Metropolitan Philaret as administrator and judge in his diocese

In his administrative and judicial activities, Metropolitan Philaret set his leadership under strictly Orthodox church law. In his actions this right found its full application; he himself is the personified law, the living rule. There is another deeply sympathetic feature in this activity of his: this is Filaret’s attitude both to his official activities and to those people who had the good fortune to be his subordinates, managed and flock. From his deep knowledge of law and people, he brought out and strengthened in himself the personal conviction that in activity, in “his actions” - as he liked to put it - everyone must conform to the suggestions of duty, as he is internally recognized by everyone and as externally determined by the law. “Duty and law come first” - this is the motto of the ever-memorable Philaret! With this motto, as a righteous standard, he determined and evaluated, and he equalized both his own actions and the actions of others, no matter what position these others occupied in society, with the difference, however, that being steadily consistent in the application of this principle to himself, he allowed deviation from it in favor of philanthropy and human weaknesses when assessing the actions of others. With the help of precisely this beginning, he always found a direct path to a way out of the most difficult and difficult situations into which his service often, throughout his life, placed him. This great Christian was and remains close to each of his lesser brethren through this feature of his activity. We will not talk about Philaret’s activities as a Member of the Holy Synod, we will not bear in mind his relationship to the Trinity-Sergius Lavra, of which he was the Hierarch-Archimandrite, as well as to the Theological Academy, to which he stood officially in the position of head with administrative, leadership and supervisory authority. We will limit ourselves exclusively to the area that is designated by a special name: “diocesan affairs.” But from this area we exclude all the extraordinary, special works and plans of Philaret to improve the life of the clergy and theological schools (for example, the establishment of guardianship for the poor clergy, an increase in salaries for teachers of religious educational institutions, the establishment of a school by Philaret, etc.): for these matters can each serve as the subject of a special study. We will limit ourselves to the sphere of only ordinary, “current” diocesan affairs. Moreover, we will constantly be guided by the thought that we are referring to the personality of Filaret himself, as the ruler of the diocese, and not to the history of the diocese during the time of his management of it. Accordingly, we see an opportunity to get closer to achieving our goal by considering the grounds on which the Vladyka asserted his administrative-judicial law and his actions in relation to the subordinates and governed, those external means - that is, the organization of diocesan institutions auxiliary to him and the methods of their activity through which his administrative-judicial power was exercised, and consideration of the relationships in which the Vladyka became towards private individuals, according to his actions and special conditions that were subject to his administrative and judicial influence on them. Our church truth in its entirety, as from its sources, is compiled a) from the Divine commandments of Holy Scripture and Tradition, b) from dogmas and canons accepted and approved by the Ecumenical Church, c) from patristic statutes and writings, d) from the laws and statutes of Christian pious kings, e) from conciliar decrees of the Russian Church and f) customs accepted by the Orthodox Church. Correct understanding and following, according to strength and good conscience, these basic sources in their totality, accepted, constitute the truth and judgment of the Orthodox Russian Church. This truth can be strict at times: but a truly Russian person is not afraid of this severity, but loves it. From time immemorial, the Russian Orthodox people hoped to find in it and indeed found strong support and joy in all situations and circumstances of their civil and national-church existence; it was the only thing he believed in and placed his hopes in it, being skeptical of any other truth. The ever-memorable Filaret knew deeply, loved this truth with all his soul and firmly believed in it: in it, in this national church truth, he found the support of his episcopal power and in its name, fearlessly and without hesitation, he was strict and merciful, independent and respectful and kind. We will not talk about how deeply Filaret knew and loved Holy Scripture and Tradition: we leave the judgment on this to specialist theologians and church historians. But we cannot remain silent about Filaret’s attitude to the canons of the Universal Church. He was so often guided by them in his church practice, as hardly any other bishop of the Russian Church was guided. To maintain them unshakably and firmly - this basic principle of the Eastern Church - was primarily the principle of Philaret. Nothing other than constant consultation with this right can explain some of Filaret’s characteristic attitude towards him: He looked at the canons of the Universe. churches not at all as a historical monument and as examples of only church legislation, which are currently needed only as general guiding principles for the theory of church law - a view that is increasingly becoming fashionable - but, on the contrary, directly as an active, practical source of law. In this respect, Filaret in many ways resembles the famous Patriarch of Antioch Theodore Balsamon, who saw the Universe in the canons. The church is not only a practically valid source of law, but also more important than the civil codes and laws emanating from the Byzantine emperors of his time. From this same constant use of canon law stems his clear and independent interpretation of this law, as well as the steadfastness in his conviction based on it, which Filaret repeatedly demonstrated even before the demands of the Holy Synod. Valuing time, we will limit ourselves to just one or two indications of Philaret’s practice in this way. By decrees of the Holy Synod of 1810, February 17. and 1837 31 Jan. it was prescribed that the obstacle to marriage established by the 53rd rule of the Trull Cathedral, arising from spiritual kinship, should be limited to the prohibition of marriages only of the adoptees with the adopted and with the parents of the latter. But then, in 1854, Vladyka received a petition to allow the marriage of godbrothers and sisters. The Bishop refused permission and, in response to the demands for this explanation from the Holy Synod, delivered the following: In order to approve the resolution of the issue on the exact basis of the cathedral rules, I found it necessary to take into consideration both rules of the VI Ecumenical. Council, 53rd on spiritual kinship and 54th on carnal kinship. Rule 54 prohibits, among other things, the marriage of two brothers with two sisters, which constitutes the 4th degree of kinship. But this rule does not say anything about the marriage of cousins, which also constitutes the 4th degree. What to do? Is it really possible to prohibit the 4th degree in one case, and allow the same degree in another? Obviously, this would be incongruous. Therefore, since ancient times, the 54th rule has been accepted in such a way that it prohibits the 4th degree of carnal kinship, no matter in what form it appears. Rule 53 prohibits the marriage of a godfather with the widowed mother of a godson (or daughter) - which constitutes the second degree of kinship. But this rule says nothing about the marriage of a goddaughter with the son of a successor or successor - which also constitutes the second degree of kinship. Here again the same question arises: is it really possible to prohibit the second degree of godparenthood in one case, and allow the same degree in another? Against this incongruity, the 53rd rule must also be taken in the understanding that it prohibits the second degree of kinship in all its forms. This is all the more necessary because the same rule says that affinity in spirit is more important than union in body. Consequently (the above-mentioned marriage) should not be allowed.” – St. The Synod, referring to its above-mentioned decrees, permitted this marriage, but the Bishop could not thereby dissuade him from the “inconsistency” he had found in such a marriage, and when not more than two years after this, in 1856, he again received a request to authorize the same marriage, he again refused it and, in response to the secondary demand of the Holy Synod, pointed out again the same incongruity that he had previously clarified 1 Deeply believing in the indisputable firmness of this canonical foundation of his right, the Bishop fearlessly pronounced his strict judicial sentences on this basis. So he deposed the priest who dared to perform St. in a very drunk state. The sacrament of baptism through fourfold immersion and ordered that Orthodox baptism be performed again on the infant thus baptized. Here is this sentence: "In the 50 Rules of the Holy Apostles it is depicted: if a bishop does not baptize in three immersions with one command, let him be cast out. And the 8th rule of the 2nd Ecumenical Council commands those baptized by more than three immersions to be received as Hellenes, that is, as completely unbaptized. According to these circumstances of the case and the laws, the following must be done: 1) baptized not in three immersions, but in four, to be accepted as Hellenic, that is, not to be recognized as truly baptized, but to be baptized now again according to the exact word of the Lord and according to the order of the Holy Church. The apostles should be deposed and dealt with further according to the laws.” 2). With a deep knowledge and comprehensive application of canon law, Filaret also combined extensive information in the field of domestic civil legislation. It is not enough to say about him that he knew the laws; it would be fairer to admit that these very laws found in him their true spirit, their reason, their real content, their legis mens, their legis ratio. – In 1833, on November 13, the Bogorodskoe Spiritual Board, on the basis of the decree of St. The Synod of 1810 on May 23 presented its opinion on the appointment of two deputies for each deanery district. The Consistory supported the opinion of the Board, relying on this decree and appointed 12 deputies in 6 dean districts subordinate to the Bogorodsky Spiritual Board. But the Vladyka (1854, February 5) left only 4 for the entire Bogorodsky district, adding: “and if somewhere this turns out to be not enough, let the Spiritual Board present why an assistant is needed. An unnecessary multiplication of official people leads more to disorder than to order. The decree orders that there be two deputies for 10 churches or more: consequently, there can be two for 20, when local circumstances do not contradict. More deputies are needed where distances are large. The decree was written for both Moscow and Siberia. Moscow will not receive the Siberian order." 3. - Vladyka often shamed the consistory for its ignorance of decrees and its inability to navigate when encountering several homogeneous but not entirely consistent laws. Even secular high-ranking officials had to receive lessons in jurisprudence from the Vladyka. For example, to Prince Mr. Vladyka, in response to his attitude in 1831, wrote: “his lordship’s review comes, as one must assume, from ignorance of the law. A church once dedicated to God with all the accessories consecrated in it belongs to God and the Church and does not belong to private property and inheritance; and according to the decrees of the Holy Synod, every house church, upon the death of the person who used it, is provided with all the accessories of the local parish church.” 4 “However, respecting the need of a humane institution, the Bishop invited the subject parish church to cede to this institution its right to the prince’s house church and received her consent to this, and the matter was settled.” – In general, Filaret was a guardian and guardian of the law, no matter in what form the latter appeared: jurisprudence is one of his favorite areas. But knowledge of canonical and civil law does not yet cover the entire multilateral ministry of the Orthodox Russian bishop. There are powers, there are responsibilities assigned to him, especially regarding the discipline of the monastic and liturgical, ritual side, which are determined by other sources of church law. These are church statutes, patristic works, decrees of Russian councils and church customs. But which of Philaret’s contemporaries knew, loved and protected them more than him? Was it not through them that he gained universal fame not only among the people and the Russian Church, but also in the Eastern churches, and not only among the Orthodox, but also among schismatics and infidels. He, above all, could testify about himself: he was overly zealous of my fatherly traditions (Galat. I, 14). First of all, upon entering into the administration of the diocese, the Bishop applied his labor to the improvement of his closest judicial-administrative auxiliary institutions, bodies of diocesan authority and, most of all, the Spiritual Consistory, and in its improvement he managed to achieve what could be achieved with art and the most vigilant supervision, having for this purpose the most insignificant material means... Here it is necessary to make some general comments about the structure of our diocesan administration in general. First of all, we must sadly recognize the bitter truth that the Spiritual Consistory is a sore spot in the institutions of our church. We are far from those stereotyped censures, ridicule, mockery with which this body of diocesan administration is heaped both publicly and privately: we are truly perplexed at how these detractors get along with their common sense, sharpening their wit on purely external phenomena (the consistory structure, office work and its officials), without noticing the real reasons that give rise to these external phenomena, and which are hidden deep in the soil of historical, moral and social relations, which they themselves cultivate, support and fertilize, of course, together with our other compatriots. After all, one of these real reasons for the imperfection of the consistory system is, without a doubt, our own ignorant attitude towards the affairs of church government. Did we and our ancestors consider these matters important? From the time of the establishment of the famous Peter the Great “assemblies” to the present day, we have accumulated so many very important matters, concerns and institutions, including personal and public amusement and entertainment, that about diocesan affairs it would not even occur to anyone that these are “important matters.” Our buildings proudly and solemnly stand out in the form of noble and social clubs, theaters, circuses and other institutions, the importance and significance of which for public life and even for public morality is considered an immutable truth, and anyone who dared to declare his skepticism about the importance of this kind of public institutions would expose himself to complete disgrace. What about spiritual consistories? - “What are you talking about, is it worth talking about such trifles!!... In other churches, in other states, the Bishop of a diocese, miniature in comparison with our dioceses, is surrounded by enlightened, well-endowed assistants, experienced experts and learned specialists in their field, to which the latter exclusively should and are called to devote their strength, taking advantage of this, in addition, to the honorable position of “persons preparing to receive the highest initiation.” What about us? In our country, under our diocesan bishop, whose diocese is equal to an entire patriarchate, one consistory with its insignificant staff is considered sufficient, and it is considered completely normal to enroll in its office barely literate proletarians who are unable to be enrolled in military service and do not want or have not had time to enroll in the taxable state 5 . With such an attitude and with such a view of diocesan administration, is it possible to expect that its institutions, its officials will be respectable, disinterested, zealous figures? And if not much better can be said about the present position of the consistory in comparison with what we have now said: then what can we say about the position of the consistory at the beginning of this century, when it became the main assistant, the right hand of Philaret in his administrative and judicial activities in the diocese? Here is Filaret’s own testimony depicting the state of the consistory at first after he entered the government of Moscow. diocese. In March 1829, the Bishop reported to the Holy Synod that “upon his entry into the administration of the Moscow diocese, he found that, according to the consistory, there were about 240 unresolved cases from one year to another; subsequently, with the intense efforts of the consistory, it was reached to the point that there were about 140 of them left. Seeing that even in this number, some cases remain unresolved not due to their necessity.” flow, but because the consistory does not embrace them with its activities, the Bishop made it his duty to delve into the reasons for the imperfect success in affairs and turn to finding means for the successful course of them. According to his note, these reasons are the following: 1) the many cases that happen in it: too twice as many as against the neighboring Ryazan and too three times as much against the Kaluga, 2) the occupation of those present in other positions and, moreover, such, from which they receive food, while they do not receive a salary from the consistory. 3) The poverty of the staffing position of the consistory office, both in the number of people and in the amount of salaries.” – This is an official language, concise, delicate and abstract, giving us only, so to speak, the skeleton, the skeleton of that spiritual-administrative organism called consistory. But try to draw a complete image from this skeleton of a whole organism, illustrate with everyday data of that era these Present Members, “who seek their livelihood from other positions and do not receive a salary from the consistory,” this “scarcity of staff position” and this “many affairs,” and you will get a clear idea of ​​what this right hand of Philaret was like. But we had to be content with what we had and strive to find measures to force the same forces to produce several times stronger. “Waiting for the trustee government,” the Bishop continued in his report, “to find it possible to avert the unfavorable effect of the first two reasons, he finds the following remedy useful for accelerating the affairs of the consistory: 1) for the successful completion of affairs, which the consistory in its current composition cannot embrace with its activities, allow the diocesan bishop to establish, in addition to the Permanent Presence of the consistory, another – the Temporary Presence thereof 2) to separate one of the members of the Permanent Presence from the Temporary Presence of the Consistory and to add to it two Present, newly appointed from the most worthy persons of the local clergy, 3) to transfer to the Temporary Presence some such cases, which, having been completed, remain undecided because the Consistory is in charge of current affairs and does not have time to listen to them and make decisive decisions on them. In this way, the work of the Temporary Presence will: 1) ensure the completeness of the paperwork; 2) make an extract from the laws; 3) make a decisive determination, - 4) From this it is clear that according to the office, these affairs can remain in the same povets 6 in which they were carried out. 5) The secretary or his assistant can report to the Temporary Presence, and in case of special need, you can entrust the position of secretary at the Temporary Presence to one of the most reliable assistants. 6) the definitions of the Temporary Presence have equal force with the definitions of the Immutable Presence. 7) The Temporary Presence will close as soon as the matters that required its assistance are resolved and can be opened again when such matters turn out to be 8) The Temporary Presence, by the very need to be in the same area with the Indispensable; but its meetings will be held at other times, namely in the afternoon. 9) Include service in the Temporary Presence in your service records. “ - Holy Synod of 1829 July gave his “consent” to allow “this means” to be put into effect for the experiment, and the Sovereign Emperor, in his own hand, at the report on this of the Chief Prosecutor (Steph. Dmitry Nechaev) on July 8, deigned to approve with the Highest the determination of the Holy Synod on the establishment in the Moscow Consistory of a temporary presence in addition to the Permanent Presence.” – This is the first administrative measure, or “means” - let’s use the expression of the original document - with which Filaret declared himself in the establishment of his diocese! It was with the intention that we wrote down the project of the Temporary Presence in order to expose this project from the dust of the archives to the light of God, which - given the wretchedness of the projects currently being proclaimed for improving our church structure, we, without hesitation, call a brilliant project. If not in the “form of experience” this “remedy” was allowed to be undertaken only in the Moscow diocese, but to promulgate it with the solemnity appropriate to it as an institution common to all our dioceses and to develop and strengthen the main elements of this project with due completeness, and to give this Temporary Presence itself complete individuality and independence from the consistory - the ability for which is already given by this project: then our spiritual the courts would have been ahead of the civil courts by exactly 34 years, and then Filaret of Moscow would have been the first herald and implementer of the idea, with extraordinary efforts with the combined participation of the best forces of our legal science and practice, implemented by the civil department only in the judicial statutes of the 64th year, which constituted the glory of the previous reign. Let us delve a little closer into the essence of this Temporary Presence. Point 4 of this draft states that the task of the Temporary Presence is 1) to verify the completeness of the paperwork, 2) to make an extract from the laws, 3) to make a decisive determination.” Isn’t it clear that before us is a purely judicial institution, only a judicial one! To verify this, pay attention to what our current District Court is doing: nothing more than checking the paperwork of the preliminary investigation, making an extract from the laws and issuing a decisive ruling. The same 4th paragraph of the draft, as if for the sake of our complete confirmation, at the very beginning says that some such cases are transferred to the Temporary Presence, which, having been completed investigatively, remain undecided: investigatively completed, that is, cases for which the preliminary investigation has already been completed through investigators appointed by the Consistory, at the place of the case that arose and the investigation data, i.e. written testimonies of witnesses and defendants, journals of investigators and their conclusions and reports have already been submitted to the Consistory and are awaiting their turn to the report of the Presence. Isn’t it clear from this that the Bishop, with his project, carried out with complete clarity the beginning of the separation of administration and court: To the Permanent Presence he left exclusively the diocesan administration and the executive part; The Temporary Presence has only one court and nothing more! In the very course of the exclusively judicial process, he with perfect clarity separated the investigative part (i.e., the preliminary investigation) from the second important point, i.e. checking the investigation, ascertaining the facts found out by the court, bringing them under the laws and decisions of the court decision. Please also note that the very composition of the Temporary Presence is completely different from the composition of the Consistory. Among those present in the Temporary Presence, only one is appointed from the members of the Permanent Presence: the other two are completely outsiders to the Consistory; but this one is obviously admitted out of necessity to guide others in judicial technology; paragraph 6 establishes that in case of special need, the position of secretary can be entrusted in the Temporary Presence even to one of the most reliable povetschikov: trace., the court, designed by Philaret, is decisively separated from the consistory office. Clause 9 decides that the Temporary Presence, by necessity, must be in the same area with the Permanent Presence, but its meetings must be held at different hours. This necessity obviously stems from the fact that without the support of the Consistory (precisely one of its Present and one leader) the Temporary Presence could not yet act. But what is worth eliminating the matter of this necessity, for example. at the present time, to have each diocese a completely separate court, independent of the Consistory? You just have to stock up on one experienced person present, a member of the court, and one police officer. After all, this deviation from the main principle was allowed by the project solely because the radical spiritual-judicial reform was supposed to be put into effect without spending a single penny! Unfortunately, I did not have time to stock up on information about the existence and fate of this Temporary Presence until 1841, when, with the introduction of the Consistory Charter, the ingenious project was supposed to be included in the archives; but even if in reality it stood far below the task that the project assigned to it, even if it did not even realize at all, did not understand its true nature, its essence, the project itself, its very theory, the very view of the court, clearly expressed in it, do not, of course, lose a little of their dignity from this. This project, this theory would be an honor and would provide innumerable benefits even today if they were implemented everywhere throughout Russia, and the sooner the better. But let's return to the times of Filaret. Standing taller than his century, this administrator was obviously in the position of one warrior in the field; was a guest, a stranger in a strange monastery, where, according to the proverb, you are not supposed to go with your own charter. By force of necessity, he had to adapt to the orders that had already been established for a long time, to the already firmly established structure and system, that is, to enter into a close alliance with the Consistory, the Spiritual Boards, and the dean fathers. Yes, it was a close union and not without a beneficial effect on these institutions. Filaret held his diocesan subordinate colleagues tightly in his hands. He persistently and energetically demanded diligence in work and accuracy in the performance of the duties assigned to them. Of the cases of dismissal of these officials, perhaps the largest number are those dismissed “for inactivity” and negligence in their service. In the relations between these institutions among themselves, he demanded strict subordination, but not humiliation: so one day he gave a written reprimand to the dean and the secretary of the Consistory for non-compliance with the mutual relationship established between them by law, namely: the dean in his report to the secretary used the phrase “I have the honor to convey,” and the Bishop wrote: “To the dean to make a remark that he should not have approached the Secretary use the expression: “I have the honor to convey,” because the Priest and Dean are not subordinate to the Secretary. To announce to the Secretary of the Consistory that he should not accept papers from the clergy that are inconsistent with the order of rank, so as not to subject the Consistory office to suspicion of the predominance of the clergy." 7 In office work, he demanded, if possible, to avoid complicating writing: "to multiply writing means to multiply burdens and responsibilities - he wrote to the Consistory in 1833 Dec. 23, which sought permission to order the Deans to deliver copies of the clergy records to the Consistory for reference. - It is advisable to avoid this. I take a certificate of affairs for the last year: and this completes the matter." In reports, reports, investigations, Vladyka strictly demanded completeness, clarity and thoroughness; in conclusions, conclusions, evidence - thoroughness and strict and real truth: in this regard, in his resolutions one very often comes across exposures of him in the manipulation of facts, in the sophistical construction of argumentation and casuistry, what kind of evasions Vladyka called it “orderly correctness.” These constant, throughout the Bishop’s life, practical lessons at home, legal education and business techniques, which were listened to by the diocesan institutions subordinate to him with full respect, did not remain fruitless for the latter. At least this should be said regarding the Consistory: comparing the definitions of the Consistory and the resolutions on them of the Bishop from the first and second halves of Philaret’s bishopric, one cannot help but notice how gradually the first (definitions of the Consistory) become fuller, more thorough and more thorough, the second (resolutions of the Bishop) shorter and softer. It is clearly seen that the student listened attentively and took in the teacher’s lessons, and the latter became more pleased with him. Of course, we are far from putting Philaret’s Consistory as a model for such institutions; on the contrary, in our hearts we are even inclined to regret that the Bishop spent too much - so to speak - of his time and energy on treating these sore spots of our diocesan system in general, all the more to regret that this treatment was still only palliative: but it would be unfair not to admit that the Consistory of the times of Philaret, as well as the rest of the mechanism of his administration, with On the external, formal side, it worked no worse than the parallel institutions of the civil department of that time, despite the fact that the latter had incomparably greater funds and were in incomparably better conditions, both material and civil - social, compared to the administrative institutions of the diocesan department. And they owed this, of course, to the intelligence and constant vigilance and energy of Filaret. Among the undoubted advantages of his administrative tact should be included, without a doubt, the fact that he considered it his duty to stand up for the honor and dignity of the administrative institutions subordinate to him, when from the outside they were subjected to undeserved neglect, and in cases of this kind of neglect he noticed, he did not hesitate to teach proper lessons of decency and respect for his official places. So, one landowner Π. A. von-S. according to the condition certified by the Consistory, he undertook to issue the clergy of the parish church, which was in his possession, a salary of 1050 rubles. per year, but refused to fulfill this obligation under various pretexts, and when the clergyman brought a complaint about this to the Consistory, von-Sh. He also rejected the condition itself, arguing that it was not valid because it was not written on legal paper and was not revealed. The Bishop wrote the following about such an argument: "this challenge is not strong because the stooge's affairs, in which the curse is written, are ordered to be carried out even on simple paper, and because the condition was revealed in the Consistory: such an appearance in a public place no less than a broker's confirms that the condition is not forged, but genuine. But let us assume that the reason is an error in the form of the matter: but the gentleman is a nobleman, as a person noble, signed the condition without a doubt in order to fulfill it, and not in order to violate it arbitrarily. No conditions are given for good deeds; and noble and truthful people honestly fulfill the signed conditions, so as not to put a shadow on the honest word of the noble man.” In 1824, Princess widow V.A.Kh. submitted a petition to be assigned to the Serpukhov Vladychny Monastery as a sister with the hope of being tonsured into monasticism. According to the established procedure, the Consistory contacted the relevant public places with demands for information about the identity of the petitioner. As a result, the Kolomna Noble Guardianship notified the Consistory that on its part there were no obstacles to the tonsure of the princess as a monk and that she, the princess, in the information given by the Guardianship, explained that she was 54 years old, had no children with her, had her own fortune, and that the consistory had no right to ask me this - the Consistory, having received this information, made a decision on acceptance princess among the sisters of the said monastery, without mentioning a word about the remark made to her by the princess. But the bishop wrote in this ruling of the Consistory: “The petitioner unfairly and insultingly responded to the Consistory that the Consistory did not have the right to ask her about her years and children, and thus created an unnecessary difficulty. For the Consistory had not only the right, but also the duty to ask about this.” Announce this to the petitioner through the abbess, and if she admits to her unfair act against the Consistory and asks for forgiveness: then only in this case will she prove herself capable of monastic life, and in this case, consider this report approved.” 8 Improving his auxiliary administrative bodies with his instructions and instructions, Vladyka did not do this in order to bring them to a more or less satisfactory state, hand over administrative affairs to them and personally free himself and calm down from them. No, throughout his reign he was personally attentive to all matters: this attention, this personal activity, this tireless, unabated energy is truly amazing, amazing! Leaving aside some other features that we managed to notice when reviewing Filaret’s activities in diocesan administration, we cannot resist mentioning the following. In especially important cases, the Bishop considered it his indispensable duty to consult, ask for opinions, and even directly assist and communicate projects from persons who enjoyed general respect or were personally respected by him. These were predominantly: the rector and professors of the M.D. Academy, whom in his letters Vladyka usually called “brotherhood” 9, the most honorable archimandrites and oo. archpriests of Moscow churches. Of course, all these persons responded with all diligence to the Vladyka’s requests and, listening to them, he was always deeply grateful and grateful, especially when he did not doubt their sincerity, or when he noticed the jealousy and labor of the author in the opinion presented, even though the opinion itself did not essentially satisfy him. These extraordinary advisers and assistants to the Bishop constituted his supreme diocesan council, the presbyterium, which, however, represented a very significant addition to the usual means by which Philaret administered his diocese. Hitherto considering the administrative activities of Filaret from his own subjective-ideal point of view, so to speak; we feel that we have thereby already brought upon ourselves the fair reproach of ignoring the factual side of the matter. We feel that an objection is already ready against us: was it really true that Philaret’s management of the diocese was free from major, glaring shortcomings? Could his consistory, spiritual boards, and deaneries be free from those abuses that these institutions recommend themselves to everywhere? Finally, was Filaret himself so insightful, vigilant, impartial that his subordinates and those controlled by him could not play various tricks at all, could not study him and take advantage of his, so to speak, personal weaknesses and, hiding behind a formal - impeccable appearance, carry out various abuses, for example. bribery, harassment, etc.? We admit that we are little, almost completely unfamiliar with this other side of the matter, that is, with life itself, as it flowed under the leadership of Philaret: we know Him and his activities only from official affairs, from papers. But let it be that there were many dissatisfied with Filaret and his management, who had the right to be dissatisfied. Let it even be that in reality Filaret was far from being a stranger to weaknesses, he overlooked a lot, did not notice a lot, that they could deceive him, they could influence him. Let all this be so, although to our greatest regret. Nevertheless, even if those who expose this other side unknown to us - the facts of life, for their part admit that with his shortcomings, with his weaknesses, Filaret tirelessly strived throughout his entire life for the establishment of legality, truth, goodness, for the eradication of evil and imperfections, that for the sake of this desire he delved deeply, with all attention into affairs, refined his subtle mind in the study of all cunning resourcefulness and lies, in order to learn to discover truth and truth and recognize lies and deception, and that he devoted himself to this desire with complete selflessness, forgetting about his rest, about himself. This cannot be ignored: this is evidenced by the masses of papers he looked through and marked with his hand. But if so, then let all the blame for evil fall on those dark individuals who, with their self-interest, their cunning, managed to deceive Philaret and with their evil deeds cast a shadow on the personality and deeds of the great champion of duty, law and good. These dark facts do not in the least detract from the bright personality and great feat of Filaret by the fact that they were committed under him and around him: they only set off, as a dark background, this bright personality of a fighter for truth and instill in the soul of the viewer the bitter conviction that human malice cannot be completely overcome by the most persistent, most intense and continuous struggle against it. III. With concerns and labors about organizing and improving the forms and procedures of government, Filaret also combined the zealous work of internal management, i.e., direct influence on the souls of the flock entrusted to him with measures of spiritual edification, admonition, admonition, judgment and punishment. In this influence on the Christian personality, the authority of the boss and the judge was everywhere imbued with the character of the Christian shepherd. The Moscow diocese at the beginning of this century in its internal religious and church life presented extremely diverse phenomena: phenomena of deep piety, and positive unbelief and various superstitions. It was a time of some religious excitement, although this excitement for the most part was not so much of a normal, healthy nature as of a pathological, painful nature. The announcements of miraculous, newly-revealed and renewed icons and visions, the proliferation of “readers” - healers of serious illnesses and diseases through superstitious rituals, half-freak monks and pilgrims - “prophets”, the zealous activity of the Khlysty, eunuchs, subbotniks and schismatics - these are the moral ailments among the flock, which made themselves felt quite impressively by those who was, of course, capable of such a feeling. And to meet them from among the monastics and clergy, especially the rural ones, came no less serious illnesses, although of a different nature, such as: rudeness, drunkenness, negligence, neglect of duty, extortion, bribery. These are the pathological phenomena that engulfed Philaret in their entirety immediately upon his entry into the administration of the diocese and... called and called for diligent, intense, experienced and loving work. How did he feel about these phenomena? What kind of means did he use to eradicate them? He looked at them precisely as illnesses, as moral illnesses, and used remedies consistent with this view. He acted against them as an experienced and conscientious doctor. However, let his very deeds speak about this. In 1830, a Moscow priest reported to Vladyka that his parishioner, the merchant G-v, received various kinds of sick people, read the Gospel and various prayers over them, anointed them with oil, and encouraged them to fast on Wednesdays and Fridays. And since the sick receive healing from him, supposedly in serious and unusual illnesses, the number of those who come to him from day to day increases significantly. - The Bishop wrote on the report: "O. The dean should do the following: 1) find G-va's spiritual father and invite him to assist; and if he is not found, then take another clergyman, reliable in his line of work. 2) together with such an employee, announce to G-va what information has reached his spiritual superiors about him, and that this authorities, trying to look at his business from the good side, does not want, if need does not force, to bring him to responsibility before the laws and civil authorities, and wants to spiritually make sure whether his action is vicious and harmless. 3) Then take detailed testimony from him, what prayers and other actions he performs on the sick, on which ones, why, and with what success? 4) If he confirms what he received from the spiritual authorities (in more than one way): then draw his attention to the commandment of the Holy Apostle. James about the sick: let him call the elders of the church and perform prayer over him and on the 26th rule of the Local Council like in Laodicea: no one shall cast a spell unless he has been ordained by a bishop,” and on the interpretation of this rule: “Unless he has been appointed by a bishop to a degree, he cannot cast a spell either in houses or in the church.” - To ask G-va why he began to pray over the sick and to spells in opposition to the above-mentioned word of the apostle and the canon of the conciliar? Will he recognize his actions as wrong, and will he agree, for the sake of obedience to the word of the apostles, the conciliar rule and the holy church, to abandon this custom until he receives the church blessing according to the episcopal, with the help of God, reasoning and discretion? 5) Inspect the prayer church of G-va, St. the icons that are in it, the books he uses: and describe all this briefly, and if anything turns out to require special information, also ask the owner about it. 6) Take information from the confessor from the church confession books, as G-v often does with confession and St. Participles. - G-v in his testimony explained that he treated all diseases in the same way, indicated this very method (he gave oil from the lamp so that the sick would be anointed with it, Epiphany water for drinking, with sometimes adding the smallest particle of dew incense; he read short prayers, covered the sick with a tablecloth and read the Gospel of all 4 Evangelists, read and immediately conceived 5 or more), presented many testimonies and thanks to him for curing serious illnesses that were not cured by famous doctors. “Then, G-v, without any contradiction, admitted his action was wrong and declared consent for the sake of obedience to the apostolic word, the conciliar rule and the Holy Order. church to leave their custom - Vladyka handed over the papers on this case already in 1840 with the signature: “this case died out and that’s the end of the matter” 10. Filaret applied this exact method of action to all such cases; exactly the same - and to cases of the announcement of supposedly miraculous icons, visions, to cases of foolishness and other self-invented methods of asceticism: and he had to encounter many such cases. In essence, this method of action is church reproof and exhortation - the only way of acting on sick members - her children - that does not contradict the moral nature of the church and its authority. But both in the case just presented, and in many others similar to it, Philaret’s method of applying this ecclesiastical exhortation also contains something special, characteristic, which makes this ecclesiastical method very valid and, in fact, irresistible. This is something, firstly, there is sincere respect for the personality of the admonished, which is not suppressed by its superiority, neither by superior, nor even by purely moral authority. In order to clarify the error, the abnormality of the views and actions of the admonished, what is revealed to him here is not the view of the superior on the act of the admonished, not the personal view of an enlightened, educated person, before whom the ignorant - the admonished must necessarily bow: but on the contrary, he is shown the commandment of the Holy Apostle and the rule of one of the most ancient councils of the church. Here, then, the most thorough, comprehensive diagnosis of the phenomenon is made; examination of all circumstances, such as: criticism of books used by superstitious people, criticism of their rituals and actions; the spiritual mood of the admonished person is examined, attention is drawn to his past, his home environment, his attitude towards people. And the results of such diagnoses are presented to the admonished in all their clarity and reality" 11: so that the latter, if he is not a completely immoral person or an idiot, was placed in the position of being unable to resist the reproof. Therefore, the church exhortation supplemented by these features, which we extracted from various cases of Philaret’s practice, we consider ourselves entitled to call “Philaret’s exhortation.” Philaret used similar types of denunciations and admonitions to influence sectarians of various kinds, of the numerous cases related here, we mention the following: In 1827, the priest of the Bronnitsky district of the village of Vertkova O. I.N.-v reported to the Consistory that in that village 19 peasants supported a Jewish sect. The sect started more than 20 years ago, and although various admonitions were used by the local dean and the local priest to eradicate it, according to the orders of the Consistory, all measures remained unsuccessful. Moreover, the sectarians became so bitter against the priest (the predecessor of the present one) that they stole 3 horses from him, burned barns with hay and bread, and the real priest cannot make admonitions because when he enters the houses of the sectarians with a cross, the latter leave them at the same moment. Having received such a report, Metropolitan Philaret first of all elected two respected persons in the diocese, Archimandrite Androniev Monastery and Archpriest of the Church of the Three Hierarchs, instructing them to draw up a plan of missionary activity in relation to the above-mentioned sectarians. The chosen persons zealously fulfilled the assignment entrusted to them and presented an extensive plan of action, which contained: extensive extracts from the Bible, a special prayer ritual that should be performed in the parish church before the exhortation; questions and answers outlining the course of the denunciation and exhortation itself, and then quite extensive accusatory literature is indicated with a special recommendation for the missionary of the “Enlightener” Joseph of Volokolamsk. – Having looked at this plan, Vladyka responded about it as follows: “The instructions presented by the archimandrite and archpriest were drawn up carefully and for that we are grateful to them. But, in my opinion, there is no urgent need to compose a new prayer service; and it is inconvenient to arm a missionary with someone else’s preaching and someone else’s reasoning and solutions to objections that are still truly unknown; but this must be submitted to his own reasoning and excitement of the spirit. Therefore, the instruction to use the shorter one, which is also attached.” Here are some of the rules of this instruction, which can rightfully be indicated as the true Orthodox Church way of admonishing people outside the church. “1) Anyone appointed to this ministry (i.e., missionary) must first try to acquire sufficient information about the main opinions of the Judaizers and about the grounds on which they think to establish them, so that, based on this information about errors, they can in advance draw from the word of God and the teachings of the Holy Father what is most necessary for the admonition of the lost.” “5) Having arrived at the place, first of all he will perform a sacred service in the parish church and offer prayer especially for the grace of the Holy Spirit, who guides into all truth.” "6) At this liturgy, it is appropriate to have a short, intelligible word about the only way of salvation of the soul through our Lord Jesus Christ, the incarnate Son of God, who suffered and died for us and for us to rise again. This word should be aimed at ensuring that Orthodox listeners, inspired by the thought of the saving dignity of their faith, are firm against false teachers and assisted the preacher of the truth with prayer and goodwill.” “7) It is desirable that the missionary, with the help of a local priest and well-disposed Orthodox parishioners, start conversations with the Judaizers about faith without any participation from the civil government, starting with those who are less bitter and, through convincing them, gradually attracting others.” “12) The missionary reports his actions in detail directly to the diocesan bishop every two or three weeks, and in cases of difficulties or doubts directly from the bishop or from the Consistory, he demands instruction and permission, depending on the need.” “15) A faithful servant of the truth will not forget that evil can only be overcome by good, and therefore he will respond to contradictions with patience and kindness; if the first attempt at exhortation is unsuccessful, he will not become discouraged, but will maintain the firmness and constancy characteristic of a good enterprise; he will not bind his spirit with thoughts of his own self-interest or honor, but will infuse it with zeal for the glory of God and love for mankind, placing in God both the hope of help and the hope of reward.” - Missionary (Archpriest V. I. B-n exactly fulfilled this instruction and in a short time managed to return all the sectarians of the village of Vertkova to the Orthodox Church. In a secret report to his Vladyka, he reported, among other things, the following: “Of the measures used in exhortation - by the sectarians’ own admission - the one that had the most effect on them was the condescension and kindness observed during this process. This - they said - put us in such a state that we could freely reveal to you all our bewilderments and, without embarrassment, could listen and understand the explanation of what was previously instilled in us in a wrong way. If, they said, it had been done to us with ardor, or in a domineering manner, it would only have moved us more and embittered us, and then we would not have been able to accept the truth, even if we were told more than what we heard from you.” - The Bishop was very pleased with such actions of the archpriest and at the presentation on this matter he wrote: “May God bless Father Archpriest for his good deed, and may he continue to send him his holy help in every service of the Holy Church. Now it is necessary that he and with his advice the local priest try to confirm the converts on the path of truth by renewing instructions in due time with meekness and diligence. the priest, by the way, should pay attention to the fact that neither he nor others reproach the converts for their previous error, but treat them with love and thank God who sought them. of the above-mentioned, to send him a decree so that he and the local priest for his assistance would declare the gratitude of his superiors” 12. “This is how Vladyka treated the erring in those harsh times, when these erring ones were treated by civil institutions as serious criminals, when police officials, by searching for and prosecuting them, rose to high ranks and made fortunes... Another kind of ailment, who incomparably more often forced the Bishop to “delve into” their ailments, both by the nature of these very ailments and by the ecclesiastical position they occupied, were monastics and clergy, who were subject to trial for their misdeeds and crimes. Filaret's courts represent so many interesting things in our church judicial practice in general that they alone are worthy of special study. Based on them, a practical guide could be compiled for diocesan judicial practice. For from the cases he examined and decided, it is possible to compile a very complete list of subjects of diocesan jurisdiction, indicate very important features in the process itself, note some features in the method of application and interpretation of church rules and laws, calculate and determine the types and types of church punishments. The intended size of the article does not allow us to go into a detailed description of these courts, especially since with such a description we would have to repeat much of what we have already indicated, albeit in general terms. This is, firstly, the Vladyka’s amazing attention to detail, the details of the process, and secondly, also a deep sense of truth and legality - traits that characterize all his other works. Let us note only the following as new features that are revealed with particular clarity in his courts. Vladyka was distinguished by his remarkable faith, so to speak, in the goodness of human nature, and because of this faith, he apparently did not abandon the hope that even the most vicious person could be corrected, if only one could influence him in the proper way. That is why in his courts he, in very rare cases, resorted to decisive punishments; Most of his punishments are correctional. Often, in the verdict itself, he hinted (or even directly expressed) to the defendant that it was possible for him again, subject to certain conditions, to return the benefit that he was deprived of by the court verdict. – Further, Vladyka did not differentiate between the defendants based on their external position. He dealt with the process of the princess and the process of the courtyard boy or sexton with the same attention. This trait of impartiality is especially attractive in such a person as the stately, stern-looking Filaret. This feature is revealed especially expressively in the following two court cases. a) In 1832, Moscow corrected the post. The chief police officer informed Vladyka that the sexton of the Vvedenskaya Church on Lubyanka, M.V., had beaten the student shoemaker, peasant Prince Dolgorukov, who, on behalf of his master, had brought boots to the sexton. During interrogation, the sexton testified that he did not beat the boy at all, but while putting on a new boot, which was quite tight, he accidentally hit the boy in the forehead with his hand (however, the wound was very large). Since there were no witnesses and the peasant could not formally prove his complaint, the litigants arranged a settlement. The consistory made the following determination on this: 1) from the sexton and peasant, on the basis of a decree of 1795 April. 18 to collect 10 kopecks. world duties and send them to state revenue. 2) But since the sexton allowed himself an act intolerable not only in the spiritual, but also in the secular rank and, locking himself in it, he could not help but admit that when he took off his boot, he grabbed (?) the boy until he bled, and this could not happen without anger and passion: then, in order to teach him humility and meekness, send him to David’s hermitage for two weeks with the use of menial work." - The Bishop wrote on this determination of the Consistory: "Amazing justice! They killed a peasant and they want to collect a hryvnia from him for nothing, for nothing. The settlement fee is taken when someone files a claim and the case is initiated, and then submits a request for settlement. There is a reason for the settlement duty, because the person making peace bothered the present place. The law wants to ward off empty requests through this. But the beaten peasant did not submit a single request to the Consistory, and a peace record made outside the court at the request of the clerk only does honor to the peasant, and the murderer’s sexton does not deserve to be in the capital. Remove him from his place and give him a month to find him in the village, and if he doesn’t find him, assign him to the village at the discretion of the authorities.” 13 b) The deacon of the village of Sh., located on the border of the Moscow and Tver provinces (Klin district), was put on trial for the following incident: on the night of March 23-24, he went to a drinking house in the Tver province. for buying wine and vodka; but having got hold of both of them there, on the way back he was captured with his burden by a wine merchant from a drinking house in the Moscow province. and was detained here all night. The deacon’s crime was that, contrary to the law in force under the tax farming system, he decided to secretly bring into his county wine purchased in another county. - The priest of the village of Sh. and the sexton reported to the dean about the detention of the deacon with wine and vodka in the drinking house, and the latter presented it further to the authorities. However, the sexton did not sign the report and during the investigation gave two different testimonies: in the first he said that he did not agree to submit a report and told the priest that when they ask us, then he will show what is needed; and in the second testimony he said that he agreed with the priest to file a report, and the first testimony was made by him out of oblivion. - The accused deacon admitted to taking wine and vodka from a drinking house in another province and did this because the wine seller of that house, through an acquaintance, lent him these drinks. And he needed drinks for those who came to congratulate him with permission from the burden on the 21st of that month for his wife, and the baptism of the baby was performed on the 24th, on which, after the sun had set, he went to the drinking house of the Tver lips. Upon his return with these drinks, a wine seller who came out from the Moscow side took wine and vodka from him, the deacon, and he, the deacon, followed him to explain the reason why he took those drinks to Tver. lips., and, upon inquiry by the wine seller, the drinks were returned to him and he came home. “The consistory determined: “The deacon, for the above-mentioned actions that discredit the clergy, should be sent to the Pesnoshsky Monastery under supervision for two weeks, and the sexton, for contradictory testimony in the case, in order to be more straightforward in the future, should also be sent under the authority to the Boris and Gleb Monastery for a month.” - But the Bishop wrote in this ruling of the Consistory: “The deacon acted badly; but at the trial it is necessary to take into account human weaknesses. His wife has given up, it is necessary to receive guests; there is no money: it is very natural to turn to the wine seller, who believed in the debt. The circumstances, as it seems, took pity on him, and those who own the interesting 14 lawsuit in this case, and did not cause the deacon much trouble. Put the deacon in the Klin Cathedral, 100 bows and instill in him in the Spiritual Board with a signature that it is much better to celebrate the birth of a child without wine, than with wine purchased illegally, to be detained in a drinking house. - The sexton fell into confusion, apparently because he hesitated between pity for the deacon and between obedience to the priest. heteroglossia and acted truthfully" 15. Here we will stop in our depiction of the administrative activities of the ever-memorable Philaret, believing that the features we have indicated, when combined and compared together, can give some definite, although of course far from complete, idea of ​​the nature of this activity. We focused almost exclusively on considering Filaret’s attitude towards the negative phenomena of church life in the diocese, and we did this because Filaret was primarily concerned with these phenomena, and that in reality the largest part of his administrative activity relates to them. He primarily “delved deep into” them, tried to destroy their harmful influence, or at least weaken it, generally striving more to introduce those who lagged behind him into the general, established and supported by him, system and course of life, than to move this very system and course forward, applying it to discovering growth and progress in the best members of the society he governed and leaving the laggards to the mercy of fate. This circumstance, apparently, imposes a special shade, imprints with a special character all of Philaret’s administrative activities in the diocese. Apparently, the main task of his administration was to preserve and protect the existing Status quo, in order to paralyze attempts on it by the weakest individual members and constantly introduce their activities and relationships into those norms that are currently considered necessary conditions for the existence of the whole, i.e., society, leaving it to the future or even individual, out-of-the-ordinary individuals to develop privately - without disturbing the existing structure of the whole - new norms, a new better system, the universal implementation of which must again be left to the future. And that in carrying out this administrative task, Filaret achieved brilliant and lasting results - this, it seems, is already evidenced by the general recognition of all who knew him, all who wrote about him, both his admirers and supporters, and people of views opposite to him. That Filaret managed to instill - so to speak - in the minds of his governed and subordinates the conviction of the need to respect the law, no matter how outdated it may seem to the subjective view - while from - the law, to equally respect those rights and duties, as well as the mutual relations determined by them - which are based on this law, in a word - that he managed to instill the consciousness of the need for external discipline and the duty of obedience in the sphere under his jurisdiction - this, it seems, does not require proof. This direction of administrative activity is usually called conservative. In the absence of another, more appropriate term, we can perhaps admit that the dominant direction in Filaret’s activities was conservative. But that he was a conservative in the best sense of the word - this also, apparently, cannot be doubted and, let us allow ourselves to think, is clearly confirmed and evidenced by the features of his activity that we have indicated. His conservatism is completely alien to those shortcomings that are usually associated with this trend by figures of the opposite camp, that is, it is also alien to that unconscious predilection for existing and established forms and orders, which arises simply due to the fact that these are forms and orders that have already been established, and that hatred, intolerance to everything new, which stems from the fear that with the destruction of the existing order, the current norm will probably have to lose all order, all norms. – Many features of his activities contradict such narrow conservatism, and if you look more closely, deeper, so do all of his activities. In fact, isn’t the dominant feature of all this activity and of Philaret’s very personality an amazing attention, comprehensive and subtle criticism of each phenomenon? But the critical mind calmly gets along with any statu quo, just not with its shortcomings: it carefully notes the latter in this statu quo, indifferent to whether they relate to a long-established system or to a newly introduced, fashionable system that has just been introduced into life. This is why it seems to us that it is impossible to apply the notorious method of characterization to Filaret’s activities by classifying him as a conservative or liberal. He had a somewhat special point of view: in the selection and assessment of events and opinions, he was guided by strict prudence - “having carefully delved into” - rejecting what seemed to him - let’s use his expression - “inconsistency”; and if he held fast to certain forms and orders, it was because in other forms and orders he found more of these “inconsistencies.” In the entire administrative activity of Metropolitan Philaret there are no major transformations, in particular there is no this - so to speak - initiatory fervor, noisy speeches about existing shortcomings and about the urgent needs of transformations with which liberal administrators like to decorate themselves: but for that, all his activity is essentially an improvement, a transformation of the existing. The improvement is carried out imperceptibly, and certainly without any noise, but is carried out energetically, relentlessly and not only without fear, but on the contrary, with the firm conviction that the introduced transformation is precisely an improvement. But it is not the external form, not the type and direction of activity that creates the moral value of a public figure, but personal feat, imbued with love and selflessness, and brought to public service as a personal duty. It is this quality that distinguishes the best among public figures with particular obviousness, with particular sharpness. It makes the merit of such figures clear and understandable to the simple mind, which does not know how and is not accustomed to dividing the human race into classes invented by educated people. Such the best of the figures enjoy fame and popularity during their lifetime and, when they die, do not sever their connection with the survivors, but support the union with them by spiritual inheritance, a spiritual testament as an eternal inheritance to these living ones left behind. And the ever-memorable Saint Philaret, withdrawing from the midst of the living, did not leave them without a spiritual inheritance and without a spiritual testament. Who are these heirs, what kind of inheritance is this and what is this will? – These heirs are the entire Russian Church, the entire Orthodox Russian people. This inheritance is his deeds accomplished in the field of episcopal service, which he passed among the entire Russian people, rejoicing in their joys, crying and lamenting with them, and in these deeds his spiritual testament is hidden. If his contemporaries knew him as a strict hermit, whose life was spent in the church and cell: then we, those who are left behind, understanding the legacy left by him in his deeds, clearly see that in his spirit he condescended to the modest dwelling of a remote rural poor man, a sexton and a peasant boy, and in this dwelling he saw and brought out of it into the light of God compassion and love. And here his first testament opens before us: to love a Christian soul, no matter what black body it inhabits. If his contemporaries saw him adorned with ecclesiastical robes and signs of royal attention and mercy above all the exalted hierarchs; then we, understanding his deeds, cannot help but notice a certain scarlet robe and a crown of thorns, woven and woven from incessant care, from continuous feat, worn only in order to fulfill the duty, his service, according to the Apostle, is known to be done. And here his second testament is revealed to us: without grumbling and fatigue, until death, to bear the burden of the cross and the debt bequeathed to us by God. And all true Russian people know you, holy saint of all memory - your heirs; and each of them, bringing to memory your ascetic life, brought to the church and the fatherland, in deep reverence bows his head before your tomb, as before a church and deep national shrine. Case 1851 June 11 and Case 1856 Dec. 2. Rukop. pp. 55–57. Case 1825 24 Sep. Rukop. pp. 106–1(7. Part I. The matter was about moving the house church of Prince Yuri Vladimirovich Dolgorukov to Razumovsky’s house on Gorokhovoye Pole, where an “Institution for the care of orphans left behind by officials who died from cholera” was set up. The heiress of Prince Dolgorukov’s house, Princess Saltykova, donated her husband’s house church to this charitable institution. Handwritten pp. 611–613. See Code. Zach. 1857. T. IX, art. 291, 274. The pre-reform (i.e., existed before 1841) consistory had the following internal structure: it was divided (i.e., the Presence itself) into 2 expeditions, each of which was divided in turn into povetyas (six povetyas). Each povet had its own Present Archimandrite or Archpriest and its own povet, i.e., an official corresponding to the current chief. Each povetia had jurisdiction over a certain number of monasteries and parish churches throughout the diocese and, in addition, was in charge of certain general affairs affecting the entire diocese. In general, the distribution of work among the districts was based on individual institutions of the diocese, and not on affairs. Rukop. pp. 139–140. Case 1833 Apr. 14. The princess refused to make an apology: the matter of admission to monasticism was delayed for this reason. Then the princess left the monastery, where she had already arranged comfortable cells for herself from the old monastery ones. Then she completely abandoned her intention to join the monastery and made a demand for the return from the monastery of the money previously donated to it and used to rebuild the cells. This started a very long and interesting case. Rukop. pp. 67–82. Part I “Peace to the Father Rector and the brethren” is his usual greeting. Rukop. pp. 422–424 and pp. 223, 224. The Holy Synod, on the proposal of Philaret, as a reward for the conversion of the renegades to Archpriest Fr. B-vu applied for the royally granted purple kamilavka. – In exactly the same way and with the same success, the conversion of the Molokans of the village of Nikonovsky of the same i.e. Bronnitsky district was accomplished around the same time. Hand. p. 332, and the case of 1828. September 7 - ibid. At the strong request of the parishioners for a sexton, he was then left in the capital, spending only a week in menial work in the Pereriin monastery. Handbook, pp. 134–136. You might be interested in: