar closed, as they performed divine services every day, except for the liturgy, - however, they did not do this, “wanting to use this opportunity to reinforce their desire to open the altars,” for which they petitioned the governor-general and chief of police, “If they are driven by zeal for the king,” Metropolitan wrote on this occasion. Filaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count D. A. Tolstoy, - then why don’t they perform a prayer of thanks? But they stop the work of loyal zeal in order to turn this case into a means to achieve their schismatic goal” 73. Being direct opponents of the state in their political views, schismatics, according to the court of Metropolitan Philaret, cause significant harm to the state with their moral, or more precisely, immoral in some respects, teaching. The lower general level of moral views and actions of schismatics, compared with the Orthodox, inevitably follows from their religious views mixed with errors. “A sect is never completely honest,” says M. Filaret. Religious and moral truth are rays of the same light: where the former is mixed with error, the latter is also impure.” 74 By this he explains that all schismatics, without distinction of sects, consider all kinds of means permissible for themselves and not at all immoral for disseminating and establishing their teachings, as well as for counteracting church and civil measures directed against them, such as: bribery, deceit, violence, etc., “thinking to excuse these means by their not quite free position.” But especially harmful to the state is the teaching of some non-priestly sects about compulsory celibacy, which also stems from a distortion of the true Christian teaching on marriage. The rules of the kind are such that now Christians getting married are a nest of vipers of Satan and demons, his vile courtyard, that in the present last and bitterly lamentable time and in the reign of Antichrist, God does not provide for the multiplication of the human race, but Satan cares, and for the conception of a baby the soul is given from the devil, etc. - inevitably lead to the destruction of family foundations, to infanticide and debauchery in its most diverse forms, and thus at the very root they produce a disorder of state life, of which “the beginning and the first knot is the family union” 75. In confirmation of this, the Metropolitan points to the gloomy picture of the immoral life of the schismatic virgins of the Transfiguration Cemetery, which he found in the report of Mr. Ignatiev 76, “the evidence of which (he says in the report of St. Synod of May 12, 1858) is important as the testimony of a direct, attentive and impartial observer,” is important especially because “a prejudice is often noticed against information about this presented by the clergy, as if originating from a one-sided view, or from not quite correct inquiry.” “Deepening into the moral position of the priestless schismatics,” this report says, “into their innermost home life and the sectarian concepts they have adopted, everyone, with full inquiries, is amazingly struck by the expression of ignorance, debauchery and superstition... Old women-mentors, fearing that the need for marriage would not serve as a reason for young people of both sexes to move from the schism to the church, deliberately involve them in fornication, followed by infanticide, excused by the false reasoning of mentors, and, with the instability of legal unions, a disorder of morality for life. In priestless sects, over time, all religious beliefs have been forgotten and destroyed; and everything moves and is based on the same interests and immorality” 77. “0 affairs of the Wanderers,” wrote Metropolitan. Filaret, “It’s shameful to eat and speak.” In general, according to the judgment of Metropolitan Philaret, the schism is harmful, not by its difference from the church in some rituals and not by its attachment to old printed books with some incorrect expressions in them, for both “are not contrary to the essence of faith”; but “what is most condemnable and harmful in the schism is the alienation” of his followers “from the church and the rebellious disposition against it, which conceals the same disposition against the government,” as well as the “obstinacy and inaccessibility to the word of truth” noticed in them 78 . 2. If schism is truly an evil, an ulcer, a disease, constantly spreading more and more and requiring “urgent and serious healing,” then what should this healing consist of and how should it be carried out? Metropolitan Philaret distinguishes two ways of acting on schism: “medical” in the proper sense and “protective” 79 . To the extent that schism is a delusion of the mind, a deviation from the truth, it naturally requires spiritual healing, counteraction by spiritual means, since any delusion of the mind can be stopped only by “admonition”, “conviction of the truth” 80. Such counteraction to the schism by spiritual means is the work of the Orthodox clergy, “and they bear a great responsibility for this before God.” But to the extent that a schism reveals a desire to manifest itself externally, to lure others into its networks, it is subject to the external influence of the government, limited by “measures existing in the laws of the state,” since it is natural for the state Orthodox authorities to take care of the protection of the Orthodox Church. And “the Orthodox Russian Church,” he adds, “looking with hope at its sovereign defender, must pray to God so that state considerations will be formed and acted that would correspond to his pious zeal.” In accordance with the indicated task of their anti-schism activity and in accordance with the spirit of the ministers of the Orthodox Church, the clergy, in their action on schismatics, should be content with exclusively spiritual measures, looking in this case, as a model for themselves, to the example of the Apostles. “The essential duty of church ministers,” says Metropolitan. Filaret, “is to act on those who are mistaken with the word of persuasion, and the use of power and court in relation to them belongs to the government and subordinate civil authorities” 81. “What should church ministers do in such circumstances? - he wrote to the Reverend Alexy, who complained about the concessions given to schismatics by the civil authorities. – Remember and put into practice the memory that the Apostles and ancient fathers established and spread the church and destroyed the accumulation of heresies not by the force of the external laws of the pagan world, but by the force of strong faith, love and self-sacrifice. Let the clergy strengthen their zeal to act on the seduced by their example and prayer” 82. True, the pastors of the church can and should resort to the help of civil authorities, but only “against seducers and the creation of schism”; even in this case, they should turn to it only for “special needs,” “prudently and moderately,” because in general “coercive measures are more repulsive,” especially when used frequently and openly, while friendly relations, on the contrary, “will better attract a schismatic” 83 . The first, the most natural and, due to use and jealousy, the most effective means for weakening the schism on the part of the clergy of Metropolitan. Filaret saw teaching and admonishing schismatics through personal interviews with them. “Instruction in the true TOC \o “1-5” \h \z teaching of faith on the part of the Orthodox clergy,” he says, “without a doubt, there is the most appropriate tool for converting those who are erring of all kinds.” But this seemingly simple and general means of conversion is, as is well known, opposed by an equally general obstacle that completely destroys it - this is the cunning technique of the dissenters - to avoid all relations with the Orthodox clergy and to instill the same in those subordinate to them and seduced by them into schism. In view of this, Met. Filaret strongly advises that church pastors themselves try to find possible opportunities for communication with schismatics. “At the present time (he wrote in 1835) there is no reason to fear that the bishop will not want to talk with the schismatic, or address him with inappropriate reproachful words; but it may happen that the shepherd is not quite looking for the fleeing sheep. Therefore, the Holy Synod needs to continue monitoring and reminding, at its discretion, that diocesan bishops carefully take advantage of all possible opportunities to enter into relations with those who have deviated from the church and sow among them concepts and feelings that would bring them closer to the church” 84. In turn, diocesan bishops must also do the same in relation to the clergy under their charge. To successfully achieve the goal of admonition, before any relations with schismatics, the pastors of the church must have a certain preparation, stock up on the necessary information, because for interviews with them “one must be quite willing to resolve various questions and objections, pointing to evidence, which they (the schismatics) cannot refuse. Not giving an answer and postponing it until they get information means, in their opinion, showing off their case to the weak” 85 . This preparation of church pastors for anti-schism activities should take place in theological schools - academies and seminaries, for which their program should include “lessons on the schisms that have arisen in the Russian Church and the means to admonish those who fall into them,” and then in the place of pastoral service, for which in churches with a schismatic population it is useful and even necessary to have at least those anti-schism works that are recommended as such by His Holiness Synod 86. Turning to the content and nature of the interviews with schismatics, Metropolitan. Filaret advises preferring the positive disclosure “with all freedom and strength” of the virtues of the Orthodox Church to disputes and denunciation of those who err, and in any case not limiting oneself to them alone, because one denunciation easily gives rise to reproach, and reproach – enmity: “to reproach means to irritate; and to irritate means to reduce the ability to accept the truth.” To avoid this, “the treatment of those who differ and the very denunciation of errors should be as peaceful as this can be done without insulting the truth and without tempting the Orthodox”; therefore, “tolerance, calmness, meekness, condescension, caution are just as necessary in reproof as zeal” 87 . In addition to the harm for the purpose of admonition and conversion, in the cruel, reproachful denunciation, Metropolitan Philaret saw a technique unworthy of a true Christian shepherd and, as far as was in his power, tried to prevent and eradicate the use of such a technique in the clergy under his command, as evidenced by the beautiful instruction, full of Christian meekness, he gave to the famous hieromonk (later abbot) Parthenius in a letter from January 3, 1858. “I remembered some harsh expressions,” the saint wrote, “which you, speaking about your interviews in St. Petersburg, used about those who have deviated from the Orthodox Church and do not submit to it. And as you expected to soon visit places filled with such people: then a caring thought came to me about how you would talk to them. Take into account that harsh words irritate people, and irritation prevents them from receiving edification, and that, on the contrary, meek words soften harsh people. According to the Apostle, a servant of the Lord should be meek, a teacher, and kind. I know that with Christian love you use labor and care for the conversion of the erring, rightly combining with this zeal; but let jealousy not be cruel, and let the word of jealousy be softened and sweetened by the word of love. You know this yourself; but to remind me of what I know is too lazy, but for you it is firm” 88 . Then Met. Filaret found it necessary that, with his Christian meekness, interviews with schismatics should be strictly adapted to the level of development of those being admonished, that is, they should be distinguished by intelligibility and simplicity, without which no success can be expected from them. “If the exhorters,” he wrote in response to a report from two priests about their unsuccessful exhortation of a schismatic, “spoke to the schismatic (peasant) in learned language, as they write, about the fundamental truths of the faith: then it is not surprising that their speeches hit like peas against a wall” 89 . Another real remedy against schism, in view of the almost complete ignorance of the schismatics, Metropolitan. Filaret saw the establishment of as many schools as possible - male and female, and precisely in the spirit of today's parochial schools and literacy schools. Here are his thoughts on this subject, made back in 1835: “Since schism is most based on ignorance, then schools should be a means against schism. But these means must be carefully adapted to the goal. If the schools of the common people are in the hands of people who have received a secular direction of mind, what may happen (as has been noticed in England) 90 is that the spread of literacy will not improve morality, but will damage it through unfounded suggestions and harmful reading. Teaching reading, the rudiments of the Catechism and Sacred History, under the guidance of the clergy, in the simplest way and applied to national life and customs, is the safest means of spreading sound concepts among the common people.” Since this means, in his opinion, is quite difficult “to make usable in relation to schismatics, who, of course, would rather entrust their children to a schismatic than to an Orthodox priest,” and since “schools in the hands of schismatics would be breeding grounds for schism, not Orthodoxy”: then Metropolitan Philaret found it necessary for a wider distribution of public schools under the leadership of the clergy and for the greatest possible limitation of schismatic schools, a) “that the clergy be given freedom in teaching children, under the supervision of the diocesan authorities, without claims from the directorates of the Ministry of Education; b) so that, on the contrary, a barrier is put in place for schismatic teachers by the force of the latest legislation of the Ministry of Education.” He did not advise restricting their spread by the external form of the organization of schools; on the contrary, he considered it necessary that schools with students living in them be equally permissible, as well as with those who come. “Educating children who come to a teacher is incomparably more convenient than setting up schools in which children not only study, but also live. Therefore, the first should be taken with a more general measure, and the latter should be established where there are sufficient means and hope of faithful supervision.” “Education of children and the female sex” under the guidance of capable wives of priests or deacons 91 he also recognized as useful and expedient as an anti-schism remedy, in view of the fact that women, “even more ignorant than men, and equally stubborn in their attachment to the hereditary and habitual,” often, as experience shows, “keep their husbands in schism and even attract them into it” 92. Regarding the very nature of the education of schismatic children in the schools of Metropolitan. Filaret demanded that it be the same as the nature of the interviews, that is, training with Christian meekness and possible condescension should be alien to any irritation and reproaches against the errors of schismatics. The teacher should primarily focus on instilling in them respect for the Orthodox Church and its teachings, without embarrassing children or irritating parents with their reproaches against the schism. At the same time, especially carefully, “with reasoning and consideration of circumstances,” the teacher must lead children from incorrect opinions to those accepted by the church, for example, from the double-fingered addition to the church sign of the cross. “Having understood the teaching, the youth will correct himself easily and firmly,” says M. Falaret; and if you suddenly demand a change from him, it may happen that his schismatic parents will throw him out of the school and deprive him of the opportunity to learn the truth” 93 . M. Filaret considered the use of old printed books when teaching schismatic children to be permissible without any contradiction, if the parents so desire, since the refusal of this on the part of the teacher will naturally lead to the refusal on the part of the schismatics to send their children to school. Finally, in order to counter the strong spread of schism regarding Orthodoxy, due to the ignorance of the Orthodox, often greater than that of the schismatics, and in view of the duty of pastors to take care not only of the conversion of those who err, but even more so of protecting the flock entrusted to them from all kinds of propaganda leading to alienation from the church, Metropolitan Philaret considered it necessary that the clergy, as far as possible, make efforts to educate them (the Orthodox) and admonition, which, naturally, should lead to greater stability of their religious and moral views. The most convenient means for this, in his opinion, besides personal private interviews and schools, may be the obligatory pronunciation of catechetical teachings on Sundays and holidays, “in which the catechistic truths would be presented in order, with their main arguments and necessary explanations, with all possible applications of thoughts, feelings and language to the level of understanding and to the state of the listeners” 94 . These, in the opinion of Metropolitan Philaret, are the methods for weakening the schism that the clergy should use, in accordance with the spirit of the shepherds of the church and with the nature of the schism itself 95. - At the same time, recognizing the difficulty of the proper implementation of the indicated means by the clergy, on the one hand, due to its significant small number compared to the number of flocks, and in some places also to the relatively large number of schismatic false priests and fathers who greatly multiplied after the reign of Emperor Nicholas, on the other hand, due to the burden of the clergy with other quite complex responsibilities, to alleviate this difficulty, Metropolitan Philaret considered it advisable in areas especially strongly infected with schism (such as, for example, the Perm and Olonets provinces) a) the establishment of special anti-schism missionaries, b) the multiplication of clergy and c) the reopening of monasteries. “As a precaution, the idea was given to those who need it that the clergy should not be reduced, but partly multiplied, partly placed with the convenience of the people,” he wrote to His Eminence Arkady, Archbishop of Perm, who feared the reduction of clergy in factories with a schismatic population 96 . Monasteries, in his words, “are of great importance for weakening the schism by performing the ancient rite of worship,” and “experience shows, he says, that in villages close to monasteries there are almost no schismatics.” Concerned about the conformity of anti-schism spiritual means with the nature of pastoral service and the schism itself and about the possible simplification of their use, Metropolitan. Filaret, however, did not attach decisive importance to these measures in themselves, no matter how expedient and convenient to implement, in the matter of successfully weakening the schism, even with all the supposed zeal of the clergy. In his opinion, some other conditions are necessary for their successful operation. He, of course, saw the first most important condition of being a true, deeply believing Christian in the “blessing of God” 97, and therefore he inspired the shepherds under his command not to rely too much on their own strengths, but first of all to humbly ask for God’s help in their anti-schism activities. “Call Archpriest Dmitry Selunsky and tell him my thoughts on his report about the schismatic,” he wrote, for example, to his vicar bishop Innocent. The peasant woman was seduced into the schism against her will; she doesn’t know anything, as she herself says: and yet she doesn’t want to leave the split. How can I explain this? Her persistence? So be it. But is it not necessary to add another reason to the explanation of this - that in us, servants of the true faith, there is little spiritual strength, and perhaps even spiritual intelligence?... So I would ask Fr. Archpriest Dmitrievsky should not suddenly assure that the schismatic does not heed the proper admonition, but resort once again with humble prayer to God, so that he may instruct us to give the erring and unbelieving the proper instruction... Let us reconcile ourselves with our school learning, which does not have as much power as ignorance: perhaps God, who gives grace to the humble, will be merciful" 98. Another necessary condition for the success of anti-schism activity, as indicated by Metropolitan Philaret, is the personal impeccable life of the pastors of the church, fully consistent with their title. Being the best factual proof of the truth of the preached teaching, the Christian life of a shepherd, he says, at the same time in itself can be a means of admonition and conversion for many, since “the door of the word is opened temporarily, but the good life of the minister of the word preaches the truth day and night” 99 . On the contrary, the life of a shepherd, not alien to vices and generally not characteristic of the title, not only loses its educational significance for those who are in error, but also deprives the teaching he preaches of all power, no matter how true it may be. Having in mind, then, the external nature of the piety of the schismatics and their exaggerated ideas about the sinfulness of certain human weaknesses, such as, for example, sniffing and smoking tobacco, Saint Philaret advises the pastors of the church to abstain from them in order to avoid that these little things do not lead to important consequences 100. Then, the third necessary condition for the successful influence of the clergy on schismatics is, in the schismatics themselves, “a sincere, impartial desire to know the truth of God,” on the part of at least some of them: for “according to the word of Christ, only he who sincerely desires to do the will of God will understand the teaching that is from God” 101 . But since sometimes this desire is not enough for the many unfortunates who are in schism either due to a lack of light, or due to a lack of firmness of will, then in order to liberate them from strong schismatic networks, that is, from dissenters and schismatic teachers, another condition is necessary - the assistance of the church on the part of the civil government: “for such unfortunates,” says M. Philaret, “the measures taken by the government to curb the self-will of schismatics would be a true blessing, because without these measures they cannot extricate themselves from the networks of division” 102. Speaking about the need and benefits of the church's assistance in the fight against schism on the part of the civil government, Metropolitan Philaret was far from thinking about persecuting schismatics for their religious beliefs. Such attitudes towards those who differ in their views, in his opinion, should not and cannot take place in a Christian state, for “Christian love for mankind does not allow freedom to be taken away from anyone unnecessarily” and “the heavenly farmer himself leaves the tares until the time of harvest is imminent” 103 . Hence, the tolerance characteristic of Christian meekness should also be characteristic of the Christian state. But although it is characteristic of Christian meekness to show tolerance to those of different opinions, he says, “prudence should determine the measure of tolerance.” For “good can show tolerance to evil, but evil will not show tolerance to good: consequently, to show excessive tolerance to evil means to give it a weapon against good.” Thus, if in a Christian state “torture and persecution should not be tolerated, as being contrary to the spirit of the Church of Christ,” then there should also be no place for “excessively honest tolerance,” or, what is the same, complete unlimited freedom in matters of faith and conscience, as it inevitably leads to the increase of evil 104. How, then, asks M. Filaret, “should the government deal with schismatics”? And he answers: “Fatherly.” What does it mean? To correct their children, earthly fathers use not only gentle admonitions, but also other measures. The Heavenly Father, with all his infinite goodness, turns the lost to the path of truth, mostly through strict measures, and sinners often begin to correct themselves first out of fear of God’s wrath and punishment, and not out of zeal and love for virtue... The government, paternally concerned about the welfare of those entrusted to it, must deal with the people, who, due to their lack of education, do not know how to distinguish truth from error, useful from harmful, as with small children who rarely learn anything useful and good without being forced, and then remember it with gratitude” 105. From such a paternal point of view, or from the point of view of tolerance, tempered by caution, “for schismatics, actually in their favor, one law is needed, that they are not persecuted for their opinions about the faith and private prayer according to their ritual, which is the law in Russia” 106. “As long as the schism does not go beyond these limits, the only possible and proper action on it is spiritual and moral, with an edifying word and example from the clergy, an example and admonition from those in power, as well as preventing schismatics from gaining power over the Orthodox, giving preference to the Orthodox over schismatics in public relations, caution against the efforts of schismatics to appear before the authorities in the form of a special class, and entering into friendly relations with them primarily before the Orthodox.” “But as soon as the manifestation of a schism is allowed to occur, the seduction of the Orthodox by schismatics, their violation of existing laws and rules, a stronger action on the schism on the part of the civil government is necessary, for just as leaving such cases without attention gives the schism greater courage and strength, so, on the contrary, the destruction of the revealed evidence of a schism, the correct discovery and exposure of the seducer and the taking away from him of the means of seduction, the unremitting action of justice on schismatics who have violated existing laws and rules, - must weaken the courage and desire for such actions, lead to the decline of the spirit of the dissenters and the schism itself. The more timely and unrelenting the action of the authorities in such cases, the more reliable its consequences” 107. Given this general direction, the government’s measures to successfully achieve a weakening of the split must first and foremost be firm and constant. Once certain measures have been taken, the government “must follow them steadily and unremittingly.” The reason for this is obvious: “to retreat back in the orders of the authorities would mean not sufficiently maintaining the dignity of the law and giving food to the hopes of self-will” 108. In a word, there should be no concessions in measures recognized as expedient. Experience shows that “measures taken and not followed are often more harmful than if they had not been taken at all, because they naturally arouse stubbornness and arrogance in those against whom they were directed 109. – No less important for success is the very method of implementing the measures taken. Precise execution and “precisely keeping the secret where sometimes it is needed” are essential. Finally, “careful selection and formation of capable tools and vigilant monitoring of the accuracy of their action” is also a necessary condition for the success of civil measures 110. The number of schismatics, according to Metropolitan Philaret, should not confuse the government in its concerns about limiting their self-will. “This,” he says, “is a tool that the schism skillfully uses to elevate its importance both before the government and before those whom it wants to attract to itself. It is difficult to determine its number; but, without a doubt, he exaggerates greatly when he raises his number to 11,000,000. shower. This would mean that there are only four and a half times more Orthodox than schismatics. The Moscow diocese is one of those in which the schism is widespread. The clergy does not hide schismatics and those who have fallen away from schismatics” 111. This, in the opinion of Metropolitan Philaret, should be the normal nature of the government’s relationship with schismatics, alien to extremes and harmful tolerance and cruelty unusual for Christianity. True, “schismatics, striving for unlimited freedom of action,” he says, “try to present any restriction on their actions in the form of oppression and persecution; and tolerance, not guarded by justice, can be inclined towards this way of thinking.” But if you look “from the side of justice, then the government’s action against schismatics that raises complaints” is “very far from what in ancient times was called persecution. If under Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich it was strictly dealt with the schismatics who locked themselves in the Solovetsky Monastery, and under Tsars John and Peter with the schismatics who were rampaging in the Kremlin and in the palace itself: this was the taming of the rebellion, and not persecution. If a schismatic chapel built arbitrarily and illegally is not allowed to be repaired, but is only allowed to endure until destroyed by the force of time: this is not persecution, but condescension in the fact that what was illegal was not destroyed immediately. If a chapel is sealed because it was rebuilt contrary to the existing prohibition: this is not persecution, but the inevitable protection of the law so that it is not despised. If a schismatic priest is taken to court for seducing an Orthodox Christian: this is not persecution, but the defense of Orthodoxy according to local exhortation. But in the Moscow diocese there are eighteen times more Orthodox than the ruling church from the attack made on it, and even leniency is that the fugitive was not persecuted for escaping, but they resorted to justice against him only after a new crime... Here we can point to the taking of some monasteries from schismatics and their conversion to co-religionists”: but this is not persecution either, “the closure of secretly established monasteries and other sectarian places and gatherings is a simple need of any well-ordered state, in which such self-will is not allowed even to people of the ruling faith.” For example, “if one of the Orthodox had built a monastery without permission and tonsured monks in it without legal permission, wouldn’t the legal authorities have destroyed this, as they would soon have found out”? “Is it really” in this way “only the self-will of the Orthodox should be stopped, and the self-will of the schismatics should be left untouched? In general, can any due punishment be considered torment and persecution? If there were no prohibition against seducing the Orthodox into schism, or seducing them into causing a schism, if those who disobeyed this were not persecuted by law, then how else would the government protect the faith and those faithful to it? And if those who deviate from the legal order and contribute to the evasion of others are limited by law in the rights they abuse for the success of the sect, to seduce the weak with worldly benefits, one legal consequence of social improvement is visible here. Otherwise there will be no limits to self-will and seduction.” “Without such laws, which are of course unpleasant to the schism, there would be no patronage of Orthodoxy and not the slightest civil curbing of crimes against the faith,” for “Orthodoxy and schism,” by their very essence, “are so opposed to each other that the patronage and defense of Orthodoxy should naturally constrain the schism; condescension to schism should naturally embarrass the Orthodox Church.” Therefore, “if the indicated system is inconvenient for schism, then is it better that it is inconvenient for Orthodoxy?” The very fact that “the Orthodox people constitute the incomparable majority of the Russian people and, without a doubt, the most faithful support of the government” in comparison with the schismatics who constitute “the plague of both the church and the state” - this alone does not allow us to think at all about the choice: it is clear that the government cannot and should not act to weaken the Orthodox Church, “with which it is closely united,” and to strengthen the schism, “with which it is unnatural for it to unite, and which will always work towards its own weakening.” In general, schismatics’ complaints about imaginary oppression and persecution should not confuse the government in its efforts to weaken the schism. “The schismatics,” says M. Philaret, “will stop complaining only when they triumph. But when they stop complaining, then there will be a cooling of the Orthodox people towards the government, which patronizes the schism, giving benefits to the infidels and the rebellious to the temptation of the faithful and obedient” 112. Metropolitan Philaret had to endure a difficult struggle, as we will see below, at the beginning of the reign of Alexander II for his view on the government system of actions against schismatics. Many voices in favor of the split and against the system he ardently defended began to be heard during this period of enthusiasm for all kinds of liberal ideas and the breaking of many old things, even if they were expedient. Many of these liberal defenders of the schism, hiding behind the desire for the good of the church and the state, and others, perhaps quite sincerely, based on their superficially optimistic views on the schism, began to sharply declare that a) the government’s shy policy in relation to the schism is a complete anachronism, since there is nothing similar in European states, and at the same time - a contradiction of the government to itself when it allows the free existence of others religions; that b) it cannot lead to anything other than harm, since, by arousing irritation in the opposite side, it must naturally only contribute to the increase of evil, which it seeks to destroy, as is clearly evidenced, on the one hand, by the complete failure of measures taken at different times against various sects and schisms, on the other hand, by the example of the Christian faith, which spread not only without any assistance from civil authorities, but also in the midst of severe persecution; that c) any restrictions and restrictions in the matter of faith are not characteristic of the religion of peace and love, which is the Christian religion, and therefore of Christian governments; that finally, d) non-recognition of such a major church-state phenomenon as a schism, which has existed for 200 years, is completely absurd. As a result of all this, the defenders of the schism concluded, “our current position regarding the schism should be considered transitional.” Metropolitan Philaret had to take into account all such statements by the guardians of the schism, often very influential, and in his person they met an inexorable accuser: with the indestructible power of logic and a whole series of historical evidence, he proved the inconsistency of the arguments presented and convinced the government not to be embarrassed by them, as well as by the exaggeratedly unfair complaints of schismatics 113. a) The pointing of the defenders of the schism to the complete religious tolerance of European states, according to the court of Metropolitan Philaret, is completely unfair and only exaggerated optimistic views of everything Western could create it. Or rather, not the West for Russia, but “good and noble Russia” for Western states can serve as a model of religious tolerance. She can boldly “boast” before them of her religious tolerance “toward recognized Christian faiths and even non-Christian ones,” since there are no such restrictions for these faiths that exist, for example, in England, a country “boasting of its free institutions. The principle of preserving the unity of the national ruling church, in the form of preserving the unity of the national spirit, in England “operates strongly, and even overly strong." So “it has several million not schismatics who have betrayed the established church, but Roman Catholics belonging to a church that is older than the Anglican and from which the Anglican descended. But how does she deal with them?.. Only recently have Roman Catholics been admitted to parliament. Only recently was the government awarded a financial allowance to the Roman Catholic Maynooth Seminary, and those who are zealous for the preservation of the dominant Anglican religion have not yet ceased to argue against this in Parliament.” Moreover, “until now 114 they (Catholics) (like all dissidents in general) pay church taxes in favor of the dominant Anglican Church in the state. Lovers of freedom of belief have repeatedly proposed in parliament to abolish this tax. But the guardians of the church did not allow this abolition, seeing in church taxes the connection of unity between the church and the state... It is not useless to compare with this foreign example, notes M. Filaret, the opinion in Russia of those who are still in favor of the schism, in reprehension of the government, bitterly reminds us of the long-destroyed double tax on schismatics, as if persecution extends to the current schismatics,” while the point is not that “schismatics should pay a tax in favor of the Orthodox Church, but only that they should not plunder its spiritual property” 115 . In addition to England, Met. Filaret also points out other European states in which there are limits to religious tolerance. “In France itself,” he says, “only recognized religions are allowed, and recognition requires positive knowledge of what exactly the teaching of this confession is and that it does not threaten public order. In Switzerland, a Protestant land, no one except Protestants has the right to public office. And to allow the free existence of societies similar to our schism, hiding their secret actions from the government, demanding tolerance when they themselves have no tolerance, constantly shaking the people’s concept of the legitimacy of the supreme authorities - this cannot be found in any European land.” Hence it is obvious that the Orthodox government of Russia, in order to protect the unity of the dominant religion, prohibiting by law only apostasy from Orthodoxy and on this basis taking a number of restrictive measures against schismatics, “as those who have fallen away and are falling away from the Orthodox Church,” cannot in any way be accused of exceptional intolerance in comparison with Western states. It is equally obvious that if the government allows freedom of foreign religions and does not include schism among them, then through this it does not violate the law of justice and does not contradict itself, for it does so for the reason just stated "great difference" in origin and character between the former and the latter. Roman Catholics, Protestants, etc., do not by their origin belong to those who have fallen away and are falling away from the Orthodox Church, like schismatics, but “came under the Russian state with their religions,” therefore, “in a legal way, from which, in fairness, they are given freedom of their religions.” On the contrary, “if the state were to give those convicted by its law the same rights as those who are innocent before the law, then it would be in conflict with its own law and with justice in general.” Then, with an origin independent of the Orthodox Church, foreign confessions are alien and intolerant towards it, as well as harmful political views, as a result of which they are again rightly recognized by law. If, however, they strive to demonstrate anything like this, the law prosecutes them for such crimes on an equal basis with schismatics. So, “let us not be embarrassed by the thought,” concludes Saint Philaret, “that the example of Europe obliges us, in the name of religious tolerance, not to do anything against schismatics. And in European states, religious tolerance has limits,” moreover, such that we would rather imitate, for example, the rule of free England, more strict than ours, regarding the firm protection of the dominant religion 116. b) Metropolitan recognized as equally unfair. Filaret and another statement by the defenders of the schism that “as if nowhere did the restriction of sects stop their success, but on the contrary, it seemed to contribute to their spread, and that for this very reason the existing decrees regarding schismatics should be abolished, as restrictive for them.” A similar phenomenon, in his opinion, if it occurred somewhere, it was only where “the measures were not firm, where they were subject to change; and where they were firm, there the success of the sects was stopped and even destroyed.” In confirmation of this, Met. Filaret gives examples from history. “The first most remarkable sect in Central Europe, the Hussites,” he says, “at first assumed enormous proportions, then was suppressed by energetic government measures so that Bohemia, where it arose, completely turned into a Roman Catholic country. A hundred years later, the emerging Protestantism was successful only where the sovereigns themselves clearly took its side. But in France, where this did not exist, and where the government finally strongly opposed Protestantism, it, after the repeal of the Edict of Nantes, was so limited that it could no longer spread. The same consequences occurred in Belgium, where the government made every effort to prevent the spread of Protestantism, and for this very reason it could not even penetrate into Spain and Italy, although the horrors of the inhuman Inquisition cannot in any way be justified. In England, Protestantism was finally established by the cruel measures of its patron, Queen Elizabeth. From then until our time, the Latin confession had no success there; but as soon as the government equalized the rights of his followers with other citizens, the number of adherents of the pope more than doubled, and is now constantly and rapidly multiplying. In Prussia, 12 years before this (i.e., before 1868), neo-Catholic societies appeared, but almost nothing has been heard of them since the government put a barrier to their lawless spread” 117 . “And your Orthodox Church itself has already become convinced through bitter experience,” adds M. Philaret, “that restrictions do not spread, but suppress, if not forever, then for a long time, the true teaching of the faith. This was the case in the western region of Russia, where the persecution of Orthodoxy created a union and could have ultimately subjugated the entire people to Rome, if Providence had not been pleased to return that region to the bowels of Orthodox Russia; So now, in the Austrian possessions, Orthodoxy, constrained by the local government, is gradually becoming impoverished.” Finally, the same thing is most clearly confirmed by the history of the split. “As for your split,” says M. Filaret, - everyone knows that the number of his followers at first, despite the most daring troubles that arose from them, was very insignificant, with the exception of those who fell into schism as a result of European customs introduced by Emperor Peter I; but only from the time of Emperor Peter III the successes of the schism began to increase in a special way, as the government’s leniency increased, and finally reached unexpected proportions towards the end of the reign of Emperor Alexander I, when the well-known centers of the schism appeared and strengthened - the Preobrazhenskoye and Rogozhskoye Cemeteries.” After this, during the reign of Emperor Nicholas, “the schism intensified only in those provinces where the local authorities were indulging him; weakened where strict attention was paid to his actions, to seduction and other abuses” 118. So, when at the end of this reign the government turned strict attention to the willfulness of the schismatics of the Rogozhsky and Preobrazhensky Cemeteries, churches and parishes of the same faith appeared in both centers, as a result of which they noticeably wavered in their significance 119. In a word, “the firmness shown by the government against the schism has gained the church about 200,000 coreligionists since 1827.” If, through the measures used by the government during the specified time, “not as much was gained for Orthodoxy as would be desirable,” notes M. Philaret, “then one cannot draw objections to these measures from here. Man has the freedom to err, not yielding not only to human prudence, but also to the wisdom of God, not only to human limited power, but also to God’s omnipotent rule, which therefore only a smaller part of the human race acquired Christianity, and an even smaller part of this part - Orthodox Christianity" 120. After the death of Emperor Nicholas, with the renewed strong patronage of the schism, it began to noticeably intensify again. The given history of the spread of the schism, in fact refuting the opinion of its defenders about the uselessness and even harm of any restrictive measures, at the same time provides the right key to the resolution of what many of them seem to be “incomprehensible and unseemly,” the general phenomenon that “government measures against the schism, for 200 years, have not been successful,” or, more precisely, have had insufficient success. It is clear that the main reason for this lies in the inconstancy of these measures, but not in them themselves. The concessions that the schismatics enjoyed from Peter III until 1827 not only increased the number of followers of the schism, but also “encouraged them to resist further government measures.” At the same time, of course, the lack of success of the measures was also greatly influenced by their inaccurate and incorrect implementation by persons like police officer Massarius, the Moscow police authorities, etc. “So, leniency towards the schism,” says M. Philaret, “has contributed and continues to contribute to its strengthening much more than oppression” 121 . While it is undeniable, such a phenomenon is quite understandable given the above methods of spreading schism and the huge number of people constantly wavering between Orthodoxy and schism. All these hesitant, under the strict supervision of the government, “still go to Orthodox worship, do not exclude themselves from the church, are afraid of responsibility before the law, the clergy still has access to them, their secret deviation from Orthodoxy does not yet have impudence”; but at the slightest weakening, they all naturally become quick and irrevocable prey to schism, and their obvious falling away shows the way for others 122. The spread of the Christian faith in the midst of severe persecution is, in the opinion of M. Philaret, an exceptional phenomenon; to present it as proof of the harmfulness of restrictive measures against all kinds of religious teachings, and in particular against our schism, is inappropriate and not entirely fair. It is inappropriate because the spread of the true holy faith of Christ in the midst of the most severe persecution “was an irrefutable sign of the divinity of the Savior’s teaching; to apply such a miraculous spread of it to ignorant sects means to humiliate the action of the highest grace” 123. This is not entirely fair because the spread of Christianity, obviously, was accomplished “not through persecution, but in spite of persecution, due to its inherent divine power.” Moreover, “here too, Providence sometimes chose as its instruments even some of the pagan emperors, who, with their peaceful disposition towards Christianity, contributed greatly to its successes. On the contrary, the persecutors, although they could not destroy the faith of Christ, often and very significantly stopped its spread.” With the adoption of Christianity by the Roman emperors, that is, since the reign of Constantine the Great, its spread became much faster and more widespread, due to the fact that “all the forces of power, hitherto directed against the church, turned to protecting its internal and external prosperity. Christian emperors contributed to this by subduing the remnants of idolatry and deposing heretics.” But even here, when it happened “that heresies found patrons in the kings themselves, then they grew so that, for example, when St. Gregory the Theologian, in all of Constantinople there was only one Orthodox chapel left, and after that, with the assistance of the Orthodox emperors, the heretics retained only one chapel. In general, the assistance of the kings to the decisions of the councils stopped heresies, and vice versa, the patronage of heresies oppressed Christianity. The emperors, who patronized the iconoclasts, outraged the entire church, and only then was universal peace restored to it again, and the iconoclast heresy was suppressed when the kings and queens themselves began to vigorously promote it. Later, did not Latin rule in Constantinople and in the East in general harm Orthodoxy? And did the Mohammedan yoke really contribute to its spread? Finally, in all European powers, as well as in our fatherland, the spread of Christianity was especially facilitated by the patronage of sovereigns.” Consequently, the present situation (I860), concludes M. Philaret, “when opponents of the church freely drag the weak into heresies and schism, is it not a direct consequence of the increased relaxation of the schism from the local lower authorities, with indifference and lack of patronage of the faith often on the part of the higher ones? Is it possible that our fatherland will voluntarily put itself in the position into which the East was involuntarily placed by unfortunate circumstances?” 124 c) In response to the objection of the defenders of the schism that Christian governments are not characterized by any restrictions or restrictions in the matter of faith, as contrary to the spirit of the Christian faith, Metropolitan. Philaret makes and provides a detailed historical account of how this issue was resolved and how the ancient Christian Church in the person of the Christian emperors, St. fathers and ecumenical and local councils. In view of the contemporary significance of this certificate, which clearly characterizes the attitude of Metropolitan Philaret himself to resolving the issue, we present it here. “It is extremely instructive to become more familiar with the laws issued against pagans and heretics by Constantine the Great and his successors: Theodosius, Justinian and other pious emperors,” says Metropolitan. Filaret. When Christianity triumphed, the pagan priests very naturally could no longer remain with their former advantages, but in addition, all pagans were deprived of access to the highest honorary and court positions, as those that would increase their influence on the people - it was ordered to crush idols, destroy temples, or turn them into Christian churches, or lock them, prohibiting entry into them under fear of heavy penalties, sacrifices and pagan rites in general were strictly prohibited, and those who resumed pagan worship were threatened with punishment. The severity of these measures was caused by the clear consciousness that without it it would have been impossible to save the faithful from constant temptation. Therefore, Blessed Augustine, mentioning the laws aimed at eradicating pagan rituals, says: “of course, there is no one among us who would not approve of these laws.” And in relation to heretics, the emperors remembered that “a mother must have mercy on her children and protect them, and that she would be unmerciful and cruel if, while protecting the wolves, she destroyed the sheep. In choosing the means to protect the faithful from heresies, the pious emperors took into account the circumstances, used prudent but firm measures to convince the lost, and in the event of resistance and violence, they did not extend severity to everyone, but only to the main false teachers, and generally did not undertake anything that would not bring benefit, but would only embitter the opponents more. Heretics were subject to the death penalty only when they reached the point of violent resistance to the authorities, or to crimes against nature itself. In general, pious emperors remembered the saying of the holy fathers that a heretic should not be killed, but corrected. The main laws issued by the emperors to protect Orthodoxy and curb heretics were as follows: “Heretical gatherings were strictly prohibited, and those who violated this prohibition were subject to expulsion or punishment. Heretics were forbidden to build churches, and the houses in which they gathered were confiscated. It was forbidden for heretics to ordain anyone as bishop, priest or deacon. We dealt with those who seduced others with particular severity. False priests were subjected to heavy penalties, expulsion, or exile. Special laws protected those Christians who had heretics among their relatives. The heretic had no right either to transfer his estates to others by will, or to accept what was bequeathed. Adherents of sects (for example, Manichaeans) and, in some cases, temporarily all heretics in general were subjected to expulsion, or punishment. Only one emperor, under the pretext that faith does not tolerate coercion, abolished all laws against heretics, returned those exiled and compared them in rights with the Orthodox: that was Julian the Apostate. With the exception of him, all the emperors recognized the need for laws to protect orthodoxy and the faithful. Realizing that laws must not only be issued, but also executed, and seeing the harm and danger from the lawless and selfish indulgence of some rulers towards heretics, the emperors determined a heavy penalty and deprivation of office for rulers and judges for their deviation from these laws; in their own person they demonstrated an example of zeal for Orthodoxy. The laws prohibited heretics from addressing them personally and bothering them with petitions. At the same time, the emperors protected the purity of public morals, prohibiting spectacles on holidays, etc., realizing, however, that the assistance of the government is, although necessary and essential, but not the only condition for the establishment of faith. “While the sovereigns tried through various laws to bring those who had rejected themselves to unity with the church, the shepherds of the church did not cease to exhort and teach the lost. “If heretics (says Blessed Augustine in a letter to Vincent) were only frightened (by state laws), but were not taught, then this could seem like injustice and violence. And if only they were taught, but at the same time were not frightened by the law, then among them, habits hardened by rigidity would be weakly encouraged to enter the path of salvation. But to the useful fear is added the saving instruction, as that not only the light of truth drives out the darkness of error, but also the shackles of a bad habit are broken by the power of fear. I was there before. the opinion that we should not use any external incentives for unity with the church and that we must act only with words, fight with reasoning alone, and win with evidence, so that we do not have false Orthodox in those very people who were previously open heretics. But this opinion of mine was challenged not by words, but by facts. Many, convinced by the obvious truth, had long wanted to be Orthodox, but, fearing their own, daily put off their conversion. Many were held back by force of habit, or negligence. Many thought that there was no difference whether someone belonged to the Orthodox Church or not, and remained in heresy only because they were born into it and because no one encouraged them to convert to Orthodoxy. All of these were returned to the bosom of the church by the laws (issued against heretics), and those whom security made negligent, were converted by the care of the church and government for them, and now they celebrate their conversion as the brightest holiday. So, let the kings of the earth serve Christ, also making laws in favor of the teachings of Christ.” “It is better,” says the same church teacher in another letter, “it is better, of course (who doubts?) to lead people to true piety through teaching alone and not to motivate them through fear of punishment. But just because some people are better, those who are worse should not be left without care. Experience has proven that it was useful for many to first be forced by fear, so that later they could either learn or actually carry out what they learned in words. Of course, those who are governed by love are better; but there are more of those who are corrected by fear. Not everyone who spares us is your friend, and not everyone who does not spare us is our enemy. Who can love us more than God? However, He does not cease not only to gently teach us, but also to frighten us with salvation. Sometimes a thief, sprinkling food, lures them away from the herd, and sometimes a shepherd, hitting with a whip, drives wandering sheep to the herd. If someone, seeing his enemy in a fever and unconsciousness running towards the abyss, did not grab and tie him up, but allowed him to escape, would he not repay him with evil for evil? How many heretics, upon their conversion, cursed their former life and pitiful errors, while they were brought to this saving consciousness by strict laws? Some have not benefited from these laws; But should one give up medicine because the madness of some cannot be cured? “Those who do not want to see laws against their wickedness say that the Apostles did not ask for help from earthly kings. Whoever says this forgets that there was a different time then, and that everything should be done in its own time. For what emperor then believed in Christ and wanted to serve Him by issuing laws in favor of piety against ungodliness? Then another prophetic saying was fulfilled: The nations staggered, and the people learned in vain. The kings of the earth and the princes came together to the Lord and to His Christ (Ps. 2:1-2). At that time, what is said in the same psalm a little lower was not yet put into effect: And now kings understand, punish all those who judge the earth. Work for the Lord with fear and rejoice in Him with trembling. How then do kings serve God with fear, if not by forbidding and punishing with pious severity that which is contrary to the commandments of the Lord? For the king serves God differently as a man, and differently as a king. As a man, he serves God by living a Christian life; but since he is also a king, he serves God by making laws commanding what is righteous, and prohibiting what is contrary to this with decent severity. This is how Hezekiah served the Lord (2 Kings 18:4), who destroyed oak groves and pagan temples. This is how kings serve the Lord, since they are kings, when they do for the glory of God what only kings can do.” - “No one who is sane will dare to tell kings that they have no need to know what their subjects are - chaste or depraved; and who, except a madman, can tell them: do not worry, no matter what state the Church of the Lord is in your state - whether it enjoys the world or suffers disasters from its enemies - the piety and wickedness of your subjects is not subject to your scrutiny? “Church shepherds ask for help from Christian emperors, not avenging themselves, but protecting the flocks entrusted to them. If they did not do this, they should be blamed for negligence. For the Apostle Paul did not care about his own life, but about the Church of God, when, having learned about the conspiracy drawn up against him, he resorted to the help of the thousand’s captain.” Based on all these arguments, St. Augustine says: “it seems to me not useless to tame and correct heretics through the authorities established by God; and since the Apostle says: there is no power except from God, then, without a doubt, when kings provide help to the church, this help to us is in the name of the Lord, who created heaven and earth.” “Except for Augustine,” adds Metropolitan. Filaret, you could also cite the testimony of St. John Chrysostom, who advised to destroy the gatherings of heretics, and the testimonies of many other saints. fathers. “Let us turn to the rules of ecumenical and local councils. The Holy Fathers of the Council of Carthage (the rules of which were approved by the VI and VII Ecumenical Councils) kindly ask the kings to eradicate the remnants of idolatry, to destroy idols, to destroy temples, to prohibit pagan feasts, and in general about everything that they consider useful against heretics and Hellenes and against their superstitions (rights 69, 71, 95:120); It is also considered decent to ask the heads of the regions for the assistance of the common mother, the Catholic Church, against heretics (Rule 78). The same Carthaginian Council by Rule 69 and the VI Ecumenical Council by Rule 23, Antioch by Rule 5 and 11, and Rule 9 of Constantinople decided: “Those who violate the church order should be removed involuntarily from the reigning city; those who create disturbances and sedition in the church and do not want to submit to the meek admonition of church pastors to convert, as rebels, to order by secular power.” The one hundred and fourth rule of the Council of Carthage was decided to ask the pious kings, Arcadius and Honorius, to restore the law of Theodosius the Great on the collection of 10 pounds of gold from heretics, ordaining and ordaining, as well as prohibiting heretics from transferring or receiving anything under a will. “The royal love for mankind (it was said at the same time) must take care that the Catholic Church, which gave birth to Christ and raised them with the strength of faith, would be protected by their industry. Against the fury of the renegades, we ask you to give us divine help, not extraordinary and not alien to the holy scriptures. For the Apostle Paul, as shown in the true Acts of the Apostles, defeated the complicity of disorderly people with military help.” All church history is full of examples of saints encouraging emperors to act in favor of the church. “In our fatherland (Metropolitan Philaret concludes his historical note), in which the most pious kings are the supreme defenders and guardians of the orthodox faith and all holy deanery in the church (the basic laws of the Russian Empire), how else can their government comply with this fundamental rule that existed from the beginning, if not by acting against the schism with the measures that have always been taken by the Orthodox kings and which are encouraged by the universal church? 125 d) As for, finally, the last objection of the defenders of the schism, that the non-recognition of the existing fact of 200 years, what a schism is, is a very strange phenomenon, then, according to the court of Metropolitan Philaret, this objection, striking an unprepared thought with its artificiality and external brilliance, is however nothing more than an empty, meaningless, vague phrase, which does not have the slightest share of justice. If we take it in the literal sense, then it is more than strange, since it obviously contains the following direct meaning: “There has been a schism for 200 years, and the government does not recognize it as existing, does not see it, thinks that it does not exist! Or: There has been a schism for 200 years and the government sees it, but shamelessly and unscrupulously does not recognize the ego’s existence - it says that it does not exist!” But is this how the government really views the split? Undoubtedly not, when it speaks about it in laws, limits it, etc. Thus, to be more precise, “the government recognizes the schism as an existing fact, but as a fact that exists illegally,” or, in other words, “the government does not recognize the actual existence, but only the legality of the schism,” in view of the fact that it “generally exists through a violation of the legal obedience of the Orthodox Church.” Therefore, one must think that, in bringing up this objection, the defenders of the schism want its legal and free existence, i.e., “they demand to recognize as legal what, not without reason, was previously recognized as illegal.” But “this is not easy to agree with justice and not easy to fulfill.” 126 Defenders of the split found the government's current attitude towards the split "transitional." To this Met. Filaret noted: “if we make concessions to schismatics, then our position in relation to them will indeed be transitional, but transitional to the worse for Orthodoxy,” and due to the close connection with Orthodoxy of the state, for this latter as well. Thus, convincing the government of restrictive measures against schism not to be too embarrassed by the unfair complaints of schismatics and the liberal arguments of its biased and impartial guardians, Metropolitan. Filaret, in conclusion, outlined a number of intractable questions and difficulties that must inevitably arise if the state decides to officially recognize the schism as a special religion, despite its harmful nature in many respects. Having decided to recognize the split, the government must first of all become, as Metropolitan noted. Philaret, in great bewilderment at the question: should all schismatic sects, of which there are countless numbers, receive freedom of religion, or only some of them? and if so, which ones? The government naturally cannot and will not dare to recognize all sects, in view of the obvious and strong anti-state direction of some of them, not to mention the anti-church; and by recognizing only a few sects, it not only will not solve the difficult issue, but will also give a direct reason for unrest among the schismatics themselves, who, seeing the example, will all, without exception, with persistence and even insolence begin to seek freedom. “The schismatics of the Belokrinitsa branch will come before the government and say: recognize our bishops and the priests they supply! The New Russian schismatics will come for these and say: we have abandoned the Belokrinitsky bishops; We think that the government does not like them either: recognize our Anthony, Archbishop of Vladimir, about ten other existing and many future bishops and the priests they supply! Then the old priests will come and say: we understand that the Austrian bishops and priests they supply are illegal, and therefore we want to have Russian fugitive priests as before: recognize the fugitive priests as legitimate! Then the priestless people of various persuasions will appear and say: recognize our leaders, today and tomorrow, since perhaps tomorrow we will replace the current ones and install others! For this, the runners may come and say: recognize our leaders, the fugitive peasants and the fugitive soldiers! When such freedom of schisms and sects is glorified, will not the eunuchs and whips decide to come and say: recognize both our leader, whom we call Christ, and his helper, whom we call the Mother of God! 127. What will happen in the villages with the recognition of the split? – Metropolitan continues to ask. Filaret. “An Austrian false priest, a Russian false priest, a runaway Russian priest, a priestless priest will come to the village, and with impunity they will plunder and divide one village into several parishes of different faiths. It will be difficult for one lawful shepherd to overcome many wolves. And there will be a lot of them. Austrian and Russian false bishops will multiply without measure, as they are already multiplying, and without measure they will turn peasants and burghers into false priests. Where will the church unity of Russians be then? But can such a great loss of church unity be harmless for the unanimity of the people in the state? – Next, Met. Filaret also draws attention to the fact that with the recognition of the free existence of the schism as a separate religion, the propaganda and separative aspirations of schismatics will become even more intensified and strengthened. At present, the schismatics' desire for propaganda is somewhat limited by the lack of protection from the law; “but when the schism receives a legal existence, then its habit of promoting obstacles will have less than the current ones, but more means and, therefore, more can harm the Orthodox Church” 128. In the same way, the “dividing power” of the schism is currently significantly weakened by the fragmentation of schismatic societies, the lack of unity in them, thanks to which, in cases of special excitement of the national spirit, schismatics conveniently follow the movement of a larger, i.e., Orthodox unity; with the recognition of the schism by a separate religion, “the scattered schismatic societies will achieve a common unity,” through which “a sharp line of separation and opposition will be laid between the Orthodox Church and the numerous ex-Orthodox society, strengthened through unity,” which, deepening, forms a noticeable line in the unity of the national spirit. From here it is clear that the public good “revolts against creating a world out of schismatic chaos,” since this can easily follow that a significant part of the Orthodox world will plunge into schismatic chaos, through which state chaos can also be formed 129. Not being able to give freedom of religion to all schismatic sects without obvious and great damage to national unity, the government, in the judgment of Metropolitan. Philaret, cannot without difficulty give preference in this regard to one or the other of these sects. With the intention of giving freedom of religion, the government can stop, he says, most likely on the priestly schism, less fanatical and harmful, but at the same time more numerous: for the “ugly society” of non-priestly schismatics who do not recognize marriage, who preach the immoral doctrine of the lesser sinfulness of fornication compared to marriage, who reject all priesthood, etc., cannot be officially recognized, not to mention mystical sects - skopcheskaya, Khlystovskaya, etc., the very existence of which is incompatible with the idea of a well-ordered state. But even with such a limited choice, intractable perplexities arise of their own accord, and above all in view of the fragmentation of the priestly schism itself. Currently, in it, or more precisely in its false hierarchy, “three elements are in ferment: 1) the Russian false hierarchy, adjacent to the same Austrian one, 2) the Russian one, separated from this one, 3) the fugitive priesthood of the Russian Orthodox ordination” 130. “So is it really,” asked Metropolitan. Filaret, - recognize three schismatic hierarchies, and, if I may put it this way, three schismatic churches? Even if we reject the Austro-Russian element, there will still be a false Russian hierarchy and a priesthood running away from the Orthodox Church. Is it possible for the guild Andrei Shutov to be officially recognized as Anthony, Archbishop of Vladimir? Is it possible to form a hierarchy of fugitive priests? Is this possible, both on the part of the government and on the part of the schismatics themselves, according to whose concept bishops are necessary for a complete hierarchy? Is there really a way to create more fugitive bishops? 131. But the above difficulties do not end the list of them. The most important difficulty lies in the uncertain, strange position into which, with the recognition of schismatic false hierarchies, the main support of state unity and strength - the Orthodox Church - will have to become. Neither Cyril, who was ordained contrary to the first apostolic canon by one bishop, who, moreover, did not have the right to ordain, nor, consequently, the bishops and priests ordained by Cyril can be recognized by the church as true bishops and priests. “From this it follows that if ever the civil authorities, in relations with the spiritual Orthodox, mentioned Anthony, Archbishop of Vladimir, the spiritual authorities would be obliged to answer that they do not know Archbishop Anthony, but only know the guild Andrei Shutov.” Likewise, “if the civil authorities decided to look at the fugitive priests as legitimate among the schismatics, the spiritual authorities, nevertheless, would be obliged, according to church rules, to recognize them as prohibited from the priesthood and subject to defrocking. And then it would turn out that the state provides impunity for the guilty before the Orthodox Church and encourages desertion from church service. How could one get out of such contradictions? Should the Orthodox hierarchy be forced to admit what is contrary to church rules and its conscience? But this would mean violating the state law in Russia, which grants freedom even to non-Christian religions, and the Orthodox hierarchy would be obliged to suffer rather than submit to such coercion, according to the apostolic word: it is fitting to obey God rather than man (Acts 5:29).” - Thus, the recognition of at least one priestly schism must necessarily lead to a violation of the unity and agreement that currently exists between the Orthodox Church and the state and has not yet been violated by any mutually contradictory views - to the destruction of the harmony between them that has existed from time immemorial in Russia, which other Christian peoples do not have, and which only Russia can be strong - therefore, to such destruction, the consequences of which are difficult to weigh 132. Finally, along with the indicated very important church-canonical and state difficulties, the official recognition of schismatic false hierarchies should raise quite a few administrative and practical perplexities, although not particularly important, but not easily resolved. If in one city there are two sees, two bishops, two diocesan administrations, in one village - two parishes, in one village or hamlet - several courtyards on the Orthodox and ex-Orthodox sides, then questions of this kind naturally arise: where will the boundaries of the dioceses and parishes be? Will the false bishops and false priests remain in their ranks of peasants, townspeople, etc., or will they be separated? and, moreover, alone, or with family and offspring, so that through this the already frequent complaints about the large number of the Orthodox clergy alone will increase? Will ex-Orthodox bishops have consistories and on what content? or will they be left with the current arbitrary government, so that uncontrolled self-will will more conveniently seduce and attract the Orthodox to them? from what sources and in what amounts will ex-Orthodox bishops and priests be supported? – etc. The resolution of all these issues with the recognition of the priestly split is necessary to eliminate the numerous reasons for clashes and confusion; but is it easy to do? 133. These are the arguments of Metropolitan. Filaret regarding the need for restrictive measures against splits on the part of the civil government. So, according to its fair and highly authoritative court, the Orthodox government of Russia, under no circumstances should remain an indifferent and inactive spectator of the spread of the schism, but by a series of restrictive measures, however alien to the nature of persecution, should set a limit to the increase in this evil - state and church; even less can it think about recognizing the schism as a separate religion, equal in rights with foreign ones, no matter how hard the schismatics themselves and their guardians strive for this, inventing plausible reasons for this, since at the same time it would inevitably have to fall into many insoluble difficulties and contradictions, except for obvious harm to the state that do not promise anything else. Bearing in mind the above general views of Metropolitan Philaret on the schism, it is not difficult to determine the direction and content of his anti-schism activity: as the supreme spiritual shepherd, he naturally strove for the peaceful bringing of schismatics into the fold of the church they had abandoned, demanding the same from other pastors and taking care of finding and increasing spiritual means to heal the schismatic ailment; but as a true loyal subject and as an accomplice in the concerns of the supreme power for the good of the church and state, he did not consider it alien to himself to care about weakening the schism by external restrictive means, while paying attention to their expediency and precise implementation. We will now move on to consider in what forms, under what circumstances, when and where this dual activity of Metropolitan Philaret manifested itself. 1. Anti-schism activities of Metropolitan Philaret during the reign of Emperor Alexander I (1817–1825) The schism experienced, or, more precisely, lived out, bright days during the reign of Emperor Alexander I. The government’s new attitude towards the schism in the spirit of tolerance and condescension, which began with Peter III and stemmed from a view of the schism not as a state phenomenon, but as “a mental delusion of the common people, based on some erroneous conclusions about their true worship and the spirit of Christianity, due to a lack of enlightenment and as a result of God’s jealousy, but not according to reason” 134, then reached its greatest development. The government now recognized that the only expedient remedy against all those who had estranged themselves from the Orthodox Greek-Russian Church was only admonition and guidance of them on the true path by “spiritual persons”, and without intrusiveness, without disputes and strife, without competition and coercion, but with meekness, with patience and with diligent insistence - in a word, such admonition that would be “poured out” to the lost “by itself” inconspicuously, from the good morals of the clergy, from their lives, from their actions and, finally, from conversations that are not forced, ad hoc and with an air of unintentionality directed at their situations.” As for the external constraints and restrictions in relation to schismatics and sectarians, at every opportunity the government deliberately rebelled against this method of action, depicting in bright colors its apparent indecency for a Christian state, its disagreement with “the teachings of the Savior of the world, who came to seek and save the lost,” and finally, the obvious harm, because every kind of cruelty “never convinces, but even more hardens” 135. True, at the same time, the government of that time fell into a visible contradiction with itself when it ordered the subordinate civil authorities not to do “the slightest oppression” to those who had fallen away from the church, “not to violate the conscience and not to enter into the search for the internal confession of their faith,” but at the same time ordered to have strict police supervision over them, “not to allow any external evidence of apostasy from the church and strictly prohibit any temptations in this regard, not in the form of heresy, but as a violation of general decorum and order" 136. It is clear that it itself was aware of the need for some kind of restriction, if not in the form of restricting sects, then at least to protect the dominant religion in Russia, to prevent unpunished apostasy from the Orthodox Church. But since, in theory and on paper, such severity did not reconcile well with general statements about religious tolerance, in practice the government had to turn a blind eye to non-compliance with strict regulations, and in most cases the government carried its concessions to schismatics and sectarians even to the point of openly patronizing them. Proof of this is, for example, permission for the Old Believers to s. Gorodets to have priests from Irgiz 137, an order to the Little Russian governor-general not to persecute fugitive priests appearing in the provinces entrusted to him, benefits given to the Preobrazhensky cemetery with its renaming into an almshouse 138, annual leave. in favor of the Old Believer Korsun monastery, 500 furrows of salt from the Kinburn salt lakes, tacit consent to worship according to the old rite in the Klimov monastery 139, constant and strong intercession of the government for the Doukhobors (and partly for the Molokans), their settlement on Molochny Vody with very favorable conditions for them 140. In some cases, the government's relaxation of schismatics extended at the time in question to such an extent that it placed them in a position much more advantageous than the position of the Orthodox. This was especially noticeable in trials of violations of state, police, or criminal laws by Orthodox and schismatics. In such cases, the Orthodox were generally punished more severely than the schismatics, who, on the contrary, were given leniency, since their errors and fanaticism were always taken into account. For example, an Orthodox or non-Orthodox person who allowed himself to riot in a church, or during a church procession, while performing church services, etc., who allowed himself to show obvious disrespect for the authorities, disobedience, and the like, was tried by a criminal court, in the ordinary course of legal proceedings, and was punished by criminal law. Meanwhile, each such case about a schismatic, after examining and drawing up a criminal sentence in the final instance, in the Chamber of the Criminal Court, was presented, before the sentence was carried out, to the Ministry of Internal Affairs, which, through the Committee of Ministers, asked each time for a mitigation or cancellation of the sentence, if in the action of the schismatic only an “expression of his belief” was noticed, and the matter ended with the criminal punishment either being abolished or commuted to the point of which was replaced only by being sent to the monastery and to the diocesan authorities for admonition 141. Especially often, schismatics were accused of blasphemy, for which the perpetrator was subject by law to deprivation of all rights of state, corporal punishment and exile to hard labor. But not a single schismatic was so condemned, and the matter ended either with the abolition of punishment, or, if the offense was not committed publicly, repeatedly, in church, with a reference to admonition 142. – So meek and humane was the general nature of the government’s relations with schismatics during the reign of Alexander I. That such government relations with schismatics were truly general and not exclusive can be seen from the fact that decrees of an opposite, restrictive nature, such as, for example, prohibiting schismatics from building churches and chapels and legal persecution of them for causing a schism, were very rare. The schismatics, of course, did not know how and did not want to appreciate the leniency shown to them; on the contrary, taking advantage of this leniency, they constantly tried, directly or indirectly, to violate the existing regulations that were somewhat restrictive against them and to spread their false teaching among the Orthodox. Cases of daring display of schism in the form of unauthorized construction of chapels with crosses and bells and holding open processions of the cross, as well as cases of seduction into schism and bitterness of schismatics also did not abate in the least, despite the lack of persecution 143. Thus, the split not only continued to persist stubbornly, but also grew with extreme speed. The number of his followers, which at the beginning of the reign of Alexander I reached no more than 200,000, towards the end began to quickly approach a million, and then only according to an approximate, undoubtedly reduced count 144. How strong the growth of the schism was can be judged from the following examples. In the city of Spassk, Tambov province, it intensified among the economic peasants so much so that fears were expressed about seducing them all into schism. In the Perm province there was also concern that “the parishes and churches would not become empty” 145. At the Rogozhsky and Preobrazhensky Cemeteries, the number of parishioners increased by the thousands; even the Pomeranian Intercession Chapel in Moscow, which had 1000 parishioners at the beginning of the reign, at the end numbered them up to 6000 146 . The spiritual authorities and the clergy in general, whose duties were to instruct and admonish those who had gone astray, unfortunately, did not show themselves at this time to the height of their calling. Not to mention the lower clergy, who did not care at all about anti-schism activities, and the highest spiritual authorities themselves did not care much about it. Thus, from 1801 to 1817 inclusive, the Holy Synod issued only one order directly aimed at weakening the schism, namely “on assigning the most reliable priests to the churches of the city of Uralsk” 147; in general, he limited himself to a weak reminder to the priests regarding the need to admonish those who are in error. Anti-schism activity of St. The Synod at this time was not aimed at weakening the schism, but only at protecting the rights of the Orthodox Church from violation of them by schismatics, for which purpose, for example, a series of explanations and decrees, more or less restrictive in nature, were issued regarding schismatics: on the publication of old printed liturgical books, on mixed marriages between Orthodox and schismatics, etc. 148. Especially often the Synod now had to explain the exact meaning of the recently revealed Platonic points of Unity of Faith, which the majority of schismatics interpreted in a sense unfavorable for the church 149 . It is clear that such relations of the church and government towards schismatics, and sectarians in general, were not normal: it was necessary on the part of the civil government to more strictly limit their willfulness, on the part of the spiritual authorities - to strengthen the spiritual and moral influence on them. And such a change in relations actually took place, although not completely, around 1817. In it, or, more precisely, in its appearance, Metropolitan Philaret was by no means the least important. A rather sharp turn in the government’s attitude towards the schism since 1817 can be seen in such decrees issued by it in the period from 1817 to 1826 as prohibiting governors of provinces from giving permission on subjects belonging to the spiritual department (regarding the organization of the Old Believer church in the city of Volsk with the permission of the Saratov civil governor 150; a reprimand to the former Saratov and Sloboda-Ukrainian civil governors for their inattentive attitude towards the illegal construction of an Old Believer monastery near the city. Saratov and chapels in Chuguev and Borovsk 151; the establishment of one printing house for early printed books in Moscow, at the Edinoverie Church, with the destruction of such printing houses in the Klintsovsky settlement and the village of Makhnovka and with the confiscation of early printed books brought from abroad 152; the establishment of strict supervision over the schismatics of the Fedosevo consent and, in particular, over the Preobrazhensky almshouse, the preference of the Orthodox over the schismatics in merchant and petty-bourgeois elections and the complete removal from office of all schismatics who do not accept marriage and do not pray for the Tsar 153; a strict ban on building schismatic churches again under any pretext 154; finally, the establishment in St. Petersburg of a special secret committee for the affairs of schismatics 155. It is not difficult to notice how little similar these orders are to the decrees issued in the first half of the reign of Emperor Alexander I; it is clear that the government realized its passion and decided to act in a different direction, casting aside the fear of reproaches for intolerance. True, even now it continued to talk about non-persecution for faith, etc.; but I decided to carry out the second part of my program - about the creation of a schism and seduction into a schism, as accurately and strictly as possible. At the same time, the Holy Synod, for its part, in view of the strong proliferation of fugitive priests, issued a very important decree “on the taking away from clergy and clergymen who, by jurisdiction, were removed from their posts, and from clergymen relegated to a clerical position, certificates and other types of their titles” 156. In the same way, he now paid greater attention to strengthening the spiritual and moral influence on schismatics, for which purpose he sent “printed decrees to the synodal members and other diocesan bishops, so that they, paying special attention to the priests of those parishes in which the most seduced from Orthodoxy, would have, in accordance with their pastoral duty, unflagging care, so that in such parishes the priests would live a pious life and in tested with prudence and meekness, and skilled in converting parishioners who have gone astray through ignorance to the path of true faith” 157. Thus, there was a change in attitude towards the schismatics at the indicated time and on the part of the spiritual authorities. That these changes took place with the active participation of Metropolitan Philaret can be concluded with some right from the very close similarity of the new direction in government relations towards the schism with his stated general views on measures against the schism: the point of view on the subject is the same here and there. But there is also positive data. In one of the letters to Archimandrite Anthony (dated December 9, 1863), Metropolitan. Filaret reports the following, extremely remarkable in its novelty, news regarding the state of the schism at the time in question: “It cannot be said,” he wrote, “that complex committees (on schismatic matters) are not needed when the actions of the clergy alone were not trusted and their hands were tied. The first committee, even under the late emperor, consisted of Archbishop of Chernigov (later Metropolitan) Mikhail, me and Prince A. N. Golitsyn; and only its director was both the secretary and scribe of this committee, and no one knew about its existence. In the opinion of this committee, the late emperor made a decision that he would not have made otherwise. After this institution passed into the form of an order; under the name of secret, it became public, filled with people as it happened; but despite all that, sometimes it was useful” 158. Archbishop Mikhail of Chernigov became Metropolitan of St. Petersburg in May 1818. This means that the establishment of the committee was earlier than this year, and the anti-schism activity of Metropolitan Philaret began while he was the rector of the St. Petersburg Academy, in all likelihood from the time of his appointment as vicar of the St. Petersburg Metropolis 159, and began precisely in the spirit of his views on the schism, which, judging by some data, by that time he had already become familiar with 160. He began to act against the schism as one of three members of the secret committee, established many years before the “order” committee of 1825 and, apparently, whose main task was to counter the willfulness of the schismatics and the government’s concessions to them. This actual purpose of establishing the committee, except for the case mentioned in the letter when it had some kind of favorable effect for the church on Emperor Alexander I, is also evidenced by the fact that the committee opened its first orders, as Metropolitan reports. Filaret in another place, “It is by the highest approval to destroy the cross and the head at one schismatic prayer house in the Yaroslavl province” 161. Then paying attention to the personnel of the secret committee, we can say with confidence that Met. Filaret was not the least important in it, although at that time he did not yet occupy a very high hierarchical position, since it is difficult to admit that Archbishop Mikhail and Prince Golitsyn himself had great zeal to act against the schism, and precisely in the spirit in which the committee began to act. So, the change in government attitudes towards the schism since 1817 took place with the undoubted participation of Metropolitan Philaret, and this is his first and main service rendered to the interests of the Orthodox Church and the state in the fight against the schism. Let's look at the further actions of the secret committee, with which the activities of Metropolitan Philaret were so closely connected, as far as they are known from his own fragmentary instructions, since there are no others, With the death of Metropolitan Mikhail (March 24, 1821), the secret committee did not cease to exist: Mikhail’s place was taken by the new Metropolitan Seraphim. Whether there were any other changes in its composition, we cannot say due to lack of information. Filaret still remained its member. Under his influence, of course, the nature of the committee’s activities remained the same: protective in relation to the Orthodox Church and restrictive in relation to the schism. This is apparently contradicted by the publication of the well-known secret rules on March 26, 1822 “about leaving fugitive priests with schismatics if they had not committed a criminal offense before escaping” 162 - rules that, by their nature, represent a sharp contrast not only with the direction of the committee, but also with the new attitude towards the schism of the government itself, since they were very beneficial for the schismatics. But Metropolitan hardly participated in their publication. Filaret; moreover, their origin was accidental, not corresponding to the original intentions of the committee, as Metropolitan himself explains. Filaret. “In 1821 or 1822,” he says, “it was proposed to the committee to make an experiment by sending skilled priests to the schismatics, who would appear among them not as sent from the church, but as if they had come to them at will and were disposed to be in communication with them, and who, having entered into communication with them and gained their trust, would make them suggestions favorable to Orthodoxy. The good intentions of this proposal captivated the committee, and it drew up a determination about this, which, by the way, was signed by Metropolitan Seraphim of blessed memory and awarded the Highest approval... But when the Metropolitan was given the opportunity to carry this out, he saw that this could not be agreed with the church rules and the purity of the clergy conscience; revealed his difficulty to the committee, and the Sovereign Emperor deigned that the determination approved by him be left unfulfilled.” “Under these circumstances,” continues Metropolitan Philaret, “when the Highest approved definition turned out to be unenforceable and it was difficult to decide to imagine its complete destruction, it turned out to be necessary to find a measure that would represent not the complete destruction of the Highest approved definition, but changing it into an easily executable form. So it was ordered: not to send priests from the government to the schismatics, but to leave the fugitive priests found among them by the civil authorities, except in the case when these priests are required by the diocese to answer in a criminal case. This is the origin and essence of the secret rules of 1822, coveted by schismatics and glorified among them” 163. Thus, the rules of 1822 were not a contradiction of the secret committee to itself in its restrictive activities against schismatics, as it appears at first glance, but were only an involuntary and unsuccessful attempt on the part of the committee to replace an even more unsuccessful, although well-intentioned, government project for the successful conversion of schismatics. Judging by the later sharp and merciless criticism of the rules of 1822 by Metropolitan Philaret, and also taking into account the fact that in the above explanation he does not mention his participation in all this - and indeed in 1822 he arrived in St. Petersburg only in early August, having not been here for almost a whole year 164 - we can confidently say that he really did not take part in the publication of the rules of 1822. Meanwhile, the committee itself obviously realized that a big mistake was being made in publishing them, and tried, if possible, to correct it. This is noticeable, firstly, from the fact that the government, apparently at the proposal of the committee, issuing rules “regarding fugitive priests staying with schismatics,” immediately confirmed in two points its previous order “regarding schismatic churches,” namely, that those of them that were built a long time ago should not be included in any further consideration and should be left without identification, and again not allowed to be built on any occasion; - secondly, from the fact that it sent out these rules “circularly for guidance only to the heads of the provinces, and, at the same time, by the Highest command, very secretly, not in printed, but in handwritten copies.” With this secret, obviously, they thought to prevent false rumors on the part of the schismatics about the government recognizing the free existence of their priests. But, as you know, this precaution did not lead to anything. With incredible speed, the news of the “coveted” rules spread throughout the schismatic world to its most remote outskirts, and not only the news, but also their content, so that, for example, at the beginning of November of the same year, they were read in an exact copy by the Ekaterinburg schismatics - earlier, as it turned out, by the Tobolsk governor. At the same time, false and exaggerated rumors appeared about the government’s favors to schismatics: most of them decided that by means of the rules issued, the government allowed “the establishment of special Old Believer parishes” with the right to freely enroll themselves in them for everyone 165 . – The sad results of this mood of the schismatics were not long in coming to light. Having become more demanding and daring in their relations with the church and government as a result of the concession made, “schismatics,” says Metropolitan. Filaret, they began to approach Orthodox priests more freely and invite them to come to them, enticing them with benefits and independence. Those seduced and carried away by them, having already had experience of benefits and independence, intensified the seduction of others. Thus, the successful escape of a priest from one diocese entailed others, so that some previously blameless priests were seduced, as was discovered in the case of priest Peter Nikiforov, who fled from the Kaluga diocese to the Rogozhskoe Cemetery, who, with honest and modest behavior, enjoying respect and benefits from schismatics, was finally brought to Moscow diocesan authorities to return to it. In some dioceses the number of fugitive priests among schismatics has greatly increased. Schismatic proselytism intensified. The temptation of impunity was especially severe when a priest in the same diocese who had fled from the diocesan court for misconduct lived with the schismatics, although in secrecy, but not in obscurity” 166. Such were the bitter fruits of the secret regulations of 1822, despite the precautions of the government and the committee. To weaken their effect, it was necessary to establish more “strict and correct” supervision over the schismatics, and in particular over their illegal construction of churches and chapels, which grew noticeably from year to year, and with them the number of fugitive priests increased. The secret committee took up this kind of “considerations about measures by the government against schismatics” at its meeting on June 22, 1823, which, one must think, was the last in the presence of Metropolitan Philaret, since soon after this (in early July) he received a two-year leave to his diocese (Moscow) 167, and maybe the last of the committee itself, since after a little time another influential member left its composition, Prince Golitsyn, the committee received a more “orderly” character with a new composition of persons 168. From the minutes of the said meeting 169 it is not difficult to see that, taking into account the numerous complaints about the rapid spread of the schism in various illegal ways - through money, violence, the temptation of one’s greater freedom compared to Orthodoxy, etc. etc., and no less numerous statements “about the need to set limits to this” received from such competent persons in this regard as the builder of the Vysokovskaya Assumption Hermitage, Hieromonk Gerasim and Hierodeacon Zosima, Bishop Justin of Perm, Archbishop Anatoly of Minsk, Bishop Filaret of Kaluga, Bishop Stefan of Volyn, etc., the committee decided to act against the willfulness of the schismatics with greater severity and consistency than before since then, even in the spirit and direction that were adopted with all decisiveness already in the next reign, it was the committee that made restrictive decrees regarding schismatic chapels and monasteries, their number (points: 11, 12, 14 and 16), repairs (13) and proper supervision of them (5, 6, 7, 8:9), also regarding fugitive priests (10) and the general method of acting against the schism from the outside civil and spiritual authorities (I, 2, 3, 4, 20, 21, 23 24, 25 and 26) 170. Thus, thanks to the activities of the secret committee and especially the influence of Metropolitan Philaret, who was present in it, not only was there a turn in the attitude towards the schism on the part of the government of Alexander I, but also a further plan of action against the schism was outlined, based not on abstract reasoning, but on actual data from experience. Thus acting as a member of the secret committee, Met. Filaret worked with no less energy at the time in question in the field of the fight against schism and as a diocesan bishop, being first the Archbishop of Tver (March 15, 1819 - September 26, 1820), then of Yaroslavl (September 26, 1820 - 3 July 1821), and, finally, Moscow (July 3, 1821 - 1826) · All these dioceses, significantly infected by schism, were in great need of activities of this kind on the part of the clergy. Satisfying this need, Met. Filaret not only vigilantly monitored the state of the schism in his dioceses, as evidenced by his numerous, judging by the shortness of time, resolutions and statements regarding various illegal actions of schismatics 171, but at every opportunity he instructed, admonished, begged the clergy subordinate to him to take care, to the best of his ability, about the conversion of the lost, as can be seen from the extensive resolution, or, better said, from his messages to the Tver flock in the case of the fugitive priest of the Zubtsovsky district of the village of Sergina, Vasily Kirillov, who lived in the schismatic Rzhev chapel, and the priest of the Nativity of Christ Rzhev Church Savva, who warned the schismatics about the planned search of the said chapel. Let us turn our attention to this extremely remarkable resolution. Her paternal-mournful and loving-pastoral spirit represents the best proof of how Metropolitan Philaret was alien to dry, heartless formalism in his relations with the submissive, even guilty, clergy and schismatics, and how far he was from the idea of ​​​​converting the Old Believers to the fold of the Orthodox Church by external administrative means alone. The guilt of priest Vasily Kirillov, taken from the schismatics, was great; but here are the warm-hearted instructions regarding the treatment of him given by Metropolitan Philaret: “Fulfill the consistory in his opinion (about sending him to the Kalyazin monastery); and, moreover, first, order that the priest found from the escape be escorted to the appointed place correctly; secondly, that in the monastery, as an elderly and blind man, although guilty, he should be given all kindly help, for which we hope for the rules and feelings of Fr. archimandrite rector; third, with meekness and love, to instill in our lost brother, and in the monastery, through his spiritual father, to remind him to reflect on the words of our Savior: whoever is not with Me is on Me, that is, whoever is not with Christ and not with the Church, His flock, is the enemy of Christ; also: if he disobeys the church, if you were like a pagan and a publican, and according to this immutable judgment of the word of God, you would feel what trouble he exposed his soul by leaving the church and joining the schismatics. Having fled from the easy condemnation of man, he fell under the heavy condemnation of God. For the sake of temporary gain, he was so careless about his eternal salvation that he was a hypocrite for nine years and, being a minister of the church, at the age of nine he only confessed and received communion once, and then, apparently, on the sly from the schismatics. I didn’t think, poor thing, that such double-mindedness could not be pleasing to God. The Lord is merciful that he did not leave him to die in this rigidity, but curbed him with blindness, and now gives him time to repent. Reflecting on all these circumstances, he would diligently pray to the merciful God to forgive his sins and turn to the path of repentance and obedience to the church those whom he, by his example, more or less supported on the path of error” 172. Metropolitan Philaret’s admonition to the Rzhev clergy regarding the unseemly act of the priest Savva is imbued with the same spirit of true Christian meekness and heartfelt condolences for those who err. “With illness and hardness of heart,” he wrote here, “we see the state of the Orthodox Church in the city of Rzhev revealed especially since March 1st; and noting how difficult, according to the saying of Ap. Paul, the wolves entered into them, and as, apparently, from among them men arose, yapping and depraved, we are prompted by the duty of our ministry to tell them what the same Apostle said to the Ephesian elders: take heed therefore to yourselves and to all the flock. In saying this, we do not reproach you for inattention and negligence, but we encourage you to increase your attention and zeal for your service. It is fitting, as the Apostle again said, that there should be heresies in you; however, he then added consolation: let the arts appear in you. But your delusions are revealed; and among you there is not yet a skilled one who would demonstrate his spiritual skill by converting even one of the many who are mistaken. Pay attention to whether you have and are trying to acquire, firstly, the knowledge necessary for the conversion of those who are mistaken; further - will you insist on the teaching, according to the will of the Apostle, in time and in time, forbidding and pleading with all long-suffering? Do you, as justice requires, use more effort to defend and spread the truth than your opponents use to deceive you? Do you with all your zeal call on the all-effective grace of God, so that you may reveal the Gospel of truth to the erring, and unite them with the saints of the Catholic and Apostolic Church? Do not your strength sometimes weaken and the purity of your zeal is not eclipsed by your own selfishness, or another passion, or words and actions in society that are contrary to edification? Pay attention to the whole flock, especially trying to edify it by word and example, warning those close to the temptation of error, strengthening the weak and wavering, and against the hardened, using the weapons of prayer and faith, which, since it can move mountains, can certainly soften hearts of stone. May the Lord give you the light of understanding and the fire of zeal, pure, strong and holy! Inviting, then, the Rzhev clergy to enter into personal relations with him “on subjects related to the state of the church,” and moving on to the schismatics, Metropolitan Philaret notes: “It will not be useless to bring to the attention of those who deviate from the church to which people, instead of legitimate shepherds, they entrust their conscience and soul. The priest taken from them, according to the certificate, turned out to be punished for beating a sexton and banned from the priesthood for drunkenness and fled from this last punishment: what permission could he give to others, being banned himself for his own vice? Anyone can judge this by simple common sense; The severity of church rules in this case, which even the Old Book writers cannot deny, is also known. It’s sad to think that deceived people are looking for blessings from someone who is himself subject to damnation (Gangr. local. sob. pr. 6); and after taking away one who, as if he had escaped punishment, according to all laws must be returned to punishment in his place, they are probably left with infants without baptism, and dying without parting words. God! enlighten them and enlighten them, and save them, weighing their destinies” 173. It is easy to imagine what impression this message from the already famous and revered archpastor must have made on the Rzhev clergy, inimitable in its power of denunciation and at the same time meekness of edification, as well as in its brilliant form of presentation, read, moreover, at a large meeting of clergy in the Assumption Cathedral of Rzhev. In the same way, the above-mentioned views and attitudes of Metropolitan Philaret could not remain, and indeed did not remain, without influence on the schismatics, especially after the order he made shortly after this, which he himself later mentions 174. This order also deserves full attention, as new proof of his ability to combine leniency with prudence, in the absence of any formalism. “Satisfying the essential spiritual needs of those who do not exist in the church yard,” he wrote, “would be less difficult on the spot, with closer inquiry into the circumstances, with less formality of relations. This is how it seems to me based on past experience in 1820 in Rzhev. The fugitive priests of the local schismatics were detained by the police and transported to their diocesan superiors 175. Those schismatics who had less strong prejudices against the church and who maintained the schism more out of habit and connections, without hesitation for long, turned to the Orthodox priests with demands; These, according to this instruction, did not stop doing these without distant conditions on both sides. The matter was done without petitions, relations and reports to the governor, to the bishop, to the Holy Synod. If in one of these cases leniency was extended far, one could hope that God’s judgment would cover the good intention with leniency; and it was inconvenient for the enemies of the church to extract reproach against it from private actions, or to base their right on them. Unfortunately, the success of this business was stopped by the fact that the fugitive priest, caught and sent away, soon fled again, and returning to Rzhev, was supported by the obdurate and rich of the schismatics” 176. Thus, Metropolitan Philaret worked prudently and zealously in the anti-schism field and as a diocesan bishop, despite the short period of his stay in the dioceses (meaning Tver and Yaroslavl) and many studies in other ranks and branches of government. In conclusion of the essay on the anti-schism activities of the great metropolitan during the reign of Alexander I, one cannot fail to mention his activities as a member of the Commission of Theological Schools. In 1818, on June 23, in his report to this Commission on the revision of the Moscow Theological Academy, touching on “polemical theology,” he wrote: “the exposure of the schisms of our church has not yet been processed” 177. He repeated the same in his other report dated July 5, 1820, adding that “it would be useful to supplement the system of polemical theology with an article about the schisms that have arisen and continue in the Russian Church and about the way to expose them” 178. These statements did not remain without consequences: in the Moscow Academy, indeed, “lessons began” on the schisms that arose in the Russian Church, and the means to admonish those falling into them, although, unfortunately, they soon stopped, due to the order of the Commission (dated 1825) that “no one should teach their own lessons” and “that theology should be taught exclusively in Latin” 179. Metropolitan Philaret argued many times and ardently against such an order, convincingly proving all the harm of returning to “dry Latin scholasticism” in teaching, which is not at all necessary for the interests of Orthodoxy, and the direct necessity of teaching theology in Russian “in the true spirit of the word of God and the writings of the holy fathers, with the presentation of truths in a language that is precise, educational, but, at the same time, as much as possible, generally understandable, with careful application of the teaching to the state of the Eastern and especially the Russian Church, that is, with the presentation of the true reasons why it accepts or rejects something, and with the denunciation and thorough refutation of those false teachings that, at the present time, priests may encounter in the field of their ministry" 180. But all his arguments hit, in his own words, “like peas hitting a wall”; and only in the mid-fifties did the wishes of the Moscow archpastor regarding the teaching of the schism come true, with the assistance of another enlightened zealot of Orthodoxy in the fight against the schism, his student - Gregory, Archbishop of Kazan, after the Metropolitan of St. Petersburg. Thus, Metropolitan Philaret was undoubtedly the first herald of the need for a scientific study of the schism in theological schools in order to successfully combat it through the pastors of the church who had received serious scientific training. 2. During the reign of Emperor Nicholas (1825–1855) The anti-schism labors of Metropolitan Philaret during the reign of Alexander I were great and fruitful; but with even greater zeal and zeal and with more beneficial consequences for the interests of the Orthodox Church, he labored in this field during the reign of Emperor Nicholas. Without exaggeration, we can say that at this time and in this respect, the majestic personality of Metropolitan Philaret, thanks to the previously acquired and now increasing authority every year, is first in importance after Emperor Nicholas, great in intelligence and energy. His voice regarding the schism, which at that time, mainly thanks to him, became the subject of intense attention and concern on the part of the government and the church, was now listened to equally attentively by both the highest civilians, with the emperor himself at the head, and the highest clergy, not excluding members of the Holy Synod. With the accession of Emperor Nicholas to the throne, the government's view of the schism changed significantly. Under the undoubted influence of the above views and actions of the secret committee, which determined the actual state of affairs regarding the schism, and thanks to the personal character of Emperor Nicholas himself, the government now begins to see in the schism not only an anti-church element, not only “church rebels,” but also an anti-state, anti-social element, “secret rebels in general.” In accordance with such a change in opinion, a corresponding change is noticeably taking place in the government’s attitude towards the split. The restrictive anti-schismatic decrees of the government are no longer accidental. fragmentary in nature, but they represent a harmonious, strong, persistent system, the ultimate goal of which is not a simple cessation by police measures of only known manifestations of schism that are illegal from the police point of view, but a complete gradual weakening of it as an evil of the church and state, through the cessation of the possibility for schismatics to lure Orthodox people into their networks. In these types, the gradual destruction of places of public schismatic worship, the same reduction in the number of those performing it, general strict supervision of everything that happens in the schism through a whole network of secret committees and a number of other institutions, and similar measures are being persistently undertaken. In all this we see the immediate and active participation of Metropolitan Philaret. To be convinced of this, it is enough to compare the opinions expressed by Metropolitan Philaret regarding measures against the schism and the very measures issued by the government at that time. Thus, first of all, the “thoughts and assumptions about means to reduce schisms” expressed by Metropolitan Philaret 181 apparently were accepted by the government as the starting point for many actions regarding schismatics. Fully agreeing with his arguments that “the soil on which schismatic public institutions are planted, strengthened and grow, which then serve to maintain and spread schism in private individuals, constitutes public schismatic property” and that such a phenomenon, which arose only “with the illegal permission of subordinate government officials and authorities,” is completely “not in accordance with the spirit of state laws,” since “the church of the dominant religion cannot otherwise acquire real estate, as with a special, each time, Highest permission”, and even more so a schismatic society, “which itself is not recognized by law,” - the government exactly fulfills the rules it has developed on this subject: a) so that “institutions, although known as schismatic, but Highly permitted as charitable institutions, for example, the Rogozhsky and Preobrazhensky almshouses in Moscow, are left as public charitable institutions in their own locality”; b) but do not recognize real estate that turns out to belong to them outside their locality as illegally acquired, and therefore sell it within a reasonable time, and provide money in favor of the establishments under whose name the illegal property turns out to be; c) so that the houses of worship that existed before 1826 and were left tolerant by the Highest command of that year should be left in their previous position; d) but residential buildings assigned to schismatic prayer houses should be converted into private property, either by returning them to the persons from whom they came to the schismatic society, or by selling them in favor of some schismatic almshouse of the same society, if there is one approved by the government, and otherwise - in favor of the order of public charity 182 . The government of Emperor Nicholas accepted with equal attention the idea of ​​Metropolitan Philaret, which was very important in the matter of weakening the schism, that “among the general measures of not strengthened, but prudent counteraction to schisms, one can include the rule so that people who are strong among schismatics are no longer strengthened by satisfying their ambition.” “The honor and some power of rich and clever schismatics in their society,” he argued, “is an advantage that they are very sorry to part with if they join the church. This advantage increases when they achieve civil distinction. Through this, their ambition is suddenly doubled: by acquiring significance in the civil circle in general, and at the same time by increasing their honor in the special circle of the sect. A lenient government, sometimes adorning schismatics more out of favor than out of demand for merit, quietly creates supports for the schism. Therefore, it is necessary: ​​a) that members of more harmful sects should not have the right to social distinctions at all, and b) that members of less harmful sects should not be adorned with honorary titles and distinctions in those cases where this is not strictly required by excellent merit or a generally useful feat” 183. The classification of schismatic sects, later compiled by Metropolitan Philaret, according to the degree of their harm into “most harmful” 184, “harmful” 185 and “less harmful” 186 equally had a very significant and important influence on the government’s legislative and administrative measures against schism. And that now the Beglopopovschina schism, for example, is no longer fully equated with the non-popovshchina sects that reject marriage and do not pray for the tsar, and even more so with such as the Molokans, Doukhobors, etc., who even enjoyed some kind of patronage during the reign of Alexander I 187, in this case the government obviously followed the advice of the same Metropolitan Philaret, who wrote: although “the state splits at the present time" and "requires special attention from the government; but if this attention were equally strongly focused on all types of schisms, with the search and use of decisive taming measures, then a burdensome multitude and variety of affairs and orders could be revealed with which attention could be distracted, and from this it could follow that not all the measures taken would be sustained. But measures taken and not followed are often more harmful than if they had not been taken at all. Therefore, the attention of the government between different types of schisms and sects must be divided according to current circumstances in the following way: a) so that for schisms that are less harmful, we continue to have vigilant supervision against their strengthening, and to weaken them, we act with relentless observation of the rules adopted until now, b) but so that against sects that are more harmful and dangerous for the public good and tranquility, more effective measures, legislative and administrative, are taken than before” 188 . Further, Metropolitan Philaret gave and Supremely approved opinions: about schismatic schools or, more precisely, about their extreme harm for the Orthodox Church 189, about the benefits of bringing schismatics to a purifying and official oath in Orthodox or Edinoverie churches and about the need to send them to monasteries under penance according to sentences of civil courts for equalization of rights with the Orthodox 190, about measures to reduce the production of cases about schismatics in the Tambov province through the release of cases of less important and older ones 191, about schismatic “chapels” and “houses of prayer”, as the most decent official names of buildings in which schismatics conduct their worship 192, about the need and rules for admonishing schismatics in the Arkhangelsk province 193. Finally, the opinions of Metropolitan Philaret about the extreme harm of establishing in Moscow, next to the Edinoverie, another similar printing house under the supervision of the Riga philistine-schismatic Logginov 194, about the benefits of applying the laws on metrics to schismatics, and in particular to the schismatics of the Orenburg Cossack army, on an equal basis with the Orthodox, in order to make their conversion more convenient 195, about the difficulty, not special need and dubious benefit of the overly broad undertaking of the Ministry of Internal Affairs regarding the collection of detailed information about schismatics from all archives and through all diocesan bishops 196, about the indifferent form of crosses on churches from the Orthodox point of view 197, about the procedure for burying deceased schismatics 198, about the obvious inexpediency of the project of Polotsk Bishop Vasily regarding the establishment spiritual-civil committee for managing schismatics 199 and the same inconsistency of another project proposed through Chief Prosecutor Count Protasov, regarding the successful conversion of schismatics through some concessions and relaxations to them 200 - these opinions of Metropolitan Philaret, although they did not receive general administrative significance, like the above, however, undoubtedly had a certain significance in appropriate places and cases. So many questions, and important questions, regarding the schism were resolved by Metropolitan Philaret during the reign of Emperor Nicholas! Just by their number alone one can judge the degree of his influence on the general nature of the government’s relations with the schismatics during this time. The opinions of Metropolitan Philaret were more decisive in the government’s attitude towards the clerical schism. Four major phenomena in the schismatic clerical world should be noted during the reign of Emperor Nicholas, which mainly the government had to take into account: at the beginning 1) the strong development of fugitive priesthood, thanks to the rules of 1822, then 2) after a significant weakening of this evil, the appearance of numerous and persistent attempts on the part of schismatics to have priests independent of the church and 3) the emergence of the Austrian priesthood. It goes without saying that all these phenomena did not go unnoticed by Metropolitan Philaret: his ardent zeal for Orthodoxy and sincere devotion to the interests of the state prompted him here, as elsewhere in similar cases, to express his authoritative opinion. 1) Above we saw in what an advantageous position the priestly schism found itself after the publication of the rules of 1822, how quickly it spread thanks to these rules, and how soon the government itself, in the person of the secret committee, clearly realized the need to limit them. The sad consequences of the rules of 1822 continued even now. Just as the escape of priests, so at the same time “schismatic proselytism” intensified from year to year. In 1826, at the Rogozhskoye cemetery, according to Metropolitan Philaret, there were 9 priests and 2 deacons known to the authorities, “but, in all likelihood,” he says, “there were others unknown to the authorities, because schismatics came here from other places to buy priests” 201. There were, of course, not a few of them in other centers of the priestly schism, especially in Irgiz, judging by the number of escape cases carried out at that time 202. What was the main reason for such a sad phenomenon can be concluded from the statement of the Bishop of Kaluga, who in 1836 represented St. Synod that in his diocese, out of 20 priests who fled to the schismatics over the last decade, 15 were subject to trial “for actions inappropriate to their clergy and were sentenced to a worthy punishment” 203. Thus, impunity for crimes committed, with the existence of the rules of 1822, was the main reason for the strong development of fugitive priesthood. From this it is clear what a demoralizing influence it was supposed to have and did have on the entire Orthodox clergy and how necessary a strict and precise explanation was needed for the strange bewilderment generated by the rules of 1822. This task was carried out by Metropolitan Philaret. From the very first years of the reign of Emperor Nicholas, when the new government’s attitude towards the schismatics had not yet been determined, M. Filaret began to ardently advocate for the need to limit fugitive priesthood, depicting in bright colors its harm to the Orthodox Church. Thus, when at the end of 1826, at the end of 1826, discussions began in the Holy Synod, according to the Highest command, “about remedies against the shortage of worthy priests,” in an extensive opinion on this issue, he did not fail to touch upon the rules of 1822, as one of the important reasons for the noticed shortage. “The sixth reason that increases the lack of worthy priests,” he wrote, “is the slowness and weakness of judicial and corrective measures for the unworthy... Unworthy priests have a sure means of complete impunity in escaping to the schismatics at the very time when the diocesan authorities want to use corrective measures against them. For example, in the Moscow region, the village of Vladykina, priest Fyodor Borisov, one of the unlearned, was put on trial for drunkenness in June 1825; in September of the same year, giving up the hope of covering up his guilt, he fled to Starodub, as it became known in October of the same year from the relations of the Starodub police chief; but the demands of the consistory that the fugitive priest be sent to complete his trial remained in vain. Thus, the unworthy priest, by escaping to the schismatics, acquired impunity, a kind of independence, and worldly benefits, no doubt incomparably greater than those he enjoyed under the authority of his legitimate spiritual superiors; and this leadership, by making an effort to correct the unworthy, only brought benefits to the schismatics.” “It is worth the trouble to think,” Metropolitan Philaret wrote in conclusion, “about the consequences of such an allowance,” and for his part, “in disgust” of this “tempting impunity,” he proposed: “to decree that a priest who, during an investigation or trial on any matter, defects to the schismatics, will certainly be returned to the spiritual authorities to finish the trial and deal with him according to the laws.” 204. The authoritative voice of the famous Moscow archpastor was heard; his protest did not go without consequences. Not later than the next year, the head of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, in order to strictly implement the rules of 1822, proposed to the Holy Synod to clarify “what exactly crimes in relation to fugitive priests should be considered criminal” in order to accordingly send them to trial at the request of the diocesan authorities 205. This attitude of the ministry gave Metropolitan Philaret a new reason to express even more thoroughly and decisively, on the basis of “church rules and state laws,” his view both on the obvious harm of the rules of 1822, as well as on the complete incongruity of fugitive priesthood in general. Having repeated and proved in the presented opinion the benefit and fairness of his previously proposed idea about the need to return all fugitive priests, if only before escaping they were “under investigation, or trial, or penance for any crime,” not to mention “the gravest public and private crimes,” church rebellion, retreat into schism, theft and waste of church property, Metropolitan Philaret now urgently demanded on behalf of the Holy Synod that and the very fact of escape, regardless of the earlier commission of crimes, was not allowed by the government, as it did not agree with church decrees and Spiritual Regulations. “The Holy Synod,” he wrote, “as a place entrusted with the protection of the inviolability of sacred rules and church deanery, cannot fail to recognize the very escape of a priest from his place and position to the schismatics for a grave crime, requiring unforgivable justice according to the following respects: a) 15th Canon of Saints The Apostle shall subject a presbyter, or deacon, or cleric who willfully left his place and does not return at the request of the bishop, to be deposed. The same is confirmed by: Canon 3 of the Council of Antioch. Sardician - 20th and Seventh Ecumenical - 10th. b) because, on the basis of the Spiritual Regulations (add. point 5), the priest, in the oath pronounced before being appointed to this rank, by the way, undertakes to reprove schismatics by the word of God and the saints of the Father's Scriptures with the spirit of meekness and lead them to conversion and union with the church, about those who are not corrected and persist in their stubbornness, especially about libertines and others who distract from the union of the church, where they must, in writing and verbally, be represented: then a priest who runs away from the church himself to the schismatics, is a clear violator of the same oath in which he owes allegiance to His Imperial Majesty; and therefore, as much as it is necessary to preserve the sanctity of the church and state oath, both for the sake of the highest holiness of the name of God, which one swears, and for the sake of the security of all social ties, it is equally necessary to ensure that such an oathbreaker is not shielded from justice by any relaxation. This perjury of the fugitive priests is further increased by the fact that, joining the schismatics, they give them the opposite oath, in which the teachings and rituals of the Orthodox Church are called heretical wickedness, and even some civil customs accepted by the government are cursed” 206. The opinion of Metropolitan Philaret was approved by the Holy Synod, and thus acquired the significance of the voice of the entire Russian Church - through his lips the Russian Church in 1827 decisively and formally condemned not only the extremely unsuccessful, although at first glance innocently plausible, rules of 1822, which in a short time managed to bring the Orthodox Church difficult to repair harm, but also a strange, sesquicentennial bewilderment in the form fugitive priesthood, for some reason previously tolerated by the church and government as some kind of inevitable evil, contrary to clear decrees and statutes of church and civil. In view of the relationship established by Metropolitan Philaret with the church authorities to the rules of 1822 and the priesthood in general, the civil government had to change its relationship to them. This was done by issuing a whole series of restrictive measures in a new direction, which in the end should have led to a complete cessation of both the rules of 1822 and the fugitive priesthood. This is how it was decided: schismatic priests should not be allowed to move from one district to another 207; in the same way, “the schismatics should not at all be allowed to accept new fugitive priests 208; when news of those who have fled again comes to the attention of the government, then return them to the dioceses, at the disposal of the diocesan bishops 209; do not allow schismatic priests coming from other places to stay in Moscow for any reason, and even less allow them to correct the requirements, and temporarily stay at the Rogozhsky Cemetery 210; entrust it to the heads of the provinces so that, having received information about a priest who has again fled to the schismatics, they find him, establish police surveillance over him, report to the Ministry of Internal Affairs 211, and if such a priest expresses a desire to appear before his superiors with repentance, provide all possible assistance for the fulfillment of this intention 212; prohibit schismatics from carrying out the so-called correction of fugitive priests who come to them 213; finally, fugitive deacons are immediately sent on guard to their bishops to deal with them according to the laws 214. The listed measures, in their totality, even without particularly strict implementation on the part of the subject authorities, had their effect and produced the so-called “impoverishment of the fleeing priesthood” throughout the Beglopopovshchina schism, not even excluding its metropolises - Irgiz and Rogozhsky Cemetery. After the order to not carry out corrections of the fugitive priests, the Irgiz monasteries, in which this correction was carried out and which sent corrected priests to almost all of Russia 215, lost their central importance for schismatics, and were soon completely closed and converted to co-religionists. At the Rogozhsky Cemetery, by the end of the reign of Emperor Nicholas, only two fugitive priests remained from those allowed - Ivan Matveev Yastrebov and Pyotr Ermilov Rusanov 216, and from November (21st) 1864, after the latter joined the Edinoverie 217, fugitive priesthood disappeared completely here too, so that the divine service itself ceased 218. 2) The schismatics could not forget about their golden age, when they did what they wanted and had so many priests that they could even make a choice from them. They did not meet the new strict orders without opposition, thanks to which a whole series of difficult difficulties arose for them in satisfying their religious needs 219 . They vigorously and persistently began to work for the restoration of the rules of 1822 regarding the permission to have priests independent of the Orthodox Church. The Ekaterinburg and Rogozh schismatics were particularly persistent in such harassment, submitting request after request to the government with various modifications of the conditions under which they asked permission to accept priests from the Great Russian Church: the requests were left unheeded. Sometimes, however, their harassment was so thinly covered up by a plausible guise and at the same time they had such strong intercessors from among civil high-ranking officials that the government noticeably wavered in its intention to accurately implement all the above measures, and only again the authoritative voice of Metropolitan Philaret contributed to resolving the matter not in the interests of the schismatics, but in the interests of the Orthodox Church. The first petition from the Ekaterinburg schismatics for permission to receive priests from the Great Russian Church was submitted by their once famous foreman Yakim Merkuryevich Ryazanov 220 on behalf of 81,000 souls at the end of November 1828, when, thanks to the call by the diocesan authorities of the three fugitive priests who were with them in Ekaterinburg, they became strongly need for clergy and when the same shortage began to be strongly felt “in St. Petersburg, in Kazan, in the Irginsky and Yugovsky factories, and even in many other places” 221, which is why it was also not easy to get runaway priests from outside 222. In nature and content, the request of the Ekaterinburg schismatics under consideration was a repetition of those requests that, on behalf of the entire society, the same Ryazanov submitted during the reign of Alexander I to A. N. Golitsyn (January 31, 1818), who managed the police ministry, Count Vyazmitinov (January 31 and May 16, 1819) and Ministry of Internal Affairs to Count Kochubey (Sept. 30. 1821), and the essence of which was most clearly stated by the schismatics at the “general council” in the so-called additional rules of April 30, 1818 223. They specifically petitioned the government: for permission for Old Believer priests to swear in Old Believers, for permission to repair old churches and chapels and build new ones, for the establishment of an Old Believer office (or spiritual board) in Yekaterinburg from elected trustees, which, among other things, would provide written permission to the priests for their travels, etc.; finally, about not bringing to trial the priests who belong to the Old Believers. The answer to this petition was given by Metropolitan Philaret together with Metropolitan Seraphim of St. Petersburg and Philaret, Archbishop of Ryazan, who, without a doubt, only fully approved and signed what was stated by the Moscow archpastor 224. Having first of all drawn attention to the enormous number of schismatics, scattered, moreover, in three provinces (Perm, Tobolsk, Orenburg), for whose representative Yakim Ryazanov pretended to be, Metropolitan Filaret, by a number of considerations and by comparing the testimony of Ryazanov himself, proved that such a number was completely fictitious, that Ryazanov “at random” put up “large numbers of people in order to present his imaginary embassy more important." “If we take into consideration the space of places and the education of the people,” he wrote in passing, “then it seems impossible that 81,000 souls from three provinces could freely and truly enter into a discussion about one subject and agree on one opinion. Where were the meetings? How were the votes collected? When and by whom was the decisive position concluded? If anything here can be assumed to be true, then perhaps it is the correspondence of a few leaders of the schism, who attributed their opinion to thousands of people” 225. Then, if the number of schismatics put forward by Ryazanov were real, and this, in the opinion of Metropolitan Philaret, should not embarrass the government in its intention to strictly implement its decrees, on the contrary, it should prompt it to suppress abuse, for such phenomena as “a gathering of several tens of thousands of people” from different provinces are inconsistent with the laws of the Russian state and cannot be tolerated by them without the use of precautionary measures. Likewise, the very “demand of Ryazanov and his like-minded people, who signed the Yekaterinburg verdict, that they be officially given priests, independent of the spiritual authorities, is as much contrary to church rules as it is to state regulations: for, in this case, the priests and their service would be handed over to the self-appointed leaders of the schismatics” 226. 227 from the obstacles posed by the efforts of the Ekaterinburg schismatics, the following precautions are necessary: a) Ryazanov, for the fact that the confidant of the common opinion of 81,000 souls presents himself unreasonably and falsely, the confidant of the schismatics should not be recognized at all and not allowed to have any relations in this capacity with the leaders, except in one case, if he decided to ask to join the church on the rules of the same faith, or and unconditionally; b) if another person appeared as a common attorney from schismatics in different places, and even more so in different provinces, do not recognize him in this character and do not enter into relations with him; c) secretly instill in the schismatic elders of Yekaterinburg that they, taking advantage of the gentle tolerance that the government shows them, should not at all increase their influence, enslave the opinions of the simple-minded people and rebel against government measures with such opposition as appears in their district letter 228, for fear of responsibility for disturbing public peace; d) secretly convey to the missionaries the idea that they would inspire schismatics to talk about faith freely and accept the knowable truth without fear from the Ekaterinburg schismatic leaders, whose illegal efforts cannot be approved by the legal authorities 229. Due to this opinion, submitted by three archpastors, the first attempt of the Ekaterinburg schismatics to preserve the integrity of their fugitive priests failed. But failure did not deter them, especially Ryazanov, from further harassment of the same kind. Having returned from St. Petersburg in 1829 and, due to disagreements that arose with society, relinquishing the title of foreman and trustee 230, after this, for many years, he remained the leader and intercessor of the Ekaterinburg schismatics in the case of the fugitive priests. So, in 1837, together with four other wealthy Old Believers, who were later joined by thirteen more people, he submitted a petition to the chief head of the mining factories, General Glinka, in which he offered him a “new way” for the Old Believers to receive priests, which consisted of the following: a) grant local Old Believers the right to choose priests and deacons from all dioceses; b) about who will be elected, the mountain commander will take information from the diocesan bishops and allow his acceptance; c) under the supervision of the mountain chief and consist of selected priests and deacons; d) the spiritual authorities receive information about the metrics of Old Believer priests also from the mountain chief; e) allow schismatics to send away priests and deacons who, due to their actions, will prove unnecessary to them; finally, f) to be exclusively under the patronage of the mountain chief, following the example of civil governors 231. Lieutenant General Glinka not only accepted the project proposed by Ryazanov favorably, but, presenting it to the government, added his own petition, written in strong and energetic terms 232. Asking the government to satisfy the schismatics, he made it clear that this project of theirs would undoubtedly have only temporary significance, and that little by little the schismatics would get used to the main (?) clergy 233 , that the situation of the large population, which does not have a clergy to correct the needs, is truly disastrous, that, finally, the management of the factories itself suffers a lot from differences of faith, giving rise to mutual quarrels and litigation 234 . Ryazanov’s new harassment and the presentation of General Glinka, which supported it, were also subject to consideration by Metropolitan Philaret. In his opinion, dated February 23, 1838, he completely exposed the innermost aspirations of the Yekaterinburg Old Believers and with extraordinary clarity showed the incongruity and maliciousness of the “amazing courage” of the “extensive and unprecedented” claims of the Yekaterinburg leaders “to choose priests from all Russian dioceses.” “It is clearly visible,” he wrote, “their intention to remain as before in the form of a society separate from the church, and consequently to continue to be at enmity against the church and, if possible, to alienate the Orthodox from it,” which rejection, without a doubt, should intensify even more, “when their priesthood receives the appearance of legitimacy before the civil authorities” (1 point). He found that the schismatics demanded not only the restoration of the secret rules of 1822, but also much more, “for before they secretly took those who apostatized from the church into schism, but now they want to take the same priests openly and formally; Previously, depending on the type of need, only priests were tolerant with them, but now they ask for deacons too” (9 pk.); and such an increase in lawlessness, in turn, should naturally lead to a greater disorder of church discipline than what occurred thanks to the rules of 1822 (3 pk.), and to an open violation of church rules (15 apostles and 3 Antioch. Sob.), prohibiting a priest from removing himself from the authority of his bishop (4 pk.). Finally, fulfilling the demands of the Ekaterinburg schismatics, according to Metropolitan Philaret, should inevitably lead to many different and intractable “inconsistencies” in the matter of control over the actions of the priests they have, for example, when they perform marriages, etc. (5 pcs.), to an increase in the own arbitrariness of the schismatic leaders, who apparently want to be categorical connoisseurs of their priests (6 pcs.), to the ambiguous position of the priests themselves, especially in view of the obligatory demand from them by the schismatics of an outrageous correction, containing the condemnation of the Orthodox under the name of heretics - Nikonians (7 pcs.), and to the direct humiliation of the Orthodox Church, from which the best and most desirable will be taken, a unwanted and “unsuitable” to return back (8 pcs.). “It is regrettable to see,” Metropolitan Philaret wrote in conclusion, “how boldly the schismatics count on the lack of discernment of their superiors. They know that the government's goal is to bring them closer to the Orthodox hierarchy. They don't want this; but you have to pretend that they are not completely against it. For this purpose, they inserted an insincere article into their rules that the secular boss can give information to the spiritual authorities about schismatic metrics and about the priests coming to them and leaving them, and they think that they will deceive with this specter of rapprochement, while they do not concede to the spiritual authorities either a trial, or supervision over their priests, or even the right to call and ask a priest about what may be needed in matters. From all these considerations it follows that, both to preserve the good and tranquility of the Orthodox Church, and equally to preserve the good and tranquility of the state, the articles proposed by the dissenters must be instilled in them so that they will refrain from ideas that are so incompatible with legal order and improvement” 235. The suggestion actually came from the side of the Supreme Authority, which decided: the stated reasoning of Metropolitan Philaret should be communicated through the chief manager of the corps of mining engineers to the chief head of the mining plants of the Ural ridge, “so that he could see all the twists and turns of the schismatics and, in accordance with this, would personally give the petitioners the suggestion that their request, as it has been repeatedly rejected, cannot even now satisfied. Then oblige the petitioners to sign so that in the future they will not dare to bother the authorities with such cunning requests” 236. The decisive refusal of the government, in connection with other restrictive and educational measures taken by it to convert the Perm schismatics 237, had a sobering effect on many of them, with Ryazanov himself at the head, the consequence of which was their joining the Orthodox Church on the rules of the same faith. But even after all this, some of the dissenters did not stop their harassment, choosing a more plausible form to achieve their goals. At the beginning of 1843, the chief prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count Protasov, was presented with a request from them with new conditions for accepting priests from the diocesan authorities, signed by “honorary citizen Ryazanov” 238 with ten other influential schismatics. The new conditions on the part of the schismatics, as far as can be seen from the analysis of them by Metropolitan Philaret, were as follows: a) to allow the schismatics to choose priests from all dioceses so that b) the elected priests “were not forced to perform divine services that contradict the literal meaning of the old printed books” and did not unite for prayer with either the Orthodox or the Edinoverie, and also c) that the bishops had by Old Believer priests “not as if they had joined,” and that neither the priests nor the Old Believers were forced to accept a blessing from the bishop, but were left in this case to their conscience; finally, e) so that the priest subjected to penance performs it in an Old Believer church. The given conditions concerned the priests themselves; for themselves, or, more precisely, for schismatics in general, the drafters of the new conditions asked that a) they be “retained the name of the Old Believers” with the addition of the expression “subordinate to the diocesan department”, b) that “they be allowed to use the ancient holy myrrh that the Old Believers have, without any inquiry about it”, so that d) they be given the right to refuse a priest they do not like “for any reason” and send him to the bishop with the assignment of half his salary, e) leave the church and church income to the jurisdiction of the church elders-Old Believers. Count Protasov handed over the new project of the Yekaterinburg Old Believers to Metropolitan Philaret for conclusion, and the archpastor, in a response letter to the Chief Prosecutor dated March 5, 1843, clearly exposed this seemingly plausible project as completely inconsistent with unity with the Orthodox Church. Noting here the previous clear desire of the Yekaterinburg Old Believers to stay away from the church and pointing out the inconsistency with common sense and church rules of the demands they proposed, especially the request to use their world 239, Metropolitan Philaret in conclusion described this new “cunning” solicitation with the following features: “Everything shows that the drafters of the conditions wove a network in which one could be caught and attract the priests to themselves, but did not at all think of approaching the church. They want to preserve the schism by giving it the honorable name that the law took from them. Under the name of the Old Believers, they want to strengthen and legitimize the ugliest news - a schismatic republic within the Orthodox Church. It is unclear what the intermediary is looking for and hoping for 240. In his eyes, the unity of the Ekaterinburg Church, with many feats and patience of the priesthood and hierarchy, is preserved in the sight of three divisions: 1) Orthodox, 2) old co-religionists and 3) Ryazanov’s co-religionists, who do not communicate with the old co-religionists. Does he want another fourth section? Or does he want to further remove his new coreligionists from the church and turn them into newly invented Old Believers? It remains for me to conclude briefly that the proposed conditions, in my opinion, are inconvenient and dangerous” 241. After such a response from Metropolitan Philaret, a new request from the Yekaterinburg Old Believers, as one would expect, was also left without any consequences. In addition to the Ekaterinburg schismatics, the Moscow schismatics, or, more precisely, the Rogozh schismatics, were intensely concerned about priests independent from the Orthodox Church. In their external form, the petitions of the latter were not as “clever” and complex as the petitions of the former. The Rogozh schismatics constantly, with the most insignificant variations, simply and directly asked “to complete the many” to them “mercies and condescension”, “to be worthy of receiving the Highest permission to allow them to continue to receive the sacraments of priests and deacons, according to the rules Most Highly set forth on the 26th day of March 1822 and on the 15th day of September 1826, most mercifully approved" 242. Their harassment was more persistent and longer, and they also had strong intercessors. Therefore, especially because they directly concerned Metropolitan Philaret’s own flock, they provoked even more decisive protest on his part and even stronger arguments regarding the impossibility of their fulfillment. The Rogozh schismatics, like those of Yekaterinburg, began to feel the “deplorable situation for the soul” due to the lack of priests very early. Already in the very year of the publication of the decree, which prohibited the admission of new priests to the Rogozhsky Cemetery (1827), of the nine fugitive priests who had previously been beaten here, due to “death and other circumstances,” only five remained, “which number, according to the number of parishioners of the Rogozhsky Cemetery in Moscow,” the schismatics themselves declared, was “very insufficient.” Seeing this in the present and “thinking with grief” about “disorders” in the future, the more influential schismatics in the same year “had the courage to lay at the feet of the great Sovereign Emperor an all-subject petition” for the restoration of the rules of 1822. To the request, as one would expect, no answer was given. Then, in 1831, the Rogozh schismatics submitted a new petition, but this time to the Minister of Internal Affairs Novosiltsev, and only “for the acceptance of a supernumerary priest who had been dismissed from his superiors... who had voluntarily agreed to reside at the Moscow Old Believer Rogozhskoe Cemetery and perform divine services and Christian sacraments. according to ancient printed books." In response to this request, through the Moscow Governor-General, Prince D.V. Golitsyn, the highest request was made: would the submitters of the request wish to accept the priest, “as correctly dismissed by the spiritual authorities, according to the rules of the churches of the same faith?” And when there was a refusal on their part, their request was followed by a refusal on the part of the government. Finally, as recently as January of the following 1832, at the Rogozhsky Cemetery, a whole council was assembled from representatives of the priestly schism from Vetka, from Starodubye, Irgiz, Kerzhenets, the Volga region and other cities for a general meeting on means to avert difficulties regarding the acquisition of fugitive priests: it was decided to again ask the government to restore the rules of 1822 through its closest boss, the Moscow Governor-General, and at the same time attract the St. Petersburg Old Believers to participate in this matter, so that they, for their part, will intercede for all the Old Believers. But neither the extensive and eloquently written petition of the Moscow schismatics to Prince Golitsin, submitted by them on May 31, nor the “going on business” in St. Petersburg to various high-ranking persons, even up to and including Count Benckendorf, who enjoyed the special favor of Emperor Nicholas, led to nothing: the government this time too remained adamant 243 . So unsuccessful were the first attempts of the Rogozh leaders. We mentioned these attempts more in order to see how frequent and persistent they were; It is quite difficult to determine whether Metropolitan Philaret had any influence on the stated course of the case, and if so, what kind of influence it was, due to the lack of information. That the failure of the first two petitions depended directly on the Highest will is certain; and taking into account the friendly relations of Metropolitan Philaret to Prince Golitsyn, at the mutual consultation of which, for example, a Moscow secret advisory committee on schismatic matters was opened 244, one can think that the last of these requests of the Moscow schismatics was left unattended also at the mutual conference of Prince Golitsyn with Metropolitan Philaret. Metropolitan Philaret became an open and energetic opponent of satisfying the harassment of the Rogozh schismatics only in 1848, when in the Moscow secret advisory committee on the affairs of schismatics, at the suggestion of the St. Petersburg committee, the question was discussed: what measures would be more convenient, according to local circumstances, for bringing the Rogozh schismatics closer to the Orthodox Church and teaching them spiritual needs in the event of the departure of those from them priests? - and when Adjutant General Count Zakrevsky, who had recently been appointed to the post of Moscow Governor-General, came out with all his might to defend schismatic interests, with whom Metropolitan Philaret, during his joint service in Moscow, in his own apt expression, although he “saw often, but spoke only through St. Petersburg” 245, especially on schismatic matters. A sharp difference in the views of Metropolitan Philaret and Count Zakrevsky was revealed at the very first meeting of the committee, when discussing this issue (March 29, 1848). Having depicted in bright colors the flourishing state of the Moscow schism, thanks to the illegal emergence and prosperity of its main centers - the Rogozhsky and Preobrazhensky Cemeteries, pointing to “a special type of independence that, since the last quarter of the last century, the Moscow schism was able to give itself and continues to preserve,” and finally, to the special inaccessibility of Moscow schismatics to the admonishing action of the clergy due to this independence and their “arrogance,” Moskovsky The Metropolitan believed, for his part, that under such local circumstances, “in order to bring the Rogozh schismatics closer to the Orthodox Church, the first measures should be sought to shake in them the idea of such independence and inviolability of their society, which allows them to carelessly evade the execution of laws and act in violation of them with the hope of impunity.” Then, in order to test the sincere, impartial desire of the Moscow schismatics to know the truth of God, he suggested to the committee, among other things, “to call for an experiment who was at the Rogozhsky Cemetery, then joined the Orthodox Church and served with the co-religionists of the Chernigov diocese, priest Alexander Arsenyev, who, from his previous service at the Rogozhsky Cemetery, had many significant schismatics as spiritual children and enjoyed their respect, and therefore can hopefully act to bring them closer to the Orthodox Church.” After this, moving on to the second half of the question proposed by the St. Petersburg committee - about how to give Moscow schismatics the opportunity to fulfill spiritual requirements in the event of the departure of fugitive priests from them, Metropolitan Philaret first of all noted some strangeness of the very origin of such care. “It would not suddenly seem necessary and appropriate,” he wrote, “to explore the idea of ​​weakening the power of the law, through leniency, in favor of schismatics, if this idea had not already been put in mind as possible and, out of necessity, permissible for execution. For a hundred and fifty years there was a schism, and the government did not take upon itself any concern about whether the schismatics were conveniently using the performance of Christian services. Those who have deviated from the lawfully established path do not have the right to entrust anyone but themselves with the responsibility of whether they can travel safely.” As for the restoration of the rules of 1822, or, what is the same, allowing schismatics to have priests independent from the church, as, indeed, the only possible way to resolve the difficulty, which, one must assume, was proposed either by the St. Petersburg committee or by Count Zakrevsky, Metropolitan Philaret did not find it “neither correct, nor convenient, nor useful.” Allowing schismatics to have priests independent of the church, he wrote again, cannot be considered correct in view of clear church decrees prohibiting a priest from acting independently of the bishop, and from anyone, and also, of course, from a priest, from praying with those who have been excommunicated under threat of excommunication; and even more so those who in the so-called correction prohibit blasphemy against the Orthodox Church, which correction will undoubtedly be carried out by schismatics, despite all the prohibitions of the government and their own promises, since “the sect is not completely honest and thinks that its not quite free position excuses the use of wickedness in its defense, while a priest who perjures himself before the church will easily calm the conscience of a layman who has betrayed his word of honor before the government with permission.” In the same way, the admission of priests independent of the hierarchy to schismatics cannot be recognized as correct, or, more precisely, fair even if we look at this matter even from such a point of view that in matters of faith and conscience, all coercion must be eliminated, for “schismatics have their own wrong faith and sinful conscience, and the government with the entire church and Russia has its own right faith and conscience.” Therefore, if “it is necessary to spare, if possible, the wrong conscience of schismatics,” then “incomparably higher is the duty not to disturb the conscience of the entire Orthodox Church and Russia by allowing priests to change churches and fall away from the lawful conscience.” The restrictive policy used since 1826 in relation to Beglopopovshchina may seem constraining, “if you look only at its relationship to schismatics; and if you look at her relationship to the laws, then she should be called lenient.” “For example, a fugitive priest is prohibited from moving from province to province and from county to county. There is no oppression here, because the action of the legitimate priest is limited, even within narrower limits; and even this is more than lenient, because, according to the law, a fugitive priest, like any other fugitive, should be immediately caught and sent to trial, but he is left calm in the wide field of the whole district.” Metropolitan Philaret now wrote again about the incorrectness and injustice of the rules of 1822, the restoration of which some government officials apparently wanted. He pointed out various, difficult to overcome church and civil inconveniences that should arise by themselves during their restoration. “For example, according to church rules,” he wrote, “a priest has the right to perform the sacrament of marriage; The power to terminate the effect of this sacrament, that is, to dissolve a marriage, belongs to the highest hierarchical degree of the bishop.” “Let us assume that a priest independent of the bishop is given to schismatics and that a parishioner comes to him for a legitimate reason to ask for a divorce. What will the priest do? This question is insoluble. It would be in no way reasonable to give a schismatic priest episcopal power, and even more episcopal, because the bishop will not decide on the dissolution of a marriage on his own, but asks for synodal permission... Let us assume that the schismatics return the priest who was theirs to the diocesan authorities, recognizing him as unfit. How will the diocesan authorities judge him? Without research, relying on the accusatory report of schismatics would be illegal, and the research that, according to the law, should be carried out by the spiritual authorities is impossible in a circle of schismatics inaccessible to him. It may happen that schismatics, for their suggestions that incline towards Orthodoxy, will form a crowd to slander and accuse the priest, and will make the diocesan authorities an instrument of their vengeance.” “Church inconveniences and difficulties,” he continued, “inevitably entail difficulties on the part of the civil government, for “sound policy cannot demand that which cannot be allowed without violating church rules, which would create confusion and contradictions in legislation and administration”; nor can a sound policy, having recognized the Orthodox Church as the dominant religion, “give the schism the right to recruit priests from the Orthodox, and make Orthodox bishops not bosses, but only suppliers of priests to schismatics and then executors of punishments over priests whom schismatics recognize as worthy of condemnation.” Finally, Metropolitan Philaret directly declared the restoration of the rules of 1822 not only useless, but also harmful. It is useless, because it is not able to cause disturbances in a schismatic society through the “ignorant and damaged clergy” in the person of fugitive priests, as some people hope; in the same way, the “impoverishment” of fugitive priesthood cannot contribute to the transition of Moscow schismatics from priesthood to non-priesthood, as many again think, presenting this idea “like a monster.” The disruption of a schismatic society through “unworthy and disreputable” priests cannot be expected because “former experiences do not speak in favor of this hope,” and the schismatics, despite “the proven dishonesty and forgery in the sanctuary,” stubbornly remained in schism. Moreover, with a noticeable increase in the number of educated priests, they too may become fugitives in the future, for “troubles in the false brethren can also happen among the educated, who, having defected to the schismatics, can restore the schismatic literature that arose before, but is now in decline, and thereby give the schism a new life.” “But if there was a hope,” he continues, “by allowing unworthy and disreputable priests among the schismatics to result in the disorder of their society, it would, of course, be primarily a disorder of morality, rather than a disorder of sectarianism. Is it typical for a government that honors moral and Christian principles and recognizes the Providence of God to act in this direction? This would mean saying: let us create evil, so that good will come. The apostolic word speaks menacingly against such a way of thinking and acting.” Just as unfounded is the hope that a schismatic society will be disrupted through fugitive priests, just as unfounded is the fear that through the eventual impoverishment of their schismatics, the priestly kind will turn into non-priesthood. “The barrier separating schismatics who accept the priesthood from lack of priesthood is so strong that it is difficult to imagine uniting them into one court,” and some of the Rogozh schismatics, at their meetings in 1836 and 1838 regarding their future, “in these very meetings proposed to turn the chapel into a co-religious church”... “Therefore, even if it happened to them to be left without priests, we must assume that they will arrange their societies will do their best, but will not unite with priestlessism and will not accept from it those rules according to which it is especially harmful." As for the positive harm of restoring the rules of 1822, Metropolitan Philaret recognized it as undeniable already in view of the sad results that resulted from them in a short time and contributed, on the one hand, to the flourishing of the priestly schism, and on the other, to the breakdown of discipline in the Orthodox Church itself. These, and no other, results of the rules of 1822 were and should be at all times because at the very basis of these rules there is an idea that is destructive for public order - allowing an official to desert and hide with impunity. “If civilian escape is a serious and harmful crime, if desertion from military service to the enemy is an even more serious and harmful crime: can it be considered a less serious and harmful crime to escape to the schismatics of a priest, whose rank requires exemplary purity of conscience, honesty and obedience to church rules and state laws? “For these reasons, in 1822, no law was issued, but secret rules were given in order, out of leniency towards schismatics, to allow them to shelter fugitive priests from the actions of the law, unless they were found guilty of another crime other than escape. Experience did not justify this measure, just as the general law did not justify it.” Metropolitan Philaret concluded his evidence with the following words: “All of the above considerations lead to the conclusion that it is not necessary to undertake anything similar to the rules of 1822 in favor of priestly schismatics, because such a measure would be in conflict with both church rules and civil law, and with the constancy and firmness of government action, and because it would be accompanied by more danger of harm than hope of benefit. The measures taken by the government in relation to schismatics - not persecution of them, but restriction by the force of general laws, an invitation to the general Orthodox Church, an invitation to common faith, providing an easier way to perform marriages in the church, leave one to wish for only an insightful, faithful and thorough application thereof" 246. Despite all the justice, thoroughness and strength of Metropolitan Philaret’s arguments, his view did not find supporters among the secular members of the committee, with Count Zakrevsky at its head 247. Having agreed only with the idea of ​​Metropolitan Philaret about the calling of the co-religionist priest Arsenyev for experience, they decided that on the issue of independent priests, due to its difficulty, they would have further discussion later. Meanwhile, the Rogozh schismatics, who undoubtedly knew about the progress of affairs in the committee, resumed their harassment with the same force. In 1849, they submitted a request that they be allowed to receive priests and deacons who wished to come to them voluntarily from the parishes, or who were outside the state, were neither under trial nor under prohibition, with the fact that they would be obliged to report such priests and deacons to the Moscow military governor-general every time for proper communication with the spiritual authorities, etc. This request, one must think, was submitted to Count Zakrevsky 248, in whom she found a worthy defender for herself. With this request of the schismatics in mind, Count Zakrevsky entered the advisory committee on March 3, 1849 with a note in which he first noted the general inexpediency and harm of the entire series of “assumptions, actions and government decisions in relation to schismatics accepting the priesthood for a whole quarter of a century,” which allegedly “not only did not contribute to the achievement of the government’s intended goal of bringing these schismatics closer to Orthodoxy, or at least with the one-believer church,” but only aroused in the ignorant concept of the schismatics “a dangerous feeling of fanaticism,” and even more confirmed them in error and led to a “new false teaching” in the form of step marriages; then he pointed, in particular, to the extremely difficult situation of the Moscow schismatics with two “elderly priests and their more than likely deviation in the future to a new false teaching, as well as to the new danger of strengthening the split in the person of the schismatic hierarchy that had just appeared “in Bukovina”, to “the unbelief, riotousness and seditious willfulness of unbridled passions that agitate the minds of neighboring peoples.” Having indicated all this, Zakrevsky in conclusion insisted either on satisfying the above request of the Moscow schismatics, or at least on an immediate appeal to tolerance, “explained in the Supreme Decree of March 26, 1822,” but out of a sense of duty he did not advise embarking on measures “that arouse anxiety of conscience in religious feelings and feelings of fear and distrust in hearts accustomed to obedience, love and devotion to the power that preserves them,” “for this would be, in his opinion, a criminal preparation of the elements for a disastrous violation of the existing order and internal peace.” Proving the imaginary benefits of fulfilling the schismatics’ request, he wrote: “This concession will have the result that the mass of schismatics, accustomed until now to see in fugitive priests their shepherds, independent of our spiritual hierarchy, will gradually get used to the idea and to the conviction that it cannot have other priests except those who will be determined with the knowledge and consent of the authorities, and cases of jurisdiction will convince over time the mass of schismatics and the fact that their priests are not exempt from subordination to our spiritual authority... If these assumptions are considered worthy of attention,” Zakrevsky added, “then they should begin to implement them no other way than by allowing the Moscow military governor-general to enter into a preliminary secret meeting with some of the elders of the Cemetery. This meeting should look completely private” 249. It was not difficult, apparently, to notice how much historically incorrect, exaggerated, and obviously tendentious was contained in the words of Count Zakrevsky, especially regarding the beneficial consequences of satisfying the request of the Moscow schismatics, for the harmful consequences of the rules of 1822 were still in memory. In his words there was just a lot of truth regarding the lack of success of government measures taken at the beginning of the reign of Emperor Nicholas; but this lack of success, as again it was not difficult to notice and as Metropolitan Philaret quite rightly said, was not due to the fact that the measures themselves were not expedient, but from their inexperienced and imprecise execution. However, the deliberate exaggerations of Count Zakrevsky in describing the difficult contemporary situation of schismatic affairs, on the one hand, and no less exaggerated praise by him of the beneficence of his projects, on the other, had their effect and contributed to the fact that “the idea of ​​giving schismatics priests of their choice, dependent not on the spiritual, but on the secular authorities, captivated, according to Metropolitan Philaret, all the secular members who watched only from the secular side” 250. The members of the committee were not completely carried away by this idea precisely because, “out of duty of fidelity to Orthodoxy, the throne and the fatherland,” Saint Philaret again spoke out at the committee meeting on October 10, 1849. How alone he was in his opposition to the schism at this time can be seen from the fact that even his friend, the governor Anthony, leaned somewhat towards the side of the Old Believers. “Your thought about priests for those alienating the church occupies me, and I regret that it was not conveyed in words on the spot,” Metropolitan Philaret wrote to him on June 25, 1849. “Do you think that it is possible to give on the terms on which they are supposed to take? How can this be reconciled with the church rules? How can you give while being sure that they are taking it not to bring you closer to the church, but in order to strengthen your alienation from it? Show me, if you can imagine, a way to turn the obstinate path into the right one” 251. Such a method, obviously, could not be found, and therefore, in his new response note, M. Filaret resolutely rebels against what is stated in the note of Count Zakrevsky. First of all, he points out how inconvenient, “unreliable” and unnecessary it is for the government to enter into any kind of communication and negotiations with schismatics regarding the conditions under which they could accept priests. “It is not only his character that does not prevent the clergy from entering into relations with schismatics in order to admonish them and offer them means of drawing closer to the church,” he wrote. It is a completely different matter to enter into such relations on behalf of the government. Legitimate power, without prejudice to its dignity and in a trustworthy manner, can enter into relations, for the purpose of agreement and agreement, only with a society that legally exists. And entering into an agreement with a society that falls away from the legal authority and does not have a legal existence is not quite consistent with the dignity of the legal authority and can be harmful, because the illegal society, entering into negotiations with the legal authority, through this very thing, in some way, acquires the character of a recognized class and, moreover, receives the consciousness that they see in it enough strength to contradict and resist, and, thus, it can become more unyielding than it was before the negotiations... Assuming that the negotiations with the schismatics were secret, in some way it is an admission that the publicity of these negotiations would have unfavorable consequences. But keeping a secret in this case is too unreliable. Once admitted into intercourse, schismatics will be interested in informing their like-minded people about this intercourse; and it is already known from experience with what speed such information from a few schismatics spreads among everyone. Moreover, the supposed communication with the schismatics does not promise to reveal anything from their side that was not already known. On what conditions they want to have priests, this is known from their repeated petitions, disrespected by the government” 252. Having then turned to the very subject of the schismatics’ request proposed through Count Zakrevsky, Metropolitan Philaret (in eleven points) even more clearly, in his own words, opened up to the secular members of the committee a view on the subject, especially from the church side,” - again and in greater detail, pointing out the obvious contradictions of the project with church decrees and the very concept of the priesthood, according to which it is not only impossible for priests to completely alienate themselves from the church and transition to schismatics, but also a transition with such good goals as were in mind when publishing the rules of 1822, the implementation of which Metropolitan Seraphim had to refuse. Then, having again elucidated the many different difficulties that arose from the recognition of independent schismatic priests for the civil government, pointing out the constant, unfair complaints of schismatics about imaginary restrictions, while they actually enjoy many advantages over the Orthodox, Metropolitan Philaret proved to the committee with digital data that the success of government measures in relation to the development of unity of faith is not particularly insignificant, but with the fulfillment of the request of schismatics, who have already managed not only to learn the discussions taking place about them in the committee, but also to reveal their broad plans, this success should not only stop, but also be reduced. “Since the first years of the current century,” he said, “with excessive religious tolerance, apostasy from Orthodoxy in general has multiplied, and in particular the priestly and non-priestly schisms have increased in the number of followers, prayer houses and schismatic institutions. During the present reign, with tolerance limited by justice and precaution, Orthodoxy acquired from the schism, as is known from the reports of the ecclesiastical department, in eleven years 182,328 souls, and in total over all the years, of course, no less than 200,000. With the supposed provision of a schism by priests, apostasies will undoubtedly increase again, and one must especially fear that co-religionists who have recently been reconciled with the Orthodox Church will waver. Whether the schismatics will act moderately is now clear. What this committee is currently discussing is already known to them 253; but having received only the hope of permission to receive priests, they began their choice not with ordinary priests and not with humble churches, but with the Moscow Archangel Cathedral: they invited the sacellary of this cathedral to be a priest in their Cemetery... Meanwhile, at the present time, according to information from those who know the situation of the schismatics of the Rogozhsky Cemetery, a significant number of them have a desire - after the death of the remaining priests, to get closer to the Orthodox Church on the conditions existing to this day, and the hope opens that some will form a co-religious church at the Cemetery itself, while others will join the pan-Orthodox church. Rural schismatics, invited to unite with the church, also repeatedly responded that they expected this to begin from the Rogozhsky Cemetery. Nothing, in my opinion, prevents the government from extending its firmness in the present rules of its action, in anticipation of this near limit of time, and making efforts to take advantage of it.” “Thus, renewed research,” Metropolitan Philaret wrote at the end of his response, “turns me to the conclusion I previously proposed, that it does not seem correct, convenient, or useful to give schismatics from the civil authorities priests independent of the spiritual authorities.” At the very end of his note, Metropolitan Philaret did not fail to touch upon the final words of Count Zakrevsky, which he directly quotes and analyzes in a manner unique to him. “So that silence does not serve as a reason for some misunderstandings,” he says, “I find myself forced to explain that I do not recognize everything as indisputable, which I really do not dispute. So, for example... it is not clear to me what exactly it means to “begin measures that arouse the anxiety of conscience” and to what kind of actions or assumptions does this strong judgment apply that “this would be a criminal preparation of elements for a harmful violation of the existing order.” But just as when a strong blow falls somewhere and someone standing on the side with an involuntary movement is eliminated further, so I withdraw from the stated judgment, not having the misfortune on my part to see anything close to this either in the measures taken or proposed by the government and the authorities, or in the reasoning about these measures” 254. In addition to the above opinion, at the same meeting, Metropolitan Philaret introduced a Note in which he reported on the failure of the action against the Rogozh schismatics, priest Alexander Arsenyev, summoned from the Chernigov province, according to an earlier decision of the committee, who stated that his former spiritual children promised to turn to him after the death of their current confessor, and that he had nothing more to do in Moscow. “According to other information,” added Metropolitan Philaret, “both fellow believers and schismatics cooled towards him due to unfavorable information that had been revealed about his former life at the Rogozhsky Cemetery”; but, “probably, the schismatics’ hope to obtain priests in another way, more in accordance with their desires, was also involved in this” 255. The immediate consequences of Metropolitan Philaret’s note were that instead of the previous unanimity in the opinions of the secular members of the Moscow advisory committee, there was complete disagreement between them: one of the members (Prince S. M. Golitsyn) responded that fulfilling the request of the schismatics was inconsistent with the hierarchical order and would serve to strengthen and multiply the schism; another (Count S.G. Stroganov) expressed doubt that the concession could bring the schismatics closer to the church: the third (Lieutenant General St. V. Perfilyev) expressed fear that the proposed concession would cause the schism to take deeper roots and multiply more. Count Zakrevsky and the civil governor remained of the same opinion 256. Metropolitan Philaret was very pleased with the results achieved by his note, since, apparently, he was not sure of them in advance. “Bow for me at the feet of St. Sergius,” he wrote on October 11, 1849, i.e., the very next day after the committee meeting, to Governor Anthony. Although I am unworthy, I must admit that the matter, which has concerned me a lot, is not entirely without patronage. Although the opinion did not reach general agreement: but even then there is more expectation that the majority of those participating in the judgment wavered in the opposite opinion, and more or less recognized the justice of what was proposed now, after previously everyone was united in the opposite opinion” 257. But Metropolitan Filaret still did not consider the mere difference of opinion among the members of the committee to be sufficient for the triumph of his opinion and did not limit himself to what was previously done. When the members of the committee were supposed to send all opinions in the originals, with copies from the journal, for a final decision to the St. Petersburg advisory committee and the execution of this was entrusted to him, then he, forwarding the papers to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count Protasov, at the same time asked him to present the whole matter as clearly as possible to the Sovereign Emperor. “The fear that, as a result of the concession to the schismatics, a separate schismatic church will be formed in front of the Orthodox Church, and more will be lost both for Orthodoxy and for the unity of the state than what was gained by the reunification of the former Uniates - this fear,” he wrote, “would not greatly occupy me, in my attitude to affairs, which, due to my years and state of health, may soon end; but it should greatly occupy me with the duty of loyalty to Orthodoxy, the throne and the fatherland. Having said that, in my best understanding, I find it fair, and then leaving the matter to the higher understanding and will of Providence, I will not hide from your Excellency the desire that this matter be presented to the Sovereign Emperor in a not too abbreviated report. The royal heart is in the hand of God; but nevertheless, one must try to clearly present to his bright gaze the different sides and consequences of the matter about which the royal word should be uttered” 258. The request, one must think, was fulfilled by Protasov and, perhaps, thanks to this, the final outcome of the case, according to the later news of Metropolitan Philaret himself, was the following: “it was privately known that the Sovereign Emperor Nikolai Pavlovich wanted to leave this matter without consequences” 259. When, finally, at the beginning of 1854, the Rogozhsky “stubborn schismatics, having previously noticed in significant members of their society a direction towards unity of faith in order to strengthen themselves, through their trustees Vinokurov and Zelenkov” with a new “request they sought to obtain priests at their disposal, outside the legal hierarchical order,” and when this request, submitted to the same Zakrevsky, was forwarded by the Moscow advisory committee Minister of Internal Affairs - Bibikov, and this latter was presented to Emperor Nikolai Pavlovich on the 6th day of May, then an open and decisive refusal followed on his part: “one should not agree to such whims of schismatics,” he decided. Thus, it was solely thanks to Metropolitan Philaret’s fiery zeal for the interests of the church and state and the irrefutable strength of his arguments in this direction that fugitive priesthood, shameful for the Orthodox Church and not harmless to the state, was not only condemned, but a decisive blow was dealt to it, despite the ardent defense of it by even government officials, not to mention the countless intrigues and requests of the schismatics themselves. Unfortunately, the cessation of one evil led to the emergence of another. The impoverishment of the fugitive priesthood, in addition to, undoubtedly, beneficial consequences in the form of the conversion of many schismatics to the Orthodox Church completely, or on the rules of the same faith (which is discussed below), served as an incentive to establish abroad a schismatic hierarchy with a bishop at the head, which soon penetrated into Russia. Metropolitan Philaret recognized the appearance of a schismatic bishop in the Austrian borders relatively sooner than others and was the first to properly clarify the harmful church-state significance of this event for Orthodox Russia, moreover, proposing a highly expedient, although, unfortunately, already belated, means for the possible weakening of the new evil. Already at the end of 1846, i.e., no more than two months after the fugitive Greek Metropolitan Ambrose arrived in Belaya Krinitsa and declared himself the supreme shepherd of all “Old Orthodox” Christians, Metropolitan Philaret was informed by the Klintsy Ratman Baryshnikov about the opening of relations between border schismatics and foreign schismatics who had in the Austrian possessions of the bishop, supplying priests for schismatics of all places. This news from Baryshnikov, “without using it in Moscow as a precaution against unfavorable publicity,” on January 3, 1847, was “immediately forwarded” by him to Chief Prosecutor Count Protasov, and by this latter, on January 11, transferred to the Minister of Internal Affairs and turned out to be so early and unexpected that with a note on the same subject from the Lemberg correspondent delivered to the Minister of Public Education at the same time Archaeographic Commission - Zubritsky, served as the first news for the government itself, which now only began to make inquiries about Ambrose through the Russian mission in Constantinople and entered into negotiations with the Austrian government 261. Meanwhile, Metropolitan Philaret, for a long time without receiving any response to his message and clearly realizing the great harm of any kind of slowness in such a matter, on April 10, 1847, sent a second report to the Holy Synod, in which he again reported persistent and unquestionable rumors about a schismatic foreign bishop and that from him “there was already a messenger in Moscow, who entered with Rogozhsky schismatics into intercourse and received monetary benefits from them” 262, at the same time, it was his duty to “submit to the discretion of the Holy Synod whether it would be possible and necessary to enter into canonical relations with the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Synod, and, depending on the need, with other Orthodox patriarchs, so that the bishop who communicated with the schismatics would be corrected from this error and communication with them ceased, and otherwise was subject to the force of church rules.” “There is no doubt,” he continued, “that Moscow dissenters of the priestly persuasion look” at the acquisition of a bishop “as a bright dawn for themselves. Now they can inspire their followers that their society is strengthening and rising because it already has a bishop, and, moreover, recognized by the government, 263 that now their fear of losing priests, who, if necessary, can be obtained from abroad, in case of need, can be more decisively removed from any contact with the Russian pan-Orthodox and co-religious priesthood. It is obvious that here is a new strong obstacle to the rapprochement of the Rogozh schismatics with the Orthodox Church. Such a new attempt by the schismatics to confirm and strengthen the schism should not be left without the attention of the spiritual authorities. Allowing an Orthodox bishop to be diverted into communicating with schismatics is an important case for the church and Orthodoxy. There are church rules, the force of which the Orthodox hierarchy is obliged to turn against this case and in this find a means to secure the world of the church and to crush the support that the schism thinks to provide itself with the formation of its own schismatic hierarchy. Those who communicate and pray with those excommunicated from the church and with schismatics are commanded by the 10th Apostolic Rule, the 2nd Council of Antioch and the 33rd Council of Laodicea themselves are commanded to be condemned and excommunicated from the church. The schismatics excommunicate themselves from the Orthodox Church, and were excommunicated from it by the canonical decree of the Moscow Council of 1667, which was approved and signed by the Eastern Patriarchs: Paisius of Alexandria and Macarius of Antioch. Consequently, a bishop who has entered into communion with schismatics is himself subject to condemnation and excommunication if he does not correct his mistake, perhaps committed out of ignorance.” And since “a bishop found by schismatics and adopted by them belongs to the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople,” he is subject first of all to its court 264 . Along with the above report, Metropolitan Philaret presented St. Synod and the very draft message to the Ecumenical Patriarch Authim, containing a notice of an incident “as offensive to the dignity of the hierarchy of Constantinople as it is unfavorable for the Russian Church,” and a request that His Holiness use the power of church rules and the power given to him by God to suppress the new temptation created by Ambrose, prompted the rebellious bishop to repent, reject and condemn schismatic communion and return to true church communion, otherwise he would have condemned him with those who were self-condemned and, if he dared to perform unblessed ordinations, then he would have condemned them too by the force of church rules 265. The good thoughts and intentions of Metropolitan Philaret were accepted by the Holy Synod with all due attention: the message he drafted, without any changes, was approved on June 30, 1847 266 and, through the State Chancellor of Foreign Affairs, was forwarded by the Holy Synod to the Patriarch of Constantinople Anthimus, from whom, in turn, at the end of the same year, a response letter was received Ambrose's condemnation. Saint Philaret, as can be seen from his letter to Bishop Arkady of Perm dated March 10, 1848, attached great importance to this document in refuting the harmful rumors about the schismatic bishop that had managed to quickly spread “from the Austrian border to Siberia,” and he very much regretted that such an important document of the illegality of the newly invented hierarchy was not communicated to all Orthodox bishops in a timely manner. “Old men boasting of love,” he wrote to the Reverend. Arkady, they loved the news. There was news - runaway priests; but since it was quite outdated, they invented another new one - the fugitive bishop... I am informing you of the draft synodal charter on this subject. As a consequence of this communication, I present an extract from the charter of the Patriarch of Constantinople to the Synod. The extract I am reporting, I think, would not be useless to communicate to all the Eminences, so that they would know how to respond to rumors about the schismatic bishop. I don’t know why this thought did not come to those on whom this depends” 267. Thus, on the part of Metropolitan Philaret, to weaken the new evil, one might say, everything possible was done for it. True, all his efforts and labors, as we noted above, turned out to be belated: in the overall result, neither the relations of the Russian government with the Austrian, the consequence of which was the exile of Metropolitan Amrosy to Zilli, nor the message of the Russian Church to the Patriarch of Constantinople with the latter’s letter of response, achieved, as we know, the final, desirable goal - the complete destruction of the emerging schismatic false hierarchy, for thanks to the inexcusable the indifference and inaction of our consulates in Austria and Constantinople on the one hand, and the usual art of schismatics to handle all sorts of affairs in secret on the other - the most important moment in the history of the Belokrinitsky priesthood was missed - the appointment by Ambrose of the first, in the strict sense, Old Believer bishop Kirill; after this, the continued existence of the newly invented supposedly “Old Orthodox” hierarchy was ensured, and not only abroad, but also in Russia, despite the strict government regulations regarding the monitoring of the relations of our schismatics with the Bukovina 268, so that as recently as March 1850, Metropolitan Philaret himself had to report to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod about those who had appeared at the Moscow schismatic two false bishops who received consecration in Austria 269. However, all these circumstances in no way weaken the value of the work undertaken by the Moscow archpastor on this matter and cannot refute his remarkable foresight, as they were completely independent of him. It would also be unfair to reproach the government of Emperor Nicholas and especially Metropolitan Philaret for short-sightedness because thanks to their ardently defended system of consistent suppression of fugitive priesthood, the Austrian false hierarchy arose, which at the present time, even in the sheer number of its members, is an incomparably greater evil than the former fleeing priesthood. To blame for the origin of a new evil that appeared in the priestly schism as a result of the cessation of the evil that previously existed would mean in some way to justify the indulgence of evil; but that fugitive priesthood really was and is evil - there can be no question of this, and no one, of course, is able to refute the above arguments against it by Metropolitan Philaret. Moreover, in a strict sense, it was an evil that developed in the depths of the Orthodox Church itself, its own shortcoming, so that the church and the state were obliged to take care of eradicating such evil for the sake of their own interests, in addition to their relationship to the schism. Then the very idea of ​​a close, organic, almost exclusive connection between the impoverishment of fugitive priests and the emergence of the Austrian priesthood is subject to further significant limitation. It is more correct to think that the impoverishment of fugitive priesthood was not the reason, but only the reason for the emergence of an Austrian false hierarchy in the priestly schism; the true reason for this was the irreconcilable hostility towards the Orthodox Church common to all schismatic sects, from which the fugitive priests, even earlier, with the abundance of fugitive priests, strenuously sought to achieve complete separation through the acquisition of bishops, who would save them from the need to turn to the church for fugitive priests. To all that has been said, it must be added that the newly established Austrian schismatic pseudo-hierarchy, having penetrated into Russia, still did not dare to openly declare itself here until the death of Emperor Nicholas, and with full probability one can think that its significance and proliferation would not have been so significant, as it is now, if after the death of Emperor Nicholas all the affairs of the schism had not taken a different direction. The history of the Bespopovshchinsky schism during the reign of Emperor Nicholas was not as rich in major events as the history of the Popovshchinsky schism. This explains why it attracted less attention from the government, despite the fact that it was considered more harmful compared to the clerical split. However, here, too, phenomena of this kind took place, to which the government had to pay serious attention, since it had set one of the main tasks of its activities the possible weakening of the schism through the cessation of its harmful propaganda and through the limitation of its harmful teachings, for the bespopovtsy, who equally with the priests had become stronger towards the end of the reign of Alexander I, continued by all means and by crook to drag the Orthodox into their nets and with great freedom showed their ugly views on marriage and government. And since in this regard the Transfiguration Cemetery still occupied first place, the government and in particular Metropolitan Philaret especially strenuously sought to limit its willfulness. To propagate their false teachings and further enrich their Cemetery, the Fedoseevites took advantage of the cholera that appeared in 1831, just as Kovylin took advantage of the pestilence of 1771 to found the Cemetery itself. Hearing about this, Metropolitan Philaret took measures to possibly counter their propaganda. It happened that the Reverend. Archbishop Gregory of Kaluga, while passing through, was detained in quarantine in the suburban village of Sandyryakh 270 and learned here that the schismatics-bespopovtsy, “misinterpreting the orders of the authorities made to protect the people from an infectious disease, are instilling in the common people that the time has come for the Antichrist, that the quarantine ticket is a seal, or a sign of the Antichrist, and with other such suggestions they are trying turn the people away from the church,” He reported this to Metropolitan Philaret. Taking into account this news and upset that the local Orthodox priests did not give him any information about this, Metropolitan Philaret found it necessary to write a pastoral exhortation on this occasion to the Kolomna and other clergy of his diocese. “It is painful to hear,” he wrote among other things in this teaching, “that schismatics, dispelling false teaching, in support of their opinions, are trying to prove the unworthiness of Orthodox priests by the fact that they do not teach anything at the present time. Kolomna and other clergy should try in every possible way both to stop the successes of false teaching and not to give rise to accusations of a lack of pious zeal, which is harmful to Orthodoxy, beneficial to the schism and, consequently, gravely condemning for the clergy. It is necessary for the clergy, in simple and intelligible teachings during Divine services and, in addition, on all favorable occasions, in conversations at home, to inspire the people that God’s present visit to many places, through the danger of an infectious disease and the disease itself, was sent for the temporary punishment of our sins, to excite us to prayer, repentance, strengthening in faith, correction of life, and thus to protect us from eternal condemnation, so everyone should turn to these means of temporary and eternal salvation: to prayer, to repentance, to strong faith in God and our Lord Jesus Christ, to the correction of life, and not to be carried away and wandered by every wind of doctrine, in the lies of mankind, in the deceit of the wiles of flattery, to bitter condemnation for unfaithfulness before God and His Church. There was also a destructive illness under the pious King David: but this did not mean that God had abandoned his church. And in our fatherland there was an infectious disease in 1771, and then quarantine precautions were used, which necessarily caused some difficulty to the people: everyone sees that it was not the time of the Antichrist; for the time of disaster, by the goodness of God, has passed and no Antichrist has appeared. Anyone can judge the present tense in a similar way. Holy faith, in the present visitation of God, is not only not constrained by anything, but also receives new strength through the action of God's Providence, which turns punishments into blessings and evil into good. In Moscow and, according to information, everywhere else, holy churches are unusually filled with people praying, repenting, and partaking of the holy mysteries: is it not the grace of Christ that inspires these saving actions? Consequently, isn’t it Christ who reigns?...” “As for quarantine precautions, they were adopted in Moscow by the schismatics themselves of both persuasions, by clericalism and non-clericalism, and they established a hospital for the use of cholera, and they accepted a doctor from the authorities: consequently, the schismatics themselves do not see any sign of the autmichrist here.” “These and similar suggestions,” the vigilant archpastor wrote in conclusion, “depending on the nearest local information and the discretion of the need, the clergy should do with all possible care, offering what is possible and decent in church teachings; what is inconvenient to present in church teachings, then further explained in pious conversations, in addition to Divine services 271.” Undoubtedly, many Orthodox were kept from drifting into schism by the timely order and deeply edifying instructions of St. Philaret; moreover, in his own words, in Moscow the appeals of the schismatics themselves to the Orthodox Church increased significantly, in which he saw clear traces of God’s Providence. But, in turn, the mentors of the Preobrazhensky Cemetery were far from inactive. Under the influence of their preaching, and even more false rumors about the miraculous power of the ancient icons belonging to them, scenes from the Kovylin time were repeated at the Preobrazhensky Cemetery: with the development of the disease, the crowd of people in the shelters increased - in the women's department it reached 3000, in the men's department up to 800 people; Together with the schismatics, the Orthodox Christians also sought salvation from death within the walls of the Cemetery. The mentors forcibly forced all those who died to donate property to the benefit of the community, and the Orthodox were also forced to rebaptize. In addition to the shelters at the Preobrazhensky Cemetery, the schismatics set up a hospital in the house of the merchant Bavykin, where the same seductions into the schism and outrageous scenes of almost violent seizure of the property of the dying were repeated. Such phenomena could not hide from Metropolitan Philaret, who closely followed everything that happened in both Moscow centers of the schism 272, and from the “visionary” government of Emperor Nicholas, which, having initially put a limit to the willfulness of the smaller local centers of the priestless schism - the Pavulinsky almshouse in the city of Sudislavl 273 and the almshouse with a hospital and school in Riga 274, finally in 1834 it was decided to begin limiting the willfulness of the Preobrazhensky Almshouse (at the same time as the Rogozheki Cemetery). On May 26 of this year, the Supreme Decree was made at both Moscow schismatic Cemeteries to leave only three-year-old orphans and foundlings, and to send the rest up to the age of 12 to the Orphanage; over 12 years of age, male persons shall be enrolled as military cantonists, female adults shall be assigned according to duty; the rest, as well as those for whom there is no decent occupation, should be sent to the Orphanage 275. On December 24 of the same year, 1834, this order was slightly changed and strengthened, namely, it was ordered: all male foundlings should be considered military cantonists; foundlings less than 3 years old should be left in the Cemetery; those between 3 and 15 years of age should be sent to an orphanage, and from the age of 16 they should be sent to training carabinieri regiments; for the future, consider all foundlings as military cantonists; regarding female foundlings, be guided by the earlier order of May 26, 276. Four years after these decrees, the government, guided by the advice of Metropolitan Philaret 277, touched upon the immovable property of the Preobrazhensky Cemetery, consisting of houses, shops, factories, meadows 278, which, as acquired illegally, without the Highest permission, contrary to the rescript of May 15, 1809, were ordered to be sold and the proceeds to be converted in favor of the House, which, in turn, was also ordered to be monitored by local authorities so that it “maintains its character on a par with similar private charitable institutions” 279. Despite all the severity and decisiveness of this government order, the Preobrazhensky schismatics, with the help of corrupt officials, especially the shameful official of the governor’s office - Turgenev, knew how and managed to weaken their power and bypass them with their usual art. Thus, having been notified by Turgenev regarding the first decree, the trustees quickly transported from the Cemetery up to 200 pupils adopted by famous parishioners to Kolomna, the village of Ivanovo, Sudislavl and other places, notifying at the same time those who were considered necessary about the contents of the decree, so that the caretaker of the Cemetery, obliged to carry out the order of the government, had to take no more than 20 pets, and they were soon returned to their mothers 280. The schismatics coped even more easily and skillfully with the government decree regarding the sale of the Cemetery's immovable estates: almost all of the property was fictitiously purchased at auction by the former trustee of the same Cemetery of the 1st Guild, merchant Fyodor Alekseev Guchkov, for 75,000 rubles, and only a small part - by merchant Nikolai Gusarev for 1,403 rubles. 281. Thus, the law seemed to be fulfilled and the almshouse did not suffer any damage. The sudden inspection of the Preobrazhensky Cemetery by Count Stroganov, carried out after this, by the Highest command, also had almost no results, since again the corrupt officials came to the aid of the schismatics 282 . But this order of things could not last long; the impudence of the schismatic actions was too obvious to be overlooked. The energetic intervention in the affairs of the Transfiguration Cemetery on the part of Metropolitan Philaret put an end to it, at least for a while. The basis and reason for such an intervention were for Metropolitan Philaret the list of the so-called “Paternal Wills” already known to us by its contents, delivered to him by someone, and handwritten books forwarded to him by the Moscow civil governor Senyavin: “Announcement of the consent of the monasteries, or Manuels” and “Testimony of the one common Christian narrow path.” On April 28, 1844, he submitted the list and books for consideration by the Moscow secret advisory committee and with a special note asked to pay attention to the harmful political and moral teaching contained in them, “inevitably leading not only to the disruption of the peace of the Orthodox Church, but also to the violation of laws and civil order and to the destruction of morality,” “to rebellion, debauchery and infanticide,” and, moreover, representing a complex a copy of old erroneous opinions, but a fabrication of new rules, the main culprit and disseminator of which, for some reason, should be recognized as the chief abbot of the Cemetery, Semyon Kuzmin. At the same time, Metropolitan Philaret, although he did not vouch for the complete official authenticity of the list of “Testaments” that reached him, since this kind of “information,” according to him, “is discovered on occasion, partly when some convert from the schism to Orthodoxy,” and “for the most part cannot be brought into official form, because those who turn to Orthodoxy do not dare to openly put themselves as witnesses against schismatics, fearing the vengeance that schismatics, with ample funds, find many ways”; however, for his part, he believed that the unquestionable authenticity of the handwritten books delivered by Senyavin and the contents quite similar to the “Testaments” confirms the reliability of these latter 283. To such revelations of the secrets of the Preobrazhensky Cemetery, the government, already in view of their very nature, could not and indeed did not remain indifferent, especially since in the same 1844, another equally important piece of news came to the attention of the Moscow advisory committee about the relations of its elders with the Saratov schismatics, which exposed the important central significance of the Cemetery for the entire Fedoseyevsky schism. True, the consequences of Metropolitan Philaret’s report and this latest news, for unknown reasons, did not emerge as quickly as one might have expected, because the Minister of Internal Affairs, Count Perovsky, for some reason considered it inconvenient to quickly and accurately investigate this subject; but since 1847, when the same Perovsky came in under the stated circumstances with the Most Submissive Report, a whole series of restrictive measures were directed against the Preobrazhensky Cemetery, which consistently deprived this nest of schism of many illegally assigned rights and privileges and led, in general, to the same thing that the measures against the Rogozhsky Cemetery led to, i.e. to what was sown here, even somewhat earlier than on Rogozhsky, the “good seed” of Edinoverie, not to mention the noticeable weakening of immorality among the schismatics themselves 284. During the reign of Emperor Nicholas, the discovery of the hitherto unknown Sopelkovskaya, or Wanderer sect 285 followed. In judging this sect and how to counter it, the government could not do without the help of Metropolitan Philaret, and his authoritative voice in this matter was decisive. According to the decision of the Holy Synod of March 2, 1853, information about the Wanderers obtained by the Commission of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, as well as the testimony of sectarians and journal decisions about them from the Yaroslavl secret advisory committee, sent to the Synod by the Minister of Internal Affairs, were forwarded to it “for preliminary consideration and conclusion.” Based on these, in essence, rather fragmentary and scattered news, Metropolitan Philaret presented a coherent, clear and demonstrative presentation of “the origin of the sect, its teaching and spirit, the investigations of the sectarians and the most necessary measures against the revealed evil” 286. In the history of the origins of the Wandering Sect, in the opinion of Metropolitan Philaret, special attention was deserved by its close connection with the non-priestly sects - Filippovtsy, Fedoseyevtsy and Pomeranians, which is why it can rightly be called “the daughter of the non-priestly sect.” This connection between pilgrimage and priestlessness is revealed, according to him, from the very adventures of the founder of the pilgrimage teaching, Euthymius. After his escape from Pereyaslavl 287, on the instructions of mentor Mokei, he found shelter in Moscow with the elders of Philip’s consent, into whose faith he was baptized; then caught and given up as a soldier, he fled again and, apparently, hid in the Preobrazhensky Cemetery, where he took monastic vows and was assigned by the elders to the Pomeranian monastery. From here, after a quarrel with the abbot Adrian, he again went to Moscow, but not finding protection from the elders, he moved to Yaroslavl, where he became the founder of the sect, breaking ties with the lack of priesthood. But even though he separated himself from the lack of priesthood, Euthymius, in general, retained its teaching, which serves as another proof of the close connection between both sects. According to the testimony of the Wanderer Apollinaria, the Wanderers, passing into the Filippov and Fedoseev discourses, do not intersect, which means that, according to the separation of Euthymius, the Filippov and Fedoseevites “revere the Wanderers of the same faith as themselves, although they do not have the same opinions in everything.” “According to the testimony of the Wanderer Irina, the mentors of the Wanderer sect demand compliance with the regulations of the Solovetsky Monastery, that is, the schismatics who rebelled in the Solovetsky Monastery. Consequently, the sect of the Wanderers is guided in worship by the charter of the priestless sect.” Likewise, in the confession of the Wanderer Alexander Vasiliev there is a teaching identical with the teaching of the non-priestly kind. “The author repeatedly refers to the Pomeranian Answers as proof of his teaching. And in the doctrine of the Antichrist, expounded at length, the writer does not differ from the Filippov and Fedoseevites.” Finally, “according to the testimony of mentor Mokei, the Moscow flock (that is, the sect of Wanderers in Moscow) was ruled by Ivan Yudich and lived in Moscow with the merchants Guchkov (who was the first schismatic house in Moscow at the so-called Preobrazhensky Cemetery): a significant sign that the sect of Wanderers, even having formed separately, was not alien to the schismatics of the Preobrazhensky Cemetery.” “The closest conclusion from this,” continues Metropolitan Philaret, outlining the history of the emergence of the pilgrim teaching, “is that if the harmful priestless sect had not been allowed the freedom to act and spread, which it had partly due to the excessive indulgence of the government and even more due to the connivance of the local authorities, then the most harmful sect of the Travelers would not have been born. If Euthymius, a fugitive in Moscow, then a military deserter in Moscow, a deserter in the Pomeranian monastery, again in Moscow, then in Yaroslavl and the villages there, although once he was taken into the hands of justice and kept in them, then the evil sect of the Wanderers would not exist.” But this is not enough; Thanks to the same inattention and deliberate connivance of local officials, unfortunately, not excluding spiritual ones, the evil sect, he adds, found the opportunity not only to appear, but also, like priestlessness, to act and spread “in several provinces.” “In one Yaroslavl district, according to the testimony of the wanderer Apollinaria, the sect is located in 18 villages, and in them there are 83 fugitive bailiffs. According to her testimony, the entire village of Sopelki was infected with wanderer teachings, and more than a hundred Wanderers lived openly in it, so that the existence of the sect in the village of Sopelki seems not secret, but glorious and famous - from the village it even received the name “Sopelki Concord.” Hence, “the inattention of officials obliged to counteract evil,” according to Metropolitan Philaret, cannot be doubted. “It’s hard to imagine,” he says, that all this happened only in ignorance, and not as a result of the connivance of the closest local authorities. True, for the Wanderers, the porters set up secret rooms in the houses; but that this did not destroy the possibility of finding fugitives can be seen from examples of other places where Wanderers, not being in such large numbers, were discovered and brought into the hands of justice.” As for the connivance of the evil sect on the part of the clergy, their guilt is confirmed by the direct evidence of the sectarians. “The wanderer Vassa says that sectarians pay priests to show them to their exes at confession, and they also pay dearly for funerals. The wanderer Apollinaria says that in the Kostroma province, in the village of Vichuga, or in the village of Korobovo, the priest found the Wanderers in the prayer house and took 150 rubles from them not to publicize this.” In the same way, “the testimony of the peasant Fyodor Andreev reveals the current priest of the village of Sopelok to be guilty of conniving with sectarians, and in his two predecessors, it seems, victims of fidelity to their duty. He says: “Before the current priest, with whom the schismatics live amicably, two priests allegedly died a death that was not their own.” Finally, the dean of the village of Nikolskoye, in two villages of which, according to the testimony of the wanderer Apollinaria, the Sopelkovsky agreement exists, wrote “almost a denunciation of himself,” for he presented to the commission an extract from confession books about four villages (including the two mentioned) and made a calculation in it that, according to the average complexity, in these villages annually there were 15 schismatics who confessed and received communion, 55 who confessed and did not receive communion, and who were not at confession 680, at the same time stated in conclusion that “he did not notice a strong disposition towards schism among the inhabitants, and he did not know about the Pilgrim Concord.” – In view of such circumstances, as well as in view of the extremely outrageous and daring political and moral, or, more precisely, immoral views of the “most harmful” sect of Wanderers, Metropolitan Philaret believed, for his part, that to weaken it, quick, strict and decisive measures are necessary, just as against a disease that is strongly spreading by infection, strong preventive measures are used - the idea of ​​the inexpediency and harm of persecuting Wanderers for opinions about faith and fear he considered the strengthening of fanaticism of the sectarians under their influence, expressed by the Yaroslavl advisory committee, to be in vain. “Evil is great,” he wrote, “the distributors of evil are numerous and active. Thanks to careful inquiry and research, they are in mind. In these circumstances, we must hurry to stop every distributor of evil in his path and deprive him of the opportunity to continue the spread of evil.” “The good idea of ​​a meek government is not to persecute anyone for their opinions about the faith; but it is difficult to apply it to the Wanderers sect. That the king is the Antichrist, that authorities, laws, taxes, military service should be fled as belonging to the Antichrist - these are all the opinions of the Pilgrim Sect belonging to their faith. Not pursuing these opinions means not stopping the actions of evil forces that seek to destroy the state.” Regarding the fear of strengthening fanaticism in the schism through measures of severity, he noted: “What other fanaticism could be more evil and harmful than that which already exists” in the sectarians? - But being strict and decisive, government measures against the Wandering Sect, in the opinion of Metropolitan Philaret, at the same time should be alien and everything that could have a disturbing effect on the people, especially not involved in the sect, should be alien of any kind excess and injustice. Therefore, the measure proposed by the same Yaroslavl committee - to punish the society, or fiefdom, among which the holding of Vagrant Wanderers is revealed, by imposing a fine - he finds "unfair and inappropriate for the purpose." Such a measure, by bringing third parties to justice and imposing on them the difficult duty of going from house to house throughout the village and inspecting whether there is a hiding place or a fugitive, “instead of justice for one or a few guilty,” he says, “would burden and worry the whole estate.” In general, all the considerations developed by the Yaroslavl advisory committee regarding the weakening of evil, in his opinion, “did not provide a ready solution to the difficult question” due to the fact that “the committee, having taken general measures against criminals, did not bring its judgments close enough to the criminals who are visible and known by name and deeds.” For his part, he found the following most consistent with the actual state of affairs and necessary: ​​having begun the judgment from the house of God, first of all subject to strict liability the clergy who did not prove themselves active in revealing and admonishing the lost. Therefore, the priests, led by Sopelkovsky, as guilty of conniving with the sectarians, should be removed from their places, with relegation to a clergy position, and those who are suspicious should be taken to other places, replacing them with zealous ones. Along with the priests, the court should also touch upon the deans, in whose department the sect has spread, and the inattentive ones should also be replaced with vigilant ones, and those who obviously indulged should, in addition, be subjected to due collection. In order to prevent excuses and crimes, as well as to strengthen observations of the evil sect on the part of the clergy in the future, to give detailed information about its teaching and direction to all diocesan bishops, and they should instruct the subordinate clergy to try to recognize the way of thinking of people who appear in the form of wanderers, and in the event of discovery of sectarians, report them to the diocesan bishop. Following the clergy, sectarians should also be subjected to strict punishment. All mentors, such as Fyodor Krivoy, a fugitive cantonist, and Nikita Semenov, as having a predominant influence on the sect as fugitives, and some, moreover, as fugitive soldiers, should be removed from society, to which they are so harmful, and imprisoned in the Solovetsky Monastery, or a similar place, under strict supervision and together to take care of their admonition and conversion to the true path. The same should be done with those of the Wanderers who, with particular impudence and bitterness, present themselves as despisers of power, or are more clearly tainted by depravity than others; and all others should be brought before an ordinary court for failure to fulfill public duties and holding court, where it was noticed. But the most powerful measures must be taken to cleanse the main nest of the sect, the village of Sapelok: to do this, destroy all hiding places and places of worship here, and in order to prevent their appearance in the future, assign the local provincial authorities the obligation to inspect the houses of Sopelka inhabitants several times a year through unexpectedly appointed and sent officials, and continue this measure until three years, when there is not a single hiding place and not a single fugitive. Finally, to weaken the evil sect, Metropolitan Philaret recognized the need for a general strengthening of the laws on vagrants. “It’s a shame to watch,” he wrote, “how a tramp illegally laughs at the legitimate government, without punishment, calling himself not remembering his kinship, when everyone is sure that this is a lie, or calling several cities alternately his homeland, so that, while useless correspondence continues, he can live quietly in prison, where he is well fed, and look out for an opportunity to escape, or carefreely wait for a trip to Siberia, which is not for him worse than vagrancy, which he voluntarily chose.” “If the Holy Synod finds that, by touching upon civil measures, I have exceeded the boundaries of what is required of me,” the archpastor wrote at the conclusion of his opinion on the Wanderers, “the desire to contribute as much as possible to overcoming evil may be an apology for the matter.”288 The prudent advice of the Moscow saint was accepted by both the Synod and the ministry 289. It can be assumed that, if carried out to the end, they would have achieved their goal, that is, if not complete, then at least a very significant weakening of the evil sect; but the soon following change in the government’s attitude towards the split gave it the opportunity to once again become stronger and spread its networks even beyond the borders of European Russia - in many places in Siberia 290. Here we end the presentation, so to speak, of the government anti-schism activities of Metropolitan Philaret during the reign of Emperor Nicholas, and the outline of this activity we have presented sufficiently confirms the observation we made at the very beginning that the government itself in relation to the schism since 1826 was predominantly the work of his hands and that in general the majestic personality of St. Philaret in this regard takes first place after the majestic Emperor Nicholas. Along with his concern for stopping illegal schismatic self-will by external restrictive means, Metropolitan Philaret, as we noted above, always, and also during the period of time under review, took care of ways to peacefully admonish and enlighten those wandering in schism. With firmness and conviction, he proclaimed in 1835 that “instruction of the true teaching of the faith on the part of the Orthodox clergy is the most characteristic tool for the conversion of those who are in error of all kinds,” that the shepherds of the church themselves must look for the fleeing sheep 291 - and his voice was listened to with great attention by both the church and the state, so that all falsely humane statements previously issued by the government of Alexander I decrees concerning the clergy avoiding meetings with schismatics and arguing with them about faith were canceled as unreasonable and inappropriate, and in their place there was a strengthened call for an energetic spiritual struggle against evil 292. A monument to the activities of the Moscow archpastor in this direction during the reign of Emperor Nicholas is his concern for anti-schism missions and schools. The first trial, and therefore temporary, mission was opened by the Holy Synod, at the suggestion of Metropolitan Philaret, back in 1827, in the Perm diocese. Here, with the abundance of schismatics-beglopopovtsy, on their part, in view of the impending impoverishment of beglopopovtsy, increased petitions for the granting of legally permitted fugitive priests, as well as in general the state of schism in that region required special ways to counteract it. The establishment of an anti-schism mission here was therefore rightly recognized as the most appropriate method. The very rules that determined the task and organization of the mission are very remarkable. They were developed precisely by Metropolitan Philaret and approved by the Synod without any changes. Let us present their contents. “It is not subject to any controversy,” wrote Metropolitan Philaret, explaining the motivation for the establishment of the mission, “that both for everyone’s love of humanity, and especially for the church, due to its maternal compassion, it is painful to see schismatics leaving their children without baptism due to the lack of fugitive priests, although, however, this difficulty seems magnified, since, from the experiences of some places, it is known that schismatics, due to the lack of fugitive priests, receive the necessary demands from Orthodox priests. But in determining and actually using ways to satisfy schismatics in correcting church requirements, difficulties appear that are hardly surmountable. The proposal to release willing priests to be determined by them meets obstacles both from the rules of the church, and, on the contrary, from the rules adopted by schismatics (Isprava), why cannot be carried out otherwise than on the rules of the so-called co-religion churches... However, “with the government’s now beneficial care for healing the infection of schism with gentle means and for all possible alleviation of the consequences of stubbornness and bitterness, in which the leaders of schismatic societies try to keep the souls enslaved by them through simplicity and ignorance, so as not to leave untested means that are not at all hopeless, the following temporary order can be made for the Perm schismatics: 1) Select from one or the closest dioceses, three priests of an honest and reverent life, with solid information both in the teaching of the faith in general, and especially in the teaching about the true antiquity and correctness of the rites of the Orthodox Church and about the falsity of the slander brought against it by schismatics. 2) Send these priests, dependent on the government, to the schismatics of the Perm diocese, as missionaries, for a first experience for three or four months, and most likely to others to those who, not having fugitive priests, find it difficult to correct church demands. 3) For the duration of this assignment, these priests are allowed to perform divine services and church services according to old printed books according to the rules of the churches of the same faith, if this turns out to be necessary 293. For this purpose and to help in admonishing them, let them be free, if they find it necessary, to choose for themselves one co-worker from among the worthy deacons, or clergy. 5) Make an order for the civil department so that in every place where one of these priests arrives, his arrival and appointment will be announced to the schismatics. 6) At the same time, careful and active monitoring will be needed on the part of the civil authorities to ensure that strong and stubborn schismatics do not put up other obstacles to entering into relations with an Orthodox priest. 7) The baptism of schismatic infants can be performed, at the request of the parents, with a note in a metric notebook, which must be given to the missionary from the local consistory, without any other proceedings, since the baby before baptism does not belong to the schism as well as to the church. 8) Other sacraments should not be accepted from schismatics except by conviction of those wishing to unite with the church, either unconditionally, or on the basis of the rules of unity of faith. 9) In order to dispose schismatics to this fellowship, the missionary priest will enter into discussions with them about faith and rites on the basis of the word of God and true church tradition. 10) For this purpose, it is useful to first provide the missionaries with books written to denounce the schism, and, as far as possible, with some old printed and old-written books... 11) 0 of their actions, or the difficulties they encounter, the missionaries must report to the diocesan bishop weekly, and this one - to the Holy Synod monthly, or more quickly, when a special case requires special permission. 12) Depending on what the actual experience of this order shows, the Holy Synod will not abandon giving the missions further necessary guidance” 294. The Orthodox Church obviously could not show greater Christian condescension towards the lost and greater care for their conversion than was expressed in the above rules, and if many of the more prudent schismatics, due to the impoverishment of the priesthood, began to draw closer to the Orthodox Church, then all the more they had to do this now that missionaries were allowed in cases of need (for example, in the absence of a co-religionist priest nearby) to “perform divine services and church requirements according to old printed books on the rules of the churches of the same faith" and when at the same time there was edification and admonition of the lost 295. And indeed, a good deed brought rich, good fruits. Despite the many obstacles presented to the mission by local schismatics, as well as schismatics of the Irgiz monasteries 296, which obstacles, it should be noted, also did not escape the watchful attention of Metropolitan Philaret and, as far as possible, were eliminated by him 297 - it turned from temporary to permanent, and especially since the appointment of the tireless and talented fighter against the schism, His Eminence Arkady, to the Perm department (1832–1851), acquired abundant fruits for the holy church. “All this time,” says the observer of the Perm schism, “was the golden age of the Perm mission. At this very time, the Perm schism was shaken in its foundations, the pillars that supported it were overthrown, and many lost people were converted into the bowels of the holy Orthodox Church 298. In view of such successes of the Perm mission, established by the wise foresight and care of the Moscow archpastor, the missions become a weapon in the fight against the schism in its other centers, such as, for example, Starodubye, Saratov, exerting their beneficial influence here too; from here arose the general idea “about the formation of a special class of missionaries” 299. Metropolitan Philaret’s general view of public schools for men and women, as another spiritual weapon in the fight against schism, and the nature of education in them in relation to this goal, which he also expressed in 1836, we have already indicated above. It must also be thought that, judging by the thoroughness and method of expression, the very program for the initial education of village Orthodox and schismatic children was drawn up, which initially had application only to the Olonets diocese, and then, by the definition of the Synod of October 29, 1836, extended to other dioceses - a program that determined the composition of the clergy, the heads of education, the composition of students, the time of training and the circle of it 300. This program was uncomplicated and unpretentious in its requirements in the last respect, as in all others: teaching reading, church and civil printing, and optionally writing, studying by heart the Lord’s Prayer, the Creed, the Ten Commandments, the verse: “Virgin Mother of God, rejoice” with the addition of a brief and simple explanation of these from the Catechism and the most important legends from Sacred History, - without school compulsion and literally memorizing them - this is the entire simple circle of primary education determined by this program. But for all the simplicity and brevity of their program, which, however, was well adapted to the level of development of the students and the character of the national spirit, these schools, according to Metropolitan Philaret, had a noticeable spiritual and moral influence on the people. “The success of educating village children, according to the rules of 1836,” he says, “was not quick or extensive, but reliable and safe. Children trained by the clergy willingly read and sang in church, and introduced the reading of sacred books, Sacred History, lives of saints and similar edifying books into families. From this there should have been a good moral and religious effect on the people; but there was no excessive curiosity or desire to read vainly and produce fermentation of thoughts” 301. In view of this undoubted benefit of such schools, Metropolitan. Filaret tried in every possible way to eliminate various kinds of claims and illegal interference of the ministries of public education and state property in the matter of educating the people by the clergy 302. “Present from me the Synod with the opinion,” he wrote, for example, on one of these occasions, “that the right of primary education to preserve the clergy is useful and necessary in order to have a way to confirm those brought up in the rules of the faith and protect them from schismatic suggestions,” especially since “every priest,” “by the power of the priest’s letter, is obliged to teach people good faith, the commandments of God and all Christian virtues,” “but the instruction of children cannot be accomplished through general church teachings, and therefore the clergy must. cases may be open for home instruction of children in Christian piety,” “and the most convenient case” for this “especially in relation to the lower classes of the people” and “is the initial home education of children” 303. However, not only schools for the initial education of village children were the subject of concern for Metropolitan Philaret during the period of time under consideration and in the respect under consideration, but also the religious schools under his jurisdiction - an academy and two seminaries. Despite the above-mentioned order of the Commission of Theological Schools, according to which the lessons on schism that had begun at the Moscow Academy were to be stopped, he now made it a duty “to the rectors of the academy and seminaries so that, at the end of the courses, they instill in students the importance of converting schismatics, as a necessary and essential duty of clergy, and teach them instructions on how to deal with schismatics” 304. The measure proposed by Metropolitan Philaret, in addition to those previously indicated, against the wandering sect - “to give detailed information about it to academies and seminaries for consideration when teaching the doctrine against schism and heresies” 305 clearly indicates how he still highly valued the general scientific study of the schism by future pastors of the church in the types of struggle against it, and this, in turn, gives some right to conclude that quite numerous the orders of the Synod of the first half of the 50s in this direction were carried out, if not on his initiative, then at least not without his participation, although, unfortunately, there is no positive information about such his participation in the previously published materials. Thus, the educational public anti-schism activity of Metropolitan Philaret was no less significant and beneficial, as was his administrative activity. As for, finally, his anti-schism activities as a diocesan bishop during the reign of Emperor Nicholas, the degree of its energy and strength can already be judged by the social activities we have outlined, for, vigilantly following the schism in general, he, of course, watched the schism in his diocese all the more carefully, which is confirmed by his intense concern for weakening the harmful influence of the two Moscow centers of schism - Rogozhsky and Preobrazhensky Cemetery, which mainly had, undoubtedly, all-Russian significance, and the closest one had local, diocesan significance. But not limiting himself to the centers, the zealous archpastor with equal attention monitored the integrity of his flock from schismatic seductions in other places of his diocese, which was numerous in terms of the number of schismatics, serving in this regard in the full sense of the word as a model for the clergy under his command. His resolutions, attitudes and reports on the affairs of the schism during this time, very numerous and varied, leave no doubt that all more or less significant phenomena in the schism, such as, for example, cases of manifestations 306, seductions 307, as well as the actions of the clergy in the fight against the schism - ability or inability 308, activity or inactivity 309 - were promptly known to him and immediately called on his part, appropriate measures to eliminate emerging temptations and shortcomings. Finally, despite the constant lack of time from many things, he himself sometimes “talked peacefully” with the Old Believers who visited him, meekly and patiently exhorting them to enter the saving fence of the Orthodox Church 310. 3. Anti-schism activities of Metropolitan Philaret during the reign of Emperor Alexander II (1855–1867) “It’s difficult with a schism,” Metropolitan Philaret wrote to the governor, Archimandrite Anthony, on December 26, 1855, that is, no more than ten months after the accession to the throne of Emperor Alexander II. “Under the plausibility, so as not to disturb people, the strong ones also positioned some of ours so that they would not prevent them from patronizing the schism; and from those who care about the good of the church, what is being done is kept secret. Lord, give understanding and save everyone!” 311 “From various news from St. Petersburg regarding the schism,” he also complained to A.N. Muravyov, - your head may spin: and therefore sometimes you don’t know what to say about this, and you hold back waves of thoughts that hit your head heavily” 312. These were the new impressions of a true zealot of the Orthodox Church and an experienced anti-schism activist regarding the new attitude of the new government towards schismatics. And indeed, they could not be otherwise: after the death of the “visionary” Emperor Nicholas, the anti-schismatic government system, created with great difficulty by him, with the close participation of the Moscow saint, with the close participation of the Moscow saint, although poorly implemented by corrupt officials, the anti-schismatic government system actually collapsed, since from the very first days of the new reign, “strong” ones began to be heard quickly, as for example, from the Minister of Internal Affairs - Lansky 313 and Count Zakrevsky 314 , and pathetic ones, for example, from the caretaker of the Rogozhsky Cemetery - Longinov 315 - voices, on the one hand, condemning the “steepness and injustice” of the government that had just left the stage, on the other, “in favor of the schismatics.” And now there were no “barriers” to the “arbitrariness and machinations” of the schismatics themselves, while the zealots of the church, willy-nilly, had to “do little, accomplish less and endure a lot” 316. True, there were also voices for preserving the previous system of actions in relation to schismatics - the voice of Emperor Alexander II himself was also for it, who at the very first meeting of the secret advisory committee in April 1855, declaring “respect for sincere convictions and tolerance,” at the same time recognized the measures of the former minister Bibikov, approved by his parent, as necessary 317, and did not see any need to change the current system, since he himself admitted that its success does not depend on itself, but is explained by “inaccurate and incorrect execution of it, resulting either from the ill-intention of the executors in the lower authorities, or perhaps from unintentionality, due to insufficient knowledge of the numerous and varied laws regarding the schism, published at different times and according to different statements” 318; but nevertheless, the new liberal trend in the people surrounding the emperor, and especially “in the so-called leaders of the so-called public opinion” 319, was reflected in the government’s attitude towards the schism by weakening and condoning the schism, which was harmful to the church. With this new state of affairs, the anti-schism activity of Metropolitan Philaret, by its nature, naturally again becomes counteracting the actions of the government. In his own words, he now had to fight “for both the great and the small.” “The schismatics,” he added, “exaggerate their demands; and they demand all concessions from us” 320. 0 the strong, energetic struggle of Metropolitan Philaret during the reign of Alexander II with the “so-called leaders of the so-called public opinion”, who, in a fit of enthusiasm for new liberal trends and indignation at the previous alleged violence and cruelty towards schismatics, demanded for them complete freedom of religion - we have already said, and it is permissible to think that the irrefutable arguments of the great archpastor in favor the previous government system of action against the schism, set out by him in notes: on the significance of the schism in the Russian state (1857) 321, on the consequences of oppression of sects and leniency towards them (1858) 322 and on the decrees of the church on the subject of the assistance of Christian governments against heresies (1860) 323 - not a little contributed to the fact that the great noise raised liberals, did not have a corresponding effect, and the plausible in words, but unseemly in practice, question of complete freedom of religion, despite many supporters, was still formally rejected by the government. This significance should also be understood by Metropolitan Philaret’s final edition of the famous “instruction for leadership in executive actions and meetings on matters related to the schism” 324. But what should be recognized as especially important in this regard is that, thanks to his authoritative voice, the “revision of existing regulations on schismatics”, undertaken by the government in 1864, lost a lot in its meaning and did not have those beneficial consequences for the schism that they hoped to achieve through it. On February 6 of this year, a “special committee” was established, which outlined a rather broad and decisive plan for “proposed changes” in the new liberal direction, since it raised and predetermined, in a sense more or less favorable for schismatics, important issues: the need to grant schismatics some rights, about recognizing the validity of their marriages, about allowing schismatics of less harmful sects to establish schools, about the need to multiply chapels and prayer houses schismatics, about not persecuting persons who correct the demands of schismatics, etc. 325. A note drawn up in the committee about these “proposed changes in the current decrees on schismatics” was sent on July 1 of the same 1864 by Count Panin to Metropolitan Philaret for consideration, according to the Highest command, “in trust in his enlightenment, many years of experience and constant pastoral zeal for the benefits of the church and state.” In a response letter to Count Panin, the Bishop wrote: “I felt in difficulty when my views on various subjects turned out to be different from the views of the committee; but at the same time, I felt even more strongly an immutable duty, out of loyalty to God and His Church, and to the most pious Sovereign Emperor, with complete sincerity to reveal my convictions, formed during a careful study of objects, according to my feasible understanding” 326. And indeed, in his extensive analysis of the note delivered to him by the Highest command, the venerable archpastor, despite his senile infirmities, which especially strongly beset him at that time 327, and despite the undoubtedly deep sorrow that those who are hostile to the church are succeeding, and the faithful of the church are encountering difficulties and are weakening in serving it, - consistently, step by step, clarified all the inexpediency and the short-sightedness of the proposed changes in the resolutions on the schism, clearly indicated more convenient and moderate ways out of the difficulties and advised, for his part, to better pay attention to the destruction of the true reasons for the vitality of the schism and to strengthening the spiritual, moral and educational influence on it on the part of the clergy. “The schism lived on fanaticism,” he wrote, “and fanaticism weakened over time. But the schism arose and grew with money and patronage, which paralyzed both the action of the laws and the action of the Orthodox clergy. May the insightful wisdom of the rulers and the faithfulness of the executors eliminate these causes of evil! “However, it must be admitted that the clergy are partly not free from the reproach of insufficiently intense zeal. It is expedient that the Holy Synod, with instruction and conviction, encourage him to act with meek, but intense zeal and self-sacrifice to protect the Orthodox and to admonish those who err.” Metropolitan Philaret recognized any kind of radical changes in the decrees regarding schismatics, and even more so the persistent demands of some “to issue a new complete law for the leadership of schismatics as subjects,” as strange, inappropriate and inappropriate; he found that their implementation was not able to heal the wounds of the schism and would be incompatible with the idea of ​​a well-ordered state. “If the current state of the schism is found to be anomalous,” he wrote, “then a new anomalous state is not being prepared by the proposed law? Why the new law for schismatics, “as subjects?” There is a law for all subjects: does it not extend to schismatics? Do schismatics, as subjects, need a different law, different from the law for all subjects? Should there be two different laws for subjects in the state - one for non-schismatic subjects, and the other for schismatic subjects? The proposed new legislation on schismatics will not lead to the fact that what was considered illegal yesterday will be called legal today, and that people whom the church and state yesterday considered false priests will today, in the eyes of the state, be legal priests, while in the eyes of the church they will remain false priests? Will this be consistent, harmonious, in accordance with pure moral principles and the dignity of government? And is there a need to come to this?.. How many different heresies, schisms, unauthorized gatherings, sects are there in different states? Is a complete law written for each of them? “These reflections,” he concluded, “call attention to the following questions: is it necessary to write a new complete law for a split? If it is necessary to show more leniency to the schism than has been shown until now, then isn’t it enough to just cross out some lines from the laws established to tame the schism, with caution so that this is not harmful to Orthodoxy?” 328. Meanwhile, the changes proposed by the committee to the existing decrees on schismatics, from the point of view of this completely fair and necessary requirement, Metropolitan Philaret did not recognize as satisfactory. This is clearly revealed, he wrote, already from the fact that the starting point, the beginning of all its reasoning, the committee unfairly and “inaccurately raised the question of determining the rights of schismatics,” while “rights in an Orthodox state belong” only to “an Orthodox Christian and a loyal subject”; “whoever acts” “out of obedience to the Orthodox Church, like one who deviates from the obligations of loyalty, more or less loses his rights, or exposes himself to the restriction of rights, and does not acquire any rights in his illegal position.” “Therefore, the question should not be about the rights of schismatics, but about the possible reduction of those restrictions in general rights that schismatics have subjected themselves to and are subject to by law, having emerged from a legal relationship with the Orthodox Church” and the matter should be “not about what schismatics can rightfully demand, but about what state power can give them in its spirit of tolerance and love of freedom” 329. The initial question posed by the committee, inaccurately and inexpediently from the point of view of caution, led it, as Metropolitan Philaret noted, to some inaccurate and careless conclusions both in resolving private issues, and above all in resolving the issue of the need for civil authorities to recognize marital schismatic unions, “not sanctified by a wedding in the Orthodox or Edinoverie church,” in the form of weakening the unrestrained “revelry of passions” and reducing “damage.” morals" among schismatics. The inexpediency of the committee’s solution to this issue is evident from the fact that no organic connection can be found between the stated goal and the means suggested by the committee - recording the marriage in the philistine police register, since “the firmness of the marriage, which provides a barrier to the rampant passions, depends on the religious conviction in the sanctity of marriage, and not on its recording.” Hence it happens that “the marriage of a schismatic who accepts the priesthood, performed by a priest, obliges him conscience, by the power of God’s law, thereby puts a barrier to the rampant passions and protects morals, regardless of whether it is recognized or not recognized by the civil authorities, and “the marriage of non-priests, bound only by the will of the parents, or an uninitiated highway, does not have such a protective effect on conscience,” although it is better than “complete non-recognition of marriage according to the teachings of the sect.” Thus, the new law on the recognition of schismatic marriages by civil authorities is inappropriate because it is not able to “change the spirit of sects.” At the same time, the insufficiently precise formulation and some significant inconveniences both for the interests of the Orthodox Church and for the moral views of the schismatics themselves also constitute, according to the court of Metropolitan Philaret, unquestionable shortcomings of the proposed new law. The assumption of the committee - marital unions recorded in the police books “are recognized as not subject to challenge” - cannot be considered accurate simply because in certain cases they can be challenged before the church court, and in those cases where marriages were concluded either in a close degree of kinship, or with a living wife, etc., they should be contested, even if they were recorded in the police books, so it would be more accurate to say that schismatic marriages, not consecrated in the church, but recorded should be called “not entirely correct, but valid for the enjoyment of civil rights.” Another proposal of the committee - to dissolve schismatic marriages in the event of an inquiry into their illegality by the force of the chambers of the civil court - is inconvenient in the sense that the thought of terminating the operation of the sacrament, grace and blessing, by civil authority alone will have to amaze and offend the religious feeling of schismatic priests who see marriage as a sacrament, and at the same time may be tempting for the Orthodox, who, seeing the destruction of marriage by civil authority alone, may come to compare it with any other civil act; and the application of the church rules necessary in divorce cases is completely incompatible with the conduct of civil chambers. In view of all these inconveniences of the changes proposed by the committee in the decrees on schismatic marriages, Metropolitan Philaret, “in order, at least in part, to eliminate them,” suggested that the committee make the following significant and expedient addition: “If in cases of schismatics’ crimes against the firmness and purity of marital unions there are cases requiring the application of church laws, then the chamber will communicate with the Orthodox spiritual authorities, which church law should be applied to the one presented in the case case,” and “if the spiritual authorities declare that the present opportunity leads to the dissolution of the marriage, then the chamber declares the marriage destroyed” 330. Further, along with recording schismatic marriages in the police registers, the committee intended to record the births and deaths of schismatics of less harmful sects exclusively here, so that the announcement of these events would be as accurate as possible, indicating the hour of their occurrence, and would be made by the applicant with two witnesses, who must first take proof of their identity from the village administration. But one bifurcation of such an important state matter as the recording of births, in the opinion of Metropolitan Philaret, inevitably had to represent a very important inconvenience for the government. “The registration of Orthodox Christians in the church, the registration of schismatics in the police - is this duality as convenient for the people and for the government as if it were in the same hands?” - he asked. Then, presenting various particular inconveniences and difficulties, such as, for example, the long journeys of schismatics to the police officer, “often 20 or more miles,” and, moreover, often, due to the long absence of the police officer, unsuccessful and in vain, as well as the strange selection and vague designation of the place of recording the births and deaths of schismatics of harmful sects, the inevitable increase in government costs for “increasing offices of police departments and bailiffs”, unlikely to difficult to achieve accuracy of police records, etc. - he recognized all this as significant and undoubted shortcomings of this proposed proposal of the committee, and therefore found it more expedient and convenient to provide a record of all schismatics in general, on an equal basis with the Orthodox, to the Orthodox clergy, which, in his opinion, would not only automatically eliminate the listed inconveniences, but would also provide constant opportunities for the pastors of the church “to come into contact with schismatics, so that by friendly and benevolent treatment of schismatics they would gain their favor and open the way to a religious conversation with them,” while usually schismatics, “at the instigation of their mentors, do not accept priests into their homes, and the priests do not find opportunities to enter into intercourse with them” 331. The next proposal of the special committee was to cancel the ban issued by the government of Emperor Nicholas on January 5, 1845, from admitting schismatics to icon-painting workshops 332. It is quite difficult to say what incentives the committee had in mind for such a change, especially if we take into account the small number of schismatic icon painters compared to the total number of the schism. Meanwhile, this change, insignificant and not particularly serious at first glance, in the opinion of Metropolitan Philaret, was not at all like that. In it he saw harm both for the Orthodox Church and for the art of icon painting itself: for schismatics engaged in icon painting do not learn it “according to the rules, but paint icons from old sketches and produce incorrect, often ugly, images based on false traditions.” At the same time, despite the existing prohibition, they at the same time “strive to distribute their works, harmful to Orthodoxy and to art,” not only among themselves, but also among Orthodox Christians, for example, when writing or renovating icons in Orthodox churches, especially with the favor of some parishioners, trying to depict the two-fingered sign of the cross. Thus, “with the strengthening of schismatic icon painters,” concluded Metropolitan Philaret, “which with the implementation of a new assumption will become even more significant, “things may come to the point that in some churches all icons will take on a schismatic appearance and become visual evidence in favor of the schism, to the seduction of the Orthodox,” and therefore he considered the existing ban necessary as “a protective measure in favor of Orthodoxy and in favor of art itself,” especially since it cannot constitute a “great burden” for the schismatics themselves 333. Finally, the further and, one might say, the most important assumptions of the special committee were the following: a) to allow schismatics of less harmful sects to establish their own schools and allow them to attend general educational institutions, without making it mandatory for them to study the law of God; b) allow for the correction of schismatic chapels and prayer buildings, the opening of closed ones and, where necessary, the conversion of residential buildings to chapels; c) not to persecute those who fulfill spiritual demands from schismatics of less harmful sects, except in cases where they incur the action of general criminal laws. The extreme harm of all the above assumptions for the interests of the Orthodox Church and the clear intention on the part of the committee, by putting them into effect, to give the schism a free existence on an equal basis with all other heterodox faiths, were obvious, and therefore the zealous defender of the Orthodox Church, Metropolitan Philaret, rebelled against them with all his might in order to prevent the inevitably disastrous consequences of the extremely liberal enthusiasm of the drafters of the project. a) The committee’s proposal to allow schismatics to establish schools, in the words of Metropolitan Philaret, is “dubious from many aspects” and, above all, from the point of view that it will serve as a sign of the class of the schismatics and thus should lead “to the strengthening of their separatism,” “while it is more useful for the state that their separatism decreases and does not produce cracks in social unity.” The idea of ​​​​establishing special schismatic schools, in his opinion, would only take place if the government sought means not to weaken, but to strengthen the schism; but since the government does not want this, then a means of the opposite nature should be considered unreliable. The objection put forward by many at that time (which, one must think, prompted the committee to make the assumption under consideration) that “with a lack of schools for schismatics, they still teach children through elders and elders in the spirit of schism,” was not considered “strong” by the Moscow saint. “This training, not authorized by the government,” he wrote, “is not widely distributed. The elders and elders teach children to read the ABC, Book of Hours and Psalter, and produce ignorant ignoramuses. But in the proposed schismatic schools there will be teachers who are more or less educated and will influence the development of the mental abilities of schismatic children, which can produce educated teachers of the schism and opponents of Orthodoxy with a strong influence on the masses of schismatics. If school education shakes children’s confidence in schism without proper teaching of the Law of God, then people will emerge without religious and moral convictions, harmful to themselves, to schism and to the state.” Meanwhile, Metropolitan Philaret found “a way to provide education to schismatics in a more reliable way,” and it was precisely in public schools established by the clergy, which, judging by the example of some schools in the Moscow diocese, for example, Guslitskaya, gradually began to attract schismatic children, and the parents themselves expressed a desire for their children to “learn not only to read and write, but also to understand and explain what they read,” and “with pleasure were present at the testing of their children.” “It is natural to expect,” he added, “that from such schools the children of schismatics will emerge with sound initial concepts of faith and not with a hostile, but with a peaceful disposition towards the clergy and the church. If such a teaching spreads, then there will be no need for special schismatic schools; on the contrary, if these are established, then one cannot help but fear that the dissenters will kidnap schismatic children from church schools and drag them into their own, hostile churches.” In conclusion of his opinion on schismatic schools, the Moscow archpastor pointed out to the committee that not only he, “but also the secular scientists of the Moscow district”, “recognized the establishment of schools for schismatics as inappropriate and harmful,” and, in accordance with all the “stated considerations,” he believed - either to completely abandon the assumption, or, “at least, to postpone this measure until it is decided whether to inform the schismatics of the church and civil schools of the desired education, not marked the nature of separatism." – As for the committee’s other proposal to allow schismatics to attend general educational institutions without compulsory instruction in the Law of God, the inconvenient fruits of this order, in the opinion of Metropolitan Philaret, could also be visible in advance. “If a schismatic son in school does not think at all about the Law of God,” he notes, “and in his parents’ home he finds only ignorance and, perhaps, a bad example, then what will happen to his religion?” Meanwhile, “it would not be offensive to the schism, and it would be spiritually beneficial for the children of schismatics,” “if, without the obligation to listen to the lessons of the Law of God,” they studied “the Creed, the Lord’s Prayer and the Ten Commandments, using, if they wish, old printed books” 334. b) The proposed multiplication of schismatic prayer houses and chapels was considered necessary by a special committee in view of their extreme lack - “the far inadequacy of existing chapels even to the most extreme needs”, and also under the plausible pretext that “schismatic services in public prayer houses, in some parts similar to the worship of the Orthodox Church, should, of course, have a more beneficial effect on the moral mood of the erring than secret pilgrimage in hut, which, as experience