Twenty years of legislative reforms on schism

Contents (Article one) I II III IV (Article two) (Article three) (Article three – end) Our schismatics were outside civil jurisdiction for more than two centuries; it can be said almost without exaggeration that they were only subjects of the state, but were not legal citizens. The question of the civil status of schismatics in the state, the structure of their life and the determination of their religious needs has been a concern for the government for two centuries. The government periodically changed its views on the split, and at the same time changed the measures, but the question of the civil legal capacity of the schismatics remained an intractable and dangerous issue; the measures turned out to be half measures. Administrative palliatives did not help, and the split waxed and waned, becoming a chronic ailment of the state body. The government, depending on one or another diagnosis of a chronic illness made by a certain time, took one or another medical remedy, but the stubborn, chronic disease did not respond to treatment and became more and more incurable; private events and special prescriptions sometimes had an impact on the course of the disease, weakening only isolated and occasional symptoms of a chronic illness, but, in general, the disease was aging, and the government finally realized the need to resort to the strictest consultation so that, if it is impossible to pull out an old disease by the roots, then at least accurately and definitely determine the disease and establish general standards of healing. The government began such a serious consultation during the era of reforms during the glorious reign of the Sovereign Emperor Alexander II in the history of our state. With all the complexity of the general state reforms of the peasant, zemstvo, city, etc. The caring, child-loving monarch did not leave in oblivion a more private state issue - the issue of regulating the life of schismatics, of reform in legislation on the schism. But before we report information on the progress of legislative work that began in 1864 itself, for greater clarity and consistency we will say a few words about measures, so to speak, preparatory to a general and serious reform in the legislation on the split. From the very beginning of the last reign, the government's view of the split and measures against it changed dramatically. The reign of Emperor Nicholas I was a difficult time for schismatics - they experienced especially difficult days in the last years of this reign, when D. G. Bibikov was the Minister of Internal Affairs, who, at his first presentation to the post of minister, received the Highest instruction “that special attention should be paid to cases of schism, since the schism, in the opinion of His Majesty, has an extremely harmful and dangerous significance both religiously and politically.” 1. In view of this Highest order, the Minister of the Interior really paid serious attention to the split. According to Bibikov, a special secret committee and a special secret department or department of schism affairs were established under the Ministry of Internal Affairs. In practice, the government activities of these secret institutions also had very serious consequences for the schismatics - a sharp change took place in their everyday life: if before, being outside the law, they were under the changing influence of personal administrative discretion, which often too vigorously limited their internal life, now the government activities of organized secret departments were expressed in very impressive restrictions, forcing the schismatics, resorting to cunning, to insidiously accept Orthodoxy or Edinoverie, or, paying increased offerings to the police and clergy for the peace of their existence, endure it grudgingly. But at the very beginning of the reign of Emperor Alexander II, in 1855, the Bibikov institutions, the special secret committee and the special secret administration were closed, they ended their short existence, leaving no traces to clarify the system of government actions in relation to the schism in the national sense, and are remembered only for schismatics as a time of punishment and oppression. On January 20, 1858, the new government categorically expressed its concern for the schismatics and defined its task, suggesting, first of all, to investigate and study the schism, and then outline a strictly defined system of actions. The highest order of January 20, 1858 on the procedure for resolving cases in relation to schismatics and apostates from Orthodoxy should be considered the starting point and cornerstone for all subsequent government work to regulate the life of schismatics both in the sphere of administrative and legislative definitions of their civil life. The journal of the secret committee 2 contains very interesting and compelling data, showing both the monarch’s deep, comprehensive view of the current state of the schism, and his purely paternal concern that the system of government actions should not be a random expression of personal views, but should be based on solid historical principles, on a thorough study of the schism, its way of life and life. All the questions posed by the monarch’s will during their discussion in the committee led to the following considerations, which we convey in general terms; in order to resolve the main, one might say, fundamental question, whether the measures taken at different times by the government achieved the essential goal, i.e., weakening the schism and preventing its further spread, in the opinion of the committee, complete and, if possible, correct information is really needed both about the existing schismatic sects and their dogmatic teaching, and especially about the number of schismatics of different sects... But, at the same time, the committee found it almost impossible to have more or less accurate statistical information on the insufficiency of police resources, the often deliberate concealment of the actual number of schismatics and the inaccuracy of spiritual records, especially for distant periods of time, which is why it suggested limiting itself to only compiling statistics of the schism during the reigns of the sovereigns Paul I, Alexander I and Nicholas I of blessed memory. The committee also found that for its further work in determining the general system of government actions in relation to schismatics, it is necessary to have a complete collection of all special decrees on schismatics, which, although not included either in the Complete Collection of Laws or in the Code of Laws, nevertheless serve as the basis for the government to act against the schism, and the former Minister of Internal Affairs Lanskoy, who was present at the meeting of the committee, explained that in the ministry entrusted to him all the decrees on the schism had already been collected and partly printed, and that he has taken appropriate measures to ensure the speedy completion of this work. Having set the broad task of changing the system of government actions on the basis of a strictly scientific and systematic study of the schism, which, of course, could not be a quick task, Emperor Alexander II, at the same time, did not stop at waiting for a general, so to speak, universal resolution of the issue of the schism, but, on the contrary, without delay, within the limits of possibility, he tried to apply and introduce humane principles of tolerance into the life of the schism where it was convenient and did not require legislative reform. All the highest commands of the monarch in the first years of his reign were imbued and imprinted with this spirit. Meanwhile, the general question of changing the system of government actions continued to be developed in a special secret committee. Let us focus our attention on the discussion in the Council of Ministers of the question raised by Metropolitan Gregory’s note about which system in relation to schismatics to follow in the future, i.e., the existing one or some other one. After the discussions that took place on this issue, the Sovereign Emperor deigned to point out that there does not seem to be a need to change the current system, since Art. 60 volumes XIV St. Law. mouth about prev. and pres. Prest. and the decree of St. Synod April 5 1845. In the said article, St. Zak. it is determined “that schismatics are not persecuted for their opinions about the faith, but they are prohibited from seducing and persuading anyone into their schism, under any guise, to inflict any insolence against the Orthodox Church or against its clergy, and in general for any reason to evade compliance with the general rules of improvement determined by law.” In the decree of St. The Synod gave detailed instructions to diocesan bishops for actions regarding schismatics entirely in the spirit of meekness and Christian love... At the same time, the Emperor deigned to note “that the inconveniences in the administration of the schism do not come from the system of actions in relation to schismatics, but “from the inaccurate and incorrect execution of it,” resulting either from the ill-intention of the executors in our authorities, or, perhaps, from unintentionality due to insufficient knowledge of the numerous and varied legalizations regarding the schism, issued at different times and by different departments” 3. In disgust for the future time of the last circumstance, His Imperial Majesty deigned (High. p. 24 April 1858) to consider it useful to issue detailed instructions to the provincial secret advisory committees, to collect and revise all existing regulations on schismatics and to develop rules regarding the proof of rights by schismatics by origin and property. The collection and bringing into systematic order of all existing laws regarding schismatics was entrusted to the II Department of His Imperial Majesty’s own office, and it was also charged with the responsibility of determining, if possible, the difference between heresies that are “positively” harmful and “less” harmful. To determine the rights of schismatics by origin and property, a special committee was established from the ministers of justice, internal affairs and state property. The first part of the Highest command on drawing up instructions for actions with schismatics was carried out back in 1858, this instruction was highly approved and served for a long time as a guide for both civil and spiritual departments, the second part of the same Highest command for execution required more complex work and was carried out much later. This was the situation with the issue of schism in the first years of the reign. This was, so to speak, a preparatory period for embarking on serious reforms of the legislation on the split. The year 1863 should be considered the beginning of serious and major work on legislative reform for schismatics. The most fundamental and first step to embarking on legislative reform on the split should be considered the project of the former Minister of Internal Affairs Valuev. This project is so interesting and important that we, while preserving its integrity, have only made an abbreviation, offering it to readers without changes in style and wording, in order to more clearly highlight both the motives for legislative reform on the split set out in the project, as well as the grounds and all the detailed assumptions of the reform outlined in it. Let us begin by presenting the contents of this remarkable project, which served as a detailed program for all subsequent legislative reforms on the split over the course of 20 years. Here's the start of Project 4: “In essence, the issue of civil rights of schismatics was resolved, resolved directly by Your Imperial Majesty, and, of course, resolved for the benefit of Russia and for the glory of your reign. Those of your loyal subjects who, in an era of difficult and important circumstances for the entire state, are allowed, on an equal basis with others, to enjoy the precious right to publicly declare, jointly, devotion to Your Majesty and love for Russia, can no longer be denied the private rights of civil and family life. The schismatics understood this and foresee that the measures of meekness already applied to them by the Highest will of Your Majesty will be followed by other measures, even more meek. The hope of getting out of their current exclusive and humiliated position grew stronger in them, and the immediate consequences of this hope were, on the one hand, undoubted statements of loyal and patriotic feelings, and on the other, signs of a weakening of religious antagonism. Your Majesty has already been informed of the resolutions of the councils of Old Believers of the priestly consent that were held in Moscow in February 1862 and June 1863, and that the Russian Old Believers hierarchy, in June of this year, separated from the Belokrinitsky one. But if the question of the civil rights of schismatics has been resolved, or at least predetermined in essence, then it has not yet been formally resolved by legislative or administrative means. Equally, the question of their religious rights and another question of which particular sects can or cannot be granted certain rights are not resolved. Your Majesty was pleased to draw attention to these issues back in 1858. The journal of the Council of Ministers, approved on April 24 of that year, entrusted the II Department of Your Imperial Majesty’s own chancellery with collecting, systematizing and revising the current regulations on schismatics, while defining, if possible, the difference between positively harmful and less harmful sects. Moreover, however, it was accepted as a basis that there would be no need for a significant modification of the currently existing system for the affairs of schismatics. In addition, it was ordered that a special committee consider and determine the rights of schismatics by origin and property. Both jobs are finished. Since they were based on the preservation of the current system, the work of the Second Department should have been primarily editorial in nature, and the work of the special committee should consist only of the application and development of the principles of the said system. But the concept of the so-called existing system, itself vague in the generality of this expression, turns out to be even more confusing when applied to cases of schism. The fundamental law, which has never been repealed by legislation, is set out in Art. 60. XIV vol. St. Zak. about prev. etc. and decrees that “schismatics are not persecuted for their opinions about the faith.” All other decrees of the criminal code flow from this basic provision, by virtue of which those manifestations of schism are subject to criminal punishment, which, moving from thought to deed, involve a violation of public decency and the inviolable rights of the ruling church. If the name of the present system meant such a proper order of things, then there would hardly be a direct need to revise it, and it would be difficult to explain how the question of determining rights by property and origin, which has nothing in common with the question of freedom of religious belief and the persecution of external manifestations of heresies, comes into contact with this matter. But this order, determined by the letter of the law, cannot be understood under the name of the existing system, for from 1850 to 1855 the law, not changed by the legislative order, was in practice replaced by separate Highest commands, by virtue of which schismatics were subjected to various civil restrictions and restrictions even in the secret performance of their religious rites. However, this system cannot be called currently in force, because according to the secret instructions of 1858, the application of the above-mentioned Highest commands, which have not been formally repealed, is limited or suspended. It follows from this that, given the uncertainty of the current system, editorial work was fraught with special difficulties. They had to either confine themselves to comparing contradictory legal provisions, or undertake the development of legislation on schism on the basis of new principles, which, however, were not pre-established. In addition, the Code was compiled separately from assumptions about rights by property and origin, although general laws on matters of schism are in such close connection with private regulations on the property and civil rights of schismatics and are based to such an extent on the same fundamental principles that separate design of both can hardly be implemented. This conviction is justified by the very essence of the assumptions of the Second Division and the Special Committee. The main decisions contained in them are as follows: I. Sects are divided into positively harmful, less harmful and harmless. In accordance with this division, schismatics are granted various religious and civil rights and various punishments are established for the outward manifestation of heresies. Sects that are distinguished by ferocious fanaticism and fanatical encroachment on the personality of themselves and others are considered positively harmful. Those sects whose followers reject marriage and prayer for the king are considered less harmful. All other sects, whose followers recognize marriage and pray for the king, are not considered harmful in relation to civil matters. All benefits envisaged under Code II of Section apply, with a few exceptions, only to followers of less harmful and harmless sects. II. In relation to religious needs, the followers of these sects are granted: 1) permission to maintain old ones and establish, although with some restrictions, new prayer houses; 2) release of fugitive priests from persecution; 3) permission to have their own clergy, with this granting the latter the right to accompany their followers to execution, but without externally demonstrating a schism; 4) abolition of the existing restriction regarding marriages according to schismatic rites only in certain areas; 5) forcing the children of schismatics to study the law of God in schools from Orthodox priests; 6) permission to bury Orthodox relatives in a schismatic cemetery; 7) non-prosecution of those who have deviated into schism and failure to carry out investigations into seduction for the future, if the seducer or the criminal actions of the seduced are not meant. III. In relation to general civil rights, it is assumed: 1) the admission of schismatics in those areas in which they are settled together with Orthodox Christians to those public positions that are not associated with the right of power and command; 2) the right to honorary awards and distinctions; 3) admission to trade on a general basis; 4) the right to be witnesses during investigations and trials with, if they wish, being sworn in not by an Orthodox priest, but by the chairman of the court or by an investigator on an old printed Gospel and an eight-pointed cross; 5) abolition of restrictions on absences from places of residence and obtaining passports; 6) permission to enter Russia from abroad; 7) limiting the inspection of the homes of sectarians on suspicion of the police to the general rules for conducting investigations; 8) permission to hire Orthodox recruits for oneself; 9) canceling the records kept by the police about the number of schismatics in general and maintaining only the lists of those born and dead. IV. Finally, in relation to the determination of rights by property and origin, it is assumed 1) that certified extracts from police lists can serve as evidence of the event of marriage, birth and death of schismatics; 2) that these certificates can be accepted as evidence when determining the rights of schismatics by origin and property; 3) that incorrect statements about the events of birth, marriage and death of schismatics, as well as incorrect entry of this information into police lists and the issuance of false certificates about this, are punishable on the basis of general laws as forgery in acts of state. Although these benefits do not constitute, for the most part, innovations, for many of them either existed before 1850, or began to be allowed in individual cases in certain areas and in a limited amount after 1856, but, nevertheless, comparing them in a code, putting them in the form of a new legislative act and expanding some of them or supplementing with new regulations would change the current system to such an extent that the publication of a code would be tantamount to a radical revolution in legislation on matters of schism. Apart from some particular doubts that arise upon closer examination of the assumptions of the Second Department and the Special Committee, and regardless of the special difficulties encountered in relation to the exact classification of sects, one cannot help but dwell on the question: is it necessary and convenient to publish a code? The works of the Second Division and the Special Committee do not categorically resolve another issue, which in the present case is of paramount importance. On what fundamental basis should the government's measures in relation to the split be based? At the beginning of tolerance or the beginning of acceptance? Although the above assumptions do not mention the recognition of schismatic sects, nevertheless, in the totality of some benefits established by law, and even in the very classification of sects, not only tolerance, but also recognition is expressed. Any designation of sects in the text of the law under their own names is already recognition; there is a right for sectarians to bear this name in the circle of civil life and recognize themselves as solidary among themselves, placed in a common relationship with the government and having their own special legal position in the state. From the point of view of general civil legislation, it seems somewhat difficult to officially recognize sects as harmful or less harmful when the general principle has established, by virtue of the above-mentioned Art. 60 St. Zak. Vol. XIV, do not persecute schismatics for their beliefs. Criminal laws must define cases of violation of general laws arising from schism; but these violations, from the same point of view, have not so much a religious as a civil significance. There is no direct need to distinguish who breaks the law: a schismatic, an Orthodox or a non-religious, and therefore it would not be consistent to specialize the crimes of schismatics according to their sects. On the other hand, our legislation defines punishments for seducing Orthodox Christians into both schism and other faiths: but the essence of guilt of both the seducer and the seduced lies in the very fact of distraction and evasion from Orthodoxy, regardless of the degree of both. Therefore, the formal presentation of religious rights to sects, from the point of view of the dominant Orthodox Church, could present difficulties not only in relation to sects recognized as especially harmful, but also in relation to sects that are less harmful. In addition, the publication of a lengthy collection of laws on schismatics in itself is associated with various inconveniences, as a loud evidence of religious disunity among our masses and as a measure that can encourage the sectarians in their errors, give them time to get used to a public and official separation from the church and thereby further complicate their gradual reunification. It would seem more convenient to limit legislative orders to those issues on which decisions have been made that are already included in the Code of Laws; on all other issues, cancel or change the currently existing rules in the same order in which they were established, and, finally, in both respects, observe some gradualness, taking into account the results of the initially taken measures to take subsequent measures. This path presents less difficulty, both generally as regards the practical implementation of the government's assumptions, and especially as regards the observance of the necessary differences and nuances between different sects. There can hardly be any doubt about the need to begin immediately to resolve the issue of schismatics. The inconsistency of the previous view of it was revealed by experience. Instead of weakening the schism, it intensifies and spreads. The strict measures of 1850 and the following years led to a more or less feigned accession of a small number of sectarians, mainly from the merchant ranks or from those urban and rural societies where, on some special occasions, the government dealt with increased severity. But in relation to the masses, the result was insignificant. Currently, the official figure of schismatics extends to 875 thousand, but it is known that the late Right Reverend Innocent assumed the real figure to be up to 11 million, and according to research by the Central Statistical Committee of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, it is about 8 ½ million, that is, 1/10 of the total existing population of the Empire, or 1/6 of the entire Orthodox population. Thus, more than 8 million loyal subjects of Your Imperial Majesty do not currently have not only freedom of religious beliefs, but also general civil rights regarding property, origin and participation in public affairs. Sometimes the law is circumvented, sometimes exceptions are made, sometimes practice takes the place of the law. Thus, inheritances are passed to the heirs for the most part silently, under the guise of private transactions, prayers are for the most part closed, but exceptions are allowed, civil rights are not recognized, and there are no actual acts of civil status for schismatics; but it happens that courts award inheritances on the basis of generational paintings, the testimony of witnesses and the relations of merchant councils. In some cases, there is inconsistency in government orders. For example, gatherings of schismatics are prohibited; but they, nevertheless, converge weekly in the sight of everyone, in broad daylight, in Moscow, in the Kremlin, on the so-called Tsar’s platform. In Moscow, last year and this year, there were councils of their so-called bishops. These bishops are known and are not persecuted, and the false bishop Gennady, arrested in Perm, by agreement with the Orthodox spiritual department, was exiled to the Spaso-Evfimievsky Monastery. Meanwhile, the most harmful sects use the solidarity established by current regulations with less harmful sects to hide from supervision and persecution. The essence of the different interpretations is little known; their accepted classification can only have a conditional meaning; finally, the most harmful dogma of non-recognition of authorities derives the main share of its strength precisely from those relations in which the split is established with the powers that be by the laws currently in force. One of the most significant obstacles to weakening the schism hitherto lay in the system of combined opposition to it on the part of the spiritual and civil authorities. The sectarians’ bitterness against civil power was and is still caused not only by its assistance, but also by its subordination, at least externally, to spiritual power: “The Church has its own separate spiritual calling, the civil government has its own specific activity. When both strive, each in their own way, for the common good, there is no doubt that there can be no misunderstandings. When they act together, mutually, collectively, civil power is obviously subordinate to church power. The clergy is forced to take care of the affairs of the police; police officials become instruments of spiritual exhortation; the certainty of actions disappears. In the class set as the goal of common efforts, a consciousness of oppression, a spirit of resistance and a desire to take advantage of the exclusivity of their position are established. Based on this and the experience of two centuries, one can unmistakably conclude that the schism will only be eradicated when each state power separately from the other begins to weaken it; church - love and example; civil power by strict observance of the rules necessary for an enlightened civil life.” Therefore, further measures regarding the schism should be guided by the general idea that the civil authority alone should be placed in direct contact with it, that it alone should have the responsibility to prevent schismatics from violating the decrees pertaining to them, and that therefore it cannot be obligated to fulfill any demands of the spiritual authority in relation to the sectarians. The second guiding principle should be the conviction that against religious errors, coercive measures are generally unreliable. With the exception of a few sects, for example, the scopists, or the so-called Beguns, whose teaching encroaches on the personality of a person or is contrary to the fundamental principles of citizenship and who must be subject to strict punishment of the law for every attempt to spread them, while hitherto their followers for the most part knew how to evade legal responsibility - our schismatics are mainly hostile to society because the law places them in hostile relations with it. Stagnation in ignorance and persistent stubbornness constitute the main forces of schism. The spread of elementary education among the people should serve as the main weapon against it. Our sects represent an exceptional phenomenon in the history of human errors that they have, as it were, become the affiliation of certain classes. In the upper classes of the population and among people of even the most superficial European education there are no schismatics in the usual meaning of the word. Thus, limiting the schism to the limits of ignorance already exposes that it, in fact, does not form an independent religion and holds on so stubbornly almost by force of the very oppression that is directed against it. Finally, the third main principle would be to recognize the observance of all necessary precautions, both to protect the dignity of the Orthodox ruling Church from the temptation associated with the public display of heresies, and to prevent the harmful consequences of sectarian propaganda and various misinterpretations that could be caused by the sudden abolition of the existing decrees in relation to schismatics. These include maintaining certain rules prohibiting public displays of schism; determination of the punishments to which seducers are subject; establishing differences between benefits provided to different sects; some gradualism in the provision of these benefits and, finally, the provision or recognition of them in legislative form, as already mentioned above, only in those cases where any restrictions are subject to cancellation, now additionally indicated in the text of the law. On these grounds it would seem possible: 1) Revise the current classification of sects and classify them into more or less harmful ones, according to those main distinctive features of prayer for the king and recognition of the marriage union, which are accepted as the basis for the classifications in the draft code of Section II and which, despite the difficulty of accurately identifying them, cannot be replaced by any others, because the monarchical principle constitutes the fundamental basis of our state life, and the marriage union is the fundamental condition of any civil structure. 2) Allow the unhindered performance of religious rites, not associated with the public and solemn manifestation of heresy, for all sects that pray for the king and accept marriage. On this basis, gradually allow the opening of sealed chapels, and then allow the construction of new ones with due caution, however, upon prior conviction of the real need for them to satisfy the religious needs of sectarians and without special accessories and external decorations characteristic of Orthodox churches, for example, bells, door icons, etc. Allow funeral rites to be performed in cemeteries: but not to allow funeral processions, just as not to allow religious processions. Take it as a rule that the above permissions should be given as a result of requests made by the sectarians, so that they themselves will be allowed to recognize themselves as praying for the king and accepting the marriage and present evidence of this. 3) Without subjecting the clergy and teachers of the above-mentioned sects to any persecution or embarrassment, do not, however, recognize their spiritual rank and consider them, in civil terms, to belong to those classes to which they should be classified according to the rights of origin and status. 4) Leave it to the Holy Synod to discuss on what grounds the principle of so-called common faith, which has already been accepted in our country, could be spread and developed and on what conditions the reunification of sectarians who accept the priesthood could take place with the Orthodox Church. 5) Entrust the heads of the provinces and other senior government officials with the task of carefully inciting and disseminating among sectarians, when explaining the subject of requests for freedom of religious rites, the idea of ​​reunification with the church. At the same time, point out the beneficent intentions of Your Majesty and remind you of the relief already granted to them. 6) In relation to sects recognized as especially harmful, not only do not allow any relief in religious terms, but charge the police with the duty to stop all secret gatherings of sectarians and refer to the courts for discussion the actions of persons who assign themselves the title of charterers or mentors among them. All cases concerning their attempts to spread their heresies will be carried out without a queue and decided to the fullest extent of the current regulations. 7) Allow, in terms of general civil rights in relation to tolerant sects, that is, those not recognized as especially harmful, the benefits assumed by Section II, namely: the right to occupy well-known public positions (at the beginning of this note, III paragraph 1); the right to awards and distinctions (clause 2); trade rights (clause 3); right of testimony (clause 4); the right to receive passports (clause 5); the right to hire a recruit for oneself (clause 8); the right to enter Russia from abroad (clause 6); limiting the inspection of the homes of sectarians on suspicion of the police to the general rules for conducting investigations (clause 7), and introducing a new procedure for maintaining lists of schismatics (clause 9). 8) In relation to harmful sects, that is, intolerant, allow only the abolition of restrictions on industrial and commercial rights in the places where they are installed; all followers of these sects who reveal their heresy are to be placed under police supervision and the rules regarding this supervision are applied to them in everything. 9) As a basis for proving rights to property by origin, take audit reports and police lists, for which a special form must be established. To ensure the accurate maintenance of lists by imposing on all persons not belonging to the recognized denominations the obligation to declare, under penalty of fine, all events of birth, marriage and death occurring in the family or home. For deliberately incorrect statements about these events, as well as for incorrectly entering this information into lists and for issuing false certificates about this, penalties are imposed, defined in general laws for forgery in acts of state. For all articles included in the lists and, in particular, for the issuance of certificates or extracts, clerical fees shall be established in favor of the police. Statements about births and deaths must be accepted from householders or older family members; when applying for marriages, require, in addition to the testimony of the spouses themselves or their relatives, the testimony of the local public authorities, according to class affiliation; declared marriages are considered not subject to dissolution, except in cases in which they must be subject to it on the basis of general laws. 10) Leave it to the Holy Synod to discuss whether it would not be useful to restore the custom that existed back in the twenties of this century, according to which marriages of schismatics were allowed in Orthodox churches, without taking away from them any evidence regarding their religion and without requiring obligations regarding the further membership of themselves or their children in Orthodoxy. 11) Allow sectarians belonging to tolerant sects to establish schools under the supervision of the Ministry of Public Education. Neither Orthodox nor non-Orthodox people should be excluded from these schools. They should not allow religious teaching according to the rules of sects; but also not to make it mandatory to teach the law of God according to Orthodox dogmas, limiting the range of teaching to subjects of elementary civil knowledge. Likewise, do not force the children of schismatics who attend other schools to learn the law of God in them. 12) Of all the above-mentioned measures, carry out legislative implementation only those that involve the abolition of decisions that were taken into account by legislative procedure. All others must be carried out using administrative procedures. But for the preliminary immediate discussion of the particulars of execution, as well as for the replenishment, development or change, as may be necessary, of all the above assumptions, to establish a special committee, the conclusion of which is subject to the highest discretion of Your Majesty in the Council of Ministers.” The above extracted project of Count Valuev on the need for reform in legislation on the schism attracted the highest attention of the late Sovereign, by whose Highest will a special temporary committee of spiritual and secular members 5 was established in February 1864 to consider the legislative proposals of the said project. In addition, the issues of determining the rights of schismatics by origin and property, which had been under consideration since 1858 by a special committee of the ministers of justice, internal affairs and state property, were also included in the subjects of the meetings of this committee according to the Highest will. The assumptions of Count Valuev’s project, together with the question of determining the rights of schismatics by origin and property, cover all aspects of the current legislation on schismatics, which, thus, in its essential provisions, was all subject to revision by the 1864 committee. To facilitate the work, the committee was given a systematic set of current regulations on schismatics, mentioned in the draft of the Minister of Internal Affairs, compiled by the 2nd Department, with comments from the Department. The program for the committee's studies is the draft of the Minister of Internal Affairs, and therefore the committee, having grouped all the particular provisions of the proposed changes in the legislation on schismatics expressed in the draft, divided them into the following four categories: 1) the general question of the classification of schismatic sects, 2) the general civil rights of schismatics, 3) their rights to worship and perform church duties, and, finally, 4) executive measures relating to all rights in particular. In our article we will follow the same procedure, extracting from the valuable materials we have the essential and main provisions and reasoning of the members of the 1864 committee, with minor illumination on our part in some cases 6. The question of classifying schismatic sects with the granting of more or less significant relief to sectarians, depending on the degree of harm that could result from them, for the last thirty years before the establishment of the committee of 1854, was the main basis for the entire system of government actions in relation to schismatics. In considering this question the committee had, so to speak, three classifications. The first is a legalized and valid classification of sects adopted by the Holy Synod according to the degree of their harm to the Orthodox faith, which divides schismatics into the most harmful, harmful and less harmful sects (priesthood). The second classification is the proposal by the Minister of the Interior in the draft outlined above; she divides sects into “more harmful” and “less harmful”, distinguishing them by the signs of prayer for the king and recognition of a marriage union unlimited by any period. The third classification was suggested by the II Division of His Imperial Majesty's own Chancellery; in this classification, in civil terms, all schismatics are divided into positively harmful sects, whose followers encroach on a person’s personality, i.e., the scopal sect and others, combined with ferocious fanaticism and fanatical encroachment on the life of themselves or others, and into less harmful sects, whose followers reject marriage and prayer for the king. According to this classification, it would be possible to recognize some schismatic sects as harmless. Discussing these divisions of sects, the committee also drew attention to the fact that back in 1858 the need for a classification based on accurate information and dogmas of each sect was recognized - but it was not possible to do this even in 1864 for the following good reasons: the necessary and accurate information about the sects has not yet been collected, and to expect their receipt would mean postponing the measures taken for several years, because schismatics, as is known, mix rituals with dogmas, both of them often change, are fragmented into different interpretations, they themselves have not formed a firm idea about the essential conditions on which their beliefs are based, and recently made a completely unsuccessful attempt in this regard, 7 which only increased discord and hesitation between them, which in some respects may be useful for the future reunification of well-meaning schismatics with the Orthodox Church. For these reasons, the accepted St. The classification by the Synod could not have solid foundations; back in 1868 it was recognized as insufficient and relates more to the spiritual sphere than to the definition of civil rights and guidance in administrative measures. In further discussion of this issue, according to the assumption and explanations of the Minister of the Interior, it was found inconvenient to admit the concept of the “harmlessness” of some sects based on the influence that this name could have on the ideas of the people, and it was considered more appropriate to divide schismatic sects into two main categories: “less harmful and especially harmful”, because the less harmful can be recognized as such by signs that are quite definitive and prove that they are closer than others to merging with Orthodox Christians and with loyal subjects performing all their civic duties. Concerning these signs, doubts were raised about their sufficiency, but, without prejudging this important issue, it was noted that the immediate indication of the schismatics’ deviation from respect for the Orthodox Church, its dogmas and rituals would increase the difficulty of the rapprochement so desired and which can only be achieved through peace and convictions. When considering the second assumption, doubt was also raised regarding the non-granting of any spiritual relief to especially harmful sects. This fear was eliminated by the explanation that those spiritual reliefs that were recognized as possible to bestow on the “less harmful” sects do not at all entail and should not entail any new, now non-existent oppression for the “especially harmful” sects. Regarding the prohibition of gatherings of schismatics of harmful sects, it has been noted and recognized that this should apply only to open gatherings, since gatherings in houses, not connected with any criminal act or unlawful intent, sufficiently discovered, cannot and should not be subject to prosecution unless they violate the general rules of decency and public order. As for the charterers and mentors of harmful sects, it was recognized by the committee that they should be brought to trial and cases carried out out of turn only if they spread errors or other crimes or misdemeanors subject to punishment under criminal or police laws. Based on the above reasoning and considerations regarding the classification of schismatic sects, the committee came to the following final conclusion: “to divide all schismatic sects and sects into “more” and “less” harmful. Those who, contrary to the teachings of the Holy, Catholic Apostolic Church, are considered more harmful sects: a) do not recognize the coming into the world of the Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ; b) do not recognize any sacraments and any divinely appointed authority; c) allow, in outward communication with the church, human adoration; d) encroach on the emasculation of themselves and others on the basis of blasphemous teachings; e) reject prayer for the king, and f) reject marriage and allow fixed-term or temporary marital unions. However, the 1864 committee decided to recognize all other sects as less harmful. Such an abstract classification was caused, as we saw when presenting the committee’s considerations, by the lack of information about the teaching and ritual side of the sects and opinions of the schism. After discussing the issue of classifying schismatic sects according to the degree of their harm, the 1864 committee began to consider and resolve the issue of general civil rights of schismatics. The first and most significant question when granting schismatics general civil rights, undoubtedly, was the question of their marriages, their family, as the basis of civil legal capacity and social and material relations. When discussing the marriages of schismatics, the committee found “that the complete non-recognition by the civil authorities of marital unions between sectarians, not sanctified by a wedding in the Orthodox or Edinoverie church, does not bring, as proven by experience, significant benefits, meanwhile, it destroys the family well-being of a significant number of His Imperial Majesty’s loyal subjects and, removing their home life from the action of general laws, opening up a vast field self-will and unrestrained revelry of passions, has a destructive effect on the morals of people, although they have fallen away from the true teachings of the faith, but who can still be returned to the right path through meekness and persuasion.” In view of such considerations, it seemed necessary to the committee to bring the schismatics to more normal conditions of family life, more consistent with the principles of state improvement. During a detailed discussion of this provision at the committee meetings, some more specific questions were raised that were the subject of discussion. The first subject of the meeting was the recognition or denial of the legality of marriages performed by schismatics in their houses of worship or private houses, with or without the observance of certain rituals. Bearing in mind the extreme difficulty of resolving this issue, the chairman of the committee proposed, in order to avoid many difficulties, to rule that “cases regarding the legality of children of schismatics who were not married in the Orthodox or Edinoverie Church can be initiated only at the request of one of the parents during the lifetime of the father and mother.” But this idea was recognized as inconvenient and does not eliminate all difficulties that may arise, and it was noted that such legalization could serve as a means for schismatics to keep their children, who are inclined to draw closer to St., in schism. Church. Another idea stated at the same time about giving schismatics the opportunity to use the right of adoption and its consequences with greater simplifications against those specified in the law for urban and rural inhabitants, was also set aside by the remark that adoption has its own special conditions in civil law and that it would be inconvenient to subject children born from marriage to these conditions. After these meetings, the Minister of Internal Affairs explained that “to reject the existence of schismatic marriages, when these marriages serve as the basis for the family life of a significant part of loyal subjects and when the government recognizes marriages of persons of non-Christian faiths, seems to be a highly unfair measure.” In view of this extreme necessity and at the same time wanting to avoid positive recognition of schismatic marriages, he, the minister, in the 9th paragraph of his assumptions, expressed the idea that the marriages of schismatics, included in the audit and police lists and certified by local public authorities, according to class, are considered valid and can be dissolved only in cases determined by general laws. This idea, as the minister stated, he accepted out of necessity, not finding on his part another, more satisfactory outcome to the essential issue of marriages of schismatics. In response to this assumption by Minister Valuev, the remark was made at the committee meeting that the proposed project for legalizing schismatic marriages is close to so-called civil marriages. But this remark was weakened by an indication of the vital fact that the marriages of schismatics in reality exist as de facto marriages, as indissoluble family ties, and that non-recognition by the government is extremely embarrassing for schismatics in their family life and forces them to resort to various ways to circumvent the law, which, thus, remains a dead letter. After all the discussions on the issue of recognizing schismatic marriages as legal for the regulation of family life, the committee in its conclusion, in order to achieve this goal, recognized it as necessary, without touching on the details contained in the 9th paragraph of the assumptions of the Minister of Internal Affairs, in resolving the general issue of schismatic marriages, it decided “that for the marriages of schismatics, without direct recognition of the legality of the spiritual rites performed by schismatics, special books should be introduced with the police, in which cases such as births and the death of sectarians, as well as marriages between them, concluded not for a period of time, so that marital unions, recorded in a certain order in these books, and over the past time in revision tales, could not be subject to challenge.” That general position of the committee in its more specific definitions was expressed in the following form: a) “for the time preceding the last national census, proof of the marital status of schismatics and their rights by origin and property to recognize revision tales; b) for the future, oblige schismatics to report all cases of birth, death and marriage between them to the police, who will be charged with the duty of recording these events in special books; c) to make known the changes that have taken place in the composition of the families of schismatics during the period from the last national census to the introduction of special books for the police, compile a family list for schismatics.” The basic principle adopted by the committee, that marital relationships between followers of less harmful sects, recorded in the audit or in the police lists should not be subject to challenge, undoubtedly required further development and more detailed examination, especially regarding the determination of measures for its practical application. The committee devoted a special meeting to such an examination of this general principle and its application in particular practice. At the beginning of discussions about this subject, the question presented itself: what should be considered the main, primary evidence of the composition of families among schismatics, revision tales or police lists, or both of them together? In resolving this issue, it was taken into account that although, by virtue of the current regulations, local police are obliged to maintain special lists of schismatics, but in the way they are maintained, one cannot hope to find complete and reliable data in them; Meanwhile, accurate information about the schismatics, as well as about all other inhabitants of the empire, was included in the tales of the last (X) national census. Therefore, in the time preceding the last census, in the opinion of the committee, “revision tales” seemed to be the most natural and reliable proof of the rights of schismatics by origin. On the contrary, in the future, when a new, more perfect procedure for attesting births, deaths and marriages between schismatics will be established, the lists or books in which these events will be recorded should be taken as the main evidence and only in case of obvious doubt about the reliability of the information contained in them, turn to revision tales or other documents. As for the exact period of time from the last national census to the introduction of the supposed new police books or lists, in order to have accurate information about the changes that followed in the composition of schismatic families during this period, the best way seemed, as the Minister of the Interior suggested, at the very establishment of the new order, to compile a common family list for the schismatics, which would serve as a starting point for subsequent notes on the events of birth, death and marriage. However, inclusion in this list should not be mandatory, but everyone should be allowed to be included in it with their family; to prevent false statements, it is useful to rule that during this initial recording the truth of the statements made should be certified by the local city or village authorities. Having resolved these basic issues by the committee, it began to discuss the form in which police lists or books should be kept, and the order in which statements should be accepted from schismatics about the events of birth, death and marriage. But even before discussing these practical applications of the general principle about the family law of schismatics, by order of the Minister of the Interior, detailed assumptions were drawn up, which were presented to the discretion of the committee. These assumptions consisted of: a) draft rules for reporting to the police about the birth, death and marriage of persons of various ranks who pray for the Tsar and recognize the marriage, but do not belong to the dominant church and other religious confessions; b) in three forms of books of police departments for recording statements of birth, death and marriage made by the said persons together with forms of extracts from such books, and c) the form of a family list of persons who do not belong to the dominant Orthodox or other faith denominations. Having examined these rules and forms, the committee recognized that the order proposed by the Minister of the Interior is fully consistent with the goal of introducing a more accurate way of recording changes occurring in the families of schismatics. Sectarians, although deviating from the teachings of the true church, do not reject the fundamental principles of state improvement, will thereby receive the opportunity to use, to some extent, the civil rights granted to all subjects of the empire; Meanwhile, as a result of the precautions taken in the project, the leniency shown to them will not turn, as one should hope, either into encouraging schismatic errors, or into a temptation or bait for people who are not firm in the faith and who are inclined to get carried away by schism. In this regard, the condition expressed in the above-mentioned projects is especially important: that cases of birth, death and marriage are recorded in police books only with positive certification that those who entered into marriage, died or were born, as well as the parents of the latter, were not baptized in the Orthodox or heterodox church; thus, only persons who have truly been in schism for a long time will appear in the books. No less beneficial is the very complexity of the designed rules and forms, the complexity arising from the fact that in them it is recognized that it is necessary to protect by all means the reliability of the recorded statements: through this, schismatics cannot and will not enjoy undeserved relief in comparison with other subjects of the state - but will be subject to the same strict conditions of order that all others are subject to in relation to acts of civil status. According to these respects, the draft rules and forms drawn up in the Ministry of Internal Affairs were fully approved by the committee in their main features. Regarding particulars, some comments were made. In this article, we consider it unnecessary to outline the content of the rules for the police registration of schismatics on the basis that these rules, in a modified form, served as a draft for the law on schismatic marriages, the examination of which will be the subject of our second article on legislative reforms on schism. In the committee's deliberations about other general civil rights of schismatics, it was taken into account that in relation to followers of especially harmful sects, some measures of severity seem necessary, but the position of those erring ones who, by the nature of their teaching, will be recognized as less harmful, it is desirable to alleviate, as far as possible, without violating the legitimate rights and interests of the dominant church. In this sense, the existing decrees on schismatics were revised, namely: on the right of schismatics to occupy public positions, on the right to awards and distinctions, on trade rights, on the right of witnessing, on the right to obtain passports, on the right to hire recruits, on the right to enter Russia from abroad and on the education of children of schismatics. Of all these subjects, only two were not subject to detailed consideration by the committee - on the right of schismatics to testify in courts and the right to hire recruits - discussion of these was considered unnecessary by the committee in view of the special resolutions on reforms that had been made on them in the relevant departments. Turning to a particular consideration of the existing restrictions on the general civil rights of schismatics in the committee of 1864, we consider it not superfluous, for greater clarity, to present the committee’s reasoning, at least in general terms, on each subject separately, summarizing the detailed discussions of private subjects in more general provisions: 1) regarding the right of schismatics to occupy public positions, the committee came to the conclusion that in those societies in which there are more schismatics than Orthodox, schismatics of less harmful sects should be allowed to occupy public positions: village elders, conscientious, volost elders, tax collectors and others, except for the position of city mayor, with the limitation, however, that where the volost elder is a schismatic, his assistant will always be an Orthodox Christian. 2) On the subject of awarding schismatics with insignia and honoring them with honorary titles, the following resolution of the committee was made: “without honoring the followers of more harmful sects with any insignia or honorary titles, in relation to the followers of less harmful sects, submit to the appropriate authorities about exceptional cases constituting state merit or special feats of charity of such schismatics, after collecting the necessary information, submit to His Highest discretion Imperial Majesty." 3) When discussing the rights of trade committees, first of all, attention was paid to the legal provisions in force on this subject for schismatics, upon examination of which it turned out that, according to the legislative definitions that were in force until 1853, schismatics had the right to enroll in guilds on a general basis; Only eunuchs were subject to exclusion from this; since 1843, they were prohibited from issuing certificates for the right to trade if they had not held the merchant rank before that time; those who were members of the merchant class were not allowed to move from lower guilds to higher ones. In 1853, a decision was made to accept all dissenters into the guild only on a temporary basis, but this decision was canceled with the publication in 1863 of a new regulation on duties for the right to trade. Following the general principle of granting schismatics greater or lesser rights, depending on the degree of harm that could result from them for the state and the church, the committee found that followers of less harmful sects could henceforth be allowed to enroll in guilds and trade on a general basis. But in relation to those belonging to sects, it is more harmful, due to the fact that engaging in trade and crafts, associated with absences from their place of residence, often serves as a convenient means for schismatics to hide sectarian propaganda that is harmful and dangerous for the state and the church - evidence of which was information that repeatedly reached the highest government about a significant number of seductions into the least tolerant sects, for example: into the skopchestvo, by people traveling around cities and towns. villages under the pretext of their trade affairs. The Committee did not consider it possible and fair to allow these sectarians broad freedom in trade and industrial rights. Considering it necessary to prevent or at least weaken the propaganda of harmful sectarians and recognizing at the same time the impossibility of prohibiting sectarians, even subsequent more harmful teachings, from any production of trades, the Minister of Internal Affairs in his draft amendments to the existing regulations on schismatics suggested that in relation to schismatics of the most harmful sects, only allow the abolition of restrictions on the rights of industrial and commercial in the places of their settlement, so that all followers of these sects that revealed their heresy should be placed under police supervision and the rules on this supervision should be applied to them. According to this assumption of the project, the committee’s resolution was made. When resolving the issue of granting trade rights to schismatics, the private prohibition that existed in the existing decrees on the admission of followers of all schismatic views and sects to enter the icon painting workshops was not left without discussion. The Committee recognized that this prohibition could be lifted, since, with a few exceptions, schismatics generally use icons, which are also revered by the Orthodox Church. After such discussions on the issue of granting schismatics the rights of trade and industry, in its conclusion the committee expressed the following definition: “to allow schismatics of less harmful sects to enroll in guilds and carry out trade on a common basis. Allow the abolition of restrictions on the rights of industrial and commercial and for schismatics of more harmful sects, so that all followers of these sects who reveal their heresy are placed under police supervision and, according to the application of the rules on this supervision, are not dismissed from their places of residence. The existing ban on allowing schismatics into icon-painting workshops will be abolished.” When considering the question of the right of schismatics to receive passports, the 1864 committee also, first of all, focused on considering both the general legislative definitions in force on this subject and specific restrictions and prohibitions that specifically applied to followers of only certain sects. In general, the question of passports for schismatics naturally fell into two parts, namely: 1) permission for the absence of schismatics within the empire and 2) vacation abroad. According to the laws in force at that time, absences within the empire were not allowed for: a) Judaizers, Molokans, Doukhobors and spiritual Christians, except for those settled in the Transcaucasian region; b) in general, schismatics returning from monasteries and noticed in new unrest due to the schism (in its propaganda). In addition, there were even more specific restrictions regarding the absences of some sectarians to certain places; for example, it was prohibited to issue passports to schismatics of the Don Army who wanted to go to the Luzhki settlement (Chernigov. governor); also, recruit passports were not issued to the wives of recruits from the Molokans of the Melitopol district, etc. Having reviewed all the legislative restrictions on this subject for schismatics, the committee, finding that earnings and trades on the side for a significant part of our people constitute a necessary means of earning a living, recognized the unconditional ban on issuing passports to schismatics of all denominations and sects as inconvenient and extremely restrictive. This inconvenience was repeatedly noticed in experience, and the highest authorities themselves made exceptions for some places and sectarians - for example, for the Molokans of the Tauride province and the cities of Western Siberia, despite the prohibition existing in the law, absences were allowed. But since the followers of harmful sects, especially those prone to covert propaganda of their delusions, naturally require strict control of the police authorities and close supervision over them in their places of residence, and the dismissal of such schismatics to other places, weakening the necessary control, would threaten harmful consequences, the committee recognized the most convenient means, instead of particular restrictions for the followers of some harmful sects, to establish a general rule about not allowing issuing leave of absence to all those schismatics of more harmful sects who will be exposed for spreading their errors. Turning to the question of the absence of schismatics outside the empire, the committee reasoned that the existing unconditional prohibition of dismissing schismatics abroad does not seem to be particularly necessary, since among the trips of sectarians to foreign lands, only those undertaken by Russian schismatics for criminal relations with sectarians living in other lands, especially with the schismatic false hierarchy in Bukovina, can be considered truly harmful. To prevent this harm, the committee considered it sufficient to rule that schismatics of all sects in general should go abroad only with the special permission of the Minister of the Interior. After discussing the issue of the absence of schismatics both within the empire and abroad, the committee expressed the following categorical resolution on both points of the issue: 1) “to allow the issuance of leave permits for schismatics within the empire on a general basis, except for those followers of more harmful sects who will be exposed in the spread of their errors”; 2) “to allow the dismissal of schismatics of all sects abroad with special permission from the Minister of Internal Affairs; but leave in force the existing ban on allowing schismatic foreigners into Russia.” In the project of the Minister of Internal Affairs Valuev, it was proposed to allow followers of less harmful sects of the schism to establish schools at their own expense to educate their children, as well as the admission of such children to general schools without compulsory instruction in the law of God. This important question required complex considerations by the committee and gave rise to heated debates and differences of opinion. It is obvious that the resolution of this issue, which has a wide application in life and has enormous consequences in the public life of the state, required great caution and a comprehensive examination of not only the essence of the issue itself, but also the practical consequences inextricably linked with one or another resolution of it. The Committee of 1864, standing at the height of its task, examined the issue of schools for the children of schismatics in all detail, carefully weighing both the modern needs and benefits of education and the dangers that could subsequently arise for the state and the church if schismatics were fully allowed, at their personal discretion, to organize their own special schools for children in addition to government control. In resolving this issue, as we have already said, differences of opinion arose between the members of the committee, which, in general, split into two groups, into two separate opinions. On a general basis, in principle, all members of the committee agreed in agreement that the spread of education among schismatics is one of the most effective means, if not for the complete eradication, then for a significant weakening of schismatic errors and for the dissemination among sectarians of more correct concepts about the true principles of religion and the conditions of civil life. But in this regard, only public education of children in schools under the highest supervision of government authority can act quite beneficially; it is the best and only remedy against the harmful influence of another kind of teaching, home-based, secret teaching, escaping all control, carried out through schismatic teachers and literati, who transmit to their students, along with the rudiments of literacy, hostility towards the Orthodox Church and stubborn rigidity in their false teachings. Therefore, the committee considered it useful, in accordance with the proposal of the Minister of the Interior, to allow the followers of less harmful sects to establish literacy schools, in which teaching would be limited to reading, writing and the four rules of arithmetic, so that these schools, both in the selection and appointment of teachers, and in relation to the supervision of teaching, were under the jurisdiction of those institutions that would generally be under the control of public schools, however, without any encouragement or support from the government. Likewise, in the opinion of the committee, the children of schismatics should be allowed to attend general schools and educational institutions, in accordance with existing regulations, without making it mandatory for them to study the law of God. But on the question raised in the assumptions of the Minister of Internal Affairs, whether Orthodox children could be admitted to schools that would be run by schismatics, disagreement ensued in the committee. Four members 8 expressed the following opinion: “permitting schismatics to establish primary schools for their children at their own expense, given the developing need for education among the people, in the absence of funds to keep track of schools that exist secretly without any supervision, especially in those areas where the entire population belongs to the schism, constitutes a necessity to which an equivalent objection is hardly possible.” But at the same time, these four members would believe: “children of the Orthodox confession should not be allowed into schools run by sectarians; with regard to the subjects of teaching and supervision of training and especially direction, subordinate these schools to school councils, on the basis of the general provisions for primary public schools.” This opinion was based on the following motives and considerations, which we consider it worthwhile to present here in their entirety. Constituting protest and opposition to the rules of Orthodoxy and innovations in the civil life of the state in the last century and a half, the society of schismatics, by the very nature of their oppositions, is denser and much more imbued with the spirit of propaganda than the society of the Orthodox. Therefore, if one should want to attract schismatics into the midst of the Orthodox with the hope of its influence on them, then one must be even more wary of allowing the Orthodox among the sectarians. If the relationship of the owners of schismatics to their Orthodox workers, as is known, is always to the detriment of the beliefs of these latter, then can not more harm be expected from the admission of Orthodox children to schismatic schools? The religious and moral direction was adopted as the basis for the initial public education in the empire; In all schools established for the Orthodox, the teaching of the law of God is recognized as a necessary condition. Will this essential goal not be eliminated if Orthodox children, with the permission of the government, are admitted to schools in which the religious element is supposed to be completely excluded? It can be confidently expected that, despite all the instructions and confirmations about supervision and observation, that in schools established by schismatics, only subjects of elementary civil knowledge are taught, dissent, according to the understanding of the society that contains the school, will inevitably creep into teaching, and Orthodox children educated in such schools will undoubtedly be influenced by it. Many people think that education is the all-healing remedy against schism. This is true: but it is true, firstly, in relation to higher education, and not primary education, which is almost more common among schismatics than among Orthodox Christians. And, secondly, this does not eliminate the fear of what belief a schismatic will accept when his former faith is shaken and destroyed by education. Consequently, for success it is necessary that the education be not only sufficient to dispel error, but also religious, so that old, false beliefs can be replaced with new, true ones. It is possible, and unfortunately, there are examples of this, that a schismatic, having seen the futility of his previous convictions and not having found real guidance, indulges in complete unbelief. Introducing Orthodox children into such an environment, preparing such a state in the Orthodox population - can it be consistent with the goals of the government? That is why, in the opinion of four members, it should be: “without preventing schismatics from establishing primary schools for their children at their own expense, subordinate them to school councils on a general basis, only without any rights to government benefits and encouragement - and at the same time, try by all means to attract the children of schismatics to general literacy schools, even without compulsory instruction in the law of God. This last indulgence can be allowed because the religious trend, when it permeates the school, can be found both in teaching literacy and in the very relations between the teacher and students. At the same time, however, it is necessary: 1) to ask the diocesan bishops to instill in the clergy that their moral obligation to open schools for the people applies most of all to areas infected with schism, and mainly to those where schools will be opened by schismatics themselves, and 2) to make it the duty of school councils to elect teachers for schools established by sectarians with special caution - to have vigilant supervision so that under the guise of children of schismatics, children of Orthodox Christians were not accepted into their schools, and to take all possible measures so that hostile or perverse ideas about the Orthodox Church and government were not instilled in the students; to ensure that parochial schools are opened in areas affected by schism; primarily use the benefit funds provided to them to enable these schools to withstand competition with the schools of schismatics; and, finally, try by all means in their power to encourage those clergy and clergy who will succeed in this, and preferably over all others, those who will be able to attract the children of schismatics to attend their schools.” The chairman and other members of the committee expressed their full sympathy for the general thoughts and judgments expressed in the dissenting opinion of the four members on the need to establish public education on a religious basis and on the benefits of multiplying for this purpose schools in which the law of God would be the main subject of teaching. The establishment of such schools, if possible, wherever there is an Orthodox population and exhortation to parents through their spiritual shepherds to send their children there, seemed to be the most reliable means of preventing cases of seduction from Orthodoxy. In the opinion of the majority of the committee members, this should not have been stopped without issuing any general decree on the permission or prohibition of sending children of the Orthodox confession to schools maintained at the expense of schismatics. Such schools should neither bear the name nor have the meaning of “schismatic schools.” They should be simply literacy schools in which, with the special permission of the government, the teaching will be limited to the circle of secular elementary education. An obligatory order not to admit anyone into them except the children of sectarians would inevitably give them the character that it is most desirable to avoid; it would develop in teachers and students a spirit of exclusivity, characteristic of any closed circle and weakened only by the collision of persons with different views and habits. They almost exaggerate too much the danger that threatens the Orthodox from contact with schismatics. The Orthodox, undoubtedly, sometimes succumb to the influence of schism teachers; but the harmful influence on them is usually exerted by elderly sectarians who know how to skillfully influence ordinary people by the example of external strict life, to amaze them with their erudition and knowledge of the rules of the church. A completely different thing is noticed in the younger generation: here the community of schismatics with Orthodox Christians not only poses no harm to the latter, but is often the best healing remedy against the schism itself. Sectarians, attached to their errors, knowing this, try, as is known, to keep their children, if possible, away from those belonging to the dominant church. There is no reason to think that in schools that will exist in the public eye, in which teaching is carried out under the supervision of higher authorities, the teachers themselves will be appointed under the control of government authority, the meeting of Orthodox children with schismatics could cause more harm than the daily clashes that occur between them in life. It is impossible not to take into account that Orthodox parents sending their children to schools maintained by sectarians can only be a rare exception and should actually only occur in those places where, apart from the school maintained by the schismatics, there is no other school in close proximity, so that without it Orthodox children would have to be left without any education: where there will be a schismatic and an Orthodox school in the vicinity of one another, it will be impossible for the former to withstand competition for the one thing that it contains there will be no religious teaching, without which, according to the long-rooted belief, fortunately for everyone, in our people, teaching is not teaching. For the few sectarian schools where there are children of the Orthodox confession, it will obviously not be difficult to have special vigilant supervision, and if when actions were noticed that could threaten the religious direction of a minor, it would be better to eliminate the harm through private measures than to enact a premature general prohibition, the effect of which could be very unfavorable. Having carefully considered the grounds and evidence of the two opinions expressed by the members, the committee, in its general conclusion on the question of schismatic schools, decided: “to allow schismatics of less harmful sects to establish literacy schools in which teaching would be limited to reading, writing and the four rules of arithmetic, so that these schools, both in relation to the selection and appointment of teachers, and in relation to the supervision of teaching, would be under the jurisdiction of those institutions that will generally be public schools are under the jurisdiction, however, without any encouragement or support from the government. Likewise, allow the children of schismatics to attend general schools and educational institutions, without making it mandatory for them to learn the law of God.” The question of the divine services of schismatics and their fulfillment of spiritual demands, due to its importance and the difficulty of resolving it satisfactorily, required especially careful considerations by the committee, extreme caution and circumspection in conclusions, so that by granting the rights of religious freedom to schismatics not to humiliate the dignity of the dominant Orthodox Church and its hierarchy. The question of allowing schismatics of less harmful sects to perform religious rites according to their rules, in the assumptions of the Minister of Internal Affairs, consisted of two points: the first of which concerned the actual worship and prayer buildings of the schismatics, and the second of their clergy and mentors. On the first point, the chairman of the committee raised a general question: in what places, at what times and under what restrictions can public worship and the fulfillment of spiritual demands be allowed by schismatics of less harmful sects? On this issue, the Minister of the Interior presented the committee with detailed information and explanations, expressed in the following form: “according to the information available from the Ministry of the Interior (approximately correct), there are up to 220 open schismatic prayer houses in the empire, and in recent years, in addition, there have been cases of special Highest permission to open prayer houses that were previously closed. Thus, the question of allowing schismatics to perform divine services not only in private homes, but also in public prayer houses has already been resolved by practice and, in general terms, can hardly raise doubts. A discussion of this issue is necessary in order to determine the conditions to which the right of schismatics to conduct worship should be subject in the future.” Considering the issue from this point of view, the Minister of Internal Affairs found that a system, by virtue of which followers of all sects would be constrained in the performance of their spiritual duties, seems as inconvenient in relation to the state as it promises little benefit for the Orthodox Church. The history of all countries where there have been religious differences irrefutably proves that measures of severity and persecution not only fail to suppress sectarian errors, but by inciting fanaticism, increasing stubbornness, sowing a feeling of enmity between sectarians and the rest of the population, often lead to opposite results. There were examples that randomly arose, initially unimportant, differences of opinion in points of faith, as a result of drastic measures taken, gradually grew and turned into a complete falling away from the ruling church, often combined with political upheavals. In the opinion of State Secretary Valuev, following the decisions of the committee to grant schismatics of less harmful sects civil and public rights and the adoption of a general system of tolerance towards them, it seemed necessary to provide them with some relief in the performance of divine services, but, of course, relief, surrounded by all the necessary conditions and restrictions, in order not only to protect the dignity of the ruling church and not to give rise to temptation for its faithful children, but to eliminate and any possibility of thought about any patronage or recognition of schismatic false teachings by state authorities. After listening to these explanations, the committee agreed that in a state where Jews, Mohammedans, and pagans are allowed to freely perform rituals according to the rules of their law, there can be no question of an unconditional prohibition of public prayer for schismatics who profess the one true God. This is not where the measures of severity and restrictions that are necessary in some cases should be directed; Their goal is not to embarrass sectarians, but to protect the religious interests of the mass of the Orthodox people, in whom doubts could easily arise if schismatic errors were placed on the same level as the doctrine of the true church. This very important consideration requires special caution in the transition from a system of strict divisional actions to measures of leniency. Based on such general judgments, the 1864 committee decided to settle on the basic principle that schismatics of less harmful sects are allowed to perform public prayer and perform divine services according to their rituals both in homes and in prayer buildings and (with the restrictions indicated below) in cemeteries, but on the indispensable condition that there is no “public evidence of schism that is tempting for the Orthodox.” This principle is recognized by current legislation, and in the instructions for dealing with schismatics, published in 1858, there is a special detailed rule about what exactly is considered a public demonstration of schism. But this rule, in relation to some of the details included in it, requires correction in the future. So, for example, after this rule, a public manifestation of a schism is recognized, among other things, “such singing inside the chapels that would be heard outside them,” while it is hardly even possible that singing in a hut or chapel was not at all audible from the outside; further, “the solemn performance of baptism and marriage” is considered the same sanction, which vagueness of expression should lead to private misunderstandings and abuses. To eliminate all such shortcomings in the wording of the current rule, the committee considered it more thorough to replace it with the following: “the following are recognized as public manifestations of schism, tempting for Orthodox Christians: 1) religious processions and public processions in church vestments; 2) wearing church or monastic attire outside houses and chapels and wearing icons in public, and 3) schismatic singing in the streets and squares.” The prohibition of public display of schism aroused special considerations in the committee as applied to worship in schismatic cemeteries. Cemeteries, of course, cannot be likened to streets and squares. It is impossible to prohibit the performance of common prayer, even with singing, when paying the last debt to a deceased father, close relative, etc. But, on the other hand, since schismatic cemeteries are often located in close proximity to Orthodox ones, and are not always fenced off and everything that happens in them can be seen from the outside, it is also inconvenient to unconditionally apply to them the rules about worship in homes and chapels. In the opinion of the committee, the most careful thing in this regard is to leave the existing order unchanged, that is, to allow schismatics to pray in cemeteries with singing, but without wearing church vestments, during burials. Having thus determined the main principles on which the worship of schismatics of less harmful sects should be allowed, the committee began to resolve the issue of their houses of worship. Since 1822, schismatics were forbidden to build churches, chapels, or any kind of prayer buildings; in the same way, they were not allowed to remodel or renew existing buildings; those that fell into disrepair were little by little sealed; and in the same way, newly built or old ones that were illegally renewed were sealed. As a result of this government measure, by the sixties the total number of open schismatic prayer houses, compared with the figure of the schismatic population, was very insignificant, and in many places where a large number of schismatics settled, there were even no prayer houses at all. With the permission for followers of less harmful sects to worship without hindrance, with certain restrictions, in relation to their prayer buildings, it naturally seemed necessary to examine three questions: a) permission to repair existing prayer houses and chapels; b) about unsealing those that were sealed by government orders, and c) about opening new ones. There were no particularly important obstacles to the permission to repair and improve open and dilapidated prayer buildings. In this case, all that was required was caution and care to ensure that, under the guise of repairs, a complete reconstruction of the prayer houses was not undertaken and, in particular, that they were not given the appearance of Orthodox churches. To prevent this, the committee decided that the repair of chapels and other prayer buildings to schismatics of tolerant sects is permitted only with the special permission of the head of the province each time and with the condition that the appearance of the building being repaired should not be changed in any way, regardless of the strict prohibition of having external bells, crosses and icons above the doors. Resolving the issue of opening closed chapels and constructing new ones presented more difficulties. On the one hand, there did not seem to be sufficient grounds for prohibiting schismatics from performing the public prayer allowed to them in buildings intended specifically for this purpose, known to the government and standing in front of the police. A schismatic service in public chapels, in some parts similar to the worship of the Orthodox Church, should, of course, have a beneficial effect on the moral mood of the erring than secret prayer in huts, which, as experience has shown, is always much more distant from the rites of the true church, and sometimes loses any religious character. But, on the other hand, the unsealing and opening of prayer buildings are precisely those actions that, in the absence of the necessary caution, can most of all give sectarians a reason to think, and perhaps even declare to the Orthodox, that their false teachings are encouraged and approved by the government. Therefore, in this case, more than ever, special caution in enforcement measures is necessary. In view of such considerations, the committee found that the unsealing of schismatic chapels and prayer buildings should be permitted only with the permission of the highest authorities. Regarding what kind of authority it should depend on, two assumptions were made: one, to assign the said right and duty to the Minister of the Interior, and the other, to grant this to the diocesan authorities. The benefit of the latter order would be that schismatics in the prayer building given to them would see the church itself condescending to them, and, meanwhile, the obligation to ask permission from the bishop and obey his decision would be placed in direct relations with spiritual shepherds, which would not remain without a beneficial influence on bringing them closer to Orthodoxy. The justice of these arguments was also recognized by the Minister of Internal Affairs, who, for his part, found it useful that with each request to open the chapel, communication should be made with the diocesan authorities, but the final decision of these cases, in the opinion of Secretary of State Valuev, should depend on the ministry entrusted to him, which should not be bound by the conclusion of the local spiritual authority. By their very position, the diocesan bishops may sometimes be unfamiliar with the types of higher government and the general system of its actions; their views on the split could be different, therefore, with the provision of a decisive voice to them, the most important measures for the split would inevitably lose the main condition for success - unity and consistency. Agreeing with this opinion, the committee decided: “the opening of schismatic prayer houses should be allowed, with the permission of the Minister of Internal Affairs, upon prior communication of each case between the head of the province and the local diocesan authorities, with the condition that the opening is carried out without any celebration and that the said permission does not extend to schismatic monasteries and monasteries, the opening of which should not be allowed in any case.” As for the opening of new prayer buildings, based on the above considerations, it is necessary, in places where the former prayer houses have been destroyed and a significant population of schismatics belonging to tolerant sects does not have any means for public prayer, it is allowed, with the permission of the Minister of Internal Affairs, after preliminary communication with the governors of the province with the local diocesan authorities, to turn residential buildings for this purpose, so that there are no external decorations attached to them, characteristic of Orthodox churches. All the above benefits and relief, according to the assumption of the Minister of Internal Affairs, should be provided to those sectarians who themselves ask