1855 г.
Machine translation from the original · Show original
February 19. Proposal of Metropolitan Philaret of the Moscow Holy Synod Office to perform a short prayer service and take an oath on the occasion of the accession to the throne of Emperor Alexander Nikolaevich
Moscow Holy Synod office proposal.
Because it pleased God the most pious Sovereign Emperor Nikolai Pavlovich, on the 18th day of this February, to call from this temporary life to eternal life, and His Imperial Majesty, the most pious Sovereign Emperor Alexander Nikolaevich ascended to the ancestral all-Russian throne, and the highest manifesto on this (as was notified by the highest will) is to be received tomorrow, the 20th day, on Sunday: then, according to my consultation with the Moscow military governor-general 1, on this very day, at two o’clock in the afternoon, in the cathedral church of the Chudov Monastery, and after that in other churches of the capital, after reading the highest manifesto, a short prayer service (pure litany, prayer and dismissal) is to be performed, with many years to His Imperial To the Majesty, according to the order of the prayer service laid down on the day of the accession of the most pious Sovereign Emperor to the throne, and immediately after that the oath of loyalty should be taken to the Sovereign Emperor Alexander Nikolaevich.
For this, the bishops and senior clergy must gather in the cathedral church of the Miracle Monastery at half past two in the afternoon, and at the same time in other churches the clergy must be ready to read the highest manifesto and perform prayers and the oath. I propose to give notice to the Office of the Holy Synod about this, and distribute copies of the highest manifesto and sworn papers, as soon as they are available, to the churches and monasteries of its department.
Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow
No. 85. February 19, 1855 2
February 25. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to Empress Alexandra Feodorovna, expressing grief over the death of Emperor Nicholas Pavlovich
Most Pious Empress
I don’t know whether the boldness I accept is excusable, and therefore I slowly make up my mind; however, I finally decide to appear before your Imperial Majesty with a humble word.
But what can I say about the great deprivation with which God, inscrutable in his destinies, so suddenly visited Russia? It is felt by one and all; but it is more convenient and more natural to express it not in words, but in sighs, tears and deep silence of hearts uttered by sadness and, at the same time, submissive to the fate of God.
Your soul will be the first to be pierced by this weapon. We understand that nothing can equal the greatness of your sadness other than the greatness of love that united your soul with the soul of your sovereign husband. And with the prayer of sadness for the king who died in God, with the prayer of consolation and hope for the king given to us by God, and for his wife, and for his heir, we unite a special prayer for you, most pious Empress, may the Lord hear you on the day of sorrow and, having overshadowed your soul with His gracious peace, grant you the opportunity to say to Him: for the multitude of my illnesses in my heart, your consolation make my soul glad.
In truth, the mother of the blessedly reigned king, the foremother of the heir to the king! Isn’t there a consolation for you in these names, as righteous and strong as your sorrow?
May you be comforted by the memory that your sovereign husband, throughout his reign, among tireless labors and in hours of sorrow or grief, with his loving heart always found true peace near your loving heart. By keeping him calm, you kept the treasure of Russia.
May you be comforted by the memory of how significantly the Lord blessed his life in his last days and hours, in which the bright features of the king and father of the family, a Christian, despite the exhaustion of the outer man, shone so strongly, so edifyingly and beneficially. Your prayer connected with his last prayer. Death has no power over this union: it extends from time to eternity. Prayer brings us closer to God: and near this center of beings and worlds, that which is separated in the world of change is not separated. With the prayer of faith and hope, cast your sorrow upon the Lord.
We think with consolation that your love for your sovereign son prompts you to moderate your sadness, so that it does not increase the burden of his soul, while he took upon his shoulders a great burden - Russia.
If I may be allowed to say something about myself: I am deprived of my last consolation in the proximity of offering my last debt in God to the deceased Sovereign, who honored my small service with attention, and with his mercies far beyond my dignity, indulged me, and looked condescendingly at my shortcomings. But I must submit to a double necessity: my official duty binds me to a place, and my dilapidation deprives me of hope of surviving a long journey.
February 28. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Empress Maria Alexandrovna, regarding the death of the Sovereign Emperor Nikolai Pavlovich and on the occasion of the accession to the throne of the Sovereign Emperor Alexander Nikolaevich
Most Pious Empress
Like a sudden thunderclap, the news of the great deprivation suffered by Russia broke out over the sons of the fatherland.
But at the same time, the bright features of a Christian king were revealed to the Christian eye, reverently preparing to go to God, and in unchanging greatness of spirit blessing his successor and his heir.
Following this, the light of the king ascending to the throne appeared just as majestically. The assembled sigklit saw and felt in his first glances and words that the parental blessing was affirmed on him from above, and that the Spirit of the Master rested on him.
In these circumstances, the word faints before strong and varied feelings. And I would not have dared to present myself now to the attention of Your Imperial Majesty, if your condescension had not been pleased to open the door to my humble word.
In the hearts of the loyal subjects, the sadness for the king who died in Bose is comfortingly dissolved by the hope for the king given by God. But there is still deep sadness for us, at the thought of the deep sadness of the august family.
How early and at what time the Lord called from us the unforgettable Sovereign Emperor Nikolai Pavlovich! What can we say to this? Who understands the mind of the Lord, or who is His counselor (Rom. 11:34)? But we know that the counsel of the Lord is always wise and good. Let us bow humbly before His incomprehensibility and offer the sacrifice of obedience to His holy will.
The power of the earth is in the hand of the Lord, and in time He will raise up what is needed on it, says the Wise One (Sir.10:4).
Wasn’t it obvious how beneficial the Lord in his time raised the most pious Sovereign Emperor Nicholas I, who on the first day of his reign saved Russia from internal danger? And now, with external hostile attempts against Russia, let us believe and hope that the Lord raised up the most pious Sovereign Emperor Alexander II at the right time.
Most of all, may the Lord Himself overshadow and fill the hearts of your sovereign spouse and yours turned to Him with His gracious peace, and, according to the king’s word, may He precede you with a gracious blessing and place on your head a crown from an honorable stone (Ps. 20:4).
For this we, the humble ministers of the church, under her leadership, pray to the Lord in peace, we pray with hope.
March 7. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Minister of Internal Affairs on the swearing of allegiance to the Sovereign Emperor and his heir by schismatics of the priestly and non-priestly persuasion
The Minister of Internal Affairs 5, due to the particular importance of the circumstances and in view of the existing regulations on the swearing-in of schismatics, in a letter dated February 28, 1855, No. 292, asked Metropolitan Philaret to provide information on how the schismatics of the priestly and non-popovshchinist interpretations were sworn to the oath of allegiance to the Sovereign Emperor and his heir in Rogozhsky and Preobrazhensky, in Moscow, cemeteries.
Regarding, dated February 28, No. 292, Your Excellency, having outlined the information that has reached you, firstly, that, by order of the local authorities, the schismatics of the priestly sect were sworn to allegiance to the Sovereign Emperor and the Sovereign Heir, the Tsarevich, in one of the chapels of the Rogozh almshouse; secondly, that the non-priest schismatics were sworn in in one of the chapels of the Preobrazhensky cemetery, through their mentor - please demand from me the information that I have about this.
I answer first on the second subject.
Not before February 24, it became known to me that the oath at the Preobrazhensky cemetery took place exactly as it came to your attention, but by what order, I do not know.
As for the schismatics of the Rogozh cemetery, to my surprise and regret, having learned from the Moscow military governor-general 6 that they did not take the allegiance oath on one day, and wish to take it not in the manner prescribed by law, but in my own, arbitrary manner, I considered it my duty, if possible, to take part in stopping this important indecency in such an important case.
With the consent of the Moscow military governor-general, I talked for 22 days with the trustees and some schismatics, trying to bring them to order with gentle admonitions. But, having remained persistent for two days, they, of course, found it convenient to continue their persistence further. Therefore, when they agreed to accept one condition required by law, that the oath should be taken by an Orthodox priest, but continued to evade another legal condition, that the oath should be taken in the church, and wanted to take it in the chapel: then I decided to allow this, in application to the highest command, explained in a secret decree, on December 13, 1838 7, so that the evasion of the oath would not continue, or the oath would not follow, with a violation of both legal conditions, which is what actually happened at the Preobrazhenskoe cemetery.
However, please see the statement of this incident more clearly in the attached list from my report to the Holy Synod 8 .
March 7. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the current Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, A.I. Karasevsky 9, about the two-day evasion of the schismatics of the Rogozhsky cemetery from the allegiance oath and some of their other actions that require attention and forethought
Your Excellency, dear sir
About the incident that the schismatics of the Rogozhsky cemetery (priesthood) did not take the oath of allegiance for two days, and about how this difficulty was resolved, having drawn up a secret report to the Holy Synod, in order to more accurately protect the secret, I decide to forward it to your Excellency, on the assumption that you decide to offer it to the Holy Synod, with the least participation office, or even find it necessary to first bring it to the highest attention.
With this, my duty as a servant of the Orthodox Church and my duty as a loyal subject, I am prompted to further outline some of the circumstances of the Rogozh schismatics, which require attention and forethought.
In 1853 and 1854, some of the Rogozh schismatics began to turn to the diocesan authorities, expressing a desire to establish a Edinoverie church at the Rogozhsky cemetery, first offering some special conditions, and then agreeing to accept the existing rules of Edinoverie 10. When the number of those wishing for this turned out to be significant, with the highest permission, on September 20, 1854, the Edinoverie Church was consecrated at the Rogozhsky cemetery; and from the 17th day of that month until the end of January 1855, that is, a little over four months, 1451 souls of both sexes joined from the priestly sect to the unity of faith.
Meanwhile, the stubborn dissenters, having previously noticed in significant members of their society a direction towards unity of faith, in order to strengthen themselves, through their trustees Vinokurov and Zelenkov, by request, sought to obtain priests at their disposal, outside the legal hierarchical order; but, by the highest order, this was denied to them in May of last 1854.
From now until this year, the Rogozh dissenters, although they tried to keep the schismatic people from joining the unified faith, there were no noticeable results. This year the crisis began. On January 23 there was an unusually large meeting of schismatics in the chapel, and a ritual was used, which according to the rules is used only on Easter - placing a large censer with incense in the middle of the church. From the intelligence of the caretaker of the Rogozhsky cemetery, it is clear that this meeting was convened through messengers, for a hearing, supposedly, in favor of the schismatics of the decree. Rumors attribute this case to the split leader merchant Sveshnikov and the trustee Zelenkov.
But the most important proof was the two-day failure of the Rogozh schismatics to take the oath of allegiance. Moreover, when their trustees were convinced to agree that their oath should be, according to the law, to an Orthodox priest, they made an effort to be independent in that they did not submit to the order of the spiritual authorities in appointing a priest, but chose the Karachar priest themselves.
A few days after this priest was at the Rogozhsky cemetery, when the schismatics were taking the oath of loyalty, he, to protect himself from criticism, reported to me about a rumor spread among the schismatics that they wanted to win him over with money and ask him for themselves in the same position as they had runaway priests 11 .
I repeat here what I mentioned in my report to the Holy Synod dated September 25, 1854, No. 84, that for several years now, with the money of the Rogozh schismatics, through their agents in the Austrian possessions, with the consent of the local ministry, the schismatic Belokrinitsa false metropolis has been established; that two false bishops were first appointed there for the Russian schismatics, who, under civilian names, visit Moscow and other cities and appoint false priests for the schismatics; that in 1854 a third appeared, with the title of Archbishop of Vladimir.
Do such actions of schismatics show their loyalty to their Sovereign and their fatherland, and could they pave the way for foreign influence on them, even political? The most reasonable of the schismatics do not recognize these false bishops and the false priests they have appointed; and there is disagreement among the false bishops themselves; but when these wolves in sheep's clothing walk among the sheep, unnoticed by the guards, they have many opportunities to kidnap verbal sheep not only from the schismatic, but also from the Orthodox common people. According to rumors, last year the false bishops left Moscow; but, according to current rumors, one of them is again in Moscow.
Thus, important signs are revealed that the Rogozh split leaders are beginning to act with greater courage and self-reliance than before.
In these circumstances, it means especially much to preserve the rules given in Bose by the late, most pious Sovereign Emperor Nikolai Pavlovich, in relation to the schism. If these rules remain unchanged, the revealed evidence of a schism will lose its meaning and will remain without consequences. But if the dissenters had achieved, in the form of condescension, some withdrawal from them in their favor, then they would not have failed to present this to the common people as their advantage; would have strengthened their desire to form into a closed separation from the general state structure (statu in statu) and, among the numerous co-religionists in different dioceses, the less established ones could have been shaken, and thus weakened the co-religionist churches, and also the false hierarchy hiding in the holes could have gained more courage to continue its harmful actions.
