Reunification of the Uniates and Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow

Fifty years ago, during the reign of the Sovereign Emperor Nikolai Pavlovich of blessed memory, an event took place that was very important in the history of the Russian Church. We mean the reunification of one and a half million Western Russian Uniates with the Orthodox Church, which took place in 1839, separated from it over the previous two centuries by violence and the machinations of Latin-Polish propaganda. And since this rejection, being a church event, was at the same time a political rejection (in favor of Poland), then the reunification, in addition to the church, has a very important and national significance, since with its help the Western Russian former Uniates merged into one with the rest of the Russian people in faith, language and way of life, which merger was all the more natural since already under Empress Catherine II these Uniates, who belonged to hitherto Poland, became part of the subjects of the Russian state. This longed-for event increased the glory of the reign of Emperor Nicholas I, who keenly took the cause of reunification to heart and greatly contributed to its implementation. The main and closest figure in the accomplishment of this great event was, undoubtedly, Metropolitan of Lithuania Joseph Semashko, who was devoted to this cause with all his soul and faithfully served it until the very end of his life (November 4 - 23, 1868). But a great part in the same work, as well as in all almost the preparatory and final works for its implementation, was taken by St. Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow, who died a year before Joseph (precisely on November 19, 1867), who, in the words of Metropolitan Joseph himself, “discovered in this case a brilliant understanding and only his characteristic power” 1, in addition to private and special cases of help business. In Filaret’s attitude to the matter of reunification, two main periods can be distinguished: preparatory, before reunification in 1839, and final, after 1839 and before his death in 1867. The first, in turn, as we will see from what follows, has several phases of development and progress. The beginning of a more intensified movement for the reunification of the Uniates in the present century 2 dates back to the beginning of the reign of Emperor Nikolai Pavlovich, when Joseph Semashko, who was part of the Uniate clergy, was already a prelate, not yet 30 years old 3. On October 18, 1827, the Highest Decree followed, which ordered: “to ensure that the Uniates are not converted to Latinism; not to allow Latins into Uniate monasticism, many of whom sought to accept it solely in the form of propaganda and self-interest; to establish schools for the education of children of the Greek-Uniate clergy, who had hitherto received their education under the oppressive influence of the Latin clergy 4, who, together with the Poles, wanted, through education, to corrupt the Greek-Uniate clergy, and through them the people, both faith and nationality” 5 . Joseph at that time was a member of the Roman Catholic College in its 2nd (Uniate) department (in St. Petersburg). Through many years of deep research, experienced acquaintance with the matter and other ways, he had already become convinced both of the untruths of Latinism and Polishness, and of the falsity of the position of the Greek-Uniate Church and, at the same time, firmly convinced of the correctness of the Greek-Russian Eastern Church, he sincerely sought and had already decided to reunite with it alone. But the Lord prepared him as an instrument for the reunification of many other Uniates with the same church. In November of the same 1827, the young prelate, on one matter for which he had an assignment from the Uniate Bishop Cyril of Serotsinsky, visited the director of the department of spiritual affairs of foreign confessions G.P. Kartashevsky, and Kartashevsky, after finishing his speech about this matter, talked with Joseph about Uniate affairs in general, and at the same time heard a lot of things that were completely new for himself 6 and fundamental in this area, asked him to express his thoughts on paper and present it to him, Kartashevsky. Joseph fulfilled the latter’s request, recognizing this incident as an instruction from above for his action as an instrument for the reunification of the Uniates. Taking as his basis the aforementioned Imperial Decree of October 18, he compiled a detailed note “On the situation of the Uniate Church in Russia and on the means of returning it to the fold of the Orthodox Church” 7 . This note, submitted by Joseph Kartashevsky, and the latter transferred to the Minister of Education, the former and chief administrator of spiritual affairs of foreign confessions, A. S. Shishkov, reached the Sovereign Emperor, who, after reading it, wrote to Shishkov: “I read with particular pleasure the note presented to me by you.... I am very glad that we have such a weapon... Announce to him 8 all this and my pleasure 9. And as if in direct response to this note from Joseph, on April 22 of the following year, 1828, a new Highest decree was issued, which, according to this note, ordered: “1) To form a special spiritual, so-called Greek Uniate college, completely independent from the Roman Catholic one, to govern the Uniates; 2) to establish under its authority, instead of the former four, two (Uniate) dioceses: Belarusian and Lithuanian, and under them - consistories; 3) all Basilian monasteries 10 be subordinated to the bishops of these dioceses and consistories; 4) to establish seminaries and lower schools in each of these dioceses” 11. It goes without saying that the main, leading role in the newly established collegium, despite the chairmanship of the Greek-Uniate Metropolitan Josaphat Bulgak, now began to belong to Joseph Semashko, who, moreover, in the next 1829 was elevated to the rank of bishop - vicar of the Belarusian diocese, with the title Bishop of Mstislav, with the title of chairman of the Belarusian diocese Greek-Uniate Consistory and with the right to be present in the Greek-Uniate Collegium during his stay in St. Petersburg. Both the now-mentioned Highest Decree and the official position in which Joseph was now placed freed the latter’s hands, so to speak, and his activities since then have taken on wider dimensions, which have increased even more since 1833, that is, from the time of his appointment as diocesan bishop of Lithuania. Joseph, assisted by the Russian government, began to energetically and steadily act in favor of the overall reunification of the Uniates, which he prepared gradually, according to a plan strictly thought out in all details, using various methods and measures based on experienced knowledge of the matter and on the provisions of the Uniate and Russian government, such as: the restoration of iconostases and other accessories in Uniate churches according to the models of Orthodox churches, the abolition of organs and the resumption and strengthening of church singing in them, - the introduction of liturgical books of the Moscow press instead of the Uniate ones, dotted with inserts of Roman Catholic origin, - the use of the Russian language, instead of Polish, in sermons, and Church Slavonic, instead of Latin, in some parts of the service, etc. 12 - These were the initial actions to advance the cause of reunification Uniates The beginning of this movement coincided with the time when Saint Philaret of Moscow, who had been a member of St. Synod and already in 1826, elevated to the rank of metropolitan, after a rather long break (1828 - 1827), he was again summoned by the Highest will to St. Petersburg and was there to participate in the meetings of the Holy Synod, which, of course, was not alien to the cause, the instrument of which was Joseph Semashko. It is known how great participation and importance Filaret had in the affairs of the Synodal Administration, and it was not for nothing that he acquired the title of wise man. As a highly insightful person, he soon understood the whole essence of the work undertaken by Joseph, and as a person deeply devoted to the Church and the Fatherland, he then appreciated all its importance for both and could not help but gravitate with all his soul to him, as well as to all the persons who took one or another part in it, 13 especially, as it goes without saying, to the main figure - Joseph Semashko; finally, as a very influential person, he greatly contributed to the success of the business. Close and good relations between Philaret and Joseph were established back in 1828 - 1829, and then did not cease during all the remaining years of the lives of both saints, and Philaret’s brilliant ingenuity often opened up for Joseph new views of the work and the plan for its implementation, and the deep experience, wise foresight and caution of the former tempered the ardent impatience and ardent jealousy of the latter in necessary cases. “At this very time (i.e., precisely in 1828 - 1829), Joseph himself writes about himself, I translated into Polish the work of Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow: Conversations between the searching and the confident about the Orthodoxy of the Greco-Russian Eastern Church 14. This work, perhaps weak for the Orthodox, is very impressive for those of other faiths. I experienced this myself, and experienced it later with other Uniate clergy. I offered to print it and distribute it. There was a meeting about this between Metropolitan Philaret, D.N. Bludov and me. Everything was arranged according to my thoughts - even a few phrases added at Bludov’s request to the preface I wrote from the publisher were excluded. I don’t remember,” adds Joseph, “whether this was my first meeting with Metropolitan Philaret, or whether our general meetings on the most important matters, which were then permanent, were already established, at my insistence, so that the measures taken in the Uniate department were taken into account for the management of the Orthodox Church” 15. It was in this sense that Saint Philaret acted throughout all subsequent times, although with some differences in his actions before 1834 and after that. Until 1834, when the highest spiritual government of the Russian Church had not yet been introduced into the very depths of the preparation plan for the joint reunification of the Uniates, Filaret naturally could not act directly and openly in accordance with this plan. He could not help but be encouraging towards individual cases of conversion of Uniates to Orthodoxy, which were reported to St. To the Synod, the ancient Orthodox bishops of the dioceses adjacent to the Uniate ones, especially since at that time even to such persons as the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod S. D. Nechaev, it seemed more preferable to see individual, but real cases of such conversion, rather than in the foggy distance, with the doubtfulness of success, waiting for the aggregate conversion of the Uniates, about which Joseph was so concerned 16. Thus, on April 11, 1832, the saint of Moscow wrote to Archbishop Kirill (Theologian) of Kamenets-Podolsk, who did not willingly accept his appointment to the Podolsk flock: “Reverend Gabriel (Gorodkov) did not want to go to Mogilev, but in a short time he had already brought memorable service to the Church there. Under him, more than 2,000 souls from the union turned to Orthodoxy: and the Sovereign Emperor deigned to respond to this report: “I rejoice with all my heart.” This is how difficulties are rewarded. Right, be in good spirits” 17. Then, on September 11, 1833, Filaret wrote to Bishop Smaragd of Polotsk: “According to your reports, I rejoiced at the help that God is showing you in uniting with the Orthodox Church those who were rejected from it. I also thought to find consolation in your letter, but I found sorrow... You doubt whether you will endure sorrow. I understand that they exist and are probably not small. But there is also a strong consolation, namely success in spreading your flock. You fulfill your assignment sooner than expected. The Emperor and the Holy Synod are pleased with you. How, with God’s help, can one not hope to endure difficulties in these circumstances, even if they existed and seemed unbearable before” 18? At the same time, he provided His Eminence Smaragd with material assistance, sending him church utensils and liturgical books for the newly affiliated churches 19 . The wise and impartial judge, the saint of Moscow, could not help but give justice to the good intentions of the ancient Orthodox bishops in their actions towards the Uniates. Saint Philaret fenced and protected them even more tightly soon after the sad events of 1830-1831. The indignation of Poland in these years, naturally, could not but affect the Western Russian Uniates and Orthodox Christians; and at that time, just as during the indignation of the same Poles in 1863-1864, it turned out how closely Polish and Latinism were connected with each other in general and in particular in their impact on the Uniates and in their hatred of Russia, an Orthodox power. “The masses of the people,” State Secretary Bludov wrote in his most submissive memorandum to the Tsar about the indignation of 1830–1831, “without a doubt did not want rebellion anywhere; but in those places in the Western provinces where the Roman Catholic faith and the Lithuanian or Zhmud dialect predominate, the villagers were sometimes carried away by their priests and landowners and, following them out of blindness and ignorance, went to rebellion as if it were panshchina” 20 . After this rebellion was pacified, the Russian government began to consider measures that would strengthen the position of the Western provinces, would unite them more firmly with the internal provinces and would prevent similar disturbances in the future. Among these measures, of course, not the least important were measures for better improvement and elevation of the position of both the Orthodox and Uniate churches in the western provinces and for weakening the harmful influence of Latinism. And this most closely concerned the bishops of Western Russian dioceses. In April 1831, Chancellor Prince A. N. Golitsyn announced to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Prince P. S. Meshchersky, the Highest Will to change the bishops in the provinces annexed from Poland by others distinguished by activity, enlightenment and at the same time meekness. This is where the mediation of St. Philaret of Moscow turned out to be timely and useful. After a conference between Prince Meshchersky and Prince Golitsyn and Philaret of Moscow, these changes were proposed to be made not suddenly, but gradually, in respect of various circumstances, either on the part of the dioceses themselves or on the part of the bishops themselves, partly in those forms so that the simultaneous movement of bishops would not attract general attention and would not be interpreted in a sense unfavorable for the purpose. So almost imperceptibly these changes took place. On August 26, 1831, Mogilev Bishop Pavel Morev-Pavlov was transferred to the highest see in Tobolsk with elevation to archbishop, and in his place, “a worthy shepherd with the desired qualities,” the above-mentioned Gabriel Gorodkov, was transferred to Mogilev from Kaluga. At the end of the same 1831, after the death of Paul, the Tobolsk diocese again became free, and the Holy Synod wanted to transfer Minsk Archbishop Anatoly Maksimovich there; but the Sovereign appointed him to a new see in Simbirsk, and Bishop Evgeniy Bazhanov was transferred from Tambov to Minsk, etc. At the same time (precisely in 1832), a special Committee for the Affairs of Provinces Returned from Poland drew up and Supremely approved decrees that had the goal of Russifying the western region on the one hand and strengthening the elements of Orthodoxy in it on the other hand. These decisions, obviously, had a connection with what was being undertaken by the Uniate department according to the thought of Joseph Semashko in the form of a collective reunification of the Uniates. They were given as a guide, among other things, to all bishops of Western Russian dioceses. But having these decrees, and not fully acquainted with the plan for the overall reunification, the Western Russian ancient Orthodox bishops, finding in the Uniate also some preparedness for conversion to Orthodoxy, carried away by the success of private conversions, tried to increase the number of such conversions and with unfeigned joy reported this to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod. The aforementioned Bishop Smaragd, who was appointed to the diocese of Polotsk in 1833, acted especially ardently in this direction, as if accelerating the implementation of the work that Joseph served 21. Not more than a month after his arrival at the Polotsk See, Smaragd (dated July 29, 1834) wrote to Chief Prosecutor Nechaev, reporting on private conversions of Uniates to Orthodoxy, that “in the Vitebsk province he found Uniates completely prepared for this and heard that if an appeal from the Synod had followed sooner, then everyone would have left the union, which is supported only priests harmful to the fatherland. Some of them in the St. Petersburg Uniate Collegium assure that it is as if the time has not yet come for conversion” 22 . The discerning eye of the Sovereign Emperor saw, however, the excessive haste of such an action. On the report on this, he wrote on August 6: “It is not the time to make an appeal, and without that, the merciful God apparently blesses the progress of this important matter”; and then on the report on the new affiliations of the Uniates to Orthodoxy in the same Polotsk diocese on September 23, he wrote: “Thank God, but confirm to act carefully and not hastily” 23. It was not for nothing that the saint of Moscow gave His Eminence Smaragd a subtle hint of this haste in the above words of the letter dated September 11 of the same 1833: “you are fulfilling your assignment faster than could be expected.” -In order not to spoil the work of collective reunification by private conversions of Uniates to Orthodoxy and in general haste, since through this, on the one hand, the measures already taken to prepare the ground for such reunification were weakened, and on the other, it provided more time and convenience for Latinopolitan propaganda to confront the Russian government in the implementation of its plan for collective reunification, the government had to take new measures to put the preparatory work on the right path. This begins a new phase in the development of the whole business. In the summer of 1833, Joseph Semashko, who had hitherto worked mainly in St. Petersburg and from St. Petersburg through the Greek Uniate Collegium, asked for leave to review his diocese. Leave was given to him and at the same time he was instructed to revise the Lithuanian seminary in Zhirovitsy and especially the Belarusian seminary in Polotsk. This precisely coincided with the time to which the above-mentioned actions of Bishop Smaragd in the Polotsk diocese relate. Joseph, who had previously disapproved of these actions, now saw on the spot their inexpediency. Upon returning from vacation to St. Petersburg in October of the same 1833, Joseph, in a memo dated October 25, wrote among other things: “For the successful termination of the Uniate affair, it is necessary to stop all attempts to privately join the Uniates to the Orthodox Church. On my journey through Belarus, I learned that many of these attempts were completely unsuccessful and only aroused fanaticism among the people. The Most Reverend Smaragd himself, Prince Khovansky 24, and Governor Schroeder admit that they took up the matter too hastily and agree on the need to suspend their actions. It can even be said that the most successful of these actions address significant harm to the Uniate cause; for from this, only the part of the Uniate people now favorably disposed towards Orthodoxy, would be most convenient to begin the general union of the Uniates to the Orthodox Church. In a word, the current leaders in Belarus had one district in mind when it was necessary to acquire a large area; they undertake to treat a person and take away the healthiest part of his body” 25. This note had very important consequences. The Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, S. D. Nechaev himself, leaned towards Joseph’s convictions and in his presentation to the Emperor, made in December of the same 1833, pointed out the inappropriateness and untimeliness of the excessive haste of the diocesan and civil authorities of Belarus in the matter of reunifying the Uniates. At this presentation, the Emperor wrote: “very fair”; and on a memorandum on January 6, 1834, he again wrote: “To the Reverend Smaragd, strictly confirm in this matter, for its own benefit and dignity, not to rush, but to act extremely carefully” 26. This is not enough. In order to establish a correct and definite system of actions to implement the idea of ​​​​the collective reunification of the Uniates, on January 13 of the same 1834, the Highest command was issued to the Chief Prosecutor of St. Synod, so that he communicates with the Minister of Internal Affairs and agrees with him on “1) writing secret instructions to our bishops on how to act carefully, slowly, but with due firmness in the matter of annexing the Uniates; This instruction will have to be communicated secretly to some governors general, for their guidance in their general governorships, without allowing it to be communicated further in the name of the government; 2) the Minister of Internal Affairs must agree with Metropolitan Bulgak so that all Uniate dioceses will once again be ordered strictly and positively which particular Catholic rites that have crept in must not be performed in the future” 27 . By virtue of the first point of this Highest command, Chief Prosecutor Nechaev entered into communication with the Minister of Internal Affairs, known to us D.N. Bludov (who continued to manage the spiritual affairs of foreign confessions), who explained to him in detail his thoughts on this subject, in agreement with the already known opinions of Joseph Semashko. These thoughts, with the permission of the Sovereign Emperor, were communicated to the Metropolitans of Novgorod (Seraphim) and Moscow (Filaret), “as more experienced and knowledgeable than others in matters of such a vast scope,” as well as to some other diocesan bishops, but the latter “without explaining previous motives and relations,” in order to find out their opinions on this important subject 28. The fruit of all these meetings was an instruction to the bishops of the Western Russian dioceses, entitled: Thoughts and advice for Orthodox bishops, whose flocks are adjacent to those who differ in the faith and have deviated from Orthodoxy 29. The preparation of this instruction was entrusted to Saint Philaret of Moscow. And this is how the wise saint set out its text: 1) The bishops of those flocks who are adjacent to those who differ in the faith and have deviated from Orthodoxy, in addition to the common responsibilities with other responsibilities - to edify the flock entrusted to them in faith and virtue - have two special responsibilities, to protect the Orthodox from seduction, and, as far as possible, to reconcile and reunite those who have separated from the Orthodox Church with it. 2) For the successful fulfillment of these two duties, and especially the last one, the methods must be determined with discrimination, with insight, with foresight. These must be considered, firstly, with the spirit of Christianity itself; secondly, with the spirit and types of government patronizing Orthodoxy; thirdly, with the concepts, dispositions and various circumstances, and relationships of those whom we wish to reunite with the Orthodox Church. 3) As conveniently as difference of opinion gives rise to reproach, and reproach to enmity, so carefully in dealing with those who differ in their views one must avoid reproaches and actions that have a hostile appearance, as well as being contrary to the spirit of Christianity, the spirit of government, and the goal of reunification. To reproach means to irritate, and to irritate means to reduce the ability to accept the truth. Therefore, the treatment of those who differ in their views and the very denunciation of errors should be as peaceful as this can be done, without insulting the truth and without tempting the Orthodox. This rule applies to official relations, to sermons, to conversations and to circulation in society. 4) The rule of peace must be applied with special force to those who are separated from the Orthodox Church more by force of circumstances than by differences of faith, which are the essence of the Uniates. It is more appropriate for them to point out the legitimate similarity of their beliefs and worship with ours, from the symbol of faith recognized in the beginning of Uniateism to the slightest ritual, rather than to blame them for the differences that either crept in or were forcibly squeezed into it. 5) However, the rule of peacefulness must be limited by the rule of firmness and caution, both in any case, and especially in relations with the clergy of the Roman confession, whose foreign orientation and inclination to act aggressively could turn the peaceful compliance of the Orthodox to the detriment of Orthodoxy. We must be vigilant to ensure that the clergy of the Roman confession does not intrude not only into the boundaries of Orthodoxy, but also into the boundaries of Uniateism, and to put up all sorts of barriers against this alien influence. 6) To avoid difficult meetings and useless strife, the Orthodox clergy must be careful to enter into direct relations with the clergy of other confessions only in those cases where it is possible to foresee a peaceful agreement and fair satisfaction of demands; and about cases in which confrontation opens or is foreseen, Orthodox priests must first report to their bishop, and this, depending on the nature and importance of the case, should be secretly reported to the Holy Synod, or referred to the Synodal Chief Prosecutor, for communication with the administration of foreign confessions. 7) In Orthodox parishes adjacent to non-Orthodox parishes, special care should be taken to identify priests who would combine zeal with an understanding of the truth, and especially with edifying life, meekness and selflessness. The door of the word is opened temporarily: the good life of the minister of the word preaches the truth day and night. 8) The predominant proximity to the Orthodox Church of the Uniates, both in their religious and national position, should inspire the Orthodox bishop with both primary hope and primary concern for their return from an accidental, unnatural, imaginary union with the West to the original, natural, true unity with the East. 9) It is more difficult to reunite the Uniate clergy than the laity; but for that integral reunification of the clergy and the laity would be more decisive, because it would make the guardians of unity those who, remaining outside the reunification, have every incentive to sway and distract the reunited 30 . Therefore, we should not neglect private affiliations with the Orthodox Church, but we should also think about general reunification with prayer and trust in God. 10) Individuals, families, villages, Uniate parishes that turn out to be ripe for joining the Orthodox Church, and who give hope of being firm against attempts at their new rejection, should be joined immediately, so that delay, having the appearance of coldness and lack of zeal, does not turn into temptation and temptation for them. 11) On the contrary, one should not rush to join when the disposition to join is not quite mature and capable of withstanding opposition. 12) It is better not to rush into opening an accession when quiet action promises an increase in the number of those disposed to join, without strong opposition, which would be aroused by an early private accession. 13) One must pay attention to well-meaning members of the Uniate clergy, and gradually establish and approve relations with them based on mutual trust. 14) If someone from the subordinate Uniate clergy, at a distance from his bishop or due to other circumstances, in any case asks for instruction or permission from an Orthodox bishop, then this one should not expel the one coming, but with love give fair instruction or permission, in the form of advice, indicating the basis for it in the word of God or in the rules of the church. The threads related to the union of love should not be neglected: from the threads a rope and a cloth can be made. 15) It is desirable that the relations between the Orthodox and Uniate bishops adjacent to their flocks reach that degree of mutual trust, so that sometimes a place under the jurisdiction of the latter, but remote from his eyes, and located in the eyes of the former, could be visited and supervised by the Orthodox bishop, with information about this being delivered to the Uniate, so that he would not take this for anything other than well-intentioned help, and his subordinates would see In this, the good agreement of both authorities and received an inconspicuous direction towards unity. 16) In order to remove minor stumbling blocks for Uniate priests from the path of reunification, the Orthodox bishop can give to those of them who are inclined to join, depending on the need, the following thoughts: that their previous benefits will remain inviolable with them even after joining, and in their needs they will find new help and protection both in the Orthodox spiritual authorities and in the beneficial government, and that the Orthodox spiritual the authorities, recognizing and respecting the character of the priesthood in them, will not reduce this respect for certain features of appearance that are common to them, such as a special type of clothing and barbering, and will not forcibly demand a change in habits that are not contrary to morality, although, however, for the newly initiated upon joining, the rule of uniformity with the prevailing custom will probably be preferred. 17) No less important than all the previous ones, the rule is to act modestly, without noise and premature publicity. The more important the goal, the worse the untimely and inappropriate announcement of it, useful only for its opponents 31 . These thoughts were communicated to Bludov and when they received his full approval, they were given, with the Highest permission, to the eminences of the Western Russian dioceses and the Kyiv Metropolitan for guidance, and to the three southwestern governors general (Prince Khovansky, Prince Dolgorukov and Count Levashev) for information. Thus, finally, the highest spiritual government with the Western Russian ancient Orthodox bishops was introduced into the plan of action to prepare the ground for the overall reunification of the Uniates. – The second point of the Highest command on January 13, 1834, as we remember, had in mind the course of action of the highest Uniate spiritual administration to cleanse Uniate rituals of Latin impurities. Joseph Semashko began this cleansing a long time ago, guided by previous Uniate decrees and the Highest commands; but it goes without saying, not meeting adequate support among the majority of the remaining members of the Uniate clergy, it had only limited success. Now, with such a decisive expression of the Highest will, he began to act more decisively. This was also facilitated by the fact that by the end of 1833, after the death of most of the former Uniate bishops and the closure of some Uniate bishops' sees, the remaining sees, on the advice and recommendation of Joseph, were replaced by persons who sympathized with the cause of the reunification of the Uniates, which were especially: Vasily Luzhinsky, Bishop of Orsha and Anthony Zubko, Bishop of Brest. Taking advantage of their presence in St. Petersburg on the occasion of the consecration, which took place at the very beginning of 1834, Joseph, in fulfillment of the Highest command on January 13 of this year, prompted the chairman of the Greek Uniate College, Metropolitan Bulgak, to convene a council to jointly discuss measures to fulfill this command. On February 7th of the same year, a meeting of all Uniate bishops, together with the assessors of the said board, was held, at which it was decided to replace for the first time only the more commonly used liturgical books (service books and books of prayer songs) of the Uniate with the same books of the Moscow press, for which purpose to acquire a sufficient number of copies of the latter, to arrange little by little iconostases in churches, as well as acquire utensils and vestments befitting the Greek-Eastern Church, etc. 32 When Joseph informed D.N. Bludov about this decision, the latter was very alarmed. Then Joseph turned to Saint Philaret of Moscow, and Philaret, delving into the matter, little by little calmed Bludov down. Not only that. Thanks to the assistance of the Moscow saint, the Holy Synod then released several thousand copies of liturgical books printed in Moscow free of charge to the Uniate dioceses 33 . – Meanwhile, in order to bring the Uniates closer to the Orthodox, in the same 1834 Joseph renewed his long-standing petition for the subordination of all Uniate affairs to the All-Russian Holy Synod. Bludov also agreed with him on this, who therefore, in his most submissive report to the Emperor dated June 21, 1834, wrote among other things: “it seems that everything has already been prepared on the part of the Uniate for the important measure of subordination of the Greek-Uniate Church to the Holy Synod. But for this, he adds, the Orthodox themselves are not yet prepared. And so that this measure does not produce harmful consequences on this side, it is impossible not to accept the opinion expressed by Moscow Metropolitan Philaret that it is necessary to first form a special committee for Uniate affairs, whose goal will be: to agree little by little and almost insensitively, without much explanation, on the rules regarding mutual relations of the Greek-Russian Church and to consider and prepare measures that need to be taken subsequently for the successful progress of Uniate affairs. If it would please Your Majesty to express your highest permission to put this proposal into effect, then I would consider it possible to establish this committee next autumn upon the return of Metropolitan Philaret from Moscow” 34. The Sovereign Emperor then gave his permission to approve this assumption. Thus, without the destruction of the Greek-Uniate college, an institution was formed, the “first idea” of which, according to the above and in the words of Joseph Semashko, “belongs to Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow” 35, whose wise foresight one cannot help but be surprised here. This institution received the name of the Secret Committee for Uniate Affairs. Some high-ranking persons from clergy (Orthodox and Uniate) and secular persons 36 were appointed as its members, and among them, of course, Filaret and Joseph, who, moreover, together with the Synodal Chief Prosecutor Nechaev and State Secretary Bludov, were appointed by a special Highest command to participate in preliminary secret meetings on the affairs of this committee, moreover, so that when Filaret left for his diocese, then until his return nothing was done regarding these institutions 37 . Such was the significance of the Moscow saint on the issue of the reunification of the Uniates. The most important resolutions of the newly established committee were: regarding the education of children of the Uniate clergy in the spirit of commitment to Russia and Orthodoxy, regarding the subordination of Uniate theological schools to the commission of theological schools, as well as regarding the bringing of Uniate churches and worship into full compliance with the decrees of the Eastern Church. Participating in the affairs of this committee together with Joseph and more often than before communicating with him on the same matters, the saint of Moscow got to know him even closer and better and appreciated both him personally and his high tasks and aspirations. Not for nothing did he write to Bishop Gabriel (Gorodkov) of Mogilev on May 23, 1834: “The Right Reverend Bishop Joseph Semashko is traveling past you. Receive him with peace and trust, as a person who accepts the words of the world, and desires the good of the Church and the kingdom 38 . And from April 21, the following 1835, to the same person: “there is evidence of the good intentions of the Right Reverend Joseph, which is very convincing. It is not just gullibility that we must beware of, but also distrust, which does not allow unity when it is sought. It would be desirable to hear what is going on with the union now, and what you mean by decisive measures 39 . The quoted words of the last letter, by the way, show with what distrust, despite the above instructions, even some bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church in the western region looked at Joseph and his plan for the reunification of the Uniates. About the previously mentioned Smaragd, for example, Joseph himself directly testifies: “The Reverend Smaragd clearly says: Semashko is deceiving 40. Therefore, one can understand how much intelligence, tact, restraint and art was needed for St. Philaret to level and clear the path of directing the matter of reunification to the desired end, which was becoming even more rough and thorny. Saint Philaret never said or wrote anything out of flattery or mere decency. At the same time, he testified about himself: “as for me: with the help of God, I do not allow the good opinion I have about the people whom I had the opportunity to thoroughly know to be easily shaken.”41 He knew well such saints as Smaragd, Gabriel and others; but he already “had the opportunity to thoroughly get to know” Joseph Semashko. And that’s why, when the Right Reverend Smaragd was transferred from Polotsk to Mogilev in 1837, the saint of Moscow, not wanting to leave him without consolation for the good he had done for Orthodoxy in Polotsk 42, wrote to him on February 5, 1838: “I rejoice that you are calm in your present service: but about the former I think that you should not have sorrowful thoughts. If some see something out of your thoughts in your previous actions: this is not very unusual, especially for the circumstances in which you found yourself. But even those whose opinion you doubt give justice to the fact that you have acquired a lot of churches in the Polotsk diocese. This thing speaks for itself. It seems to me that you need to take into account the fact that in Polotsk they have become more careful now, namely, that the work you have done does not become damaged 43. Now, what is done belongs to you inalienably; and the care and responsibility for preserving what has been done no longer lies with you. – The success of the system, which some have so exclusively loved, is yet to come. May the Lord prepare the way of peace. It is a pity that in order to carry out a good idea we often lack the skill of being faithful and careful 44 . It is clear about whom and what, but also in what tone, how carefully and carefully Saint Philaret speaks in these words. - Meanwhile, at the time to which these words refer, the matter was already nearing its conclusion, the system of preparation for the implementation of which the saint mentions here. Back in February 1835, the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Nechaev, made a representation to the Emperor about the need and convenience of transferring Uniate affairs to the jurisdiction of the Synodal Chief Prosecutor. But his presentation was not successful due to inopportuneness. At such an early time, this decisive measure could rather alienate than bring the Uniates closer to the Orthodox Church. But after what was done with the preparatory work in 1834 - 1836, such a measure was no longer untimely. On January 1, 1837, Uniate affairs from D.N. Bludov came under the jurisdiction of the Synodal Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count N.A. Protasov, by the Highest command, and the Secret Committee established shortly before was left in action for the time being, so that cases, especially important ones, which were to come before the Holy Synod through the Chief Prosecutor, were previously discussed in this committee. It goes without saying that through this the matter prepared by the labors of the previous years came to an even faster conclusion. Then, at the beginning of 1838, the elderly Uniate Metropolitan Josaphat Bulgak died, and in his place Joseph Semashko was appointed chairman of the Greek-Uniate Collegium, who now thus officially became the first person in the Uniate clergy who moved, so to speak, the entire machine that he had previously set up. Having become the head of the movement for the reunification of the Uniates and knowing well how ripe this matter was already for its implementation, Joseph, on December 1, 1838, submitted, through the Chief Prosecutor Count Protasov, a detailed note to the Sovereign, in which he vividly outlined the present state of the matter and ways to resolve it finally. The matter truly did not require delay, especially in view of the various efforts of Latin-Polish propaganda to prevent its success. The Emperor handed over Joseph's note to the Holy Synod, so that the latter, for its part, would discuss it and make a decision appropriate to the merits of the matter. The Holy Synod, according to custom, instructed Saint Philaret of Moscow to present an opinion on this and draw up a draft Synodal Resolution. The Moscow saint did not delay in fulfilling this order. On December 16 of the same 1838, he presented to the Holy Synod a detailed and thorough opinion on this case with the attachment of a draft Synodal resolution on it. “The direction of the Greek-Uniate Church in Russia towards reunification with its true mother, the Eastern Catholic, and especially the Russian Church, which for several years has been the subject of special Highest attention,” he wrote in this opinion, “has reached a point at which the question must arise: is it not time to move from preparatory measures to decisive ones? For 1) all the Greek-Unite bishops, most of the leaders of the monasteries and two-thirds of the parish priests, after internal conferences between them, expressed their consent in writing to the reunification 45: the amount of consent, which not only gives the right, but in some way imposes the obligation to act, so that justice is done to a cause that is undoubtedly worthy of patronage, and so that the aroused good disposition, if assistance is delayed, is not subject to the temptation of cooling. 2) To the extent that the direction towards reunification becomes noticeable to people who are disgusted by it, these people are excited to find ways to prevent it, and to hesitate means to give them time to think and prepare their plans. 3) The most zealous of the Greek-Unite clergy, some of the Orthodox bishops adjacent to the Greek-Unites, and secular authorities in the provinces inhabited by the Greek-Unites, according to local observations, convey the idea that the time has come and it is necessary to act decisively 46 . “For these considerations and evidence, one cannot help but admit that it is highly probable that delay would be unfavorable to the matter and that action is needed, which in the present state of affairs can be nothing other than a transition from preparatory measures to decisive ones.” This was in complete agreement with both the long-standing desire and the recently expressed opinion of Joseph 47 . But “how to arrange this transition”? St. Philaret further says in his opinion, and continues: “a reliable answer to this question should be based on the following provisions: 1) the method of reunification must be carefully considered with the rules of the Orthodox Eastern Catholic Church, so that the work of God is accomplished with the blessing of God, and so that the seeds of controversy are not sown when they want to plant peace. 2) The reunion must be arranged in such a way that the Greek-Unite flock, calmly following their shepherds and not upset by prejudices against Orthodoxy, will not be disturbed by a strong accident, which the unwise could use to upset it. 3) The reunification should be carried out as quietly as possible, so that people who, due to their special views, would not want it, wake up late to counteract, or, at least, do not suddenly wake up to agree to counteract. 4) Some Greek Unite customs that are not accepted in the Orthodox Church and do not relate to dogmas and sacraments must be met with lenient tolerance, so that time can heal what has been damaged by time. The example of the Council of Carthage justifies measures of this kind 48 . On these grounds, the following assumptions about measures of reunification are affirmed: 1) The Greek-Unite bishops, with their senior clergy, will draw up a church conciliar act, in which, after stating the reasons, they will conclude that, after mature reasoning, calling on the grace of God for help, they believe: to recognize again their original unity with the Eastern Catholic Orthodox Church, from which they were rejected in times of trouble political rejection, from which they were removed by outside influence and to which they now have complete freedom to return; to remain from now on, as from ancient times, in unanimity of faith with the Eastern Orthodox patriarchs and in obedience to the Holy Governing All-Russian Synod; and to bring this reunification into effect, seek the protection of the Most Pious Sovereign Emperor. 2) This act will be signed by those present when it was drawn up, and reviews from other clergy will be attached to it, expressing consent to the reunification. 3) A special note may be attached to this act, in which tolerance will be requested for certain customs, such as barber shaving and special clothing currently used by the Greek-Unite clergy. 4) The act, reviews and note will be presented to His Imperial Majesty, upon the most humble request. 5) Meanwhile, in order not to waste time, and in order to move towards the goal with easy gradualness, perhaps the Most Pious Sovereign will deign to give the highest decree on the subordination of the Greek-Unite College to the Holy Synod. 6) When the most submissive petition and act prove worthy of the Highest patronage, then, without a doubt, the Sovereign Emperor will deign to entrust the consideration of this matter to the Holy Synod. 7) If the act and note of leniency towards certain customs are drawn up satisfactorily, then the determination of the Holy Synod may follow: by grace, gift and power given from the Head of the Church and Supreme Shepherd of our Lord Jesus Christ and from the All-Holy and All-Sanctifying Spirit, so called to this day, the Greek-Unite Church into the original and true unity, holy, catholic and Apostolic, Eastern Catholic Churches accept; to impart blessing and peace to her hierarchy, priesthood, clergy and people; the worship of this church, which has recently been returned to the ancient rite with special care, is to be entrusted to the bishops to carefully preserve in its characteristic purity, and especially to ensure that the symbol of the holy faith is constantly and invariably used in Nicene-Constantinopolitan; grant the requested leniency to some local customs that do not relate to dogmas and sacraments; finally, to instruct both the Ancient Orthodox bishops joining and those adjacent to them, in agreement and brotherly care and mutual assistance, with love, meekness and patience to heal the souls of those who are weak in the faith, and gradually erase the traces of the former division. 8) Such a determination must be presented to the Sovereign Emperor in the most submissive report of the Synod. 9) By the Highest permission for this, the Holy Synod will give an executive decree to the bishops, annexed and ancient Orthodox, adjacent. In this decree it will be necessary to instruct those who have joined: to declare him first as having signed the act, and then to the others who have given subscriptions for reunification; those who have not yet given subscriptions should be disposed to this, and, upon acceptance of the subscriptions, announce this decree on reunification; in divine services, stop the remembrance of the Roman bishop and introduce the remembrance of the Holy Synod, first in the episcopal service, and then in the priestly service; in general, to complete the work of reunification with due attention to local circumstances, as far as convincing of its favor, with observation, however, that those who have made a vow to this observe it sacredly and inviolably. 10) When, with the gradual implementation of the decree on reunification, the name of the Greek-Unit College loses its meaning, then replace it with the name of the Synodal College. - Thus, the course of the matter could be established, which, according to the circumstances, seems necessary, possible and desirable. When this was accomplished successfully, then it would be free to take further measures that would complete the matter and strengthen it. “But,” continues the far-sighted and wise saint, “when finding a reliable path to a task that is obviously not free from difficulties and obstacles, precaution requires turning a prudent glance to these very difficulties and obstacles that may be encountered closer or further away.” This is where speculation and questions arise, the resolution of which requires multilateral considerations. 1) Four hundred Greek-Unite priests, who have not yet volunteered with the desire for reunification, but who, in all likelihood, know about the challenge to others and guess the desires of the government, lagging behind the majority and from the authorities in such an awkward way for themselves, give cause for fear that an opposing party will not form from them. We should know more clearly what their silence means: bewilderment and expectation, or decisive persistence? a consequence of your own way of thinking, or extraneous suggestions? personal arrangement, or mutual agreement? Are these the only people who are silent, or are they making suggestions to the parishioners that are contrary to the envisaged views of the authorities? What effect do these suggestions have? 2) If some of these priests, in different places, do not accept good suggestions, it is likely that the authorities will not find it difficult to replace them with trustworthy ones. But if, for example, a stubborn dean manages to put the priests of the district under his control in the same position, will it be convenient to suddenly change many priests in neighboring parishes? Can this happen without significant unrest in the parishes? Where can disobedient priests be removed if there are a significant number of them? 49 3) Those who are stubborn among the abbots of monasteries and among the monastics can especially cause difficulties to the cause and the authorities, being, due to their education, capable of acting on others and communicating to them their way of thinking, and, due to their rank, less family people, valuing their external life. 4) May God grant that this does not happen! But if there is unrest in the parish, extending to inattention to admonitions and disobedience, the action of spiritual authority here, of necessity, ceases. To restore silence, a measure must be considered that the secular authorities would use. But if, both while maintaining silence among the people, and while protecting the clergy by secular power, Orthodox suggestions are not accepted, then in this case a difficult question must be considered: how can a disobedient parish with a disobedient priest remain in the old Greek-Unite position, when the Greek-Unite bishops become Orthodox? 5) In case the intervention of the clergy of the Roman confession in the affairs of the Greek-Unite turns out to be contrary to peace measures, it is necessary to come up with a measure that would strictly stop the first harmful example, so that it does not encourage the followers. 6) A measure of this kind must be taken in case of opposition from landowners of the Roman confession 50. 7) This question is also subject to preliminary consideration: is it more useful to notify the Roman court about the ongoing reunification, so that it knows that the Greek-Unites no longer belong to its area, and therefore does not bother to awaken Vatican thunder against them, or to remain silent longer, so that it is less convenient to enter into any controversy about what is officially unknown to it? – On these subjects, conferences are needed in which issues that have arisen and may still arise during the conferences would be considered. Some administrative issues do not require such care: for example, how long should two bishops stay in Polotsk 51, and who should be transferred and where. The matter calmly looks at the speedy or slow, this or that resolution of this issue 52 . – This opinion, being a true depiction of the true state of the matter in its past, present and future, at the same time served as a solid program for the further action of both the Russian government, spiritual and secular, and the Uniate bishops-leaders of the cause of reunification in this very matter. Thanks to the Lord, with the prudence of the executors of the program outlined by the Moscow saint, the reunification of the Uniates took place quite successfully and peacefully. On February 12, 1839, on the week of Orthodoxy in Polotsk, bishops and other officials and honorable clergy of the Greek-Unite Church gathered and after the liturgy and thanksgiving service performed by the bishop's ministry, they formed a council, at which they decided: 1) to recognize again the unity of this church with the Orthodox-Catholic Eastern Church and therefore to remain from now on, together with the flocks entrusted to them, in unanimity with the most holy Eastern Orthodox patriarchs and in obedience to the Holy Governing All-Russian Synod; 2) to most submissively ask the Most Pious Sovereign Emperor to accept their present intention into his August patronage and to promote its fulfillment for peace and the salvation of souls with his highest discretion and sovereign will 53. This conciliar act was signed by the bishops: Joseph (Semashko), Vasily (Luzhinsky), and Anthony (Zubko), with many other clergy. This act, together with the all-submissive petition 54, Joseph, in a letter dated February 26 of the same 1839, forwarded to the Chief Prosecutor of St. Synod to Count N.A. Protasov, for presentation to the highest discretion of His Imperial Majesty 55. Attached to this were also handwritten statements from 1,305 priests and monastic brethren of the Uniate clergy about their desire to reunite with the Orthodox Church 56 . The Sovereign Emperor, having graciously accepted all these documents, on March 1 ordered the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod to submit all of them to the Holy Synod for consideration and a resolution 57 in accordance with the rules of the Holy Church. On March 6 and 13, there were meetings of members of the Holy Synod (with the participation, of course, of Philaret) on this matter, and St. The Synod, after reading all the above-mentioned acts, having brought thanks to the Most High Lord God for the mercies He poured out on the Orthodox Church, had a discussion about such an important and joyful event and then determined, in accordance with what was stated in the opinion of the Moscow saint of December 16, 1838: 1) “The bishops, the priesthood and spiritual flocks of the so-called Greek-Unite Church, according to the sacred rules and examples of the Holy Fathers, to be accepted into the full and perfect communion of the Holy Orthodox-Catholic Eastern Church and into the indivisible composition of the All-Russian Church. 2) In particular, to the bishops and priesthood to present the conciliar blessing of the Holy Synod with the prayer of faith and love to the Supreme Saint of our confession, Jesus Christ, may he confirm them in the confession they have expressed and may the work of their service be prosperous for the perfection of saints. 3) In the management of the flocks entrusted to them, they should act on the basis of the Word of God, the rules of the church, state decrees and in accordance with the instructions of the Holy Synod, and confirm the flocks entrusted to them in the unanimity of the Orthodox faith, and show Apostolic condescension to the diversity of some local customs that do not relate to dogmas and sacraments, and return them to ancient uniformity through free conviction, with meekness and patience. 4) To give the reunited bishops a Synodal charter for notification and blessing.” In conclusion, the Holy Synod decided to bring thanks to the Sovereign Emperor on behalf of the All-Russian Church “for the demonstrated assistance to this good and soul-saving undertaking, and then to humbly submit the execution of this Synodal resolution to his sovereign patronage, as well as the following points: 1) The administration of the reunited dioceses and theological schools belonging to them to be left on the same basis, henceforth until the next discretion in what best and most convenient way it can be agreed with the administration of the ancient Orthodox dioceses. 2) The Greek-Unite Spiritual College should be placed in relation to the Holy Synod in hierarchical order at the level of the Moscow and Georgian-Imeretian Holy Synod Offices, and be called the Belarusian-Lithuanian Spiritual College. 3) Joseph, Bishop of Lithuania, to be the chairman of the Belarusian-Lithuanian Theological College, with his elevation to the rank of Archbishop 58. At the most submissive report to Sovereign Nikolai Pavlovich about this act of St. The Synod was followed by the well-known and significant resolution of His Imperial Majesty, handwritten on March 25 of the same 1839. “I thank God and accept.” This resolution was announced at the solemn meeting of the Holy Synod on March 30. At this, after the members of the Holy Synod had dressed themselves in robes and taken their places, Chief Prosecutor Count N.A. Protasov brought Right Reverend Joseph into the presence. Then the first member of the Synod, Metropolitan Seraphim of Novgorod, announced to the latter about the completed reunification and its acceptance by His Imperial Majesty, and together on behalf of the Holy Synod and the entire Russian Church greeted him, Joseph, and in his person all the reunited clergy with such an important event. A member of the Holy Synod, Metropolitan Philaret of Kiev, read the Synodal Letter to the reunited bishops, and Metropolitan Seraphim presented it to Joseph. Member of the Holy Synod, Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow read the Highest approved position of the Holy. Synod on the appointment of the Right Reverend Joseph as Chairman of the College, with his elevation to the rank of Archbishop, and on the renaming of that College. Then the Members of the Holy Synod and His Eminence Joseph, as the representative of the reunited, mutually gave the kiss of peace, and they all went together to the Synodal Church, where together with His Eminence Joseph and other clergy they offered a prayer of thanks to the Lord God, with the proclamation of many years to the Sovereign Emperor and the Reigning House, the Holy Synod and the Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarchs, in the presence of the Chief Prosecutor of St. Synod and senior officials of the spiritual department. In conclusion, the Right Reverend Joseph took the oath of office in the established form at the altar for his real rank and position 59 . The now mentioned Synodal Letter to the reunited bishops with the clergy and flocks, also in accordance with that planned on December 16, 1838 by Saint Philaret of Moscow, announcing their acceptance into communion with the Greek Orthodox Church, read: “In the management of the flocks entrusted to you, as you know, it is fitting for you to follow the word of God, the rules of the Holy Apostles, Holy Councils of the Seven Ecumenical and Local and Holy Fathers, as well as state decrees. Thus, God-loving brethren, affirm the flock entrusted to you in the unanimity of faith” 60. At the same time, by decree of the Holy Synod they were instructed to ensure that in the churches entrusted to them we use the Eastern Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbol of the Orthodox Faith, and that in Church prayers we remember the Holy Governing Synod according to the established order 61. When distributing this decree, according to the plans of Archbishop Joseph, in such a way that the matter did not mean a sharp turn, but an imperceptible and gradual transition from the previous to the new situation, the reunited eminence was informed, in secret relations of the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, the highest will of the Sovereign Emperor that the said decree should not be submitted to the Consistory, we publish below, henceforth until a special command, but so that the Reverends give it personally to read, with a subscription to the reading, to all members of the consistory, the superiors of the seminary, deans and in general to all trustworthy priests who come to the department, as far as this is possible; the deans had to do the same in their districts, convincing the others to have a heartfelt disposition in favor of Orthodoxy and not before announcing a decree to them, as after complete confirmation of their trustworthiness 62 . But in order to convince the people of the reality and truth of the reunification that had taken place and to complete the very triumph of this matter, what was best done was to influence minds in the desired direction. We mean the solemn cathedral services of the ancient Orthodox archpastors with the reunited that took place in various Western Russian cities, which began on May 14 and continued until the significant autumn of 1839, and the above-mentioned Synodal decree on reunification was announced. The first such service was performed in Vitebsk on May 14 and 15 by Metropolitan Philaret of Kyiv (who was entrusted, during his passage from St. Petersburg to Kyiv, to perform this service and at the same time to announce the aforementioned decree of the Holy Synod), in concelebration with Bishop Isidore of Polotsk, the current leading member of the Holy Synod, Metropolitan of Novgorod and St. Petersburg and reunited Bishop of Orsha Vasily (Luzhinsky). Then, on June 4, Archbishop Joseph Semashko and the same bishops Isidor and Vasily performed the same service in Polotsk; On June 11 in Minsk, Archbishops Nikanor (later Metropolitan of Novgorod) and Joseph; from June 18 to August 30, similar services were performed in Zhirovitsy and Byten; and on September 8 in Vilna, Archbishop Joseph and Bishops Isidore and Anthony (Brest), during their conciliar service, also performed the ordination of Mikhail Golubovich (from the reunited) as Bishop of Pinsk 63 . On October 1, according to the most submissive report of the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, the Highest permission followed so that the decree of the Governing Senate of June 23 on the reunification of the Greek-Uniate Church with the Orthodox Church was made publicly known. This was followed by the Highest command that in the form lists, in which hitherto in the column showing religion it was noted: Greek-Unite, it was noted: Orthodox. This was the last act that stopped the very name of the Greco-Unites in the Empire 64. This is how the great work of reuniting the Western Russian Uniates with the Orthodox Church was accomplished; but it hasn't finished yet. It was also necessary to confirm the most reunited, to join them who had not yet had time or did not dare to reunite in 1839, to resolve various questions and perplexities of a practical nature, to eliminate interference from different sides, to settle various kinds of clashes, relationships and disputes, etc. - Relating with lively and active participation to all the most important events, the crown of which was the year 1839, St. Philaret of Moscow did not could leave the affairs of the reunification of the Uniates without his equally active and living participation for the following time. And we truly see this saint and over the subsequent period of his life in the most diverse relationships towards him, determined by various cases and needs, and he either responds to the requests of the Orthodox East and the Roman Catholic West on this matter, then he encourages, morally and financially supports the reunited bishops with their flocks, especially the main figure, Joseph Semashko, confirming them on the path of unity with the Orthodox Church, then communicates with the ancient Orthodox bishops and other persons of spiritual and civil administration on the same matter, then, finally, touches on it from the church pulpit, in a sermon. – From all these angles, we now intend to consider Filaret’s attitude to the matter of reunification. The Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count N.A. Protasov, dated January 15, 1840, No. 216, offered to the Holy Synod a message from the Ecumenical Patriarch Gregory, received from the Vice-Chancellor, addressed to the Holy Synod, in which the patriarch, expressing his joy at the occasion of the reunification of the Uniates with the Orthodox Church in Russia, asks to be given information about the grounds on which such a reunification followed. Metropolitan Philaret was in St. Petersburg at that time to participate in meetings of the Holy Synod. It was to him, according to custom, that the leading member of the Synod, Metropolitan Seraphim of Novgorod, turned to him with a request to write a draft response to the Patriarch on behalf of him, Seraphim. Filaret did not hesitate to fulfill the request and soon wrote this project in the following terms: “To His Holiness Gregory, Archbishop of Constantinople, New Rome, Ecumenical Patriarch, rejoice in the Lord. The Most Holy Governing All-Russian Synod lovingly accepted the message of your Holiness, and listened with great attention to your questions regarding the reunification of the numerous children of the Russian Church, more than two centuries before this, not so much through error as those who fell away, but who were rejected by cunning and violence, and who have now freely accepted a firm determination, and have made a solemn vow to remain in unanimity of faith with the holiest Eastern Orthodox. patriarchs and in obedience to the Holy Governing All-Russian Synod. – In truth, Most Holy Bishop, 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 the apostolic and paternal traditions. – The hierarchy of the All-Russian Church is equally animated by this very jealousy; and the Holy Synod, lovingly honoring the Orthodox Eastern patriarchal thrones, out of duty of brotherly fellowship, even before the inquiries of your Holiness, 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. - Therefore, now the Holy Synod has granted me 65 to forward to your Holiness, and at the same time I forward, printed historical information about the so-called union, and acts relating to the reunification of those rejected with the holy Orthodox Catholic Eastern Church, asking that this information be communicated to the most blessed patriarchs of Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem. “May the Lord God and our Savior Jesus Christ, the one Head of the one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, with the power and abundance of his grace-filled gifts, prosper your Holiness in the difficult feats of preserving and spreading the Orthodox faith.” This project was approved by the Holy Synod on January 31, 66. – The highest representative of the universal church of the ancient East could only rejoice, and indeed rejoiced, as can be seen from what has now been stated, at the great event of the reunification of the Uniates in Russia. But it goes without saying, and it was to be expected, and it actually happened that the Pope and the Catholic West, with like-minded and enslaving favor, looked and looked at the same great event with far different eyes. Already on May 11, a significant year in the history of this case, 1839, Saint Philaret of Moscow wrote the following to Archbishop Smaragd of Mogilev: “It is not clear that the pope has done anything, but it seems that he is preparing to do something. If those threatened are true to good and pure intentions, one can hope that the Roman lightning will freeze on its way to the north. If the reunited priests secretly turn to the Latins: this must be brought to the attention of their bishops, who will take prudent measures of admonition" 67 . And in 1841, the Latin clergy, of course prompted by suggestions from Rome, even submitted a formal complaint to the Russian government about the allegedly oppressive actions on the part of the Orthodox during the conversion of the Uniates to Orthodoxy. On the subject of this complaint, the opinion of St. Philaret of Moscow was required, who, in fulfillment of this demand, submitted, dated January 3, 1842, a note with the following content: “On the subject of the return to the ancestral Orthodox faith of the former Unites, diverted to the Roman Church, after 1798, the Latin clergy: 1) complains about allegedly incorrect and even oppressive actions; 2) complains in particular about the proceedings of cases of this kind without a Latin deputy; 3) requires that these cases be carried out according to the procedure established in 1827; 4) or at least in a different positive order. I. The complaint of improper and oppressive actions is presented without specifying places, persons or cases, without explaining the circumstances and without evidence. Such complaints are not respectful before the law, and out of ordinary prudence cannot immediately be relied upon as the basis for new orders and new rules of action. This conclusion in the present case is all the more necessary since the complaining party, on the same subject, is subject to a reverse complaint, which, moreover, is not difficult to prove. In recent years, several thousand people have been returned to Orthodoxy, whose belonging to Orthodoxy was both recognized by themselves and not disputed by anyone, and whose return was scheduled thirty years ago. Such a long failure to fulfill the appointment occurred, no doubt, not because the former Unite Orthodox clergy did not want to accept those belonging to its flock, but because the Latin clergy retained those not belonging to its flock. II. The complaint about the action in returning to Orthodoxy those diverted into Latinism without a deputy from the Latin side is contrary to the Highest approved opinion of the State Council, which says: admonished seduced persons must be removed from heterodox influence. III. The requirement to conduct cases of this kind according to the procedure established in 1827 cannot be allowed: 1) because this procedure was then established for one Vilna diocese, and was not extended to other former Unite diocese by the Supreme Authority; 2) because this order, established for two spiritual departments, none of which belonged to the dominant religion, cannot in any way be applied to the dominant church, to which the former Unite flocks belong and enjoy the rights. IV. The demand for the return of new positive rules to Orthodoxy would deserve respect if it were proven that the current action does not achieve the desired fair and useful goal, but causes harm, and that this occurs precisely from the imperfection or lack of accepted rules; for even if there were unfavorable consequences due to the fault of the actors, then even then it would only be necessary to correct personal deviations from law and order, and not change the rules. – But since the Latin clergy does not represent and does not prove that the rules currently in force were not in accordance with a just and useful purpose or caused harm, but makes complaints about the actions of persons that are not proven, makes demands that are contrary to the laws and rules of the ruling church: then all this does not provide grounds for drawing up new rules. When, therefore, it is open that the present matter cannot, in fairness, be looked at from the side from which the Latin clergy shows it, then the following subjects remain subject to consideration: 1) the displeasure of the Latin clergy regarding the action to return to Orthodoxy, as simply noticed, and not recognized as fundamental (de facto, non de jure). This encourages the use, if possible, of precautionary measures so that the action is not only fair, but, as far as possible, peaceful. 2) The opposition of the Latin clergy, which turned out to be the extension of the rules of 1827 to dioceses for which they were not prescribed, the application of them to the case, while they, due to changed circumstances, could no longer have an application, the announcement of them through printing, the order for Latin priests to teach the needs of parishioners whose belonging to Orthodoxy was recognized by spiritual and civil inquiry. These actions, as being contrary to law and order, obviously must be stopped. 3) Lack of a correct and complete list of people subject to return to Orthodoxy. The way to satisfy this need requires special attention. – But the idea of ​​entrusting the compilation of this list to Latin priests, with a six-month deadline, is, without a doubt, not a reliable method 68. This would be the same as if someone who knows his property is in someone else’s hands allows the person who has taken possession of it to search himself and make an inventory of what he must return to the rightful owner. - All these considerations finally lead to the following conclusions regarding the present case: 1) About the complaints of the Latin clergy, the Orthodox bishops, whose dioceses this may concern, should be informed for observation and the use of precautions so that no grounds are given for such complaints. 2) To compile lists of people subject to return to Orthodoxy, use Orthodox deans with a civil official and with Orthodox and Latin parish priests, for which the church documents of both Orthodox and Latin churches must be opened to these trustees. 3) At the same time, we instruct the Orthodox bishops to pay special attention to those whose subject to return has not been clearly and reliably deduced, and who, despite having long belonged to Latin parishes, consider themselves to correctly belong to them, and in such cases not to rush into decisive action, waiting until the belonging of such persons to Orthodoxy is brought into greater clarity, and they themselves are convinced of this. 4) The above-mentioned illegal opposition of the Latin clergy should be stopped by administrative measures” 69. Such an inexorably strict logic of a cold mind, but standing on the solid ground of justice and legality, was able to freeze all the lightning of the papacy, Latinism and Jesuitism, aimed at destroying the cause of reunification; and at the same time, refresh and strengthen the strength of the newly reunited clergy in its struggle with the battle-hardened West, tempering, at the same time, the too hot impulses of some of the members of this clergy. But not only from a distance and through the bodies of the central government did Saint Philaret of Moscow relate to the members, especially the highest, of the reunited clergy, but also became closer to them, in turn causing them to have the same relationship towards themselves. The main goal of these relations of the wise and loving saint was to support and encourage them in their difficult activities and relationships to establish and spread Orthodoxy and purely Russian principles of state life among their flock and in their struggle with Latin-Polish propaganda and other obstacles that sometimes unexpectedly arose even from the Orthodox, to provide them with moral and material assistance, etc. So, for example, when, soon after the reunification of the Uniates, the newly annexed bishops - first Anthony (Zubko), then Vasily (Luzhinsky) and finally Joseph (Semashko), and after them Mikhail (Golubovich) 70, during 1840 - 1843, partly in the form of familiarization with the ancient Russian Orthodox shrine and worship of the latter, partly in order to better assimilate the customs of life and behavior of Russian Orthodox bishops, they traveled around Russia 71, and among other things, they were in Moscow and some places of the Moscow diocese: then Saint Philaret showed the most helpful attentiveness towards them. “You will have a guest, the Most Reverend Anthony of Brest, one of the New Orthodox, worthy of all respect for his zeal for Orthodoxy,” he wrote, for example, on January 6, 1840 from St. Petersburg to the abbot of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony. “Receive him with love and put him to rest. May Saint Sergius accept into fellowship in his person all the New Orthodox. Bless him with the image of the Reverend and from the monastery" 72. He wrote the same thing to the same person on August 3, 1841 and regarding the Right Reverend Vasily (Luzhinsky) of Polotsk, adding: “if he wishes to perform a sacred service, arrange this for him” 73 . In 1842, dated May 29, the Saint of Moscow wrote the same thing to the same person regarding Joseph of Lithuania himself 74, and in 1843, dated November 29, and regarding Mikhail Golubovich 75. With particular attentiveness, Philaret treated, as we noticed, the main figure of the reunification, the Right Reverend Joseph Semashko of Lithuania, who himself, highly appreciating the personal merits, administrative experience and kind relations of Saint Philaret of Moscow, often turned to him on one issue or another. And, while until 1842 the relations between them were mostly personal and oral, from 1842, when the annual trips of St. Philaret to St. Petersburg stopped, these relations became written 76. So back in 1841, on August 25, the Moscow saint wrote to the governor of the Lavra, Anthony: “The Eminence of Lithuania asks me for a miter and panagia. Remind me to talk about this in the Lavra” 77. Then, in 1842, when Joseph came to Moscow, he “was received here,” according to a contemporary of the event, “the still living Count M.V. Tolstoy, “with great honor: in Chudov, where he stayed, the vicar 78 introduced him to the abbots of the monasteries and members of the consistory; he served mass in the Assumption Cathedral and in the Sergius Lavra, where he was greeted with all the bells ringing; the bishop gave him lunch" 79 . In memory of this visit, Philaret presented Joseph with a rich sacristy from the Chudov Cathedral Monastery: a sakkos of gold brocade, the same omophorion, a club, etc. 80. The year 1842 and the years that followed were very difficult for the Moscow saint due to the sorrows that he suffered during this time without guilt. These years were not particularly easy for Saint Joseph of Lithuania, who at this time, more than ever, was bombarded with arrows of malice, envy and hatred from not only those belonging to the Latin-Polish party, but also from persons considered Orthodox. Even those who stood at the helm of government in the Russian Orthodox state at that time sometimes showed not only indifference towards him, but sometimes also injustice, which deeply offended Joseph, who by his very deed proved and never ceased to prove the impeccable honesty of his intentions and motives in relation to the great work of his life, the reunification of the Uniates. Under the depressing impression of this kind of relationship, Joseph confidentially wrote the following to Philaret of Moscow on May 7, 1844: “It is not yet time that the course and circumstances of the successfully accomplished reunification of the Uniates who were in the Empire into the Orthodox Church could be fully disclosed: and I cannot expect that my participation in this matter will be assessed in all fairness. I think, however, that this participation is not so unknown that I cannot point to it and call on God as a witness to the purity of my intentions and motives. In a fit of fiery jealousy, I considered myself as if called from above to accomplish this task; and if sometimes I dreamed of an earthly reward, then it seemed to me only in peaceful solitude, protected by a higher power from the troubles that lay ahead of me 81 . This dream, or better yet, a constant desire, do not attribute this, Your Eminence Vladyka, to a lack of firmness and zeal for further service to the church - whoever has gone through a fifteen-year career similar to mine, it seems, should be free from such accusation. But I always considered my elimination to be a necessary consequence of my career. Naturally, the commission of the Uniate affair aroused towards me the hatred of the political-religious party of Poles and Romans dominant in the western provinces - hatred all the stronger because it was accompanied by fear of my further influence on its fate - and I never expected to have so much patronage from the government that it could protect me against this party. On the contrary, I always thought that, finally, he would get tired of supporting me, and his officials would be happy to sacrifice me and thereby deserve thousands of thanks. In the Orthodox Church, I did not expect, at least at the beginning, either as much sympathy or as much trust as is needed for useful service in its depths - and this is also natural. I am a new newcomer, whose actions for the benefit of the church are few, and even then not completely, known, and are even misinterpreted by others; Moreover, the alien upbringing and habits, ingrained from childhood, will at every step justify the prejudices against me of the weak and ignorant. Is my further useful service possible in such a situation? and shouldn’t my career necessarily have ended in a fall, all the more shameful for me, and comforting for my enemies and the Orthodox Church, that it would have been accomplished through this very church and government? On the other hand, I thought that the appointment of a worthy ancient Orthodox bishop in my place would replace me with great benefit. Supported by the full trust of the church, without any prejudices against himself, he would not only become a firm foot in the face of the Gentiles, but would also work with great success to establish and organize the reunited flock. Fully convinced of this, I, at the very completion of the Uniate affair, submitted the enclosed most humble request 82, dated February 26, 1839, for my complete dismissal from business after the consolidation of the ensuing reunification. The four years that have passed since then not only have not shaken my previous conviction, but, on the contrary, have completely justified it. Therefore, by the letter of December 18, 1842, and with even greater insistence by the letter of February 26, 1843, I asked through the Synodal Chief Prosecutor 83 for the final satisfaction of my most humble request mentioned above. In these relations, enclosed in this list 84, I think the reasons why my further service was both unnecessary and hardly possible are set out with complete conviction for anyone. However, these reasons were not respected, I did not even receive an answer to my relationship. Meanwhile, has my situation improved since they left? Perhaps I can now rely more than ever on the participation of the Orthodox Church in me. On the contrary, the Poles and Romans now consider that they have acquired for themselves a patron, and for me an ill-wisher, precisely where every Orthodox Christian must apply with full power of attorney; and circumstances in which I not only did not participate, but which I did not even know about, almost strengthened the prejudice against me among the Orthodox clergy. Perhaps I can now be forced under the cover of the government more than before. On the contrary, my dismissal from the post of chairman of the Belarusian-Lithuanian Collegium, with its closure 85, as well as the circumstances that accompanied and followed this, make everyone think that I was driven out. And after this, when everything was heading towards bringing me down in the general opinion, sullying me, when I don’t see where I can hope for help and patronage, when, on the contrary, ill will and opposition await me everywhere, I face the transformation of a flock made up exclusively of the reunited, who have deviated more than other places from the ancient church order, mixed in the space of three provinces with a predominant hostile Roman Catholic population, irritated by the new drastic changes and looking forward to more! I have to establish a new diocese, with material resources that are much meager compared to other Western dioceses! I am entrusted with the transfer of the diocesan administration, with cathedral and school staff, to the city of Vilna, 86 seething with hateful fanaticism against the Orthodox, lying outside the circle of the Orthodox population, with extreme burdens for all persons belonging to this administration and for most of the other clergy! Isn’t it forgivable for me to think, hour after hour more firmly established, that I am being sent there just to get away with it, to be betrayed to certain destruction, to be desecrated before the enemies of Orthodoxy, to be thrown into a puddle, so that they can walk over me with dry feet? I don’t want to blame anyone personally, 87 I’m afraid to attribute to one thing what, perhaps, happened completely from someone else, especially since I actually received blows repeatedly, not knowing where they were directed from. I do not know who acted against me out of personal ill will, and who out of delusion; some as a tool of the Polish-Catholic party, and some because of their own appearance or petty envy and pride? – may God and their own conscience judge them! But when I expect only suffering, only obstacles from the very side from which I should expect help and protection; when for the prepared destruction they will give me only a grimace of pharisaical regret; when, probably, they will blacken my name and begin to persecute him with slander even beyond the grave: it is excusable for me to leave at least a few lines as the only possible justification now. This is the reason why I decided to present to Your Eminence the circumstances described above. If I am destined to mark the present field with blood: if the Almighty grants me to lay my suffering head where the relics of the first three martyrs of the Orthodox Church, who suffered in Lithuania for the faith of Christ, rest: pray, Master, for my sinful soul and entrust me to the sympathy of the Orthodox Church! If I face long-term persecution from both my own and my enemies, then I ask for your prayers even more: may the Almighty strengthen me with firmness, not allow me to indulge in despondency in the difficult struggle ahead and deliver me from human slander! And You, Master, sometimes give me justice before people, as I expect it, with full hope, before the righteous judgment of God. However, I have always subordinated my personal fate to the benefits of service and constantly hid all the suffering, all the troubles in the depths of my heart: so that even about the papers now being forwarded to Your Eminence, no one still knows, at least from me. Therefore, I ask you, Vladyka, to preserve them as my testament, without disclosing them prematurely, so that the lot prepared for one person does not harm the public affairs of the Church and the state. - God sees! suffering and dying from the enemies of the Church and the state is not scary for me - I was always ready and expected for this. But to see oneself abandoned, if not even betrayed to the same enemies, by the government, by the leadership of the Orthodox Church is sad, very sad. However, having lightened my heart with this sincere recognition before the archpastor, for whose personal qualities and high merits of the Church I have always had the deepest respect, I walk tremblingly, without cowardice, along the path destined for me by Providence. May His holy will be done! and may God help me to be still somewhat useful to the Orthodox Church. – R.S. Comfort me, Your Eminence, by notifying me of the receipt of this paper, otherwise I’ll think about it and it won’t be allowed to you.” 88 This letter, filled with grave sorrow, dated May 7th, was sent to its destination only on May 17th 89. Could the saint of Moscow be indifferent to this sorrow, who at that time himself still continued to be under the yoke of the same sorrow? But on the other hand, being in an involuntary distance from the affairs of the highest administration of the church, how could he console the suffering saint of Lithuania, except for giving him moral support? The Vladyka of Moscow did not hesitate to offer such consolation. On June 2 of the same 1844, he wrote to Joseph the following: “Most Reverend Vladyka, much-honored Brother in the Lord! On May 28, Sunday, standing at the altar according to custom, along with other fellow shepherds, I brought your memory before the Lord: and therefore, without reproaching myself, on the evening of that day I received your reminder of this duty of brotherly love. – At the request of Your Eminence, I inform you that the message dated May 7, No. 757, was received by me on the 28th day, with signs of correct delivery. – I look with sorrow at the difficult situation you depict instead of the peace deserved by a long-term, difficult and useful feat for the Orthodox Church and the Fatherland. In order to combine your relief with the common good, in my opinion, it is not your removal from business that is necessary, but other means. But I have no right to go into discussion about this. – David’s prayer is beneficial: God strengthen this which you have done in us. And if God wanted you to actively serve the creation, then it is quite natural that you should continue to serve the affirmation. When is human help completely reliable? Therefore, God's help is never hopeless. If your matter is not understood by everyone, the Knower of the Heart sees it, and the Orthodox Church will preserve the right memory of it. You must hope that the Orthodox government of the Most Pious Sovereign, as the feat becomes more difficult, will support you with its reinforcements. “Praying to the Heavenly Shepherd for all your well-being, above all others, or we mean entrusting myself to your prayers, with perfect reverence and love in the Lord, I abide,” and so on. 90. And indeed the saint of Lithuania was not left without support from the government. For his exploits, he was awarded more often and more than other Orthodox bishops of his time, as can be seen from his service record 91. But for Joseph, in his position and with his character and views, what was more important was moral support among the hostile elements that surrounded him. He was looking for such and such, and found, by the way, with the saint of Moscow, who even after 1844 did not cease to support him morally, and when necessary, financially. So, by the way, in response to Joseph’s letter of congratulations on the holidays, Filaret wrote to him on January 7 of the following year, 1845: “since last year’s letters, yours and mine, I thought carefully about you and wanted to know about your stay and peace, and when I wanted to write to you, I was visited by your letter. Thank you very much for this communication. I am glad that you continue your exploits and that success is given to you. Let us hope that the one who blessed you to accomplish a difficult and long feat in favor of Orthodoxy will not leave you with a strong hand to support you in completing your memorable journey, although not without thorns on your path 92 . In 1844, Joseph’s main concerns about transferring the Lithuanian bishop’s see from Zhirovitsy to Vilna, with all the adaptations to ensure that this see would be a stronger bulwark in the fight against Latinism and Polish rule, came to a happy end. This transfer itself took place in 1845, and Joseph at different times of this year uttered three words, namely: the first - on May 8, “before the all-night vigil on the eve of the feast of St. Nicholas the Wonderworker, on the occasion of the move of the Lithuanian diocesan administration to Vilna and the opening of the St. Nicholas Cathedral”; the second - September 8, “in the church of the Vilna Holy Trinity Monastery, at the opening of the Lithuanian seminary and theological schools”; and the third - on December 6, during the consecration of the originally built by Prince Konstantin Ostrozhsky (at the end of the 16th century), and after the restoration of the parish Nicholas Church in the city of Vilna 93. In all these words, especially in the first, the preacher goes deeply into the history of the union and reunification of the Uniates, which took place in 1839, just as he touched on the same subject in his few sermons of the previous (1840-1842) years 94. After printing them, Joseph considered it his duty to send his sermons, among other things, to Saint Philaret of Moscow, who, in turn, sent him a copy of the collection of his words and speeches in three volumes that had just been published in 1845, dated April 12, 1846, on the occasion of Easter, wrote to him. “We will forgive everything through the resurrection. Under the protection of this church word, I greet Your Eminence with the joy of the Resurrection of Christ, with a sincere desire that it will be fulfilled and fruitful for you: and I ask for forgiveness from you in silence, although it is true that it is not excusable, but a duty. – Your words, always remarkable, I read with thirst, and prayed to God to help you spread the spirit of Rus' and Orthodoxy in the region in which it has the hereditary right to be in strength and space. Let me respond to your words with mine, although not to bore you with long reading, at least for the sake of the memory of me 95. In the same way, in 1850, with a letter dated April 29, Saint Philaret sent Joseph, for him and for the Vilna seminary library, a copy of the second edition of his words and speeches (1847 - 1848) 96; and in 1851, with a letter dated May 28, he thanked him for the word sent before and praised this word 97, which probably means the word of Joseph, pronounced on April 14, 1851, after the consecration of the cave church in the name of the holy martyrs Anthony, John and Eustathius, in the Vilna Holy Spirit first-class monastery, as well as the previous words of the saint Lithuanian, rich in interesting historical data 98. Then in 1852, when Joseph, for “fiery zeal for Orthodoxy, commitment to the throne, successful actions in restoring the Orthodox hierarchy in the country of the ancient heritage of our Church and tireless concerns about establishing the forefathers’ faith in the spiritual flocks,” as stated in the Highest Rescript dated March 30 of this year, was elevated to the rank of metropolitan, and the Most Merciful granted a white hood decorated with a cross made of precious stones, Saint Philaret of Moscow hastened to greet him, in view of Easter time, on April 5, as follows: “Your Eminence Vladyka, Gracious Archpastor! Receive from me the kiss of joy and love in the Lord: Christ is risen! May joy in Him be your strength, and may He help you to spread the light of the eternal East in the darkness of the West and heavenly peace among those who have not known peace. I learned with consolation that the merits you have rendered to the Orthodox Church have been given a new, high testimony; I joyfully congratulate you on the mercy of God and the Tsar” 99 . It was precisely with this joyful event in the life and work of the saint of Lithuania that the solemn event of the transfer of the relics of the holy Vilna martyrs Anthony, John and Eustathius into a new shrine coincided, which took place on April 14 of the same 1852 - on the day of remembrance of these holy martyrs who suffered five hundred years ago under the Lithuanian Grand Duke Olgerd. Translation from a poor wooden one into a beautiful bronze gilded shrine in a cave church built and consecrated a year before in the name of St. The martyrs were accompanied by a solemn bishop's service and a fitting word from Metropolitan Joseph, in front of a huge crowd of people who for the first time saw their high priest in a white hood, as a very clear sign of distinction for the great feats that Saint Joseph had already undertaken and accomplished and which Saint Joseph did not cease to undertake in the cause of reuniting the Uniates with the Orthodox Church and establishing them in unity with the latter. 100. Joseph sent his word 101 spoken during this transcription, among other things, to the saint of Moscow with copies of it for distribution and for other purposes. On this occasion, St. Philaret wrote the following to St. Joseph on June 26 of the same year, 1852: “I rejoice that the Lord is helping you to renew and strengthen the sacred monuments of Orthodoxy in the country where it shone, faded, and shines again, having you as an active igniter. “I received it with gratitude, and with renewed interest I read your teachings, new and old. And I immediately fulfilled your instructions to transfer copies of these to the Right Reverend Vicar 102, Academy and Seminaries. It is your desire that the restored Lithuanian flock be in the closest spiritual and prayerful communion with the entire Orthodox Church, as much as they have the right to reciprocity, and, I hope, enjoy it. Everyone to whom Orthodoxy is dear, and who knows well your deeds for it, highly values ​​them, and sincerely and prayerfully wishes your flock growth and prosperity. Praying to the Lord, may He open a great and spacious door for you in the spread of Orthodoxy, where I have the honor to be in the resistance of many, and asking for your prayers for my weakness, with perfect respect and devotion,” and so on. 103. Indeed, Joseph, always very active, and now, encouraged by such a great and extraordinary sign of the Monarch's favor towards him, showing even more diligent activity, tirelessly fought against the Latin-Polish party in establishing and spreading Orthodoxy in the Lithuanian diocese, and often had to fight with the civil authorities of the western region who condoned the Latin-Polish party in various ways. By the way, in view of the success of the struggle and the Orthodox clergy subordinate to him with the said party, Joseph, in a letter dated February 20, 1853, asked Philaret to send him 1,500 copies of the book printed in the Works of St. Fathers with additions of spiritual content for 1852 article, The Word of Catholic Orthodoxy to Roman Catholicism (A. N. Muravyova). To fulfill the requirement for such a number of copies of the article, it was necessary to again order the printing of individual reprints of it. Therefore, on April 18 of the same 1853, the Moscow saint wrote to Joseph: “Your order has been fulfilled. The word of Catholic Orthodoxy is printed. The Editorial Committee, through which this was done, because it was done at hand, these days will forward printed copies to Your Eminence via transport: because they think it’s more convenient and cheaper this way” 105. In the same year, Joseph distributed this article among the clergy of his diocese 106. Latinism and Polishism used every excuse, even the slightest, to attack Orthodoxy in general and Joseph in particular, and, as usual, they did not skimp on lies, slander and curses. When the Crimean War began in 1853 and when the attention of the Russian government was naturally drawn from the west to the south of Russia, the Latin-Polish party raised its head even higher and began to use the same methods even more boldly, hoping for abundant fishing in troubled waters, as they say. – In 1858, a book was published in Paris under the title “Rome”, in which blatant slander was leveled at the cause of the reunification of the Uniates. Joseph, although he was already accustomed to the attacks of that party, could not, however, leave this book unanswered, in which, among other things, the fable about the imaginary martyr - the abbess of the Minsk Uniate Basilian monastery Macrena Mechislavskaya 107 - was again raised. He submitted to the Holy Synod a detailed report on this book with extracts from it and with his comments and refutations on it 108. But Joseph always preferred such small struggles, as less useful for his great cause, to major struggles, striking Latinity and Polishness, as they say, not in the brow, but right in the eye and head. – When almost all European powers attacked Russia during the Crimean War, it was very useful, and precisely in the western region of Russia, where the Latin-Polish element, hostile to the latter, was so strong, to raise the importance of Russia in the eyes of the population, to indicate that, as always, it is fighting for a holy cause against enemies, although Christians, but defending the Mohammedan Turks, and that for such holy aspirations its Lord himself is its champion. It was in this tone that Joseph delivered two sermons, one on November 1, 1853, after reading the Highest Manifesto on the war with the Turks, and the other on December 25, 1854, after reading the Highest Manifesto of December 14 on the continuation of the same war. Both sermons are based on the text: God is with us, understand the Gentiles and repent, for God is with us 109. Having not yet received separate prints of both sermons, but only having become acquainted with the last of them by chance, Saint Philaret of Moscow, in a letter to A.N. Muravyov dated May 8, 1855, said: “The word of the Right Reverend Lithuanian is strong and skillful. There could have been more reproof and moral teaching: but in his region there was reason to talk more about the hope of God’s mercy than about the danger from our sins” 110. Soon after, precisely in a letter dated May 30, Joseph himself sent the Moscow saint separate copies of both of these sermons, saying in his letter regarding the latter: “As a memory, accept, Your Eminence, my last two words; I just ask you not to judge if anything seems harsh: “For thirty-five years I have been standing face to face against the lies of the West - and, naturally, I must speak differently than others” 111. Meanwhile, this same letter dated May 30, with the literal accuracy of its text and only with a change in the address of the name, forwarded to the leading member of the Holy Synod, Metropolitan Nikanor of Novgorod and St. Petersburg, largely serves, in its content, like the letter dated May 7, 1844, known to us 112, as if the testament of Joseph, surrounded on all sides hostile elements ready to crush him. The motivation for the sad mood expressed in this letter is outlined by Joseph himself in his Notes. “A painful war,” he says here, “its possible consequences in the Lithuanian region 113, the death of the Sovereign, the death of gr. Protasov, who knew me so well and on whom I could rely, brought a painful sadness to me. Under the influence of this sadness, I wrote a letter dated May 30 to Metropolitans Philaret and Nikanor” 114. But this sadness was soon to dissipate. The war soon ended. In place of the Sovereign Emperor Nikolai Pavlovich, His August Son ascended the throne, who inherited from his Parent respect for the cause of the reunification of the Uniates and for the person who served this cause more than anyone else. And this was the most important thing for Joseph, who warmly took this matter to heart and closely connected his fate with its fate. In 1856, at the end of the war, as is known, the coronation of the Sovereign Emperor Alexander Nikolaevich took place in Moscow. Joseph of Lithuania was among the hierarchs appointed to participate in the coronation ceremony 115. Notifying Philaret of Moscow about this appointment, he asked him to give him shelter for this time in one of the Moscow monasteries. Filaret arranged everything to calm him down, placing at his disposal the abbot's cells in the Zaikonospassky Monastery, and Joseph was very pleased with everything during his stay in Moscow 116. One of the pleasant consequences of the coronation for Joseph was the Highest award to him of the vestments in which he served during the coronation ceremony. On this occasion, Saint Philaret of Moscow wrote to Joseph on September 10 of the same 1856: “It was the All-merciful pleasure of the Sovereign Emperor to command that the bishop’s vestments, arranged for the day of the sacred coronation of Their Imperial Majesties, which you wore on that day, be given to you. As it is clear from the information of the Assumption Protopresbyter that this vestment is already in your possession, I humbly ask you to confirm this to me” 117. On September 21, Joseph sent this certificate to Philaret 118. But the most pleasant consequence of the coronation for Joseph were the words of the Sovereign Emperor, spoken to him at a public audience after the coronation, precisely on August 27 of the same 1856. “I thank you from the bottom of my heart,” the Most Gracious Monarch said to him, “for all your service. I hope that you will continue to do so in the same way. You know how much My Parent valued your merits, and I give them complete justice.” Joseph said: “Keep me, Your Majesty, in your heart as your Parent.” “Certainly,” replied the Emperor 119. As a sign of special trust in Joseph, the Sovereign Emperor, among other things, ordered him to be summoned to attend the Holy Synod in August 1859. Partly due to the sickness that had depressed Joseph since the coronation of 1856, and partly for some moral reasons 120, he did not show such lively activity and zeal for participation in the affairs of the Synodal Administration as had happened before. Having learned about this, Saint Philaret of Moscow wrote on December 4, 1859 to the leading member of the St. Synod, Metropolitan Gregory of Novgorod and St. Petersburg: “The Eminence of Lithuania, they say, is silent a lot. It's a pity. He has the power of thought and can help you." 121 Really, it's a pity; but what could be done! People with such vigorous activity, persistence in the fight against obstacles and such ardent jealousy, which always distinguished Joseph, are usually short-lived. In the year of the coronation, Joseph's father died, almost 80 years old, having spent a life, of course, more calm than that which fell to the lot of his son, who in the same year received severe rheumatism, along with other diseases, which little by little weakened his body. Moral suffering was also added to physical illnesses. It was especially difficult for the saint of Lithuania to survive the era of the Polish uprising of the sixties, which was so closely connected, as we have previously noticed, with the opposition of Latinism to Orthodoxy in the western region. After the uprising was pacified thanks to the energy of M.N. Muravyov, according to the latter’s idea, in view of the Russification of this region, among other things, it was planned to establish a theological academy in Vilna in the form of additional higher classes in the seminary existing there. The opinion of St. Philaret of Moscow was asked about this institution, and on January 10, 1864 he wrote to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod A.P. Akhmatov: “The establishment of an academy in Vilna would have been doubtful even when His Eminence Joseph retained full strength and energy: now impoverished forces inevitably reduce his energy” 122. And soon after that, the saint of Moscow presented to the Chief Prosecutor a more detailed opinion, outlining the reasons why he considered it unnecessary to establish an academy in Vilna 123 . He considered it more necessary and useful for the region to “improve and strengthen” the Vilna (Lithuanian) seminary and the parish clergy, with the latter’s involvement from within Russia 124, which St. Joseph always zealously cared about. In particular, on the issue of the clergy, there has long been a lively exchange of opinions and advice between Joseph and Philaret. Even while he was in Moscow in 1842, Joseph personally asked Philaret to provide him with reliable monastics and white clergy. Filaret, although at the same time expressed the idea that it would be difficult to fulfill this request, however, did not completely refuse it 125. He was convinced that “people with energy and self-sacrifice should be brought there, and not those who, seeing themselves not significant at home, dream of gaining significance far away” 126. And that is why it was so difficult for him to choose reliable persons to fulfill Joseph’s request. In view, however, of the fact that Filaret, as we noted, did not completely refuse Joseph’s fulfillment of his request, the latter, upon returning to his flock, reminded Filaret of the same thing in writing 127. After a long search, Filaret finally presented him with a list of those who declared a desire to serve in the western region. Based on this list, Joseph chose several people and wrote about this to Philaret, dated May 18, 1844. But unfortunately, already on February 13, 1856, Saint Philaret was forced to write to Joseph the following: “in this February, after the death of my clerk 128, when examining the affairs that were in his hands, an unopened package was found, in which was the attitude of Your Eminence dated May 18, 1844 No. 800, which requires Hieromonk Vassian, priest Nikolai, in the diocese entrusted to you Gerasimov and Hierodeacon Sophrony. The reason for this detention is nothing else that can be assumed than the fact that my office staff consists of one clerk. I am writing this to Your Eminence so that the failure to fulfill the requirement will not be attributed to my negligence. It's probably too late now. I regret that you did not deign to quickly confirm your demand to me, which would have saved me from real trouble 129. Joseph addressed Filaret with a similar request in 1864. But on May 16, 1865, Filaret wrote to Joseph: “on November 21 last 1864, under No. 3017, Your Eminence addressed me and on the 8th day of this May (No. 1164) renewed the demand whether I would not find it possible to supply the Surdek Holy Spirit Monastery of the Lithuanian Diocese with a rector and a full complement of brethren from the Moscow monasteries diocese. I apologize that I was slow in answering this demand; because he did not have in mind the means to satisfy it, and did not want to leave it unsatisfied. But even after some short-term considerations, to my regret, I find myself in the need to admit that I do not find the means to fulfill the wishes of Your Eminence. Monasteries have fewer people than women's monasteries, and especially people who are educated and capable of the activities required by the circumstances of your region. It was difficult for me to decide to pronounce this answer before Your Eminence; but I don’t find any way to say anything better than this” 130. Indeed, the monastics from the women's monasteries of his diocese could provide assistance to Saint Joseph, and he already did so in 1864, sending the treasurer with 15 nuns and novices to Vilna from the Alekseevsky Monastery, and in the summer of 1865 he took care of sending a priest for the Mariinsky convent founded in Vilna in this way 131. Thus, for almost forty years, good relations continued between both great saints, based mainly on the thought of one thing - the reunification of the Uniates. Therefore, the saint of Moscow more than once communicated with the secular authorities, and with the Orthodox bishops, and, finally, even with the Holy Synod. As an example of the first type of relationship, we point out the relationship between Filaret and V.I. Nazimov, who in 1855 - 1863 was the Governor-General of Vilna. This Governor-General was the kind of person who, having a long-standing acquaintance with the region 132 and some influence on the Latin-Polish party in this region, was appointed by the new Sovereign Emperor (Alexander Nikolaevich) to the important post of Governor-General with the apparent goal of reconciling the Poles and Latins with the Russians and eliminating the possibility of hostile outbreaks between them, at least until the end the most important task of the new reign - the liberation of peasants from serfdom. In view of this goal, concessions after concessions were made on the part of the Russian government in favor of the Latin-Polish party, which ultimately, as is known, led to the events of 1863, when Nazimov himself had to leave the post of Governor-General in the said region; through which a fatal mistake was clearly revealed in his appointment to this post, or, better, in his action with the stated purpose. Because it was impossible to act like that with the Latin-Polish party. With her constant hostility towards everything Orthodox and Russian, she considered concessions nothing more than a sign of the weakness of the Russian government and therefore with greater courage, if not stronger, she moved further in her forward movement towards her ultimate goals, towards complete dominance in the region. Even under Emperor Nicholas, when such concessions were not made, she managed to do what, despite the almost equality in the number of residents of the Orthodox and Roman Catholic confessions in the Vilna and Grodno provinces, more than two-thirds of all places of civil government in these, for example. The provinces were occupied by persons of the Roman Catholic faith or of Polish origin. What could happen under a system of large concessions? All this machination of Latin-Polish propaganda was best understood by a man who for more than thirty years stood face to face against the lies of the West and was privy to all the secret springs of the latter’s machinations. This is Metropolitan Joseph, who, due to his well-known zeal for Orthodoxy and the Russian nationality, on January 10, 1855, therefore, a few days before the death of Count N.A. Protasov and a little over a month before the death of Emperor Nicholas, sent to Count Protasov a lengthy message outlining the reasons for the need to strengthen the elements of Orthodoxy and the Russian nationality among those governing the western region 133. The content of this relationship was brought to the attention of Emperor Nicholas, and His Majesty gave a command in accordance with the requirements contained in it 134. But the death of the Sovereign, which soon followed, the circumstances that accompanied it, the change of reign and persons in charge of the new reign, etc. etc., left Joseph in complete uncertainty regarding the consequences of his relationship with Count Protasov. For this reason, by the way, Saint Joseph, in the above-mentioned confidential letter to Saint Philaret of Moscow, dated May 30 of the same 1855, depicted in gloomy colors his position among the hostile elements of the region, referring to the content of his attitude towards Count Protasov dated January 10, with a copy of this attitude attached 135. The Saint of Moscow, himself the most faithful son of the Orthodox Church and the Fatherland and such a servant of the Sovereign, reacted with complete sympathy to the matter raised by Joseph, and taking advantage of the fact that his old acquaintance, who was the trustee of the Moscow educational district, the aforementioned Vladimir Ivanovich Nazimov, was appointed Governor-General of Vilensky, he decided to communicate with the latter on the same matter. On December 15, 1855, he wrote to Nazimov the following: “I have heard the attitude of His Eminence Joseph, Metropolitan of Lithuania towards Count Protasov about the state of government of the Lithuanian region that is unfavorable for the good of the fatherland. This subject does not belong to the scope of the ministry entrusted to me; but the duty of loyalty to the throne forces me to think with extreme concern whether this is known to the Sovereign Emperor. The attitude was written on January 10, 1855. There is no reason to doubt that Count Protasov presented it to the late Sovereign in Bose. But as this happened shortly before his death, is this accepted into consideration? Is it known to the now reigning Sovereign Emperor? That's what the concern is. “Your Excellency’s appointment to the administration of the Lithuanian region opens up the opportunity for me to fulfill, in the manner possible for me, the duty of loyalty to the throne, by sending to you a list of the above-mentioned attitude and to calm my concerns with your loyalty to the throne and zeal for the good of the fatherland” 136. Deeply respecting the saint of Moscow, as well as appreciating the merits for the region, the zeal and high personal merits of the saint of Lithuania and “fully sharing the view” of the latter on the subject of his attitude towards Count Protasov, Nazimov, as one of his former subordinates reports his words, “took into account many of his reasonable and practical comments” 137; but it goes without saying that in view of the instructions given to him upon taking office, he could not fully apply to the case the assumptions of the Saint of Lithuania, approved in Bose by the late Emperor Nicholas. And the saint of Lithuania, who ardently took to heart the cause of Orthodoxy and the Russian people in the region, naturally considered this a sign of cowardice and even double-mindedness and could not help but grieve in his soul, having experienced through long-term experience the instability of our internal policy and not finding it convenient to explain this matter to Nazimov, although he maintained outwardly good relations with him 138 . When Latin-Polish propaganda, taking advantage of the compliance of the Russian government, raised its head even higher than before and began to reveal “feverish activity” in preparing the Polish uprising, St. Joseph could not stand it any longer, and as a faithful servant of the throne, on February 26, 1859, he presented a detailed note about this to the Sovereign Emperor 139. But as if in response to this note, the enemies of Russia (not external, but domestic) published an article in Kolokol under the title: “Semashko, Filaret and Nikolai,” which fully contained: 1) the above-mentioned attitude of Joseph to Count Protasov dated January 10, 1855; 2) the above letter from St. Philaret of Moscow to V.I. Nazimov, and 3) the text of the aforementioned order of the Sovereign Emperor Nikolai Pavlovich regarding Joseph’s attitude towards Count Protasov, with various comments on the text of these documents made by the publisher of the Bell, Herzen. It goes without saying that the issue of Kolokol, in which the said article was placed, was soon delivered to Nazimov, who was not a little surprised by the appearance of all those secret documents in the press, quite confident and once again making sure that they were all safely stored in his bureau 140. Saint Joseph was also notified of the contents of the same article by a confidential letter to him from Archbishop Platon of Riga 141 dated August 27, 1859 142 . There is no need to say with what sorrow this notification resonated in his heart. Suspicion against V.I. Nazimov himself involuntarily flashed through his head as the culprit for the publication of such important and at the same time confidential documents 143 . This suspicion, the destruction of which was prevented by the lack of personal explanations in this matter, Joseph, unfortunately, took with him to the grave 144. We have no information about how Saint Philaret reacted to the same publication. But he had already done his good deed in relation to Joseph with the latter’s aspirations to strengthen Orthodoxy and the Russian people in the western region, and, of course, he was not to blame for this publication. As a sample of the relations between Saint Philaret and the ancient Orthodox bishops on issues relating to those reunited after reunification, in addition to some of the comments we have already given above 145, we will also point out at least the following lines of letters from the saint of Moscow. On January 1, 1865, he wrote to Eusebius (Orlinsky), Archbishop of Mogilev: “Mikhail Nikolaevich accomplished a great feat. It is very desirable that he continue: because it is necessary for his work to be established, supported by his directness, so that later it will be strong.” Having thus pointed out the need to strengthen the principles of Russian nationality and Orthodoxy, which he energetically introduced in the western region, in place of Latinism and Polishness, M. N. Muravyov, Saint Philaret directly continues: “Do you really demand that the reunited priests should not be in the service at all? What should we do with those that exist? It is, of course, inconvenient to remove a reunited priest, beloved by parishioners for his honest service and life, from the parish, and this would not mean to reassure, but to irritate. This, and through him the parish, must be kept from the old kvass of the union with advice and supervision” 146. Then, also on September 29, 1866, Saint Philaret wrote to Savva, Bishop of Polotsk: “I think you have a lot of work to do in cleansing Orthodoxy from the dust of the former union. Circular confirmation orders do not lead much towards the goal. It is necessary to find in the clergy people who are especially devoted to Orthodoxy and their service, and to guide and support them with attention, benevolence and patience. For them, free and simple relationships with their superiors should be open. Then you can awaken animated action and you can excite others to imitate” 147. But the Saint of Moscow had an even higher attitude in the matter of the reunited Uniates. We have now seen the solicitude of the saint in this regard for the diocese of Polotsk to the bishopric of the Right Reverend Sava 148. This was in 1866. And the following year, 1867, on August 22, Saint Philaret even wrote to the leading member of the Holy Synod, the still living His Eminence Isidore, Metropolitan of Novgorod and St. Petersburg: “With the return of the Orthodox Russian Church to her children who were rejected in times of trouble, the so-called Uniates, the idea arose of transferring those who had died to the holy Kiev-Pechersk Lavra of the relics of the Venerable Euphrosyne, Princess of Polotsk, to a convent located near Polotsk, which was created by one of her relatives, and in which she labored. – Many expressed a desire for this idea to be carried out; but she has not achieved this until now. This is probably because the Holy Synod has a rule, in such cases, to expect special instructions from the providence of God. This rule is very worthy of acceptance. However, the church calendar shows many transfers of holy relics, marked by annual church remembrances, and even specially composed church services, which were accomplished only through the action of pious zeal. A close example of this is the relics of St. Philip, Metropolitan of Moscow, transferred from the Solovetsky Monastery to the Moscow Assumption Cathedral. It is not clear that some extraordinary sign prompted this, but the pious zeal of the Tsar acted in this, and the thought that it was fitting for the saint to rest in the place where he served as his sacred and superior service. Following this example, it can be considered blessed that the relics of the Venerable Euphrosyne should be brought from Kyiv to Polotsk, and that they should rest in the monastery in which she labored. The Right Reverend Savva, the current Bishop of Polotsk, also adheres to this thought, because, among other things, he sees in the diocese entrusted to him the scarcity of an ancient, especially revered, Orthodox shrine, while the Roman Catholic churches represent, by faithful or incorrect tradition, a shrine preserved that attracts the attention of not only the Roman Catholic, but partly the Orthodox people. This view makes me not indifferent, and prompts me to turn to your love of holiness and care for the Orthodox Church in all its areas. May the present question attract your attention, and may the Lord speak to you a word pleasing to Him to promote the good and salvation of souls. Now I am writing the same thing to the Most Reverend Metropolitan of Kyiv” 149. This letter from the Moscow saint was written, as we noted above, on August 22, 1867, therefore, less than three months before the blessed death of Saint Philaret, who thus, almost until his very death, did not abandon his archpastoral concerns for the reunited Uniates, bishops and dioceses. It is clear that he undertook and accomplished all this in a deep consciousness of the importance and greatness of the very deed that took place in 1839. In view of such importance and greatness of this matter, Saint Philaret could not ignore it from the church pulpit, in his sermon, despite the fact that it did not take place in his diocese. Even when there were only individual cases of conversion of Uniates to Orthodoxy and when various measures already known to us 150 were only preparing the ground for their complete and general reunification with the Orthodox Church, Filaret considered it his duty to point out these circumstances as bright features of the reign of Emperor Nikolai Pavlovich, who, as we know, took this matter so close to his heart. Thus, preaching the word on the day of the coronation of this Most Pious Sovereign, August 22, 1836, the saint of Moscow, while calculating the more important events and deeds of the first decade of His reign, said among other things: “In areas where in previous unfortunate times Eastern piety was constrained by the violence of the West, the own eye of the Most Pious Sovereign saw the ugliness of Orthodox churches, and His special will clothed them with decent splendor. His love for the Orthodox Church animated the zeal of her ministers, and many thousands of her children, some of whom were separated from her by their ancestors in the days of unrest and persecution, some of whom were lost in the years of ignorance, were returned to her mother’s arms” 151. It goes without saying that the saint of Moscow began to speak even more directly, openly and clearly about the same thing from the church pulpit after the solemn and complete reunification of the Uniates, although, due to various circumstances and considerations, he did not speak about this early in his sermon. Namely, for the first time we find an indication of this in Philaret’s sermon on the day of the accession of the Sovereign Emperor Nikolai Pavlovich to the throne on November 20, 1849, when it was ten years since the celebration of the reunion itself. At the end of this sermon, Vitya, comparing Emperor Nicholas with the Greek Emperor Constantine the Great in relation to the fulfillment by both of their sacred duty to promote their true faith and their Orthodox Church, says: “Glory to God! Our most pious Sovereign actively and successfully fulfills this duty, and more than one million souls have acquired Orthodoxy from non-Orthodoxy 152. But since the great cause of the reunification of the Uniates was, one might say, the cause of the entire reign of Emperor Nicholas, multiplying, as we said in our place, the glory of this reign: it was most natural to mention it more extensively in the next 1850, which ended the twenty-fifth anniversary of this reign. This is what Saint Vitia Philaret did. We mean his word on the day of the accession to the All-Russian throne of the Sovereign Emperor on November 22 of this year (1850), in which he, counting, as in 1836, the most important events and deeds of the past 25th anniversary from the day of His accession, as the deeds and consequences of the Tsareva’s truth, preaches: “It would be unusual for someone speaking in church not to touch on some of the deeds church in relation to the affairs of the State. The unity of faith is an important reinforcement of the unity of the people, and both of these unities together have an important relationship to the strength of the State. About two million of the Russian people 153, formerly of the same faith, in the past three centuries, were torn away from the Orthodox Church by alien cunning and violence, and continuous, all possible efforts were made to attach them to the Western Church. The Russian government dealt with them according to the rules of religious tolerance. Therefore, as much as one could wish for, one could just as little hope for their reunification with the Orthodox Church. But suddenly, by their own movement, under the leadership of all their senior shepherds, and almost all the clergy, they quietly and freely came to the Orthodox Church, like sheep returning to the sheepfold from which they had recently left. How did this happen? If you look at human means: action turns out to be stronger than means. This is how it should be in the work of God. This is a gift of Providence to the Tsar’s pious truth, for the good of the kingdom” 154. The great Moscow Saint Philaret had such a lively, deep and multifaceted attitude towards the great cause of the reunification of the Uniates, as well as towards all persons who had one way or another in contact with this matter. It is obvious that he considered this matter not at all alien, but close, dear to himself, not only as the archpastor of the Orthodox Church, but in general, as a true, Orthodox Christian and a faithful subject of the Russian Tsar. He firmly adhered to the rule, which he himself indicated in the form of a final instruction to the listeners of his sermon in 1849, the words of which we have recently cited. “Let us also be jealous,” the saint gives this instruction to us, right after the above words comparing Emperor Nicholas with Constantine the Great, “each in his own circle of action, so that the duties of serving the King of the earth and serving the King of heaven, of being a faithful subject and a true Christian, constitute for us one indivisible duty, one continuous feat of our entire life. Amen" 155. See Readings in general. ist. and ancient 1869 book. I, page 195, dept. "Mixture". There were reunions, as is known, in the past century. He would be born on December 23, 1798. By the way, Joseph also went through such a school of education, as the son of a Uniate priest. Report of the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod for 1868, p. 5. St. Petersburg. 1869. The Roman Catholic Collegium had hitherto been able to act in such a way that the Russian government was almost completely unaware of the true situation of the Western Russian Uniates. Notes of Joseph, M. Litovsky, published. Academy of Sciences. T. I, p. 31 et al. St. Petersburg 1883. Here you can also read the text of this Note, the main points of which are set out, among other things, in the brochure by I. A. Chistovich published for the anniversary of the reunification: Review of the events of the reunification during the reign of Emperor Nicholas I, pp. 5–6 St. Petersburg. 1889. The Basilian monasteries, composed of Uniate monasticism, which thus entered with the name Basilian into the number of Roman monastic orders, hitherto removed from the jurisdiction of the diocesan bishops, were one of the main centers of Jesuit-Latin and Polish propaganda aimed at seducing the Uniates and Orthodox Christians into Latinism. Ober-Prock Report. St. Syn. for 1868 p. 7 Comp. Joseph's note just mentioned. See ibid., pp. 8–19 See Notes of Joseph I, 79 et al. 88 and gave. 94 and gave. 90 and gave. By the way, instead of Shishkov, Comrade Minister of Education D.N. Bludov (later count) was appointed to the post of chief administrator of spiritual affairs of foreign confessions in 1828 and took a great part in the reunification of the Uniates. The 25th anniversary of whose death (February 19, 1864) expired this year. This essay was written by Philaret back in 1815 regarding the seduction of Prince A. N. Golitsyn’s nephew into Roman Catholicism. It was then published many times. Zap. Jos. I, 65; see appendix No. 22, p. 545 et al. Here (on pp. 65–66) the secret kept regarding the translation of the Conversations, printed, at the direction of Joseph, with the name of the then inspector of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, later the famous Archbishop of Kherson Innocent (Borisov), is explained, in order to eliminate before the time any reason to suspect Joseph’s participation in this matter. “This anonymous,” we read in Joseph’s Notes, “has established itself completely, and the Most Reverend Innocent was known as an expert in the Polish language. At the time of the coronation, in Moscow in 1856, the Most Reverend Innocent himself spoke to me seriously about the translation of the Conversations as the most important action of his initial ministry.” About S. D. Nechaev in this regard, see ibid. page 83. Soulful. Read 1883 T. III, p. 428 Gabriel was Bishop of Mogilev from August 20, 1831 to July 18, 1887, and Kirill-Podolsky was from 1832 until his death in 1841. Readings in general love spirit. enlightenment 1870 book. XII, p. 28 “Materials for the biography of Filaret.” Smaragd was Bishop of Polotsk from May 14, 1833 until June 15, 1837, when he was transferred to Mogilev. See the above-mentioned anniversary brochure by I. A. Chistovich. page 7. By the way, this is why Joseph did not like Smaragda, who paid him the same. See Notes of Joseph I, 77–78; 82 and 133. See above anniversary. brochure by I. A. Chistovich, p. 13. Smolensk, Vitebsk and Mogilev Governor-General. See above anniversary. brochure by I. A. Chistovich, p. 19. And in partial accessions from Rev. Smaragd and others, for the most part, this was the case: “the parishioners joined, and the priests, harboring anger, remained in the union.” See anniversary. brochure I. A. Chistovich, p. 12. Collection of opinions and reviews of Filaret, published. Archbishop. Tver. Savvoy, vol. II, pp. 442–446. St. Petersburg 1885. The conciliar decree was signed by: Metropolitan Bulgak, bishops: Joseph, Vasily, Anthony and Josaphat (Zharsky), and two assessors of the board. The text of this resolution can be read in the book published by the Holy Synod for the anniversary of the reunification, which contains the Conciliar acts and solemn services in 1839, pp. 42 - 45. St. Petersburg. 1889. Notes of Joseph I, 79 – 80. Anniversary brochure I. A. Chistovich, p. 30. Notes of Joseph, i, 697; compare 80 pp. From the spiritual: Metropolitans Seraphim and Philaret, Archbishop Gregory of Tver, Metropolitan Josaphat Bulgak and Bishop Joseph Semashko, from the secular: Infantry General Count Tolstoy, Prince Golitsyn, Taneyev, Nechaev and Bludov. See anniversary. brochure Chistovich, p. 32 note. and the indicated place from the Notes of Joseph. Letters of Filaret to Gabriel, ed. Society of History and Antiquities of Russia, p. 36. Moscow, 1868. Letters of Filaret to the Highest Persons and Other Persons, published. archbishop Tver. Savvoy, part II, p. 309. Tver, 1888. Meanwhile, Joseph, for his part, spoke of Smaragda as “who caused so much turmoil in Polotsk.” Notes of Joseph I, 135. The vicar of Philaret, His Eminence Isidore, the current Metropolitan of Novgorod and St. Petersburg, was appointed Smaragd's successor in Polotsk. Readings in general love spirit. enlightenment 1870 book. XII, p. 34 “Materials for the biography of Filaret.” See about this in the Notes of Joseph I, 116 and II, 78-84. St. Petersburg 1883. For example, he wrote about this back in 1834. Grodno Governor (later Count) M. N. Muravyov D. N. Bludov; His remarkable letter is printed on pp. 45–51 of the book published by the Holy Synod: Fiftieth Anniversary (1839 – 1889) of the reunification of the Western Russian Uniates with the Orthodox Church. Conciliar acts, etc. St. Petersburg. 1889. Comp. here on page 52 is a letter from Bishop Anthony (Zubko) of Brest to Count N.A. Protasov dated October 25. 1838. See about this in the Notes of Joseph II, 78 and gave. In this case, of course, the rules of the Council of Carthage regarding those converting to Orthodoxy from the Donatists. See Rules 57, 68, 79, 80, especially 103 et al., 112, etc. The saint called for such leniency, as we remember, back in 1834, in the instructions he compiled, entitled: “Thoughts and Advice,” etc. The fears of the prudent saint, expressed in this and the previous paragraphs, were largely resolved favorably with the reunification of the Uniates. About seven, see Notes of Joseph I, 116–119. Here we mean especially the Polish gentlemen, who were devoted to Latinism and acted in concert with it. Those. Ancient Orthodox and reunited from the Uniate. Collection of many and review Filar. according to textbook and church - state. question., ed. archbishop Tver. Savvoy. II, 446–451. St. Petersburg 1885. The text of the act can be seen in the previously mentioned book: Fiftieth anniversary (1839–1889) of the reunification of the Western Russian Uniates with the Orthodox Church. Council Acts, etc. pp. 4–7. St. Petersburg 1889. Notes of Joseph I, 116 and gave. Compare Chistovich, Yubil. brochure pp. 50–52. Zap. Jos. there; Anniversary brochure Council acts, etc. p. 9. Right there. Compare Chpstovicha, Yubil. brochure page 32. Anniversary Broch. Council acts, etc. pp. 11, 12. Chistovich, Yubil. brochure page 53. It goes without saying that in all these synodal acts the name of Philaret of Moscow is written in indelible lines, not to mention his participation in the preparation of these acts. Chistovich, Yubil. brooch, page 53. Anniversary brochure Council acts, etc. pp. 15–30. Compare Chistovich, Yub. brochure pp. 59–64. Broch. Chistovich, p. 64. That is Metropolitan Seraphim. Collection pl. and review Filar. t. additional pp. 65, 66. St. Petersburg. 1887. Readings in General love spirit. enlightenment 1870 book. XII, p. 37 “Materials for the biography of Filaret.” In 1842, Joseph Semashko in Moscow told Filaret that the pope, irritated by the retreat of the Uniate bishops from him, solemnly cursed them during the Uniate bishops, solemnly cursed them during the liturgy, just before the consecration of the holy gifts.” See in Russian. Archives for 1881, vol. II, p. 104. Unfortunately, such an “assumption” also existed in Russian administrative spheres. Collection pl. and review Filar. III, 48–51. St. Petersburg 1885. At the time of the cathedral meeting in Polotsk on February 12, 1839, Mikhail was the vice-chairman of the Lithuanian Consistory and the cathedral archpriest. The same 1839, from September 8, he was already a suffragan bishop of Pinsk, in 1840 of Brest, and from 1848 to 1868 of Minsk. Joseph Semashko himself says that these journeys of the reunited bishops were undertaken by them, among other things, in order to grow hair on their heads and beards during their time, and thereby become even more similar to the Old Orthodox bishops, thereby setting an example for the subordinate clergy. See Zap. Jos. I, 142–143, 134, etc. Letters from Philar. to Ant. I, 341. Moscow, 1877. The same letters, part II, pp. 25, 26. M. 1878. Philaret personally saw Joseph only after that in the summer of 1842 during Joseph’s visit to the Moscow diocese and in 1856 during the coronation, at which Joseph was in Moscow. Letters from Philar. to Ant. I, 420. The vicar at that time was Bishop Vitaly (Shchepetev) of Dmitrov, who at the end of the same 1842 was appointed bishop of Kostroma. Russian Archive 1881, II, 104–105. “The only ideal of happiness that seemed to me,” Joseph himself wrote in 1839, “was to have a house with a garden and a room with books.” Zap. Jos. I, 127. Joseph also expressed this to Philaret during his visit to Moscow in 1842. See Russian. Archive 1881, II, 104. The text of this request can be read in the Note. Jos. I, 127. The text of both of these relations can be seen in the same Notes of Joseph II. 209–212. Closed in August 1843. From Zhirovitsy, a town in the Grodno province, 9 versts from the city of Slonim. From the Notes of Joseph himself, however, it is clear that he mainly had in mind Metropolitan Anthony of Novgorod and Count Protasov. See Zap. Jos. I, 157. Notes from Jos. II, 240–243. The same Notes, vol. I, p. 559 and gave. Page 738–747. These sermons this year (1889) were again published by the Holy Synod in a special brochure along with Anthony (Zubko’s) Memoirs about the Union (St. Petersburg, 1889). Notes from Jos. II, p. 485. For the text of this word, see pages 763–769. About the structure of both the cave church and the new shrine for the relics of St. Saint Joseph took special care of the martyrs because since 1850 he had prepared the place for his burial under their shrine in commemoration of his service to the cause of the reunification of the Uniates with the Orthodox Church. For the text of this word, see Zap. Jos. II, 769–773. Philaret’s vicar at that time was Philotheus, who died in 1882 in the rank of Metropolitan of Kiev. Notes from Jos. II, 507–508. What particular deeds were accomplished by Joseph in 1852, from the time of his elevation to the rank of metropolitan, see ibid. I, 227 - 229. It was allegedly as if back in 1838, during the preparation of the Uniates for reunification, and Macrena, for her disagreement with converting from the Uniate to Orthodoxy, was subjected to torture by Joseph Semashko, etc. See Zap. Jos. II, 594 et al. Zap. Jos.II, 594–612, with the response of Metropolitan Nikanor of Novgorod to this report attached at the end. See the text of these sermons there, on pp. 773 – 782. Letters from Philar. to A. N. Muravyov, p. 470. Kiev, 1869. Only the letter dated May 7, 1844 was addressed to Filaret alone and to gr. Protasov saw things differently. One could fear a Polish uprising. Among the reunited bishops, Vasily of Polotsk was also present at the coronation. For details about this, see Readings in General. ist. and ancient 1869: I, 194 et al. dept. "Mixture"; - Soulful. Read 1883: I, 234, 238–239, etc. The same Zap. III, 1170–1171. See about this in Zap. Jos. I, 242–243. Readings in general love spirit. enlightenment 1877: 111,183 “Materials for the history of the Russian church.” Letters from Philar. to Vysoch. Individuals and other persons, ref. Rev. Savvoy, II, 218. Tver, 1888. Collection pl. and review Filar. vol. V, part 2, pp. 613–614. Moscow, 1888. Collection pl. and review Phil. V vol., part 2, p. 614. Notes from Jos. III, 732–733. Readings in general love spirit. enlightenment 1877, III, 73–74 “Materials for the history of the Russian church.” The same magazine and the same department for 1878, vol. III, p. 216. Letters to Phil. to Vysoch. Special and friend. persons I, 189; compare 191 and gave. In the forties, he was in Vilna at the investigation of the conspirators. See Zap. Jos. I, 262 – 263. See Notes of Jos. II, 542–547 and Collection of opinions and reviews. Filar. IV, 59–64. Moscow, 1886. Collection pl. and review Phil. IV, 64; compare Notes from Jos. II, 593. Collection pl. and review Filar. IV, 58. See in Russian. Antiquity 1885 XLVI vol. p. 328, in the article by A. S. Pavlov about Nazimov. Compare Zap. Jos. I, 263 and Russian. Star. 1885, ХLVI,329. Russian Star. 1885, XLVI, 328. Gorodetsky, now Metropolitan of Kiev. Russian Star. 1885, ХLVI, 328. We mean Philaret’s letters to Archbishop Smaragd, to Bishop Savva of Mozhaisk (in the collection of Letters to the Highest Persons and other persons), etc. Readings in general and spirit. enlightenment 1882, III, 311 “Materials for the history of the Russian church.” Letters from Philar. to Vysoch. Special and other persons I,199. Now the Archbishop of Tver. Collection pl. and review Filar. vol. V, part 2, pp. 978 – 979. Moscow, 1888. Arseny was then Metropolitan of Kiev, who died on April 28, 1876. See our article: “On the 50th anniversary of the reunification of the Western Russian Uniates with the Orthodox Church” in the Church Gazette for 1889, Nos. 13 and 17. Compare. the above and in this article. Sochin. Filar. IV, 31. Moscow, 1882. Op. Filar. V, 44. Moscow, 1885. In this case, of course, in addition to those reunited by the solemn acts of 1839, one and a half million returned from Uniatism to Orthodoxy before and after 1839 in the current century. You might be interested in: