1828 г.

January 23. Metropolitan Philaret’s opinion regarding the education of spiritual youth and the structure of the parish rural clergy By the personal decree of His Imperial Majesty given to the Synod on the 11th day of this January, 1828, due to the recognized principle that good Christian morals constitute the first foundation of social well-being, and morals are edified by the instruction and example of the clergy, it is most highly commanded: to strictly imagine what the Synod finds necessary, ways, on the one hand, for the successful education of spiritual youth, and on the other, so that those who dedicate themselves to the clergy, especially the parish clergy, are provided with the means to support them everywhere, and especially in the parishes of the poor. According to the former, as a result of this highest decree, since they did not use special zeal and did not have special ways to complete their education, knowledge was dry and cold, lack of active edification, forced tone and fruitlessness of teachings, inability to speak with the people about truths that seemed very familiar in school. Instead of tests in higher subjects of study, so-called debates were used, in which most of the students did not participate and, consequently, were not tested at all; and some were divided into two sides, so that the art of proving a lie competed with the art of defending the truth, and a cunning objection was approved no less than a thorough refutation; hence the tendency to disputes, often seductive, and mostly useless for instructing the people, because school objections and decisions are not included in the circle of concepts circulating among the people. Since the transformation of theological schools in 1814, the teaching of active theology was introduced; In this way, theological teaching became closer to application in life. Instead of disputes between a few about a few, tests were introduced for all students in all subjects of study; Thus, monitoring progress in learning is more accurately aimed at improving students and learning itself. It is allowed to teach theological lessons in Russian; As a result, the knowledge of the Latin language became weaker, but school terminology began to give way to a purer and clearer presentation of the truth, the dissemination of essential knowledge increased and the communication of it to the people in teachings became easier. For these and similar considerations, I believe that the outline of the rules on theological schools, published in 1808, with some partial corrections therein followed in 1814, can continue to serve as a solid basis for the good organization of theological schools and for the correct education of spiritual youth. But the following seems necessary: 1) The draft statutes of theological schools drawn up on this basis (not submitted at the time for the highest approval out of precaution), according to the instructions of more than ten years of experience, should be corrected and supplemented. And since this has already been undertaken by the commission of theological schools, therefore, on the basis of the highest decree given again, it must be instructed to carry out what has been undertaken strictly. 2) Constantly adhere to accepted and approved rules. For instability in the rules and the best institutions gives an unsteady course and takes away the courage of the subordinates, keeping them in constant fear of changes, through which their labors can become fruitless. 3) To use care so that schools that are still poorly equipped are corrected, and those that are well-maintained are maintained in order and directed towards further improvement; For this, the attentive and unrelenting action of the commission of theological schools and diocesan bishops is needed. With this latter, in order to put an end to the misunderstandings that have arisen between some, since the transformation of theological schools, it should be explained that they, according to the duty assigned to them by the bishop’s charter and their very title, are the indispensable trustees of all theological schools in the dioceses entrusted to them, and, just as they are authorized to command in dioceses, without violating church rules and laws, they should also be authorized to command in schools, without violating school regulations. 4) since the forced way of teaching theology in a dead language is not conducive to the education of parish priests, who are obliged to expound the truths of the faith to mostly unlearned people, as simply as possible, in a natural language, and, moreover, the Latin language, which, according to its original formation, has a pagan character, and, according to its current use, belongs to the Western Church, without rights and decency hampers the exposition of the truth in the Eastern Church: then to establish decisively, especially in seminaries, the teaching of theology teachings in the Slavic-Russian language (with preservation, however, in favor of Latin, as a classical one, more awarded in the Holy Synod, I am duty-bound, due to the complexity of the subject, to express my opinion in writing. The highest decree divides this statement into three parts: I. About methods for the successful education of spiritual youth. II. About ways so that those who dedicate themselves to the clergy, especially the parish clergy, are provided with the means to support them everywhere. III. In particular about ways to provide clergy in the parishes of the poor. I. On ways to better educate spiritual youth 195. The lack of education observed to this day among church ministers, especially rural ones, in my opinion, stems partly from insufficient home education, which various reasons, and especially poverty constraining parents, did not allow to be replaced by school education, partly from improper school education, not sufficiently adapted to the needs of church service. Before the rules on the formation of theological schools, published in 1808 and put into effect in relation to seminaries in 1814, some of these schools, which ascribed to themselves superiority over others, believed this superiority, almost exclusively, in the predominant knowledge of the Latin language. Hence, the priests, who knew pagan writers better than sacred and church writers, spoke and wrote better in Latin than in Russian, were more capable of shining in the circle of scientists with selected expressions of a dead language, rather than shining the light of living knowledge of the truth among the people. Only dogmatic theology was taught, using a too school-like method. Hence, in priests, his personal place in the classes of literature and philosophy), and to encourage capable people to compile theological textbooks, in the true spirit of the word of God and the Holy Fathers, with an accurate scientist, but as much as possible, a generally understandable presentation of the truth, with a careful application of the teaching to the state of the Eastern, and especially the Russian Church, that is, with a statement of the true reasons why it accepts or rejects something, and with a thorough refutation those false teachings that priests can currently encounter in the field of their ministry. 5) since those who have completed seminary studies do not suddenly enter into priestly positions, but often spend more than a year waiting for vacancies, then, so that during this time they are not left without supervision and guidance, and, on the contrary, in order to more accurately use this time for further education of themselves and for preparing for their future ministry, it is decided that those who have completed the seminary training course are on the seminary lists and belong to the department of the seminaries, until they are actually assigned to positions clergy, so that, during this time, they are engaged in repeated listening to theological teaching, reading the writings of the holy fathers and other books that guide their future ministry, writings, translations and preaching the word of God, and so that the poorest of them benefit from the contents of seminaries, or are placed, according to convenience, at bishops' houses and in monasteries, with the above purpose. 6) since the poverty of many clergy and clergy often deprives them of all the ways to support their children in their schools in seminaries, then, for the education of spiritual youth, it is useful, and for the serving clergy it will be easier, to increase the number of government pupils, so that not only orphans and clergy children, but also the children of priests and deacons, especially those with large families, serving in poor parishes, depending on their trustworthiness, benefit from schools, some full, and others half, that is, housing and food, except for clothing. For this, in my opinion, the methods at the disposal of the commission of theological schools will be sufficient if the approximate staff of students in the schools is turned into actual ones, with precise application to the large or small population and other special circumstances of each school. II. On ways to comfortably support parish clergy in general The parish clergy, according to the current situation, has its own content: in villages - from land and income received from correcting certain church needs, and in cities - mostly from manual income alone. The maintenance allowance received by the rural clergy from the land is often meager and associated with inconvenience, especially for clergy. Those entering the priesthood from theological schools cannot have enough ability to cultivate the land with their own hands. Those who, having changed the direction of their abilities, actively engage in agricultural pursuits, at the same time, are more or less distracted from mental pursuits, and the education received in schools is often left fruitless. The scarcity of land benefits in many churches is especially noticeable due to random circumstances, due to which the parishioners are not fully satisfied with the legal amount of land, or the other land allotted instead (bread or cash salary), despite the demands and insistence of the spiritual authorities. For example, among the 875 rural churches of the Moscow diocese, there are 300 churches to which the parishioners have allocated less than the legal amount of land; 101 such in which the church land or part of it according to the statements is shown to be in possession of the parishioners; 66 such in which the church land is shown to be inconvenient; 43 such in which the church land is in dispute 196. Of the above number of rural churches, only 42 have clergy in the outer position; but even these often bring complaints about either a slowdown, or a decrease, or a complete cessation of abuse. Income from the correction of church requirements, determined by the decree of April 3, 1801, according to which clergy should receive: when praying over a woman in labor, 4 kopecks. when performing baptism 6 kopecks. upon marriage 20 kopecks. at the burial of an age 20 kopecks. for the burial of a young child 6 kopecks. due to the increased value of life's needs, they also constitute a very meager allowance for the subsistence of the parish clergy. On the one hand, the extreme poverty of this legal provision for the income of the parishes, on the other hand, the lack of diligence or attention of many parishioners to the voluntary increase of these incomes, in proportion to the need for food for the parish clergy, have the consequence that a considerable part of it, from day to day, is increasingly exposed to deprivation and poverty, and some, from lack of patience, reach the point of insolence and, in some cases not receiving what they deserve, they attempt to reward themselves in other cases with unnecessary harassment, such as those from complaints, which for some time now more often than before reach the diocesan authorities and the Holy Synod, are seen with regret. Such inconveniences associated with the method of subsisting the parish clergy from land and manual income may revive the question: is it not better to completely abandon these scanty sources of benefits and turn to finding new ones? This question deserves so much attention that in order to resolve it, it will not be superfluous to go back to the beginning, from which donations to church servants arose with each correction of church requirements. The beginning of this church law lies in divine law. The Apostle Paul writes: “Do you not know that those who do holy things eat from the sanctuary, and those who serve the altar share with the altar? So the Lord also commanded those who preach the gospel to live by the gospel" (1 Cor. 9:13-14). This is the fundamental law according to which church clergy receive their contents from their parishioners. In order to adapt this general and vague law to execution, it was necessary to give it some certainty, that is, to lay down what, when, and in what quantity parishioners should give to feed the clergy. The basis for this definite position is found in the fact that the ministers of the Christian church, as can be seen from the above words of the apostle, in relation to food are compared with the ministers of the Old Testament church. And just as the ministers of the Old Testament church received donations from the people, firstly, according to the order and convenience of the time, such as tithes and firstfruits, and secondly, on the occasion of sacred rites, such as portions of sacrifices and gifts brought to the altar, so in the Christian Church it became the custom to give to the clergy, firstly, seasonal giving, a type of tithe and firstfruits, and secondly, giving random, income when correcting church requirements, with the difference, however, that among Christians, instead of the obligatory tithe, that is, a tenth share of acquisitions in the field and in the herd, a certain arbitrary share is given, and material donations, due to the circumstances of community life, are more often replaced by money. How ancient this custom is can be seen from the fact that it is mentioned in the fourth apostolic canon. In the word of Saint Gregory the Theologian on holy baptism, the gift offered for baptism is mentioned. These remarks about the ancient and even sacred origin of the custom of giving some donations to the clergy, when correcting church requirements, lead to the conclusion that at the present time it is inconvenient to completely destroy this custom and replace it with some kind of annual salary that the parishioners would give to the clergy. This conclusion can be confirmed by the following reasoning. 1) The pious parishioners give their donations when correcting needs, not only as a reward for their labors, but also as an offering to God and the church. Such people try to be generous in this regard not only in order to satisfy the priest, but, much more, in order to please God, expressing through this generosity, in their concept and feeling, reverence for the church and its sacraments. Obviously, giving such donations is easier and more pleasant for them than paying any annual salary. In this latter, common people would no longer see a matter of piety, but a matter of bondage. 2) Giving, when correcting needs, is generally free; for although some are determined by law, this decree is not compulsory for parishioners, and there is no example in the administration of any priest holding any parishioner accountable to his superiors for failure to provide income when correcting some need. The appointment, instead of these donations, of an annual salary, of necessity, must have compulsory force, so that the clergy are confident in their food. But it is known that the people, without difficulty, spend a lot arbitrarily, and, meanwhile, are burdened by a small inevitable duty. As for church lands, if it is not always convenient for the parish clergy to use them through their own cultivation, nevertheless it is necessary to preserve them as permanent property of the church, so that the parishioners have an incentive, in return for these lands, to give the clergy a rug, and the clergy, in their right to church lands, have security in the rug that is due from the parishioners. From all of the above, in my opinion, it follows that the method of subsisting the parish clergy from church land and manual income is inconvenient to abolish and unreliably replace with another, but one should try, if possible, to free this method of subsistence from inconvenience, disorder and abuse; and for this purpose the following seems necessary. 1) Confirm that the allocation of the legal amount of land to rural churches is carried out by the civil authorities immediately and immediately. 2) Introduce into full force and effect the law of 1808, according to which the land of a dissolved or attributed church should not be returned to the parishioners, but belong to the church to which it is attributed. (For now legal advisers are trying to weaken the power of this legal provision by the fact that it was published through the Synod, by the spiritual department, and not through the Senate, by the state). 3) Based on the decree of October 29, 1822 and the outline of the rules on theological schools, paragraph 137, to encourage parishioners, especially rural ones, to establish and maintain houses for the residence of priests and clergy. 4) For greater convenience, do this gradually, and for the first time bring the houses of the priests into this position. 5) Especially in landowner parishes, demand the fulfillment of this obligation from landowners. 6) Raise the requirements laid down during correction, so that the clergy receives: When praying over a woman in labor - rub. 10 kopecks when performing baptism. . . – – 50 kop. upon marriage. . . 3 rub. – – at the burial of an age. . . 2 rub. – – at the burial of a minor. . . – – 50 kop. 7) The stated provision should not be considered indispensable, but exemplary, and especially valid in cases that will be shown below. 8) The rich and zealous are not forbidden to give the clergy more than is due, as long as this happens from their will and zeal, without any harassment from the clergy. 9) If a poor person, when correcting some requirement, gives less than what is required, the clergy is obliged, out of love for mankind, to accept this without grumbling. 10) As a precaution against solicitation of income, which is indecent for the ministers of the church, just as contrary to their very benefits, as if it cools the zeal of parishioners for free generosity in giving, prohibit clergy from demanding income and accepting it, before correcting any requirement, under responsibility that will be designated below this, and make it an indispensable rule to accept income always after correcting the requirement. 11) If, after correcting the requirement, a parishioner delays in delivering the required income, the parish priest will not sin when he reminds him of this; but in this case, he is absolutely obliged to observe the precaution so as not to make such a reminder himself, but to use the clergyman or churchwarden for this purpose. 12) If any clergyman sees that many parishioners are producing less income for him, contrary to what is provided in the first paragraph of these rules, or not at all, then he can keep a note about this, which, for reliability, must be signed each time by the entire clergyman and the church warden. 13) Such a note can be considered by the clergy at the end of a third of the year, and if it turns out that the deprivations suffered in the income from some parishioners do not yet prevent him from having a comfortable maintenance from the zeal of others, or from outside benefits, then the ministers of the church will act in accordance with the spirit of their ministry if they do not demand any remuneration from the parishioners, remembering the saying of the holy Apostle Paul: “I have not created by them” this area, but we endure everything, so that there is no end to the gospel of Christ. (1 Cor. 9:12). If the deprivations turn out to be great, and other benefits for the maintenance of the clergy are meager and insufficient, then he can submit a note about the lost income either to the authorities among the parishioners, for example, to the landowners, or to the community of parishioners in order to receive, in compensation for the deprivations suffered, some allowance, by mutual agreement. 14) If, according to two or three such notes on deprivation of income, the community of parishioners does not provide the needy with a tract of satisfaction, then he submits them to the diocesan authorities, who take measures to convince the parishioners; and about parishes that leave their clergy without proper assistance, to submit to the Holy Synod for consideration, with an opinion. 15) If there are parishes that wish to completely replace the petty income of the clergy with a certain annual allowance, they are allowed to issue written acts about this for the time determined by law for the conditions of the ecclesiastical department; and put them into effect, with the approval of the diocesan authorities, as soon as the clergy recognizes the required content as satisfactory for the comfortable content. 16) The ancient custom of giving the first-fruits of earthly works, since it has been preserved, especially in rural parishes, as sacred in its origin, can continue to remain in force for those who are diligent; but in order to eliminate harassment and suspicions of harassment in this regard, make it a rule that the collection of firstfruits should not be carried out for each person individually, but for the entire clergy together, through a cleric appointed by the priest and the churchwarden. 17) If a priest is convicted of demanding income before correcting the church action in which this income is given, for the first offense of this kind he is subject to the collection of a monetary penalty on widows and orphans, and for the second to the monastic authorities. 18) If a priest is convicted of stopping the correction of any church requirement in pursuit of income, for the first offense of this kind he is subject to monastic subordination, for the second he is demoted to a clerical position, and for the third, as an uncorrected covetous and holy seller, he is deposed and expelled from the clergy. 19) A deacon and a cleric convicted of soliciting income are punished following the example of the previous rules, and, moreover, even if they remain in the clergy, they are recognized as incapable of promotion to the highest level of church service. III. On ways to provide for clergy in the parishes of the poor in particular When entering into a discussion about this, one must again take into account the true goal of the high-monarchal care of the clergy, shown in the highest decree, namely the edification of good Christian morals by the instruction and example of the clergy. So, the point is not to give poor parishes a way to have some priests. There are many poor clerks who would like to become poor priests, and the more willingly, the less they understand the importance of the priestly office. But those who are not instructed themselves will not bring the necessary instruction to the parishioners, and they will set an insufficient example. Therefore, with the search for ways to provide clergy in poor parishes, it is imperative to combine what was commanded by the highest decree announced to the Synod on the 17th day of June 1826, the search for means so that the priests are ordained both from people proven in good morals and with sufficient knowledge, and preferably from seminarians, so that they can more reliably lead the parishioners entrusted to them and edify in Christian virtues. The Holy Synod made an experiment to collect information from the dioceses about which rural churches need special assistance from the authorities, so that the priestly places in them would willingly and comfortably be occupied by those who have completed a course of study in seminaries, and what such assistance should consist of, according to the need. This experience, which is still ongoing, begins to confirm what could have been foreseen, that is, that based on one-time reports from all places, it is impossible to reliably distinguish parish churches requiring benefits and accurately assign the benefits they need. The following reasoning can explain this idea: 1) If we assume that, due to bias, as undoubtedly could have happened, one or another dean, who compiled the list of poor parishes, included in it one or more non-poor parishes, who will correct this infidelity? The dioceses are so large that neither the diocesan bishop nor those present in the consistory can have all the information necessary for such verification. So, there is reason to fear that parishes that are not poor are also included in the lists of poor people, and the Holy Synod will assign benefits to places where they are not entirely needed. 2) But it is difficult for an impartial dean to compile a correct statement about poor parishes; for, indeed, the resulting content of the rural clergy is such a complexity of little things that cannot be taken into account with sufficient accuracy. Sometimes a small parish is not poor for the clergy, due to the sufficient wealth or zeal of the parishioners, sometimes it is numerous, due to its own poverty, or coldness towards the church, and barely provides the clergy with a meager allowance. 3) The state of parishes is subject to changes, sometimes strong and rapid. Now, for example, the clergyman of a small parish, provided for by a kind landowner, declares himself satisfied, and therefore the Holy Synod will not assign him benefits; but the landowner will be gone, the abuse will stop, and the same clergyman may become poorer than the other poor. 4) If we assume that the Holy Synod will continue to assign auxiliary salaries, as the diocesan bishops become aware of the poverty of one or another clergy, then we must fear that the parishes, looking at each other, will become increasingly cold in their disposition to help the clergy, and will send them to the treasury. Here two precautions are presented to your attention: one economic, so as not to make an order that would subsequently greatly burden the treasury, and the other moral, so as not to make an order that could spread among the people a cooling of zeal for the church. This zeal should be maintained not for the benefit of the clergy, but for the moral benefit of the parishioners, just as the apostle wrote: I do not seek giving, but I seek fruit that multiplies for your benefit (Phil. 4:17). Such reasoning shows that the method proposed by the Holy Synod to separate rural churches in need of the maintenance of clergy through mere statements and to help the clergy serving with them by assigning once and for all some specific allowance does not lead to the intended goal in a sure and safe way, and that therefore it is not useless to look for another path to the same goal, which, perhaps, will be shown by the following rules: On the provision of worthy clergy to meager parishes, especially Sleje parishes 1) since theological schools, especially since their transformation, noticeably increasing in the number of students, already in many dioceses provide a sufficient number of those who have completed theological studies, capable of occupying priestly places, then the diocesan authorities are now obliged, with particular strictness, to adhere to the rule so that worthy graduates of theological studies in the clergy are produced as priests for the churches, both city and rural academies or seminaries. 