These observations on the current state of the Rogozh schismatics, in my best understanding, are so important that I am prompted to suggest to your Excellency whether they should be brought to the highest attention.
With complete respect and devotion, I have the honor to be your Excellency’s most humble servant, Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow.
No. 27. March 7, 1855 12
March 7. Report to the Holy Synod of Metropolitan Philaret about the two-day evasion of the Rogozh schismatics from the all-submissive oath of allegiance to the Sovereign Emperor and his heir
A report to the Most Holy Governing Synod from its member, Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow.
The decree of the Governing Senate, jointly with the Holy Synod, dated March 15, 1725, states: in Moscow, schismatics should be sworn in in the same churches where others take the oath, and, in what way, this will be done in agreement with the Most Reverend Pitirim, Archbishop 13 .
The secret decree, December 13, 1838, depicts the highest command in Bose of the late Sovereign Emperor Nikolai Pavlovich: 1) in application to the highest command, January 17, 1836, on the cleansing oath, and to bring schismatics to the witness oath mainly in the church, using for this Gospel the old printed and cross of the ancient dispensation; 2) in special cases, at the discretion of the authorities, allow such a witness oath to be performed in court; 3) for this purpose, the Gospel and the cross of the above type must be brought by an Orthodox priest.
In the affairs of the Moscow diocesan administration there are examples that schismatics obeyed these laws.
After the oath of allegiance to His Imperial Majesty the Emperor Alexander Nikolaevich was taken throughout Moscow on the 20th day of February, on the 22nd day it became known to me from the Moscow military governor-general that the schismatics of the Rogozhsky cemetery had not yet taken the oath, expressing through the trustees their doubts about taking it in the prescribed manner. Taking into account that in this important case we must do our best to stop the difficulty and not allow an unseemly stop, I suggested that the Moscow military governor-general invite the trustees and some of the senior schismatics to me in order to explain the matter to them and give advice.
And when two trustees and three others came to me, I suggested to them that the law should be obeyed; that in this important case we must make every effort to demonstrate our loyal zeal by taking an oath; that they will be offered for oath the Gospel and the ancient cross, acceptable to them: that the priest will only be a witness to this; that it is in vain that they want to take the oath without a priest, whom they now do not have, because only a priest (which they cannot deny) has the right to touch the Holy Gospel and the Holy Cross, and bring them for kissing; that a priest of the same faith will be used for their oath, who serves according to old printed books and according to rituals acceptable to them. To this they replied that they did not want a priest of the same faith, but rather a priest from the village of Karacharov, who would offer them the Gospel and a cross to take the oath in their chapel.
Wanting to end the difficulty as quickly as possible, I immediately gave instructions to the Karacharov priest, and the oath took place.
On the basis of the law commanding the reporting of special incidents, I am obligated to report this incident to the Holy Synod, especially since this case has significance that requires special attention.
The schismatics previously obeyed the above laws on the oath in cases of less importance, but now in the most important case, they did not want to obey and allowed themselves to remain for two days without taking an oath of allegiance.
These are the schismatics of a sect that accepts the priesthood: but they wanted to take the oath without a priest. Consequently, it was not so much religious conviction that was at work here as the desire to act according to one’s own will.
They did not accept a priest of the same faith, who served according to their rites and was closest to the place, but demanded a village priest. And in this, obviously, they acted not out of religious conviction, but out of a desire to express their indignation at the former members of their society, who separated from them and formed a co-religious church.
In this way, the schismatic leaders try to show their strength to the common people of the schismatics, and thereby keep them in their dependence, feed them with exaggerated hopes and prevent them from joining the co-religious church. For this purpose, they sent agents, especially to the Bogorodsk district, where many schismatics live; there is information from the local clergy that cannot be put into official forms, but which has signs of reliability. Your Holiness's humblest novice. Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow.
No. 23. March 7, 1855 14
March 9. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to Emperor Alexander II, expressing the loyal feelings of himself and his Moscow flock, and with a request to accept 110,600 rubles for military needs, donated by Moscow churches and monasteries of the Moscow diocese
Let him who was previously blessed by your condescension be allowed to trust in it now, and may not the boldness of a loyal subject be condemned, long kept in silence by reverence, but finally irresistibly moved by zeal, so that at least from afar he may appear to Your Imperial Majesty through a word, while many, happier ones, appeared close to your face, and enjoyed the light of your royal gaze and words.
Casting ourselves, together with those entrusted to me at the altar of the Lord in the Moscow church, at the sacred feet of Your Imperial Majesty, we all cry out to you with one heart: Tsar, live forever! And at the same time to the King of kings: Lord, in your power may the king rejoice!
The Providence of God, which called you to the great feat of autocracy over a great empire, entrusted you, at the same time, to continue the special great feat of your great parent: the defense of the church and the fatherland from the complicity of enemies, among whom those who call themselves Christians surpassed the enemies of Christianity with untruths and inhumanity.
In these circumstances, the clergy entrusted to me, zealous to help meet the needs of the fatherland with all possible means, from the savings of the monasteries of the Moscow diocese and the churches of Moscow, offered and made voluntary offerings amounting to 110,600 rubles. ser.
Most pious Sovereign! May this sacrifice of loyal zeal be acceptable before you and before the fatherland. Deign most mercifully to command that the said offering be accepted for the needs of the war for Orthodox Christianity and for the Fatherland 15.
April 20. Comments by Metropolitan Philaret on the opinion of the Moscow ecclesiastical censorship committee on the matter of publishing the manuscript, entitled: “Illustration of the Bulgarian Tsar Simeon and the Russian Grand Duke Svyatoslav Yaroslavich” 16
On September 10, 1852, Moscow University professor Joseph Bodyansky addressed Metropolitan Philaret with the following request: “Occupying the department of history and literature of Slavic dialects at the Imperial Moscow University, I constantly feel a lack of monuments for the study of the Old Slavic language, which, as is known, constitutes the basis and starting point in the field of Slavic philology, the same as Gothic in German, Sanskrit in general in Indo-European. But none of the repositories of books and manuscripts in this, in many respects, sacred to us and our fellow tribesmen, language that I am familiar with, from descriptions and my own experience, both in Russia and abroad, can compare with the same repository located in Moscow and formerly known under the name of the Patriarchal, and now Synodal.
His Excellency, Count Sergius Grigoryevich Stroganov 17, when he was chairman of the Imperial Society of Russian History and Antiquities at Moscow University, by virtue of the permission of the Holy Synod (decree of April 10, 1841) to use the manuscripts of the synodal and printing libraries by members of the society who were not subject to prohibition for special reasons, several times appealed through the Moscow office of the Holy Synod, to your Eminence for permission to release from the named libraries some of the most ancient charatean manuscripts necessary for the scientific studies of the then secretary of the said historical society.
Having studied from among these manuscripts the “Izbornik”, hitherto known under the name “Izbornik” of the Russian Grand Duke Svyatoslav Yaroslavich, but, according to the latest discoveries, actually translated for the Bulgarian Tsar Simeon, and comparing it according to 3 lists (one parchment and two paper), as well as checking it with the Greek original of the 9th century, which belonged to Koalenu and now stored in the Paris public library, from which a list was removed, specifically for the publication I had planned, under the direct supervision of the chief head of this library, the Hellenist Giese, famous in the scientific world, 18 E. Miller, also a Hellenist, and cost about a thousand francs, and would like to publish this monument into the world, and thereby facilitate, if possible, an accurate acquaintance with in the Church Slavonic language directly, according to the very sources, laying the foundation for the harathean lists in their most ancient form.
And therefore I turn to your Eminence with my most humble request for permission to use in the publication the charate list of this monument, which belongs to the Moscow Synodal Library, a place under the supreme authority of your Eminence. With this we will somehow soften the reproaches, unfortunately well-deserved, that our fellow philologists make to us so often in modern times, that, being the only owners of the most numerous and rare monuments of the Old Church Slavonic language, instead of setting an example, we remain completely indifferent to their publication and consider it as if our duty in this regard has been fulfilled by printing the so-called “Ostromir Gospel”, 19 forgetting that, despite all its importance, it cannot replace the absence of others.” At this petition, a manuscript in three volumes was presented.
At the request of the Metropolitan of Bodyana on September 11, he wrote to the censorship committee: “I propose to examine the manuscript presented here, in three volumes, and draw a conclusion, which should be known to me before execution.” In pursuance of this resolution, the manuscript was examined by a member of the committee, Archpriest Peter Delitsyn, 20 who, after a thorough analysis of the manuscript, presented the committee with the following conclusion: “The publication of the manuscript “Izbornik”, due to the antiquity of the copy from which the publication is supposed to be made, as well as the importance and variety of content, is very useful for the study of our ancient language.
This benefit will increase significantly when, together with the list selected for publication in our Russian language, both the list from the ancient Greek original and the dissertation from three other Russian lists will be printed; because a comparison of the Russian list with the Greek will serve to explain in the first saying, either those that have now fallen out of use, or that were used in a different meaning from the current one, or that were not used according to the exact understanding of the Greek original; and discrepancies from other lists are necessary, both for clarification, in places and for correction of the main list, and for studying the history of our writing. But in order for this publication to be more consistent with its scientific purpose, it is considered necessary:
1) Publish the Greek text in a more correct form than in which it is in the manuscript, and, moreover, trying to maintain, as much as possible, the closeness of the Greek text with the ancient Russian translation.
2) The Russian text of the published manuscript should be carefully re-checked with its ancient copy, paying special attention to those places whose meaning seems, or actually turns out to be, inconsistent with the meaning of the Greek original, and more precisely considering whether these places could either be read differently, or from ancient forms of language explained not in the sense that they suggest at first glance.
3) Places that even after this in the ancient Russian list will turn out to be in disagreement with the Greek original, accompany them with comments, explaining in them the inaccuracy, or inaccuracy, or ambiguity of the ancient translation, and show in which of those lists from which the publisher has collected divergences, the translation is more correct, and what exactly this correctness consists of, and what is the measure of this correctness.
4) But as such, improvements in the proposed publication will necessarily require many and lengthy labors from the publisher, and when they are made by the publisher, they must again be subject to censorship review. In order to speed up this useful publication and not burden the publisher with new copying of manuscripts, which requires great clarity, allow him, according to Article 37 of the statute on censorship, to submit corrected sheets to the censorship not in the manuscript, but in the last proof, embossed on writing paper.
5) And since this publication is supposed to be made from an ancient manuscript stored in the synodal library, then for such a publication we must first seek the permission and blessing of the Holy Governing Synod 21. The committee agreed with this conclusion, and on April 16, 1855, submitted it to the discretion of Metropolitan Philaret, who, for his part, gave the following opinion on this conclusion 22.
My opinion: 1) Since, when examining the manuscript by the censorship committee, no doubts were revealed in relation to Orthodoxy and other rules and laws, then it is allowed to print it, following the example of what is permitted, with the permission of the Holy Synod, the publication of the ancient manuscript of Gospel 23 according to the Ostromir list; and about this to be presented to the Holy Synod in advance. The collection is a subject of less importance than the Gospel, and therefore with less care can be admitted to publication.
2) Since the immediate goal of publishing this manuscript is to present to the public an accurate snapshot of a monument of ancient writing, making it, if possible, easier to understand and use in the types of archaeology, philology and criticism, then allow it to be published as it is, without requiring guesswork corrections to the text.
3) If, in order to supplement, clarify, or explain the text, when the manuals are opened, more comments can be made in addition to those already made by the worker, allow him to add them and present them to the committee, in due time, in proof sheets.
4) Comparison with Gretcher's edition praises the committee's thoroughness in examining the Greek manuscript; but this was not connected with the necessary duty of the committee. He, Gretcher, is no more an authority for the now proposed publication than he is for Gretcher 24 .
Having accepted this opinion of the Metropolitan, the committee made a decision. Allow the printing of these manuscripts, so that 1) the Greek text is published as it is presented in the list, accompanying its differences from the Slavic text with comments; 2) carefully check the Slavic text with the original, paying special attention to those places whose meaning seems to disagree with the meaning of the Greek original; 3) if, in order to supplement, explain and clarify the text, more comments can be made when the tools are opened, give the author the right to add them, 4) for the most convenient monitoring of all this by the committee, charge the publisher with the obligation to present, when printing, the book in the latest proof 25.
May 2. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Moscow military governor-general, Count A.A. Zakrevsky, on the occasion of the refusal of schismatics No. 114 of the state militia squad to take the oath of loyalty in Orthodox churches
Regarding your Excellency, dated May 1, No. 720, it is depicted: the head of the state militia squad No. 114, located in the city of Bronnitsy, explaining the difficulties he encountered in swearing in the schismatic warriors who had entered the squad entrusted to him, who do not take the oath in our churches, asks for instructions on exactly how they should be sworn in.
Your Excellency deigns to require me to do this, but this subject must be given proper order.
Therefore, I made the following consideration and order:
1. The decree of the Governing Senate, jointly with the Holy Synod, dated March 15, 1725, states: in Moscow, schismatics should be sworn in in the same churches where others take the oath.
2. The secret decree, December 13, 1838, depicts the highest command in Bose of the late Sovereign Emperor Nikolai Pavlovich: 1) in application to the highest command, January 17, 1836, on the cleansing oath, and to bring schismatics to the witness oath mainly in the church, using for this Gospel the old printed and ancient cross dispensations; 2) in special cases, at the discretion of the authorities, allow such a witness oath to be performed in court; 3) for this purpose, the Gospel and the cross of the above type must be brought by an Orthodox priest.
3. In the affairs of the Moscow diocesan administration there are examples that schismatics obeyed these laws.
4. Based on the above laws and examples (due to the lack of experience of the recently identified Bronnitsy priests), order (and ordered) Podolsk Archpriest Vasily Berezkin to immediately go to Bronnitsy (appearing on the way to me), and, entering into communication with the head of the squad, invited him to call on the schismatics who were not taking the oath and exhorted them to obey the demands of their superiors, based on state laws.
5. At the same time, explain to them that the oath of allegiance is a necessary duty of a loyal subject, so that he is not considered disloyal to the Tsar and the Fatherland; that the oath now required, without a doubt, is pleasing to God, because the militia is called to defend the faith and fatherland against the enemies of infidels and aliens to the Orthodox Church; that for the oath they will be offered a printed Gospel and a cross built during the time of the first five Russian patriarchs, whom they honor, just as they honor the current Orthodox Russian Church; that when taking the oath, the priest will be present only as a witness, yet their reverence will relate to the ancient Gospel and the cross that is presented, and that, consequently, in this action there will be nothing contrary to their concepts of faith.
6. Thus, the archpriest must try to ensure that schismatics submit to both legal conditions when taking the oath, that is: 1) that it be in the church and 2) that it be with the priest.
7. If it turns out to be inconvenient to achieve this, then, in application to the highest command depicted in the decree of the Holy Synod, December 13, 1838 26, allow the oath to be taken in a civil public place, over the ancient Gospel and the cross in the presence of an Orthodox or Edinoverie priest (which can, if necessary, be demanded from the Mikhailovskaya Settlement).
8. The archpriest can take the Gospel and the cross in Moscow, from a Edinoverie church, or from a monastery, on my instructions.
This completes the order to the archpriest.
Continuing to delve into the present matter, in order to achieve the desired legal goal, I am obliged to add the following:
Experiments show that in schismatics it is not so much religious conviction that has strength, since the power of reasoning is little revealed and educated among them, but rather the stubbornness of the will, which is strengthened by the hope of concessions from the authorities, and weakens before his firmness, timely and clearly shown.
The Rogozh schismatics did not take the oath of allegiance for two days, wanting to take it not in church or in front of an Orthodox priest, and hoping for leniency; but when your Excellency did not bow to this and brought them into contact with me, then they agreed to swear allegiance to an Orthodox priest, and received him for this into their chapel, which is almost equal to their going to church for this. When it was granted to the schismatics of the Preobrazhensky cemetery that they should take the oath not in church and without a priest, then their stubbornness increased to the point that some did not want to take the oath at all. But when the official who was there firmly expressed the impossibility of allowing this, then these, the most stubborn of the others, weakened their stubbornness and took the oath.
It is likely that the example of leniency shown at the Transfiguration cemetery has an impact on what is happening now in Bronnitsy, and that this hinders the success of the admonition entrusted to the archpriest.
So, in my opinion, it would be useful if your Excellency were pleased to instruct the commanders who introduced the schismatics into the militia, and the head of the squad in Bronnitsy, to more firmly and urgently express to those who persist the need for an oath, in accordance with the highest command and law, and thereby reinforce the action of the exhorter from the spiritual side.
Finally, I humbly ask you to order that you notify me of the rank and name of the head of the squad in Bronnitsy, so that I can indicate to the appointed archpriest with whom he should enter into communication.
Metropolitan Philaret reported the contents of this letter to the Holy Synod in a secret report on May 10, and added the following.
On May 5, Archpriest Berezkin informed me that he was going to the city of Bronnitsy, and during a meeting with the head of the squad, Lieutenant Colonel Sevastyanov, on the 4th, he learned from him that everyone who had joined the militia from the schismatics had been sworn in by an Orthodox priest in the city’s Orthodox church. During the entire reception, according to Mr. Sevastyanov, only one of the schismatics showed not only resistance, but also insolence, so that in front of everyone who was present, he said that he did not want to serve the Emperor, called him the Antichrist, and spewed terrible blasphemies against the Orthodox Church. This stubborn man, after all the admonitions, could not be forced to remain silent and submit to the authorities, he, the head of the squad, sent him at the same time, with a report, under arrest to the Moscow military governor-general. After which all the schismatics who were present and heard that conversation unquestioningly submitted to the general order and took the oath, together with the Orthodox.
Another of the schismatics, before taking the oath, proposed the condition that he would take an oath to serve God and defend the fatherland, but would not say that he swears this to the Sovereign Emperor; However, this schismatic was convinced and took the oath, according to the general form.
From these experiments it is clear what kind of spirit, contrary to the government, lies in the dissenters and the most persistent schismatics of the non-priestly persuasion of the Preobrazhensky cemetery, and how harmfully it is revealed in cases of particular importance, when their persistence sees the convenience of allowing the authorities to do so.
I entrust all of the above-mentioned duty to be reported to the Holy Synod, considering this necessary in connection with the consideration of the schism 28 .
May 31st. Report of Metropolitan Philaret to the Holy Synod on the issue of pensions for clergy who served in the churches of women's educational institutions and subordinate boards of guardians 29
Some of the clergy who were in the service of churches in women's educational institutions and subordinate to the guardianship councils, and subsequently, by order of the diocesan authorities, moved to cathedral, parish or cemetery churches, asked for pensions for their previous service at the institutions. Since the existing pension rules for women's educational institutions and the department of guardianship councils stipulate that pensions should be paid only to those who, after the years of service legalized for the use of pensions, will retire, the question arose: should persons of clergy rank, even if they served in the department of women's educational institutions or guardianship councils for the number of years determined for receiving pensions, use these pensions upon their transfer to a new service to cathedral, parish or cemetery churches?
Regarding the content of this question, the Holy Synod, by decree of August 16, 1854, No. 7985, demanded the conclusion of His Eminence Metropolitan Philaret, who on May 31, 1855, No. 252, responded 30.
By Decree of the Holy Synod, dated August 16, 1854, No. 7985, considerations were required from me on the issue: some of the clergy who served in churches in women's educational institutions and subordinate to guardianship councils, and subsequently, by order of the diocesan authorities, moved to cathedral, parish or cemetery churches, addressed requests for pensions for their previous service at institutions. Since the existing pension rules for women's educational institutions and the department of guardianship councils stipulate that pensions should be paid only to those who, after completing the years of service legalized for the use of pensions, will retire, the question arises: should persons of clergy rank, even if they served in the department of women's educational institutions or guardianship councils for the number of years specified for receiving a pension, use these pensions upon their transfer to a new service in the churches cathedral, parish or cemetery?
Therefore, it is my duty to present the following considerations to the Holy Synod:
I. It is assumed in the question that some of the clergy who were in the service of educational institutions subordinate to the guardianship councils, by order of the spiritual authorities, move to other places, hardly happens, or only in rare, special circumstances. Service at these institutions requires people who are sufficiently educated and capable of gaining goodwill at the place of service through their lifestyle and behavior. The spiritual authorities, carefully electing people to such places, have no incentive to move them by order and incur the trouble of a new election. It moves them because, tired of difficult service, which becomes even more difficult with advancing age, they ask to be transferred to places where service is within their capabilities.
II. Volume 3 Compendium. Law., in Article 707, about employees in the department of guardianship councils it is said: “those who received a full salary in pension enjoy such a pension upon death, even if they re-entered the service and received a salary according to it.” The law is clear and general. To deprive clergy of the right it defines would be directly contrary to this law.
III. This would be unfair also because the clergy who occupy positions in the department of guardianship councils enjoy significant salaries and apartments, especially when continuing their service, and when moving to other places in Moscow, they receive an incomparably meager allowance, moreover, for the most part, they do not even have a government apartment, and are also forced to go into debt for the necessary purchase of a house on church land. And so, when others, for service in the department of guardianship councils, receive a reward in pensions, clergy, without receiving pensions, would not only be deprived of a reward comparable to theirs, but would also suffer significant deprivation.
IV. If the service of clergy in the department of guardianship councils were brought into such a position that, after exhaustion of strength in the difficulties of this service, it was necessary to prepare not for retirement, but for deprivation: then it would be difficult to expect worthy people willing to enter this service, and the ecclesiastical authorities are not allowed to appoint them to clergy positions against their will.
Therefore, I consider it fair to humbly ask the Holy Synod to provide patronage to the clergy serving in the department of guardianship councils, and not to deprive them of the right to pensions, which the law gives. Your Holiness's most humble novice, Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow/
No. 252. May 31, 1855 31
After hearing this answer, the Holy Synod, in view of Art. 702 and 707. Arch. zak., vol. III, charter on pensions and one-time benefits, taking into account: firstly, that the movement of clergymen serving in the department of women's educational institutions or guardianship councils to the churches of the diocesan administration is allowed for the most part at the request of those being moved; secondly, that in general clergy leave service at educational institutions after a long period of service in these places, due to exhaustion of strength in the work of service, which becomes even more difficult in old age, and for other similar valid reasons, and 3rd, that the very transfer of clergy to diocesan churches, where service is according to their strength, is always done after their complete dismissal from service at institutions, which dismissal constitutes already in relation to them complete resignation, and at the same time gives them the right, in accordance with the above Art.
law, for a well-deserved pension, - in the definition of July 8/July 14, 1855, he explained that clergy who served in the churches of women's educational institutions and subordinate to the guardianship councils for the number of years determined for receiving a pension, must inherently use this pension even after they transfer to serve the cathedral, parish and cemetery churches, because it would be disgusting to deprive them of such a pension 707 Art. pension charter 32.
June 8. Metropolitan Philaret's proposal to the board of the Moscow Theological Academy to revise the 34 programs for teaching church jurisprudence at universities compiled by the inspector of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy Archimandrite John 33 and the former professor of the Moscow Academy Priest Anichkov 34
Proposal to the Board of the Moscow Theological Academy.
The purpose of the science of church jurisprudence must indicate the correct composition of this teaching, the general limits of this teaching, so that the teacher does not intrude into the areas of other theological sciences and does not burden his teaching to outsiders, and the limits of this teaching especially in relation to its teaching in higher educational institutions of the Ministry of Public Education, where this teaching, of necessity, should not receive such a lengthy assignment as in theological schools.
The program compiled at the St. Petersburg Theological Academy does not seem to sufficiently satisfy the above requirement.
Sheet 1. “The study of law has as its subject precisely the governance of the church as a whole.” Is it just management? What about teaching? What about the court? What about the laws on church property? Is the management of the church as a whole accurate?
With such a definition of jurisprudence, it would have to talk almost only about ecumenical councils, and nothing more.
If the subject of science is not precisely defined: can it be accurately disclosed in the program of science?
“Sources: 1) canonical, 2) practical, 3) historical.” According to this arrangement, the “Spiritual Regulations” and the “Code of Laws” in the program go ahead, before the sources of the former times of the church, “preserving the importance of venerable antiquity.” Wasn't a better order possible?
“The manuals are: collections and publications of ancient apostolic, conciliar and patristic rules, in Greek, Slavonic, Slavonic Russian.” If these are manuals: then where are the sources?
"General part". What is this terminology? Is there really a private part?
“Unity of the church”, “holiness”, “university”, “apostolic” character are considered in dogmatic theology. Is it necessary to transfer this to the science of jurisprudence, and without limitation, in what special respect should this science consider these objects taken from another science?
