1829 г.

January 9. Metropolitan Philaret's comments on the program for teaching the law of God in military educational institutions The program for teaching the law of God in military educational institutions in its very introduction presents inaccurate concepts, and in its entire composition contains many things that are inconsistent with its purpose. 1) She considers the fear of the Lord to be the only goal of legal teaching, as if trying with this tense expression to exclude perfect love, which casts out fear. 2) She says that, according to the age of the youth being educated, the subjects taught to them according to the law of God should also be elevated. since the first subjects of legal teaching are the symbol of faith, the commandments of God and the Lord's prayer, then, according to the requirements of the program, the symbol of faith, the commandments of God and the Lord's prayer should be elevated according to the ages of the youth being educated. 3) The program assumes that young children are offered only verbal, unflattering milk, and older children are offered solid food. From the attitude of the chief director of the page and cadet corps, it is clear that young nobles enter military educational institutions from 8 to 12 years old, and remain in the institution for 8 years, namely: two years in the lower classes, three in the middle classes and three in the upper classes. From this it turns out that those for whom the program prescribes solid food are children starting from the age of 13. 4) First of all, the program involves teaching eight-year-old children who cannot read, first by hearsay, and then through reading, the most necessary prayers, by which name she means, by the way, the creed, some church verses and the fiftieth psalm; and of which only fifteen articles are assigned. To learn by hearsay, without a doubt, means to learn from memory. And learning so much from memory is not convenient for everyone at this age. It is a good intention to teach children to pray early, but this must be done with caution, so that this holy and blessed exercise does not become a heavy yoke and hateful activity for them. 5) The table of contents of the sacred history in the program is written out unnecessarily, since it can be seen by itself in the textbook; and at the same time it is proposed in a strange composition of expressions, such as: The teacher of the law gives a brief but clear concept of the beating of infants, A brief but clear concept of Holy Saturday, and so on. 6) About the teaching of the catechism in the lower grades, the program says, among other things, the following: it is not the responsibility of the teacher of law to provide many proofs of the truths set forth in this catechism and to go into a detailed explanation of them. This is said, firstly, unnecessary, because it is clear from the educational book, and because in institutions so carefully managed, it is impossible to imagine such an indiscriminate teacher of the law who would think of nine-year-old children to give many proofs of catechetical truths; secondly, it is too vague; for the expression - not included in the obligation - does not mean a prohibition and does not exclude permission to bring many proofs, and consequently does not warn the teacher of the law, but introduces the temptation to do something inappropriate. 7) Next, the program tells nine-year-old children to present Christian instructions adapted to the rank of warriors. Very early. The addition to the short catechism, which contains Christian instructions for soldiers, refers to the purpose of this catechism for the lower military ranks (since it was appointed for this purpose by the highest command of His Imperial Highness), and not to its use in instructing young children. Instructions of this kind should be given to noble pupils at a higher age; and for this reason a special addition to the lengthy catechism was made on this subject. 8) In middle age, the subjects of sacred history and catechism are taught in the proper breadth and completeness. This completeness, by the way, lies in considering the causes, circumstances and consequences of the most important incidents revealed in the word of God, and accustoming the minds of students to a correct judgment about the affairs of God. But since, according to the above-mentioned notice from the director, some ten-year-old children are entering middle age, it is obvious that the program presupposes a type of instruction much higher than the age of those being instructed. 9) After the program has assigned the middle age to teaching in breadth and completeness, considering the causes and consequences of incidents, it tells the teacher to refrain from deep research. These demands are so close to an obvious contradiction with each other that they can lead to bewilderment of those who are being prepared for leadership. 10) In indicating the subjects of Old Testament history, the program offers, among other things, the following tasks: God's advice on the creation of man - with whom? The commandment about the tree of the knowledge of good and evil - why? Adam's survey of all animals - for what? The extraordinary longevity of the patriarchs - why and for what? Noah building the ark - why? Moral, ritual, civil laws - why were they written and not left in tradition? and so on. Studying these and similar questions, not every implementer of the program will agree with its requirement to refrain from deep research, and it is inconvenient for the authorities to approve the program in this form because it does not show what the answers to the proposed questions will be, and whether they will be thorough and alien to superstition. The program does not assign a textbook, but only indicates a manual; she wants the answers to questions to come out of the head of the teacher of the law. But if they doubt whether he will be able to ask, and for this purpose they ask him questions according to the program, then, of course, they should doubt much more about whether he will be able to answer the questions asked; and consequently, a program without a classic book cannot be approved, with credibility for teaching. 11) Here are some examples from the program, to see its legibility in the purpose of objects and accuracy in presentation: His arrival to Samuel (Saul). David's injustice against the house of Uriah. Josiah - Killed by Pharaoh Necho. Granting them beneficial rights there (Jews in Egypt). 12) Here is an example of the order in the program: Prophets and some notable persons. The concept of prophets and the history of prophets: f) The story of Job, who lived in patriarchal times. 13) Another order example: The history of our Lord Jesus Christ before His entry into preaching the Gospel; these include: The first followers of Jesus Christ, the election of the twelve apostles. So, according to the program, Jesus Christ had followers and chose twelve apostles before He entered into preaching the Gospel. How did His first followers become His followers, and how did the apostles, even before their apostleship, be among His many disciples, when He had not yet begun preaching the Gospel? 14) In the instruction on how to teach the long catechism, the program again teaches the teacher of the law what he knows without it, and what he cannot help but know with a textbook in his hands. For example, he must, says the program, explain each word of the symbol of faith according to the reason of Holy Scripture, reveal all the concepts contained in each word of the symbol of faith, and confirm them with Holy Scripture. All this has already been done in the textbook, and to prescribe this again in the program is a matter similar to if someone, seating a guest at the table, instructs him with a printed program on the use of dishes and cutlery that are in front of his eyes. That this comparison is similar to the subject, here is another example to prove this, of which there are many in the program: in the sixth part, he (the teacher of the law) will talk about the ascension of Jesus Christ in the flesh to heaven. Is the program truly afraid that without this instruction the teacher of the law would not have spoken in the sixth article of the creed about the ascension of Jesus Christ into heaven? It is another matter to write a program for the order and recall of objects when testing students; but such programs, extracted from approved educational books, do not require synodal approval. 15) In the instruction on how to interpret the commandments, the program introduces a new type of murder: murder by office. It would be more decent to preserve legibility in words, as it has been preserved until now; and taking the life of a criminal according to the law or killing an enemy in war should not be directly given the name murder. 16) Having assigned for the eight-year course of study, starting from the age of eight, a short sacred history, a short catechism, a long sacred history and a long catechism, the program expresses the fear that this will not be enough. It is difficult to be convinced of the validity of this fear if we take into account that in the first two years there are one teaching hours each week, and in the remaining years two hours a week, that the cadets are called upon to be Christians and not theologians, and that it is better to have a short course of study, thoroughly taught and firmly accepted, than an extensive one, of which those who have reached the end do not know the beginning. 17) Finally, the program proposes a new educational book, which is explained as follows: there is no other such book in the Russian language, except for the outline of Christian duties according to the teachings of the Orthodox Greek-Russian Church, published in 1827. This book presents the same subjects that are presented in the third part of the long catechism, only in a different form and in greater completeness. The question to be considered here is: is it useful to assign a new educational book, which presents the same subjects, only in a different form? To resolve this question, it would be useful to look at the book itself; but the program awaits blessing from the Holy Synod for the educational use of such a book, which was not previously considered by the Holy Synod, and is now not submitted for its consideration. Although it is therefore impossible to draw a decisive conclusion about the proposed educational book, but from all of the above, it is necessary to conclude that the presented program cannot be approved 221. February 18. The opinion and conclusion of Metropolitan Philaret on the note of the Ekaterinburg merchant Rezanov, who posed as a representative of 81,000 souls of schismatics in three provinces, and sought to obtain priests for the Ekaterinburg St. Nicholas Church who would depend on the provincial committee on schismatics As for the information delivered by the merchant Rezanov, the Metropolitans of Novgorod and Moscow and the Archbishop of Ryazan reasoned: Rezanov’s papers and actions deserve considerable attention, especially in that he represents himself as an agent of eighty-one thousand schismatic souls, and in some cases even an agent of all schismatics of the priestly sect in Russia. If, indeed, he managed to position himself among the schismatics as somewhat similar to O’Connell 222 of the Irish Catholics, then it is worthwhile to delve into the consequences that could arise from this success. If he is only still striving to make himself what he represents himself in the eyes of the government, in this case there is no unnecessary precaution to consider whether the government can look at this desire in inaction. By this reasoning, the following considerations are brought to our attention: 1) Rezanov in his note says that the number of schismatics belonging to the Ekaterinburg Nicholas Church, living in the provinces of Perm, Orenburg and Tobolsk, extends to 81,000 souls, and that they all generally agree to have the priesthood on the basis of the rules of 1822, etc. But how did he learn the same opinion of 81,000 souls living over a large area, in three different provinces, there is not only a reliable document for this, but also no probable explanation. 2) With the said note, Rezanov presented copies of two verdicts: firstly, the schismatics of the city of Yekaterinburg and its surroundings of different classes, and secondly, the peasants of the Shadrinsky district. These documents are far too insufficient to certify the unanimous opinion of 81,000 souls living in three provinces. 3) But the dignity of these insufficient documents is completely destroyed by the fact that there is not a single signature under them. 4) Rezanov in his note counts up to 30,000 souls of schismatics who want to establish a provincial committee on schismatics; but this also does not provide evidence, because the above-mentioned sentence attached to this was written on behalf of the peasants of one district, and was not signed by anyone. 5) He counts up to 35,000 souls of schismatics who do not belong to the Ekaterinburg Nicholas Church who want priests according to the rules of 1822, and including up to 28,000 souls of whom one can hope that they will eventually agree to obey the provincial committee and even the rules of the churches of the same faith. But since there is no type of evidence for this, from this, of necessity, one must conclude that Rezanov is putting up large numbers of people at random in order to make his imaginary embassy seem more important and to flatter him with the hope of common faith in order to attract the government to his views. 6) He mentions 1500 souls who accepted the rules of the same faith. But if he respects these rules and sincerely joins the government, then he himself should join the church on the rules of the same faith, and use his influence on schismatics to bring others to this saving path; and since he does not even promise this, and, on the contrary, intercedes with the presented verdicts in favor of the schismatics, it is obvious that the mention in the note of co-religionists is a trick with which he thinks to attract the attention of the government in order to use this attention in favor of the schism. 7) By the way, he reports on the fugitive priest of the Shartan schismatics, who was not announced to the civil authorities, which, however, is already known without him from the missionary’s report. Considering Rezanov’s other actions, in this case one cannot help but suspect that he is pursuing the Shartan schismatics with their fugitive priest, not out of zeal for the government, but because these schismatics, being only 7 miles from Yekaterinburg, did not submit to the above-mentioned Nicholas Church, proclaimed by Rezanov, and wants to find a means at a distance from them for the priest to denounce. bring them into submission to the Nicholas Church and to himself. 8) If we compare Rezanov’s two testimonies: the first, that 81,000 souls from three provinces were assigned to the parish of the Ekaterinburg Nikolaev schismatic church, and the second, that the Shartan inhabitants, living only 7 miles from Yekaterinburg, were not assigned to this church, then the latter testimony exposes the first to strong suspicion. If the schismatics living near Ekaterinburg itself did not want to be in the parish of the Ekaterinburg St. Nicholas Church, then how could it happen that the schismatics of the Tobolsk and Orenburg provinces wanted to join it? If there is anything true here, then perhaps one of two things: either Rezanov, through his machinations, was more successful in attracting schismatics from distant places to himself than from nearby ones, where others do not believe him because they know his qualities, actions and views more closely, or he falsely claims that 81,000 souls belong to the Nicholas Church. 9) If we take into consideration the space of places and the education of the people, 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 here anything 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. 10) If we assume that 81,000 souls from three provinces somehow consulted, formed an opinion and made Rezanov a representative of this opinion before the government, then the question inevitably arises: Is such an action consistent with the resolution and laws of the Russian state? And can the government, without taking precautions, allow in gatherings of several tens of thousands of people from different provinces? The answer to this is obvious. 11) To verify the reasoning and conclusions set out in the previous paragraphs, a copy is presented between Rezanov’s papers from a letter to Christians in different volosts and villages, that is, as can be seen from the contents, a district letter to schismatics, written in November 1828 from Yekaterinburg, from whom exactly, it is impossible to say decisively, because the signature of the names is hidden; but the merchant Rezanov, who presented this copy, in no case can be an outsider to this action. In this letter, the Ekaterinburg writers say to schismatics in different places: “We forward herewith to your well-considered verdict. Consequently, the first sentence presented by Rezanov in November of last year was given only for the benefit of various places of schismatics. When did Rezanov receive the consent of 81,000 souls from three provinces, who, according to the same letter, was supposed to go to St. Petersburg in the same November? Further, the same letter says: “we forward to you, in addition, a second verdict, with the addition of 10 points, solely so that you can fully see all our actions and judge the benefit of them based on the course of future times.” Here, of course, is the above-mentioned verdict of the Shadrin schismatics; and it is very worthy of note that the Ekaterinburg people mean this sentence with the words: “our actions”; for from this it is revealed that they draw up sentences not only for themselves, but also for others, in different forms, in order to achieve their goal in one way or another. Finally, the letter says: “there are also no priests in St. Petersburg, in Kazan, in the Irginsky and Yugovsky factories, and even in many other places, which, without a doubt, will unite them to the local Old Believer society and show the mutual need to promote it.” Here it is also revealed that there is no general opinion, but that the nameless Ekaterinburg leaders are only still trying to add to their society all the schismatics of the priestly sect. Nevertheless, this sufficiently shows that it was not 81,000 souls who elected Rezanov as a representative of their opinion, but he and some like-minded people are trying to subordinate, if possible, all schismatics to their opinion and influence. 12) The conclusion of the previous paragraph is also confirmed by the report of the missionary, Archpriest Lukanin, in the report of the Perm bishop to the Holy Synod, dated January 29 of this year, which states that, according to those converting from the schism, there might have been more people willing to join the Edinoverie Church from the schism, but, while this missionary was in the Yugovsky plant, they were sent from Ekaterinburg schismatic mentors have a letter whose hands are required in order to remain as before, that is, to have priests on the rules of the Irgiz monasteries, which letters, according to rumors, have been sent to other factories where there are schismatics. 13) The demand of Rezanov and his like-minded people, who signed the Yekaterinburg verdict, that they be officially given priests, independent of the spiritual authorities, is just as 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. For all these reasons, in order to put a barrier to the illegal and harmful for the church and state desire of the merchant Rezanov and some of his like-minded people to spread their influence on schismatics in different places and to form a common crowd from them, and in order to free the actions of missionaries from the obstacles presented by the efforts of the Ekaterinburg schismatics, the following precautions are necessary: 1) Rezanov, for the fact that he unreasonably and falsely represents himself as the confidant of the common opinion of 81,000 souls, not to recognize schismatics as confidants at all and not to allow any kind of communication in this capacity with the authorities, except in one case, if he decided to ask to join the church on the rules of the same faith or unconditionally. 2) 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. 3) Secretly instill in the Ekaterinburg schismatic elders that, taking advantage of the gentle tolerance that the government shows them, they 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, under fear of responsibility for disturbing public peace. 4) Secretly give the idea to the missionaries so that they 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. (Feb. 23. The secular members agreed only on the last two points 223). March 19. Metropolitan Philaret's opinion on the case of transforming the Gorodets schismatic chapel into a Edinoverie church From the case of transforming the Gorodets schismatic chapel into a church of the same faith, it is clear that this matter was not conducted with such prudence as, by its nature, it required. 1) At the very beginning of this case, the civil department used the Balakhna zemstvo police officer Massary, about whom it was mentioned in relation to the bishop of Nizhny Novgorod 224, dated August 29, 1828, that he was noticed in conniving with schismatics, and for this he was fined. 2) The proposal to transform the chapel, with the highest permission, was communicated to the Bishop of Nizhny Novgorod in May 1828. While this matter was with him, the schismatics remained calm. On August 20th, he spoke secretly to the civil governor, and this 24th, secretly, was prescribed to the above-mentioned police officer; The police chief did nothing until September, and nothing was announced to anyone. It is difficult to explain why, at this exact time, on August 26, the schismatics came to the civil governor with a petition against the transformation of the chapel, unless we assume a violation of the secrecy of correspondence, and consequently secret favor to the schismatics. 3) On September 6, the police chief reported to the ruling governor that he had announced the governor’s order and demanded the keys to the chapel with the deputy from the spiritual side, but in the case there is no journal about this, below the name of the deputy; but on the contrary, there is in the case the attitude of the Ascension Archpriest Sergius, dated September 10, that he has not yet received any instructions from his superiors regarding this matter, and therefore cannot proceed with it. 4) In the report dated September 17, the police officer presented the testimony of some peasants, taken on an unknown day of that month, without a deputy from the spiritual side, despite the fact that in the previous report the police officer obviously recognized the need for such a deputy. 5) When Mr. Minister, by order dated September 22, drew the attention of the civil governor correcting the post to this matter, then by order of the ruling governor, dated October 8, it was transferred to the assessor of the provincial government, Pomerantsev. This and Archimandrite Joachim, who was sent from the spiritual side, in order to find out thoroughly who this matter concerns, collected from the clergy of different churches the named lists of schismatics in their parishes, and, according to the admonitions made on this basis, it turned out that there were 211 who did not want the same faith church, 187 who wanted it, and with 218 people who submitted the initial request; Consequently, the majority of votes remained on the side of the church. Assessor Pomerantsev, in a report on November 13, explains that the number of adamant could have decreased significantly if the previous conspiracy had not been supported by the main participants in Onago. Signs of a conspiracy were also mentioned in the order of the ruling governor, dated October 8, and they are visible in the very proceedings of the case by assessor Pomerantsev, because the schismatics for a long time did not agree to give answers and signatures, each for himself, but at one time they shouted: “we are all for one thing, and we will give one testimony,” and at another time they referred to the stubborn peasant Rezanov, and said that since he did not sign for anything, they also do not want to, That’s why assessor Pomerantsev decided to remove this peasant and some others from the place of office work. Thus, the action of this official was a success, but not perfect because first time and convenience were given to the conspiracy to form and strengthen. 6) This success was again lost when, on November 17, the matter passed into the hands of the police chief Massaria, with such an order that, due to the circumstances that had emerged and for the most reliable action, would have been impossible to implement, that is, to open the chapel for priests of the same faith and for schismatics together, without delaying until the schismatics expected permission to their request sent to the highest authorities. The report of the police chief, dated November 22, shows about 200 adamant schismatics, which is in agreement with the testimony of assessor Pomerantsev, but in the report of December 12, it is unknown why, there are 800 of them, and they resolutely opposed the demands of their superiors. These circumstances deserve to be presented to the committee for consideration 225. April 3. The opinion of Metropolitan Philaret on the request of Adjutant General P. A. Kleinmichel for permission to marry the maid of honor Kokoshkina, the cousin of his ex-wife, whose marriage was dissolved due to the petitioner’s adultery Adjutant General P. A. Kleinmichel turned to the Holy Synod with a petition for permission to marry the maid of honor Kokoshkina, the cousin of his ex-wife, whose marriage was dissolved due to the petitioner’s adultery. Regarding the content of this petition, Metropolitan Philaret gave the following opinion: The permission requested by Lieutenant General Kleinmichel to marry the maid of honor Kokoshkina is hampered by two circumstances that divide this matter into two parts: first, that the petitioner was found guilty of adultery in court, for which his first marriage was dissolved; secondly, that the bride he chooses, after his first wife, is related to him in the fourth degree. The impermissibility of this marriage, due to adultery, is proven and the objections presented to this by the petitioner are refuted as follows: 1) The decision of the diocesan authorities, approved by the Holy Synod, which includes the abandonment of the defendant Kleinmichel, in accordance with the 48th rule of St. Basil the Great, forever celibate, is not, as the petitioner calls it, just an assumption, but a real determination based on the law and having full legal force in the court of the Greek Orthodox confession. 2) Although the petitioner represents that the college of justice did not prohibit him from a second marriage, such a determination can only be valid according to its department, in the Lutheran confession, and it cannot have any force before the court of the Greek-Russian confession, in which its own law applies, and the sentence has already been pronounced. 3) The petitioner objects that the diocesan authorities, according to his, the petitioner’s, religion, did not have the right to sentence him to celibacy; but this objection is destroyed by the fact that the spiritual authorities had and have both the right and the legal obligation to protect an Orthodox person from marrying someone convicted of adultery, since such a marriage is contrary to the rules of the Orthodox confession. 4) The petitioner tries to prove his right to a second marriage by interpreting Rule 9 of St. Basil the Great. But it is not the interpretation that St. Does not belong to Basil the Great, but the very rule of St. Basil the Great. Since the said rule says: because she has guilt, leave her husband without guilt, then it is obvious that the permissive part of this rule is incorrectly applied to the petitioner’s case; for his first wife did not leave him without guilt and not out of arbitrariness alone, but her marriage with him was dissolved by legal authority, due to the fault of his adultery. 5) But even if we give some weight to the interpretation given by the petitioner of Rule 9 of St. Basil the Great, - it is not yet favorable to the petitioner’s case, explaining not the law itself, but a custom, and, moreover, a former one, not a present one; for at the end of the same interpretation it is said that this custom was abolished by the law of Justinian. 6) On the contrary, the solid basis for the decision of the present case is the prohibitive part of the same rule, which says: “according to the word of the Lord, husband and wife are equally condemned.” The Word of the Lord, on which this rule is based, is read in the Evangelist Matthew 19:9, as follows: “Whoever lets his wife be an adulterous woman and marries another woman commits adultery; and he who marries commits adultery.” The name pustnitsa means a wife who has either willfully separated from her husband, or has been legally divorced for the guilt of her adultery. But as the word of the Lord, according to the obvious reason of the saying and according to the interpretation of St. Basil the Great, equally condemns husband and wife for the same crime, then it should be concluded that a bride who enters into marriage for a prostitute, that is, for someone divorced from his former wife for his adultery, commits adultery; and consequently, the girl Kokoshkina should be prohibited from her proposed marriage with Kleinmichel, not only on the basis of church rules, but also on the basis of the very word of the Lord spoken in the Gospel. 7) The petitioner tries to weaken his guilt in adultery, imagining that he was found guilty without his own confession; but his crime was proven legally by witnesses who were not withdrawn, and therefore it is reliable before the law, despite the lack of recognition of the guilty party. It cannot be left without noting that if Mr. Kleinmichel had recognized himself as innocent of adultery, then, during the proceedings, he would have had to refer to the maiden Tulpina, his partner in the case, and demand an investigation to discover that she, at the time of the crime announced in the case, was in a different place and with other people; but since he did not make such a reference to her, this is a kind of admission that she and he were, at a certain time, in those circumstances, as shown in the case and confirmed by witnesses. 