1849 г.

January 22. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count N.A. Protasov, with an opinion on some issues that arise during the consideration of cases of bigamy, for the resolution of which there are no positive legal provisions Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count N.A. Protasov, in a statement dated September 23, 1848, No. 6125, asked Metropolitan Philaret to report conclusions on some issues that arise when considering cases of bigamy, for the resolution of which there are no positive legal provisions. Attached to the case was a note that briefly outlined both the essence of the cases mentioned and the questions that arose regarding them. A note was made on this regard by the hand of the Metropolitan. 1849, January 22, responsible. By reference, dated September 23, 1848, No. 6125, your Excellency requested my opinion on certain cases of bigamy. In order to express myself as briefly as possible, I am enclosing the note sent to me about these matters, and without repeating the statement of affairs contained in it, I limit myself to the necessary considerations and conclusions. 1) Ustinya Dokuchaeva’s bigamy, as one might guess, occurred after her first husband was given up as a soldier, and without the hope of his return, therefore this matter deserves an accusatory decision. And therefore, since her first marriage, by the fate of God, ended with the death of her first husband, in 1825, before the case of bigamy arose, the diocesan authorities had good reason to recognize the second marriage from the time of the death of the first husband, and to clear the guilt of bigamy with church repentance. As a result of this, the son, Onisim, if born after the death of his first husband, receives the right of a legitimate son, and Ivan, born in 1818, of necessity, remains illegitimate. 2) It is more difficult to judge the bigamy of Fedosya Sapulina, because the note does not even give a chance to guess about the reason for the bigamy. But even in this case, the death of the first husband, before the trial of bigamy, can be taken as an arrangement of providence for a lenient judgment on the matter. And you can agree with the diocesan authorities to leave the second marriage without dissolution. But the children from this marriage can be considered legitimate only those who were born after the end of the first marriage - the death of the first husband - and those born during the life of the first husband can be considered illegitimate, which, by the way, constitutes some kind of punishment that the guilty woman has prepared for herself. 3) The bigamy of the military peasant Timofey Kolesnikov is greatly excused by the fact that his second wife Zinovia disappeared without a trace and was unknown where she was, and even more so by the fact that he entered into a third marriage on the orders of his military superiors. This last circumstance was especially relieving for his conscience, and it is not surprising that, for this reason, he did not bother to find out whether it was necessary to wait five years after his wife’s escape and ask for a formal dissolution of the marriage. Therefore, it would not be unfair, even during Zinovia’s life, to recognize her marriage as destroyed through her escape, and even more so, after her death, it would be fair to recognize Kolesnikov’s third marriage as legal, as well as the children from him. From considering these examples, your Excellency can already conclude my opinion regarding the general issues that comprise the note. In church rules, as in all laws, all possible cases of affairs could not be defined, which from time to time, from place to place, would be born in new diversity, and do not always rise to the highest legislative power. Therefore, it is not surprising that the church rules do not directly resolve the cases now considered, and it remains to be guided by the possible application of the rules and moral and legal considerations. Of the two questions proposed in the note, I will make one that is obviously more difficult, but can lead to a solution. Is it appropriate that of the children of the same marriage, some are recognized as legitimate, while others are not recognized? I answer: there is a consistency in this, as can be seen from the following: For a marriage to be fully valid, two conditions are required: 1) the blessing of the church, and 2) unhindered relations between the spouses. A husband married to another by a living wife has the first condition for the validity of the marriage, but does not have the second, and the marriage is invalid and so are the children. But when the first wife died, then fate, in some way, conceded to the bigamist the second condition of marriage, personal unhinderedness, that had not previously belonged to him. From now on, the church authorities can, out of condescension, recognize the marriage as fully valid, as well as its consequences, and therefore the children, as legitimate 268 . In March. Metropolitan Philaret's proposal to the Moscow Synodal Office on the rules prescribed by the Moscow Consistory regarding the gospel for church services 1849, March day. Due to the duty of monitoring the correct timing of church services, and especially due to the circumstances of the present time, it is considered necessary for cathedrals, monasteries and churches to confirm the following: 1) In general, do not begin the gospel for church services before the gospel of the Assumption Cathedral. 2) The good news for early liturgies should be short-lived in a smaller bell, and especially in the Kremlin and near the Kremlin. 3) Before Matins, on the day of Holy Pascha, there should be reliable and prudent clerics in the bell towers; and it is not superfluous for them to have a watch with them, as a precaution against premature, sinful gospel. 4) If there are cannon shots in the Kremlin before Easter morning (of which there should be three within an hour), then, also as a precaution, do not rely on them for the good news. 5) To begin the good news for Easter morning, listen to the Assumption Bell, listen to the first strike in silence, and start the good news on the second. 6) Bell towers distant from the Kremlin, which may not hear the Kremlin bell, begin to ring the gospel according to the gospel of those churches that are closer to the Kremlin, and not pay attention to those that are further than them. 7) The dean must monitor the exact execution of this order and report the violator immediately. The consistory will carry this out. The office, according to the journal of the same date, made an order 269 corresponding to this proposal. July 23. Report to the Holy Synod of Metropolitan Philaret with an opinion and conclusion, at the request of Count D.N. Bludov, about the delivery to him of books and papers stored in the Moscow patriarchal and synodal printing libraries Chief Prosecutor, Holy Synod, Count N.A. Protasov, proposed to the Holy Synod, dated May 26, 1849, for No. 3164, the attitude of the chief manager of the 2nd department of His Imperial Majesty’s own office, Count D.N. Bludov 270, with the announcement of the highest permission for him to review and, as much as possible, revise the manuscripts and printed books located in the Moscow patriarchal and synodal printing libraries and archives, as well as in the archives of the Chudov Monastery, not excluding those that are stored in them under the seal of the Holy Synod, but in essence are not subject to any state secret. On the one hand, not having the opportunity, both due to the shortness of time and for other reasons, to print the papers and books sent to the designated book depositories under the seal of the Holy Synod, and on the other, bearing in mind that these sealed packages may contain monuments important for Russian history or literature, and those that, due to their rarity, should be included in the proposed state repository of antiquities, Count Bludov asked Count Protasov to make an order about the delivery of these books and papers to St. Petersburg, for transferring them to him for consideration, according to their proper printing, where and how to follow. The Holy Synod, by decree of June 8, 1849, No. 5214, having notified Metropolitan Philaret of the above demand of Count Bludov, ordered that he present his thoughts and opinions on this subject. Metropolitan Philaret, dated July 23, No. 336, reported to the Holy Synod. By Decree of the Holy Synod, dated June 8, No. 5214, I was ordered to submit to the Holy Synod considerations and opinions on the subject of delivery to St. Petersburg of books and papers stored, under seal, in the Moscow Patriarchal and Synodal Printing Libraries, for delivery, by proper printing, where appropriate, to the Chief Administrator of the 2nd Department of His Imperial Majesty’s own office, with the aim of opening monuments that are important for Russian history or literature, and should be included in the proposed state repository of antiquities. To fulfill this, I have requested from the Synodal and Synodal-Typographical libraries the inventories of sealed manuscripts and books, which are also attached. Therefore, it is revealed that among the sealed manuscripts and books, there are no monuments important for Russian literature, as well as for Russian state history, which could constitute an essential part of the supposed state repository of antiquities. The sealed manuscripts of the Synodal library all relate to heresies and church government, namely: 1) The case of the heretics Tveritinov, Kosovo, the schoolboy Maksimov and the barber Ivanov. 2) The conciliar act of 6665 against the Armenian Martin. 3) A book about animal bread manna, Sylvester Medvedev. 4) The case of the trial of Patriarch Nikon. The sealed books of the Synodal Printing Library are as follows: 6) Search for why Roman emperors were called pontifexes, and whether Christian sovereigns can be called bishops. 7) On raising the name of the patriarchs Thus, from the very titles it is clear that the said manuscripts and books, just as there is no need to enter the state repository, so there is a need to remain in the spiritual department. Under the seal lies both the object and the reason for the seal. But the church seal makes it clear that the reason for the sealing was ecclesiastical. This again leads to the conclusion that the sealed 271 remains in the church department. What has been revealed so far, in my opinion, would not be superfluous, before printing the books and manuscripts, to be submitted to the consideration of the Chief Administrator of the 2nd Department of His Imperial Majesty’s own Chancellery. But if for this purpose the manuscripts and books mentioned above are required, then it will be necessary to request them, under seal, to the Holy Synod, open them there, deduce from the examination of what was printed the reasons for the sealing, and then make a final conclusion under what conditions they should be handed over, as a precaution against unfavorable consequences. For sealing was used, of course, for nothing other than to prevent the unfavorable consequences of publicity. Your Holiness's humblest novice. Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow No. 336. July 23, 1849. The response of Metropolitan Philaret, as determined by the Holy Synod, dated August 10–19, 1849, was given to the synodal chief prosecutor to inform Count D.N. Bludov 272. August 28. Report to the Holy Synod of Metropolitan Philaret on church hymns Report to the Most Holy Governing Synod, from its member Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow. In pursuance of the decree of the Holy Synod, dated September 13, 1848, No. 9710, a committee was formed in Moscow to test the newly translated church singing. Nikolobolshekrestovsky archpriest, master Nikifor Zercheninov, was appointed as its first member, as capable of managing the actions of the committee and worthy of trust in the thoroughness of his judgment. Other members were: archpriest of the widow's house Pavel Nekhotenov, especially skilled in musical singing, Edinoverie priest John Nikitin, knowledgeable in ancient singing used in Edinoverie churches, and Archangel Cathedral Protodeacon Nikolai Shumov, also skilled in singing. To this committee, according to the decree of the Holy Synod, were assigned the regent of the bishop's choir and eleven clergy, knowledgeable in singing and having voices capable of performing the musical notes sent. To this committee were also sent, under the decrees of the Holy Synod, dated October 9, 1848, No. 10675, a short irmology, and dated March 8, 1849, No. 1413, a notebook with chants from each voice of the Octoechos. On August 4, this committee presented the journals of its activities and the final report. He explains that upon receiving copies of the abbreviated irmology znamenny chant and a notebook of the first stichera and the Theotokos of all eight voices of the octoechus, he had the need, for the convenience of singing in four voices, to copy each voice separately from the score, which prevented his studies from proceeding hastily. Having compared the newly transcribed irmology and stichera with the same ancient ones used in the church, the committee made comments and conclusions, the presentation of which in its report is word for word as follows: “with the visible similarity of the notes in the new arrangement for the most part with the notes in the editions of the spiritual printing house, a noticeable deviation from harmony and melody is noticed by the ear, even unfamiliar with the science of singing; some new or unfamiliar singing is heard. Delving into the reasons for such a deviation, one can see that it comes from the omission of the main rule, according to which the translator, as soon as he brings known data into a harmonic form, and not the composer of a new one, undertakes in one of the four voices chosen by him to strictly accurately retain the ancient church melody, as has long been familiar and pleasant to the Orthodox listener. But in the new arrangement it is seen that the character of this main melody, which here is mostly based on the treble, is not exactly maintained. “It is impossible not to notice that the Mother of God or dogmatists, hitherto preserved in the constant uniformity of the ancient melody even in all parish churches, and in agreement with the melody among fellow believers, such dogmatists, whose melody, so to speak, has already become akin to the ear and soul of the Orthodox, have changed a lot in character in the new arrangement, especially in 1, 2, 5, 6 and 8 voices And therefore, we can confidently believe that they will not gain approval from Orthodox readers of ancient church singing. The Moscow Consistory, from which I demanded an opinion on this, presented to me: “since the committee established from particularly experienced and trustworthy persons to test the newly translated church chant explains that in the new transcription of the Irmolog and the first stichera and the Theotokos octoechus in the notebook sent, the character of the ancient chant has been greatly changed: what is explained by the committee is considered worthy of respect.” Because of my other job responsibilities, I was not able to participate in all committee meetings. But I listened to some verses, performed by the above-mentioned clergy, in the presence of the committee. The theory of art is unknown to me. But about sixty years ago, taught to sing according to the octoechus, and then according to everyday life, by an ancient priest, versed in church sweet singing, who was taught by example not only to choose notes, but also to feel the spirit of church singing, and since then, constantly familiar with this singing, I think I can allow myself some judgment on this subject. Regarding the poems I heard, I agreed with the approval of the committee; but also had the conviction to agree with his remarks. Therefore, the conclusion required from me by the Holy Synod is the following: 1) regarding those parts of the musical arrangement under consideration that have not yet been published, ask the person in charge of these arrangements to have them revised and compiled: firstly, if possible, exactly similar to the ancient tune, which, as noted in the decree of the Holy Synod, with the character of calm importance and tenderness, is pleasant to reverent ears, is familiar to the Orthodox people, and does not give reason to co-religionists and schismatics bickering; secondly, as simply as possible, because it will have to be performed partly by choirs that are not quite perfect, but mostly by clergy; and therefore, an arrangement made with subtle skill and excellent when performed by a perfect court choir will be all the more disfigured by singers who are imperfect both in their voices and in the study of singing. 2) Those parts of the musical arrangement that have already been printed should be allowed to be used in bishops’ and seminary choirs, so that according to it, verses set out more similar to ancient singing will be performed, and in the performance of others it will be allowed to approach the ancient, without being embarrassed by the printed arrangement. Which I most respectfully report to the Holy Synod. With this, the irmology and the notebook of tunes are returned. Your Holiness's humblest novice. Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow No. 379. August 28, 1849 274 October 10. Metropolitan Philaret’s opinion on the question: is it possible to give schismatics priests who would be under the authority only of the civil authorities, for minor offenses they would be judged by the schismatics themselves, and for major offenses they would be sent to the Orthodox diocesan authorities 275 Having presented before the committee, to the best of my ability, my opinion on the issues regarding the split given by the St. Petersburg secret committee, I could consider the duty of a member fulfilled. But when the committee, at a meeting on March 29, this year 1848, 276, recognizing the difficulty of the subject under consideration, decided to have further judgment in the future, and especially on the question: whether it is necessary to allow schismatics of the clerical persuasion to have priests independent from the spiritual authorities, and for this purpose to enter into secret relations with the schismatics of the Rogozhsky cemetery, I cannot help but admit that this determination of the committee again imposes an obligation on me, enter into further research into the proposed issue and present my opinion. Here, firstly, the question requires consideration: is it convenient and reliable to enter into communication with schismatics and negotiations on the conditions under which they could accept priests? The clergy not only is not prevented by his character from entering into relations with schismatics, in order to admonish them and offer them means of drawing closer to the church, but this is also his duty. It is a completely different matter to enter into such relations on behalf of the government. Legitimate power, without prejudice to its dignity and in a trustworthy manner, can enter into relations, for the purpose of agreement and agreement, only with a society that legally exists. And entering into an agreement with a society that has fallen away from the legal authority and does not have a legal existence is not quite consistent with the dignity of the legal authority and can be harmful, because an illegal society, entering into negotiations with the legal authority, through this very thing, in some way, acquires the character of a recognized class, and, moreover, receives the consciousness that they see in it enough strength to contradict and resist, and, thus, it can become more unyielding than it was before the negotiations. Therefore, it seems inconvenient to ask for the highest permission to enter into negotiations with schismatics. Any intransigence on their part would be especially inappropriate and should not be allowed when using the highest name. The assumption that the negotiations with the schismatics were secret in some way implies an admission that the publicity of these negotiations would have unfavorable consequences. But keeping a secret in this case is too unreliable. Dissenters allowed into intercourse will be interested in informing their like-minded people about this intercourse; and it is already known from experience with what speed such information from a few schismatics spreads among everyone. Moreover, the supposed communication with the schismatics does not promise to reveal anything from their side that was not already known. Under what conditions they wish to have priests, this is known from their repeated petitions, which were disrespected by the government. If necessary, you can revise their already known assumptions, without opening new negotiations with them. It is known that schismatics of the clerical persuasion wish to accept priests who actually serve in dioceses or supernumerary ones, at their own discretion, with the obligation to let the civil authorities know about them, and so that the priests they accept are outside of any relation to the bishops, are judged for minor offenses by the schismatics themselves and their priests, and for important offenses the schismatics are removed from service and sent to the Orthodox diocesan authorities. To this it is necessary to add what the schismatics keep silent from their superiors, but which they absolutely demand from the priests, namely, that in divine services they should not call the Sovereign Emperor most pious or most devout. There is no need to explain what the schismatics understand in this about the attitude of the Sovereign to the true, according to their concept, faith and church. This naturally follows another question: should the schismatics be given priests on the conditions now set forth? In my opinion it shouldn't. And although in support of this I have already presented some considerations in my opinion, March 29, 1848 277, however, due to the significant importance of the subject, I consider it my duty to present the following. I. Giving priests to schismatics so that these priests would go into schism would obviously be illegal and harmful. Everyone admits this; and therefore some are thinking of finding a way for priests to join schismatics on the above conditions, but not go into schism. This means is considered to be the requirement from schismatics that, when receiving a priest, they do not perform the so-called correction on him, that is, imaginary anointing, or uttering a curse on heresies, including Nikon’s, that is, on the Orthodox Church 278. How do they think about purifying a priest who comes to them from the unclean, in their opinion, Great Russian Church. But it is not difficult to foresee that schismatics will either eliminate this demand from themselves with some evasive answer; or, although they will not renounce it, they will continue in secret the correction, which even now, if possible, is not allowed to come to the attention of the authorities. A sect is never completely honest. Religious and moral truth are rays of the same light: where the former is mixed with error, the latter is also unclean. The sect, with its not quite free position, thinks to excuse the use of deceit in its defense before the government. It may be objected that a priest should not allow himself to be corrected. But in this case, the schismatics may send him away under some pretext or even with slander; and it is impossible to guarantee that out of the many priests in Russia they will not find those like the current fugitives who will follow their seductions; for even under the apostles there were troubles among the false brethren. If, therefore, the exclusive idea of ​​giving priests to schismatics with the elimination of corrections turns out to be unfeasible, then the general idea remains in full force that it should not be given. II. But even if we assume the possibility of eliminating the rule: the transition of the priest to the schismatics so as not to be dependent on the hierarchy, to depend on them, and to be judged by them, so as not to call the king the most pious and faithful, is not 279 already a transition of the priest to the schism? III. It is impossible to give priests to schismatics on the above conditions except in violation of church rules. 39 of the Apostolic Canon says: without the will of the bishop, let them not do anything, their presbyter or deacon, for to him are the Lord’s people entrusted. And so to release a presbyter to the schismatics for church action, independently of the bishop, means to act contrary to the apostolic rule, means to introduce the Lutheran element into the Orthodox Church. The 10th apostolic rule says: pray with those who are excommunicated, so that you yourself may be excommunicated. The schismatics, obviously, are both those who excommunicate themselves and those who are excommunicated from the Orthodox Church. And so the hierarchy, by releasing the priest to pray with them, would make both him and themselves guilty of the apostolic rule. IV. In order not to leave any significant aspect of the subject under consideration unexamined, let us assume that some will say: a priest can, when approaching schismatics, not in his heart renounce the hierarchy and the above-mentioned church rules, but only outwardly be out of touch with the hierarchy and perform the rites of schismatics out of condescension towards their prejudices. This would mean that the priest would be Orthodox in his heart, but in the eyes of schismatics and in his actions a schismatic, that he would be in an ambiguous and double-minded position. Shouldn't the government be careful not to direct a person to such a position, and especially a minister of the faith, who, according to the Apostle, should live in the simplicity (sincerity) and purity of God (2 Cor. 1:12)? My word goes to the secret committee; and therefore the secret will not be broken if I point out on this occasion an example found in the affairs of the St. Petersburg secret committee in 1821 or 1822. It was proposed to the local committee to make an experiment, to send skilled priests to the schismatics, who would appear among them not as sent from the church, but as if they had come to them at will, and were disposed to be in communion with them; and who, having entered into communication with them and gained their trust, would make them suggestions favorable to Orthodoxy. The good intentions of this proposal captivated the committee, and it drew up a determination about this, which, by the way, was signed by Metropolitan Seraphim of blessed memory, and was awarded approval in Bose by the late Sovereign Emperor Alexander Pavlovich. But when Metropolitan Seraphim was presented with the opportunity to carry this out, he saw that this could not be agreed with the church rules and with the sincerity of action characteristic of servants of the faith; proposed his difficulty to the committee; The committee took the liberty to submit to the Sovereign Emperor the cancellation of the made and approved determination, and the most pious Emperor deigned to do this, respecting the inviolability of church rules and the purity of the clergy conscience. So the current proposal to provide priests to the schismatics was already accepted in the previous reign and was canceled as unworkable. The fact that it is now supposed to deliver priests to the schismatics not directly from the bishops, but through the hands of the civil authorities, does not make a difference in the essence of the matter. The priests will be in that double-minded position in which Metropolitan Seraphim did not dare to put them; and the bishops, if they do not want to pretend not to understand what is understandable, will have to either condemn the priests who go to schismatics according to the rules, and consequently act not in the sense of the government, or remain participants in the violation of church rules by allowing the violation of them. V. It is impossible to give priests to schismatics on the basis stated above without causing confusion and difficulties in administration and legislation that have no outcome. For example, according to church rules, a priest has the right to perform the sacrament of marriage, but the power to terminate this sacrament, that is, to dissolve a marriage, belongs to the highest hierarchical level of the bishop. Let us assume that a priest independent of the bishop is given to schismatics, and that a parishioner comes to him for a legitimate reason to ask for a divorce. What will the priest do? This question is insoluble. It would be incongruous in any way to give a schismatic priest episcopal and even more episcopal power, because the bishop will not decide on the dissolution of a marriage on his own, but asks for synodal permission. Let us assume that the schismatics return the priest they once had to the diocesan authorities, declaring him unfit. How will the diocesan authorities judge him? Without research, relying on the accusatory report of schismatics would not be legal: and the research that, according to the law, must be carried out by the spiritual authorities, in a circle of schismatics inaccessible to them, is impossible. It may happen that schismatics, for the sake of suggestions inclining towards Orthodoxy, will form a crowd to slander and accuse the priest and will make the diocesan authorities an instrument of their revenge. The schismatics themselves demand that their priests keep metric records. More often, or less often, but it inevitably happens that metric records turn out to be incorrect, and as a result the rights of the estate or the rights of inheritance are called into question. Cases of this kind are judged by the diocesan authorities. But who will judge them among the schismatics? Will a schismatic consistory really be established? Who will approve its decisions? Moreover, schismatics do not like consistories. Their elders, commoners, love to exercise control over their priests, among other things. Thus, it is revealed that the establishment of special priests among the schismatics, independent of the bishops, would require a new statute on the schismatic structure and administration of the church, in any case irreconcilable with both the church rules and the Code of Laws. VI. The schismatics, having received priests dependent on themselves and independent of the diocesan bishops, would in many cases have an advantage over the Orthodox; because such priests, by their dependence on schismatics, would be strongly forced to please them with disregard for church rules and laws, which would also lead to the lack of supervision from spiritual authorities. So, for example, a marriage under age, or otherwise incorrect, is easier to accomplish through a schismatic than through an Orthodox priest. So, the idea that in the Old Believer faith there is more convenience for various worldly occasions, wouldn’t it be a new temptation for the ignorant to go into schism, especially with the multiplication of priests among schismatics? And on the contrary, the example of the dependence of priests on the laity among schismatics, would it not spread among the Orthodox people a disposition to evade obedience to the hierarchy and would it not weaken the general strength of the hierarchy? VII. If the evidence given for the opinion I defend is fair, as it should be, as based on church rules and laws, then it is necessary to conclude that the evidence for the opposite opinion can only be specious, and not strictly fair, because two opposite opinions cannot both be fair together. VIII. The schismatics, striving for unlimited freedom of action, try to present any restriction on their actions as oppression and persecution; and tolerance, not guarded by justice, can be inclined towards this way of thinking. But if you look from the point of view of justice, then the government’s action against schismatics, which raises complaints, is very far from what was called persecution in ancient times. If under Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich they dealt strictly with the schismatics who locked themselves in the Solovetsky Monastery, and under Tsars John and Peter with the schismatics who went on a rampage in the Kremlin and in the palace itself, this was a taming of the rebellion, not persecution. If a schismatic chapel built arbitrarily and illegally is not allowed to be repaired, but is only allowed to endure until it is destroyed by the force of time, this is not persecution, but condescension in that the illegal thing is not immediately destroyed. If a chapel is sealed because it was rebuilt contrary to the existing prohibition; This is not persecution, but the inevitable preservation of the law so that it is not despised. If a schismatic priest is taken to court for seducing an Orthodox one; This is not persecution, but the defense of the ruling church from an attack made on it, and even leniency in the fact that the fugitive was not persecuted for escaping, but was brought to justice only after a new crime. If the schismatics are not given priests who are independent of the spiritual authorities, the schismatics cannot complain about this, because they have no right to demand priests from a church to which they themselves do not want to belong. If priests were taken from the church, against its rules, and given over to the schismatics, the name persecution or oppression would be more appropriate here than in all the above-mentioned cases; but this would not be in relation to the schism, but in relation to the church. Here we can point to the taking of some monasteries from schismatics and their conversion to fellow believers. But if anyone had the idea to blame this action of the government, then he would have to blame many similar actions of the pious defenders of Orthodoxy, for example, he would have to blame the Emperor Theodosius and Saint Gregory the Theologian for taking away the main church of Constantinople from the Arians, and the emperor brought the saint into it under the protection of soldiers, as Saint Gregory himself says about this. If one of the Orthodox Christians had built a monastery without permission and tonsured monks in it without legal permission, would not the legal authorities have destroyed this, as they would have soon found out? Is it really only the self-will of the Orthodox that must be stopped, while the self-will of the schismatics must be left untouched? IX. Excessive tolerance can apply to the present case to too great an extent the undeniable rule that in matters of faith and conscience all coercion must be eliminated. The Code of Laws has assigned fair limits to the application of this rule. He commands not to persecute schismatics for their religious way of thinking and private prayer according to their ritual; but it prohibits the public display of schism, and the seduction of Orthodox Christians into schism, through this providing protection to the Orthodox Church. Providing schismatics with priests independent of hierarchies would, of course, belong not to what the Code of Laws allows, but to what it prohibits. Would the least significant effect of schism be the formal establishment among schismatics of priests belonging to the schismatics, and not to the hierarchy? In comparison with the seduction of a layman into a schism, is not the acquisition of an Orthodox priest at the schismatics’ own disposal a greater gain for the schism? And if it is recognized that in matters of faith and conscience there should be no coercion, then this, of course, is not only for schismatics, but also for Orthodox Christians. But wouldn’t it be a real coercion in matters of faith and conscience if Orthodox bishops were required to give priests to schismatics not according to the usual rules and church rites, but contrary to them; if the bishops became only suppliers of priests to schismatics, and executors of punishments against priests whom schismatics find worthy of condemnation? X. Political considerations may arise that require that, if possible, the schismatics be satisfied. But don’t political considerations also require that by granting schismatics liberties that church rules do not allow, and that the Orthodox do not have, not to disrupt the peace of the church and not to upset the spirit of the Orthodox population? Don’t political considerations require that we not favor the schismatics’ desire to form a separate society? But to place priests at their disposal, and their own court over them, and the formal formation of parishes, does not this mean favoring their individuality? Don’t political considerations require that we not favor the strengthening of the democratic principle that prevails among the schismatics, since they act partly as so-called trustees, arbitrarily elected, partly also through unauthorized deliberative meetings, and partly in special cases even in crowds of people? But to give them priests at the disposal of their society, independent of the hierarchy 280, does not this again mean favoring the democratic principle by subordinating the hierarchical principle to it? The word apostolic sometimes explains the state of Christianity through likening it to the army. Now, by the way, I will use this method of explanation for the subject under consideration. If the military leader, seeing part of the army disobedient, and at the same time in need of officers, and hearing the desire of the disobedient, to borrow officers from those in a legal position, with their removal from the legal authorities except in the case when the disobedient return them as unfit, agreed to this partly in the hope that the officers who had left power would bring the disobedient under power, partly in the calculation that the unworthy officers would upset the rebellious society: what would be such a policy? Would she be consistent with the dignity of her legal authorities, thorough and reliable? Wouldn't it be reprehensible to discipline an army in a legal position? But this would definitely be a policy that would give the schismatics from the spiritual authorities of the priests at their disposal, independent of the spiritual authorities. If, to base a new policy in relation to schismatics, an example is sought in the fact that the government, through the eyes of politics, looks at the transition of entire societies to Orthodoxy by such people who, even after their conversion, remain, as before, poorly versed or ignorant in the teaching of the Gospel: then, in this case, very dissimilar objects are compared, which therefore the comparison does not promise reliable conclusions. Moreover, if we carefully consider the political view of the government, for example, on the reunification of the former Uniates with the Orthodox Church: this view turns out to be pure and direct; This policy is not in conflict with either church rules or other grounds for legal action. When all the highest and almost all the subordinate Uniate clergy, after their internal conferences and preparations, which lasted several years, after they had prepared their flocks for reunification, had already established altars in their churches according to ancient Orthodox custom, and served the liturgy, according to the order and books published from the Holy Synod, finally in their assembly drew up an act of their determination to reunification with the Orthodox Church, and presented it to the government: the policy of the government, of course, was pleased with the matter, which was so favorable to state unity, but it was also pleased with the fact that this matter happened with such ecclesiastical correctness as had ever been observed in such a case. If the fact that at the same time the villagers remained, as before, ignorant of Christian teaching, was considered a reproachable concession of truth to politics, then similar blame should have been placed on the Equal-to-the-Apostles Prince Vladimir, who baptized the Kievites, and on the Apostle Peter himself, who, after one speech to the Jews about the faith of Christ, immediately baptized three thousand of his listeners, strengthened, of course, not by their sufficient understanding of dogmas, but by simple obedience to faith. No such concession, and a completely different policy, is required for the proposed delivery of priests to the schismatics. If, as one of the researchers of this subject explained, neither decency nor hierarchical dignity allows the spiritual authorities to enter into relations with schismatics and appoint priests to them; then what kind of politics can accomplish this, is it a politics that does not pay attention to decency and hierarchical dignity, which, disregarding legality, would take priests from the spiritual authorities and give them to schismatics? There is no doubt that such a policy is not in the spirit of the pious Russian government. XI. Since the first years of the current century, with excessive religious tolerance, apostasy from Orthodoxy has generally multiplied; and in particular, the priestly and non-priestly schisms increased in the number of followers, prayer houses and schismatic institutions. During the present reign, while tolerance was limited by justice and precaution, Orthodoxy gained from the schism, as is known from the reports of the ecclesiastical department for eleven years, 182,328 souls, and in total for all years, of course, no less than 200,000. With the supposed provision of the schism by priests, apostasies will undoubtedly increase again 281, and it is especially necessary to fear that co-religionists, recently reconciled, will waver with the Orthodox Church. Whether the schismatics will act moderately is now clear. What this committee is currently discussing is already known to them; but, having received only the hope of permission to receive priests, they began their choice not with ordinary priests and not with humble churches, but with the Moscow Archangel Cathedral. They invited the sacellary of this cathedral to be a priest in their cemetery. Thus, renewed research turns me to the conclusion I previously proposed, that it does not seem either correct, convenient, or useful to give schismatics from the civil authorities priests independent of the spiritual authorities. At present, according to information from those who know the situation of the schismatics of the Rogozhsky cemetery, in a significant number of them there is a desire, after the death of the remaining priests, to get closer to the Orthodox Church on the conditions existing to this day; and the hope opens that some will form a Edinoverie church in the cemetery itself, while others will join the pan-Orthodox church. Rural schismatics, invited to unite with the church, also repeatedly responded that they expected this to begin from the Rogozhsky cemetery. Nothing, in my opinion, prevents the government from extending its firmness in the present rules of its action in anticipation of this near limit of time and making efforts to take advantage of it. Believing this opinion, I looked at the subject before me and tried not to touch the judgments of others about it, to which I listen with sincere respect, and with sorrow that I cannot join them with conviction. But, so that silence does not serve as a reason for some misunderstandings, I find myself forced to explain that not everything is recognized as indisputable, which I really do not dispute. So, for example, the popovshchinsky and bespopovshchinsky schisms are not as ancient as some people think: the priestly schism is no older than the time of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, and the bespopovshchinsky schism is even younger. The opinion that schismatics of the priestless persuasion “do not recognize the external administration of the sacraments” is inaccurate. They recognize the sacraments of baptism and repentance. Equally, the opinion that they “do not recognize canonical rules” is not accurate. It is not clear to me what exactly it means to “undertake measures that arouse an alarm of conscience” and to what exact actions or assumptions does this strong judgment apply that “this would be a criminal preparation of the elements for a harmful violation of the existing order.” But just as when a strong blow falls somewhere, and someone standing on the side with an involuntary movement is removed further, so I withdraw from the stated judgment, not having the misfortune on my part to see anything close to this, neither in the measures taken or proposed by the government and authorities, nor in the reasoning about these measures. The opinion that religious schools “far from corresponding to the high goal of their purpose” is also not included in the judgment, as a subject not directly included in the present matter and subject to the care of the Holy Synod. Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow. Read at the meeting on October 10; 1849 282. October 10. Note from Metropolitan Philaret about priest Alexander Arsenyev In the opinion that I presented to the committee on March 29, 1848, by the way, it was suggested that priest Alexander Arsenyev, who had significant schismatics as spiritual children in Moscow, was called for the experience, who was at the Rogozhsky cemetery, and now of the same faith, in the Chernigov diocese, and therefore with hope can act to bring them closer to the Orthodox Church. This experiment, in this case, was partially accomplished. Some parishioners of the Moscow Edinoverie Church came to me with a request for the transfer of priest Arsenyev for the very purpose that I assumed, and then they let me know about his arrival in Moscow on vacation for two months. To this it was said that the priest Arsenyev should be invited to enter into relations with the former spiritual children, and if there is at least some success that gives further hope, I will help determine it in Moscow. But the petitioners did not come to me after this, and priest Arsenyev returned from Moscow much before the time given to him. To my question, what were his relations with his former spiritual children, and why was he in a hurry, he answered that his former spiritual children communicated to turn to him after the death of their current confessor, and that he had nothing more to do in Moscow. According to other sources, both co-religionists and schismatics cooled towards him due to unfavorable information that had been revealed about his former life at the Rogozhsky cemetery. Probably, the hope of the schismatics to obtain priests in another way, more in accordance with their desires, was also involved in this. I consider it my duty to bring this to the attention of the committee, as a subject about which there was previously speculation. Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow Read at the meeting on October 10, 1849. In the papers of the Metropolitan. Philaret, with the note printed under No. 324, preserved a document that sets out the opinions of the members of the Moscow committee: Count Arseny Andreevich Zakrevsky, Prince Sergei Mikhailovich Golitsyn, Count Sergei Grigoryevich Strogonov and Stepan Vasilyevich Perfilyev, on allowing schismatics to have Orthodox priests, namely: List from the journal of the supremely established secret advisory committee on schismatic and sectarian affairs, October 10, 1849. Heard. The opinion expressed by His Eminence, the Metropolitan of Moscow, on the assumption adopted at the meetings of this committee on March 29, last 1848 and March 3 of this 1849, is whether it is necessary to allow schismatics of the clerical persuasion to have, at their request, priests independent of the spiritual authorities, and for this purpose to enter with the schismatics of the Rogozhsky cemetery into the secret intercourse. As a result of the above considerations, the one proposing the opinion concludes that it seems neither correct, nor convenient, nor useful to give the schism the right to take priests from the spiritual authorities, at a disposal independent from the spiritual authorities, and that, according to the now revealed disposition of the schismatics of the Rogozhsky cemetery, after the death of the remaining priests with them, they can get closer to the Orthodox Church on the rules existing to this day, for which the rural schismatics are waiting for the example of the Rogozhsky cemetery, nothing prevents the government to extend its firmness in the present rules of its action in anticipation of this short period of time and make efforts to take advantage of it. After hearing this, His Excellency, Mr. The Moscow military governor-general remained with his opinion, proposed to the committee on March 3 of this year, in which, regarding the judgment of step marriages that arose between the schismatics of the Perm province who had previously accepted the priesthood, it was stated in detail that as a new false teaching this arose, spread and in a short time embraced the entire population of these schismatics in five vast provinces and was a consequence of strict government measures in the persecution and finally the complete confiscation of all the fugitive priests these schismatics had; and how the indicated measures of the government not only did not bring those schismatics closer to Orthodoxy or Edinoverie, but on the contrary achieved a result completely opposite to the goal and desire of the government, i.e., they gave birth to a new, even more dangerous heresy, which turned the huge population of schismatics from some belief and from observing, albeit through fugitive priests, religious rites, to a complete rejection of them and to non-recognition of the sacrament of marriage established by the church, then according to these respects to the government It is necessary, before taking any measures to bring these schismatics closer to Orthodoxy, to use all possible means to weaken the power of the newly spreading false teaching and to return these schismatics to the observance of religious rites, although still their beliefs, which can easily be achieved through some tolerance towards the fugitive schismatic priests, by renewing the power and effect of the highest command on March 26, 1822. Regarding the schismatics of the Rogozhsky cemetery in Moscow (a sect uniformly accepting the priesthood), His Excellency believes that since there are now only two elderly priests in this cemetery, the possibility of soon losing these priests worries the minds of these schismatics and at present they are in that dangerous transitional situation, according to which, with the deprivation of these priests, they will necessarily have to either turn to Orthodoxy and Edinoverie, or fall into a new false teaching that has arisen, and since twenty years of experience have proven the futility and even harm of strict and exceptional measures: then one must be afraid that the continuation of these measures will not only not shake the stubborn religious opinions of these schismatics, but on the contrary, with the deprivation of the rest of the priests, will lead them to a new false teaching. And as a consequence, this, due to the extensive influence of the Rogozhsky cemetery, would be the most disastrous example for all schismatics in other places, and as His Excellency, based on carefully collected information, has reason to be confident that the elders of the said cemetery will agree to accept priests and deacons who wish to come to them voluntarily from parishes, or from those outside the state, who are neither on trial nor under prohibition, with the fact that about such priests and deacons, they will be obliged to report every time to the Moscow military governor-general, for proper communication with the spiritual authorities, and that, in the event of committing any crimes, these clergy should be subject to the court of our hierarchy, and that then the only desire of the elders of the Rogozhsky cemetery is that the priests assigned to them in this way, during the entire period of their service and until they have committed any crimes, should be in the civil department, and not spiritually, then His Excellency finds that satisfying this desire of the Rogozh schismatics would be the most reliable and even undoubted means at the beginning to reject them from the new false teaching, and subsequently to a gradual rapprochement, and finally to the complete reunification of these schismatics with Orthodoxy. The reasons and arguments on which his Excellency's conviction is based are set out by him in full detail in the opinion proposed to the committee on March 3 of this year, and the methods that the government should take to achieve this beneficial goal are also explained. To this, His Excellency added that the government, in its actions regarding schismatics, should not be carried away by religious motives alone, but should harmonize experiments with the benefits of political and civil forms, and that therefore in our time, when unbelief, riotousness and seditious willfulness of unbridled passions excite the minds of our neighboring peoples, when harmful teachings, rapidly developing, have a destructive effect on centuries-old political and civil conditions societies, when the harmony of the order of the beneficent unity of power and the sacred rights of family and property are replaced by the distorted institutions of anarchy and communism - in our peaceful fatherland we should not embark on measures that arouse anxiety of conscience in the religious concepts of the people and a feeling of fear and distrust in the hearts of those accustomed to obedience, love and devotion to the power that protects them, for this would be a criminal preparation of the elements for a harmful violation of the existing order and internal peace. His Excellency, the Actual Privy Councilor, Prince Sergei Mikhailovich Golitsyn, on the one hand, according to the opinion of His Excellency, the Moscow Military Governor-General, recognized the need to give the Rogozh schismatics priests and deacons to teach them spiritual needs, but on the other hand, he recognized that the condition of independence for the priests and deacons who had to come to the schismatics from the spiritual authorities was inconsistent with hierarchical order and can serve not to reduce, but to strengthen and multiply the schism, which is why I believed that the issue at hand required further search for ways to resolve it. His Excellency, Adjutant General, Count Sergei Grigorievich Strogonov, based on his opinion proposed to the committee on March 29, 1848, also considered it necessary to allow the Rogozh schismatics to receive priests and deacons, but to the conditions set out in the opinion of His Excellency, the Moscow Military Governor-General, on which the schismatics agree to receive priests and deacons, so that At the same time, although some step was taken towards bringing the schismatics closer to the church, he considered it necessary to add that when the schismatics were allowed to accept a priest or deacon, it was expressed that they were accepting him from the civil authorities with the assistance of the spiritual authorities. His Excellency believes that it is possible to take advantage of the extreme position of the schismatics and demand from them at least an ambiguous recognition of spiritual authority over their priests; this recognition should be important for distant non-resident adherents of this persuasion, and therefore, without it, His Excellency does not foresee that the concession made to the schismatics could contribute to their rapprochement with the church. As for step marriages, when priests are received, the issue is resolved by itself; otherwise, His Excellency believes that one should be content with performing the wedding ceremony in Orthodox churches, without taking signatures from schismatics about belonging to the church; This measure, carried out in the Perm province, already had beneficial consequences and can be considered an important step to keep the Beglopopovites from the harmful consequences of step marriages. His Excellency, Lieutenant General Stepan Vasilyevich Perfilyev explained that, in his opinion, given the present difficulty of schismatics in having priests, the thought arises whether the complete deprivation of priests will not distract the schismatics even further from Orthodoxy. This very thing encourages the government to seek means more than ever to bring schismatics closer to the church, and if this is impossible, to maintain at least the same relationship to the church in which they are now; to achieve this latter it is necessary to provide them with priests; On what basis and on what conditions can this be done, His Excellency does not accept to express his opinion, assuming that if the government recognizes the measure itself, it will also find means to carry it out, and His Excellency is duty-bound to state his own conviction that by giving schismatics the opportunity to freely perform their rituals, through the Orthodox priests they choose, the schism will take deeper roots and multiply more, and at the same time there is little hope to join the Orthodox Church will move even further away. His Excellency, the Moscow Civil Governor, fully agreed with the opinion of His Excellency, the Moscow Military Governor-General. As a result of these considerations, it is necessary: ​​all opinions received on this subject by the committee, in the originals, with a copy from this journal, for submission to the St. Petersburg secret committee on cases of schismatics, should be forwarded to His Eminence the Metropolitan of Novgorod, from whom the present case was submitted to the local committee, and the execution of this should be entrusted to the Metropolitan of Moscow. True with an authentic magazine. Moscow Adrian Church Archpriest Dimitry Novsky 283. November 2. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count N.A. Protasov, in the case of the harassment of schismatics regarding the provision of a choice of priests, who would depend not on the spiritual, but on the civil authorities Most Excellent Count, Dear Sir! The case about step marriages and about ways to bring the schismatics of the Rogozhsky cemetery closer to the church came from the Moscow secret committee to the St. Petersburg one. The idea of ​​giving schismatics priests of their choice, dependent not on the spiritual, but on the secular authorities, captivated all the secular members, who looked at it only from the secular side. But when in my note, October 10, their view of the subject was more clearly revealed, especially from the church side; then three of them, against two, recognized the significance of this view. One of them responded that this was inconsistent with the hierarchical order, and would serve to strengthen and multiply the schism. The other does not foresee that this concession could bring the schismatics closer to the church, and demands, albeit ambiguous, recognition of spiritual authority. The third foresees that this concession will cause the split to take deeper root and multiply. These fears are closely followed by the fear that as a result of this concession (if only it is possible, as contrary to church rules and the Code of Laws, a separate schismatic church will be formed in the face of the Orthodox Church, and both for Orthodoxy and for the unity of the state, more will be lost than what was gained by the reunification of the former Uniates. This fear would not greatly occupy me, in my attitude to affairs, which, according to my years and state of health, could soon end; but it should greatly occupy me, out of duty of loyalty to Orthodoxy, the throne and the fatherland. Having said that, in my best understanding, I find fair, and then leaving the matter to the higher understanding and will of Providence, I will not hide from your Excellency the desire that this matter be presented to the Sovereign Emperor in a not too abbreviated report. The royal heart is in the hand of God; nevertheless, one must try to ensure that the different sides and consequences of the matter about which the royal word is to be uttered are clearly presented to his bright gaze. With these thoughts, 284 notes were forwarded to your Excellency, with these attached so that you can freely consider their contents and act at your best discretion. Invoking God's blessing to you, with perfect respect and devotion, I have the honor to be your Excellency, gracious sovereign, most humble servant and pilgrim Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow. No. 49. November 2, 1849 285 November 15. Report to His Holiness Sunod by Metropolitan Philaret about the orders he made regarding the printing of manuscripts and books in the Patriarchal and Synodal Printing Library and the revision of them 286 Synodal Chief Prosecutor, Count N.A. Protasov, dated September 8, 1849, for No. 5523, proposed to the Holy Synod the response of Count D.N. Bludov 287, who reported that although, according to the titles of books and papers indicated in the report of Metropolitan Philaret, it is impossible to assume in them anything leading to inclusion in the supposed state repository of antiquities, but it is also impossible to affirmatively conclude this, before reviewing the acts themselves, because the titles usually indicate their content very briefly, perhaps not entirely correctly and accurately, and sometimes it happens that in the deeds, and especially in those collected in former times, there are acts that should not be attributed to them at all. Thus, among the cases mentioned in the report of Metropolitan Philaret, the case of the trial of Patriarch Nikon is mentioned, which, in his opinion, can be considered to relate as much to the history of the state as to the history of the church. Therefore, Count D.N. Bludov again asked Count N.A. Protasov to make an order for delivery to St. Petersburg for examination of the papers and books mentioned in the aforementioned report, for their proper printing, where and how it should be. After hearing this, the Holy Synod ordered Metropolitan Philaret to print out the manuscripts and books stored in the Moscow Patriarchal and Synodal Printing libraries, revise them, and, upon fulfillment of this, submit all those manuscripts and books to the Holy Synod, carefully sealed, under his own seal, the Metropolitan, with the addition of his conclusion, which of the said manuscripts and books can be transferred for the need explained by Count Bludov and with what precautions to protect against unpleasant consequences. On November 15, 1849, for No. 41, Metropolitan Philaret reported to the Holy Synod: By decree of the Holy Synod, dated September 23, No. 10112, I was ordered to print out sealed manuscripts and books in the Patriarchal and Synodal Printing Library, revise them, and present them to the Holy Synod, under my seal, with my conclusion about which of them can be transferred for the needs explained by Count Dmitry Nikolaevich Bludov, and with what precautions? Having proposed to the synodal office an order for the presentation of the said books and manuscripts to me, I recognized it necessary, firstly, to separately consider the manuscript, under the title: “The Act on the Heretic Martin,” due to the particular importance of the subject. It was opened by me, in the presence of the synodal sacristan 288, and what turned out to be was recorded at the same time in a journal, signed by me and his. This journal is presented in the original. The manuscript contains what is indicated in the title, and nothing more, and therefore it is an ecclesiastical antiquity, belonging to the church repository, and does not represent anything that should be included in the state repository. From examining this manuscript, it is likely that one can conclude why it was previously closed from curiosity with the seal of the Holy Synod. It is known that, having become famous in 1718, it was used by the defenders of Orthodoxy against the schismatics, as an original act of the council of the 12th century, and that the schismatics did not recognize its authenticity. Paleographical signs do not favor the opinion of the extreme antiquity of this manuscript. And its content has the appearance not so much of a conciliar act, but of a historical narrative. She says that the patriarch (Luke Chrysoverg) 289 condemned Martin to burning by fire. It is more likely to believe that the narrator did not express himself accurately, and more accuracy should have been expected from a conciliar act; for ecclesiastical rules and examples constantly show that ecclesiastical authority condemns heretics to excommunication, and, if they are clearly harmful to society, submits them to the consideration of secular authority, on which depends the determination of civil and criminal penalties. Therefore, it is likely that the Holy Synod, finding this document subject to doubts and disputes, and knowing that schismatics, due to their irrationality, could take a challenge to one document as a challenge to the entire ecclesiastical justice, which has quite obvious arguments in its favor, decided to remove this document from continuing disputes, and sealed it with its seal. 1) Report this manuscript to Count Dmitry Nikolaevich Bludov for his personal review. 2) Then ask that it be returned, and bring it back to its former position as determined by the Holy Synod. Other manuscripts and books should be reported after this. Your Holiness's most humble novice, Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow No. 51. November 15, 1849 Attached to this in the file is a journal handwritten by the Metropolitan with the following content. 1849, November 14 days. A manuscript kept in the synodal sacristy, in a leather bag, under the seal of the Holy Synod, with the inscription pasted on paper: “Conciliar deed against the heretic, against the Armenian, against Martin, in the year from the creation of the world 6665, No. 640 (518), 1166. Opened by the Metropolitan of Moscow, at the synodal sacristan; and it turned out to be a quarter-sheet book, on parchment, written in old cursive. According to the sheets it is fastened as follows: Mr. Constantine, Metropolitan of All Russia, affirms 290, the above written council, agreeing in everything with His Holiness Patriarch Luke and his entire council with all those present to me and all the sacred rites of dividing and with my hand I wrote to the future generation in fidelity and in affirmation of Christ Jesus our Lord. Amen." The count of the first four sheets is indicated at the top, but further on it is not indicated. At the end, on the polish, in red ink, it is written: to this day, 1718, this book is 560 years old. Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow 291 Synodal sacristan of the cathedral hieromonk Theostafiy. The manuscript, according to the definition of the Holy Synod, December 2–12, was forwarded to Count D.N. Bludov. November 25. Proposal of Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow to the Holy Synod Office to provide the director of the singing chapel, Major General Lvov 292, with ways to set the notes of the tunes of the Donskoy and Simonov monasteries and the Assumption Cathedral Moscow Holy Synod office, proposal. The Minister of the Imperial Court informed the Synodal Chief Prosecutor, Count Nikolai Aleksandrovich Protasov, that the Sovereign Emperor, according to the most submissive report of the director of the court singing chapel, has deigned to command the highest order to begin now to set to the notes of the tunes belonging to the Donskoy and Simonovsky monasteries and the Assumption Cathedral in Moscow, for which and to send Major General Lvov to Moscow, with two choristers of the court chapel chosen by him, so that, after explaining there with me and with the rectors of the said churches about the music books, both those already published and those that will be published in the future, he would determine together with them what the work of the persons chosen by him should consist of, and would begin with himself the provision of tunes on notes in one line, and then left the singers there, with the appropriate instructions, to continue this work and deliver it to him, to add harmony to the choir. Mr. Minister of the Imperial Court therefore requests to make an order so that in the designated churches and monasteries Mr. Lvov is given, unquestioningly, all the means to accurately fulfill the order entrusted to him by the highest order. I propose this matter to the office of the Holy Synod, for possible order. No. 525. November 25, 1849 293 November 25. Report to the Holy Synod of Metropolitan Philaret with an opinion on the printed notebook: “on the elevation of the name of the patriarch” and the manuscript: “historical search on the name of the pontifex” 294 By order of the Moscow synodal office, this November 22nd, in the presence of the manager of the synodal printing house (No. 6974), books stored in the printing library, under seal, were sent to me in two sealed envelopes. The first envelope is made of gray-yellow paper; on it is the seal of the economic committee with the inscription clearly: to No. 458, and indirectly No. 34 and 18. Upon opening it, it contained: 1) a printed notebook, quarter-sheet, on elevating the name of the patriarch. Printed 1721 295. 2) Manuscript in sheet: historical search for the name of the pontifex, etc. The first book proves that in the Divine Services of the Russian Church there is no need to publicly remember the Eastern patriarchs, except once at the liturgy performed by the leading member of the Holy Synod. Why this book is sealed, it does not provide a very convincing explanation for its contents. There is a particularly condemnable place in it on page 8, on the back, where the titles of the ecumenical patriarch and judge of the universe are spoken of with some kind of condemnation, instead of explaining them historically as honorable, but not predominant. There is no doubt that this book should be submitted to the consideration of the lord in chief of the 2nd department of His Imperial Majesty’s own chancellery, and, in all likelihood, we should expect its return to the ecclesiastical department. Another book, handwritten, suggests something extraordinary in the very fact that it was necessary to write it. She puts the pagan pontifex and the Christian bishop side by side, and talks about the pagan pontifex more accurately and insightfully than about the Christian bishop. Sometimes he speaks about the pagan pontifex in a Christian way, as, for example, pontifex Trajan blesses (folio 7); sometimes he speaks about a Christian bishop in a pagan way, as, for example, sovereigns can call people bishops; because the famous Hellenic poet Omir Ekter calls the Trojan sovereign a bishop (fol. 13). The main conclusions of this are correct, such as: we do not have a single story in Christianity where the king exercised his own and deliberate sacred action (sheet 19). There is an ancient legend for the king to go to the altar (sheet 25). But the course of research is often strange and forced, as if forcibly directed to please some secret thought. At the end, in the signature, it is said that Theophan, Archbishop of Pskov 296, served honest curiosity. I propose to submit this manuscript for consideration and ask for its return for printing, not in the synodal printing house, but in the synodal archive. Which I most respectfully convey to the Holy Synod, presenting two books in the very envelope in which they were received. No. 53. November 25, 1849 297. November 30. Report of Metropolitan Philaret to the Holy Synod, with an opinion on the manuscript and on the proof printed copy of the book: “Symphony, or places and examples selected from the books of Holy Scripture” 298 Continuing the execution of the decree of the Holy Synod on sealed books and manuscripts, opening the second envelope received from the manager of the synodal printing house, I found a manuscript and a proof printed copy of the book: Symphonies, or passages and examples selected from the books of the Holy Scriptures, and so on. 1773. The book consists of words arranged in alphabetical order, with numerical indications of places of sacred scripture, sometimes occupying more than a page per word. Therefore, for a complete consideration of it, a leisurely person would have to spend several weeks leafing through the Holy Scriptures, according to her instructions. But even a hasty review shows that the book is unsatisfactory. In an ordinary symphony you can find more sacred scripture than in this one, and with greater convenience, because there the texts are written out and are before your eyes, but here they are only indicated, and you need to look for them according to the instructions. The choice of words in this symphony is also unsatisfactory. For example: presentation, praise; It is impossible to guess how these concepts are one and what to look for in this article. Or: reprimand, verbal punishment; This title is followed by two pages of instructions. Who would want to go to the trouble of finding so many texts to prove with Holy Scripture what a reprimand means? Or: vow, promise, desire; each of these words contains a special concept; but they are mixed into one article. There are no words in this symphony: body of Christ, blood of Christ, Eucharist, and therefore there is nothing about the sacrament of communion. However, this should be attributed to an oversight, and not to a non-Orthodox way of thinking, because there is an article about baptism. As much as I could look at this book, I see no reason to keep it under seal. Which I most respectfully report to the Holy Synod, with the enclosure of the manuscript and a printed proof copy. No. 531. November 30, 1849 299 December 13th. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count N.A. Protasov, with notification of orders made to assist Major General Lvov 300 in the provision of notes of church chants Due to the attitude of your Excellency, dated November 12, No. 6952, with the explanation of the Highest Sovereign Emperor of the command regarding the commencement now of setting to the notes of the tunes belonging to the Donskoy and Simonovsky monasteries and the Assumption Cathedral in Moscow, and that the director of the court singing chapel, Major General Lvov, sent to Moscow for this purpose, with two elected the singers of the said chapel, in the above-mentioned churches and monasteries, were given, unquestioningly, all the ways to accurately fulfill the highest assignment entrusted to him - I, according to the accessory, proposed to the office of the Holy Synod, for the appropriate order, and on my part, I will certainly provide all possible assistance to the fulfillment of the highest will. No. 544. December 13, 1849 301 December 329. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the director of the court singing chapel A.F. Lvov 302 regarding singing, at the liturgy, in the university church, December 25, the worthy and sacramental verse according to notes, as if disapproved Your Excellency, dear sir. On the 26th day of this December, Your Excellency informed me that on the 25th day in the university church the bishop's choristers sang the disapproved melody of the honorable man and the sacramental verse, and demanded that I order regent Bagretsov to present you with the notes on which the said verses were sung. I was surprised by this accident, which I did not consider possible due to the instructions made, especially from the bishop’s choir; and is prompted, by duty, to strictly take measures against illegality. The interviewed regent Bagretsov testified that on the 25th day the bishop's choristers did not sing in the university church, as well as in general in the years immediately preceding this. This eases the concern aroused in me, but does not stop it; because I have the responsibility to see that in no church anyone violates the prescribed order. And therefore, on the 27th day of December, I prescribed the following to the consistory: As it came to my attention that on December 25, in the university church, at the liturgy, the honor and sacrament verse of the peta were an unapproved chant, then, out of duty to monitor the exact execution of the decree of the Holy Synod, dated May 31, 1833 (No. 4182), and subsequent instructions, do the following: 1) from the archpriest of the university church 303 take an explanation of which choir sang on the designated day in the university church, why the honor and sacrament verse were allowed to be sung in an unapproved melody, and on what notes and whose composition the singing took place. 2) As a precaution, confirmably order monasteries, cathedrals and churches that singing in churches should be carried out without the slightest deviation from the decree of the Holy Synod on May 31, 1833, so that private choirs are allowed to sing in church in no other way than with strict observance of this, and that, in the event of someone violating the above-mentioned rule, it will not be omitted and immediately reported, under fear that the abbot or abbess of a monastery, archpriest or priest of a cathedral or church who did not report would expose himself to responsibility as participating in a violation of the decree of the Holy Synod. On the same 27th day, Archpriest of the university church Peter Ternovsky reported to me the following: This December 25, in the church of the Moscow University, during the liturgy, two clergymen of the said church sang, Matthew Voznesensky and Ivan Vladislavlev, a student of the Moscow seminary, secondary department, Sergius Voznesensky, Nikolai Urazov, dismissed from the same department of the Moscow seminary, a student of the VysokoPetrovsky theological school Valentin Ostroumov, and three more boys from the commoners, studying with the deacon of the university church Matthew Voznesensky. The designated singers sang: It is worthy and righteous that we eat and sing to You, set to notes by Hieromonk Victor of the Simonov Monastery 304; worthy of the irmos of the 9th song for the Nativity of Christ, with the chorus laid down by Archpriest Turchaninov 305, after the singing of the sacramental verse, they sang the kontakion for the Nativity of Christ: The Virgin is today, etc.”, laid down by an unknown composer, but used in this melody for a very long time. That the said verses were sung to notes that were not approved, this happened due to the lack of foresight of him, the archpriest. Out of habit, during the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom about hearing singing constantly and invariably performed according to the tune used at the highest court, on December 25 the possibility of deviating from the approved notes during the liturgy of Basil the Great did not occur to him, and therefore this time he did not make a confirmation as a warning to the clergy; the clerics, who had not yet had time to thoroughly study the everyday life and irmology, laid on the notes by the director of the court singing chapel, believed that they would not sin if they sang according to the notes that had long been used, of which one, Zadostoyniks, op. Archpriest Turchaninov, published in print. During the Liturgy, although the archpriest noticed this deviation from the instructions of the authorities, he found it inconvenient to stop the singers for fear that this would not cause more disorder in the Divine service 306. The notes on which the singing indicated here took place are transmitted. Regarding the tune of the verse: “Virgin today,” I consider it not superfluous 307 to bring to the attention of your Excellency that the origin of this tune is unknown to me, but that it is known to me in church use, although not often, since the time of Metropolitan Plato of blessed memory 308 . With true respect and devotion, I have the honor to be Your Excellency No. 570. December 29, 1849 309 With own black authentic, storing in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory No. 50, doc. No. 20. The case of the Muscovites. Office of the Holy Synod, 1849, No. 79–101, l. 1. See above, p. 197, note. 2. From an original paper signed by Metropolitan Philaret, located in the file of the Holy Synod, 1849, No. 2383. Lvov, Alexey Fedorovich, director. court singing chapel, secrets. council, senator, chief chamberlain, author. hymn: “God Save the Tsar”; mind. in 1870 Case of the Holy Synod, 1843, No. 3083, sheet. 33–38. See above, No. 311, pp. 251–256. Below, the Metropolitan writes: “this is 1849, from which we can conclude that the opinion was written in several stages: started in 1848 and finished in 1849. See above, No. 311, pp. 251–256. There was a meeting of schismatics in Moscow in 1779 about the preference for one of these two images. Floor. historical news about the old education, part III. Note Metropolitan Philaret. The text has been amended according to the list of edits at the end of the volume. – Editorial of the ABC of Faith. The attitude of the schismatic priests to the elders and society is evidenced by the observation of this subject by his testimony, Mr. Moscow Military Governor-General (Count A.A. Zakrevsky). His note, dated February 1, 1849, says: “the trust of this mass in their elders is so unlimited that in the eyes of this priest, regardless of his rank, he is a secondary person, to whom they show commitment and respect only when the rituals of service he observes are approved by the elders.” Note from Metropolitan Philaret. Especially if the schismatics also have a liturgy, which the civil authorities will probably allow, having priests at their disposal, and that it will not be as convenient to forbid as it is forbidden to fugitive priests. Note Metropolitan Philaret. Rough original, stored in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory No. 87, document. No. 8; the true opinion is kept in the secret department of the office of the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, maps. 3, case 1849, No. 63, l. 25–48. With original, keeping in secret department. office Chief Prosecutor St. Synod, case 1849, No. 63, pp. 49–54. These notes are placed above: the first, dated March 29, 1848, under No. 3; two other notes dated October 10, 1849, Nos. 308 and 309; the fourth note containing a copy of the protocol. secret. meeting committee, premises after the text of the document. at number 324. From rough. authentic letters, storing in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to description. No. 87., document. No. 4; keeps the original letter, with 4 notes. in secret. dept. office chief proc. St. Synod, case 1849, No. 63. See above, No. 321, pp. 277–279. See above, No. 295, p. 197 and note. 2. Cathedral Hieromonk Eustathia. About him, see above, p. 246 and approx. 3. Patriarch of Constantinople Luke Chrysoverg, from 1156 to 1169. Under him, in 1166, there was a council in Constantinople regarding a dispute between scientists about the meaning of the words: “My Father is more than Me” (John 14:28). Metropolitan Constantine 11 from 1167 to 1172 With its own original, found in the file of the Holy Synod, 1849, No. 2383. See above, p. 282 and note. 1. The case of the Muscovites. Office of the Holy Synod, 1849, No. 230, l. 1. See “Description of locum. and affairs, storing. in the archives of the Holy Synod", St. Petersburg, 1868, vol. I, no. 281, column. 316–318. Feofan (Prokopovich), see above, p. 133, note. 1. The case of the Holy Synod, keeping. in his archive, 1849, No. 2383. See above, Nos. 321, 326 and 328. With the signatures of the paper located in the file of the Holy Synod, 1849, No. 2383. Lvov, Alexey Fedorovich, Izv. spirit. composite, see above, p. 282 and approx. 1. From a copy, storing to Moscow diocesan library, dept. VII, sheet 32. Ternovsky, Pyotr Matveevich, prot. cer. Moscow univ.; mind. 5 Sep. 1874 The notes of Simonov's hieromonk Victor belong to Simonov's singing, the publication of which is currently underway, by the highest order. Metropolitan's note. Philareta About Simonov's chant, see Church. singing in Russia, D. Razumovsky, M. 1867, p. 193. Turchaninov, Petr Ioannovich, archpriest, spiritual composer; mind. in 1856. About him, see the musical dictionary, P. D. Perepelitsyn, M. 1884, p. 354. Archpriest Ternovsky's report was included in the Metropolitan's letter by the hand of his clerk. The same thing was reported to the Holy Synod and the Synodal Chief Prosecutor. for information. Plato (Levshin), Metropolitan. Moscow, see above, p. 133 and approx. 5. From a handwritten draft original, kept. in Moscow, eparch. library, dept. VII, l. 22–27.