The program includes “independence from foreign authorities” as “conditions for the legitimacy of local churches.” What does the program want to say? Doesn't he want to say, for example, that the Church of Constantinople does not have one of the conditions for legal existence, because its hierarchy is not completely independent from the external foreign power of the Turkish government? Without a doubt, the program does not think this; but it would be necessary to say more clearly and precisely what she thinks.
“Rights of the Church”: a) “divine”, b) “ecclesiastical”, c) “human”. Divine rights are obviously those that are bestowed by God. Consequently, church rights, according to the teachings of the program, are those that the church gives itself. Position: the church gives itself the right to open the door to one-sided conclusions? Here, it seems, the temptation comes from the word: right, which, through the Roman language, did not enter the new science with an exact concept; and she spoke proudly all about rights, instead of speaking more reverently about laws and duties.
To admit that the church has human rights does not mean to admit that a person can or has the right to give the church rights that it did not have? And whoever can give can also take away. Is it not possible that the conclusions that have the right to come out of this teaching may lead too far?
State power, by right, or better, by the duty of guardianship of the external welfare of the church, and in accordance with the goals of government, may extend or limit certain civil rights of titles and persons belonging to the church. For example, civil law says: a monk, as one who has renounced the world and property, has no right to make a will; a bishop who, through merit, acquires favors from the Sovereign and property, therefore has the right to bequeath his property. This does not mean that a person gives rights to the church.
Sheet 2. “The right of free, open confession of faith.” Is this really the eternal and universal right of the church? For example, did the Roman Church enjoy this right when Rome was pagan, and when it performed its services only in secret places, at night, and Christians, in general, were hidden from the pagans, and only a few of them freely and openly professed their faith, only when the pagan authorities demanded that they make sacrifices to idols?
"Foundations of church government: civil statutes." Civil statutes can be an aid in some matters of church government and court; but can they be the basis of church government? The Church was created on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Jesus Christ being the cornerstone.
Therefore, since the first and second pages of the program could already be seen that it required revision, the university law teacher, Archpriest Ternovsky 35 was instructed to make comments to bring it into a form appropriate for its purpose.
He presented respectful comments, such as: that this program is not feasible due to the short time that the university has for church jurisprudence; which exceeds the needs of those preparing for the civil service; that it contains some subjects of dogmatic theology. But his brief comments were not sufficient to bring the program into the desired form, and it was not convenient to burden him with drawing up a new program, as he was already burdened with teaching several subjects at the university.
Therefore, it was proposed to the academic board to entrust this matter to a teacher of church jurisprudence at the academy. As the comments presented here and there did not achieve the goal, it was again proposed to the academic board that it finally bring the program into a form consistent with its purpose.
It cannot be admitted that this was achieved by the program compiled by the former extraordinary professor, priest Anichkov, presented by the academic board on April 20, this 1855.
"The science of church jurisprudence." Why is the generic word mixed into the name of a special science: science, which, according to the logical law of definitions, should belong to the definition, and not to the defined?
“Statement of Immutable Reasons.” By this expression, the definition is made closer than the defined, which is contrary to logic and truth. According to this definition, for example, the church law: those who are related to each other in the fourth degree cannot marry, would not belong to church jurisprudence; because it is not the basis of church laws.
“There are known expositions of the science of church jurisprudence according to the theological, or historical, or practical method. The correct method of science is formed from a proportionate combination of these three different methods.” Will this manual be clear to the teacher? The theological or dogmatic method arranges teaching according to the order of objects, and the historical method according to the order of times; how can they be balanced? Doesn't this sound like a requirement to make one line out of longitudinal and transverse lines? Wouldn't it be more correct to make one method the main method for the entire system, and the other auxiliary, in parts?
The title on the margin says: “sources and aids of science”; and in the text there is one word: “sources”. Where is the truth? In the title or in the text? Are “legalizations of the current power” sources or manuals?
Under the title: “a brief overview of the sources of science,” the teacher was offered a variety of subjects, without precisely defining what to do with them. Is it all possible to fit into a course that is, if necessary, shortened?
Should, for example, “differences in the lists of the Slavic translation of the Greek Helmsman in Russia” be included in this course?
“Review of the Collection of Laws of the Russian Empire,” although “brief,” won’t it be too long for this course?
"Fundamentals of the doctrine of structure." What a language!
Some parts of the program are such that they can be used to write dogmatic theology instead of jurisprudence. For example: “A brief presentation of the essential properties of the church.”
"The Sacrament of Holy Confirmation."
“The Sacrament of Repentance; penance."
Some are such that, instead of jurisprudence, one can write a ritual book based on them. For example: “Divine services morning, evening, daily, holiday, fast; liturgy".
If the compiler of the program did not find anything legal in the consecration of oil and did not mention it; Will he find anything more legal in the anointing he mentioned? So, does he agree with himself?
Without extending further, I conclude that this program also requires revision, and not only in those parts that are noted here.
I suggest that the Academy take special care in carrying out this matter.
June 22. Proposal from Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow to the Holy Synod office, with the attachment of a list of instructions given by him to the consistory, on the occasion of the appearance of cholera in Moscow
Moscow Holy Synod office proposal. The list of instructions given by me to the consistory, on the occasion of the appearance of cholera disease in Moscow, is offered to this office of the Holy Synod for their discretion.
List from the order of the Moscow spiritual consistory, dated June 22, 1855, No. 2101.
For the fourth time, over the course of 25 years, the fate of God visits Moscow with an illness that strikes many seriously, and some fatally. We have experiences of pardon and deliverance; but we must recognize God’s renewed punishment for our sins. Therefore, we have a duty to cry out to God’s mercy with intensified prayers of repentance, so that the fear of our judgment will help us to hate and reject our sins, and with this, our righteous judgment may be dissolved by mercy and deliverance from danger.
Since at the present time special prayers for God’s help in battle are already being performed in churches: then, in conjunction with these prayers for deliverance from illness, it is necessary to use the following order.
1) On the first day after receiving this, according to the liturgy, perform a prayer service, with kneeling, to the Most Holy Trinity for deliverance from the destructive disease.
2) Then, on one day, add prayers for God’s help in battle to the great litany, and prayers for deliverance from illness to the special litany; and the next day - back: on the Great Litany, prayers for deliverance from illness, and on the grave litany - for God’s help in battle, and so on, alternately.
3) Which prayers are added to the special litany, the corresponding kneeling prayer should follow.
4) Complete liturgical prayers should also be performed one at a time, on Sundays, and more often, depending on need and convenience.
5) In conclusion of this, it is necessary to say the same thing now that, under similar circumstances, was said last year: the duty of the altar servers by example and word is to dispose the Orthodox people to a sincere awareness of their guilt before God, to repentance, to diligent prayer, to protecting themselves from immoderation or indiscriminateness in food and drink (through which the careless invite illness to themselves), to moving away from unnecessary entertainment and noisy entertainment, in general, to the cleansing of conscience and life and to the timely strengthening and sanctification of oneself with the holy sacraments of faith.
Let us remember the terrible reproof that came upon the ancient people of God: You beat them, and they were not sick, and we will be awakened from mental sleep or dozing, we will come to the sense of our sins, and we will hear that through the threatening disasters the Lord God says: Turn to Me with all your heart, in fasting and in weeping, and in weeping, and tear apart your hearts, and not your garments, and turn to The Lord your God is merciful and generous, slow to anger and abounding in mercy (Joel 2:12, 13).
Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow 37
August 22. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the current Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, A.I. Karasevsky, about the method of raising a bell that fell from the Ivanovo bell tower and strengthening it in its original place
Correcting the post of Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, A.I. Karasevsky, dated August 20, 1855, wrote to Metropolitan Philaret: “As a result of the idea received by the Holy Synod from the Moscow Synodal Office about a method of raising a bell that fell from the Ivanovo bell tower and strengthening it in its original place, the members of the Holy Synod, having the reasoning that the proposed method, given the damaged state of the bell, hardly ensures its strength statements on the spot suggest whether it would be safer to pour it over. For this reason, I consider it my duty to address your Eminence with the most humble request to honor me with a notification whether, according to your local considerations, it seems possible and convenient to carry out such work and approximately how much time it would require; and I also humbly ask you to tell me whether the fallen bell is of particular importance in the popular concept and whether its transfusion could produce any meaning.
Your Eminence would be very kind to oblige me to deliver this information as quickly as possible.”
Metropolitan Philaret wrote in his own hand about this attitude:
On August 20, Your Excellency, according to the reasoning of the members of the Holy Synod, was pleased to propose to me the following questions:
I. Does it seem possible and convenient, for local reasons, the method presented by the synodal office to raise and strengthen in place the reut bell that fell from the Ivanovo bell tower?
II. Approximately how long would this work take?
III. Wouldn't it be safer to pour it over?
IV. Doesn't this bell have special importance in the popular concept, and could its transfusion produce meaning?
I. On the first question I cannot give any opinion. Permission must be given, and indeed given, by people who know the matter from science and experience. My ignorance can neither confirm nor refute their judgments.
II. The work of drilling a bell and fitting bolts for hanging it is obviously easier, without comparison cheaper and shorter than casting a bell.
III. To make it more reliable to pour the bell with reut, I see no reason to believe this for the following reasons:
1) The old cast Reut bell, which has thick walls, proved its strength both by its long service, and by the fact that during the explosion of the Filaretovskaya bell tower, in 1812, it fell, but did not break, but only lost half of its ears, while the large Assumption bell broke, and finally, by the fact that this year, during its fall, it broke through three vaults and again remained intact.
2) Newly cast bells often crack and become unusable.
3) In the Trinity Lavra there is a bell, 1200 poods, in name and deed cornoukhy, because during its casting, due to a lack of copper, the ears did not pour out. It is drilled, hung on irons, and continues to serve for about a hundred years, having an excellent sound. Why shouldn’t the reut serve just as well if it is drilled and hung in the same way?
4) If it happened that drilling the reut and hanging it partly on the glands, partly on the preserved ears, would not turn out to be satisfactory: there would still be time to break it and drain a new one by next spring. But if it is broken now, and if the new one is not very successful, the reut will not be resurrected.
IV. Reut is known and remarkable as a bell with a particularly good sound. If, having been drilled and raised, it makes its voice heard again: everyone will be happy, and this will be a victory over the former destructive event. But if they do not make an attempt to preserve it, but simply break it and pour out a new one, which will be inferior to it in sound, then, probably, many will say: why did they rush to break the old one, and did not try to preserve it?
August 29. Metropolitan Philaret's proposal to the Moscow Holy Synod office regarding the orders he has made on the occasion of the upcoming arrival in Moscow of the Sovereign Emperor with the august surname
Moscow Holy Governing Synod office proposal.
Regarding the attitude of Mr. Moscow Military Governor-General to me, dated 11 pm of this August, No. 6023, about the upcoming trip to Moscow of the Sovereign Emperor with the august family, I ordered the consistory, among other things, to fulfill the following in due time: 1) Since the arrival of the Sovereign Emperor and the highest family is expected on September 1, at 10 o’clock in the evening, then in the morning, according to Liturgy, in all churches of the capital, thanksgiving prayer singing should be performed, with ringing. 2) September 2; at 11 o'clock in the morning, the senior clergy will be in the Assumption Cathedral to meet His Imperial Majesty. 3) On September 1, on the evening of the arrival of the Sovereign Emperor, all bell towers in Moscow should be magnificently illuminated, as a sign of joy. As for churches, according to the previous custom, lighting should be near them along the sidewalk, and depending on convenience, in the windows, especially for churches located on the path of the highest procession.
And the head of the Moscow province, at the suggestion of the Moscow military governor-general, notified me that 1) Sovereign Emperor, Empress Maria Alexandrovna, grand dukes: sovereign heir Nikolai Alexandrovich, Alexander, Vladimir and Alexey Alexandrovich, Konstantin Nikolaevich with his wife, Nikolai and Mikhail Nikolaevich they will deign to leave on the 1st of next September in the morning, with an emergency train, to Moscow, arrive there on the same day at 10 o’clock in the evening, and will remain for some time, approximately 8 or 10 days.
2) That Her Majesty the Empress Alexandra Feodorovna and the Princess of the Netherlands and her daughter will undertake this journey two days later.
3) That on the next day of the Sovereign Emperor’s arrival in Moscow there will be the highest exit to all three cathedrals from the large palace, along the red porch, as was the case in 1849, and subsequently presentation to Their Majesties. Summons about both will be sent from here in good time from the highest court.
4) That on the days of arrival in Moscow, exit and presentation, mourning is lifted.
5) That the Sovereign Emperor and Sovereign Empress, during their stay in Moscow, will deign to visit the Trinity-Sergius Lavra, where they will have an overnight stay, and the next day the Princess of the Netherlands will arrive there with her daughter.
6) That the Dowager Empress, upon arrival in Moscow, will deign to go straight to the Alexandrinsky Palace, where she will stay; in the city it is located in a small palace.
7) That the Sovereign Emperor and Empress Maria Alexandrovna will occupy the imperial apartments in the large Kremlin palace, and the august children of Their Majesties will occupy the rooms that were the heir to the crown prince.
Which, for information and, if necessary, for proper disposal, I propose to the Moscow Holy Synod office.
Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow 39
September 22. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Minister of Internal Affairs, with a conclusion on the four most submissive requests of Moscow and Bogorodsk schismatics, non-popovshchinsky and priestly interpretations
Minister of Internal Affairs, D.G. Bibikov 40, in secret on June 8, 1855, for No. 790, having forwarded to Metropolitan Philaret four all-submissive petitions of Moscow and Bogorodsk schismatics, sent to him by the highest order, asked to report on their considerations and conclusion. To the first two requests submitted in March, with which the schismatics-bespopovtsy sought mainly to cancel the resolution on the procedure for presenting merchant capitals, they attached a note containing, in a distorted form, information about the schism and about the actions of the government; and with the other two requests, the schismatic priests sought to have a separate clergy and to enjoy schismatic freedom in the church. Then, successor D.G. Bibikova, S.S.
Lanskoy, in secret, dated September 10, 1855, No. 1436, asked the Metropolitan to expedite the communication of information and conclusions on the mentioned petitions, as the Secretary of State, in charge of the affairs of the secret advisory committee on schismatics and apostates from Orthodoxy, asked for this, in view of the proposed meeting of this committee in a short time, on the basis of the highest command. On the last relation, the hand of Metropolitan Philaret made a note: “September 22. Responsible, with consideration and return of petitions.”
Your Excellency, dear sir.
From your Excellency's predecessor, in secret, on June 8, 1855, No. 790, four most loyal petitions from the schismatics of Moscow and Bogorodsk were sent, and considerations and a conclusion were required from me.
Although this demand seems somewhat unusual for me, I am prompted by the duty of a minister of the church and a loyal subject to present all possible considerations on a subject to which those who wish the peace of the church and the good of the fatherland cannot be indifferent.
I. The first petition, signed on March 23, has eight signatures of Moscow temporary merchants, of the non-priestish persuasion. They complain that they are registered in the guild on a temporary basis, registered as philistines, and put on the recruiting list, and ask for this to be cancelled. What is remarkable in this petition is the response of the schismatics, as if what was presented was done “contrary to all government regulations.” So, the schismatics dared to say that the highest command in Bose of the late Sovereign Emperor was given “contrary to all state decrees.” Thus, people who secretly, verbally and in writing, teach to reverence the king as the Antichrist, did not try to curb their tongues even in the very face of the king and when they asked for his mercy.
II. The schismatics write in their petition that they “piously obey state laws.” But their very request provides evidence to the contrary. There is a form in the laws for petitions addressed to the highest name. The Moscow schismatics are not so ignorant that they do not know this. But they place themselves outside or above the legal form, and write a letter to His Imperial Majesty.
III. Attached to this petition is “a note about schismatics who call themselves Old Believers.” The style and content of this note show that it was written by a business man with a scientific education, who knows the laws, who, not belonging to the schismatics, defends them in such strange ways that in this case it would be especially fair to demand that the schismatics observe the law that commands petitions to be signed by who wrote them.
The first lines of the note say about the schismatics that “many in the armies: Don, Ural and Black Sea, and a considerable part of the population of the entire Siberian region belong to them.”
Why are these petitioners, the schismatics of the Moscow Preobrazhensky cemetery, who are not numerous in number, saying this? They want to put with them in one crowd all schismatics of different persuasions from all over Russia in order to act together; they want to preoccupy the government with their multitude, and thereby win it over to their species. But in this way they themselves expose their harmful direction to the discerning government; and this, of course, should not lead to such orders that would give more strength and scope to schismatic actions.
IV Note says that the schism began “on the occasion of some, essentially unimportant, changes in church service books and rituals.” If those who submitted the petition recognize this as fair, then they have no obstacle to joining the Orthodox Church, and only through stubbornness and self-will remain schismatics. And if they do not recognize this as fair, then why do they present in the note thoughts that, in their own opinion, are false? Is it useful to strengthen such people who use truth and falsehood indiscriminately to achieve their goals?
V. The note says: “research has shown that this schism does not contain anything harmful in its teaching.” Since the note was attached to the petition of the schismatics of the Preobrazhensky cemetery, it is necessary to conclude that the writer of the note considers their teaching harmless. I will not talk here about blasphemy against the church and its sacraments and about the vile pictures expressing these blasphemies that these schismatics spread among the people. I will limit myself to examples of their teaching in relation to morality and the state. In 1844, a note, signed by the trustee and mentor, and a handwritten book were discovered at the Preobrazhenskoe cemetery, in which the teaching is found that “since 1666, the royal power established by God was abolished,” that now “Christians getting married are the serpent’s nest, Satan’s”; that now “Satan is concerned about the multiplication of the human race, and for the conception of a child the soul is given from the devil.”
41 In the current year, 1855, in the Vladimir province, Shuisky district, in the village of Ivanovo, a manuscript of the non-popovschinist persuasion was opened by a guide under the title: Mirror for the spiritual inner man, in which, among other things, it is said: “Jesus Christ forgave sins, and the Antichrist established a court, and forged fortresses, and set up miners to torment the people factories." The writer of the note, of course, will not prove that this teaching is not harmful to morality and to the state.
VI. The note goes on to say that “those who did not agree with the correction of the books were in the full sense martyrs of their faith.” According to this reasoning of the compiler of the note, Nikita Pustosvyat, who rebelled in the palace in the face of the kings, was in the full sense a martyr; the schismatic rebels of Solovetsky are martyrs in the full sense; schismatic self-immolators - martyrs in the full sense, and so on. Without a doubt, no one will recognize this as fair evidence in favor of a schism, but an impartial sad proof that schismatics find means to seduce the mind and knowledge of a business person from the path of truth and straightforwardness to reinterpret events in favor of their error.
VII. The note says that the Holy Synod, after considering the so-called Pomeranian responses, “being convinced of the harmlessness of the differences in the opinions of the Old Believers with the dominant church, left them without refutation.” This is false. The Holy Synod, without wasting time, refuted the Pomeranian answers in the book of Archbishop Theophylact Lopatinsky 42, under the title: Denouncing schismatic untruths, and so on.
VIII. The note consistently cites laws and government orders, the meaning of which the author of the note tries to incline towards giving the schism the character of a separate, recognized religion, following the example of foreign confessions in Russia, that is, to do more to the detriment of unity than what was done in favor of unity by the reunification of the former Uniates. In this regard, it would be tiresome to consider and resolve all the intricacies of the note; but one cannot help but pay attention to some examples of the extreme reinterpretation of laws in favor of a split.
As “proof of the wise and compassionate care of the government” for the schismatics, the note states that “by the highest personal decrees of March 12, 1798 and October 27, 1800, Old Believers throughout the empire were allowed to have churches and special priests to conduct the service of God according to old printed books.” But these two decrees were given not in favor of schismatics, but in favor of co-religionists, and, with the last of them indicating the points of Metropolitan Plato, they constitute a fundamental legitimation for co-religionist churches. What do the schismatics want when they present these decrees? If they want to deceive the government by falsely interpreting them and get priests independent of the church hierarchy, then this is too shameless and criminal. If they cite the above-mentioned decrees in their true sense, then they did not need to bother the Sovereign Emperor with the most submissive petition; they can immediately go to the bishop and receive priests, on the basis of the decrees they praise, 1798 and 1800, and enjoy all the rights belonging to co-religionists and Orthodox Christians.
It is also unfair that the note written in favor of the schismatics cites a decree of 1818, December 31, on the establishment in Moscow of a special printing house for the publication of liturgical books similar to the old printed ones; for this permission was given not to schismatics, but to fellow believers.
IX. The note says that denunciations were only occasionally made against schismatics, “mostly for selfish reasons, or out of ill will.” Evidence for this has not been presented; and, after many years of observation, I have never encountered a case of this kind. Priests, from time to time, reported on the illegal actions of schismatics and their corruption of the Orthodox, but this was out of duty, and sometimes to the detriment of their own benefits. Recently, one priest, who reported on a schismatic gathering, suffered such harm in his home life and threats from embittered people that it turned out to be necessary to transfer him to another place in order to free him from persecution. Dissenters not only have no reason to complain about denunciations about them for selfish reasons, but they can also boast that many of their illegalities remain without denunciations, and the laws affecting them remain unenforced.
For example, when, in 1823, the schismatics of the Rogozhsky cemetery erected a regimental church in their chapel and began to serve the liturgy in it: the then Moscow police did not prevent this, and did not report this; The murmur of the Orthodox revealed this to the diocesan authorities, and through them to the government. As a precaution against schismatic gatherings, in 1823, on April 12, the highest order was announced that the government should have one trustee of the Preobrazhensky almshouse in mind. It has almost completely fallen into oblivion; because trustees are always plural.
X. The note contains the highest rescript of May 15, 1809. But this rescript was given to the Preobrazhensky almshouse as a charitable institution, and does not give any rights to the schism.
XI. The note states that the divine service of the schismatics of the Preobrazhensky Accord in Moscow “distinguishes very little from the divine service performed in the Orthodox Church.” It distinguishes especially in that there is no priesthood, no liturgy, no sacrament of confirmation, no sacrament of marriage. Is this really a “very small” difference from Orthodox worship?
XII. At the end of the note, the schismatics ask, among other things, for the correct keeping of lists of those born, dying, and those married together. On this subject, on the 12th day of April 1823, the highest command was announced: “not to create registers for the almshouse of the Transfiguration House, so that this would not be taken as the establishment of a schismatic society.”
And since this note was attached to the request of the schismatics of the Preobrazhensky cemetery, it is not clear why they are asking for marriage records when their Fedoseev sect does not recognize marriage?
XIII. Further, the schismatics ask to open the sealed chapels and return the selected icons and books. This would mean overthrowing everything that, on the basis of the highest command of 1826, has been carried out until now, for 29 years. And just as chapels were sealed, icons and books were taken away due to illegalities discovered, this request of the schismatics also includes recognizing as innocent what had been recognized as illegal for 29 years. This is as much inconvenient as it is inconsistent with the dignity of the government.
XIV. The second petition, signed on March 24, from non-priest schismatics, has 41 signatures. It does not say definitively what they are asking for, but says: “We dare to bring to your most merciful attention a brief note on our case.” But since there is no special note following this petition, we must conclude that the reference is to a note placed following the previous petition and discussed above.
In this petition, the schismatics complain, among other things, about the order “not to include their wives or children in the certificates issued to them.” But how can their wives and children be included in their certificates when they do not recognize marriage, and therefore do not have wives and do not have legitimate children?
XV. The peculiarity of this petition is the following signature under it: “the preliminary permission of the Moscow military governor-general was sought for the presentation of the most humble petition.” There is neither law nor custom to sign a petition with whose permission it is submitted. If the petitioner considers his petition, in conscience, fair and not contrary to the law, this is enough to submit it. So, if the Moscow military governor-general really knew about the schismatics’ intention to submit an all-submissive petition, and, according to the rule of tolerance, did not forbid this: this did not give the schismatics the right to express this in a strong way in the signature under the petition. Here is a visible feature of their usual tendency to act in a special, exceptional way, as if they were given a special right to go beyond the limits of law and custom.
XVI. The third petition, signed on April 23, from Moscow schismatics of the priestly persuasion, has more signatures than the previous two.
In this petition, some sayings require attention and explanation, which would lead those unaware of local circumstances into completely false opinions.
The petitioners write: “their prayer churches, the Old Believers, erected on the place allocated to their ancestors by the government behind the Rogozhskaya outpost in Moscow, except for two chapels, were taken away.” If the petitioners want to be confirmed by the initial order of the government, then all their chapels and other buildings should be taken away from them or destroyed, because the place has been allocated by the government for a hospital and cemetery for those affected by the plague, and not for schismatic institutions. One might think that a lot has already been taken away from them when they write that their prayer churches, except for two chapels, have been taken away. The church is more than a chapel. So, their words have such a meaning that many of the most important churches were taken away from them, and only two less important chapels were left to them. But is that really the case? Two huge chapels, magnificently decorated, remain untouched by them, but one small chapel was taken and converted into a church of the same faith.
Chapels, like churches, are property dedicated to God, not belonging to private individuals, but for use belonging to the whole society that belongs to them. The current society of Rogozh co-religionists was previously part of the society of Rogozh schismatics, participated in contributions to the chapels, and had the right with others to use them. Separating from the schismatics, and, moreover, moving from an illegal to a legal position, co-religionists had the right to take one of the chapels, and in respect of their legality they could demand the best of the chapels. But they acted modestly and asked for less. So, without exaggeration, we can say that the above-mentioned article of the schismatics’ petition was written not only falsely, but also unscrupulously.
The petition also states that icons, vestments and utensils were taken away. This is also unfair. Two huge chapels were left with the schismatics, untouched, with all their decoration. Very little of the vestments was taken for the needs of the co-religionist church, and co-religionists have the right to demand more for their church.
XVII. Further, the schismatics complain in their petition that they have no one to perform the services. But who is to blame for this except themselves? Their last priest joined the Edinoverie Church: was it possible to refuse him? In this, when did he desire and ask for this? Who didn't tell them to follow him?
XVIII. Finally, in this petition the schismatics ask that they be allowed to “elect from unstaffed or multi-staffed parishes and from retired priests to administer the sacraments.” This request was repeatedly brought from different places during the reign of the late Sovereign Emperor in Bose, but was never considered possible for fulfillment. In 1849, a similar request was considered in the Moscow secret committee and opinions on it were presented to the St. Petersburg secret committee, and, as far as I know, the Sovereign Emperor Nikolai Pavlovich was pleased to leave it without consequences. I am attaching an extract from my opinion on this subject at that time 43.
XIX. The fourth petition, signed on April 26, from schismatics also of the Beglopopov persuasion, from Bogorodsk and its district, has more signatures than all the previous ones.
By the way, the signatures mention villages from several parishes, quite distant from the city of Bogorodsk. In order to collect these signatures, it was necessary either to convene a large gathering of schismatics in one place, from the city and the district, or to send agents to the villages to persuade the schismatics to sign. I believe that it will not be left without consideration whether the law allows such an action, and whether allowing this could be accompanied by unfavorable consequences. An open schismatic meeting would not be good; But is such an action hidden from the government less bad?
XX. What is noteworthy in this petition is the testimony of the schismatics that their “number of shepherds has decreased” and they “cannot fulfill the requirements in a timely manner.” This means that they still have priests, although not many. But it is known that they had priests only at the Rogozhsky cemetery, and of these the last one joined the Edinoverie church. Would it be worth attention if they explained what was written in their petition, where and what kind of priests they have?
However, in this fourth petition there is nothing new, after the three previous ones.
XXI. What the petitions say regarding the restriction of the civil rights of schismatics, I have partly said above. I find it inappropriate for me to go further into this subject. One thing is clear to me, that in government actions of this kind, every step forward must be maturely thought out in advance, and that every backward step is not favorable, because it emboldens the enemy, and reduces respect for the retreating government:
Wouldn’t it be a useful answer to the petition of the schismatics if the provincial authorities were instructed to call on and explain to them the injustices and illegalities contained in the petitions of several of the subscribers, especially those who are reasonable and have influence on other schismatics, and to add that these injustices and illegalities cannot gain confidence in the petitions, but only give room for leniency so as not to persecute them. For me it is enough to propose a question about a subject that is before the highest council.
Four all-submissive petitions and a note are returned 44.
October 27. Report of Metropolitan Philaret to the Holy Synod about a concert in favor of the holy places of Palestine and the Christian Church in need in the east
A report to the Most Holy Governing Synod from its member Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow.
In response, dated October 23, No. 7761, the Moscow military governor-general, forwarding to me the program of a large vocal-instrumental concert, petitioned me from Mr. Lazarev to give this concert in favor of the holy places of Palestine and the Christian Church in poverty in the east (The expression: “the Christian church in the east” does not determine whether it is the Orthodox Church that is being spoken about, or other confessions).
My response to this is as follows: I cannot help but draw attention to the composition of the concert. It begins with the song of a mountaineer before the battle with the Russians. Then follow: the creation of the world, the power of God, chaos, and the coming of light; next - the Last Judgment; finally, classical plays, unknown.
And I cannot recognize this sequence of objects as decent, so that the song of a savage warrior should be followed by: the creation of the world and the Last Judgment.
Let, if you like, lovers of art be angry with me, but I cannot hide the opinion that lofty subjects: the creation of the world and the Last Judgment, which require reverent reflection, are humiliated and insulted when they are turned into a musician’s playground for the amusement of listeners. Indecency inevitably increases when words are added to the music.
When, under the Moscow military governor-general, Prince Dmitry Vladimirovich Golitsyn, a concert program was printed, in which the actor was appointed to sing an aria under the name of Satan, and the actress under the name of Archangel Michael, then some pious citizens brought me a printed sheet, asking me to eliminate this temptation; and, thanks to the prince’s attention, the arias were not sung.
At the present time, when the fatherland and the church especially call on everyone to propitiate God, special attention is required to ensure that pure reverence is preserved for objects of reverence, and that they do not turn into objects of amusement and amusement.
As for the appointment of a concert in favor of the holy places of Palestine and the Christian Church in the East: the general rule for the ecclesiastical department is that collections in favor of foreign spiritual places are allowed only with the permission of the Holy Synod.
On the 26th day, the Moscow military governor-general notified me that he ordered the chief police chief not to allow a concert by retired lieutenant Lazarev, in favor of the holy places of Palestine and the Christian Church in poverty in the east.
It is my duty to bring this correspondence to the attention of the Holy Synod.
Your Holiness's most humble novice, Metropolitan Filaret of Moscow.
October 27, 1855, No. 488.
The Holy Synod, by resolution on November 25/December 17, decided: to take into account the report of Metropolitan Philaret 45.
November 1st. Metropolitan Philaret's comments on the essay: “A look at the state of Protestantism in Germany at the present time”
A glance at the state of Protestantism in Germany at the present time quickly covers a wide area. The writer has abundant information about the mental and book kingdom in Germany, observantly follows the movements in that, and pronounces remarkable judgments about them. Such a review could usefully have been published in Russia if it had been written a little differently.
For example, the writer speaks about rationalism and supernaturalism as if they are one-sidednesses that are opposite to each other. It is jokingly expressed about those who grasp the symbols with both hands, as if they are as unworthy of respect as those who reject the symbols. Those who hold to the symbols hold to the sacraments of the Holy Trinity, the Incarnation, the Redemption; Those who reject symbols reject them in order to have room to put their own false wisdom in place of these sacraments.
What does Feuerbach's dogmatic terrorism 46 mean? Was it necessary to take this word from the history of the French Revolution and is it explained by this fact?
The writer sometimes notices who is standing on what ground, or who is in the air. What does he stand on? He is between Protestantism and Roman Catholicism, between different philosophical and theological schools; but on what basis? Or in the air? - Not visible. Just as among Protestants one can see Protestantism, Reformation, the Roman Church, but it is never clear whether the Eastern Catholic Church exists in the world: so our writer is nowhere visible that he stands on the foundation of this church. He will say, of course, that he stands in the place of impartiality, but it may seem to the reader that he stands in the place of indifference to the true church.
From the movement of the thought and book kingdom in Germany, the writer draws the conclusion that the kingdom of rationalism has ended.
But will life confirm what science would like to say? As long as the life of pride, self-interest, and pleasure prevails, it will be difficult to destroy the kingdom of rationalism. It is, of course, more favorable to her than supernaturalism.
The question on which much depends in descriptions of the wandering of the theological mind is the question of the authenticity of the four Gospels. The words of false critics seriously strike the Orthodox ear. It would be good, at the same time, to offer preventative medicine, or to point out the arguments with which well-minded people repel blasphemies against the Gospel.
November 23. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to V.D. Olsufiev, with an opinion about whether it is possible, without violating church rites and customs, without temptation, to marry Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich with the daughter of the Prince of Oldenburg on Meat Sunday, after mass
V.D. Olsufiev, dated November 22, 1855, wrote to Metropolitan Philaret the following: “You probably already know the upcoming marriage of Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich with the eldest daughter of the Prince of Oldenburg. Their Majesties wish that the marriage should take place after the expiration of the anniversary and lifting of mourning after the death of the late Emperor: that is, after the 18th of February. But between this date and Shrovetide there is only one thing left: Meat Sunday, February 19th. On this occasion, I have been instructed to find out your opinion: is it possible, without violating church rites and customs, without temptation, to marry their Highnesses on February 19, on Meat Sunday, after mass; and are there any examples of this? and were there any examples?
Do not leave, Your Eminence Bishop, to answer this as quickly as possible, for the report to whomever it should be.
Metropolitan Philaret responded to this letter to V.D. Olsufiev:
This afternoon, in the afternoon, I received a question from Your Excellency: is it possible, without violating church rites and customs, without temptation, to marry Their Highnesses on February 19, on Easter Sunday, after mass?
The helmsman's book in chapter 50 says: yes, the priest knows well, that from the meat-eating week of Great Lent even until St. Thomas's week - the wedding and blessing of marriage are prohibited from the church and the essence is withheld: but no one will dare from the priest - under the cruel punishment.
As far as I remember, in St. Petersburg, under Metropolitan Ambrose 48, this rule was not strictly observed, and he allowed marriages to take place on Meatless Sunday, taking into account some special circumstances. But when Metropolitan Michael 49 took over the administration of the St. Petersburg diocese, he instructed the parish clergy in advance, on Christmas Day, to announce to the parishioners that those wishing to get married should not put it off until Meat Week, because permission would not be given.
In Moscow, the above rule is observed. Occasionally it happened to me to allow a marriage to take place during the week of meat-eating for a military man who would soon have to go on a campaign or to another place of service and could not return for the marriage after Easter. Such an exception from the rule was quite strongly protected by necessity, and, without extending its publicity beyond one church and parish, it was not associated with great fear of temptation.
The marriage of a member of the highest family will be before the eyes of all Russia. The majority of the Orthodox people, without thinking too much, reverence, inherited from their ancestors, church rules and customs; and would rather say: it’s a pity that a church rule was broken, rather than judge that the broken rule is not one of the important ones.
In Moscow there are especially strict zealots for the smallest details of church order.
The schismatics especially try to catch cases where the authorities, in their opinion, deviate from the traditions of their fathers and thereby strengthen their efforts to assure their like-minded people that the authorities are unorthodox.
Here are some examples of a different kind, but leading to a conclusion as to how the subject now under consideration will be looked upon. These days I received an unnamed letter in which they ask that in all churches, on the day of the Great Martyr Catherine, they read one Gospel, assigned for this day, although another, read by some, is not contrary to the charter. Just these days, I received two anonymous letters in which they complain that some holidays, for example, the day of the exaltation of the Cross of the Lord, were made for teaching purposes, and due to the special need to appease God under the present circumstances of the fatherland, they encourage me to intercede for the honor of the holiday.
The circumstance that became the reason for the question proposed to me by your Excellency is mourning. In chapters 48-50 of the helmsman's book there is a rule about this: lamentation of a father or mother (that is, mourning for a father or mother) does not do dirty tricks on a marriage; do it to those who lament.
In my opinion, it is better to preserve the church rule, although it is not of high importance, but it is more convenient to make an exception in the rule of mourning, which completely depends on the will of the Sovereign Emperor. The coronation of Emperor Nikolai Pavlovich, of blessed memory, took place during a period of mourning. Then, as far as I remember, mourning was lifted throughout the entire Moscow province for the entire duration of the Sovereign Emperor’s stay in Moscow. It is also convenient, on the occasion of the wedding of a member of the highest family, to lift mourning in St. Petersburg two weeks earlier than the general date; and then there will be a day for the marriage to be celebrated on a day earlier than the church limit, and, moreover, not a day that would stand next to a very sad day.
May the Lord bless and complete with good hopes the union of the most pious sovereign, Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich and Princess Alexandra Petrovna.
December 8th. A note by Metropolitan Philaret on the expression: “I’m proud of you,” used by Emperors Nicholas I and Alexander II when addressing soldiers
It is good for the great when there are those around them who are inspired by a pious thought, and it is good for them when they sincerely present this thought to the great.
I remember how, before 1812, pious-minded people complained that in royal acts only secular language was used, and the name of God was not found. This year has shown where to look for true support and invincible strength. Emperor Alexander began to speak in Christian language. Emperor Nikolai Pavlovich spoke in the same language, and especially with strength and edification recently. So is the most pious Sovereign, now reigning. But the more palpable is the disagreement, the word that accidentally broke out, too secular. Some piously-minded people expressed grief, which was met on behalf of the deceased Sovereign in God, and was met on behalf of the present, in praise of the soldiers the saying: I am proud of you. Why, they say, did this word, alien to him, creep into the language of the most pious Sovereigns? The Word of God does not approve of pride, and says: God opposes the proud.
