25 февраля. Письмо митрополита Филарета к митрополиту новгородскому и с.-петербургскому Исидору, с приложением записки о иконе тысячелетия России

Your Eminence Bishop, gracious archpastor. The duty of protecting Orthodox icon painting from innovations, incorrect and subject to harmful interpretations, prompts me to bring to the attention of your Eminence the attached note - about the icon of the millennium of Russia. With utmost respect and devotion, I have the honor to be your Eminence, most humble servant, Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow No. 22. February 25, 1863 Attached to the letter was a note with the following content: “About the icon of the Millennium of Russia” The general, Mr. Bashutsky 294, arrived in Moscow in the garb of a novice, having with him an icon composed by him, and approved by the spiritual censorship in St. Petersburg, in memory of the millennium of Russia. He intends to collect funds to multiply copies of this icon and place them in churches. This icon requires prudent attention. I. Icons, according to the rules of the Orthodox Church, are painted historically. The incarnate Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, appeared on earth: and as they saw him, so they painted his icon. He was crucified: and just as his crucifixion is described in the Gospel, so the icon of his crucifixion is written. It was St. Andrew in the church has a vision of the Mother of God, overshadowing the church and standing in it with Her protection: this is how the icon of the Intercession of the Mother of God is written. Symbolic images of the lion, calf, and eagle on the icons of the evangelists were also accepted, but not at the discretion of the icon painters, but borrowed from the Apocalypse. II. If, contrary to this, everyone was allowed, at will, to compose an icon from various sacred objects, and thereby express some kind of their own idea: then, with the spread of this arbitrariness, it could easily happen that in order to express the desired idea, sacred objects would be placed in the icon incongruously with their essential character, and that the civil icon would sometimes become part of the sacred icon, even becoming dominant in it; and from this a significant inconsistency would arise, because the sacred icon is placed in the church for worship, and the civil idea should not be the subject of worship, no matter how sublime. III. The composition of the icon composed by Mr. Bashutsky (as much as can be recalled from a brief review) includes the following features. At the very foot of the picture is a stone on which is written the Divine name: Jesus. Above it is a layer of stone on which the names of the apostles are written. Above this there is another layer on which are the names of the ecumenical councils. From here, along the bottom and along the edges of the icon, the roots extend to the top. According to the writer’s interpretation, these are the foundations and roots of Orthodoxy. But, after this icon is placed in churches, there will be no interpreter with it: but won’t it seem strange to a simple pious viewer that the venerated name: Jesus is placed below the names of the apostles and ecumenical councils, at the very foot of the picture? The symbol of the roots will not be understandable because it is placed incongruously with nature. In nature, roots do not ascend through the air, but descend down into the ground. IV. Close above the line on which the ecumenical councils are written, there is a small, in a special section, picture, under which is written: Liberation of the peasants. Such a formulation of the idea of ​​liberating the peasants, close to the idea of ​​​​the founding of Christianity, does not represent the harmony of ideas. V. Above the middle of the picture is a half-length image of Christ the Savior; on the sides, somewhat lower, are the same images of the Mother of God and St. Nicholas, and between them, in the middle, the Russian state emblem, a double-headed eagle; Below him is an image of the holy noble prince Alexander Nevsky. Without a doubt, the compiler of the picture gave the Russian coat of arms such an important and prominent place in the picture in order to give the icon national significance. But even for a well-disposed Orthodox Christian, placing the coat of arms in the most prominent place in the picture, between the images of the Mother of God and St. Nicholas, will seem unusual and incompatible with reverence for holy icons. But such an icon can make an even more unfavorable impression on schismatics, who, in everything that is church-Orthodox, but unusual, as much as ignorantly, just as ill-intentionedly, try to look for something reprehensible. And those of them who have long dreamed of seeing the kingdom of Antichrist in the church and in the state, of course, will not fail to use this picture to find in it the deification of the Russian eagle, and thereby confirm their absurd, equally harmful teaching among their ignorant brethren. Based on all of the above, would it not be considered appropriate that the said icon, while it has not yet been reproduced and distributed, should be subjected to careful examination and, where necessary, correction? February 25. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, A.P. Akhmatov, about a letter from an unknown person, in German, about naming Emperor Alexander II the Great Your Excellency, dear sir. These days I received a letter from the St. Petersburg post office, in German, which I do not know. As if by a premonition, I instructed the humble translator not to reveal the contents of the letter to anyone. It is my duty to forward this mysterious German letter, its translation and the note written about it. If we look for a solution to the riddle, then, in my opinion, we will inevitably encounter the question: are they not setting April 10 for some kind of popular demonstration, in the spirit of the proclamations that have already appeared from underground more than once, and do they want to deceive the church and the clergy into interfering with it, in order to deceive the people all the more? May the Lord give vigilance to the guards of the house to prevent those attempting to undermine the house. Invoking God's blessing upon you, with perfect respect and devotion, I have the honor to be, Your Excellency, most humble servant, Translation. Your Eminence! Enthusiastic with gratitude and love, we wish that our all-merciful Sovereign Emperor, with the name of Alexander the Savior, would be named the Great Alexander even during his precious life, because there has never been a monarch like ours, of whom we are justly proud, although he rendered half of such merits to his people; no one has ever been half worthy of this name, which serves as an expression of honor and love, as our most merciful father of the country. Truly, in what shadows are all the glorious heroes in history (if not in the darkness of the night) in comparison with our emperor, who is more modest than a hero? that they are nothing more than empty conquerors favored by chance. Not one of them knew how to combine his power with the happiness of his subjects, while our incomparable, exemplary ruler, did not make us the happiest of all the peoples who have ever been! Isn't he great among the truly great! But we, his great people, do not want to be unworthy of our high Sovereign, and we, with the truly great happiness of the sovereigns: the enthusiastic love and adoration of their subjects, which he deserved beyond the duty of the sovereign, as has not yet fallen to the lot of any monarch during his lifetime, we would like to express our gratitude to him. As a result of this, we earnestly ask for your important assistance in the fulfillment of this intention, hoping that your Eminence will joyfully agree to take an active part in this, which will consist of the following: to command the rectors of all churches under your management, both here and in all cities and villages, so that on April 10 (tenth) 1863 (which we have appointed for this celebration), in all churches (which for this purpose should be illuminated and decently decorated), with all sacred ceremonies and forms, our best Sovereign, Emperor Alexander II, was given the above-mentioned name (Deliverer and Great)! Further, decent prayers of thanksgiving, songs and sermons will be offered, in which it is necessary to instill in the people with special piety the following: so that this day will be considered a sacred holiday in the future; so that this day is accepted into the calendar - as an eternal solemn day for the kingdom and people, like the birthday of His Majesty the monarch; and that, consequently, the people use this new name in all journals and writings to designate His Imperial Majesty. The same will be done throughout the Russian kingdom among all those professing the faith (?). Your Eminence, on your naming day, do not fail to wish in writing happiness and blessings to our most merciful Sovereign. Many local respectable and worthy subjects (who are trying to do this and therefore already know) will openly and silently assist as soon as they learn about your activities. Since the local authorities, out of decency, in their opinion, maybe out of prudence (which is, however, very unreasonable), like high government officials, could accept the form of biased participants who are playing here in some way involuntary... role, and on this basis show themselves not participating, or even opposing; Therefore, we find it more useful and prudent to begin the matter in secret, and to keep it until that day (April 10) in complete secret from everyone except the necessary members of the church. If, Your Eminence, you doubt the fulfillment of our just strong desire and indispensable intention, especially if you refuse what you want, then arouse the displeasure and anger of the people, which will result in harmful and, very likely, dangerous consequences; indifference will bring down your Eminence, even if this was very regrettable for us; Therefore, you will probably guess that you will voluntarily... assist us. It would be fair and decent if, Your Eminence, a significant loan from the church treasury helped the state, which now, due to the ransom of peasants and many similar important enterprises, is in financial difficulties and must resort to a foreign loan (however insufficient), which is humiliating and unprofitable; Your Eminence cannot make a more holy and beneficial use for all mankind from the rich church finances. What benefit does St. church from accumulated money? They, so to speak, lie without any benefit and without truly sacred profit, only so that treasures upon treasures can be accumulated, which our Lord of Lords, the one eternal God, cannot possibly be pleased with; meanwhile, this could make millions happy, even most of the world, without the slightest damage or harm to church capital, because it is secure and faithful in any case. So, Your Eminence, in the name of humanity, we beg you to think about this and correspond with your Eminence brethren and fellow members, in Russian, on whose favorable response we confidently count. If, Your Eminence, you find our desire good and deign to agree with us, then by doing this you will inadvertently please our monarch, among the good wishes, on the day of his sacred naming; through this, His Majesty will be able to fulfill his only concern: to bestow lasting good and happiness on the people, which our magnanimous monarch - with a noble, philanthropic heart, ardently sympathetic to humanity - has made the task of his life, and to which he clearly sacrifices himself. Meanwhile, as we confidently await the fulfillment of our just request, Your Eminence, you can be sure that through this you will more than ever acquire the love and respect that Your Eminence, the proven, humane shepherd of souls, always desires No. 3. For well-known reasons, we chose to write this letter in German, and not our national language, and we also do not call ourselves (representatives of the people) by name, partly because of the multitude, of which, however, many of your Eminence should be known, if not directly personally, then by name and surname. Representatives of the people 296. A secret note, written by him in his own hand, was attached to Metropolitan Philaret’s letter: About an unnamed letter from St. Petersburg, indicating April 10, 1863. This letter, at first glance, presents a patriotic appearance. Unknown people wish to honor the exploits of the Sovereign Emperor Alexander II and his good deeds to the people with the names of the Deliverer (as written in the German letter in Russian, although the name Liberator would be more correct) and the Great. But upon careful examination of the letter, it gives rise to many doubts. I. Why didn’t the patriots name themselves? They say because there are many of them. But few names could be written that inspired confidence and hope of public sympathy. So, we must conclude that for some reason they are afraid to reveal themselves, whereas in the patriotic cause there was nothing to be afraid of. When, after the great war, a desire arose to patriotically honor the exploits of Emperor Alexander I, then this was freely discussed in societies, and, having confirmed the general sympathy, the highest estates of the state gathered, from several proposed names they chose the name: Blessed, and appointed a commission from among themselves to draw up the most submissive petition. II. Why is the letter written not in Russian, but in German? They say “for known reasons.” But this means not saying anything. Is it because it was written by a non-Russian with little knowledge of the Russian language, as can be seen from the fact that he used the word savior instead of liberator, and in the inscription on the envelope: to his intercessor, instead of taking his place. It is strange that the Russian patriotic cause is proposed by a non-Russian. III. There are signs that a non-Orthodox person also wrote a letter. He demands that churches be “decently decorated” on April 10th. Special decoration of the inside of churches for holidays is usually only in Latin churches, and not in Orthodox ones. He speaks of "sacred ceremonies and forms." This is the language of those who do not know Orthodox church expressions. He demands that churches “offer decent prayers of thanksgiving, and songs, “and sermons.” Consequently, he does not know the well-known word to all Orthodox: prayer; and offers songs, probably following the example of the Warsaw Latin churches. Is it likely that Russian patriots would send a non-Orthodox person to take charge of Russian churches? IV. The writer of the letter demands that the 10th day of April “be considered a sacred and holiday day in the future.” This is unprecedented. And when the Blessed One was named, they did not think about this. One can guess that the writer of the letter has something else political in mind, which he wants to perpetuate in churches. V. The strangeness reaches its extreme when the writer of the letter demands: in the sermons on April 10, “to inspire “the people, with special piety, so that the people use this new name in all magazines and writings.” Is it proper for a church preacher, with special piety, to prescribe laws to journalists and writers? VI. If they want to bring about a triumph of people’s gratitude to the Emperor, then this should be the case throughout the entire state. But this is required only from the Moscow diocese. Consequently, there is another enterprise that they want to strengthen by the church movement, but which they do not dare to announce in advance. VII. Why is April 10, Wednesday of Fomina’s week, set for the celebration in honor of the Tsar? Wouldn't it be better to choose a loved one for this day, April 17, his birthday? From this it can be noted that the 10th day of April is assigned a different hidden meaning. VIII. Nameless patriots threaten the Metropolitan with danger and violent actions if “he does not think of voluntarily assisting” them. This is not what good patriots do. IX. Nameless patriots demand church capital. In this case, they no longer show themselves as patriots, but as transformers and self-appointed rulers of the state. Moreover, they reveal extreme ignorance when they write that church capital could “make millions, even most of the world, happy.” There are almost no free church capitals; and there are bequeathed capitals, the interest of which supports monasteries, brotherhoods, clergy, charitable institutions; and there is capital in church utensils and silver vestments on icons. X. Finally, two signatures appear under the letter. First, “the entire Russian people.” Second, “representatives of the people.” If the last signature is true: then the first is false; because the representatives of the people are not the whole people, but a part of it. But the second signature is also unfair, because until now the Russian people have not elected or authorized any representatives of the entire people. February 25. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, A.P. Akhmatov, with the attachment of a note on the transfer of the peasants of the village of Rakhmanova from the parish of Pavlovsky Posad to the parish of the newly built church in the village of Mary Please take into account the accompanying explanatory note regarding the case of the village of Rakhmanova 298. Invoking God's blessing upon you, with perfect respect and devotion, I have the honor to be Your Excellency's most humble servant, Attached to this letter was a note with the following content: In 1857, the peasants of the state-owned villages: Meri, Kryushina, Gribanova, Sopina, Ignatina, Fomina and Dmitrova, who were members of the parish of the Resurrection, Pavlovsky Posad, church, asked the diocesan authorities for permission to build a church in the village of Mere, with the formation of a new parish with it. This is allowed. At the end of 1860, from the builders of the church in the village of Mer, merchants: Saltykov and Rudakov, the diocesan authorities received a petition to allow the peasants of the villages assigned to the parish of the newly built church to bury their deceased relatives in the cemetery allocated for it. And this is allowed, in trust, in the church builders. But later it turned out that the builders of the church in the village of Mer, in their petition, added to the seven villages designated in 1857 as part of the new parish the eighth village of Rakhmanova, which did not express a desire to separate from the Resurrection parish in Pavlovsky Posad. It was ordered to stop the permission given on January 2, 1861, because the church builders had violated the legal limits of the designated parish. On January 4, 1861, the same church builders came to the diocesan authorities with a new petition to add the village of Rakhmanova to the parish of Mary. Attached to this petition was a public verdict, which stated that the peasants of the village of Rakhmanova, due to their remoteness from Pavlovsky Posad, located up to five miles from Rakhmanova, and on the occasion of the cessation of communication between Rakhmanova and Pavlovsky Posad in the spring, when the rivers flooded, asked to be transferred to the parish of the newly built church. Upon investigation, it was revealed that 1) although the verdict of the Rakhmanov peasants said that it was drawn up with the general and unanimous consent of all of them, four families did not express a desire to be transferred to Mary’s arrival, and even denied the reality and sincerity of the motives of the other Rakhmanov peasants who signed the verdict. 2) In the verdict, Rakhmanova’s distance from Pavlovsky Posad is exaggerated, and from Mary it is reduced, so that the difference in distances between one and the other village, in fact, is hardly more than half a mile. 3) And the difficulties in communicating with Rakhmanova to the Pavlovsky Posad, in the spring, are exaggerated in the verdict. Namely, the verdict says that “during a flood of water, Rakhmanov’s communication with Pavlovsky Posad completely stops.” And three clergy of Pavlovsky Posad and four families of Rakhmanovsky show that for communication between the village of Rakhmanova and Pavlovsky Posad during river floods, for passage across the Vokhonka River, there is a permanent bridge in the village of Fateevo, and for pedestrians there is a bridge, which other Rakhmanov peasants do not deny, but only exaggerate the distance with a small detour to the village of Fateevo. If in the spring, when the rivers flood, communication becomes somewhat difficult, then this happens, according to the testimony of the builders and peasants themselves, for a short time, no more than two weeks, and, moreover, not completely; for the body of the deceased, according to the testimony of Rakhmanov’s peasants, is transported across the river to a ford. Taking into account 1) that the church builders acted indirectly when they included the village of Rakhmanova, which was not designated for the new parish, in the petition for the cemetery; 2) that Rakhmanov’s peasants, at the beginning of the matter of a new church, and even during its construction for about 4 years, did not ask to join it, and therefore did not recognize the need for this; 3) that their verdict was called unanimous incorrectly, because 4 families did not agree to it, and protested against the sincerity of the others; 4) that, according to the testimony of one of the peasants, the verdict was drawn up under the influence of assessor Lvov, sent to Rakhmanovo by the volost head; 5) that the testimony about the inconvenience of the messages turned out to be exaggerated; 6) that the matter, in general, represents signs of solicitation by the church builders, who, as manufacturers, have significant influence on neighboring inhabitants, to strengthen their parish: - the diocesan authorities could not recognize the request of Rakhmanov’s peasants as valid and subject to satisfaction. The diocesan authorities and the special circumstances of the Pavlovsk settlement favored this decision. There are special zealots of Orthodoxy here; but the schismatics are also numerous and strong. There is a struggle between the two sides: and the Orthodox side must be supported. After the separation of 7 villages from his parish, into the new parish of Mary, the separation of another village of Rakhmanova with 120 male souls would be a loss both for the church of Pavlovsky Posad and for its clergy, and an unpleasant impression for the zealous of this church. It doesn't seem to matter to the Treasury; in one or another parish, Rakhmanov’s peasants will fulfill their financial duties. The matter concerns, by the way, the welfare of Pavlov’s clergy. Be merciful to the Moscow clergy, who are not crying about the salary that other dioceses have already received. March 8. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, A. II. Akhmatov, about the Sinai manuscript 300 I return Muralt's article on the Sinai Bible manuscript. I delayed because I gave it to the rector of the academy to read. You see, based on the first signs, our opinion that the manuscript is not intentionally heretical is confirmed by the scientist after a thorough examination of the edition and the original. As for the London doubt about the authenticity of the Sinai manuscript, one can doubt about the thoroughness; when Simonides announced at a meeting that he would write a sheet of the Sinai manuscript: this meant no more than that the famous manuscript forger was forging another sheet. What follows from this? But besides, if they went this way, why did they back away? Let him write a sheet. A forger can be recognized in the presence of an original manuscript, and of such a special nature. I repeat what I already said: why did Simonides disfigure the manuscript with many errors and corrections, sometimes also erroneous? Why don’t they ask the Athonite people whom he named as those who know the matter? May the Lord bless your activities and protect your health, for which I pray. Your Excellency's most humble servant, March 15. Report to the Holy Synod of Metropolitan Philaret on awarding the vicar of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony, with the Order of St. Vladimir 2nd degree Report to the Most Holy Governing Synod, from its member Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow. The vicar of the Holy Trinity Lavra of St. Sergius, first-class Archimandrite Anthony, is serving in this service for the 33rd year. During this time, the number of brethren in the monastery more than doubled, the Geosiman monastery was settled, formed and expanded beyond expectations. These visible successes occurred because the good example of Archimandrite Anthony in monastic life and tireless zeal for church services, trusteeship and thorough spiritual leadership attracted those who wanted this leadership, both to the Lavra and to the Geosiman monastery, which, although it has its own builder, enjoys the direct spiritual leadership of Archimandrite Anthony. The multiplication of people required increased means to support them. Through the care and economic skill of Archimandrite Anthony, a significant increase in material resources for maintaining the Lavra and maintaining the brethren was achieved. Under his care, a populous school for children of the common people was established and maintained in the Lavra (more than 180 of whom are supported by the Lavra), and an icon-painting school, which has achieved significant success and received the highest attention. In addition to the usual one for the elderly of the brethren, two hospitals were built and maintained: in the Lavra, a men's hospital for insiders and strangers, and outside the Lavra, in a charity house, a women's hospital for all the poor and strangers. Under the leadership of Archimandrite Anthony, a significant number of monastics were formed, some of whom entered various dioceses as abbots of monasteries, and some of them served with dignity as missionaries in the department of the Right Reverend Archbishop of Kamchatka. Therefore, I recognize it as a duty of justice to present to the Holy Synod, so that it would be favored to petition the most pious Sovereign Emperor, for the inclusion of Archimandrite Anthony in the Order of St. Vladimir in the second degree. (A similar award was awarded to the first-class Simonov Archimandrite Gerasim, and the second-class Archimandrite of the Alexander Nevsky Lavra, Viceroy Tobias). The service record of Archimandrite Anthony is attached herewith 302. Your Holiness's humblest novice, The Holy Synod, by resolution dated March 18/23, 1863, decided: in consideration of the respects expressed by the Metropolitan of Moscow, the Synodal Chief Prosecutor is to be allowed to submit to the most merciful consideration of the Sovereign Emperor the petition of the Right Reverend Metropolitan for the inclusion of Archimandrite Anthony in the Order of St. Vladimir 2nd Art. 303 March 16. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to an unknown person who was offended that the Metropolitan did not allow synodal and cathedral singers to attend a secular concert for a charitable purpose Immediately upon receipt of your letter, dated 15 days, I hasten to answer, because the peace of my most pious soul has been disturbed. When the Empress deigned to have a spiritual concert given by court singers in Moscow, and there were few of them, they demanded synodal and cathedral ones from me: I did not want to complicate the execution of Her Majesty’s will, and I agreed. I was not curious about the performance of the concert, and I did not hear any unfavorable opinions. Following this example, the society for the publication of useful books asked me for singers for a concert for its charitable purpose. I hesitated. I didn’t want to give in to curiosity and pleasure for what was meant to be reverence. But some well-disposed secular people, and even some of my brethren, said: it is better to listen to a spiritual concert than to a secular one, or to watch live paintings. Moreover, it occurred to me that the flood of bad books must be countered with at least a small dam of good books. I agreed, prohibiting the singing of what is sung only in church during the liturgy, and allowing the singing of what is sung at home during the all-night vigil. When the concert program was published: information began to reach me that some strict church lovers find it strange to sing spiritual chants in a hall where there are dances, and not in the morning, but in the evening. They also complained that in the previous concert, while the Lord’s Prayer was being sung, the audience sat. It was already too late to stop. After the performance of the concert, some responded that they listened with a good feeling, that during the singing of the Lord’s Prayer most of the audience stood up, and no indecent things were noticed. But then I heard that there was applause; and one last chant was forced to be repeated. A few days later, the manager of the concert, Mr. Strekalova, came to thank me; and brought another lady with a request to give a similar concert in favor of another society. Without looking for a plausible excuse, I answered that I reluctantly yielded to a dubious good intention: but seeing that this indulgence is unpleasant for some Orthodox people, and that a spiritual concert would be accepted by listeners in a secular way, I do not dare, for the pleasure of some, although with a good purpose, to allow what others are tempted by. I repeated the same refusal to three or four petitions. However, not everyone disapproved of the concert: because from 4,000 to 5,000 people came to listen to it. I am surprised that I refuse. Let us wish that those who praised church singing outside the church would come more diligently to listen to it in church, along with those who do not want to let it leave the church. March 20. Report to the Holy Synod of Metropolitan Philaret about the educational Psalter published by the Edinoverie printing house Report to the Most Holy Governing Synod, member of it, Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna. The trustees of the Moscow Edinoverie printing house, Moscow merchants: Ivan Nikitin Ryzhkov and Yakov Mikhailov Belyakov, in a petition to me, on March 5th, wrote: the Psalms were first printed from the original, printed in the first summer of the reign of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, in the summer of 7154, October on the 20th day, on the fourth the summer of Joseph the Patriarch, are in use, and there is a need to print them; Therefore, they present the original Psalter and ask permission to print 3600 copies of it. According to the certificate in the consistory, it turned out: 1) that by decree of the Holy Governing Synod, dated October 10, 1822, No. 6060, the mentioned Edinoverie printing house was allowed to print the Psalms from the said original, with the exception of the chapter on the sign of the cross, 1200 copies, so that in the future, when the trustees of this printing house ask for printing again the said Psalter was each time presented to the Holy Synod; 2) the Moscow Edinoverie printing house has recently printed 3,600 copies of the educational Psalter 18 with embossing as a result of the decree of the Most Holy Supod, dated June 15, 1862, No. 1900. Reporting the present petition of the trustees of the Edinoverie printing house to the Holy Governing Synod and presenting the original of the Psalter, for permission to print the requested number of copies of it, 19 embossed, with the exception of the chapter on the sign of the cross, I ask permission for the decree. Your Holiness, most humble novice, The Holy Synod, by resolution dated April 12/23, 1863, decided: in accordance with the presentation of the synodal member, His Eminence Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow, and in accordance with the order issued in 1822, to allow the trustees of the Moscow Edinoverie printing house to print in it again, in the amount of three thousand six hundred copies, from the original published in 7154, under Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich and Patriarch Joseph, the educational Psalter, with the exception of the chapter on the sign of the cross; about which to send a decree to the Metropolitan, returning to him and presented from the copy of Psalter 305. March 24. Notes by Metropolitan Philaret on some passages in the work of the rector of the Kazan Theological Academy, Archimandrite John, “On the monasticism of bishops” Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, A.P. Akhmatov, dated March 24, 1863, No. 1841, wrote to the rector of the Kazan Theological Academy, Archimandrite John, the following: “I read the manuscript “On the monasticism of bishops” delivered by your Reverence, in a letter dated December 2 last, with particular pleasure. I sincerely thank you for this complex work, which you performed so well. The Most Reverend Metropolitan of Moscow, to whom I conveyed this article for reading, gives it full justice and recognizes, for his part, that it is useful to publish it, but first of all he finds it necessary to draw your attention to some places in the said article, on which he made special notes. By forwarding back your manuscript with notes on it to the Most Reverend Philaret, I consider it my duty to assure you that I, on my part, would find it very useful to publish this wonderful work in the journal of the Kazan Theological Academy in order to introduce your extensive historical and canonical research to those who wish to conscientiously study the issue of “the monasticism of bishops.” The following document was attached to this letter: Notes on the Discourse “On the Monasticism of Bishops” In the first part of the argument, the writer carefully and skillfully uses the sayings of Holy Scripture and church rules. It seems that it would be necessary not to pass by in silence, but to explain the words of the Apostle Paul: food is not the power of the imams to lead a sister to his wife, like the other apostles. The Apostle is speaking here not about marital cohabitation, but about companionship on preaching travels. Just as in the travels of the Savior Himself some pious wives followed Him, even serving Him from their estates, just as some of the apostles were followed by their spouses to serve and help in household chores. But the Apostle Paul did not allow anyone to follow him for such help: so that an extra person with him would not increase his needs and force him to demand benefits from the churches. Sheet. 7. From the fact that the female sex is prohibited from being in bishoprics, and that the wife of a person entering the rank of bishop must be tonsured in a distant monastery, the conclusion is correct that the bishop must be celibate, but the conclusion that he must be tonsured into monasticism is not strictly correct. The wife takes monastic vows in a distant monastery so that her separation from her husband is decisive and obvious in order to guard against previously perceived disorders. It is also not a strict conclusion to the monasticism of a bishop from the fact that he is forbidden to build a special monastery, and that such a monastery is destroyed and given over to the bishopric. The argument that bishoprics are equated with monasteries is also not rigorous. Sheet. 10. It is not superfluous for the writer to again examine the interpretation of the word Cantacuzene, and especially the translation of the particle ἄν with the word as if. Sheet. 13. A bishop “must be bound by positive vows,” and therefore “must be a monk.” The conclusion is not entirely correct. In addition to this, and without this, he has positive vows: the bishop’s oath. On ob. and so on. From the special, exalted character of the rank and service of the episcopate in the church, the conclusion is correct that it should be alien to both worldly ties in general and the ties of marriage and family; but the conclusion that he must be a monk is not necessary. In the first centuries of Christianity, when monasticism had not yet been formed, and there was only asceticism, there were bishops who highly expressed in themselves and in their activities the ideal, sublime character of episcopacy. Sheet. 20. The state of mental overwhelm attributed to the bishop and the non-monastic priest in the monastery is a state that is partially encountered only by some, and therefore does not lead to a general conclusion. Sheet. 28. Too much shadow has been cast on the people’s relationship with the parish church and the clergy. He loves the monastery more than the parish church, its ancient shrine, its more reverent and splendid clergy: but it cannot be said that he does not love the parish church. “What is the parish church at St. at communion, at Easter, at burial?” – It remains a church, and, moreover, especially attractive in these times. Easter cakes are not beautiful: but they are brought with zeal for consecration. The people are blamed for the indecency in marriages and they regret that the church is offended. Sheet. 29. To the objection that the canonization of saints depends on the monastics, the answer is that the people will allow it - with dubya. It would be advisable to soften these expressions. Right there. Holiness in the concept of the people is “certainly” connected with monasticism. Not entirely true. Sheet. 30. The influence of the appearance of non-monastic bishops on the people, I think, would be better expressed more carefully. "A new schism will appear." Isn't this too drastic? It is more likely that the falling away of the uneducated people into the existing schism will intensify, and the respect for hierarchy among the educated will decrease. The bishop monk is looked upon as something superior, or at least special, and is treated, if not with inner respect, at least with cautious attention. A married bishop will be mistaken for a gentleman and there will be little difference between him and a parish priest. On ob. At first it is said that among the white clergy only people of recent courses, and therefore a less sedate part, rebel against the monasticism of bishops; but then the revolt seems to be general. If the former is true, then the latter is false. And there is no need to encourage the uprising with the thought that it is common. I believe it is not superfluous for the writer to pay attention to these remarks in order to protect his judgments from objections and unfavorable impressions. Meanwhile, it is comforting to see the writer how he understands episcopacy and monasticism, and with what sympathy he defends them. The speedy publication of this work would meet the needs of 306. April 19. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, A.P. Akhmatov, with an opinion on the desire of the Urmian Nestorians to join the Orthodox Church and on the intention of the Nestorian Bishop John to come to Russia Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, A.P. Akhmatov, in a secret manner, dated April 11, 1863, forwarding to Metropolitan Philaret copies of papers related to the matter of the Nestorians joining the Orthodox Church and the intention of the Nestorian Bishop John to come to Russia, said that in the opinion of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs it would be necessary to reject the bishop’s visit. Among the papers forwarded were copies of reports from the managers of the consulates general in Beirut and Tabriz to the chargé d'affaires at the Porte of the Ottoman and Persian courts. The Consul General in Beirut, dated January 31, 1863, reported: “As a result of your secret order, dated January 9, No. 20, I informed the Patriarch of Antioch about the disposition of the Urmian Nestorians and their co-religionists in Turkey to join the fold of Orthodoxy. “Hierotheos, having received this news with special joy, explained to me that for a long time the Nestorians have been seeking reunification with the Orthodox Church. Tempted, on the one hand, by the proselytism of American missionaries and persecuted, on the other, by the local Mohammedan authorities, they wish to find spiritual peace and improvement in their financial situation in Orthodoxy. “In the opinion of the patriarch, the spiritual communion of the Nestorians with the Orthodox Church can be carried out following the example of the annexation of the Melkites, with the only difference being that since those who wish to reunite are only in the dioceses subordinate to the throne of Antioch, this matter is not subject to consideration by all the patriarchs, but depends entirely on His Beatitude Hierotheos. He believes that the first step towards reunification should be a request addressed to the patriarch, signed by the elders of all villages and spiritual Nestorians and witnessed in the nearby Russian consulates. For this, the Nestorians must choose one or two persons from among the spiritual and send them to his blessedness. Here, after due testing and instruction, they will accept Orthodoxy and, returning to their homeland, can, together with the Bishop of Theodosiopolis (in Erzrum), introduce their other co-religionists to the Orthodox Church. “I consider it my duty to add that it will be useful to assign a trusted representative from the Russian clergy to these spiritual ones in order to maintain contact and agreement between the Nestorians and the Greek clergy. “The Patriarch of Antioch finally believes that this good work, begun through the efforts of Russia, must be constantly under its special care and can be brought to a successful conclusion only with its assistance. “The remoteness of the city inhabited by the Nestorians and the difficulty of communications present some difficulties for the Patriarch of Antioch, and therefore his beatitude thinks that in this matter the influence and material assistance of Russia are necessary. “In general, in my conversations with the patriarch, I easily noticed that he fears in this matter the significant expenses that may arise from the various demands of the newly converted flock, as well as the costs required for the travel of clergy, and wants to secure himself in advance in this regard with the assistance of the Russian government.” The Consul General in Tabriz, March 4, 1863, wrote: “The Nestorian Bishop John, who lives in the Urmia region, one of those Nestorians who participated in drawing up a petition to the highest name, addressed me with a letter, in which he asked me to issue him a permit to travel to Russia, where, according to him, he intends to find out what the consequences of the said petition were and again petition for the subject of it. “Doubting that Bishop John’s trip to Russia would deserve the approval of the imperial ministry, I considered it my duty to reject his petition for now, but at the same time, I transferred it to the discretion of your honor, I will await your favorable instructions at this time.” On the accession of the Urmian Nestorians to the Orthodox Church I. The Consul General in Beirut reported their disposition towards Antiochian Orthodoxy. This one rejoices, eliminates the participation of other Orthodox patriarchs in this matter, because these are within his region, and considers it convenient to accept them into church communion, following the example of the Melchites, through the anointing of one or two persons who will anoint the others. Apparently, the matter is firmly on the path to execution; and, moreover, in such a way that no one should touch it; for it is in the region of the see of Antioch. II. The Consul General finds it useful to assign a trusted person from the Russian clergy to this matter. It is difficult to imagine what significance and power this person can have in this matter, which the Patriarch of Antioch so decisively and exclusively adopted for himself. Another important difficulty is that there is hardly anyone from the Russian clergy who could understand the Nestorians and be understood by them. In part, this was achieved by Archimandrite (now bishop) Zephaniah 307; and he is already on a different path. III. The Patriarch of Antioch believes “that this, begun through the efforts of Russia, must be constantly under its special care and can be brought to a successful completion only with its assistance.” It seems that this conceals an admission that the patriarch does not hope to gain the favor of the Nestorians with his spiritual and edifying actions. IV. But what on Russia’s part can bring success to the cause? The Patriarch answers: “the influence and material benefits of Russia.” Doesn’t the most blessed patriarch want to say through this that the Nestorians will not understand the theological argument of Orthodoxy or will not pay attention to it, but must be convinced by a political and financial argument? The sad state of church affairs. The Patriarch fears significant costs from the demands of the Melchites (sic). And fair enough. It is this misfortune that he blames on Russia. V. He wants to conduct the cause of the Nestorians, following the example of the cause of the Melchites. What is this example? The entire Melchite Church was inclined towards reunification with the Orthodox; but in Constantinople they conducted the matter in such a way that some cooled down, some were sanctified by the power of the West, and only two deputies sent to Constantinople and a small part of the flock actually went to Orthodoxy. VI. The relations of the Nestorians with the Russian clergy no longer escaped the attention of local governments, subjected the Nestorians to suspicion and harassment, and troubled diplomacy. If the movement of the Nestorians towards Orthodoxy becomes decisive, Russia’s participation in material benefits and reinforcing influence will inevitably become more open; the language of Western propaganda will become more sophisticated in front of local governments: will this not cause such difficulties that supporting the New Orthodox on the part of Russia will become impossible, and their hope cannot be justified? VII. Would you like to remember and take into account the note about the letter of Archimandrite Zephanius, dated July 23, 1862, and the case of the Nestorians, forwarded to your Excellency in respect, dated October 2, 1862 308. VIII. The Eminence of Melitopol 309 can see the matter somewhat closer to us. Should I ask him for information and opinions? IX. As for the desire of the Nestorian Bishop John to come to Russia: in my opinion, the judgment that it is necessary to reject his arrival is correct, since at the present time his stay in Russia could not bring any benefit, but would only increase difficulties. April 21. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, A. I. Akhmatov, with his opinion on the search for the ancient Codex Sinaiticus, which contains the entire Old and New Testament The Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, A. I. Akhmatov, in reference, dated April 15, 1863, No. 2386, forwarded to Metropolitan Philaret copies of papers received by him, through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, from Constantinople, under an open seal, addressed to Metropolitan Isidore of Novgorod and St. Petersburg, from the rector of the Russian embassy Church of Archimandrite Antonin, about the results of his trip to Athos in the case of the Sinai manuscript. Archimandrite Antonin, in a letter dated March 26, 1863, to His Eminence, Metropolitan of Novgorod and St. Petersburg Isidore, wrote: “In fulfillment of the instructions assigned to me by the Holy Synod, dated January 29 of this year, I, immediately upon receipt of your Eminence’s letter, went to Athos. Upon arrival in Rusik, on the 16th of this month, I immediately began collecting information about Simonides’s stay there in 1839 311, and about the true nature of the news he disseminated regarding the origin of the Codex Sinaiticus. First of all, it turned out to be impossible to interrogate the persons to whom Simonides refers in his testimony, for all of them have long been deceased. It remained to be content with the testimony of the brethren of the monastery who lived in it during the time of Simonides, and especially the abbot of the monastery himself, Fr. arch. Gerasim, manager of the monastery since 1821. The testimony of this highly respectable person leaves not the slightest doubt that the strange claim of Simonides has no foundation, and is as false as almost everything that comes from the hands or lips of the famous deceiver. “The monastery already had information about the Guardian newspaper article, according to the article of the Orthodox Review (December 1862) and prepared a response for this magazine, which the editors of the Orthodox Review instructed me to convey. Having forwarded the said answer to your Eminence, I have the honor to humbly ask you to forward it to the address if there are no important obstacles to its printing. “Regardless of this answer, Fr. arch. Gerasim, at my request, gave a formal response to the Holy Synod on the same matter in the most precise and calm terms possible, which I also have the honor to forward to your Eminence with an appendix and an accurate translation of it in Russian. According to the venerable Fr. abbot, the last document could be published in some European newspaper in the original, to expose Simonides’ lies.” Attached to Archimandrite Antonin’s letter is a document with the following content: “Translation from Greek. To the Holy Governing All-Russian Synod." “Having become aware of the unrealizable and completely insane idea recently spread by a certain Constantine Simonides, that the famous ancient manuscript containing the entire Old and New Testaments was written by himself in 1839-1840 in the Athonite, Russian-called, monastery of St. Great Martyr Panteleimon, on the advice and desire of the then abbot of the said monastery, I have the high honor to assure the Most Holy Governing Synod of All-Russia that, having occupied the abbot of the monastery of St. Great Martyr Panteleimon, on St. Mount Athos, I was and am able to know perfectly everything that happened in the said monastery during 1839–40. So I testify that - 1) During the indicated time (and in all other years throughout my entire abbess) there was no speech, not even a simple thought, neither I nor any of the fathers of the monastery presented as a gift to the ever-memorable Emperor Nicholas a copy of the Holy Scriptures, supposedly ancient in the nature of the letters and written on parchment, but in fact new and, so to speak, counterfeit. The strangeness of such an enterprise amazes me, and, in my humble opinion, this alone sufficiently proves the shameless lie of Mr. Simonides, known for his evil qualities. 2) Of blessed memory, my venerable and educated friend, Hierodeacon Benedict 312, was never abbot of the monastery of St. Great Martyr Panteleimon and could not begin any business without my knowledge, both according to the communal rules of the monastery and also due to his personal kindness towards me. 3) The same must be said about the late Archimandrite Procopius 313, as well as about the Russian hieromonk Paul 314 (I never knew the monk Paul), who also died long ago. 4) Calligrapher (red-writer) Dionysius 315 definitely lived in our monastery in 1839–40, but was not its secretary (or even a simple scribe). 5) A parchment book of enormous size, ancient and covered with writing, with the title: “Collection of solemn words” has never existed in the library of our monastery. 6) I very much doubt that they could then (and even now) be found in the libraries of St. mountains of copies of the Holy Scriptures are as ancient as the Sinai manuscript appears to be ancient, according to the recognition of Messrs. Porfiry and Tischendorf. 7) At that time, the late Benedict, exhausted by extreme old age, was completely devoted to prayer and would not want to engage in any earthly work (and especially with forgery and false writing). 8) Yes, and did not have the slightest thought about the merits of his young compatriot, whom he kept with him and fed only out of mercy. 9) In my opinion, Mr. Simonides in 1839-40 was completely incapable of such a great and important work, which the creator preaches himself voluntarily and shamelessly. 10) All the fathers and brothers who are still in our monastery, who lived here in 1839-40, testify to me in all of the above. Signed: Archimandrite of the Holy Russian Cenonia, Gerasim, with his brethren. March 19, 1863, on St. grief. As for the two articles published in the Orthodox Review regarding the Codex Sinaiticus, the first of them was placed in the December book of 1862, pp. 162–164, “in foreign notes” from an article published by Simonides in the English newspaper “Guardian”, and the second, under the title “Review from Athos about the Sinai Bible”, for 1863 g., in the April book, pp. 362–366. By the report of the Athonite Panteleimon Archimandrite Gerasim, dated March 17, 1863, by the letter of Archimandrite Antonin and the Athonite article to the editors of the Orthodox Review, Simonides’ testimony about the recent writing of the Sinai manuscript of the Bible is exposed as false. It is a pity that nowadays we often consider ourselves more capable of doing the work entrusted to us than those who are entrusted to us. It was clearly stated who to ask and about what. Some people who needed to be asked were not there, but the matter was not upset. In view of the long-standing rector of the monastery, Archimandrite Gerasim, an obvious witness to all the circumstances that were ordered to be inquired about, (and therefore) Archimandrite Antonin should have written an official letter to Archimandrite Gerasim, with exactly the questions that were given - and Archimandrite Gerasim should have given an accurate and complete answer to each of them. Then it would appear that Simonides' testimony has been officially refuted. All that remains is to make these acts known to European scientists. At the same time, there was no need for reproachful expressions against Simonides, which only reduce trust, because it is characteristic of an impartial and truthful person to speak firmly and calmly, without reproach or ridicule. This is not how it was done. Let us assume that the Athonite article will be translated into foreign languages, without changes. Scientists will say: who to believe here? First, a hieromonk appeared from Athos, signing his name, who testified in favor of Simonides: now an unnamed article against Simonides appeared from Athos. Archimandrite Gerasim, in his report to the Holy Synod, does not show how he learned about Simonides’ message, nor by what right or motivation did he decide to write to the Holy Synod, whose department he is not a member, nor for what reason, deprived of connection with the case, he writes in his report various fragmentary information. Thus, his entire report may seem like an antics and a fragment. But be that as it may, for the reliability of the matter, in my opinion, it is necessary to publish the report of Archimandrite Gerasim to the Holy Synod. It is not known what ideas about the Sinai manuscript will be presented or have already been presented to the St. Petersburg, Kiev and Kazan academies. Considerations made at the Moscow Theological Academy, in my opinion, can be printed with benefit. They sufficiently remove from the manuscript the criticism raised against it that it was deliberately damaged by heretics 317 . Publishing a study of one or another act about this and Simonides's manuscript (depending on which one turns out to be more relevant to the purpose) and distributing them along with copies of the publication thereof may be sufficient to dispel the raised doubts. It is less convenient to compose a new preface to an edition that was made by someone else's hands, and which is finally executed and completed. April 29. Report to the Holy Synod of Metropolitan Philaret on the printing of the manuscript: “Description of Slavic manuscripts of the Moscow Synodal Library, Section III, liturgical books” To the Holy Governing Synod, from its member, Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow, a report. Seminary professor Kapiton Nevostruev 319 assigned to describe the Slavic manuscripts of the Moscow Synodal Library presented me with the manuscript: “Description of the Slavic manuscripts of the Moscow Synodal Library, Section III, liturgical books,” which was reviewed and approved for publication by the spiritual censorship at the Moscow Academy. But since the printing of this description is carried out at the expense of the funds of the Holy Synod in the Moscow Synodal Printing House, and the manuscript itself belongs to the Synodal library, then Professor Nevostruev asks the Holy Synod for permission to print this part of the description, following the example of the previous, already printed, I and II sections. It is my duty to present the said manuscript to the Holy Synod, asking for permission to print. No. 172. April 29, 1863 The Holy Synod, by definition, dated May 13/23, 1863, decided: the manuscript “Description of Slavic manuscripts of the Moscow Synodal Library, Section III, books of liturgical services” presented by the Eminence Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow, submitted by the spiritual censorship at the Moscow Academy, examined and approved for publication, is allowed to be printed under direct supervision Professor of the Seminary Nevostruev, in the Moscow Synodal Printing House, following the example of the first two departments, in the amount of eight hundred copies, with the expenses required for this being attributed to the printing capital account; for the relevant order, send a decree to the Metropolitan, returning the mentioned manuscript, and to the economic administration at the Holy Synod, for information about this, transfer an extract from this definition 320. May 8. A note from Metropolitan Philaret, entitled: “On the Smolensk Seminary, on the occasion of its review” I. The observer first of all drew attention to the so-called convict, that is, a house in which a certain number of students have an apartment and a common table, paying money for this. The seminary board is thinking of stopping this institution, firstly, because not everyone pays the agreed fee on time. But from this it should be concluded not that the convict should end, but that it should establish order. It is necessary to make rules, and first announce to those sending children to convict, with a subscription, that they know their immutability, and will comply with them. Here is the rule: A student is admitted to convict at the beginning of September, having paid money four months in advance. So he will live without arrears until the birth of Christ. Returning from home after the holiday, he must deposit the money before Easter; and if he does not contribute, he is not accepted into the convict. The same from Easter to vacation. This way there will be no arrears and complicated settlements with those who send their children to convict. II. Another reason for closing the convict seems to be that the convicts study poorly and enter the convict in order to sneak into the upper class. And this does not lead to the closure of the convict; but reveals weakness and addiction to the convicts of the seminary authorities. Justice and impartiality must be restored. It is necessary to instill in the convicts that it is more necessary to demand success in their studies from them than from those living in different apartments; because the former are more likely to have help at home in their studies than the latter. III. It should be expected that with the implementation of the rules now proposed, the number of convicts will decrease: and this may be useful in order to more conveniently embrace them with faithful supervision and moral guidance. IV. The auditor speaks about the meager content of the seminarians, about their irritation due to this, even about “noisy demonstrations.” It is desirable that not all of this be fair. He frees the Smolensk seminary from this criticism. Poverty in content, with scarcity of methods, is inevitable; and care is needed so that a misunderstanding about this does not result in murmurs. For this you need to observe: 1) So that the food, although simple, is from good quality supplies, and is cleanly prepared. 2) So that the disciples are satisfied with food, and the poverty falls more on clothing. You can extend the life of clothing. Those who are not completely poor can have their own clothes. 3) So that the annual schedule of expenses is sometimes shown as senior; and the daily food schedule was known to everyone. 4) So that the student on duty monitors the correct delivery of supplies to the table, and then that none of them passes by the students. V. In language classes, the auditor says, radical changes in teaching methods are necessary; and then says that no changes in teaching can eradicate the prejudice that knowledge of languages ​​is unnecessary. What is the use of transformation if it cannot achieve anything? The point is to make language lessons attractive and convince people of the benefits of learning languages. For this, the teacher needs not just a grammar of the language being taught, but philology, archeology, history, and comparative linguistics. It is necessary to encourage mentors to acquire and use knowledge of this kind. This wisdom is not difficult to seek. It's in the books. A diligent mentor, in a short time, can become good and entertaining. A mentor needs to be inventive. For example, take a book in the language being taught that is entertaining and useful for students, distribute the translation among sections, and serve and correct the translation in the classroom. The benefit will excite the hunt; hunting will lead to success. It is also necessary that the initial teaching of ancient languages ​​in lower schools be thorough, and that this makes further education in the seminary easier. VI. Crowded classrooms hinder success. It is necessary to separate crowded classes. This revision was decided by the Holy Synod, August 21/September 18, 1863 322 May 15. Report to the Holy Synod of Metropolitan Philaret with a response to the draft charter of universities, secondary educational institutions and public schools Unexpectedly, privately, the “Draft of the General Charter of the Imperial Russian Universities” came to my attention, in the latest edition, probably prepared for final approval. The content of some articles of this project raises strong concerns about the consequences that could occur if these articles were approved. Therefore, it is my duty to present for the consideration of your Holiness the considerations that seem necessary. Project § 19. For students of the Orthodox confession of all faculties, a special department of theology, not belonging to any faculty, is determined. The explanation for this § in the “draft” says: “Currently, the department of theology includes dogmatic and moral theology, church history and church jurisprudence; the first three subjects are compulsory for students of all faculties of the Orthodox faith, and the last - for students of the Faculty of Law. “All these subjects are taught by one professor, which presents important inconveniences and does not allow them to be presented with the depth and thoroughness with which courses in other sciences are taught at the university. “Therefore, in the draft charter, three departments were formed from these subjects: 1) the department of theology proper, common to all faculties, 2) the department of church history in the historical and philological faculty, and 3) the department of church jurisprudence in the law faculty.” The increase in the number of theological departments in the university, with special teachers for each, corresponds to a need long felt and recognized. But the concern here is whether these departments will be truly theological and whether they will have the firmness characteristic of such. For the “project” of the department of church history and church jurisprudence in some way removes them from theology and gives them a special direction, which is unfavorable for both faith and science itself. The department of theology itself, as can be seen from the above paragraph, is not firmly established in the project. It is said about it: “the department does not belong to any faculty.” In this case, you need to take into account the following: 1) universities distinguish between faculty and non-faculty subjects. The latter includes new languages ​​and hitherto included theology. This position of the department cannot be called favorable both for science and for the purposes of religious education. It silently conveys the idea that science, excluded from the council of university sciences, does not enjoy equal respect with them. 2) This idea is all the more obvious since teachers of non-faculty subjects are considered neither members of faculties nor members of the university council, and therefore are excluded from any participation in affairs at the university. 3) From the time when professors of theology were entrusted with teaching philosophy, they were recognized as members of the historical and philological faculty and the university council. This title was reserved for them by the highest command and after the obligation to teach philosophy had already been removed from them. The project intends by keeping silent about this to deprive them of this important title, and thereby weakens the importance of the department of theology itself. This cannot be considered unimportant if the importance of religious education is recognized. And is it possible to imagine any plausible reason why a council of university professors would not want the voice of a minister of religion to be heard in their council, among their voices? So, goodness and benefit would require that §19 be changed as follows: for students of the Orthodox confession of all faculties, an independent department of theology is determined. Then, a note was made to §: the professor of theology is a member of the historical and philological faculty and council. §71. No one can be an ordinary or extraordinary professor without having a doctorate in the category of sciences corresponding to the department. The explanation for this section says: “A professor of theology should also be required to have a doctorate in theology. “For those who currently occupy the department of theology and do not have a doctorate of theology degree, retain the title of professor, but retain the contents of an associate professor, and in the future appoint only doctors of theology as professors, with the assignment of their full professorial salary.” Here, first of all, it should be taken into account that those currently occupying the department of theology, whether they have or do not have a doctorate, are all highly confirmed in the rank of ordinary professors, with the salary of an ordinary professor. So, the “project” innocently takes away these highest-granted rights from theology teachers; and this is done in violation of the existing general law, according to which no new law has retroactive effect. The requirement that a professor of theology have a doctorate is perhaps justified by the fact that the same requirement applies to other university professors. But this latest project provides relief for obtaining the doctorate degree, which is not provided to professors of theology. The explanation to § 71 now under consideration says: “immediately collect information from university councils about which of the famous scientists, mainly those belonging to the university academic class, would deserve promotion to the highest academic degree, without testing; then, upon publication of the new charter, inform the councils that they can immediately take advantage of the prerogative granted to them by the note to § 124. Thus, university professors can easily gain their full rights by receiving a doctorate without testing, while professors of theology remain on the path of testing, which in the ecclesiastical department, in relation to the degree of doctor of theology, is especially difficult. To get university theology professors out of the predicament into which the project puts them, two methods seem possible. Firstly, to allow that, as has been the case until now, the chair of theology at the university could be occupied not only by doctors, but also by masters of theological sciences. And there are sufficient reasons for this. Doctors of theological sciences are few in number, partly because obtaining this degree requires more than for a doctorate in other sciences, partly because masters, burdened with ordinary job responsibilities, do not have enough free time for special independent academic work, partly because the modesty inherent in the clergy does not favor the desire to seek academic honor. Thus, in many, under the title of master, the dignity of doctor of theological sciences modestly resides. That a master's degree in theological academies can approach the dignity of a doctorate can be considered recognized by universities, when some masters of theological academies are called by universities to university departments. The second way to eliminate the difficulty in question may be the same as shown above in relation to university professors, that is, the promotion of university professors of theology without testing, according to the discretion of their merits based on essays written not for seeking the degree of Doctor of Theology, and their merits in teaching. Let it be allowed to say a word about salaries. There does not seem to be any just reason for disparaging the salary of a teacher of theology in comparison with other university professors. Sometimes they thought the reason for this was that the priest may have other benefits for his maintenance. But when assigning salaries to others, they do not ask whether they have other benefits for their maintenance, for example, from private lessons, from publishing their works, etc. But, moreover, the theology instructor at the university (at least in Moscow) is the rector of the university’s non-profit church. In general, it is known that the lowest salary corresponds to the lowest level of service and the lowest dignity of the employee. Is it necessary to cast disgrace on theology, which is a sacred subject, and for which young seekers of enlightenment especially need to be instilled with respect? In 1835, St. Petersburg University had a theology teacher who, more than his predecessors, attracted the attention of students to his subject. But a new statute came out, in which the salary of the teacher of theology was reduced to a third share compared to professors. Then the archpriest said: I would not demand money, but I do not want to see the humiliation of a sacred subject in the person of the teacher; and refused to serve at the university. Thus, the university saved some money by losing a useful mentor. In the explanation of the same § 71 it is said: “The requirement for a professor to have a doctorate degree should also be applied to persons entering the departments of church history and church law, which belong to the faculties of history, philology and law, and therefore require academic degrees in these faculties. “In consultation with the ecclesiastical authorities, select the most outstanding students of theological academies who have completed the course with a master’s degree corresponding to the candidate’s university degree, and assign them to the universities to prepare for testing for the academic degrees of master and doctor of historical, philological and legal sciences, and to subsequently replace them in the departments of church history and church jurisprudence.” In these explanations one cannot help but see that the “project” establishes departments of church history and church jurisprudence - not as theological departments, but as historical, philological and legal departments. For, from the professors of these departments, he requires preliminary special historical, philological and legal preparation, with the secondment of those preparing for universities; then requires academic degrees in the Faculty of History, Philology and Law. He grants judgment on successes in church history and church jurisprudence not to the theological academy, but to the university, and, moreover, he again subjects the master of the theological academy to the test for a master's degree. It is not clear on what basis the draft imperatively determines from the theological academies outside the jurisdiction of universities to elect the most excellent masters and assign them to the university. It is not clear for what reason the project does not propose to educate teachers for church history and church jurisprudence, which belong to the circle of theological sciences, in their proper sphere, that is, in theological academies, but finds it necessary to separate those prepared for this appointment from the circle of theological sciences and immerse them in the studies of secular faculties. Without a doubt, there is no purpose in this to weaken the character and spirit of theological sciences and subject them to the predominant influence of secular sciences, which do not always take a direction favorable to religion; but the order opens the possibility for this. So that this fear is not unsubstantiated, we can point to page 142, the first part of the comments on the draft general university charter. It says: “ecclesiastical law is a systematic teaching about those positive laws emanating from the supreme state power, which determine the rights and obligations of citizens as members of one or another church, one or another confession allowed in the state...” You see, according to the teachings of secular science, the laws of canon law, or church laws, do not come from the Holy Scriptures, not from the decrees of ecumenical and local councils, not from the rules of the holy fathers, but from the supreme power of the state. What, according to this teaching, would the church laws be for the Greek Church, which is under the supreme authority of the Mohammedan? It is impossible, by the way, to pass over in silence the fact that the “project,” contrary to the code of laws of the Russian Empire, with a simple introductory sentence, attempts to legitimize the humiliation of academic degrees in comparison with university ones. According to the code of laws, theological academies are institutions of higher education, just like universities, and the rights of academic masters and candidates are equal to the rights of masters and candidates of the university, assigning both the same class ranks in the civil service. Meanwhile, in the above explanation to § 71, the project, as if in passing, notes that the Master of Theology degree corresponds to the university candidate degree. You should pay attention to this in good time. Otherwise, such an idea, quietly creeping into one of the legislative acts, which will be the approved new charter, will lead to the general humiliation of spiritual scientists in the public service in all fields. For all the previous considerations, in order for the increase in the number of theological departments in Russian universities to be an increase in truly theological departments, the question of the departments of church history and church jurisprudence must be removed from the realm of vague, one-sided and harmful secular class prejudices unfavorable for religion. If the universities sincerely desire an increase in theological departments, both in favor of religious education and in favor of the sciences in general; then let them openly establish proper theological departments of church history and church jurisprudence, which indeed they are in all Roman Catholic and Protestant universities in Europe. Our universities, due to their lack of theological faculties, cannot undertake the education of professors for these departments. But nothing prevents them from looking at existing theological academies as institutions in no way inferior to theological faculties, from which professors of theological departments at universities should rightfully come from; and these professors must have academic degrees, not university degrees. Regarding the professorship in church history, it must be said decisively that it is fully provided for the university by academic education, even from the historical and philological side, because in theological academies ancient philology, which actually relates to the subject of church history, is no lower than in the historical and philological faculty - even in the latter, ancient Latin, Greek and Jewish sacred and church monuments are not studied at all. As for the professorship in ecclesiastical jurisprudence, all that is needed from a legal education is familiarity with Roman and Byzantine law (it is not superfluous to note that the latter has not yet been taught at the university and is being introduced by the “project” for the first time) - familiarity, which students of theological academies are not at all deprived of when listening to ecclesiastical jurisprudence, and which can easily be replenished if those elected to this department are given time - partly for listening to lectures at the university, partly for traveling abroad. And in order for the universities themselves to ensure that they accept people with sufficient knowledge as professors of church law, it can be made a rule that before joining the department, each of them writes a dissertation on church law, the merits of which could then be judged by both the university and the theological academy. The Holy Synod, by resolution of May 22, 1863, decided: sharing for its part the comments of the Right Reverend Metropolitan of Moscow on the draft university charter issued by the Ministry of Public Education in relation to the arrangement of theological departments and the teaching of theological sciences proposed in it, and at the same time bearing in mind that the draft of this charter, as the synodal chief prosecutor brought to the attention of the Synod, was introduced by the ministry of public education for consideration by the State Council, the Synod considers it necessary to preface its approval by communicating the said comments of the Right Reverend Metropolitan Philaret, why it determines: to provide the synodal chief prosecutor, and ask for the highest permission, to submit a copy of the comments submitted by the Metropolitan of Moscow on the draft charter to the State Council; for which purpose, transfer the original protocol to the office of the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, at the time of need, and notify the Right Reverend Metropolitan of Moscow about the present order of the Synod by decree 323. May 21. Report to the Holy Synod of Metropolitan Philaret on the establishment of the Moscow Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment Some of the members of the Moscow clergy came to me with the idea of ​​seeking permission to establish a Moscow society of lovers of spiritual enlightenment, for the following reasons: According to the permission given by me, in accordance with the wishes of many of the members of the Moscow clergy, dated January 4, 1862, on the establishment in Moscow of an open diocesan library for the clergy and, if possible, for everyone who wants to use it, at present, a room for the library with the necessary furniture has been arranged and books have collected up to 3½ thousand volumes. The general sympathy of the clergy and other classes towards the establishment of the diocesan library, expressed in donations of books and money, guarantees its continued existence and growth in the future. Despite the fact that many of the members of the clergy, taking into account that the library, no matter how rich in books, in itself, without the participation of living figures, cannot be a completely sufficient means for the dissemination and elevation of spiritual enlightenment among the clergy and the people, expressed in the general meeting that was in the library hall, the desire to establish a society of lovers of spiritual enlightenment, which would, having taken into its care the maintenance of the library and the development of its funds, with its scientific and literary activity, contributed to the achievement of the goal for which the open diocesan library is intended. Moreover, they presented to me the regulations on the formation of the Moscow Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment 324 and a nominal list of those who expressed a desire to be members of the proposed society, including 94 people. Finding, for my part, the establishment of the Moscow Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment, on the grounds set out in the regulations, useful and beneficial, I most respectfully present the regulations and the list for the discretion of the Holy Synod and I ask for instructions to carry this out. No. 212. May 21, 1863 325 The Holy Synod, by a resolution dated May 31/June 12, 1863, decided, taking into account the good purpose of the request for the establishment, in Moscow, of a society of lovers of spiritual enlightenment, the Holy Synod, for its part, finds its implementation very useful and opportune for both the clergy and the people, why, having considered the proposals presented by the Metropolitan of Moscow on this subject and recognizing them as corresponding to its purpose, determines: to allow Mr. Synodal Chief Prosecutor to ask His Imperial Majesty's highest permission to establish the above-mentioned society, for which purpose to transfer the original protocol to the office of the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, for the duration of execution. June 3. Letter from Metropolitan Philareti to an unknown person, in which he protests against the idea expressed in the draft university charter regarding the preparation of masters of theological academies at universities, to occupy their departments in church history and canon law, and to pass new exams for the master's degree in these University charters are soon born, and soon die, like a premature fetus. On the second charter I wrote comments 326, and they no longer found him alive; and, they say, a new one was born. What I wrote about the draft university charter to the Holy Synod, I sent the same, in the form of a note, in a letter to Count Sergei Grigorievich 327, believing that this matter was of special attention to him. It was he who told me that this project had already been abandoned, and now another one was being considered, in which it was no longer what I objected to. But, meanwhile, regarding the departments of church history and canon law, the count only said that I should not be afraid of special influence, from which I conclude that he intends to leave these departments in the position to which I objected. For the sake of the holy faith, against which false reason rebels, for the sake of Christian souls, who now face so many dangers of mental and moral corruption, deign to pay as much active attention to this matter as possible. Not by guesswork, but by an extract from a university book, or in general a book belonging to the Ministry of Education, I proved what teaching of canon law is being prepared for us at the university, which, by the way, wants to teach us subjects for which it itself did not have a department until now. The unsatisfactory nature of current secular education is evidenced by the reforms that were so decisively undertaken and so difficult to carry out. This has become so obvious that, without fear of objection, they write on May 31, this year, 1863, in the Moscow Gazette: “we have betrayed our children to the spirit of frivolity, superficial and deceitful knowledge and words without thought. Going further and further along this path, we have brought matters to the point that many Russian people, sincere patriots, are forced to go abroad in order to get away from the wonderful upbringing that awaited their children in Russia.” This wonderful education has not yet been transformed; and, of course, it cannot be transformed miraculously in one day. So, if they take students of theological academies and immerse them in such a secular sphere as to teach them spiritual sciences, church history and church law to the level of teachers: will there be a reasonable consistency in the basis of this? Will this be connected with good and true hope? In the St. Petersburg Gazette, on May 28, an announcement was published of 200 students and listeners of Moscow University, who preach their calling “to serve the people,” and “the duty of unshakable loyalty to the Russian land, and “to the one whom it recognizes as its representative, to whom it has entrusted the protection of its honor and integrity, to whom it has entrusted its destinies.” Who do we mean in these expressions? The Sovereign Emperor of All Russia has autocratic power, by God’s grace, according to the sacred law of succession to the throne, and not because it was “entrusted and handed over to him by the earth.” This was signed by 200 students and listeners of Moscow University. But all of them, it seems, are up to 1000. What do the 800 remaining in silence think? Why do they not dare to make patriotic expressions, which, as their comrades recognized, are required by the present time? Or are their opinions such that they cannot be expressed in the ears of true patriots? We will not dare to answer these questions in a negative way: but one cannot help but see the mixed and dark state of minds, which, apparently, the mentors lacked the strength to bring to a clear and correct position. Will it be safe to immerse students of theological academies in such an environment, when, moreover, there is no need to eat? What to say about the proposal to take masters of theological academies, teach them, and then force them to take an exam to receive a master's degree? Wouldn't this seem like a mockery of the master's degree of theological academies? May the Lord grant His true and pure light to the promoters of enlightenment. It is a shame to read in Mr. Taneyev’s report how German scientists teach us Orthodox Christians about Orthodoxy. Our draft charter says: moral education. The German corrects: religious and moral. Our project says: knowledge of God and duties to Him. A foreign scientist notes that Mohammedans can also say this; and adds: faith in Jesus Christ and life according to His commandments. I am writing this from memory; Maybe the expressions are not literally accurate to the book, but the thoughts are true. Gethsemane skete. June 3, 1863 328 June 21. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, A.P. Akhmatov, with an opinion on the project of establishing a new monastery from the German Lavra in Bessarabia A.P. Akhmatov, in a letter dated June 11, 1863, No. 3049, asked Metropolitan Philaret to report the conclusion on the petition of the attorney of the Moldavian German Lavra, Hieromonk Feofan, and the project, in which he outlined his assumptions regarding the distribution of income from the estates of the German Lavra, in order to carry out the instructions given to him to build a monastery in the estates of Kopanka and Kitskana, in Bessarabia, and raise a certain number of children of both sexes at the expense of the Lavra. Due to the attitude of your Excellency, dated June 11, 1863, No. 3049, having examined the project for the establishment of a new monastery from the German Lavra in Bessarabia, I find and believe the following: 1) the name of this monastery Lavra, according to the use of this name in Russia, is too magnificent for a new monastery. The name of the Novonyametsky Ascension Monastery is enough; and this is all the more true since the old monastery, in its publication of the book by Isaac Surin, in 1812, called itself the Moldovlahian Holy Ascension German Monastery; and it is unknown why he is now appropriating the name of Lavra. 2) There is no doubt in the draft institution. 3) It is necessary to add: the Novonyamets monastery should not exist as a reproach to the rule of the diocesan Chisinau bishop. Election to the priestly ranks belongs to the abbot and senior brethren of the monastery, and ecclesiastical testing and ordination belongs to the Eminence of Chisinau. The monastery must turn to him on matters that require bishop's permission, such as, for example: the consecration of the church, supplying it with a consecrated antimension, etc. The Right Reverend of Chisinau is not included in the internal administration of the monastery; but if it detects a violation of church discipline, it makes a reminder to the rector, and, depending on the importance of the case, to report it to the Holy Synod for taking appropriate measures. In June. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to M.N. Muravyov, on the occasion of his deployment to pacify the rebellion in the northwestern region of Russia Your Excellency. It was heard and seen that your Excellency’s busy public service finally demanded relief, so that part of the official work could be replaced by a share of peace. But as soon as the royal word called you to defend and pacify the fatherland, you forgot the need for relief and peace; without hesitation, they accepted a burden that required strong strength and tireless activity; found new strength in love for the Tsar and the Fatherland. The faithful sons of the king and the fatherland learned about this with joy and hope. Your purpose is already the defeat of the enemies of the fatherland, your name is victory. May the Lord of hosts accomplish for you the work of righteousness and the work of peace; may he send you the same-named heavenly archangel, may he go before you with a fiery sword, and may he cover you with a heavenly shield. With these thoughts and desires, I forward to you, along with this blessing, the icon of St. Archangel Michael 330. July 5th. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, A.P. Akhmatov, about the right to brew beer and honey Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, A.P. Akhmatov, in a letter to Metropolitan Philaret, dated June 8, 1863, No. 3802, wrote: “The Minister of Finance conveyed to me, for preliminary conclusion, the ministry’s proposal regarding the establishment of rules for beer and mead making for monasteries. Transmitting to your Eminence (in the list) the attitude of Secretary of State Reitern about this, I turn to you, dear sir and archpastor, with the most humble request, would you please, based on these assumptions, tell me your opinion.” The Metropolitan responded to this letter: Due to your Excellency’s attitude, dated June 8, this year, 1863, No. 3802, about beer and honey, I requested information from the Cathedral of Sergius established by the Lavra and from the dean monasteries, and the following turned out to be the case. In the Lavra, according to ancient custom, beer and honey are offered on cathedral tables on holidays and highly ceremonial days, and in addition, beer in significant quantities is used to treat workers in mowing and harvesting hay, which is done with voluntary public help. During tax farming, tax farmers allowed free of charge, in their factories, to brew beer for the Lavra from Lavra bread, and honey was always prepared in the Lavra. In some other monasteries, beer and honey are consumed three times a year, on the occasion of the burial of strangers who have died, to whom the relatives offer a table from themselves. In some monasteries, beer and honey are not offered at all at the fraternal meal, but in some they are offered on major holidays and are purchased by purchase. In David's Desert, on the occasion of their own beekeeping, their own honey is brewed in small quantities. It is unheard of for any monastery to have a brewery and sell beer. It is unknown what will open in other dioceses. The proposal is for monasteries to retain the right to brew beer and honey at home, for their own needs, in accordance with ancient custom and the needs of some monasteries. Breweries that allow the sale of beer, even if they were opened at any monastery, should, in my opinion, be strictly prohibited. With perfect respect and devotion, I have the honor to be, Your Excellency, dear sir, most humble servant, The Holy Synod, by resolution of January 17/29, 1864, No. 121, decided: Mr. Minister of Finance, in view of the information available in the Ministry of Finance that in some Orthodox monasteries, in specially established factories, beer and mead are produced, without excise tax, and generally without observing the rules established for this in the highest approved, July 4, 1861, regulation on drinking water collection, believing that in all monasteries in general it will be possible to carry out free beer-and-mead-making everywhere, but exclusively in cauldrons and pots, so that the beer and mead brewed in the monasteries will be used solely to satisfy the monastic needs, and not for sale - which is strictly monitored by both the abbot of the monastery and the local excise board - in the case of beer-and-mead-making in the monasteries at specially arranged for this purpose factories to establish that such monastic factories should be subject to the general rules on beer and mead making, which are contained in the provisions on the drinking tax, - this assumption was reported to the preliminary conclusion of the spiritual authorities. Based on these assumptions, the Holy Synod finds that in some monasteries, according to a long-standing custom, beer and honey are prepared at home, for offering at fraternal meals on holidays and highly solemn days, for treats during the cultivation of monastery lands with the help of people, and in a few monasteries in which there is a significant gathering of pilgrims, usually content with food during the entire stay in the monastery, at the expense of the monastery free of charge, for serving to the table of pilgrims; The Holy Synod has no information about specially established factories in monasteries for brewing beer and mead, as well as about the preparation of these drinks for sale by monasteries, but considers it not impossible for the existence, in the provinces of Little Russia, Western, Novorossiysk and in the Bessarabian region, of the custom of having in monasteries breweries special from the monastic kitchen for preparing beer for the monastery’s own use. According to such information, the Holy Synod, recognizing that the alleged Mr. The Minister of Finance to allow monasteries free beer-and-mead-making, exclusively in cauldrons and pots, is enough to meet the needs of the monasteries in this regard, however, I would consider: firstly, to eliminate the difficulties that may be encountered in adapting kitchen stoves for beer-and-mead-making and when remaking the beer-and-mead-making utensils themselves, to allow, in accordance with the application to the 1st note to Art. 178. the highest approved, on July 4, 1861, regulations on the drinking tax, brew beer, without excise tax, in breweries, in those monasteries in which such have long existed, but only for their own use, and not for sale, which in no case can be allowed, even with payment to the treasury of the established excise and patent taxes, and 2, without re-issuing the rules, impose on local Excise departments are obliged to strictly monitor that monasteries do not brew beer and honey for sale. since the local excise department, even now, according to the existing general rules, is obliged to ensure that no one allows the prohibited sale of drinks, and, meanwhile, the publication of a special rule on this subject regarding monasteries could give rise to doubts among the people who do not agree with the dignity of these spiritual institutions - to limit themselves to an order from the Holy Synod, with the prohibition of the sale of beer and honey, to those monasteries in which, according to the information of the ministry finances, such a sale was permissible. Believing that the above measures can sufficiently ensure the treasury against damage in the drinking collection, without restricting the monasteries, the Holy Synod determines: to allow the Chief Prosecutor to report the above to the Minister of Finance and ask for subsequent notification, with the addition of information about those monasteries that sold the drinking, for an order from the Holy Synod to prohibit such 331. August 31st. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Comrade Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Secretary of State, Prince S.N. Urusov, with an opinion on the critical judgments published, in No. 135, in the translated article of the St. Petersburg Gazette, for 1862, on certain subjects relating to the church and spiritual administration and on the actions of the highest established presence on the subject of improving the life of the clergy Most illustrious prince, gracious sir. In the editorial of the St. Petersburg Gazette, 1862, No. 135, critical judgments were published on some subjects relating to the church and spiritual administration, and on the actions of the highest institution on the subject of improving the life of the clergy. The proposed question, whether these judgments can be considered not reprehensible and not illegal, prompted me to read the said article, and, following the order of the article, separate from it some places in which its author stepped outside the bounds of truth and decency. I. In the article, candle profit is considered the best means of providing for city priests. The article goes on to say that candlestick “capital is already quite large; seminaries, etc. are supported only from interest.” This last statement is false. The report card of income and expenses for the spiritual-educational administration, for this year 1863, shows that not only interest, but also the entire annual candle income is included in the expense, and there is not a penny left. Meanwhile, the testimony of the article arouses murmurs among church parishioners, why do they continue to take away candle money from churches when the capital is already sufficient, and in the clergy feeds false hope, but a deceived hope will also arouse displeasure and murmurs. So, the testimony of the article is as unfair as it is harmful. II. The article condemns the use of hidden candle money to “build chapels, cisterns, and clocks on bell towers.” It is unheard of in Russia for cisterns to be built at churches. Clocks in bell towers and parish churches are extremely rare. Chapels at churches are built out of urgent need, either in order to have a warm church, or in order to increase the space for a large number of parishioners. So, these condemnations are combined with injustice, and cause temptation, burdening the cause of piety with unfounded censures. III. Further, the article asks the monks: “do they need these tens of thousands of acres of land, these forests stretching for tens of miles, these millions of dollars of capital lying dead without movement.” Hardly two or three monasteries have such land wealth as the article describes; Usually monasteries have 30 dessiatines, and recently a few have received from 50 to 150 dessiatines. There are also hardly two or three monasteries with capitals reaching up to a million, and then such capitals are bequeathed by investors for the use of interest on certain items, and therefore the monasteries cannot make any use out of them. Most of the monasteries have only what is necessary for their maintenance, and partly small amounts for unforeseen cases. So, the article unfairly condemns the monasteries for their parasitic wealth; and yet it arouses the envy of people like those who robbed monasteries in Western countries. IV. The article criticizes the resolution of the highest established presence on matters of improving the life of the clergy, which provides the bishops with personal clarification of issues regarding the 2nd and 3rd departments of the program. The article exclaims: “It’s a pity!” and further says: “we would agree,” but does not agree. It must be remembered that the decree of presence was approved by the highest. Is it proper that an exclamation be uttered about the highest approved resolution: “It’s a pity?” Is it proper for a nameless writer in a newspaper to express his “disagreement” with the highest approved position? If the dignity of public places is not defended, it is necessary to at least defend the dignity of the imperial word. V The article criticizes the rule that “a widowed priest cannot enter into a second marriage.” This means that she rebels against the Holy Scriptures and church rules. She undertakes to consider this issue: “from the dogmatic and canonical side” and says that “neither in the teaching of Christ, nor in the apostolic epistles there is a single place that prohibits priests from a second marriage.” Not true. Here are the words of the Apostle Paul: it becomes a bishop to be blameless, to have only one wife for her husband (1 Tim. 3:2). The article counters "that it is talking about a bishop, not a priest." Not true. This is not the place to enter into extensive hermeneutical discussions. It is enough to quote the exact words of the same apostle: establish elders in all cities, as I commanded you, if any are blameless, the husbands of only one wife (Titus 1:5-6). The Apostle also says: let deacons be one and only husband and wife (1 Tim. 3:12). Is it not clear that monogamy is required from an elder, or, what is the same, from a priest? The article also objects that the apostle commands the elder to have one wife “at the same time,” that is, not to have two wives together. But such an interpretation could only take place if polygamy was allowed to the laity in Christianity. And when all Christians are obliged not to have two wives at the same time, then what is the need to prescribe this to the elder? So, if a special commandment is prescribed for him, it means that a layman can have another after one wife, but an elder must have only one, and never have another. The article also objects: “almost until the end of the 7th century, widowed presbyters entered into a second marriage.” Not true. Against this, it is enough to note that the 17th Apostolic Canon does not admit one who is bound by baptism into two marriages into the presbytery. If sometimes there were violators of the rule and eluded the action of justice: this does not prove the permissibility of the case. Finally, the newspaper article decisively says: “why not break” the rule on monogamy for priests? This conclusion is drawn from the fact that the rule of thirty years of age for the priesthood is not observed. But there can be no comparison between these rules, because in some deviation from this last rule there is nothing vicious, and such non-compliance can be seen in the saints. On the contrary, the second marriage of a priest would mean a reduced degree of morality. The perfect marriage of a Christian is one, since one Christ has one bride, the church (Eph. 5:32). So, the newspaper article, which itself declared itself to examine the issue dogmatically and canonically, preaches the false, anti-dogmatic and anti-canonical teaching that priests are allowed to have second marriages. Consequently, this was allowed to be published in violation of the XIV volume of St. zak. censored mouth Article 237; and if this was done by secular censorship, then Articles 38 and 39 are also violated. VI. A newspaper article puts the following expressions into the mouths of the children of the clergy: “I took the kid to school; "Tyatka is a priest, and I will be a priest." “Tyatka” is a diminutive word with an expression of contempt (similar to, for example, vanka). The expression is false, insulting to fathers and children, indecent in the press, especially in an article that undertakes to argue dogmatically and canonically. VII. It would be burdensome to continue calculating the injustices, indecencies, censures and ridicule of the entire class for the private mistakes of some individuals that fill the article under consideration. What has been said so far is enough to determine the merits of the article. The duty of justice commands us to wish and ask that sacred dogmas, church rules, and ministers of the church be protected by the force of the law, and that the law itself be protected from violation by the justice and zeal of the guardians and guardians of the laws. With this request, due to the absence of the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, turning to your Excellency, with perfect respect and devotion, I have the honor to be, your Excellency, gracious Sovereign, most humble servant, September 2. Metropolitan Philaret’s opinion that the St. Petersburg censors are unfairly justified in allowing the publication in the St. Petersburg Gazette of an article directed against monogamy of priests by referring to the Orthodox Review The gentlemen censors of St. Petersburg, justifying themselves in allowing before the publication of the article of the St. Petersburg Gazette, which wants to destroy the rule on monogamy of priests, point, as an exculpatory example, to the article of the Orthodox Review (No. 10. 1862), the content of which is expressed as follows: “about allowing our Orthodox Church to elect to the rank of bishop a married person, and not a “monastic rank.” This can be understood in such a way that the Orthodox Review now considers allowing the election of a married person as a bishop. But it doesn't say that. It speaks historically about what happened, and does not destroy any church rule, as a newspaper article does. So, the justification of the gentlemen censors has no basis in the article of the Orthodox Review. And if the Orthodox Review had also said that the election of a married person to a bishop could be allowed, this would not have violated the church rule. The rule only requires that a married person, upon election to a bishop, separate from his wife and assign her to a distant monastery. The Orthodox Review would not be subject to condemnation even if it believed that even now a non-monk, celibate, or widowed from his first marriage could be elected to the bishopric. Custom only requires that such a person enter into monasticism before being ordained as a bishop. So, comparing a newspaper article with an article from the Orthodox Review is not correct: the latter is not to blame, but the former is illegal. Complementing this is my attitude from August 31. No. 333 September 3. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to Prince S. N. Urusov, about Bishop Kirill of Melitopol Alexey Petrovich 334 wrote a letter to the Reverend Kirill 335 in response; sent it to me and instructed, if I find no doubt, to forward it to you, for sending to the Reverend Kirill. I have no doubt. The answer is firm and at the same time well-disposed, so His Eminence Kirill should not wish for anything better, if he judges sensibly. Therefore, I am fulfilling the order, forwarding to you a letter from Alexei Petrovich for dispatch. I did not write anything to your Excellency regarding the election of the Ecumenical Patriarch, because there was no visible opportunity to put my hand to the matter. The patriarch's attorney told me that the matter was over, and a well-disposed man had been chosen. The Patriarch's attorney found me in the monastery, unwell; and talked with me for a short time, hurrying to return, so that it seems that he saw nothing in the monastery. No, now I find out that he was in the sacristy. Now I remain waiting for Alexei Petrovich these days. Invoking God's blessing to you, with perfect respect and devotion, I have the honor to be, Your Excellency, most humble servant, Lavra. September 3, 1863 336 September 5. Metropolitan Philaret's opinion on the attitude of the clergy to the zemstvo I. By virtue of Articles 39 and 42 of the provisions on provincial and district zemstvo institutions, rural priests, among other things, are elected to the council for three years by the electoral votes of the rural class. According to Article 49, a public official, and therefore a priest, can be elected as a member of the zemstvo council, which sits constantly. According to Article 54, a vowel, and therefore a priest, can be elected to the vowels of the provincial zemstvo assembly, and according to Article 61, to the provincial zemstvo council, which sits constantly. II. To be present at the district zemstvo assembly, the priest-vocalist must be absent from the church and parish in September for 7 days, except for travel time. This is inconvenient in relation to the position of a parish priest. To be present at the provincial zemstvo assembly, the vowel priest must be absent in November for 20 days, except for travel time. This is very inconvenient in relation to the priestly position, and burdensome in relation to the costs of the clergy and living in the provincial city. A priest-vocal, elected as a member of a district or provincial zemstvo council, is obliged to be present in one or the other for three continuous years. This is completely inconsistent with his priestly duties. III. The ecclesiastical authorities can exempt a priest from being present in the district or provincial zemstvo council, in accordance with Article 50, which states that employees are allowed to occupy positions as members of the zemstvo council only with the permission of their superiors. But the new legal provision does not provide any means to exempt the priest from participation in the zemstvo district and provincial assembly. IV. From this the question arises: can the clergy be satisfied with the opportunity to remove themselves from being present in councils, and subject themselves to the need to participate in zemstvo district and provincial assemblies, or should they ask for complete exemption from participation in zemstvo institutions? V. The idea may arise that the clergy, along with other classes, should participate in zemstvo institutions in order to protect their own interests. But it is difficult to imagine what these interests are. Then, how is the unsatisfactory life of the clergy generally recognized, when the long-existing but not enforced law that clergy and ecclesiastical houses should be from the church or parishioners needs to be carried out by urgent need - is it really possible to fear that church lands and houses of clergy and clergy will be burdened with taxes? In some dioceses, some priests, independent of the church, have their own lands. These lands, along with the lands of other inhabitants, are subject to land tax. Here there is a case for the priest to protect his own interests. But can this defense be strong within the zemstvo institutions? For the small number of lands owned, the land-owning priests would have to unite with several others to give one proxy to the number of voters for the whole district. Therefore, among the number of voters from the entire district, and as a result, among the councilors of the district, the number of priests, of necessity, should be insignificant. Their voice in the zemstvo assembly to protect their interests will mean much less. VI. The participation of a priest as a member of the district or provincial zemstvo assembly is associated with inconvenience in relation to the subjects that the law entrusts to the consideration and determination of the zemstvo assembly. They are numerous, varied, and for a thorough judgment a significant study of them is needed for an entire district, or even an entire province. But the priest does not have enough opportunities and time for this. And expressing opinions and casting a vote, without a thorough conviction of its justice, is painful for every honest person, and even more so for the conscience of a priest. VII. People are usually not without passions. Where there are more people, there are more passions; Of course, it will not be without this in zemstvo assemblies. The experiences of diocesan administration give reason to fear that sometimes the opinion of a priest-vocal, expressed in the zemstvo assembly, fair, but unfavorable to the special interests of one or another class, village, person, will arouse displeasure and hostile disposition against him, which the dissatisfied will try to spread. But a priest, due to the nature of his ministry, must primarily be protected from non-peaceful relations in the circle of his activities. This is not so unimportant that it is not permissible to ask the question: does this not require precautions? VIII. The easiest way to resolve the issue of the relationship of the priest to the zemstvo can be to add the following to Article 50 of the regulations on zemstvo institutions: Priests are not allowed to attend zemstvo meetings except with the permission of the diocesan authorities. So, for example, if a suburban priest is elected to the council, he can, without leaving the church, come to the zemstvo assembly. The diocesan authorities may allow him. However, whether such a resolution of the issue would be satisfactory, let there be further discussion about this, with attention to the numerous circumstances of the issue revealed by the provisions on zemstvo institutions. Prince S.N. Urusov, in a letter dated September 20, 1863, to Metropolitan Philaret, among other things, wrote: “State Secretary Butkov notifies that when the United Departments of Laws and State Economy considered the draft regulations on zemstvo institutions, it was proposed, among other things: 1) to exclude from the draft the rule (clause art. 34), according to which voters from rural societies were provided elect local parish priests to the vowels of the district zemstvo assembly, and 2) also not allow the personal participation of priests in electoral congresses of landowners, as representatives of the clergy, on the basis of clause a. And. and. Art. 20. Thus, if the above assumptions take place and are approved, then all participation of the clergy in zemstvo administration will be limited to the provision of clergymen, who are mentioned in paragraph 2. Art. 20 of the draft, to send from oneself, but not from among one’s own, authorized representatives to the district electoral congress of landowners” 337. September 26. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to His Eminence Isidore, Metropolitan of Novgorod and St. Petersburg, about improving the life of the clergy of the Moscow diocese In addition to my attitude, dated March 12, this year, No. 123, I forward herewith the journal of the meetings of the committee on increasing the personal civil rights and benefits of the clergy and children of clergy, with the addition that a) this committee was formed under the chairmanship of the Right Reverend Leonid, Bishop of Dmitrov, vicar of Moscow and the members were: Danilovsky Archimandrite Jacob, cathedral Archpriest Peter Pokrovsky, Pokrovsky Cathedral Archpriest Alexander Voskresensky, Pokrovsky, in Kudrin, Church Archpriest Alexander Nikolsky, St. George, in Gruziny, Church priest Nikolai Rudnev, Kazan, at the Kaluga Gate, Church priest Alexey Klyucharyov and b) that I recognize the opinions of the committee as worthy of attention. Regarding the delivery of the required information from the parish clergy, about improving the life of the Orthodox clergy, by the 1st of the coming month of October, I have the honor to answer that the information requested on this subject, although the consistory was submitted by the clergy, turned out to be inconsistent with the program; Therefore, by the consistory, with my approval, the information was returned for correction, and as soon as it is presented and turns out to be satisfactory, I will not fail, at the same time, to forward it to Your Eminence, with my conclusion. With perfect respect and devotion, I have the honor to be, Your Eminence's most humble servant, In September. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to Prince S.I. Urusov, about the letter from the Bishop of Melitopol, addressed to Prince A.M. Gorchakov The Chancellor, Prince A. M. Gorchakov, handed over to Prince S.N. Urusov a letter addressed to the first, dated August 22, 1863, from Jerusalem, from Kirill, Bishop of Melitopol, with the following content: I would not dare, especially at this time of our most intensified efforts for the benefit and glory of the fatherland, to bother you with any requests or papers, especially about myself. But six years ago, your Excellency witnessed my refusal to accept an appointment to Jerusalem and the most intense opposition to this appointment on the part of the late His Eminence Metropolitan of St. Petersburg 339: then your word prevailed, and I never regretted it for a minute. Then, throughout the six years of my stay abroad, your Excellency was a constant closest and, which I will never forget, supportive and merciful witness to my feasible labors in the east. All this not only encourages me, but also imposes on me a kind of obligation to myself - not to bypass, in days of difficult trials, in a word the prayers of the best of my benefactors, my best support in life in the best, albeit most difficult, times. I won't be very verbose. What and how was done to me is, of course, known to the ministry. What a labyrinth of perplexities I found myself in, thanks to hasty and extremely confusing combinations, I considered it my duty to express this in a letter to His Excellency, Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, 340 attached here in a copy. I am sure that the Chief Prosecutor, in feelings of justice and philanthropy, will heed the voice of a fair plea. But your Lordship's gracious support in the following would be invaluable to me. I was taken abroad from the theological academy, at the very height of my scientific and literary activity, to which I devoted myself passionately and which was greatly appreciated. Six years of political activity in the east gave a somewhat new direction to my thought and my pen, but the activity, no matter how difficult it was, was not lost. Now they are pointing me to a monastery, idle, with the expectation of indicating classes at the personal discretion of the local archbishop 341 . Enter, Your Excellency, philanthropically into my position... I personally know the Right Reverend of Kazan and deeply respect him. But if, being forced to enter the Kazan monastery, I do not die on the road, then my stay in Kazan will be execution and murder for him: and he will not be able to indifferently see how a person whom he did not know and did not value die in his arms. It would be difficult, of course, to return me to my school and service activities, from which I was so suddenly taken six years ago. But I don’t insistently ask for this either. I ask only one thing in relation to my past: to credit me with my 16 years of service, which was very varied, and to grant me some kind of pension. If my salary, according to the degree of Doctor of Theology, is deducted from her, to which there are now no obstacles, I will find myself a quiet corner and, without disturbing anyone, I will continue to work for the benefit of the Church of God. Third, I would most earnestly ask that I be allowed to look for such a corner, at least until spring, here in the east. I will not hide from the humane gaze of our Lordship that the latest news shocked me quite a bit and upset my health, which was not unaffected by troubles and almost two years of liver suffering. It would be difficult for me now to go north for the winter, after six years of staying in this warm climate, and right now I need some time to recover. By the way, this is the case: for now, I would review the translation of my pastoral theology prepared here in the East, for publication in Greek and use in Eastern schools. The eastern hierarchy, which deeply sympathizes with me, and the flock in a quiet corner, I hope, will not refuse me. Complete, Your Excellency, your good deeds to me by your good deed of participation in the current difficult time of my life. I won’t say that I will pray to God for you any more: I will pray as I always have before. But the Lord himself, I am sure, will reward you a hundredfold for your kindness to a man who needs almost superhuman strength to endure his ordeal. Your Excellency, gracious sovereign, most grateful and most devoted servant, Bishop Kirill of Melitopol. Letter from Bishop Kirill to Prince S.N. Urusov, with his attitude, dated September 13, sent him to Metropolitan Philaret for his discretion. Metropolitan Philaret answered in his “very confidential” letter: The letter of Eminence Kirill represents a sad phenomenon in the hierarchy. I do not take upon myself the unpleasant responsibility of going into detail. I will explain the matter briefly if I say that it would be possible to answer it. The contents of your Eminence's letter are quite unexpected. You write that you have been given five punishments at one time, including in this date your appointment to Kazan, and as something special, departure to your destination. It is difficult for me to repeat your grave judgment, as if the Holy Synod “committed some strange judgment over you, not falling under any laws, neither divine, nor human, nor church, nor civil.” There was no trial against you and no punishment was given to you. The Holy Synod’s ruling on you was not judicial, but administrative. If your movement is unpleasant to you: this is a case that occurs in any type of service, and is accepted with obedience, and even more so in spiritual service. There is nothing offensive in your movement. As bishop of the district city of Melitopol, you are equal to the vicars, and are appointed to the place occupied by the vicar, and, moreover, as you yourself note, in anticipation of the opening of the diocesan see. Having judged impartially, I hope you will recognize that it is protective for you that I am refraining from proposing your letter to the Holy Synod. An unfair and serious accusation that you bring against the highest spiritual authorities could expose you to unpleasant responsibility. The best thing I can offer you both in the present circumstances and for your future position is to obey the determination of the Holy Synod and the decree of His Imperial Majesty. It is not without significance that the decree was written in this highest name. If, due to the state of your health, it is difficult for you to go to Kazan, then you will show sufficient obedience to the Holy Synod if you arrive in Odessa. From here you can present your wishes to the Holy Synod. Continuing your stay in Jerusalem is also inconvenient from the point of view that it is customary not to have a bishop there. Allow me to speak to His Eminence Kirill. I appeal to your Excellency. Please see my opinion on this matter. To summon him before the decree and determination, in my opinion, would not be low. It would be inconvenient to interrogate him in Jerusalem: and if he was summoned, it would be possible to listen to him and thereby prevent a real complaint. I keep two copies with me because I may need them when I see Alexei Petrovich. Invoking God's blessing to you, with perfect respect and devotion, I have the honor to be, Your Excellency, most humble servant, Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow 342. October 4. Comments by Metropolitan Philaret on the draft regulations on the organization of parish councils or trustees in Orthodox churches The Highest Established Presence for the Affairs of the Orthodox Clergy, in relation, dated June 17, 1863, No. 208, forwarded to the Chief Administrator of the II Department of His Majesty’s Own Chancellery, for consideration, a copy from its journal, most highly approved on June 15, about its assumptions regarding the establishment of parish trustees at Orthodox churches and the arrangement of houses for clergy and the following draft rules for parish trustees to this journal, as well as a printed copy of the report on these subjects, which was in consideration of that presence, dated March 16, No. 2. Chief Manager of the II Department, Secretary of State, Baron M.A. Korf, after careful consideration of the above considerations and assumptions, returned them with his comments, in relation, dated July 28, 1863, No. 719. Some thoughts on parish councils or trustees I. In the report, March 16, 1863, No. 2, there are reviews about the establishment of church elders that are inaccurate, at least in relation to the Moscow diocese. It says that this institution “unpleasantly attracts sympathy from the community of parishioners.” The exact truth is that the institution of churchwardens has completely entered into church and parish life; that parishioners recognize the need and benefit of having a church warden and give him the initiative among themselves in church affairs; in rural parishes, they sometimes assign a monetary reward from themselves to those elected to the position of church warden, because it significantly distracts him from village affairs, strictly requiring his presence at every service. The difficulty of electing a churchwarden occurs in a minority of rural parishes for the reason now stated; and in urban areas - due to the small number of parishioners, due to the inconvenience for many of being distracted from their affairs to church affairs, due to the rejection of the position of church warden by persons of the upper classes. From the middle and lower classes there are church elders who are very zealous and useful, so that without them the churches could not be prospered and maintained. II. The report said that the establishment of churchwardens “is subject to many formalities and all the authorities of spiritual administration.” It happens like this: parishioners on the spot, in the presence of the clergy and dean, make and sign the choice of a church warden; the dean or parish priest presents this choice to the bishop, or, as close as possible, to the spiritual board; the bishop approves and orders a decree to be given in the name of the chosen one. Is it possible to reduce these formalities? Is it possible for the diocesan authorities to remain in the dark whether a church warden has been elected and who? There is complexity necessary in church accounting: but in villages it falls mostly on the clergy, who keeps records according to the testimony of the headman. It is not precisely stated in the report that the parish “has no participation in the management of the amounts.” Ordinary, current expenses are made by the church elder, without consultation with the parishioners, which is not necessary: ​​but in the most important matters, such as: construction, distribution, renewal, decoration of the church, replacing dilapidated accessories with new ones, verifying church amounts, in case of doubt, parishioners participate in meetings and conferences. It is also said in the report that parishioners who were present at the counting of church money are obliged to be responsible for their integrity. In reality it is not like that. The church warden and clergyman respond. The parishioners do not come to the usual account of church sums, out of laziness, or out of trust in the clergy and church warden. So, the shadow of condemnation has been cast in vain on the establishment of church elders. III. The report expresses a desire to have fraternities in churches, according to ancient custom, and this institution is attributed special trustworthiness, since it retains an exclusively ecclesiastical character; and where church brotherhoods are not established, “parish councils are relied upon as church-civil institutions.” The purpose of parish brotherhoods and parish councils is the same: why is it that the former primarily acquire a purely ecclesiastical character, and the latter a church-civil character? On the contrary, in fact, the Kiev charter shows the brotherhood to have a mixed character of ecclesiastical and civil. According to Article 2 of this charter, the priest is present at the meeting of brotherhoods whenever he wishes or is invited. Consequently, there will be meetings, and probably for the most part, without a priest, consisting of only laymen; but they are supposed (stat. 8.) to have the cross and the gospel on the table, which has been the advantage of councils and the Holy Synod until now. What, during the struggle against the union, with the impoverishment of the Orthodox hierarchy, was done arbitrarily, albeit well-intentioned, by the Orthodox laity, should it now be turned into law? And should the church rule of reverence be destroyed (a teaching message during the service), that no one except the clergy can pick up the cross and the gospel? Is it consistent with reverence for the shrine to place a container with the money of the brotherhood on the same table with the cross and the Gospel? (Stat. 8.) So, if for brotherhoods the ecclesiastical character is recognized as primarily desirable, then shouldn’t this idea be more actively applied to church brotherhoods and church councils? IV. The highest approved presence for the affairs of the Orthodox clergy has drawn up draft rules for parish trustees in Orthodox churches. This project was assigned “in the form of an experience for three years.” (Journal May 2 and 23, 1863). Consequently, during these three years of experience, it is possible to present thoughts about some “changes” in them. What was called a guardianship in the draft rules was called a council in the report, just like some already existing institutions. Who has guardianship? Above the church? - She has a church warden for this. Over the clergy and clergy? - So, the priest presiding over the guardianship will be a guardian over himself; and the peasant present will be a guardian over the priest. The name of the council would be free from these inconsistencies. V. According to Article 3 of the draft rules, “the rector of the parish church is the chairman of the trusteeship, but when discussing the material interests of the clergy, the place of the chairman is taken by one of the members from the parishioners.” Let us assume that a meeting of the rural parish guardianship has opened. They discuss renewals in the church, and the rector presides. Then we need to talk about the houses of the clergy; The rector of the church leaves the chair and the peasant presides. Is this good? Is it good for order? Who will write down the decisions of this meeting: the chairman is a priest, or the chairman is a peasant, perhaps illiterate? Should the peasant chairman set a modest measure of his height? The concern here is not simply about the outward honor of the priest, but about the correct relationship between the shepherd and the flock. If now the moral and spiritual influence of the priest is sometimes met among parishioners with coldness, inattention, and disrespect: is not a new reason given for such dispositions when the peasant parishioners see from among themselves legally appointed superiors over the priests in the meeting on church affairs? And what is the need to change the chairman when the subject of discussion changes? For example, in some academic institution, when “discussions about material interests” are needed, do they find it necessary for the learned chairman to leave his place and someone else, more familiar with material interests, to take over the chairmanship? The fear of the priest’s strong influence on “discussions about the material interests of the clergy” would also be in vain. The rights of the chairman are limited; and the preponderance of the parish vote cannot be hampered by his influence. The idea of ​​the uselessness and inconvenience of having another variable chairman in the parish trusteeship is not alien to the highest approved presence. It is found in Article 3 of the draft rules as part of the report, which states that “the rector of the parish church is the indispensable chairman of the council.” VI. Article 9 of the rules of parish trustees gives their members, “as an external distinction,” “a special sign assigned to their position.” But in the report on March 16, about the title of church wardens, it is said that “those attracted to it by special types and hope of encouragement cannot bring all the benefits expected from them.” If this is true, although, of course, not in general, but partly; Isn’t this what the insignia established for members of parish trustees will lead to? Badges of distinction, although not high, will not attract into the parish guardianship of common people, ambitious people who will not be diligent in their work, and will interfere with those who are diligent? The Orthodox people have a disposition to do good for God and their neighbors unselfishly, and therefore many make donations, hiding even their name. It is advisable to acquire such people for parish guardianship. From them one can hope to gain the trust of other parishioners, zeal for the cause, and blessed success. So, isn’t it better to remove the lure of external difference and embrace the hope that pious people with pure and unselfish zeal for the cause of the Church will enter into trusteeship? Moreover, even if the supposed insignia is respectful and desirable in villages, it is unlikely to be in cities. And the badge of honor, disgruntledly respected, does not achieve its goal. VII. Article 2 of the draft rules gives the parish trustee the right to elect an “honorary trustee”. Article 12 requires, in some parishes, to have one “parish trustee” instead of guardianship. And by special opinion, expressed outside the highest approved presence, in all parish trustees a “parish trustee” is appointed, who must be the indispensable chairman of the institution, the first representative of the parish and the head of all affairs.” As a trustee is not subject to urgent renewal of his election; then the chosen one once receives all the more powerful influence because it can last throughout his life. Thus, over the guardianship, over the clergy and the church itself, there is a supreme person of strong importance, the secular trustee. It can be said that not just anyone, but the church itself has the need to ask for careful consideration of this institution before it falls on the church and the clergy. This would be a parish institution of a Protestant nature, inconsistent with the hierarchical structure of the Orthodox Church and leading to difficulties. The schismatics could boast that the church is beginning to organize itself in imitation of them: for with them, due to the lack of a correct hierarchy, secular trustees have the highest influence and power both over the places and accessories of worship, and over the priests. When the apostles found it inconvenient to deal with the material needs of the church, then they did not establish secular trustees for this, who would certainly preside over the members of the hierarchy, but entrusted this matter to the lowest church rank of deacons. The elevation of the trustee of material needs to the servant of the faith and its sacraments is an obvious incongruity in the eyes of the believer and a strong reason for the neglect of this latter in the eyes of the ignorant people. Perhaps it is not superfluous to look at the subject now under consideration not only from an ecclesiastical, but also from a state or civil point of view. The goodwill of the people-loving Sovereign Emperor is hidden from no one, to promote freedom whenever possible. The freedom of the peasants is expanded; and they are freed from the tutelage of the landowners. Is the direction of the new project on parish trustees consistent with this direction, limiting the freedom of priests and subordinating them to the tutelage of a parish trustee, who is appointed as the “director of all affairs”, who owns the “distribution of responsibilities between the members of the guardianship”, and who, according to this vague right, can order the priest what he wants and prevent him, without his permission, from undertaking, for example, the purchase of a new liturgical book, instead of a dilapidated one? Such an institution, contrary to the government’s benevolent disposition to support the dignity of the Orthodox clergy, would only promise embarrassment for the entire parish clergy, and especially the priest, his humiliation before the parishioners, and consequently a decrease in his influence over them. The new project on the parish trustee recognizes as fair, made on another occasion, an indication of the incongruity if the priest, who, yesterday, according to church regulations, acted as a judge of the conscience of his parishioners, today appeared before some of them as defendants. However, nevertheless, this project assigns to parish trusteeship “mediation between the clergy and parishioners, and conciliation proceedings.” But there is no mediation between the two parties, between the priest and the parishioners, because the members of the guardianship, except the priest, belong to the side of the parishioners, and among them may be those who, together with others, want to subject the priest to responsibility. Consequently, instead of impartial mediation between two parties, here one party subjects the other, that is, the parishioners of the priest, to responsibility. The trial in the presence of the guardianship of displeasure on the priest, which means something else, if not an investigation and a court, but not quite strong, because, according to the project, the priest does not completely obey the decision of this court. What could such an order lead to, if not to increase publicity about the priest’s disagreement with some parishioners, and, consequently, to increase the temptation, and even to the parishioners’ bitterness towards the priest in the case when he does not recognize the trusteeship decision as fair and does not submit to it? It is a different matter if, in the event of a disagreement between a priest and some parishioners, other well-intentioned and respected people in the parish, not publicly, not formally, but in a private, trusted relationship, take upon themselves an explanation and conciliatory investigation of what happened: this can be without temptation, without insulting the dignity of the clergyman, with success and benefit. But this can be done by free good will and mutual trust, not by law. Between the clergy and the parishioners there is a close mediator and a peace judge - the dean. Management experience shows that the dean acts in this manner before he decides to report perceived disagreements to his superiors. VIII. The new project of parish guardianship also calls for the election of clergy by parishioners, and especially by parish guardians, to be turned “into a mandatory permanent order.” In support of this, reference is made to the decree of the Holy Synod, February 23, 1722, and to the addition to the Spiritual Regulations. It must be taken into account that this was when theological seminaries were just being established, the diocesan bishops did not have candidates for clergy positions ready and tested in behavior by close observation, and under such circumstances it was necessary to demand, and was required by the 2nd article of the rules of the clergy, about the protege “from their parishioners a certificate that they know him to be a good person.” On the contrary, the Spiritual Regulations (On the Acts of the Bishop, Art. 10.) commands that “single disciples in the bishop’s school, when enough of them appear, should be promoted to the priesthood,” and threatens punishment for the bishop if he prefers an unlearned one, while the Regulations do not make an exception in favor of an unlearned person elected by the parishioners. From this it naturally followed that as the number of candidates for the priesthood prepared and tested in theological schools increased, the right, and even the duty, of bishops to promote them to clergy increased, even if the parish election represented other candidates, less capable and prepared. This is the situation that things are in now. If the election of parishioners is in accordance with the dignity of the person being elected: the bishop agrees with the election; and if it does not agree: the bishop renders justice to dignity. This order corresponds to the essence of the matter, and not only does not require the proposed change, but it would even harm the matter. Let’s assume that a vacancy for a priest has opened in a village, in a county remote from the diocesan city. The election of the parishioners can most closely fall on their own deacon, no matter how low his level of education may be, or, by some random intercession, on a seminary student whom he meets closely, even if he is one of the latter. Such candidates come to the bishop; and at the same time several other candidates who are incomparably worthy. According to the project on the “mandatory and permanent order”, the bishop must say to the latter: present yourself to the election of parishioners, that is, undertake, poor people, a journey of a hundred or more miles, to an unknown place, with the slightest hope of success. Let's assume that these candidates came to the village parish guardianship, and then to the full meeting of parishioners. The most likely consequence of this will be one of the following: either they will say that the election has already been made, and they do not want to do anything else, or that they do not know the candidates being presented, or they will finally resume the election and elect the one who read the apostle louder, even if, according to his true dignity, he was the last, and not the first. In this way, the bishop will be put in a desperate position, either to do injustice against the dignity of some candidates, or to violate the newly proposed “obligatory and permanent order”. At present, with the increase in those who have completed seminary teaching, they express a desire to enter not only priestly, but also deaconal places in villages, and in Moscow students are asking for clergy positions. But parishioners in these places usually elect clerics who are strong not in education, but in voice. So, the supposed mandatory procedure for parish election would have the consequence that poorly educated clergymen would be assigned positions in preference to students, and students would wander in poverty, not even receiving clergy positions. According to the diocesan administration, it is seen that, since the liberation of the peasants, they insist more stubbornly than before on their unreasonable election as members of the clergy. Perseverance should increase if supported by a new law. In this case, the election will be subject to the arbitrariness of the laity; and the spiritual authorities will be deprived of the opportunity to provide justice and encouragement to dignity. From what has been said, one can see how unreliable is the expectation expressed in the draft that the new order “will not remain without a charitable influence on the composition of the parish clergy.” The expectation under the new order of “improving the material life of the clergy” is also unreliable. If we think about this when choosing a priest, then rural parishioners will, without a doubt, more often encounter conditions that are constraining for the priest than those that are relieving. Let us be allowed to remember that the highest approved presence was most highly established to improve the material life of the clergy, and not to draw up new laws of hierarchical administration. October 4. Comments by Metropolitan Philaret on the assumptions of the chief manager of the II department of His Majesty’s own office, Baron M. A. Korf 344, on the arrangement of parish trustees in the Orthodox churches 1) Baron Korf believes, in order to attract the best parishioners into the guardianship, to give them primary importance in this management, namely, to make the parish trustee the indispensable chairman of the institution. Without arguing that a sense of pride is sometimes a strong driver of donations to parishes and clergy, it seems to me that in Russia there are also often other cases when sincere zeal for the church is based on purer motives; to assert that the most useful figures in favor of the church can only be people who exceed others in birth, upbringing, wealth, connections, etc. means not knowing the internal parish life in Russia. Take a parish where the majority consists of nobles, of scientists: who is elected to the church elders, who is concerned about the splendor of the church? Sometimes a craftsman, a tradesman who has not yet come to the enlightened conviction that spending money on gilding the iconostasis is an offense against official charity. Consequently, to establish parish guardianship, considering the incitement to lust for power as its moral basis, sacrificing the natural primacy of the spiritual element to the pride of secular interference, such a direction will not be grafted onto our church work. Where vanity, a passion for influence, for external honor is taken into account, there the beginnings of strife, disagreement, and disunity are introduced. Especially now, when the government wants to elevate the importance of the priest, such an advantage given to a lay person over him will be, from the first, government recognition of his insignificance in the eyes of the parishioners. Finally, the trusteeship must limit its activities to certain limits; it should not move into the purely ecclesiastical realm. The lay chairman is not able, due to a lack of church information, to keep the judgments of the guardianship within proper boundaries; on the contrary, due to the inherent weakness of man, the trustee will naturally desire to expand the range of his actions; one priest can resist this; as chairman, he will have the necessary power for this; as a member, he will have one vote, overpowered by the majority. 2) Baron Korf proposes to exclude Article 12 on sole guardianship from the draft. This article was proposed by the Minister of the Interior, for reasons known to him; It seems that there will be no important obstacles to its exclusion. But we cannot agree with Baron Korff’s idea of ​​inviting those living in another parish to become trustees; this will be completely contrary to the people’s concept of the separateness and independence of the parish environment. The proverb: “don’t go to someone else’s monastery with your own rules” is applied in the popular consciousness to the parish as well. 3) Baron Korf’s remark about the spread of the composition of the general meeting of parishioners is absolutely correct; the restriction of composition was adopted at the proposal of the Minister of the Interior, it is hardly necessary to define in law the meaning of a parishioner who has the right to participate in a meeting; Each parishioner, while bearing responsibilities for the parish, must also exercise the rights of his position. 4) We can agree with Baron Korff’s assumption that the decision of two-thirds, when half of the parishioners were not in the meeting, should be binding for the entire parish. 5) Baron Korf’s proposal that fees should always be assigned between parishioners in proportion to the zemstvo duties paid by each of them within the parish - may exclude from the fees such persons who, by residence, are considered parishioners of an unknown church - and, after fulfilling zemstvo duties, participate in another locality. 6) The question of the participation of parishioners in elections to priestly places concerns exclusively the ecclesiastical department, and should not be the subject of discussion in secular civil presence. It was never forbidden for parishioners to testify to the good qualities of candidates for priestly and ecclesiastical positions in their parish. But to legitimize this custom, to allow the bishop, as Baron Korf wishes, to remove only unreliable candidates from among the candidates presented by the parish, and consequently appoint only those nominated by the parish, would be a limitation of the most important prerogative of diocesan administration. There is much to be said about the practical inconveniences of parishioners choosing priests and clergymen. But the very outline of the task, granted by the highest authority to the resolution of a special presence, does not allow entering into a judgment about a subject related to the hierarchical authority. 7) If Baron Korf proposes that guardianship should be included only in conciliatory mediation of disputes between clergy and parishioners, then there seems to be no reason to oppose this, so that, however, the right to decide on these matters should be left to the diocesan authorities. 8) Baron Korf wishes that the number of persons to be elected as members of the trusteeship, as well as the duration of their service, could be determined by the general meeting of parishioners, the order of classes, the time of meetings, the distribution of responsibilities between members of the trusteeship, etc. by the trustees themselves. With the news of the matter, with the parishioners unaccustomed to making judgments about the correct organization, there will be a lot of confusion in the collective discussion of the composition and internal rules of the guardianship. To start a new business, success is always more expected from the initiative of the sole authority; subsequently, depending on the course and further development of the action, it will be possible to strengthen the independence of guardianship. 9) It seems that we can agree with the rest of Baron Korff’s considerations 345. October 24. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, A.P. Akhmatov, about the priest Yakhontov It would be desirable for you to have information as to whether the Sergius Lavra and the Academy would willingly accept priest Yakhontov 346, who was being released from the Solovetsky monastery. I admit, I am not very convinced by the approval, which can be explained by the request of the person being approved, and the desire of the person approving to reduce the number of prisoners. I know the investigative case about the political memorial service because the Holy Synod was pleased to conduct it through my hands and demand my opinion. After Shchapov, the worst was the priest Yahontov. When students asked the cemetery priest to sing a requiem and he refused: priest Yahontov convinced him 347. Finally, the cemetery priest told him: if you serve, then I will be with you. And the priest Yahontov served, at the litanies he expressed himself worse than others, namely, he commemorated those killed for freedom; Consequently, he consciously pursued the political goal of the memorial service. Priest Yahontov was not accepted among the students, probably due to a lack of preparatory knowledge. He would now come to the local academy halfway through the course: how could he catch up with the others? It is better for him to join an academy where the course has recently begun. Who can guarantee that the (thoughts) that moved priest Yahontov so strongly in Kazan will not resume? Will the clergy be graced by masters who were singers of freedom-loving dirges? If my word can be worthy of attention, I dare to say that the Lavra, the Academy and I would like the priest Yahontov to pass by us. Invoking God's blessing to you, with perfect respect and devotion, I have the honor to be, Your Excellency, most humble servant, In the laurel. October 24, 1863 348 November 2. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, A.P. Akhmatov, with an opinion on the need for restrictions in the law, which unconditionally prohibits the marriage of children without parental consent Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, A.P. Akhmatov, having forwarded, in relation to October 25, 1863, No. 6994, to Metropolitan Philaret, drawn up, by resolution of the members of the Synod, as a result of the presentation of His Eminence of Yaroslavl 349, a draft protocol on the need for some restrictions in the law, which unconditionally prohibits marriages without the consent of the parents of the persons getting married, asked the Metropolitan to express his opinion on this. The question of the limits of parental power over children in relation to marriage is worthy of attention. But the case is presented to the Yaroslavl Eminences in a dubious form. If a peasant does not allow his daughter to marry, so as not to lose a worker, then it is unlikely to allow her to be imprisoned in a cell, because of which she would be unreliable for work. And if he allows her to enter into a cell instead of marriage, then this is probably due to a priestless schism that does not recognize marriage. Other cases are known from cases in which sometimes parental authority is unfavorable for marriage, and sometimes the weakening of this authority is harmful. A schismatic denies children a blessing for marriage to an Orthodox person. An unbecoming father refuses to bless his separated son for marriage unless he gives him a few hundred rubles; but this one cannot, because otherwise he would remain poor with his future wife. On the contrary, the father or mother refuses to bless their son or daughter for marriage, because the person seeking marriage with one or the other is known for his bad manners and disordered life. A respectable nobleman does not agree to the marriage of his son, who wants to marry a maid. If the law prohibiting marriage without parental consent is enforced in its full force without limitation, some innocent children will suffer and may be greatly tempted. If we assume that every twenty-five year old has the power to marry without parental consent, then the door to dissolute marriages will open for frivolous children. It is not fair that church rules allow children to be independent and reach adulthood to marry without parental consent. This is allowed not by church rules, but by the laws of the Greek empire, which are not binding on the Russian church and empire, although they were included in the second part of the helmsman’s book, and were partly accepted for execution in Russia to avoid arbitrary decisions. There are no such laws in the Greek patriarchal helmsmanship. It is surprising that in the official act of the Holy Synod, after indicating the helmsman, an indication is made of the journal Sovremennik (1861, pp. 529–530), which, without a doubt, is far from claiming to be an authority in the matter of the Holy Synod. The proposal to allow marriage to children of mature years, upon admonition made to parents for leniency, and to children for obedience, cannot be allowed in general terms without violating justice and without harm. This can be seen from the above examples. Can a priest say to a father: bless your daughter in marriage to a dissolute groom. Can he say to the son of a schismatic: obey your father, do not marry an Orthodox woman and remain in the schism? At the present time, the obedience of children to their parents, in many families, is significantly weakened in comparison with previous times. If we now proclaim the rule that adult (or even 25-year-old) children can marry, without the consent of their parents, after listening only to the admonition of the priest, and standing firmly against the admonition: one cannot help but fear that this will give a new reason for violating the fifth commandment of God. How can we reconcile two opposing demands: firstly, to keep in force the law on the power of parents over the marriages of children, and secondly, to find an outcome for children oppressed from some parents by the force of this law? There is a similar example in the laws. The law requires 18 years of age for males and 16 for females to marry. But in family life, especially peasant life, sometimes the father of the family needs, for example, when there is a shortage of women in the house, to marry his son who has not yet reached adulthood. What has been done? The law is left untouched: but diocesan bishops are given permission in such cases to allow marriage so that the lack of age before adulthood does not exceed 6 months. The question of marriages can be resolved in a similar way. Let the general law prohibiting marriage without parental consent remain inviolable. But diocesan bishops may be given the following permission: if adult children ask the bishop for permission to enter into a marriage to which the parents do not agree, for illegal reasons, and they find it inconvenient or unsafe to remain celibate; and if, upon inquiry, the reason for the refusal on the part of the parents turns out to be not legal, and leaving the children unmarried may be accompanied by harm to their morality: then the diocesan bishop, through a capable clergyman, admonishes the parents to stop their resistance to the marriage of their children, and if this admonition is unsuccessful, allows the marriage without requiring the consent of the parents. The Holy Synod, by determination on August 14/23, 1868, decided: in view of the arguments explained in the recall of the chief manager of the II department of His Imperial Majesty’s own office regarding the untimely resolution of the legislative order of the issue of marriages, without the consent of the parents, the Holy Synod determines: the proceedings that arose on this subject, as a result of the report of the Right Reverend Yaroslavl, should be stopped. 350 December 4. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, A.P. Akhmatov, with a copy of his letters attached to His Eminence Isidore, Metropolitan of Novgorod and St. Petersburg, about singing houses in Moscow The slowness of the case regarding singing houses is worrying, threatening an unfavorable outcome. This prompted me to write to the Most Reverend Metropolitan of Novgorod. I am attaching a list of my relationship with him. I humbly ask Your Excellency to provide all possible assistance on your part so that useful things can be arranged and difficulties will be prevented in the future. 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, No. 461. December 4, 1863 Attached to the letter is a list of the relationship between the Metropolitan of Moscow and the Metropolitan of Novgorod and St. Petersburg, dated December 4, 1863, No. 461. Your Eminence is aware that at the Moscow large Assumption Cathedral there is a singing choir, quite numerous, according to its important purpose and accordingly to its needs. It is also known how insufficient the regular 1838 salary is: for a large singer, even a family one, 8 rubles. 58 k., for a small child 3 rubles. 48 k. silver. This deficiency has long been, and even more so now, compensated for by income from the so-called singing houses. These incomes, for some time, began to decrease due to the unsatisfactory arrangement and gradual dilapidation of the houses, which reached the point that from the beginning of this year the police began to expel residents from some premises due to the danger of being crushed. In the best time for income, we made up the capital for the restructuring of these, which now extends to 86,000 rubles. But it is not sufficient for a profitable restructuring; and, moreover, 84,000 were included in credit provisions for 6 years. And during this time, houses may undergo greater destruction and income may disappear. Due to these circumstances, an urgent need has led to the fact that since the beginning of this year, the spiritual and economic department has been working on the issue of renting out singing houses for a considerable period of time, with the obligation of rebuilding them by the tenant, and with a temporary allowance for this from the spiritual department. The circumstances of this matter are not unknown to me, due to its relationship to the interests of the Epiphany Monastery neighboring the singing houses. The matter, as far as I know, is calculated in such a way that not only the capital allocated for the benefit will return to the ecclesiastical department, but the interest will not be lost either; and subsequently the spiritual department will receive houses with abundant income. But the case has been going on for about a year. The prospective tenants, in all likelihood, in the hope of obtaining this lease, withhold their capital from other movements and productivity; and this is already a loss. The slowness of things may wear out their patience; the spiritual authorities will be left with collapsing houses and gradually disappearing incomes. The need and benefit of the spiritual department prompts me to bring this to the attention of your Eminence. I spoke about the importance of the purpose and need of the synodal singing choir. For Your Eminence, this does not require explanation. But I must say something to justify my concern and determination to bother you with my thoughts. The Assumption Cathedral, once the Cathedral of All-Russian Metropolitans, then the Cathedral of All-Russian Patriarchs, is now the Cathedral of the Holy Synod. The Assumption Cathedral is a royal church in which the royal wedding and sacred anointing of the All-Russian Sovereign Emperors take place. It often has the highest presence. In Bose, the late Sovereign Emperor Nikolai Pavlovich paid special attention to the synodal singing choir and gave the highest order to improve it, through the head of the court chapel, which was achieved to a large extent. Everyone living in Moscow, everyone who comes to it, visits the Assumption Cathedral with special attention and reverence. If the synodal choir, due to poverty, loses its best members and its structure, its disharmony will resonate not only throughout Moscow, but throughout all of Russia. The diocesan choir, consisting of 24 singers, is not able to help with this: for it is insufficient for the diocesan cathedral churches and for other ministries, since in Moscow, on every holiday and Sunday, three bishops serve in different churches. I hope that Your Eminence will not deign to blame me for this reminder; but would be accused of not remembering such a matter, in which continued slowness, from day to day, more threatens with unfavorable consequences 351. Right. Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow December 7th. Opinion of Metropolitan Philaret, entitled: “Some comments on the letter on the internal transformation of Russia” Some comments on the letter on the internal transformation of Russia I. In Moscow there is (and, as is heard, in several hands) a letter about the internal transformation of Russia, it is unknown by whom and to whom it was written, and by whom it was allowed into the hands of strangers. It says: “the idea of ​​moving the administrative capital to Kiev is, of course, the most correct and excellent in all respects.” It is a pity that it is not said why St. Petersburg is not good. Isn't it because it's near the border? But would it really be excellent to move the capital, from one border to another, from a protected border to an open and inconveniently defended border, from the neighborhood of Finland to the neighborhood of Poland? Is it advisable to abandon numerous palaces and huge government buildings in and around St. Petersburg to desolation and destruction, and build all this again in Kyiv and around Kyiv? II. Further, the letter says: “Our clergy, while still dead, is so lifeless that it is the only class in Russia that did not express its feelings in the present circumstances of the fatherland and remained silent, even during the martyrdom of some Orthodox altar servers.” Perhaps the Russian clergy admits that it does not act very strongly, after the mistrustful view to which the Western clergy was subjected in Europe, through a misunderstanding, was directed at the Orthodox Russian clergy, and for more than a century measures were taken to prevent it from acting strongly. When they say that it is dead and lifeless: in this case it can turn out to be dead, without raising a hand with a pen, without opening its lips against a heavy blamer. But when they want to take away his patriotic feelings for the Tsar and the Fatherland, in previous or present circumstances: this very feeling forces him to say: no! There have been no patriotic addresses at all until now: because the tsar is confident in the loyalty of the people to him; and the people are confident that the king completely knows his devotion. Unfavorable voices from abroad, and especially ill-intentioned disclosures in Europe that the Russians lacked full sympathy for their government, induced the Russians to publicly and solemnly repulse the slander, and patriotic addresses rushed from everywhere to the throne of the Emperor of All Russia. The content of all addresses is the same: we are ready to go to war for the Tsar and the Fatherland, even if it involves the heaviest sacrifices. This is all such that the Orthodox clergy, in accordance with the essential nature of their calling, had to remain within the limits of their peaceful prayer position. It brought and continues to bring prayers for those struggling for the Tsar and the Fatherland against the rebels, partly during ordinary prayers, partly in special meetings, and also for those who suffered from the rebels. It expresses itself and supports the people's patriotic feeling through the words of church teachings and, on occasion, public speeches. This kind of speech by the Metropolitan of Moscow to the Sovereign Emperor, delivered among the Kremlin full of people and sympathetic other clergy, was published in periodical editions, translated into foreign languages ​​and published in many foreign publications. La Patrie responded to this speech as follows: le langage du Métropolitain est des plus vifs, nous dirons presque belliqueux. It is noticeable that foreigners do not find the Russian clergy as dead as a certain Russian does. The army did not write an address expressing its zeal for the defense of the Tsar and the fatherland. Is it because she's dead? - no, because such an address is written on her weapon, on her very name. To suggest the need for a new address from her would be to cast a shadow on her. Similar reasoning can be applied to the clergy. When it became known that some clergy of the western region were killed by rebels, and after that there were families in need: a subscription was opened in the Moscow clergy in their favor, which continues, and, as far as is known, occurs in other dioceses. III. The letter further says: “the great and beautiful Russian people are now without shepherds, when every priest is “full of life, thought and will.” Apparently, the writer of the letter thinks that when pastors fulfill their church duties, then they are nothing; but they begin to exist only when they move from matters of faith to matters of politics. And he knew how to find a model to indicate for the Russian clergy! Are these priests preaching rebellion, blessing rebels, serving in gangs of rebels, forming hangmen? IV. Further, in the letter: “he (the pope) was talking about accepting a nuncio, that is, a commander of our worst enemies independent of us.” This is a thought that is worthy of being noticed by the Orthodox government. V. Further in the letter: “in the West, the upper classes, educated, are now fully aware of the full power not of religion, “but of any spiritual force, and as it is expressed and controlled best by the church, then all of them, not out of “religious feeling, but out of reason, support the church,” as a strong weapon, that is, as in the material sense, “artillery.” And here there is an idea that Western politics uses just as cunningly and hypocritically, but which Russian politics can and should take into account sincerely and all the more usefully. VI. Further in the letter: “Our church is put in a storeroom,” etc. It is not clear what the strict judge wanted to say. It is only noticeable that his inner pantry is not filled with a sense of reverence and a sense of decency. VII. Further in the letter: “I studied on the spot the Utrecht Church, which, while remaining Catholic for several centuries, does not recognize its dependence on the Pope; This is the church I wanted to establish here. Everything was thought out, I “prepared the proper tools for that purpose, when suddenly, out of the blue, after a trip to Palestine and Rome, “everything was blown away like the wind, and those tools that were supposed to be useful became harmful!” And here it is unclear how and where the writer of the letter hoped to establish the Utrecht church in Russia. Apparently, the enterprise was not founded very deeply when “everything was blown away like the wind.” But perhaps it would be a matter of precaution to solve the mystery of what weapons were prepared, and what kind of fatal trip to Palestine and Rome was. VIII. However, the one who wrote the letter is not for Poland, but wants to tame it. He is for the unity of Russia, and not against it, and wants to more strongly arouse the spiritual forces of Russia. But the strange direction of the century! And good intentions do not want, or do not find it convenient, to walk together along one open road, but diverge in different directions, and strive to build and break through new roads through mountains, wilds and abysses. Wouldn't it be better for them to get together, become friends and form a unifying force for the common good, instead of mutual confrontation that drains strength? IX. Finally, the writer of the letter tells the unknown friend to read the letter to Katkov, Aksakov and Pogodin, not as his already known like-minded people, but as people whose “opinion he values.” May he help so that what is true and useful is openly and established in the spirit and in the deeds of a person, and so that what is untrue and harmful “is blown away like the wind” 352. December 11. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, A.P. Akhmatov, about the Ecumenical Patriarch Sophronia The following papers were forwarded to Metropolitan Philaret: a) a letter from Archimandrite Antonin to A.P. Akhmatov, with the following content: “With God’s blessing, I returned to Constantinople safely. Here he found his church in proper order and complete prosperity, which was a great comfort to him. Unfortunately, I did not have time to choose a new patriarch in order to be a second witness to this curious phenomenon in the Orthodox Church. Metropolitan Sophrony of Amasia was elected and confirmed as Patriarch. A deputation had already been sent for him from the Holy Synod and the People's Council, which was supposed to accompany him from Sinop to the capital. At the same time, the other two patriarchs (Alexandrian and Antioch) were also expected here for a joint discussion by all, the so-called “Kyriarchs” 353, of the issue of monastic property sequestered by the Moldovan-Wallachian government. Both patriarchs arrived almost simultaneously, preceding the arrival of the ecumenical patriarch. The latter reached Constantinople only on October 22. For a week he did not enter into the management of affairs, awaiting an audience with the Sultan. Last Monday, he presented himself to His Majesty. Since then, the usual meetings of the Holy Synod began in the Patriarchate, chaired by His All-Holiness. At the same time, enclosure No. 2, forwarded to your Excellency, after reading, I ask you to humbly deliver it to your Eminence, Metropolitan of Novgorod and St. Petersburg, in addition to the similar No. 1, which I sent to him, by last post. From the appendix of these speeches of the patriarch to the people and the Sultan, Your Excellency deign to see that his all-holiness depicts the position of the great church as constrained and difficult. Her greatest difficulty, of course, is her lack of money. For a long time now, no benefits have been sent to her from dioceses with a Bulgarian population. And even in those dioceses where the population is purely Greek, there is still not always an agreement between the bishop and the people regarding the collection of wedding income, in accordance with the new church decrees of 1858–60, and as a result of this, the allowance determined from each diocese to the patriarchal throne is delivered by them both randomly and meagerly. The public cash register here is completely empty. Servants in the Patriarchate, Synod and Council have not received salaries for more than 6 months. Meanwhile, it is heard that one presentation of the patriarch to the Sultan and in Porto cost him 1200 Turkish chervonets 354, which, of course, will be charged to the public account. There is reason to hope that the new patriarch will be more accommodating than his predecessor on the Bulgarian issue, to the extent that the matter will depend on him personally. He had already promised to forgive the deposed and imprisoned bishops from the Bulgarians (Auxentius and Hilarion). Meanwhile, the “Bulgarian-Greek commission” has long ceased its activities, in anticipation of the replacement of the former and the appointment of the current patriarch. From Athens they inform that Alexander Lycurgus, a former professor at the university there, known for his anger at the Russian Church (recently promoted to the rank of archimandrite in Jerusalem), has been appointed mentor and court priest of the new king. This circumstance should sadden us. Bilious and, to the highest degree, proud, the antagonist is first about. Ave. Polisadov 355, and then everything Russian, this man was here recently, and, sitting with the Patriarch of Jerusalem, he expressed that the Russian Church has nothing in common with the Greek, and that it must be cut off from this (and that His Beatitude ordered him to get out). Would it not be found useful to instruct our in Athens Fr. archimandrite to get closer to Fr. Should Alexander at least explain himself about his vain, and completely inappropriate, hostility against Russia? I dare to humbly ask your Excellency, and through you, the high government, for favorable attention to the most respectable person from the entire Christian population of Constantinople, Stephen Caratheodorus, whom I can compare among the Greeks only with the late icon. This is a man of the most extensive theological education, excellent goodwill, deep piety and enormous moral influence on the mass of his fellow tribesmen. With the rank of court physician, he is at the same time a highly placed person in the city. His numerous works constitute the capital of modern Greek spiritual literature. To his well-intentioned efforts the successful transformation of the administrative system of the great church must be attributed primarily. Slavomaniacs blame him for the fact that, despite enjoying such enormous importance in the constituent national assembly of 1858–60, he not only did nothing in favor of the Bulgarians, but also opposed their actions. But, firstly, he said in the meeting only what was not suitable for resolving the issue of a separate Bulgarian nationality; secondly, for Russia and its government, the important services are not only those that tend to the side of one or another Slavs, but also those (even more important - these) that have in mind the general benefit of the Orthodox Church; thirdly, it is the duty of wise politics to attract influential opponents of one’s ideas to one’s side with affectionate attention. I know positively that Mr. Caraveodory would consider it a high honor for himself to wear some Russian order. O. Hierodeacon of the embassy church here notified me that he asked Your Excellency to speed up the matter of his academic degree. For my part, I find that the talent of Fr. for a hierodeacon to receive an academic degree is not only fair, but will also be very useful for him. Earnestly praying to the Lord for the health, peace and well-being of your Excellency, with the deepest respect and living devotion, I have the honor to be your most humble servant, dear sir. Archimandrite Antonin. - Constantinople. November 4, 1863." b) Speech delivered by Patriarch Sophrony, October 22, 1863, with the following content: “Having been called by representatives of the church and the people to this high and patriarchal throne, I feel and fully understand my inability, and I tremble all in the sight of such a great and difficult place. since the Lord has so deigned, who often chooses to accomplish great deeds in the world, bad and despised, blessed be his name! With a contrite heart, I submit and surrender myself to the will of God. Meanwhile, allow me, beloved brethren in Christ, and other Christ-loving listeners, in the simplicity of language to offer you a few words that were not invented in advance. What is the situation of our church and people's affairs for several years now, we all feel and know this with spiritual sorrow. It is equally clear to everyone that the care of the sovereign government placed over us and the desire of the people urgently require their amendment and change for the better. The resolutions of the people's assembly bear witness to my words. To achieve, however, this great and difficult task requires not only verbal willingness, but also the sincere cooperation and heartfelt devotion of the members of the Holy Synod and the people's mixed council, these two institutions to which the church and the people have entrusted their most precious interests; not only this, but also the ardent support of every family-loving Christian. Yes! In our Orthodox Church, the worldly element has always existed inseparably from the spiritual. And just as often, together with the clergy, she gave help and protection to the saving dogmas of our immaculate faith, so in modern times she must (and has shown that she cares) to appear no less than the clergy, a defender of national advantages and a zealot for church glory. The evidence of my words is the unanimity of the Holy Synod and the people that has existed for some time. funny council, which has already accomplished many generally useful things. As for me, I confess that after hoping in God, I have this alone as a consolation and reinforcement for myself, that is, that the Holy Synod and the People's Council and all the clergy and people who can give any help, either material, or moral, or mental, will sincerely help me in the performance of my duties, on every important occasion. For, confessing to all of you, I assure you that no matter how much zeal I have for the full implementation of the decrees that the people recognized as saving, and no matter how much zeal I feel in myself to justify and fulfill the expectations of my respectable voters, I still consider it impossible to achieve what I want without the help of well-meaning people. Hence I come to the need to announce to all of you that any advice that is sufficiently justified, and any remark tending to enlighten my few ideas, will be accepted by me with heartfelt pleasure. On the contrary, I will consider any proposal or action that is carried out in secret and closed, and tends to violate the regulations, even the smallest, illegal. Therefore, I most earnestly invite you all, each according to your own knowledge, to sincerely contribute to my measure and two venerable institutions, towards the improvement of our people's affairs. May the Lord, who heals the weak and replenishes the poor, send His all-powerful grace upon all of you, and may He guide our steps towards every good deed! A e.v. May our sovereign Sultan Aptul-Azis Khan, our lord, remain painless, healthy and long-lived on the glorious imperial throne! Amen. Last Monday (October 28th), around noon, E.V. Patriarch Sophrony introduced himself to the Sultan. His Majesty received the high priest standing and said to him the following: “Due to the choice of your people, I recognize you as their spiritual leader. I hope that you will be loyal to my kingdom and your people.” The Patriarch answered His Majesty in Turkish: “Greatest sovereign! Upon confirmation of the choice made by the Greek people, resting under the shadow of your Majesty, the patriarchate has been entrusted to me. Since this happened during the era of your glorious reign, I consider myself very happy. The affairs of the patriarch, for some reason, have become difficult and are in a difficult position. Although I do not recognize the ability or boldness in myself, I do not doubt at all that under your imperial canopy and with your imperial favor, these difficulties will be leveled out and put in order. May the Most High increase the prosperity of your Imperial Majesty, and may He overshadow us in your shadow!” Metropolitan Philaret wrote about these papers: Please accept my sincere gratitude for the kind memory of my angel’s day; and forgive me for not soon fulfilling this duty of my heart. Writing about the church, it took me a while to get to my personal. On the 1st day of December I was weak: and therefore, having performed the liturgy, I was forced to leave the prayer service to the brethren. That’s why I wrote my most submissive gratitude to the most merciful word already on the 2nd day. Beyond the guilt of slowness, I must also admit the guilt of carelessness. Your letter, dated 21, came with a book: therefore, looking at the entry yesterday, although I saw it under the 22nd day, but, according to the book, I thought that it was not handwritten. Now it turned out that it was on my table, only it was placed further than it should have been, because it was not received at a convenient time, and required a lot of reading. Then, being covered by other papers, it was not remembered until this day. I have already spoken about the transfer of the Right Reverend Irinarch 356, the transfer to his place of the Right Reverend Leonty 357, and Archpriest Ternovsky 358. I don’t say anything to the latter yet; because I have no direction for this either from the Lord of Novgorod or from you. I will write to the Academy about Priest Vladimir 359. Under the extract from Archpriest Vasiliev’s letter, it was noted that there were no explanations in the case. No; they are in a printed book. I read with my eyes the secret letter from Fr. Antonin, and appendices to it. A bright dawn is visible in the speech of the new ecumenical patriarch. May God grant that his reign will be a day of light, truth, righteousness. If Archimandrite Antoninus were in Athens, then he could hopefully be entrusted with entering into relations with the Russian-hater Archimandrite. But if this is entrusted to Archimandrite Peter, it is doubtful that he would take the enemy captive to his love for the Russian Church and for Russia. I am returning the letter from Fr. Antonina and applications. May the Lord bless you with peace, health and prosperity in your work for the benefit of His Church. I humbly implore your Excellency for this, most humble servant, At the end of the year. The opinion of Metropolitan Philaret, entitled: “On the schism at the present time” 361 I. Of the laws opposed by the state to the spread of schism, one remains in significant force, prohibiting the public manifestation of schism, such as: the construction of new prayer houses, decorating them with domes and crosses, the use of bells, and public processions. But in the face of this law, in the face of Orthodox Moscow, in the Rogozhsky cemetery, there are huge schismatic chapels, with high domes, domes and crosses. In Moscow and in the villages of the Moscow diocese, many false priests are known who set up a silk tent with a throne in houses and perform the rite of the liturgy, in some places secretly, and in others so that you can hear singing from the street, and Orthodox Christians can see the service. In Moscow, during the ministry of false bishop Onufry, some Orthodox Christians entered the congregation and noticed that he did not know how to serve and was not taught by a deacon. In February of this 1863, in Moscow, there were present: the Belokrinitsky false Metropolitan Kirill, the Vladimir false Archbishop Anthony, his locum tenens Onuphry, and four more false bishops whose names are unknown. Probably among them is Sophrony, an adherent of the Austrian false hierarchy. There was a rumor that the Austro-Russian schismatic party in Moscow brought Kirill from abroad to install a bishop in Moscow; but the purely Russian party entered with a petition “into the council of God-loving Russian bishops” in order not to allow Cyril to take any action and to remove him from Russia, presenting two reasons for this. The first, “for we and our Russian clergy have been granted freedom, with the condition that we should not have any contact with the Old Believers living abroad.” Second, “even now there is no need for the Russian cathedral to be under the influence of a foreign archpastor.” So, in the Moscow diocese there are more schismatic false bishops than Orthodox bishops; and schismatic false bishops constitute a council, which Orthodox bishops are not given the right to do. And with all this, the schismatics desire and hope for even greater advantages; and there are people who say that the persecution of schismatics must be stopped. II. Until this year, the government did not officially recognize schismatics as a special class. The special circumstances of the present time, which aroused the expression of patriotic feelings from all classes, gave the schismatics the opportunity to appear before the Sovereign Emperor with letters of allegiance, separately from the sect accepting the priesthood and from those not accepting it. Upon their most merciful acceptance, the Moscow schismatics noticeably felt superior to before, but they did not boast about the all-merciful words of the Sovereign Emperor, and, what is especially incomprehensible, did not even mention them; and when they appeared in print, the joy and hope of the schismatics rose even more. On the contrary, the most zealous of the Orthodox and fellow believers were aroused by caring thoughts about preserving the peace and tranquility of the Orthodox Church. III. What advantage do schismatics wish to have and hope to receive? Probably, that they should be a separate religion and church recognized in the state, with rights similar to those enjoyed by Roman Catholics and Protestants. But there is a great difference between so-called foreign religions and schism. Roman Catholics and Protestants came under the Russian state, with their religions, in a legal way: and therefore, in fairness, they are given freedom of their religions; on the contrary, schismatics are those who have fallen away and are falling away from the Orthodox Church, condemned by state law, which prohibits such falling away (Sov. Zak., vol. XIV, articles 47 and 60). If the state, condemned by its law, were to give the same rights as innocent people before the law, it would be in conflict with its own law and with justice in general. IV. The main desire of clerical schismatics at present is recognition by the government of their hierarchy. But in their false hierarchy three elements are now in ferment: 1) the Russian false hierarchy, adjacent to the same Austrian one, 2) the Russian one, separating from this one, 3) the white priesthood of the Russian Orthodox ordination. When the Austrian false priesthood appeared in the Moscow diocese, at first few accepted it, and the best and most of the schismatics rejected it as illegal. Over time, his influence spread, especially in the villages, due to the lack of something better. Now that the proclamation of the Russian false hierarchy, independent of the Austrian, has been revealed, some continue to adhere to the Austro-Russian false priesthood, some are already rejecting it and accepting the purely Russian; and where possible, they leave both, and turn to the white priest of the Russian Orthodox ordination. So, is it really possible to recognize three schismatic hierarchies, and, if I may put it this way, three schismatic churches? Even if we reject the Austro-Russian element, there will still be a false Russian hierarchy and a priesthood running away from the Orthodox Church. Is it possible for the guild Andrei Shutov to be officially recognized as Anthony, Archbishop of Vladimir? Is it possible to form a hierarchy of fugitive priests? Is this possible, both on the part of the government and on the part of the schismatics themselves, but whose concept requires bishops for a complete hierarchy? Is there really a way to create more fugitive bishops? V. Until now in Russia, by the goodness of God, the Orthodox Church and the state have been and are in unity and harmony, not violated by any mutually contradictory views, which often hinder each other between the church and the state among many other Christian nations. Recognizing the schism as a separate religion would upset this harmony; and would inevitably be accompanied by an incompatible diversity of views, mutually complicating the Orthodox Church and the state. Cyril, who, contrary to the first apostolic canon, was ordained by one bishop, and who, moreover, did not have the right to ordain, cannot be recognized by the Orthodox Church as a true bishop, and as a result of this, all the bishops and priests ordained by him. From this it follows that if ever the civil authorities, in relations with the spiritual Orthodox, mentioned Anthony, Archbishop of Vladimir, the spiritual authorities would be obliged to answer that they do not know Archbishop Anthony, but only know the guild Andrei Shutov. If the civil authorities decided to look at the fugitive priests as legitimate among the schismatics, the spiritual authorities, nevertheless, would be obliged, according to church rules, to recognize them as prohibited from the priesthood and subject to defrocking, and then it would turn out that the state provides impunity for the guilty before the Orthodox Church, and encourages desertion from church service. How could one get out of such contradictions? Should the Orthodox hierarchy be forced to admit what is contrary to church rules and its conscience? But this would mean violating the state law in Russia, which grants freedom even to non-Christian religions, and the Orthodox hierarchy would be obliged to suffer rather than submit to such coercion, according to the apostolic word: it is fitting to obey God, rather than man (Acts 5:29). VI. It cannot be ignored that the most submissive letter, along with the schismatics of the popovschinsky persuasion, was presented and the most merciful word was also given to the schismatics of the non-popovschinist persuasion, who consider the current government to be the Antichrist, who do not recognize marriage, who preach the immoral teaching that fornication is less sinful than marriage, who reject any priesthood, who have only self-appointed fathers, or leaders and trustees prayers. And these consider themselves to have the right to demand the same concessions, if any were made to the clerical sense. Is it possible for this ugly society to become an officially recognized religion? Is it possible to give it any proper organization? VII. It is difficult to calculate the intractable questions and difficulties that must arise if the state decides to officially recognize the schism as a special religion. In one city there will be two departments: Orthodox and ex-Orthodox, two bishops: Orthodox and ex-Orthodox (of the latter kind, perhaps there is more than one, as there already are), two diocesan administrations, in one village two parishes: Orthodox and ex-Orthodox, in one village or hamlet one courtyard of an Orthodox diocese, the other of an ex-Orthodox: How many cases of clashes and confusion? Where will the boundaries of dioceses and parishes be? Now false bishops and false priests, from the bourgeoisie and peasants, are listed in these ranks, and walk around with passports of these ranks: will they remain in these ranks even then, or will they be singled out, and, moreover, individually, or with families and offspring, and then, as they complain about the large number of the Orthodox clergy, a new, numerous ex-Orthodox clergy will be created, especially if it receives both deacons and clerks? Will ex-Orthodox bishops have consistories, and on what content? Or will they be left with the current government, arbitrary, not limited by laws and correct forms, so that uncontrolled self-will will more conveniently seduce and attract the Orthodox to them? From what sources, and in what amounts, will ex-Orthodox bishops and priests be supported? etc. VIII. Finally, can one hope that the recognition of a schism as a separate denomination will bring benefits, and should one not be afraid that it will not bring harm? Now the unity of the Orthodox All-Russian Church significantly favors the unity of the national spirit. The schismatics and their societies represent a dividing force; but its effect is diminished by the fact that they exist in fragmentation, without correct unity; and therefore, when the popular spirit is particularly excited, they conveniently follow the movement of greater unity. When the schism is recognized as a separate religion, and at the same time the scattered schismatic societies achieve a common unity, then between the Orthodox Church and the numerous ex-Orthodox society, strengthened through unity, a sharp line of division and opposition will be established, which can deepen to the point of damaging the unity of the national spirit. A religious society, legally existing and strong, calmly enjoys its position, and therefore is not strongly encouraged to strengthen itself by propaganda; a society that is less powerful and not protected by the law, caring for its existence, is thereby encouraged to strengthen itself through propaganda. Therefore, the disposition towards propaganda is stronger among schismatics than among Orthodox Christians. For example, an Orthodox manufacturer pays Orthodox and schismatic workers equally according to the serviceability and merit of the work: a schismatic manufacturer gives schismatics higher pay than Orthodox workers and, on top of that, gifts. But the desire for propaganda is somewhat limited by the lack of protection of the law. But when the schism receives legal existence: then its habit of promoting obstacles will have less than the current ones, but more means and, therefore, more can harm the Orthodox Church. The state can see in experiments what consequences the centralization of illegal religious societies and their authorization by laws leads to. Since the Mohammedan administration was organized in Russia, the Tatars, when asked to accept the Christian faith, answer: what is the need for this? The king respects our faith as much as yours. Here is what a Transbaikal missionary writes about the organization of the Lamai religion: “The most important harm from the establishment of the position of Khambolama “lies in the fact that in his person, the lama corporation, harmful in itself, received unity and strength, which it “does not have either in Tibet or in Mongolia, for there each “datsan has its own separate independent existence,” under the supervision of one of its Heshan (shiretui). And as a result of “such a unification, all the datsans, and behind them the simple Buryats, “live one life, supporting each other in a common “false faith” and together persecuting everyone who betrays him for the “Christian truth.” (Irkutsk diocesan journal, 1863, No. 18). Shouldn't we expect a similar split from a government organization? Following the schismatics, will not the Subbotniks, Khlysty, Skoptsy, Molokans rise up, and will they also say: give our religion open freedom and a legitimate independent position? IX. In truth, if the desire for the good of public and private arises in order to create peace out of schismatic chaos, then at the same time a variety of foresight and precautions are required, so that instead a significant part of the Orthodox world is not plunged into schismatic chaos, and does not upset the saving harmony between the Orthodox Church and the state, to their mutual difficulty 362. Bashutsky, A.P., editor and publisher of “Panorama of St. Petersburg” (1834). From a copy stored in the collection of opinions of Metropolitan Philaret, in the library of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, pp. 195–198. The letter is written in German, on a large blue postal sheet. It was enclosed in an envelope with the following address: “To His Eminence, Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna Philaret. In Moscow." Unnamed letters, in 1863, were sent to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod from the following eminences: Vasily, Archbishop. Vitebsk and Polotsk; Arcadia, Archbishop Olonetsky; Ep. Antonia; Gregory, bishop Kaluga; Arch. Athanasius, (Polycarpta, Bishop of Oryol and Sevsky, wrote to Metropolitan Isidore of Novgorod and St. Petersburg); from Theognost, Archbishop of Pskov and Porkhov, and from many others. It's a matter of office. Chief Prosecutor St. Synod, 1863, No. 78. The archives of the Holy Synod contain a handwritten draft original of this note, with a few variations. According to inventory No. 104, document. No. 15. See above No. 683, p. 355. It's a matter of office. chief driller St. Synod, 1862, No. according to architect. 165, l 8, 10–13. See Journal de St-Petersbourg, no. 38. It's a matter of office. chief driller St. Synod, 1860, No. 257, l. 127. Formula list archive. Antonia doesn't fit here; it is kept in the office file. St. Synod, 1863, No. 3587. It's a matter of office. St. Synod, 1863, No. 3587. From a copy, storing in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory No. 75, document. No. 4. It's a matter of office. St. Synod, 1863, No. 4306. With his own hand draft original, storing in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory No. 108, document. No. 2; clerical matter Holy Synod, keeping. in his archive, 1869 No. 42, pp. 18, 20–23. Reviewed by Met. Filaret’s article “On the monasticism of bishops” was published, in accordance with the comments made on it, in the journal of the Kazan D. Academy “Orthodox Interlocutor”, 1863. The author of this article, Archimandrite John, was awarded, at the request of the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, the highest award - a golden pectoral cross with precious decorations. An article of the Moscow professor was written and published in the same way even before (in the Addendum to the works of the Holy Fathers, 1862, part XXI). D. Academician, Archpriest A. Gorsky, under the title: “On the rank of bishop in relation to monasticism in the Eastern Church. (Historical Review)". The reason for writing this treatise was a confidential letter dated May 25, 1862, No. 3346, from the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, A.P. Akhmatov, to the rector of the academy, Archimandrite. Savva, the current archbishop. Tverskoy, with the following content: Your Reverence, dear sir. In secular magazines (in the newspaper "Day" 1862, Nos. 25 and 30), the question has recently been raised regarding the elevation to bishops from the monastic and white clergy. The essence of this question lies mainly in this: is preliminary tonsure into monasticism a condition for ordination? Studying this subject in a canonical and historical way would be a task worthy of church science. And therefore, setting myself the only goal of collecting the most reliable data to refute errors that can be spread, out of ignorance or deliberately, by secular literature, I would consider it a personal favor if your Reverence and your respectable collaborators involved in the history of the church could provide me with the appropriate information and thoughts regarding the issue raised. My request is addressed to you completely privately in full confidence that it will not always be subject to dangerous, in such cases, disclosure. With perfect respect, etc. See above No. 675, p. 325, note. 1. See above No. 675, pp. 324–338. Kirill, head of the spiritual mission in Jerusalem. From a handwritten draft original, kept. in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory No. 4, document. No. 7. Brief biographical information about Simonides is contained in the article published in the Orthodox Church. Review, 1863, vol. X, pp. 362 et seq., article, entitled; “Review from Mount Athos about the Sinai Bible.” Icharion, hierodeacon, a person very close to the abbot and to the late Benedict. Savva, confessor, now living on Karev. Nikephoros, Dorotheus, Neophyte, Hasril hieromonks. Dositheus, Agapius, Savva, Abramius, Samuel, monks, all Greeks Ioannikios, Gregory, Sophronius, Maximus, monks from the Bulgarians. Jerome, a Russian confessor who settled in the monastery in 1840, not only knew Simonides personally, but also contributed to his removal from the monastery. He inevitably had to know everything that Simonides did in the monastery. Ezeniel, Russian hieromonk. Pribanl. to creativity St. rel., in Russian trans., 1863, part XXII, pp. 223–239. From a handwritten draft original, kept. in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory No. 60, document. Nos. 14 and 15. Nevostruev, Cap. Iv., master of the 11th year (1840) Moscow. d. acad. For more information about him and his scientific works, see Ist. Moscow Doctor of Science, S. Smirnova, pp. 490–497. It's a matter of office. St. Synod, 1863, No. 4056. The matter is spiritual and educational. management at the Holy Synod, 1862, No. 2127. It's a matter of office. St. Synod, 1863, No. 4026. It's a matter of office. St. Synod, 1862, No. 1324, pp. 47–56, 61. Regulations on education Moscow. society of spirit lovers. enlightenment published in the 1st book. Readings in general love Education, 1863, pp. 2–5. There, on page 1, there is a decree of the Holy Synod, dated June 1, 1863, on the highest permission to establish the mentioned society. Candidate's case Holy Synod, 1863, No. 1065, pp. 1, 2. See above, No. 707, pp. 430–438, doc. dated 1863, May 15. From a copy, storing in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory No. 33, document. No. 6. From a handwritten draft original, kept. in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory No. 45, document. No. 2. From a copy, storing in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory No. 75, document. No. 5. At the top of the letter is marked “M. N. Muravyov. June, 1863." Case of the Chief Prosecutor's Office. St. Synod, 1863, No. 134; Channel of the Holy Synod, 1864, Jan. No. 121. From copies, corrected by the hand of the Metropolitan, kept. in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory No. 100, document. No. 35. From a handwritten draft original, kept. in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory No. 107, document. No. 8. Kirill, bishop Melitopol, head of the spiritual mission in Jerusalem, June 22, 1863, recalled from Jerusalem and placed in the Kazan Transfiguration Monastery, where he died, February 10, 1866. It's a matter of office. Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, 1863, No. 160, l. 53. With his own hand authentic Metropolitan Philaret, with the exception of the first 4 paragraphs, rewritten by the hand of a clerk, storing. in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory No. 79, document. No. 15. The matter is the highest institution. presence for Orthodox Affairs spirits., 1860, No. 30. Gregory, deceased June 17, 1860 It's a matter of office. Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, 1863, No. 160, pp. 24 and 25. From a copy corrected by the hand of Metropolitan Philaret, kept. in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory No. 93, document. No. 4. Afterwards Count, Modest Andreevich; mind. 1876 ​​Jan. 2 days From a copy, storing in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to opist No. 93, document. No. 7. See above, no. 584, pp. 60–62; No. 596, p. 84; No. 605, pp. 96–100. If priest Yahontov had not mixed up, the funeral service would not have taken place and the unpleasant consequences would have been averted. It's a matter of office. Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, 1861, No. 149. From a handwritten draft original, kept. in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory No. 50, document. No. 25. Case of the office. Chief Prosecutor Holy Synod, 1863, No. 283. It's a matter of office. Chief Prosecutor St. Synod, 1862, No. according to architect. 308. From a handwritten original, kept. in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory No. 8, document. No. 1. In addition to the four patriarchs, the archbishop of Mount Sinai and the guardian of Mount Athos have curiarchal rights. One chervonets equals 6 rubles. ser. Polisadov, V. P. – Master of the XIII course (1842) of the Moscow Theological Academy. From 1847 to 1858 he was abroad - in Geneva, as confessor to Grand Duchess Anna Feodorovna, and on missions in Paris and Berlin. In 1858 he took up the post of professor of theology in St. Petersburg. university. passed away Aug. 2, 1878. For his writings, see Ist. Moscow ac., S. Smirnova, p. 519. Irinarch, Archbishop. Kamenets-Podolsk, December 20, 1863, moved to the Ryazan department, † September 25, 1877 Leonty, en. Revelsky, now archbishop. Kholmsko-Warsaw. Ternovsky P. M., archpriest of the Peter and Paul Church, in Novaya Basmannaya, in Moscow, church, † September 5, 1874 Vladimir Guette, priest of the Russian Orthodox Church in Paris. It's a matter of office. Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, 1864, No. 25. The time for writing the opinion is not indicated on the document; but it is clear that it was compiled after the month of February 1863, judging by the following text of the opinion: “in February of this 1863, in Moscow, there were present: the White-Critical False Metropolitan Kirill...”. From a copy, storing in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory No. 110, document. No. 9.