2) To recommend to the bishops of those dioceses in which the number of those completing the seminary course is not enough to fill priestly places that, depending on convenience, they try to borrow those from other dioceses that have an abundance of seminarians trained in seminaries, through relations with local bishops. 3) In those dioceses only and in those cases in which the number of those who have completed theological studies turns out to be insufficient to fill priestly places, to produce priests from those who have not completed seminary studies, but to ensure that in this case people are promoted to priests, although not according to the rules of science, however, who study the word of God with zeal and good understanding, are approved in behavior, have at least 30 years from birth and have served not less than a year in the degree of deacon. 4) But how can it happen that a father who has not completed seminary studies, with a good life and diligent teaching in the word of God and the writings of the saints, will achieve thorough spiritual knowledge, then, in order not to deprive the church of the benefits that the ministry of people of this kind can bring, leave it to the diocesan bishops, when to use one, to assign him a test in the teaching of the faith and Christian life, in their presence, through three clergy, knowledgeable in theology, among whom should be the rector of an academy or seminary; and if such a test really reveals a reverent and edifying man, then, according to the above-mentioned testers, the diocesan bishop can use him in the clergy rank, on an equal basis with those who have completed theological studies in seminaries. 5) since it is customary for those who have completed theological studies to ask for a priestly position of their choice, and it is natural that they choose and will always choose places where they can live comfortably, then when there are petitioners for an idle priestly position from those who have completed theological studies, this very thing serves as a sign that this place is either sufficient to support a clergy or is not entirely meager, and can do without special assistance from the authorities; In this case, the diocesan bishop only needs to choose the most worthy of the petitioners. 6) But when no applicants from those who have completed their theological studies appear in an idle priestly place for a period of time, at least six months, although there are those in the diocese waiting for priestly places, and, moreover, in the dean’s statements this place is shown in relation to the contents of the clergy, then the totality of these signs can serve to certify that the place is truly poor, and in this respect requires special care from the authorities. 7) If in this way the poverty of a parish in a city where there are other churches and where the poverty of parishes usually comes from their lack of people is proven, in this case the church in which there is no priest should be assigned to another, according to convenience, the parishes should be united into one and the remaining members of the clergy being destroyed should be placed in other churches. 8) If, in the above-mentioned manner, the poverty of a rural parish, in the vicinity of which there is another parish, is proven, and there is local convenience to combine both into one, then in this case, proceed as stated in the previous paragraph. 9) If, in the above-mentioned manner, the poverty of such a rural parish is proven, which cannot be annexed to another, or due to local remoteness, or due to the inconvenience of communication routes, or due to the large population, or due to precautions against schism and falling away of parishioners from the church: then the diocesan bishop, in order to provide such a parish with a worthy priest, uses the right of sending, without the request of the person elected to this ministry, and at the same time, for to help the clergy of the church in need of support, uses the measures indicated below. 10) If in the secular service places are distributed not always at the desire and choice of employees, but often on assignment from superiors, in accordance with the needs and benefits of the service, then it is no less fair, and even more decent, as needed, to use this method of assigning places in the spiritual department, where employees are primarily obliged not to seek their own benefit, but many, that they may be saved. (1 Cor. 10:33). If those brought up in secular schools are obliged by resolutions, in gratitude for their education, to serve for a certain number of years in school places on assignment from their superiors, then it is also fair for students of theological schools who turn out to be capable of the clergy to be obliged to serve for some time in ecclesiastical places on assignment from their spiritual superiors, when they find it necessary to use this measure. Therefore, diocesan bishops should be given the right to the priestly places indicated in the previous 6 paragraph, through secondment, to determine from students of theological schools who have completed theological studies and are preparing for the clerical rank, but have not yet been assigned to places, or have already been assigned to deacon places. 11) However, in order to preserve the advantages, rightly assigned to students of theological schools who have distinguished themselves over others in their teaching and good behavior, students with an academic degree will continue to be given the right to be assigned to priestly places, at their request, preferentially before students of the second and third category who have completed the seminary course, and the former to be assigned to places through secondment only for special needs and due to the lack of the latter. 12) Anyone appointed to a priestly place, through a secondment, is obliged to serve in it for three years, if required by his superiors; and after three years he can ask for another place, if he wishes, in which case the diocesan authorities may even prefer him to another, of equal dignity, a seeker of a place who has suffered obedience. 13) In order to deliver benefits to those churches in need of clergy maintenance, shown in paragraph 6, the diocesan bishop presents each time a church is recognized as such to the Holy Synod, with a detailed statement: how many souls it has in the parish, how much land, and what quality, whether it has other sources of benefits for the clergy, why it cannot be assigned to another, and what annual salary must be added to her own methods for the comfortable maintenance of the clergy. 14) An auxiliary salary for the maintenance of the clergy of a needy rural church should be assigned from the amounts at the disposal of the commission of theological schools, since this will be possible without disrupting its school, construction and charitable capital, which has already received the assignment determined by law; and in case of further need - to borrow from the treasury, to the account of 200,000 rubles, which for the establishment of the clergy by the highest decree, June 26, 1808, were assigned to annual leave at the disposal of the commission of theological schools, and which it subsequently refused until further need. 15) If we take into account that the interest received by the commission of theological schools from permanent capital is already assigned to the annual expense, that the annual candle income, partly also assigned to the annual expense, cannot be safely considered (calculated) as subject to change and decline, that the commission of theological schools needs frugality to raise capital so that interest can cover all the regular expenses of the schools, so that, in this way, providing for the regular salaries, the more safely it was possible to spend the annual candle income: from this we must conclude that it is necessary to resort to the above-mentioned allowance from the treasury. However, in order not to burden the treasury, in my opinion, we should limit ourselves to asking for an annual leave of 500,000 rubles to provide benefits to the clergy of poor parishes, and one can hope that for the first ten years this benefit will be sufficient, for the reason that poor places should receive benefits gradually, at the same time as the appointment of worthy priests, and those serving in such places are from unlearned people, accustomed to earning food by their own agricultural labors, if have not discredited their title by unworthy actions, they will naturally remain in their places, in their previous position. 16) The salary for a clergyman of a meager parish, approximately, can range from 250–400 rubles, depending on the actual need and according to the own methods of the church and the parish. 17) There should not be a deacon in a church that is recognized as needy. And if the parishioners wish to have a deacon, then they are obliged to provide from themselves such support to the entire clergy that would be recognized as comfortable; and in this case, the church goes back out of the category of those in need and ceases to burden the authorities. 18) The auxiliary salary for a needy church, at the immediate discretion of the diocesan bishop, is either divided between the priest and the clergymen, according to the usual rule of division, or the entire salary is given to the priest, and the clergymen are given all the cultivated land, not excluding the priestly share, since they have more convenience in leading a working life, and the priest has a greater need to save time for spiritual pursuits. 19) When, in a rural church recognized as needy and receiving an auxiliary salary, the priestly position becomes idle, the diocesan authorities are obliged to pay attention to whether, due to changed circumstances, it has not left its previous meager position and whether it cannot do without the auxiliary salary. A three-month period is expected for this certification. If during this time a worthy petitioner appears who wishes to take the abolished place without an auxiliary salary, this serves as a sign that the church is no longer in need, and the diocesan bishop remains to inform the Holy Synod about the termination of the auxiliary salary. If the worthy petitioner does not appear within three months, then the method of secondment is again used to occupy the priestly place, with the continuation of the auxiliary salary. 20) If the poverty of the parish is quite well known to the diocesan authorities, and some special circumstances of the parish do not allow delay in identifying a worthy priest, in this case the diocesan bishop, without waiting for the period mentioned in paragraph 6 of these rules, can, through a business trip, assign to such a parish a priest from among students or students who have completed a seminary course of the second category, and at the same time submit to the commissions of theological schools about the production of such, following the example higher academic degrees, class salary, student 175 rubles, and second-class student 150 rubles per year. 21) For the construction of houses for priests and clergy in the parishes of the poor, and for special reasons requiring support from the authorities, issue a one-time allowance from the amounts of the commission of theological schools. The following document is attached to this. In support of some parts of the opinion about teaching theology in Russian. Publishing theological books written according to the classical method in Russian is no longer a new thing. Back in the seventeenth century, the catechism of Lawrence Zizanius 197 was published in Moscow, in the Russian language, which is nothing more than theology; also a mirror of the theology of Cyril Tranquillion, in Kyiv 198, and a book on faith, in Mogilev. In the near future, in addition to Plato's 199 theology, the following have been published in Russian: Makariev 200 and Yuvenalieva 201 dogmatic, and even the moral theology of Schubert, a Protestant writer, translated from Latin. The theological teaching about the properties of God and the Holy Trinity was published in Christian Reading 202. At the same time, it should be remembered that before the establishment of Latin schools in the dioceses for the education of spiritual youth in Russia, the dominant idea of ​​the Russian clergy was to establish Greek Slavic schools in which teaching would be taught in the Slavic Russian language. In the history of the Russian hierarchy it is mentioned that the Novgorod Metropolitan Job, in 1706, opened the first Greek-Slavic school in Novgorod at the bishop's house, and in different places throughout the diocese there were 14 schools; but twenty years later Feofan Prokopovich destroyed them and gave theological schools a different direction, according to his own education, adhering too closely to models alien to the Eastern Church. Pure Christian truth, whether dogmatic or practical, from the beginning of Christianity to the present day, has spoken and speaks freely to everyone in their natural language in the Eastern Church. And in the Roman Church the Latin language became dominant only by becoming natural. About giving when correcting church needs. What power this ancient church custom received can be seen from the fact that it retained this power even in the Protestant confession, and in some cases in a very strange way. For example, proskomedia, the first part of the liturgy, in which, among other things, the person performing the sacrament accepts the offerings of believers and commemorates the living and the dead, has no place among Protestants who do not recognize the nature of sacrifice in the liturgy and do not pray for the dead; despite the fact that their canon law assigns proskomid money to church servants. (nummi missales, opfer pfennige, Carpzou. Lib. 1, def. 105). Likewise, despite the fact that they weakened the power of confession to the spiritual father, confession money is mentioned and not rejected in their canon law. (nummus confessionarius 203, Carpzou. Lib. 1, def. 118). On the establishment of houses for clergy from churches and parishioners. This is quite important, not only as an allowance for the subsistence of church servants, but also as a means of relief for diocesan administration, so that it would be more convenient, in accordance with the benefit of the service, to transfer clergy from one place to another without the ruin that they more or less endure when leaving their own houses in the same place, and when buying them in a new place. The Holy Synod, in a journal of the same January 23, decided: having copied copies from the said opinion, distribute them to other synodal members and those present, so that, after carefully reading it and considering the assumptions set out in it, if anyone admits, on his part, to change or add anything in this opinion, his comments would be submitted for further consideration of the Holy Synod 204. February 16. Metropolitan Philaret’s opinion on the issue of supervision of clergy by diocesan authorities Chief Prosecutor, Prince P. S. Meshchersky, with a proposal dated February 13, 1828, No. 488, brought to the attention of the Holy Synod that the Sovereign Emperor, drawing attention to the fact that the priest of the church of the village of Velikaya Vesi, in the Chernigov diocese, Luka Shumsky, who dared to perform the service of God while drunk, fell in the altar and could not finish it, and then died from an apoplexy, as a result of a drunken life, the Holy Synod highly commands to confirm to the diocesan authorities to have active supervision over the clergy, and those of them who are already seen as bad should be immediately removed from their posts, and those who are recognized as having questionable behavior should be moved under the personal supervision of the bishops for correction. After discussions on this subject in the Holy Synod, on February 13, Metropolitan Philaret, on the 16th of the same month, presented his opinion with the following content: On the 13th day of February, this year 1828, the Holy Synod was declared, on the occasion of an incident in the church of the village of Velikaya Vesi, Chernigov diocese, with the following highest command: His Imperial Majesty deigns to consider it necessary to strictly confirm to the diocesan authorities to have the most active supervision over the clergy; and those of them who have already been seen as bad should now be removed from their positions, and those who are recognized as having questionable behavior should be transferred under the personal supervision of the bishops for correction. The Sovereign Emperor desires that the Holy Synod issue its urgent order for the fulfillment of His Majesty’s highest will. When discussing ways to fulfill this highest command in the most accurate and reliable manner, turning to the reasons that give rise to the obstinacy of some priests and clergy in intemperance or other gross vices, and the unsuccessful action of the diocesan authorities in correcting them, which sometimes has the appearance of laxity and inactivity, the Holy Synod may see that through the efforts of the diocesan bishops to morally improve the parish clergy is not favorable: firstly, 205, the space and crowdedness of the dioceses, and the resulting inconvenience of immediate supervision and leadership, and secondly, the slowness and weakness of judicial and corrective measures, often inevitable, according to the introduced rite of legal proceedings and according to the existing rules on punishments. Investigation of an act contrary to office or good behavior, according to the established form, requiring for the most part communication with secular authorities to question witnesses of secular rank, drawing up an extract from the case, summoning the defendant to sign it, a new summons to declare pleasure or displeasure for a decisive verdict, not rarely, due to a dissatisfied response against the lightest penance, transferring the case to the Holy Synod: all this can be the reason the fact that quick punishment for an offense comes after a few months, after committing it, and more often after a year or more; Meanwhile, the one who has fallen into temptation becomes rigid in it, prevents the punishment of the first act by repeated acts of vice, and later punishment becomes an action more punitive than corrective. In addition, since the decree of May 6, 1797, it was prescribed that priests should be punished for the first offense against good behavior only by the monastery authorities, with leaving in their original place, then no matter how unreliable the priest turns out to be, it is necessary to wait for the second or third offense, and since not every offense reaches the authorities, then a chain of offenses is needed so that the authorities can reduce the temptation by prohibiting the offender priestly service and his relegation to a clerical place. For these reasons and experiments, for the highest-ordered active supervision of the clergy, for the correction of those seen as bad and for the testing of doubtful ones, the following seems necessary: 1) Instruct the diocesan bishops to elect people of exemplary behavior with special care to supervise the serviceability and behavior of priests and clergy; so that those appointed to this position, but who turn out to be incapable of it, are dismissed and replaced by those who are more capable, and those who are found to be unfaithful in supervision or abuse are removed from the deanship position and held accountable according to their guilt. 2) The dean confirm that, not limiting himself to brief annual testimonies about the behavior of clergy and clergy in the clergy registers, those who are noticed in actions contrary to their position, deanery and good morals, each time are specifically reported to the diocesan bishop immediately, with an explanation of the circumstances and indication of witnesses to the incident, under the fear, otherwise, of liability under the 71st rule of Basil Great. 3) To make it an indispensable duty for the diocesan bishops to ensure that the dean’s supervision of the serviceability and behavior of the clergy is often carried out at their own personal discretion, and for this purpose, in accordance with the bishop’s oath, every year, although a certain part of the diocese, they alternately visited, and at the end of the year they reported this to the Holy Synod. 4) Cases of crimes committed by clergy and ecclesiastics against office and good behavior are to be carried out in the order prescribed in the rules of judicial proceedings regarding crimes committed in the church, approved on the 22nd day of December 1823; since these rules contain a way to avoid slowness in legal proceedings. 5) If a clergyman, although for the first time through legal proceedings, is convicted of intemperance, but in such a way that his actions will reveal passion and obstinacy in this vice, or actions will be revealed that produce temptation and make him contemptuous in the parish - in this case, in order to stop the temptation, be sure to remove the culprit from the parish and, with the prohibition of priestly service, assign him to a place of priesthood, under special supervision dean. 6) The same should be done with someone convicted of reprehensible behavior based on research in the case when all or most of the parishioners declare that they no longer want to have him in their church. 7) If, as a result of legal proceedings, the diocesan authorities are required to stay in the monastery from one to six weeks for penance or for testing and exhortation, such a decision should not be stopped by waiting for a satisfied or dissatisfied response from the defendant, but should be carried out immediately. 8) If such a clergyman, who has already been tried and punished for intemperance or other reprehensible acts, is informed by the dean or parishioners that he is again indulging in his former vices, such a clergyman, on the basis of the highest command now announced, shall be immediately removed from office and, with the prohibition of priestly service, assigned to a place of clergy. 9) Those about whom the diocesan bishop unofficially comes to the attention of the fact that they are noticed in drunkenness or other actions indecent to the clergy, and about whom he sees the same comments in the dean’s statements, but on which there are no formal denunciations, are to be recognized as questionable in behavior; and such, by virtue of the highest command now announced, to be taken under the personal supervision of the diocesan bishop, to test their behavior, in the bishop's house for one or two months, or when, due to the special circumstances of the bishop's house, it turns out to be inconvenient, for the same purpose, send to the monastery under the personal supervision of a trustworthy abbot; Their position is to be entrusted for this time to others according to convenience, with the income divided equally between the one correcting the position and between the family of the person under trial. 10) If someone with questionable behavior spends the time of testing in a decent and well-behaved manner: he should be released back to his post, and the fact that he was subject to testing, although it should be shown in the statements, should not be fined or reproached. 11) But if, during the test of his behavior in the bishop’s house or monastery, he is noticed and convicted of drunkenness or other reprehensible acts: in this case, act as stated above in paragraph 8. Moreover, in this case, in my opinion, it may be useful, in order to arouse pastoral zeal and care of the bishops for the moral improvement of the clergy entrusted to them and for the spiritual edification of them by their word, example and actions of management, to use a secret district message from the Holy Synod. Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow The stated opinion, without changes, was included in the definition of the Holy Synod on February 27, and on March 17, circularly, it was announced to the diocesan bishops for execution 206. February 23. The draft report of the Synod, compiled by Metropolitan Philaret, on granting diocesan bishops the right to use, when reviewing the dioceses entrusted to them, running money for a certain number of horses At a meeting on February 23, 1828, the Holy Synod recognized it as necessary for the diocesan bishops, for better discretion of the clergy in the dioceses entrusted to them, in accordance with the Spiritual Regulations and the bishop’s oath, to visit every year, although some part of the diocese alternately, and, to ease the expenses of the bishops’ houses on this subject, decided to enter into the Sovereign Emperor with the most submissive report on granting bishops the right to use money sent from the treasury. Metropolitan Philaret took upon himself to compile such a report and presented it in the following form: The Spiritual Regulations on the Affairs of Bishops stipulate in paragraph 17: “It is appropriate for a bishop to go around and visit his diocese once every year or two.” There, further, it is said: “Summer time seems to be more suitable for visiting than winter time; This is because it is not as much in the summer as in the winter, and the bishop himself and the churches visited will spend it on food and other needs.” This economic remark related to the circumstances of that time, when the clergy had significant real estate at their disposal, and therefore, for the bishop’s journey, with the retinue necessary for priestly service, there was no need for any special allowance, but only the most convenient disposal of the methods that existed at that time. In the times following the establishment of states under the ecclesiastical department, it is noteworthy that bishops personally reviewed the dioceses entrusted to them quite often; The reason for this, by the way, is the lack of economic methods for this, because in the states no amount is allocated for expenses when visiting dioceses, and the non-salary income of most of the bishops' houses is so limited that they are barely enough to cover the necessary costs of annual food and the maintenance of buildings. Now, in fulfillment of Your Highest Imperial Majesty’s command 207, announced on the 13th day of this month, on the active supervision of the diocesan authorities over the clergy, the Synod found it necessary to once again make it an indispensable duty for the diocesan bishops, so that the supervision of the deans over the serviceability and good behavior of the clergy is often trusted at their personal discretion, and for this, each year, although they alternately visited some part of the diocese, and at the end of the year they reported this to the Synod. And in order to reduce the economic difficulties in this matter, in order to take as a basis the legalization of August 13, 1802, which stipulates that for moving from one place to another, according to position, or on temporary secondment from the authorities, to make travel money according to ranks for the required number of horses, the Synod believes that diocesan bishops, as well as vicars seconded from them, should be given to visit dioceses the appointed number of horses, and the allotted driving money, according to requirements, were released from the local treasury chambers for such a number of miles as, according to the actual episcopal journey, it would turn out to be. All-merciful Sovereign! The Synod, most submissively reporting this to Your Imperial Majesty, requests the highest command to satisfy the indicated need for spiritual governance. This report was approved by the highest on April 14 of the same 1828 208. May 6. Metropolitan Philaret’s opinion regarding the borrowed leave of 6,000 rubles. for the printing of an ancient church chant, set to 4 voices by Archpriest Turchaninov Having signed a journal with the other members of the commission of theological schools, in pursuance of the highest command about the loan release of six thousand rubles for the printing of ancient church chant, set to four voices by Archpriest Turchaninov 209, I am obliged to add, in addition, the following: Several plays, arranged by Archpriest Turchaninov, were listened to by the Metropolitan of Novgorod and myself for experience. Some of them turned out to be set to four voices, in accordance with the ancient melody, but so artificially, difficult for the singers and not easy that only a huge and excellent court choir could sing this song with success. The experiments made by the choir with me were not satisfactory. Consequently, this position of singing, as inconvenient to implement, does not achieve the intended goal - to support and restore ancient church singing everywhere. Other plays, and in larger numbers, were processed by Archpriest Turchaninov so inaccurately with ancient samples that it is not at all possible to recognize the ancient church melody in them. This is already a complete deviation from the intended goal. According to such experiments, in order to direct the enterprise towards its true goal, in order not to make costs of little use and so that, instead of maintaining ancient church singing, it is not confused and damaged by incorrect imitation, it is necessary, in my opinion, before printing the plays processed by Archpriest Turchaninov, to subject them to the consideration of knowledgeable people, under the supervision of the Holy Synod, and, if they are now the same as they turned out to be in the above-mentioned experiments, then correct them so, so that this singing is exactly similar to the ancient models, and so that it does not require an excellent choir, but can also be performed by small diocesan choirs without difficulty; and it would be even better if, in its exact conformity with the ancients and in its simplicity, it could be used, although partly, in monasteries and parish churches, where there are small choirs of free singers. This is my opinion that I offer to the commission of theological schools to consider whether it would not be considered necessary to enter the Holy Synod on this basis in order to ask for the highest command. November 30. Metropolitan Philaret’s proposal to the Holy Synod about the inaccuracies he noticed in the articles of the magazine: “Christian reading” Proposal to the Holy Governing Synod. Looking through, as time allows, the latest books of Christian Reading, I came across some passages in which the truth is not presented with all due accuracy, and from which one should be wary of temptation in a book whose purpose is the edification of Christian readers of all ranks, for example: Frequently XXXI, page 140. This is the doctrine of the divinity of the Holy Spirit. What's it like? - immediately before this it is said: the doctrine defended by him (St. Gregory the Theologian) cannot be found in scripture. Too much has been said; and what is said here contradicts what immediately follows. Page 147. Simi from the pagan language about the sacraments with borrowed expressions. Therefore, the following words of the sacramental prayer were borrowed from the pagan language about the sacraments: lest we tell the secret to your enemies. Page 150. However, one cannot think that this not entirely strong proof (from an examination of the world) would convince Saint Gregory of the existence and action of God. Is it necessary, is it useful, and is it not more tempting to assure the reader that this proof is not entirely strong? Is it possible that the Apostle Paul is not really using a very strong proof of the existence of God when he says: for his invisible being from the creation of the world is understood by creatures, and is visible? Page 316. Many of the ancient teachers of the church still doubted whether to attribute to the Holy Spirit, as is usually attributed to the Father and the Son, an independent existence or personality. Unsubstantiated words that can only seduce, not instruct. Page 322. Although not to completely abandon the protection of the divine Holy Spirit: a disrespectful and offensive expression about Basil the Great. Page 341. It is strange that Gregory, citing some passages from the Holy Scriptures, insignificant at first glance, did not take advantage of those that were very favorable to his theory, such as: the form of greetings, the form of blessings, and especially the form used at baptism. This reproach to Saint Gregory should lead the reader into great confusion. Did Saint Gregory really not remember these places? It is impossible to assume this; they are too familiar. What should we think? Didn’t he really find the power of proof in them? Consequently, did he really explain them in some way, like modern neologists? It is necessary to cope with Saint Gregory; and this is what is revealed: Saint Gregory in his word about the Holy Spirit says: why is there any need for the testimony itself to bring you word after word? From this it is clear that one should not look for the text of the mentioned passages in his word, but should only look for indications of the meaning of them. Please look: the Spirit is glorified and numbered with the Father and the Son. What is this if not an indication of all those places of Holy Scripture in which the Holy Spirit is named together with the Father and the Son, and therefore the form of baptism, blessing, and greetings? See further: The Spirit who created all things, who creates through baptism. Although this instruction can be attributed to the well-known saying of the Savior in the Gospel of John, what prevents us from believing that Saint Gregory had in mind other passages of Holy Scripture in which the Holy Spirit appears to act in baptism, and therefore the form of baptism? In this case, it should be noted that the saint does not look at the form so called by the author of the Christian Reading superficially, as at a verbal form, but deeply, as at the mystical words that bring divine, creative power in baptism. So, it turns out that Gregory the Theologian was slandered in that he did not take advantage of the most important evidence of the Holy Scriptures about the divinity of the Holy Spirit. Frequently XXXII, p. 61. Why did he (St. Gregory) in this regard become the main founder of church orthodoxy. It is necessary to pay attention to the expression: and in this regard. It assumes that it is also true in another or other respects. So, the main founder of church orthodoxy, in more than one respect, became one man, in the fourth century of the existence of the church, and consequently the church existed for three hundred years without church orthodoxy in several respects! This is not said at all on the basis of church orthodoxy. No one can lay any other foundation than the one who lies, who is Jesus Christ. The apostles and prophets were ordained on the foundation which is the cornerstone of Jesus Christ himself. Page 107. If in the days of blessed happiness she (faith) did not sanctify our joys, then it will be in vain to seek a quiet refuge from her in the days of misfortune. During the days of King Manasseh's happiness, faith did not sanctify his joys. Consequently, according to the teacher of the noble boarding house, King Manasseh sought in vain with her a quiet refuge during the days of misfortune. And we, the unenlightened, believe in Manasseh’s repentance for misfortune and by his example we are consoled in our sometimes early repentance. One could also ask the teacher of the law: does he truly believe that there is divine happiness when faith does not sanctify our joys? It is interesting to know who blesses the happiness of non-believers 211 . In such passages found in Christian Reading, without suspecting either the authors, or the publishers, or the censors of a lack of Orthodoxy, but noticing a certain lack of accuracy and caution against sinning in the word, with a well-intentioned thought, I recognized it as the duty of the oath to propose this to the discretion of the Holy Synod, whether it would be deemed necessary to confirm to the censorship about increased attention and caution when considering works. Your Holiness's humblest novice. Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow No. 421. November 30 days, 1828 212 The Holy Synod, by resolution of November 30/December 17, 1828, decided: to grant the commission of theological schools, in accordance with this proposal of the Most Reverend Philaret, to give the St. Petersburg committee for the censorship of spiritual books proper confirmation of strengthening henceforth attention and caution when considering works. December 2. Metropolitan Philaret’s proposal to the Holy Synod, with comments on the second part of the book: “table of contents to the laws of the Greek-Russian Church,” compiled by Ya. M. Ginovsky Last November 2, 1827, No. 340, I proposed, at the discretion of the Holy Synod, comments on the first part of the book: table of contents to the laws of the Greek-Russian churches 213, and I also agreed that consideration of these, in order to improve the book, should be carried out without official forms. Probably, the consequence of this last circumstance was that, at my suggestion, the Holy Synod has not yet taken any official action, but meanwhile the second part of the book was printed, with the permission of the Holy Synod written on the title page, 214 while, as far as is known, neither the censorship nor any of the members of the Holy Synod examined this book. But, in my opinion, it is worthy of consideration by the Holy Synod, what impression will be made, for example, by the following law given in this book: page 48, in churches in front of the images in lamps and candlesticks, do not put many candles. Or page 76, monks do not have special cells, but closets. How much must be broken in monasteries according to this law! Or: in monasteries there should be two kitchens, one for secular people and the other for monks. Page 76. Or: do not keep hermits in monasteries. Page 78. Or: do not sell or give away lands and villages to monasteries. But it is not said that the first half of this law has been repealed. Consequently, if they give the monastery land, the consistory will refuse under this article, which would be illegal. Page 81. Or: in the synodal house there will be 4 subdeacons, 10 choristers, 30 subdeacons. Page. 88. Or: the Kolomna diocese should convert the courtyard, according to its affiliation, to the Tula bishop's house. Page 120. Is this really the law? Or: leave the petitions and collections made for candles on holidays, and in the future do not make such collections to anyone. Page 130. This book does not know the difference between law and order, between a decree, the highest approved, and between a random order of the Holy Synod, between vague civil concepts and church and dogmatic teaching, which must be observed with special accuracy in the book that is published by the Holy Synod, and which, therefore, disorder and errors would degrade the dignity of the Holy Synod, and, of course, would produce more harm than the error of a book missed by ordinary censorship. Such reasoning convinces me to again propose this matter to the discretion of the Holy Synod, with a copy of my proposal from last year attached. Your Holiness's humblest novice. Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow No. 423. December 2 days, 1828 The Holy Synod, agreeing with the comments of the Right Reverend Metropolitan of Moscow, by definition 5/1, the same December, recognized the need for the said book to be again subjected to the most careful consideration and correction; and for this: 1st, to entrust this matter to the Eminences present at the Holy Synod: Gregory, Archbishop of Ryazan and Vladimir, Bishop of Kursk, at which end and forward to them both the printed first two parts of the said book, and the next four handwritten ones, and, moreover, for consideration when considering them, copies of the comments on the first two parts of the Right Reverend Metropolitan of Moscow; 2nd, stopping the printing of the third and the sale of the printed first and second parts of the mentioned book, store them in a convenient place behind the government seal, pending the decision, and demand from the publisher of this book a detailed register of how many copies where exactly and for what amount were sent out to them from the printed first two parts of that book 215. December 6. The most submissive petition of Metropolitan Philaret for his dismissal from the administration of the Moscow diocese and for permission, with the consent of the Holy Synod, to choose to live in one of the monasteries In 1828, on November 29, Baron I. I. Dibich, in a letter, in French, to the Moscow military governor-general, Prince D. V. Golitsyn, reported that the Sovereign Emperor, having learned about the troubles that Colonel Mansurov was experiencing as a result of his marriage 216, instructed me to inform you that His Majesty really wants this matter to be completely committed without being made public. oblivion and commands your Lordship, turning your full attention to this worthy officer, to take appropriate measures to “suspend all measures that could be taken against him.” In the copy from Baron I. I. Dibich’s letter, the following words are underlined: en arrêtant toutes les mesures contraires, que pourraient être prises. At the top of the copy, by the hand of Metropolitan Philaret, it is written: “The original was given to me on December 6th. The line indicates the words “handwritten,” i.e., the Sovereign Emperor Nikolai Pavlovich. A copy of the letter from Baron I. I. Dibich to Prince D. V. Golitsyn was rewritten in Metropolitan Philaret’s own hand and included in it was the metropolitan’s handwritten draft all-submissive petition, with the following content: Most merciful sir! The sacred duty to serve Your Imperial Majesty with faith and truth, makes gratitude for the mercies and benefits of Your Imperial Majesty indescribably great for me especially desirable. But, with the awareness of my inner shortcomings, physical weakness, barely overcome by forced efforts for a considerable time, finally takes away from me the hope of meeting the responsibilities of the ministry entrusted to me. Therefore, I accept the boldness of Your Imperial Majesty to most submissively ask for my dismissal from the management of the diocese entrusted to me and for the most merciful permission for me, with the consent of the Holy Synod, to choose to live, without management, in one of the monasteries, where healthy air, and not too great a distance from medical benefits, would allow me to save the remains of my deteriorating health for the last service with all possible prayers for the peace of the church and for the long and prosperous reign of Your Imperial Majesty, and for our own preparation for the upcoming judgment of Christ. Your Imperial Majesty's loyal subject 217. Whether this petition was submitted and what the response was is not clear from the further papers of Metropolitan Philaret. A poem written in refutation of the thought expressed by A. S. Pushkin in his poem “A Vain Gift” (1828) 218 A vain gift, a random gift, Life, what have you given me for? Who makes me a hostile power Filled my soul with passion, The heart is empty, the mind is idle, I myself am capricious in power Evil called out from the secret abysses, He filled his soul with passion, Remember me, forgotten by me, Shine through the darkness of thoughts! The heart is pure, the mind is bright 219. In hours of fun or idle boredom, Madness, laziness and passions. But even then the strings of evil Involuntarily I interrupted the ringing, When your voice is majestic I shed streams of unexpected tears, And the strength of meek and loving Rejected the darkness of earthly vanities, - Sings 220 in sacred horror. This entire section, up to point 6, with some minor changes, is set out on pp. 208–210. Lavrentiy Zizaniy (Tustanovsky), archpriest of Koretsky, writer. XVI–XVII centuries. Kirill Tranquillion (Stavrovetsky), teacher (didaskal) of the Lviv brotherhood, later Archimandrite of Chernigov, 17th century. Plato, Metropolitan of Moscow; †1812. Makariy (Petrovich). About him, see vol. 1, p. 140, approx. 2. Juvenaly (Medvedevsky), governor of Khutyn, then catechist at the Sergius Seminary; †1809 See christ. Thurs. 1822 The treatises placed here belonged to the rector of St. Petersburg. spirit. acad. Archimandrite Gregory (Postnikov), later Metropolitan of Novgorod and St. Petersburg; †June 17, 1860 The text has been amended according to the list of edits at the end of the volume. – Editorial of the ABC of Faith. From a copy, find. in the case of the Holy Synod, 1826, No. 460, l. 167–191. Wed. below from pages 162 and 163. From the original kept in the file of the Holy Synod, 1823, No. 896, l. 1–6. From a draft original kept in the file of the Holy Synod, 1828, No. 106–499, pp. 1 and 2. The collection of spiritual and musical works of Archpriest Turchaninov was published in 3 books, St. Petersburg. 1875–76 From a handwritten draft. authentic, storing in Moscow diocesan bib. Dept. VII, no. 97. The criticisms expressed here relate to the articles “on the theology of St. Gregory the Theologian”, owned by Rev. G. P. Pavsky (See biographical sketch of Archpriest Pavsky, op. priest S. V. Protopopov, St. Petersburg, 1876, p. 82). With a rough original stored in the library. Moscow spirit. Acad., 1828, No. 4; the original was proposed in the case of the Holy Synod, 1828, No. 835, see also the case comm. spirit. taught., 1828, No. 1691 (186). The book was printed in the St. Petersburg Synodal Printing House in 1828. Chernov. sentence, storing to the library Moscow spirit. Acad., 1828, No. 3; authentic - in the file of the Holy Synod, 1826, No. 817. See above, Nos. 178, 180, 182 and 183. From rough originals. Inventory No. 50; document Nos. 9–11. The poem: “A vain gift, an accidental gift,” in the publication of P. V. Annenkov “Works of Pushkin” (St. Petersburg, 1856, vol. II, p. 449, verse XII), is assigned to 1828, and A. S. Pushkin’s answer: “In hours of fun or idle boredom,” is assigned to 1830 (there same, p. 505). From a copy. Inventory No. 43; document No. 1. All three poems were published in the magazine Minist. people. Enlightenment, 1868, Jan., pp. 2–3.