Is there a way to give the editor of the royal thoughts a thought so that, when composing expressions, he tests them with the question: will they be in harmony with the pious royal spirit?
December 12. Order 53 of Metropolitan Philaret to the Edinoverie priest Konstantin Popov, outlining the rules for guidance in conducting business at the Edinoverie school
Under this church, under your predecessor, the initial education of the children of parishioners and others who wished was undertaken, according to local circumstances and needs, and this was done, on my part, by verbal instruction, in anticipation of what experience would show. Once, with the help of God, the proposed training is actually organized, it is considered necessary to set out in writing the basis and rules of your action on this subject.
The basis of this institution is the determination of the Holy Synod, supremely approved on the 3rd day of September, 1836, prescribed for execution in a secret decree on October 29, 1836.
From this decree, the rules that guide you should be borrowed and adapted to the circumstances of the place, which are the following:
1) The responsibility for the initial education of village children relates to the duties of the parish clergy, who must take advantage of this means and opportunity to fulfill their duty to instruct children in faith and piety.
2) You must train parish children primarily through your own actions, and, if necessary, through an assistant from the clergy or even a fellow parishioner who is capable and enjoys the trust of the parishioners.
3) It is your duty not only to accept those who wish to study, but also to encourage parents and children to do so, which you should encourage. Other members of the clergy provide advice and usefulness; accept without any demand for retribution.
4) Teach reading church and civil press, and writing to those who wish; Meanwhile, students should memorize: the Lord's Prayer, the Creed, the Ten Commandments, the verse: Virgin Mary, rejoice; to this he teaches to add a brief and simplest explanation of them from the catechism and the most important legends from sacred history, translating the explanations or legends in the form of conversations and stories, renewed from time to time and on occasions so that what is told is freely affirmed and preserved in memory.
5) On holidays, it is useful for those who have demonstrated success in church reading to give a place in the church choir, to get them accustomed to church singing, and, if possible, to participate in church reading and singing, so that the evidence of their success will serve to console their parents and encourage others to study.
6) Depending on convenience, you can add the beginnings of arithmetic to the subjects of study.
7) Teach using old printed books or from old printed books published in the Edinoverie printing house.
8) If among the students there are children of schismatics: the teacher must pay special attention so as not to confuse them with untimely denunciations of the schism, but, while dealing with them peacefully and meekly, instill in them respect for the common Orthodox and Edinoverie Church and its teachings.
9) The days and hours of teaching must be determined in accordance with church rules and with the convenience of the priest and the students.
10) At the beginning and end of teaching with prayer and in everything, observe the rites and customs of the Church of the same faith.
11) The time for admission of children to school and dismissal from it for the first time is not determined in order to make it more accessible by this freedom. Experience should show to what extent this can be made more definite.
12) At each six-month inspection of churches by the dean, he is presented with a personalized list of children studying, with indications: from what time they have been studying, how much time they have completed and what behavior they perceive. The dean, if possible, makes sure that the progress of the studies and the successes of the students are in accordance with these rules and, having noted this on the list, at his semi-annual report, presents it to the diocesan bishop 54.
13) You can inform me about any special application or addition of these rules that may be required and about any need of the school at any time.
14) You have this order to announce to the dean of the churches of the same faith, and to bring it to the attention of the caretaker of the almshouse appointed by the government 55.
December 15. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Vilna Governor-General Nazimov 56, with attached copy of the secret-confidential relationship of Joseph, Metropolitan of Lithuania and Vilna, to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count N. A. Protasov
Your Excellency, dear sir!
I have heard the attitude of His Eminence Joseph 57, Metropolitan of Lithuania, towards Count Protasov, about the state of government of the Lithuanian region that is unfavorable for the good of the fatherland.
This subject does not belong to the circle of affairs entrusted to me; but the duty of loyalty to the throne forces me to think with extreme concern about whether this is known to the Sovereign Emperor?
The attitude was written on January 10, 1855. There is no reason to doubt that Count Protasov presented it to the late Sovereign in Bose. But since this happened not long before his death, is this accepted into consideration? Is it known to the now reigning Sovereign Emperor? That's what the concern is.
The appointment of Your Excellency to the administration of the Lithuanian region opens up the opportunity for me to fulfill, in the manner possible for me, the duty of loyalty to the throne, by sending to you a list of the above-mentioned attitude and to calm my concerns with your loyalty to the throne and zeal for the good of the fatherland.
Earnestly invoking God’s blessing upon you, with perfect respect and devotion, I have the honor to be your Excellency’s most humble servant, Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow.
In Moscow, December 15, 1855.
Attached to the letter were copies of the following documents:
A. Secret and confidential attitude of synodal member Joseph, Metropolitan of Lithuania and Vilna, to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count Protasov, dated January 10, 1855, No. 40 58.
As a loyal subject, as a son of the fatherland, as a member of the Orthodox Church and as a reunited bishop, obligated to some responsibility to and for the reunited, I consider it my duty to once again draw the attention of the government to the circumstances of the region with which my ministry is connected.
It seems that after the God-blessed reunification of the Uniates with the Orthodox Church, it was soon forgotten that for the Poles and Roman Catholics they were both the vanguard and a bulwark against the Russian people and Orthodoxy; that reunification was the most painful blow for the Latin-Polish party; that this party had to seek new conditions to secure its position; and that the relationship between her and the reunited should have taken on the character of not only hostility, but also revenge. It also seems that the Latin-Polish party was considered weak, forgetting that, in addition to its own forces, it has support in the common heterodox and foreign party, both religious and political. It also seems that no attention was paid to the fact that the completely passive situation in which those reunited with the Orthodox Church were placed after the merger with the Orthodox Church should have both alleviated and emboldened the Latin-Polish party in its actions.
I don’t know if anyone has had the opportunity to measure and fully evaluate what has been done in favor of this party in the last ten or fifteen years. Here I do not intend to dwell on actions in favor of the Latin hierarchy. This is a thing of the past and is no longer correctable. The concordat is not the main thing here; it is a political measure, perhaps a necessary one. But in general, the institutions and orders that preceded, accompanied and followed it tended to strengthen and strengthen the Roman Catholic hierarchy in Russia against the previous one. Now the Orthodox clergy in the Western dioceses hardly have enough strength to fight the Roman Catholic clergy alone. But once again, I do not intend to dwell on this clergy, but will draw attention to another weapon of the Latin-Polish party that was gradually established in this country: the civil bureaucracy.
Circumstances forced me last month to collect, in secret, information about the number of officials of the Orthodox and other faiths in the provinces of Vilna and Grodno, in which the number of people professing the Orthodox and Roman Catholic faith varies slightly. And this is what emerges from this information.
It is known that the Orthodox in the above two provinces consist almost entirely of peasants, and almost all landowners belong to the Roman Catholic faith and the so-called Polish caste. Consequently, the Orthodox are completely dependent, according to serfdom, on these heterodox and foreign landowners. In order to put state-owned peasants in a similar position, officials in the department of state property were appointed mainly from non-believers. In both chambers, Vilna and Grodno, out of 14 members, only 4 are Orthodox; out of 37 clerks and other officials, only 5 were Orthodox; out of 12 chiefs, only 2 are Orthodox; out of 41 district commanders, their assistants, foresters and lustrators, only 8 were Orthodox; that is, out of 104 senior officials, only 19 are Orthodox.
If we add to this that, according to the two provinces mentioned, all 18 provincial and district leaders of the nobility are of other faiths, and among their clerks there is only one Orthodox, then it is clear that all Orthodox Christians of both provinces are completely dependent on the infidels in the immediate and necessary conditions of their life.
To balance this predominance of the heterodox local authorities over the Orthodox, it would hardly be enough to have all the trusteeship of the local civil authorities in the best and most reliable composition. But this is what this composition actually is.
Under the Governor-General: the ruler of the chancellery, senior and junior secretaries, assistant secretaries and other officials of the chancellery, including 21, all of other faiths, with the exception of one assistant secretary, Orthodox; Only among the adjutants, officers on duty and officials on special assignments there are six Orthodox Christians for every five non-Orthodox. Under both civil governors, among the rulers of the offices, officials of special assignments, as well as senior and junior assistants to the rulers of the offices, there were 9 Orthodox for 20 non-Orthodox. In both provincial boards, among the members, secretaries, other officials and heads of government, there are 39 non-believers, and only 11 Orthodox. Thus, the highest administration of the two provinces consists of 27 only Orthodox, and 84 non-Orthodox senior officials.
The power in the counties is in the same proportion. Among the mayors and zemstvo police officers, who, it seems, should be, by position, in this country, Russians and Orthodox, already a third of them, in the Vilna and Grodno provinces, are from other faiths. There are 5 Orthodox clerks and 11 non-Orthodox clerks. There are 10 Orthodox assessors and secretaries for zemstvo courts, and 40 non-Orthodox. 9 police officers are Orthodox, and 37 are non-Orthodox. That is, for 165 senior district officials of the executive branch, only 47 are Orthodox.
The judicial part is even less favorable for the Orthodox than the governmental, executive part. In the 4 chambers of the civil and criminal court of Vilna and Grodno, among the 18 members, only 5 are Orthodox; among 26 secretaries and other officials, only 1 was Orthodox; Among the 20 mayors there is not a single Orthodox Christian. In all district courts of both provinces, there are 2 Orthodox members and 59 non-Orthodox members, and also 2 Orthodox secretaries and 14 non-Orthodox members. That is, out of 141 senior officials, in the judicial department, only 10 are Orthodox.
Senior positions in other departments were filled in the same way. Of the 107 members of both treasury chambers, of the secretaries and officials of special assignments, their accountants, controllers, clerks and other officials, as well as county treasurers with their assistants, accountants and journalists, only 8 are Orthodox. Of the 18 members, secretaries, senior officials and clerks of both orders of public charity, only 4 are Orthodox. Of the 30 members, secretaries, engineers, architects, land surveyors and other senior officials on both construction and road commissions are also Orthodox, only 4. Of the 26 members and senior officials in the district administration of the III District of the Corps of Engineers of Military Settlements, only 8 are Orthodox. Of the 25 provincial and district postmasters with their assistants, only 6 are Orthodox. Of the 21 provincial and district prosecutors and solicitors, only 4 are Orthodox. Of the 26 members of the humane society and the managers of seven Vilna charitable institutions, only 2 are Orthodox.
Of the 53 members of medical boards, as well as county and other full-time doctors, there is not a single Orthodox Christian.
Of all the senior officials named above, in the Vilna and Grodno provinces, there are 723 of the Gentiles, and 140 of the Orthodox, that is, less than a sixth of all officials. Among the gentiles, barely a tenth are Protestants and Mohammedans, the rest are all Roman Catholics. In the lower ranks of the ranks, this proportion is even less favorable for the Orthodox.
But this arithmetic proportion between Orthodox and non-Orthodox officials still does not represent the actual predominance of this latter mass.
By the same means in which the Latin-Polish party was able to fill official positions mainly with its own people, it knows how to manage the appointment or removal of Orthodox officials themselves, according to their types; and it is easy for her to mislead, appease or intimidate a small number of independent people. It is clear that with such a composition of the bureaucracy, the most well-intentioned and perspicacious bosses can hardly resist the general trend.
Thus, the Orthodox population of the Vilna and Grodno provinces, numbering almost 700 thousand people, depends almost completely on the arbitrariness of the Romans, who dominate them through the landowners and through local government and judicial authorities. The Orthodox clergy is in the same dependence, both through their parishioners and according to the necessary everyday needs. A business needs special clarity in order to conduct it successfully; otherwise it will be covered up either by intrigues, or by sneaking, or by delay. The case itself, officially won, usually turns not in favor of the winner and not in favor of Orthodoxy. The winner will be compensated by indirect means, and the case, the purest, will be presented in the general opinion as unfavorable to Orthodoxy and the Orthodox clergy, so that prudence itself requires, for the most part, silence and long-suffering.
Naturally, in this state of affairs only those from the Orthodox clergy who indulge the views of the predominant Latin-Polish party can be at peace; zealous ascetics and performers of their duty must necessarily be the subject of ill will and intrigues of that party.
I am not talking about myself: I have long ago given up my fate to the will of Providence. But it seems that any locality where 700 thousand Orthodox Christians are in a similar situation should pay attention; But what about the Lithuanian diocese, which is in an exceptional position in all respects? In other Western dioceses the mass of the Orthodox population dominates the small population of other faiths; in Lithuania, 700 thousand Orthodox Christians are scattered across three provinces, among one and a half million Roman Catholics alone. In other dioceses the number of those reunited is small in comparison with the ancient Orthodox, and therefore can be conveniently directed and protected; in Lithuanian - the entire flock consists almost exclusively of reunited people. The most reunited in other dioceses would not have retreated as much from the Russian nationality and the decrees of the Eastern Church as in Lithuania, which was predominantly under the prolonged influence of heterodoxy and foreignness.
It is obvious that I have both a greater right and a greater duty to ask the government to preferentially protect the Lithuanian flock from the influence of the alien elements that dominate here. I can't do this alone.
But it is not just the situation of the Orthodox flock in this country that forced me to now explain everything that has been written down. I’ve imagined this more than once, and I’m afraid I’m already bored. It was not concern for the Russian people in this country that prompted me to do this. No matter how painful it is that ten million Russian and Lithuanian people in the western provinces are again subjected more and more to the predominance of forty or fifty thousand so-called Polish families, and thereby the Polish party, through the Latin clergy, through the landowners and through the bureaucracy; but this would change in time, at the first right glance of the government.
Now the matter is not about Orthodoxy, not about the nationality of the western provinces, but about the real political situation of the state, and silence on my part about the above would be criminal. I’m not the only one who knows that already on the eve of the last Polish uprising they still did not believe the people who warned about it. Who can assure that the Latin-Polish party did not have current events in mind when establishing, as can be seen above, such a strong predominance in this country. I am not saying that this party itself is now so strong materially as to worry the government too much. But, in the event that the entire West moves towards Russia, is not the most favorable administration prepared for the enemies in this country? And isn’t the government deprived of the necessary tools for useful action in it, during the entire course of military incidents and in random circumstances? This seems worth thinking about. It is also worth thinking about the fact that civil administration is not being formed as quickly and conveniently as the Lithuanian corps was reformed in 1830.
I happened to hear that those who support the Latin-Polish party point to Finland and the Baltic provinces. Both funny and painful! It takes too much goodwill, or too little knowledge of the local country, to find any correlation between these areas.
God forbid that everything written above be reinterpreted to the detriment and ill will of the local Poles and Latin officials. They, no less than others, can serve the state with honor and benefit, in the ranks of the Russian army and among civil officials in the regions. But in this country they are connected by personal relationships, connected by public opinion, which points not to Russia, but to Poland; and, of necessity, must (of course, not without exceptions) be tools of the species of the Latin-Polish party and the Roman clergy.
I am writing this to your Excellency, not as Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, but as the closest servant of the Sovereign Emperor. Here the matter is no longer about the fate of some Metropolitan Joseph, or the 700 thousand reunited. Now the point is not whether it is more pleasant and convenient for the local rulers to stick to a party that is strong, rich and influential, but rather to ensure that the 10 million masses of the Russian and Lithuanian people in the western provinces are ensured on the path of duty, in any eventuality that may arise, and to protect it from foreign influence. I appeal to the conscience of every unprejudiced person: can he look differently than I do at the gradual strengthening of the Latin-Polish party in this country? However, it may turn out that the government had special goals and circumstances in mind in all this, unknown to me. In this assumption, I present my thoughts secretly, confidentially, feeling that I have fulfilled my duty according to my conscience and to the best of my understanding.
I humbly ask your Excellency to notify me of the receipt of this paper 59.
His Imperial Majesty deigned to command:
1) Instruct the ministers to inform the governors-general of the western provinces that in the provinces entrusted to them, all police positions: zemstvo, city and state property departments must be filled by officials from Russians; if there are none, then by persons well known to them and for whose trustworthiness they must be responsible.
2) Following the example of how it was in the southwestern provinces of the empire and still exists in the kingdom of Poland, to appoint from here, as an aid to the governors, military district commanders in the western provinces, if not in all, then at least in some, where, for reasons of the Minister of Internal Affairs, it will be recognized as essential.
3) All ministers and chief managers of individual units to confirm secretly, for unfailing execution, the highest order of His Imperial Majesty that followed in 1831 to fill positions in the western provinces, including those named, if possible, by officials of Russian origin. These positions are: governors, vice-governors, prosecutors, members of provincial government offices, district attorneys and postal forwarders (which are now postmasters).
4) Instruct ministers and chief administrators to take measures within their control to gradually, if possible, replace other positions in those provinces with Russian officials and transfer natives to Great Russian provinces.
5) Make it an indispensable rule that none of the natives of the western provinces, except those professing the Orthodox faith, can be assigned to serve there unless they have served for ten years in the Great Russian provinces, or in the army in officer ranks, and then only transfer those who turned out to be completely reliable.
Count Arseny Andreevich Zakrevsky.
The case of the Muscovites. Office of the Holy Synod, 1855, No. 64, l. I.
From its own original and copy, the church in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 91; doc. No. 3.
From my own draft, original and copy, stored in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 91; doc. No. 4.
Lanskoy, Sergei Stepanovich, D.T.S., Senate member. state Sov.; †Jan 26, 1862
Zakrevsky, Arseniy Andreevich; see about him. t III, alphabet.
Collection of resolutions regarding the schism, under the 3rd hour of November, 1838 and under the 29th hour of May, 1855.
With own black authentic, storing in the archives of the Synod. Inventory No. 12, doc. No. 2.
Karasevsky, A. I.; † December 25, 1856.
March 14 A.I. Karasevsky asked the Metropolitan to inform: a) who exactly is the Karacharov priest; b) how long has he been at his present place; c) why he enjoys special trust from schismatics; d) where the Preobrazhensk schismatics took the oath; and d) was there anything noteworthy about this? To this Metropolitan Philaret answered on the 16th of the same month:
The priest is especially known to the schismatics of the Rogozhsky cemetery due to the proximity of his church to this cemetery, and enjoys their good opinion as a reasonable, honest priest, active in his position and meek in his behavior.
There are no signs that he, for his part, had a predilection for the schismatics, as can be seen from the fact that, having heard about the schismatics’ desire to appropriate him for themselves, he immediately reported this to his superiors.
The schismatics, as shown in the above-mentioned relation, did not want to take the oath of a priest of the same religion, in order to thereby express their indignation at the fellow believers who lagged behind their society; and they asked for the Karacharov priest for this, as the closest Orthodox priest in the area.
I know from hearsay that at the Preobrazhenskoe cemetery the oaths took place in the prayer room under the schismatic mentor, and that three of the schismatics, strict in the opinions of their sect, did not want to take the oath at all, but were finally convinced by others not to revolt. But I don’t have the means to bring this to official notice. These circumstances must be accurately known to the caretaker assigned to the cemetery by the government.
Actually black. authentic, stored in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory No. 12; doc. No. 8. The original letter is kept in the secret department of the office of the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, 1855, No. 66.
From a copy, stored. in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 12; doc. No. 6. Genuine. keeps the letter. in secret. department. Ph.D. Chief Prosecutor St. Synod, 1855, No. 66.
Pitirim, from March 23, 1719, bishop. Nizhny Novgorod and Alator, from 1724 archbishop; †May 8, 1738. For the decree, see Complete. collection regulation and spacer according to right Pskov Ross. imp., St. Petersburg, 1881, vol. V, no. 1504, pp. 42 and 43.
From a copy, stored. In the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 12; document No. 2. authentic in secret. dept. chancellor Chief Prosecutor St. Synod, 1855, No. 66.
With own black authentic, storing in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 91; doc. No. 11.
“Izbornik” was opened by K.F. Kalaidovich in the library of the Resurrection, called New Jerusalem, monastery in 1817, where it remained until 1834, when, by special order of the Holy Synod, following the petition of Metropolitan Philaret, it was transferred to the Moscow Synodal Library. The publication of this monument was started by I.M. Bodyansky in 1856, but did not graduate. After his death, which followed on September 5, 1877, 23 printed sheets were found, which had already suffered significantly from time. See more information about the publication of the Izbornik, as well as its text, in Thu. imp. Moscow total ist. and other Russians. 1882, kk. 2.
Hase (Charles-Benoit). About him see Encyclopédie des Gens du monde. Paris, 1840, vol. XIII, pag. 506–8.
See Vol. III, Nos. 257 and 261.
See about him in previous volumes.
This conclusion, as well as the analysis of the manuscript itself, is published in the same book of Readings, pp. 25–31.
This opinion was published in the reference. above edition, page 32.
With his own hand resolutions, storage in the case of Moscow. spiritual qualification committee No. 30. Representative com. April 16, No. 127.
Printed in Readings, page 32.
See Collection of resolutions regarding the schism, under May 29, 1855.
With own black authentic, storing in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 12; doc. No. 14.
With own black authentic, storing in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 12; doc. No. 18.
The present issue was raised by Secretary of State Hofmal against him in the name of the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count N.A. Protasov, dated July 9, 1854, No. 4334.
Original. Metropolitan's response Philaret is kept in the file of the archives of the Holy Synod, 1854, No. 1851, pp. 8–10.
This review by Metropolitan. Philaret was published on Thursday. total love the spirit. Prosv., 1883, March–April, pp. 13–14.
See file of the archives of the Holy Synod, 1854, No. 1851, pp. 2–3, 11–12.
Ioann (Sokolov), XIII year master of Moscow. ac.; † bishop. resin March 17, 1869 The program drawn up by Archimandrite John was forwarded to Metropolitan Philaret, with the attention of the Chief Prosecutor dated September 3, 1852, so that the Metropolitan ordered to revise it and, upon correction, return it for inclusion in the Holy Synod. See Metropolitan's letter about this. Filareta to A.I. Karasevsky, dated June 10, 1855, in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 33; document No. 2.
Anichkov-Platonov, Iv. Nick., mag. theologian XIII course Moscow. spirit. ak; 1842 bacc. ac.; 1848 extra-ord. prof.; 1849 priest; † 1864 sacred. Church of Cosmas and Damian, in Shubin.
Ternovsky, I. Matv., magician of the III Kuren of Moscow spirit. ak; 1871, with the rank of rector of the Peter and Paul Church, in Basmanny.
From my own draft of the original, stored in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 33; doc. No. 1.
The case of the Muscovites. Office of the Holy Synod, 1855, No. 144, pp. 1–3.
With black authentic, storing to Moscow diocesan bibliography, dept. V, l. 5–7. Print. verbatim in Read. loves. spiritual education, for 1883, July and August, pp. 76 and 77.
The case is Moscow. Holy Synod Cont., 1855 No. 184, no. 1.
See vol., III, no. 278, p. 107 et seq.
See about him in volume III, alphabet.
See Vol. III, March 29, 1848, Oct. 10. and November 2, 1849, Nos. 311, 323 and 325.
With own black authentic, storing in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 56; doc. No. 5 and 6; copy find. in secret. dept. office Chief Prosecutor St. Synod, 1857, No. 62, l. 273–290.
Case of the Holy Synod, 1855, No. 2933, pp. 1–3.
Feuerbach, Ludwig Andreas, †1872
From own black authentic, storage in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 54; doc. No. 1.
Ambrose (Podobedov), Metropolitan. from March 10, 1801; †21 May 1818 retired.
Mikhail (Desnitsky), Metropolitan. Petersburg from March 26, 1818; †24 March 1821
According to the Helmsman’s edition of 7293 (1785), the rule given below is contained not in Chapter 48, but in Chapter 49.
With his own hand black vile, storage in the arch. Holy Synod. Inventory No. 50.
With own black authentic, storage in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 37; doc. No. 1.
At the top of the copy of the order it is marked: His Imperial Majesty wrote: “Not a single word is said in this about Orthodox children (Changes have been made to the text according to the list of edits at the end of the volume. - Editorial of the ABC of Faith).
These rules, with minor changes, were originally published in 1836 and published in the Collection. resolutions regarding the split, at 5 p.m. October.
From a copy kept in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 25; doc. No. 1.
Nazimov, Vladimir Ivanovich, Vilen. Governor General, from 1855 to 1863; b.1802, † 11 Feb. 1874
Joseph (Semashko), †28 Nov. 1868
This attitude was communicated by someone to Herzen in London, and he published it in Kolokol, which greatly upset Metropolitan. Joseph and V.I. Nazimov. See about this Russian. Star., May, 1885, pp. 328–329.
Printed in the Notes of Joseph, M. of Lithuania, vol. II, pp. 542–547.
From a copy kept in the papers of Metropolitan. Kyiv and Galician Arseny, in the secret department. Archives of the Holy Synod, No. 320; card. No. 1.