1854 г.

In February. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count N.A. Protasov, with an opinion on the proposed reprinting of the book: “Signs of the Coming of the Antichrist” Between the means to admonish the schismatics, your Excellency drew attention to the book: Signs of the Coming of the Antichrist, and demanded from me information whether it would be useful to print it again. Having begun to read this book, in its first chapters, I came across reasoning and extracts from the writings of the holy fathers, explaining the subject and useful for admonishing those who are mistaken; and, in case of a new edition, began to correct typos; eliminate some obscene language; notice places that require verification and one (p. 88) place was added, as required by time. But upon further reading the book, I could not maintain the conviction that it would be useful to print it as it is. The list of names in which the author finds the animal number 666 not only contains unreasonably fictitious names, but also among them there is one that can be used for evil by lack of priesthood (and as far as I remember has already been used), to blaspheme the sacrament of the Eucharist, namely ἀμνὸς ἄδικος the unrighteous lamb (p. 137). There are questions that needlessly confuse the matter and do not have a satisfactory solution. This is the question: about the weapons of Gog and Magog for seven years with zhegom (p. 165). Therefore, I conclude that the publication of this book, as it is, does not promise the desired benefit. However, some parts of it can be a useful aid to someone who would undertake to write a discussion about the Antichrist, against the false opinions of schismatics. I consider it not superfluous to forward along with this a copy of this book, which was in my consideration 539. The Holy Synod, after hearing this review, by decree of March 30, 1854, instructed Metropolitan Philaret to invite one of the clergy under his jurisdiction, known for education and reliability, to write again a discussion about the Antichrist, against the false opinions of schismatics, so that this work would be examined by himself, and presented to the Holy Synod with its conclusion 540. In the addition to the Works of the Holy Fathers, for 1858, part XVII, an essay by a 21st year student at the Moscow Theological Academy, Mikhail Saburov, was published: “On the Antichrist.” In all likelihood, this work was written in pursuance of the above-mentioned decree of the Holy Synod, dated March 30, 1854. April 20. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Minister of Internal Affairs D.G. Bibikov, about the noticed movement of schismatics of the Rogozhsky cemetery towards unity of faith D.G. Bibikov 541, in a secret manner, dated April 16, 1854, for No. 675, reported to Metropolitan Philaret, in a copy, for information and considerations, presented to him by the collegiate adviser Moszhakov, who was in the ministry entrusted to him and who was at that time in Moscow, a note dated the 7th of that month, about the location of some Rogozhsky schismatics in Moscow, cemeteries, turn to common faith. Your Excellency, dear sir! Having received your Excellency’s attitude, dated the 16th day of this April, No. 675, and with it a note about the movement of the schismatics of the Rogozhsky cemetery towards the same faith, I find myself in difficulty to reason and talk about this matter, due to the complexity of the emerging circumstances. The note contains fair information, but not all is accurate. Fomin visited me during Lent last year and asked me to establish a Edinoverie church at the Rogozhsky cemetery, presenting special rules for this. I answered that it is not convenient, given the existing churches of the same faith, to organize a new one on different rules, less favorable to the same faith; and that in any case parishioners are needed to build a church. He promised to indicate others, but did not, and the intercourse stopped. Sapelkin 542, not yet known to me, was at my priestly service, at the consecration of the church of the commercial school, and received a blessing from me. Then, before the consecration of the Edinoverie Church at the Transfiguration Cemetery, he came to me and said: give us the Edinoverie Church. I answered: give me parishioners. He said that many are inclined to this, and, without a doubt, will come to church, but they find it difficult to discover themselves in advance, under the gravitating influence of the Rakhmanovs and gardeners. (The word that is also in the note). I said that I could not present the Holy Synod with information about the church without definitive information about the parishioners. He promised to come to me with others. Then he attended the consecration of the Edinoverie church; I visited on a holiday between Orthodox Christians. But he didn’t show up as promised. Why, after a rather visible disposition towards the church? Isn't this the reason? A rumor has reached me that the Rogozh schismatics are renewing their request for priests to be delivered to them from the civil authorities, according to the rules to which I objected, on October 10, 1849 543, and have hope of success. It is inconvenient for me to judge the validity of this rumor, but if this is one rumor spread by those who are stubborn in the schism: it could stop and can continue to stop the peace-loving. It is desirable that the well-disposed of those belonging to the Rogozhsky cemetery be freed from the gravitating influence of the prevailing trustees and outrageous gardeners. But when moving towards this goal, you need to measure the opposing force, which is inconvenient for me 544. April 29. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count N.A. Protasov, regarding the issue of government measures to improve the free singing choirs in Moscow In January of this year, Your Excellency, they asked for my opinion on the question: does the Holy Synod not recognize it as necessary for the government to take any measures to improve the free singing choirs in Moscow? Without making this issue public, I collected information about these choirs through deans and parish priests. The following choirs exist: 5) Merchant (originally a coachman) Prokopiy Erokhov. In relation to me, the director of the court chapel 545, dated January 26, 1850, No. 21, it was shown, according to what was taken from the chief police chief 546, that there are also six free choirs in Moscow. Consequently, it is not true that the number of these choirs is increasing every year. The deans and priests of the churches in which these choirs sing generally responded that they sing decently, in accordance with these rules, and no disrespect for the holiness of the place was noticed in them. One dean of Nikolayavlensk testified that haste was sometimes noticed in the singing of Sokolov’s singers; but at the first remark of the clergyman this was corrected. At the same time, the dean writes that the owner of the choir tries to have good supervision over the singers, and that his singers, especially the boys, are in fairly good order. They are assigned a special guard who teaches them and monitors their behavior. The big ones are supervised by the owner himself, a sober man who loves order. About the choir of Prokofy Erokhov, the parish priest writes that the members of the choir are under the supervision of the owner himself; Moreover, for minors there is a teacher and a supervisor over their behavior. About the Bobovsky Trinity-Arbat choir, the dean writes that the keeper has supervision over the choristers, and those who find themselves in indecent behavior, after corrective measures, are expelled from the choir. Thus, the testimony, based on unknown reasons, that they do not pay attention to the morality of the singers, that they indulge in debauchery and lose reverence for the holiness of the place, is not confirmed by the inquiry made. Since the reasons presented for finding new measures for the improvement of free singing choirs were not confirmed by the inquiry, the need for new measures, which are not entirely convenient to adapt to the case, has not been proven. However, as a precaution against the possible harmful direction of these choirs, left without supervision, it would not be useless if the Holy Synod prescribed: 1) ensure that free singing choirs in Moscow are known to the diocesan authorities. 2) Local deans and parish priests, according to the location of the choirs, should monitor whether deanery and good morals are maintained in them, and report otherwise to the diocesan authorities. 3) If any choir is exposed to damage to morality or lack of reverence in the church, such a choir will no longer be allowed to have presence in churches 547. June 19. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to Count A.A. Zakrevsky in the case of taking away testimony from priest Ermilov, who was at the Rogozhsky cemetery, about the Khvalyn merchant Aanasia Kochuev, suspected of actions contrary to the law of the split, and of facilitating schismatics to have relations with their like-minded people abroad Count A.A. Zakrevsky 548, having forwarded, in relation, dated June 13, 1854, No. 798, a list of the Minister of Internal Affairs 549 , under No. 1087, to Metropolitan Philaret, asked to notify him, the count, whether he would not consider it possible to give premises, in any place of the diocesan department, to the priest Ermilov, who was at the Rogozhsky cemetery, at the time of taking testimony from him, in the case of the Khvalyn merchant Afanasy Kochuev, suspected of actions against the law against the schism and of promoting schismatics to have relations with their like-minded people abroad, in order to free him, Ermilov, from the influence of local schismatics. In this regard, on the top of the 1st page, between the lines, Metropolitan Philaret wrote with his own hand. June 18. 1) To respond, with a statement of difficulties, and with an expression of consent, without responsibility for the consequences on the part of the spiritual. Providing supervision must be by order of the Holy Synod. 2) Order Petrovsky's treasurer. 3) Notify the Minister of Internal Affairs, attaching a list of relations with Mr. Moscow Military Governor-General. By letter dated June 13, No. 798, Your Excellency deigns to demand from me information whether I would find it possible, if necessary, to give priest Ermilov, who is in the Rogozh almshouse, temporary accommodation in some place of the diocesan department. When discussing the implementation of this, significant difficulties are encountered. From your Excellency's attitude it is clear that the matter is happening in secret. From this I conclude that Ermilov’s premises, if possible, should be removed from publicity. The monasteries of the diocesan department, which alone can be used for the proposed premises, are for the most part located in the middle of the city, all are open to the people, full, and have no free premises. If Ermilov decided to leave the premises assigned to him, or schismatics decided to visit him, perhaps in considerable numbers, the diocesan authorities do not have sufficient ways to prevent this. The efforts of a monastic novice or minister in this regard may remain unsuccessful, and even lead to an unfavorable adventure. In order to weaken the prejudices of schismatics against the church, and to promote their rapprochement with it, the spiritual authorities consider it their duty (as the laws prescribe), if possible, to avoid non-peaceful relations with schismatics on business matters. If in a case that is being carried out outside the ecclesiastical department, and therefore it is recognized that it is not necessary to have a ecclesiastical deputy, Ermilov will be placed for interrogation in some place of the ecclesiastical department: this may give them the idea that the matter is being carried out under the influence of the clergy, and this thought in the stubborn among them may strengthen their bitterness against the clergy. This can be left without special attention only if the proposed disposal has a special need or promises a special benefit. In relation to Mr. Minister of Internal Affairs, reported to me by your Excellency, the list expresses a desire to remove Ermilov from the influence of schismatics without embarrassment for him, and if he himself so desires, and to place him in some place in the spiritual department, especially if he repents of falling away from the church, and is ready to turn to it, but is being held back by schismatics. All of the above leads me to the following conclusion: if Ermilov’s placement in any place of the spiritual department is really necessary; if it can be done without contradiction on his part and without arousing fears among schismatics, and especially if peaceful dispositions towards the Orthodox Church are seen in it, then give him, for the time of need, a place in the Petrovsky Monastery such that it would be convenient for those who have to take testimony from him (which turns out to be possible in the absence of the rector 550; and from the side of the diocesan authorities, if necessary, there is supervision so that Ermilov does not enter into relations with the schismatics, and they did not come to him; but in order to decisively prevent the opposite from happening, the diocesan authorities, for lack of ways, cannot accept responsibility for this, but for this they need supervision, by order of your Excellency. Accordingly, I have given instructions to the treasurer Petrovsky Monastery, Hieromonk Athanasius 551. September 22. Note from Metropolitan Philaret on the attitude of the Moscow military governor-general, Count A.A. Zakrevsky, with a copy of a report to him from the caretaker of the Rogozhsky almshouse, about the intention, allegedly, of some priestly schismatics to incite their like-minded people to riot, during the consecration of the Edinoverie church in the mentioned house Count A.A. Zakrevsky, in a secret manner, dated September 22, 1854, No. 1545, transmitting a copy of a report from the caretaker of the Rogozh almshouse in Moscow about the intention, allegedly, of some priestly schismatics to incite their like-minded people to riot, during the consecration of the Edinoverie church, in the said house, added that on his part all necessary measures were taken to prevent said unrest. At the top, on page 1, of this relation, the metropolitan’s hand made a note: September 22. Received at three quarters of seven o'clock in the evening, while at six o'clock the all-night service was supposed to begin, before the consecration of the church. Consequently, there is no longer time for any orders on my part. The information I received earlier and this morning promised the peaceful completion of what was undertaken 552. September 25. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count N.A. Protasov, with the transmission of lists: a) from his report to the Holy Synod, about the establishment and consecration of the co-religionist church at the Rogozhsky cemetery and b) his letters to his co-religionists Most Excellent Count, Dear Sir. Regarding the establishment and consecration of the Edinoverie church at the Rogozhsky cemetery, I am forwarding the list from my report to the Holy Synod to your Excellency. With perfect respect and devotion, I have the honor to be your excellency, dear sir, most humble servant. Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow No. 86. September 25, 1854 Attached to this letter are the following documents: a) report of Metropolitan Philaret to the Holy Synod, dated September 25, 1854, No. 84 553. and b) a letter given by Metropolitan Philaret to fellow believers to open a church in the Rogozh almshouse. Blessed be God the Father, and His only begotten and consubstantial Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit, the true Lord and life-giving, by His Divine grace preserving His Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, according to His immutable promise, unshakable and invincible through the gates of hell, instilling like-minded people in a spiritual home, united in faith, keeping in unity, bring those divided by perplexity into union, so that we may all, according to the word of the Lord, be one flock of one Shepherd, our Lord Jesus Christ, and all, according to the word of the Apostle, one His body, fulfilling all things in all. We have read and considered the petition of the society of the spoken Old Believers, who have prayer meetings in an almshouse called Rogozhsky, expressing a pious desire, and asking, for the sake of salvation and union with the Holy Apostolic Church, that in one of the prayer books (or chapels) of this place, a church be opened and consecrated, according to the ancient rites, in which Divine services would be performed without any derogation or addition, according to church books printed with the blessing of the most holy patriarchs: Job, Hermogenes, Philaret, Joasaph and Joseph. And we thanked God for the souls who seek the right and unobstructed path of salvation and who love union with the holy Apostolic Church. Your request, from now on, children of the Holy Apostolic Church, has been blessed and possible to be fulfilled. The establishment of the church you requested was followed by the most merciful command of the most pious Sovereign Emperor Nikolai Pavlovich and a blessing was given from the Holy Synod. Consequently, we bless and define our measure, according to the grace, gift and power given to us by the great Bishop of the Lord and God and our Savior Jesus Christ, through His holy Apostles and Holy Fathers: 1) one of the prayer books in the almshouse, called Rogozhsky, to build a church and consecrate it in the name of the saint and wonderworker Nicholas, according to the ancient rites, through the priest Simeon, chosen by you of the All Saints Edinoverie Church. 2) For this purpose, to teach, from those stored in the cathedral sacristy, the ancient antimension with holy relics of the consecration of His Holiness Patriarch Philaret. 3) The above-mentioned priest Simeon should be present at this church. 4) To perform sacred services for him from books printed with the blessing of the most holy patriarchs: Job, Hermogenes, Philaret, Joasaph and Joseph, without derogation or addition, and moreover, in such a way that the order and rituals of this church are not violated by outsiders who distinguish in the rituals. 5) To assign to this church the rights granted by the Holy Synod to the churches of the same faith, by decree of February 6, 1801. As for the permission mentioned in your petition for the previously established oath and before the confirmation of this permission, let it be known to you without any bewilderment that the curse pronounced by the council in 1667 was placed on those who disobey the holy Eastern Church and the consecrated cathedral, on opponents, both heretics and disobedients. And consequently, those who have entered into peace and union with the holy Apostolic Church, since by this they demonstrate that they are not opponents, then, by the very force of the definition of the council of 1667, must be resolved, and are resolved and remain free from the curse pronounced by that council. At the same time, it should be taken into account that what was written in the book of Stoglav, about the sign of the honorable cross and about the special alleluia and other things, the council of 1667, although it found it not similar to the ancient Greek and Slavic charate books, did not approve of it; however, he did not place his curse on this book and on what was written in it, and on the council mentioned in it, reasoning that it was written out of ignorance, and that those who compiled the council described in this book were not opponents of the church. And therefore, the Holy Synod, not against the judgment of the council of 1667, and graciously, having entered into peace and union with the Holy Apostolic Church, with condescension, allows for their usual use of the above-mentioned and other similar rites. May the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the Father and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with all who for the sake of salvation have come and come into union with the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Amen. In the reigning city of Moscow, Summer of the Lord 1854, September 20th. Correct: Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow. According to the most loyal report to the Sovereign Emperor, Count N.A. Protasov, about this circumstance, His Majesty deigned to write on this report in his own hand, in pencil: “Thank God, a good start” 554. September 25. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the manager of the office of the Holy Synod, A.I. Voitsekhovich, with the enclosure of a list from his report to the Holy Synod, about the construction and consecration of the Edinoverie church at the Rogozhsky cemetery in Moscow A.I. Voitsekhovich, in a letter dated September 23, 1854, notified Metropolitan Philaret that the consecration of the Edinoverie church had been completed successfully; that his letter, read before the beginning of the liturgy, was listened to reverently and received gratefully; that one schismatic, who had not previously expressed consent, said to himself: “What do we need even more?” That the day before one of them joined during the all-night vigil, and during the liturgy many expressed their disposition to do so; that the church was full of people; It seems that scientists were also convinced of the sincerity of the matter and the fruitfulness of the beginning, and that there was no need to protect order. Your Excellency, dear sir. On the construction and consecration of the Edinoverie church at the Rogozhsky cemetery, I forward the list from my report to the Holy Synod to your Excellency 555. With gratitude I must testify that your Excellency’s orders and those who carried them out revealed the unrest and illegalities of the Rogozhsky cemetery, and thereby reducing the power of the dissenters, made it easier for the well-disposed to escape from the captivity of the schism into the freedom of the sons of the church 556. September 25. Report to the Holy Synod of Metropolitan Philaret on the construction and consecration of the Edinoverie church in the Rogozh almshouse in Moscow By decree of the Holy Synod, dated August 19, this year, No. 520, the highest command of the Emperor was announced to me: “if a certain number of schismatics assigned to the Rogozhsky cemetery in Moscow express a desire to join Orthodoxy, or Edinoverie, then convert for them to the Orthodox, or Edinoverie church, one of the prayer houses located in the mentioned cemetery”; and it is prescribed to make the order that depends on me, and to report the subsequent information to the Holy Synod with due detail. By the goodness of God, the highest provision was justified; and the highest command was carried out. Some citizens, according to rituals belonging to the Rogozhsky cemetery, even last year expressed to me a desire that one of the chapels there be converted into a church of the same faith; but this matter did not gain momentum then, partly because they proposed some special conditions that could not be accepted, so as not to shake the established rules of unity of faith by diversity; partly because there was not a sufficient number of people who would openly join this movement, although they approved of it in trusted relations. In the first third of this year, the Moscow merchant Vladimir Sapelkin 557 expressed the same desire, and this time without insisting on special exceptional rules. He added that not a small number of people share this desire; but, avoiding strife with those who are not disposed to this, they find it difficult to open themselves, and without a doubt they will join the same faith when this church is open. My response was that in order to establish a church in accordance with the accepted order and trustworthy, for this you need to keep in mind the parishioners. The opening of the proposed church to parishioners continued, on the one hand, with favorable orders from the Ministry of Internal Affairs, which began to expose the unrest and illegalities of the Rogozhsky cemetery; on the other hand, in the face of obstacles, some known to the Holy Synod, from the case at the request of the Rogozh schismatics to receive priests from the civil authorities. The subsequent refusal of this petition was as much a matter of legal justice as it was a matter of government foresight. On the 17th day of this September, “from the Moscow Old Believer Rogozhsky society of parishioners,” several persons from among them presented me with a petition, from which I am copying out their own words: “bless in the place we respect, where we were raised and where our ancestors lie, in the Rogozhsky cemetery, from the three chapels, whichever turns out to be more convenient, we will consecrate the church, according to the ancient rites, and the following articles will not be deprived in favor of the saint statements of the church and us: 1) to calm the conscience of our brethren and to further unite and restore the Church, the oath permitted by the Holy Governing Synod, previously placed on the double-fingered addition and other rituals, again confirm its permission. 2) Conduct Divine services, without any derogation or addition; but as it was printed in ancient books under the patriarchs: Job, Hermogenes, Philaret, Joasaph and Joseph. 3) Place the holy antimension on the altar during the consecration of the church; it must be ancient when the consecration of the mentioned patriarchs took place. 4) To freely and unhindered the celebration of Divine services in our church, so that it is not disturbed by outsiders, entering persons who differ from us in rituals, and other rights given by the Holy Governing Synod to the churches of the same faith, on February 6, 1801, to reaffirm. 5) To consecrate the church to the priest Simeon Nikolaev Morozov, known to us and already experienced in the Old Believer service, the Moscow Edinoverie All Saints Cemetery Church; and, as trustworthy, assign him to our place and make him dean. This is necessary to restore a place of order and greater union with our church. According to these articles we have explained, we most humbly and humbly ask your Eminence not to deprive us, for the sake of salvation and union with the holy Apostolic Church, of the favor and immediate opening at our Rogozhsky cemetery, which we desire for the holy church.” From the style of this petition, the Holy Synod will see that no outside writer took part in drawing up the petition of the new co-religionists, but they clothed their own thought in their own word, as best they could. Since the petition did not contain anything contrary to the rules of the churches of the same faith, I could only peacefully talk with them about the content of it. Only I thought it appropriate to postpone the discussion about the appointment of priest Simeon as dean until the time when there would be more than one priest in the church, about which they did not show any opposition. How things went about establishing a new church, and how decisions on the construction of churches are usually announced by a bishop’s charter; and since the Holy Synod ordered that matters of the same faith be carried out primarily by bishops directly, and not through a consistory, I recognized the decision to declare a letter to the petitioners in accordance with the circumstances of the petition I accepted. Herewith I present the list of 558 from it. The chapel for conversion to the church was chosen to be smaller, having a ready-made area for the altar. After the establishment of the new throne, after the issuance of the ancient antimension, the consecration of His Holiness Patriarch Philaret, and after the preparation of other necessities, an all-night vigil was held for 22 days from the evening to the day of the consecration of the church; and on the 23rd day it was consecrated, in the name of St. Nicholas, by the Edinoverie priest Simeon, with one Edinoverie hieromonk and with another Edinoverie priest and two Edinoverie deacons. The church was filled with people. I have information that, having learned the contents of the charter, during these sacred ceremonies, many expressed their disposition towards the same faith, who had not expressed it before. The desire to be parishioners of the Edinoverie Church at the Rogozhsky cemetery was expressed in writing by 26 people, and with their families more than 100 souls. One of the Rogozhsky cemetery belonging to the parish (honorary citizen Simonov) expressed in writing his desire to join the Orthodox Church unconditionally. It is my duty to set forth the reasons why I decided to satisfy the request of new co-religionists for the church, without delaying until their number increases. 1) Those who signed and submitted the petition showed such determination and zeal in this matter that they were encouraged to respond to them with similar determination and readiness to fulfill their desire. 2) They assured me that they knew quite a few people who were disposed to join the same faith when the church opened; but, due to various circumstances, not daring to reveal themselves earlier. 3) With their determination they accomplished a feat in which they had to be strictly supported. Because, although among them there are very significant persons in terms of prudence, good intentions and position in society, the Rogozhsky schism still has untamed champions, strong in wealth and habitual influence on others, and excited by selfish views; and these people try to upset those who are disposed towards peace with the church, either with false reasoning, or with reproaches, or with an attempt to harm them in business. 4) The power of the rich and bitter dissenters weighing down on the schismatic crowd is really such that many who are especially weak do not dare to reveal their disposition towards the church, although they have it. Even one honorary citizen, who personally expressed to me a desire to join Edinoverie and be a parishioner of the newly founded church, when it was necessary to declare this in writing, did not dare to reveal himself early on signing the petition, which is inevitably known to many, but sent me a separate letter about this. In these circumstances, it was necessary to clearly show that the schism is not invincible; and to the captives of the schism, in the very place of their captivity, open free entry into the church. 5) It has been known for several years that with the money and machinations of Rogozh schismatics a false metropolis of Belokrinitsky was established abroad; that two false bishops have been appointed there for the Russian schismatics; that they, under civilian names and ranks, secretly visit Moscow and other cities and install false priests for schismatics. Recently I received information from Ryazan that a letter from a schismatic false bishop to a layman, apparently a schismatic leader, was opened there, in which the false bishop informs about the decree of the Belokrinitsky false metropolis of a new false bishop, with the name of the Archbishop of Vladimir; expresses confusion whether to recognize him, because he was installed without the consent of two former Russian false bishops. There is no need to explain how dangerous it is for the verbal flock when wolves no longer visibly attack from the outside, but unwitting watchmen walk among the sheep, in sheep’s clothing. The duty of loyalty to the Holy Church and to the most pious Emperor does not allow me to hide my thought that the admission and even patronage of the absurd Belokrinitsa false metropolis by foreign governments of other faiths can hardly be explained otherwise than by the unkind intention of extending through it unkind influence on Russia, in religious and state terms. And so, for all reasons, it was necessary to strictly take advantage of the legally presented opportunity, to sow a good seed on the soil of the Rogozhsky cemetery, on which it grew and from which so many evil chaff were spread. The new parishioners of the new Edinoverie church also presented me with a petition for the approval of the merchant Sapelkin, whom they had elected as its elder. This election has been confirmed by me. Which I most respectfully report to the Holy Synod 559. November 23. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count N.A. Protasov, with the transmission of a list from his report to the Holy Synod, about the accession of the schismatic priest Peter Ermilov-Rusanov to the Edinoverie Church The list of my report to the Holy Synod regarding the joining of the schismatic priest Peter Ermilov Rusanov to the Edinoverie Church, I herewith oblige to forward to your Excellency. With perfect respect and devotion, I have the honor to be your Excellency, dear sir, most humble servant. Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow. List from the report to the Holy Governing Synod, from the Metropolitan of Moscow, dated November 22, 1854, No. 484. This November 20th day, I received from the priest Pyotr Ermilov Rusanov, who is located at the Rogozhsky schismatic cemetery, a petition in which he, mentioning that due to illness and old age, is unable to fulfill spiritual needs in that cemetery, and that “he wants to repent of his error, at the end of his life, to ask to join him to the church of the same faith. In his own handwriting, to this petition not written in his own hand, he added: “This petition was written at my own request, from my sincere words.” It would have been desirable for me, before joining, to immediately see him and personally enter into a discussion with him about this subject, but he responded that his state of health did not allow him to come to me (of which I was confirmed in another way), and meanwhile he asked to speed up the joining. Taking into account that his determination already represents a significant victory over addiction to his previous position and its worldly benefits, and consequently marks the action of an awakened conscience; and that with his seventy-year old age and poor health, he may need immediate spiritual help, - I allowed the Edinoverie Nikolaev, that in the Rogozhsky almshouse, the church of the priest Simeon Morozov, join the priest Ermilov to the Edinoverie church, and if, depending on the state of his health, he will soon need to partake of the holy mysteries, then, after confession, if there is no doubt, announce to him this is the bishop's permission and blessing. On the 21st day, priest Simeon Morozov informed me that priest Yermilov on this day, according to his rank, was annexed to the Edinoverie church in the St. Nicholas Church; and when reporting this, he attached Yermilov’s signature, in which he promises to remain in obedience to the holy Orthodox Church. Priest Morozov verbally added that Ermilov, having recovered in health, wants to come to me and ask to be left alone in the Rogozh almshouse. Then other information regarding the present case will be required from him. Having reported this to the Holy Synod, I will not fail to report the next one. Correct: Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow 560. December 31st. Report to the Holy Synod of Metropolitan Philaret, with an opinion on the projects of the Ministry of State Property, regarding the proposed procedure for managing rural parish schools of this department By decree of the Holy Synod, dated August 25, 1854, No. 8528, 561 projects received from the Minister of State Property were forwarded to Metropolitan Philaret regarding the proposed procedure for managing rural parish schools that were in his department, so that, on the content of these projects, considerations and conclusions would be delivered to the Holy Synod. On this decree, Metropolitan Philaret wrote: December 31st. Convey with an opinion. Then, in fulfillment of the said decree, he reported to the Holy Synod: The Holy Synod, by decree of August 25, 1854, No. 8528, forwarded to me the drafts received from the Minister of State Property: 1) general regulations on rural schools, 2) instructions to the chambers of state property, on their responsibilities for the organization of these schools, 3) instructions to diocesan authorities, on the responsibilities of the ecclesiastical department in managing those schools, and 4) draft rules for rural schools, on on the basis of which the Holy Synod, back in 1851, recognized it as possible to accept these schools under its authority, and at the same time I was ordered to submit considerations and conclusions on them to the Holy Synod. In pursuance of this, I most respectfully submit the considerations and opinions that seem necessary for the consideration of the Holy Synod, with the explanation that I did not consider the second of the above projects, as it relates directly to the civil department. I hereby present all the above projects to your Holiness. Questions and thoughts that arise when reading the regulations on rural parochial schools § 13. “Practical spelling with an explanation of grammatical rules” is possible without teaching all grammar, and is it convenient to make this a common subject of study for studying peasant children? § 23. The most excellent students, upon completion of their studies and upon reaching adulthood, are given a preferential right to election to rural and volost positions, and to a clerk, with exemption from recruitment duty. Will it be beneficial for the good organization of peasant societies if twenty-two-year-old literate people take positions and gain the appearance of an advantage and some power over sixty-year-old experienced, pious, honest peasants, even if they are illiterate? Will it not be harmful to the morals and unanimity of societies if the patriarchal, age-old order, deeply based in nature, is shaken by the new superficial, transient order of the school? Is it useful to encourage peasant children to study with the promise that they will be important people in the peasantry and can receive exemption from conscription? Many people dream of becoming excellent students, although few actually become such; and the expected excellent place in society and excellent students will not always be found; what will happen if tens and hundreds of children graduate from rural schools, dreaming of positions and freedom from recruitment, and then disappointed? Will they take up the plow as willingly as they would have taken it if they had not been infected with the dream of becoming higher than their condition? And in the higher ranks of the peasantry, encouragement to study with external rewards partly arouses jealousy, partly damages its purity. Previously, they went to study out of duty, out of love and reverence for science, and the goal was success; upon the proclamation of contractual rewards, and those who are not called go to study, having science not as an end, but as a means, turning it into a road that is hastily and carelessly trampled in order to reach a brilliant reward, and which they soon leave behind them. In the peasantry, it is especially necessary that encouragement for learning should be contained in ordinary peasant life. A peasant who sees that his neighbor’s son reads and sings in church, speaks more intelligently about faith than his father, checks and writes down household accounts, and reads an edifying book for the family on a holiday, will probably say: I need to send my son to school too. § 26. “Mentors and their assistants, upon completion of the tests, are presented with awards.” Will there be enough rewards if after each test? § 32. The spiritual authorities are entrusted, among other things, with the appointment of mentors. The following note seems necessary to this article. As the spiritual authorities can appoint mentors only from the persons of their department, such as the wives or widows of clergy and clergymen, especially those who were educated in religious educational institutions for female children; and as such cannot be found everywhere, then the spiritual authorities, depending on the need, can turn to the assistance of the head of the chamber of state property, to identify a mentor from a village or other rank, by mutual consultation. But here the question also arises for reflection: to what extent is the school education of rural female children necessary, convenient and useful? The purpose of the male sex is family and social life beyond the family circle, therefore family, public and school education befits him. The purpose of the female sex is family life, therefore family upbringing also befits it. The youth, freed from family shyness at school, acquiring courage and agility and the habit of freely dealing with strangers, prepares through this for public life; the young woman, receiving such a direction, in some way deviates from the character and purpose inherent to her gender. They say: a mother who has been well-educated in school is better able to instruct her children. Doubtful. Obedience, good behavior, modesty, piety, family love, without science, every good mother can teach her child. School instruction is not conveyed so conveniently. We see examples of mothers who have never been to school and wisely raise their children with them; on the contrary, mothers who were educated in the best educational institutions for female children send their daughters to the same institutions. The mother, who did not study, out of need, with grief, sent her daughter to school: then the mother, who studied without any special need, does not teach her daughter herself, but sends her to school. What is the fruit of school education? Family spirit is weakened, and the benefits of education do not extend far. From these reflections and observations the following rules could be deduced: 1. There is no need to rush to spread the education of female village children in schools, but to carefully observe whether the first few experiments will bring the desired fruit. 2. For the position of mentors, it is necessary to look with special attention for such persons who would combine the strength of a mother’s character with the necessary education and moral dignity. Therefore, the mentor should not be very young. 3. More urgently than others, children who do not have mothers, or have mothers with obvious shortcomings that impede a good upbringing, should be encouraged to attend school. Comments on the article entitled: Instruction to diocesan authorities on the responsibilities of the ecclesiastical department in managing rural parish schools. There is doubt about this title itself. The title of the instruction befits the part of this article in which the instruction is actually given to the mentor. In general, the article has legislative content, just like the inscribed article: regulations on rural parish schools. Article: instructions to diocesan authorities, not addressed to the consistory. It is addressed partly to deans and mentors, who are not the diocesan authorities, but is more addressed to the actions of the diocesan bishop. Consequently, the title means: instructions to diocesan bishops. To give them instruction is the work of the Holy Synod; and the law does not impose this duty on other authorities. Wouldn't the title of the article be more appropriate: a provision on the relationship of rural parish schools to the spiritual department? Chapter I. 5. “The local clergy has a special duty to convince peasants to send their children, and especially daughters, to schools.” Therefore, on the subject of female children, my opinion is stated above under number IV. One may be accused of barbarism if one says that even male peasant children should not be drawn into schools too intensively and hastily; however, this can be said by not ignorant caution. It is necessary to make sure, not in a very extensive way, through experiments whether literacy will receive a good direction in them, and whether the greed for vain, entertaining reading that produces fermentation of thoughts will not be aroused - this can become more harmful than illiteracy. Chapter II. 14. Mentors are supposed to be elected “through relations with the managers of the chambers of state property.” In the regulations on rural schools, the appointment of mentors is assigned directly to the department of the Holy Synod, and there is no mention of communication with the heads of the chambers. Which article should I follow? If the appointment of mentors from the clergy is allowed, as stated above under number IV, then in this case it is useless to communicate with the manager of the chamber, who does not have the convenience of knowing the elected person. If a person of non-clerical rank is elected, communication with the manager of the chamber is necessary. The election of a peasant woman as a mentor can be useful if there is a middle-aged girl or widow who leads a modest and pious life. The election of young people who graduated from a rural school does not seem reliable. 22. In the absence of a mentor, it is allowed to entrust another only with teaching reading and writing. If the mentor is absent for a week (16); Why stop other things for so long? Why, for example, can’t a temporary teacher teach arithmetic? Chapter IV. 35. b) It is commanded after the tests to present to the Holy Synod: “a short log of what happened and what was observed during the test.” Such journals for each school in the community can present a burdensome chain of repetitions of the same thing. Wouldn’t it be more convenient and useful to present: from the logs set up at the test site, an extract of what especially deserves management attention or requires permission. 35. c) It is commanded to present to the Holy Synod: “Description of the state of the school and its premises.” The condition of the school should be visible in the previous article. And for the bishop to describe each school’s upper room, and the vestibule, and the porch, and the windows with strong or dilapidated frames, with intact or broken glass - will the Holy Synod be bothered to listen to this? Let the district commander present a description of the school premises to the state property chamber. Only if the premises of the school are very unsatisfactory, and the chamber is not satisfied with this, will the bishop need to mention this in a report to the Holy Synod. Note to some articles of the circular to the district commander. To 17 and 18. The portrait of the Sovereign Emperor, since you can have it, is like a decoration for a rural school. But to present someone else’s portrait along with the necessary one, doesn’t it mean introducing a confusion of concepts into rural minds? To 21. If, by misfortune, it is necessary for the school to arouse ambition in female children, under the name of competition, at least there is no need to mix male and female names in one list, and confuse male ambition with female, and sow the idea of ​​equal rights for both sexes, let the girl compete with the girl: and that is enough. To 33, 42, 43 and 44. It is impossible to judge these articles when it is not clear which books are being discussed. This may also mean that the sale of books in rural schools is more to be feared than to be rejoiced at. To 76. If one should not be stingy in rewarding students, then one should not be wasteful; judicious moderation and justice are needed. Extravagance in rewards is worse than stinginess, because it detracts more than it excites, and it degrades rewards in the eyes of those awarded. To 87. Filling schools with girls in greater numbers than boys, isn’t it an unnecessary effort? Will it be good when a wife considers herself to be the teaching of her husband? Wouldn't it be more careful not to intensify the training of girls until experience shows with a smaller number of students what the fruit will be 562? The original is kept in the Moscow diocesan library, section III, sheets 64–65. From the book of minutes of the Holy Synod, for 1854, month of February, No. 188, pp. 999 and 1000. See about him above, p. 527, note. 2. Sapelkin, Vlad. Andr., a Moscow merchant, one of the schismatics - a zealous co-religionist. He published a book entitled: “Information about the churches of the same faith, especially about their organization in Moscow, M. 1858.” From my own draft. authentic, storing in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory No. 48, doc. Nos. 1 and 2). Lvov, see about him above, p. 282, approx. 1. Luzhin, see about him above, p. 340, approx. 2. With podlian., storing. to Moscow diocesan bibliography, dept. VII, l. 106–107. See about him above, p. 327, note. 1. Bibikov, see about him above, p. 527, note. 2. The rector of the VysokoPetrovsky monastery, Archimandrite Eugene, served as rector of the Moscow Theological Academy and had a permanent residence in the Trinity Lavra of St. Sergius, where the academy is located. From a handwritten draft of the original, stored in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory No. 14, file No. 1, 2 and 4. From an autograph, keeping. in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to oppen No. 48, document. No. 8. This report is printed below, under No. 397. From copies certified by the hand of Metropolitan Philaret, find. in the file of the office of the chief prosecutor of the Holy Synod, 1854, according to II department, 1st article, inventory No. 46, according to architect. 79, sheets 6, 12–14. The certificate was printed in Christ. Thu, 1854, part 2, page 523. See below, No. 397, pp. 562–567. With his own hand. Chernov. authentic, storage in the archives of the Holy Synod according to inventory No. 48, document. No. 6. About him, see above, p. 551, note. 1. See above, no. 395, pp. 558–561. With his own hand. Chernov. authentic, storage in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory No. 48, document. No. 5; clerical matter Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, 1854, dept. II, 2nd class, 4th category, No. 79. Case of the chancellor. Chief Proc., Holy Synod, 1854, according to the II department, table 1, No. 46, No. 79, sheet. 23–25. Kiselev, gr. Pavel Dmitr., see about him above, p. 238, note. 2. With own black. authentic, storing to Moscow diocesan bibliography, dept. XI. 11. 1–2; 14–20; 38–39.