1826 г.

January 15. Proposal from Archbishop Philaret of the Moscow Holy Synod office, with the attachment of the ceremonial for welcoming the body of Emperor Alexander I in Moscow, his stay in it and escort from it Moscow Holy Governing Synod office proposal With the ceremonial that I gave to the consistory in relation to the clergy for the meeting of the body of the late Sovereign Emperor Alexander Pavlovich in Moscow, his stay in it and his escort from it, I forward this list to the Moscow office of the Holy Governing Synod, for its proper disposal. Filaret, Archbishop of Moscow No. 17. January 15, 1826 Attached to the proposal is a list from the following document: “A ceremony in relation to the clergy for the meeting of the body in Bose of the late Sovereign Emperor Alexander Pavlovich in Moscow, his stay in it and his escort from it. In Kolomenskoye, on the evening of the body's arrival. As the sad cortege approaches the village, the bell rings, and upon entering the village, a sad ringing rings. At this time, the following procession leaves the church in which the coffin is to be placed to meet it: 2) Banners of churches in the village of Kolomenskoye. 3) Banners of the Perervinsky Monastery. 4) Altarpiece icon and altarpiece cross. 8) Two archimandrites: Simonovsky and Andronievsky. 9) Your Eminences: Vicar Bishop and Archbishop Dosifei. 10) Archbishop of Moscow. After censing, the ringing stops. After the coffin is brought into the church, a memorial service. Reading of the Gospel by hieromonks and priests, under the supervision of the Perervinsky abbot, all night long. In Kolomenskoye, on the morning of the procession to Moscow: At 7 o'clock in the morning the bell rings. At a quarter past seven there will be a funeral service or lithium, depending on how time permits. When the eternal memory is proclaimed, there is a sad ringing sound. At this time the procession departs with such observation of time that it can reach the capital at 10 o'clock in the morning. The process is as follows: 3) Deacons of district churches. 6) Priests of district churches. 9) Monks in robes from the monasteries: Sretensky. 24) The builders of Sretensky and Berlyukovsky in vestments. 25) Archimandrite Vysotsky. 27) Two deacons with censers. 28) A priest with an image of St. Alexander Nevsky in front of the tomb. At 8 o'clock in the morning at the Ivanovo bell tower, the bell rings in different bells, alternately. During this good news, banners and other church paraphernalia, which are in the procession, with the required number of clergy, accompanied by the Assumption Sakellary, go to the Serpukhov outpost. The Ascension Church and Pavlovsk Hospital are designated as the meeting and waiting places. When the sad chariot approaches the city outpost, an initial meeting will be made with all the senior clergy, at which a litiya will be performed. For the senior clergy, the Danilov Monastery is designated as a meeting and waiting place. After the litany, at the third signal shot, a sad ringing begins from nearby churches and spreads throughout Moscow. The spiritual procession will enter the general procession, after the Governing Senate. From the churches past which the procession passes, the local clergy comes out to meet with banners, candles, a censer, a church icon and a cross. A lithium is performed against every church. Where litia is celebrated, the ringing stops during the litia, and after the proclamation of eternal memory it begins again. The composition and order of the spiritual procession is as follows: 2) Banners from cathedrals, monasteries and churches, but with a special painting, no less than twenty-four in number. 4) Large lantern of the Assumption Cathedral. 5) Great altar cross of the Assumption Cathedral. 7) Priests of all churches in the capital, two in a row, the youngest in front, with candles. 8) Archpriests with candles. 10) Archimandrites of the diocesan monasteries and the protopresbyter of the Assumption Cathedral with candles. 11) Archimandrites of stauropegial monasteries with candles. 13) Two subdeacons with trikyriy and dikyriy. 14) Two deacons with ripids. 15) Altar cross and Gospel. 16) Two deacons with censers for bishop’s incense. 17) Your Eminences: Vicar Bishop and Archbishop Dosifei, and with them one deacon each. 18) The Archbishop of Moscow, and with him the protodeacon and deacons. 19) After the order insignia and regalia, six open church candles on candlesticks. 20) Two smaller altar crosses from the Assumption Cathedral. 22) Six deacons with censers for censing the coffin. 23) Two priests of the court churches with candles. 24) Court archpriest with the image of St. Alexander Nevsky. The vestments of all clergy must be black. Before entering the Archangel Cathedral, the clergy of this cathedral are greeted with candles, with banners, with censers, with an altar cross and an altar icon. Once the coffin is brought into the cathedral, the ringing stops. A cathedral memorial service is being celebrated. Immediately after this, the reading of the Gospel begins, in order, which continues day and night, throughout the body’s stay in the cathedral. From the time of the end of the liturgy, during the remaining hours of the day, the reading of the Gospel is carried out by the archimandrites and abbots with their concelebrants. During other evening, night and morning hours, before the liturgy, archpriests and priests. At ten o'clock in the morning, a cathedral requiem service is celebrated in the Archangel Cathedral by the Archbishop of Moscow, with the vicar bishop and archbishop Dosifei, and with all the senior clergy. The Liturgy is celebrated by the Archbishop of Moscow. At four o'clock in the evening the second cathedral funeral service. In Moscow - on the second and third days Cathedral worship following the example of the first day. A procession to escort the body out of the city will be established following the example of the procession that took place during its reception in the city. According to the appropriate order on the part of the synodal office and consistory, the closest supervision of the exact execution of this ceremonial, so that everyone knows their time and place, so that there is no confusion and stoppages in the movement of the procession, so that lithium time is used to change those wearing church accessories in the procession, so that the sequences of reading the Gospel are ordered without burdensomeness and are known to everyone in good time, in a word, so that all decency and splendor are preserved was, is entrusted to the archimandrite of the Epiphany and the alternate sacellary of the Assumption and archpriests of Nikolsky, in Khlynov, and Kazan, at the Kaluga Gate. Priests who do not have a kamilavka or skufia, granted by the highest, are given permission and blessing to use black skufia during the procession 150. July 11. Report from Archbishop Philaret of Moscow to the commission of theological schools on the academic audit of the Moscow Theological Academy In the journal of the commission of theological schools, June 1, 1826, in Art. XCIX, it is written: “On the occasion of the approaching completion of the educational course at the Moscow Theological Academy this year, 1826, the commission of theological schools, finding it necessary to carry out a review of it on the basis of previous examples and wanting to have detailed and accurate information about the successes of students, decided. 1) Allow its member, the Most Reverend Philaret, Archbishop of Moscow, to revise the said academy in terms of academics and ask him to notify him of the future; 2) To order the Academic Conference that, together with the rank lists of students who have completed the course, present for consideration by the commission two or three dissertations of each of them in Latin and Russian on subjects, especially those related to our Orthodox Church and in content deserving the name of the actual scientific works of this year. In fulfillment of this, Archbishop Filaret, in a report to the Holy Synod on the commission of theological schools, July 11, 1826, No. 263, wrote: Delivered to me, in the list, by the decision of the commission of theological schools, on the 1st day of June, this year 1826, I was instructed to revise the Moscow Theological Academy for the scientific part, and notification of the subsequent ones was required. My main duties, and especially the presence of the highest family in Moscow and the highly solemn days in the last half of June, did not allow me to leave Moscow before the 1st day of July. Therefore, it was necessary to allow the academic board to carry out preliminary tests and draw up preliminary rank lists without me, and to assign the review entrusted to me to the time of the open test. The open test was carried out on the 2nd and 3rd days of July, in three sessions, the continuation of which is shown by the lists presented here from academic journals. But the large number of outside visitors made it convenient for me to continue the meetings and give direction to the test, especially in accordance with the purpose of the review entrusted to me. I considered testing in higher department subjects primarily my responsibility, because this testing should lead to academic degrees. Therefore, the entire first meeting, which lasted about 5 hours, was used for testing in theological sciences. The teacher gave the questions, and I always assigned who to answer. On the 6th day of July, the fourth non-public meeting was held, which I used to verify and supplement the comments I made at the previous public meetings. In this meeting, I called all the subjects, and all the questions were proposed by me. I reviewed the students' essays written during the preliminary test at home. Based on the information I compiled about the students, especially the higher department, I made comments to the conference on its preliminary rank lists. She reviewed them, corrected them, and then I agreed with her on them. These lists must be presented to the commission of theological schools from the conference itself, as demanded by the commission of theological schools. I consider it not superfluous to present to the commission of theological schools that of the first category of students of the higher department, Ivan Platonov 151, Alexander Sergievsky 152, Ivan Bogoyavlensky 153, Alexander Alexandrovsky, Ivan Rozhdestvensky 154, Pavel Benevolensky 155, especially distinguished themselves during the test with answers showing not only their correct acceptance of the lessons taught, but also the strength of their own reasoning. These are the main consequences of my observations on the comparative personal dignity of academy students. As for the progress of teaching in general, I cannot say that I found it in the ascent to perfection, in comparison with the previous state of the academy. Dogmatic theology is taught, outlined in notes, and presented during testing, first in Russian, and then in Latin. What is proposed in Russian has the advantage of order and clarity of presentation. What was proposed in Latin, probably due to the effect of the classical book, is more marked by the dry and unintelligible language of the school than by the power of truth that is generally intelligible and generally useful. Other parts of theology were carefully taught by bachelors, but difficulties were also noticeable due to the lack of processed classical books. At the end of previous training courses, the academy used to publish several essays written by students during the course. In this case, last fall I told the rector of the academy 156 that, if at the end of this educational course it would be possible to publish some works worthy of this, in advance, during the last year of the course, they would be gradually selected, and, as they were elected, they would be presented to me, to ensure that they could be published. Instead of doing this, the rector of the academy, when presenting the plan for internal testing last May, asked in a letter for my consent to publish some works, which he not only did not present, but also did not indicate the content. Therefore, I did not find it possible to act otherwise than to give the academic board the following written feedback: I cannot say anything about the printing of arguments and sermons without seeing and knowing what they want to print; but what I verbally advised for a long time has not been fulfilled. I gave this review on May 21; but after that no work was submitted to me for consideration for publication, and nothing was published except the summary of the public trial. Church history is taught from a classic book without any particular shortcomings and without signs of special activity by the teacher. However, the students often answered questions from biblical history, which I proposed out of order in the prepared test, without difficulty, which showed a thorough acceptance of the lessons. The teaching of church literature is both taught and accepted decently. In the teaching of universal literature, I noticed a theory of the graceful, which has the advantage that the graceful is distinguished, and not cut off (which cut-off can often be seen in the latest theories) from the true and good. Philosophy is taught carefully, and the teaching represents a good direction towards the subordination of the concepts of reason to the highest principle of Revelation. And here there are noticeable difficulties on the part of the Latin language. For this department it is desirable that knowledge of this be strengthened. The test in universal history represented more legends than research and considerations. I can’t say anything about mathematical sciences. The Academy elects its former professor, Archpriest Kutievich, as a full member; this can be especially useful for tests in mathematics, which he knows thoroughly. The teaching of physics has a complete lack of tools. They draw on the board for a long time and, due to insufficient drawing, take a long time to explain the air pump. I advised the professor to present to the academic board about purchasing the necessary instruments. Students translated from Hebrew, Greek, French and German on a test basis, with analysis, without difficulty. Some had noticeable shortcomings in pronunciation. The following academic journals are attached to Archbishop Philaret’s report. 1826, July 2 days, in the presence of His Eminence, Philaret, Archbishop of Moscow and Kolomna, various orders of knight, full internal members of the academic conference. Academy Rector, Archimandrite Polycarp; inspector Archimandrite Evlampius; mathematics professor Pyotr Delitsyn; professor of philosophy Theodore Golubinsky; Bachelor of General Literature Platon Dobrokhotov; Bachelor of Church History Theodore Platonov and an external member of the Moscow Assumption Cathedral, Protopresbyter Jacob Dimitriev, in a meeting that began at 9 o'clock in the morning and ended at 2 o'clock in the afternoon, a test was carried out for students of the higher department in the class of theological sciences 157. 1826, July 2 days, in the presence of the same persons, in a meeting that began at 5 o'clock in the afternoon and ended at 7, a test was carried out for students of the lower department in the class of general literature and civil history. 1826, July 3 days, in a meeting that began at 9 a.m. and ended at 2½ p.m., in front of the same persons, a test was carried out for students of the higher department in the class of church literature, church history, Hebrew and Greek, and students of the lower department in the class of speculative psychology, moral philosophy, history of philosophical systems, physical and mathematical sciences and in the class of languages: French and German 1826, July 6, in a meeting that began at 9 o'clock in the morning and ended at 11, a private test was carried out on some students of the higher department in the class of theological sciences, and the lower one in the class of philosophical sciences 158. July 16. Proposal from Archbishop Philaret of Moscow to the Holy Synod office, with the appendix of the rite of thanksgiving and procession ceremonies, in memory of the deliverance of the fatherland from sedition (December 14, 1825) Moscow Holy Governing Synod office proposal. Due to the highest will of His Imperial Majesty, the rite of prayer grateful to the Lord God for deliverance from sedition, which threatened the entire Russian state with disasters, and the ceremony, following the example of St. Petersburg, for the performance of this prayer service on this July 19th day, with a procession of the cross, which is to go from the Chudov Monastery to the square where a place, or pulpit, will be built, I propose herewith for orders depending on the synodal office. No. 273. July 16, 1826 Copies of the following documents are attached to the proposal: A. Thanksgiving service, July 14th, 1826 When leaving the church with a procession of the cross, the singers sing the troparion: “Lord, save Thy people, and so on,” repeating it until the procession arrives at the appointed place. Then the prayer singing begins, according to the order. The singers sing Psalm 19 on both sides: “The Lord will hear you in the day of sorrow, with the refrain: God is with us, understand the Gentiles and submit, for God is with us.” At the end of the psalm, litany: let us pray to the Lord in peace. In this litany there is a petition: omit this holy church. Then, after the petition for the sailors, read the following petition, again composed: “for the grace to grant us from now on and forever with faith and love to proclaim praise and gratitude to our God, who gave the power of our most pious Emperor strength and confirmation and who gave us the joy of his salvation, let us pray to the Lord.” Therefore, from the thanksgiving prayer, excluding the first two petitions from it, read the following two petitions: About the hedgehog and now listen to the voice, and so on. About the hedgehog to deliver your church, and so on, until the end of the litany. Troparion: O Lord, save Thy people, and so on. Glory. Your blessings, and so on, and now: Mother of God, helper of Christians. Prokeimenon: voice 7th. Who is the great God, like our God: you are God, work miracles. Verse 1: Thou hast said thy power among men. Verse 2: Rekh, now has begun, this betrayal of the right hand of the Most High. Verse 3: I will remember the works of the Lord, as I will remember Your wonders from the beginning. Apostle: to Corinth. Zach. 172. Gospel: Luke. Zach. 85. Litany: God have mercy on us. After the petition for the Christ-loving army, read this, a newly composed petition: “We also pray that the Lord, our Savior, will accept confession and thanksgiving to us, his unworthy servants, as if he showed us his intercession and salvation from the raging sedition that was plotting to subvert the Orthodox faith, the throne and the destruction of the entire Russian kingdom.” For this, read from the ordinary prayer service of gratitude: how now have you mercifully heard the prayers of your servants, and so on. Finally, this again composed petition: “We also pray for our cries, who destroyed their frantic sedition and laid down their souls here for the faith, king and fatherland, as if the King of glory would give them, on the day of righteous reward, crowns of incorruptibility, but he would preserve and establish us all in piety and unanimity.” After an exclamation, a prayer of thanksgiving and a song: We praise God to you, and so on. After many years to the Sovereign Emperor and his highest family, the protodeacon will proclaim eternal memory to Count Michael 159 and to all the soldiers who laid down their souls for the faith, the king and the fatherland. Finally, many years to all the faithful, brave and Christ-loving All-Russian army. B. The ceremony of the religious procession and prayer of thanksgiving to the Lord God for deliverance from sedition, which threatened the entire Russian state with disaster. 1) This July 19th, Monday, priests, deacons and the required number of clerics will gather in the Assumption Cathedral at six o’clock in the morning. 2) The vestments should be festive, brocade, colored, and should not be white or velvet in one color, so that there is not a lot of variety. 3) For later liturgies, leave three priests in each department for the dean, some of them senior members, and more helpers. 4) For better observance of order, the Zlatoust Archimandrite and the Cathedral and Kazan Archpriest, from the Kaluga Gate, are appointed stewards, in addition to the Assumption Sacellarium. 5) Those gathered at the Assumption Cathedral will lift the shrine, as usual, except for the large lantern and the large cross, and bring it to the miracle monastery in the Alexievsky altar, directly, if the liturgy has not yet begun, and if it has begun, then through the altar of the Annunciation. 6) Banners will be waiting on the porch. 7) At the appointed hour, the Divine Liturgy will be celebrated in the Alexievo Church, in which the co-celebrants will be members of the synodal office and the Assumption presbyters. 8) Both the bishops and abbots of monasteries will gather for this liturgy, wearing the vestments indicated in paragraph 2. 9) At the end of the liturgy, those who are to carry the shrine stand ready in the holy altar, and the bishops and other senior clergy, having left the altar, stand, as is the case at prayer services in the presence of the highest family. 10) At the meeting of the Empress, there will be the bishops, the sacellary with a cross and the protodeacon with holy water. 11) When the Empress deigns to take her place, then the choir begins to sing: Lord save your people; and the clergy goes from the altar through the church in the order, as in processions of the cross, without stopping in the middle of the church, but without haste, so that the leader has the convenience of censing the holy thing being carried. 12) Banners go ahead to the prepared pulpit; Having reached it, they are located near it, on the southern and northern sides, and on the eastern side there will be military banners. 13) As soon as the clergy leaves the Chudovsky porch, the younger ones begin to stop on both sides and continue to position themselves in this order until the pulpit, so that the shrine, the senior clergy and the highest family pass to the pulpit between the two rows of clergy. In this case, it is necessary to ensure that the senior end of the procession reaches the pulpit. 14) Those carrying the shrine will ascend to the pulpit and stand on the eastern side on the pulpit and steps. 15) The archimandrites will stand on the pulpit on the north and south sides, leaving space for the highest family. Other clergy who will not fit in the rows up to the pulpit will stand on the sides of the pulpit on the steps and below. Singing at the pulpit below. The singing of the troparion ends, and a grateful prayer service begins according to the rite, with the prescribed addition. 16) Before the prayer of thanksgiving, the protodeacon, clearly for the hearing of everyone and for orders in the army, drawlingly proclaims: “Back and back, in tenderness of heart and knee, let us pray to the Lord.” 17) After the song: “We praise God to you” and vacation, many years of the highest family, as usual. 18) Then to Count Mikhail and all the Orthodox soldiers, who laid down their souls for the faith, the Tsar and the Fatherland, eternal memory. 19) Further, many years to come to all the faithful, brave, Christ-loving army. 20) For this, the commander sprinkles holy water on the banners and army. At the same time, depending on the disposition of the army, the stewards note whether the commander will return to the pulpit, or will return to the monastery with the very act of sprinkling. In this latter case, a sign will be given for the procession to return in the same order to the Church of Miracles, with supervision that the clergy standing in the ranks remain in this order until the highest family returns. According to the stated ceremony, the solemn service was performed on July 19. The liturgy in the miracle monastery was sent by the “Holy Governing Synod and the commission of theological schools, member, His Eminence Filaret, Archbishop of Moscow and Kolomna, Holy Trinity Lavra of St. Sergius, sacred archimandrite, with members of the synodal office: Don Monastery Archimandrite Athanasius, Assumption Cathedral Protopresbyter Jacob Dimitriev and the rest of the brethren of the same council.” A thanksgiving prayer service was performed on the Kremlin square, in the presence of the Empress Maria Feodorovna, Grand Duke Mikhail Pavlovich and his wife Grand Duchess Elena Pavlovna, with a large gathering of clergy, nobility and troops. In addition to Archbishop Philaret, Archbishop Dosifei and Bishop Kirill of Dmitrov 160 took part in the prayer service. August 17. Additional report from Archbishop Philaret to the commission of theological schools on the audit of the Moscow Theological Academy on the academic part 161 “In my report, dated July 11, No. 263, it was mentioned that the rank lists of students at the academy will be presented to the commission of theological schools from the academic conference, because, as I was told, this procedure is prescribed by the commission of theological schools.” Having learned that to this day they have not been represented, I requested them from the rector of the academy, who is now here in Moscow, and at the same time I represent them. I also present the package received from him, the rector, under the seal of the academy, which contains the students’ essays. I know that the essays written by the students during the preliminary test are not in this package, and why, I did not have the opportunity to ask the rector, because the package was not delivered by him personally, while the essays written during the preliminary test were submitted to me by all students, three from each, for revision and with comments from the bachelors, but, after my consideration, they were returned for the above reason that the conference should present them to the commissions of theological schools. No. 339. August 17, 1826. Attached to this report are the rank lists of students in the higher department of the Moscow Theological Academy. Students destined for a master's degree: Alexander Alexandrovsky. Vasily Sakharov - from the Moscow seminary. Hierodeacon Palladius 163. 1) Intended for elevation to the degree of candidate, with direct right to a master's degree, after one year of service, with approval from the local authorities: Hierodeacon Innocent 164. 2) Intended for elevation to the degree of candidate: Vasily Sakharov from the Kaluga seminary. The commission of theological schools, having examined the reports of Archbishop Philaret about the comments he made during the review of the academy on the academic side, decided: 1) to express to Eminence Philaret the full gratitude of the commission for this generally useful work; 2) to approve the rank lists of students submitted to the commission on the following basis: from among the students of the higher department of the 1st category, six, especially those recommended by the Eminence Ivan Platonov, Alexander Sergievsky, Ivan Bogoyavlensky, Alexander Alexandrovsky, Ivan Rozhdestvensky and Pavel Benevolensky 166, are promoted to the degree of master; the remaining seven students of the first category and five of the 2nd category, intended for elevation to the degree of candidate, with the right to a master's degree in one year, should be confirmed as candidates, giving all of them the right to receive a master's degree two years from the time they were assigned to the school service, if they receive approval from the local authorities at that time; others who have completed the course in the higher department of students should be promoted to candidates; 3) instruct the academic board, especially the rector, to take care of improving the teaching of theological sciences, church and general history and languages; since the most significant shortcomings have been noticed in these subjects; 4) for the rector of the academy to point out the disorder he caused, due to which the works needed for publication were not ready in time; 5) to submit the examination of student essays to a member of the commission, His Eminence Gregory, Bishop of Kaluga, so that he can inform the commission of his opinion about them, and which will be approved by him, printed to the account of the economic sums of the academy 167. October 10. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret 168 to Metropolitan Seraphim of Novgorod and St. Petersburg, regarding the case of a subscription between seminary students for the book: “outline of the theory and history of the fine sciences,” Meiners Your Eminence Bishop, gracious archpastor and benefactor! Looking through the journals of the seminary board, I found a definition for collecting a subscription for a book among students: “an outline of the theory and history of the fine sciences, Mapers” 169 . This was done according to the instructions of the academic board, from which it is clear that the book is distributed by a commission of theological schools. I remember that this book used to be in notes for a literature class, among the textbooks for the professor. In this case, I did not pay careful attention to her, out of confidence that the professor knew how to take advantage of the useful and reject the harmful. But when it is assigned to students for home use, and is assigned as especially chosen by the highest authorities, and consequently children are encouraged to read it not only with confidence, but also with respect, I became concerned to test whether it corresponds to this purpose. Out of this conviction in the truth, and out of duty of care for the benefit of the spiritual youth of the diocese entrusted to me, I made a note on the journal of the seminary board, with which I am attaching a list at the other end, so that your Eminence can pay attention to whether it is necessary to take precautions against the use of the mentioned book by students of theological schools. A presentation of this from me to the commission of theological schools would have the appearance of a dispute, which I wish to avoid. And according to this letter, and without prejudice, your Eminence can see whether my comments should be accepted, and do everything that you find fair and useful. It would be desirable for me to know your judgment on the present subject, for my guidance in cases of this kind that may arise. With deep respect and devotion I have the duty to be Your Eminence. I know verbally that the local seminary board, based on my mark, is stopping to collect subscriptions; but what will other schools in other dioceses do? Attached to this letter is a copy with the following resolution of the Metropolitan: Watched. As for the book: An Outline of the Theory and History of the Fine Sciences, Meiners, I don’t recognize it as either useful or decent for students to subscribe to it on behalf of their superiors, for reasons that, among other things, are the following: 1) In the book, this theory takes up 38 pages, and an article on the main types of syllables takes up 26 pages, and an article on different types of poetry takes up 206 pages. A considerable number of poetic, especially theatrical, works are analyzed; On the contrary, there is no analysis of any of the oratorical works. From this it is clear that this book, which discusses mainly works of poetry, especially theatrical ones, and touches on eloquence in passing, is not consistent with the purpose of theological schools, in which the literature class should mainly deal with eloquence, and poetry only in passing. 2) On pages 142 and 143, words are put into Socrates’ mouth with which he refutes the existence and providence of Zeus, because Zeus does not defeat perjurers. This speculation, although directed against the pagan name of Zeus, is not a refutation of any pagan superstition, but a daring blasphemy against the existence and providence of God, which is all the worse in the book because neither a refutation of the blasphemy nor punishment of the blasphemer is visible. 3) On pages 186 and 187, the lawless and vile passion is clothed in the language of piety, with disgusting blasphemy. This and similar places are not at all for young readers, inexperienced in the feat against temptation. 4) On pages 242 and 243, Martial’s epigram is printed, filled with such immoral shamelessness that if it were translated into Russian, no well-behaved person would agree to either pronounce or listen to it. Martial himself in this epigram says that his “poems will not be read by a teacher at school,” of course, a pagan in a pagan one, and they are assigned to students of Christian and, moreover, theological schools, by subscription. 5) If this book were given to a professor, one could assume that he would use what is necessary, leaving what is unnecessary, and would counteract tempting passages with thorough remarks. But there will be no place for these precautions if a book, supposedly particularly worthy and necessary, is, on the recommendation of the authorities, distributed among students for home use 170 . October 16. Metropolitan Philaret's opinion on the marriages of exiled vagabonds The Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Prince P. S. Meshchersky, dated June 2, 1826, No. 1365, proposed for consideration by the Synod the attitude he received from the Minister of Justice that the tramp Terenty Ivanov, who belonged to the landowner of the Pskov province Popov, was exiled to the Yenisei province for settlement, and that the latter demands him back; but since this tramp married in Siberia a landowner’s girl who had been exiled there for bad behavior, for this reason the following questions arose in the council of the main administration of eastern Siberia. 1) should their wives be returned, along with the tramps, if these latter turn out to be among those exiled to the settlement as punishment? 2) which marriage should be considered inviolable if a tramp exiled to Siberia enters into it there for the second time with a living wife who remained in the internal provinces, that is, the first marriage, or the last? 3) if a tramp who got married in Siberia is subject to returning to the landowner after a long time, then should the children he brought after exile belong to the landowner, or should they remain in Siberia forever? 4) what methods to deliver them over a very long distance if they are young; and when they remain in Siberia and are also minors without parents, then what is the point of raising them until they reach adulthood, until they are able to support themselves? The Holy Synod 171, after hearing the proposal, by definition on August 25, 1826, decided: since tramps are sent to Siberia to settle not forever, but until they are claimed by the landowners or societies to which they turn out to belong, and since the 92nd rule of the 6th Ecumenical Council and the 35th rule of St. Basil the Great and 3 paragraph 11 gran. of the city law, contained in the helmsman's book, it is allowed to ask for a dissolution of marriage and for permission to enter into a second marriage, due to the escape, absence and unknownness of a husband or wife, only the person who remains at the previous residence, and then not before five years have passed about the unknownness of the escaped or absent person, and the one who has been absent is not allowed to enter into another marriage by those rules: then The Holy Synod believes that people of this kind, i.e. married, according to the provisions of the above rules, should not be allowed to marry in Siberia, and the Minister of Justice should be notified about this. Metropolitan Philaret did not agree with this definition, and on October 26 of the same 1826, he gave a special opinion on the marriages of exiled vagabonds. The question of marriages of exiled vagabonds can be resolved in three ways, either by unlimited permission, or by unlimited prohibition, or by restricting both. Unlimited permission for marriage would be inconsistent with church law in relation to those exiled vagabonds who left their wives in the internal provinces, since church law punishes such people with deprivation of marriage. An unlimited ban on marriage for exiled vagabonds would be burdensome for those of them who were not married before exile, and would be contrary to the government’s goal, which is the propagation of the population. There does not seem to be a sure way to ensure that the exiled tramp was not married at his previous residence, as long as he remains as a tramp. For these reasons, the limited prohibition of marriage for exiled vagabonds can be based on church law as follows: 1) since the wife of a runaway cannot obtain permission for a second marriage for five years, exiled tramps should not be allowed to marry during the first five years. This gives the landowners sufficient time to take measures for their return; and if the tramp, who left his wife at his previous residence, returns during this time, he will find her, most likely, not entered into a new marriage, and consequently the first marriage union will be restored and preserved. 2) After the first five years, regarding marriage, deal with tramps in the same way as with exiles for crimes; of which there is already an example in the case that brought the case to this consideration. Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow No. 434. Moscow. October 16, 1826 After hearing this opinion, at a meeting on January 31, 1827, the majority of the Synod members remained with their previous opinion. For this, at the meeting on July 25, a general synodal resolution was held on this subject, by which the definition of the Holy Synod on August 25, 1826, was supplemented with the following words: “But how can there be single or widowed among the vagabonds, and in general, according to church rules, such people are allowed to marry only with prior confirmation that: a) that they are, indeed, single or widowed; b) that between the bride and groom there is no relationship to the extent prohibited by the church and c) that no other legal obstacles to marriage are encountered, for which purpose a search is first drawn up, with the signing of witnesses: then the Holy Synod believes that single and widowed vagabonds, without this certificate, cannot be allowed to enter into marriage” 172. November 23. The most humble submission of Metropolitan Philaret, with the attachment of a manuscript entitled: “On remedies against the shortage of worthy priests” Most pious Sovereign! According to your highest Imperial Order, regarding the means against the shortage of worthy priests, I most obediently present my best considerations and opinions. Most pious sovereign! Your Imperial Majesty's most all-subject. About remedies against the shortage of worthy priests. As a result of His Imperial Majesty's perception of a significant lack of worthy rural spiritual shepherds, on June 17, 1826, the highest command was announced to the Holy Synod: 1) “To find means and make a decree so that priests are ordained both from people proven in good morality and with sufficient knowledge, and preferably from seminarians, so that they can more reliably lead the flock entrusted to them and edify them in Christian virtues.” 2) “His Majesty deigns to deem it useful to appoint all those educated in all theological educational institutions to the clergy; for other youth are trained for secular positions in secular schools, and that from theological schools they graduate to take the places of rural priests only after completing a full course of study, with rooted, so to speak, good concepts and morals. On the means to avert the shortage of worthy rural priests In order to discover the means to avert the shortage of worthy rural priests, we must turn to the reasons from which this shortage has arisen until now. The first reason for this deficiency was the lack of a decent upbringing. In many dioceses, theological schools have recently acquired sufficient power to educate people, and in some they have received their very existence not long ago. Seminaries: Penza, Orenburg, Perm, founded in 1800. If, according to the education of that time, we allow ten years to complete a full educational course, and take into account that it took time to accustom parents to send their children to seminaries, then we must conclude that only fifteen or sixteen years after a small number of learned priests began to be born in these dioceses, after two years of the course, consequently a great number of priests who received only a home, clerical education continue to serve. Obviously, the remedy against this must be time; for when someone is already in the rank of the priesthood, although with shortcomings, but without crimes, the opportunity to replace him with someone more worthy is obtained only by extreme old age or his death. The second reason was unfinished education. Some diocesan bishops, who were expelled from seminaries for tall students of the philosophical and rhetorical classes, preferring to clerics who had not studied in seminaries at all, promoted directly to the priesthood, without considering that they were expelled from the seminaries before completing the course, either the least capable, or seen in laziness, or absent-mindedness, consequently people unreliable for the priesthood, unless they are tested and corrected by good and time-consuming guidance and supervision. in the lower grades of church service. The remedy for this is already in action. In 1815, as a result of a report on the occasion of the review of theological schools, by decree of the Holy Synod, on October 8, it was ordered that students who had not completed a course of science in seminaries be promoted to no higher than the rank of deacon for the first time. The third reason was and is an upbringing that was not suitably adapted to the needs of church service. Before the transformation of theological schools, some of them were distinguished by their knowledge of the Latin language, and even the art of writing Latin poetry; to achieve and maintain this glory, the students spent special efforts and most of their time studying Latin speakers and poets; From this came priests who knew Latin pagan writers well, but knew little about sacred and church writers; they could speak and write better in Latin than in Russian; they had a memory burdened with many words, but a mind unfertilized with a living knowledge of the truth. Only dogmatic theology was taught, using a too school-like method. Hence the knowledge is dry and cold, and the lack of animation and true, active edification in teachings. Instead of testing in higher subjects of study, so-called debates were used, in which most of the students did not participate, and therefore were not tested, and some part was divided into two sides so that with the firmness one defended the truth, with the same audacity the other tried to prove a lie; a cunning objection was approved no less, if not more, than a thorough refutation; hence the tendency to disputes, often seductive, and never useful for the instruction of the people, because both objections and their solutions are mostly invented in school, presented in a school form, and are not included in the circle of concepts circulating among the people. Theological concepts taught in Latin, constrained by too heavy school terminology, did not operate freely in the minds during the teaching, and after the teaching were difficult to transfer into Russian for communication to the people. The means to improve the education of students in theological schools were partly used after the transformation of these schools, and partly, after use, they were rejected again. The teaching of active theology was introduced; In this way, theological knowledge became closer to use in life. Instead of disputes between a few about a few truths, tests were introduced for all students in all subjects taught. It is permitted to use the Russian language in teaching theology; through this knowledge of the Latin language became weaker, but school terminology began to give way to a purer and clearer presentation of the truth; the dissemination of essential knowledge increased, and the communication of it to the people in teachings became easier. Although, according to the statutes of the schools, theology, as well as other sciences, should be taught according to approved educational books, but, due to the lack of good ones and for encouragement in composing experiments, it was allowed, just as before the transformation of schools, it was allowed for the students themselves to teach newly compiled lessons. The consequence of this assumption was that some mentors, still new in their work, taught the lessons not in perfect perfection (however, thank God, in theological schools there is not a single example of abuse of this power of attorney by the authorities); that on some subjects of spiritual teaching, educational books have been compiled that did not exist before, such as on biblical and church history; that, according to some experiments in theological lessons published in Christian Reading, there was hope of having our own classic books on theology, not so hastily, due to the importance of the subject, but all the more thoroughly processed; that the teaching began to adapt more closely to the actual needs of the time and the future ministry of those being taught, as, for example, in the Moscow Academy, in the field of polemical theology, lessons began about the schisms that arose in the Russian Church, and the means to admonish those falling into them. But in 1825 The commission of theological schools, probably having noticed that some of the teachers’ own lessons were imperfect, ordered the theological schools that no one should teach their own lessons, that theology should be taught exclusively in Latin, that the classic book should be the theology of Theophylact 173, copied from the Lutheran theology of Buddeus, and so on. This reverse move from a clear teaching in the natural language to Latin scholasticism cannot contribute to the improvement of the education of those preparing for the priesthood, and it is surprising that, in a time especially boasting of zeal for Orthodoxy, a passion for the Latin language returns, which, according to its original formation, is the language of the pagan people, according to its current use - the language of the Western Church, and the language of the Eastern Church and has not been and has no reason to be. Therefore, for the closest adaptation of the education of spiritual youth to the needs of church service, the following means can again be used with benefit. a) Allow the teaching of theological sciences in Russian (and to maintain classical scholarship, in addition to reading Greek and Latin writers in the literature class, continue teaching philosophical sciences in Latin). b) To encourage and encourage those capable of compiling educational books of theological sciences, in the true spirit of the word of God and the writings of the holy fathers, with the presentation of truths in an accurate, educational language, but as much as possible, generally understandable, with a careful application of the teaching to the state of the Eastern, and especially the Russian Church, that is, with the presentation of the true reasons why it accepts or rejects something, and with reproof and thorough a refutation of those false teachings that, at the present time, priests can encounter in the field of their ministry. The fourth reason, which partly produced unworthy priests, is the unnecessarily permitted creation of a priest before the age of thirty, as prescribed by the 14th rule of the sixth ecumenical council. That this rule allows exceptions, for good reasons, as proof of this we can point to the example of Timothy, whom the Apostle Paul first made a deacon, then a priest, and also a bishop, while still young, (Ch. Min. Genv. 22). By this he is justified from what is prescribed by the Spiritual Regulations (about the home teaching point. 16) the preference of scientists over unlearned, the custom that has arisen is to ordain scientists as priests before the age of thirty, for two good reasons: firstly, because they are superior in knowledge to those of higher age, and secondly, because when they have spent ten years or more in schools, from which, as a result of supervision over behavior, as well as over teaching, the unreliable are expelled every year, and the reliable are constantly guided towards deanery and good behavior, then after this a good school certificate is no less reliable guarantee for the behavior expected of them than the thirty-year age of those who have not passed this school test. But when the custom of not strictly looking at the age of scientists, when making a priest, for plausible reasons, is extended to the unlearned or half-educated, so that among these, it is not uncommon to see those promoted to the priesthood at less than twenty-five years of age, and at the same time it is also noticed that among these there are especially people who do not maintain the priestly character in the continuation of their ministry. Hence the following rules are considered necessary: a) Make it known to the diocesan authorities that, while maintaining the attention that they deserve to school certificates, attention is also paid to the age of the students who completed the course, when making priests, so that people who are ordained to this rank are not too immature. b) For this purpose, in the seminaries themselves, ensure that students who have distinguished themselves in the lower classes in terms of acuity, but who are still little capable of thorough reflection due to their years, are not transferred to the higher classes of sciences. c) since students and pupils who have completed the course are forced to hastily occupy priestly positions, by the way, the unpleasant position of being considered unplaced, then grant them the right to be on the lists of schools, until they actually take priestly positions, listen repeatedly to the sciences of the theological department, for a greater strengthening of knowledge, engage in writings, translations and preaching the word of God, under the supervision of the diocesan and school authorities. d) since another compelling reason for the hasty pursuit of priestly places is poverty, then grant the right to students and apprentices who have completed the course to benefit from the contents of the schools, as long as the economic circumstances of these latter allow. e) since there are clerical places that are not as sparse in content as other deaconal places, then, in order to give those who have completed the seminary course time for further preparation for the priesthood by age and experience, to promote those who wish to take such clerical places as deacons. f) Those who are uneducated and undereducated in schools should be promoted to the priesthood only according to need, and with strict observance of the cathedral rule, so that this should not be earlier than thirty years of age. The fifth reason, which does not favor the efforts of diocesan bishops to improve the parish clergy, is the inconvenience of immediate supervision and leadership, due to the space and large population of the dioceses. For this we need capable and faithful custodians of the deanery. It is not superfluous to recommend to diocesan bishops that in determining the dean, without relying on track records and consistory elections, they try in every possible way to have reliable information about the qualities of these trusted persons, and those who are careless or unfaithful in this service are removed from this service, with punishment, and those who are dissatisfied with the ability are dismissed and replaced by capable and trustworthy ones. The sixth reason, which increases the lack of worthy priests, is the slowness and weakness of judicial and corrective measures for the unworthy. Investigation of an act contrary to office or good behavior, according to the established form, requiring for the most part communication with secular authorities to question witnesses of secular rank, drawing up an extract from the case, calling the defendant to sign it, a new summons to declare pleasure or displeasure for a decisive verdict, often due to a displeased response against the lightest penance, transferring the case to the Holy Synod: all this is the reason that a quick punishment for an offense comes several months after it is committed, and more often after a year or more; Meanwhile, the one who has fallen into temptation becomes rigid in it, prevents the punishment of the first offense by repeated acts of vice, and later punishment becomes an action more punitive than corrective. In addition, since the decree of May 6, 1797, it was prescribed to punish against good behavior only by the monastery under the leadership, with leaving in the same place, then no matter how unreliable the priest turns out to be, it is necessary to wait for the second or third offense, and since not every offense reaches the authorities, then a chain of offenses is needed so that the authorities can reduce the temptation by banning the guilty person from the priesthood and relegating him to ceremonial place. Finally, unworthy priests have a sure way of achieving complete impunity by escaping to the schismatics, at the very time when the diocesan authorities want to use corrective measures against them. For example, in the Moscow region, the village of Vladykina, priest Fyodor Borisov, from oral history, in June 1824, was put on trial for drunkenness; in September of the same year, having lost hope of covering up his guilt, he fled to Starodub, as it became known in October of the same year from the relations of the Starodub police chief; but the demands of the consistory that the fugitive priest be sent to finish his trial remained in vain. Thus, the unworthy priest, through his escape to the schismatics, acquired impunity, a kind of independence, and worldly benefits, no doubt incomparably greater than those he enjoyed under the authority of the legitimate spiritual authorities; and this leadership, by making an effort to correct the unworthy, only brought benefit to the schismatics. It is worth the effort to think about the consequences of such an allowance. Such experiments show the need for the following rules in order to take the most active measures to correct unworthy priests: a) The rules on the investigation and punishment of crimes in churches, which contain a way to avert slowness in legal proceedings, were approved by the Supreme on December 22, 1823, to be extended to all cases of crimes of clergy against office and against good behavior. b) Give bishops the right, for a crime proven by research, to punish priests and deacons, either by monastic subordination, or by relegation to a clergy position, at the discretion of what the crime is and what is the hope of correction for the defendant, and not according to whether it is the first crime or the second. c) If for an offense against office or good behavior, a stay in the monastery of one to six weeks is determined, as penance or for testing and admonition, do not subject the diocesan authorities to the need to expect a pleased or dissatisfied response from the sentenced person, but to carry out the sentence immediately. d) To avert the tempting impunity, decree that a priest, during an investigation or trial on any matter whatsoever, who has defected to the schismatics, must certainly be returned to the spiritual authorities, to complete the trial and deal with him according to the laws. The seventh distant but real reason why some priests succumb to the temptation to engage in matters unworthy of their calling is their poverty and straitened state. A student, the son of poor parents, or an orphan who has nothing, having become a priest, in order to have a place to live, must immediately buy the house of his predecessor, and, consequently, go into debt. If, due to the circumstances of the place, he lays his hands on his hand, he will rarely pick up a book. If he wishes to have the hands of parishioners as an aid to the cultivation of his land, this can be done only with sin, for peasants usually agree to help the priest in his work only on holidays. Moreover, since the provision of this allowance to the priest, as well as the amount of income given to him when performing the services, depends on the order of the parishioners (for the income determined by the decree of 1801 according to the calculation made for 1824 in the office of the Holy Synod 174) comes to the whole account for the whole year 10 rubles. 84 k.): then the village priest, in order to gain the favor of the peasants, on which his livelihood so much depends, is forced to more or less adapt to their customs and tastes; and by speaking so unfreely in such a circle, one is more or less in danger of damaging one’s own taste, moral and spiritual. The constraint of the condition of some rural priests is increased by the fact that in many churches, despite the promptings of the spiritual authorities, even through the secular places, the clergy, or the land or the allotted land, instead of the land, they are not completely satisfied. For example: among the 875 rural churches of the Moscow diocese, there are 300 churches with less than the legal amount of church land; 101 such in which the land in the statement is shown in possession of the parishioners; 60 such in which the church land is shown to be inconvenient; 43 such in which church land is in dispute. Means to get priests and clergy out of their cramped position have long been thought of. By decree of October 29, 1722, it was prescribed that houses for clergy should be church buildings; but this is fulfilled in few churches. By a personal imperial decree on December 18, 1797, it was ordered that the church's allotment of land should be cultivated through the common labor of the parishioners; but the confusion, burdens and mutual displeasure that arose from this, just as they soon later gave reason to cancel this order, now give reason not to demand its restoration. The report of the committee on the improvement of theological schools suggested assigning from 300 to 1000 rubles for the maintenance of each church clergy, and by decree on June 26, 1808, the commission of theological schools, among other things, began compiling detailed staff of church clergy; but this has not been started, and in fact this is not feasible, firstly because the sources of the amounts of money required for this turned out to be scarcer than expected; secondly, because dividing churches into classes and assigning larger salaries to some and smaller salaries to others does not seem to be a solid basis; thirdly, because even if this division were somehow made, then a new difficulty would be encountered in the supposed distribution of priests, according to degrees of learning, into places occupied, although completely unlearned, but according to the accepted order by certain priests, who cannot be dismissed from them innocently, and who can remain in them for a long time. Therefore, in 1814, instead of assigning salaries to churches for clergy, these salaries were assigned personally to those receiving academic degrees and assigned 500 rubles to the doctor of theology, 350 rubles to the master, 250 rubles to the candidate, no matter what churches they entered. But to this day there are still very few who have earned the doctorate degree, and of the masters and candidates, very few have entered the rural churches; and therefore the rural clergy still do not use such benefits at all. So, in order to provide the rural clergy with a content that is more reliable than now and not too dependent on the parishioners, the following or similar measures are needed: a) Confirm who should satisfy the rural churches with the full legalized amount of land, convenient and close to the church, as this is legalized. b) Confirm that, according to the decree of 1722, for the first time for priests, and over time for other members of the church clergy, houses were built or purchased, and henceforth continuously supported by parishioners or from the church, where it has its own methods. c) Assign a class salary of 200 rubles to seminary students entering rural priestly positions, gradually with higher academic degrees. d) Of the second-class seminary students entering rural priestly positions, assign 180 rubles as a salary to those for whom the diocesan bishops deem this allowance necessary, based on the circumstances of the positions they occupy. e) To increase, according to the decree of 1801, the donations prescribed for the fulfillment of church requirements and make it an order to receive: upon marriage 2 rubles, when performing baptism 50 kopecks, for burial of an aged person 2 rubles, at the burial of a minor, 50 kopecks, with the exception, however, that a sufficient parishioner would be given more, at will, but not at all at the request of the clergyman, and for the poor, the clergyman was obliged to fulfill the requirement without any giving. On the determination of those brought up in theological educational institutions to the clergy without fail To designate those brought up in theological schools to the clergy without fail, as much as is consistent with the purpose of establishing these schools and the subjects of teaching taught in them, is just as fair because students of theological schools use not only educational aids, but many also support, according to the current situation, at the expense of church income from candles, from printed sheets of prayer of permission and chaplet, relied on the deceased, and at the expense of donations from monasteries, at least according to Moscow diocese, significant. But the following considerations prevent us from establishing this rule without exception. Firstly, among the students of theological schools there are some who, due to physical disabilities, are incapable of the clergy, for example, those who are tongue-tied or too weak-voiced. They are admitted to schools out of love for humanity, and in the hope of correcting their shortcomings with age; and, not having a lack of mental abilities, sometimes successfully take courses in science, but, finally, it turns out that the physical deficiency remains incorrigible, and does not allow them to be used in the service of the church; for she could not hear them. Secondly, it happens that a student who in his early years did not show a strong inclination towards any particular kind of life and occupation, when he comes of age, shows a strong inclination to enter not into the spiritual, but into another rank. No matter what this comes from, whether from a passion aroused in him in some secular science or occupation, or from the testimony of his conscience, recognizing in him his unpreparedness for worthy service of the sacraments of the faith, or from a lack of humility: in all these cases, to be forced to introduce such a person to a spiritual rank would not be in accordance with either the spirit of church government or the benefit of church service. And in secular service, it is difficult to expect excellent success from someone who is against his inclination, but even more so in spiritual service, for someone who is against the conviction of his conscience must be afraid of temptations and falls. Thirdly, although until now there has been in most dioceses a noticeable shortage of those who have completed the training course to occupy priestly places, but with the gradual transformation of theological schools that has taken place in the last fifteen years, with the strengthening of methods for maintaining poor students in them, the number of students is increasing so much that now in some dioceses there are no longer enough places to determine those who have completed the training course. For example, in the religious schools of the Vladimir diocese there were students: Of the 115 students in one course, after two years were spent distributing them to places, there were still 28 left for whom there were not enough places. In the Kaluga diocese, in September of this 1826, there were 2 idle priestly places, and students looking for places from the training course: Consequently, there are 94 candidates for 2 seats. Fourthly, although a considerable number of those who have not completed the training course in theological schools leave the ecclesiastical department for the secular, very few of them are dismissed directly from the schools, and then due to physical disabilities or illnesses officially certified by doctors, and most of them are those who have already been expelled from theological schools due to a lack of ability and diligence, the dismissal of which, consequently, does not constitute a significant loss for the clergy. Of those who complete higher educational courses in theological schools, a small number reach the secular rank. For example, out of 97 students who completed a course in two seminaries of the Moscow diocese in 1824, only one was promoted to secular rank; If this is considered a loss for the clergy, this loss is not so important as to completely deprive the children of the clergy of freedom in choosing a rank, granted to all free states, and even those included in the capitation salary, granted under certain conditions. But in order to save as much as possible for the benefit of church service for those brought up under the care of the church, for this purpose the following rules can be added to the existing laws: a) When assigning content from the seminary to seminary students, ask them whether they are disposed to the clergy, and those who do not approve this should not be assigned content from the seminary, but are allowed to study on their own content. b) Establish a rule so that all those who have completed a training course in theological academies and seminaries and have received government pay are required to serve in the service of the clergy for at least six years. The benefit of this rule may be that those who are indecisive in choosing a title, during this time, can be confirmed in their disposition towards the clergy, and those who certainly decide to leave this title will partly repay the debt of gratitude for their upbringing by holding teaching or clerical positions in consistories in the given years, which often need clerical servants with sufficient educational education. c) Encourage the authorities of those dioceses in which there are not enough scientists to fill priestly positions, to borrow them from those dioceses that have an abundance of them. November 23. Extract from a letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Prince A. N. Golitsyn, on the case of the marriage of adjutant A. P. Mansurov My note, November 23, 1826, says: The concern here is not for individuals, but 1) about the inviolability of the fundamental law (the rule of the ecumenical council), the limit of which, if you transgress, you will not know where to stop, 2) about the worthy use of sacred and high names, that is, royal ones, 3) about not spreading unfavorable impressions among the people, especially in times that require all caution 176. December 2. Metropolitan Philaret's report to the Holy Synod about the doubts that arose during the publication of the 63 words of Nikonov from the manuscript, entitled: “tactikon, or official” To the Holy Governing Synod from its member Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna, report. In the decree of the Holy Synod, dated July 6, 1826, No. 5884, it is depicted that the Holy Synod finds it necessary from the manuscript, under No. 533, called taktikon, or official, to publish 63 words of Nikon 177, with the addition of taktikon, under the supervision of the Moscow diocese vicar, the Right Reverend Kirill, Bishop of Dmitrov, so that, in case of doubt, he would ask for permission from me, and if there is a need for a printed copy, then demand one from the printing office. When, therefore, for ease of reading, a printed copy was requested, and we began to examine it, also in comparison with the manuscript, then doubts were truly revealed, and, moreover, such that they exceed the possibility of my resolution, and oblige me to submit the following extracts and comments to the discretion of the Holy Synod, with the opinion: 1) The book of St. Nikon, abbot of the Black Mountain, was printed in 1795, in the Pochaevskaya Uniate printing house, without any sign of censorship or approval even from the Uniate authorities. 2) In the afterword of the first part (sheet 576, on the volume) it is called divinely inspired, and soon after that it is said that the essence of the sins in it is innumerable, since it has not been read from the handwritten one. 3) The introduction of the book Taktikon, on page 9, on the back, is printed: in some cases the word is deeds, in others the second takes more than the first. What kind of extortion is this? Whoever, by guessing, does not imagine the Greek original, will, of course, not guess what the translation wants to say here. 4) The book of tactics on sheet 1 says: it is appropriate to celebrate either a holiday, or a simple day, it is fitting for a priest to eat, to do the deaconry without sparingly. Will the reader truly know from these words what he is told to know? 5) On the back of the same sheet about the hours of Easter it is prescribed: having seen the resurrection of Christ, 3, and again Christ is risen, 3, and even if he descended immortal in the tomb, and Lord have mercy, 40. As proof of this order, Nikon refers to the statutes: Studio and Jerusalem. What after this? – should we correct the generally accepted, but also Jerusalem, church charter? 6) On sheet 13 it is printed: The studio type says that he does nine o’clock on every Wednesday and Friday. However, there are divine rules that prohibit those who are allowed to fast from excessive fasting, but God’s rules do not do great things for the sake of virtue, and even more so about divine service and communion, as is the commandment of the holy apostles to serve on Wednesdays and Fridays. It is not hoped that anyone could interpret these words without the help of the Greek original. And what if someone, based on trust in the book approved for publication by the Holy Synod, decides to extract from here the rule: not to do great things of God for the sake of virtue? 7) Sheet 16, on the back, it says: it is fitting to know how the fast (Assumption) of the Most Holy and Glorious Mother of God was not written in accordance with the order and does not lie. Therefore, the Orthodox Church contains a fast that is not written according to order and does not lie, that is, it is not prescribed. Further, on the same sheet it is said: we, as we lay down, should also hold this, having evidence from the divine scriptures. But if there is evidence about this fast from the divine scriptures, then how can one say that it was not written according to order and does not lie? 8) On sheet 17 it is printed: on the feast of Ubo (Transfiguration of the Lord), everything is allowed, you can still eat. That is, for meat. There is no need to say how inconsistent this is with the actual church charter. 9) On the back of sheet 22 it is printed: the abbess does not now have a legitimate position, but is lower in rank from the divine scriptures: for this reason, it is by no means commanded by the divine scriptures to be. Someone was so happy about this saying that he took the first half of it out onto the margin of the book. This is how it was printed, although, however, this statement is not in the 1728 manuscript. To whom did this saying seem so important? There seems to be no more probable guess than that this was recovered by a schismatic of the priestless sect. How rejoiced this sect would have been, and what weapons it would have received against the church if this saying had been published with the approval of the Holy Synod! 10) On sheets 23 and 24 the following is read: “And this and this alone are the essence of creating, or twice, and three times, and within three tenths of the years that exist in those ages, they are worthy of all mercy, even if they have sins that are very great. Just as three tenths of a year outside are worthy of much condemnation, even if they are very small. “So, for example, a murderer under thirty years of age is worthy of all mercy during confession, but one who offends his neighbor with an angry word, if he is more than thirty years old, is worthy of much condemnation! What is this rule based on? And what is it good for, except to encourage people who are not yet thirty years old to commit vices? 11) On the same sheet, years of penance for various sins were not assigned according to the rules of the holy councils and holy fathers accepted by the church, and no reason was given for deviation from these rules. 12) On the back of the same sheet it is said: “In double fasting, the holy apostles and Saint Philip are ordered not to touch meat by the laity, but by the monks of cheese and eggs, except on the day of Saint John, at sunset, if they want, and on the Entry of the Holy Mother of God, and behold, if asked otherwise. So, if they want, on Peter’s Fast, on the Nativity of John the Baptist, at sunset, laymen can eat meat, and monks can eat cheese and eggs; also, if asked otherwise, for the Entry of the Mother of God into the Nativity Fast! “I don’t think there is any need for proof that such rules should not be published with the approval of the Holy Synod. When considering the extracts and comments presented here, attention should also be paid to the fact that they are taken from a few pages of the book. What would be found in a whole book? Moreover, extracts from a few sheets are made only for example. And if one were to notice everything dark or dubious in these sheets, then the number of comments, of necessity, would multiply several times. The first book, called a combination (since it is a composition of extracts from different books), should be given a great advantage over the second, both in the clarity of the language and in the dignity of the content. But even here there are articles of dubious authenticity and even clearly fraudulent ones. For example, on sheet 306 it is printed, under the title: “the holy apostles, the following: neither the king is wicked, there is a king, but a tormentor, nor a bishop (according to the manuscript) to falsely change, and so on. Where did the holy apostles write this? All in all, the following conclusion seems necessary: since in the book of St. Nikon, as it is in the Slavonic translation, there is a lot that is not only unintelligible, but also false, and contrary to the traditions and rules of the holy conciliar and apostolic churches, then precaution requires that its printing, by decree of the Holy Synod, be held in the synodal printing house, at least until a serviceable Greek original is found that would help clear the translation, and it is more reliable to determine the degree of trust that a book deserves. Which I respectfully report to the Holy Synod 178 No. 483. December, 1826 December 22. Extract from the letter of Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Prince A. N. Golitsyn, on the case of the marriage of the adjutant A. P. Mansurov 179 Prince A.N. Golitsyn, in a letter dated November 30, informed Metropolitan Philaret that he read his note about the marriage of Adjutant Mansurov to the Sovereign Emperor, and the Sovereign instructed him to ask the Metropolitan to delay his judgment on the marriage itself, because Mansurov, who must therefore answer to the consistory, is being sent by the Sovereign abroad with an assignment. The judgment about the priest and the clergy should be separated from this marriage matter and judged separately, now, on the basis of the laws. The letter, dated December 22, says: your letter, dated November 30, gave me the opportunity to enter a labyrinth of thoughts from which I still cannot find a way out. One thing, although done by two guilty parties, how to divide? How can I remain faithful at the same time? 180. December 30th. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to Metropolitan Seraphim of Novgorod and St. Petersburg, regarding the admission of Meiners’s work to theological seminaries, as a tool for teaching literature In my letter, dated the 10th day of October 181, this year, I forwarded to your Eminence a list from my mark on the journal of the seminary board regarding the opening of a subscription between students for the book: the outline of the theory and history of the fine sciences, Meiners. Your Eminence, dated the 20th day of October, answered me that I did well in addressing this subject, in a particular way, to you and the chief prosecutor, and not formally to the commission of theological schools. On December 7, Prince Pyotr Sergeevich writes to me about this subject, on instructions from members of the commission of theological schools 182. If a secular person needs to be a mediator between your Eminence and me, I don’t wish for better. But when I realize that I wrote not to the commission of theological schools and not to its members in general, but actually to your Eminence (having notified the synodal chief prosecutor of this, so that he, as the one in charge of the distribution of books, would pay attention to my comments in a timely manner), that your Eminence approved this image of my attitude towards you personally, which, as is known from my presence in the commission of theological schools To me, communications and on formal matters of the commission of theological schools with bishops are carried out through your Eminence, and through the Synodal Chief Prosecutor usually with secular persons: then I am forced to make sure that the failure to receive a direct answer from your Eminence in such circumstances is a very sad sign for me, and I find myself at a loss as to what to do next. I would willingly seek refuge in silence, but the accusations against me and the demands from me made in the letter of Prince Pyotr Sergeevich do not allow this. I must justify myself and answer, and I dare to address this, as before, to your Eminence, thinking that this is in accordance with the spirit of the hierarchy, with the accepted order and with my hope for your justice and condescension. In a letter from Prince Peter Sergeevich it is said that the commission, on June 6, 1825, put a journal, and, according to it, academic boards were ordered to use the rhetoric of Burgia in literature classes in seminaries, with the addition of the above-mentioned book by Meiners. What does with addition mean? If the professor adds Meiners’s book to a manual for Burgia’s classic book, this, in my opinion, does not promise much benefit; however, with reasoning and precaution, it can be allowed without prejudice, as stated in my note on the journal of the seminary board. And if Meiners’ book joins Burgieva in the hands of students, then I am still of the opinion that this is accompanied by incongruities and indecencies, briefly shown in the mentioned note. The letter from Prince Pyotr Sergeevich says further: but that order does not say anything about a subscription to it. Very good. Consequently, I am not against the position of the commission of theological schools. He suggested that the seminary board not collect subscriptions for this book. I suggested not to do what the commission of theological schools had not prescribed. Further, in the letter of Prince Peter Sergeevich it is said: this book has been assigned both because the short theory of literature has not yet been published in the Russian language, and because it, according to the highest approved regulations, has already been recognized as classical for Greek-Russian schools. I leave the first reason without research that could lead to a literary dispute. I dwell on the second, that Meiners’ book is a classic, according to the highest approved charters of schools. Why is the highest statement mentioned here, if not so that a person who has expressed an unfavorable opinion about Meiners' book can be accused of acting against the highest statement? It is no small matter to throw such a mountain of accusations at your neighbor, and especially through the hands of members of the commission of theological schools, whose accusation, if it reaches the ears of the Sovereign Emperor, naturally should be accepted with the highest confidence. In this case, both justice and philanthropy demanded to look at least at the title page of the school regulations; and they would have seen what is written there: a draft charter, and not a charter approved by the highest, and your Eminence, being among those who signed the school charters, during their second edition, please remember that then the commission of theological schools did not dare to submit them for the highest approval, precisely as a precaution, so as not to prematurely imprint with the highest name such a matter, which, according to further experience, may turn out to require further corrections. It would also be useful to indicate at what point in the statute Meiners’ book is recognized as a classic; for, to my surprise, the name of this book was not found at all in the statutes. I appeal to the impartiality of your Eminence to protect me from an accusation, no matter how grave, just as clearly unjust. The letter further says: the analysis of works, which occupies most of this book, can not only introduce all types of literature, with benefit for the formation of taste, but even replace the analyzed authors, which students cannot have. My note already says that this book introduces too much of the types of literature that are not necessary for spiritual students, such as theatrical works, and too little of the type of literature that is actually needed for theological schools. Is it fair that Meiners’s analysis of, for example, Milton’s famous poem, which is written on three and a half octagons of paper and in which only four verses are copied from Milton, can replace Milton’s book itself, I submit to your Eminence’s consideration. Will they not also say that an analysis of the inflated farces of Lucan can replace Homer and Virgil, which Meiners does not analyze at all? The letter further says: passages on pages 142 and 143 about the words Aristophanes put into the mouth of Socrates, refuting the existence and providence of Zeus, and on pages 186 and 187 about Tartuffe, or the hypocrite, Moliere, could be harmful for inexperienced readers if they read this book without the guidance of mentors, and if the author had not observed the necessary caution explanation and qualification of these passages, on pages 132 and 185. Firstly, I ask you to remember that, as already explained in my note, I recognize the words of the theatrical Socrates as tempting for home reading for students who have not yet learned the art of resolving sophisms, not because they are against Zeus, but because they contain false reasoning against the existence and providence of God. Secondly, when members of the commission of theological schools admit that the noted passages of the book could be harmful for inexperienced readers if they read this book without the guidance of mentors, then they are asserting the same thing that I am asserting; That’s why I suggested to the seminary board not to open subscriptions for this book between students and not to distribute it door to door, so that students would not read it without the guidance of their mentors. Thirdly, with regard to explanations and reservations, on pages 132 and 185: on the first of these pages it is said, however, that Aristophanes’s ridicule insults truth and virtue; but this general denunciation is not yet sufficient for inexperienced readers to resolve the false thinking that they will encounter in extracts from Aristophanes, and in the last, that is, on page 185, not only is there no warning against the temptation of other places in the book, but this very page is one of the seductive and unsuitable for the growing youth. If I were to write out this page here as proof of this opinion, then I could be accused of insulting modesty. The letter further says: Martial's verses, on pages 242 and 243, could have been considered harmful if the author had not proven either the incorrect opinion of the ancients about the type of writing referred to here, and if he had not immediately called the obscene obscene. So, the members of the commission of theological schools admit that in the indicated verses of Martial there is obscenity, and that they could be considered harmful. But how is this allowed? Because the verses are cited as proof of the wrong opinion of the ancients, and that the obscene is called obscene. So, is it really possible to give obscene and shameless speeches about obscene matters to children to read, making only the reservation that it is obscene and that this is a wrong opinion? For in the indicated verses of Martial, as I have already said in the note, there are, for the most part, such speeches that any well-behaved person would be ashamed to utter. I remain of my previous opinion that Martial’s poems should be dealt with according to his own judgment: pes quos praelegat in schola magister, that is, that they should not be read by a school teacher, and for the same reason they should not be distributed to students in their homes. In general, regarding Meypers’s book, I conclude, as before, that it should, if not completely exclude it from the list of auxiliary books, at least warn the school authorities so that they do not make the same order as was taken in the Moscow seminary, that is, so that this book is not distributed to students by subscription; and again I humbly ask your Eminence to pay attention to this matter, which concerns the protection of good thoughts and good morals of youth brought up in theological schools. There are much more bad places and shortcomings in this book than I noticed as an example. It remains for me to respond to the comments of the members of the commission of theological schools regarding the progress of this matter, and to their demand for future cases. In the letter it is noted that the journal about the purchase of Meiners’ book was also signed by me. As far as I can remember, when the commission of theological schools was in Moscow last summer, it was reported that money had been paid for the publication of this book, ordered by the commission from St. Petersburg. This was not the time to discuss the merits of the book; it was necessary to satisfy the publisher according to the condition made. It was necessary to discuss the book when the publication was ordered, and even earlier, when it was appointed auxiliary, which was decided back in 1825, when I was not on the commission of theological schools. But if I truly made a mistake by signing a journal about the payment of money for a book, against which it now turns out that it is necessary to take precautions, in this case I ask you to correct my mistake and take the necessary precautions. The letter noted that if I found a book useless, or indecent and even harmful, then, in the opinion of the members of the commission, it was necessary to first communicate with her or one of its members about it. If in this case I made a mistake, then I dare to hope that it deserves an apology, firstly because what they accuse me of now, your Eminence did not accuse me of, and even approved, as shown above, that I was not formally included in the commission of theological schools; secondly, because, based on my own experience, I received an indecisive answer to my letter dated October 10 two months later, it is obvious that if I had entered into this correspondence in advance, during the course of the correspondence the book would have been written out, and the temptation that I am trying to ward off would have already been done. Finally, in such cases, I am required to first inform the commission or one of its members about my comments. Since this requirement leads me to bewilderment, then, on the basis of the Spiritual Regulations on the Affairs of Bishops, paragraph 4, it is my duty to submit the following for the permission of your Eminence: The Commission of Theological Schools is not like the Holy Synod. It is not a strictly hierarchical place, because it also contains secular persons, to whom it would be inconsistent with the order of the church hierarchy to subordinate the affairs of bishops. On this, in my opinion, is based the decree according to which bishops enter representations into the Holy Synod, and, on the affairs of the commission of theological schools, the commission of theological schools does not prescribe to the bishops, but communicates with them, and if necessary, presents the instructions to the Holy Synod. And so, if a bishop sees a book entering the schools of the diocese entrusted to him that is indecent and dangerous for the decency and good morals of the studying youth: does he have the right and duty, according to his rank, and vow, and the episcopal charter commanding him to have extreme care for the schools, does he, I say, have the right and duty, to immediately stop the book and let the commission of theological schools or its members know about it; or, on the contrary, should he initiate preliminary correspondence about this? And if, during the preliminary correspondence, the book spreads and makes harmful impressions, can the bishop, in allowing this temptation, justify himself before the church and before his conscience by the fact that he ordered the preliminary correspondence with the commission of theological schools or any of its members? It seems to me necessary to resolve this perplexity before I can give an answer to the demand proposed to me on behalf of the members of the commission of theological schools. I beg your Eminence to accept my present letter as forced by necessity to respond to what was written to me, and to justify the accusations made against me; and I humbly ask you to be confident in my sincere desire to receive and in your complete readiness to accept your fatherly instruction to me, for the benefit of the service entrusted to me, which, having begun with your peaceful blessing, I wish to finish with the same. My weakness, already known to your Eminence, is the reason that I was forced to use someone else’s hand for this letter 183. The case of the Muscovites. Office of the Holy Synod, 1826, No. 14. Ternovsky-Platonov, N. M., from 1826 to 1834 was a teacher of literature, civil history and German. at the Moscow seminary; passed away in 1849 with the rank of court councilor. Sergievsky, A. P.; At the end of the course, he was left at the academy with a bachelor's degree in Greek. In 1831, having married Philaret's own niece, he was ordained a priest, and died in 1834. Bogoyavlensky, I. P.; upon completion of the course, he was appointed professor at the Tver Seminary; from 1827, bachelor of the academy in the class of Jewish language, in 1832 he was dismissed from his position, and in 1850 he died. in Moscow. Rozhdestvensky, P. P.; upon completion of the course, he was appointed professor at the Postal Seminary; now the archpriest of the Moscow Predtechevskaya, under the forest, church, a member of the consistory and chairman of the society of lovers of spiritual enlightenment. passed away in the rank of archpriest of the Moscow St. Nicholas Church, on the Arbat. The journal was signed by the rector, Archimandrite Polycarp; inspector, Archimandrite Evlampius; professor of philosophy Feodor Golubinsky; professor of mathematics Pyotr Delitsyn; Bachelor of Church History Theodore Platonov; Bachelor of General Literature Platon Dobrokhotov. Case comm. spirit. taught, stored in the archives of the Holy Synod, 1826, No. 48–2660; l. 1, 4–9. Count Mikhail Andreevich Miloradovich, military governor of St. Petersburg; killed by rebels December 14, 1825 The case is Moscow. Office of the Holy Synod, 1826, No. 114. The list of students in the lower division of the academy is not included. Pallady (Vinogradov), upon completion of the course, was appointed inspector of the Kazan seminary; then he was rector of the Perm family; died in 1835. Innokenty (Nekrasov), upon completion of the course, was appointed rector of the Borovsk schools, then was an inspector of the Kazan seminary and finally rector of the Novgorod one. In 1842 he was retired, and in 1843 he died. The original list was signed by: rector, Archimandrite Polycarp; inspector, Archimandrite Evlampius; professor of mathematics Pyotr Delitsyn; professor of philosophy Osodore Golubinsky; Bachelor of Church History Seodor Platonov; Bachelor of General Literature Platon Dobrokhotov. At the top of the list there is a note July 7. Watched. Filaret, Archbishop of Moscow. For these six students, see above, page 141. Case comm. spirit. taught, kept in the archives of the Holy Synod, 1826, No. 48–2660, l. 10–12, 23 and 24. August 22, 1826, Archbishop. Filaret was granted the rank of Metropolitan of Moscow. Meiners, Christopher, professor of philosophy at Göttingen; †1810 His work, entitled: “The Main Outline of the Theory and History of the Fine Sciences,” translated from German by P. Sochatzin, had two editions, in 1803 and 1826. (See the list of Russian books in the Bible. A. Smirdin, No. 6007. St. Petersburg, 1828). From a copy. Inventory No. 113; document No. 22 and to No. 22. In the person of Seraphim, Metropolitan of Nov. and St. Petersburg, Evgenia, Metropolitan. Kyiv, Jonah, Archbishop. Tver, Abraham, Archbishop. Yaroslavsky, Archpriest Nikolai Muzovsky and Archpriest Pavel Modzhuginsky. The case of the Holy Synod, keeping. in his archive, 1826, No. 797, pp. 43–47. About him, see vol. 1, p. 234. On the original, in Metropolitan Philaret’s own handwriting, it is written opposite this place on the margin of the paper. “It is attached to this.” From the original, storing in secret papers chancellor Chief Prosecutor St. Synod, 1826, No. 99, l. 1–19. From a handwritten original. Inventory No. 50; document No. 2. Nikon, tonsured and then rector of the Mother of God monastery, after expulsion from it, lived in the monastery of Simeon the Divnogorets, called the Black Mountain, which is near Antioch, and here, in 1088, on behalf of Theodosius, wrote collections of rules of deanery and morality, namely: a) Pandektu, b) Typikon (Tatkikon) and etc. (See Historical teaching about the Fathers of the Church, Philaret, Archbishop of Chernigov, vol. III, p. 318, note 13). Works by Rev. Nikon, in a Slavic translation, is available in several manuscripts of the Moscow Synod. libraries. See index Moscow. patriarchal (now synodal) library, archim. Savva (now Archbishop of Tver and Kashinsky), ed. 3. M., 1858, p. 213. Copies of this document are stored: a) in the office of the Novgorod and St. Petersburg Metropolitan, in the files of 1826, and b) in the library of the Moscow Theological Academy, in the papers of Metropolitan Philaret, 1826, No. 1. From a handwritten original. Inventory No. 50; documents No. 2 and 3. Seraphim, Metropolitan Novgorod. and St. Petersburg Evgeniy, Metropolitan Kyiv, Gregory, bishop. Kaluga, spiritual, prot. P. Krinitskaya and Chief Prosecutor. Prince P.S. Meshchersky. From a copy. Inventory No. 113; document No. 27.