1862 г.

January 12. The opinion of Metropolitan Philaret, entitled: “the dark side of spiritual literature” The Wanderer promises a volume of popular sermons. You need to pay attention in advance to what this will happen. Secular literature of the present time suffers from some difficult and contagious diseases, a passion to judge and blame everything, and to sneak up on cunning To the people, applying to the prejudices, habits and language-disfiguring speech of the most uneducated part of it. Until some time, spiritual literature tried to talk sedately about its more or less important, and sometimes serious, subjects and speak in the correct language. For this, secular literature began to condemn it as dryness, scholasticism, and deadness. Spiritual literature did not realize that there was a hidden intention in this, under the guise of a direction to the generally understandable, to distract it from dogmas and strict moral teachings, and allowed itself to be infected with the spirit of gossip and blame. For example, in diocesan bulletins they compose laws on the selection of deans, and argue about these laws, as if on a parliamentary platform. Podolsk diocesan bulletins mock the public choice of deans in the Kyiv diocese; the Kievites scoff at the fact that in the Podolsk diocese those chosen by the authorities serve for three years as dean, and are not called actual dean. The Spiritual Messenger in critical articles moves from criticism to censure and ridicule of the writings of bishops. No. 22 of the Kiev Vedomosti published a sermon preached in a church, in which, among other things, the following is read: Country 693. “Is everything done according to God?” Country 700. “The woman goes to the priest to ask for prayer and a name: the woman needs to be given a drink. They are sending vodka to the priest.” Note. Who is to blame if they send vodka to a priest if not himself. He should have stopped accepting: and the parishioners would have praised him; or he would have reported it to his superiors, and the indecency would have been stopped. Instead, in church he blames himself and his brothers, and gives the opportunity to think that all priests in Russia charge vodka for prayer and naming. Country 701. “One way or another, they are going to baptize a child, but before going to church or to the priest, one must salute Satan and enter the inn... It is scary and shameful to remember that more than once godmothers and gossips come to the shrine of the Lord completely drunk.” “Holy baptism will begin, and some godfather can barely stand on his feet.” Country 702. “But as soon as they bring the child home, there will be drinking again. And what can they do to reach complete intoxication and so that the time of baptism remains in the memory for a long time! The next morning, back to the tavern, before the chop, how you burn, so that sitting next to a full barrel, you won’t have a shortage of vodka. And women, women! What are they doing? they take the woman to the chop, in the night, with frantic screams, songs and laughter... it’s a shame to even remember.” Note. Is it proper to speak in such language in church, about such base and ugly details? The consequence of this, instead of edification, will not be laughter? And if this is allowed, won’t church sermons become theatrical monologues, rewarded with laughter from those present? Doesn’t this require the attention of the guardians of the dignity of the Orthodox Church and the welfare of Orthodox Christians? Would it not be useful for the leading member of the Holy Synod to secretly remind all diocesan lords and, through them, those under him, that church preaching should offer pure teaching in a generally intelligible, but correct and pure language, and not depict shameful subjects in ugly language, and that accusatory and controversial spiritual literature should not forget the apostolic admonition: if you bite and devour each other, be careful not to be a friend will you be cut off from each other? It is another matter to discuss what is doubtful, to deny what is false, to correct what is wrong, to testify against untruths, truthfully and with force, but moderately and well-intentionedly to expose what is unworthy: this is necessary and not unworthy of a spiritual writer, mentor, or preacher. It is another thing to blame and ridicule, humiliate and insult one’s neighbor: this takes the spiritual writer out of his characteristic character, humiliates him and subjects him to such unseemly retribution 183 . January 16. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A.P. Tolstoy, about the abbot of the Guslitsky monastery, hieromonk of Parthenia Most Excellent Count, Dear Sir. In the case of October 13, 1861, No. 5.738, your Excellency, having forwarded to me a note outlining unfavorable information regarding the builder of the Guslitsky Transfiguration Monastery, Hieromonk Parthenius, demanded my review of the contents of it. The said note, among other things, reads: 1) That he, the builder, Hieromonk Parfeniy, comes from the peasants of the village of Lopakova, Karpovsky parish, Bogorodsky district, and was called Pavel. 2) While about 30 years ago at a porcelain factory, he stole a significant amount of products there and disappeared; then he fled abroad, and upon returning to Russia he converted from the schism to Orthodoxy. 3) He has a wife and son, who to this day remain in schism and visit him under the guise of strangers; Parthenius also secretly visits them and provides them with financial benefits. 4) The purpose for which the aforementioned monastery was built - the conversion of schismatics to Orthodoxy - is not achieved; and those who, at his admonition, Parthenius, joined the Orthodox Church are very few. 5) Of those who joined, some are known for their vicious lives, such as the peasant Pyotr Rumyantsev, who was tried in several cases and was kept in a strait house. 6) That he, Parthenius, constantly traveling around to collect offerings, rarely visits the monastery, where, therefore, various disturbances are allowed. 7) People without passports have shelter in the monastery, and 8) The monks lead a reprehensible lifestyle, some of them were caught in adultery, and were even detained with women in a bathhouse in the village of Davydova; but hide this case from the authorities. Contrary to the circumstances set out in this note, I demanded information from the builder, Hieromonk Parthenius, regarding the issues; and it showed the following: 1) That not only was he not born in the village of Lopakova, but until 1859, when he came to Guslitsy, he had never even heard of this village; He was born in Moldova, in the city of Iasi, around 1807, and was called Peter Aggeev, as it appears in the official list, as it appeared in his foreign Moldavian passport. But just as in Moldova they have neither registry books nor registry tales, because schismatics consider registry and metrical books to be the most soul-destroying thing, that’s why they flee abroad, and everything is based on words; however, after his conversion from the schism, in 1837, he left for Russia under the name Paisius, as he was called when he was tonsured a monk, then the Right Reverend Vladimir 184, Bishop of Kostroma, of blessed memory, made inquiries in Moldova, then the schismatics were not yet bitter against him, and even his relatives were alive, recognized him as one of their own, and confirmed his testimony, but then he himself did not want to remain in the same faith, and, taking his documents, returned back to Moldova, and then in 1839 he left for Mount Athos, and there he was tonsured a monk; then, with the blessing of the elder and spiritual father Hieroschemamonk Arseny, in 1847 he again went through Moldova to Russia, to Siberia, to the city of Tomsk, under the name of the worldly name of Peter Aggeev; and in 1848, the Tomsk civil governor, having taken testimony from him about his place of birth, and about his tonsure as a monk in Athos, made a certificate and presented it to the Most Reverend Athanasius, Bishop of Tomsk, and the Right Reverend in 1849 submitted it to the Holy Synod for approval. Then, in 1851, he wrote a letter to me in which he outlined the entire history of his life, and which I forwarded in the original to the then Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count Protasov, who for the second time collected certificates from Mount Athos, probably also from Moldavia, and according to all these documents he was recognized as a monk, and at my request he was assigned to the brotherhood of the Gethsemane monastery. But even now he does not know what the Moldavian schismatics will say about him; scattered across different states, they are endlessly bitter against him, and even seek his soul, for the publication of his books, and especially for the establishment of a monastery in Guslitsy. It pierced their very heart. 2) Since he, Parfeny, has never been a manufacturer or a factory worker in his life, and does not know any factory work, then there is nowhere to take the product, and there is nowhere to run. 3) Since before 1859 he had not heard about the village of Lopakova itself, and had not been married, there was no one to visit him, and to this day he still does not have a single acquaintance in the said village of Lopakova, and hardly anyone has been to his cell. 4) All those who joined from the schism to Orthodoxy were converted by him to be formally male 26, and female 5; Moreover, about 40 Orthodox people who have leaned into schism are supported by him in Orthodoxy. 5) Peter Rumyantsev, who was joined to Orthodoxy by him, originally from the village of Zavolinya, asked for more than a year to join him to the Orthodox Church, but he kept putting it off in order to get to know him better and strengthen him, finally, in 1860, at the request of the bailiff Sakharov, he joined him to the Orthodox Church through anointing; but whether he has ever been on trial or in a house of restraint, this is unknown to him, and it is not his business to worry about this, for the Lord came to call sinners to repentance, and he only needs to know whether he was definitely born in a schism, or who has deviated into a schism, about which he demands testimony from parish priests, or faithful guarantors; and also tests whether he truly, and sincerely, and out of conviction, wants to join the Orthodox Church; that's his duty. 7) In 1859, during the construction of the monastery, although not for long, he often left the monastery, sometimes twice a week to Moscow, either for money or for materials; but there were absences for a long time, such as: to the Nizhny Novgorod fair and to St. Petersburg, to collect alms, and this year (1861) I was in St. Petersburg four times, on the occasion of the construction of a chapel; but upon his return to the monastery he never found any disturbance; for trustworthy rulers always remained in the monastery: the elder hieromonk (of blessed memory) who lived for a year and a half and the confessor Jerome - who labored for 40 years in the Florence (?) desert in the monastic field, and then the treasurers - all people who witnessed from the brethren of the monastery of Gethsemane. 7) People without passports do not have any shelter here in the monastery, and cannot have it; because at the hotel they, Parthenius, were not ordered to keep anyone for more than a day, following the example of other Russian monasteries, and whoever wants to stay longer, then the hotel owner asks for a passport; but he doesn’t have a passport, he immediately sends him out, and for two and a half years no incidents happened in this case. 8) That the monks of the Guslitsky monastery lead a reprehensible lifestyle is by no means true; for the monks and novices of this monastery in modern times are the most exemplary, not only in the Moscow province, but even throughout Russia. But not only does he speak as an abbot, but this whole side and our enemies will testify to this; Yes, the glory of the monastery for the strictness of its regulations has spread throughout Russia, as evidenced by the fact that they do not have a female entrance to the monastery, tobacco and wine have also been completely destroyed, and there is no such long service in all of Russia; For this reason, many people condemn him, Parthenius, because he is very strict, and he is a burden to many weak people. And as for the fact that allegedly one of the brethren was convicted of fornication in the village of Davydova, now for the third year since the monastery has existed, hardly any of the brethren, except for him, Parthenius, and the steward, have been to any of the villages surrounding the monastery, because every single one is schismatic, and they hate monastics, children will throw stones at them, for they live like sheep among wolves, and such an incident is rumored never happened, otherwise the schismatics would have informed him now, or would have sent him to the camp; already, all sorts of slander and gossip are being woven against them, and even rumors reach him every day, Pareenius, that they are looking for his soul and want to destroy him. But his only hope is God, and He is his refuge and helper in the sorrows that have come upon them greatly, greatly. According to the certificate from the consistory, it turned out: a) According to the service record of Hieromonk Parthenius, sent to the consistory in relation to the cathedral established at the St. Sergius Lavra, dated July 17, 1856, to the matter of appointing him as the builder of the Nikolaev Berlyuk Hermitage, it appears that he, Parthenius, from Moldavian natives, from a family of 50 years old, was called Peter Andreev in the world (and not Aggeev, as Hieromonk Parfeniy himself showed and as indicated by the list of monastics for 1860); tonsured a monk in March 1841, on Mount Athos; having arrived from Mount Athos in the city of Tomsk, he submitted a petition for his admission to the Moscow diocese, with his determination as one of the brotherhood of the Gethsemane monastery, and as a result of the decree that followed from the Holy Synod, recognizing the monk Parthenius as correctly tonsured into monasticism and assigning him, according to his desire, to the brotherhood of the monastery, determined thereon on August 23, 1854; ordained as hierodeacon on January 18, 1855, and as hieromonk on January 23 of the same year. What documents Hieromonk Parthenius presented when applying for his placement in the Gethsemane monastery is not clear from this case (since they should be in the Holy Synod); and equally, his service record does not indicate whether he is a widow or single. b) In cases of various persons joining the Orthodox Church from a schism, they are listed as joining the Spasopreobrazhensky Guslitsky Monastery: in 1859, 2 males; in 1860 there were 20 males, 4 females, and in 1861 there were 4 males, 3 females, and a total of 33 people. c) Hieromonk Parthenius, with my permission, was dismissed from the monastery, with the issuance of passports, for monastic needs: to Nizhny Novgorod, from July 30, 1859, for a month, and to St. Petersburg, from November 16 of the same year, for a month, from June 22 and from October 25, 1860 for 20 days; from February 21, June 20, August 31 and November 3, 1861 - for 10 days. d) In the case initiated as a result of a letter from Nikolai Osipov (whose rank is unknown), about the trek of the treasurer of the Spasopreobrazhensky Guslitsky monastery, Hieromonk Theophan, with icons to the schismatic prayer villages of Gridina, the consistory, based on the circumstances of the case, on December 15, 1859, No. 1347, by the way, decided in its opinion: as treasurer Spaspreobrazhensky Guslitsky monastery, hieromonk Feofan, in the absence of the abbot, managed the monastic affairs, on August 8, 1859, out of condescension to the request of the peasants of the village of Gridina, on the occasion of drought and bestial death, taking from the church icons: the Savior Not Made by Hands, the Transfiguration of the Lord and the Mother of God of Kazan, and having two novices with him, he set off with those icons a procession of the cross to the village of Gridina, located 10 versts from the monastery, without asking for permission from the authorities - he turns out to be guilty in this case, and increases his guilt by the fact that upon arrival in the said village he decided to accompany the image of the Savior Not Made by Hands to the schismatic prayer house, where, according to the rites of the schismatics, the all-night service was held and there he remained throughout its entire continuation; then for these orders, especially for the last act, it would follow him, the treasurer, applying to the 71st rule of St. The Apostles and to the canon of the 9th Laodicean Local Council are subject to prohibition in the priesthood; but since he satisfied the requests of the Gridino peasants not out of interest, but out of inexperience and simplicity of heart, he has not hitherto been noticed in any reprehensible actions and now his behavior is recommended satisfactorily; then, without subjecting him to a ban, order him, to clear his conscience, to make 100 prostrations in the church before the liturgy, without, however, adding this fine to his service record, and oblige him to subscribe, so that in future, in such cases, he will act more carefully. And by my resolution on December 28th of the same December, on this determination, among other things, it was prescribed: “Treasurer Feofan, in an unusual and difficult to judge case, was guided by a good impulse; To guard the icon, he went himself with the novices, and was in the chapel not to participate in the divine service, but to guard the icon. Therefore, his action should be left without prosecution.” As a builder, Parfeniy, according to his testimony, was born in 1807, which is similar to the testimony in his service record; and consequently, cohabitation with his wife, under the name of Pavel, and the birth of a son in the village of Lopakova (which is attributed to him in a note, unknown by whom, compiled) should be assumed between 1825 and 1830, since, according to the testimony of the same note, in 1830 he fled; Therefore, I instructed the consistory to cope with the confessional books for 1827, 1828 and 1829, whether in the village of Lopakova in these years there was a family consisting of three people, from the peasant Pavel, his wife and young son, and what turns out to be, imagine. According to a certificate from the confessional statements of the Bogorodsky district, the village of Karpova, the Pokrovsk church of the village of Lopakova, the peasants Nestor Emelyanov and his wife Anna Filippova, for 1827, their son Pavel was written, his wife Anna Tarasova, their son was not written; for 1828 and 1829, Pavel’s wife was written not as Anna Tarasova, but as Natalya Trifonova. Due to the failure to indicate Pavel’s age in the first certificate, an additional certificate was made using the same books, according to which it turned out: the peasant son of the village of Lopakova, Pavel Nesterov, is shown among the schismatics: in 1827, 27 years old, his wife Anna Tarasova 25 years old; in 1828 Pavel Nesterov 30 years old; his wife Natalya Trifonova, 30 years old; 1829 – Pavel Nesterov 31, his wife Natalya Trifonova 31; 1835 – Pavel Nesterov 43, his wife Natalya Trifonova 43 years old, their children: Judas 9 and Marya 5 years old. From this certificate it is revealed that Hieromonk Parfeniy never belonged to the village of Lopakova, and did not escape from it around 1830; because although Pavel was found in the list of this village, even after 1830 he continued to live in the same village with his wife and two children, and consequently this is a completely different person. In general, the information collected shows that the nameless note is a schismatic fiction, made by a schismatic out of hatred for the fact that Parthenius distracts followers from their sect and destroys trust in its false teachers, and the purpose of this invention, without a doubt, is to deprive Parthenius of the trust of his superiors and drive him away from the field in which he strives against the schism in favor of Orthodoxy. The untitled note sent to me is returned. With perfect respect and devotion, I have the honor to be, Your Excellency, most humble sir, most humble servant, Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow No. 5. January 18, 1862 185 January 19. Metropolitan Philaret's opinion on the question: is it possible to allow one Catholic woman, separated from her husband, by a French civil court, to convert to Orthodoxy and remarry an Orthodox Russian subject? Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A.P. Tolstoy, in reference dated January 13, 1862, for No. 181, informed Metropolitan Philaret that the rector of our embassy church in Constantinople, Archimandrite Antonin 186, asked him to present to the Holy Synod his report on the desire of “one Catholic woman, civilly separated from her husband, to accept Orthodoxy and then marry a Russian subjects of the Orthodox confession." Forwarding the report of Archimandrite Antonin to Metropolitan Philaret, preliminary proposals to the Holy Synod, Count A.P. Tolstoy asked the Moscow archpastor to honor him, according to the contents of the papers, by recalling him and returning the attachments to the letter. The Metropolitan gave the following review: On the issue of joining the Orthodox Church and the marriage of an unknown person When examining the paper addressed to the Holy Synod from Archimandrite Antonin, dated December 18, 1861, the following is revealed: I. This paper is not called a report, but has the appearance of a relationship or letter. This is not consistent with the dignity of the Holy Synod. Bishops do not dare to write like that. II. This paper speaks of French subjects, husband and wife, without indicating their names. This is also not consistent with the order in the official presentation to the authorities. III. The wife expresses two desires: 1) to join the Orthodox Church, 2) to get married. These are two different matters, which to mix into one are contrary to legal order and correct reasoning. If she is convinced of the purity of the Eastern Catholic faith, then she must join the Orthodox Church, no matter what happens to her regarding marriage. And if he wants to join the Orthodox Church, seeking to get married together, then he gives himself the suspicion that he does not want to join it out of pure disposition towards Orthodoxy, but for a worldly purpose. IV. She is separated from her husband by a civil court; but her marriage was not dissolved by the church court. The Orthodox Church does not assert itself in cases of this kind in civil court, but conducts the investigation and trial in its department. Consequently, the divorce case of this couple has not yet begun and can hardly begin before the court of the Orthodox Church. V. The Archimandrite believes that the petitioner can ask for a divorce from the Holy Synod. How will the Holy Synod conduct an investigation into the crime of her husband, which was committed in France? VI. It is unpleasant to read that the archimandrite talks about the petitioner’s entry into Orthodoxy as a fall into heresy, and he adopts such a point of view unnecessarily and without benefit. VII. Russian citizenship, says the archimandrite, can be achieved by the petitioner only through marriage, and therefore preliminary entry into Orthodoxy is necessary. We will not enter into a discussion to what extent these two provisions are true. It is enough to note that Orthodoxy is only a means here, and the goal is marriage. So the archimandrite, thinking about caring about Orthodoxy, is, in fact, caring about the wedding. VIII. On the issue of the previous marriage of those converting from unbelief, the archimandrite points to the Roman canonical rule, without remembering the teachings of the Holy Apostle Paul, in Chapter VII of 1 Epistle to the Corinthians. It is in vain that the eastern lawmaker accuses him of lack of foresight. IX. The archimandrite sees an unknown possibility of benefit for the Orthodox Church from the person in question. Mystery, unusual and unfavorable to the matter. Is it convenient to judge an important and complicated matter by hints? X. Based on all of the above, what is required in this case: 1) The papers of Archimandrite Antonin should not be offered to the Holy Synod; for otherwise it may happen that the Holy Synod will not accept a paper that is incorrect in form and content and will return it with a remark. 2) Let Archimandrite Antonin answer to an unknown person that the Russian Orthodox Church, while protecting the holy cause of joining it from other faiths from wrong motives, or criticism of them, does not allow extraneous conditions to join this cause; that, on the basis of the words of Christ, for violating the purity of marriage by infidelity, she allows the dissolution of the marriage, according to research and court in her own department - that separation, according to the civil court, “and toro et communione bonorum” cannot serve as a sufficient basis for the church dissolution of the marriage. 3) However, this opinion is confidentially and informally proposed for consideration by the leading member of the Holy Synod, or other members and those present. January 22. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A.P. Tolstoy, regarding the death of Metropolitan Neophytos of Athens Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A.P. Tolstoy, with respect, dated January 15, 1862, No. 208, forwarded to Metropolitan Philaret, which he received from the Minister of Foreign Affairs, an extract from the dispatch of the actual state councilor Ozerov, in French, dated December 30, 1861, No. 73, which stated that Mr. Neophytos, Metropolitan Archbishop of Athens and Chairman of the Hellenic synod, just died at the age of over one hundred years. The death of this venerable saint, who took a significant part in the war for independence, causes unanimous condolences. The Holy All-Russian Synod, perhaps, will consider it decent to enter into communication, expressing to the Hellenic Synod the participation that our church takes in the loss that the Greek church is now experiencing. On the death of Metropolitan Neophytos of Athens The thought of the participation of the Russian Church in the sadness of the Orthodox Church of the Greek kingdom over the death of the leading member of its synod, Neophytos, Metropolitan of Athens, is worthy of acceptance. When the administration of the Orthodox Church of the Greek Kingdom, separate from the department of the Ecumenical Patriarch, was established, then the newly established synod, having asked for the blessing and permission of the Ecumenical Patriarch for its existence, turned to the All-Russian Synod, in order to be recognized from this side and to be in communion with the Russian Church. As a result of this, both synods are in correct legal communication. Therefore, it would be a decent act of good church communication if the All-Russian Synod, with a brief letter, addresses the Greek Synod that, with a feeling of church unanimity and unanimity, it sincerely shares the sadness of the Greek Church, which has lost the leader of its hierarchy, filled with years and valor, and prays to the Divine Shepherd of our Lord Jesus Christ, that He may raise up a worthy one through the sacred spirit-driven election who left a successor for the establishment of the Orthodox faith and the church and for the greater dissemination of Divine truth. February 11. Metropolitan Philaret’s opinion on allowing Croatian and Serbian Orthodox young people to study in Russian theological schools, in order to later enter the clergy and to maintain Orthodoxy Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A.P. Tolstoy, with respect, dated February 7, 1862, No. 672, at the request of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, forwarded to Metropolitan Philaret an extract from the report of the Russian vice-consul in Fiume, dated January 11/23, No. 3, on the situation of the Orthodox Church in Croatia, the Military Frontier and Slavonia. On this relation it is written by the hand of Metropolitan Philaret: “February 11. The extract is returned at this time. An extract “from a report dated January 11, about the Croats and Serbs, gives “importance to the issue of allowing local Orthodox “young people to study in Russian theological schools, to then enter the clergy and to maintain Orthodoxy. Essentially, the answer is in the affirmative. If political considerations prevent the government from taking an open part in this; Couldn’t private individuals give an idea about this, and hope for those who wish that they will find reception and patronage in Russia; and when they come, the Holy Synod will try to justify the hope and give benefits. It would be a different matter if we began to act to attract Roman Catholics and Austrian subjects to Orthodoxy. And against the fact that we do not repel Orthodox Christians who seek enlightenment, it seems that the Austrian minister will not be shameless enough to object. March 2. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A.P. Tolstoy, in the case of the appointment of the former Orenburg Bishop Anthony as a member of the Moscow Holy Synod office and manager of the Resurrection Monastery Your Serene Count, my dear sir. I have now received your letter dated February 27, and I hasten to respond. The Synodal Office presented the Zlatoust Archimandrite as a candidate for the Resurrection Monastery, because the Holy Synod demanded a candidate. And there was no special intention on my part for this. I asked Alexei Petrovich Akhmatov to tell your Excellency not that the proposal of the synodal office should be approved, but that it would be desirable for me to soon find out the decision of the Holy Synod, because some restructuring is expected in the Chrysostom Monastery, and it was inconvenient for me to resolve it, given the uncertainty whether Archimandrite Eustathius 190 can finish the work that he has. I don’t think at all about asking for a change in the appointment of the Right Reverend Anthony 191 to the Resurrection Monastery. Appointing him to Chrysostom would have been much worse and more difficult for the diocesan authorities. I had such an unpleasant experience when the late Metropolitan Varlaam 192 ruled St. Daniel's monastery. He did not correct faulty monks; I should not have interfered in his administration, and they caused disorder and temptation in the diocese. However, your Excellency’s letter obliges me to thank you for your gracious attention to me. Invoking God's blessing to you, with perfect respect and devotion, I have the honor to be your Excellency, most gracious sir, most humble servant, March 7. Metropolitan Philaret's opinion on the property of the Orthodox Church I. According to rumors and information, a significant change is expected in the property situation of the Orthodox Church. Some capital of the spiritual department (repair and pension) has already been transferred to the state treasury. It is proposed to subject other church capitals to the same rules as the amounts of other ministries, that is, to include them in estimates for consideration by the State Council and to verify the correctness of their use. It is proposed that even the receipt of fees from the ecclesiastical department be transferred directly to the county treasury. II. Church rules regarding church property read as follows: Antiochus. personal etc. 24. There is a good deed, and church acquisitions are preserved for the church with all diligence and a good conscience, and with faith in the All-Seer of God, and it behooves the bishop, who is entrusted with the people and souls of those gathered in the church, to dispose of it with judgment and authority. The Holy Apostles are right. 41. We command the bishop to have authority over church property. If precious human souls must be entrusted to him, then how much more should he command about money, so that he manages everything according to his authority. Canon 42 of the Council of Carthage instructs the bishop to make certain orders regarding church property not without the knowledge of the council. In accordance with these rules, the Holy Synod and the clergy subordinate to it have acted until now, with such an addition that does not violate these rules that the most important orders and reports regarding church property were submitted to the highest discretion and permission of the Most Pious Sovereign Emperor, protector and patron of the Orthodox Church. III. If in this way, until now, the state has shown respect for the apostolic and conciliar rules and rights of the church regarding church property, if this did not cause any difficulty for the state, and even this was in some respects easier for the state, then the simple rules of prudence and constancy, and the law of justice, and the duty of respect for the Orthodox Church on the part of the Orthodox state, agree to require leaving the matter in the same position. The same caution is advised so as not to give temptation to the Orthodox people if they see in reality that the state no longer maintains the same respect for the apostolic and conciliar rules. IV. To see that in the present situation of church property there is nothing difficult for the state, and even there is something easier, we need a closer look at church property, and partly at its history. In past centuries, the pious zeal of great princes, kings and private individuals enriched the Orthodox Church with uninhabited and inhabited estates: and inadvertently fulfilled the ancient law of tithes in favor of the clergy. Of the 10,000,000 serfs, 1,000,000 were in the department of the clergy. In the past century, the state took these estates under its control, assigning salaries from the income from them to some churches, monasteries and high clergy. If separate management of these properties were preserved; and all income from them, as justice required, was turned over to the benefit of the church: the church could still satisfy its needs without worrying much about the state. But church property and income from it disappeared into the general mass of state property and income; and the clergy were left with salaries, which, with the gradual increase in prices for all items, became completely unsatisfactory. For example, for the annual maintenance of a hieromonk, and now, as a hundred years before this, the state gives, according to the old account, 24 rubles, and according to the current account, 6 rubles. 90 kopecks 194. Previously, it provided an insufficient amount for the maintenance of religious schools, but for a long time now it has not provided any. The Orthodox Church is patient and undemanding. She did not turn to the state with intensified complaints and demands regarding her poverty, but found herself forced to find and use intensified means to help her poverty, which she would not have resorted to unnecessarily. She gains a kopeck from the candle that the pilgrim places in front of the icon, from the stub of this candle, from the so-called aureole, which is placed on the deceased, from the church book, which is printed by the synodal printing house: and from these kopecks she makes up the sums and capital with which, among other things, she now supports 4 theological academies, 50 seminaries, 199 lower schools. Let us dare to say frankly: justice demands that this exquisite economic management of the church be recognized with gratitude by the state, as a relief for it, since it had to provide funds for the maintenance of theological schools, not only due to its duty to care for the religious and moral education of the people, but also due to the special responsibility that it imposed on itself by taking ancient church property into its department. And with this, of course, it is also in accordance with the fact that the spiritual authorities were left as before in the quiet disposal of church property, without bringing them to reporting and control to the state. V. The state, without a doubt, has no intention of converting church property to its own benefit, but intends to continue using it for the benefit of the church. But in this case, from attracting it to its lists, reports and control, it will not receive any new benefits, but only new work - counting other people's money. And not only is this not connected with benefit, but it is also connected with the fear of harm. When, in 1809, candle money began to be taken away from churches, the opinion of the Orthodox people was agitated by jealousy for church property, and the idea arose of bringing oil to the church and lighting it in front of the icons rather than candles. But when it became more known that the candle money remained in the ecclesiastical department, was allocated for the maintenance of the clergy and theological schools, and that benefits for the construction of churches would be issued from it: then public opinion calmed down, and the candle operation was successful. Therefore, even now, if church collections go directly to the county treasury, and in this obvious way leave the ecclesiastical department, one cannot help but fear that the opinion of the Orthodox people will again be agitated, and the collection of church revenues will be shocked and weakened. Where the church fees from the county treasury will go, the people will no longer see, and therefore the sight of the confiscation of church property will remain indelible before their eyes; and cool down the zeal to make offerings to the churches. VI. It must be assumed that the assumption about the transfer of fees for the ecclesiastical department directly to the district treasuries was made without attention to the immediate circumstances of the case. The name of the “fees” is too vague. If everything that was left in the churches from the annual collection was taken to the treasury, then the churches would be left without ways to purchase prosphora, wine, incense, candles; Worship would cease, and with it the gatherings. If the name of collections refers to the money profitable from the sale of candles, and if the county treasuries accept them not unaccountably, but with monitoring the fidelity of the collection: then the treasuries will have to revise 29,000 receipts and 29,000 expenditure church books, in which not only candle money is recorded, but also those that inalienably belong to the churches for their own needs and necessary expenses for worship. Moreover, it will be necessary to pay attention not only to the past year, but also to the year preceding it, in order to take measures against a decrease in candle collection. Accordingly, it will be necessary that at the beginning of each January, at each county treasury, the priests of all churches in the county (from 30 to 100 or more) appear with receipts and expenditure books, reports, and, if necessary, with explanations. The Treasury will have a lot to do; and therefore many of the priests will be forced to wait quite a long time for their turn; and meanwhile many churches will remain without worship, born without baptism, dying without spiritual guidance, dying without burial; the poor priests will be exhausted by the costs of traveling and living in the district town: and all this work and difficulties so that the treasury will accept from other churches 2, or 3, or 5 rubles of candle money, and from a few 20 rubles or more. (For example, from 21 churches out of 97 churches in Dmitrov district). If it had been decided to entrust this matter to the church elders, then it would also have been impossible to accomplish. Most of the village church elders are not able to give any explanations to the treasury. And under such circumstances, there will be no one willing to be a church elder, and church parishioners cannot be forcibly elected to this position. In the spiritual department this operation is incomparably easier. The dean surveys the churches twice a year, at the same time revising their books of income and expenditure, and at the end of the year, on the spot, they accept candle money and send it to the consistory with statements, according to which the consistory from year to year monitors the correct progress of business and the faithfulness of the collection of money. VII. Every economy is supported by frugality; and frugality is supported by the hope that the one who uses it will benefit from its fruits. To what was said above (under number IV) about the thriftiness of the church economy and its fruits, one can add that church property, despite the fact that it is unsatisfactory for ordinary circumstances, also serves as a reserve for emergency cases. In 1812, 1,500,000 rubles were given from the church economy as an allowance for the formation of a militia; and then, after the expulsion of the enemy, when the state treasury was burdened with military expenses, 3,500,000 rubles were given from the church economy for the restoration of ruined churches and monasteries and for feeding the ruined clergy. There were similar donations on the occasion of the Crimean War. Therefore, it is both fair and useful to extend the same trust to church frugality today, and not to deprive it of its support by such an order that it would no longer have the power to enjoy its fruits. VIII. There is a consideration in mind which, while recognizing the significance of church property at its beginning, seeks to deprive it of significance in its movement. It is expressed as follows: “monastic and church capitals have a private character while they are in monasteries and churches, under the supervision of local guardians; when they are concentrated “in the Holy Synod, they lose such significance.” Here, again, it is impossible not to notice that this consideration was made without immediate inquiry into the subject. Monastic income, donations to monasteries, and sometimes the capital made up of them, to satisfy needs with interest, or to save for large repair costs, are not concentrated at all in the Holy Synod. If such capital were taken away from the Holy Synod, the monasteries could not exist, and donations to them would cease. There are also incomes (except for candles) and capital in churches in the same situation. As for the consideration itself, there seems to be no basis on which it would be affirmed. Whether a ruble of candle income lies in the church depository, goes to the consistory at the end of the year, goes to the diocesan school for its maintenance at the beginning of the next year, or is sent to the spiritual and economic administration of the Holy Synod, in all these cases it is church property; and through these movements does not become the property of the state, but will cease to be the property of the church only when it is used for church or church-school needs. To reinforce the above considerations, comparison is made of “worldly capital of state property”, which, “remaining in society, have a class character, and with centralization, when passing into the hands of the government, they lose this meaning.” But this comparison does not lead to the conclusion that they think to draw from it. One of two things: either worldly capital is state property, belonging to the department of the subordinate class, and in this case it does not change its value when it passes into the hands of the government; or it is strictly worldly property, in which case, when it is taken into the hands of the government, it is not the value of capital that is lost, but the right of ownership is violated. Moreover, the right of church property would be violated if it were transferred to state property. IX. There is information that the auxiliary capital of the Roman Catholic clergy in Russia is left at its complete disposal, and that the remainder of the regular capital is also placed at its disposal. But the Orthodox Church is already partly deprived of such rights, and may be subject to even greater deprivation. If in this way the dominant religion in the state is deprived of the rights that are granted to the tolerated religion; then the dominant is placed below the tolerant. The Orthodox Church is confident that her protector and patron, the Most Pious Sovereign Emperor, does not want this, and she prays to God that this matter, important for her and for the state, will be presented to the gaze of His Majesty in a pure and clear light. By protecting the property of the church, he will acquire a blessing for the property of the state 195. March 24. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod A.P. Akhmatov 196 with an opinion on clarifying the question: are there any obstacles to allowing the icon painter Poshekhonov to collect donations for the iconostasis and utensils for the church under construction in Jerusalem of the Holy Life-Giving Trinity, and about the draft inscription that should be on the collection book intended for issue to Mr. Poshekhonov Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, A.P. Akhmatov, in a “completely confidential” letter in March 1862, informed Metropolitan Philaret that State Secretary Mansurov, on the orders of His Imperial Highness the Grand Duke, Chairman of the Jerusalem Committee, asked him whether there were any obstacles to allowing the icon painter Poshekhonov to collect donations for the iconostasis and utensils for the Church of the Holy Life-Giving One, which was being built in Jerusalem. Trinity. Conveying the attitude of Mr. Mansurov in the list, the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod asked to inform him of the archpastor’s conclusion on this subject, if possible with the first mail, and added: “if you deigned to recognize the admission of such a collection as inconvenient for something, then I could personally report the inconveniences encountered to His Imperial Highness, without offering this matter for discussion to the Holy Synod and without calling it official refusal." At the end of the letter to A.P. Akhmatov added in his own hand: “Your Eminence’s note “On the property of the Orthodox Church” 197 has now been returned by His Majesty with the following inscription: “To announce to whomever it should be that I have ordered further discussion of this matter in the State Council to be stopped, so that the previous order remains in force.” Regarding, dated March 7, 1862, No. 154, State Secretary Mansurov wrote: “Our icon painter, Mr. Poshekhonov, who is well-known in Russia, being in frequent contact, due to the nature of his occupation, with many people who take an active part in the success of the Orthodox Church, offered his services to paint the iconostasis of the Church of St. Life-giving Trinity and for voluntary donations for the iconostasis and utensils of this church. Believing that the assistance of Mr. Poshekhonov in this case could be very useful, I had the good fortune to ask the permission of the Sovereign Grand Duke, the chairman of the committee most eminently established for the establishment of charitable institutions for Orthodox worshipers in Palestine, whether it would please His Imperial Majesty to allow Mr. Poshekhonov to begin the said collection, providing him from the committee with a special corded book for recording in it donated amounts and names of donors, so that this permission would be published in newspapers? His Imperial Highness deigned to order me to first ask Your Excellency to inform you whether you would like to encounter any obstacle in carrying out the above-mentioned measure. Having forwarded at the discretion of your Excellency the draft inscription that could be made on the book issued to Mr. Poshekhonov, I consider it my duty to add that Mr. Poshekhonov intends to collect only at his home, among those visiting him, and that, as far as I know, he belongs to the number of fellow believers. I humbly ask Your Excellency to honor me with a subsequent notification to report to His Imperial Majesty.” Attached to the reference was a draft inscription on the book issued to Mr. Poshekhonov, the following: “With the permission of His Imperial Highness Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolaevich, this book was issued to the icon painter artist Vasily Makarov Poshekhonov, for the collection and recording of offerings: for the construction of the iconostasis in the building currently under construction, with the highest Sovereign Emperor's permission, Cathedral of the Holy Life-Giving Trinity, near the holy city of Jerusalem in Palestine, to supply this church with sacred utensils and to paint holy icons for the cathedral. Given, in St. Petersburg, March, 1862 To this, Metropolitan Philaret responded to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod with the following letter: Your Excellency, dear sir. On the issue of Poshekhonov, who volunteered to write an iconostasis for the church of a hospice house near Jerusalem, and about the book compiled for this church, the following should be discussed. I don’t know now, but before Poshekhonov was a schismatic; and, resuming mural painting in the Kiev St. Sophia Cathedral, he used schismatic forms, trying to pass them off as ancient, but the late Metropolitan Philaret 198 was convicted of forgery; because the Metropolitan saw the sketches of the original icon painter made on the wall with a sharp tool, and therefore preserved even though the colors had been lost. Therefore, Poshekhonov was removed from this matter, and it was entrusted to someone else. This was not officially known to me; I believe, however, that it is reliable. The schismatics will be ready to present to him full-fledged convictions so that he will do the same in Jerusalem, so that they can then say: and in Jerusalem as we do. Books for collecting benefits for the construction and internal arrangement of churches are usually given from the Holy Synod, signed by the chief secretary, or from the diocesan bishop, signed by a member of the consistory, and in special cases, signed by the bishop himself. Such a book in the name of a person of the reigning house, signed by a secular person who does not belong to the spiritual department, and therefore not emanating from the spiritual department and not introducing collection into the spiritual department, would be a very unusual phenomenon, and could pave the way for even stranger imitations. Rejection of this project would be to maintain order. If Poshekhonov is entrusted with painting the iconostasis; then it is desirable that this be done in St. Petersburg, under the supervision of the Metropolitan of Novgorod. Invoking God's blessing to you, with perfect respect and devotion, I have the honor to be your Excellency, most gracious sir, most humble servant, Then, the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, on May 10, 1862, forwarded to State Secretary Mansurov a book addressed to the icon painter Poshekhonov to collect voluntary donations for the iconostasis and utensils for the Church of the Holy Life-Giving Trinity being built in Jerusalem, explaining that this book was issued from the St. Petersburg spiritual consistory according to the desire personally expressed by the chairman of the highest approved committee for the establishment of charitable institutions for Orthodox worshipers in Palestine, by His Imperial Highness, Sovereign Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolaevich, and that, in the opinion of His Eminence Metropolitan of St. Petersburg, Poshekhonov, who belongs to fellow believers, who observe certain features in icon painting, especially in the image blessing hand should be made obligated to comply with the generally accepted rule in icon painting in the Orthodox Eastern Church, so as not to give Eastern Christians any reason for any bewilderment 199 . April 12. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, A.P. Akhmatov, with two notes attached: a) “On the church celebration of the millennium of Slavic enlightenment” and b) “Something about akathists” Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod A.P. Akhmatov, by order of the Empress, in a letter dated April 3, 1862, asked Metropolitan Philaret to report, for a report to Her Majesty, his opinion on the idea presented to some people about holding a spiritual celebration in Russia for the prayerful remembrance of the Slavic enlighteners St. Cyril and Methodius, honored by the Orthodox Church on May 11, since 1862 was considered the millennium of Slavic enlightenment. At the same time, A.P. Akhmatov asked the Metropolitan whether he would not consider it appropriate to take advantage of the indicated opportunity to send out to all dioceses, for reading, during prayer services, on the days of remembrance of the mentioned saints, if approved by the Holy Synod, the akathist to these saints, which was under its consideration, compiled by the Right Reverend of Smolensk. The Metropolitan responded to the Chief Prosecutor's letter. As a result of the question, by the will of the Empress you proposed to me, I present herewith a note about the church celebration to St. Cyril and Methodius, in remembrance of the millennium from the beginning of the Slavic enlightenment. Instead of a letter, I often write a note so that the copyist sees only the reasoning and is not curious about why and for what, although, however, I have no doubt that my copyist is keeping clerical secrets. To explain the last part of the above note, I am enclosing a list from the note: “Something about Akathists,” which I wrote last year to the Eminence of Novgorod, on the occasion of the preparation of a church service for St. Tikhon. However, I am allowed to think, but it is up to the Holy Synod to decide. Invoking God's blessing to you, with perfect respect and devotion, I have the honor to be your Excellency, most gracious sir, most humble servant, About the church celebration of the millennium of Slavic enlightenment I. Then, as it was decided to celebrate the millennium of Russia as a state on August 26 of this year, another question arises: shouldn’t the memory of the Monks Cyril and Methodius be celebrated in the church on May 11 of this year, in remembrance of the completed millennium from the beginning of the Slavic enlightenment they laid? “There are many things that prevent you from answering this in the affirmative.” II. The celebration of the millennium in the church and the celebration of the millennium in the state, in the same year, but in different months and days, would present the appearance of some discord and disunity. III. A type of discord would also appear if Russia celebrated the Slavic millennium in 1862, while the Western Slavs decided to celebrate it in 1863. IV. What can we celebrate in 1862? The invention of the Slavic alphabet? But it, according to the testimony of the writer closest to the time of the event, Brave 201, was invented in 855; and its millennium has already passed. Celebrating based on the guesses of Safarik and Bodyansky would not be very reliable. Or will we celebrate the millennium of the baptism of the Moravians in 862? But it belongs to them. V. We have three millennia before our eyes: 1) a thousand years from the beginning of the Slavic alphabet, or better to say, from the beginning of the translation of the Holy Scriptures into the Slavic language (although the beginning of the translation is not entirely determined by the alphabet); 2) a thousand years from the baptism of Equal-to-the-Apostles Princess Olga; 3) a thousand years from the baptism of Equal-to-the-Apostles Vladimir and Russia in general. To celebrate one millennium three times, in three terms, in relation to one subject, would not it be too generous? But if you choose one of the three indicated periods, then you should preferably choose one of the last two, as actually relating to the Russian church and the Russian people. VI. However, it is unknown what the authorities’ view on this subject will be; then, if it is appointed to celebrate the memory of Saints Cyril and Methodius in this or next year, on May 11th in all churches of Russia, what kind of celebration should there be? According to church rules, all-night vigil, cathedral liturgy and prayer singing. At the same time, one cannot help but notice that there is no special service in honor of Cyril and Methodius in church books. It would be timely to compose it for a special celebration. How should this service be composed? To resolve this question, we must also ask: what exactly will the Orthodox Church celebrate? Is it the Slavic alphabet? Of course not. It is fitting for her to celebrate the sanctification of the Slavic language by translating the word of God into it. Should Cyril and Methodius only be glorified for this? Of course not, but first and above all we must glorify the Trinitarian God and the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, of which Cyril and Methodius were instruments. So, serving only Cyril and Methodius would be unsatisfactory. Let's give an example. When, under Emperor Peter the Great, the celebration of peace with Sweden and the bringing of the relics of the Holy Blessed Grand Duke Alexander Nevsky took place, obviously a service to Saint Alexander was required; but His Holiness Sunod did not stop there. The service was structured in such a way that the praise of Saint Alexander was preceded by glorifications of the Most Holy Trinity. Likewise, it would be appropriate in the present case for a canon to be compiled that would contain in each song three verses, one in honor of the Most Holy Trinity or Christ the Savior, another in honor of Cyril and Methodius, and a third in honor of the Mother of God, and that this canon, at a prayer service according to the liturgy, between the singing of the irmos, should be read clearly, so that this would be both solemn and edifying. VII. There is information that an akathist to Cyril and Methodius was compiled. Nothing can be said about him when he is not in mind. But we can say in general that the current generosity in compiling akathists is not always consistent with the ancient spirit and order of church service institutions, and is not always truly edifying. To explain this idea, a special note is attached: Something about akathists. April 11, 1862 April 12 202 sent. An akathist to the Mother of God was compiled for a special event in gratitude for the deliverance of Constantinople from enemies. That’s why he appeals to her, the Mounted (reflecting abuse) governor. According to the extraordinary event being glorified, the chant received the extraordinary form of an akathist, instead of the ordinary form of a canon. But the pious compiler reasoned that when glorifying the Mother of God, one should not remain silent about the glory of Christ, and therefore the ikosas are turned to the Mother of God, and the kontakia, for the most part, to Christ the Savior; and the entire akathist represents an image of the saving incarnation of the Son of God. The theological spirit of the Holy Church saw that it would be incongruous if, in fact, for the glory of Christ the Savior there were not the same extraordinary and majestic hymn as the Akathist to the Mother of God. And an akathist to the Lord Jesus was compiled, filled with the spirit of repentance, prayer, love and tenderness. Was there not an ecclesiastical idea that this extraordinary type of chant should be appropriated only to Christ the Savior and the Mother of God, when in the prayer laid down at the akathist to the Mother of God it is said: accept this honest gift for you alone? In ancient manuscripts there are other experiments of akathists; but they did not come into church use. The Kiev Pechersk Lavra, with its akathist to the Dormition of the Mother of God, shook the limit set by antiquity. The Uniates wanted to present themselves with richer church chants than the Orthodox, and compiled several akathists. In the Moscow church, an unusual opportunity presented itself to compose an akathist to St. Sergius: he was elected commander during the Polish invasion. Recently, the desire to compose akathists has intensified, and there are no limits to it. One of the Russian Eminences 203 corrected the Uniate akathists, and printed, and, as they say, read at all-night vigils, skipping the caeism prescribed by the church charter. The Greeks wanted to print in Russia an akathist to the Holy Sepulcher, with the final proclamation in ikos: Rejoice, blessed one. The Holy Synod did not approve of this, reasoning that doxology addressed to a material shrine is not enough, but should be addressed primarily to the Divine face of Christ the Savior, as for example, in church magnification: we magnify you, life-giving Christ, and honor your holy cross. But then an akathist to the Holy Sepulcher was published. We are dissatisfied with the zeal to perform the divine service established by the church in such a way that nothing is omitted, and everything is read and read slowly and clearly. Isn’t it more necessary, isn’t it more useful to be jealous about this than to expand the service with a multitude of akathists, arbitrarily re-composed from a multitude of vague, refined laudatory expressions, little capable of admonishing and edifying the reader or hearer? Anyone who wants to, every saint for whom he feels zeal, does not find it difficult to write an akathist and give it to the rule of the church. Is this ok? Is it reasonable that so many ancient great saints, apostles, prophets, martyrs, saints, and saints remain without akathists? But should not the exercise of pious zeal be favored? True, but with much consideration and prudence, in order to bring to the Church of God a gift truly useful to it. Let each zealous person write an akathist with prayer, satisfying his zeal, and not rush to present it to the church. Over time, several akathists to one saint may be compiled; and then the Holy Synod can choose work that is more mature, more capable of nourishing prayer and delivering edification. Now before our eyes is a hastily composed akathist to the newly-minted Saint Tikhon. Some parts of it are written with force, but many show traces of haste. Many expressions are borrowed with slight changes, especially from the akathist to St. Sergius. Kontakion 12 is almost entirely from the akathist to St. Sergius. The prayer according to the Akathist is almost entirely from the Akathist to St. Sergius. The life and writings of St. Tikhon make it possible to compose a service and akathist for him not from general vague laudatory expressions, but from such images and thoughts in which his own features of life and exploits and his teaching would be visible, so that the reader of the akathist would talk with him, pray with him, and learn from him. Let He himself instruct those who reason about this. But I think that it is better not to rush to pick an unripe fruit, but to wait for a ripe one. April 22. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, A.P. Akhmatov, with a note regarding the subsequent imperial command to abolish the rule existing in the law regarding the construction of churches of other faiths The Minister of Internal Affairs, State Secretary Valuev, in a statement dated March 3, 1862, No. 32, announced to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod about the highest order issued on the 6th day of January of the same year to exclude from the subject articles of the code of laws the rule according to which provincial authorities, according to ideas about the construction of heterodox churches, are obliged to first communicate with the Orthodox diocesan by superiors. Regarding the stated highest command, Metropolitan Philaret, in a letter dated April 22, 1862, forwarded a note on this subject to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod. By forwarding herewith a note on permission to build churches of other faiths, without communication with the Orthodox spiritual authorities, I leave it to your discretion whether it can be shown in this form to anyone other than you. On permission to build churches of other faiths by civil authorities without communication with the spiritual, Orthodox I. In the code of laws there is a rule that the construction of churches of other faiths should be permitted by the civil authorities only after preliminary communication with the Orthodox spiritual authorities. There is information that the spiritual authorities are supposed to be removed from this. II. Since the law concerned both civil and spiritual authorities, then, if necessary, to revise it, it would be appropriate for both authorities to take part in this. And the guilty person is not deprived of his right without hearing him out: if more than he has equal rights under the law, it would be fair to listen before taking from him the right granted to him by law. This precaution, it seems, was not taken. III. If you delve into the matter more closely and with experience, you can be convinced that the rule included in the code of laws as necessary has not ceased to be necessary today, at least in some areas and under some circumstances. The exact view of the matter, of course, can be more accurately determined by observation from two sides: civil and spiritual, rather than from just one civil one. An example can explain this. In Moscow, in 1857, there were 44 Armenian-Gregorian souls of both sexes, and 7 Armenian-Catholic souls, a number that would not be sufficient among Orthodox Christians to form one parish. The Armenians have an open church inside Moscow and their own special cemetery outside the city limits. Not content with this, they decided to build their own monastery in the cemetery for 400 people; whereas the Orthodox in Russia have one monastery for every 180,000 souls. The civil authorities did not refuse this request: and if there had not been a law obliging to consult with the spiritual authorities, the decision of the matter would have been very one-sided. 1) such excessive pandering to the Armenians would make an unpleasant impression on the entire Orthodox population of Moscow. 2) Such excessive favoring of the Armenians would provide a new reason for the schismatics’ opinion that the Russian government is anti-Christian; for they read in old printed books: the curse of armen. 3) In all likelihood, the Armenian monastery would have become a haven of Lazarist propaganda. The civil authorities, through communication with the spiritual, saw the unfavorable side of the matter, and then rejected the request of the Armenians. There is nothing to ensure that such intercourse, which turned out to be so necessary in Moscow in 1857, is now no longer necessary in any part of Russia. Let us imagine another example, seemingly petty, but significant. Roman Catholics in Moscow, having a church on the edge of the city, wished to have it in the middle. The civil authorities consulted with the clergy, and this expressed their consent, asking at the same time that the place be chosen on a street, not too crowded, and not against an Orthodox monastery or church. Thus, the meeting with the spiritual authorities did not hinder the civilian, but helped. Of course, it would be worse if, at the pleasure of 1000 Roman Catholics, an unpleasant impression was made among 300,000 Orthodox Christians, who, passing by the Latin Church, standing opposite the Orthodox, each time mentally renewed their complaint against the government, which does not protect the advantages of the Orthodox Church. IV. What can we say about those provinces where churches and chapels are still excessively multiplied, and where it is not piety that is constantly increasing their multiplication, but propaganda, and not only religious, but political under the guise of religious? “Is it timely to leave one protective guard there instead of two, as was the case until now?” V. But if the change of law has already taken place; Couldn't the Orthodox spiritual authorities, although without special rights, in special cases, warn the civil authorities about the inconvenience of allowing a new heterodox church somewhere? - But the Orthodox spiritual authorities will not find out in time about an enterprise of this kind, or they will deliberately hide this from them until permission is received; and once permission is given, the warning is no longer appropriate. VI. One method of precaution now seems possible: to identify areas that especially require precautions, such as, for example: Kyiv, Moscow, etc., and establish an additional rule so that the Minister of Internal Affairs in these areas, before authorizing the construction of new heterodox churches, through the synodal chief prosecutor, takes information and opinion from the Orthodox spiritual authorities. After the correspondence between the chief prosecutor of the Holy Synod and the Minister of Internal Affairs on the subject of permission to build churches of other faiths, without prior communication with the diocesan authorities, the chief prosecutor of the Holy Synod submitted to the discretion of His Imperial Majesty a draft addition to the highest command, on January 6, 1862, by virtue of which it was assumed: 1) that for each given permission for the construction of heterodox churches, the Ministry of the Interior immediately informed the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, 2) so that in those cases when the request for permission would concern an area in which, according to a statement from the ecclesiastical department, made in advance to the Ministry, the Holy Synod would recognize the need to observe special caution, it would each time enter, through the Chief Prosecutor, into preliminary communication with the spiritual authorities and 3) so that the Ministry of the Interior would constantly have in view of the obligation to avert any actions on the part of the heterodox clergy that could tend to harm Orthodoxy. The said addition, on the 26th day of January 1863, received the highest approval so that it was confidentially announced only to the Holy Synod and the Minister of the Interior for execution. Having reported this highest order to the Minister of Internal Affairs, Chief Prosecutor St. The Synod, in an additional message to the same minister, according to the definition of the Holy Synod, on February 12/25, 1863, explained: 1) that the very circumstances point to the Western dioceses as the main center of Latin propaganda, where special caution must be observed when resolving petitions for the construction of churches of other faiths; although cases of seduction from Orthodoxy, as experience shows, occur in other parts of the empire and sometimes even in places where it was almost impossible to expect them, 2) that it is impossible for the Holy Synod to determine with accuracy all such places where special caution is required in such cases - due to the lack, at present, of the information necessary for this - and 3) that before collecting this information and reporting comments, the Holy Synod leaves it to the minister himself, who knows the areas where Orthodoxy mainly faces a struggle with through the machinations of infidels, to determine those important points where buildings and, in general, the increase of infidel churches, without the knowledge of the Orthodox spiritual authorities, could become a means of spreading and establishing heterodoxy. 205 Note: As a result of the petition of the former meeting of the elders in the city of Kyiv in 1884 to restore the force of the previous law, by virtue of which, during the construction of churches of other faiths, the civil authorities were obliged to enter into preliminary communication on this subject with the spiritual Orthodox authorities, according to a report on this from the head of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, Sovereign Emperor, on the 10th day of October, 1885, His Majesty ordered that the said law be restored to its previous force. April 28. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to Prince S. N. Urusov, with a note attached: “About the book: Transformation and simplification of Russian spelling” Most illustrious prince, gracious sir. According to the note and attachments forwarded to me, dated April 24, I am answering what can be answered as soon as possible. I am enclosing a note about the alphabet when returning the printed brochures. I conveyed my thoughts about the celebration of St. Cyril and Methodius in a special note to Alexei Petrovich 206. The reasoning and assumptions set out in the note delivered to me are very worthy of attention. But can we hope that the execution will be achieved with the desired success? “I don’t yet see a reassuring answer to this question.” Invoking God's blessing upon you, with perfect respect and devotion, I have the honor to be your Lordship, most humble servant, The following note was attached to this letter: About the book: Transformation and simplification of Russian spelling I. What the inventive and transformative age cannot invent for human bliss! He says to the old man, the scientist, the writer: sit next to a five-year-old baby and learn a new alphabet. This, old man, will make you more experienced; you, a scientist, will increase your knowledge; you, writer, will write books better than those you have written until now. He says to the boy: give up the difficult and ugly Russian alphabet, learn this easy, beautiful alphabet. The boy thinks: apparently, I was mistaken when it seemed to me that everything was fine with us; Apparently, Russian is not good; we need to abandon it and adopt European things. Is this truly the path to success and prosperity? Is this really necessary to improve the education and prosperity of the people? II. Anyone who cares would find a lot in the book named that could be argued against. Let's point out a few things. Page 3. The book calculates the percentage of gains from changing Russian letters to Latin. The accounting is dubious, to verify which it would be necessary to count not only letters, but also lines in a large amount of text. But the infidelity of this accounting is exposed by the first lines of the book, where it is said: in one letter t, with which the word that begins, the word tot itself can fit. False: the letter t is made up of three straight lines, not separated from one another by transverse ones. The word tot has four straight lines t|o|t, and, moreover, expanded by transverse ones tt. III. Country 5, 6. The book complains that many uppercase Russian letters are no different from lowercase ones. She speaks against herself. For she believes that the imperfection of the Russian alphabet lies in the fact that there are many letters; but, requiring excellent capital letters, thereby increasing the number of forms that a student of reading must learn. IV. The book wants to simplify the spelling: but that's what it does on page 9. in the first word g means w; and in the second year. Therefore, a new rule will be required for when to pronounce g as zh and when as g. In the word coal uglea, instead of the desired abbreviation, there is an extra letter. And no one can pronounce it like I do. This will need to be taught and re-taught. So, what was said on page 16, that “spelling will be simplified a thousand times,” uses a strengthened expression to cover up a false idea. See, the book thinks that instead of b it is better to write h. And for this it was necessary to create a new rule, whereas we do not need any rule to read the word: honor. VI. On pages 20–25, for the new alphabet there are many new rules for reading, which the Russian alphabet does not require. You see, the letter h in one word is expressed by one letter s, and in another by two ch. So, instead of the desired reduction of letters, it turns out to be multiplication. And a rule is required when to write one and when to write two letters. There are already three letters instead of one. And here the writer did not take the trouble to calculate how many percent of this there would be a loss during printing. IX. If a new alphabet is adopted, the student who will have to learn the Russian, French and Latin alphabet will be especially unhappy. The same letters will require many and different pronunciations, and he will become confused in applying them to different languages. X. The current Russian alphabet is not far from the Slavic one; and therefore both are learned almost as one. The Latin alphabet is far from the Slavic alphabet. The adoption of the Latin alphabet for the Russian language could be rejoiced by those who would like the Slavic alphabet to be unpleasant for children, and so that they would not want to read church books. Of course, those who would like to Latinize and Polish Russia would also be glad to see the Russian word in the clothing of the Latin and Polish alphabet. May 1st. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, A.P. Akhmatov, with an opinion on the petition of the collegiate registrar Mordvinov for permission to publish a weekly magazine in which, for a year, the lives of all the saints revered by the Russian Orthodox Church would be placed A.P. Akhmatov, dated April 27, 1862, No. 2413, asked Metropolitan Philaret to inform him of his opinion on the most submissive petition of the collegiate registrar Mordvinov, for permission to publish, in Russian, the lives of all the saints revered by the Russian Orthodox Church, adding to this, 1) that in this His Holiness In an explanation to the Synod, Mr. Mordvinov showed that the publication he proposed would consist partly of original articles, and partly compiled from the Chetia-Minea and Prologue, sometimes with an abbreviation, and sometimes with additions from other separately printed works, but in no case would it constitute a literal translation of the books of the Chetia-Minea and 2) that the Holy Synod decided to refuse Mr. Mordvinov in his petition on the following grounds: a) The Holy Synod already once recognized it as inconvenient to publish in Russian the lives of saints collected by St. Demetrius of Rostov; b) the very subject of the publication is so important that it can be completely accessible only to persons who specifically study it and c) at present, some of our bishops are already successfully engaged in this matter. In this regard, at the top of page 1, the hand of Metropolitan Philaret is marked: “May 1. Answered negatively, but for other reasons.” Please ask for my opinion on the weekly journal intended by the collegiate registrar Mordvinov, in which the lives of all the saints revered by the Russian Orthodox Church would be published within a year. Several years before this, the Holy Synod stopped the printing of the lives of the saints from Chetia-Minea in the Russian dialect. The exact reason for this is unknown to me. If the reason for this was to protect the ownership of the Holy Synod in the said book, then this reason is not strong. Lovers of reading the Slavic Chetiya will not leave it, for some individual lives of saints in the Russian dialect. These individual lives were distributed in significant numbers, attracting the attention of those who find it difficult to read Slavic. So they were useful. This benefit for the Holy Synod is more important than the material one. Nowadays we should especially not neglect anything that can distract people from frivolous reading and attract them to edifying reading. The reasoning is fair that the lives of saints can be more reliably compiled by persons of clergy, whom both education and life adapt more closely to this. But the Holy Synod did not strictly adhere to this reasoning. G. Mordvinov has a ready objection to this. At the important moment of the discovery of the relics of St. Tikhon, his life was written by a secular person. However, the thought of the importance of the subject has power and imposes an obligation. If something written about a secular subject is weak, inaccurate, even funny: there is no need. But if about such a subject as the lives and deeds of saints, it is written weakly, erroneously, with condemnation of recognized legends: temptation will occur. And woe to him by whom temptation comes. Consequently, the publication proposed by Mr. Mordvinov requires significant preliminary assurance of its dignity and freedom from temptation. He says he is presenting the first issue. But in the case there is no such example by which one could partly judge what was expected. G. Mordvinov wants to at the same time both shorten and supplement existing biographies of saints. This is not a very clear foreshadowing. If he wants to write lengthy lives, is it appropriate to shorten them? And if they are short, is it appropriate to supplement? This does not show that he put the right yardstick into his plan. Since he declares only one issue ready, he still needs to prepare 51 within a year. So that within a week it would be possible to thoroughly write and print the lives of the saints, how many of them will be found within 7 or 8 days: this is more than doubtful. For the first 7 days of September, you need to write at least 13 lives. If a writer wants to make it easier for himself by condensing such a large amount of material into 2 and 1 ½ printed sheets; then one cannot help but fear that in such lives there will be no life and spiritual benefit. The promise of original writings on the lives of such saints about whom no new sources of information appear, such as St. Great Martyr Barbara and St. Mitrofan, gives reason to think that Mr. Mordvinov made a promise without sufficiently thinking about whether it would come true. Therefore, I believe that the Holy Synod recognizes Mr. Mordvinov’s project as having no moral support and will not allow its implementation. With perfect respect and devotion, I have the honor to be, Your Excellency, dear sir, most humble servant, The matter comes back. May 8. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod A.P. Akhmatov, with an opinion on allowing Slavic natives of Turkish subjects to establish a Slavic metochion in St. Petersburg Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A.P. Tolstoy and A.P. Akhmatov, in letters, the first, dated January 12, and the second, dated April 27, asked the Metropolitan to report his opinion regarding the request of Slavic natives from Turkey located in St. Petersburg for permission to establish a Slavic metochion in the capital, the income “from which would be used to maintain Orthodox Slavic churches in Turkey.” On April 27, No. 2417, Your Excellency demanded my opinion on the request of the Slavic natives for permission to establish a Slavic farmstead in St. Petersburg. The judgment on this belongs primarily to the Most Reverend Metropolitan of Novgorod, in whose diocese the dispensation is expected. However, I do not refuse to fulfill what is required, if possible. Justice requires not to hide the incorrectness of the grounds on which they think to approve the said request. The request is based on an example of existing farmsteads. But the metochions of the Patriarchates of Jerusalem, Antioch and Alexandria that exist in Moscow cannot be an example for monasteries, on the one hand because of the highest dignity of the patriarchate, and on the other because of the large number of monasteries, which would burden the country with many metochions, and would tire and exhaust the zeal of the Orthodox people. Even now, since for some time the authorities have expanded the path of collectors too much in favor of churches and monasteries, the collections have become more meager; because to someone who had, for example, a ruble to spare, when two people came, he gave them half a ruble each, and when ten came, they got a hryvnia each. The Greek monastery in Moscow is not a model for the proposed courtyard. This is a Russian monastery, which long ago, due to special circumstances, was given to the Greeks, has the same appearance as diocesan monasteries, does not require collection books, and does not send collectors. The request says that donations flow into the farmsteads and from there are properly distributed, even to the most remote areas. This is not certain. The metochions each deliver everything they acquire to their patriarch, and, unfortunately, there is often a lack of assurance that the benefactions achieve their goals. For example, significant charitable sums were sent to the Patriarchate of Alexandria; and efforts are made in vain to find out whether they are used in accordance with their intended purpose. The request states that Greek collectors find permanent shelter in the farmsteads. And this is not true. Greek collectors in Moscow do not find space in the farmsteads, who are looking for income from every room. Greek and Slavic collectors usually look for places in the diocesan monastery. Of the three patriarchal metochions in Moscow, the one in Jerusalem enjoys contented prosperity due to the special zeal of the Orthodox people for the Holy Sepulcher, and because during the former large collection of benefits for the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, buildings were built that generated income. The other two farmsteads are not abundant. For the diocesan authorities, these farmsteads are not without difficulties. The head of the metochion, not having co-workers, borrows them from the diocesan clergy, which does not always correspond to order and discipline. The civil authorities demand from the diocesan authorities to encourage the metochions to perform police duties; the heads of the farmsteads respond to the paucity of methods, and the power that could correctly find out and decide this is located abroad. The same difficulty occurs in relation to internal order in farmsteads. At this very time, in the Antioch courtyard, recalled by the patriarch to the east and having received his order to bring with him the things of the late Metropolitan Neophytos 209, Archimandrite Anoimus does not give his successor, the archimandrite, some necessary information about the courtyard, confines him in a small courtyard with the continuation of his presence, does not want to go to the east and carry things there according to the orders of the patriarch, and wants to stay in Russia. These are not enviable examples and not the most favorable omens for the proposed courtyard. But if Moscow bears the burden of three farmsteads, then Petersburg, out of love for those of the same faith and tribe, can bear the burden of one farmstead. But in order for it to be understandable, it is necessary to limit and more carefully define the draft drawn up. It is inconvenient for the proposed courtyard to be under the direct jurisdiction of the Holy Synod: - it is inconvenient for the highest government class to assume the responsibilities of a lower authority. The Slavic-Serbian metochion should be under the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan of Novgorod; and persons belonging to the metochion, as long as they remain on it, must be subject to the supervision and discipline of the St. Petersburg diocesan authorities. The book for collecting benefits may be given for a period of one or two years; and it is inconvenient to allow an eternal wandering around Russia with a collection of books. The assumption of collecting accurate and complete information about all the Orthodox churches in the Slavic regions of Turkey and about their needs is too great. It would raise demands that there is no hope of satisfying. It is necessary to modestly report information, carefully verify and carefully distribute benefits so that they reach those in need and do not fall into the hands of those who steal. The Slavic-Serbian metochion should provide hospitality to the Slavs and Serbs who come to St. Petersburg for church needs. May 9. Notes from Metropolitan Philaret about the many years that were to be said at the opening of the monument to the millennium of Russia Minister of the Imperial Household, Count V.F. Adlerberg, to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, A.P. To Akhmatov, by the way, he wrote: “due to your Excellency’s attitude towards me, dated May 8 of this year, No. 2648, with the transmission of copies of ceremonies for the spiritual part, at the opening in Novgorod of a monument to the millennium of the existence of the Russian state, I have the honor, dear sir, to notify you, for the appropriate order, that the Sovereign Emperor wishes that upon completion prayers near the monument, after the proclamation of many years of the imperial family, the protodeacon proclaimed: 1) eternal memory to all the sovereigns who have died in God and reigned in Russia and 2) may the Lord grant peace and prosperity to the All-Russian kingdom and preserve it for many years to come.” The following documents, written by Metropolitan Philaret, have been preserved in the file: I. After proclaiming many years to the most pious Sovereign Emperor and the highest family, the protodeacon says: To those who enlightened Russia with the Christian Orthodox faith, equal to the apostles, Grand Duke Vladimir and Grand Duchess Olga, who successively for centuries created and strengthened the autocracy of Russia, to the pious tsars and great princes who newly created the Russian kingdom, and who expanded and glorified it in God, to the deceased most pious emperors and empresses, eternal memory. To all the chosen sons of Russia, who for centuries faithfully fought for its unity, good and glory, in the fields of piety, enlightenment, governance and victorious defense of the fatherland, eternal memory. Having laid times and seasons in Your hand, Lord, by Your wise all-good Providence, to the thousand-year preserved and restored Kingdom of All Russia, add Your great mercy and preserve it in faith and truth, in goodness and prosperity for many years and centuries 211. Note. It is better for the singers: eternal memory, to sing not in a sad tune, as at funerals, but in another majestic one. II. Upon the proclamation of many years to the most pious Sovereign Emperor and the highest family, the protodeacon says: Having placed times and seasons in Your hand, Lord, by Your wise all-good Providence, to the thousand-year-old preserved and restored Kingdom of All Russia, add Your great mercy, and preserve it in faith and truth, in goodness and prosperity for many years and centuries. Equal to the Apostles Grand Duchess Olga, Equal to the Apostles Grand Duke Vladimir, Blessed Grand Duke John, collector of the Russian land, and other Blessed Tsars and Grand Dukes of Russia, the most pious Emperors Peter the First, Alexander the First, Nicholas the First and other most pious Emperors and Empresses of All Russia who died in Bose, eternal memory. Note. The last proclamation can be pronounced before the many years of the All-Russian Kingdom, if it is better to judge. It’s even better that the conclusion should be many years, and not an eternal memory that we are used to listening to with a sad thought. It is also better that the singers: eternal memory sing not in a sad tune, as at funerals, but in another majestic one. III. Addition to the proclamations for the prayer service for the Millennium of Russia. To all the chosen sons of Russia, who for centuries faithfully fought for its unity, good and glory, in the fields of piety, enlightenment, governance and victorious defense of the fatherland, eternal memory 212. May 10. Metropolitan Philaret’s opinion “on the letters of blessing from the Holy Synod” Letters have recently been invented to announce the blessing of the Holy Synod, burdened with numerous decorations. Above is the image of the Savior. On the sides of it, on the banners: another time the image of the Savior, and the image of the Mother of God. Between them are two seraphim. Below, on the sides, are St. Nicholas and St. Sergius. Below, on the sides, there are two more seraphim. In this waste of the shrine, in this insult to it by disorder, is the rule of St. Andrew of Crete observed: honor the Divine more honestly? Seraphim, the highest powers, whom the Orthodox Church remembers in prayers after the Mother of God, above the holy Forerunner and the Apostles, are they decently placed, not only below the holy people, but also below the holy chalice of water, at the very foot of the picture? Why is the holy cup and paten here? What is the Gospel for? Why trikirium and dikirium? Why a miter? Why the omophorion and stole? Why, in addition to the Gospel, two more books on analogies? What is the holy chalice for? Why a vessel for blessing the loaves? What is the font for? Why two crowns with crosses thrown at the foot of the picture? If artists sprinkle decorations, looking only for pleasant variegation and symmetry, without taking the trouble to think about the dignity of the objects; Should the spiritual authorities yield to this rash direction? Shouldn't it set the opposite example to this, and admonish artists? Isn't the decree to the archimandrite announcing the appointment to the bishop written on a simple sheet of paper, and isn't it content with the signature of the chief secretary? Is the most important act of this really the announcement of a blessing to the church warden? Aren't the highest imperial letters written on a blank sheet of paper without any decoration? It is very likely that the village church elder, seeing the icons on the letter, will put it with his icons, and will pray to them and to his person, inscribed in the letter. Shouldn’t it have been necessary to foresee this and beware of it? Why does the Holy Synod still announce its blessing to clergy simply, without a decorated letter? Of course, he does not want to burden his household with unnecessary costs. Why was it necessary to burden it also in relation to the laity? The economy of the Holy Synod encourages frugality. Is it not possible to hope that the Holy Synod will pay attention to the example of the letter, which crept in through trust in art, past spiritual considerations, and if not to leave the letter without decoration, then at least give it decorations that are less burdensome and more decent? May 11. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, A.P. Akhmatov, with opinions regarding the introduction of health and funeral leaflets into use in churches, based on samples compiled on this subject Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, A.P. Akhmatov, in a letter dated April 29, 1862, No. 2454, asked Metropolitan Philaret to report the conclusion: a) on the draft resolution of the Holy Synod, regarding the question that arose in it, regarding the introduction into use in churches of health and funeral leaflets according to the samples drawn up on this subject, and also b) on these samples. On April 29th, No. 2454, my opinion on the draft health and funeral certificates is required. My opinion: the project does not promise benefit, but promises difficulty. On one draft of the sheet there is an icon of the Savior, and on the other there are even three icons. There is no need or decency for this. The sheet will be placed in a pocket, and when pulled out of the pocket, it will be dropped and placed in a place of dishonor. It is better to protect the image of the Lord and the saints from this. It’s a different matter in the book: there the sacred images are protected by a binding fence. Why is there a prayer for the dead on the sheet, which the church instructed the priest to say? On the health sheet it is written: about the health, salvation and all the prosperity of the servants of God. But what if they want to remember one person, a birthday person 214, or a sick person? This is the inscription that is useless. Usually, so-called commemorations are used, small books in which the names of those commemorated are written: spiritual fathers, ancestors, relatives, benefactors, deceased and living. Such a book serves for a long time, supplemented by circumstances with new names. It is comfortable, durable; and no one will want to replace this book with a sheet, and the sheet will not be satisfactory for this. In churches and monasteries, where there are many pilgrims who come, when they receive the prosphoras, they immediately ask to write their names on the bottom side, and often one brings several prosphoras to the altar. It is easy for a priest to remember those written on prosphoras; and the giver knows from the inscription on the prosphora about whom the prayer was offered over which prosphora. Will he, instead, buy sheets of paper, write names on the sheets, and then mix the sheets with the prosphora, and not know who owns which prosphora? Who will buy the sheets? Is it the one who wants to remember the sick? Is it time for him to look for a leaf? He rushes to the altar with the prosphora to say that prayer is needed for the sick. And if it is necessary to remember in many churches: even in this case, he will not go to church to look for sheets, but will write down the names on his own and send them to different churches, as desired. To put it briefly, health and funeral sheets threaten to become a commodity that has no market, or very little, and leave the entrepreneurs of this trade at a loss. Or will the purchase of health and funeral certificates become a duty, a duty, a tax for parishioners? Without a doubt, the Holy Synod does not want such an order as unjust, but harmful and inconvenient to implement. But this matter is more or less taken on this unfortunate path even if it is prescribed in the form of a voluntary one. The diocesan authorities will be encouraged, as far as possible, to conform to the thoughts of the Holy Synod, and they will encourage the parish clergy, and this will encourage the parishioners. What will happen? Others will not listen; others, probably not many, will buy the sheets, and the kopecks for them will be subtracted from the few kopecks that will be given to the clergy for their services; and the tax will be transferred from the parishioners to the clergy. Dissenters receive a new opportunity to censure the clergy and attract people to their independence. Even now there are difficulties of this kind in relation to whisks and prayers of permission. Some parishioners are reluctant to buy them; others buy cheaper from schismatics; the secular authorities, to whom the diocesan authorities complain about schismatic smugglers, cannot find them. Health and funeral sheets will fall as a new burden on the clergy and on the diocesan administration, in the sense that they must be written out, sent out, recorded, and an account must be given of the number of them and the money received; in case of deficiency, carry out an investigation and trial. The Holy Synod knows how heavy this kind of burden lies on the clergy to this day. Is it still necessary to multiply them and at the same time demand that the clergy raise their education, preach, and lead the initial education of the people? The draft definition with appendices is returned. With perfect respect and devotion, I have the honor to be, Your Excellency, most humble sir, most humble servant, No. 64. May 11, 1862 215 May 11. Report to the Holy Synod of Metropolitan Philaret on the draft charters of universities, secondary educational institutions and public schools To the Holy Governing Synod, from its member, Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow, a report. G. the manager of the Ministry of Public Education 216, having informed me of the draft statutes of university, secondary educational institutions and public schools, invited me to subject them to consideration by some persons of the ecclesiastical department. Four members of the Moscow Theological Academy, on my instructions, carried out this and presented two notes of considerations, with which, agreeing, I forwarded them according to the requirement. It is my duty not to leave this unknown to the Holy Synod, and therefore I present herewith the lists from the said notes 217. Your Holiness's humblest novice, No. 183. May 11, 1862 218. June 12. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, A.P. Akhmatov, with an opinion on the state of affairs among the Greek-Uniates Melchites who joined Orthodoxy Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, A.P. Akhmatov, in a letter dated June 5, 1862, No. 3415, informed Metropolitan Philaret three copies of reports received from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of our Consul General in Syria: 1) About the establishment, in Beirut, of a hospital and an orphanage for Orthodox families; 2) On the appointment of Palmyra Bishop Ioannikios as vicar of the Patriarch of Antioch in Damascus and 3) About the departure of Archimandrite Dzhibara to Egypt. I am returning three copies of the reports of the Beirut consul. We should wish the Beirut charity home success and benefit. It is good that the Coptic Bishop Gregory has been removed from office; but it is a pity that they were entrusted to him to harm and temptation. If this man, who had previously been expelled by the people, had continued to sit in the Mosul monastery, this would not have happened, and at the same time there would have been no opportunity for him to think about union. Archimandrite Dzhibara is attributed to a restless character, excessive demands, and a desire for independence. Why didn’t they see this earlier and accepted such a person as the main agent of the Melkite reunification? The Patriarch of Antioch, the Bishop of Melitopol 219 and the consul rightly believe that the separate representation of the reunited Melkites is unfavorable for church unity. But the Alexandrian patriarch acts in the opposite way. Couldn't the Russian envoy give the Alexandrian Patriarch better thoughts? But it may be too late if the firman has already been given 220. June 13. Report to the Holy Synod of Metropolitan Philaret on the most submissive petition of Varvara Raevskaya, on the establishment of chapels in St. Petersburg and Moscow Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, A.P. Akhmatov, at the proposal, dated March 30, 1862, No. 1907, presented to the Holy Synod the all-submissive petition of the noblewoman Varvara Raevskaya, for the establishment of chapels in St. Petersburg and Moscow, so that half of the income available for them would be used to support pious virgins in the capitals, and the other to establish chapels in the villages Raevka, Saratov diocese, convent. According to the decision of the Holy Synod, on April 23/May 1, 1862, this petition was forwarded to the conclusion of the metropolitans: Isidore of St. Petersburg and Philaret of Moscow. In pursuance of this determination, Metropolitan Philaret reported the following to the Holy Synod: By decree of the Holy Synod, dated May 10, 1862 (No. 1344), a copy of the most submissive petition of the noble maiden Raevskaya was forwarded to me for the establishment of chapels in St. Petersburg and Moscow, so that half of the income available for these purposes would be used to support pious virgins in the capitals, and the other for the establishment of chapels in the villages Raevka, Saratov diocese, convent, and a conclusion is required from me. The basis for the required conclusion will be the following considerations: I. According to church tradition and custom, chapels are built - in honor of especially revered holy icons (as in Moscow Iveron), - at places of sacred events (as in Moscow, the Chapel of the Cross, at the site of the meeting of the relics of St. Philip), - in some villages that do not have a church, for the performance of certain public prayers, - and sometimes in consideration of the desire of the piously zealous to present an object in a visible place to the passing people, reminding of God and calling to prayer. In some chapels God reveals His mercies through His shrine; the faith and zeal of the people are aroused; the offerings not only satisfy the needs of the chapel, but also provide benefits for the maintenance of the monastery or church to which the chapel belongs, and sometimes for other church needs and benefits. But such success probably cannot be expected, especially when the chapel is not established on a spiritual basis, but is built only for the purpose of receiving money through it, albeit for good use. II. There are already 30 chapels in Moscow; and due to this very multitude, income in them (with the exception of a few in which miraculous icons are located) is limited. So, for example, the Krestovskaya chapel, although it was built with the sacred memory of the meeting on the site of its relics of St. Philip, although it is located on the street along which numerous pilgrims pass to the St. Sergius Lavra, has not yet acquired popular attention; and her income last year was 57 rubles. 52 kopecks The income of another chapel belonging to the Pokrovsky Monastery, located on the same route, last year was 225 rubles. 24 kopecks Let's assume that St. Petersburg will be more generous than Moscow, and the chapel there will provide up to 1000 rubles of income per year. Will the maiden Raevskaya undertake with this income to support all the pious virgins of both capitals, and, in addition, the convent in Raevka? Not as an insult, but in absolute fairness it must be said that she does not know what to ask. III. Who does she mean by the name of pious, honest virgins in the capitals? “Who are they? Where are they? Does she think of going to the houses of both capitals and looking for pious, honest virgins? Again it must be said that he does not know who to ask for. IV. The Saratov diocese convent of the village of Raevki has no right to have chapels in both capitals and to receive income from them. And if we allow this, then many monasteries throughout Russia, most of which are poor, already by the right of this example may aspire to have chapels in the capitals, and this will lead to the fact that the capitals will be burdened with chapels, true piety will be offended by the use of chapels for purely selfish purposes, and the people will lose reverence for them. V. The petitioner points to an example of a chapel built in St. Petersburg, assigned to the Guslitsky monastery. This example is very far from the petitioner’s case. The Guslitsky Monastery was built with special, highest concern for the good of the church, in order to spread the light of Orthodoxy in a region darkened by schism. This institution has a completely spiritual and ecclesiastical purpose. A piously zealous man appeared to build a chapel in honor of the ancient icon: his pious intention required appropriate attention. And the work of God’s Providence appeared in the fact that this enterprise acquired the benevolent attention of the most pious Sovereign Emperor and the Holy Synod, and popular piety for the icons placed in the chapel was greatly aroused and spread. What is given to one due to extraordinary circumstances and according to the special dispensation of Providence, another cannot demand. Everyone cannot hope for what is given to one beyond hope. VI. All the above considerations, in my opinion, necessarily lead to the conclusion that the most submissive request of the maiden Raevskaya, as unfounded, unfair and unfulfillable, does not deserve to be presented to the benevolent attention of His Imperial Majesty. Which I most respectfully report to the Holy Synod. The Holy Synod, by resolution dated September 21/October 8, 1862, decided: the request of the girl Varvara Raevskaya should be left without consequences 221. June 16. A note by Metropolitan Philaret, entitled: “On means to end the difficult situation of the Ascension Monastery due to the dilapidation of the buildings On June 13, 1862, different opinions arose in the consistory regarding the dilapidation of the buildings of the Ascension Monastery. One of them is to move the monastery to Butyrskaya Sloboda. This opinion is based on inaccurate considerations. 1) Some members of the consistory say that the residential buildings of this monastery are generally dilapidated. But from the architect’s act it is clear that the eastern and northern buildings do not require major alterations, and they are supposed to be corrected. On the western side, the abbots' and some nuns' cells are also supposed to be fixed. But only two thirds of the western side of the buildings require major reconstruction, and they are supposed to be converted into non-residential ones. 2) They say that the Ministry of the Court demands that the western building be immediately dismantled. But from the attitude of the commander of the palace office, it is clear that all that is required is the removal of the monastery latrines. 3) They say that the monastery does not have the funds to erect a new building, instead of the one designated for demolition. But if he does not have the means to rebuild a fourth of the buildings, and only correct three parts, then even less does he have the means to build an entire new monastery in a new place. 4) They say that there is no room in the monastery to build a new building, instead of the one intended for demolition. But there will remain a place of a broken building, which in part must be left without a structure, and in part there is some possibility of being occupied by a structure in a small form. 5) They talk about the difficulty of accommodating the sisters of the monastery if only the eastern building is left. But it is not clear what is the basis for leaving one eastern building, when architects find it possible to preserve both the northern and even part of the western as residential. Among the difficulties, in the event of the transfer of some sisters to other monasteries, it is believed that contributions may be required from them. Such an assumption should not be allowed; and therefore has no force of proof. 6) Some members believe that the monastery should be moved to another location, and to do this, resort to a loan; but do not explain how the loan can be covered. 7) They believe that a cemetery should be opened at the monastery, in a new place, namely, on Butyrki. But firstly, it is not certain whether it can be opened among the village, and secondly, it cannot be foreseen whether it will provide benefits to the monastery. The Miusskoe cemetery, located in this region of Moscow, is the most insignificant of all. The example of the Alekseevsky Monastery is not encouraging either, whose cemetery gained the attention of ordinary people because it is close to the city, and is in the eyes of many who live in the summer in its vicinity. 8) It is believed that after the monastery is moved to a new location, the eastern building will be given free of charge to the community of sisters of mercy. But this community does not yet exist, and whether it will exist is unknown. There is only a note about her, not signed by anyone, which cannot serve as the basis for any decision. 9) Some members recognize the most important difficulty in moving the monastery to a new location, the existence in it of three churches of royal construction, and the fact that in the oldest of them the founder of this monastery, Grand Duchess Evdokia, rests as a monk Euphrosyne, whose memory is reverently honored in the capital; and there are also tombs of female royalty. They did not resolve this truly important difficulty satisfactorily, and it is unlikely that it can be resolved. It should not be painless for the moral and spiritual feelings of the sisters of the monastery, and not edifying for outsiders, if they leave the blessed founder of their monastery, their spiritual ancestor and patroness, leave the sacred tomb, the royal tomb, the ancient royal churches, and move to a suburban settlement in order to have a cemetery for temporary benefits. 10) Some members believe that after the monastery is moved to Butyrki, under the name Novovoznesensk, the monastery that now exists in the Kremlin will be attributed to Novovoznesensk under the name of the Starovoznesensk monastery. Such an order is insulting to the memorable ancient monastery. Besides this, these members believe that there are no means to support the old monastery; then how will the means be found, firstly, to build a new monastery, secondly, to correct at least part of the old one, and thirdly, to maintain two or at least one and a half monasteries from now on, since they are planning to leave several nuns in the old monastery. 11) It is believed that a two-faced clergy should be left for priestly service in the old monastery. But if in the old monastery one priest and one cleric begin to perform divine services (which is hardly possible), they will present the capital with an unpleasant and unusual example of church poverty. If we also maintain a choir of nuns and novices here; then these will definitely be two monasteries, which, at a distance of several miles, cannot be embraced by the vigilant supervision of the abbess. 12) They are considering giving the two-person clergy in the old monastery room in the eastern building. It would be inconvenient and unseemly to place nuns and two members of the clergy with their families in the same building. 13) Two clergy are appointed at the Novovoznesensky monastery, and the priest and the clergyman supposed to be at the Old Voznesensky monastery are included in the division of their salaries. But it is known how meager the salary of the Ascension clergyman is: and it is absolutely impossible to share it with the two new persons 222 . Moreover, now the Ascension Monastery clergy has at least small incomes from those living in the monastery and from those who come; after the removal of the monastery, the proposed new priest and cleric will not have this. 14) It is believed that the abbess will enter into contact with persons who want to place a community of sisters of mercy in the Ascension Monastery, but the names of these persons in this matter are unknown; and therefore it is inconvenient to prescribe intercourse. 15) Some members decide to allow the abbess a loan of 30,000 rubles for everything they intend to do. But this is not based on any estimate. Perhaps they take into account that it cost about this amount to build the Alekseevsky monastery in a new place: but this was over 27 years, when prices for materials and work were far lower than today. Moreover, it was necessary to build a new monastery there, and here to build a new one and correct part of the old one. They built there on clean, freely received land; and here, as noted in the opinion of one member, it is necessary to buy houses and buy land. 16) They note that if the premises in the current monastery were reduced, there would be a pressing need to move some sisters to other monasteries, and this would be embarrassing for them. But this measure is inevitable even if the proposal to move the monastery to Butyrki was accepted. When they begin to break down the western building in order to transfer its material to Butyrki, then the 53 people living in this building must leave the monastery. 17) The consistory has been given the right, without being embarrassed by previous dissenting opinions, to resume judgment on this matter again, and, if possible, to find a better one. Moreover, it is desirable that unanimity be achieved. June 22. The opinion of Metropolitan Philaret on the acceptance into communion of the Orthodox-Catholic Church of a member of the Protestant Anglo-Irish Church Richardson and on his ordination Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, A.P. Akhmatov, in relations, dated April 29 and May 17, 1862, for Nos. 2950 and 2957, forwarding to Metropolitan Philaret: with the first, a copy of the letter from the archpriest of the embassy church in London Popov regarding the declared desire of Richardson, who joined Orthodoxy, to receive priestly ordination, and with the second, a letter and note from Gaverley about the inadequacy of Richardson Confirmation for his ordination as a priest, asked for his opinion on these subjects. Metropolitan Philaret, dated June 22, 1862, No. 82, wrote A.P. Akhmatov the following: “As a result of the letter and the note reported to the Holy Synod by Mr. Gaferley, and the letter from the London mission of Archpriest Popov, dated April 3, 1862, on the issue of the ordination of Mr. Richardson, forwarding my thoughts herewith, I humbly request that this note be submitted for consideration by the members of the Holy Synod.” On the acceptance into communion of the Orthodox Catholic Church of a member of the Protestant Anglo-Irish Church, Richardson, and on his ordination I. G. Richardson has already been received into the Orthodox Church through the sacrament of confirmation; and ask for ordination as a priest. II. This image of acceptance is objected to by the Englishman Mr. Gaferley, who has joined the Orthodox Church, and in a note to the Holy Synod he says that “such baptism (as Mr. Richardson was baptized), by the grace of the church, is sufficient to admit a converted layman to the sacrament of communion, but for a person seeking the priesthood, it is clearly not enough, on the basis of the canons and all the examples in church practice.” III. The unknown rector of the Greek Church in London, without even mentioning leniency, decisively says that “for Mr. Richardson’s canonical accession to the Catholic Orthodox Church, the sacrament of baptism had to be performed on him.” IV. Both of these talk about canons, about canonical accession, but do not indicate any canon or church rule to support their opinions. V. There is not and cannot be any canon that would say that there is a sacrament of baptism that is sufficient for a layman, but not sufficient for a priest; and that a priest needs a different, more perfect sacrament of baptism. The Holy Scriptures and the Creed command us to “confess one baptism.” VI. No one will dare to say that the sacrament of the Eucharist, in which the believer partakes of the true body and blood of Christ, is less high and divine than the sacrament of the priesthood. Now, if the baptism with which Mr. Richardson was baptized, in the opinion of Mr. Haverley, sufficiently purified and sanctified him so that he could be a communicant of the sacrament of the Eucharist: then there is no reason why the same baptism should not be sufficient for him to be a communicant of the sacrament of the priesthood. VII. One of two things must be admitted: either the baptism with which Mr. Richardson was baptized has the character and power of a baptism, or it does not. In the first case, baptism makes him a member of the Orthodox Church, capable of receiving all other sacraments, unless he damages this ability by new grave sins or apostasy from Orthodoxy; in the second case, he is not a member of the Orthodox Church, and is just as incapable of receiving the sacrament of communion as of the priesthood. VIII. Thus, it turns out that Mr. Haverley’s opinion, firstly, has not been proven by anything; secondly, it contradicts itself. The first part of it, that Mr. Richardson's baptism is sufficient to admit him to the sacrament of communion, is refuted by the second part, that the same baptism is not enough to admit him to the sacrament of the priesthood. IX. Let us anticipate the objection that may arise against the reasoning presented here. Neo-Caesarean Council, pr. 12 reads like this: “if someone in illness is enlightened by baptism, he cannot be promoted to the rank of presbyter: for his faith is not from will, but from need: only for the sake of later revealed virtues and faith, and for the sake of poverty in worthy people.” The baptism in illness mentioned in this rule is probably a baptism of pouring. But the rule does not say that such baptism does not have the character and power of true baptism; does not say that it is not sufficient to make a person capable of the priesthood; does not require another baptism to prepare for the priesthood. The rule forbids the baptized in illness (even if it was immersive) not because of the unsatisfactory nature of baptism, but because of the lack of moral dignity in the person baptized in this way, for his faith is not from will, but from need. And therefore, the rule does not pronounce a decisive prohibition, but allows the ordination of such a person when he subsequently demonstrates in himself sufficient moral dignity for the priesthood: for the sake of subsequently revealed virtue and faith. And this is without a new baptism. Thus, this rule cannot serve to reinforce, but serves to refute the opinion of Mr. Gaferley, who finds one baptism sufficient to receive the sacrament of the Eucharist, and requires another baptism to receive the priesthood. X. The opinion of the rector of the Greek church in London, at least, does not contradict itself. But it speaks of canonical accession to the Catholic Orthodox Church without evidence. We need to cope with the canons. XI. The imperfection of the Western image of baptism in general, including the Anglican one, is that it is performed not by immersion, but by pouring. Therefore, the canons that speak of Latin baptism can equally apply to Anglican or Anglo-Irish. XII. The Holy and Great Council of 1484 drew up a succession (ordinary order, charter) for those turning from Latin heresies to the Orthodox Catholic Church, which can be seen in the Athens edition of the canons of 1855. In this sequence, after the initial prayers, the applicant’s questions about faith, his renunciation of Latin errors, and his reading of the Orthodox Creed are relied upon; “and upon reading this symbol, “he will immediately be anointed by the priest with the holy and great church oil. The priest draws a cross on his forehead, on his ears, on his brad, on his hands, on his chest, on his knees. Each time he says this: the seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit.” These are the exact words to follow. The cathedral does not require baptism. XIII. The question of Latin baptism also occupied the Russian Church in the 17th century. Patriarch Filaret determined that those converting from Latinism should be baptized. But the larger council of 1667, at which two Eastern and Russian patriarchs were present, the determination of Patriarch Philaret and the smaller council with him was recognized as incorrect; and based on the above council of 1484, and on the testimony of Mark of Ephesus, they decided to accept Latins into the Orthodox Church through the sacrament of confirmation. Here are the exact words of the council of 1667: “On Latin baptism, which is performed in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit by pouring three times, the all-holy patriarchs Cyrus Paisius, pope and patriarch of Alexandria and universal judge, and Cyrus Macarius, patriarch of the city of God, the great Antioch and the whole east, and Cyrus Joasaph, patriarch of Moscow and all Rus', and his Eminences, metropolitans and The archbishops and bishops, and the entire consecrated council, having listened to the excerpts of this matter, judged that it was not proper for those coming from the Latins to the Holy Apostles of the Eastern Church to baptize. And to confirm this legalization, the most holy patriarchs, Cyrus Paisius, pope and patriarch of the great city of Alexandria and judge of the universe, and Cyrus Macarius, patriarch of the great city of God of Antioch and the whole East, proposed to the council an ancient Greek book, in which it is written: for in the summer of 6992 (1484) there was a council in Constantinople, in the most venerable church of the Most Holy Theotokos, called Pammacarist, from the four ecumenical holiest and most blessed patriarchs, Cyrus Simeon of Constantinople, and Cyrus Gregory, pope and patriarch of Alexandria, and Cyrus Dorotheus of Antioch, and Cyrus Joachim of Jerusalem, for the transformation and exercise of those who were evil in Florence cathedral This holy council commanded that if anyone returns from the Latins to the more Orthodox catholicities of the Eastern Church, to anoint them with holy myrrh, and not to baptize them. Depict the following of this holy council, how to receive them and question them and how to curse them with Latin heresies, and therefore anoint them with holy chrism and pray over them: take the handwriting from them into the holy great church. The wisest and most holy Kur Marco, Metropolitan of Ephesus, commands in the same way in the surrounding epistole, and its beginning is: “And throughout the whole “earth and islands there are Christians”: in it, according to many speeches, this also says: as from the Latins who came to Orthodoxy, as the Arians, and the Macedonians, and Savvatians and Navatians, who are acceptable in presenting Scripture and cursing all heresy, which does not philosophize, just as the holy Eastern Church philosophizes; and according to the seventh rule of the second council we seal, that is, we anoint them with holy myrrh: forehead, hair and other things according to the charter, saying: seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit, amen.” And further: “Thus, we, together with the sacred rules, reliably testify to and according to the judgment of all, from now on, those who come from the Latins to our Orthodox Christian faith do not baptize the holy Eastern churches.” The following reasoning from the same council is worthy of note: “The main heresy among the Latins is the apostasy of the Eastern Church about the procession of the Holy Spirit, as the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son; and from that Latin heresy, which is about the procession of the Holy Spirit, the most grave is the Arian and Macedonian heresy. The Arians confess that the Son of God is not consubstantial with the Father and the Holy Spirit, but the building and the creation say: the Macedonians alienate the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son, they confess the existence of a slave. However, Rule 7 of the Second Ecumenical Council and Rule 95 of the Sixth Ecumenical Council do not command them to be baptized, but only to anoint them with myrrh according to the rank; if more than Latins, who have a lesser crime, it is not appropriate to baptize.” XIV. True, there is a definition opposite to this from 1756, printed in the above-mentioned Athens edition of the canons, signed by Patriarchs Cyril of Constantinople, Matthew of Alexandria and Parthenius of Jerusalem. Here are their words: “those who are not immersively baptized (ἀβαπτίστως βαπτιζομένους, that is, insufficiently baptized, pouringly) when they come to Orthodoxy, we are accepted as not baptized and without any fear we baptize according to the apostolic and conciliar rules.” Now the question is: who is more trustworthy to follow, the four patriarchs and the council of 1484, or the three patriarchs of 1756? A larger council might change the decision of a smaller one; but the minority cannot take away the force of the decision of the previous great council. Moreover, the definition of 1756 was probably based on ignorance. At the beginning it says: “Three years ago the question arose whether the baptism of heretics who come to us is worthy of acceptance,” and so on. From this it is clear that the compilers of this definition considered the issue of Latin infusion baptism new, and did not know that it had been considered for three centuries and was decided conciliarly. For if they knew, then the conscientiousness inherent in their ecclesiastical character would require that they either submit to the ancient conciliar definition, or present reasons why they do not submit to it. The compilers of the 1756 definition silently mention the rules of the church and the words of the holy fathers, but do not give precise instructions and do not cite the actual words. And therefore, from this side, their definition is without foundation. XV. From what has been said, we must now conclude that the definition of 1484 cannot be rejected by the force of the definition of 1756, and one can only argue whether this last definition should be completely left invalid, or, out of respect for both hierarchs, one or another definition should be followed, depending on the circumstances. In this discussion, the question can be posed as follows: should pouring baptism be recognized as decisively valid, or decisively invalid, or valid, but under some circumstances not entirely free from doubt? If we recognize it as absolutely invalid, then we will fall into conflict with the ancient Orthodox Church, which in some special cases allowed pouring baptism and recognized it as valid. So Saint Cyprian, the strict guardian of Orthodox baptism, being questioned about this, answered that “Divine grace cannot be diminished and weakened” (that is, by reducing the water in baptism), and that “this should not bother anyone that the sick are sprinkled or poured over when they receive the grace of the Lord” (Epist. LXXVI). For this, it remains to recognize pouring baptism as decisively valid, or it may sometimes not be free from doubts because in modern times it is performed not in cases of need, but according to an arbitrary deviation from the true rite and ancient tradition. And thus, it can be allowed to accept those baptized by pouring into the Orthodox Church through confirmation, according to the definition of 1484, and to require a new baptism from them, according to the rule of 1756, since church rules, in case of doubt about baptism, command to baptize the one about whom there is such doubt. XVI. We see such a dual mode of action today in the Greek Orthodox Church. According to strict judgment, it requires baptism from those coming from Latinism. But recently she accepted two Melchite priests into her communion through the sacrament of confirmation, while maintaining their priestly degree. The current Most Holy Ecumenical Patriarch 224, discussing this, responded that this was allowed χάριν οἰκονομίας, (according to the lenient church economy), just as it was in Russia during the reunification of the Uniates. XVII. From everything said here, in fairness, we can conclude that the ordination of the baptized Mr. Richardson would not be either contrary to the rules of the church, nor new and unprecedented. Significant is the recent example of two Melkites, in which the great Church of Constantinople recognized both Latin baptism and, with Latin baptism, Latin ordination as valid. XVIII. The rector of the Russian church in London writes that the appearance of Richardson as an Orthodox priest may cause strong remarks, which in the Orthodox world in London may give rise to discord and mutual alienation, and that such an appearance would be especially blessed. It's a pity that he didn't explain himself more clearly. Deacon Palmer 225 The Holy Synod agreed to accept him into Orthodoxy without requiring him to be baptized; in London, most likely, this was known; but no comments were heard. The matter did not receive the desired conclusion because Deacon Palmer wanted to belong at the same time to two churches that were not unanimous in faith, the Orthodox and the Anglican. XIX. G. Gafferley writes that he extracted from Richardson a confession that he himself was completely dissatisfied with the method of joining in which the Russian priest in Nice accepted him into communion. He must not be allowed to approach the sacrament of the priesthood with a troubled conscience. Therefore, it might not be superfluous to acquaint him with the contents of this note; or in another way make the subject of his doubt clear to him. XX. Perhaps it would not be superfluous for the rector of the Russian church in London to read this note and give feedback on whether he remains in his fear of “blasphemy”, and why? XXI. However, I submit all this to the discretion of the Holy Synod. June 30. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod A.P. Akhmatov, with feedback on the rules for providing clergy in the Amur region Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, A.P. Akhmatov, in reference, dated May 16, 1862, No. 61, wrote to Metropolitan Philaret: Among the papers handed over by my predecessor were the assumptions of the Holy Synod about the application of the rules of provision of clergy in the Amur region, approved by the highest authority in 1859, to other provinces, except for the western ones, for which a special situation is being drawn up, and about asking the highest permission to enter into an agreement on this with the relevant ministries. Count Tolstoy, as I know, had in mind to ask your Eminence's opinion on this subject. Fully sharing the assumption of Count Tolstoy, due to the importance of this matter, I have the honor to forward to your Eminence the mentioned rules in a copy, humbly asking you, dear sir and archpastor, to honor me with a review of your conclusion regarding the introduction of these rules in the said dioceses. The following document is attached to this relation: Draft rules on the provision and organization of the clergy in the Amur region, Amur and Primorsky regions In order to fully provide for the urban and rural clergy of the Amur region, in order to put them in an independent position from the parishioners, to determine the attitude of the latter towards them and to give the clergy the opportunity, without worrying about material needs, to rise to the height of spiritual teachers, it seems necessary to establish the following most important rules: 1) Allocate up to 80 dessiatines to each rural clergy of convenient land for estates, vegetable gardens and hayfields. But if at one church, according to the number of parishioners, there will be more than one clergy, then the same amount of land should be allocated to each. 2) The clergy must cultivate these lands and generally benefit from them using their own means. 3) The rural clergy is given the right to use pastures under the general peasant status for the Amur region, and in cities - estates and pastures on an equal basis with other inhabitants. II. Regarding the clergy quarters 4) Premises for city and rural parishes are arranged in whatever ways are available, namely: from the treasury, or from church funds, or from specially donated amounts, or from parishioners. Until such time as the premises are arranged, the clergy will be given decent houses from the parishioners, or from the treasury. 5) The construction of houses intended for this purpose, both in cities and villages, should be carried out on church land, near the church; why, when constructing churches, a sufficient amount of land should be left for estates and vegetable gardens of the clergy, and this land in cities should be included in the land allotment of church clergy, and in villages should be church property, so that income from the land flows into the general church sums. This may serve to reduce contributions from parishioners to church needs. 6) Major corrections to these premises that have occurred due to time or emergency incidents are made at the expense of the parishioners in the manner described below, and minor corrections are the responsibility of the persons using the houses. 7) Heating of premises designated for the residence of church clergy is provided by parishioners to the extent of actual need, according to the number of stoves. 8) It goes without saying that if the clergy and clergy live in their own houses, then the houses built for them at churches, etc., are rented out and the income from them is already used in favor of church revenues. 9) Priests and clergy must keep the premises assigned to them in full repair. III. Other benefits from parishioners to the clergy 10) There is a cash allowance from the parish, in addition to the salary from the treasury, in the cities: archpriests from 450 to 500 rubles, priests from 300 to 350 rubles, cathedral protodeacon 250 rubles each, deacons from 150 to 175 rubles, sextons 100 rubles, sextons 70 r. and a sheet for 40 rubles. per year, and in villages where clergy will have the opportunity to use land and where expenses are less than city expenses, pay priests from 200 to 250 rubles, and deacons, if the parishioners wish to have one, 400 rubles. (because they are not entitled to a salary from the treasury), sextons from 85 to 100 rubles, sextons from 60 to 70 rubles. and a linen from 30 to 35 rubles. 11) This benefit is distributed to all parishioners without distinction of classes. In villages, instead of money, it can be brought in with bread. But just as all such benefits in villages and cities, except for Nikolaevsk (the seaside region), cannot be produced now due to the small population of the region, which is still just being populated, then henceforth, until the time when the population has increased sufficiently, produce grain allowances from the treasury: archpriests 100 poods each, priests and protodeacon 60 poods each, deacons 40 poods each, clergymen 100 poods each, 30 pud. and extend 15 poods each. rye flour per year; in addition, give servants to archpriests and priests, and from deacons to those who will teach the children of parishioners to read and write, and not prohibit the acceptance of voluntary rewards from parishioners for correcting requirements. 12) The basis for the distribution of benefits in money and bread, when they, due to the increase in population, are recognized as possible to provide for church clergy, can serve in cities, for officials and employees of the lower ranks, the content received by them, for the urban class, declared capital, and for rural marketers, the tithe collection of grain, so that the deductions are sufficient for the above-mentioned provision of the clergy, and subsequently cover all church expenses in excess. 13) In necessary cases, parishioners should give a philistine supply to the priest, for example: when he is called to fulfill requirements in a place more than 5 miles from the city. IV. Relationships of parishioners to churches and chapels. 14) The heating of these is carried out at the expense of the parishioners to the extent of actual need, and to facilitate this duty, it would not be superfluous to allocate to churches, where possible, regardless of the land allotment, special forest areas in which wood cutting should be carried out by regular fellers, without destroying the forest dacha. 15) The consecration of churches and chapels and other church expenses are covered from candle and mug fees. 16) The refectories and watchmen in the church and chapel are dressed in kind or hired by the parishioners. 17) In addition, church elders and members of parish councils are elected by the parish communities, about whom will be discussed below. V. Relationships between clergy and parishioners. 18) For all the benefits explained above, when they are provided, clergy do not have the right to accept remuneration from parishioners for the fulfillment of any spiritual requirement, except for prayers, pannikhidas and the raising of holy icons at home. 19) In these last three cases, i.e., for prayer services, memorial services and the raising of holy icons in the house, parishioners are obliged to reward the clergy called to perform this to the extent that will be determined. 20) Clergymen, being well-off financially, are obliged to make every possible effort to spiritually educate their flock and, in general, to spread literacy in parishes, especially rural ones, for which purpose they set up schools at churches, taking upon themselves the education of those who come to these schools. 21) Caring for the satisfaction of all the stated needs of parish churches and the clergy that are attached to them lies with the responsibility of the councils of parishioners, which must ensure the full maintenance of the clergy, so that they cannot suffer from any significant lack. 22) Parish councils are composed of the clergy of the church in which they belong, and who are indispensable members of them, and the following persons, in cities: from representatives from all classes and ranks, not excluding artisans, one from each, from a church warden and a special honorary trustee, if anyone expresses a desire for the title of such, with a contribution in favor of church revenues, a certain amount for this, and in rural (or in stanitsa) parishes from local village leaders, church wardens and representatives from surrounding villages assigned to the parishes. 23) All these persons are elected by the parishioners in accordance with the established procedure and for a certain period. 24) The chairmanship of the councils of parishes of city churches belongs to the one who will be elected as members of the council for this purpose, and in villages to the parish priest. 25) These councils meet in city parishes, as needed, three or four times a year, and in villages twice a year, in the fall, after the completion of field work, and in the spring, before the start of this work. 26) Priests present to the council about church needs and their own, but do not participate in discussions about meeting the latter. 27) Satisfying all the specified needs of churches and parishes attached to them, such as: heating, arrangement of premises, capital improvements thereof, provision of servants, distribution of cash benefits, amount thereof, etc. depend on the discretion of parish councils and are carried out in those ways that they consider most convenient for this purpose. 28) For each such meeting of the council, minutes are drawn up, and in rural parishes, sentences are carried out according to the procedure that will be established for this purpose, and are binding on all parishioners. 29) The management and disposal of church income and expenses, not excluding candle and mug collections, are among the most important responsibilities of parish councils, which are obliged in this case to provide proper reporting. 30) In addition, they are entrusted with the care of the poor of the parish, the burial of the poor dead, the arrangement of the fate of homeless orphans, the spread of literacy and religious education among parishioners, the establishment of cemeteries, the conciliation proceedings of all those who turn to the court of the parish council, and the consideration of cases of violation of the rule on the gratuitous fulfillment of spiritual needs by clergy, which, if necessary, are brought to the attention of diocesan authorities. Metropolitan Philaret responded to this letter, dated June 30, 1862, No. 86, by A.P. Akhmatov the following: With regard to your Excellency, dated May 16, this year, No. 61, the rules for providing the clergy in the Amur region, approved in 1859, were sent to me in copies, and my opinion was requested regarding the application of these rules to other dioceses. In these rules, some things seemed unclear to me, due to the unknown local circumstances of the region for which they were compiled, and others because of the presentation itself. And in what is clear, there were some positions that I could not join with conviction. In the note transmitted with this, I made comments on those articles of the rules that are unclear to me, or in which I could not be convinced, and then I offer some thoughts about the difficulty of applying these rules to other dioceses, and about what, in my opinion, can be done with the hope of benefit. And as I, by the way, proposed not to stop the custom of manual income of the clergy during public service, then, in order to show the basis of my opinion, I made an addition to the note on this subject. With perfect respect and devotion, I have the honor to be, Your Excellency, most humble servant of the Lord, On the rules for providing clergy in the Amur region and on their application to other dioceses I. Article 5 says: when constructing churches, a sufficient amount of land must be left for estates and vegetable gardens of the clergy, and this land in cities should be included in the land allotment of church clergy, and in villages constitute church property, so that income from the land goes into the general church sums. It is not clear what it means that this land in cities should be included in the land allotment of church clergy, and in villages should be church property. Both in cities and in villages, the land assigned for estates and vegetable gardens by the clergy is church property, which is in the use of members of the clergy successively. It is not clear what income the church can receive from the land that makes up the estates and gardens of the clergy members. II. Article 6 says: minor adjustments are the responsibility of the persons using the houses. It is difficult to set limits between minor and major amendments. Hence the doubt and dispute about who should correct. For example: the floor has become dilapidated for many years; the priest came; I endured it for a year, remade the floor the next year with more material, and spent 25 rubles; For this reason he was moved to another place: was it not in vain that 25 rubles disappeared from him? Fairer: the responsibility of the person occupying the house lies in correcting damages that occurred from his negligence. III. In Article 8: “It goes without saying that if the clergy and clergy live in their own houses, then the houses built for them at churches, etc. are rented out and the income from them is already used for the benefit of church revenues." This can be understood quite differently. For example: the priest became a man of many families; the church premises became cramped; he says: I will build a house somewhat more spacious; For this I will go into debt, which I will then cover with income from the church premises that belong to me. In this case, the rule that takes away this income from him is not fair. IV. The salaries defined in Article 10, to what extent they are satisfied, can only be judged if local circumstances are known. V. The collection of salaries and benefits in kind (Article 12), for parishes and parishioners, in the form of a tax, is not very convenient both in relation to the layout, and in relation to collection, and in relation to the effect on the moral disposition of parishioners. When such things were introduced by the power of God's law, such as tithes, then the religious feeling disposed both to obedience and to diligent fulfillment. It is difficult to hope for this when the collection is prescribed by civil law. The displeasure of parishioners may even affect the clergy by cooling them down. Couldn't the following rules lead to better results? 1) The parishioners of each church should, according to ancient church custom, support the well-being of the clergy, their spiritual benefit, with diligent offerings when performing church needs. 2) If this turns out to be insufficient for comfortable maintenance; in this case, the parishioners are obliged by a general meeting to appoint from themselves the collection in money or in kind for the production of annual benefits. 3) On the other hand, when performing duties, the clergy should neither demand offerings nor determine their measure, under strict liability for violating this. VI The lighting of churches (Article 15) should be made from mug revenues, and not from candles, which have their legal purpose. VII If what is said in this note under number V were accepted: then Article 18 would be inconvenient and unnecessary. VIII. It is inconvenient to determine the measure (stat. 19) of what to give for a prayer service or memorial service. It is harder to give a hryvnia to a poor person than to give a ruble to a rich person. And when the hryvnia is assigned, then the rich man, without shame, will give the hryvnia and say: I have fulfilled the law. IX. Article 24 says: the chairmanship of the councils of parishes of city churches belongs to the one who will be elected for this purpose by the members of the council. This is dictated not by spiritual, but by worldly wisdom. The Word of God says: obey your leaders; and we, the parishioners, want to sit in first place on the church council, and put the parish mentor in second or third, or further. Are there many secular meetings in which the chairman is not the senior in rank or rank, but who is closer to the subject of the meeting? Why is the priest not honored with this? And in the cities there are parishes consisting of artisans or coachmen: and among these there will be one who wants to become higher than the priest, and will find those who support his ambition. Will this be edifying for the parish? And in the village there may be parishioners from the upper classes. If no one is given the presiding position before the priest there, why is it not the same in the city? Wouldn't it be more decent to say the following: the natural chairman of the parish council is a priest. But, depending on the circumstances, they can elect another, honorary chairman from among the parishioners. X. Section 29 entrusts the parish council with the administration of candle and purse collection and reporting. Therefore, the council will need an office, and perhaps an accounting department. It is necessary to leave church economic writing in the hands of the clergy and churchwarden, as everywhere else. Let the council verify this monthly and at the end of the year. XI. Article 30 entrusts the parish council with the consideration of cases of violation of the rule on the gratuitous fulfillment of church requirements by clergy. So today the priest at confession will judge the conscience of the parishioner; and tomorrow the parishioner will judge the priest based on the fulfillment of the requirements. It is possible to subordinate the clerks to this article; and the parish council, without entering into a judgment, must announce displeasure against the priest to the dean, or present it to the diocesan bishop. XII. Even if the Amur rules were corrected, for the comments made here, and for other reasons: it is difficult to promise them success, and their benefit for the clergy in other dioceses. For example. The fourth article stipulates that parishes can build premises using government, or church, or donated funds, or for parishioners. It is not reliable to have government funds, except in very rare cases. Only St. Petersburg churches can use church funds to arrange premises for clergy. Moscow cannot; rural Moscow diocese and even more so. And in other dioceses only rare churches can. The arrangement of premises using the donated amount is also rare. Some parishioners cannot build a clergy house, others do not want to. In the Moscow diocese there were many houses built for clergy by landowners. For some time, the landowners have refused to support these houses, and have been trying to transfer them into the personal property of the clergy. Those parishioners who are allowed to build churches do the same, with the condition that they establish a clergy at home. Will it be beneficial and consistent with the dignity of law and authority if the law is given and not obeyed? There was a time when it was more convenient to deliver ready-made houses to the clergy, because the power was stronger, there was more obedience, and it was more convenient to find funds, especially in landowner villages. But this time has passed. The law on houses of clergy from parishioners existed from the time of Peter the Great, but was poorly enforced. In 1829 the Holy Synod wanted to confirm it; but the State Council destroyed it. In the draft of the Holy Synod it was said that houses should be given to the clergy from the parishioners, and for the first time houses to the priests, which in the villages of landowners should be required of the landowners. The State Council added one word: from the zeal of the landowners; and destroyed the power of law. Diligence cannot be demanded by the authorities, and the landowners did not want to distinguish themselves by zeal: and thus the parish clergy was forced (at least in the Moscow diocese) on the occasion of the purchase and construction of houses on church land, to endure a difficult struggle with debts, in which others fall and are deprived of their places, in order to pay off debts by selling houses to their successors. Thus, the efforts of the spiritual authorities to improve their departments are paralyzed; and then they say that the spiritual authorities are not active. XIII. And it is doubtful that parish councils could be established everywhere with the proper strength and action, unless gradually and in a short time. Sometimes it is difficult to assemble a fairly complete meeting of parishioners to select a church warden, whose need is clear and obvious to everyone. None of the parishioners usually comes to the monthly account of church money, except in emergencies and special calls. Therefore, one can fear that in many parishes the parishioners will either not gather at all to form a church council, not understanding or not finding a need for it, or the assembly will be so insignificant that the election will be accidental, and the formed council will not receive authority, and at the same time the desired success. XIV. However, the idea of ​​a parish council is a seed that, if sown, promises some fruit. Therefore, you can do the following experiment: 1) Draw up rules on parish councils, introducing into them from the Amur rules what can be generally applicable, and to the extent applicable in the dioceses. 2) These rules should be sent to the dioceses and churches so that the diocesan and parish clergy make them known to the parishioners and gradually encourage them to put them into effect. 3) For parish councils to be established for the first time in certain churches, where parishioners are aware of the need and benefits of them, and where there is hope to see members who would sincerely take to heart the good of the church and the clergy. 4) To the extent that experience shows the trustworthiness of this institution, gradually extend it to other churches. 5) These councils meet not twice a year, as stated in the Amur rules, but more often, by mutual agreement of the members, and as needed. About the income of church clergy when fulfilling church requirements, in hand or in a mug I. The custom of manual income of the clergy at public services is now condemned by many as ignoble, calling it payment. II. In former times, they did not consider this as payment, and did not compare the priest with a hired worker, but considered it legal income belonging to the service, just as, for example, in some states a judge receives legal income from the cases he carries out. III. The Apostle says: those who serve the altar share with the altar: so the Lord commanded those who preach the gospel to live from the gospel (1 Cor. 11:13-14). Is this noble or not? IV. The Jews brought offerings to the altar, of which a portion, sometimes the largest, went to the priest, and gave tithes to the priests, and did not think that this was ignoble, but thought that it was pious, and that they were taking part in the service of God, providing for those who served God. With a similar disposition among us, good Orthodox Christians, depending on their condition, try to be generous to the priest, so that he would pray more earnestly for them with gratitude. Is this noble or not? V. Several decades ago, I had the opportunity to know closely the relationship of some priests to parishioners. One priest, entering a parish consisting of an uneducated population, did not like the parishioners because he was appointed without their consent, young instead of old: and they conspired to oust him with the poverty of their income. For every need he was given no more than half a ruble or some money. He accepted without showing displeasure. Meanwhile, he diligently performed church services; and whenever there was a call to fulfill the requirement, he appeared immediately. Not long after, the most well-intentioned parishioners, and then others, became ashamed and became more generous than usual to the priest, rewarding him for the deprivation that he patiently endured. And then, during his many years of service, they maintained such goodwill and zeal towards him that the so-called new (the beginnings of field work), if he did not come to anyone or did not send to receive it, was brought to his house, with the remark: why have you forgotten us? 227 Is there less Christianity, morality, nobility and - if this fashionable word is needed - civilization than in the fact that, according to the Amur rules, the distribution of dues to parishioners in favor of the priest by family, or per capita, while the peasants are exempted from dues by the landowner. I'm not talking about salaries from the treasury here. This is a different matter. VI. Recently one could read in news reports that in France some priests, in order to increase the so-called mite of St. Peter (collecting money for the pope), increased by a third the income they received from parishioners. You see, in France it is not considered ignoble not only to receive income from parishioners, but also to arbitrarily increase the amount of it. VII. Saint Gregory the Theologian, in the third word of exhortation for baptism, says: “I am ashamed to say: where is my baptismal offering.” And further: “there is nothing great for God that a beggar would not give.” - “Here, whoever is more diligent is richer.” He does not say: what is the baptismal offering for? What is the priest's salary? It's ignoble. He does not deny that it is customary to give an offering decently; but he only says that there is no need to be ashamed if you bring a small offering; It is enough if you bring it with diligence. Does Saint Gregory think and speak nobly? VIII. The ancient governing church did not ignore the subject about which we are now discussing. Rule 23 of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, she condemned the demand of clergy for money, or anything else; when teaching Holy Communion. Of course, this rule must be observed today. But she did not extend the prohibition further than this subject. And according to the 4th Apostolic Canon, it is forbidden to bring the firstfruits of any fruit (except for new grapes and grapes) to the altar, but it is ordered to be sent to the bishop’s house, to be shared with the presbyters and deacons. IX. Everything said in this addition is presented in order to explain why in Article 5 of the previous note it was proposed to preserve the manual income of the clergy according to ancient custom 228. August 18. Metropolitan Philaret's opinion on church councils, or on the rules for them, drawn up in the Kherson diocese I. From the report of the Eminence of Kherson 229 to the Holy Synod, dated March 6, 1862, (No. 136), an extraordinary case is revealed in church administration. Rules on church councils were drawn up; and, without the knowledge of the Holy Synod, they were approved by the Minister of State Property, and, without relation to the diocesan bishop, the district commander introduced them into the diocesan administration through the dean. It is impossible not to recognize here a deviation from the established order. The civilian authorities, of course, would not recognize such actions of the spiritual authorities in their department as correct. Therefore, it would be fair that the spiritual authorities should not be subject to this, if it is worthy of attention that their administration should not be weakened and upset. II. According to the rules drawn up (10), church property, and even consecrated things, are managed by the church council, acting in some cases by public verdicts, and in others referring to the district commander. In large parishes, there are supposed to be 10 lay council members and one priest: consequently, the church element here is insignificant. Relations with the spiritual authorities are allowed in only two cases, according to the 18th rule to the bishop on amendments, after which consecration is necessary, and according to the 21st rule on the annual report, which the priest must submit to the dean, without mentioning the right of the spiritual authorities to audit it. Therefore, not without reason, the Right Reverend of Kherson sees in this the abolition of church decrees (Apostolic laws. 4. Antioch. Council rights. 24. Carthage. Socio. rights. 42). III. According to Rule 5 on the church council, the list of elected elders and the churchwarden is forwarded by the priest to the volost government; and according to point 6, all confusion during elections is left to the district commander to resolve. This cancels the highest approved decree, according to which the election of a church warden is approved by the diocesan bishop. IV. According to the 10th rule, all church sums are subject to the jurisdiction of the church council, and, as relations between the Kyiv and Kherson dioceses show, candle money, among others. This also violates the highest approved decree on the candle collection in favor of the clergy and especially religious schools. V. The basis for the organization of church councils is based on the fact that, after the abolition of military settlements, the responsibilities of the military authorities were transferred to the specific ones. This reasoning requires limitations. Military administration, due to its special subject and purpose, has a special character of its organization. Therefore, if in military settlements something exceptional from the general rules was allowed in relation to church affairs (and was either officially unknown to the Holy Synod, or was passed over in silence from it): then this cannot be converted into a legal inheritance of civil government. As soon as churches and parishes ceased to be subject to exclusive military control, they naturally fall into the general position of churches and parishes. Moreover, the ktitor at the churches of military settlements was nothing more than a church warden, with a Greek name that seemed more honorable. When the name ktitor was abolished with military settlements, the church warden had to remain with the Russian name. If this did not seem enough, then the establishment of a church council, in justice, in order, and as a precaution against confusion, had to be discussed with the Holy Synod. VI. The lack of this meeting had such an effect on the rules drawn up that hardly anyone can claim that they do not require revision, even in those parts in which they do not contradict church rules and the highest approved decrees. For example, according to rule 2, in a double-principal church, one senior priest is supposed to be present in the church council. There is no reason to think that they wanted to humiliate and upset the clergy, but, due to lack of consideration, they acted as if this was what they wanted; because the junior priest is placed below ten peasant council members in public trust. Were they really afraid that the influence of two priests against ten peasants would be too great in the council? According to the 18th rule on amendments to churches, after which consecration is necessary, the district commander communicates with the diocesan authorities. It is not clear what the district commander is talking about here, whereas on the subject itself it is more common for a priest to relate to a bishop, and it is more convenient and shorter. A report of this kind, if presented by the priest personally, according to a personal explanation, is given to him with a decision at the same time, and received via mail, via mail is returned directly to him with permission. The contact of the district chief is necessary only in order to increase the writing industry, which the government is trying so hard to reduce. According to Rule 9, in the event of a disagreement in the council, the priest, through the dean, submits it to the district commander for permission. So the dean is the middle authority between the priest and the district commander. In addition to the fact that this authority is superfluous, delaying the matter in vain, it represents a confusion of administrations, and places not only the priest, but also the dean not only at a lower level in front of the district commander, but also dependent on him; for he who gives permission is superior to the one who asks for permission. VII. However, the present study of the rules about church councils does not tend to reject councils. They can be useful, as long as God grants that they can be organized reliably, arouse in their members sympathy for the cause, and gain them the confidence of parishioners. But this is not easy to achieve. It is not difficult to organize church councils in the parishes of former military settlements, because the parishioners are accustomed to strict obedience by the former military authorities. But in other parishes, especially those with few people, it is difficult to find a candidate for the post of churchwarden, and it is difficult to convince him to accept it; and it is certainly no less difficult to find trustworthy and zealous members to form a church council. VIII. Therefore, the rules regarding church councils could begin as follows. At each parish church, a church council can be established to take care of the improvement and welfare of the church and the clergy in economic terms, to organize the initial education of children, and for charitable activities within the parish. The establishment of a church council may be mandatory in parishes in which the diocesan authorities recognize this as especially necessary, or in which the secular authorities require it, when the parishioners are in the department of one well-known authority. The local priest is the first and indispensable member of the church council. If a church has more than one priest, the eldest takes precedence in the council, but the others are also indispensable members of it. They are joined by: the church warden and members from the parishioners, elected by their general meeting for three years. The number of these can range from 3 to 5, depending on the crowd or other circumstances of the parish. Further, the rules must be drawn up so that the rights of the ecclesiastical department are not violated; so that the council has supervision over the correct storage and use of church property, being present, among other things, at the monthly account and verification of income and expenditure; so that the most important church affairs about the construction, expansion, decoration, restoration of dilapidated churches take place through meetings of the council and the entire community of parishioners; so that funds acquired for works of philanthropy are not mixed with church funds proper, etc. It is too early to say when the revision of the drawn up rules is only another question, and not a definite undertaking. August 22. Metropolitan Philaret’s opinion “on the dissemination of outrageous works in the Vologda province” On the distribution of outrageous works in the Vologda seminary The first distributor is a former student of St. Petersburg University Fryazinovsky. Found in a student at the Blagoveshchensky Seminary: article: what do the people need? and prohibited works signed by Fryazinovsky. Blagoveshchensky admitted that he had heard about secret gatherings at the theological student Rumyantsev, from whom many outrageous works were found; that almost all students of the 1st category of theology participated in them; that they were engaged in reading lectures by a German philosopher on the essence of religion, that these lectures were acquired by the theology student Slavin from the rector of the school, master, priest Popov 231, he, Slavin, embroidered and copied overnight by the theology students. Article: what do people need? - Blagoveshchensky read to the peasant Malygin. Slavin testified that he took Feuerbach’s lectures secretly from the priest Popov; and that he doesn’t know how they got into Rumyantsev’s apartment. Knew about the existence of gatherings. Archpriest Kubenitsky admitted that he knew about Blagoveshchensky as a rebel. Priest Glubokovsky knew and intended to inform, but was warned by the arrival of the police officer. Priest Popov (the deputy during the search), from whom Feuerbach's lectures were secretly taken, was not asked. Blagoveshchensky's father, to whom he wrote about progressives and liberals, was not asked. From this it is clear that many circumstances of the case have not yet been clarified by the investigation. Consequently, it is not yet time for a decisive opinion. But it is possible to be private and preliminary. Blagoveshchensky not only had, but also read to the peasant an outrageous article; consequently there is a disseminator of outrageous opinions. He knew about the secret gatherings of fellow practitioners and about the reading of an anti-religious book in them, and did not inform his superiors. To make such a person a clergyman and allow him to become a member of the people would be inconsistent with the rules of religion and morality, and with prudent precautions against infecting the people with harmful opinions. From this it follows that Blagoveshchensky, for reasons that have already been revealed, should be excluded from the clergy and a judgment about him, and his further appointment, should be left to the department to which this should belong according to the laws. The students Rumyantsev, Slavin and others who participated in secret gatherings, depending on how the investigation more accurately determines their guilt, will probably be subject to the same conclusion. Priest Popov will probably justify himself by saying that he had Feuerbach's anti-religious work, disapproved by the censorship, for a scientific and critical purpose. If nothing more is revealed, prudence will require that he be removed from the management of the school and subjected to special supervision. Archpriest Kubenitsky, who knew about the troublemaker and did not report, may be subjected to monastic correction, and should be placed in a place where he would be close under the supervision of his superiors, and would be in every possible way removed from influence on his fellow ministers and the people. August 22, 1862 232 . August 28. Report of Metropolitan Philaret to the Holy Synod on the death of the builder of the Trinity Belopesotsky monastery, Hieromonk Nicholas, and on the appointment of Hieromonk Sergius in his place Report to the Holy Governing Synod, its member, Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna. The builder of the Trinity Cenobitic Belopesotsky Monastery, Hieromonk Nikolai, the builder, arrived in Moscow, fell ill from paralysis and, after being released with oil, on May 24 of this year, he died in Catherine’s hospital. After the death of the builder, Hieromonk Nicholas, there was money capital in two notes of the safe treasury, in the amount of two hundred silver rubles (of which one, dated 1848, No. 49.291, was worth one hundred rubles, with the condition that, upon the death of the investor, the capital should be transferred for eternity to the monastery where his body will be buried for the commemoration of him and other persons, with the contribution of those mentioned), and various movable property, consisting, as it appears according to the inventory compiled by the newly appointed builder of the Trinity Belopesotsky monastery, Hieromonk Sergius, under the treasurer of this monastery, Hieromonk Paphnutius, and the sacristan, Hieromonk Evtikhian, in holy icons, books, clothing, linen and dishes. Since there was no spiritual will left after the late builder, Hieromonk Nicholas, and who is the heir to the property left after him is unknown to the spiritual authorities, then the consistory, with my approval, with a copy of the inventory of the estate left after him, with the exception of the treasury security ticket of 1848, No. 49.291, in the amount of one hundred rubles, which, according to the will of the investor, the late builder Hieromonk Nicholas, buried in the Moscow Pokrovsky Monastery, was converted in favor of this monastery, and reported in 2 dept. Moscow court court, to summon the heirs left after the deceased and confirm their rights of inheritance, with a requirement for subsequent notification, and the newly appointed builder of the Belopesotsky monastery, Hieromonk Sergius, was ordered to keep the estate of the deceased in a decent place, safe from fire and dampness, until the case is resolved. Which I have the most honorable honor to convey to the Holy Governing Synod, with the addition that the treasurer of the Serpukhov Vysotsky Monastery, Hieromonk Sergius, was tonsured a monk and ordained a hieromonk in the Belopesotsky Monastery. No. 320. August 28, 1862 233 September 3. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, A.P. Akhmatov, with an opinion about the trade in schismatic books carried out by the merchant Bolshakov In a letter dated August 22, 1862, Prince S. N. Urusov, forwarding to Metropolitan Philaret: a) a draft resolution of the Holy Synod, No. 2044, regarding the trade in schismatic books carried out by the merchant Bolshakov, and b) a report on this subject from the Moscow Committee for the censorship of spiritual books, No. 249, asked for his opinion on return applications. In response to this letter, the Metropolitan wrote to Chief Prosecutor A.P. Akhmatov: With regard to your Excellency, who was correcting the position, dated August 22, (No. 2044), the report of the Moscow spiritual censorship committee and the draft ruling on the selection and sending to the Moscow consistory of prohibited books opened in the shop of the merchant Bolshakov were forwarded to me, and I hereby return them. What is required of me in this opinion is in accordance with the draft definition based on existing laws. But at the same time, I find some additional thoughts and considerations not superfluous. The case could have been examined more accurately if there had been a register of everything that was found in Bolshakov’s shop, except for the yuft goods. By the way, icons and crosses were found in his possession. If they are cast copper, then by law they are subject to confiscation. Bolshakov, in justifying his trade, says that in the book trade he is an honorary member, correspondent and competitor of learned societies. But such societies elect honorary members and competitors for academic purposes and not for trade. He says he has been selling books for 43 years. And this is not an excuse, especially because his book trade is covered up by yuft. He says that his books are listed in the catalogs of Tsarsky and Sopikov: and this is not an excuse. A bibliography may indicate illegally printed books, but this does not legitimize them. He says that there are no exit slips because they were lost. Sometimes this is the case, and sometimes the absence of output sheets, the quality of the font and other signs expose books published in illegal printing houses or abroad, which are prohibited by law. So, for example, “Skete Repentance” and “The History of the Solovetsky Sufferers” are completely schismatic books, contrary to Orthodoxy, and were never published in legitimate printing houses. But, at the present time, when many concessions are being made in the laws to the main enemies of both Christianity and the church, the Jews, it may very well happen that concessions will be required for schismatics, with changes in existing laws. Bolshakov and others like him can say: the government allows books of the Edinoverie printing house to be sold and printed; and they were printed word for word from old printed patriarchal publications. If copies are allowed, the originals are also allowed. This can be countered by the fact that the source of old printed books of patriarchal publications, now circulating among schismatics and in the schismatic trade, is (except perhaps for rare exceptions) theft from church and monastic book depositories. But even this can be objected to, that this, except in special cases, cannot be proven legally, and that it is covered by statute of limitations. From this the question arises: shouldn’t Bolshakov’s book goods be subjected to a detailed inspection, and the books that turn out to be genuinely patriarchal publications should be left with him, and other illegal ones confiscated? Shouldn't this concession from the law be allowed in order to more reliably protect the rest of the law in force and effect? At the same time, the text of the law will remain inviolable, but will only receive an interpretation and application that is somewhat limited in contrast to the previous one, namely: the liturgical books of the patriarchal original publications, from which Edinoverie publications are printed, should not be classified as schismatic, and therefore should not be read as prohibited. For this reason, the following remain prohibited: a) books, although from the patriarchal publications, but those in which there are articles conciliarly rejected by the Orthodox Church, such as, for example, about double-fingering, b) books reprinted from the patriarchal publications by schismatics in illegal printing houses and printed abroad, c) books that are actually schismatic, such as for example: “Skete Repentance”, d) books in which it is indicated where they were printed, and with whose permission, and e) books that contain harmful and malicious additions. However, let all these considerations be submitted to the discretion of the Holy Synod 234. No. 104. September 3, 1862 Savvinsky Monastery 235. The Holy Synod, by definition, on November 1, 1862, decided: taking into account that the liturgical books found during the inspection of Bolshakov’s shop were not confiscated at the time, the Holy Synod determines: the correspondence about these books, as completely useless, should be stopped, giving the Moscow Synodal office, in the event of Bolshakov’s continued sale of unauthorized books of spiritual content, to open a new prosecution in the prescribed manner 236. September 10. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, A.P. Akhmatov, with an opinion on the case of public schools for primary education Having read the correspondence entrusted to me, in copies, about public schools for primary education, I make it my duty to present the thoughts and considerations it inspires in me. I. His Grace, the Metropolitan of Kiev 237 in vain hastened to say, “that he readily agrees to the merger of public schools with parish schools,” although he later limited this agreement to conditions. He caused denial; and meanwhile, compliance gave the secular authorities a reason for being demanding. In addition, the issue concerns not just the Kiev diocese, but the entire spiritual department; therefore, it should not have been resolved by the opinion of one diocesan bishop, but required consideration by the Holy Synod, first a private response. II. It was also in vain that he volunteered “to appoint a special priest for the teaching post, assigning him only nominally to the local church.” And this is a question that does not apply to just the Kyiv diocese, whose resolution exceeds the authority of the diocesan bishop, and whose affirmative decision is not easy to reconcile with church rules. I join your Excellency’s reasoning that this assumption of the Metropolitan of Kyiv, if taken throughout its entire scope, would lead to the creation of a new class - priests without a parish, with inconvenience and not without harm. However, it cannot be denied that the bold and inconvenient assumption of the Metropolitan of Kyiv was not born without a reason. Indeed, there may be cases that in a school established by secular authorities, secular order, it is inconvenient for a local priest to be a teacher of the law; because the measure of his strength and time is already filled with the fulfillment of duties in a large parish, in his own school, in the position of dean, or because the measure of his ability and strength is insufficient due to old age, and so on. How can the needs of the public school be met? It can be assumed that it will be necessary to increase the number of clergy in some places, so that there is not too much deviation from the existing structure of the clergy. For example: in a parish that has more than 800 male souls and is content with one priest, a second priest can be appointed without violating existing rules. Sometimes a second priest may be promoted to fill the vacancy of a deacon, and a deacon to fill the vacancy of a cleric. Orders of this kind might be required even if only public schools were intended to be established by the clergy: all the more so they should be necessary when other public schools are envisaged, established by the Ministry of Public Education. III. The idea that the highest order of January 18 about two types of public schools is also a temporary measure would preferably be found undoubted. But she is perplexing to me. One might think that if this had been a decisive legal measure, it would have been more fully embodied in legislative forms. But on the other hand, in the expressions in which the highest command was announced on January 18, there are no signs that would make it clear that this is a temporary measure. G. Administrator of the Ministry of Education 238 responded that the projects on public schools, sent to all departments and councils subordinate to this ministry, “will only serve as material for drawing up final assumptions.” But it is possible, and even probable, that Mr. Administrator of the Ministry of Education gives such a limited meaning to his review that the expected assumptions should not go beyond the limits of the highest command of January 18. I cannot and do not wish to vouch for such a limited interpretation of the review, but I find it necessary to present it to your attention and research. IV. If the highest command of January 18 is adopted as a decisive measure, and if, next to the priestly public schools, secular public schools require teachers of the law and teachers, it will be very difficult to fulfill this satisfactorily in number and in the required qualities. It seems that the manager of the Ministry of Education is already aware of this when, in relation to the Metropolitan of Kyiv, he proposes the question: “who should be the teachers of the law in these educational institutions - the local parish priests themselves, burdened with many activities in the parish, or other special clergy, appointed for this purpose with the blessing of the diocesan authorities?” If by the name of special clergy who are not priests, he means seminary students, and if such teachers of the law need to be identified in large numbers, and therefore not from the best students: then one can fear that such teachers of the law, young, inexperienced, only mediocrely adapted to the task, separated from their sphere, immersed in the secular element, will not have the desired spiritual and moral influence on students, will not protect them from the disorder that is penetrating everywhere, contaminated and contaminating literature, and some themselves may be subject to adverse influences. Necessity will probably force some use by teachers of the law and seminarians who have not been ordained to the degree of priesthood; but this should be allowed only as an exception to the rule, so that those most trustworthy in behavior are chosen and entrusted to the supervision and guidance of trustworthy priests who would support them both in educational activities and in spiritual direction. V. Perhaps I expose myself to being classified as a backward, retrograde person, an obscurantist, if I say what I think now. And, probably, my words will not be of any use, because the work that is rushing forward will not want to look back at me and stop, but I will express my perplexities, at least in order to admit them and act sincerely. Is it right to rush to suddenly spread education throughout the whole people, when in view of difficulties, scarcity of funds, and not a small danger of a wrong direction that could upset the moral disposition and spirit of the people? (Here we can recall Sunday schools, how they rushed to spread them in a secular way, and what of this was finally revealed?) Is it possible to superficially and reliably spread education to 60,000,000 people suddenly, in a few years? Russia has lived for a thousand years, grown, strengthened, spread, significantly formed, and settled down with very limited literacy of the people: would there be a problem if they decided to make it all literate not suddenly, in five or ten years, but gradually, in fifty or a hundred? Empress Catherine established city public schools. Have they become national schools? Did the best of the citizens join them? Have these schools had a noticeable good effect on the morality and position of citizens? It would be desirable to hear someone answer these questions: yes, and prove their answer. This example prompts the following reflection. The earth, which in man and in human society accepts any seed, is free will. If this earth is loosened and moistened by voluntary desire and zeal, then it deeply accepts the seed and produces plant and fruit. And when there is no voluntary desire and zeal, then the seed that falls on hard and dry soil either does not produce a plant, or produces a weak one that soon withers. Catherine's schools were given to the cities not in accordance with the excited desires and preliminary dispositions of the citizens: and they did not bear the desired fruit. The education of the children of the best citizens has passed by these schools, and among many rich people it has fallen into the hands of foreigners. And this irregularity did not stop when the people became more aware of the need for education, and schools multiplied: Could this urban experience not provide some guidance for setting up rural schools? The priest has no power over the parishioners, but only moral influence over them; from this it should follow that if he calls a villager to the school, and he goes, then, of course, a free, good desire has been aroused in this, and therefore the recruitment of students and the establishment of the school can be reliable. But when the district chief tells the villagers: build a school and send your children to it, this time, willingly or unwillingly, there will be obedience, but it is doubtful whether the matter will be lasting. So, isn’t it necessary to use gradualism in the formation of the initial public schools in such a way as to establish schools where the people’s own free disposition to do so was more aroused, and at the same time contribute to the spread of such a disposition? It is more convenient to manage experience that is not too extensive; and if failure occurs, it is more convenient to correct a private failure than one that extends to 60,000,000 people. Perhaps it would not be superfluous for Your Excellency to know the opinion about rural schools that I wrote 12 years ago. I enclose it herewith 239. September 25. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, A.P. Akhmatov, regarding the article published in No. 6, “Orthodox Review”, entitled: “The Fate of Russian Public Education,” to which the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod was ordered to pay attention Secretary of State, Prince S.N. Urusov, having forwarded to Metropolitan Philaret, in relation, dated July 28, 1862, No. 4757, a list from the relation of the city manager of the Ministry of Public Education to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, dated July 24, 1862, No. 1393, with the announcement of the highest order to pay attention to one place in the article: “The Fate of Russian Public Education,” published in No. 6, Orthodox Review, asked to notify him of the following. In relation to your Excellency, dated July 28 (No. 4757), a list was sent to me from the relation of the Governor of the Ministry of Public Education, dated July 24, 1862 (No. 1393), which announced that the Sovereign Emperor deigned to order him to draw your Excellency's attention to the following place in the article: The fate of Russian public education, published in No. 6 Orthodox Review: “when the clergy sees that legislation, first “can be intentionally, and then unconsciously following” the “old order”, with offensive consistency, carry out “the following rule: a clergyman of the Orthodox confession should not be rewarded with anything for his service, or should receive a reward incomparably less than secular persons or clergy, but not Orthodox, holding the same positions: what conclusion should be reached? clergy? Moreover, without “a doubt that it is a deliberately humiliated class, which the state power itself looks at with contempt, and only because it has remained more faithful than others to the sacred principles of its homeland. After that, how can we expect any confidence or animation in our actions?” Along with this, I am required to provide further notice. It must be assumed that the conclusion drawn especially from the indicated circumstances that the clergy “is a deliberately humiliated class, which the state power itself looks at “with contempt,” was subject to an unfavorable view. It must be admitted that these expressions are careless and unseemly. However, in order to make a judgment about them with caution, it is necessary to distinguish between two types of thought. The first type: the clergy is indeed a class deliberately humiliated and despised by the government. This would be a reprehensible comment on the government. But that is not what the author of the article says. The second type: the indicated circumstances predispose the clergy to such a conclusion, give them a reason for such a discouraging thought that they are a class deliberately humiliated, and that the state power itself looks at it with contempt. This is not actually a review of the government, but only a discouraging opinion of the clergy about themselves. And this is what the writer says. If he had expressed the same thought in more cautious expressions, such as, for example, that the remuneration of a clergyman for service is less than that of a secular person, and that of an Orthodox minister of religion is less than that of a non-Orthodox one, the Orthodox clergy involuntarily disposes to see themselves less than others enjoying the favor of state power: the same thought, only in more cautious expressions, would not be subject to an unfavorable judgment, given an impartial view of the matter. If the expression of the article that “the legislation at first, perhaps intentionally” was less attentive to the service of the Orthodox clergy than to the service of secular persons and people of other faiths was also subject to an unfavorable view: then this indication, softened by the words: “maybe,” refers, as can be seen from the previous part of the article, to the times of Peter the Great, and not to the present time. And such a review will not be difficult for Peter the Great, who, of course, did not want to abolish the patriarchal dignity for the elevation of the clergy and, in a parody of the clergy and church rituals, established the so-called “all-joking council.” If anyone has insulted the memory of Peter the Great, it is not the author of the article now under consideration, but those historians and writers who disfigured his face not only with derogatory, but also tempting tales, worthy only of rotting in the archives from which they were extracted and published not without the approval of secular censorship. As for the remuneration of the service of the Orthodox clergy, which is less in comparison with the service of secular ranks and members of other faiths, this is so obvious from the salary levels of various institutions that it is hardly necessary to give examples. A professor at a university in Moscow has been given a salary of 1,547 rubles. Professor of the Theological Academy - 850 rubles. Gymnasium teacher – 850 rub. Seminary professor – 429 rubles. Gymnasium law teacher - 350 rubles. The caretaker of the district secular school - 500 rubles. The caretaker of the district theological school - 214 rubles. In Saratov, for the maintenance of a student at a Roman Catholic seminary - 75 rubles. In the same city, the cost of supporting a student at an Orthodox seminary is 32 rubles. The salary of the Roman Catholic bishop in Saratov is 4,480 rubles per year. To the Orthodox bishop there - 700 rubles. Members of Orthodox consistories, spiritual boards, and deans hold these positions without remuneration. Not so the officials of the Roman confession in Russia. Numerous comparisons of this kind can provide a reason, of course, not for those serving in the spiritual department to be cheered and encouraged, but perhaps for them to feel comparatively humiliated and less in favor of the attention of the authorities. And this is the whole point of this article. In the thirties (if my memory serves me correctly) of the current century, St. Petersburg University received new staff, in which the salary of the teacher of theological sciences was assigned one-third less than other professors. The then former teacher of theological sciences, who was more successful in teaching than his predecessors, and therefore was worthy of being retained at the university, left his service, saying, as was then retold: I am not looking for money, because I refuse those I received; but I give testimony against insufficient attention to the service of the clergy 240. From what has been said so far, in my opinion, it is clear that the article in question is not subject to accusations of injustice or ill-intention, but only of imprudence and unseemly expression. It is necessary to determine who should bear this charge? It is known that this article was written by a secular person. So the responsibility for its compilation does not fall on the clergy. What is published in the Orthodox Review is an extract from an article previously published in the Addendum to the publication of the works of the holy fathers 241. The editors of the Addendum to the publication of the works of the holy fathers published this article with the permission of the censorship, to which, therefore, most of the responsibility passes. At the same time, it is not superfluous to take into account that this article was reprinted in No. 30 of the Modern Chronicle of the Russian Bulletin, one of the well-intentioned periodical publications. And since this article does not have spiritual content, and consequently secular censorship was obliged to judge it freely, without submitting to the opinion of spiritual censorship; then the publication of this article in a secular magazine serves as a sign that secular censorship did not see it as contrary to the laws of censorship. Finally, so that the whole truth is known, I am obliged to add the following. The article in question was read to me in manuscript, without announcing the intention to publish it. Therefore, I did not follow her with a strict critical eye and, paying attention to the essence of the matter, to the task of entrusting the clergy with the initial education of the people, I spoke approvingly of her. I repeated the same review to one of the members of the censorship committee; and this probably provided the reason for the fact that the censorship, which always proved itself to be well-intentioned and cautious, did not strictly follow the details of the article. However, I pointed out to the censorship committee that there had been an oversight, and it was proposed to increase vigilance not only against everything that is directly illegal, but also against inaccurate and careless expressions that could receive an unfavorable interpretation 242. September 25th. Metropolitan Philaret's proposal to the spiritual censorship committee of the Moscow Theological Academy that, when considering works, they should strengthen their vigilance not only against everything that is directly illegal, but also against inaccurate and careless expressions that may receive an unfavorable interpretation This tirade in the Orthodox Review was borrowed from an article on the initial public education, published in the “Additions to the publication of the works of the holy fathers,” with the approval of this committee. This article is well-intentioned, and as not contrary to the laws of censorship, it is reprinted in No. 30 of the Modern Chronicle of the Russian Bulletin, one of the well-intentioned periodical publications. With all this, I find that in the above tirade there are careless and unseemly expressions, which, depicting the position of the Orthodox clergy as not quite secure and encouraged to work, can be taken as an unfavorable judgment about the government’s relationship with the clergy. Therefore, it is my duty to propose to the committee, when considering essays, to increase vigilance not only against everything that is directly illegal, but also against inaccurate and careless expressions that may receive an unfavorable interpretation. This also applies to the Moscow censorship department. To the Censorship Committee at the Moscow Theological Academy There is an urgent need to draw the attention of the censorship committee for the third time to the dissatisfiedly cautious action of its Moscow branch and the editorial board of the Orthodox Review. Examples of this follow here. 1862, September, countries. 75. A French writer of an article on church affairs in France advises Napoleon III not to exchange “the commitment of entire masses who hate the papacy for the very suspicious goodwill of people stained by hypocrisy and greed, who have already ruined Henry IV, Louis XVI, Napoleon I, Charles X, Louis Philippe and the Republic of 1848.” The idea that the clergy destroyed all the sovereigns named here is false and reprehensible. And that the writer blames the clergy for the destruction of the republic of 1848, and consequently regrets this destruction, and consequently approves of the republic of 1848, is an extremely unfair and harmful idea. Country 17 and 18. To live 12 years in a bursa (school and seminary) means leaving school almost undeveloped, neither mentally nor morally, with hemorrhoids, scrofula, consumption. In relation to some schools, seminaries and students, let this be recognized as partly true. But in relation to many schools, seminaries and students, this is slander. Slander should not be mixed with truth. That, with increased criticism of the clergy “from the outside,” the clergy, with such printed proclamations, half-fair, half-false, casts contempt on itself, this is unfair, unreasonable, and harmful. Country 19. “Oh. Zefirov and Fr. Lozhkin, who enjoy the general favor of the clergy, despite the fact that they are members of the consistory”... This means that members of the consistory in general are people hated by the clergy, and that Zefirov and Lozhkin are exceptions to this. This is also for the guilty few, slander against an entire class. To bring your superiors into contempt means to act towards the destruction of prosperity. It would be possible to indicate in the same periodical publication other passages to which a more attentive and cautious view was required from both the publishers and the censor. Such is, for example (May, p. 18), a letter about the situation of orphaned girls, in which the accusations go beyond the limits of both justice and decency. To enhance the ridicule, the writer invented an ugly expression: capital mothers. Indecency, obviously, and also injustice. The heads of affairs are aware of the care of the Moscow clergy for orphans and between them and for orphaned girls, not only relatives but also strangers. The editor recognized the indecency of this article by the fact that he found it necessary to write an apologetic article for it; but it would be better to stop and humbly invite my brother to more carefully check the letter with the laws of justice and decency. So again I find myself in need: 1) To remind the Moscow branch of the censorship committee and the editorial board of the Orthodox Review to guard this publication with vigilant prudence in the purity of truth and decency, so that the already heard complaints, and sometimes unfounded ones, do not harm the dignity of this publication, recognized on the other hand. 2) Recommend that the academic committee, with its attention, support the careful attention of the Moscow branch, since it is impossible for me to position myself as the permanent guardian of timely publications 244. September 25. Report to the Holy Synod of Metropolitan Philaret on the appointment of the second vicar of the Moscow diocese To the Holy Governing Synod of Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow, report The increasing number of tasks, and from day to day the diminishing strength leaves me less able to fulfill the duties that lie upon me completely and without delay. Because of this, from day to day, part of my burden increases, which falls to the share of my assistant, the Right Reverend Vicar Leonid 245. And his health is so unsatisfactory that, with his zeal for service, he may be irrevocably damaged, while his dignity prompts him to save him for continued service, and in order to provide him with a means, with easier service, to improve his health. I make it my duty not to hide this from the Holy Synod. I believe that in these circumstances the Holy Synod will be asked to consider whether it is possible, in accordance with the needs of church administration, for me, with my diminishing strength, to continue the ministry entrusted to me; and if this is considered possible, then is it not possible to support my action with another assistant - the second vicar of the Moscow department, following the example of the St. Petersburg department? In the will of the Holy Synod and in the highest permission of the most pious Sovereign Emperor, may the will of God and what is needed for church service be revealed. In the laurel. September 25, 1862 246 September 26. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, A.P. Akhmatov, on the appointment of the second vicar of the Moscow diocese I did not directly present the attached report to the Holy Synod, but I am turning to your agency with the thought whether it would not be appropriate to first ask for the highest permission to propose it to the Holy Synod. If it is considered appropriate under the circumstances to establish a second vicar of the Moscow department, then the following grounds may be laid for this. 1) That he be called the Bishop of Mozhaisk. 2) That he be given a salary and table money, following the example of other vicars. 3) So that he would manage one of the Moscow monasteries, in which he would have a residence. 4) So that he could partly take advantage of the needs of the bishop's service from the Moscow see, and partly gradually arrange them using the methods of the monastery he managed. 5) That the distribution of affairs and responsibilities between him and the first vicar be provided to the Moscow Metropolitan, in accordance with what is most necessary and convenient according to his immediate discretion and experience. Cooperation would be especially convenient and reliable for me if a clergyman was appointed to the proposed service, previously known to me by his ability and zeal for service. This is how I recognize the rector of the Moscow Theological Academy, Archimandrite Savva 247. If his election had been confirmed, then Professor Archpriest Alexander Gorsky, worthy of this in terms of his scholarship, long-term service and moral dignity, could have been appointed rector of the academy. Not being a monk, he, just like a monk, devotes himself entirely to spiritual learning and the fulfillment of academic duties, without being entertained by anything extraneous. Invoking God's blessing upon you, with perfect respect and devotion, I have the honor to be your Excellency, most humble servant, In the laurel. September 26, 1862 The track record of Archimandrite Sava has the Holy Synod between the track records of the members of the consistory. The Holy Synod, by definition of October 15/19, 1862, among other things, decided: on the report of the Holy Synod, approved on the 14th day of this October, regarding the establishment of the second vicariate in the Moscow diocese and on the highest order of His Imperial Majesty regarding the appointment of the rector of the Moscow Theological Academy, Archimandrite, to the vacancy of this vicariate Savva, to announce from the Holy Synod by decrees 248. October 1st. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, A.P. Akhmatov, with an opinion on the desire of the Urmia Nestorians to join the Orthodox Church In 1860, the Nestorians located in Persia expressed their readiness to join the Orthodox Church. To find out on the spot about the sincerity of their desire, Archimandrite Zephaniah 249 was sent to the Transcaucasian region, who was entrusted with a “secret instruction” signed by the Metropolitan of Novgorod and St. Petersburg Isidore, through the Nestorian priest Michael, to collect preliminary information only about the Urmia Nestorians. In 1861, on December 18, Archimandrite Zephaniah sent the first private letter from Erivan. An extract from it, a copy of the secret instructions given to him, and an extract from the second letter to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, dated July 23, 1862, with the attachment of a short note from the case about the Nestorians’ desire to join, were sent by Prince S.N. Urusov and A.P. Akhmatov to Metropolitan of Moscow Filaret, with a request to deliver an opinion on the importance of this issue. In view of the fact that the Metropolitan, in his response on this issue, very often quotes the expressions of Archimandrite Zephanius, in his letters many phrases are underlined by the Metropolitan and notes are written in pencil along with them - the underlined places are typed in space, and the notes, for ease of reading, are placed under the line. To fully present the activities of the Moscow saint in “the matter that occupied the Holy Synod so much,” the missionary’s letters are given here verbatim. In his first private letter, from Erivan, Archimandrite Zephaniah wrote: “Upon arrival in Erivan at 10 pm in the evening, I stopped at the governor’s house. Having arranged here everything necessary for safe passage from Erivan to the border and then to Urmia. Mikhail, and having provided him with all the protective measures (including a letter to the Consul General in Tavris, Chernyaev, and an extract from the instructions), I myself went to Kuylasar on the 25th, and he, Mikhail, ordered to go there (the village is on the road abroad) on the 27th, in order to finally question him there 250, on some points of the instructions, in the presence Kuylasar priest Ilyin. Thus, partly in Tiflis, partly in Erivan, and most of all at this Kuylasar triumvirate diet, I collected a lot of information regarding my case. But just as all of them are not yet significant, at least they are not so positive that they can be based on them: therefore, I did not express them either before the Right Reverend Metropolitan or before the Count himself. Living here and having already been to Kuylasar twice, I gave my actions such a direction that I managed to divert everyone’s attention from the main issue 251 for which I came. He persuaded the Kuylasar Aisors to start a school and renovate the building that once served as an apartment for the late Archimandrite Paisius into a school, and which can now be used as a school. This is what I discussed with the Most Reverend Exarch 252. I wrote about this to Count 253, asking him, if possible, to send here Russian primers, catechisms and other books necessary for the elementary education of children. By the way, I asked the Count to send local and liturgical books in the Slavic language for the Isors. I must tell you that the services held in Syriac in the Kuylasar church are very insufficient and require not only great replenishment, but also correction in many ways. Not to mention the fact that neither the troparia, nor the kontakion, nor the canons, nor the stichera have yet been translated and therefore not put into use; there are significant differences in the liturgy itself. Until now, not even the Cherubic song, “We will sing to you” and “It is worthy,” is sung. I want to do something and am already busy replenishing what is missing. The aforementioned missing chants have already been written, even transcribed 254 into sheet music to suit our melody, but have not yet been put into use. I remember that I wrote to you from Moscow that, on the advice of the Moscow ruler, I also began studying the Syro-Chaldean language there in Moscow. On the way, having grammatically analyzed the entire chapter 255 of John and studied the conjugations of several regular and irregular verbs, mastered several words and expressions of church and colloquial, and finally, learned the Trisagion, Our Father, the Creed, and so on. In this way I acquired some information, and most importantly, I largely understood the general formation of this language, which is so similar to the Hebrew language. With the help of these preliminary concepts about the Syriac language, and with the guidance of the Kuylasar priest and cleric (the latter speaks and reads Russian very decently) and my teacher (he is an Armenian dragoman who knows the languages: Russian, Turkish, Syriac and Persian), I am engaged in the indicated corrections. With the help of God, I hope to transfer something from the services to the weeks: passionate and bright, so that the Kuylasarites, these Zebulunites and Nefoalimites, who are still sitting, regarding faith, in the deepest darkness and sons of death, can communicate some ideas about what is remembered on these special and deliberately holy days. But to transpose the canons, it is necessary to have a translation of the canons into Russian, published by Lovyagin. Could you get it somewhere and send it to me, at my expense, although that is only the book (out of three) that contains the canons of Holy and Bright Weeks? In the second letter addressed to A.P. Akhmatov, Archimandrite Zephaniah reported: “Among the questions proposed to me, there was this: which of the rites adopted by the church should bring about the joining of the Nestorians to Orthodoxy? But this question, due to its deliberate importance, is inevitably subject to the judgment and decision of the Holy Synod, especially since the Holy Synod has before its eyes the recent example of the acceptance into the bosom of the Orthodox Church of Christians of an entire region, much more numerous than the entire Nestorian Church, and with a large hierarchy, - and the resolutions of councils, - not to mention the ecumenical, second and sixth, - local councils, having, however, for us the nature of the ecumenical, on which this question was again subjected to discussion and decision. These are, for example: the cathedral that was in Constantinople, soon after its conquest, and it seems in 1486, and the Moscow cathedral under Alexy Mikhailovich, presided over by two eastern patriarchs. But if Your Excellency wanted to know my opinion on this subject, then I, without hesitation, would say the following. The method of joining through anointing, which alone seems more suitable to the present case, and on which, of course, the Holy Synod focused its attention - this method seems to me inapplicable to the case due to the circumstances, and almost unnecessary. Firstly: how and through whom can confirmation be given to such a mass of people scattered across different areas, regions and even powers? The Nestorians are not Uniates, and they do not live in Russia, much less, they are not Russian subjects. Assuming that the Persian and Muslim governments give their consent to this, how many inconveniences, obstacles and even troubles are foreseen in this matter, both from the missionaries living there, and from the native Tatars, and from the local petty officials, who will not fail to take advantage of this opportunity, as rare and sure, to arrange their finances. Secondly, if confirmation is necessary for the people in order to sanctify them and make them Orthodox; then it is even more necessary for the hierarchs themselves. But will they agree? And even if they agreed, wouldn’t it be a clear anomaly to accept into communion with the universal Orthodox Church, for example, a patriarch as a patriarch, and at the same time anoint him with chrism as a newly baptized person? Thirdly, he considered the belief of the Nestorians, of course, not the one that they once held, and which is held to this day only in polemical theologies, but the one that actually exists and is confessed at the present time - considering this belief with the belief of the Orthodox Church, one cannot help but come to the question: is it necessary and fair to bring the Nestorians under the category of those heretics, whom, by the force of conciliar decrees, should anoint? Is it fair to put them on the same level of unorthodoxy and removal from the universal church, for example, with the Arians, who tried to overthrow the basic and essential dogma of Christianity, rejecting those who are consubstantial in Christ with God the Father, and who were commanded to be received into communion through anointing? Is it fair to consider the Nestorian Church as equally hostile to the Orthodox-Ecumenical Church as, for example, the Roman Catholic and Armenian churches, both of which anathematized the Universal Church, and to this day breathe hostility that is both groundless and anti-Christian, while those who come from Latinism are allowed to be accepted into Orthodoxy through one anointing. Fourthly, let’s assume that all Aisors will receive chrismation and declare themselves Orthodox. But what will their Orthodoxy consist of? In the name and confirmation? But this does not yet constitute the essence of the matter. The most significant thing here is a change in the way of thinking regarding those truths of faith in which the Nestorian Church erred. But let us assume that this change of belief will follow. How will this new belief manifest itself? Will there not be something similar here to a new anomaly and even absurdity in that newly accepted Christians will believe like the Orthodox, but express their belief in worship, which is an external manifestation of the inner spirit of faith, like the Nestorians? I believe that your Excellency knows from my letters to your predecessor, Count Alexander Petrovich, that in the Kuylasar church, to which the Holy Synod can refer, the range of liturgical books in the Syro-Chaldean language is so meager that there is not a single service that can be recognized as real in its completeness and correctness. Vespers and Matins, having neither troparions, nor kontakia, nor stichera, nor canons, represent only the skeleton of our worship; for they consist of only psalms and ektenae. There are liturgies; but a) they require radical and long-term correction; for they are translated very incorrectly; b) there are no prokeimns, sacraments, or vacations in them. As for the various changes in the holiday liturgies, they are not known. So, based on the above data, I would believe that the adoption of the Nestorians into Orthodoxy should be carried out according to only one act, which either the Holy Synod itself would draw up, or would allow an authorized person to do this, and under which all representatives of the Nestorian Church who accept Orthodoxy would sign. As for any rite that would visibly seal the invisible entry of the Nestorians into spiritual communion with the Orthodox Church; then leave it forever in accordance with the circumstances of place and time, which the ecumenical councils did not lose sight of when drawing up their definitions. If for some reason it becomes absolutely impossible to abandon the ritual forever, then at least postpone it until the time of translating the circle of liturgical books into the Syro-Chaldean language. Such a postponement, no matter how contrary to the spirit of the Orthodox-Ecumenical Church, is just as necessary. It is not objectionable because this time before their final acceptance into the bosom of Orthodoxy would be the time of their preparation for Orthodoxy and, as it were, the time of announcement. They are necessary both in order to acquaint them with the idea of ​​the inevitability of external rites when entering the Orthodox Church, and in order to give them time to gradually and freely change the image of their previous belief and to replace it with a new, purely Orthodox belief. A revolution in beliefs, especially regarding such an important and close to the heart of every subject as religion, cannot be brought about in anyone at once, without a turning point and crushing of human nature. They don't do that. An example of this is Catholic propaganda for us, which is undeniably more experienced than us in matters of this kind. It would be useful now to see on the spot how she deals with her proselytes from the Nestorians when converting them to papism, whether she uses any visible ritual in this, or acts in the same way as the American missionaries. In conclusion, I consider it my duty to repeat that the final consideration of this issue is the work of the Holy Synod itself, to whose view I submit my best considerations.” A brief note from the case about the desire of the Persian Nestorians to join the Orthodox Church states: Archimandrite Zephaniah, upon arriving in Erivan, on November 22 last year, soon managed to acquire the information for which he was sent through his acquaintance with the Nestorian suffragan bishop Mar-Denkhoy, who hid within our borders from the persecution of the Turks. This bishop himself found Fr. Zephaniah and in a conversation told him the following about the Nestorian Church: The highest hierarchy of the Nestorian Church now consists of: a) the patriarch, always called Mar-Shimon; b) Matran, always called Mar-Khnanishu; c) six diocesan bishops, of which two are in Turkey: Mar-Slyva (in Gyaver), Mar-Sarkis (in Jilyuy) and four in Persia: Gabriel (in Ardytai), Joseph (in Ada), Elijah (in Gyuktapa). The fourth diocese has a see in the village of Gavilan, but now its eparch John has converted to Protestantism, married and moved to live in the city of Urmia. His diocese, already partly disbanded, partly plundered by American and Roman wolves, is still without an archpastor. Finally, e) two vicars who are under Matran and do not have special dioceses: Mar-Denkha and Mar-Yukhana (in Deria). In total, the entire representative church consists of 10 bishops, and the dioceses that make up it are eight. The lower part of the hierarchy consists of priests, archdeacons and deacons, who are all married (except for those destined for abuns), and after being widowed they can enter into a second and third marriage. There are no archimandrites or abbots, because for a long time there has not been a single monastery in the Nestorian Church due to increased oppression and robbery by the Turks. There is neither a synod under the patriarch, like the Greeks, nor a consistory under bishops, like ours. Mar-Shimon's retinue, which assists him both in worship and in administration, consists of three priests, one archdeacon (the patriarch's father) and five deacons (three of them the patriarch's uncles), The vestments used in worship by bishops and priests are almost indifferent. It consists of: a white cassock (mostly linen), an epitrachelion and a belt (there are no handguards, a legguard or a club); then an omophorion is put on, exactly the same as that of the Jacobites, that is, with a slit in the middle, and over the omophorion a phelonion is thrown, consisting of a quadrangular piece of material, sometimes placed on the shoulders, but not fastened with anything, like the Jacobites, and sometimes, for example, when pronouncing the words in the liturgy: Thank our Lord... and on the head. However, the episcopal omophorion differs from the priestly one in that it is much longer both in front and behind. There is neither a miter, like ours, nor a faded one, like the Jacobites, nor panagias, nor crosses, nor staffs. One Mar-Shimon, while serving, and sometimes outside of it, wore a pectoral cross on a silk cord. The current Mar-Khnanishu, a ninety-year-old old man, has the same cross as a sign of special respect from the late patriarch. The altar is separated by a barrier on which there is not a single icon; in the altar there is a throne near the eastern wall, and not in the middle; There is a crucifix above the throne. There is no altar, but there is a laver with a furni, like a tandul (a tandul is a round hole on the floor of a hut, lined with stone and greased with special clay, at the bottom of it a fire burns and heats the walls, on which all kinds of bread are baked), for baking prosphoras, which are very similar to Jacobite ones, with 12 crosses on the front side and thin, like gingerbread The creed is the same as ours. There are hardly any interpretations for it. In the Savior, everyone confesses the perfection of God and the perfection of man, but most do not know the theological details of how and when divinity and humanity were united. The Virgin Mary gave birth to Christ the man, and not God the Word, born from the Father from eternity. The use of icons is considered contrary to the second commandment. The saints are honored as those who pleased God, but not as our intercessors before him: for there is only one intercessor for God and men. The daily divine service consists of Vespers, Matins and Liturgy, to which is added the reading of the hours, namely: the first hour - for Matins, the third and sixth - for Epturgy, and the ninth - for Vespers. The Liturgy comes close to Yakovleva and is celebrated on leavened bread and wine dissolved in water. The twelfth holidays are the same as ours (Introduction into the Church, doubtful). There are seven sacraments. Baptism and confirmation are, in essence, no different from ours. The main substance of mura is oil, as among us and the Greeks, and not konjut, as among the Armenians. Repentance has changed for some time due to local circumstances, and instead of oral repentance, only heartfelt repentance remains. The sick before death are not given farewell by St. secrets, but are sanctified with unction (however, not all, like with us). The priesthood is excellent in that from the laik one becomes a reader, a deacon, and a priest. The bishop is ordained by Mart-Shimon with other bishops. Marriage is allowed only in the seventh generation, divorces are rare and are allowed with the permission of the patriarch. There are no church schools or public education in the spirit of their confession. There are schools in Urmia, but they are established and supported by missionaries of a certain kind. Literacy is limited to reading and writing in the Syro-Chaldean bilishana hita in the modern dialect and in Turkish, and the highest learning consists in the ability to read and write bilishana atika, in the ancient Syriac language. Church books dating back to the service were all handwritten, but now printed books began to appear: the Bible, psalms, new testaments, church histories, synopses, prayer books, printed in Urmia by missionaries, and distributed everywhere free of charge. There are also primers, short histories, grammars, arithmetic, geography, etc., used in schools; printed by the same Americans and distributed freely to everyone. The Nestorian clergy is maintained in the same ways as the Greek Orthodox. The clergy receives benefits from parishioners, given for correction of demands, and the abuns have the so-called reshata - collection in money and in kind from the entire flock. It is collected in money from a base (20 kopecks) to 50 kopecks per person per year, and in kind: bread, rice, butter, wine, silk, fruits, in a word, everything that the parishioners themselves can have, but there is no definite measure for this. Reporting this, Mar-Denha expressed that in Nestorian society there is indeed a very strong desire to unite with the Orthodox Church, without requiring special sacrifices on our part, and even declared before Fr. archimandrite about consent to join not only for himself, but also for his Matran, who enjoys special respect among the Nestorians. The importance of the statement of the Nestorian bishop prompted Archimandrite Solonia, through a secret agent, to bring to the attention of Matran Mar-Khnanitsa what was expressed by this bishop on behalf of Matran, and carefully call the latter to confirm in some way the words of the bishop, if only they were true. The consequence of this was a letter signed by this Matran and another - Posif, to the residents of Kuylasar, so that they would accept the above-mentioned Nestorian bishop as the representative of the entire Noji diocese and would bring to the attention of the Orthodox Russian government about the plight of the Turkish Nestorians in their hopes for the protection and patronage of the Russian Tsar. Not seeing in this letter a direct expression of the desire of the Nodki Nestorians to accept Orthodoxy and not receiving any news from the priest Michael, Archimandrite Zephanius, by agreement with our Consul General in Tabriz, instructed two secret agents of our government, from the Orthodox Aisors, the Melikan brothers, to make a secret inquiry about the disposition of the Urmia and Turkish Nestorians to unite with our church, with an explanation to the Nestorians in what ways and hopes they can do this. After a month and a half, the Melik brothers, returning from the Persian borders, reported that the entire tribe of Nestorian Aisors (about 40 thousand souls) was ready to unconditionally accept Orthodoxy and brought certificates of this readiness, signed by 6 Aisor bishops of the Urmia region, 48 priests and many of the village elders and honorary parishioners, with personal seals attached. To this, the Melik brothers added that, along with the Nestorian Aisors, Catholics and Protestants, and many Armenians and even Tatars living with the Aisors, expressed a desire to accept Orthodoxy and subscribe. Soon after this, Archimandrite Zephanius was informed that the Nestorian Patriarch also agreed to join, and that only out of fear of the Muslims he did not declare this in writing. O. Zephaniah, reporting the desires of the Nestorians, later confirmed in two letters to him from the priest Michael, expressed the need to speed up the completion of the work begun and immediately take measures to protect the life and everyday life of the Aisors, through relations between our government and the Turkish and Persian ones. He himself, considering his assignment completed, intended to leave for St. Petersburg. According to the most submissive report of this news to the Sovereign Emperor, the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, with the highest permission, entered into communication with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, asking for assistance in protecting the joining Nestorians from the oppression that threatens them, as well as for delivering the ministry’s opinion on the timeliness of joining the Nestorians for political reasons. The Ministry requested the opinion of our envoy in Persia on this subject. At the same time, Archimandrite Zephanius was instructed by the spiritual authorities to pause his return for the time being and take up considerations about the method of action that, in his opinion, would be necessary for the successful completion of the Nestorian work. Meanwhile, the intentions of the Nestorians were made public and the consequences were as follows: a) Matran of the Aisors of Spria, Mar-Gabriel wrote to the Melik brothers that the Muslims began to cruelly oppress the Aisors and, suspecting them of treason against the Persian government, demanded a subscription to remain faithful forever, and that as a result of the oppression, several families were forced to leave their homeland and flee to Tabriz; Mar-Gabriel himself also hid in Tabriz under the protection of our consul general. b) Priest Michael, in letters to Archimandrite Zephaniah and addressed to the former Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod and His Eminence Metropolitan of St. Petersburg, notified that his compatriots were threatened with trouble from all sides, and on their behalf asked for protection. c) The same Nestorian bishop Mary-Gabriel asked Archimandrite Zephaniah in a letter to petition the Sovereign Emperor to provide patronage and benefits to the Nestorians. “Then,” added Mary-Gabriel, the fire of oppression and the flame of tyranny that persecute me and my people would go out. Our Consul General in Tabriz, through whom Mary-Gabriel’s letter was received, reported that the Nestorians are undergoing oppression, but still due to the greed of the local authorities, and not because of the desire to convert to Orthodoxy; however, he does not vouch for the future. As this information was received, a review was received from our envoy in Persia, in which he expressed that in this important matter it is necessary to act extremely carefully, without much haste, without accepting official patronage over the Nestorians, otherwise the Persian government will look at this religious event as the annexation of an entire Persian province to Russian borders. To fulfill the desire of the Nestorians, in the opinion of the envoy, it would be best to send to Urmia, very secretly, through Khoy and bypassing Tabriz, one or two Russian priests, who, remaining there, as the American and French missionaries remain, could make an annexation before the Shah's government had time to declare its displeasure at this. In reporting this review, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs added that it completely shared the thoughts expressed in it and that the Emperor, after reading it, deigned to write in his own hand: “a very correct view.” After this, by order of the spiritual authorities, Archimandrite Zephaniah was instructed to arrive in St. Petersburg and the judgment in the Holy Synod on the Nestorian case was suspended, pending his return. About the letter of Archimandrite Zephaniah, dated July 23, 1862, and about the Nestorian case I. Priest Michael has a sincere religious urge to join the Orthodox Church, and he is almost alone. II. When Archimandrite Zephaniah, through a secret agent, tried to find out the opinion of Matran (the second person in the Nestorian hierarchy) regarding joining the Orthodox Church: the consequence of this was a letter to “bring to the attention of the Orthodox Russian government the plight of the Turkish Nestorians, and their hopes for the protection and patronage of the Russian Tsar.” It is clear that the main subject of the case is political defense, and not Orthodox faith. III. After this, it will be unfair to think that Archimandrite Zephaniah, or his agents, acted carelessly and made a mistake in asking for written certificates from 6 bishops, 48 ​​priests and many village elders and honorary parishioners about their readiness to join the Orthodox Church. Such a formal act in some way imposed on the Orthodox side the obligation of active compliance. Moreover, the matter in this situation could not hide from publicity, and exposed the Nestorians to the danger of persecution from local governments. And indeed, after this, the archimandrite wrote not about Orthodoxy, but about “immediately taking measures to secure the life and everyday life of the Isors.” But since such measures could not be used soon, the Isors probably suffered more or less; and this, of course, could not strengthen either their disposition towards Orthodoxy or their hope for the Russian government. IV. Archimandrite Zephaniah, through his agents and through letters from the Nestorians, inquired whether the Nestorians had a desire to join the Orthodox Church: but here there is no inquest whether they have a clear understanding of the dogmas that separate them from the Orthodox Church and whether, at least, the members of their hierarchy join the Orthodox dogmas with sincere conviction and faith. Without confirmation of this, the work of joining them to the Orthodox Church cannot be thoroughly accomplished. V. When it was discovered that their main goal was to find protection; and the disposition to join the Orthodox Church is only a means: can the joining be accomplished with a purity worthy of this deed? VI. If you need to look at this matter not only from a religious, but also from a political point of view: is it possible to satisfy the wishes of the Nestorians? The Russian envoy to Persia rightly fears that the Persian government (not otherwise the Turkish one) will not understand the accession of the Nestorians to the Russian church, in accordance with the principles of religious tolerance, but “will look at this religious event as the annexation of an entire Persian province “to the Russian borders.” Therefore, should the New Orthodox not expect oppression? Would it be convenient for the Russian government to provide them with protection? Will diplomatic means be sufficient for this? Can stronger diplomatic means be used? VII. “It would be best to send one or two Russian priests to Urmia very secretly, through Khoy and bypassing Tabriz.” It is not easy to find someone who can speak fluently in a language understandable to the locals and skillfully conduct business. The experience of very secret action has already failed for Archimandrite Zephaniah, although he is still far from the discerning eyes of Western propaganda. VIII. When the possibility and reliability of the Nestorians joining the Orthodox Church has not yet been ensured: is it time to talk about the order of joining? Time because it is better to hurry than to be late, and because Archimandrite Zephaniah has already begun the discussion. IX. He points to the recent example of the Melchites being accepted into the Orthodox Church. An example truly worthy of attention in this matter, just like the councils of 1486 and 1667. X. He finds joining through chrismation “inconveniently applicable to the matter,” because many obstacles and troubles are foreseen “on the part of missionaries, Tatars, and local petty officials.” This is an extraordinary reasoning. If he believes that it is possible to do without chrismation in case of troubles from the Tatars or petty officials, then wouldn’t he advise doing without baptism in case of such troubles? XI. He asks: will the hierarchs agree to be anointed? This is not a dogmatic question. XII. He explains his doubts: is it appropriate to accept a patriarch into communion as a patriarch and at the same time anoint him with chrism? The Ecumenical Patriarch would probably resolve this issue in the affirmative. If he anointed a priest with preservation of the priesthood; why not do the same with the bishop? However, Archimandrite Zephanius’s doubt must be recognized as fundamental and requiring conciliar reasoning. XIII. The archimandrite goes further. He recognizes anointing in the present case as “almost unnecessary.” He proves this idea by the fact that the belief of the Nestorians “at the present time” is not the one they once held.” But in his presentation of their teaching, he attributes to them the opinion that “The Virgin Mary gave birth to Christ the man, and not God the Word.” What is this if not the original teaching of Nestorius? Another opinion: “the use of icons is considered contrary to the second commandment.” And this shows that these are not people for whom confirmation into Orthodoxy would be unnecessary. Does the archimandrite think that they somehow understand non-Orthodox words in an Orthodox way? But he does not explain or prove this. XIV. The archimandrite thinks that the Roman Church and the Armenians are further removed from Orthodoxy than the Nestorians. This arbitrary thought does not require further investigation. XV. He offers strange questions: “What will their Orthodoxy consist of? in the name and anointing." Who told him that they want to anoint the Nestorians with myrrh and call them Orthodox, while they do not know Orthodox teaching and do not accept it? XVI. And if the Nestorians change their way of thinking to the Orthodox, in his opinion, “won’t it result in absurdity,” that is, absurdity? What's so absurd? The fact is that they will believe like the Orthodox, and express their faith in worship, like the Nestorians. Meanwhile, he himself says that their “symbol of faith is the same as ours.” How will it become Nastorian when it is read in worship? He further says that the range of liturgical books in the Syro-Chaldean language is scanty. But does it follow from this that he is not Orthodox? For example, he says that there is no vacation during the liturgy; Is it possible that the liturgy will become heretical because the dismissal has not been pronounced, but the prayer behind the pulpit has ended? XVII. Finally, “based on the above data,” the archimandrite would have considered taking only a subscription from the Nestorians, which the Holy Synod would draw up, and either completely cancel the rite of accession, or postpone it until the circle of liturgical books was translated into the Syro-Chaldean language. But the data now considered does not lead to such conclusions, and especially to conclusions that contradict one another. Moreover, a decisive conclusion on this matter must be drawn not from the data in the case alone, but from consideration of the data in the case with church rules and examples. It will take years to translate the range of liturgical books into the Syro-Chaldean language. Will the Nestorians at this time be members of the Orthodox Church by the act of subscription, which is supposed to carry out their acceptance, or will they not, since the sacrament of confirmation has not yet been performed on them? An answer to this should be given to someone who proposes such a complex measure so that others do not consider this question insoluble. And whoever proposes to accept Nestorians into the Orthodox Church without anointing should also find a way to do this without contradicting the 95 rule of the sixth ecumenical council, which tells them: “We will anoint the Nestorians” 256. XVIII. So, so far in this matter there are only incomplete information and difficulties. The arrival of Archimandrite Zephaniah will bring some more definite information in order to reliably determine what to do next. According to the written note of Archimandrite Zephaniah about the Nestorians, forwarded to me on September 17th (No. 6116), my thoughts are set out in the note also forwarded. October 3. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, A.P. Akhmatov, about incorrect judgments regarding church property contained in No. 37 of the Yaroslavl Diocesan Gazette Wisdom comes from Yaroslavl, which seems to open a new teaching and a new science: social-church-state economy. It supplies “church property among state property”: it only doubts which one should be given first place among the last. In a modest form of question, she puts forward the idea that church property hardly “constituted the exclusive property of the clergy.” This is not enough. She further says that church property “either belonged to the whole people, like the state, or to the people, like the church.” These proclamations would have done a particularly bad service to the church if they had been pronounced at a certain time, several months before this 258. These are printed in No. 37 of the Yaroslavl Diocesan Gazette, which is attached herewith. The same issue states that during the confiscation of church property, the clergy remained silent and did not protest “out of fear or other reasons.” The one who wrote this, apparently, did not suspect that in this case the clergy was governed by purer motives, respect for state power, patience, and adherence to the word of Christ: to the one who wants to take your robe, give it back and the sap. In the same issue, one cannot praise the following expressions that Empress Catherine carried out a “coup” “taking advantage of the displeasure of the guard against the Sovereign.” It seemed to me quite unnecessary for what was written here to be known to Your Excellency and the first member of the Holy Synod. October 17. Report to the Holy Synod of Metropolitan Philaret regarding the appointment of Hieromonk Sergius as builder to the Belopesotsky monastery The Office of the Holy Synod (dated September 24, No. 4796) demanded from the Moscow consistory information: whether Hieromonk Sergius was appointed builder of the Belopesotsky monastery by the election of the brethren, or was appointed by me due to some special respect, and whether additional representation on this matter should be expected from me. The consistory, not knowing my considerations and whether it should expect additional representation from me, of necessity, turned the questions of the synodal office to me. I believe that I will do the right thing if I give an answer not to the consistory, and not to the office of the Holy Synod, but directly to the Holy Synod, although the question was not addressed to me, and not from the Holy Synod. When I forwarded a note to the former Chief Prosecutor of the Most Holy Cr-node about the method of electing the abbots of cenobitic monasteries 260 (which, I believe, came to the attention of the Holy Synod): at the same time, I showed that not all cenobitic monasteries are able to act according to the new rules, but only those that are more comfortable in a spiritual sense, and a list of such monasteries was proposed to which the new rules should be applied for the first time. But in the decree of the Holy Synod on March 20, 1862, this distinction was not made. The Belopesotsky Monastery has 4 hieromonks and 7 monks, more or less approved in behavior. The other 2 hieromonks and 6 hierodeacons were all under trial and punishment, and for the most part were not completely approved in their behavior. The reason for the multiplication of these latter in this monastery is that, from time to time, faulty ones are transferred from other, especially city monasteries, to it for more convenient supervision. Obviously, such a composition of voters did not ensure election. Moreover, the eldest of the brethren, the treasurer and the sacristan, did not seem quite mature for the position of rector. In these circumstances, the closest candidate for this position seemed to be Hieromonk Sergius, a former member of the Belopesotsky brotherhood, who served with dignity as treasurer in the Vysotsky monastery: and I appointed him as a builder, based on the recollection of my above-mentioned note, and due to the lack of recollection that the meaning of this note was expanded by the decree of the Holy Synod. Now I put it to the consistory that it should, upon receiving my resolution on the appointment of Sergius as a builder, present me with a reminder of the contents of the decree of the Holy Synod on March 20 of this 1862; Moreover, he suggested that she continue to do so in the future, if any resolution had been given by me, given the lack of recollection of the law or the decree of the Holy Synod. No. 384. October 17, 1862 261 October 23. Report to the Holy Synod of Metropolitan Philaret with his opinion on the manuscript entitled: “Guide to the conduct of investigations in the spiritual department” Secretary of the Don Consistory Sambursky, dated September 22, 1851, No. 91, presented to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count N.A. Protasov, a report with newly drawn up rules for conducting investigations. The Holy Synod, at the suggestion of the Chief Prosecutor, dated October 9, 1851, No. 7071, the report of Secretary Sambursky, with the rules set out in it for conducting investigations, dated October 29/November 12, 1851, decided: “to be postponed until further indications are received on the need to issue such rules.” Following this, in 1853, March 17, for No. 1657, for the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, A.I. Karasevsky, in a proposal, reported the following to the Holy Synod: “Mr. The Minister of Public Education, forwarding to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod a manuscript entitled: “Guidelines in the conduct of investigations in the spiritual department”, received for consideration by the Moscow Censorship Committee, to ask for its return, to notify whether it can be admitted for publication.” The Holy Synod magazine, dated December 21, 1853, No. 41, decided: to forward the manuscript: “Guide to the conduct of investigations in the spiritual department” to Metropolitan Philaret and ask him to present to the Holy Synod his conclusion about the manuscript with its return. In pursuance of the decree, Metropolitan Philaret wrote: Report to the Most Holy Governing Synod, a member of it, Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow and Kolomna. By Decree of the Holy Synod, dated December 31, 1853, No. 14.542, with which the manuscript was transmitted under the title: “Guide to the conduct of investigations in the spiritual department,” I was ordered to consider it and present a conclusion on its merits. The purpose of printing guidelines for conducting investigations in the spiritual department can be no other than that investigators should be guided by them. But in its present form it is not capable of this, but requires correction; therefore, in its present form and should not be printed. Moreover, it would be more consistent with order if Archpriest Istomin presented the legislative leadership, which should be put into use in the ecclesiastical department, for consideration by the spiritual authorities, and not by passing them to the secular censorship. I most respectfully report this to the Holy Governing Synod with the return of the draft, and add comments on what is unsatisfactory in it. In the project entitled: “Guide to the conduct of investigations in the spiritual department,” compiled by Cathedral Archpriest Istomin, the following is subject to remark: I. In Article 2, the inaccuracy of the expression is visible: “with permission explained in the regulations.” II. Article 3 states that any investigation must be completed within a month. But the law on which this is based (Vol. 15, Art. 1014) applies to investigations of criminal offenses, which investigations are ordered to be completed within a month, without excluding Sundays and holidays. These investigations are carried out by officials of the civil department, who are actually sent for this purpose. But it is not always convenient to determine a monthly period for investigators of the ecclesiastical department, who have other responsibilities according to their rank, and also depending on the circumstances of the investigation. In relation to many, this matter would give an opportunity to delay for a month what can be done in a few days. It would be necessary to say: the investigation should be carried out as immediately as possible, under the responsibility of the investigator for unnecessary delay. III. Article 4. Incomplete. It must be said who the investigator can be. It is indecent for a deacon. As a precaution against reporting, an employee should be appointed to the investigator, at least in the most important cases. IV. Article 5. “And discover the justice of the denunciation”? Shouldn’t the injustice of denunciation be revealed? V. Article 7. There is a lack of definition when a secular official is needed and when not. VI. Article 8. It is not quite proper for a spiritual investigator to ask about the recusal of a secular official. VII. Article 12 of the manual states that upon presentation of a denunciation to the defendant, a period is assigned to him to give explanations in his own defense. Such an order is made in cases of litigation; but, when conducting investigations on the spiritual department, it is not convenient to allow this, but it is necessary (according to Article 184, volume XV, part 2, ed. 1857) and then take interrogation from the defendant on each point. VIII. Notes are added to Articles 12 and 13. But these are not notes, but the same rules as others. IX. Article 16. “Each according to his own faith.” Therefore, a Jew can be a witness against a priest and even in matters of the priestly office. We need to cope with the church rules. X. Article 18. “Witnesses presented in advance by the plaintiff shall be questioned.” And if the defendants’ witnesses appeared, but the plaintiffs did not appear, is it really possible to send the first ones away and take them away from the case another time? XI. Article 19 details how to question witnesses. Why is it not shown the same about the interrogation of the plaintiff and the defendant. XII. Article 21 must precede Article 20. XIII. Article 26. “In a special contribution.” Who will understand this? XIV. A general search is unreliable. People do not like to denounce and it happens that for a glass of wine they praise the bad, insulting and abusing the oath. When there are witnesses, it is better to avoid a general search. XV. According to Article 40 of the manual, the defendants and persons involved in the case are allowed to read the investigation, sign each sheet and explain in their signature whether they are satisfied or dissatisfied with the investigation and, if dissatisfied, then what exactly? It is necessary not only to give them freedom, but also to give the defendants the obligation, at the end of the investigations, to read them and take away their subscriptions, whether they are satisfied with the investigation or dissatisfied. If the defendant signs under the investigation that something incorrect or illegal has been admitted in it, or an omission has been made, and if the investigators find such an explanation of the defendant to be fair, then, according to his request, the incorrect information is corrected and the omission is supplemented, which addition the accused also signs. If for some reason he evades signing, and especially due to stubbornness, do not allow him to go further than 24 hours, so as not to delay the action of justice, and so that the investigators do not remain in vain on the spot; and after this time, having written about it in a journal, present it along with the research, where it will go, signed by those who were present at this research. XVI. When naming in Article 41 cases when someone is not allowed to testify under oath, it is omitted that schismatics in the affairs of the faithful are not accepted as witnesses. Regarding exemption from the oath, the expression “clergy” is not used quite accurately. Only clergy. Lower clerics take an oath. XVII. From the above it is clear that the project requires correction. Once corrected, it can be used in business. But it may not be unnecessary to hesitate and see how the ongoing transformation of the court into a civil department can be more explained. There, for example, deputies have been abolished: in this case, will it be convenient for the spiritual authorities to retain them? I consider it not superfluous to present to this Holy Synod the instruction on the production of investigations, which is used in the Moscow diocese. No. 387. October 23, 1862 The Holy Synod, by resolution of November 26/December 12, 1862, decided: to take note of the papers on this issue 262. November 5th. Report to the Holy Synod of Metropolitan Philaret on the consecration of Archimandrite Savva as Bishop of Mozhaisk To the Most Holy Governing Synod, from its member Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow. In pursuance of the decree of the Holy Synod, dated October 20, this year, No. 5176, the naming of the rector of the Moscow second-class Vysoko-Petrovsky monastery, rector of the Moscow Theological Academy, Archimandrite Savva 263, as bishop of Mozhaisk, in the synodal office took place 2 days this November, and 4 days, in the large Assumption Cathedral, by me and His Eminences: synodal member, Eugene Archbishop 264, Leonid 265, Bishop of Dmitrov and Nikanor 266, Bishop of Thebaid, he was ordained, Archimandrite Savva, Bishop of Mozhaisk. His Eminence Anthony 267 was invited, but did not attend for an unknown reason. Reporting this to the Holy Synod, I present herewith the bishop’s confession and promise, signed by the ordained and the ordained. No. 403. November 5, 1860 268 November 14. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, A.P. Akhmatov, regarding the proposed changes to the statutes of spiritual censorship In accordance with the attitude of Your Excellency, dated June 7, (No. 3481), I instructed the academic conference to present my thoughts on possible useful changes in the spiritual censorship regulations. Intensified studies at the academy, on the occasion of academic tests and revision of the essays of students who completed the academic course, were the reason that already at the end of September I was presented with an opinion on the censorship charter. While agreeing with the conference in most of its assumptions, I however came across some things with which I could not agree, and I had to say my opinion. And therefore I convey with this: A) An opinion on the statute of spiritual censorship, which was drawn up by two members of the conference, and with which the conference agreed. B) Consideration of this opinion, Consideration of the opinion of the conference on the statute of spiritual censorship Ι. The opinion requires that works on spiritual subjects assigned for classical use in secular schools, and assigned for this purpose in theological schools, in any subjects, be considered by the conference, and for theological schools it is decisively approved by itself, and for secular schools it is submitted for the permission of the Holy Synod. Therefore, a catechism will be presented, with a purpose for classical use: it will go to the conference; to present a theological system, without announcing such an appointment, it will go to the censorship committee. This is the wrong order. Present a theological system with the intention of being classical for the academy: the conference itself will approve it. To present sacred history for secular parish schools: the conference does not have the right to approve it itself, but must submit it for the permission of the Holy Synod. And this is the wrong order. Wouldn't it be better to separate the two reviews of the book for two different purposes: 1) Censorship, in relation to printing. 2) Administrative, in relation to the appointment in classical use? From here come the rules for the censorship committee: 1) All works of spiritual content are subject to consideration by the spiritual censorship committee in relation to their admission to print. 2) The Spiritual Censorship Committee, in the same regard, can consider works of non-spiritual content if they are intended to be used in theological schools. And for this it is necessary to include the following rules in the statutes of theological schools: 1) No work should be introduced into classical use in theological schools without the permission of the authorities. 2) Theological works assigned to academies and seminaries are allowed into classical use, after consideration in a conference, by the Holy Synod. 3) Others are considered and approved for classical use by the conference. ΙΙ. In the opinion of the conference, periodicals at theological academies are exempt from preliminary censorship, so that in case of violation of general rules on the press, the perpetrators are subject to liability before the Holy Synod. - This is unsatisfactory: Firstly, because it is not shown how the Holy Synod finds out about such violations of the law; he may not find out about this at all, or find out too late, while reprehensible thoughts will spread and publishers will not be stopped on their illegal path. Secondly, because it is inconvenient for the Holy Synod to be the first authority in such matters. Wouldn't it be safer to say the following: A copy of each issue of a periodical publication printed without prior censorship, immediately upon leaving the printing house, must be submitted to the censorship committee, which reviews it, and in the event of a violation of the law, depending on the importance of the matter, determines whether the publisher or editor should take precautions, or remove the editor, or stop publishing. The first of these decisions is carried out upon approval by the conference, and the last two only with the permission of the Holy Synod. ΙΙΙ. The opinion states that it is up to the censor to decide whether to allow the manuscript to be published before publication, and it is added: “In the event of an appeal by the author, the manuscript must be “submitted to the committee to draw up a detailed review of it, based on the censor’s comments.” It is not shown here where the appeal, usually submitted to a higher authority, should be filed, and how it will come back to the committee to which it was filed? And who in the committee will draw up a detailed review based on the censor’s comments? Wouldn't the following be more correct: If the censor does not approve the manuscript for publication, and those wishing to publish it express this displeasure and ask the committee to consider it in the full meeting, in this case the censor writes a detailed review about it, showing the reasons for the prohibition, and the committee, after consideration in the full meeting, confirms or changes the decision of the censor. IV. The opinion is supposed to include in the statute that “the censor is not responsible for the accuracy or incorrectness of the translation.” This partly goes without saying. Failure to include this, which is not specified in the rules of the law, can weaken the vigilance of the censor, to the detriment of the case. A more limited rule like this may be adopted: The censor is not obliged to monitor the accuracy of the translation in all its parts. But if a translation, especially of any writing of the holy father, distorts the thoughts of the original, makes them confusing and unintelligible, or the incorrectness of the translation weakens and damages the dogmatic or moral teaching of the original: then the censor is obliged to pay attention to this and not allow such a translation to be published. V. The opinion expresses dissatisfaction with the fact that the censorship committee is obliged to check a printed book with an approved manuscript, and adds that “the censor in this case also becomes a proofreader or proofreader.” This is said harshly, but incorrectly. The proofreader, or what is the same as a reference agent, looks after letters and punctuation marks, and the censor looks after dogmatic and moral thoughts. If you leave this matter to publishers and printers, there will be cases when they print what they want, contrary to the judgment of the censor; and books that have not been cleared will go to the public, to their detriment and to criticism of censorship itself. The Committee requires a special official for this matter. But it is inconvenient for one to continually glance from the words of the manuscript to the words of the printed book. The matter is partly made easier by the fact that the printer is afraid that he will be forced to reprint the sheets. Have two scribes sit down and indicate which chapters of the book especially need to be followed. One will read the manuscript, the other will look at the book and make comments against dissimilar words. The censor will reconsider these comments when reading the file. If things multiply, it will be necessary to add a clerk. VI. The opinion stipulates that the extraordinary censors for timely publications in dioceses should submit monthly and annual reports to the diocesan bishop. To communicate censorship matters, it is better that they (the censors) submit reports in two copies: one to the diocesan bishop, and the other to the censorship committee of the ecclesiastical educational district in which the diocese is located. Other changes to the censorship statute proposed in the opinion meet the needs. November 11, 13 and 14, 1862 269 November 20. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, A.P. Akhmatov, with an opinion about the book: “A Brief Outline of Orthodox Dogmatic Theology”, Bishop Macarius of Vinnitsa The Holy Synod, by decree of December 9, 1853, forwarded to Metropolitan Philaret, presented in manuscript by the St. Petersburg Committee of Spiritual Censorship, the work of the Most Reverend Bishop of Vinnitsa, Macarius, entitled: “A Brief Outline of Orthodox Dogmatic Theology,” with the instruction to examine the work and present his conclusion to the Holy Synod on its merits, with the return of the manuscript. Following this, the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count N.A. Protasov, in a letter to Metropolitan Philaret, dated December 12, 1853, wrote: “The Holy Synod along with this forwards for the consideration of your Eminence, in manuscript, received from the local spiritual censorship committee, the work of the Right Reverend Bishop Macarius of Vinnitsa: "A Brief Outline of Orthodox Dogmatic Theology." “On this occasion, I consider it my duty to warn you, dear sir and archpastor, that with such an order it was meant not just censorship of the said manuscript for publication, but the highest assessment of the work in a classical sense. “Until 1848, in the absence of a sufficient printed educational manual for this part, it was, of necessity, replaced both in theological seminaries and in secular educational institutions by various notes from the teachers themselves. To eliminate this inconvenience, the Holy Synod allowed the introduction into classical use in seminaries (and subsequently in higher institutions of the Ministry of Public Education), then published in the first edition, of the Orthodox dogmatic theology of the rector of the Kyiv Theological Academy, Archimandrite Anthony, pending the publication of another, better work of its kind. It would be highly desirable that what is now being transmitted to your Eminence, which is an abbreviation of a lengthy dogmatic theology already published in five volumes, turns out to be such. But, taking into account that it is unlikely that a third, even more satisfactory guide will appear soon, and that therefore it may be necessary for a long time to confine ourselves to this book for teaching theology to youth of all educated classes. The Holy Synod could not help but subject it to your experienced and enlightened gaze, dear sir and archpastor, and ask for your strict and impartial consideration of it, in the confidence that, corrected according to your comments, it will appear for the common benefit in a form more worthy of such an important appointment.” Metropolitan Philaret, in reference on November 20, 1862, forwarded A.P. to Chief Prosecutor. Akhmatov has his own opinion about the book. By Decree of the Holy Synod, dated December 9, 1853, No. 103, I was ordered to consider: A brief outline of Orthodox theology, the work of the Right Reverend Macarius, Bishop of Vinnitsa, now Kharkov, and present a conclusion. In the first lines of this essay I encountered the need to disagree with the author, and was stopped at the beginning of the matter, and, burdened with years and studies, could not soon return to this. Now returning the manuscript, I enclose my thoughts about it in a special note. About the book: “A Brief Outline of Orthodox Dogmatic Theology”, Macarius, Bishop of Vinnitsa 1. The book begins with a definition of theology. The first lines arouse bewilderment. In the definition of theology, can the concept of God be omitted? But he is not here; and it is said: “dogmatic theology is the doctrine of Christian dogmas” ... thus the proper and essential concept of theology, of course, to the detriment of a clear presentation of the subject for students, is supplanted by the further concept of dogma. Moreover, the concept of dogma is not explained here either by the meaning of the word or by its historical origin. II. The “Inscription” in its entire content represents an abbreviation of the lengthy dogmatic theology of the same author. The lengthy theology was preceded by the publication of a special book, the extensive “Introduction to Theology,” which included important theological treatises on the divinity of the Christian religion, on St. Scripture and St. legends. Thus, the absence of these treatises in the author’s extensive theology is understandable. But the omission of these in the “Inscription” is completely incomprehensible. This deficiency should be addressed in the seminar course manual. III. The outline is not only an abbreviation of extensive theology, but also a literal extract from it. It is difficult to imagine that a harmonious and coherent educational book could be compiled in this way. Lengthy theology is replete with passages of St. scriptures and patristic testimonies, presents considerations of reason about the dogmas of faith, and also sets out their history. In the "Inscription" the history of dogmas and considerations of reason are omitted; Regarding the passages of scripture and the testimonies of the fathers, the clearest and most decisive choice is not visible, but only those standing after others are omitted, and those standing in extensive theology before others are used, although not always the most important ones. The outline of the subjects in the “Inscription” is retained in all its vastness, characteristic of lengthy theology, but is not quite suitable for a short outline. Even transitions from one chapter to another, from one section to another, more or less necessary in a lengthy presentation of the subject, were for the most part included in the “Inscription”. A brief outline of science should present what is essential in science, stated clearly and positively. IV. If you want the educational book to be as perfect as possible, it is permissible not to leave without comment in the “Inscription” the external uniformity with which the dogmas are presented; while the Divine revelation itself about other objects of our faith imparts to us greater knowledge, about others less, in accordance with the need for this knowledge for human salvation. Also, both the Church and the Holy Fathers, in their exposition of faith, do not speak at equal length about all dogmas, but at greater length about those that require more than this. This should be the attitude of a theologian to the dogmas of faith. The direction towards external uniformity can constrain the presentation of objects that are full of content and expand the presentation of objects that do not require this in their essence. The “Inscription” seems to be in a hurry in presenting the doctrine of St. Trinity, about the face of the Savior. But, of course, it is not in vain that out of the twelve members of the Creed, six actually speak about the second person of St. Trinity. V. If the thoughts proposed here are not rejected, and some revision of the “Inscription” is not refused, then let it be allowed to also propose that when drawing up arguments for any truth or resolving a question, considerable attention should be paid to whether a certain thought has a strictly dogmatic meaning, or whether it owes its origin to free pious contemplation, or whether there is only a moral application of dogma; and so that, accordingly, each thought is accepted in its own measure of strength and is expressed with the accuracy characteristic of it, so that the vague expression of one truth does not cast a shadow on another. Here's an example. “The Inscription,” in § 95, speaking about the reasons why the Savior did not come to earth soon, offers, among other things, the following explanation: “it was necessary for a sinful person to first go through a long series of purification and sanctification in the host of patriarchs and all the holy men of V.Z. saints, God the Word." Here, there is a true thought, if this saying is attributed to the forefathers and fathers included in the line of the genealogy of Christ. But the vague expression: “sinful humanity” gives this saying too broad a meaning, from which doubt arises about the relationship of this thought to the doctrine of original sin, and to the experience that the mass of “sinful humanity” at the time of the coming of Christ was falling more and more morally. The expression “series of purification and sanctification” can also lead to misunderstandings. Nearby is a set of objects continuously following one after another. Purification and sanctification are not a series. Forefathers and fathers also do not constitute a continuous series of those being purified; This series is sometimes stopped by those in whom there is no purification, such as Ahaz and Amnon. VI. "The Inscription" may be a useful guide for a seminar course: but for this it seems unnecessary to take into account the thoughts proposed here and to use some labor of revision 270. November 26. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, A.P. Akhmatov, on awarding the rector of the Moscow Theological Academy, Archpriest A.V. Gorsky, with a miter The rector of the Moscow Theological Academy, Archpriest Alexander Gorsky, was brought to this position by thirty years of academic service, edifying the emerging youth with sound teaching and good example. His writings brought him honorable fame beyond the circle of the ecclesiastical department. Several bishops are his former disciples. Therefore, according to justice, he can be decorated with one of the highest distinctions for the white clergy - the miter. The fact that, having a subordinate inspector-archimandrite as a subordinate, the rector-archpriest must occupy the highest place before him in church meetings, also encourages us not to postpone this idea, but there has never been an example of an archpriest who does not have a miter occupying a higher place than the archimandrite. On this occasion, please deign to appear before the most pious Sovereign Emperor. The track record of the rector of the academy, Archpriest Gorsky, is attached. No. 429. November 26, 1862 271 December 18. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to Prince S. N. Urusov regarding the request of the peasants of the village of Rakhmanova, Bogorodsky district, to transfer them from the parish of Pavlovsky Posad to the parish of the newly built church in the village of Mary Your Excellency, dear sir. In response to your Excellency, dated July 9, this year, No. 4340, with the forwarding of a list of the Mr. Minister of State Property to you, the presentation to this ministry of the Moscow Chamber of State Property and the petition of the peasants of the Bogorodsky district, the village of Rakhmanova, to transfer them from the parish of Pavlovsky Posad to the parish of the newly built church in the village of Mere, with the return of these attachments, I have the honor to answer that the consistory to which I entrusted I considered this case in my opinion: 1) as the petition of the peasants of the village of Rakhmanova, to transfer them from the parish of the Pavlovsky settlement to the parish of the newly built church in the village of Mere, there are no new and valid circumstances that the diocesan authorities did not have in mind when making their decision on this case, on November 3, 1861, set out in the submission to Mr. Minister of the Moscow Chamber of State Property; 2) the petition of the Moscow Chamber of State Property in favor of the peasants of the village of Rakhmanova, on this subject, on the basis that parishes should be established in accordance with the needs of parishioners, and not parishioners distributed among the parishes, according to the states approved by the consistory, is refuted by the fact derived in the same decision of the diocesan authorities that the peasants of the village of Rakhmanova, from the time the case began, building a church in the village of Mere, from 1857 to December 28, 1861, for 4 years they did not raise their objections to the distribution of the parish, according to states, between the newly built church in the village of Mary and the three-set church of Pavlovsky Posad, and consequently, if the distribution of these states in this way they did not recognize as consistent with their needs, they could have declared this to the authorities during the approval of the states, and not after 4 years. Therefore, and on the basis of Art. 282. 11 volumes of the Holy Order. citizen Part I (ed. 1857), according to which no judicial authority can cancel its own decision, the request of the peasants of the village of Rakhmanova to transfer them from the parish of Pavlovsky Posad to the parish of the village of Meri is left unsatisfied. I also agreed with this opinion of the consistory. With perfect respect and the same devotion, I have the honor to be, Your Excellency, dear sir, most humble servant, No. 470. December 18, 1862 272 December 19. Metropolitan Philaret’s opinion “on the insurance of wooden churches” The comrade of the Minister of State Property to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, dated September 23, 1862, No. 1438, wrote: “the manager of the Saratov Chamber of State Property brought to the attention of the Ministry that in the villages of state peasants in the Saratov province, mostly wooden churches were built, which during fires are often endangered or completely destroyed, along with peasant buildings; that the restoration of burnt churches, due to the significant high cost of timber in the province and the insolvency of the peasants affected by the fire, turns out to be so difficult that the peasants mostly limit themselves to setting up houses of worship instead of churches for an indefinite period of time; and, meanwhile, such a separation of peasants from the church of God often has a harmful influence in religious terms on them, especially in places where Orthodox villages are surrounded by inveterate schismatics of harmful sects - and that therefore, in order to eliminate the stated inconveniences, the manager of the chamber asks to make it mandatory to insure all wooden churches in state-owned villages, in private insurance companies, with the costs of insuring them being allocated, by mutual agreement with diocesan authorities, at church funds, or at the expense of parishioners.” Without denying on my part the benefits of implementing the stated measure, I, before discussing this issue, have the honor to report the above at the discretion of your Excellency, humbly asking you, dear sir, to honor me with your review on this subject. About insurance of wooden churches It is known that there are some who are sincerely devoted to the Orthodox faith who refrain from insuring property as if it were a sin, reasoning that this lacks complete faith in the Providence of God, and that man, through his art, wants to prevent the Providence of God from subjecting him to a test of patience devoid of wealth. This way of thinking is too strict in relation to civil property, but not inappropriate in relation to a wooden church, and one may fear that insuring a wooden church will make an unpleasant and, as it were, seductive impression on some good and pious souls. Therefore, the solution to the issue could be as follows: The Holy Synod, having taken into consideration, firstly, that both in the creation and in the preservation of churches it is proper to place trust in the Providence of God, which is justified by the experiences of the church building begun with the most insufficient means and successful completion; secondly, that many rural churches, due to the meager income, cannot have sums sufficient for insurance, according to the assessment. 1) allow insurance of only wooden church buildings, without touching internal consecrated objects, where the clergy and parishioners do not recognize this as doubtful. 2) To use the church purse money for this, where this can be allowed without constraint in meeting the essential needs of the church, and where this amount is meager, then make up the amount required for this from special offerings from parishioners for this, according to their zeal. The Holy Synod, by its resolution dated June 13/August 13, 1864, among other things, recognized compulsory insurance of rural wooden parish churches in private fire insurance companies as difficult and unprofitable, providing, however, insurance of church buildings where possible, at the voluntary request of the clergy and parishioners, which, by resolution dated March 26/April 16, this year 1864, was provided by Mr. Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod to notify the Minister of State Property 273. December 24. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to Metropolitan Isidore of Novgorod and St. Petersburg, with feedback regarding the newly established committee for ensuring the life of the clergy 274 His Eminence Metropolitan Isidore in his letter, congratulating the Moscow saint on the holiday of “the Nativity of our Lord Jesus Christ and the coming new summer of the goodness of the Lord” and reporting on the magnificent meeting made in St. Petersburg by Their Majesties, wrote: “the committee on the clergy will open after the new year. The announcement followed repeated reminders from His Majesty. It was difficult to fear that the raised hopes might not be fulfilled due to the paucity of public finances. But on the other hand, murmurs from the clergy were heard, as if the spiritual authorities did not want to take care of improving his condition. The secularists intensified this murmur, placing all the blame on the bishops. Therefore, it was necessary to choose some path, and at least make it known that the work had begun, and if the consequences did not justify the work, it was not the spiritual authorities who were to blame. However, the Minister of Finance told Valuev that money would be allocated for the western region. The Holy Synod was included in the committee, in the hope that the majority of votes will always remain on its side, and that fewer errors can be expected than with the reasoning of two or three members. Issues will first be discussed in home meetings, without secular members. Expanding the program, I hope, is unacceptable. The secular ones really have some kind of ulterior motive, because in the newspapers the expression “civil rights of the clergy” is replaced by the words “legal rights of the clergy.” There is no doubt that the secular receive suggestions from our good clergy, who are burdened with submission to hierarchical authority. However, it is my duty to notify you in detail about the progress of this matter. The Moscow ruler responded to this. From lack of strength, I shut myself up in my cell, but at the same time I find time to write to you. When I read in the reports about the new committee, it seemed doubtful to me that the entire Holy Synod was involved in it. If several clergy, synodal and non-synodal, had joined it, and if they had made concessions to other people’s opinions, not entirely favorable to the church, the Holy Synod would still have been in reserve to protect church benefits. Now you will fight without a reserve behind you. May the Lord grant you victorious strength. Is it helpful that the committee published it? This will arouse expectations that one can hardly hope to fully satisfy, and already arouses reasoning beyond the limits that may tempt the committee itself to go beyond the limits set for it. The Russian Church carefully expects from you foresight and firmness, so that outside influence does not extend to matters that essentially belong to it. It would be good to know how things are going with you regarding the Sinai Bible. Here, so that the matter does not take too long, a comparison of its text is made with the generally accepted text in the entire Gospel of Matthew and in various special places in other sacred books. It is necessary that this matter be thoroughly considered; and so that nothing should be hastily written and published or sent to the east 275 . It is necessary to speak with the East carefully and with clear conviction: firstly, because there are no people there who have sufficiently learned knowledge of the matter in question, and secondly, because there will easily be people there who are ready to judge others from high, to temptation and disruption of the peace. So I think: judge by the best court 276. The most submissive submission to the Sovereign Emperor, Metropolitan Philareti, on leaving in the previous position the control and storage of funds of the spiritual department The issue of transferring the capital of various departments to the state treasury has already been raised several times. In the past, when various capitals were transferred to the treasury, the amounts of the Holy Synod were left inviolable, at its full disposal, but now the repair and pension capital of the spiritual department has already been transferred to the state treasury; other church capitals were determined to be subject to the same rules, with the amounts of other ministries, that is, included in estimates, for consideration in the state council and for verifying the correctness of their use. It is proposed that even the receipt of fees from the ecclesiastical department be transferred directly to the district treasuries. Thus, the sums of the spiritual department, made up of donations to the church from the zeal of Orthodox Christians, will be completely merged or mixed with the worldly sources of state revenue. Having repeatedly outlined, in all details, all the inconveniences and all the incorrectness of such a confusion, I accept the courage to present to the august attention of Your Imperial Majesty some other, more general considerations. 1) Russia is the only state in Europe in which both the government and the people fully recognize that “there is no power except from God.” The sovereign receives all his legitimacy from church anointing, from which it follows that the position of the church and its relationship to autocratic power is not similar to the position of the churches in Catholic and Protestant states, and for this alone it is impossible for us, indiscriminately, to adopt from foreign states improvements in the affairs of administration in matters relating to the church. 2) The Russian Church, since the reforms of Peter I, has been considered by all its ill-wishers (including schismatics) to be enslaved by secular power; but until now the majority of the Russian people did not give faith to this, precisely because there were no outside intermediaries between the representative of the patriarch, i.e., the Holy Synod and the Sovereign. The most important thing is that the internal church administration remained not subordinate to the control and state council, it showed the independence of the church and elevated it in the eyes of the people, and the anointed king himself was, as it were, a natural, natural defender of the church. The intervention of outside ministers and entire departments between the Synod and the Sovereign will certainly appear as distrust of the tsarist authorities in the church and disunity between them. 3) From this it is clear that the question of the finances of the church has a close connection with the most fundamental foundations of autocracy in Russia. The implementation of the assumptions of the commissions will give the enemies and detractors of the Russian Church a dangerous weapon against it, will have the most unfavorable and harmful echo in Europe and the East and other very disastrous consequences, the extent of which is even impossible to determine now. As a result of this, in accordance with the duty of the oath, I make it my sacred duty to seek the highest command of Your Imperial Majesty, so that the control and storage of the funds of the ecclesiastical department are left in the same position, and that the issue of them is not raised in the discussions of the State Council on control over other departments. 277 From a handwritten draft original, kept. in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory No. 107, document. No. 6. Vladimir (Alyavdin), from September 26. 1836 Bishop of Kostroma; from November 14, 1842 archbishop. Tobolsk; passed away May 20, 1845 It's a matter of office. Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, 1861, No. 68. Now the rector of the spiritual mission in Jerusalem. From a handwritten draft original, kept. in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory No. 65, document. Nos. 1 and 2. Case of chancellor. Ober-provur.. of the Holy Synod, 1862, No. 2. From a handwritten draft original, kept. in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory No. 59, document. No. 7. A copy of this document is available in the collection of papers of Metropolitan Philaret, kept. in the Bible S.-Pb. D.Ak., L. 201. From a handwritten draft original, written by the hand of the Metropolitan on the very relation, keeping. in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory No. 28, document. No. 5. Since February 22, 1866, abbot of the stauropegial Simonov Monastery. Anthony (Radonezhsky), upon his dismissal from the administration of the Orenburg diocese, on March 6, 1862, was appointed a member of the Moscow synodal office, with the management of the stauropegial Resurrection (New Jerusalem) monastery. Varlaam (Prince Eristov), ​​from July 8, 1811, Metropolitan of Mtskheta, Exarch of Georgia; On May 14, 1817, he was dismissed from management and summoned to the Synod; 1825 dismissed from presence in the Synod, with the provision of management of the Moscow Danilov Monastery; Died on December 18, 1830. It's a matter of office. St. Synod, 1862, No. 2834/1, no. 10. There is nothing allocated for bread and food for monks in regular monasteries. And only in the 65th state, for example, the first-class monastery, New Jerusalem, which has an archimandrite, 32 monks, and an indefinite number of novices, it is said: in general to the authorities for visitors and holidays and for fish for the brethren, 57 rubles. 12 kopecks, for wine 51 rubles 42 kopecks, for beer 20 rubles. For firewood for churches and all buildings of a first-class monastery, 85 rubles. 71 k. From the collection of papers of Metropolitan Philaret, stored in St. Petersburg. Theological Academy, L.G. 223–231. The original draft opinion is kept in Moscow. Dukhov Acad., package No. 3, document. No. 64. Major General Alexei Petrovich Akhmatov was appointed by the highest decree to the post of Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, February 28, 1862. Case of the chancellor. chief proc. St. Synod, 1862, No. 71 and from copies kept. in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory No. 41, document. Nos. 2, 3. Gave the office. Chief Prosecutor St. Synod, 1862, No. 87, l. 3. Brave, black man who lived in the 10th century. With original, keeping in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory No. 104, document. No. 1. Of course, Innocent (Borisov), Archbishop of Kherson (†1857). From a handwritten draft original, kept. in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory No. 104, document. No. 2. Case of the Office of the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, 1862, No. 103. Case office. chief proc. St. Synod, 1862, No. 87, pp. 14–17. From a handwritten draft original, kept. in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory No. 81, document. No. 10. Case of the chancellor. St. Synod, 1862, No. 308. About Metropolitan Neophyte, see Volume III of this edition, page 211, note. 2. From a handwritten draft original, kept. in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory No. 7, document. No. 1–3. These proclamations were published in the XXI part. Add. to the works of St. fathers, 1862 It's a matter of office. Chief Prosecutor St. Synod, 1862, No. 81, pp. 34–38. From a copy on which the month, day and year are written in Metropolitan Philaret’s own hand, keeping. in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory No. 3; document No. 1. The text has been amended according to the list of edits at the end of the volume. – Editorial of the ABC of Faith. From a copy, storing in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory No. 104, document. Nos. 8 and 9. Tyne. owls A. V. Golovnin. The notes were compiled by: Savva, rector of the academy, prot. Peter Delitsyn, prot. A.V. Gorsky and prof. Viktor Kudryavtsev-Platonov; the notes, as they do not belong to the pen of Metropolitan Philaret, do not fit here. It's a matter of office. Holy Synod, 1862, No. 1324. From a handwritten black original, kept. in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory No. 74; document Nos. 22 and 23. It's a matter of office. St. Synod, 1862, No. 4344. From the work now being carried out in the consistory, at the request of the Ascension monastic clergy, it is clear that the priest receives a salary of 107 rubles. 50 kopecks, and the consistory on May 29 determined to fill three vacancies in this clergy in order to help the remaining members of the onago; and, in addition, ask for an increase in salaries from the Holy Synod. It's a matter of office. Chief Prosecutor St. Synod, 1862, No. 175. About Deacon Palmer, see Part of this edition, page 47, note. 1. From a copy, corrected and supplemented by the hand of the Metropolitan, kept. in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory No. 85, document. No. 12. Copies of this document are available in the collection of papers of Metropolitan Philaret, kept. in S.-Pb. d.a., ll. 185–194. See also the case of Chancellor. Chief Prosecutor St. Synod, 1861, No. 327. This Metropolitan is talking about his parent, a priest of the Trinity Church in the city of Kolomna. From the papers of Metropolitan. Philaret, keeping in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory No. 93. Archbishop Demetrius († 1883). From a copy, corrected by the hand of the Metropolitan, kept. in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory No. 93, document. No. 1. In monasticism, Paul. From 13th Oct. 1868 Bishop of Totemsky, vicar of the Vologda dioceses († 1874) From a handwritten draft original, kept. in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory No. 113; document No. 19; and the work of spiritual and educational management. at the Holy Synod, 1862, No. 2086. Candidate's case Holy Synod, 1862, No. 2762. See below, No. 677. With own black pod., storage in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory No. 71, doc. No. 2. The Metropolitan was in the Savvinsky Zvenigorod monastery at this time on the occasion of the consecration of the skete newly founded at this monastery. It's a matter of office. St. Synod, 1862, No. 2883, pp. 4–6, 15. Arseny (Moskvin), † 1876 A. V. Golovnin, later. Member of the State Council, deceased. November 3, 1886 From a handwritten black original, kept. in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory No. 52, document. No. 9. Copies of the opinion on rural schools were not preserved in the file. Probably Metropolitan. Filaret talks about denunciation. to his Holy Synod, dated June 9, 1850, printed. in III volume, this edition, No. 347, pp. 358–369. Here you may come across the idea that the clergy should stand above material calculations. This is true. Not everyone achieves this: and the reluctance of nature should not be unnecessarily reinforced with natural encouragements, just as the Apostle gave instructions to Timothy, so that “elders who practice goodness will be granted special honor.” Moreover, the point is not that, out of envy or self-interest, seeking comparison with others in favors and rewards, but that poverty prevents the priest from sufficiently providing for the maintenance of the family, providing himself with benefits to enhance his education, and providing assistance to others in similar ways, and thus weakens his jealousy and energy. Note tr. Philareta. Part XXI, 1862, pp. 165–180. The article belongs to N. Gilyarov-Platonov. The proposal to the censorship committee is published following this one. From a copy corrected by the hand of Metropolitan Philaret, kept. in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory No. 52, document. Nos. 4 and 5. From a handwritten draft original, storage. in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory No. 52, document. No. 7. Case Moscow, spiritual. censored Committee, 1862, No. 9; by hand authentic stored in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory No. 52, document. No. 7. See about him above, page 3, note. 1. It's a matter of office. St. Synod, 1862, No. 2779, l. 1, Now the archbishop. Tver and Kashinsky. It's a matter of office. overt-procurator. St. Synod, 1862, No. according to architect. 257 and the matter of spiritual and educational. management, 1862, No. 2143. Sophonia (Sokolsky), master of the VII course of the St. Petersburg Doctoral Academy. From 1848 to 1855, rector of the embassy churches in Constantinople and Rome; from March 13, 1863, Bishop of Novomirgorod, vicar of the Kherson diocese; from November 12, 1871, Bishop of Turkestan and Tashkent, d. 1877 in the rank of archbishop (Memories of him in Soul. Thursday, 1884). only now. Note Metropolitan Philaret. Edeali. Note Metropolitan Philaret. Archbishop Eusebius (Ilyinsky), deceased. 1879, at the Tver department. A.P. Tolstoy, Prosecutor of the Holy Synod. This is what you need. Note from Metropolitan Philaret. Not very much. Note from Metropolitan Philaret. So in the Slavic helmsman; but in the book of rules there is no mention of confirmation. From a handwritten draft original, kept. in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory No. 4, document. Nos. 1–5. See above, No. 650, pp. 231–238, opinion and. Philaret on the property of the Orthodox Church. From a copy, storing in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory No. 107, document. No. 7. It's a matter of office. St. Synod, 1862, No. 2762, pp. 1–4. See above, no. 668. Instructions on conducting investigations in the ecclesiastical department, used in the Moscow diocese,” is stored on ll. 21–24, office affairs. St. Synod, 1851, No. 2924. Now the archbishop. Tver and Kashinsky. Evgeniy (Kazantsev), archbishop. Yaroslavl, retired with the management of the Don monastery and with the title of member of the Holy Synod; mind. July 27, 1871 Leonid, see about him above, page 3, note. 1. Bishop Nikanor, who was in Moscow to collect offerings in favor of the distressed Alexandrian patriarchal throne, was elected and elevated to this patriarchal throne in 1866. Anthony (Radonezh) former bishop of Orenburg; from March 1862 member of the Moscow Synodal Office. Case of the chancellor. St. Synod, 1862, No. 2779, l. 24. From a handwritten draft original, from the papers of Metropolitan Philaret, stored in the Moscow diocesan library, dep. III, pp. 140–146. Rel. to the chief prosecutor was written in the metropolitan’s own hand, and the opinion about the book was in an unknown handwriting, but corrected only in the metropolitan’s own hand. The indicated documents. stored in assembled boom. Metropolitan Philaret in Moscow diocesan libr., dept. III. yal. 55–62. The matter is spiritual and educational. management at the Holy Synod, 1862, No. 2153. It's a matter of office. Chief Prosecutor St. Synod, 1862, No. according to architect. 165, no. 3. From an autograph, keeping. in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory No. 72, document. No. 1; case of the Holy Synod, 1862, No. 1134. On the letter of Metropolitan Isidore of Novgorod and St. Petersburg, the hand of Metropolitan Philaret is marked: “Dec. 24,” but the year is not indicated on the letters of both metropolitans. The highest order on the composition of a special presence of spiritual and secular, which was entrusted with finding ways to better ensure the life of the clergy, took place on July 28, 1862, and the presence opened its meetings in January, 1863. See “Overview of general legal provisions on the content of Orthodoxy.” parish clergy in Russia". St. Petersburg, 1867, pp. 110–114. The Sinaitic copy of the Bible, in Greek, which is discussed here, was opened in 1859, in the Sinai monastery, by Professor of the University of Leipzig K. Tischendorff, who traveled at the expense and under the patronage of the Russian government to the east, for the collection of ancient manuscripts, and published under the patronage of the Sovereign Emperor, under the title: Bibliorum codex Sinaiticus, 1862, Tom. I–IV. The writing of this manuscript dates back, according to Tischendorf, to the 4th century. A comparison of the text of the said manuscript with the generally accepted text, as the Metropolitan writes, was made by Professor Moscow. d. acad. Archimandrite Michael and published in Add. to the works of St. fathers (Part XXI, pp. 167–223). From a copy, storing in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory No. 79, document. Nos. 27 and 28. From the collection of papers of Metropolitan. Philaret, stored in St. Petersburg. spirit. acad., ll. 233–236.