Chapter 2

January 1st. Resolution on the consistory ruling in the case of illegal actions of clergy: “At the same time as the priest was forbidden to keep a young wife and he is being tried for keeping her in the house, he is not ashamed to do again what he is being tried for, and to present it before the dean in writing, as if it were permissible. From this it is clear that the prohibition in the priesthood cannot be imputed to the priest as punishment, for even at the end of the time of this prohibition he did not prove himself to be the best, but boldly continued to act against the rules of the church. Remove the priest from his place and, without permission from the priesthood, assign him to a clerical position in another district for six months” (Resolutions. Vol. 4, pp. 96–99. No. 9250). Letter to Archbishop Arkady (Fedorov): “The Right Reverend Evlampius said that some of your new co-religionists do not accept blessings from the bishop. There is little unity here. May the Lord help you to accomplish this with patience, reason and love” (DC. 1877. Part 3. No. 11. P. 529). January 2. Resolution on the presentation of the board of the Moscow Theological Academy on the case of lost books: “I cannot agree that several books should not be recovered for the balance of other copies, because such a decision would give rise to the theft of books that are in the library among several copies. And can any court really decide that the person who stole one ruble out of ten will not be held accountable, because there are still nine left that were not stolen?” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. pp. 171–172. No. 9393). January 3. Comment on the draft definition of the Holy Synod on the incorrect receipt of some church incomes by the deceased Metropolitan of Sighnahi John 48: “If some incomes, which were not previously in mind, but turned out to be due to time, are drawn from the sources of church property, then they rightfully follow into the mass of church incomes, and therefore the collection for them must be made without allowance. As for manual income, the synodal office must, according to local information, determine their source and purpose and, judging by that, decide whether these too are subject to recovery” (Opinions. 1908. P. 16). January 5th. Resolution at the determination of the consistory on the order for the builder of the Ascension David Hermitage to give explanations to the zemstvo court: “Does it agree with the order that, based on the denunciation of the Builder, someone expelled from the clerical rank with a complaint of offense wants to subject to a secular court the same boss, according to whose denunciation he was found unworthy to remain in the clergy rank? It is also necessary to pay attention to whether monks, as witnesses, should be sent to a secular court. Usually in cases of this kind there is an investigation on the spot, and then the clergy are questioned here in front of the deputy from the spiritual side, otherwise the clergy are questioned in the spiritual court in the presence of the deputy from the secular side” (Resolutions. T. 4. pp. 99–100. No. 9251). January 6. Letter to Archimandrite Macarius (Glukharev): “According to the order of the Holy Synod, which you know, you could expect that they would ask me about you, even in the case when you are sitting quietly in your cell, and even more so when you move to the guards, and, like a city [at] the top of a mountain, at the height of a printed page, you cannot hide from view even seven hundred miles away. So, do not consider me annoying if I ask: how are you? What progress has been made in collecting offerings for the mission? What are your future intentions? (CHOLDPr. 1872. Book 6. pp. 99–100. – Materials). Letter to the governor of the Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony (Medvedev): “You will have a guest, His Grace Anthony of Brest 49, one of the New Orthodox, in zeal for Orthodoxy (Letters of the Venerable Anthony. P. 205. No. 247). Letter to Bishop Vitaly (Shchepetev): “May the Lord accept the present prayer of Your Eminence for the city and the people and grant renewal of sanctification. And I, having celebrated the current holiday at Vespers with liturgy and the blessing of water (thanks to God for that too), today I remain again shut up in my cell. So the hut of my body decays and suffers from every change in the air. The Most Reverend Anthony of Brest is going to Moscow out of a free and good impulse to see sacred antiquity. His enlightened zeal for Orthodoxy is worthy of all respect. Accept him with love” (Letters. 1887. pp. 44–45). January 7. Opinion on the case of the failure to perform a prayer service of thanksgiving in the co-religionist church on the occasion of the marriage of Grand Duchess Maria Nikolaevna: “Since the co-religionists did not fulfill what was due, no doubt, not out of a spirit of rebellion, but out of misunderstanding and sinful fear, so as not to violate old customs, then the Right Reverend 50, having received an explanation about this from the archpriest, on the one hand, was obliged to immediately to report the omission made to the Holy Synod, on the other hand, he should not hasten to bring them to trial, but was obliged to use the above-mentioned admonitions to the archpriest and through him to his fellow believers, in order by gentle measures to turn them to duty and, if possible, protect them from judicial responsibility, which pastoral leniency and care could serve to further strengthen them in obedience to the Holy Church" (Opinions. T. III. pp. 2–3). Letter to Archbishop Parthenius (Chertkov): “My health imitates yours, and sometimes I spend holidays in my cell” (PO. 1872. Book 2/3. No. 9. P. 40. No. 27). January 8. Report to the Holy Synod on the creation of the throne: “I present here, at the discretion of the Holy Governing Synod, a printed copy of the conversations to the spoken Old Believer, in which several prominent typos have been corrected; a new additional article has been added to the conversations about the name Jesus, containing numerous references to early printed books; the conversation about the formation of the finger has been corrected in some parts and supplemented with a new article” (Resolutions. T. 4. pp. 183–184. No. 9421). January 9. Resolution at the consistory decision on allowing the peasant to remarry: “When this case is presented again for reporting to St. The Synod, having had time, in addition to the protocol (which had previously been read and in legal confidence in its official fidelity was approved) to turn to the consideration of the case itself, I saw that the protocol concealed that the petitioner was not in his first, but in his second marriage. Therefore ... the forgeries in the protocol against the case are ordered to be examined in another presence of the Consistory” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 100. No. 9252). From the memoirs of Bishop Nikodim (Kazantsev): “On January 9, an old woman comes to me, in rags, half-smart, but impudent. She says: “I am a girl of clerical rank. From Moscow. I came to St. Petersburg on foot. I want to complain to the Emperor about Metropolitan Philaret for this: I had a brother, the Priest. He died, and his wife. They left behind a young woman. I brought her to the Metropolitan. He assigned her to the Gorikhvostovsky institution and said: “Let your niece study in this institution, and when she grows up let's give her a groom." The girl learned, grew up, I brought her to Filaret and said: “Give her a groom, as promised!” Filaret said: “This is none of my business. Look for it yourself, and I'll give you a place." That's why the half-smart old woman came on foot in the cold, in rags, to complain to the Emperor. She came to me, it seems, so that I would instruct her on how and where to submit a request, even so that I would write the request. I scolded her and threatened that if she dared to bother the Emperor with a request, she would be exiled to Siberia. What did she do? – She definitely submitted a request to Filaret. Wandering around St. Petersburg, naked and hungry, without shelter, she was picked up by the Police, ossified at the fence. She was sent to the Obukhov hospital. They began to treat. At this time, the Grand Duke visited this hospital. This half-smart woman submitted a request to the Heir for Filaret, and they asked him! The old woman, coming to me, spoke, shedding tears: “Protect, Archimandrite Nicodemus, the persecuted orphan! I heard about you that you are a kind and merciful person.” Ignorance is so malicious! It’s not for nothing that fierce souls lose their minds! Likewise, mercy requires caution!” (Kazantsev. P. 60–61). January 10. Letter to Archimandrite Philaret (Gumilevsky): “On the set of Gospels, they verbally agree that it should be in Russian: but so as not to forget this, and so that the permission and the matter are undoubted, ask for this permission formally, with the mention that it would be a lot of work to redo it into Slavic. This will be delivered to you by His Eminence Innokenty of Kamchatka-Aleut. The Holy Synod instructed us to assist him in acquiring capable people to serve at his department, apostolic in subject, although not in time” (Additions. 1884 Part 33. Book 1. P. 324. No. 20). January 11. Resolution regarding the Synodal Chief Prosecutor, so that His Eminence Anthony, Bishop of Brest, who was in St. Petersburg, when returning to his diocese, took a path through Moscow and that on this way he performed solemn divine services in Novgorod, Tver, Moscow and Smolensk, as well as in the Trinity Lavra of St. Sergius: “To the Council and the Viceroy, in fulfillment of the Most High will and as a sign of communion with the New Orthodox hierarchy, having received the Right Reverend of Brest in small or treasury cells, as it turns out to be more convenient, invite him to the priestly service in the Trinity Cathedral, joining another archimandrite in the service to the vicar, and for singing use the brethren or students of the Academy, as the singing that belongs to the bishop’s service can be performed more regularly.” (Resolutions. T. 4. P. 164. No. 9380). Letter to Archbishop Ignatius (Semyonov): “If the shepherd returned from the worship of the Infant of Bethlehem, glorifying God about everyone who had heard and seen, although they were shepherds of the wordless and saw only the dawn of the glory of Emmanuel, then how much more is it characteristic of verbal shepherds and ministers of the word to proclaim the glory of the God-man, high in His humility, and descending to our humiliation in His love for mankind, so that He may share in His glory and our humility. With consolation I heard from you the voice of sowing glory; and, in unanimity of faith and unanimity of love, glorifying together with you the Reviver of the world, I pray to Him that, renewing your life and strength in increasing prosperity, you will continue your service to the spread of His glory and the salvation of souls” (CHOLDPr. 1871. Book 4. P. 44. - Materials). Letter to Archbishop Gabriel (Gorodkov): “Measures have been taken to clarify the Mogilev construction work, which is quite spoiled,” (CHOIDR. 1868. Book 2. pp. 46–47). January 12. Resolution on the petition of parishioners to leave the place of the deceased priest for his nephew, a seminary student: “The deceased is reported to have no family. “The nephew will find a place for himself when he finishes his studies.” – The signatures of the petition were not witnessed by the dean. Attach it to the case when someone asks for this place” (Resolutions. T. 4. P. 100. No. 9253). Letter to Archbishop Kirill (Bogoslovsky-Platonov): “I will grieve that you are weak. However, so am I. Since arriving in St. Petersburg I have been sick for the third time. I’m sitting in my cell and can do and write little” (DC. 1890. Part 2. No. 5. P. 55). Letter to Archbishop Smaragd (Kryzhanovsky): “It is a pity that the schismatics, from our communication with the reunited, are drawing a new reproach against us. This was to be expected; and thought about precautions, but not all the desired measures were taken. It is necessary to interpret to the schismatics that they have fully united with those who have accepted Orthodoxy; such could not be denied communication; and therefore it is necessary with patience to give time to some who are weak in some parts to come to their senses” (CHOLDPr. 1870. Book 12. P. 38. - Materials). January 13. Resolution at the consistory decision on the issuance of benefits from the amounts of the Holy Synod to the clergy of the Passionate Monastery in the event of a fire: “It is not decency to ask for too much. I think it is possible to ask priest Romodanovsky, who suffered seriously and has a very large family, 300 rubles. ser., priest Sovetov 50 rubles. ser., Deacon Dmitriev 100 rubles. ser., sexton Popov 50 rubles. silver But since such an allowance is not enough for the restoration of their houses, especially for the construction of stone ones, then bring this circumstance to the merciful attention of the Holy One. Synod, at the end, will it not be recognized that it will be possible to apply for permission and build houses that are still wooden” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. pp. 100–101. No. 9254). January 14. Resolution on the priest’s request to transfer him to another church: “It is necessary that a priest with distinction be known for reverence and edification, so that I can accept my responsibility to transfer him to where he is not elected. We must try to acquire such a right” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 101. No. 9255). January 15. Letter from E. V. Novosiltseva: “I rejoice that the most pious Sovereign has shown you his favor. Deeds of charity must be done for God and for neighbors in need; One should not desire visible honors for them, but it is good when the Righteous Power looks at them with love” (Letters. 1911. P. 205). January 16. Resolution on the priest’s request for permission to cut down 120 roots from the plundered church forest to rebuild his dilapidated house: “Pay attention to the plunder of the church forest, which the priest speaks about so carelessly, as if it was only proper for him to destroy the forest, and not to protect it” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 101. No. 9256). Resolution on the consistory ruling in the case of the release from trial of a priest accused by a landowner of drunkenness, insolence and pretentiousness: “Because the peasant Illarion Grigoriev testified that the priest was forced to pay 14 rubles for a wedding, although this testimony has no legal force and because the peasant speaks about his business, therefore, not as a witness, and because he is a serf informer, and because his testimony many and strong testimonies in favor of the priest contradict, however, since the priest on the case did not say anything to refute this testimony, it seems unnecessary to confirm to the priest that he is vigilant over his actions, so that the testimony he has acquired about his selflessness can be kept clean from any contrary criticism” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. pp. 101–102. No. 9257). Resolution on the consistory ruling in the case of sending a priest to the Catherine Hermitage for two weeks without being prohibited from serving as a punishment for drunkenness, appearing in a careless manner and offensive language: “It’s already bad what the priest himself admits to, that is, that he walked down the street in an unbuttoned cassock, which negligence is in little agreement with sobriety, and that he condemned the mayor as a fool, son of a bitch and daytime robber. All this is in no way indecent for a priest, and especially gives a bad idea about the priest because he knows the landowner’s dislike towards him and that he was inspired to especially try to behave modestly and not give any opportunity for displeasure. Therefore, as twice, first by the landowner, and then by the mayor, it was asked to remove the priest from this parish: now it turns out that this request needs to be satisfied” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 102. No. 9258). January 17. Resolution on the consistory decision on the case of the transfer of a priest to another church found in the consistory archive: “The consistory on the loss of the case in the archive should pay due attention to the discovery of the perpetrators and the protection of the integrity of the archive” (Resolutions. T. 4. P. 103. No. 9259). Resolution on the dean’s report that the priest is not living peacefully with his wife: “The priest is forbidden, but neither he nor the dean call him such. According to a letter from his wife to the dean, he spent all the Christmastide in Moscow, and, in all likelihood, not without abuses. Therefore, the Consistory: according to this report and appendices, interrogate the banned priest, examine it, and, having made a determination, present it” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 103. No. 9260). January. Letter from M. M. Tuchkova: “There is a good and beneficial order in the affairs of the Lord’s destinies. Calling you to heavenly love, the Lord gradually took from you objects of earthly, although, however, immaculate love 51. The soul 52 remained near you, which shared with you the memory of this love, giving you time to get used to the hardships, He finally took her too. Give Him this pledge too in peace, with prayer and with hope. Now your child and your friend are the Spassky monastery. The Lord does not require harsh food, a hard bed like this from your weakness, but quiet prayer, love, caring for your sisters and preserving your health in order to fulfill your duties. Condescension towards the obstinate is a different matter, this is good instead of a hard bed” (Letters to Abbess Maria. P. 51. No. 34). January 19. Resolution on the dean’s report that 20 women without clergy and only one clergy were placed in the almshouse at the Miussky cemetery, built mainly for clergy, contrary to the will: “It seems that there was a misunderstanding here. The spiritual authorities, in respect of the charitable intention... allowed the construction of the almshouse without establishing the exact conditions under which this could be allowed without violating the statutes of the Trusteeship. The consequences do not correspond to expectations, and whereas, according to the law, the cemetery should be an almshouse for the poor of the spiritual department, and as the spiritual authorities, not allowing for division, in the form of love for mankind, and ceding part of their rights, allowed the almshouse in favor of the clergy and the secular together, it turns out that the almshouse entered into someone else’s department and the clergy are almost excluded from it” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 104. No. 9261). Resolution on the economist’s report on his acceptance of money from the Moscow district treasury: “Out of these 500 rubles for banknotes, deliver to Troitsky, at the Sukharev Tower, priest Grigory Ivanovich and his wife, my sister. Store others until required” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 165. No. 9381). January 22. Letter to Bishop Vitaly (Shchepetev): “Dean Ambrose 53 reported on the lack of bread of some priests of the Kolomna district. I sent the case to the consistory, and quite a long time ago. Will they not judge and punish until the clerks die of hunger? Pay attention to this matter” (Letters. 1887. P. 46). January 23. Letter to the Viceroy of the Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony (Medvedev): “Sick to the sick, health to you Father Viceroy, I ask from the Source of health Someone told me in a dream that I have six diseases. I don’t know how to count them; but I notice that not one, and one interferes with the other. The cold pain in the left half of the body and a slight soreness on my back, however, do not make me suffer seriously, but they embarrass me a lot and prevent me from doing things” (Letters to St. Anthony. P. 205. No. 248). January 24. Resolution on the priest’s request for permission to marry a Jewish couple who received Holy Baptism together with their children: “As the holy Apostle in the first letter to the Corinthians (7:14) writes that the children of a faithful person from a marriage with an unfaithful person are holy by the grace of the faithful person, although they are not married to the unfaithful according to the order of the Christian sacrament, we must conclude that the marriage of both is first unfaithful persons - is sanctified in them upon faith by the grace of baptism, covering all previous sins and shortcomings. This is why children born before baptism remain legitimate. However, if there are newly baptized people who zealously desire that their marriage be confirmed by marriage prayer, then the priest can do this, with proper use in prayers. (Resolutions. Vol. 4. pp. 104–105. No. 9262). January 25. Resolution on the report of the Bogorodsk spiritual board that the sexton did not sign reports on candle income for 1839 due to drunkenness: “There is nothing to carry out an investigation, because the sexton does not present witnesses to justify himself” (Resolutions. T. 4. P. 105. No. 9263). January 26. Resolution on the consistory report on the provision of listed and named statements on resolved and unresolved affairs of the consistory for 1839: “As it is clear from the statement that the Consistory considers some cases to be submitted to me and for a considerable time not returned, the Consistory is ordered that, in the event of non-return of any matter from me within four or many six weeks, the person present in this part, or the secretary, reminded me of this, for fear of holding them responsible for slowness” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 105. No. 9264). January 27. Resolution at the consistory decision on rewarding the peasant in connection with his conversion of 234 people from the schism: “The Spiritual Board will order the local dean to convey what information he and the local priest have about this: who made the annexations and whether this was reported to the authorities 1) since some peasants showed that they had the intention of turning to the Orthodox Apostolic Church on the leadership and admonition of the peasant Ephraim Fomin Goren, then to announce to him that for such assistance to his brothers in spiritual salvation we call upon him God’s blessing, but at the same time to announce to him that it is now impossible to present this to the Holy Synod... because many of whom he ascribes to himself turning to the church, and even some of his family, do not proceed to holy communion and even to confession, and through this they make their zeal for the church doubtful 2) Priest... he is guilty, firstly, of joining the peasants to the church, but did not write it down and did not report this to the authorities; and it’s even worse that he joined the doubtful ones, having the special convenience of confirming them with the assistance of Goren, who converted them” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. pp. 105–107. No. 9265). • Letter to Archimandrite Philaret (Gumilyovsky): “Is it possible for scientists to do things that not every semi-literate clerk is stupid enough to do? Tell the secretary: things may come to the point that he will be seriously sent to the consistory to learn the order of things” (CHOLDPr. 1872. Book 4. P. 81. - Materials). January 29. Resolution on the petition of parishioners to appoint a parish deacon to the priestly position: “The petition has only two signatures, one of which belongs to the person who wrote the petition. Signatures unknown. There is no stamp. Not certified by the dean. Not even signed by the clerks. Therefore, it cannot be recognized as a genuine legal parish choice and must be left without action” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 107. No. 9266). Resolution on the deacon’s petition to appoint him to a monastery, and in his place to appoint a seminary student who takes his daughter in marriage, and also undertakes to support the whole family: “The deacon gave birth to children, and among others, a crippled one, and wants to abandon them in the hands of others, and go to a monastery himself. This would mean not making a sacrifice to God, but avoiding work and fulfilling natural duties. Explain to the deacon that this would not please God and that he must take care of his family, which he voluntarily acquired by entering into marriage. Moreover, it would not be reliable to accept him into the monastery, fined for drunkenness and absurd behavior” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. pp. 107–108. No. 9267). Resolution on the petition of the sexton’s widow for an allowance for the maintenance of her family: “Since the sexton took over the family, then, according to the rules of the Guardianship, no allowance should be given. But since the burden is truly great, the Guardianship will assign an allowance to the elderly deaconess” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. pp. 176–177. No. 9404). January 30. Resolution on the dean’s report about the unworthy behavior of a priest who insulted his wife while drunk: “Instruct the dean to relentlessly supervise the priest through the clergy; and if he is once again seen drunk and violent, then immediately present him to the consistory, which will send him to the Ugreshsky Monastery until the matter is resolved” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 108. No. 9268). Resolution on the priest’s request to install a new iconostasis with better carvings in place of the old one: “Calling the priest, instruct him that before presenting the iconostasis drawing to the authorities, he should have seen in it and corrected the indecency that in the royal doors the icons were placed at the bottom, near the floor, with 3 carvings at the top” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 108. No. 9269). Opinion about the funeral service for a deceased Lutheran: “The late Metropolitan of Kiev could have allowed an Orthodox priest to perform one requirement instead of a Lutheran pastor: to conduct the deceased in vestments, with the singing of the verse: Holy God. And in giving verbal permission to perform requests from Lutherans, the priest refers to the deceased in vain. The diocesan authorities should consider the priest. As for the question of whether a Lutheran’s oath under an Orthodox priest is strong, in my opinion, it is strong: firstly, because the oath is not given power by the priest, but by God, His holy name and the sacred signs of His presence; secondly, because the oath was given before the Gospel; and the Gospel, as the word of God, is reverently revered by Lutherans, which is why they like to call themselves evangelicals; thirdly, because if a Lutheran found such an oath not in conscience, he would have to refuse it and demand a pastor; but since he did not do this, he must conclude that he took a true oath, because the presence in the church of another confession, even of the same true God and Christ, and the presence of a priest of another confession, do not give the right to play with the oath and speak dishonest speeches” (Opinions. Vol. add. p. 68. No. 18). Review of the manuscript “Letters on the Offices of the Holy Order”, compiled by A. S. Sturdza: “In letter 11, it is prescribed to say a prayer over the insensitive sick person, absolving them from sins conditionally and in doubt. Not seeing the church rules for this, I excluded this. In the same letter, the patient, blaming himself for serious crimes, is assigned as penance to say certain prayers, Psalm 50, etc. It is impossible not to notice that in this case the experienced person’s instruction could have been more complete. It is immediately advised to encourage the same sick person to sacrificially lift up the suffering he endures to God. Such advice is more appropriate for a sick person, not a criminal; and it is fairer and more useful to advise the criminal that he endure his suffering as a righteous punishment and, moreover, thank God for cleansing him with temporary suffering in order to save him from eternal suffering. I cite this as an example of the fact that although the elder who writes letters often refers to his experience, his instructions, sometimes incomplete and not precisely adapted to the subject, do not hide the fact that this experience is only ideally imaginary... The book on the positions of parish presbyters, however, contains a lot of edifying advice and comments regarding what feelings a priest should be filled with and how more successfully he can act, which advice is especially worthy of attention as an example rightly indicates censor in the 6th letter of the first book" (Opinions. Vol. III. pp. 2–3, 8–9). January. Drawing up a draft response to Ecumenical Patriarch Gregory 54 on the question on what grounds the Uniates joined the Orthodox Church in Russia: “Truly, Most Holy Master, your questions are worthy of your godly zeal for the mutual unity of God’s holy churches in a pure confession of faith, with the inviolable preservation of apostolic and paternal traditions. The hierarchy of the All-Russian Church is equally animated by this very zeal; and the Holy Synod, lovingly honoring the Orthodox Eastern patriarchal thrones, out of duty of brotherly fellowship, even before your Holiness’s inquiries, adopted the intention of informing you and the other Orthodox Eastern Patriarchs about the event about which you deigned to inquire. It was only expected that the synodal council decree on reunification would be made known to all the Old Orthodox bishops of the Russian Church and that it would be carried out in the New Orthodox churches, which, by the goodness of God, happened in the world” (Opinions. Vol. add. p. 66. No. 17). From the memoirs of N.V. Sushkov: “They even put - it’s funny to say - an obstacle to the merger of the Orthodox with the Uniates and the fact that the latter shave their beards and that they eat meat in their monasteries. “What’s there to be embarrassed about?” - Our shepherd of Moscow said to one gentleman in front of me in response to this remark. "Faith is not in the beard. Dissenters value their beards, but they are still schismatics. In your noble class, everyone is without a beard, but the Church does not recognize you as heretics" (Sushkov, p. 139). February 1st. Resolution at the consistory determination on the admission of the 17-year-old daughter of the deceased provincial secretary to the ranks of the monastery sisters: “Due to the small number of remaining vacancies and the young age of the girl... it would not be unnecessary to be careful not to rush to determine her. Therefore, allow her to stay in the monastery on probation; and about the decisive decision to submit it again to the abbess in a year or two” (Resolutions. T. 4. pp. 108–109. No. 9270). February 4. Attitude to the appointed ataman of the Don Army, containing the Lord’s welcoming and holy blessing to the Christ-loving Don warriors (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 184. No. 9422). February 6. Resolution at the consistory decision on allowing the Polish noblewoman Falkowska to marry a non-commissioned officer: “Confession... in the Lavra from a priest who does not know her, under the false name of Juliania, does not so much prove her Orthodoxy as the desire to present herself as Orthodox, without being subjected to research and inquiry. The second confession from the Spassky priest can also serve as proof not so much of Falkowska’s Orthodoxy, but the imprudence of the priest who, as he writes in the testimony, confessed and administered the Holy Mysteries to Josephate, that is, a person whose very name shows that he does not belong to Orthodoxy. Therefore... the permission of the marriage will be withheld until Falkovskaya confirms with undoubted evidence that she did not marry, as well as what religion she belongs to and what her true name is” (Resolutions. T. 4. pp. 109–110. No. 9271). Resolution at the consistory ruling in the case of the archpriest beating the psalm-reader: “... 1) make fifty bows to the archpriest in the New Lutvinsky Monastery, in the holy altar, in the presence of the archimandrite; 2) to priest Tuptalov in the cathedral with the archimandrite and with all the cathedral clergy to bow one hundred bows; 3) to the psalmist Khavsky in the same cathedral, with the same bows, make twenty-five bows... Confirm to the archpriest that in the affairs of the office he acts with strict prudence and meekness and does not drive away pilgrims from the cathedral with inappropriate importance or laziness; priest Tuptalov, so that he strictly observes subordination and does not make exaggerated denunciations about other people’s affairs; to the psalmist, so that he behaves decently and obediently and does not tell unsubstantiated tales about the archpriests; 5) since in this way this matter ends in spiritual penance: then it is possible not to include it in the service records” (Resolutions. T. 4. pp. 110–112. No. 9272). Resolution on a letter from Guard Captain Bakhmetev confirming his right to a house church: “That the Emperor Alexander the First, of blessed memory, most mercifully granted Alexander Ivanovich the lifelong right to have a house church with a movable antimension, which right he has been enjoying for more than twenty years, there cannot be the slightest doubt, even if the initial case about this matter, for some reason, did not turn out to be in the Consistory, because the well-known existence of this right, and according to this right of the house church itself, is visible from the annual statements about house churches” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 179. No. 9411). February 7. Letter to Archimandrite Macarius (Glukharev): “As for your orders regarding the mission: you can have a blessing for this from the Holy Synod and from the local archpastor, but from me only advice. My advice to you in this case is that you look at what is acceptable with the eye of caution. This age is evil: it is reluctant to believe in pure goodness; cases of criticism and slander are greedily caught; The sting of ridicule, even unfounded, sometimes stings, not without harming the success of good enterprises. You are talking about deaconesses. But why did this rite stop in the church? Is it because our fathers knew less than us what is useful for the church and what is convenient or inconvenient in time? I do not consider the restoration of this rank to be either useless or impossible: but you saw that your thoughts about the deaconesses reached the authorities and were met only with silence” (CHOLDPr. 1872. Book 6. pp. 100–101. - Materials). Letter to Bishop Vitaly (Shchepetev): “It is reported that His Eminence Anthony has been fraternally received by the clergy in Novgorod and Tver, and especially in Moscow. For this I thank Your Eminence and our other brothers. The schismatics’ objection, as to why they are not shown apostolic condescension regarding the difference in rituals, can be resolved. And they are shown to them in the church of the same faith, so that they enter into obedience. Likewise, the former Uniates were shown condescension only when they entered into obedience to the conciliar Apostolic Eastern Church” (Letters. 1887. p. 46). February 8. Letter to A.I. Bakhmetev: “Dear Sir Alexander Ivanovich! In your letter dated January 22, you express your desire that I give the Consistory an order regarding the Highest award to you in 1818 of a house church with a movable antimension, since, according to the information you took, the matter about this is not visible in the Consistory, perhaps because it was not handed over to it at the time. To this end, I answer that the Emperor Alexander the First, of blessed memory, has most mercifully granted you the lifelong right to have a house church with a movable antimension, which right you have been using for more than twenty years, there cannot be the slightest doubt about this, even if the initial case about this did not turn out to be in the Consistory for some reason; because the well-known existence of this right, and according to this right of the house church itself, is evident from the annual bulletins about house churches. What I write to you here is what I wrote to the Consistory. And I ask you not to doubt that whether, by the will of God, my weakness and resignation or death will call another in my place, then, as now, in the world you will offer your prayer in your home church, in which, I hope, you will remember me, lovingly remembering you in my humble prayer. I remain with complete respect, and so on. Having written this, I learned that the Highest command about your home church is in the affairs of the Holy Synod” (DC. 1872. Part 1. No. 3. P. 346). February 9. Resolution on a letter to the priest’s daughter complaining about her unfair dismissal from the post of prosphora: “Submit to the consistory as evidence of the qualities and actions of the petitioner. But will she demand this decision: then declare to her that she would deserve to be punished for slander, but I am releasing her from this because she slandered me” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 179. No. 9412). February 10. Letter to mother: “At your request, I inform you that, by the goodness of God, I am now among the healthy, since the Day of the Presentation of the Lord: and before that, since January 11, I was sitting at home due to illness. The cause of my illness is usually a cold, especially in my legs, which are always weak. I do the work of duty, but there are more of them than strength and time” (Letters. 1882. P. 350. No. 402). Letter to Bishop Vitaly (Shchepetev): “Talk, Your Eminence, Fr. to the rector about his ongoing translation of St. Chrysostom [discourses on the Epistle to the Ephesians] to take care of fidelity and purity. I am somewhat at a loss with the translation I received [of the discourses on the Epistle to the Galatians]. I don’t want to return it because I’ve had enough of the delay. And it is impossible to present it to the Holy Synod without mentioning the need for revision. Otherwise, the oversights would have been published, and the reproaches against us would have been reinforced. For example, the translation says: doesn’t this show extreme madness? Who is showing whom here? Grammar tells us to put the genitive case after a negative verb. And there is no need to write: this is instead of: this is ordered only by Markitan magazines, which recognize only commonplace things for Russians, so that, in the language of the rabble, they can acquire a larger number of buyers from the rabble. Or: he did not say: you come to an end in the flesh, but you come to an end. What is the difference here?.. Or: He who said, “At this time I will come, and Sarah will have a son,” entered Sarah’s womb and formed a child. Whether this exists and seems literally similar to the original, good Theologians should have thought about this passage and asked what to do with it. For these are expressions characteristic of the incarnation” (Letters. 1887. P. 47). February 11. Resolution on the opinion of Bishop Vitaly (Shchepetev) about the deacons who asked for a priestly place: “Church rules and justice oblige the most worthy to represent the priesthood. But the petitioner proposed by some parishioners, the Novikovsky deacon, is inferior to others in years, and turned out to be only worse in knowledge of Christian teaching. Proclaim Vvedensky, who is in Novinsky, as having received the highest approval over others in the knowledge of Christian teaching" (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 112. No. 9273). Resolution on the consistory ruling on the expulsion of a sexton from the clergy for the loss of a protege’s letter, for locking up a priest with a deacon in a church, for quarrels with his wife: “...The consistory is provided in appearance for such cases, because the protocol does not set out the course of the case, from which it is clear that no judgment should be made about the sexton’s wife in this case. Does a sexton have legitimate reasons for displeasure against his wife: let him complain specifically, where and properly” (Resolutions. T. 4. pp. 112–113. No. 9274). Resolution at the consistory ruling on the obligation of sexton Alekseev to feed sexton Osipov together with his wife until their death: “How Osipov casts various suspicions on Alekseev’s behavior, of which the testimony of the beatings of the old sexton is supported by an announcement at one time to the priest, and the suspicion of breaking off the lock turns out to be especially strong, both after the announcement at one time to the priest, and by the discovery in the case that the lock was found in the house sexton, then send Alekseev to the Catherine Hermitage for two weeks to test his behavior and, as it turns out, order him to inform” (Resolutions. T. 4. P. 113. No. 9275). February 13. Resolution on the presentation from the Board of the Moscow Theological Academy for the translation of the interpretation of St. John Chrysostom on the Second Epistle of St. Apostle Paul to the Corinthians, compiled by the mentors of the Bethany Theological Seminary for a proposal to the Holy Synod: “Entrust this translation to be revised by one of the censorship committees... so that the translation is faithful to the original and, if possible, close to it, so that it is pure, especially so that the word order and composition of speech are characteristic of the Russian language, so that the language is generally intelligible, but does not needlessly deviate too much from pure bookish to common folk adverb, which error, which is not uncommon among secular writers of the present time, must be guarded against not only to preserve the purity of the language, but also to maintain its proximity to the language of sacred and liturgical books, so that this does not become completely unintelligible, through deviation and damage to the commonly used adverb” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 172. No. 9394). From the memoirs of Bishop Nikodim (Kazantsev): “February 13, 1840. On Tuesday of the week of the Prodigal Son, I visited Metropolitan Philaret. This idea of ​​mine was written down in a timely manner. I write it down literally: I arrived at 10 o’clock in the afternoon. They reported me and ordered me to wait. I went to Alexander Petrovich Svyatoslavsky (Vladyka's Clerk). I stayed for about twenty minutes. The Lord demanded. I enter, I bow; received a blessing. Ordered to sit closer. Vladyka: “What are you doing now?” Me: “Nothing.” Vladyka: “Have you been idle for a long time?” Me: “A month.” Vladyka: “And then what did you do?” Me: “I wrote a proposal about the translation of the Holy Fathers.” Vladyka: “What were your main thoughts?” I (hesitated): “The work of translation is supposed to be divided among the Academies; printed in lessons, periodically.” Vladyka: “Your project is not good. Periodic urgent work and printing: 1) will make it difficult for the Academy, especially during the exam months and the year of graduation; 2) it is not convenient because it will cut the integrity of the works of the Fathers; 3) it is not good that the translator is required to pay for the sheet. What might happen here is that they will rush to translate in order to pay more money, but will not take care of the perfection of the translation. Are the Academies really idle, that you bore them with such painful labors? If students in the Academies are obliged to carry out strict instructions for these extraneous works, they will not be good in the class: you will take away their time. You would recommend such work to the Vyatka Rector (i.e., me)." (This was said half-seriously and with a half-smile.) "Alexander Ivanovich Karasevsky decided to manage our spiritual affairs. He, however, is given the right to do this. Yes, he does it very prudently that, not knowing our affairs, he uses one of ours (i.e., me) for this. Everything is forgiven for him. He speaks as he understands and as presented to him (i.e., from me). But why didn’t you think enough to ask anyone older than you, but began to solve such difficult tasks that concern the entire clergy with your own head?” Me: “I didn’t dare to bother, being separated from the spiritual by my present position, which I constantly regret.” Vladyka: “Such apologies are no good, I don’t like them. What is there to be afraid of disturbing when it comes to the common good? Would I be good if, walking at night, I saw a man who had fallen into a hole, and passed by him because, not being able to get him out alone, I did not dare to disturb a neighbor living nearby? Who refused you and who will refuse? There is nothing to fear here: it is not a secret. And the advice of the elder would be firm, and useful to you, and useful." After a short silence, the Bishop sighed heavily with prayer: "Confirmation of those who hope in You, establish, O Lord, the Church! It seems that we already live on the outskirts of Babylon, if not in it itself. How little do they notice the signs of the heavenly Providence, which counteract and are used to expose wrongdoing! Where are they going? What do they want? We do not regret that the power is being reduced and taken away altogether: apparently, this is God’s will – for our sins. But it is a pity that the common good suffers. Everything only spoils, and does not improve.” In my many conversations with Karasevsky (I was like his companion, novice, executor of his orders, on the orders of Count Protasov), I more than once entered into discussions about the translation of classical antiquity - Greek and Latin into Russian and certified that only from the time classical antiquity is translated into Russian can one expect that in Russia independent classical education will be established. This is how it was among the English, among the French, among the Germans. Moreover, I asserted even more persistently that only from the time when Russian theologians read the Holy Fathers in the Russian language can we expect that they will be independent and mature theologians and will not depend on Latin, German, French and English theologians and theologians. I suggested that I put these thoughts on paper. Karasevsky made it and gave it to him, apparently he came to Metropolitan Philaret with this project of mine. Due to my characteristic frivolity and haste (and maybe I was in a hurry), I forgot (I blame myself) to first come to Metropolitan Philaret with this project” (Kazantsev. pp. 53–55). Between January 23 and February 13 (no date). Letter to the Viceroy of the Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony (Medvedev): “Forgive me, Father Viceroy, for the delay in responding to a letter that more than others required an answer. It found me sick and was not such that it would make me feel better. My illness began on the 11th day, and yesterday I was in church for the first time. What is the answer, you say? “Your desire to leave brought me such a thought of sadness that reluctantly resolves itself into reasoning and words. You can guess that it is not easy for me to let you go: firstly, because, by the goodness of God, I see you as very useful for the monastery, and secondly, because, having full power of attorney for you and believing your power of attorney for me, I find a lot of relief and tranquility in this management” (Letters to St. Anthony. P. 54. No. 249). February 13. Letter to the Governor of the Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony (Medvedev): “It’s time to answer the servant of God Peter about the fourty-day fast. If he asks for a blessing for this feat as one for which he has already decided (just as if a pilgrim, leaving the Lavra, asked for a blessing on the path that he will certainly go on), then my duty is to say from the heart: may the Lord bless his feat and help him accomplish it with attention and humility, towards purification and enlightenment. But if, asking for blessings, he asks whether to undertake a feat, then this is a different matter. I think that in order to resolve this question, you need to know more and see more closely the structure of the questioner than is possible for me in the present case, except that I do not judge myself worthy of resolving something that is far from my experience. The examples of the fathers, as far as I know, are different” (Letters to St. Anthony. P. 207. No. 250). February 14. Resolution on the consistory decision on the refusal of the church clergy to recognize the land as ecclesiastical: “The consistory had to exactly carry out this resolution, which has its basis, namely, so that the consistory decides only the first question, whether it is possible to carry out the matter and how. This warned of the confusion of the matter and the vain concern for the Consistory whether it would begin to carry out work that should not be carried out. The consistory did not answer the question proposed by the resolution and, going beyond what was prescribed, asked the clergy and made a ruling as if the matter had been considered and decided, although the consideration was not complete. Therefore, the action of the Consistory is not recognized as correct and it is recommended that it implement the resolution exactly” (Resolutions. T. 4. pp. 113–114. No. 9276). Resolution on the presentation from the board of the Moscow Theological Academy of the translation of the Interpretation of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle of St. Apostle Paul to the Galatians, compiled by the mentors of the Moscow Theological Seminary for proposal to the Holy Synod: “The translation, in my opinion, would be useful to entrust the revision to one of the censorship committees, for example: “Do you see the insatiable soul?” – In Russian it is a reproach; and in the words of Saint Chrysostom there should be the praise of St. to the Apostle Paul. Or: “He who said, At this time I will come, and Sarah will have a son, entered into Sarah’s womb and formed a child.” “Here the expressions of the original must be carefully weighed so that the features of Isaac’s birth are not mixed with the features of the incarnation” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. pp. 172–173. No. 9395). February 18. Letter to my father: “I learned with sympathy about the painful attack that happened to you at the end of the Divine service. From your letter I see that this incident went well: it seems to me, however, that it is not unnecessary to take it as arousing attention to the protection of health” (Letters. 1882. P. 355. No. 412). February 20. Letter to the governor of the Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony (Mevedev): “It is not a sin that you do not provide a pulpit for the Right Reverend Anastasius. There is an pulpit in the Assumption Cathedral, but serving bishops do not enter it, unless they are members of the Holy Synod or the Synodal Office <...> The rules take care of the attention of the people to the local bishop, and those who are in a foreign diocese are ordered to avoid this. Of course, the duty of a servant is to look towards the Lord, and not around himself; but it is fitting for us to honor him with love, just not by pleasing people against the rules” (Letters to St. Anthony. pp. 208–209. no. 251). February 21. Resolution on the dean’s report about the deacon’s careless attitude towards the office: “The deacon’s failure to preach sermons shows either negligence, which cannot be left without correction, as was noticed before, or, even worse, a disorder in life. Rare communion of the Holy Mysteries is contrary to church rules and reveals irreverence and disregard for the purity of conscience, which is especially inappropriate for a clergyman. Send him to the Pesnoshsky Monastery for two weeks to test his behavior and to admonish him, so that in his priestly service he maintains the zeal for the Holy Mysteries that is appropriate for a clergyman, so that he performs all the duties of the service without regret, so that he protects himself from intemperance and secularism. absent-mindedness; How he will prove himself throughout the test and, especially, whether he will diligently approach the holy mysteries with a cleared conscience, the abbot will inform me in detail” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. pp. 114–1І5. No. 9277). February 23. Resolution at the presentation of the conference of the Moscow Theological Academy with a request to allow the transfer to the Board of the Academy of the book “Discourse on the heresies and schisms that occurred in the Russian Church from the time of Vladimir the Great to Ivan the Terrible” with a draft correction in sinful places: “Look, for example, at page 119: “And the divine service is performed, eating and drinking, and the Body of Christ is imputed to nothing, as just bread” and so on. Further: “Here we see that the heretics did not reject the Eucharist, but only did not call it a sacrament.” Does the writer see it correctly here? - Not at all. That the Judaizers could not yet completely abandon Christian worship, so as not to expose themselves and stop the spread of the sect, hypocritically and with contempt they approached the most holy Eucharist as if they were simple bread, does it follow from this that they did not reject the Eucharist? Further on the same page, the writer does not believe that the later Jews spread their religion - and thinks that it was enough for them to defend themselves. Completely unfounded! In our time, we know that the Jews spread their religion among Russians. The writer might have known that in the diocese where he was born, in recent years, two parishes, by the goodness of God, were cleared of a large society of Judaizers, whose distributor was a Jew who lived at a winery in the Ryazan province” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. pp. 173–174. No. 9396). February 24. Letter to Archimandrite Jeremiah (Soloviev) 55: “Now I am writing because I am not as ill as before, and because Mr. Hepper, who is in your Academy and monastery, forces me to say something. He translated the lengthy catechism into German and wrote a letter about it to a Berlin professor, a letter that he appointed for publication and which can not only arouse against oneself by praising one’s own and disparaging someone else’s, but will directly turn weapons against oneself. When he says: “in the east, the eternal Truth took on our sinful body.” You correctly taught Mr. Hepper that the eternal Truth took on not just our body, but the whole human nature, and not at all sinful, but without sin” (DC. 1886. Part 1. No. 1. P. 124). Letter to my mother: “My health has improved so much that I can get to work quite easily, but I’m too comfortable catching a cold. I invoke God’s blessing on my daughter-in-law and children, and I ask for your mother’s blessing for myself” (Letters. 1882. P. 351. No. 403). February 25. Letter from E.V. Novosiltseva: “It’s good that Fr. Macarius 56 is pleased with Moscow; and it’s not bad that it comes together into its own. As for the enterprise of the noble and pious maiden N. to cooperate with the mission, I don’t know whether the present age will understand this well and whether it will leave a good, but not ordinary, deed without temptation. I wrote about this to Fr. Macarius. It’s interesting to know how he accepted my thoughts and what will be done” (Letters. 1911. P. 205). February 26. Resolution on the report of the Zvenigorod spiritual board about the deacon’s lack of confidence in the governor during the proceedings on the denunciation of the sexton: “The deacon declares that if he has reasons to doubt the impartial judgment of the governor, he can ask that he not be present when judging his case in the spiritual board” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 115. No. 9278). February 27. Opinion on prohibiting schismatics from selling chaplet for deceased persons of the Orthodox confession: “Is the dignity of a schismatic so unprecedentedly high that it gives the right to break laws and smuggle? Rushing through a search, I think, is useless, because the schismatics, of course, already know what is happening and will take their own measures; But in order to more accurately decide on something, would you not like to first of all take from His Eminence of Riga information whether a printed aureole was found or a hand-written or drawn one? Just as now, one could ask: how will schismatics carry out their schism if the printing of schismatic books in schismatic printing houses is prohibited? However, this issue did not prevent the ban; and this was done at a time when the need to limit the split was not so clearly seen” (Opinions. 1905. P. 66). From the memoirs of Bishop Nikodim (Kazantsev): “On February 27, 1840, on Tuesday of the 1st week of Lent, I was in the church of the Moscow courtyard to listen to the reading of the great canon. There are a lot of people to the point of a real crush. Metropolitan Philaret read the canon before the royal doors humbly, like a desert monk. He read clearly, but without expression, monotonously, as a simple unlearned Hieromonk would read. This surprised me. As many learned abbots as I have heard, they usually read this canon with expression. A lesson in our vanity! Wouldn’t Philaret be able to read the canon of St. Andrew oratorically? I will not hide, however, that light declamation, at least emphasis on words that are more meaningful, will not be superfluous in such a canon blazing with feelings” (Kazantsev, p. 61). February 28. Resolution at the consistory decision on the admission to the post of a prosphora worker removed due to intoxication: “The prosphora worker showed that she drank wine and has not drunk it for another year. But it would be better for the widow and the prosphora not to drink at all. Whether it stopped exactly and for how long ago has not been proven” (Resolutions. Vol. 4, pp. 115–116. No. 9279). Resolution at the consistory decision to allow the Berliuk builder to rebuild the towers and build a church in the name of St. Basil the Great, donated by an unknown donor: “The Builder’s reasoning about towers is unfounded: he calls the supposed one-story ones heavy, but considers his two-story ones light <...> Construction of the Church of St. We bless Vasily in respect of the godly intentions of the unknown contributor” (Resolutions. T. 4. pp. 116–117. No. 9280). March 3. Resolution on the report of the dean archpriest about the good behavior of the priest: “Given the signs of good behavior of this priest and in the hope that he will be established in this, it is advisable to console and support him with leniency” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 117. No. 9281). Resolution on the petition of the acting inspector of the Zvenigorod Theological School to appoint him to the deacon’s place: “The petitioner is pleased to know that he must ask the Consistory for the return of the certificate and present it so that the authorities know what kind of person is asking” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 117. No. 9282). March 4th. Resolution at the consistory ruling accusing the priest of drunkenness and a restless character: “The priest admitted that he tore the door off its hook: it would be better for the priest to act more quietly. He admitted that he wished the tradesman good evening. This is something not in Russian morals and not in the character of a priest in relation to a tradesman. The tradesman says that the priest congratulated him, but he doesn’t remember or doesn’t know why. This leads to the suspicion that the congratulation was mocking and indecent, as the petitioner complains about” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. pp. 117–118. No. 9283). March 7. Remark on the report of the Tauride Chamber of State Property about the reasons for the weak influence of the clergy of the Tauride diocese on the morality of the villagers: “Unfortunately, some of the legends about the Tauride clergy are not incredible. Part of us can also see the effort to lay all our sins on us, the poor. On the one hand, they blame the clergy for not having influence on the people, consisting of vagabonds and people of different persuasions and faiths; on the other hand, they attribute such extensive influence to the clergy that it is as if the entire population learned drunkenness from them. In my opinion, it is necessary to demand information from the Diocesan Bishop, and especially on those denunciations in which, if not persons, then places are named, and thus open the way to an inquiry on who the accusations fall on. As for villages with one church in an area of ten to fifteen miles, then, since the creation of churches is the duty of parishioners and their superiors, then it is necessary to ask the Ministry of State Property to favor build churches there” (Opinions. 1905. p. 69). March 8. Resolution on a consistory decision with a request to bury the deceased at the Trinity Church on Sparrow Hills: “The church truly stands not in a village, but on the edge of a high mountain, where the air is conveniently purified. Therefore, it is possible to allow the burial of the deceased there until an obstacle presents itself on the part of the civil authorities, to remove which it would not be superfluous to take precautions so that there are not too many buried here” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 119. No. 9284). Resolution on the consistory ruling in the case of a sexton inflicting insults on a treasury employee: “The consistory, which wants to take the twigs out of the eyes of the Russian chancellery, is advised to first take the log out of the eye of its chancellery, which, having divided the resolutions into three points, did not see that then there was another subject that did not at all belong to the third point and required a special number so that it could be convenient for me to indicate on this subject to my decision” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. pp. 119–120. No. 9285). March 9. Letter from M. M. Tuchkova: “When Varvara Ivanovna told me that you were angry with her and showed your letter, I interpreted it to her and showed her that it was written not out of anger, but out of love. She calmed down. But in one of your letters, it seems to me that you speak somewhat impatiently about her struggle. She feels the wrongness of her unpeaceful disposition and grieves about it, but still does not find the strength to defeat temptation. Do not condemn her, but help her with words of encouragement and love and prayer” (Letters to Abbess Maria. P. 53. No. 35). Letter to Bishop Vitaly (Shchepetev): “It’s good that at the request of the [Georgian] princess they appointed a priest, is he trustworthy” (Letters. 1887. P. 48). March 10. A note was compiled on the proposed measures against the spread of step marriages between schismatics at the mining factories of the Perm and Tobolsk provinces: “A copy of the instructions of the Holy Synod, which, for well-known reasons, was brief, will not resolve the issue of the Mining Chief; and the true art of management in this case belongs not to resolving the issue, but not to do it” (Opinions. 1905. pp. 70–71). Resolution on the submission of the board of the Moscow Theological Academy with an opinion on the dismissal to the diocesan department of a doctor who was correcting the position - a student expelled from the Bethany Theological Seminary: “As there is no certificate in the case, whether the petitioner was definitely expelled from the Bethany Seminary, when, from which department, with what certificate and to which diocese he belongs, when he was accepted into the present ministry and how he served in the position, then this submission, as incomplete, must be returned without permission with confirmation, I can’t count the number of times that they learned to do things in order” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 174. No. 9397). March 14. Letter from E.V. Novosiltseva: “While in the Lavra at the village school, when I forced a student to read some commandment of the Decalogue, he was baptized and then read the words of the Divine Law. Not everyone and not everywhere can so freely express a feeling of reverence with a visible sign of the cross; but whoever wants to sanctify every undertaking with the blessing of God, without external obstacles, can inwardly turn to God and mentally protect himself with the sign and power of the Cross of the Lord. This is worthy of attention and care” (Letters. 1911. P. 208). March 16. From the memoirs of Bishop Nikodim (Kazantsev): “March 16, 1840, on Saturday of the 3rd week of Lent, I was with Vladyka. At first he rather defended himself to me because he had not yet had time to read my Russian Grammar. Such great people are condescending to small ones. Then he began to speak to me abruptly: he was in a hurry to get somewhere. 1) About the project of the Jewish Lexicon, invented by Archimandrite Athanasius, Rector of the Ryazan Seminary (now Archbishop of Astrakhan), the Bishop said: “Strangeness and panache!” The project remained unfulfilled. 2) About a short Latin grammar, composed by someone (not written down) and imposed on the Theological Schools: “You cannot make something that is difficult easy. What can be made easier, remains what cannot be made easier.” “Because of such easy learning, even German Doctors of Science now stumble over Grammar, and do not blush when writing in Latin with errors.” 3) Vladyka marveled at G. Polozov’s “Russian for Russians” Grammar: “This is nonsense, oblivion of both the language, and the Grammar, and the teacher, and the listeners”” (Kazantsev. P. 61–62). March 18. Resolution at the consistory decision on permission to consecrate the marriage of the Tatar Safeldeev and the Tatar Gavrilova, when they clear their consciences by repentance and communion of St. Mysteries for unlawful cohabitation outside of marriage and failure to fulfill Christian duties: “Marriage is permitted. Whether Safeldeev’s guilt dates back to the time of his Mohammedan ignorance (which was not made clear by the consistory), then it is covered by baptism; and whether it concerns the time of baptism is subject to consideration and correction by the spiritual father. And leave Gavrilova’s guilt to the care of her spiritual father to clear it with penance and correct it with instructions, for the intention to enter into a legal marriage will gain her leniency” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 120. No. 9286). March 19. Resolution on the dean’s report about the sexton’s drunkenness and unworthy behavior: “If the sexton is truly so depraved, then one must suspect the dean and the local priest that they weakly looked and did not report about his falls before he came to the depths of evil” (Resolutions. T. 4. pp. 120–121. No. 9287). March 20. Determination on the request of a Taganrog merchant to remove the curse imposed on him by the Patriarch of Constantinople: “Zakharov complained that the Patriarch of Constantinople Constantius cursed him publicly in churches in Constantinople and on the island of Kutale, but did not provide evidence for this, and, according to the communication made with the current His Holiness Patriarch of Constantinople, this is not clear given, and neither church rules nor civil laws allow relying on the words of the accuser without evidence” (Opinions. Vol. add. p. 637). Resolution on the petition of the archpriest and the church warden for permission to make a bell at the expense of the donor for the holiday of Holy Easter: “God will bless the diligent one, and what is acceptable is resolved in the confidence that the archpriest and the church warden will use joint care for the safety of the case now and for the future” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 121. No. 9288). Letter to the Viceroy of the Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony (Medvedev): “...I am waiting to hear from you how you accepted my answer to your thought about retiring into silence. His Eminence of Voronezh asked for dismissal into silence, into the schema, into Kyiv. The Emperor expressed a desire for him to remain in service; and he remained as long as he could. Look at this example - and, I hope, you will find it blessed to continue your present ministry" (Letters to St. Anthony. P. 209. No. 252). March 22. Opinion about reading the Orthodox confession of Peter Mogila in theological seminaries: “Read the Orthodox confession in order at one time at the beginning of the course. Use this for one to two months. About what is explained in the Synodal Catechism, ask how it is explained there. Through this teaching will be facilitated, the catechism will be repeated and the agreement of the catechism with the Orthodox confession will appear. After the interpretation of several members of the faith, or the entire first part, it is necessary to continue to appoint a special time for a detailed and continuous report in the interpreted articles. The report should not consist of slavish reading from memory of the memorized text of the book, but in the free presentation of thoughts without violating the essence of the matter” (Opinions. T. add. pp. 69–70. No. 19). Resolution on the report of the council established at the Lavra about the explanation taken from the hieromonk about the reason for the unauthorized absence: “To announce to Hieromonk Philaret... that he would deserve severe punishment for his unauthorized absence and for reproachful judgments; but is left without punishment due to condescension to the fact that his words and actions are attributed to temptation and overwhelm of thoughts; however, to instill in him that he should beware of disrupting order and wrongly insulting others, for fear that the authorities will be forced to move from leniency to measures of legal justice” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. pp. 165–166. No. 9382). Resolution on the report of the cathedral established at the Sergius Lavra: are there any obstacles to the dismissal of the hierodeacon of this Lavra because of debts to various persons: “Hierodeacon Arseny from the Lavra may be dismissed so that at the very dismissal he himself, or instead of him the Novospassky Monastery, pays the money presented for him, so that he does not leave behind any complaints against the brethren of the Lavra” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 167. No. 9383). Letter to the governor of the Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony (Medvedev): “Thank God that we can help feed those in need through our table meal. It seems to me that, without need, not many will go to someone else’s bread, cabbage soup and porridge and that, consequently, those who are truly in need take advantage. And this is already a blessing for charity, when it goes to the truly poor. Archpriest John Veniaminov 57, our missionary in Russian America, will come to you. Please accept it brotherly. He is a good servant of God. If he wants, let him stay in the Lavra and attend the fraternal meal, for he wants to stay there for several days” (Letters to St. Anthony. P. 210. No. 253). March 23. Resolution on the report of the Serpukhov spiritual board on the report of the dean, who entrusted the affairs of another priest: “It is senseless to send me only instructions on the report without showing its contents, when I do not have a report” (Resolutions. T. 4. P. 121. No. 9289). March 25. Resolution on the report of the cathedral established at the Lavra with a request to build a bell tower on the site of the seminary library: “Really, brothers, it would be better to discuss such things on the spot. Do you know why, by the way, the seminary library was moved from under the bell tower? Then there were books missing under the bell tower. Are you sure that this won't happen now? Moreover, above the meal there is not only a library, but also an ancient archive: are you thinking of moving it and why? “I demand either an explanation or a report on the spot” (Resolutions. T. 4. P. 167. No. 9384). Resolution on the report of the cathedral established at the Lavra on the dismissal of the Lavra hieromonk for treatment: “From the request of Hieromonk Philaret, I see with regret how he denounces himself for his long-term removal from the priesthood. Therefore, instruct the hospital rector and confessor to admonish him to try to pacify his soul by diligently fulfilling his monastic duties; and the cathedral is reminded not to make concessions to negligence, to the temptation and seduction of the weak” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. pp. 167–168. No. 9385). • Resolution regarding the Synodal Chief Prosecutor on the order regarding the delivery of the general report on the contents of the Moscow Theological Academy for 1837: “... pay attention to whether there are any cases received and not presented to me; are there any cases sent to the office for information and not reported; Are there any things I have decided that are not written down or fulfilled? are there any who have not been sent where they should be; and if there is anything like that, immediately present it to me” (Resolutions. T. 4. pp. 179–180. No. 9413). March 26. Letter to the Governor of the Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony (Medvedev): “May the Lord bless the obedience expressed by you in the letter of February 14 with every spiritual blessing and grant you good and blessed fruit, both of what you do in obedience, and of what you sacrificed to obedience. I thank you, bowing to the ground” (Letters to St. Anthony. P. 210. No. 254). March 27. Letter from E. V. Novosiltseva: “Solitude and intimacy of life are a good thing. But as you put it, being in society is a horror—let me say that this is not a virtue; and what is not virtue must be corrected, and not enslaved to it. For God’s sake, do not be angry with me; but judge what I say calmly and accept what you recognize as the truth, and forgive me for the fact that I want to remove the mote from my neighbor’s eye, without seeing the log in my eye” (Letters. 1911. P. 207). March 29. From the memoirs of Bishop Nikodim (Kazantsev): “On March 29, 1840, on Friday evening, I listened to the All-Night Akathist at the Trinity Metochion. I wanted to listen to the reading of the Akathist by the Bishop. (Recorded at the same time.) Metropolitan Philaret read the Akathist rarely, touchingly, unpretentiously, expressively. There were corrections: Instead - a much-lamentable scab - a much-lamentable defeat. Instead of - like a whore - like crazy. Instead of the Planter of our life, the Planter of our life” (Kazantsev. P. 63). March 30. Resolution on the request of the church warden to pay attention to the dean’s concessions in relation to the deacon: “As a precaution, to tell the archpriest that he truly wrote the letter, of which a copy is attached, and used a rude and mocking expression on the face of the church warden, neither to the village nor to the city, then he acted inconsistently with the meekness of a priest and with the dignity of fulfilling the instructions of his superiors and well will do, will he reconcile, so as not to be subjected to the action of justice” (Resolutions. T. 4. P. 122. No. 9290). Resolution on the report of the economist of the Trinity Compound asking for permission to repair the building: “There is no need to paint the ceiling. Is it good to just clean out the old painting, then do this; and if it’s not suitable, then rub it and simply cover it with a lighter color than the walls” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 168. No. 9386). March 31st. From the memoirs of Bishop Nikodim (Kazantsev (Sunday of the 5th Lent): "On this Sunday and on this date, I was tonsured a monk, in 1829 in the Lavra of St. Sergius. I decided to serve in the Trinity courtyard with Vladyka. Thank you, I did not neglect, although the cathedral turned out to be oblique. It was as if I were in the kingdom of heaven, serving in the face of such a quiet, reverent, touching Vladyka. The singers were excellent, reasonable, sedate, and sang the concert: “Touch the mountains, and they will rise.” But there was no wild roar and explosion. After the liturgy, the Vladyka ordered him to have two cups of tea. Answer: “On this day and on this date, I was tonsured a monk in the Lavra of St. Sergius.” Vladyka apologized to me for not reading my Grammar. He began to read it, made comments. Then he said: “Give me a rest, forgive me!” No Vladyka spoke to me so gently and tenderly, even after I received the rank of Bishop” (Kazantsev. P. 62–63). April 2. Resolution on the priest’s request to provide him with support for the maintenance of the family: “The consistory can inform the seminary board whether it is possible to give maintenance to all the children for a year, and consider whether anything else can be done. Daughters are old and can find it difficult to acquire. And when the priests do not ask for benefits, it is true that a priest can live” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 122. No. 9291). Resolution on the dean’s report about the refusal of parishioners, citing poverty, from the duties of maintaining clergy: “Explain to parishioners that not to fulfill this promise is both a sin before God and a shame before people; that it is the duty of the parishioners to provide the clergy with decent food, so that the world will pray for the parishioners... and so that the church will not be left without a clergy. Report about what follows” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. pp. 122–123. No. 9292). Resolution on the report of the Volokolamsk spiritual board that priest Mikhailov considers himself worthy to be the first in concelebration before priest Semyonov: “Everyone who exalts himself will humble himself. When Semenov discovered a passion for championship, then the alternate was ordered to excel. But when Mikhailov, who had recognized Semyonov’s primacy for several years, suddenly began willfully to admire the primacy for himself, then do not give him the primacy, but give the primacy to Semenov. Consistories to carry this out” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 123. No. 9293). Resolution on the dean’s report that there was a fire at the St. Nicholas Church, which was stopped by the captain, Prince Nikolai Shcherbatov: “In reporting this, St. “I owe it to the Synod to bring to the attention of the authorities the act of the church warden, Prince Nikolai Shcherbatov, who, through his personal action to weaken the strength of the fire, while waiting for the police fire brigade, contributed to preventing the fire from reaching the beams on which the bells were hung, which could have resulted in the falling and breaking of the bells” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 123. No. 9294). Resolution on the report of the guardianship employee, the archpriest, that he found the widow of the former priest in the most distressed condition, sick: “... since the widow’s son, Deacon Yegor Semyonov, is a widow, has only two adult sons, and therefore not only is not burdened with a family, but also has a need for a woman for the house, and with all this, he allowed his mother and sister to wander and eat alms, then, having forbidden him to serve in the priesthood, call him to the Consistory, interrogate him and present what he shows, and if he will undertake to take his mother into his care, then allow him to serve in the priesthood again, and if he refuses, then hold him until consideration” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 177. No. 9405). April 3. Resolution on the consistory report on the request for a reward for the priest Ioann Petrov for an admonishing position in the office of the Moscow military governor-general: “In respect of long-term honest service and careful execution of superior orders, the Right Reverend has to promote this priest to archpriest” (Resolutions. T. 4. pp. 123–124. No. 9295). April 5. From the memoirs of Bishop Nikodim (Kazantsev): “On April 5, 1840, on Friday of the 6th week of Lent, Metropolitan Philaret demanded me to come to him at 4 pm. My grammar has been read. Lots of comments. There are amendments. I agree with almost everything. It was necessary to see how careful the Vladyka was when criticizing; as if afraid so as not to upset. The remarks are instructive” (Kazantsev, p. 63). April 6. Resolution on the hieromonk’s petition to transfer him to the monastery’s hospital staff: “That from the Lavra to Androniev; then from Androniev to Pesnosh; but it would be better to think about how to get to heaven more accurately - from the Lavra, from Androniev or from Pesnosha” (Resolutions. T. 4. P. 124. No. 9296). Resolution on a consistory certificate on the request of a priest temporarily in a clerical position for permission to serve in the priesthood: “Since he lied on the record and concealed his most important faults - and a lie is not a sign of repentance and correction, but is a vice that is not tolerated in a priest - then such a person cannot be given permission to serve in the priesthood” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 124. No. 9297). Resolution at the consistory decision on sending a sexton to a monastery for intemperate living and being drunk during services: “Moscow requires predominantly worthy people in the clergy. The sexton is accused of drunken disorder even during divine services and of violent behavior. Removal from his place in Moscow and assignment to the countryside, without sending him to the monastery” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 124. No. 9298). April 7. Resolution on the consistory decision on collecting arrears from the tradesman: “To cover up the unrest means to favor its continuation. You need to ask the dean of the monastery why he didn’t report the illegal contract when visiting the monastery” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. pp. 124–125. No. 9299). April 9. Resolution on the dean’s report that the stone church has fallen into disrepair and may fall: “To avert a dangerous situation in this church, priestly services are prohibited, and for this purpose, the holy antimension, taken with the hands of the clergy, is sealed and stored in the cathedral sacristy until discretion” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 125. No. 9300). Letter to the governor of the Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony (Medvedev): “Children who come to the Lavra should be especially looked after. In addition to food, if God helps to put good things into them, it can be a reserve for the future generation” (Letters to St. Anthony. P. 212. No. 255). April 10. The order for the construction of a bronze plaque with the inscription about the restoration of the church: “Put the plaque on the left choir, where there was the image of St. Alexis, which, however, can be postponed to me. The board should be quadrangular, with an image of a cross in radiance and with a border around the edges, simple, and not proud” (Resolutions. T. 4. pp. 168–169. No. 9387). Letter to Prince S. M. Golitsyn: “Perhaps there is mercy for me in the fact that my insufficiency in fulfilling my duties in all their strength is left at least some excuse for the fact that, if it comes to reasoning, I cannot do anything else in my wandering life. My increasing infirmities give me hope that they will soon allow me to be and remain at home. The consolation, to tell the truth, is incomplete, is to be at one’s business when the strength to act has become weak, after with less meager forces it was less possible to be at one’s business. In relation to Your Excellency regarding the awarding of three priests 58, the Consistory, after the urgent time for submitting for awards had passed, decided to postpone until the next date. But I decided to introduce two; and about the third he agreed with the consistory. Forgive this short delay” (Letters. 1884. pp. 31–32. no. 32). Letter to Archimandrite Ioannikiy (Kholuysky), the abbot of the Chudov Monastery: “Consult, Father Vicar, with Father Archimandrite Petrovsky, whether we should take to Chudov for the local icons the candlesticks already made by Count Sergius Pavlovich 59, which can only be plated with silver. We need to consider whether they will be decent, and whether we will have money” (Letters. 1888. P. 63. No. 9). April 12. Resolution regarding the Minister of the Household of His Imperial Majesty with the forwarding of 2,857 rubles. silver for distribution to the poor and sick, granted on the occasion of the successful release from the burden of Grand Duchess Maria Nikolaevna: “For the discovery of orphans, the poor and the sick, worthy of the Highest beneficence, it is most reliably recognized that parish archpriests and priests with deacons compile lists of such in their parishes, in which there are such. They should not be presented to benefits for persons who have fallen into poverty and remain in it due to their own vice, for example intemperance. Persons of noble rank should be given benefits with some increase in comparison with persons of lower ranks” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. pp. 180–181. No. 9414). April 13. Letter to the Minister of the Imperial Court, Prince Π. M. Volkonsky: “Blessed is the heart of the Tsar, which in the new blessing of God finds a new incentive to do good! May God bless the first-born child of Her Imperial Highness Grand Duchess Maria Nikolaevna Her Imperial Highness Princess Alexandra Maximilianovna, and may she grow in the virtues of the August Imperial House" (CHOLDPr. 1873. Book 7. P. 114. - Materials). April 15. Resolution on the petition of the priest and the elder for permission to paint the internal walls of the church with images relating to the life and suffering of the Savior: “It is allowed to paint the church in compliance with truth and decency, which is overseen by the dean. Whether the drawing of the descent from the cross shows the Mother of God lying in a swoon, then here too there is neither truth nor decency. The Gospel says, I stood at the cross of Jesus, His Mother and His sister, His Mother” (Resolutions. T. 4. P. 125. No. 9301). Resolution on the petition of a retired Life Guards lieutenant for permission to make repairs in the church using his funds: “I remember that this was discussed with the priest and what was missing was explained. Instead of processing the case as it should and, out of gratitude to the zealous person, not burdening him with the worries of paperwork, the priest put the entire case on the depositor, and allowed himself only the easy task of putting a signature on the petition attached to this” (Resolutions. T. 4. pp. 125–126. No. 9302). Letter from E. S. Gerard: “Thank God that your health has been restored. The soul, unburdened from this side, may use its strength, or better the strength given from God, for the improvement of its own area, subordinate to its freedom. It is good to trust in the Lord, but we must use our small free efforts to accept the power given from Him and use it. It must be done in your helicopter city: although the Lord alone brings it back” (CHOLDPr. 1873. Book 4. P. 77. - Materials). April 17. Letter to Bishop Vitaly (Shchepetev): “There is no time to write much. We are going to the baptism of Princess Alexandra Maximilianovna. The Emperor was pleased, on the occasion of her birth, to grant 10,000 rubles. Ass. for the poor in Moscow. I will soon write to you about this in detail. Without a doubt, you have already heard that the sovereign heir chose a bride for himself and got engaged. April 18. Letter to Archbishop Kirill (Bogoslovsky-Platonov): “I received your book, but have not read it yet, because in the sixth week of fasting I was sick, and in the seventh there was no time left from church and some necessary activities. It would be nice now to discuss it with you personally” (DC. 1888. Part 3. No. 12. P. 440). April 19. Letter to Archbishop Parthenius (Chertkov): “I pity both the Most Reverend Nicodemus 61 and the Most Reverend Meletius 62. Both were good and pious shepherds. But the Lord calls those who have prepared themselves, and we, apparently, still need to prepare ourselves. We must pray earnestly for the goodness of the air and for the abundance of the fruits of the earth. The wrath of the Lord is upon our heads. Pray also for my weakness” (PO. 1872. Book 2/3. No. 9. P. 41. No. 28). April 20. Letter to Archbishop Ignatius (Semyonov): “When those traveling to Emmaus hastened to the one ten Apostles to proclaim to them the joy of the resurrection of Christ: she found one ten saying, for the Lord has risen indeed. Thus, when I think of extending to you the word of fellowship in the joy of the risen Lord, I find you extending the same fellowship to me. Whoever warned us, thank God that we have the joy of the Lord and brotherly fellowship. I give thanks and thanks to the Risen One, so that you may receive from Him complete spiritual joy, and every good gift useful for salvation and for the service of His Church” (CHOLDPr. 1871. Book 4. P. 44. - Materials). Letter to Archbishop Gabriel (Gorodkov): “Thank you for the arrangement of the son of Ramensky Priest” (CHOLDPr. 1868. Book 2. P. 48). April 23. Letter to Archbishop Smaragd (Kryzhanovsky): “For this reason, I hasten to respond to your letter that I have just received, in which I see you concerned at the news of your movement. Place yourself on the true point of view, which is the one that wants to place trust in the New Orthodox and thereby establish them. For this purpose, the Eminence Innocent 63, the Eminence Nicanor 64 and you were moved to dioceses that did not call you, as if higher, which, however, they believed would not be unpleasant to you. From the special award given to you at the same time, you see that justice is being given to your service. And so be complacent, reasoning that when the highest considerations of management do not agree in all parts with the personal pleasure of employees, the former cannot be neglected in favor of the latter” (CHOLDPr. 1870. Book 12. pp. 38–39. - Materials). Letter to Archbishop Gabriel (Rozanov): “I thank you: and I strongly pray to the Risen One, that you may receive from Him complete spiritual joy and every good gift useful for salvation and the service of the Church. His idea of ​​the rector 65 of yours seems to be resolved. It’s a pity that he is in such a state as you write: it requires healing, especially spiritual healing. The inner world of the soul will restore peace on the boundaries between soul and body” (Letters. 1888. P. 84). April 24. Letter to the governor of the Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony (Medvedev): “If you can buy bread and sell it at a lower price against those raising the price in the posad, then that’s good. And of the one we have, I think it’s doubtful to sell” (Letters to St. Anthony. P. 212. No. 256). From the memoirs of Bishop Nikodim (Kazantsev): “On April 24, 1840, the Director of the Spiritual Educational Administration, Alexander Ivanovich Karasevsky, presented me with three projects: 1) his own, 2) Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow, 3) Metropolitan of Kyiv. They list the subjects of study at the Seminary, with the addition of new ones - Agriculture, Medicine, Natural History, Catechism of Peter Mogila. I am instructed to divide these subjects into classes per week and assign Mentors to each department of the Seminary. On April 26, I visited the Moscow Bishop, told him about the assignment given to me and asked for guidance in some articles. There were many precious speeches. I don't remember them. This is what is written down: in response to my complaint about the exclusion of Philosophy and the replenishment of the Seminary with insignificant and useless teachings, the Bishop said: “We must give in to them (the secular ones) in something, so that they don’t spoil everything out of impatience.” About Philosophy and Mathematics, the Bishop said: “These sciences are needed in the Seminary, as a touchstone for testing, refining and putting the thinking spirit in order.” About Medicine he said: "Superficial knowledge of Medicine by Seminarians is useless, even harmful. Instead of healing, they can increase the disease. Until now, the parish priest is a spiritual doctor. Any advice he gives is accepted as holiness. When he treats bodily illnesses with earthly medicine, it may happen that his unsuccessful treatment will deprive him of trust even in spiritual advice. And a mortal illness sometimes begins with mild seizures. Then the illness grows, strengthens, does not yield to medicine; the person dies! Then the relatives will say: The patient fell ill slightly, but the priest gave him some medicine, and he died! ”(Kazantsev. P. 63–64). April 25. Letter to the Governor of the Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony (Medvedev): “Accept, Father Vicar, the presenter of this to the Lavra and make an effort to place him on the right path of monastic life. He was in the Sergius Hermitage, but did not reconcile, like some others, finding grave the actions of one of the elders, whom the Abbot 66, in their opinion, trusted in abundance. I have very convincing evidence of his honesty” (Letters to St. Anthony. P. 213. No. 257). April 27. Letter to the Viceroy of the Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony (Medvedev): “Be generous, Father Viceroy. Let us accept the visit of the court in the hope that the Lord will and is already visiting us with mercy. The fire, although material, has come, I think, to our spiritual chaff, so I think about myself, let us present ourselves to purification. And glory to God and His Pleasant that the fire did not spread and did not touch the shrine” (Letters to St. Anthony. P. 213. No. 258). Between January 30 and April 29 (no date). Letter to the Ecumenical Patriarch Gregory VI regarding the good wishes of the church expressed by him when leaving the Patriarchal throne of Constantinople: “Most Holy Bishop! Mutual communication between Orthodox churches and their clergy in modern times is not as open and free as in ancient times. Therefore, I have never found the right to extend my humble word to Your Holiness. But, having heard with reverence the word spoken by you upon leaving the ecumenical patriarchal throne of Constantinople, I cannot help but give freedom to my thoughts and feelings to open up before you. Those who are sincerely devoted to Orthodoxy will feel in your word the continuity of the spirit that breathed in the word of St. Gregory the Theologian when he left the throne of Constantinople - the spirit of zeal for the good of the church, peace-lovingness, patience” (Opinions. Vol. III. P. 10). April 29. Instructions compiled for the teacher of the law, Archpriest Meglitsky, appointed to explain the teachings of the Orthodox Catholic Eastern Church to the highest person of a foreign ruling house and to prepare for her entry into this church (draft): “The teacher of the law can present the concept of the Orthodox Catholic Eastern Church and its confession in two forms: historically and dogmatically. In the historical presentation of the state of the Eastern Catholic Church, special attention should be paid to the symbol of faith contained in this church, which is the Nicene-Constantinopolitan council, solemnly confessed at the ecumenical councils: the Nicene council, which took place in 325, and the Constantinople council, which took place in 381 after the Nativity of Christ. It is undeniable that at that time it was the universal confession of the Orthodox Ecumenical Church <...> The strictness with which this church strives to be faithful to the word of God, the teacher of the law can show especially in the teaching about the origin of the Holy Spirit... The Eastern Church, believing that in an incomprehensible sacrament, no matter how reliable it is to rely on inferences and guesses, it is just as safe to express oneself in the exact words of Christ the Savior, it invariably contains the ancient saying of the symbol, thus remaining faithful at the same time to both the Holy Scriptures and the Holy Tradition <...> In the doctrine of the church, a special explanation is required by the fact that it, as the spiritual body of Christ, has nothing the unbreakable union of faith and love between all its members; so that before God, the church of all times and places on earth, the militant and triumphant church, the church of the living and the church of the deceased - there is a completely united church. From this, the communion of prayers recognized by the Catholic Eastern Church between these different areas of the one church becomes clear” (Opinions. Vol. III. pp. 13, 15–17). April 30. Resolution on the report of the cathedral established at the Lavra about the fire in the Don building: “Thank you to the visiting and merciful Lord that the disaster did not extend further when, as I hear, the eastern wind, dangerous for other buildings, stopped and the rain poured out during the very severity of the fire. The cathedral should have mentioned this for the glory of God and the saint of God. I forgot to say that the cathedral, it seems, does not even know how to count hours - it writes: at 12 o’clock in the morning; this means noon, and the fire started at midnight” (Resolutions. T. 4. P. 169. No. 9388). May 1st. Letter to the Viceroy of the Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony (Medvedev): “Forgive me, Father Viceroy, for what I wrote at the report of the Council. A fire report is more difficult than a fire. Is it only necessary to remember God and His works in letters, but not in official reports? The letters disappear, but official papers remain in the archive and they can tell descendants about the visits and blessings of God” (Letters to St. Anthony. P. 215. No. 259). May 2. Letter to the governor of the Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony (Medvedev): “Whoever builds according to the decision of the architect, puts bricks on the architect’s head; and the one who builds without an architect - on his own. I still am not convinced to deviate from what I said at the report of the Council, without, however, stubbornly rejecting the assumption, which, perhaps, will be explained and proven” (Letters to St. Anthony. P. 215. No. 260). May 4. The resolution on the consistory decision is to announce to a student in the middle department of the Moscow Theological Seminary to ask not for a deacon’s place, but for a clergy position: “It is inconvenient to make inscriptions on certificates in some cases, for example, in case of transfer to another rank. But wrongdoings must be corrected by justice. since the student, after two resolutions, to look for a clerical position, asked for a deacon, and thereby attempted to deceive the authorities, then for this he should be sent to the seminary for a month to be employed in a ministerial position” (Resolutions. T. 4. P. 126. No. 9303). Resolution on the presentation from the board of the Moscow Theological Academy of the translation from Greek into Russian of the “Dogmatic Theology” of St. John of Damascus: “... I propose to also consider this translation in the Censorship Committee, paying attention to the fidelity and correctness of the language, as well as to the notes, so that there are no unnecessary or doubtful ones. Is it true that he is holy? Damascus said: the body became God through deification? The old translation says: God-loving. The dove, I think, did not announce the gospel, because the sexton in the bell tower preaches the gospel, but preached the gospel, or announced the end of the flood, and, moreover, not from ancient times, for this did not continue, but happened once, in ancient times, or in ancient times” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. pp. 174–175. No. 9398). From the memoirs of Bishop Nikodim (Kazantsev): “In 1840, on the Ascension of the Lord, May 4, I asked to serve with Metropolitan Philaret, in his home church, at the Trinity Metochion. I come to church. I see another Archimandrite, also preparing to serve with the Lord. This is Archimandrite Macarius, the first and famous Altai missionary. They served with the Bishop. (Makariy did not allow me to take second place, as I wanted, respecting his years and exploits; but he decisively rejected, saying: “You are in the service; I left it”). After the service, according to custom, we went to Vladyka for tea. The living room is full of gentlemen, and almost only women, some of whom are very young. Fr. and I Macarius barely got the last two chairs. After drinking a cup of tea, Fr. Macarius stood up, accepted the blessing from the Vladyka and left. In the hall about. Macarius stopped me and began to ask who I was, where I was from and what I was doing here. Having spoken abruptly in words, I asked Fr. Macarius left the hall, and in his cell I promised to talk with him as much as he wished. Macarius did not listen, but began to walk back and forth across the hall, holding my hand and asking me to tell me more and more about myself. I was on pins and needles, fearing every minute that the guests would leave the Vladyka. Macarius reassured: “No; the guests will spend a long time with the Vladyka.” I was ashamed to rudely refuse Fr. Macarius; I began to walk around the hall with him. So what? The living room opens, the noblewomen come out, turning around as usual and tenderly bowing to the Vladyka; I threw both my arms back and bowed. The Bishop was about to go out into the hall behind the boyars and graciously bowed to them, but when he saw us, he flushed, lightning flashed in his eyes; He quickly turned back and slammed the door behind him so that the windows rattled. This is how the half-freaked archimandrite led me into temptation... After this difficult scene, I did not dare to appear to the Lord for a long time and look at his angelic-virgin gaze and face. The good lord, apparently, forgave me: I didn’t dare to justify myself, but he didn’t start talking about it and was still merciful to me” (Kazantsev, p. 57). May 5. Resolution on the archimandrite’s report on the inconvenience of building a cell inside the abbot’s garden in the Moscow Novodevichy Convent: “The inconveniences outlined in six points of the proposal to build a wooden building again in the garden are respectful. The abbot’s garden must be preserved not only for the current one, who probably doesn’t go there with sore feet, but also for future abbess, safe and in their quiet use” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 126. No. 9304). May 7. Metropolitan Philaret’s opinion on the term that should be used in the Code of Laws on the naming of the Orthodox Church: “In Article 35 the place will have the private name of the Greek-Russian Church; because the rite of coronation was used in the Greek Church, and was then adopted into the Russian Church. Other members of the Eastern confession of the church do not know this rite, because they do not have the opportunity to use it” (Opinions. Vol. add. P. 72. No. 20). May 8. Letter to mother: “Thank you for remembering me for the holiday. Sorry for keeping silent. Scarce of time, and partly of health. Now, however, I hope to soon go to Moscow and be there, if God blesses, before Trinity Day” (Letters. 1882. P. 351. No. 404). May 10. Letter to the governor of the Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony (Medvedev): “Spring threatens, then encourages, then threatens again. At the Holy Synod I presented the idea of ​​establishing a prayer service. Others bowed; others decided to leave it to themselves due to local circumstances; We settled on the fact that it would be necessary to have more accurate information” (Letters to St. Anthony. pp. 215–216. No. 261). May 12. Letter to Archbishop Kirill (Bogoslovsky-Platonov): “I read your book in part, but I didn’t have time to read it all. Now it’s easier to read than before, as far as I can remember. But, perhaps, because the Epistle to the Hebrews, if I am not mistaken, is especially replete with passages that require more than brief research, I could not, while reading, refrain from making some comments that will be offered to your consideration. I think I’ll leave the book under seal for you” (DC. 1888. Part 3. No. 12. P. 441). May 13. Attitude to Archbishop Neil (Isakovich) 68 regarding difficulties in church rules regarding kinship in marriages of islanders: “The village of Kurilskoye consists of hardly more than a hundred souls. It is obvious that with such a small number, families must be for the most part overcrowded with kinship, and there is nowhere to spread out for marriages outside of distant kinship. This state is patriarchal, and it is impossible to apply to it all the rules on kinship, established already after the formation of populous single-tribal and monolingual human communities. Kinships, named in the 18th chapter of the book of Leviticus, must be observed as prohibited to marriage; and to those who are not named or prohibited here, to show leniency when necessary; spiritual kinship cannot be extended further than between the recipient and the perceived and the parents of this latter; in order not to multiply spiritual kinship, it is advised to use one recipient for male baptism, and one recipient for female baptism” (Resolutions. T. 4. pp. 184–185. No. 9423). May 18. Letter to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count N.A. Protasov: “On my journey through Tver, I fulfilled what I had planned, I spoke with His Eminence Gregory 69 about Archimandrite Plato 70 . The Right Reverend says that he did not submit him for transfer to the Tver Otroch Monastery because the Novotorzhsky Monastery is somewhat more profitable, and the archimandrite has children requiring his care; but that his transfer to Otroch, which according to the list is higher than Novotorzhsky, will be in accordance with the order, useful, as a precautionary measure for Plato and as a means of keeping him more occupied with the affairs of the service. I consider it unnecessary to bring to the attention of your Excellency that I reached Moscow yesterday, the 17th day, in the evening. Here, out of felt need, prayers are offered for rain, which in recent days has been present in part, but the cold and wind are unfavorable to the plants. This is how I saw spring all along the road. Winter crops are not good everywhere; fresh, green grass is not visible” (Opinions. T. additional pp. 73–74. No. 21). Diary entry: “Much. Theodota Agkir. 17 to Moscow." May 19. Resolution on the petition of the Russian subject Eduard Gan for his accession to Orthodoxy and for permission to enter into a new marriage: “... the petition for marriage, forbidden to the petitioner in the religion to which he now belongs, gives him a strong suspicion that he is deciding to join Orthodoxy not out of pure intention, but only in order to achieve marriage. Therefore... declare to the petitioner that this request cannot be satisfied, and that if he sincerely wishes to join Orthodoxy, he can ask, without interfering with the matter of marriage, and explain to him that in the Orthodox Church, violation of marital fidelity is condemned more strictly than in his current religion” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 127. No. 9305). May 20. Resolution on the report of the cathedral established at the Lavra with the presentation of statements of the Lavra’s expenses for April 1840: “Please explain what a carriage upholsterer is, who was given 35 rubles for April? Does the Lavra really have such a large number of carriages that they are used all year round?” (Resolutions. T. 4. P. 169. No. 9389). May 21. Liturgy and prayer service in the Assumption Cathedral on the namesake day of Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolaevich and Grand Duchess Elena Pavlovna and on the birthday of Grand Duchess Elizabeth Mikhailovna. The sermon was delivered by the priest of St. Paraskeva in Okhotny Ryad by Pyotr Evdokimov (MB. 1840. No. 42. P. 329). May 25. Resolution on the petition of the city mayor, members of the magistrate and the city duma for permission, together with the city clergy, to make a procession of the cross around the city on the occasion of a prolonged lack of rain: “A procession of the cross around the city should be arranged and performed in consultation with the city authorities, arranging the path of the procession according to decency and convenience” (Resolutions. T. 4. pp. 127–128. No. 9306). Resolution on the report of the council established at the Lavra with the presentation of a statement of the amount collected for prayer services and all-night vigils: “To Hieromonk Philaret, when issuing his share, declare that this is being done only by grace; but if he continues his evasion from fulfilling his hieromonastic office, then the authorities will be forced to turn to justice out of mercy and not take it from the workers in order to give it to the lazy one” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. pp. 169–170. No. 9390). Letter to A.N. Muravyov: “Only now can I write something to you, Gracious Sir Andrei Nikolaevich.” Holidays, people, and things to do didn’t allow me to look around. That’s why I hadn’t visited your parent until yesterday, and I didn’t want to send him to find out about him, so as not to force him to come to me. Yesterday I came to see him, and they told me that he was at the dacha. I return home and they tell me that he came to see me when I went to see him” (Letters. 1869. pp. 84–85. no. 59). May 27. Letter to Archimandrite Philaret (Gumilevsky): “With hope, I began to read the discussion about Pentecost 71. But the stories about strangers and the endless details from the liturgical books, with which, it seems to me, the Sunday Reading has already filled everyone, did not captivate me until the end of the notebook. Scientific reasoning should not be modeled on a light magazine article written to excite the inattentive. I am returning this essay too. Also about the holiday of the Nativity of Christ. Also about Easter” (Additions. 1884. Part 33. Book 1. pp. 322–323. No. 18). May 30. Letter to the Viceroy of the Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony (Medvedev): “Forgive me, Father Viceroy, that I haven’t been writing for a long time. It’s no more leisurely in Moscow than in St. Petersburg” (Letters to St. Anthony. P. 216. No. 262). June 1st. Letter to Bishop Vasily (Luzhinsky) 72: “... I ordered the Consistory to announce to all parish priests that, delving into the situation of the poor parishioners, those of them who find themselves in need and who therefore want to receive certificates for receiving bread at reduced prices, such certificates are issued without delay” (DC. 1891. Part 3. No. 11. P. 483). June 2. Resolution on the dean’s report about the icon of the Mother of God “Life-Giving Source” brought by a soldier into the church: “Prayers before the icon are not prohibited for those who wish to perform them. Icons should not be removed from the church in the future until further notice. Whether pilgrims will come, whether in significant numbers, and whether anything special will happen, inform me weekly” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 128. No. 9307). June 3. Letter to the Governor of the Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony (Medvedev): “Here, Father Viceroy, is my contribution to the church of St. Nikon. Place the image of the Lord Pantocrator, enclosed with stones and pearls, on the Gospel transmitted with this” (Letters to St. Anthony. P. 216. No. 263). June 4. Resolution on the opinion of Bishop Vitaly (Shchepetev) on the refusal of a priest to appoint his son to this place after his dismissal to help his parents: “Since the priest admits that he has become dispossessed and therefore, at sixty years of age, he is unreliable to continue serving; and since for food he has a son, a deacon, and, as the parishioners testify, a stone house on white ground that brings in 1,400 rubles. income: then dismiss him from service with the confiscation of documents for the rank” (Resolutions. T. 4. P. 128. No. 9308). June 7. Resolution on the consistory certificate about petitioners for the newly opened diaconal place at the church: “Having compared this certificate with the requested case, I find that the certificate misses an important part of the definition: to allow the parishioners to elect a worthy one. Since none of these petitioners was elected by the parishioners, then expect the election granted by the parishioners” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. pp. 128–129. No. 9309). June 8. Resolution on the petition of the elder and parishioners of the Elokhov Epiphany Church with a request to convince Archpriest Alexander to return to his loving flock: “Since the decision of this matter took place in the Holy Synod and was approved by the Highest; and the present petition came in already when the archpriest left the diocesan department, and this was reported to the Holy Synod: then, with all due respect for the goodwill of the parishioners, mature reasoning about this does not reveal either the right or convenience to enter into the consideration of this petition” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 129. No. 9310). Letter to the governor of the Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony (Medvedev): “It seems that now I inevitably need a housekeeper for the courtyard. Look what's happening here. Last Tuesday, Hierodeacon Sergius told me that on the eve of the Feast of the Ascension and Trinity Day he proposed to the steward through a novice his desire to be in the service of the liturgy, but the steward refused and ordered to take the hierodeacon from Chudov or from Sretensky. It seemed incredible to me, and I reprimanded Sergius for the fact that he proposed through a novice, and not himself. On Wednesday I met with the housekeeper and asked about this; He answered on the contrary that he offered it to Sergius through a novice, but he refused. On Thursday I went to Pererva, and the housekeeper called on the servants to cut down a dry birch tree in the garden. She fell and hit the steward on the head so that his vision became dark, and it was necessary to open his blood, and now he is sick. On Friday I saw a novice and asked who served on the holidays and why not his hierodeacon. The novice replied that, on the instructions of Sergius, he proposed to the steward about him, but the steward refused and sent to Sretensky for the hierodeacon. So, the birch was just. Think about who I would like to be the housekeeper. Tell me about. Archpriest Theodore, so that the rest of the book of Mr. Sturdza is passed through, if possible, without detention and forwarded to him” (Letters to St. Anthony. P. 217. No. 264). June 9. Diary entry: “Kirill of Alexandria.” In the night of this day, many in the southeast saw a fiery rod.” June 10. Resolution on the petition of the peasants to protect them from claims when collecting payment for services and from insults from the priest: “The verdict was written and signed with one hand, without a seal, the petition was written by a medical student, of course, is no longer in place; Who exactly, when and with what the priest oppressed or insulted is not explained; and it is wrong that it is not the offended who complain, but the headman and the peasants indiscriminately. Therefore, the Consistory should forward the true verdict and the certified list of petitions to the Chamber of State Property, so that it would be beneficial to keep the peasants from making incorrect and incapable petitions for record keeping, and to instill in them that whether anyone has truly been insulted or oppressed by a priest, he should bring a complaint with an explanation of the circumstances and with evidence" (Resolutions. T. 4. P. 129. No. 9311). Resolution on the sexton’s request for benefits for his large family: “Guardianship has been established for active employees and not for fathers who have children at home. An older sister must work hard to earn food. The Right Reverend will try to place his eldest son Ivan in his place” (Resolutions. T. 4. P. 177. No. 9406). June 13. Presence at the ceremonial meeting at Moscow University on the occasion of the end of the academic year. Together with the Minister of Public Education, he distributed diplomas to candidates and gold and silver medals to students (MV. 1840. No. 49. P. 383). June 14. Letter to mother: “I will stay in Moscow until the 26th day of this month; and then I will be in the Lavra, probably until half of July. If you like, you can come now; and if you decide to come to July, then, I hope, you will find me freer, because then there will be no reason to leave Moscow” (Letters. 1882. P. 351. No. 405). Letter from E. V. Novosiltseva: “Isn’t our coldness towards the spiritual because we are not quite cold towards the affairs of the world and the flesh, because our attention is very occupied with earthly things and, being attracted to this, it is not easy to ascend to the heavenly?” (Letters on Spiritual Life. P. 363). June 15. Resolution on the petition of the widow of a priest to assign her, 72 years old, some kind of poverty benefit: “The trusteeship should assign her a one-time allowance for the current high cost of bread from the amount from which a similar assignment was recently made by the Consistory” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 178. No. 9407). June 16. Letter to the Viceroy of the Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony (Medvedev): “Forgive me, Father Viceroy; the case of the steward and the hierodeacon does not seem to me to be similar to the case of chicks in a jackdaw's nest. A priest who, going to the altar, drives away a deacon he doesn’t like, and then says that it was not he who refused the deacon, but this one who refused, is not like a chick who pecked another. But remind me to talk about the economy on the spot” (Letters to St. Anthony. P. 217. No. 265). June 19. Resolution on the petition of the Commerce Councilor that he provides the stone shops belonging to him for eternal possession and use with these incomes for the maintenance of girls and widows of a solitary life: “Since the existence of the Trinity, which on the estate of the Hodegetria Church, built by the Georgian princess Tamara Georgievna, was approved forever by the Holy Synod, among other things for the sake of the females who settled with it, constituting a hostel... then the proposed charity is in accordance with the circumstances of the place to ensure the maintenance of a charitable institution located at this church, composed of women who lead a modest and pious life there” (Resolutions. T. 4. pp. 129–130. No. 9312). June 20. Resolution on the sexton’s petition for the provision of benefits to him and his family of eight people: “Since the clerks engaged in agriculture especially need help for sowing the fields, then order the deans that those in need, according to the testimony of the local priest and upon the inquiry of the dean, be given the required amount of money on loan from the purse amount of the same church in which they serve, or from another from which it turns out to be possible borrow" (Resolutions. T. 4. P. 130. No. 9313). Letter to A. N. Muravyov: “He who seeks baptism is tested; the decision to perform baptism was decided and approved. This will be known to the receiver” (Letters. 1869. P. 85. No. 60). June 21. Resolution on the request of the priest and the clerics to provide them with some kind of benefit due to the high cost of bread: “The priest at the beginning speaks of hunger, and then writes: I can barely feed myself. Therefore, perhaps he will feed his family, and asks not out of need, but out of a hunch” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 178. No. 9408). Resolution on the petition of the daughter of a deceased sexton to add four rubles to the trusteeship she receives due to the high cost of bread: “The trusteeship should give her 10 rubles at a time for the dearness of bread at this time. appropriation; and from the priest he can take a certificate for the purchase of bread at a reduced price” (Resolutions. T. 4. P. 178. No. 9409). Letter to the Moscow military governor-general D.V. Golitsyn: “... I ordered the Consistory to announce to all parish priests that, delving into the situation of the poor parishioners, those of them who find themselves in need and who therefore want to receive certificates for receiving bread at reduced prices, such certificates are issued without delay” (DC. 1891. Part 3. No. 10. P. 309–310). June 23. Resolution on the hieromonk’s petition to transfer him to the brethren of a Moscow monastery due to intolerance to the hot climate: “Because the petitioner is unknown and does not imagine that any of the monastic abbots of the Moscow diocese would agree to accept him; then refuse this request and return the accompanying medical certificate to him through the Astrakhan spiritual consistory” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 130. No. 9314). Resolution on the guardianship journal at the request of various persons: “The girl has neither father nor mother; For such and such children, a primarily public institution is needed. Guardianship should reserve vacancies for such children. To find out through the guardian whether the girl enjoys good care and upbringing from her son-in-law, and whether this is so, then you can act according to the current opinion of the guardianship, otherwise in every possible way you need to take her to the institution” (Resolutions. T. 4. P. 178. No. 9410). June 24. Liturgy and prayer service, the Word was pronounced in the Assumption Cathedral on the birthday of the Emperor and Grand Duchess Alexandra Nikolaevna (MV. 1840. No. 52. P. 408). Resolution on the petition of the Russian subject Eduard Gan to join the Orthodox Church: “As from the previous petition it is clear that the petitioner is accused of adultery - and such, according to the rules of St. Father, if they are not soon admitted to the Sacraments of the Orthodox Church, then allow the named archpriest to have him among the catechumens and penitents and spend enough time testing the sincerity of his repentance and purity of intention. Depending on what turns out to be, he can ask for further permission regarding his complete annexation to the Orthodox Church” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 131. No. 9315). Resolution on the request of a former novice of the monastery for permission to seek a place of priesthood: “Allow him to seek and ask for a place of priesthood only with the consent of the local priest and parishioners and give three months for this. If there is no place at this time, then the Consistory should consider whether he should be excluded as unnecessary from the clergy and transferred to the Provincial Board for the election of a type of life” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 131. No. 9316). Resolution on the petition of the priest and church warden for permission to buy a house for the benefit of the church: “The consistory should not stop this matter further, so as not to be held responsible for the delay, and consider this petition” (Resolutions. T. 4. pp. 131–132. No. 9317). Resolution on the consistory certificate, at the request of the priest’s widow, to appoint a priest dismissed from office in the place of the deceased: “If the Reverend finds the priest, in his advanced years, still capable, then allow him to perform priestly service in Burkhina, subject to discretion” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 132. No. 9318). June 24. Letter from E. S. Gerard: “Reviewing my papers, I found the original manuscript of notes on the fourth book of Ezra, which I thought had been completely returned; because I made a list for myself last year. I think it’s best to return it: maybe Feodor Yakovlevich will need to take a look at it, but for me the list will always be an assistant” (CHOLDPr. 1873. Book 4. P. 76. - Materials). June 27. Resolution on the dean’s report that the priest leads a drunken life and is faulty in his service: “Just before the presentation of this report, the priest appeared... with his right hand tied, his appearance, words and movements upset. Therefore, it is indecent and dangerous to leave him the right to perform sacred functions, which Lavra’s sick hand prevents. The report was submitted at 9 am” (Resolutions. T. 4. P. 132. No. 9319). June 30. Resolution on the decree of the Holy Synod with permission to tonsure the widow of Major General M. M. Tuchkova into monasticism: “I took tonsure on the 28th day in the cathedral church of the Most Holy Trinity in the Sergius Lavra, and was named Mary. And on the 29th day she was promoted to abbess of the Spassky cenobitic monastery, which is on the Borodino field” (Resolutions. T. 4. P. 181. No. 9415). Letter to A. N. Muravyov: “In my Lavra, as in Moscow, I don’t see how time passes. 27 days test at the Academy for five hours; 28 too; and at the all-night vigil, tonsure; 29 at the festive Divine service of dedication, among other things, of Abbess Mary to the Spasoborodinsk monastery; and in the afternoon there will be a prayer service in the renovated church of St. Nikon; now the consecration of this church and the ordination of one of the Academy students. Today I was at a meal with the brethren, but not until the end of the table, due to my weakness. However, under the roof of St. Sergius, I am awake, and my eyes are better here than they were in the last days in Moscow. I am sending you one Academic reflection. Another is being printed, but it was late” (Letters. 1869. P. 86. No. 61). July 5th. Pronouncing the Word (“Conversation on Temptations”): “Can it really be, you say, that holy deeds can be the subject of temptation? They can, without a doubt: since the infallible Word of God testifies to this. What could be holier than to preach to people the saving doctrine of Christ Crucified? But this was the subject of temptation, as the Apostle says: we preach Christ crucified, but the Jews were a temptation (1 Cor. 1:23). This temptation comes not from those who preach, whose work was pure and holy, but from those who are tempted themselves, who, from the saving doctrine of the Cross for believers, through carnal wisdom, pride and unbelief, extracted for themselves the substance of temptation, just as a spider extracts poison from a flower that gives honey to a bee. From this example it is not difficult to deduce the rule of how one should act in relation to temptation of this kind. If the Apostles, fearing the temptation of the Jews, had not begun to preach Christ crucified, then the world would not have heard the saving teaching and would not have been saved. So, it is obvious that they had to do work that would bring salvation to the world, and not change their actions for people who seduce themselves and destroy themselves” (Works. Vol. 4. P. 128). July 10. Letter to A. N. Muravyov: “The articles about the Councils of Lyons and Florence and about purgatory are very unsatisfactory. In articles about the procession of the Holy Spirit and the primacy of St. Peter and Rome, the evidence is well collected; but they are not always used with the desired accuracy. These, upon revision, can be usefully printed” (Letters. 1869. P. 87. No. 62). July 12. Resolution on the dean’s report that, according to the testimony of the priest at the Lavra with the clergy, the deacon of this church at times has shaking of his hands, which occurs from relaxation of the nerves and is supported by the use of strong drinks: “On suspicion that the relaxation of the deacon’s nerves increases from the use of strong drinks, send him to the Berliuk Hermitage for a month to test his behavior, as well as whether he can safely serve liturgy, and order to inform about what follows” (Resolutions. T. 4. pp. 132–133. No. 9320). Resolution on the report of the cathedral established at the Lavra to remove the hieromonk from the Lavra for disobedience and evasion of his duties: “Transfer Hieromonk Philaret from the Lavra to the Znamensky Monastery... so that the Znamensky abbot will try to explain to him the wrongness of his evasion from performing priestly and monastic duties, and to incite him to fulfill them” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. pp. 170–171. No. 9391). Letter to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod N. A. Protasov on the issue of persons of the Catholic faith divorced by the court of the Orthodox Church: “Why does the board want to accept petitions for divorce under Roman Catholic law? If in order to certainly recognize the decision of the Orthodox court as firm, as commanded in the Code of Laws, then what is the purpose of the petition? What is the new office work for? The decision is already firm under the existing law. And if, in order for the board to have the right to grant or not grant a divorce under Roman Catholic law, then it asks for the right to ensure that the permission of the Orthodox court is not firm, and therefore wants to destroy the article of the Code of Laws” (Opinions. Vol. III. P. 20). July 13. Resolution on the dean’s report about the sexton’s inability to hold office due to old age, ill health and complete lack of voice: “There is only one sexton. – His wife, which is quite strange, does not live with him. The son, who graduated from the seminary course in 1836, lives with the merchant Tabashnikov in the singing choir. Do the following: 1) The sexton is unable to leave. 2) Order the son to support him either with his singing income, or through taking over the place, depending on his merit” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 133. No. 9321). July 14. Resolution on the consistory decision on the divorce of the composer of the Imperial Moscow Theaters: “The extract from the laws is incomplete. There is a lack of an extract from the statute of consistories that would show whether the Consistory accepted the initial petition for divorce on the exact legal basis, instead of the fact that such petitions should go to the diocesan bishop and, according to his resolutions, to the consistory” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 133. No. 9322). July 15. Resolution on the dean’s report that the priest began to show fits of mild delirium tremens from July 5, and therefore cannot correct his position: “Send this report back to the dean, so that he will take further observation of the priest and report on the subsequent events in a week or two, with this report attached, without, however, causing concern to the priest by the fact that observation is prescribed for him” (Resolutions. T. 4. P. 133. No. 9323). Resolution on the dean’s report that the clergy engaged in agriculture are in a difficult situation due to a poor grain harvest and need benefits: “It was in vain that the petitioners did not say what they needed. In order not to miss time, the Consistory again ordered the village dean, so that those who need grain for sowing, in consultation with the most prudent priests of the same department, should be issued from the church purse sums” (Resolutions. T. 4. P. 134. No. 9324). July 17. Resolution on the dean’s report about the sexton’s unseemly actions, which he sincerely admitted: “Due to his misconduct, the sexton deserves to be removed from Moscow; but out of respect for recognition and out of compassion for the family, without removing him from his place, send him for correction to the Catherine Hermitage in lower obediences and menial labor for three weeks and, as it turns out, order him to be reported” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 134. No. 9325). July 19. Resolution on the deacon’s request for permission to seek a place in the monastery due to old age and poor health, and to elect a worthy one in his place: “The deacon would then make a pleasing sacrifice to God and love of mankind, if he went to the monastery and gave up his place out of a pure and free impulse, and not because through drunkenness he lost hope of keeping his place for himself” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 134–135. No. 9326). Resolution on the petition of the priest’s widow to appoint a deacon to the priesthood in place of her husband, and to the deacon’s place the deacon of the church, her brother, who undertakes to support her with four young sons and her husband’s sister: “The deacon does not know the catechism completely and was subject to prohibition in the priesthood. The sexton Iosifov reads and sings only not badly, he understands little of the catechism; bad behavior. Why neither a deacon as a priest, nor a sexton as a deacon deserves to be promoted to deacon” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 135. No. 9327). Resolution on the decree of the Holy Synod on the appointment of a priest as a member of the Consistory: “The Church of Hadrian from the deanery district, if unforeseen respects present themselves, do not exclude; and the advantage of a member of the Consistory will be preserved by the fact that the dean will not give evidence about him in the statement as a person whose dignity is known to the highest authorities” (Resolutions. T. 4. P. 181. No. 9416). July 21. Letter to the Governor of the Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony (Medvedev): “At the same time, I remind you that if you do not write about matters in a letter, write them on a special piece of paper, so that a decision can be given on it, for testimony, if necessary, to the Council” (Letters to St. Anthony. P. 218. No. 266). July 22. A prayer service in the Assumption Cathedral on the namesake day of Grand Duchess Maria Nikolaevna, Grand Duchess Maria Mikhailovna and Grand Duchess Maria Pavlovna. The Liturgy was served by Bishop Vitaly of Dmitrov. The sermon was delivered by the priest of the church, martyr. Tatiana at the University by Peter Ternovsky (MB. 1840. No. 59. P. 456). Resolution regarding the Synodal Chief Prosecutor with notice of the dismissal of the secretary of the 1st expedition of the consistory: “The most important duties of the secretary are to be fulfilled and the secretary of the 2nd expedition has the supervision of the office of the 1st expedition; but since it would be inconvenient for him to fully act on both expeditions alone, it is allowed, under his supervision, to the heads of the 1st expedition of the presence on affairs to report and to seal acts for the secretary on subjects of lesser importance and on relations with places equal and subordinate” (Resolutions. T. 4. P. 182. No. 9417). July 25. The consistory’s proposal to authorize borrowed loans from church purse sums to clergy for the purchase of seeds for sowing grain: “... due to the poverty that befell the parishioners from the grain failure, especially in Kolomna district, one should be afraid that the churches will not have free amounts in proportion to the need; in anticipation of special requests for this occasion, the very time of sowing could be missed. Under such circumstances, in order to prevent a new and lasting disaster, it is considered necessary to take administrative measures to deliver emergency aid to those in greater need for the upcoming seeding of winter fields” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. pp. 135–137. No. 9328). Instruction to the archimandrite of the Moscow Vysokopetrovsky Monastery to distribute allowances to needy clergy for sowing fields: “Upon receiving the order, go to Kolomna immediately and, stopping at the local Novoglutvin monastery, take care of the assignment given to you with attention, so as not to miss the time to provide the allowance to those who need it for sowing the fields” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 137. No. 9329). Letter to the archimandrite of the Moscow Vysokopetrovsky monastery Gabriel: “The distribution of money should be made specifically for the purchase of rye for seeds, with the inspiration to those who will be given money for this purpose, so that they use it for the designated item and will certainly attend to the sowing of the fields” (CHOLPDr. 1873. Book 4. pp. 68–69. - Materials). July 26. Resolution on the priest's request to contribute 5,000 rubles. ass., for priest Vinogradov for his house on the landowner’s land: “The accepted money should not be given either to priest Vinogradov’s wife or guardianship, but to agree with him that it should be placed in the safe treasury until the case about him is over and he will need it to establish himself in another place” (Resolutions. T. 4. pp. 137–138. No. 9330). July 27. Resolution on the consistory report on the archpriest’s request to dismiss him from the post of dean due to his old age and the proposal of worthy candidates as successors: “The first candidate is older in years than the one who, due to his old age, asks to be dismissed from the post of dean, and, moreover, is already holding a position of spiritual guardianship. Therefore, be second. Respect for the merits of both archpriests will be preserved by the fact that the right to give evidence about them in statements and service records will belong not to the new dean, but to the Consistory” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 138. No. 9331). Letter to A. N. Muravyov: “May the Lord bless your path, your stay, and your deeds. Please deliver the attached letters. Your brother’s case is over in the Consistory, and the Vicar has been entrusted with writing the decision” (Letters. 1869. P. 87. No. 63). July 30. Letter from M. M. Tuchkova: “If it is true that the location for the bell tower is not entirely consistent with your purpose, stop thinking about it. It is better that it be built and that the worries end. There is something more necessary to create, stronger and higher. Build yourself into a spiritual church (Peter 1, 2:5), as the disciple of the Great Architect advises: build each other up with good reason, love and mutually good examples” (Letters to Abbess Mary. P. 53. No. 36). Letter to the governor of the Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony (Medvedev): “An official from the nobility, Krasnopevkov, is entering the Academy 74. This is not like some who were before this. Receive him with attention and give him the right to know the monastery and monasticism” (Letters to St. Anthony. P. 219. No. 267). July 31st. A letter to the chief prosecutor of the Holy Synod, N. A. Protasov, with a conclusion on the request of the Old Believers of the city of Spassk to allow one of the parish priests to correct their needs in the Old Believer chapel, without joining Orthodoxy: “Satisfying the essential spiritual needs of those who do not exist in the church yard would be less difficult on the spot, with a closer inquiry into the circumstances, with less formality of relations. This is how it seems to me from past experience in 1820 in Rzhev. The fugitive priests of the local schismatics were detained by the police and transported to their diocesan superiors. Those schismatics who had less strong prejudices against the church and who maintained the schism more out of habit and connections, without hesitation for long, turned to the Orthodox priests with demands; These, according to this instruction, did not stop doing this, without the conditions given by both sides. The matter was done without petitions, relations or reports, to the governor, to the bishop, to the Holy Synod. If in one of these cases leniency was extended far, one could hope that God’s judgment would cover the good intention with leniency; and it was inconvenient for the enemies of the church to extract reproach against her from private actions or to base their right on them. Unfortunately, the success of this business was stopped by the fact that the fugitive priest, caught and sent away, soon fled again and, returning to Rzhev, was supported by the obdurate and rich of the schismatics. Now things are going formally, even to the point of excessiveness, because the Right Reverend 75 demands formal permission to perform Divine services in front of ancient icons, although such an analysis has never been entered into, and cannot be entered into. And if it was so allowed for Orthodox priests to perform all the services of the schismatics, in the chapel, precisely without joining the church, then: 1) this would be inconsistent with the rules and with the dignity of the Orthodox Church and its sacraments; 2) would give the schismatics a new weapon against the church. They would look at this not as condescension, but as recognition of their rightness; 3) due to the rapid communication between schismatics everywhere, this would have been announced in other places, and, probably, many who are on the path to unity of faith would have stopped, seeing a way to satisfy themselves without joining the church, or otherwise, while maintaining their independence and republican arbitrariness in church affairs, which is the main charm of the schism” (Opinions. Vol. III. P. 22). August 3. Resolution on the consistory certificate about the hierodeacon, whom the rector asked to be honored with ordination as a hieromonk: “After proper preparation, present to the head clerk and tell him not to lose his eyes when checking and sealing the certificates” (Resolutions. T. 4. pp. 138–139. No. 9332). Resolution on the priest’s petition for permission to submit to the Moscow Committee for censorship the “Sacred History of the Old Testament” he compiled: “The work does not seem to have been processed satisfactorily. From church-biblical history, written for listeners who demanded a theological and investigative view of history, other things are literally transferred into this book, intended for listeners of a different kind and degree. And where the work adheres more closely to biblical stories, this is not always done with sufficient legibility and adaptation to the needs of the listeners” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 175. No. 9399). August 5th. Resolution on the consistory decision on borrowed benefits from church purse sums and other counties, except Kolomna and Bronnitsky: “Concerning the four clergy of the Libuchansky department, order the Podolsk archpriest, so that he, together with the local dean, orders to provide them with the necessary loan for sowing from church purse sums in the Podolsk district” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 139. No. 9333). August 6. Diary entry: “Transfiguration of the Lord. An unexpected attack forced me to leave the church during the hours, but soon I was able to return. The fear ceased: but the weakness continued.” August 7. A letter to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod N.A. Protasov with an opinion on the question: should the Lutheran spiritual authorities enter into the consideration of cases of divorce of marriages concluded between Lutherans, if subsequently one of the spouses joined the Orthodox Church: “The spiritual Orthodox authorities have a duty to protect Orthodoxy, and not to patronize a dubious matter in which Stehr got himself entangled before joining Orthodoxy" (Opinions. Vol. III. p. 25). Diary entry: “Rev. m. Dometia. The disciple of the late desert servant O. Arseny, with his blessing, visited me and told me about his last days. The vision of the Mother of God preceded him about his death; and the vision of St. Basil the Great was his confession and permission. Procopius was also foreshadowed in a dream.” August 8. Resolution on an extract from the laws on the case of divorce: “The consistory did not have the right to accept a petition for the dissolution of a union bound by the sacrament of marriage, which, due to the importance of the subject, very much requires consideration by the bishop. The Charter does not grant the Consistory the right to make and implement determinations without the approval of the diocesan bishop; and the power of attorney given to the Consistory to execute the resolutions given in the journal on current affairs without prior consideration, as required by the strictness of the charter, should have prompted the consistory to justify this power of attorney by not executing resolutions on the most important matters, which is the present, without approval” (Resolutions. Vol. 4, pp. 139–140. No. 9334). Letter to the Viceroy of the Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony (Medvedev): “This letter will be delivered to you, Father Viceroy, disciple and follower of the life of the late desert dweller in the vicinity of the Svensk monastery, Fr. Arsenia. Talk to him about useful things and write me an answer” (Letters to St. Anthony. P. 220. No. 268). August 9. Resolution on an extract from the report register of the Consistory about a peasant who left the Rogozh schismatics and was deciding which faith to choose: “If this resolution remains in force, the following is recognized as necessary. since Timofeev showed that he had not yet chosen faith, and then began to renounce this testimony without evidence, then, so that he does not remain in complete unbelief, instruct his local priest to continue monitoring him and resume admonitions to him, and report to me about what follows in three or four months, depending on success” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 140. No. 9335). Resolution on the consistory certificate about priests, deacons, sextons and sextons: “The Church and the parish are in a difficult situation. Priest Petrov is on trial, banned from the priesthood and again put on trial for drunkenness. The other is allowed only when necessary; and this one was found drunk. The clergy, who does not have a good example and leadership, indulges in disorder. Necessity requires the use of active measures. Priest Petrov should be removed from this place and, as prohibited and on trial, assigned to a place of priesthood in another village until the cases pending against him are resolved. In his place, transfer priest Ioann Vasiliev, who is approved of the behavior of the same district of the village of Batyushkova, who asks for orders to stop the abuse” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. pp. 140–141. No. 9330). August 11. Resolution on the consistory decision on the collection of a fine from clergy for untimely maintenance of income and expense books: “In lean times, monetary recovery is inconvenient. The priest is to blame more than anyone else: order him to bow a hundred times every three days during the Divine service in the Kolomna Cathedral. The deacon, for failure to report the disorder, should give twenty-five bows in the dean’s church” (Resolutions. T. 4. P. 141. No. 9337). August 16. Letter to the Viceroy of the Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony (Medvedev): “This will be delivered to you, Father Viceroy, by the Diveevskys. One hundred and fifty of them are suffering from hunger and asking me what to do. Where to collect enough allowance to feed so much? I suggested that they disperse for a while to where each one came from. They say they don't want to. Advise them and me” (Letters to St. Anthony. P. 220. No. 269). August 18. Resolution on the consistory decision on the celebration of the liturgy: “Because on the feast of the Nativity of Christ the service was only in a cramped warm church, and not in a spacious cold one, no doubt, a lot of people were deprived of the opportunity to listen to the Divine service; and the reason given by the clergy, supposedly it was necessary to serve as a council, is completely unfounded and unreasonable; for it is necessary to serve as a cathedral when there is an excess of priests, and not in order to deprive the people of service” (Resolutions. T. 4. pp. 141–142. No. 9338). Letter to the governor of the Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony (Medvedev): “About the official you are writing about, I was told more than once that he comes to find out and even that he did me harm by informing me about what was not. And he boasts that he saves many through his service. The Lord knows hearts and secret deeds. What I have heard about him does not prevent me from accepting him calmly, but I get bored with his long conversations and get tired” (Letters to St. Anthony. P. 220. No. 270). August 21. Liturgy and prayer service, the Word was pronounced in the Assumption Cathedral on the anniversary of the coronation of Emperor Nikolai Pavlovich (MV. 1840. No. 68. P. 536). Letter from M. M. Tuchkova: “We talked with sister Elisaveta 76 about the election of your treasurer. She is amazed that some desire this obedience. If they truly wish, then I am amazed too. To refuse obedience would be wrong, and to desire more would be wrong. We must choose not those who want to, but those who know the matter and have the strength to bear the labors and infirmities of the weak” (Letters to Abbess Maria. P. 54. No. 37). August 22. Letter to the Governor of the Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony (Medvedev): “Forgive me, Father Viceroy, I think that a temporary change of place, due to famine, can be done without infidelity before God. By faith a person can remain in the midst of disaster, and by humility he can withdraw to seek the only help, without deigning to ask God for emergency help. And on the contrary, he can withdraw from difficulty due to lack of faith and cowardice. And he may, remaining in the midst of an insurmountable disaster, tempt God with a demand for emergency help, when he could turn to natural means. Either case may be right or wrong. It must be controlled by reasoning and good intentions” (Letters to St. Anthony. P. 221. No. 271). August 23. Letter to A. N. Muravyov: “This month my fragile health has greatly wavered. Sometimes I have difficulty performing Divine services. So it was yesterday. They are calling me to Serpukhov for the consecration of the church, which is in accordance with my need to see this region of the diocese, but I am afraid to go. When the earthly present fluctuates and passes away, let us look more attentively to the future and the heavenly” (Letters. 1869. P. 89. No. 64). August 30. Liturgy and prayer service in the Assumption Cathedral on the name day of the heir to the throne Alexander Nikolaevich and Grand Duchess Alexandra Nikolaevna and the birthday of Grand Duchess Olga Nikolaevna. The sermon was delivered by Archimandrite Ioannikis of the Chrysostom Monastery (MV. 1840. No. 71. P. 559). August 31st. Resolution on the consistory certificate on the request of the wife of the exiled sexton to pay her benefits in the event of a fire: “The request is insincere. One son receives benefits from the school; The other has content in the choir. What kind of family is the sexton talking about? Let the sexton look for a place; and the Eminence, if possible, will hasten to determine it” (Resolutions. T. 4. P. 142. No. 9339). Letter to the Viceroy of the Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony (Medvedev): “Thank you, Father Viceroy, for the aid sent to the Diveevskys and for the idea to send through the abbot 77, in the hope that he will thereby be aroused to humane participation in them” (Letters to the Monk Anthony. P. 222. No. 272). Letter to mother: “I regret the trouble that happened to Ivan Alekseevich. But tell him to be calm and not to worry about things that do no harm. His good opinion does not depend on the Dean’s pencil. I’ll try to write to him specifically about this” (Letters. 1882. P. 352. No. 406). From the memoirs of Bishop Nikodim (Kazantsev): “In August 1840, the local archbishop, Kirill, came to St. Petersburg from Kamenets-Podolsk, summoned here to attend the Holy Synod. It was located in the synodal courtyard, that is, where I lived. The Reverend Kirill soon caressed me. He was given an assignment: to read the works of eight Students of the Moscow Theological Academy who completed the course this year. Each Student had from three to five sermons and at least two discussions. This is quite a pile of notebooks! The sickly Eminence Kirill asked me to re-read all these works, write notes on each work and present them to him. I sat at this matter for a month and gave my notes to the Reverend Kirill. Kirill was very happy, thanked him and promised to present them to the Synod. However, since my notes mostly pointed out errors and shortcomings, and did not praise the authors, I asked the Bishop to reconsider the matter again, to soften too strict judgments, and to completely release some. I told His Eminence Kirill: “I made my remarks for you, and not for the Synod: I ask you to soften them.” The Lord barely agreed to change something. The report or presentation to the Holy Synod, with the return of the Students’ essays and with the attachment of his review of each of them, was dictated to me by His Eminence Kirill himself. Here he strictly condemned the Academy’s authorities for presenting such imperfect works, and also for the fact that these imperfections were not noted by the mentors who read them. In this form the matter was submitted to the Synod. A hearing of this case has been scheduled for one of the upcoming meetings. The Chief Secretary reads the case to the Presence: first the report of the Most Reverend Kirill, then the comments on the Students’ essays. The members of the Synod were amazed. Tense silence. The secular ones stood at attention with a sardonic smile, expecting a stormy scene between Metropolitan Philaret and Archbishop Kirill. Filaret really seemed irritated, more than once he stopped the reader, made appeals to His Eminence Kirill, tried to soften his phrases, and demanded explanations. This scene of irritation lasted a long time. Finally, in order to stop the embarrassment, Filaret told the Synod Fathers: "Let me take this matter and reconsider. Maybe, together with His Eminence Kamenets-Podolsky, we will find a way to give it a peaceful ending." Filaret sat next to His Eminence Kirill (Filaret in the second pair, Kirill in the third pair). Out of impatience, he pushed Kirill in the side, saying quietly: “What are you saying? Against whom? Have you forgotten your homeland?” Having arrived from the Synod, His Eminence Kirill told me all this, in amazement: “Well, brother! Today at the Synod I endured such a storm as I don’t remember in my life. The Moscow Bishop was greatly annoyed at our comments on the works of Moscow Students.” During this entire scene, the other Members of the Synod were silent; Metropolitan Seraphim alone ranted and made people laugh. For example: About the reasoning of one Student, His Eminence Kirill wrote: “This reasoning (about the eternity of torment) does not represent new views on this subject.” Seraphim picked up: “Thank you, Eminence. That’s a good point. They all have new views!” Everyone, secular and spiritual, was amazed! Metropolitan Seraphim was so cowardly and preoccupied with Philaret! In the Synod this matter actually ended quietly; but it was not easy for the Moscow Academy: they were given strict comments. Of the eight Students, it seems that two did not receive the Master's degree, although they were nominated for it. This matter cooled Metropolitan Philaret away from me. He didn’t seem to scold me for it; but I lost a lot of confidence in him. But let whoever wants to judge that. Leaving intrigues to which I never give a price, I will say: I did as I understood the matter. It’s not my fault that the academic authorities are careless and the student’s essays are bad” (Kazantsev. pp. 66–68). September 3. Resolution based on the consistory definition: “With all the confidence in the owners, legal order requires some provision. But a bill of exchange is not security accepted by law. Invite the owners to contribute a six-month amount as security so that it remains security for the entire contract period and is received as payment for the last six months. Will anyone agree to this: to give the mill according to the presented project conditions, except for the article on the bill of exchange” (Resolutions. T. 4. P. 142. No. 9340). September 4. Resolution on the sexton’s request for permission to enter into a second marriage: “A bigamist is prohibited from using a right that does not belong to him, and this cannot be allowed to marry except after moving to another place where there is a non-bigamist for the altar position, or when at the present place another priest is not a bigamist” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. pp. 142–143. No. 9341). Resolution on the testimony about the protracted transfer of church property from one elder to another: “As the long-term service of the former elder deserves respect, then the Consistory, having made a statement about it, should submit it” (Resolutions. T. 4. P. 143. No. 9342). September 8. Liturgy service in the Trinity Edinoverie Church at the Rogozhskoe cemetery, the Word was spoken before the laying of the Church of All Saints in this cemetery: “How true it is that a kingdom divided into one will be desolate (Matthew 12:25): it is also true that the eternal and indestructible kingdom will not accept any divisions and strife. In the pure unity of faith and love on earth, the ability for the highest union with God and the Saints in heaven should be formed” (Works. Vol. 4. P. 134). A religious procession was held and the foundation site of the Church of All Saints and the Hospice House, built by the brothers - merchants Babkins, was consecrated (MB. 1840. No. 76. P. 591). September 9. Resolution on the presentation of the board of the Bethany Theological Seminary to refuse to transfer the student from the Moscow to the Bethany Seminary: “The student’s request is not complete, because it is not said who his parents and relatives are. No school certificate included. The seminary Board did not take the necessary information and, speaking about the large number of people in the seminary, did not provide information on how many students lived in the seminary last year and how many live this year” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 175. No. 9400). September 12. Letter to the Viceroy of the Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony (Medvedev): “The Lord, by the power of His most holy and terrible name, may forbid the enemy, the blasphemer of the shrine, and the soul outraged by him, may he cleanse, may he pacify, may he calm and with the light of His grace may he arm him to repel the attacks of darkness. Blessed is the Lord, who has already begun to shame the enemy by the fact that his intensified indignation served to open the disease and to accept healing” (Letters to St. Anthony. P. 223. No. 273). September 13. Letter from E. V. Novosiltseva: “We should not indulge in the dreams of the imagination and create plans for the next century, when even in the present not everything happens according to our assumptions. How do we know if a person is reborn? – you ask. Is it necessary to notify him about this? Wouldn't the thought of finding oneself reborn harm the very cause of revival? It is enough that the Gospel showed the means of revival: faith, prayer, sacraments, commandments. Use the means carefully - and I believe the Lord will do His work. Born again of God” (Letters. 1911. P. 209). September 17. The consistory's proposal to submit a deacon for testing, who had to learn to read and sing music more correctly (Resolutions. T. 4. pp. 143–144. No. 9343). Letter to the Governor of the Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony (Medvedev): “My journey to you, Father Viceroy, should be from Bogorodsk, probably 23 days. However, weather and road conditions may extend it. But do not worry and do not bother many with waiting” (Letters to St. Anthony. P. 223. No. 274). September 22. Pronunciation of the Word for the consecration of the Church of the Resurrection of Christ, in the village of Guslitsy: “The fate of our life, which is blessed and sanctified by it, depends on the church: but the fate of the church itself also depends on our life. God generously bestows grace; but does not waste it in vain. Those who believe, repent, and correct their lives are cleansed and sanctified by the grace of the holy church; and unbelievers, unrepentantly devoted to sin, insult grace, remove it, and by multiplying iniquities desecrate and destroy the church itself. If you and your children turn away from me and do not keep My commandments and My commandments, I will also reject this church, which I have sanctified to My name (1 Kings 9:6, 7), that is, the church, devoid of grace, will be devastated and destroyed. Who does not know how truly, and how fearfully, this judgment of God was fulfilled over the Temple of Solomon? (Works. T. 4. P. 143). September 26. Resolution on the dean’s report that he discovered a crack in the Holy See: “First of all, the one who drove nails into the consecrated altar is to blame, but he is unknown. Then the current priest is to blame for taking out the nails and, consequently, working on the consecrated altar with an unconsecrated instrument, for doing this without permission and for not revealing this in the previous interrogation” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 144. No. 9344). October 1st. Resolution on the decree of the Holy Synod that it is impossible to allow a student who has not reached the required age to become a monk: “It is very unfortunate that the academic Board did not take the necessary effort to reconcile the ideas with the law and caused trouble for themselves, me and the petitioner, who deserves patronage and care. Does it really think that my job is to check numbers and letters and that my time is not needed for somewhat more important activities? Carefully find out the petitioner’s years and months of years: for if in the past year he was shown to be 23 years old, having 23 years and 11 months, then he is now close to 25 years old” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 182. No. 9418). October 2. Resolution on the petition of the parishioners of the Edinoverie Church for assistance in receiving from the trustee of the Edinoverie printing house over ten thousand copies of liturgical books for delivery to the church: “Considering the request of the Edinoverie parishioners to be respectful and especially accepting the reasoning that the Edinoverie printing house and its works are the property of the Edinoverie Church, and not a private individual... refer from me to the Holy Synod, so that it would be favored to carry out administrative order to this request of fellow parishioners" (Resolutions. T. 4. pp. 144–145. No. 9345). Letter to mother: “I take this opportunity to inform you, Gracious Empress Mother, that I successfully completed a ten-day journey through three districts, especially Bogorodsky. Now I am unwell due to repeated colds; however, with God’s help, I hope to get better. I won’t go to St. Petersburg, I think, before half of this month” (Letters. 1882. P. 352. No. 407). October 3. Resolution on a consistory certificate about a banned priest who asked permission to resume priestly service: “The secretary notices the inaccurate expression “disapproved” in the certificate; it was necessary to show exactly when and in what exact terms the dean testified about his behavior” (Resolutions. T. 4. P. 145. No. 9346). October 4. Letter to the Governor of the Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony (Medvedev): “My journey, Father Viceroy, ended happily. But after two holidays here, the cold that had been building up in me for a long time became worse. Having taken the medicine you prescribed and having spent two days in my cell, I now feel better” (Letters to St. Anthony. P. 223. No. 275). October 5. Establishment of the Warsaw diocese. October 7. Resolution on the report of the Kolomna Spiritual Board on unresolved matters: “To let the Kolomna Spiritual Board know that it takes longer to deal with than in others, and to order that it try to finish things without delay, and in case of slowness of other government places with which it communicates, immediately report to the Consistory for encouragement” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 145. No. 9347). Resolution on the deacon’s petition for benefits for him and his family: “The deacon asks for benefits and fills the petition with various extraneous complaints and denunciations, such as, for example, that the priest is reading sermons that are not his own. What is the offense to the deacon and what is the harm that the priest reads sermons not from his own composition? Is it really because the deacon is poor that the priest reads sermons that are not his own?” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. pp. 145–146. No. 9348). A resolution regarding the Moscow military governor-general, Prince D.V. Golitsyn, that he does not find any obstacles to the burial of the deceased in the fence of the Moscow Alekseevsky nunnery: “To order the abbess, in permission of the representation, that she can accept the bodies of those wishing to be buried in the monastery at the monastery cemetery with the supervision that this should be infrequent, in respect of those who are zealous for the monastery, and it will be done on tickets issued for burial by the local police" (Resolutions. T. 4. P. 182. No. 9419). October 8. Resolution at the consistory decision on dismantling the cathedral due to its disrepair: “It is not advisable to destroy an ancient church; and it is not entirely convenient to maintain, and opinions about this are different, then leave the church in its present position until a consensus and trustworthy assumption is made, entrusting the archpriest with the church warden with monitoring so that a dangerous incident does not occur due to the dilapidation of the building and that when the dilapidation increases, danger is brought to light” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 146. No. 9349). The resolution on the extract from the consistory journal to leave without action the peasant woman’s request for permission for her to enter into a second marriage due to obscurity about her husband: “The above law does not say not to accept petitions without a written request, nor not to accept petitions without indicating where the marriage took place. Another law should have been brought in relation to this latter” (Resolutions. T. 4. P. 146. No. 9350). October 9. Letter 78 to Archbishop Arkady (Fedorov) to ensure that he maintains unity with his vicar in the management of the diocese: “I consider it not superfluous to show your Eminence the position of one of the old vicariates, as it is in Moscow. Here the Consistory submits its determinations to the local bishop, except in special cases, through the vicar, who, having expressed consent to the opinion of the Consistory or having expressed his opinion, presents the case to the local bishop; the vicar’s opinions are accepted or rejected by the local bishop, without being subject to objections from the Consistory. In your country, due to the remote residence of the laity, it would be inconvenient to generally conduct determinations of the Consistory through him, at least on those matters that are entrusted to the vicar; it would be in accordance with the hierarchical order that the vicar revise the opinions of the Consistory and give his own conclusions about them, and not vice versa” (Opinions. Vol. III. P. 28). Letter to Archimandrite Macarius (Glukharev): “Most Reverend Father Archimandrite! For the missionary church that you are establishing again, I transmit with this Gospel, arranged in a manner suitable for the altar” (CHOLDPr. 1872. Book 6. P. 102. - Materials). October 10. Letter to M. M. Pogodin in response to his request for admission to the Synodal Library: “I offered the Synodal Office a letter from your Eminence about permission to make extracts from manuscripts of the Synodal and Printing Libraries. The office found that by decree of the Holy Governing Synod of July 9, 1840, No. 8814, it was ordered not to allow anyone to study in the Patriarchal sacristy without the permission of the Holy Synod. Notifying you about this, on behalf of the Synodal Office, I invoke God’s blessing upon you” 79 (Barsukov. T. 5. P. 427). October 12. Resolution at the consistory decision on allowing a retired lieutenant of 62 years old to marry a 28-year-old girl: “The priest’s doubt is only respectful, namely regarding the age of the person wishing to marry: and this is permitted, in accordance with the opinion of the Consistory. The priest must explain the rest by searching, and not evade with the unfounded pretext that the groom does not live in his parish; for the bride lives in his parish, and it cannot be demanded that the bride and groom always be in the same parish” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. pp. 146–147. No. 9351). October 13. The service of the liturgy and prayer service on the birthday of Grand Duke Mikhail Nikolaevich and on the day of remembrance of the expulsion of the French from Moscow in 1812 was accompanied by a religious procession around the Kremlin. The sermon was delivered by the archpriest of the Church of Gregory of Neocaesarea of ​​Zamoskvoretsky forty Grigory Vasiliev (MB. 1840. No. 83. P. 643). October 14. Letter to the governor of the Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony (Medvedev): “I told the Diveevskys that their division was inappropriate 80. But I don't think this will be useful. It would behoove the sister who was here before to talk about this, who is one of the few who support the idea of ​​separation, but who did not reveal anything about this here” (Letters to St. Anthony. P. 224. No. 276). October 15. Resolution on a priest’s petition for permission to serve in the priesthood and to assign him a priestly place: “Are there others assigned to the places that he asked for, then, without a doubt, they are the most worthy and also in need. But according to this request, in which there is no idle space, nothing can be done. If he does not find a priestly place, let him continue to serve in the priestly place where he was, until a priestly place opens up” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 147. No. 9352). Resolution on an extract from the consistory report register that the sexton came to the consistory on a summons, but the priest was unable to do so due to illness: “As it has come to my attention that the priest rarely performs divine services, and partly due to intemperance, then take testimony about this from the clerk, as well as about why the priest did not appear, and whether it is truly shown in the report that those who did not confess there was not a single one” (Resolutions. T. 4. P. 147. No. 9353). Letter to A.N. Muravyov: “I’m not in a hurry to go to St. Petersburg both because there is business here and because rumors here have more than once promised long-awaited Guests from St. Petersburg - although the rumors are not clear, they still require some observation. Now my time is approaching; I think 23 go; and one from your neighborhood brings me the same news from St. Petersburg and even thinks that I should be warned about this. Perhaps it is not commendable that Moscow is very talkative, but sometimes I would like St. Petersburg not to be too modest. May God help you to know reliably what you need to know, and to successfully do what you should do. Quite a few translations of the Dosithean history have been sent to you” (Letters. 1869. P. 91 No. 65). October 16. Resolution on an extract from the consistory report register with a request to present the testimony of the sexton: “The dean, as not setting a good example for others, but having the need to be under the supervision of others, should be dismissed from the dean’s position” (Resolutions. T. 4. pp. 147–148. No. 9354). Resolution on an extract from the journal of the conference of the Moscow Theological Academy with the presentation of a report on the books examined by the Moscow Censorship Committee for September 1840: “The schismatics derive a new reason for controversy and temptation from the book: “Addition to the evidence about the antiquity of the three-finger constitution,” in which, they say, it is written on page 19 that there was no permission from the Holy Synod to pray with two fingers, and on pages 21 and 22, two fingers are called enemy charm. I propose to take information from the Censorship Committee whether such a book was considered by it and whether such sayings were approved by it, and consider it” (Resolutions. T. 4. pp. 175–176. No. 9401). October 17. Letter to M.N. Zagoskin 81: “The Metropolitan of Moscow, testifying his respect to His Excellency Mikhail Nikolaevich, returns with gratitude a remarkable note about an unusual illness, without hiding his regret that this is not a note from the day and not close to the present, but a story from memory, written down again from memory, which leaves other things that would be useful to ask, and presents something else that should be objected to” (RS. 1903. T. 113. No. 2. P. 360). October 21. Letter from M. M. Tuchkova: “I am glad that you were chosen to be at the Confirmation of the Princess 82. With God's help, she will have in you a praying soul next to her, feeling the importance of faith, the purity of Orthodoxy and the holiness of the Sacrament. God will help you to speak words of peace, love and consolation into her heart. It is good that you also receive a new encouragement to pray with love for your beloved royal family” (Letters to Abbess Maria. P. 54. No. 38). Letter to mother: “I ask for your blessing on the path ahead of me, which, God willing, should begin the day after tomorrow. My health had improved somewhat by this time” (Letters. 1882. pp. 352–353. no. 408). October 27. Letter from N.N.: “I ask you to temper your sadness with Christian reasoning. I especially feel sorry for young orphans, but doesn’t the Heavenly Father love them more than us? So, if He judged them to be orphans, then, apparently, He found it good to lead them this way. You were entrusted with the care of them with the death of their father, and now it’s the same. Take care of your relatives rather than sorrow: the Lord will take care of you. I invoke His peace and blessing upon you” (CHOLDPr. 1872. Book 7. P. 135. - Materials). October. Diary entry: “Much. Terentia. Today we are in P. for Liturgy, I left M. 23 in the morning.” October 29. Letter to Bishop Vitaly (Shchepetev): “My path, by the goodness of God, was not difficult. On Saturday before noon I arrived in Novgorod and stayed there for a day in order to have the convenience of listening to the Sunday divine service; and yesterday I came to my courtyard 83 straight to the church during the liturgy. The Bishop of Novgorod is alive, although he is ancient. Kyiv wants to stay in Kyiv until next summer, citing, among other things, his state of health. It's a pity that this will happen. Matters require a lot of advice” (Letters. 1887. P. 49). From the memoirs of Bishop Nikodim (Kazantsev): “On October 29, 1840, I paid tribute to Metropolitan Philaret. He arrived from Moscow yesterday. He was received graciously, with tact unique to him. His first glance already inspires him with complete confidence. I have never spoken so freely with any bishop, no bishop has allowed me such closeness to himself, no bishop has tied me to himself so powerfully and decisively, and I have never seen or heard a bishop speaking and teaching so wisely, insightfully, efficiently, as this great Saint has always been. Do not be afraid: being close to the little one, he will not let himself fall and will not allow this little one to forget; no, he is good, but also majestic. The Bishop asked me about my Grammar and ordered me to bring it to him. He asked what I did last summer, what am I doing now? He expressed fatherly sympathy for my sadness that I am neither in place nor out of place, neither in business nor idle. I responded with silence and bows. I regretted that they did not accept my project of dividing the Seminary courses over the years. I assumed: a) five years at the School, seven at the Seminary; b) consider every year a course and every year a prolution (transfer to the highest class), both in the School and in the Seminary. On November 2, I visited the Metropolitan and gave him Russian Grammar. Having read my preface in it, he said: "Whatever they want. If they do not agree to accept it (that is, for general use), I will order it to be printed for the schools of my Diocese. However, you must read it carefully." The grammar remained with the Vladyka” (Kazantsev. P. 66). November 1st. Letter to Bishop Vitaly (Shchepetev): “Look, Your Eminence, the resolution on the unfortunate Belopesotsky case 84. The name of the hieromonk appointed to manage the monastery is missing here: because I don’t remember his name. Summon the Archimandrite of Peter the Great; take his name and write it in the resolution in the space left at the beginning of the last line” (Letters. 1887. P. 49). November 2. Letter to mother: “I inform you, dear Empress Mother, that I have been in St. Petersburg since the 28th day of last month. My path, by the goodness of God, was comfortable and not difficult, and I traveled for a long time because I spent a day in Novgorod in order to have the convenience of listening to the Divine service on Sunday. I found Vladyka of Novgorod no weaker in body than before, but weaker in memory. And Kievsky is unlikely to be in St. Petersburg for the winter: he wants to stay at home, citing the distance of the journey and the decrease in strength as the reason” (Letters. 1882. P. 353. No. 409). November 4. Letter to Prince D.V. Golitsyn: “The dean of the Nikitsky forty, Staropimenovsky Archpriest Mikhail Ionov, presented me with a report from St. John the Theologian, in Bronnaya, of Priest Alexei Mikhailov with the clergy and the Church Warden, with the following content: “Moscow tradesman Semyon Petrov Cherkasov, in the garden of Mr. Major Kazimir Ivanov Ostashevsky, distant from St. John the Theological Church on 21 sazhen, holds festivities with military music, drumming and choirs of singers, from 5 to 10 pm, on Thursdays, on Sundays, sometimes on Saturdays, not limited to the importance of all-night vigils held at these hours on Sundays, holidays and royal days.” The Consistory, which I instructed to hear this matter, concluded: “Since public festivities in the garden of Mr. Ostashevsky, accompanied by military music and choirs of singers during the hours of Divine services, violate the silence and due reverence for the shrine, then in the future, during the hours of the Divine service, music with choirs in the garden of Mr. Ostashevsky, disturbing the silence and reverence for the shrine, will be prohibited.” Agreeing with this conclusion and reporting this at the discretion of Your Lordship, I have the honor to be with true respect and complete devotion, and so on.” (CHOIDR. 1874. Book. 3. pp. 101–102. No. 1). November 5th. Letter to Bishop Vitaly (Shchepetev): “Tell, Your Eminence, that the consistory should hurry up with the presentation of cases regarding the priestly daughter Smirnova. We need the one for which she was removed from the post of prospirin, and the one where she complained about Count N., and the one where she complained about the Vagankovsky priest 85. Here they did not pay attention to her character, and reason, and the subjects of complaints, but only listened to her words, seemingly simple, and gave her the freedom to bother” (Letters. 1887. P. 50). Letter to Bishop Vitaly (Shchepetev): “Accept, Your Eminence, the work of seeing Ivan Mikhailovich Snegirev 86 and, having expressed to him my respect and desire for God’s blessing, tell him what I will write here... Saying goodbye to me, he suddenly expressed a desire: to mention me when publishing an essay about Moscow, which he is working on 87. I had no time to think. I settled on the thought that I had read some parts of this work, and did not contradict the intention of saying what was. On the road I had time to remember and think about this. More than once I have been at a loss from books that I read before they were published, even though they were not published. You have to be careful sometime. What will Ivan Mikhailovich say about me? What did I read? This would be unsatisfactory. What did I read and agree with everything? - It would be unfair. That I agreed with some things and not with others? – This would again be unsatisfactory for the writer, for the public, and for me. Will I tell you what I agreed on and what I remained in doubt about? “I’m afraid that he won’t remember my comments and that this will pave the way for controversy, which I don’t want.” For these reasons, I remain grateful that Ivan Mikhailovich listened with attention and goodwill to some of my opinions while reading his archaeological work, especially about church objects; but I find it inconvenient to make our home interviews public” (Letters. 1887. pp. 50–51). November 9. Resolution on the consistory decision on sending a peasant to the Znamensky Monastery for two weeks under penance for failure to fulfill the Christian duty of confession and Holy Communion and failure to attend church: “Instruct the dean and the local priest to persuade ... to fulfill the Christian duty during the approaching Christmas fast” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 148. No. 9355). Resolution at the consistory decision on the request of the hieromonk for the issuance of a passport for a trip to the Athos monastery: “Because the brethren of the Greek monastery are subject to the department of the local authorities temporarily while they are here; and it is only out of necessity that they enter into matters of their behavior in order to maintain order or avert temptation, and therefore, when convenience arises, it is appropriate to transfer such matters to the consideration of the Athos authorities, for whom these monastics were sent” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. pp. 148–149. No. 9356). Resolution on the report of the cathedral archpriest about the negligence of the cathedral clergy in drawing up documents: “Under the decree presented with this decree, the signature of the cathedral clergyman in the hearing was made twice against order and decency, even more indecently, in the second signature there is a reproach for the archpriest, allegedly he sometimes makes extracts from decrees that are not similar to the force of the decree - a reproach for those It is more inappropriate that in the announcement of the archpriest about the decree under which this is signed, there is now no inconsistency... The priest, who was the first to make the above-mentioned reproachful and subordination signature with his own hand, is to be sent to the Starogolutvin monastery for a week for priestly service and obedience and for admonition, so that subordination and respect are observed towards the authorities” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 149–150. No. 9357). From the memoirs of Bishop Nikodim (Kazantsev): “On the evening of November 9, I was with Metropolitan Philaret, at his call. The Bishop gave me the opportunity to revise the notes and corrections of the Greek translation of the Catechism. Alexander Skarlatovich Sturdza, an excellent expert on the Greek language, both modern, ecclesiastical, and ancient, translated into New Greek the lengthy Catechism of Philaret, which from that time on became the hand-written and classic book of Orthodox doctrine throughout the East. The corrections were made by some Moscow Priest. Here I brought almost nothing of my own, even because at that time I did not know the New Greek at all. I only dared to advise trusting Sturdza, an almost natural Greek, a pious and enlightened man, passionately loving Greece and the East. There were speeches about the English Deacon Palmer” 88 (Kazantsev. pp. 70–71). November 12. Report to the Holy Synod on the consideration of the translation of the catechism into the modern Greek language: “The studies required by the diocese did not allow me to complete this work in Moscow, and having completed it here (in St. Petersburg) and finding the translation worthy of approval, I did not dare send it to the Moscow printing house, not being able to personally establish and actually verify supervision over the correctness of printing, but submit it first to the discretion of His Holiness Synod, would it not be considered best to order it to be printed in the local printing house and to entrust the supervision of the correctness of printing to the successive Archimandrite Nicodemus, who has the necessary information, attentiveness and diligence for this purpose” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. pp. 185–186. No. 9424). November 14. Resolution on the petition of the archpriest with the presentation of a ticket from the Moscow treasury donated for the construction of the church: “The ticket is to be forwarded to the Mozhaisk Cathedral so that it and the capital contained in it with interest are kept inviolable for use in due time, with the special permission of the authorities, for the item appointed by the depositor by the archpriest, and so that the cathedral members, having in mind this beginning of the enterprise, do not miss occasion to invite others to assist” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 150. No. 9358). November 15. Letter to the Governor of the Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony (Medvedev): “I hasten to tell you that these days I received a good report from His Grace Tambov regarding the life of Fr. Seraphim 89; only the Holy Synod has not yet heard it. The Eminence says that what was said to him by Fr. Seraphim’s words later turned out to be spoken out of insight” (Letters to St. Anthony. P. 225. No. 276). November 16. Resolution on the priest’s request to transfer him to another church due to an unpeaceful relationship with the elder: “The Reverend will say the word of reconciliation to the priest. Is there peace with all the parishioners, but with one there is only a misunderstanding: is there a sufficient reason to seek removal? Who can guarantee that several non-peaceful ones will not meet in another place? The care of the elder for the church deserves to endure misunderstandings with him and to overcome generously. And that it does not harm the priest in the eyes of his superiors, it seems he could clearly see on the day of the consecration of the church. There is no need to submit this petition to the consistory” (Resolutions. T. 4. pp. 150–151. No. 9359). Resolution on the decree of the Holy Synod on the vacation of 5,000 rubles. silver for the poor of the clergy on the occasion of a grain failure: “the means of relief now granted to the diocesan authorities is limited, and there is no other option, and therefore they should ask for a loan only for true and absolutely necessary needs and the loan that is allocated should be used frugally for necessary food, and not at all for extraneous or less necessary items” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 183. No. 9420). November 17. Resolution on the consistory ruling on the release of a priest from trial and investigation: “In case of intoxication, a priest cannot be considered unsuspicious and therefore placed under the special supervision of a dean for a year so that every two months he informs whether he lives soberly and whether he serves diligently” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 151. No. 9360). November 18. Rules have been drawn up for the spiritual edification of criminals exiled to Siberia: “Begin relationships with humane and compassionate interviews and through this open the way for edification. Converse with Christian love, simplicity and condescension and beware of everything that destroys or offends. The crime is low, and the person is worthy of pity. To be disposed to admit guilt before God and before the authority assigned by Him and to sincere submission to the will of the legitimate authority and the destinies of God's Providence. To begin general prayer when at least some give hope that they will take part in it. Do not force those who are inattentive, but only convince them so that they do not interfere with others. We must hope that the sincerity of the prayers of those praying will soften the bitterness of others. The prayer book should be chosen depending on the time and other circumstances. For example, is there a priest who visited those sent in the morning for the night; he can read for them morning prayers or the first hour, and alleluia, troparia and verses should be said with singing, to further arouse attention. Is there a visit on a holiday: it is proper to perform a prayer service for that holiday. More often than other prayers, prayer singing with the canon of repentance and the canon to the Most Holy Theotokos, sung in all sorrow and circumstances, can be used” (DC. 1872. Part 1. No. 3. pp. 344–345). Report to the Holy Synod on the spiritual edification of criminals exiled to Siberia: “In pursuance of the decree of the Holy Governing Synod of September 21, 1840... having accurately considered the assumptions contained in the highest approved opinion of the State Council regarding the spiritual edification of criminals exiled to Siberia with local circumstances, submit to the Holy Synod... a conclusion on the following points: I) for correction to appoint prayers and edification of criminals, from the points indicated in the schedule, the following steps... II) To fulfill this duty, appoint... an archpriest... a priest III) The appointed archpriest and priests are to be prescribed the following... to visit the sent criminals in those places where they stay as assigned by the authorities... for this purpose, choose a convenient time for those visiting” (Opinions. Vol. III. pp. 29-30). November 19. Resolution at the consistory decision on permission to minister in the priesthood to a former priest who had been banned for about seven years: “The builder denounced this last year. How the priest behaved in the present is unknown” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. pp. 153–154. No. 9362). Resolution at the consistory ruling on the release of the sexton from trial in the case of the theft of the holy antimension: “The priest expressed not direct suspicion of the sexton, but some doubt, not without reason and not without any signs of ill-intention: because the sexton was on trial and his behavior was not approved. Therefore, the priest should not be held guilty of this” (Resolutions. T. 4. P. 154. No. 9363). Letter to Actual State Councilor A.I. Krasovsky: “By the will of His Grace, the governor in the Kingdom of Poland, Field Marshal General Prince Ivan Fedorovich of Warsaw (Count Paskevich-Erivansky), a copy of the History of the Primitive Christian Church among the Slavs 90, published in Warsaw this year, was forwarded to me by me from [your] Excellency received. The book is remarkable in relation to the Eastern Church and the history of the Slavic tribes” (DC. 1879. Part 2. No. 8. pp. 461–462). Letter from E.V. Novosiltseva: “The Eminence of Kiev asked permission to stay in Kyiv for the winter; and this is permitted to him; However, he changed his mind and is expected in St. Petersburg these days. I am glad of this, both for cooperation in business and for solemn services, because my words are scanty and my health is unstable” (Letters. 1911. P. 210). November 22. Resolution on the petition of the banned hierodeacon of the Belopesotsky Trinity Monastery with a complaint against the Builder, who does not give him money for clothes and does not pay for the binding of books: “The Builder acts justly that he does not give clothes to those who have them, and also one should not pay for the binding of books, for no payment is given for deeds of obedience to the brethren. This petition reveals in the request a disposition that is unusual for monasticism” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. pp. 154–155. No. 9364). Resolution on an extract from the journal of the conference of the Moscow Theological Academy with the presentation of a report on the writings of spiritual books for October 1840: “The schismatics, to the confusion of their fellow believers, point out that in some recently published book the double-fingered addition is called an enemy charm. This is inappropriate and harmful when long-term experience has shown that some kept the double-fingered fold only out of attachment to what was received from the fathers, without connecting with heresy, and when the Holy Synod condescendingly allowed this double-fingered fold in churches of the same faith. Just as the Censorship Committee should have copies of the missing books, it wouldn’t be a bad idea to show me the place of the book that receives the schismatic reproach” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 176. No. 9402). Report to the Holy Synod about the lengthy catechism 91 translated by A. S. Sturdza into modern Greek: “For the accuracy of verification, I instructed the Moscow St. Nicholas (Grand Cross) Church priest, Master Zercheninov 92, to write out, in comparison with the original, all the passages of the translation that seem not quite accurate with the original, and add assumptions about replacing them with more precise expressions; and then I read the entire translation and considered the draft changes” (Opinions. T. additional pp. 75–76. No. 22). November 23. Response to the attitude of Prince D.V. Golitsyn about the ban on festivities and music near the Church of St. John the Theologian: “It seems that more than what is promised is not required. Having attached it to the case, present it. It is determined: “With the writing of the recall of His Lordship, send a Decree to the Dean for announcement to the St. John the Theological clergy” (CHOIDR. 1874. Book 3. P. 102). November 24. Resolution on the consistory decision on the sending of the sexton and sexton for drunken and indecent behavior to the Berliukov Hermitage: “What is the fault of the monastery, which is burdened with feeding a person for eight months in difficult times for the important reason that he is a drunkard and disorderly person? Send everyone in turn to the Berlyukovskaya hermitage for a month to do menial labor and under strict supervision, so that at the end of the month it will be reported how they work. If there is anyone in the monastery who proves himself incontinent, or indecent, or disobedient: he should be removed from the place and ordered to look for another where he will be accepted” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 155. No. 9365). November 26. Letter to Prince S. M. Golitsyn: “Having heard that the Lord visited you with family sadness, I cannot hide my sympathy. I will grieve that you are saddened, and I will especially grieve that, as I hear, you are greatly saddened. Sadness for relatives is natural, but let not the sadness of those who have Christian hope overcome, and let them overcome sadness with the power of faith and hope. Vladyka of Novgorod accepted with love and joy when I testified to him the respect of Your Excellency. He is becoming ancient, however, thank God, he attends almost every meeting of the Holy Synod. Kyiv sometimes goes, sometimes he doesn’t, but we hope to see him here too” (Letters. 1884. pp. 32–33. No. 33). Letter to Bishop Vitaly (Shchepetev): “In the Saratov convent, the abbess, suppressing complaints against her own sister, subjected some sisters of the monastery to suspicion of sectarianism and was the cause of a difficult and complicated matter, for which she was finally removed from management. The Right Reverend of Saratov 93 asked for the appointment of an abbess from the Holy Synod, because the monastery was recently founded and there were no ones ready for the abbess. The former abbess and the dubious sisters have been removed to other places, but nevertheless, in order to establish order in the monastery and maintain its dignity and the disposition of the citizens towards it, a sensible and active leader is required. Couldn’t Thomaida, who is staying at the Novodevichy Convent and left her abbotship in Kyiv 94 due to some random displeasure, be used for this?” (Letters. 1887. P. 51). November 27. Resolution on the petition of a monastic novice for his expulsion from the Moscow diocesan department: “As the petitioner declares himself unable to continue monastic life and asks to be excluded from the Moscow diocesan department, then in agreement with his desire to expel him from the monastery and from the Moscow diocesan department” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 155. No. 9366). From the memoirs of Bishop Nikodim (Kazantsev): “On November 27, I visited Metropolitan Philaret. Vladyka first remarked to me with a smile: “You are already too polite; you got off the cab at the gate of the courtyard, and not at the porch.” I was ashamed to ride in a bad carriage, with an ignorant driver, in sight of the office of Metropolitan Philaret. Speech about my Grammar (so I occupied the Lord with it a lot!) He began like this: “In the Northern Bee there is an anecdote about Voltaire: He convinced one of his friends, whom he recommended to an important person as a home teacher and who was looking for one, that if he wanted to stay in place, he was going to be a little stupider than what he is. The teacher was determined, but was soon sent away. When he again appeared to Voltaire, then this one said to him: “It’s true that you did not listen to my instructions.” “So you too,” the Lord said, “I would advise you to be more stupid in order to write a Grammar for children that they would understand.” Forgive me, Lord! I remained with my thoughts. Children could leave evidence of the paragraph; and it is useful for teachers to know why I recognize this or that as a rule” (Kazantsev, p. 71). From the memoirs of W. Palmer: “On November 27 [1840] at half past seven in the evening, Count Protasov brought me to Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow. He, addressing me in Latin, said: “We are very glad to see you and to know that your church is disposed towards unity and honors antiquity.” The count wanted to know why I wanted to be allowed to receive communion. I answered like this: “In the Creed we declare that the church is one, and we believe in the unity of the church.” Metropolitan: “It should be united, but not united.” I continued: “The existing division is ungodly and disgusting.” Metropolitan: “There are no words, we must strive for unity.” Count: “How many people in England hold the same views as you?” Answer: “The majority do not think about this at all; the division that exists de facto is accepted as a kind of necessity, but the formal teaching of our church and the beliefs of our most famous theologians are different.” “Is this so?” - they asked. Answer: “Our church has never excommunicated the Greek churches and the Latin churches on the continent. We excommunicated only the Latins in England, Ireland, Greece and Russia as schismatics.” “I just can’t understand this,” said the Metropolitan. “They are of the same faith as the Latins on the continent.” Communication is based on the unity of faith. Since they are recognized as worthy of communication abroad, then they should be recognized as such in their homeland, but if they are excommunicated in their homeland, then they are subject to excommunication everywhere." I answered: "Yes, if they were heretics. However, in England we excommunicate them not as heretics, but as schismatics. With us, a layman can accept all the errors of the papists as theological opinions, but, although our church condemns them, he will not be excommunicated unless he commits direct rebellion." Metropolitan: "He cannot, or, without a doubt, should not have such freedom, for communication requires complete unity of faith." "Certainly, he can," I answered. “But this is hardly possible, for if he shared all the errors of the Romans, then along with them would be the thought of the need to remain in communion with Rome. Your Eminence, of course, is right that complete unity of faith is an indispensable condition for communication. But the question is: what does this united Faith consist of? Our Church makes a greater distinction between this Faith, which everyone must keep pure and inviolable, and secondary theological opinions, which, if they are fair, do not belong to essential dogmas, and if false, do not belong to heresies. We consider this the basis of our teaching and faith." The Metropolitan answered: "I don’t understand this. In matters of faith, the church must be completely united. There are now several separate confessions in the world, each in itself. It remains only to establish which of them is true or the most true.” The Metropolitan said: “So do you recognize the Eastern, Latin, and British churches together?” “Yes,” I answered. “Each in his own diocese and in his own land, and nothing else.” The Metropolitan repeated: “I cannot understand this,” and added: “How many of you support this theory?” I suppose this cannot possibly be the general opinion” (Palmer, pp. 105–107). November 29. The widowed priest John Veniaminov was tonsured as a monk at the Trinity Metochion in Moscow with the name Innocent (he was elevated to the rank of archimandrite on November 30). This happened on the advice of Metropolitan Philaret, with whom Fr. John met in Moscow while collecting donations for the needs of the mission in North America and who contributed to the placement of the daughters of Fr. John to a girls' institute, and his sons to the SPDA for government support. From the memoirs of Bishop Nikodim (Kazantsev): “On November 29, His Grace Kirill, having arrived from the Synod, demanded me to come to him and announced to me that, according to the determination of Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow, I was appointed by the Holy Synod to be the adoptive father of the American Archpriest John Evseich Veniaminov, who was preparing to be tonsured. At 6 o'clock in the evening I was ordered to appear with the mantle at the courtyard of the Moscow Metropolitan. The tonsure took place in the courtyard, in the church of St. Sergius, at all-night vigil, November 29. The Vladyka Himself tonsured him. I cried. The next day, November 30, here, during the liturgy, the newly tonsured monk Innocent (Archpriest John Evseich) was ordained by the Bishop as an archimandrite. And I served. The Bishop invited us to have a meal with him. The table is short. I remember: a) a piece of caviar, b) fish soup, but of course there was also some kind of roast. Vladyka eats quickly, although he spent the entire dinner talking. I don’t remember what he treated us to, but he drank a glass of porter, saying that doctors had recently advised him to do so. At this time, or yesterday before his tonsure, Vladyka talked with us about the hermits of Egypt - Theodore the Great and Abba Amun! In the evening of the same day, I stood the all-night vigil here, at the Trinity Metochion, and then, through the cell attendant, I asked the Bishop for permission to serve with him tomorrow (December 1, the day of his Angel). The Bishop allowed, but with mysterious boredom: “Why didn’t he tell me about this himself before? Why should I offend His Eminence Kamenets-Podolsky. Let him serve with him.” Apparently, I was already boring the Vladyka. Or he was guarding himself from the gossip of evil-tongued people, protecting both me and himself. But I, like an unobtrusive child, without any expectations or calculations, considered it a blessing to serve with the Lord, to whose service I had never seen an equal. After mass, I went to the Vladyka, with many others parallel to me, and received a blessing, and with them I left” (Kazantsev, p. 72). November 30. Conclusion on the request of parishioners to reserve a deacon’s place for the granddaughter of a deceased deacon: “If sometimes diocesan bishops, not according to the rule, but out of indulgence, leave a clergy place unoccupied for a short time, in anticipation of a candidate in whom the matter of philanthropy would be combined with personal dignity, taking into marriage the orphan of a predecessor, the justification for such an order is orphanhood; but this is not the case in the present case; for the maiden Anna has a father, a sexton. This nepotism, according to which the daughter or grandson of a retired or dying clergyman gives a place of priesthood to a disciple who entered the clergy through poverty, already makes it much more difficult for the diocesan authorities to observe justice and the benefit of the church when assigning priestly places. It is often difficult to challenge them from the excessively widespread nepotism in order to achieve dignity and merit. And if the authorities, carried away by the plausible motive of the Dispensation of orphans and the poor, do not strive for the rights of dignity and merit, then the worthy are often bypassed, left without places for a long time, and as a result, sometimes the best students of theological schools reach a secular rank, and the places that they did not get are taken by the worst, through brides” (Opinions. Vol. III. pp. 31–32). From the memoirs of Bishop Nikodim (Kazantsev): “Reverend Kirill began going to the Synod in August. Filaret arrived at the end of October. In November, His Eminence Kirill calls me to him and says: "Well, brother, today I was in the Synod and I didn’t recognize the Synod. It used to be that Metropolitan Jonah (Georgian) and I would sit in the presence for an hour or more for nothing. Nobody brings any business; secular people will come into the presence and then leave; they walk as if on the boulevard and occasionally start talking to us, and almost always about trifles. Today, when for the first time The Metropolitan of Moscow came to the Synod, everything was in strict order and order. The Prosecutor with his officials was in place with a pile of reports. The reports begin one after another, the decisions of the Synod are heard, without a break, and after two hours of work we get up, pray, bow, and go to our places.” Filaret means so much in the Synod” (Kazantsev, pp. 68–69). December 1st. Resolution on a consistory certificate about a priest dismissed from service due to poor health: “As this priest has been appointed by the Right Reverend to perform sacred services in Odigitriev, in the house church of Her Serene Highness Princess Tamara, in the future, order the local dean to report in a month whether he will serve regularly and without neglect, what kind of behavior he will consider and whether those who benefit from the service will be satisfied with him.” that church" (Resolutions. Vol. 4. pp. 155–156. No. 9367). Resolution on the consistory decision on the transfer of a novice to another monastery: “It is unfairly said in the consistory decision that the Builder approved of the novice. The builder wrote for two years: not bad behavior, but for the last one: mediocre. Worse evidence than this is rarely found in reports; and from management experience it is known that such evidence signifies people who are faulty and have been found guilty of misconduct, but have not yet been convicted in court” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 156. No. 9368). Resolution submitted to the board of the Moscow Theological Seminary with a request to purchase several “New Tablet” books for students: “As the number of students is not shown, it is impossible to judge whether multiplication of copies of the book is necessary. The book is large and it cannot all be taught. For this purpose, a summary was compiled and printed so that it would in some way replace the educational book” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 176. No. 9403). December 2. Resolution on the opinion of His Eminence Vitaly (Shchepetev), Bishop of Dmitrov, on the satisfaction of the parishioners’ request to appoint a deacon in the place of a deceased priest: “The local deacon has the qualities required for a priest, age and already eleven years of service in the diaconate. Therefore, in respect of the convincing petition of the parishioners, and by the way of the church warden, who cares a lot about the church, I agree with the last statement of the Right Reverend about the promotion of this deacon to the priest” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 157. No. 9369). December 3. Resolution on a consistory ruling on the release of a priest from trial following a denunciation of him by a deacon (Resolutions. T. 4. pp. 157–158. No. 9370). December 4. Attitude to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod: “The spiritual authorities, when caring for orphans, are obliged, nevertheless, to care about the justice and dignity of those appointed to places, especially the clergy, and in this matter of love for mankind, carefully, so to speak, sneak past the severity of the 76 Apostolic canon, which judges that “it is not right to create the heirs of the bishopric (no doubt, and in general priesthood) and give God’s property as a gift to human passions” (DC. 1882. Part 1. No. 2. P. 251). December 5th. Letter to Archimandrite Philaret (Gumilyovsky): “Although the student, according to his place in the rank lists, was not among the best before, but since movement beyond the established time from class to class is not allowed by the charter, the Academic Board could not approve the relegation of the Agrinsky student from the highest department to the average for misconduct, if this measure was presented for consideration by the seminary board. since this measure was accepted by the Eminence and has already been put into effect, then bring this to the attention of the Higher Authorities at his discretion” (Additions. 1884. Part 33. Book 1. P. 323. No. 19). From the memoirs of Bishop Nikodim (Kazantsev): “On December 5, 1840, the bride of the Sovereign Heir, Maria Alexandrovna (the current Empress), was confirmed, and on the 6th she was betrothed to Alexander Nikolaevich, now the All-Russian Emperor. Both the anointing and betrothal were performed by Metropolitan Seraphim in the presence and complicity of all members of the Synod. It was heard that Empress Alexandra Feodorovna wanted the Metropolitan of Moscow to perform these rites. Seraphim found out about this and wrote to the Emperor: “Sire! Do not offend the old man.” Emperor Nicholas canceled his wife's intention. Why would an old man impose himself when he is not wanted? Why block the path of someone who is invited? According to the ceremony, the Bishop of Moscow had the opportunity to present the Gospel to the anointed bride for kissing. Everyone marveled at the dexterity and strength of the muscles in Filaret’s hands: he deftly took the rather heavy Gospel with both hands from the lectern, from the side by one edge, and so he handed the Gospel to the Princess and put it in its place without shaking his hand” (Kazantsev. pp. 73–74). December 6. Letter to the Governor of the Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony (Medvedev): “Yesterday and today we witnessed important and joyful events of the August House: yesterday the anointing of the highly named bride of the Sovereign Heir Tsarevich, and today the betrothal of Their Highnesses. The blessed Princess pronounced her confession of faith with majestic modesty and reverence and such a pure word that could not be expected from her recent acquaintance with Russia. This holiday was filled with quiet joy. Bring to the Lord a prayer of thanksgiving and hope” (Letters to St. Anthony. P. 226. No. 278). Letter to the governor of the Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony (Medvedev): “In order to the life of Fr. Seraphim to print the previous study about his life, this cannot be thought about. I thought about printing instead of a preface the report of the Most Reverend Tambovsky, but this did not turn out to be possible; Bishop of Novgorod 95 again rebelled with his bewilderment about the miraculous events, and Metropolitan Jonah complained that His Grace of Tambov did not name the witnesses by name and even said that there were more witnesses of a contrary opinion and that His Grace hid this. Apparently, the abbot of Sarov sinned and wrote his dark thoughts to Metropolitan Jonah” (Letters to St. Anthony. pp. 226–227. No. 279). Letter to Bishop Vitaly (Shchepetev): “Yesterday, the highly named bride of the sovereign, the heir to the crown prince, received holy confirmation and became a daughter of the Eastern Church; and today their betrothal took place. Yesterday's celebration was touching; the present day is bright with an abundant, and very peaceful, light of joy. The blessed Empress Maria Alexandrovna pronounced her confession of faith with majestic modesty, such a light, pure, alien sound, a word that could not be expected from her recent acquaintance with Russia. It was as if pearls were falling from her lips onto the book she held in her hands. All the august ones are healthy and dearly beloved. I didn’t write to you most likely because, incidentally, I have been fighting a cold for a week, not without difficulty, on the occasion of suddenly severe frosts, which, however, have now ended” (Letters. 1887. P. 52). December 9. Resolution on a priest’s petition to appoint a theological student in his place with the student’s promise to marry his daughter and for him to find another place: “To give a priestly place as a dowry to a daughter, and to ask for another for yourself would mean putting the priestly place on sale, which, of course, is very sinful” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 158. No. 9371). December 11. Resolution on the deacon’s request to transfer him to another church at the request of the priest and parishioners: “The Reverend will consider whether the requested deacon is not the son-in-law of the priest for the position he is asking for; and if there is a son-in-law, it goes without saying that a priest and a deacon in such a close relationship cannot serve in the same church without deviating from the accepted rules” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 158. No. 9372). December 12. Resolution on the consistory decision on the case of establishing a convent in the Medvedeva Hermitage: “In order to resolve this petition, it must be taken into account that in the Medvedeva Hermitage there was already a women’s dormitory, but, due to its proximity to the Pesnoshsky Monastery and perceived inconveniences, it was destroyed that in the Moscow Diocese there are 12 convents; and therefore there is no need for the authorities to strive to multiply them; that the petitioner does not name those respectable people who allegedly want to help build this monastery, and therefore nothing can be confirmed on this nameless testimony; that the petitioner himself, excluded from the clergy, does not deserve such Trust as to entrust him with collecting subscriptions for the establishment of a monastery” (Resolutions. T. 4. pp. 158–160. No. 9373). Resolution at the consistory decision on increasing the punishment for the priest for not allowing the former church warden to receive Holy Communion: “The priest says that the deacon reminded him of the confessional note and thereby persuaded him to allow the church warden to receive Holy Communion. But the deacon in his exile did not confirm this. Consequently, whether the priest at first did not allow it due to a true doubt, then later admitted it without reason, and whether, while allowing it, he did not doubt, then I must conclude that at first he expressed doubt feignedly in order only to offend the elder, whom he reproached as a thief back in February and, consequently, mixed his passion into the holy work, insulted the holiness of the sacrament and made embarrassment and temptation forthcoming at such an important time” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. pp. 160–162. No. 9374). December 15. The consecration of Innocent (Veniaminov) 96 to the rank of Bishop of Kamchatka, Kuril and Aleutian was completed in the Kazan Cathedral in St. Petersburg. Establishment of the Kamchatka diocese. From the memoirs of N.V. Sushkov: “In 1839, a poor, unknown, without connections, without support, from distant America, a priest of the church in the port of Novoarkhangelsk on the Aleutian island of Sitkha (possession of the Russian-American Company) arrived in St. Petersburg in the hope of drawing the attention of the Holy Synod to the pitiful situation of his semi-wild flock. Known to no one, alien to everyone, the priest stood at many thresholds, knocked on many doors; but everywhere he was met with cold politeness and complete indifference to his desert side. So he comes to the Moscow Metropolitan and no longer knows how to express his feelings of gratitude and reverence for him for his participation in his fate in a foreign land, for his attention to explanations about the position of the church, for the curiosity with which he asked in all the details about the region that occupies little of the capital, about its nature and resources, about local morals and customs, about crafts, trade, population, piety, militancy, etc. The main purpose of sailing around the world was the priest’s intention to publish the Holy Scriptures in the Aleutian language. Having printed his translation, he was going not to the Aleuts, but to Irkutsk, where his wife had moved to raise their children - 12 boys and girls. Having found his guest a reasonable, pious, educated and gifted man, the perspicacious shepherd drew the attention of the members of the Synod to him - and it was soon recognized that it was necessary to return him to Sitkha and place him in a more independent position with the rank of dean. The finger of God pointed out a different path. The venerable presbyter receives sad news from home about the death of his wife. Meanwhile, according to the suggestions of his patron, the idea arose in St. Petersburg of establishing a new diocese of the third class in Siberia, separate from Irkutsk. It included Kamchatka and the Kuril and Aleutian islands. Of the three persons honored by the Synod to occupy the new episcopal see, the Emperor chose an American newcomer. He was immediately tonsured, then, in due time, ordained to the rank of archimandrite and after that ordained bishop of Kamchatka, Kuril and Aleutian” (Sushkov. Appendix, pp. 154–155). The highest approved “New Rules” for teaching in seminaries were issued, according to which the volume of general education disciplines was reduced, but disciplines “useful for community life” were included (fundamentals of medicine and peasant farming); Since 1843, some seminaries began to teach icon painting. From the memoirs of Bishop Nikodim (Kazantsev): “The matter of science in the Seminary, according to the new Charter, was transferred to the Synod. Metropolitan Seraphim relied on two Filarets, and they entered into an agreement and wrote what was published in 1840. Filaret of Kyiv subsequently was completely of one mind with Moscow, and considered the latter’s opinion to be law. The truth has shone: virtue has driven away the spirit of hostility” (Kazantsev, p. 50). The resolution of the Synod allowed the publication of the MDA journal “Creations of the Holy Fathers in Russian translation with additions of spiritual content” according to the project of the rector of the MDA, Archimandrite Philaret (Gumilevsky), supported by Metropolitan Philaret (Drozdov). December 17. Resolution on the submission of the director of the Commission for Buildings in Moscow with a request to inform whether, on the occasion of religious processions, it is possible to erect a canopy on the Moscow River only on the day of the Epiphany of the Lord, and on the other two times the blessing of water can be carried out without a canopy: “The construction of a canopy over the place of consecration of water on the river is accepted both for beauty and for true need, so that the Holy Gospel, the Holy Cross and ancient miraculous icons had decent protection in case of heavy rain. Therefore, the spiritual authorities cannot take on their responsibility to agree to the abolition of this Ancient custom” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. pp. 162–163. No. 9376). December 18. Letter to the Governor of the Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony (Medvedev): “Having caught a cold before the beginning of this month, I have been sitting at home since the 8th day and still cannot get rid of the cold, which has been renewed and neglected many times. I can do and write little without the disease again becoming angry. Now, however, I am beginning to feel that I am not far from recovery, God willing” (Letters to St. Anthony. P. 227. No. 280). December 19. Resolution on the report of the archimandrite and treasurer with a request to gild and repair the iron crosses on churches and bell towers: “There were no stars on the domes before. Applying them will multiply the number of wells on the roof of the chapters and, if overlooked, can be a case of leakage. Therefore, cancel this article and thereby save 2,000 rubles. allocations that can be used with greater benefit” (Resolutions. T. 4. P. 162. No. 9375). Opinion about A. Kh. Vostokov’s proposed edition of the Ostromir Gospel: “Although the prepared edition of the Ostromir Gospel is adapted not to theology, but to linguistics, this also has its own need and benefit, in my opinion, there is no need to interfere with this” (Opinions. Vol. III. P. 33). Letter to mother: “Forgive me that I could not fulfill some of your requests. Some of them arrived late; I was partly not in control due to a coincidence of circumstances” (Letters. 1882. P. 354. No. 410). December 20. Resolution on the sexton’s petition for permission to enter the monastery, and to appoint a son in his place: “This petition is left without action, firstly, because it is about different matters related to different departments, such as: about transferring a place to a son and about accepting another son for government support; secondly, because the seminary authorities are not obliged to accept his son into state support just because he wants to give up care of the children he gave birth to and go to the monastery” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 163. No. 9377). Resolution on the report of the cathedral established at the Lavra on the dismissal of the Lavra hieromonk for three months for the veneration of holy relics: “The highest authorities notice with displeasure that the monastics, often not established in behavior, walk a lot from place to place unnecessarily, to the increase of temptations and to the criticism of their title. The petitioner had to fulfill voluntary vows before making a vow of perfect obedience, and having given this vow, he should not, without blessing, accept arbitrary intentions, which, although they seem good, will not be perfect when they are not submissive to the main thing before the church, the vow of obedience” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 171. No. 9392). December 22. Opinion on the question of how to deal with clergy who are unable to pay the fine imposed on them for accommodating fugitives: “This crime is not light when it is done with intent. This is a type of theft, grave in terms of the value of the thing stolen - because the stolen object is not a thing, but a person - and in terms of a particularly harmful action, if it indulges an unworthy person who has stolen himself from serving the sovereign and the fatherland. A clergyman convicted of theft, according to the 25th rule of the holy apostles, is subject to removal from his rank. A clergyman convicted of overexertion and When a fugitive deserter is installed, knowingly and with intent, upon defrocking, he is subjected to the action of civil and criminal laws, except for corporal punishment. A clergyman, convicted of overexertion and the installation of a fugitive or deserter not knowingly and not with intent, but through an oversight, being deceived by a false written form or other partly plausible method of identification, without being deprived of his rank, is subjected to the action of civil laws only. In this case, the fine may consist of one hundred silver rubles” (Opinions. T. additional pp. 77–78. No. 23). December 23. Resolution on the petition of the banned deacon to consider the reasons for the hostility of the clergy towards him: “It is amazing that the petitioner attributes revenge and enmity against himself to everyone, and does not find anyone impartial! Declare to the deacon that he asks for whatever he needs with clear evidence and without confusion of matters” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. pp. 163–164. No. 9378). December 26. Resolution on the petition of the daughter of a deceased priest for permission to replace the appointed former seminary teacher Sokolov with finding a worthy candidate who would agree to marry her niece: “If, as he writes, it has already been decided to promote teacher Sokolov to this place, then this cannot be changed, especially since the teacher has on his side both the right of merit and a philanthropic intention for the proposed entry into marriage, or, as far as I remember, proposes to take a girl raised by spiritual superiors” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 164. No. 9379). Letter to Prince S. M. Golitsyn: “The Eminence of Kiev asked to leave him for the winter in Kyiv; then he left, but returned; then he wrote to me that he would force himself to go if they demanded it; and just the other day he wrote that due to the cold winter he strongly wishes to stay in Kiev until September” (Letters. 1884. P. 34. No. 34). December 27. Determination of the consistory on the election of a non-fine priest to the position of confessor for clergy (DC. 1877. Part 3. No. 10. P. 251). December 28. From the memoirs of Bishop Nikodim (Kazantsev): “By the way, a little adventure. I serve with the Bishop in his courtyard. Having venerated the cross as Vladyka entered the church, we usually walked behind him. I carelessly stepped on his robe (extreme tightness). I heard this when the Lord’s robe was torn from under my feet. - What? Vladyka walked at the same pace as if nothing had happened. A small thing, but a great soul is visible in it. If I were him, I would have somehow expressed my fear and annoyance, although I would have regretted it later. After the ceremony of anointing and betrothal, Metropolitan Philaret was ill for a long time and did not travel. Maybe the tension cost him something. On December 28, he visited Metropolitan Philaret. The Bishop’s conversation with me: Metropolitan: “What are you coming to me for?” Me: I said briefly that I would not like to return to Vyatka, where (the Prosecutor) is thinking of returning me. Metropolitan: “I don’t know what they’re doing there (at the Synod, or at the Prosecutor’s office). I suggested leaving you again in the line. It’s good that I came and said it on time. Maybe I would have forgotten. Well, forgive me. Surrender to the will of God.” I bowed and left. His Eminence American Innocent came with me to see Vladyka. At that time the Vladyka was given a carriage. He is leaving for the first time after the anointing of Maria Alexandrovna” (Kazantsev, pp. 74–75). December 30th. Letter to Bishop Vitaly (Shchepetev): “Finally, it is not illness that overcomes me, but, by the goodness of God, I already overcome it. I’m starting to go out” (Letters. 1887. P. 53). Between March 31 and January 1, 1841. Letter to Bishop Nikolai (Sokolov): “Our fellow believers are clear that they are not quite disposed to be children of obedience. What to do? Win with caution and patience. It is clear that your fellow believers are not very peaceful people and have people who believe them more than they should. What to do? Truth protects the right of the actor; and time corrects wrong prejudices. That abusive candle trading, when exposed, gives rise to displeasure, I will give an idea here, as a precaution against wrong suggestions” (CHOLDPr. 1870. Book 11. pp. 20–21. - Materials). From the memoirs of Bishop Nikodim (Kazantsev): “Vladyka made me read about the Dolgorukys in the magazine of the Ministry of Public Education. There were some remarkable speeches (which ones were not recorded, and I don’t remember now). I remembered something: Dolgoruky alone did not believe in the immortality of the soul. His other brother was a believer and regretted his brother’s lack of faith. The believer fell ill and was near death. The unbeliever said: “If your soul lives even after death, let me know about it.” My brother died and a few days later he appeared to him half asleep and said: “Brother, believe! I’m alive”" (Kazantsev. P. 84). Anthony (Zubko, d. 1884) - Archbishop of Minsk and Bobruisk, reunited from the union in 1839, being Bishop of Brest, vicar of the Uniate diocese. Agapit (Voznesensky, d. 1841) – Bishop of Tomsk. General A. A. Tuchkov died in the Battle of Borodino in 1812, and his only son Nikolai died in 1826. The governess of her late son, Therese Bouvier. The priest of the village of Boyarkina Amvrosy (Uvarov). Gregory VI (Fourtuniadis, d. 1881) – Patriarch of Constantinople. Jeremiah (Soloviev, d. 1884) – Bishop of Nizhny Novgorod and Arzamas. Archpriest John (Veniaminov) - later Saint Innocent, Metropolitan of Moscow, after the death of his wife (d. 11/25/1839) received Metropolitan Philaret's offer of monastic tonsure. To make the final decision, he wished to come to Moscow and visit the Holy Trinity St. Sergius Lavra. Teacher of the law of the women's Catherine Institute priest M. L. Lovtsev and others. The heir, Tsarevich Alexander Nikolaevich, during a trip to the countries of Western Europe on March 25, 1839, saw the 14-year-old daughter of the Grand Duke of Hesse-Darmstadt Louis II, Princess Maria, in the Darmstadt theater. “I liked her extremely at first sight,” he wrote to his father. (Correspondence. P. 348). Nikodim (Bystritsky, d. 1839) – Bishop of Oryol and Sevsky. Melety (Leontovich, d. 1840) – Archbishop of Kharkov and Akhtyrsky. Innokenty (Alexandrov, d. 1869) - Bishop of Ekaterinoslav and Taganrog. Nikanor (Klementyevsky, d. 1856) – Archbishop of Volyn and Zhitomir. Archimandrite Porfiry (Uspensky, d. 1885) – rector of the Kherson Seminary, rector of the embassy church in Vienna, head of the spiritual mission in Jerusalem (1847–1855). Archimandrite Ignatius (Brianchaninov, d. 1867) – rector of the Trinity-Sergius Hermitage (1834–1857). To prepare for the anointing of the bride of the heir to Tsarevich Alexander Nikolaevich, Maximiliana-Wilhelmina-Augusta-Sophia-Maria, Princess of Hesse-Darmstadt (1824–1880), later Empress Maria Alexandrovna. Neil (Isakovich, d. 1874) – Archbishop of Yaroslavl and Rostov. Gregory (Postnikov, d. 1860) – Archbishop of Tver and Kashin, later Metropolitan of Novgorod and St. Petersburg. Platon (Kazansky, d. 1865) – archimandrite, abbot of the Tver Otroch Monastery. Belongs to XII year student Andrey Belyaev. Published in “Additions to the works of the Holy Fathers” for 1857. Vasily (Luzhinsky, d. 1879) – Archbishop of Polotsk and Vitebsk. He joined from the union in 1839, at that time being the Uniate bishop of Orsha. Admitted to his current rank. Leonid (Krasnopevkov, d. 1876) – Archbishop of Yaroslavl, rector of the Moscow Theological Seminary. He served as a midshipman in the Naval Cadet Corps, in 1838, with the blessing of St. Filareta retired from service, graduated from the MDA in 1842 with a master's degree and was appointed teacher at the Bethany Seminary, where in 1845 he took monastic vows. Arseny (Moskvin, d. 1876) – Bishop of Tambov and Shatsk, later Metropolitan of Kiev and Galicia. Elisaveta Ivanovna (Dekhtereva, d. 1843) - in monasticism Euphrosyne, later appointed abbess of the Polotsk Spaso-Euphrosinyevsky Monastery, but died on the way there, Vlova, one of the original associates of M. M. Tuchkova. Hegumen Nifont (Chernitsyn, d. 1842), rector of the Sarov Hermitage. This letter was published on October 7, 1840 in “Soulful Reading” (1882. Part 3. No. 12. P. 503–504). Metropolitan Philaret wanted MDA professor A.V. Gorsky to take up the description of the materials of the Synodal Library. Here Metropolitan Filaret speaks of the need to unite the two Diveyevo communities into one, since it was difficult to officially approve each separately. See Filaretov's almanac. Vol. 1. M., 2004, article by A. E. Kolesnik, p. 96. Mikhail Nikolaevich Zagoskin (1789–1852), Russian writer, member of the Russian Academy (1832), honorary member of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences (1842), from 1830 - director of Moscow theaters, from 1842 - director of the Armory Chamber Princess Maria of Hesse-Darmstadt, bride of the heir to the throne. The case of the incident at the Belopesotsky Monastery. Ivan Mikhailovich Snegirev (1793–1868), historian, ethnographer, archaeologist. Monuments of Moscow antiquity. M., 1842–1845. William Palmer (1811–1879) - Anglican deacon, theologian, representative of the Oxford movement, in the context of which rapprochement with Orthodoxy was theoretically discussed. Wanting to put into practice the Oxford doctrine of the “triple” unity of the Christian Church, according to which the Catholic, Orthodox and Anglican Churches are branches of one tree, in 1840–1841. visited Russia. Subsequently he converted to Catholicism (1855). Matseevsky V.A. History of the primitive Christian church among the Slavs. Warsaw, 1840. The Holy Synod, by resolution of November 27 - December 23, 1840, decided to print a lengthy catechism translated into Modern Greek in Odessa under the supervision of the authorities of the local seminary. Nikifor Zercheninov is a third-year master of the Moscow Theological Academy. Jacob (Vecherkov, d. 1850) – Bishop of Saratov and Tsaritsyn, later Archbishop of Nizhny Novgorod. She was the abbess of the Florovsky-Voznesensky Monastery (1834–1839). Seraphim (Glagolevsky, d. 1843) – Metropolitan of St. Petersburg, Novgorod, Estonia and Finland. St. Innocent (Popov-Veniaminov, d. 1879) – Metropolitan of Moscow.