His Grace Eusebius (Orlinsky), Archbishop of Mogilev, former rector (1847-1850) of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy

Eusebius (Orlinsky) left behind a good memory of a wise and gracious archpastor, but for the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, where he was rector and professor, he appeared as a stranger and, it seems, lived and left it somewhat alien. He was called Evoimiy in Mir and was the son of sexton Polykarp Evoimievich Orlinsky (who died in 1833 as a deacon at the previous church) in the village of Chernoga, Tula province, where he was born on December 21, 1806. 1 Having grown up here, he always maintained a spiritual disposition towards this place, they helped with money, took care of it by building a church, 2 tried to gain and beg for opportunities for being on business trips, 3 bequeathed his books there, 4 etc. He studied first at the nearby Belevsky Theological School, and in 1822 he moved to the Tula Seminary and studied there theological, philosophical, verbal, historical, mathematical and languages: Hebrew, Greek, Latin and German. For the entire seminary period, Evoimy Orlinsky was on a half-money salary and - due to the disorganization of the seminary dormitory - received a salary of 60 then rubles. The young man’s studies were successful and were so valued by his superiors that from September 9, 1826. until the very end of the seminary course, he was entrusted with the duties of a “lecturer” for the middle Greek class, which title existed then on the basis of § 37 of the charter of 1814 5 and sent out in 1818 through the district academic boards of a special order of the Commission of Theological Schools; Evoimy Orlinsky - in addition to his half-cost salary - received 60 rubles for his lectures. per year. During the audit of the Tula Seminary in July 1828, Professor F.A. Golubinsky († August 22, 1854) drew attention to the zealous student-lecturer and chose him to be sent to his Moscow Theological Academy, and 100 rubles were spent on equipment, 10 rubles were given. for travel expenses and runs for one horse, and in addition a half-cost salary until August 15 and a lecturer salary until September 1, 1828. Apparently, the Tula Seminary valued its pet - and the latter justified this attention, even if the seminary’s staff doctor, who testified to Evoimy Orlinsky, certified that the pain in his chest he felt was due to a weak build and, perhaps, from excessive studies in the sciences, although “he has no obvious illness.” At the Moscow Theological Academy, Evoimiy Orlinsky, as part of the eighth graduating class (1828–1832), attended the highest course in theological sciences, philosophy, church literature and general church and civil history, and also studied the Hebrew, Greek and German languages, and was always distinguished by his pious and scientific zeal, self-possessed character 6 and good disposition; 7 he graduated as the seventh master, having as his comrades Timofey Uspensky, after Metropolitan Philofey of Kyiv († January 29, 1882), A.V. Gorsky († October 11, 1875) and others. Due to the pious inclination of Euthymius of Orlinsky, even before leaving the academic walls, he hastened to take monasticism and tonsure on May 29, 1832 with the name Eusebius in honor of the hieromartyr, Bishop of Samosata (late 4th century), who is glorified as “meek and gentle, humble-wise and quiet,” “filled with divine love,” so that, “reproaching the Aryans like-minded people,” he was ready to accept “a needy death.” All these features attractively corresponded to the inner mood and entire character of the young monk, 8 who on June 1 was ordained by Philaret of Moscow as a hierodeacon and on the 3rd as a hieromonk, and on August 29 by an academic conference he was promoted (with the approval of the Commission of Theological Schools) to a master's degree (later, receiving the master's cross in the usual manner) and appointed inspector 9 and professor of church history and Greek language to the Bethany Theological Seminary, 10 where (- according to his request and the petition of the board of October 28 -) from November 20, 1833 from the second he was transferred to the Hebrew language class, exchanging with his brother Ivan, 11 but at the end of 1834 - in return for this subject - he was entrusted with teaching pastoral theology. 12 For his labors here, Fr. Eusebius was distinguished by the fact that on September 15, 1833, he was awarded the title of cathedral hieromonk at the Stavropegial Donskoy Monastery on August 13 and 26, 1836. “For zeal in vigilant supervision of the morality of the students” of the Bethany Seminary, he received the approval of the Commission of Theological Schools. When he was Bethany inspector, Fr. Eusebius, - according to the decision of the seminary board on May 22, 1834, - reviewed (from July 9) the Dmitrov and Zvenigorod schools and presented a detailed report on them with comments on all parts, and on top of this he returned back the 20 rubles he had not spent. banknotes from the sum of one hundred rubles issued to him for travel... November 25, 1834 Fr. Eusebius was transferred as an inspector and professor of philosophy to the Moscow Seminary, but there he also had to oversee the renovation of the building for the newly opened Don Schools in Moscow, for which on February 21, 1837 the Commission again expressed gratitude to him. 14 The teaching career was sufficiently recommended by Fr. Eusebius, - and on August 31, 1838, he was transferred as an inspector and bachelor of theological sciences to his native Moscow Academy, where he was under the vigilant control in his service by the benevolent Metropolitan Philaret, on October 15, 15, he was awarded the rank of archimandrite, and in the same month he was determined to be a full member of the academic conference, in July 1840, he reviewed the Nizhny Novgorod and Saratov Seminaries on May 17 and 30 elevated to the degree of extraordinary professor. 18 After Filaret (Gumilevsky), who on October 7 transferred to the department of vicar of the Pskov diocese as Bishop of Riga, Fr. Eusebius, from September 14, 1841, held the position of rector at the Moscow Academy and on November 17–25 was assigned to it by the Holy Synod, retaining his professorship in theological sciences; - although at the request of Chief Prosecutor Count N.A. Pratasov dated October 9, 1841 Metropolitan. Filaret recommended other persons: Joseph (Bogoslavsky, † February 19, 1892, Archbishop of Voronezh in retirement), Nikodim Kazantsev († June 11, 1873, Bishop of Yenisei in retirement) and Theognost (Lebedova, † April 22, 1869, Archbishop. Pskovsky), 19 but then he decided differently. 20 April 9, 1842 Fr. Eusebius was also appointed rector of the Moscow second-class Epiphany Monastery and on October 10 of the same year he received a blessing from the Holy Synod for his zeal, abilities and moral character, awarded to Metropolitan. Philaret's full approval, on the occasion of his review of the Moscow Academy. In the latter, from April 1845, Fr. Eusebius was a member of the construction committee for the construction of a bathhouse and cast-iron staircases, in student premises called “chambers” he separated special bedrooms (in 1847) and participated in the construction of an academic house in the monastery courtyard (on Ilyinskaya Gora). 21 Outside the immediate academic sphere, but in close connection with the compulsory academic service, he repeatedly audited various Seminars of the Moscow Theological Educational District: - in July 1843, Tula, Ryazan and Kaluga, in July 1845, Kostroma and Vologda, 22 in July 1846, Vifanskaya). 23 August 31, 1845 Fr. Eusebius from the Epiphany Monastery was transferred to the abbot of the second-class Vysokopetrovsky Monastery, with the awarding to him personally of the degree of first-class archimandrite. 24 Metropolitan Philaret, having “a good opinion about the actions of Eusebius and the state of the Academy” of Moscow under him, 25 apparently favored Eusebius, 26 - and a wider field soon opened up for him when the St. Petersburg academic rector was vacated 27 for the transfer of Bishop Athanasius (Drozdov) of Vinnitsa to Saratov on January 13, 1847 department Of the three candidates, Eusebius, recommended by Metropolitan. Philaret, stood first before the rectors of the St. Petersburg Seminary Theognost (Lebedev) and the Vladimir Seminary - Polycarp (Sosnin, † January 18, 1868) and was highly approved on January 17, 1847 by the Bishop of Vinnitsa with rectorship in the Shargorod Spassky Nikolaevsky first-class monastery of the Podolsk diocese, and at the request of St. Petersburg Metropolitan Anthony (Rafalsky, † November 16, 1848), the Spiritual Educational Administration appointed on January 21 the rector of the St. Petersburg Academy. 28 He parted with Alma Mater, with parting words from Metropolitan. Philaret “blessed and wished success to his service wherever God’s Providence and sacred power call,” 29 and arrived in St. Petersburg on February 24 at 6 pm and took up his academic position on the 25th, then on the 30th signing a “sworn promise” as “Newly determined Rector of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy Archimandrite Eusebius.” On March 9, 1847, his consecration followed in the Kazan Cathedral of Metropolitan. Anthony with those present (1843 - 1848) at the Synod, the Right Reverends Venedikt (Grigorovich) Olonetsky († December 7, 1850), Iliodor (Chistyakov) Kursky († February 2, 1861) and Gideon (Vishnevsky) Poltava († October 11, 1849 g.) and with the vicar of St. Petersburg, Bishop of Revel Naoanail (Savchenko, † March 4, 1875 in Chernigov). Along with this, Reverend. Eusebius was supposed to replace his predecessor as chairman of the committee to review notes on the teaching of academic subjects in Seminaries (from April 7, 1847, according to the proposal of Count N.A. Pratasov), 31 where he worked a lot, 32 and on the main supervision of the teaching of the Law of God in secular educational institutions in the capital and its environs (from March 15). 33 He also had to leave St. Petersburg, for example, in the summer of 1849, when Eusebius was sent to inspect the Pskov, Mogilev and Smolensk Seminaries, but then he asked to continue the business trip - partly to improve his health, especially to inspect the church he had roughly built in his native village 34 and to visit his no less native Moscow Academy; 35 he returned back on August 9 and presented detailed reports on all the Seminaries he had audited. 36 In general, the St. Petersburg period proceeded very successfully with the unflagging benevolence of the highest authorities. More on the candidatures for the Vinnitsa vicariate, Count N.A. Pratasov most submissively reported that it was Eusebius who had the “preemptive right”, “whose work and trustworthiness in the education of youth attracted the special attention of the members of the Holy Synod,” and in the rescript on April 3, 1849 on awarding the Order of Anna, 1st degree, special mention was made of “his merits in managing successively two academies and preparing the youth formed in them for a worthy passage holy orders." The authorities clearly valued the well-appointed St. Petersburg rector; at the end of 1848 they thought about the latter when replacing the Riga bishopric (after Philaret, who was transferred to Kharkov on November 6, 1848) 37 and in 1850 after the release of the Nizhny Novgorod see (after the death of Yakov Vecherkov, † May 20, 1850), 38 and then They wished to see in him the good organizer of the new diocese of Samara, where he was assigned on the day of the Highest command on the opening of the latter - December 19, 1850. - soon after the formation of the Samara province. 39 However, “Reverend. Eusebius looked at his appointment as a disfavour towards him and an insult to the St. Petersburg Metropolitan Nikanor”; 40 further, Filaret of Moscow consoled that in this way “the best was arranged for the Samara diocese, and we congratulate it more than him,” 41 although he himself grieved that Eusebius was sent not to Nizhny Novgorod, but “to the burnt-out Samara,” 42 to the “conflagration,” 43 and Filaret (Gumilevsky) saw in this a direct “temptation.” 44 And, indeed, a difficult field lay ahead in Samara, where everything had to be started again, and Rev. Eusebius stopped by Trinity on his way to refresh his spirit. In Samara there was not even a decent room, and the bishop, having arrived there on March 28, 45, had to temporarily take shelter with the governor St. Gr. Verkhovsky († September 15, 1858) 46 in “the corner of his apartment of small rooms” and then wandering around in a “rented hut,” 47 enduring even malicious troubles. 48 On March 30, 1851, he established the Samara diocesan administration, on Palm Sunday on the 31st, the Samara diocese was opened, 49 on April 1, they solemnly performed the first sacred service in the Church of the Ascension, converted into a cathedral, 50 and cheerfully set to work, despite the labors and sorrows, 51 if only for the fact that on January 7, 1852. During the liturgy, the house where the Rev. had just settled down burned down. Eusebius, who started the house church of John the Evangelist there. 52 His active energy strikes me as a pleasant surprise. The archpastor wanted to personally study his diocese, and every year he made repeated trips to all the nooks and crannies, 53 which is why, having great memory and observation, he knew the statistics of the province better than anyone else. Through his care and concern, a women’s monastery was founded in Buzuluk and in honor of the Iveron Mother of God in Samara, 54 for which the construction of the cemetery Church of the Intercession was prepared, 55 and all measures were taken to establish the Nikolaevsky Monastery for men. 56 The Theological School transferred from Stavropol received special care, but Eusebius proposed the opening of the Seminary, which took place after his departure to Irkutsk. 57 For the protection of the Orthodox and out of Christian zeal, the Reverend. Eusebius paid a lot of attention to missionary work, he himself talked with Molokans in villages near churches (for example, in Berezovyi Gai, Yablonovy Vrag, Tyagly Ozero, etc.) and turned to Orthodoxy, managing to spread its light among the Chuvash and Mohammedans. Eusebius “firmly and thoroughly laid the foundation of the Samara Church,” 58 and, after a long time, he was remembered there with reverence and love. 59 Teaching and personal authority stood very high in all circles, and A.V. Gorsky, calling Eusebius “the good Lord,” was sure to hear only wonderful things about him, 60 and the former chief administrator of the institutions of the Empress Maria, the Protestant K.K. Grot wrote to him on January 15, 1868: “I always remember with pleasure the years spent in Samara and meeting Your Eminence is one of the brightest aspects of these memories. Rarely has it happened since then that I have met people with whom personal relations were as gratifying and comforting as conversations with Your Eminence.” Missionary works led to the fact that on November 3, 1856, Eusebius was transferred as Bishop of Irkutsk and Nerchinsk. At first this greatly shocked the ruler of Samara, as if he was being neglected, and his complaints made a grave impression that he was a pretentious and dissatisfied person. 61 In general, it was hard for him to part with the Samara flock, which on December 14, during the farewell service in the cathedral, literally sobbed the whole church, and to go to terrible Siberia with the painful feeling that they “wanted to remove him from people.” 62 But Met. Philaret saw here the goodwill of the authorities, 63 and the then Exarch of Georgia Isidore (Nikolsky, † September 7, 1892 Metropolitan of St. Petersburg) reasoned that “God is leading Eusebius along a special path. In Irkutsk, an apkhiepe with remarkable abilities is needed to convert the pagans. Eusebius is quite suitable for this... It is true that a lot of work will be required, but priests are sent for work, and not for peace.” Eusebius left Samara 64 on December 15, 1856 and sufficiently justified these hopes with his jealousy from the very day of his arrival in Irkutsk on January 17, 1857, and in the eyes of his friend A.V. Gorsky henceforth became the “hierarch of the Orthodox East.” 65 His own letter to Metropolitan speaks well about his Siberian activities. Filaret dated December 15, 1858, i.e. just two less than a year after the resettlement. Here we read: 66 “Only two days have passed since I returned from this year’s last journey, which extended northwest from Irkutsk along the Moscow highway, both ways until the 1400th century. I was supposed to go there in the second half of summer; but an unexpected trip to Kyakhta prevented the assumption from being fulfilled. On some days, frosts that reached over 30 degrees made travel quite difficult. However, with the help of God, except for one day, on all days I celebrated liturgies in rural churches, which are warm everywhere, and in other villages I celebrated the all-night vigil. The entire retinue that was with me - choristers and deacons - consisted of ten people. The special purpose of my trip was to get acquainted with one newly elected Taisha, a Lamai, 67 who took the place of his father, who was baptized and promised a lot of good influence in converting his department of Buryats to Christianity. The new Taisha welcomed me into his retinue cordially. An all-night vigil was celebrated in his house. The next day, in the neighboring church where the body of his parent was buried, after the liturgy, which I celebrated, a memorial service was celebrated for the deceased Taisha in the presence of his pagan son. This pleased him very much. And in the house of the local priest he shared a meal with me. It was nice to see that the purpose of my visit to the Buryat Taisha was achieved in hope... If that hope is justified, which was aroused by the words and some orders of this Taisha, then, it seems, in the spring I will again need to go to this part of the Buryat settlement, if God wills it. Each of my travels brings me to encounter unpleasant and difficult cases, showing the insufficiency of our concept of a beneficial influence on foreigners. In the mentioned country of the Buryat population there are up to 10 thousand Buryats of both sexes, and I did not find a single priest around them who cared or had the opportunity to comfortably take care of their education; but, on the contrary, I met two people who should have been immediately removed from their places, as they were harmful to the Buryats by their treatment of them. Although I don’t mean completely trustworthy ones, I will at least eliminate the unreliable ones, and I will give instructions to new ones when appointing them to places - not to act according to the example of their predecessors. “They write to me from afar that I needlessly burden myself and exhaust myself with long journeys along difficult Siberian roads. Such a word could have reached the ears of Your Eminence. It is true that I could have shortened my travels a lot: the law could not have required me to travel up to 14 thousand along the local difficult roads, in summer and winter, when I took over the administration of the Irkutsk diocese! verst. But I did it out of a sense of duty and according to the dictates of my conscience. When I was sent to this difficult place, it was certainly not so that I would care about the comforts of my position. If they wanted to show me leniency in this regard, they would not have sent me here. Having previously served according to my conscience, I now want to fulfill my duty according to my conscience. They say: I could entrust the survey of distant parts to one of the priests. But I don’t have such people around me. Moreover, such reviews cannot replace the bishop's. And each time, returning from a trip, I realized the need for a fulfilled review more than when I undertook it: each time a lot of things were revealed to me that, perhaps, even at ten years old I would not have known from afar, if I had not decided to be on the spot, and therefore would not have done, or would not have tried to do, what was necessary at the request of the circumstances.” And from other information we know that the Reverend. It was not in vain that Eusebius took the “traveling rod” 68 and already in 1857 he “measured” 5596 versts, and in general traveled for months continuously and even penetrated to Kyakhta on the Chinese border, not embarrassed by space, or all kinds of inconveniences, or direct dangers. 69 He wandered truly apostolically, as a missionary-educator, either using boats (for example, in 1858, down the Angara River to the village of Keulskoye and from the mouth of the Ilimka River to the provincial town of Ilimsk), or riding on horseback (through the mountains near the Set River). The successes of these selfless labors were quite satisfactory in actual conditions: 70 so, after the baptism on May 25, 1857 in the Irkutsk Cathedral of the above-mentioned Taisha Zaneya Khamakov with the name Nikolai, the Tunka Buryats were baptized in the amount of 720 people on the river. Toyone when Eusebius was in the Torsky ulus in September of the same year. During the period of Eusebius's archpastorship in Irkutsk, more than one thousand pagans were converted. All of Eusebius’s reports on the religious state of, for example, the Transbaikal foreigners were “remarkable” 71 and testified to archpastoral care, which was all the more honorable because he did not have corresponding assistants. 72 For the lasting establishment of the missionary work, Rev. Eusebius introduced the teaching of the Mongolian language at the Irkutsk Seminary, so that the priests graduating from there could preach more conveniently among the Mongol-Buryats, and for general guidance he compiled a brochure: “Instruction for priests serving among pagans and converts to the Orthodox faith,” which he distributed to all graduating students and priests; It was also planned to teach medicine, necessary under the conditions of life there - “especially since (Orthodox) missionaries in Mongolia must meet lamas at every step.” 73 Eusebius sent a mission to Beijing 74 and renewed the shrine at the relics of St. Innokenty, under him the left bank of the Amur River was annexed to Russia in 1858 and he, together with Archbishop of Kamchatka Innokenty (Veniaminov, † March 31, 1879 Metropolitan of Moscow) two bishops were ordained: in April 1859 Peter (Ekaterinovsky, † May 27, 1889 retired Bishop of Tomsk) in Novo-Arkhangelsk and in March 1860 Pavel (Popov, † May 25, 1877 Bishop of Kamchatka) in Yakutsk. Reverend Eusebius was wholeheartedly devoted to his great service in remote and wild Siberia and became close to him, which is why he wrote from Mogilev on April 22, 1864 to his admirer, the chief of artillery in Western Siberia, Major General P.A. Semenov: “if you again travel to remote places in the southern borders of the Tobolsk and Tomsk diocese, pay attention to the area and show me where I could found a cell for myself so that it could eventually turn into a missionary monastery, from which missionary brothers could conveniently undertake journeys to those not illuminated by the rays of the divine gospel.” According to a letter to the same person dated February 4, 1868, Eusebius “loved to wander with his thoughts across the vast steppes and nomadic camps of savages.” It was precisely this zeal from the bottom of his heart that supported, encouraged and consoled the archpastor with his blessed successes, 75 although he was even robbed of much physical strength and his health was undermined. 76 The archpastoral zeal was fully appreciated at the top - and already on March 31, 1858, Eusebius was granted the rank of apxbishop, and by the Highest command of August 29, 1860, expressed in the decree of the Holy Synod on September 17, he was transferred to (unimportant in hierarchical rank) Mogilev 77 to the place of Anatoly (Martynovsky) , retired on July 17th. The decree arrived in Irkutsk only on October 20, and Eusebius, having served the last liturgy on November 21, 1860, went to his new see on the 24th. Then, with all the brightness in the farewell speeches (by Archpriest Gromov, 78 Rector of the Seminary Archimandrite Dimitri), all the love was expressed on the part of the flock, which was so not shameful and unhypocritical that - contrary to customs and precautions - Archpriest. Gromov, greeting Evseev’s successor, Rev. Paroeniya (Popova, † January 21, 1871), upon entering the priestly house, did not fail to resolutely mention how “an expensive lamp with which we thought we would like to be illuminated for many years was recently moved from this place.” Arriving in Mogilev on January 29, 1861 at 5 o’clock in the evening, Bishop Eusebius celebrated the first liturgy here on the 30th and, with archpastoral words of peace and love, established himself in his diocese, which he ruled for 22 and a half years continuously, although he was not received very sympathetically, 79 and although there were rumors about his transfer to Ryazan 80 (in place of Archbishop. Smaragda Kryzhanovsky, November 11, 1863) and was considered a possible candidate for exarchship (in 1857) in Georgia 81 (for the transfer of Isidor Nikolsky to Kyiv), in Kazan (in 1863) 82 and in Yaroslavl 83 (in place of Leonid, † December 15, 1876). The Mogilev department was not an easy one 84 . Now Eusebius found himself in a completely different region, where Orthodoxy in a “rather upset” diocese needed cleansing, revitalization and protection from the “old brew of the union” 85 and from the influences, malicious intent and propaganda of Catholicism. This means that here it was necessary to awaken and kindle the Orthodox-Russian feeling, to clarify and illuminate the Orthodox self-awareness, to protect and provide religious-ecclesiastical reminders and edification. By bringing shrines from Mount Athos and solemn processes and services on this occasion in 1867, the bishop revived the memory of how for another 400 years the light of the faith of Christ came here from the East and was Orthodox from time immemorial, why the union was a distortion of true Orthodox purity. And this revival was so bright and effective that the return to Orthodoxy from the Polish lordship, gentry and peasants began in 1865 with the significant transition of one Mogilev landowner with a large family from the same family of Ragoza, from which was the Kiev Metropolitan Mikhail Ragoza († 1599), who seduced the Western Russian population at the end of the 16th century into falling away from the Orthodox the faith of the fathers and from the Russian people. – For constant church edification and Orthodox education apxiep. Eusebius passionately cared about the construction, renovation, and decoration of churches with shrines and icons in Mogilev itself and in the provinces, collecting funds from all over Russia and attracting members of the reigning house to him. Hierarchs (Metropolitan Philaret), governors (local A.P. Beklemishev), merchants (Iv.Iv. Chetverikov in Moscow), Russian and foreign monasteries, petitioning the Holy Synod for appropriations, establishing special committees, etc. It can be assumed that during the entire Mogilev period, Eusebius created and renovated dozens of churches. – In the interests of preparing a worthy and convinced pastorate, Eusebius paid great attention to spiritual and educational institutions: under him, the Seminary was repaired and expanded in accordance with the requirements of the new charter; Mogilev Spirit. The school was renovated and enlarged with a preparatory class, and in 1867 the renovated school church was consecrated; The Buinichi women's school was finally opened on September 3, 1864, according to an updated charter adapted to local conditions, but the archbishop more than once asked the Holy Synod to transfer it to Mogilev; Gomel Spirit. The school was moved to another, better building; and in Mstislavskoye a school pharmacy was established. Vladyka carefully and sincerely followed the entire educational life, was affectionate towards his students and pupils and often invited them to his dacha in Pechersk in the summer, 86 where he “dedicated a lot of time to the care” of his young guests and charmed the young men so much that one (N.N. Klirikov, who was later the foreman of the Mogilev brotherhood) called (in a letter dated September 7, 1875) these “the best days vacation days." And before his death, Eusebius did not forget to order that part of the books be transferred to the Mogilev Seminary (1480 copies) and to the school. Finally, the archpastor did not fail to use efforts to paralyze the anti-Orthodox and anti-Russian influences of the churches, where this was required - they were partly closed and partly the shrines were returned to the Orthodox. But the archpastor acted here not out of enmity and not for the sake of attack, but solely out of paternal concern for his flock, and therefore all these events took place quietly, without complications, and he himself enjoyed respect from foreigners, 87 not refusing to visit them during his tours of the diocese, 88 and in general, “he gave the best previous direction to the Mogilev clergy through peaceful means.” Along with this, Rev. Eusebius did not give up missionary work among schismatics and in 1866 he began the process of opening a special anti-schismatic department at the Mogilev Orthodox Brotherhood; Stunda, Latvian settlers (in the village of Vysokoe, Orsha district) and even Jews 89 were also captured in the horizon of Eusebius' archpastoral care 90 . In seminary documents and in biographical printed news (even from Iv. N. Kargopoltsev), the birthday of Evfimy Polikarpov Orlinsky is usually indicated as December 24, 1805, but in the metric record for 1806 it is literally said about those born: “No. 39. December 21. In the village of Chernago Versha the sexton Polikarp Efimov has a son, Efimy. Priest Kirill Afanasyev read a prayer to the mother in labor and to the baby named after the rivers of the same church; That baby was baptized on the 26th of the same month; at the baptism, the recipients were from the same (Belevsky) district. Mishina Polyana dean priest Marko Gerasimov and the parish of the village. Dertikhina village of Zhurin Mr. Major General Dimitry Mikhailov Tarakanova’s daughter, the maiden Lyubov Dimitrieva, and the baptism was performed in this church by priest Kirill Afanasyev and with him were sexton Polikarp Efimov and sexton Feodor Ivanov.” See Letters from the Rector of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, Bishop Eusebius to A.V. Gorsky (1847–1850) in Addendums to the publication of the works of the holy fathers in Russian translation,” part XXXVII (1886) pp. 771. 791. 793–794. 802. 849. See also Letters of Metropolitan. Philaret to Leonid where it is mentioned (p. 4) that Eusebius, being the rector of St. Petersburg. Spirit. The Academy was instructed to consecrate the church in his homeland by Archimandrite. Simeon, one of the rectors of the Pskov Seminary, sent to govern the Donskoy Monastery! See in the Archives of the Holy Synod, file of the Spiritual Educational Administration, June 9, 11849, No. 147. See Iv. N. Kargopoltseva on page 17. § 37 of the seminary charter of 1814 reads as follows: “From the senior students of the Seminary, the best is elected, at the discretion of the Board, to serve as a teacher’s aid in a class of any language; teaches the rudiments of a language separately from the teacher and under his supervision and is called a lecturer of that language, without being excluded from the number of students and without interrupting his teaching in the higher department. See in the Diary of A.V. Gorsky in “Additions to the Works of St. Fathers" XXXIV (1884), pp. 93. 94. During February and March 1829, students of the lower department Alexander Gorsky and Evfimy Orlinsky were distinguished by “well-ordered behavior and unforgiving efficiency in their studies” - according to the review of the inspector (1825–1831) of the Moscow Academy Evlampius (Pyatnitsky, † March 12, 1862 retired by Archbishop of Tobolsk), although Met. Filaret did not fully trust the latter, who showered his praises on the students too generously and indiscriminately. See Fr. S.K. Smirnova on page 271. After (in a letter dated June 22, 1873) this ratio about. A.V. Gorsky applied to the Reverend. Eusebius in the following expressions: “How well it worked out: I begin to write to you at the hour when I would have come to congratulate you today on the day of your angel, to whom the church entrusted you, having accepted the vows of monasticism that you pronounced before her, and from whom at the same time I asked you for a new name in the host of saints. The great saint, friend and collaborator of Basil the Great, a zealous defender of Orthodoxy, and a tireless worker in destroying the machinations of wickedness, looks with favor on the saint who bears his name and in the zealous performance of his pastoral duty is worthy of imitating him." See "Reading in the Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment" 1884 Part. Dep. 3 page 82. Wed. to this Letters of M. Philaret to Anthony, p. 97. However, on the journal of the administration of the Bethany Seminary on September 3, 1832, it is written on the side: “and by his expressed consent to entrust him with the class of explaining Holy Scripture to students of the higher and middle departments, however, after (for example, in the journal for September 5, 1833) Fr. Eusebius is called “a professor of church history. Wed. about him from Fr. A. A. Belyaev on page 27 and K.Ya. Zdravomyslova in a review of the book by A.S. Rhodessky in “Report on the fiftieth awarding of awards to Count Uvarov (Snb. 1909), p. 72. On September 5, 1834, the seminary board petitioned Metropolitan. Philaret “on the division of the Greek language class into two classes according to the population,” opening a second professorial vacancy in this subject for students of the secondary department - with the addition of the Hebrew language here, instead of which it was intended to entrust Father Eusebius with pastoral theology, “as it is very necessary and necessary for spiritual students.” Approving order from the board of the Moscow Spirit. The Academy was heard on December 14, 1834. This title, to which academic hieromonks-bachelors were usually elevated, was established on February 18, 1797 under Emperor Paul I (cf. and Al. N. Kotovich on pp. 6–7) and gave each 33 rubles. 23 kopecks (see † Prof. I.A. Chistovich, St. Petersburg Theological Academy for the last 30 years: 1858–1888, St. Petersburg 1889, p. 103), but - according to the journals of the board of the Bethany Seminary for June 10, 1834 and January 5, 1835 - Fr. Eusebius received from the Donskoy Monastery for the period from September 4, 1833 to January 1, 1834 40 rubles. banknotes and 50 kopecks. ser., for the first half of 1834, “66 rubles” were sent. 50 kopecks silver with crap,” although on June 27 only 60 rubles were actually issued. assign. and 50 kopecks. ser. Wed. for this period in † N.P.. Gilyarov-Platonov II, p. 23. See † o. N-Smirnova on page 258. 259. Wed. Letters from M. Philaret to Bishop. Vitaly (Gumelevsky), p. 22 and approx. 68. Wed. to this Letters of M. Filaret to Filaret (Gumilevsky), p. 33 and approx. 43. See ibid., p. 35 and note. 46. See Collection of opinions and reviews of M. Philaret, additional volume, pp. 81–82. See Letters of M. Philaret to Eusebius in “Readings in the Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment” 1882, Vol. XI–XII, pp. 269, 270. Filaret (Gumilevsky † August 9, 1866 Archbishop of Chernigov) in a letter to A.V. On December 5, 1841, Gorsky expressed his joy that Eusebius had been appointed as his successor at the Moscow Academic Rector: see “Additions to the works of St. fathers" XXXI (1883), p. 225. Apparently, there was a struggle at that time over the rector’s position at the Moscow Academy, and Nikodim (Kazantsev, † July 11, 1874 retired bishop of Yenisei) even directly testifies that Met. Filaret appointed Eusebius to this place, allegedly, due to the intrigues of Filaret Gumilevsky (see “Readings at the Imperial Society of Russian History and Antiquities at Moscow University” 1877, book 2, department II, p. 92). See in the Archives of the Holy Synod for the Synodal Chancellery of 1874, No. 123, and in † Fr. S.K. Smirnova on page 315. Wed. to this “Readings in the Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment” 1882, book. XI–XII, pp. 289. In Vologda, the auditor made the best impression, and the local archpriest V.I. Nordov (a famous preacher) wrote to the Rev. on December 12, 1845. Innokenty (Borisov), “oh, this is an excellent person, in my opinion:” see † Prof. N.I. Barsov, Materials for the biography of Innokenty Borisov, p. 13. For last Wed. “Additions to the works of St. Fathers" XXXIV (1884), p. 308. See “Readings in the Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment” 1882, book. XI–XII, p. 281. See Archim. Gregory on pp. 198–200. See also the comments in the letters of M. Philaret to the Highest Persons I, p. 143 and approx. 1; 152 and approx. 2. Wed. Letters of M. Philaret to Anthony II, p. 293. On this occasion, Innokenty (Borisov) wrote to Macarius (Bulgakov) that “a better choice could not have been made. This is one of the kindest and most well-intentioned people." See Church Bulletin 1883, No. 26, p. 8a. See “Readings” in the Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment, 1882, book. XI–XII, p. 295. See also in “Additions to the works of St. Fathers" XXXVII (1886), p. 701. See the case of St. Petersburg Spirit. Academy 1847 No. 10. About this committee itself, cf. u † prof. I.A. Chistovich, Leading figures of spiritual education in Russia in the first half of the current (nineteenth) century (St. Petersburg, 1894), pp. 335 ff. See “Addition to the works of St. Fathers" XXXVII (1886), pp. 745. 777. Wed. at Prof. I.A. Chistovich on page 338. This position of chief observer of the teaching of the Law of God was established in 1844 according to the thoughts of Count N.A. Pratasova. See in the Archives of the Holy Synod the case of the Spiritual Educational Administration on June 9, 1849 No. 147 and in the Archives of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy of 1849 No. 40. See in “Additions to the works of St. fathers" XXXVII (1886), p. 827. Wed. about this and “Additions to the works of St. Fathers" XXXVII (1886), pp. 824. 825–826, 827–828. See the case in the Archives of St. Petersburg Spirit. Academy 1849 No. 40; d. Spiritual Educational Administration in the Archives of the Holy Synod June 9, 1849 No. 147. See in “Additions to the works of St. Fathers" XXXVII (1886), p. 807. See Letters of M. Philaret to Anthony III, p. 68. See P. Alabina on page 36. See Fr. A.V. Gorsky in “Additions to the works of St. fathers" XXXIV (1884), p. 329. Moreover, Eusebius soon fell ill before leaving St. Petersburg: see Macarius’ letter to † prof. N. P. Barisova, Materials for the biography of Innokenty Borisov I. p. 80. See "Readings in the Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment" 1882, XI-XII, p. 301. Letters of M. Philaret to Anthony III, pp. 68,69. See "Readings in the Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment" 1877, XII, pp. 168-169; cf ibid. 1882 XI–XII, pp. 301. 302, 303. See “Additions to the works of St. Fathers" XXXVI (1885), pp. 429–430. See also P. Alabin on page 77. See P. Alabin on pp. 36–37. See the letter from Fr. A.V. Gorsky in “Readings in the Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment” 1884, part III. dept. 3, page 9. Even unseemly gossip was spread, affecting the purity of the life of the Reverend. Eusebius in an uncomfortable room, for the “vile slander” presented this in an “unsuitable light,” as reported by Fr. A.V. Gorsky in a letter dated May 16, 1853: see in “Readings in the Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment” 1884, part III. dept. 3, page 9. See P. Alabin on page 76 ff. See P. Alabin on page 78. 85. However, the second successor of Eusebius, Bishop Gerasim (Dobroserdov, † June 24, 1880 Bishop of Astrakhan) in 1866 successfully initiated the case for the construction of a new cathedral in the name of the Savior, with two chapels: see “Samara Diocesan Gazette” 1881, No. 12, p. 185 ff. By the way, rumors were spread that under the good Eusebius, his archpriest (John E.) X. (Khalkolivanov takes 40 rubles for baptism, as Fr. A.V. Gorsky warns about in a letter dated February 18, 1857: see “Readings in the Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment” 1884, part Ill, department 3, p. 13 and Wed 12. See also P. Alabin on page 110. This was Putilov’s house, resold to the landowner Krotkov in 1854, when Eusebius decided to build his own bishop’s house outside the city with a church and a candle factory. and in 1856 he initiated a case for the establishment of an apostle’s house in Samara itself, but did not have time to implement his projects on the occasion of the transfer to Irkutsk, although from there he did not forget his first plan, trying to financially support its implementation: see Samara Diocesan Gazette of 1879, No. 19, pp. 365–373; No. 20, pp. 381–382. And oh. A.V. Handfuls, in a letter dated May 27, 1855, mentions. that Eusebius “goes somewhere far away”: see “Readings in the Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment” 1884, part III, department. 3, page 5 The idea of the latter belonged to the local society itself, which aroused it on the basis of local historical legends about the once existing women's community at the Samara Church of the Transfiguration; but Rev. Eusebius supported this endeavor and directed it to a successful end: see “Samara Diocesan Gazette” 1880, No. 2, pp. 22–27; No. 3, pp. 33–42; P. Alabin on page 123 ff. “Samara Diocesan Gazette” 1879, No. 15, pp. 281–284. See “Samara Diocesan Gazette” 1881, No. 1, pp. 1–13. P. Alabin on page 116. Sl. See also P. Alabin on page 81. See “Samara Diocesan Gazette” 1879, No. 20, p. 284. P. Alabin on p. 83. See Fr. A.E. Yastrebkova on page 13. See “Readings in the Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment” 1884, part III, department. 3, page 5. 6. See in letters to Eusebius Fr. A.V. Gorsky in “Readings in the Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment” 1884, part III, department. 3, pp. 9.13. And Filaret (Gumilevsky) wrote on March 8, 1857 about. A.V. Gorsky: “Our good brother, the Right Reverend Eusebius, had the lot to live in a polar country. Apparently, the Lord who loves him wants to gather more warmth in the depths of his soul with his outer coldness. See “Additions to the works of St. Fathers" XXXVI (1885), p. 459. See "Readings in the Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment" 1882, XI-XII, p. 305. Here, Eusebius’s last service before leaving was in the Assumption Church at the consecration of the throne on the occasion of his movement: see “Samara Diocesan Gazette” 1879, No. 10, p. 176. See "Readings in the Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment" 1884, Part Ill, Dept. 3, page 12: letter dated February 12, 1857 U † A.N. Lvov in “Christ. Readings" 1899, No. 10, pp. 652–655 and in a separate edition on pp. 497–500. Among the Buryats, Taishei was the name given to the hereditary bearer of local power, who stood at the head of the “steppe duma,” which united several Buryat clans; but since 1887, a division into councils and administrations has been introduced here: see P.O. Kramarov in “Tula Epochial Gazette” 1902, No. 16, pp. 474, 475, and in “Tula Antiquity” XII, pp. 7–8. Expression about. L.V. Gorsky in “Readings in the Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment” 1884, part III, dept. 3, page 11. Thus, from May 1857 to the end of 1858, Eusebius inspected churches in an area of 8161 versts in five trips; in 1859, 5133 versts were “measured” in three trips; and in 1860, three departures accounted for 5521 centuries: see P.F. Kratirov in the “Tula Diocesan Gazette” 1902, No. 16, p. 469, and in “Tula Antiquity” XII, p. 2. See P.F. Kratirov in the “Tula Diocesan Gazette” 1902, No. 18, p. 550, and in “Tula Antiquity” XII, p. 12. See M. Philaret: Letters to Anthony IV, p. 91, and to the Highest Persons II, p. 61 and approx. 1; Wed and in “Readings in the Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment” 1882, XI-XII, pp. 306 – 307. See P.F. Kratirov in the “Tula Diocesan Gazette” 1902, No. 19, p. 581 seq., and in “Tula Antiquity” XII, p. 13 seq. Wed. to this “Readings in the Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment” 1882, XI–XII, p. 307. 74 See at m. Innocent in “Additions to the works of St. fathers" XLIV 1889), p. 95, and in I.P. Barsukova II, p. 167. It is not surprising that Eusebius hastened to speak sympathetically in favor of the Missionary Society, as cf. in a letter from M. Innokenty in “Readings in the Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment” 1884, part III, department. 3, p. 36. and I.P. Barsukova III, pp. 254–255. See Collection of opinions and reviews of M. Philaret III, p. 296. See Letters of M. Philaret to Alexy Tverskoy, p. 225. Cf. “Theological Bulletin” 1904, vol. I, p. 588. About this shepherd of Irkutsk, Reverend. Nikodim (Kazantsev) wrote on December 11, 1864 to Eusebius: “Fr. Procopius Gromov will sometimes thunder with an article against the too outstanding impudence of freethinkers. His opponents respect him too.” See “Readings in the Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment” 1884, part III, department. 3, p. 40. See N.M. Ivashchenko in the “Mogilev Diocesan Gazette” 1908, No. 12, p. 452, where it is also reported that Eusebius himself noted that during his first ministry “there were quite a lot of people in the church, but not many.” See Letters of M. Philaret to the Highest Persons II, p. 206 and approx. 1. See Collection of opinions and reviews of M. Philaret IV, p. 296: review to Chief Prosecutor Count A.P. Tolstoy dated December 27, 1857. See Letters of M. Philaret to the Highest Persons II, pp. 211–212 83 † Apxiep. Nikanor (Brovkovich) in the Russian Archive “1908, book. 5, pp. 126–27. Reverend Nikodim (Kazantsev) wrote on May 6, 1870 to Eusebius: “I wish Your Eminence to continue in health the centuries-long service of the ruling saint in the department, not every easy one” (see “Readings in the Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment” 1884, part III, department 3, p. 40). It seems that Eusebius himself did not fully approve of his predecessor, Archbishop. Anatoly (Martynovsky, † August 9, 1872 retired), judging by the excerpt (from L. Cm. Matskevich, To the biography of Archbishop Anatoly Martynovsky in “Proceedings of the Kyiv Theological Academy” 1883, No. 11, p. 52. and from Fr. M. Edlinsky on p. 135) from his letter from September 15, 1862 to the apxbishop of Kishinev Anthony (Shokotov, † March 13, 1871), the original of which is kept in the library of the Kyiv Spirit. Academy of Music hands No. 562. However, Anatoly even earlier hastened to warn Eusebius about the disorders in the Mogilev diocese, although he blamed this on the lack of capable people there (see Fr. M. Edlinsky on pp. 82–83). Expressions of M. Philaret in “Readings in the Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment” 1882, XI–XII, p. 311. Pechersk is 3 versts from Mogilev; there Eusebius built a beautiful garden, about which see Fr. M. Edlinsky on page 114. 115. It is known, for example, that even the services and sermons of Eusebius were also attended by Catholics, about which see N.M. Ivashchenko in the “Mogilev Diocesan Gazette” 1908, No. 12, pp. 456–457. But regarding the hospitality of Roman Catholics, see M. Philaret in “Readings in the Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment” 1882, XI–XII, p. 308. See Letters of M. Philaret to the Highest Persons II, p. 128. You might be interested in: