1834 г.

February 22. Metropolitan Philaret’s opinion on the essay: “the cleared path” Essay entitled: cleared path, etc. Without being extraordinary in content, it is quite remarkable in its author, having signs that it was actually written by a Jew, and in his sincere conviction in the truth, which he sometimes expresses with sublime presence of mind. But the so-called cleared path is not completely cleared of errors of both the writer and the translator. The writer, having received his education from the same Talmudists whom he now refutes, retained an admixture of their opinions, which can only be purified by sufficient knowledge of Christian teaching, which, apparently, he has not yet acquired. The translator not only does not try to make a writer who expresses himself unsatisfactorily clearer, but sometimes obscures it even more. The following examples will serve as proof of these remarks: “Before his sin, Adam did not know and did not understand the difference between good and evil.” The thought is too vague and therefore false. Adam understood the difference between fulfilling and not fulfilling the commandments of God, and knew that the first is good, and the second is evil. “The very word - let’s make a man, is, as it were, a notice for the angels of heaven.” This is still a rabbinic, and not a Christian, explanation of biblical words. “And since the mass of his body was thin and pure to the point that it had the opportunity to accept the face of the Most High, then for this reason God breathed his spirit into him.” The reasoning is confused, as if the mass of the body is the reason that God breathed his spirit into man. “His body would become as thin as an angel’s in modern times.” The expression “angelic body,” although found among some fathers, did not receive citizenship rights in Christian teaching. “At that time man had no shame; for what to be ashamed of, if not bad deeds, I didn’t even know bad, that is, false. And this is what Isaiah the prophet said (Isaiah 7:15): the son who is born will turn away from evil and choose good, just as it becomes a clean body, born of the Spirit of God, to turn away from evil and choose good.” Everything is confused here: concepts, words, history, prophecy, Adam, and Christ. “The creation of man is not material.” Confusing and incomprehensible. A righteous person has one soul and body. As they were before Adam’s sin. If this were true, then the apostle would not have said: “Who will deliver me from the body of this death?” At the beginning of the second part, the writer recognizes some kind of service to the planets for good and happiness, which he distinguishes from idolatry and which he does not condemn. "Enoch alone knew God." Not true. Enos and Noah and others from the pious tribe knew God. “Through their knowledge of the influence of the heavenly bodies, they took wives for themselves by force.” “The land of Canaan is a convenient place to receive the prayers of the sons of men.” The writer says this in Jewish, not Christian. “Their idea was to give them an important, intermediary image.” With this interpretation, the writer tries to alleviate the crime of the merging of a calf in the desert and says that only 3,000 people considered him to be God. “If the Israelites had not sinned by making the calf, then perhaps the true Messiah would have been sent to them then.” This may not be encountered by everyone on the cleared path. “The bodies of the other prophets who came, except for the one holy Messiah, after Moses, as being generated from the copulation of a husband and wife, were not capable of receiving prophecies except by default of all the senses of their flesh.” These words contain many incorrect thoughts and assumptions of the writer; The main drawback is that there is no concept of the superiority of the Messiah over Moses, nor of the divine nature of the Messiah, but concepts that are contrary to this appear. “That’s why they said: have reason and don’t marry.” The word reason certainly required clarification from the translator. The writer correctly accepts the Hebrew word alma, virgin, in this sign and provides evidence for this. And the translator, like the Talmudists, translates it with the word: young woman. “Instead of a sacrifice, a prayer has been given to you.” With this thought, defending Christian worship against Jewish worship, the writer at the same time shows his misunderstanding about the importance of Christian sacraments. “The tablets are the work of God and the scripture of God; the other laws are the words of Moses.” This is incorrectly said, both in the Jewish and Christian sense 265. March 6. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, S. D. Nechaev, regarding the papers delivered to him about the progress of the annexation of the Uniates in the Polotsk diocese, under the Right Reverend Bishop Smaragd Yesterday I did not have time to give Your Excellency an answer on these papers. The archpriest’s acquittal, in my opinion, is satisfactory, and in vain the case for further sneaking was raised by the demand to determine the archpriest’s guilt without publicity, that is, to seek information that has not yet been made, and to increase the number of gossip. And through the foggy cloud of reports, the truth appears. The rebellious peasants were punished, and then the disabled were sent for. Will the rebels allow themselves to be punished before the military command? Would a few disabled soldiers have satisfied the needs if there had been genuine rebellious disobedience? Assessor Gorodetsky accuses the peasants of falsely declaring themselves in need of food, and as proof speak of the discovery that no more than 67 owners are in need of food. In his opinion, this is not much: 67 out of 98 owners! Isn't this unconscionable? Here you can see which people conducted the business and how. It was almost in vain that the utensils were given away. As soon as she is in the church, she belongs to the church, not to the estate. Success in this harassment made the snitches bolder. Bishop Kamenka’s demand that the conversion to Orthodoxy be carried out by the papal deputies is, in my opinion, an example of the insane audacity with which the papists attack Orthodoxy, and how confident they are that before the Russian government their audacity is not dangerous to them, and their madness is not shameful for them. It seems to me that it is necessary, without delay, to show the true nature of this matter to the Minister of Internal Affairs, and to demand a change in the administrator, whose appointment is one of the circumstances of this matter, exposing the actors and intentions. Shouldn’t the most important articles exculpating the Orthodox authorities be brought to the highest attention? It seems too early to remind about the instructions, when it is known that there should be correspondence about it with the diocesan bishops. But what should I do? I still don’t find the time, and my thought is not quite pregnant with instructions; not a quick acquisition, but a lifeless birth. If it pleases Your Excellency to be with me this day, then in the morning, after twelve, and in the evening, after eight o’clock. March 17. Metropolitan Philaret’s opinion on the book: “about the duties of man and citizen” Count S. S. Uvarov, in a letter to Prince A. N. Golitsyn, dated March 10, 1834, No. 372, wrote: “your excellency, while managing the Ministry of Spiritual Affairs and Public Education, dated January 6, 1824, most submissively reported to the late Emperor Alexander I in Bose about the replacement of the book on the positions of a person and a citizen in schools a book of readings from the Holy Scriptures, and asked for the highest permission to destroy copies of the first book. After Admiral Shishkov took over the management of the Ministry of Public Education, the destruction of this book, by order of him, was stopped, and now several thousand more copies of it are kept at the Department of Public Education. The Sovereign Emperor, deigning to turn his attention to this subject, gave me the highest order to ask Your Excellency to notify me of which articles in this book His Eminence Metropolitan Philaret found harmful, which should be noted. In fulfillment of this highest command, I consider it my duty to forward to Your Excellency, for your notes, a copy of the book “On the duties of man and citizen,” your original report on this subject and, in case of need, all the paperwork, humbly asking you to honor me with your review, with the return of a copy of this book for presentation to the Imperial Majesty.” Prince A. N. Golitsyn, in a letter dated March 24, 1834, No. 49, by the way, wrote to S. S. Uvarov: “For the fulfillment, on my part, of the highest will, I asked His Eminence Philaret to provide me with a review of the proposed question about the above-mentioned book, and, having now received such a review of it on this subject, I undertake to forward it to you for His report “To your Majesty, a list from it, along with a copy of the book and records of it.” “List of the relationship of the Right Reverend Metropolitan Philaret to Prince Golitsyn, dated March 17, 1834, No. 62,” as follows: As a result of the highest command, with the most respectful attitude, dated March 13, No. 79, your Excellency asks me a question: which articles in the book “On the Positions of Man and Citizen” did I find harmful, in 1819 267, when discussing this in the main board of schools; and you demand a response whether I have anything to say about this book other than my opinion, as stated in the note sent to me. To this end, firstly, I must say that I don’t have any notes about my actions as a member of the main board of schools, and I can’t recall in detail what happened in 1819. Secondly, from the note sent to me, I see that in 1819 I did not give a decisive opinion on the harmfulness of any articles of the above-mentioned book, but proposed a question for consideration by the main board of schools: is it necessary to read to children the positions of a person and a citizen, set out according to philosophical principles, which are always weak, and is it not better, instead, to distribute study time and instruction in positions in the class of the law of God? This question was resolved by the unanimous decision of all members of the main board of schools, and the reasons for this situation are contained in detail in the discussion that was then held about this matter, and should be briefly stated in the journal of the main board of schools. But, in order to fulfill the duty of obedience by an unwavering answer to the question now proposed to me, I now turn to consider the question that I proposed to the main board of schools in 1819, and I find that the solution to this question partly lies in it itself. I repeat now: the philosophical principles of truths and positions are always weak in comparison with the principles that the Christian religion posits. Is it necessary to teach weak teaching when there is strong teaching? No need. Is it necessary to teach children the teaching of philosophical truths and positions, when there is and is being taught to children the Christian teaching of the same truths and positions? No need. I say: children; for the book in question was intended for children of lower ages. For those of age whom the false philosophy of the eighteenth century has turned into pagans from the children of Christians, are some concepts of sound philosophy not suitable to bring them again closer to Christianity? This is a different question that does not belong to the present discussion. But philosophy for ten- or twelve-year-old children can hardly be anything better than a doll of wisdom and enlightenment. The book under review in some articles itself admits its lack of quality as a philosophical morality, and copies texts from the Holy Scriptures in the notes. But if this is so, then wouldn’t it be better to teach these texts in their proper place, that is, in the exposition of the doctrine of offices in the lengthy Christian catechism? Why repeat the same texts once in a catechism, and another time in a book of philosophical morality? That the book in question was approved for schools in 1783 is not difficult to explain from the prevailing prejudice at that time. The self-proclaimed philosophy then deafened Europe with the noise of its name, and everywhere tried to put itself in the place of Christianity. Now Europe sees where the direction of minds was leading, namely: to the shock and humiliation of the sanctified and highly revered, to revolution, to democracy; and now even the French government, according to the constitution of 1830, is too unbiased towards Christianity, for all that, in the initial education of children, it respects and patronizes the Christian method. So, it seems that the Russian Ministry of Public Education in 1819 cannot be blamed for choosing the Christian method over the philosophical method in the initial education of children. Since I am required to point out some special articles in the book, I make it my duty to do this too, at least as an example. On pages 4 and 5, outlining the plan of the entire book, it is said that in order to acquire a good conscience, health and contentment, we must: a) water the soul with virtue; b) take care of the body; c) perform public functions; d) know the rules of the economy. This is all we must do to acquire a good conscience! But aren’t we obliged, in order to acquire a good conscience, to believe in Christ, the Savior of sinners? Are we not obliged, in order to acquire a good conscience, to believe at least in the existence and providence of God? This book does not speak about the duties of a person in this main indication of duties; she leaves out all Christianity and all religion in this important place. On the contrary, she immediately teaches that in order to acquire a good conscience we must know the rules of the economy! Pages 5 and 6 prove that man has a soul; This truth is proven by the fact that he remembers many things. Here is an example of a weak start to an important truth. We will not argue that for a mature mind it would be possible to develop this argument so that strength would be found in it, but in this undeveloped and sluggish presentation, what will a child learn from it, perhaps a doubt about the existence of his soul, which would not have occurred to him without this philosophical book? It is easy to turn the argument around: I remember; therefore I have a soul; I forget; therefore my soul is lost. Country 8. Whatever we want, we want and desire. Here is an example of idle talk, under the guise of teaching. Country 9. Memory, mind or reason, will, desires and intentions are called mental powers. Here is an example of confusion; desires are not called mental forces; intentions are not called mental forces. Country 13. Peace of mind is the inclination and effort to patiently endure evil circumstances and insults. This definition of calm does not at all correspond to what is being defined, and shows an example with what carelessness this book was written, and how little it is capable of conveying true and correct concepts to children. Country 24. He who is so kind-hearted towards others that he forgets about his own well-being is not acting wisely. This, if you like, is precisely the article that I find harmful. It directly contradicts the word of Christ: no one has greater love than sowing, but he who would lay down his life for his friends (John 15:13). This kind-hearted self-sacrifice is considered by the book on positions to be an unreasonable act. This book is afraid that its disciple will not be too kind-hearted towards others, and that there will be a lack of selfishness in him. As the old wisdom of the former public schools would have it, but I think that it was necessary to say exactly the opposite of what was said, that is: whoever is so kind-hearted towards others, first and foremost, towards the sovereign and the fatherland, that for them he forgets about his well-being, and does not spare his very life for them, does not act unreasonably, but sublimely, nobly, like a true son of the fatherland, like a true Christian. Allow me, dear sir, to stop at page 24 of this mixture of dry, weak, one-sided, confused, outdated concepts of Wolffian philosophy, in confused, outdated expressions, and not read in order the remaining one hundred and fifty-six pages of the book. But I will open it on some more sheets and point out some places. Per country 54. Rules of abstinence in hot weather. Per country 55. Rules of abstinence for an aggravated and spoiled stomach, which, by the way, states that a person will help himself when he takes an emetic or laxative in advance, which will cleanse his stomach. Does this belong to the doctrine of offices? Country 62. We walk decently when we twist our legs a little, etc. Country 63. We walk indecently when we twist several legs, etc. What positions will the student learn from this decent and obscene twisting of legs? On pages 88 and 89, where the composition of the state is spoken of, not only is nothing said about the superiority of monarchical rule, but there is not even the name of monarchy, nor the name of autocracy, and the name of the republic is in italics, and with cold neutrality to the form of government it is said: although in one way or another the government in which land has been established, yet in each there is either one or many commanders, to whom others must obey. We will not hide the fact that on pages 112 and 113 they finally deigned to mention the monarchy, but even here the republic was written in italics, and the monarchy simply; the definition of monarchy was placed not in the text of the book, but as if an extraneous thing, in a footnote, and not before calling the republic a free state. This, I hope, is enough. I am returning the copy of the book that was sent to me. S. S. Uvarov, in his most humble report dated March 28, 1834, having presented the Sovereign Emperor with Metropolitan Philaret’s review and a copy of the book, expressed in it that the book should not be “reintroduced into use in schools, but one could limit ourselves to putting the available number of remaining copies on sale; “For the future, this book is not to be reprinted by the Ministry of Public Education.” The Sovereign Emperor wrote on this report in his own hand in pencil: “since it has fallen out of use, leaving a few copies in public and academic libraries for curiosity’s sake, destroying other copies” 268 . In April. Metropolitan Philaret's opinion on the book “The History of the Russian Hierarchy” compiled by Amerosgem, former Bishop of Penza With the permission of the Holy Synod, before 1820, 7 parts of the work of Ambrose, the former bishop of Penza 269, were published under the title “history of the Russian hierarchy.” In 1820, the Holy Synod considered it necessary to verify the items contained in it with local information, in order to thereby make this book more useful