shows, always moves much further away from the rituals of the true church, and sometimes loses any religious character.” But Metropolitan Philaret found the first “foundation” very dubious, and the second “not based on experience and on correct inquiry of the subject.” It is all the more impossible to judge the extreme necessity of schismatic prayer houses “in relation to the entire state” without having “positive evidence,” he wrote, “since local observations, for example, in the Moscow diocese, show something different - namely, in some places there is even an excess of schismatic chapels, so that in the parish of one church there are several of them, while the shortage is noticed only in those villages in which the schism has spread again, or is small in number. Thus, according to the 1826 list of recognized and tolerated prayer houses in Bogorodsky district, 50 are shown, to which since that time quite a few unauthorized ones have been added; Meanwhile, according to diocesan information for the year 1863, there are 59 Orthodox parish churches in Bogorodsk and the district, with 99,284 Orthodox parishioners of both sexes, and 59,824 schismatics; Thus, “in total, there is one parish church for every 1,682 Orthodox souls, and one chapel for every 1,196 schismatic souls, from which it is clear that schismatics in the Bogorodsky district in general are “more generously endowed with chapels than the Orthodox are with churches.” “So,” concluded Metropolitan Philaret, “if in some places schismatics have a shortage of places for general prayer, then in others there is an excess; and the more there are, the more temptation and harm there is for Orthodoxy.” The Moscow archpastor found the second basis, or, more precisely, the “reasoning” of the committee to justify the need to multiply schismatic chapels, not based on experience and on correct inquiry of the subject, because the usual way of performing home schismatic worship was not taken into account, for example, by false priests who do it this way: in a spacious hut they put up a silk altar for a camp church with royal doors and small icons, a throne is placed inside it, the antimension, the Cross and the Gospel are placed on it and the service is performed according to the same Missal according to which it is performed in the church, through which, naturally, there is no removal from the rites of worship performed in a large public prayer room and no loss of religious character in home worship. Likewise, Metropolitan Philaret found the thought in the committee’s reasoning that the schismatic service in public chapels should have a more beneficial effect on the moral mood of the erring than prayer in huts to be in disagreement with the essence of the matter; on the contrary, he found that “by the sameness of the service, there should be one moral action,” and that “service in a well-arranged public chapel, satisfying the sensual taste of a schismatic, will tie him more firmly to the schism than service in a hut. And to seduce the Orthodox,” he added, “schismatic propaganda can act more powerfully through service in a public chapel, beautifully arranged, equipped with many ancient icons, than through service in the hut." The loss of any religious and, perhaps, moral character of the service among some sectarians - Skoptsy, Khlysty, etc., occurred, according to him, not from the hut, but from the absurd teaching, so that “in a magnificent chamber” it will still be just as “ridiculous as in the hut.” The cautious saint did not leave indiscriminately the very expression of the committee: “public chapels.” “This expression is new,” he says; “the schismatics, not realizing their right to publicity, built their prayer houses behind the scenes, not in plain sight, not in squares, but in courtyards, in cemeteries. Only the chapels of the Rogozhskoe and Preobrazhenskoe cemeteries raised their tops so high that they are far visible through the fences of the cemeteries." But "if the law does not recognize a hierarchy among schismatics and does not allow public processions, then would it be consistent with this to legalize the chapels as public?" Having pointed out the unfoundedness of the arguments put forward by the committee in favor of the need to multiply schismatic prayer buildings, Metropolitan Philaret advised, on the contrary, to pay attention to the constant, daring, “obviously disdainful” violations by schismatics of the existing law on chapels and to think about those immeasurably harmful consequences for the Orthodox Church that will inevitably follow after allowing them to “multiply and exhibit” their already numerous chapels. “By the Highest command on August 19, 1826 and the Highest approved on July 5, 1827 by the resolution of the committee of the city. ministers,” he wrote, “are prohibited from building new chapels and repairing old ones. But, for example, in Bogorodsky district, in the village of Tsaplina, instead of the chapel that burned down last year, a new one, more magnificent than the previous one, has now been built; and this is not out of need, because there is another, warm one right there. In the same district, in the village of Selivanikha, even a stone chapel with royal doors and a throne was built, in which a false priest of Austrian ordination serves. Here in the Rogozhsky, as the government puts it, an almshouse, and according to the schismatics, in the Rogozhsky Cemetery, a huge chapel, which schismatics look at from everywhere as a beacon of their safety, is being restored with a change of roof; and this is done in large numbers, with haste, probably out of fear that the law will not come and stop things. Given this direction of schismatics, what should be expected if the law proclaims the right to have and multiply public schismatic chapels and prayer houses? One cannot help but fear that many provinces will become so densely covered with schismatic chapels and prayer houses, fixed and mobile, that Orthodox Christians who belonged to the common people, especially those living far from churches, will stumble upon chapels on the way to church and, as a result, fall into schism.”335 Consequently, “in the present circumstances, there is neither a moral nor a political obligation for the Orthodox government to care about the multiplication of schismatic prayer houses; and there is a religious, moral and political obligation to take care of the protection of the Orthodox population from the increasing temptation and the growing danger of seduction due to the excessive and willful proliferation of schismatic chapels and camp churches, carried everywhere by false priests.” However, in the present case, as before, Saint Philaret did not refuse to give an opinion that would not be embarrassing for the schism, not contradictory for the government and at the same time protective for Orthodoxy - namely, he proposed for his part: all schismatic chapels and prayer houses, recognized as tolerable in 1826, should be recognized as such for the future, “with permission to renew their dilapidation, but without the permission of external church accessories: domes, domes, crosses, bell towers and bells”; in areas with a large schismatic population, open home chapels for public use, with the permission of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and with the observation of “urgent need”; at the same time, all chapels and prayer houses built without permission, or converted from residential buildings, should be closed, and the perpetrators subjected to legal liability; in the same way, schismatic camp churches should not be recognized as tolerant. c) Metropolitan Philaret also considered the committee’s last proposal to be unnecessary and not harmless—not to persecute those who fulfill the spiritual needs of schismatics of less harmful sects, except in cases where they incur the action of general criminal laws. And he recognized this assumption as not being based on experience and correct knowledge of the subject; for in reality, those who correct the demands of the schismatics, especially the greatly multiplied false bishops and false priests of the Austrian false hierarchy, not only do not need any protection from the government, but, on the contrary, require more stringent restrictions for constant blatant violations of the law prohibiting the practice of schism. Thus, “they form their own false councils, now in Moscow, now abroad, and the actions and acts of these false councils become generally known through the “Russian Messenger,” although not to their praise 336. This is “such a scope for action that the legal hierarchy does not have,” and it does not remain “without a strong influence on the masses of uneducated people,” so that in one Bogorodsky district, “in the last three years the number of schismatics has increased by 18,508 souls of both sexes.” “Giving the schismatic false hierarchy unlimited freedom of action means giving the wolves the freedom to steal the sheep.” Moreover, “the forest wolf, having kidnapped one sheep, will be satisfied and, at least for a while, will leave the flock alone; The spiritual wolf will not be satisfied with hundreds of stolen sheep, but will steal day and night.” “So,” the saint wrote in conclusion, “doesn’t justice and precaution require that at least some limits be set for the schismatic false hierarchy?” - For his part, without denying “tolerance,” he proposed to the committee to define its limits in the following way: those who perform divine services and spiritual requests for schismatics of less harmful sects should not be persecuted if they do not cause a schism and do not violate the laws and rules established to protect Orthodoxy; but if any of them allows himself to cause a schism, for example, by leading and serving in a public procession, he is subject to all the more severe liability because by his official action he involves many others in the act. In the same way, if an act is opened by which one of them gives someone a church title, for example, a priestly charter, then both of them are subject to responsibility for accepting a title that does not legally belong to them - the first for drawing up, and the other for accepting an illegal act 337. This was an attentive, truthful analysis, precisely based on many years of experience and correct inquiry into the subject, of the “changes in existing regulations” regarding the schism proposed by liberal legislators - an analysis carried out by Metropolitan Philaret according to the Highest Will. And the bitter truth, not hidden, but sharply exposed by the great saint, had such an effect on the government of Emperor Alexander II that only 10 years after this and 7 years after the death of Bishop Philaret himself, the question of “the civil rights of schismatics” was again raised and “rules on the metric registration of marriages, births and deaths of schismatics” were issued, i.e., from all those previously drafted and not approved Metropolitan Philaret adopted only the first two changes in the laws on schism 338. But many years of experience have shown that the fears expressed by the ever-memorable archpastor regarding the inconvenience and these two changes were quite fair, as both Moscow missionary congresses testified 339. Further progressive, although again far from decisive, movement along the path of changes projected by the 1864 committee in the existing decrees on schismatics was made already in 1883, when the well-known May laws appeared, the influence of which also turned out to be very constraining for the successful action of the church in the fight against schism. Thus, the end result of Metropolitan Philaret’s energetic struggle with the strong liberal movement, which began from the very first days of the reign of Alexander II, was that the government not only rejected numerous statements by the extreme defenders of the schism about the need to grant him complete freedom of religion, but until the end of the life of the Moscow saint, almost all the main laws regarding schismatics, issued with his participation in the previous reign, were preserved. True, the government's word differed significantly from deeds, and the previous legal strictures, which remained inviolable, did not in fact prevent government officials from looking at the schism “through their fingers” and even making attempts to openly patronize the schism; but the zealous guardian of the interests of the Orthodox Church, Metropolitan Philaret, energetically defending “both great and small” in the regulations of Emperor Nicholas regarding the schism, fought against all such concessions to the schism that became known to him from both its disinterested and selfish defenders. By the power of his ardent and truthful words, he forced them to do what was due and legal in relation to the schismatics, both of the priestly and non-priestly kind, which should be said now. Very quickly, the schismatic priests, and first of all, of course, the Rogozhskys, felt the “dawn of a new reign” and “with greater courage and self-reliance than before” began to act after the death of “whose name they had previously trembled.” Such new, daringly defiant attitudes of the Rogozh schismatics towards the new government began from the very first days of the accession to the throne of Emperor Alexander II and were revealed most clearly in the already mentioned persistent two-day evasion of their oath of allegiance to the new sovereign established by law in the Orthodox Church, before an Orthodox priest, which in the end took place only after the meek admonition of their main leaders (two trustees and three influential parishioners of the Cemetery) by Metropolitan Philaret, who invited the latter to his home for this purpose, and, moreover, in one of the Rogozh chapels, and not in the church. What the schismatics actually wanted to express by this opposition to the legitimate demands of the authorities is quite difficult to determine, although there is no doubt that “what was at work here,” as Metropolitan Philaret rightly noted, “was not so much a religious conviction as a desire to act according to their own will,” and at the same time the desire to “show the common people their strength and through that keep them in their dependence.” Somewhat earlier, shortly before the death of Emperor Nicholas, they tried, according to Metropolitan Philaret, to do the same thing, that is, to support the people’s vigor and devotion to the schism in another way - by reporting false rumors about new laws supposedly issued in their favor. He wrote about this to Karasevsky, who was serving as Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod: “Until this year, the Rogozh dissenters, although they tried to keep the schismatic people from joining the unified faith, there were no noticeable results. This year the crisis began. On January 23, there was an unusually large meeting of schismatics in the chapel, and a ritual was used, which according to the charter is used only at Easter - placing a large censer with incense in the middle of the church. From the reconnaissance of the caretaker of the Rogozhsky Cemetery 340 it is clear that this meeting was convened by messengers for a hearing supposedly in favor of the schismatics of the decree. Rumors attribute this case to the dissenter merchant Sveshnikov and the trustee Zelenkov.” Well understanding how dangerous such tricks of the Rogozh schismatics were for Orthodoxy, Metropolitan Philaret could not remain an indifferent and inactive spectator of them. “In these circumstances,” he wrote to the same Karasevsky, “the preservation of the rules given in Bose by the late most pious sovereign Emperor Nikolai Pavlovich in relation to the schism means especially much. If these rules remain unchanged, the revealed evidence of a schism will lose its meaning and will remain without consequences. But if the dissenters had achieved, in the form of condescension, some withdrawal from them in their favor, then they would not have failed to present this to the common people as their advantage; would strengthen their desire to form a closed separation from the general state structure, and also the false hierarchy hiding in the holes could gain more courage to continue its harmful actions.” “These observations on the current state of the Rogozh schismatics,” he wrote in conclusion, “in my best understanding, are so important that I am prompted to suggest to your Excellency whether it is necessary to bring them to the Highest information” 341. Whether or not Metropolitan Philaret’s proposal was fulfilled is unknown; but this time his protest remained without visible consequences, and the daring calculation of the schismatics that “the new emperor, upon his first accession to the throne, would not want to quarrel with them” 342 turned out to be correct. But subsequent events exactly justified Metropolitan Philaret’s alarming fears regarding the harmful consequences of leniency towards schismatics. With greater force and persistence than before, the renewed solicitations of the Rogozhsky people - to obtain priests independent from the church, then no less persistent petitions for permission to openly perform divine services in the Rogozh chapels of false bishops and false priests of the Austrian order, the incredibly rapid proliferation of the Belokrinitsky false hierarchy with all the harmful consequences from it - these are three major phenomena that characterize the further state of the priesthood schism during the reign of Alexander II, with which the government, and even more so the Moscow saint, had to deal. This time we will limit ourselves to only presenting his works on the final solution to the question of granting schismatics priests independent of the Orthodox bishops. The Rogozh schismatics made an attempt to get themselves a priest from the Orthodox Church to correct the requirements immediately after the indicated evasion of their oath. Having agreed to accept her from the Karacharovsky priest, they thought it was him “to win over with money” and “to ask for the same position as they had runaway priests.” But this “reasonable, honest, active in his position and meek in behavior” priest was not seduced by the schismatics’ money, and even, “to protect himself from criticism about the rumor spread among the schismatics,” reported everything to Metropolitan Philaret 343, which is why the attempt, naturally, failed. After a little time, the Rogozh schismatics made a new, more daring attempt in the same way. As recently as April of the same year (1855), noticing a new trend favorable to them in the highest government spheres, Moscow leaders, and at their instigation 344 and Bogorodsky, submitted a request with numerous signatures for permission to elect priests to administer services “from supernumerary or multi-staff parishes and from those in retirement.” The request was submitted to the Most High Name, and the petitioners did not hesitate to supply it with obviously false complaints about the allegedly unjust confiscation of their “prayer churches,” icons, vestments and utensils. The impudent tone and lies of these petitions were so great that Metropolitan Filaret, to whom they were forwarded by the Minister of Internal Affairs Bibikov for “communication on these considerations and conclusions,” apparently “confused by the changing government attitudes towards the schism,” was, beyond his habit, slow to respond, and only at the new request of the new minister, Lansky, on September 22 presented his review of them, in which he previously noted that the demand for his opinions “seems somewhat unusual” for him. In their petition, the Moscow schismatics wrote that “their prayer churches, erected in a designated place behind the Rogozhskaya outpost in Moscow, except for two chapels, were taken away.” Objecting to this, Metropolitan Philaret first pointed out the very dubious legality of the very existence of the churches indicated by the schismatics, and then clearly exposed the groundlessness and blatant lie of their very complaint. “If the petitioners,” he wrote in his response to the minister, “want to be confirmed by the initial order of the government, then all their chapels and other buildings should be taken away from them or destroyed, because the place has been allocated by the government for a hospital and cemetery for those affected by the plague, and not for schismatic institutions. One might think that a lot has already been taken away from them when they write that their prayer churches, except for two chapels, have been taken away. The church is more than a chapel. So, their words have such a meaning that many of the most important churches were taken away from them, and only two less important chapels were left to them. But is that really the case? Two huge chapels, magnificently decorated, remain untouched by them, but one small chapel was taken and converted into a co-religionist church,” which again cannot be complained about, because “the society of Rogozh co-religionists was formerly part of the society of Rogozh schismatics, participated in contributions to the chapels and had the right with others to use them,” which right with the separation of co-religionists from schismatics, i.e., with their transition “from an illegal to a legal position,” naturally, not only was it not destroyed, but on the contrary, it increased, so that “in respect of their legality,” co-religionists could demand even the best of the chapels, and if they asked for a smaller one, they acted modestly... So, without exaggeration, we can say that the above-mentioned article of the schismatics’ petition was written not only falsely, but also unscrupulously.” – According to the court of Metropolitan Philaret, the second article of the petition was of the same degree of authenticity, that is, the schismatics’ complaint about the confiscation of icons, vestments and utensils. “Two huge chapels,” he wrote, “were left untouched by the schismatics, with all their decoration,” but the fellow believers took from the vestments, again, less than they could rightfully demand. “Further, the schismatics complained in their petition that they had no one to perform their services. “But who is to blame for this except themselves? – Metropolitan Philaret asked. Their last priest joined the Edinoverie church: was it possible to refuse him this when he desired and asked for it? Who didn’t tell them to follow him?” - Turning finally to the final request of the Moscow schismatics for permission to choose priests from unstaffed or multi-staffed parishes, Metropolitan Philaret noted that it, as it had already been considered in the Moscow advisory committee and rejected in Bose by the late sovereign emperor, cannot raise doubts about its impracticability. The petition of the Bogorodsk schismatics in its content did not differ in anything special from the petition of the Moscow schismatics, except for a relatively large number of signatures, which mentioned “villages from several parishes, not a little distant from the city of Bogorodsk.” Metropolitan Philaret mainly wanted to draw the government’s attention to this. “To collect these signatures,” he says, “it was necessary either to convene a large gathering of schismatics in one place, from the city and the district, or to send agents to the villages to persuade the schismatics to sign. I believe that it will not be left without consideration whether the law allows such action, and whether allowing this could be accompanied by unfavorable consequences. An open schismatic meeting would not be good; But is such an action hidden from the government less bad?” 345. Such a thorough exposure of the falsity and impudence of schismatic complaints, presented by Metropolitan Philaret, achieved its immediate goal - the schismatics’ petitions were left without consequences, but that’s all; Their audacity in inventing lies and slander against the Orthodox Church, thanks to the increasingly intensified new direction of the government in relation to the schism, remained unpunished - and this very thing provoked the schismatics to new, even more persistent harassment on their part. In August 1865, the dismissal from the post of Minister of Internal Affairs of Adjutant General Bibikov, who was “a zealous executor of the plans of Emperor Nicholas,” and the appointment in his place of Lansky, who was “the last of the most prominent representatives of Freemasonry, which was dying out in Russia, and, of course, not alien to the religious and social teachings that prevailed in Freemasonry,” as well as the almost simultaneous, at the insistence of the Count Zakrevsky, the replacement of the honest, energetic and skillful caretaker of the Rogozhsky cemetery - Mozzhakov, with the liberal defender of the schism Longinov - could not have been more desirable and favorable for the Moscow schismatics 346. Therefore, even more confident than before in impunity, the Rogozhites, with their trustees Zelenkov and Vinokurov at their head, in April 1856 renewed their request for the granting of priests independent of the bishops of the Great Russian Church. The request was again submitted to the Most High Name, and for greater persuasiveness it was signed not only by Moscow, but also by Rzhev and Kimry schismatics. However, this time the calculation of the Moscow schismatics to grant them relief beyond their expectations turned out to be far from correct: the judgments expressed by Metropolitan Philaret on this subject obviously did not lose their force in the eyes of the government. Emperor Alexander forwarded the petition to the secret committee with the following handwritten inscription. “To inform (the secret committee), declaring that I strongly do not agree to this.” And the secret committee, in fulfillment of the Highest will, announced to it through the Secretary of State, Prince Golitsin, at its meeting on May 16, 1856, decided: “to instruct the Most Reverend Metropolitan of Moscow, in common with the Moscow military governor-general, having called upon him the elders of the Rogozhsky Cemetery, to decisively declare to them, and through them to all Rogozhsky schismatics that their desire to have priests independent of the bishop will never be accepted by the government, as contrary to the laws of the church and state, and that they can only join St. church either unconditionally, or on the rules of the same faith, for the consecration of Rogozh chapels and for the correct worship therein” 347. It would seem that after such a decisive resolution of the committee, the Rogozhsky schismatics should have abandoned any thought of acquiring and receiving priests independent of the Orthodox Church. And yet, they continued to persist in this thought. “Knowing that a drop pierces a stone, and thinking that by importunity and some refined ideas, such as, for example, pointing out their number, which they exaggerate, they can shake the firmness of the government and achieve the goal of strengthening themselves,” they stubbornly refused to sign up, even just hearing a decisive refusal to their request, when, according to the resolution of the committee, they were invited for this to the house of the Governor-General, where Metropolitan Philaret was also located. We don’t know how the gr. acted in this case. Zakrevsky, in all likelihood, now, as always, sided with the schismatics; but Metropolitan Philaret made every effort to persuade them to submit. This is what he himself says about it. “To carry out the committee’s resolution, two trustees of the Rogozhsky Cemetery and four people from other significant schismatics were called to the house of the Moscow military governor-general. After reading the Highly approved opinion, the Metropolitan (i.e., Philaret himself) explained to them that church division is not pleasing to God; that they themselves recognize the need for a bishop when they ask for priests ordained by the bishop; that from the beginning of the Christian Church, holy councils and holy fathers never allowed priests to leave their dependence on their church authorities, and those who were alienated from them were condemned; that the rules of the same faith are lenient and sufficiently satisfying to those who are attached to old printed books; and finally invited them to further conference to resolve doubts and to achieve reconciliation. One of them expressed his disposition to join the church on the rules of the same faith; the others were silent, and when it was demanded that they sign only in hearing the Highest approved opinion, they did not agree to this, and agreed only after a long admonition. Afterwards, a preliminary understanding was privately discovered not to agree to anything, and those who poorly understood it did not agree to a simple subscription to the hearing. Having expressed a disposition towards Edinoverie, honorary citizen Bogdanov, soon after allowed his daughter to join Edinoverie and get married in the Edinoverie church; but he himself could not resist the power of the schism and did not join the church”... “Here is an example before the eyes of the authorities,” Metropolitan Philaret concluded his story, “how the power of a schismatic crowd suppresses a reasonable conviction in favor of the church” 348. The receipt so reluctantly given by the schismatics at the hearing of the Supremely approved resolution of the committee, as one might expect, did not at all serve as a guarantee of their readiness to obey this resolution; on the contrary, in December of the same 1856, they submitted a new, all-submissive request for permission to have priests from the civil authorities, independent of the bishops of the Greek-Russian Church. Their request was left without consequences, although it does not appear that it caused any strict suggestions on the part of the government to the schismatics, as should have been expected after the recent, such a decisive resolution of the committee, approved by the Supreme Authority. The Rogozh schismatics, of course, even understood from this that the new government was favorably disposed towards them, and Count Zakrevsky undoubtedly supported them in this confidence and, of course, by agreement with them, he himself again came out in defense of their cause. At the beginning of 1857 he submitted to the Highest view a new, most submissive note on the need to allow schismatics to have priests from the civil authorities. Among the strange, not to say ignorant, proofs of this necessity, he provided the following: “As long as the schismatics asked for the provision of priests subordinate to the civil authorities, without expressing either their right to do so, or that their rituals and sacraments did not offend the Orthodox Church, the government could still leave their said requests without respect, under the pretext of protecting the rights of the Orthodox Church. But as soon as the schismatics saw that in their own Cemetery the Metropolitan himself was doing everything that they were forbidden and called an insult to Orthodoxy 349, they received the conviction that prohibiting them from worship and not giving priests subordinate to the civil authorities, equals the deprivation of their civil rights, is an unjust persecution on the part of the Orthodox clergy and that consequently the government cannot leave their request, like the previous ones, without any respect, in which they are encouraged by the word of your Imperial Majesty, expressed in the most merciful manifesto of March 19, 1850: “Let everyone, under the shadow of laws that are equally fair for everyone, protecting everyone, enjoy the fruit of the innocent labors.” As evidence, Zakrevsky also again referred to the large number of schismatics, to their establishment of false metropolises in the Austrian and Turkish possessions, forced by the lack of priests, to the continuous growth of the schism, etc. In conclusion, he expressed confidence that “the government will act completely prudently if it gives the priestly schismatics priests subordinate to the civil authorities,” for he recognized beyond doubt that then “the political identity of the schismatics will disappear, the false bishops and priests of foreign decree located in Russia will become unnecessary, the hostile feeling of the schismatics towards the government will be destroyed, the reasons for their resettlement abroad and for the transfer of capital there will be eliminated.” maintaining foreign metropolises" 350. The most submissive note from Count Zakrevsky gave rise to the following alarming Highest resolution: “This matter must be submitted immediately to the secret committee for consideration, and I draw the attention of Messrs. members on the importance of this state and, one might say, vital issue for us, and I expect their full and frank opinion, to calm my wavering conscience in this important matter, that is, how to reconcile the benefits of our church with the state benefits, for the matter is about calming the minds of five million people” 351. The committee was chaired by Grand Duke Konstantin, for whom Melnikov then composed his well-known note, filled with false stories about schismatics and fabrications about the Orthodox clergy. And the chairman and, after him, all the other secular members of the committee persistently demanded that the issue be resolved in a positive sense, that is, in favor of the schismatics. This made the position of the spiritual members of the committee, headed by the great zealot for the interests of the Orthodox Church, Metropolitan Gregory, extremely difficult: all the inflexibility of his devotion to Orthodoxy was required in order to defend the rights of the church against such strong opponents - and his friend and teacher, Metropolitan Philaret, came to his aid in such difficult circumstances. And he could not help but raise his voice now, when with such great labor the government system of action in relation to Beglopovism, created by him and so constantly defended, was threatened with the most serious danger. Metropolitan Philaret compiled a new extensive note about priests independent from the church and, dated October 27, 1857, forwarded it to St. Petersburg Metropolitan Gregory. This note contained not only a detailed historical outline of all the formerly fruitless solicitations of Ekaterinburg and Moscow schismatics for the acquisition of priests permitted by the government, with a statement of the reasons why these solicitations were left unfulfilled by the government - not only a new thorough indication of church and civil difficulties, incongruities and unfavorable consequences that should have inevitably revealed themselves with the satisfaction of such schismatic quests, but also contained a detailed analysis of Zakrevsky’s new note, the contents of which became known to him unofficially. It can be assumed that they now wanted to resolve the matter in favor of the schismatics without recourse. already for advice to the Moscow Metropolitan, whose opinion on this issue was quite well known - and the merit of the ever-memorable archpastor is all the higher and more important that he now came out in defense of the church, prompted solely by the consciousness of his pastoral duty - to defend it. We will introduce readers to the contents of his new note. “Nothing is hidden that will not be revealed,” he wrote to Metropolitan Gregory. – Dissenters often skillfully and quickly penetrate even the secret actions of the authorities and the government itself. From them this information sometimes passes on to co-religionists standing on the border of the schism, and then to the Orthodox. There is information that some officials or persons 352 in Moscow have drawn up notes favorable to the harassment of schismatics and submitted them to the government for consideration.” - Then, against the evidence given by Zakrevsky that it is unfair to constrain schismatics from performing old rituals, when the metropolitan himself used them in his service in the Edinoverie church, he notes: “From this, to draw the conclusion that schismatics have the right to ask priests would mean to draw a completely incorrect and false conclusion. The bishop served, with the blessing of the Holy Synod, with priests serving in this rank also with the blessing of the Holy Synod; and the schismatics ask for priests who are independent of the Holy Synod and dependent on the secular authorities. Moreover, the service according to the order of early printed books did not begin now, but has existed for 55 years”; “but until now neither the schismatics nor anyone else has deduced from this any right in favor of the schismatics: consequently, the conclusion now being put forward about the right of schismatics to ask for priests independent of the spiritual authorities is only a schismatic effort - to give itself the appearance of justice by false reasoning, and therefore, just as before the government left such requests without respect, it is also proper for it to act now in order to act consistently, and, moreover, not under the pretext of protecting the rights of the Orthodox church, but for this true reason." Further, Metropolitan Philaret notes that having intentionally and unfairly mixed Edinoverie service with the Old Believers, Count Zakrevsky even more unfairly identifies the very concepts of Old Believers and Edinoverie in order to find a cruel reproach to the Orthodox clergy, while the schismatics themselves, despite their statements, perfectly understand the difference between them. “When communicating directly with schismatics, and when inquiring about their opinions through fellow believers, it is not heard of them recognizing the identity of the schism with common faith and complaining about the clergy hiding this from the government. And here is the proof: if schismatics recognized the identity of schism with unity of faith, then there would be no reason for them not to join unity of faith.” As for the excerpt from the most merciful manifesto cited by Zakrevsky, it was made, notes Metropolitan Philaret, “not according to its true reason, but according to a misinterpretation,” for “the manifesto encourages the fruits of innocent labors, and not sects and schisms that are harmful to state unity, to be equally protected by laws.” Metropolitan Philaret again denounces the injustice of the opinion that prayer churches were forcibly taken away from Moscow schismatics in order to convert them to Edinoverie, and that they, only being forced by necessity, after the last priest joined the Edinoverie, established a metropolitanate in foreign possessions. The houses of prayer of the schismatics, he says, were taken not by force, but by right, and moreover, in such a way that at the Rogozhskoye cemetery there was one out of three, and at Preobrazhenskoye there were three out of eleven; the foreign metropolis was established by the Rogozh schismatics not out of a hopeless situation, “when they still had more than one priest in the Cemetery,” but in order to “elevate themselves, strengthen and consolidate,” which they succeeded in, when “the machinations of the schismatics and the rumors spread by them stopped the successful conversion of the schismatics to the same faith. He also recognized as equally unfounded the expectation of those beneficial consequences from the granting of the priests they desired to the schismatics, which were presented in Zakrevsky’s note as beyond doubt. It is difficult to hope, he says, that with the recognition of independent priests among the schismatics, their political independence will disappear; on the contrary, there are undoubted reasons to fear that it will become even “more strengthened,” for the priests seduced by schismatics, as usual, will be under the authority of strong schismatics - the trustees of the chapels; moreover, they “will be connected among themselves by some influence of the elders on the younger ones, while the trustees of different chapels and different cities and villages will remain mutually connected by the spirit of the sect and the influence of rich Rogozh schismatics, and thus their society will be even more strongly organized in a democratic character.” It is equally difficult to expect that with the satisfaction of schismatic demands for priests, foreign false bishops and false priests will become unnecessary, for, having spent large capital on their acquisition, schismatics “will not want to give up what they bought dearly.” If at the same time the “most reasonable” of them doubt their dignity, then the “simple schismatic people”, who have already partly managed to get used to the false hierarchy, will naturally not easily leave it. In view of this, “the false hierarchy can be overthrown in only one way, namely by justice over it and especially over the false bishops,” the penetration of which into Russia itself also eliminated the last fear of the Moscow defender of the schismatics - the fear of the resettlement of schismatics abroad and the transfer of their capital there to support a foreign metropolitanate, for with the estate of false bishops and false priests at home, for schismatics there is no reason for either one or the other.” “From everything stated here,” wrote Metropolitan Philaret, “it is impossible to draw any other conclusion than that in response to the schismatics’ solicitation, to receive a refusal from the civil authorities of priests independent of the bishops, repeatedly made in Bose by the late Emperor Nikolai Pavlovich, is a matter of royal truth and foresight, a matter of the unshakable firmness of the sacred royal word, a matter of truly the most pious defender and patron of the Orthodox Church.” 353. There is no doubt that this energetic protest of the great Moscow archpastor against the note of the schismatics’ guardian, the Moscow Governor-General, strongly supported Metropolitan Gregory in his unequal struggle with the secular members of the committee and gave him the opportunity to ultimately defend the interests of the Orthodox Church intact. At the meeting of the committee on March 31, 1858, he introduced a note, drawn up in accordance with the comments of Metropolitan Philaret, “on what system to adhere to in relation to the schism,” and energetically defended the refutations of all the arguments of Count Zakrevsky set out in it, so that, finally, the secular members of the committee recognized it as necessary and fair, “in the request of the schismatics of the priestly sect to grant them priests refuse,” and on April 24 of the same year, this resolution received the Highest approval, after which the schismatics’ requests for the granting of priests independent of the Orthodox Church were no longer repeated 354 . And this was the fruit of many years of tireless, memorable labors of the great Moscow saint. Here we conclude this time our research on the activities of Metropolitan Philaret in the fight against the schism, without abandoning the intention to eventually bring it to an end. We take comfort in the hope that our unfinished work, which represents only a feeble attempt to depict the great and tireless labors of the ever-memorable Moscow saint in that area of his ministry, to which he rightly acquired especially important significance, can, although to some extent, restore before the spiritual gaze of readers the majestic image of this archpastor, who tirelessly stood guard over the Orthodox Church, protecting and who protected her from the oppression of the schism, from the intrigues and attacks of the dissenters and their accomplices, and through this, who left in his person a high role model for all the archpastors of the Russian church, hitherto, unfortunately, fought by the schism. See eg. Collection regulation according to the schism, 1868, pp. 170–173 and Collected. opinions and feedback II vol., pp. 364–69; pp. 193 –198 Collection. fast. and pp. 402–407 Collection. pl. and review; 211 pp. Collection. fast. in 409 pp. Collection. pl. and review etc. Collection. fast. according to h.r. 1860, 2 parts, 200–203 pp. and Collection. pl. and review II vol. 460–462 pp.; 212–214 pp. Collection. fast. and pp. 235–239. Collection. pl. and review additional T.; pp. 440–443 Collection. fast. and pp. 230–234 Collection. pl. and review III, etc. The examples presented are sufficient for proof. Collection pl. and review III vol., pp. 527, 532; V vol., p. 739. “That your fellow believers are schismatic,” writes, for example, Metropolitan Filaret Nikolai, Bishop. Kaluzhsky dated August 23. 1838, - I heard this before” (Read. General love spirit. enlightenment. 1870 II, 19 p.). “That eight of your priests have gone into schism,” he wrote to Gabriel, also a bishop. Kaluzhsky, later Ryazansky (Gorodkov), dated January 2, 1830, “I heard your letter before and wanted to write to you that this should not be ignored” (Letter to him 68, 15 pages), etc. Collection opinion and review 4 vols., 297 pp. Ibid., 2 vols., 373 pp.; 3 volumes, 63 pages. Sochin. m. Philaret 5 vol., 289 pp. Ibid., 2 vols., 410–411 pp. Collection opinion and review 4 vols., 299 pp. There, additionally. vol. 235–236 pp. Collection opinion and feedback additional vol., pp. 463, 465. Collection opinion and review vol. 5, pp. 579, 741; vol. 4, p. 21. Thu. in General love spirit, enlightenment - Psm. F. to Ign. Crow. – 1871 No. 4, 44 pp. Collection opinion and review 4 volumes, 298 pages. Shower. Thurs. 1882, 2 vols., 233 pp. Psm. F. to Monk. Kamchatsk Collection opinion and review 5 vols., 579 pp. Collection opinion and review 3 volumes, 22 pages; additional v., 234 pp. Shower. Thurs. 1872 2 vols., 122 pp.; 1 volume, 482 pages; 1890, 2 vols., 471–472 pp. Collection opinion and review 5 vols., 924–925 pp. The note on the state of the schism, which contains this story, dates back to 1867. Collection opinion and review 5 vols., 924–925 pp.; srvn. Br. Sl. 1872 2 vols., 129–136 pp. Collection opinion and review 5 vols., 924 pp. See, for example, Soul. Thurs. 1888 3 vols., 128 pp. and 1890 2 vols., 471–472 pp. Soulful. Thurs. 1882 2 vols., 233 pp. Collection opinion and review 4 volumes, 230 pages. Thurs. General love 1870 11 books. 20, 30 pp. Collection. opinion and review 4 vols., 512–513 pp. 5 vols., 924–926 pp. – Fugitive priests, according to Met. Philaret, since the reign of March 26, 1822, have multiplied especially strongly, although they contributed to the maintenance and even prosperity of the priestly schism, which resulted in a noticeably intensified schismatic proselytism, but they almost did not directly participate in the propaganda of the schism. In most cases, “ignorant and damaged in life,” in a word, the worst element of the Orthodox clergy, they went into schism exclusively with for selfish purposes, or to avoid punishment for crimes committed, and, living in a schism, created temptation among the schismatics themselves with their shameful life. The best of them. They, out of necessity or seduction, went over to the schismatics, still hated the schism itself and over time returned to Orthodoxy again. However, these unattractive qualities of fugitive priests, unfavorable for the spread of schism, in his opinion, in the future, with the development of enlightenment among the clergy, could disappear and be replaced by new ones of the opposite nature, if the government of Emperor Nicholas from 1826 had not turned its “insightful” gaze on them and had not put an end to their self-will. Collection opinion and review 4 vols., 271–272 pp.; additional v., 232 pp. Collection opinion and review 5 vols., 598 pp. There, additionally. v., 225 pp. Collection opinion and review 4 vols., 328. pp. Collection opinion and review 3 vols., 513 pp. There, additionally. vol., 225–227 pp. Archpriest of Moscow. Epiphany, in Elokhov, c. A. Pokrovsky. Archpriest of Podolsk V. Berezkin. Collection opinion and review 5 vols., 599 pp.; additional v., 224 pp. Shower. Thurs. 1881 3 vols., 511 pp. Collection opinion and review 4 vols., 299–300 pp. Collection opinion and review 4 vols. 299 pp. Shower. Thurs. 1868 1 vol. 203–204 pp., Psm. Jacob Nizheg. Collection opinion and review 5 vols., 925 pp. Psm. M. Phil. Anthony. 3 volumes, 70 pages. Thurs. total love 1870 II volume, 28 pages – psm. Nick. Kaluzhsk; Collection pl. and review 4 vols. 229 pp. Psm. m. Philaret Anthony 4 vol., 264 pp. Collection opinion and review 3 vols., 511–512 pp. cf. 2 vols. 265–268 pp. There, additionally. v., 231 pp. Collection opinion and review 4 volumes, 300 pages. Thurs. General love 1870, 11 volumes, 14 pages. Thurs. General love 1870 11 vols., 27 and 30 pp. Collection opinion and review additional v., 227 pp. Ibid., 5 vols., 492–493 pp. Psm. to Ant. 3 vols. 167 pp.; Mn and otz. 4 vols. 512–514 pp. 5 vols. 669–670 pp. Collection opinion and review 5 vols., 925 pp. Psm. m. Fnlaret Anthony 4 vols., 244 pp., 3 vols., 133; Psm. High Special 2 vols., 169 pp. etc. Curious information about how carelessly the highest civil authorities treated the very important reports of Metropolitan Philaret regarding the schismatics, and how these reports were passed through with extraordinary speed. the lower police authorities became known to the schismatics themselves, can be seen in the Brotherly Word (1876, 2 books, 137 pages), in an article about the confidential letter of Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count D. A. Tolstoy dated September 22, 1865 (Collected opinions and reviews, 5 volumes, 757–758 pages). In this letter, M. Philaret asked the Chief Prosecutor to take appropriate measures against the monk Alimpius and the false Archimandrite Euphrosynus who came to Moscow (with false passports) on a very important “church-hierarchical” matter - to consult with the Moscow spiritual authorities on the election of a new vicar of the Belokrinitsky Metropolis, in view of the prosecution of the false Metropolitan Kirill on the part of the Austrian government for his trip to Russia, for which position the arriving Euphrosynus was intended, “The duty of serving the world and the good of the Holy Church,” Metropolitan concluded his letter. Filaret, I am urged to bring the above described to the attention of your Excellency, in order to take measures so that the dying Belokrinitsky false metropolis does not revive in greater strength." - How did the civil authorities react to this important circumstance? The Minister of Internal Affairs, to whom the letter was handed over for relevant orders, forwarded it in copies, also for dependent orders, to the Moscow police authorities; and the corrective Then the post of Chief of Police, Sechinsky, sent a copy of the letter to all private bailiffs with a confidential circular order that “their nobility take the most active measures to search for and arrest” Alimpy (and Euphrosyne). After this, as soon as possible, exact copies of all these confidential documents were already available in the schismatic “Spiritual Council”, where they were read, laughing, by Anthony to the other authorities, from whom Alimpius (and Efrosin) received the order - to be more careful for a while - not to walk too carelessly along the Moscow streets.” Collection opinion and review 4 vols., 380–331; 556; 89 pp. Collection opinion and review 5 vols., 742, 744; additional t., 466 pp. Ibid., 4 vols., 281, 297–298 pp. Collection opinion and review 4 volumes, 10 pages. There are also 3 volumes, 264, 294 pages. Collection, pl. and review 5 vols., 555–556 pp.; srvn. ibid. 603 pp.; 3 vols., 91–92 pp. Collection opinion and review 3 vols., 107–109 pp. 4 vols., 40–41 pp. Collection opinion and review additional vol., 379–383 pp. That is Metropolitan Philaret himself. Collection opinion and review 4 vols., 303 pp.; 278–279 pp. Sob. opinion and review 5 vols., 938 pp. Ibid., pp. 873–875; compare also pp. 938–940; Psm. High Special 2 hours 233–234 and appendix. to Decree. pl. and review, 49 pp. Collection opinion and review 3 vols., 288; 251 pp. Ibid., pp. 107–108; 5 vols., 555 pp. Ignatiev, Alexey Dmitrievich; subsequently governor of Saratov; mind. 1875 Mar 4 Collection opinion and review 4 vols., 327–329 pp. Collection opinion and review 4 vols., 514 pp. The following resolution of Metropolitan Philaret dated August 13 is very characteristic in this regard. 1829, laid down on the definition of consistory: “The definition of the Consistory is recognized as rash. For it would be strange to approach the secular authorities (Governor General) with a vague demand to end the schism: for the schism can only be stopped by conviction of the truth, and this is the responsibility of non-secular authorities.”... Shower. Thurs. 1890 1 book. 123 pp.; Thurs. in general istr. and ancient 1876 3 vols., 52 pp. Collection opinion and review 2 vols., 409 pp. Psm. m. Philaret to bishop. Alexy, 269 pp. Ibid 269 pages; Thurs. General love 1877 1 book, 9 pages; Shower. Thurs. 1889 3 vols., 251 pp. Collection opinion and review 2 vols., 364 pp. Psm. m. Philaret to Anthony. 4 vols., 326–327 pp. M. Philaret himself recognized Metropolitan’s “Admonition” as books useful for this purpose “due to their thoroughness, intelligibility, and meek spirit.” Plato and “Answers” ​​by the Reverend. Nikifor (For the 100th anniversary of Metropolitan Phil. Krinitsky. Tver. 1884, 8 pages) “Conversations to the Verbal Old Believer” by Metropolitan Philaret himself was recognized as such by the Holy Synod. (Collected resolutions on the part of the schism, 1860, pp. 273–274. Defined in 1835. Sob. pl. and review 2 vols., 442–443 pp.; psm. m. Philaret to Gabriel Psm. High Special 1 volume, 205–206 pp. Shower. Thurs. 18.81, 1 volume, 269 pages. See minister's magazine. adv. enlightenment 1835, November, p. 3. – Review of foreign-language newspapers and magazines in Russia. Podagogy. Note m. Filareta. The joint education of children of both sexes, as well as the education of girls under the guidance of a teacher at that time (i.e. in the 30s) was considered inconvenient for many reasons. Collection opinion and review 2 vols., 365–366 pp. Psm. m. Philaret to Anthony 1 volume, 303 pages. Collection opinion and review 2 vols., 22–24 pp. In addition to the indicated methods, M. Filaret also recognized the possible wide dissemination among them of a certain type of anti-schismatic writings as an important means for converting schismatics, but this will be discussed in detail elsewhere. Psm. High Special 1. 26 pages Collection opinion and opinion additional v. 229 pp. Arr. to creativity St. father 37 parts 330–331 pages Collection opinion and review 2 vols. 444 pp. Shower. Thurs. 1872 2 hours 235 pages; Thurs. General love 1870 10 hours 27 pages Collection opinion and review additional vol. 4, 229–230 pp. Psm. m. Philaret to Joseph of Orenburg (afterwards Voronezh..) Thu. General love 1871 No. 9, 41 pp.; Collection opinion and review 2 volumes, 70 pages. Collection opinion and review 5 vols., 594 pp. Ibid., 605 pp.; 3 vols., 293 pp. Collection opinion and review 3 vols., 529 pp. Appendix. to Decree.pl. and review 49 pp. 3 vols., 529 pp. There are also 4 volumes, 300 pp. additional. v. 223 pp. Psm. High Special 2 hours 245; Thurs. General love 1870 11 hours 33; 1877 2 parts 164; Shower. Thurs. 1877 3 hours 530 pages. Collection opinion and review 3 vols., 182–183 pp. Collection opinion and review 3 vols., 292–293; additional, vol. 463, 465 and 466 pp. In this regard, two notes by Metropolitan Philaret are especially noteworthy: the first from 1858 - “On the consequences of oppression of sects and leniency towards them” (Collected opinions and reviews of additional volumes, 462–466 pp.); another from 1860 - “On the decrees of the church on the subject of the assistance of Christian governments against heresies” (Collected copies and reviews, 4 vols., 462–470 pp.). From these notes we make the following extracts, supplementing them with extracts from other articles by Metropolitan Philaret related to the same subject. The note in question from M. Philaret is marked 4 September. 1865 Collection opinion and review 4 vols., 330–331; 5 vols., 742–743 pp. Collection opinion and review 4 vol. 469–470 pp. 5 vol. 494 pp. Collection opinion and review additional vol. 463–464 pp. Collection opinion and review additional vol. 464–465 pp. There, additionally. vol., 232 and 234 pp. Collection opinion and review 5 vols., 597–598; additional.. vol. 465. p. There, additionally. vol., 465–466 pp. Collection opinion and review additional t., 464 pp. Collection opinion and review 4 vols., 462–463; additional v. 464 pp. Collection opinion and review 4 vols., 463–469 pp. Collection opinion and review 5 volumes, 600 pages. Collection opinion and review 5 vols., 743–744; 498; Psm. High Special 2 hours 234 pages Collection opinion and review 5 vol., 744; 497–498 pp. Collection opinion and review 5 vols., 497–498 pp. The note in question by Metropolitan. Philaret - “On the Schism at the Present Time” was written at the end of 1863, i.e., shortly after the appearance of the famous “District Epistle”, approved at the Moscow Council of schismatic false hierarchs on February 24, 1862, but when the division of the schismatic clerical world (the Austrian priesthood) caused by it had not yet clearly emerged into two new hostile parties - the Okrug and anti-okruzhniks (to which were then added semi-okruzhniks). As a result of this, Met. Filaret does not mention here this new fragmentation of schismatics, but speaks about it later (see Psm. to the High. Special Part. 2, 234 pages, - psm. to Chief Prosecutor Akhmatov of March 10, 1864, etc.). With the above remark we want to say that the difficulty presented by M. Filaret for the government in the event of recognition of the priestly split was soon complicated in this way even more. The most detailed information about the appearance of the District Message and about the turmoil that it caused and is still causing in the schism was and is being reported in a timely manner by N.I. Subbotin in his “Modern Movements in the Schism”, in the “Modern Chronicles of the Schism” and in the “Chronicle of Events Occurring in the Schism". The very letter, see Bp. Sl. 85, 2 vols. 620–641; 704–724 pp. Collection opinion and review 5. vol., 494–495 pp. Collection opinion and review 5 vols., 495–496 pp. Collection opinion and review 5 vols., 496–497 pp. Collection regulation regarding the schism of 1858, 22, 47 pp. cf. Varadinov. East. Ministry of Internal Affairs. 8 books, 51–52 pp. Collection regulation according to the split. 1858 22, 47 pp. Collection regulation according to the schism of 1858, page 27 – resolution. dated May 12, 1808 There is also a regulation. dated June 1803 and May 15, 1809 There is also a resolution. from April 28 1808 and 28 Oct. 1811 Collection regulation according to the schism of 1858: 21–27; 28–32; 44–51; 52; 56–58; 61–62. 1860: 26–27; 37–41 pp. Ibid., 190 pp., cf. 74 pp. Collection regulation according to the schism of 1860, pp. 18–20. Varadinov, 158–179 pp. According to the statement of the Minister of Internal Affairs, Count Kochubey, there were at least two million schismatics around 1820. Proceedings Kyiv. Ak. 1881 3 hours, 13 pages. Varadinov, 74–75; 101 pp. Znamensky. Right Interview 1885 3, 279 pp. Collection regulation according to the schism of 1860, pp. 69–71 – Resolution. from Dec. 21 1807 and Feb. 16 1810, Aug. 17 1810 Collection post according to the schism of 1860: 1–2; 11; 20–22; 24–26; 47–50, etc. Collection post according to part of the schism of 1858 51–52 – post, from November 1817 Right there, the regulation. 1858 53–54 pp. – High. Resol. from 22 Dec. 1817 Ibid., pp. 54–56 – regulation. Aug 27 1818; 59–60 pp. 1860: 134–138 pp. – post. 31 Dec 1818; pp. 147–149 – post. 17–21 Jan. 1820 Ibid. 1858, pp. 66–67 – post. May 27, 1820 Ibid., 16 pages - March 26, 1822 Ibid., 89 pp. – March 14, 1825 Collection regulation but part of the schism of 1860, pp. 153–156 – post, June 6 and July 11, 1821 Tam zke, 168–170 pp. – regulation. May 7 and June 9 1824 Psm. m. Philaret to Anthony 3 vols., 242 pp. What is known to have happened on August 5, 1817. We have in mind the following request of Metropolitan. Philaret to his mother Evdokia Nikitichna, December 18. 1816, representing, it is worth noting, the very first news of his anti-schismatic activities: “Here comes another request, which, when paying my respects, I ask you to offer to grandfather Nikita Afanasyevich. He has many extracts from books useful for admonishing schismatics. Now there are circumstances in which such extracts could be used by me, if God is willing, for the benefit of erring brethren. Is it not possible to make an immediate list from these extracts, for which I would willingly pay the one who would be used for this, as much as would be needed?” (Psm. to relatives, 215 pages). It is impossible to reliably determine what “circumstances” and what “benefit” Metropolitan Philaret had in mind. As if we are talking about the intention to start composing some kind of anti-schismatic work; and maybe they already have in mind classes on the secret committee. In any case, the above request indicates that at that time Metropolitan Philaret was already dealing with the issue of the schism and, to the extent possible, studying it. Collection opinion and review 4 volumes, 270 pages. Sobr, resolution. according to the schism of 1858, pp. 75–76. Collection opinion and review 3 vols., 289 pp. and 4 vols., 270–271 pp. Psm. m. Filaret to his relatives. 245–250 pp. Petty Officers of Ekaterinburg Rask. society. - Brother. Word 1889 2vol., 742–743 pp.; srvn. Histor. essays on clericalism. – Russian Bulletin 51 vol., 44–45 pp. Collection opinion and review 4 vols., 271–272 pp. That in the above complaints of St. Philaret, especially about the strengthening of schismatic proselytism, thanks to the rules of 1822, there was not even a shadow of exaggeration, one can see from the fact that, according to the news of another reliable witness of the actions of these rules, Edinoverie Archpriest Arsenyev, the number of parishioners at one Rogozhsky Cemetery from 1821 to 1825, i.e. in just three years, from 35,000 increased to 68,000 (Russian Bulletin. 63 vol. 6 pp.). Psm. m. Filaret to his relatives. 256 pp. Collection regulation according to the schism of 1858, 89 pages. It was preserved in the papers of Metropolitan. Filaret, and this indicates his presence at the meeting; and judging by the style and presentation of the protocol, it can be assumed that M. Filaret was also responsible for drafting it. See Shower. Thurs. 1883. 2 vols., 354–365 countries. We do not set out in detail the contents of the protocol, despite all its historical value, partly due to its very significant volume, and mainly in view of the fact that the nature of the relationship to the schism established by it was implemented only in the next reign, which is discussed below. We have in mind the two relations of Metropolitan Philaret to the Moscow Chief of Police Shulgin and Prince. A. N. Golitsyn about the confiscation and destruction of old printed books not from the Edinoverie printing house (March 25, 1822; - “Dush. Read.” 1890, 1 volume, 120–121 pages), report to the Holy Synod about the illegal marriage of the schismatic merchant Kuznetsov with the widow of the Orthodox confession Labutina (November 28, 1824 g. – Jubilee collection. 1 volume 156–158 pp.), two relations with the Moscow Governor General Dm. Jubilee. collection 257–259 pp.), finally the case of the regimental camp church captured by the schismatics of the Rogozhsky Cemetery (1823. Collected opinions and reviews. 4 volumes. 278 pp. Varadinov 105 pp.). True, there is no information similar to that just given about the anti-schism activities of Metropolitan Philaret in the Yaroslavl diocese, and, apparently, there can be no question, since he was not in Yaroslavl at all; but even without being here, he carefully delved into all the needs of the diocese according to the reports of the clergy, as is proven by a rather voluminous collection of his resolutions during the Yaroslavl archpastorship (“In memory of the Most Reverend Philaret, former Archbishop of Yaroslavl and Rostov.” Yaroslavl. 1883), among which there is one regarding the schism - on the need to convert to Orthodoxy at least one of the spouses, as an extreme condition for the wedding of schismatics in the Orthodox Church (ibid. 86–88 pp.). In addition, Metropolitan Philaret could observe the schism in the Yaroslavl diocese as a member of the secret committee, which, as we have seen, actually happened. For the 100th anniversary of the Moscow Metropolitan. Philareta. Krinitsky. Tver. 18Р4 4–5 pp. Krinitsky. 7–9 pp. Here see (pp. 2–6; 9–10) a detailed description of the case about the priests Vasily Kirillov and Savva and the further relationship of Metropolitan Philaret to the latter. Metropolitan Philaret mentioned him in connection with the petition submitted to him in 1840 for consideration by the Old Believers of the city of Spassk to allow one of the parish priests to correct services for them in the Old Believer chapel without joining them to Orthodoxy. In addition to the aforementioned Vasily Kirillov, during the police search, the priest of the Moscow diocese, the village of Voskresensky, Luka, and the priest of the Kaluga diocese, the village of Gorokhova, Ivan, were taken and sent to their dioceses. Collection opinion and review 3 vols., 21–22 pp. Collection opinion and review 1 volume, 401 pages. Ibid., 2 vols., 49–50 pp.; see also approx. to TV Holy Father 31 volumes, 284 pages. Collection opinion and review 2 vols., 159–160 pp. Collection opinion and review 2 vols., 159–160; 209–210 pp. Collection opinion and review, 2 vols., 364–369 pp. Collection opinion and reviews, 2 vols., 366–367 pp. Collection. regulation according to the schism of 1858, pp. 242–243 – post. from 13 Feb. 1837, as well as pp. 297–299 – post. from 9 Apr. 1838 Collection opinion and reviews, 2 vols., 367–368 pp. Collection. regulation according to the schism of 1858, pp. 243–244 – post. from 13 Feb. 1837 Judaizers, Molokans, Doukhobors, Khlystovshchina, eunuchs and priestless people who reject marriage and prayer for the Tsar. Bespopovshchina, which does not reject marriage and prayer for the Tsar. Collection opinion and reviews, 3 vols., 91–92 pp. Collection. regulation according to the schism of 1858, pp. 409–410 – post. from 9 Dec. 1842 Collection opinion and review, 2 vols., 368 pp. Collection. regulation according to the schism of 1858, 245 pp. – post. from 13 Feb. 1837 Ibid., 2 vols., 365 pp. Ibid. 1858, 349 pp. – post. dated November 28, 1839 Collection opinion and review, 2 vols., 365 pp. Collection. regulation according to the schism of 1858, pp. 248–249 – resolution. from 13 Feb. 1837 Ibid., 2 vols., 409–410 pp. Ibid. 1858, pp. 304–306 – post. from 30 Apr. 1838 There, additionally. vol., 98 pp. Ibid. 1858, pp. 407–408 – post. from 13 Oct. 1842 Ibid., pp. 269–271. Collection. regulation according to the schism of 1858. 532–533 pp. – regulation. from April 28 1850 Ibid., pp. 16–20 – opinion. Jan. 1827 Ibid., 2 vols., 452–454 pp. – opinion. 19 Jan 1839 and 3 volumes, 215–218 pp. – opinion. 25 Jan 1847 There, additionally. t., 188–192 pp. – opinion. 26 Feb. 1847 Ibid., pp. 287–288 – opinion. Oct 4 1849 Ibid., pp. 366–369 – opinion. March 9, 1854 Collection pl. and review, add. t., 176–183 pp. – opinion. June 20, 1846 Ibid., pp. 405–410 – opinion. 12 Oct. 1851 Collection opinion and review, 4 vols., 272 pp. Collection regulation according to the schism of 1860, 305 pp. Collection opinion and review 2 vols., 163–164 pp. – pl. November 23 1826 Collection regulation according to the schism of 1860, pp. 199–200. Wed. Collection opinion and review 2 vols., 460–462 pp. and Collection. regulation according to the schism of 1860, pp. 200–203, Oct. 28/Nov. 11, 1827. Collection regulation but part of the schism of 1858, 106 pp., – post, from May 24, 1827 – 170–171 pp. – post. from 24 Dec. 1834 Ibid page III - post. dated November 8, 1827 Ibid., pp. 131–132 – post. 31 Jan 1832; 133–134 pp. – post. 23 Apr 1834 Ibid. 149–150 pp. – post. 4 Jan 1834 Ibid. 170-171 pages - post. 24 Dec 1834 Ibid., pp. 175–176 – post. March 14, 1835 Collection fasting, according to the schism. 1858 199 –200 pp.-post. 17 Jan 1836 – For the form and method of carrying out the correction itself, see Irgiz schismatic monasteries. Dubakin. Samara 1882 - note. 60–61 pp. Ibid., 210 pp. – post. March 11 1836 Irgiz schismatic monasteries. Dubakin. 50–51 pp. For detailed and far from uninteresting information about these two priests, see “Stories and Notes of Sapelkin,” Russian. Vestn. 54 vols. 198–217 pp.; and also in Melnikov’s “Historical Sketches of Priesthood”, the same, 63 vols., 49–54; 55–57 pp. Collection opinion and review additional vol. 406–407 pp. Brother. Word 1891 vol. 2, 454–455 pp.; Collection pl. and review 4 volumes, 80 pages. Essays on clericalism. Russian Vestn. 51 vols., 43–78 pp. For information about him, see “Histor. essays on clericalism." Russian West., 51 vol., 24–43 pp.; and also in Art. N. I. Nadezhina “Foremen of Yekaterinburg. schismatic Society." Br. Word, 1889, 1 vol., 675–689; 742–766 pp. True, of the three priests demanded from the Ekaterinburg schismatics by the diocesan authorities, two (Maksimov and Alekseev), through them (the schismatics), found an opportunity to hide and were never found anywhere after that (Br. Slovo, 1889, 1 volume, 748 pp.), and in general, until 1845, fugitive priesthood among the Perm the schismatics were not transferred, because “from 1828 to 1845 the mission saw up to eight fugitive priests” (and, no doubt, there were others unknown to the missionaries) (see Review of the Perm schism, A.P., 60 pp.); but, one should think that there were still a very limited number of them and completely insufficient for the mass of schismatics, especially in view of the closure of the Irgiz monasteries that soon followed; The extremely cramped position of the fugitive priests limited the very range of their activities. Collection opinion and review, 2 vols., 464 pp. Brother. Slovo, 1889, 1 volume, 675–682 pages; Russian Vestn., 51 vol., 33–42 pp. Collection opinion and review, 2 vols., 260–266 pp. – opinion. from 18 Feb. 1829 Collection opinion and review, 2 vols., 265 pp. Precisely the Mission established in the Perm diocese. It will be discussed below. This refers to a letter “to Christians of various volosts and villages”, sent from Yekaterinburg in November 1828, from whom, it is not known exactly, in all likelihood on behalf of the elders of the Yekaterinburg Old Believer society - Ryazanov, Kazantsev, etc., and containing a verdict on the need to trouble the government about independent priests. Metropolitan Philaret had a copy of this letter, which is why he mentions it. Collection opinion and review, 2 vols., 265–266 pp. Brother. Word, 1889, 1 volume, 750–751 pp. More details For a description of the above conditions, see Brother. Word, 1889, 1 volume, 753–755 pp. Historical essays on clericalism. Russian Vestn., 51 volumes, 43 pages. That is, probably to the clergy of the dominant church. Brother. Word, 1889, 1 volume, 755–756 pp. Comp. Collection opinion and reviews, 2 vols., 402–407 pp. and Collection. regulation according to the schism, 1858, pp. 279–285 – post. dated March 10, 1838 Collection regulation according to the schism, 1858, 286 pp. See Review of the Permian Schism. A.P. 72–83 pp., as well as “Brother. The Word" 1889, 1 volume. 763–766 pp. It was not Yakim Ryazanov, since the request did not come from him, but only through him, which means that it was not without his participation “It is noteworthy,” he wrote, “the requirement that there should be no search for the ancient holy world. It is a kind of confession that it cannot bear investigation. Truly, when it is known that holy myrrh was always prepared in quantities sufficient for only three or four years, how is it possible that schismatics still had genuine ancient holy myrrh after one hundred and eighty years or more? To what extent, indeed, the myrrh issued by the Irgiz schismatics, who supplied them to the Ekaterinburg ones, had little in common with this latter, see the story of Archimandrite. Nizhne-Voskresensky Edinoverie Monastery of Plato. Irgiz schismatic monasteries, 52 pp., note. This intermediary meant Yakim Ryazanov, who submitted the petition, and had already joined the church. Collection opinion and review, 3 vols., 94–98 pp. Historical essays on clericalism. Russian Vestn., 65 vol., 45 pp. Russian Vestn., 65. t., 37–46 pp. Origin of Belokrin. hierarchies 54–59 pp. See Collection. regulation according to the schism of 1858, pp. 128–130 – post. dated July 25, 1831 Thurs. in General East. and ancient 1877 1 volume, 143 pages. In presenting the arguments presented by Metropolitan Philaret, we had in mind and combined together two of his opinions, presented by him at a meeting of the Moscow secret committee on March 29, 1848: the first - on measures to bring the Rogozh schismatics closer to the Orthodox Church (Collected opinions and additional reviews, vols. 224-234 pp.), the second - on permission schismatics to have priests who would be under the authority only of the civil authorities (Ibid. 3 vol. 251–256 pp.). The first opinion was a direct response to the question of the St. Petersburg committee, the second, complementing the first, was at the same time, as can be seen from its content, a new response to the debate that had previously been in the committee regarding, probably, a new request from the schismatics to grant them priests dependent on the civil authorities. In addition to Zakrevsky, members of the committee at the time in question included: Prince. CM. Golitsyn, Count S. Gr. Stroganov, Lieutenant General St. V. Perfilyev and the Moscow civil governor (Collected copies and reviews, 3 volumes, 299 pages). We must think because the content we have outlined is conveyed by him himself, although he does not speak clearly about the presentation itself, which, on the contrary, much later, Metropolitan Philaret reports, at the same time conveying its content in the most general terms. (Compare the opinion of Count Zakrevsky “about the so-called schismatic step marriages and about schismatics in general” - Collected opinions and reviews, 3 volumes, 301 pages - and the letter of Metropolitan Philaret to the Minister of Internal Affairs dated September 22, 1855 - ibid. 4 volumes 46 pages). Moreover, the very content of the request (through the Moscow Governor-General) speaks in favor of such an assumption. For Zakrevsky’s note in its entirety, see Russk. West. 1881 Dec. pp. 647–650; also Collection pl. and review 3 vols. 299–303 pp. See his letter to Count N.A. Protasov dated November 2, 1849 - Collection. opinion and review 3 vols. 303–304 pp. If members such as Prince S.M. Golitsyn and Count S.G. Stroganov was viewed only from the “secular side,” while Count Zakrevsky also looked from the financial side—he wrote and defended his project under the influence of the “golden policy” of the schismatics, who brought him, and especially his wife and his extremely beloved daughter, abundant offerings, which they really needed to satisfy their habits. It is difficult to imagine that Metropolitan Philaret was not aware of these schismatic offerings to the governor-general’s house and that he did not know for what reasons Zakrevsky actually stands for the schismatics; but, of course, he could only write about the “secular side” of reasoning. Ed. Psm. Metropolitan Philaret Anthony. 2 vols. 489–490 pp. Collection opinion and feedback 3. vol. 285–286 pp. It is known, of course, from the office of Zakrevsky, who served such guardians of the schism as the infamous Ilya Arsenyev and Longinov, and even, in all likelihood, from Zakrevsky himself. Ed. Collection opinion and review 3 vols., 287–298 pp. The words cited by Metropolitan Philaret from Zakrevsky’s Note, like the entire Note, certainly do not belong to Zakrevsky (for this famous man, who did not know a single foreign language, was not particularly strong in Russian literacy), but to one of the “biting” writers who were in his service - either Longinov, or Arsenyev. And how insignificant these writers are before Metropolitan Philaret, who in the words just cited gave them and their patron such a sensitive lesson! It was not for nothing that Ilya Arsenyev, after the death of the saint, came out in the press with such despicable slander against him, and precisely because of the schismatics... Ed. Collection opinion and review 3 vols., 298–299 pp. Collection opinion and resp. 3 vols. 302–304 pp. Psm. m. Philaret Anthony 2 vol. 497 pp. Psm. m. Filareta to gr. Protasov dated November 2, 1849. Collection. opinion and review 3 vols. 303–305 pp. This letter alone would be enough to perpetuate the memory of Metropolitan Philaret as a great saint of the Orthodox Church and an unyielding zealot and defender of Orthodoxy. Ed. Collection opinion and review 4 vols. 273 pp., comp. also 46 pp. Ibid., 8 pp. 3 t. 551 pp. and Russian. West. 1881 Dec. 665 pp. For detailed information about these relations and negotiations, see Kelsiev’s “Collection of government information about schismatics.” London.1860, 1st issue.135–166 pp. 1861, 2nd issue.293–298 pp. Of course, the false archimandrite Gerontius (Leonov), who had just been installed by Ambrose, was soon arrested (at the end of May) by the Russian government. Kelsiev. Vol. 1st 147–148 pp. Sobr. is also there. regulation according to the schism of 1860, pp. 440–443. Shower. Thurs. 1877 3 books. 530–531 pp. Collection regulation according to the schism of 1858, 484 pp.; Split as a weapon of parties hostile to Russia. Russian Vestn. 65 vol. 130–131 pp. Collection opinion and review 3 vols. 336–338 pp. 3 miles from Kolomna. Thurs. in General history and ancient 1876, 2 books, 125–127 pp. See, for example, his assignment to his vicar Vitaly. Right Review 1887 1 volume 243 pages Assembled. regulation according to the schism of 1858, 114–120 pp. resolution. from 23 Jan. 1830 Ibid., 134, 135 – 137,139 –143 pp. resolution. dated May 14, 1832 and March 26, 1833 Collection regulation according to the schism of 1858, pp. 161–162. For a detailed list of all immovable estates of the Preobrazhensky Cemetery, see Chron. Thurs. 1887 2 books. 599–602 pp. – “Organization and self-government of the Feodosievo community at the Transfiguration Cemetery in Moscow.” V. Vasilyeva. Collection regulation according to the schism of 1858, pp. 297–299 – post. from 9 Apr. 1838 Kelsiev. Vol. 1st 69–70 pp. Christ. Thurs. 1887 2 books. 608 pp. Kelsiev. Vol. 1st 73–74 pp. Collection opinion and review, 3 vols., 107–109 pp. As when presenting the history of the anti-schismatic activities of Metropolitan Philaret in relation to the Rogozhsky Cemetery, so here too, we do not bring it to the very end of the reign of Emperor Nicholas, in view of the fact that during this period of time, especially with the accession to the post of Minister of Internal Affairs D. G. Bibikov and with the establishment of a special temporary administration for the production of cases about schismatics, it stands in close, inextricable connection with the history of the activities of the Unity of faith, which will be discussed further. More or less detailed information about this review. in Historical Bulletin 1886 March. 622–625 pp., July 47–56 pp.; Wed also Collection post, according to the schism of 1858, 578–582 pp. and Varadinov 529–537 pp. The extent to which the news about the Wandering Sect sent to Metropolitan Philaret was truly fragmentary and scattered and the extent to which the work of systematization he performed was far from easy, this can be judged from just one list of papers sent to him. He received: 1) copies of three journal decisions held in the Yaroslavl secret advisory committee on the case of the Wanderers sect; 2) copies of the relations of the member of the investigative and judicial commission d.s. With. Alyabyev, with information about the Wanderer Sect, extracted from the investigation carried out by Count Stenbock (see Kelsiev, issue 2, 41–75 pp.), with the attachment of a) extracts from 21 testimonies of wanderers and other people involved in the case (for some of them, see ibid. 4, issue 287–290 pp.), b) the investigator’s resolution on the testimony of the wanderer Methodius (ibid. 286 pp.), c) copies of the confession of the mentor Alexander Vasilyev Lubentsov (279–284; 290 pp.) and d) correspondence with the head of the Vladimir province about the founder of the sect Euphemia. 3) Copies from those delivered from the investigative court commission: the rantings of Elder Euthymius, written in 1784 (4 issues. 248–252 pp.), from his message, written in 1787 (252–278 pp.), and from the essay of mentor Nikita Semenov: A small image of the heresies of a schismatic sect (274–277 pp.), from correspondence with the heads of those provinces where the wandering teachings penetrated, from testimony and decrees on the morality of sectarians and mentors of the wandering teachings; from an extract from the additional testimony of mentor Dmitry Egorov and a copy of the statement from the head of the Olonets province about the wandering sect. Collection opinion and review additional vol. 378–379 pp. Evfimy came from landowner peasants of the Pereyaslav district. Assembled. opinion and review additional vol. 377–389 pp. There is also an additional vol. 389–490 pp.; srv.Collected regulation according to the schism of 1858, pp. 632–633. New time 1876 No. 224. This is, of course, far from the way liberal defenders of the schism think about it, to whom the cited advice of Metropolitan Philaret seems “barbaric.” In the opinion of one of these supposedly unselfish guardians of schismatics, who considers them “the smartest part of the Russian population” and excuses all their outrages by “government oppression” under the influence of “unreasonable defenders of Orthodoxy” and under the influence of the clergy, who constantly “play the role of instigator”, even the “revolutionary” sect of the Wanderers was distinguished by its growth and fanaticism only during the reign of Nicholas, when the schismatics “persecution rained down,” but recently, thanks to the reforms that have taken place to improve the economic and legal conditions of people’s life, its former fanaticism, if not theoretical, then actual, seemed to have almost disappeared, and its strengthening was also not noticeable. This guardian of the schism believes that, therefore, in order to further weaken the revolutionary spirit of Wandering, it is not “police measures that helped little in eradicating it” that are needed, but rather further progress towards improving people’s life and “granting freedom of religion” (Russian Thought 1882 No. 5, 203–217 pp. Political views of the Old Belief. I. Yuzova). – Of course, there is no point in examining the liberal nonsense of the various Yuzovs; We pointed to the article in “Russkaya Mysl” only to show what kind of nonsense, and harmful nonsense, is written about the schism by researchers whose organ is “Russkaya Mysl” and other journals of the same direction, striving through the strengthening of the schism to weaken the strength and significance of the Orthodox Church, and through this to shake the main support, the prosperity of the strength and power of the autocratic Russian state. Our revolutionary aspirations have always gone hand in hand with schism, and schism has always gone (and goes) hand in hand with such aspirations. Ed. Collection opinion and review 2 vols., 364 pp. cv. Collection fast. according to the schism of 1858, pp. 248–249. Thurs. in General history and ancient 1875 3 books. 133 pp. That is, the Holy Synod also allowed the Orthodox priest, in certain cases, to conduct worship and church services according to old printed books. Srvn. Collection opinion and rev., supplementary, vol., 235–238 pp. “Collected. fast. according to part of the schism of I860, pp. 212–214 – In collection. opinion and review M. Philaret, for some reason his present opinion is placed under 1848, immediately after his opinions presented at the meeting of the Moscow advisory committee on March 29; but this is obviously a mistake. Such a resolution, despite the awareness of its extreme necessity and the undoubted benefit of the best experts on the schism, seems to not exist at the present time, and in this regard, the example of 1828 is, of course, very instructive. See Brother. Word 1889, 2 books, 256 pages. Note. Review of the Perm schism 59–72 pp. Comp. Varadinov 284–285 pp. We are referring to the complaint of Perm schismatics about the allegedly harsh treatment of the senior member of the mission, Archpriest Abraham Ogloblin, with the fictitious signature of 40,000 people regarding which Met. Filaret wrote to A.I. Muravyov on January 30. 1834, that, according to more reliable information available to him, it is in fact the work of only 20 people, and moreover, in it Oglobin is attributed only words that can always be invented, but the most likely true reason for the hatred of the dissenters towards him is his successful work in converting schismatics. (Psm. Phil. to Muravyov. Kiev 1869, 45 pp.). Review of the Perm schism, 79 pp. Collection fast. honor schism of 1858 222–225 pp. Wed. collection pl. and review 3 vols., 361–362 pp. Collection pl. and otz3 vol., 363 pp.. There, additionally. t., 598–600; 3 vols., 358–369 pp. “Shower. Thu." 1879 2 books, 127 pages; Collection opinion and review, additional t., 599 pp. Thurs. in General history and ancient 1875 3 vols., 141 pp. Collection opinion and review, additional v., 387 pp. Psm.m. Phil. Anthony 3 volumes 133 pages; Shower. Thurs. 1890 1 book. 356 pp. Russian Star. 51 vol. 290–291; 291–292; Shower. Thurs. 1877 3 vols. 252–253 pp. Shower. Thurs. 1872 1, 233; 1875 3, 378; 1885 3, 128; 1886 1, 388–389 pp. Shower. Thurs. 1872 1, 233–234; Anniversary Sbrn. 1 volume 265 pages Psm. m. Philaret Gabriel 53 pp. Shower. Thurs. 1877 3, 524 pp. cf. also Brother. Word 1891 No. 16, 447 pp. Psm. m. Philaret to archim. Anthony 3 volumes 372 pages. Psm. m. Philaret to Muravyov 532 pp. See his most humble report dated April 20. 1856; Brother. Word 1891 No. 18, 640–646 pp. See his Note dated March 20, 1855 “On the current actions of the Government regarding schismatics in general” (Russian Vestn. 1881 No. 12, 672–677 pp.) and letter to Lansky dated March 1, 1856 (Brotherly Slovo 1891 No. 18, 630–633 pp.). We have in mind his report to Governor General Zakrevsky dated February 18. 1856 Brother. Word. 1891 No. 18, 617–630 pp. Psm. m. Philaret to archim. Antnia 4 vol. 87, 264 pp. Kelsiev. Vol. 2, 189–190 pp. Collection opinion and review 5 vols. 599–600 pp.; Collection fast. according to the schism of 1860, pp. 830–835. Brother. Word 1891. No. 16, 460 pp. Psm. m. Philaret to Anthony 4 vols., 426 pp. Collection opinion and reviews, 4 vols., 297–303 pp. Ibid., additional, vol., 462–466 pp. Ibid. 4 volumes, 462–470 pp. Collection fasting, but part of the schism of 1860, 830–835 pp. Collection opinion and reviews, 5 vols., 572, 578–596 pp. Collection opinion and review, 5 vols., 579 pp. Collection opinion and review, 5 vols., 604–605 pp. Collection opinion and review, 5 vols., 579–580 pp. Collection opinion and otz., 5. vol., 580–582 pp. Collection opinion and review, 5 vols., 583–585; srvn. 2 vols., 452–454; 3 vols., 215–218 pp. Collection regulation according to the schism of 1858, 445 pp. Collection opinion and review, 5 vols., 585–586 pp. Collection opinion and review., 5 vols., 586–588 pp. Alas, these were prophetic words! Ed. This refers to those published then in Rus. West." articles: “Modern movements in split.” Collection opinion and review 5 vols. 594–596 pp. We understand the Supremely approved resolutions on schismatics of April 19. 1874 – See the collection of laws on the schism of A. Bogoslovsky. Moscow 1881 Page. 2–3; 11–15; 16–17. "Moscow. Vedomosti" 1891 No. 188; “Br. The Word" 1887, 2 volumes, 59 pages. Collection opinion and review, 4 vols. 7–11: 11–15 pp. Russian Vestn. 1881, 12 books, 671 pages. Opinion. and review, 4 vols., 9 pp. Collection opinion and review 4 volumes. 13 pages. Collection opinion and review 4 vols. 45–47 pp. Brother. Slovo 1891 No. 16, 452, 454, 463 pp. Russian Vestn. 1881 Dec. 687–688 pp. Wed.Collection.mn. and review 4 vols. 275 pp. Metropolitan's opinion Filaret in the case of schismatics’ solicitation to have priests from the civil authorities - dated October 27. 1857. – Collection pl. and review 4 vols., 275–276 pp. Of course, in the Edinoverie church opened at the Rogozhskoe Cemetery, Metropolitan. Filaret served according to old printed books, observing old rituals. Russian Vestn. 1881 December, pp. 693–697. Ibid., pp. 697–698. Thus, the liberal defenders managed to instill even in the emperor himself the wrong idea that the number of schismatics of the same clerical persuasion (since they are actually being discussed) reaches 5,000,000. Metropolitan Filaret knew well that for Zakrevsky, a not very literate man, liberal literary officials already known to readers wrote notes in defense of schismatics. Collection opinion and reviews, 4 vols., 269–284 pp. Russian Vestn., 1881 December, 702–705 pp.