8) He complains that his first wife left him; but this information cannot be respected before the law, after he himself was accused based on her complaint, and before he had not complained about her. 9) He refers to the exemplary case of court councilor Treiter; but this example does not apply to the present case, in addition to other differences, for the following difference: there the question before justice and humanity was whether to dissolve a marriage that, by coincidence of circumstances, was already connected and accompanied by the birth of children, but here the question of whether to allow a marriage that was only still contemplated was subject to justice. 10) Finally, the following considerations suggest caution against possible consequences from this matter. If a husband divorced for adultery is allowed to enter into a new marriage, while this is forbidden to a wife divorced for adultery, as the petitioner himself admits, by the rules, then this will be as unfair in comparing one sex with the other, as much as harmful to morals, as laxity and indulgence of guilty males in comparison with equally guilty females. If the authorities of the Greek Orthodox confession, divorced for adultery, allowed a Lutheran to enter into a new marriage, which the Orthodox do not allow, then they would do an injustice in comparison with the Orthodox, and this could even serve as a reason for the extreme temptation and confusion that another Orthodox Christian, convicted of adultery, would attempt to convert to the Lutheran confession in order to receive permission enter into a new marriage and, moreover, with an Orthodox person. The impermissibility of Kleinmichel's proposed marriage with the girl Kokoshkina, as the cousin of his first wife, is revealed as follows: 1) The petitioner’s conclusions that this relationship is beyond the fourth degree are refuted by the exact words of the helmsman’s book, the second part, chapter 50, in the chapter on the remedy for cousins, where it is said: “no one can marry two slender (cousins) sisters, below the fourth degree.” 2) The petitioner begins to collect rules in which the fourth degree of relationship is prohibited, and in which exactly the type of fourth degree that is presented in the present case is not indicated; but he does not and cannot imagine any rule by which this type of kinship would be allowed for marriage. In the lists of kinship there are also other cases that are not indicated in literal detail in the rules, but this is why the calculation of degrees of kinship was introduced, in order to apply the cases that occur to the rules. But just as Rule 54 of the 6th Ecumenical Council prohibits the marriage of two brothers with two sisters, which constitutes the fourth degree of kinship from two-relatives, the same rule prohibits the marriage of one person with two cousins, which equally constitutes the fourth degree of kinship from two-relatives, which is the alleged marriage of Mr. Kleinmichel with the maiden Kokoshkina. With all due respect, Adjutant General Kleinmichel’s marriage to the girl Kokoshkina, of the Orthodox confession, according to the rules of this confession, cannot be given permission. But whether he, Mr. Kleinmichel, can enter into a new marriage with a person belonging to the same Lutheran confession as him, the spiritual authorities of the Orthodox confession are not obliged to enter into a judgment. Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow Metropolitan Seraphim of Novgorod and Bishop Vladimir of Kursk agreed with this opinion, while Protopresbyter P. Krepitsky and confessor Archpriest N. Muzovsky submitted a special opinion in favor of the petitioner. Upon bringing this to the highest attention, the Sovereign Emperor, on the 13th day of April, gave the following resolution at the report of Chief Prosecutor Prince P. S. Meshchersky: “There cannot be disagreement in the dogmas of faith, and there should not be. Therefore, I cannot accept such a concept from the highest spiritual place in the state. You, as the guardian of the laws, must teach this to the members of the Synod, and when there is a general unanimous opinion, based not on speculation and interpretation, but on the exact meaning of the dogmas, then present it to me. Do this without delay; for in the future I strictly forbid you to enter with such a report, which is completely out of all decency.” The unanimous opinion of the Synod members about the impossibility of allowing Kleinmichel a second marriage followed on April 16 of the same year, and in December of the same year the highest command was made to consider Kleinmichel’s case over 226. From rough. original, with which the copy is located; document These are stored in libraries. Moscow spirit. acad., 1829, No. 5. O'Connell, Daniel, Irish agitator who formed a society that sought to destroy the unity of England and Ireland; †1847 From a handwritten draft. authentic Inventory No. 87; document No. 1. Athanasius (Protopopov), later Archbishop of Tobolsk; †1842. From a handwritten draft. authentic Inventory No. 99; document No. 9. File of the Archives of the Holy Synod, No. 1188; ll. 40–42, 47–102.