to the public, and as a result ordered for dioceses, laurels and monasteries, so that, for each diocese and monastery, the items described in this book, according to reliable corrections, were verified and supplemented, and those additions were presented to the Holy Synod. Meanwhile, the compiler of it, His Eminence Ambrose, proposed to revise and put in order the book in question based on the information intended for collection. The Right Reverend, having assumed this responsibility, in December 1825, January and April 1826, presented parts 1–VII to the Holy Synod, with the report that many school authorities did not provide him with historical information about the schools, and therefore it was not possible for him to begin correcting this article. The Holy Synod entrusted this book, with the following additions, to be examined by His Grace Metropolitan Eugene of Kyiv, who, having accepted the first two parts, in 1827 presented to the Holy Synod Part 1, examined and corrected in places, and at the same time asked for permission to print this part in the printing house of the Kyiv Lavra, which the Holy Synod allowed, under special supervision Eminence. At the same time, the Holy Synod recognized the need for parts III, IV, V and VI of the story, with all additional information, to be submitted for consideration to the censorship committee established at the St. Petersburg Theological Academy. At this time, the synodal member, His Eminence Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow, gave the following opinion on his own: “When examining the “history of the Russian hierarchy” prepared for the second edition, the following is revealed: 1) the title – the history of the Russian hierarchy – does not correspond to the essay; for in its main subject it contains no more than a chronological register: when which bishopric was founded, with the names and succession of bishops. These words of Schletser 270 are given in the pre-notification, on page III, and, despite the fact, the writer did not realize that such a register does not constitute a history, which is a representation of incidents in connection with causes and consequences. 2) This work is disorderly and burdened with excesses, often useless, for example: a) the beginning of many dioceses is spoken of twice: in a general article about the hierarchy and in specific articles of each diocese; b) information about one person is scattered in different places, with the same circumstances repeated: about Metropolitan Gabriel, in the article about the members of the Synod, seven lines are written, in the article about the metropolitans of Novgorod seventeen lines, in the article about the diocese of St. Petersburg nine lines, and so on. Thus, the reader is hampered, and the book becomes fatter without benefit. It would be necessary to combine information about one person in one place, and in the others put only his name and an indication of the place where the information about him is located. c) The description of the monasteries, which was previously too lengthy, was stretched out even more in preparation for the second edition, with many details, most of them useless and not befitting the title of the book. The first part contains a rather extensive list of monasteries, showing their advantages and differences, which are again discussed in lengthy descriptions of each monastery in the following parts. In the second part there is a nominal list of monasteries by state, and in the third it appears again, under the title of complete, with five columns, which, almost uselessly, make typing difficult and thicken the notebook. This is followed by lengthy descriptions of some monasteries, and even further a historical dictionary of the monasteries. The description of one Solovetsky monastery (as well as some others) makes up a considerable book: but what is it filled with? Here are some examples: “of the aerial animals visible in the summer, large seagulls are visible in great numbers, which are almost bolder than the most domestic birds,” and so on. “Flies and mosquitoes are few of the animal insects.” “The kvass brewery has made the easiest means for brewing and pouring kvass into vessels. There is also a winter cellar containing kvass in the same barrels,” and so on. “Stone baths are for workers and visiting” guests, and a wooden fraternal one, with good benefits. The yard of the stables and livestock, in which during the winter there remain cattle, 30 to 40 bulls,” and so on. – Is this the history of the Russian hierarchy? Without exaggeration, we can say that in the descriptions of many monasteries there is much more written about what does not belong to the history of the hierarchy than about what essentially belongs to it. It is all the more strange to see details about monastic kvass factories, cellars, baths and barnyards in the history of the Russian hierarchy because in this history, when describing the dioceses, there is no historical information or description of the most ancient and especially revered cathedral churches, St. Sophia and Assumption, and others. d) At the beginning of the description of the Beijing monastery, the writer, not content with the fact that in the text he put three different pronunciations of one name - Beijing, Bei-jin, Be-jin, made a special note about the meaning of these names, and about the name of the Chinese state itself. Why is this in the history of the Russian hierarchy, in which, meanwhile, there is no comment or interpretation about the names of Kyiv or Moscow? e) In the description of the Svira monastery, first there are letters in full lists, then, as if this did not happen at all, the following is said about the same subject: letters of the following content were granted to this monastery from the sovereign-kings for the estates, and after this the content of the letters is described, including the content of the letter of 7198, which is already listed above in the full list. f) With an excess of unnecessary things in this work, there is often a lack of what is more essential to the subject of this work and what is especially necessary, for example: g) in the section on councils, the first chapter talks about ancient Greek councils, acceptable to the Russian church. The question arises: how did this Greek article enter the history of the Russian hierarchy? The author’s justification, without a doubt, is that the councils listed in this chapter are accepted by the Russian Church. If we accept these justifications, we must conclude that the author undertook to write about councils not just historically, what they were, and why, or chronologically, when they were, but also canonically, that they operate in church government. But who will read with this remark, who will have to think when in the chapter on Russian councils he comes to Moscow Makariev about the correction of the spiritual order, church books and rituals? The debt of the history of the church hierarchy is not fulfilled by the fact that the writer orders us to look at the Stoglavnik and the Slinger. In this important case, it was necessary to more thoroughly enlighten and warn the reader. Equally not enough has been said about the councils that took place during the time of Patriarch Nikon; for it is not even said that the decision of the two councils to correct the translation of church books was supported by the Eastern patriarchs. h) In the chapter on councils that took place outside Russia on the affairs of the Russian church, the Constantinople Council, 1654, on the affairs of the Russian churches is mentioned; an indication necessary for the history of the Russian hierarchy; but what will the reader learn from the vague expression: about the affairs of the Russian churches? i) As part of the seventh part, thirteen monastic charters were appointed, including the new Konevsky. Do these works go under the title of the history of the Russian hierarchy? If the answer to this may be subject to debate, at least, it is undeniable that the true acts of the councils are closer to the history of the hierarchy than the true monastic regulations. So, is it appropriate to place thirteen monastic charters in the history of the hierarchy, while the most important conciliar acts are not placed in it? 4) This essay is filled with errors that reveal inattention both in the composition and in its correction, and therefore take away its power of attorney, and some may even be harmful; for example: part 1 of page 2, the correction was made more extensive, but almost worse than before. The title of the Supreme High Priest, which is uncommon in the Russian hierarchy, was used. Instead of the respectful name - St. Peter, delivered by Peter Volynets, Alexy the Russian, although there was no need to add national names here, because they are shown in their place, in the register of metropolitans. j) Part 1, against printed page 24, as a correction it is written: in 1721 there followed a transformation in the hierarchical government based on clear, definitive and wise rules. Is it true that with the establishment of the Holy Synod, a transformation in hierarchical government followed? Has the writer thought about the consequences of this opinion? Is it really only with the Spiritual Regulation that clear, definitive and wise rules entered into the hierarchical government? And the rules of the holy councils and holy fathers, on which it was based, and despite the seeming transformation to the author, and now hierarchical rule is being established, are they not clear, definitive, or wise? k) Part 1, against printed page. 24, the correction says that according to the states of 1763, the members of the Synod were: three bishops, two archimandrites and one archpriest, and that’s it, as if now the Synod remains in the same state position. Here's a sample of the newest fix! l) Part 1, on page 885, in the name of Ambrose Podobedov, by the way, it is printed: “now Metropolitan of Novgorod.” The writer did not find it necessary to correct this even now. m) Part 1, on page 881, under the name of Gabriel Petrov, by the way, it is printed: “Archbishop of Tver and St. Petersburg.” The writer wanted to say: “Tver and after St. Petersburg,” but said that Petersburg was assigned to the Tver diocese. o) part 1, on page 891, printed: when this office (Moscow Synodal) was established, there is no information, but further, on the same page, it is printed: in 1742, upon the departure of the Synod from Moscow, the office was ordered by the Synod to be in Moscow from the Synod, and 1 bishop and two archimandrites were identified as present in it. What is this if not information about the establishment of the synodal office, about which it was said above that it does not exist? The writer did not find it necessary to correct this contradiction. He says that even before there was an office of the synodal government in Moscow; therefore, it was necessary to find out, or admit to ignorance, what this office is and when it was established, and not confuse it with the office, which is known for its education. The same page says that since 1731, November 9, it (the said office) had the full title of the Holy Synod in Moscow; but if so, then why was it not the Holy Synod, but only an office? In the second part, in the list of monasteries, Bobreno-Golutvin (should have said Bobrenevo-Golutvin) is shown and there is one builder and 29 brothers. And in the third part, in the historical dictionary, Golutvint, the monastery is called abolished, and the legend about it ends with the fact that it designated white clergy for the priesthood. So the writer knew what he knew in the second part, but forgot in the third. This work is presented in such an unfinished form that it cannot be submitted to the censor. For example: p) in the first part, with the article about councils, there is a note from the writer in which he says that at the beginning the Arabic and Roman numerals in the text were not corrected due to a misunderstanding, and so on. And truly, in this article the previous numbers are not suitable, due to the additions, but in part the old ones remain, in part empty spaces are visible where the numbers should be; who will finish this work? Censor, typesetter or proofreader? – and they are not obliged and cannot. c) In the second part, at the end of the description of the Trinity St. Sergius Lavra, there is a note from the writer, which informs that there should be a description of the Alexandronevsky 271 Lavra, but this description is not here; How will they censor empty space? r) After the description of the Ipata monastery there are additions to the description of the two laurels, but what to do with them or where they belong is not indicated. Based on this consideration, he believes that the history of the Russian hierarchy, without submitting it to censorship, should be corrected and shortened.” The Holy Synod postponed its consideration and decisive decision on this book until the time when the first part of it was printed in the Kiev Pechersk printing house. In December, the same year 1827, this part was presented from Kiev, among the tray books, and in 1829, the Right Reverend Metropolitan of Kiev asked permission to reprint it, with new amendments and additions of the latest changes, and to add to it the second part with amendments from the articles included in the first edition, namely: from the second part a general introduction to the history of the monasteries of the Greek-Russian Church, from the third part a complete list of Russian laurels and monasteries; from the sixth part, a statement of bishops’ sees and monasteries and a chronological list of monasteries. But the Holy Synod, on May 27, ordered the Right Reverend Metropolitan to first bring the first and second parts into the form he proposed, and submit them for preliminary consideration. The Metropolitan, having corrected part 1, presented it, with the assumption that it would be printed in the Moscow Synodal Printing House, from which it would be better known to the Russian public. There was no permission for this from the Holy Synod, awaiting part 2 of the book from the Right Reverend Metropolitan. Meanwhile, in the 1st part of the first volume of the history presented by the Metropolitan of Kyiv, printed in 1827, in the printing house of the Kiev Pechersk Lavra, some places noted by the Metropolitan of Moscow in the second edition of 1826, and in the corrections intended by the author, were either completely missed or corrected, as can be seen from the following: 1) addition to page 2, about the place of stay and succession one after another of the first Kyiv metropolitans, now corrected, and with the names of St. Peter, the designation of Volynets and St. Alexis, the designation of a Russian, are excluded. 2) In Article X, about the dioceses established in the 18th century, on page 24, the writer intended to say that in 1721 a transformation followed in the hierarchical government, based on clear, definitive and wise rules, etc., but in the Kiev edition this was omitted, and the news of the establishment of the Holy Synod was printed in this way: (p. 37) “in In 1721, instead of the former Russian patriarchate of 1700, Sovereign Emperor Peter I, by decree of January 25, established the supreme spiritual government, under the name of the Spiritual College, or the spiritual council government, which was soon renamed the Holy Governing Synod.” 3) In the same place, at the end of the article about the Synod, the writer intended to print what, according to the states of 1763, October 1, the members of the Holy Synod were laid down: three bishops, of which one is superior, two archimandrites and one archpriest.” Although this circumstance was included in the Kiev edition, it was added as a note only after the legend. Which members were supposed to consist of the Holy Synod by the Spiritual Regulations, and who from that time were these, or temporarily present; and after this note in the text of the book there are still other changes in the members of the Synod and the continuation of the persons constantly and temporarily present in it. 4) Error on countries. 885, with the name of the synodal member, Metropolitan Ambrose Podobedov, corrected, and the numbers of divisions and subdivisions throughout the book are indicated. Other places in this part, noted in the opinion of the Right Reverend of Moscow under the letters a, b, c, d, e, f, g, z, p, n, o, remain in their original form. After hearing this note, reported to the Holy Synod with the opinion of Metropolitan Philaret, the Synod made a determination: as in this work, on the one hand, some redundancies are seen, and on the other hand, there is a lack of what is necessary and essentially belonging to it, therefore, now not authorizing a new, separate edition of the first two parts of it, to propose to the synodal member, His Eminence Eugene, Metropolitan Kievsky, would he agree, in order to repeat the publication of this book, to take on the labor of more thoroughly revising, correcting and even shortening, as much as possible, this entire work; and if his consent follows, in this case, take into account the comments set out in the opinion of the Right Reverend Metropolitan of Moscow, about which to send a decree to the Right Reverend Metropolitan of Kiev, returning the first part of the same book presented from him, with amendments 272. July 16. Metropolitan Philaret’s opinion on the book, entitled: “The Outline of Church History” 273 Showing some places in the book: an outline of church history that arouses careful attention. IV Life of Christians: part of meeting in one common house (church) for conversation and mutual instruction; baptism, which alone was given the right to join society. It is strange that the writer does not have a special article on worship here; and it talks about subjects related to worship under the title: the life of Christians. If in this case the reader trustingly follows the thoughts of the writer, then it will seem to him that the actions that now constitute worship, among the first Christians, were only some accessories of their social life; that the church, as the writer says, is only a common house for conversations; Baptism is only a rite of acceptance into Christian society. According to the author’s explanations, the church does not have the highest significance, like any house of a learned society, and baptism does not have the highest significance, as a rite of acceptance into some society or order. It is strange that, having designated the church only for conversations and mutual instruction, he forgot prayer here. It’s as if he is looking for a model in early Christianity not for the current church, but for some of the newest secret societies. All these things we endured with one accord in prayer and supplication (Acts 1:14). This is the true primacy church and its congregation! Prayer is first and foremost here; and this is the main and first thing forgotten by the author of the outline of church history, at the very time when he wanted to determine the purpose of the church and Christian assemblies. It is advisable to explain this simply as an oversight; but the writer should not have easily allowed himself such an oversight in times when an attack on accepted teaching, through a forged history, is a ruse already quite noticed. They do not dare to openly rebel against any teaching, lest they suffer something for it. What are they doing? They take on history; they pretend that they do not find this teaching in it and by silence harm the truth, in the hope that silence will not be called heresy. For violation of the rules - removal, according to the general court of the church, from public prayers and communion of the body and blood of Christ. The expression here is strange: for violating the rules one is excommunicated from communion of the body and blood of Christ. За нарушение правил! Why is the name of sin, which the apostles used, not used? As if the church does not punish for sin, which is a violation of the moral law and an insult to the Divine, but only for violating the rules that it, as a society, has prescribed for itself. The Orthodox teacher had to beware of this way of expression, which is only suitable for people who do not recognize an essential moral law, but think that morality consists only of rules accepted by societies. The expression is also strange: according to the general court of the church. They are excommunicated from communion of the body and blood of Christ according to the general judgment of the church! Therefore, excommunication from them by the court of the spiritual father would be an innovation and an abuse. Let's look at the example of this judgment from the Apostle Paul (1 Cor. 5:3-5): I have already judged you and my spirit who have gathered together. The apostle is here to judge. And while he cannot personally be in the meeting, his spirit predominates in it. This is a hierarchical court. The author of history, hiding this feature, presented the church court as democratic. As much as this image is not true to the past, it is not useful to the present. Everyone has the right to say something edifying, to say a prayer. Finally, prayer is mentioned, but not as something that is essential and necessary, but as something incidental, to which they have the right; and it is noted that everyone has the right to improvise prayer in church. Let's deal with the true story. We will continue in prayer and the ministry of the word, say the apostles (Acts 6:4). From this it is clear that church and public prayer, from the beginning, was predominantly performed and pronounced by members of the hierarchy. You can all prophesy one by one, says the Apostle Paul (1 Cor. 14:31), that is: even if it happens that the gift of prophecy is revealed in all of you, you can prophesy everything in turn, without interrupting each other. The writer of history in vain transforms extraordinary spiritual talent into the social right of everyone, and again presents a hierarchical society in a democratic form. Subject of teaching. Proof that Jesus Christ is the Messiah, the Son of God. Here the primary dogma of Christian teaching is missing, namely the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. Do we need proof that this teaching existed in the first century of Christianity? If necessary, here they are: Go therefore and teach all tongues, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19). Three are the witnesses in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one (1 John 5:7). The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God and the Father and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all (2 Cor. 13:13). The writer knows that not only the ancient Arians and Doukhobors, but also the newest neologians rebel against the teaching of the Holy Trinity; and therefore should not have hidden this teaching under a bushel in the first century of Christianity, if he was not a neologian. The Savior's suffering is part of the divine plan of redemption. Expression: enter into the plan - weakly and mutually. This expression will also be used by the Socinian. The Orthodox mentor should have said: the suffering of the Savior is the basis of redemption. The source of Christian teaching. For Jews the Bible of the Old Testament, for pagans - evidence of reason. This is so unexpected that you can’t suddenly believe your eyes after reading this. “The evidence of reason is the source of Christian teaching!” This is the latest German rationalism, not the history of the first century of Christianity. One can use the proofs of reason as some kind of aid when presenting Christian teaching, but true Christians have never considered the proofs of reason to be the source of Christian teaching. And the writer does not seem to know that divine revelation is the source of Christian teaching. “God has revealed to us food by his Spirit” (1 Cor. 11:10). This is what they said in the first Christian century about the source of teaching! It is also remarkable that the Bible of the Old Testament is considered a source of teaching only for the Jews. Of course, it was especially convenient to use it to teach the Jews, because they already believed it. But she was also a source of teaching for the pagans, because her prophecies and miracles were convincing for them too; and even was and is a source of teaching for Christians themselves. For some Jews, the Old Testament Bible is considered valid only by those who respect it no more than pagan mythology. Social life of Christians: Here again we note the strangeness that sacred and liturgical actions are put under the heading “life”. The writer clearly gets confused in order to maintain his chosen distribution of concepts. Doesn't marriage belong to family life? But he does not put family life under the title (p. 17), but social life. The basis of the teaching is the Holy Scripture of the Old and New Testaments. Another basis of teaching is missing here: tradition. If this foundation was respected by Basil the Great in the fourth century, then, earlier than this, he should have been even stronger, because the tradition was then clearer, due to the proximity of the original times, and more necessary, because the sacred books did not suddenly spread. Subjects that occupied teachers. Church: doctrine of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. (Against Beryl and Sabellius). This is where the author of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity did not forget. Therefore, again a caring thought involuntarily comes to mind: why does he show this teaching already in the second and third centuries, and not in the first? Does he really consider it to be newly invented against Beryl and Sabellius? Why does he also call this teaching church? Is it really all because he considers it invented by the church in the second or third century, and not biblical, and handed down from Jesus Christ himself? This would be a manifest error, against which the evidence above is presented from Holy Scripture itself. If the writer is not involved in this error, then it is impossible to understand why he missed such an important and leading dogma in the history of the first century. Faith, not enlightened by knowledge, found too many miracles. This idea had to be limited and proven, but without that it seems to be a rebellion against the miraculous in general. And in the first century, faith found many miracles, but it was all the better. And here the writer classifies many miraculous things as disappointing sights for a truly Christian heart. They vied with each other about the decoration and enrichment of churches, about the splendor of the priesthood. The writer says this as a reproach to the Middle Ages; but he complains about this in vain, it is offensive to pious feelings in general and especially to the pious zeal of our Orthodox sovereigns and the Orthodox people for churches and divine services. From an incorrect concept of the operation of the liturgy, frequent and secret missas arose. Missa, as everyone knows, is the same as liturgy. So, in the words of the writer there is an accusation of two, in his opinion, errors: 1) in secret liturgies and 2) in frequent liturgies. It is true that the missa, or secret liturgy, which the priest whispers, but those present do not hear, is a disorder in the church. But what are the faults of frequent liturgies? And how did they come from a wrong concept? On page 7, the writer said that the first Christians, under the apostles in Jerusalem, partook of the holy mysteries, and therefore performed the liturgy daily. Here are liturgies as frequent as possible. Will the writer discredit this? Did this happen among the apostles out of a wrong concept? This testimony is enough to arouse careful attention. And with caring attention, the objects of concern will be revealed in greater numbers. For example, page 14. Should Jesus Christ be considered God or only a great prophet? Page 18. Does sin come from the body and are everyone infected with Adam’s sin? With what cold neutrality to truth and error these questions are proposed and left unanswered! In other cases, of incomparably lesser importance, the writer expresses himself decisively and in more detail 274 . At the top, on the 1st page of this opinion, by the hand of Metropolitan Philaret it is written: “sent to Bishop Seraphim, Metropolitan of Novgorod and St. Petersburg on July 16, 1834.” July 17. Metropolitan Philaret's opinion on the book, entitled: “Christian teaching in a brief system, according to a preliminary concept of religion, revelation and the Bible” 275. An indication of some passages in the book that excite careful attention: Christian teaching in a brief system, according to a preliminary concept of religion, revelation and the Bible. A person animated by feelings of faith, hope and love, and showing a desire for holiness, whether understood correctly or incorrectly, is called pious, God-fearing, pious, religious. This definition of pious is incorrect and leads to false conclusions. Therefore, the definition of pious should be called, for example, schismatics who, in their desire for holiness, misunderstood, burned themselves. Therefore, by definition, superstition is piety. Confusing these concepts is both wrong and harmful. Religion is basically the same for everyone. But when people began to express the inner, mysterious feelings of religion in deeds, words and signs, then it appeared in infinite variety, which depended on the time, place, and quality of persons. Due to excessive uncertainty, this passage is also incorrect and leads to false concepts. Therefore, the teaching of religion for Christians and pagans is fundamentally the same; and the difference between paganism and Christianity depends on the time, place, and quality of persons. As people began to deepen their knowledge of themselves and nature, and through education to emerge from the power of nature and fate, religion became purer, or at least more beautiful. What does it mean to escape from the power of nature through education? This can hardly mean anything more than to provide oneself with convenience in life through inventions and arts. Such a reduction in the power of nature over man is far from making religion purer. It is even less clear what it means to escape the power of fate. If there is no fate, then there is no point in getting out from under its non-existent power. And if there is fate, then how can a person get out of its power by himself? The writer here presents some kind of self-made improvement of religion, depending only on man and his natural education. This idea contradicts the need for revelation and is refuted by experience. Education did not lead the Greeks and Romans out of the errors of paganism and did not make their religion purer, until the frank Christian religion came to the rescue. The great messenger of heaven appeared, who fully satisfied the thirst of the pious heart and the needs of the immortal free spirit. This description of Jesus Christ as the Founder of religion is not enough; for here His main character is completely hidden, that He is the Redeemer and Savior of sinners. All other peoples, not enlightened from above, have a natural religion and are called pagans. Not all; Mohammedans are not called pagans; because they do not idolize creatures, but recognize one God and do not completely reject true revelation. In good teaching one must beware of not only completely false, but also confusing and confusing concepts; for these lead to false ones. The writer (in the book of Chronicles) constantly noted that the well-being of kings and people depended on the observance of religious rites. If the writer of the book of Chronicles based everything only on the observance of rituals, then his concept of religion and the basis of prosperity would be incorrect, and this is indecent to assume in the writer of a sacred book. In David's speech to Solomon, written in the first book of Chronicles, the prosperity of the king and the people comes not from observing rituals only, but from serving God with a perfect heart and spiritual will (1 Chronicles 28:9). The writer of the book of Chronicles imagines prosperity to depend on this true piety, and not on the observance of rituals alone; he could not help but know that God spoke through the prophets about observing rituals without true piety. “What is the multitude of your sacrifices to me, says the Lord?” (Isa.1:11). The Song of Songs, that is, an excellent song, is an outpouring of fiery feelings of love between two persons, a boy and a girl. Here is a private opinion about one biblical book, but which should arouse great concern for the way of thinking of the author of the book in question. If he thinks that a book, which, in his opinion, is only a love story, an idyll, could end up in the Bible, then what does he think about the Bible, about the purity of its morality, about its sacred character, about its inspiration? The author could not help but know the opinion of the Orthodox Church about this book, which is clearly and thoroughly stated in the synopsis of St. Athanasius, printed with the Slavic Bible itself. It says there that this book of the word with the flesh, the union of the word, sings, that it is full of double-speaking of the human race to the Word (Jesus Christ) and the existing from the language of the church to him, and again the Word (Christ) to that (to the church) and to the human race. So, does he think that the church sins when it attributes this sublime meaning to the Song of Songs, and that he judges more correctly by considering the Song of Songs to be a love poem? The idea that the people of God, according to the power of the ancient promise, would not be abandoned by God, was always inherent in them (the prophets). And therefore, if they saw the predominance of the vicious and severe suffering from enemies at the present time, they foreshadowed his transformation in the future, pointing to the blessed times of the Messiah. They described these times from different sides, and sometimes in the most vivid colors, as times of universal peace, abundance, justice, and piety. Why did the prophets foretell the future and point to the time of the Messiah? Because, the writer says, they always had the idea that the people of God would not be abandoned by God. This means that the basis of the prophecy was the prophets’ own thought, guess, hope. This is how the prophecy is explained by those who think it is nothing more than political delight. According to Orthodox teaching, the prophets foretold not because any thought was inherent in them, but because they were enlightened by the Holy Spirit, the holy men of God said (2 Pet. 1:21). The writer also hides the most important, essential character trait of the prophets. He mentions that they predicted times of peace, but does not mention that they predicted the saving sufferings of the Messiah. As much as this silence would be pleasant for neologists, it is so thoughtful to see it in a writer whom it is so desirable to see as Orthodox. To this remark it can be objected that silence is not a rejection of the truth. But this objection, in fairness, should be countered by the fact that the heresy-teacher, in all likelihood, would not say directly: do not believe the prophets, they did not predict the suffering of the Messiah, but wrote guesses about better times; but would, in the most inconspicuous manner possible, instill his opinions without exposing himself to the danger of an open rebellion against the seventh article of the creed. From this it is clear that one must beware not only of directly false teaching, but also of the omission of any member of the symbol of faith where, according to the subject of the discussion, it certainly should have been mentioned. His (Isaiah's) speeches mostly contain denunciations and threats, but always end with a comforting foreshadowing of better times. The prophet expects salvation from a king from the line of David. And here what is most important in the prophecies of Isaiah is missed: the prophecies about the birth of the Messiah from a virgin and about His saving suffering. The remark made in the previous article applies here in full force. The last chapters of the book of Isaiah (40–66) contain a great message of comfort to the Jews awaiting their return from captivity (around 540). From this it is clear that the writer does not recognize this part of the book of the prophet Isaiah as a prophecy. But it is recognized as a prophecy by the Holy Scriptures of the New Testament (Acts 8:30–35). If the Scripture of the New Testament does not err, then the author of the book in question does. Christ, the Son of God, is superior not only to Moses, the lawgiver, and Aaron, the high priest, but also to the angels (Heb. 1:1-10). Since such a concept of Christ would have been attributed to the Epistle to the Hebrews by those who do not believe in the Divinity of Jesus Christ, the Orthodox writer should have expressed more directly that the Apostle Paul in this epistle preaches Jesus Christ as the true God and Creator of the ages. The Trinity of the Divine is a sacrament in which the entire period of God's condescension towards us is briefly depicted. The period of God's condescension towards us is something external to God, and the Trinity is His internal sacrament. The period of condescension is a chain, or graduality of actions in time, but, according to sound teaching, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not three actions, but three hypostases or eternal persons. From this it is clear that the words of the writer in this important place do not agree with the teachings of the Orthodox Church. The superstitious believes in miracles where there are none; populates the earth with non-earthly creatures. What does the writer mean by the words: “inhabits the earth with non-earthly creatures?” “According to the ordinary meaning of these words, he also populates the earth with non-earthly creatures who believes in the existence and action of good and evil spirits on earth. To recognize this as superstition, one would have to not believe much of what is written in the Gospel. It is worthy of note that the doctrine of good and evil spirits is not at all visible in the work under consideration. On page 74 the word “devil” appears, but he never explained what the author meant by it. By humiliating the spirit and enslaving it to base passions, a person loses his likeness and sins terribly against himself and against God. But, on the contrary, by ennobling and elevating the spirit, he draws closer to the Divine. The expression “it is terrible to sin against oneself” echoes with idolatry of one’s own dignity. And it is not pure that the writer represents a person ennobling his spirit and approaching God, without any indication of heavenly help. Christ does not teach this way: “No one will come to the Father except by Me” (John 14:6). “Without Me you can do nothing” (John 15:5). Sin was found in the very first people. The writer speaks mysteriously about the first sin - it turned out to be. He does not have a definite doctrine about the fall of the first man. An important pass! If there is no Orthodox teaching about the fall of man, then it is difficult for there to be an Orthodox teaching about his restoration or redemption through Christ. The punishment for sin is: firstly, the very ugliness of the soul that comes from it, which sometimes in St. writers is called death, and secondly, a disorder of external well-being. The word death means much more than the deformity of the soul that comes from sin. The writer omits physical death between the consequences of sin. If this is because he considers man to be mortal in the body even before sin, then this is contrary to the word of God. In His (Jesus Christ) teaching the correct concept of God, the purpose of man and the immortality of the soul was revealed. The concept of grace-filled means for a person to achieve his destiny, of redemption at the price of the blood of Christ, is missing here. That is, a significant part of Christ’s teaching has been missed. On the cross, Jesus Christ offered God a most pleasant cleansing sacrifice from humanity. According to the teaching of the Gospel, He sacrificed Himself for us (Eph.5:2), and not only on our behalf. The difference is very important. A sacrifice from people can simply mean a donation, an arbitrary gift, and not a necessary one. Sacrifice for men means an act of atonement, without which men could not receive salvation. Everyone in Christ, having felt inner freedom within themselves, became above nature, fate and all external laws. Again a mysterious expression: we have become above fate. If she exists, how will a person become taller than her? True religion does not teach one to rise above fate, but to recognize God’s destiny, true and righteous, and freely submit to it. The destinies of the Lord are true, justified together (Ps. 19:10); Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God (1 Peter 5:6). The idea that Christians are above all external laws can be called not only dangerous, but downright false. For, for example, the law that every Christian must be baptized is not internal, therefore, it can be called external; but it cannot be said that a Christian is above this law. Christianity says that the law is not made for the righteous, but for the wicked (1 Tim. 1:9); because a righteous person fulfills a duty without the strictness of the law, but it does not say that a Christian is above all external laws. Do not say, for example, to a subject: you are above the external laws of the sovereign, but say: fear God, honor the king; be subject to every human authority for the Lord's sake (1 Pet. 2:13–17). The Holy Spirit sanctifies people through the word of God and the sacraments. Only one name for the sacraments is in this book: not a word about repentance, not a word about baptism, not a word about the Eucharist. An astonishing omission in a book whose title promised to present Christian teaching in a brief system, whereas in the shortest catechisms such an omission is not allowed 276 . At the top of this opinion, on page 1, by the hand of Metropolitan Philaret it is noted: “sent to Bishop Seraphim, Metropolitan of Novgorod and St. Petersburg. July 17, 1834." August 13. Metropolitan Philaret's opinion regarding the amount allocated for the establishment of a dinner in the Synodal Cross Chamber on the feast of the Dormition of the Blessed Virgin Mary In the journal of the Moscow synodal office on August 13, 1834, under No. 5, it is written: “The Moscow office of the Holy Governing Synod had a discussion about what happens every year, on the 15th of August, on the feast of the Dormition of the Blessed Virgin Mary, in the synodal cross chamber, the dining table, for the correction of which the money allocated by decree is spent every year The Holy Governing Synod of 1788, March 2 days, 300 rubles, and, according to the personal decree of His Imperial Majesty in 1811, surplus from the amount allocated for the installation of utensils in the synodal houses and churches, 200 rubles, and in total 500 rubles. banknotes. At the same time, the synodal member, His Eminence Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow and Cavalier, verbally suggested that, due to the disasters currently being suffered in this capital from fire incidents and on the occasion of a strong fire occurring at the very time about this subject in the Rogozhskaya settlement, he finds it most useful and decent to use 500 rubles on the table so far. donate to those affected by the fires.” As a result of this, the office decided: in the current year, 1834, the amount of 500 rubles was allocated for the correction of the dining table on the feast of the Dormition of the Blessed Virgin Mary. send banknotes where appropriate to help the poor who suffered devastation from the fires 277 . September 12. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Minister of Internal Affairs D.N. Bludov about the captain of the Don army, Zolotarev, suspected of belonging to a harmful sect Minister of Internal Affairs D.N. Bludov, in secret, dated September 4, 1834, No. 4827, wrote to Metropolitan Philaret: “the Voronezh civil governor, in relation to me, dated July 27, explains that a woman named Marfa arrived from the land of the Don Cossacks in the city of Voronezh, according to rumors that reached him, under the pretext of praying and collecting money for The church, on behalf of the army of the Don esaul Zolotarev, spreads reckless rumors among the gullible about the approach of the Last Judgment and the end of the world, and distributes handwritten notebooks received from Zolotarev about some miraculous vision. As a result, according to his orders, this woman was taken and various things were found on her, including a sealed envelope addressed to Your Eminence; among the papers found in her possession, as upon closer examination it turned out, most of them contained correspondence about unimportant subjects; but one handwritten notebook, enclosed in secret when Esaul Zolotarev wrote to Moscow, to Nikita Andreevich Gaidukov, deserves, in the opinion of the governor, special attention and gives rise to the conclusion that this Zolotarev is either the founder himself or belongs to some class of sectarians who spread among superstitious and gullible people, through their agents like this bourgeois woman, malicious and nasty the rules of our Orthodox Church of indoctrination, the consequence of which may be a violation of general peace; for the disclosure of the imminent end of the world can shake the social ties and responsibilities of everyone in this world, instilling indifference to life in the minds of gullible people. As for the woman herself, Marfa, it is clear from the interrogation taken from her that she is the wife of the Smolensk tradesman Nikifor Krupenkov, and that, on the occasion of the loss of the passport issued to her by the Smolensk city magistrate, although she received a certificate from the Voronezh city police in 1828 to return to her place of residence, in the city of Smolensk, but, without fulfilling this duty, she went to the city Astrakhan, where she lived for a year and a half, returned again to Voronezh, and, after staying there for two weeks, she went to the city of Novocherkassk and lived there for three years; from where esaul Yakov Zolotarev sent her with a book issued from the military office to collect voluntary alms for the construction of a church in the Bezsergenevskaya village. Having carefully examined the notebook found by the bourgeois Krupenkova, I did not find anything particularly remarkable in it, and I see no reason to conclude from it that Esaul Zolotarev was the founder or distributor of any harmful heresy. One can rather believe that this notebook was written by a man of weak mind and without precise concepts about Divinity and faith, but with a living religious feeling, who, having been delighted by the liturgy, imagined that he had a vision and innocently described these imaginary revelations to his friend, and Esaul Zolotarev, having faith in this, could, without any harmful and illegal intentions, communicate the said notebook to his friends. Nevertheless, I considered it necessary to report all of the above to the ataman of the Don army, asking him to gather, without publicity, and provide me with information about the behavior and lifestyle of Esaul Zolotarev. I consider it my duty to inform your Eminence about this, forwarding to you, gracious archpastor, both the sealed envelope delivered to me from the Voronezh civil governor addressed to you, and a copy from the notebook found in the possession of the bourgeois Marfa Krupenkova 278 . The metropolitan’s letter reads: September 10. Reply with information and return envelope. Your Excellency, dear sir. Your Excellency's secret message, dated September 4, 1834, No. 4827, and with it an envelope addressed to me from a Novocherkassk resident of Zolotarev, were received by me on the 10th day. Although Your Excellency, delivering me an envelope and some information about Zolotarev, does not require from me the information that I have about him, however, I consider it not superfluous for the consideration of Your Excellency to bring to your attention what I know and conclude from the papers received from him. About three years ago he wrote to me about the need for compulsory measures so that people would more often begin to receive the Holy Mysteries; and at the same time sent a copy of the order made on this subject by one of the former Voronezh bishops. The letter showed zeal for the faith and did not contain anything contrary to Orthodoxy; however, due to lack of time for random correspondence, I left it unanswered, and the papers, due to time, were destroyed as unnecessary. Last winter he sent me a description of the revelation (the same list of which I received today, in the presence of your Excellency), and also a type of interpretation of the Apocalypse, and several additional articles. After examining these papers, I found that Zolotarev, in his interpretation of the Apocalypse, retains such respect for the Eastern Church and its teachings as is characteristic of the son of this church, and which could not be expected from a member of any sect, but that in his explanations the text of the Apocalypse is attached to the events of former and modern times, often very forcedly. I can’t imagine many examples of this, because the manuscript remained with me in St. Petersburg; I remember one: two witnesses, according to the Apocalypse, prophesying in sackcloth for 1260 days, being killed and three days later, in the sight of everyone, resurrecting and ascending to heaven (Rev. 11), according to Zolotarev’s interpretation, they are Patriarch Gregory, who suffered from the Turks during the Greek uprising, and some other Greek bishop who suffered at the same time. The question arises: how did such an interpretation come about and how did Zolotarev become convinced of the truth of it? The resolution of this seems to be found in the above-mentioned revelation, which occurred before the interpretation, and from which the interpretation was born. This vision must have been a person without mental education, but pious and humble, for he did not proclaim his visions, and did not reveal his name, but recounted them to Zolotarev only by special power of attorney. From Zolotarev’s papers it is clear that this seer died long ago; it is clear that Zolotarev, knowing the piety of this man, trusted his stories about visions, and that Zolotarev was influenced by threats of punishment, and the saying: the end is soon, which he took too literally and narrowly. He began to bend and break the Apocalypse and history, trying to bring them together so that there would be a quick end. It is clear that at first he was not very sure of the merits of his interpretation, because he kept it to himself; but when cholera and famine in the places of his residence showed him the event of the threats uttered in revelation, then the saying: soon the end again sounded more strongly in his thoughts; he ceased to doubt that the end of the world should be expected in two years, and decided to make his discoveries known. The revelation and interpretation of the Apocalypse was sent, besides me, to the Most Reverend Metropolitan of Novgorod and some other members of the Holy Synod, to the Archbishop of Kazan, to Archimandrite Photius of Yuryev, and, probably, to several other persons from the clergy. The copy received by the Archbishop of Kazan was received by the Holy Synod, which, seeing that Zolotarev was subordinating his work to the judgment of the spiritual authorities, ordered the diocesan bishop to instill in Zolotarev that, pending the judgment of the spiritual authorities, he should refrain from any disclosure of his opinions. The envelope sent to me from Your Excellency contains a letter and an essay on the importance of the sacrament of the Eucharist. The work is well-intentioned and free from signs of sectarianism, although some thoughts are one-sided, and some sayings of Holy Scripture are not given in their exact and direct relation to the thoughts of the author. For the discretion of your Excellency, I am sending you, dear sir, an envelope with all the enclosures that are not necessary for me, because even now I do not intend, for my part, to enter into relations with Mr. Zolotarev. No. 40. September 12, 1834. A month later, on October 17, in secret, for No. 5882, D.N. Bludov again wrote to Metropolitan Philaret: “I had the honor to receive the attitude of your Eminence, dated September 12, for No. 40, in which you deigned to forward to me the papers I delivered to you, gracious archpastor, from Esaul Zolotarev. Seeing from this attitude that your Eminence, both from the said papers and from those you received even earlier from Esaul Zolotarev, and for your part, do not deign to believe that he belonged to any sect and was trying to spread it, I did not consider it necessary to enter into any further research on this matter, but, however, I approached the ataman of the Don army, asking him to order to confirm Zolotarev, so that, in accordance with what had already been done to him, by order of the Holy Synod, on the inspiration of the diocesan bishop, while awaiting consideration and judgment of his work by the spiritual authorities, he would not at all divulge his opinions 279. From a draft autograph, kept. to Moscow spirit. academic; package number 3; document No. 1. This note was preserved in papers with the title: “letters from Bishop Smaragd of Polotsk on private annexations of the Uniates.” The Bishop's letters cover the period from June 14, 1833, to February 19, 1836, and are addressed to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, S. D. Nechasv. The note, apparently, was placed in the wrong place, for in the letters of His Eminence Smaragd there is no mention of the circumstances mentioned in the note of Metropolitan Philaret. The note is kept secret, in the papers of the chief prosecutor's office. St. Synod, 1833; No. 9; l. 39 and 40. Minister's case. folk education, 1834; kart. No. 48, case No. 127.930. He was dismissed in 1825 to retire to the Kirillo-Belozersky monastery, where, on December 26, 1827, he died. The Right Reverend Evgengi (Bolkhovitinov), the Old Russian list, and later Metropolitan of Kiev, took a very lively and active part in the compilation and fall of the History of the Russian hierarchy (See Russian Vestn. 1885, No. 5 p. 173 et seq.) Schletser, August-Ludwig, historiographer, professor at the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences, and then at the University of Göttingen: †1800 The text has been amended according to the list of edits at the end of the volume. – Editorial of the ABC of Faith. From the minutes of the Holy Synod, 1835, part 4, no. 53; l. 302–312. The author of the book is the teacher of law of the heir to the Tsarevich, now deceased Sovereign Emperor Alexander Nikolaevich, Archpriest G. P. Pavsky. (See his biographical sketch, Priest S. Protopopov, p. 56.) Pavsky’s explanations of what Metropolitan. Filaret wrote remarks. on Thursday General East. and Ancient Russian 1870, book. II, pp. 175–208. From a copy. Inventory No. 100; document No. 16. The author of this book is the same Archpriest Pavsky (See biography, essay of him, Priest Protopopov, p. 55). From a copy. Inventory No. 100; document No. 17. The case of the Moscow Synod. cont. 1834, No. 156 (106), l. 1. In the rough papers of Metropolitan Philaret there are three notebooks with the following headings: a) “a brief description of the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ, who was here in Novocherkassk in the past 1817 and 1818, regarding the fact that the end of the century is near, and about other things that were previously subject.” b) “Revelation of the sect in 1832 on the 21st from the Lord Jesus Christ.” c) “Addition to the revelation of 1832.” d) “Addition to the same revelation, 1832.” e) Extracts: a) on the publication of books by the English Bible Society; b) an extract from the report of the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod about those who confessed and received holy communion. mysteries, and c) copies of Zolotarev’s letters to clergy.” The documents listed above are not included in this publication, due to the fact that their content is partly clear from the opinion of Metropolitan Philaret. Autographed, kept. in the Moscow spirit. acad., convert. No. 3; document No. 2–5. The archives of the Holy Synod contain two files about the military foreman Yakov Zolotarev: a) the office of the chief prosecutor of the Holy Synod, 1834, No. 17304, and the office. St. Synod, 1843, No. 17; but they do not contain the metropolitan’s correspondence. Filareta with D.N. Bludov, which is included in this edition.