for them, recognizing themselves as praying for the king and accepting the marriage. In this case, in the opinion of the committee, it is necessary to demand from them a statement that they will sacredly fulfill those conditions on the basis of which they are recognized as belonging to denominations closer to the confession of the Orthodox Church and will refrain from any dissemination of their beliefs among the Orthodox. Following these judgments and decisions, the committee moved on to consider paragraph VIII of the Minister of the Interior’s assumptions about persons fulfilling spiritual needs for schismatics. These persons include: a) clergy who fled from the Orthodox Church to schismatics, b) those who arrived from abroad, c) those ordained by schismatic false bishops and d) mentors and guides of priestless sects. There were few clergy who fled from the Orthodox Church in the sixties of this century, due to the structure of the Austrian pseudo-metropolis and the insignificance of the number of followers of the Beglopopovshchina, which is why the committee did not find it necessary to establish any special rule about them. Regarding those who arrived from abroad, and some of whom were ordained false bishops within Russia, the chairman of the committee noted that these people, often living without legalized views or with false views and moving from place to place sometimes with camp churches, seem to be very dangerous spreaders of schism. A general search for and persecution of them would be inconsistent with the system of tolerance adopted in relation to schismatics; but it would seem useful for the police to assign them certain places of residence and have a vigilant watch over their activities, preventing them from being absent. To this remark, some members of the committee, for their part, added that in general the government should not remain indifferent to what kind of people take the place of spiritual mentors among schismatics, since by their very position they have great influence on the entire mass of sectarians; Therefore, it was proposed to decree that all those fulfilling spiritual requirements for schismatics should be reported to the local police, or even that these persons, in order to accept the title, should receive permission from the provincial authorities. But against all these assumptions, it was noticed that any order that would grant, albeit indirectly, to one or another person the right to fulfill spiritual requirements, would entail some recognition of their clergy title or dignity, which, of course, is associated with important inconveniences. Based on these considerations, the committee decided that everyone who fulfills any spiritual requirements for schismatics should generally be considered to belong to the classes in which they belong, without, however, being subjected to any persecution or restrictions, except in cases where they incur the action of general criminal laws. At the conclusion of the committee's deliberations and decisions on the issue of granting schismatics the rights to worship, a private question was raised as to whether and on what grounds it would be possible in the future to allow the transfer of Orthodox clergy to schismatics of the priestly sect? The committee unanimously recognized that transitions associated with apostasy from the Orthodox Church cannot be tolerated; but, perhaps, it would be useful to allow Orthodox clergy to go over to those schismatics who would agree to accept them with submission to the highest spiritual authority, and moreover, such clergy would pledge by subscription to remain unswervingly in union with the true Church. The resolution of this assumption, in the opinion of the committee, should depend on the Holy Synod in conjunction with the general question of the dissemination of the rules of unity of faith and the conditions for the reunification of sectarians accepting the priesthood with the Orthodox Church. The decisions of the committee on the issue of granting religious rights to schismatics in the general journal of the committee in separate paragraphs and in categorical form were expressed in the following resolutions: “With regard to the fulfillment of spiritual requirements and worship of schismatics, followers of harmful sects should not be provided with any relief in the existing order and not allow their “open” gatherings for prayer; but this should not be extended to gatherings in houses that are not associated with criminal acts or unlawful intent, sufficiently discovered, and not subject such gatherings to persecution unless they violate the general rules of decency and public order. Likewise, the charterers and mentors of these sects should be brought to trial only if they spread errors or other crimes or misdemeanors subject to punishment under criminal or police laws.” For schismatics of less harmful sects, the committee decided the following relief: 1) “To allow them to perform public prayer, perform religious services and perform divine services according to their rites, both in homes and in specially designated prayer buildings and cemeteries, on the indispensable condition that there is no public, tempting for the Orthodox, manifestation of schism.” 2) “It is tempting for the Orthodox to recognize the following as a public demonstration of schism: a) religious processions, public processions in church vestments; b) wearing church or monastic attire outside houses and chapels and wearing icons in public; and c) schismatic singing in the streets and squares.” 3) “In cemeteries, during burials it is allowed to pray according to the rituals accepted by schismatics, with singing, but without the use of church vestments.” 4) “Allow the correction of chapels and other prayer buildings that are falling into disrepair with the special permission of the head of the province each time and with the condition that the appearance of the building being repaired is not changed in any way, regardless of strict adherence to the prohibition of having external bells or crosses and icons above the doors.” 5) “To allow the opening of closed houses of worship with the special permission of the Minister of Internal Affairs, upon prior notification of each case of communication between the head of the province and the local diocesan authorities and with the condition that the opening is carried out without any celebration; This permission, however, should not be extended to schismatic monasteries and hermitages, the opening of which should not be allowed under any circumstances.” 6) “In places where the former chapels have been destroyed and a significant population belonging to less harmful sects of schismatics does not have any means for public prayer, allow, with the permission of the Minister of Internal Affairs, after preliminary communication between the head of the province and the local diocesan authorities, residential buildings for this purpose, so that they do not have external decorations typical of Orthodox churches attached to them.” 7) “Not to subject any of those who fulfill the spiritual requirements of these schismatics to persecution or embarrassment, except in cases where they incur the action of general criminal laws, but also not to recognize for them a clergy title or dignity, but to consider, in civil terms, as belonging to the classes in which they belong. Transitions to the schismatics of the priestly sect of the clergy of the Orthodox Church, with the falling away from Orthodoxy, in the future, should not be allowed.” 8) “Take it as a rule that the above-mentioned reliefs granted to schismatics of less harmful sects are provided to those sectarians who themselves ask for them, recognizing themselves by their religion as belonging to less harmful sects. Moreover, demand from them a statement that they will sacredly fulfill those conditions on the basis of which they are recognized as belonging to movements closer to the confession of the Orthodox Church and will refrain from any dissemination of their beliefs among the Orthodox.” In conclusion of the fulfillment of its complex and difficult task of both revising the existing laws on schismatics and determining new reliefs for them in civil and religious rights, the 1864 committee also determined the procedure for the implementation of those plans and conclusions that would receive the Highest approval of the Sovereign Emperor. The order of executive measures was determined by the committee in the following form: 1) “To carry out legislative implementation of those decisions that have taken place, which cancel or in any way change the laws for schismatics placed in the Code of Laws, the necessary changes in the articles of the Code are entrusted to the Minister of Internal Affairs by agreement with the II Department of His Imperial Majesty’s own Chancellery.” 2) “Conclusions containing the cancellation, modification or addition of decisions that were not made public, but were only communicated to the authorities in administrative order, shall be carried out in the same manner through notification of those authorities who will be entrusted with their execution. Orders on this should be concentrated in the Ministry of Internal Affairs, allowing it, in appropriate cases, to enter into relations with other ministries in charge of schismatics, but to ensure that all measures are carried out simultaneously and uniformly.” 3) “The publication and implementation of measures that are finally authorized should be carried out gradually, dividing the executive orders into approximately two main periods, so that the first includes measures relating to the general civil rights of schismatics, and the second - facilitation in the performance of spiritual duties. Determination on this basis of further details of the execution procedure is left to the discretion of the Minister of Internal Affairs.” 4) “Explanations that may be necessary in the issued decisions during their further application should be requested through the appropriate institutions in accordance with the generally established procedure.” 5) “Give the Minister of the Interior, when announcing and putting into effect the proposed measures, in a special circular addressed to the heads of the provinces, to explain the real meaning of the government’s orders regarding schismatics and assign instructions to these persons to carefully initiate and disseminate among sectarians, when explaining the subject of requests for freedom of religious rites, the idea of reunification with the church, and also to take advantage of every opportunity to instill in those who are mistaken that the accepted measures oblige them with even greater readiness to strictly obey the order established by law and to refrain from any hostility towards the Orthodox Church or blaming it, and even more so from attempts to attract others to their errors. This circular from the Ministry of Internal Affairs should also be communicated to other ministries and main departments, under the highest command of which are local institutions and authorities involved in any way in the proceedings against schismatics. The same kind of instruction, at the immediate discretion of the Holy Synod, should be given to the diocesan bishops.” 6) “To prohibit in the future the publication in the press in separate editions of the works of schismatic teachers, containing their false thinking and systematic exposition of schismatic dogmas and rituals, without proper explanations or objections from the spiritual authorities or approved by these authorities.” We tried to present all the above considerations and conclusions of the 1864 committee in our article with the greatest possible accuracy and detail, taking care that the valuable materials we have did not lose their documentary significance. Having offered a detailed presentation of all the extensive and varied activities of the committee of 1864 to revise existing laws and outline new ones regarding schismatics, we would only have to say about the form in which the committee’s works were awarded the Highest approval. But even before the chairman of the committee, Count Panin, according to the regulations of the committee, all the works of the committee were submitted to the Highest discretion of the Sovereign Emperor, the Highest will was expressed to report all the works of committee 9 for the consideration of the famous hierarch of our church, His Eminence Metropolitan Philaret, who, after a detailed examination of all the journals of the committee, set out his valuable opinion in a special note entitled: “On the proposed changes in the current decrees about schismatics." We have an exact copy of this wonderful note, which has not yet been printed anywhere. If the small and insignificant lines in which the views and opinions of this great historical figure were expressed, a statesman and a luminary of the church, are precious for every historian, his complete and detailed opinion on the serious, complex, unresolved issue of schism for two centuries is so precious that we can only thank the occasion that gave us the opportunity to have at hand a statement of the opinions of this venerable hierarch regarding the works of the 1864 temporary committee - but a very important institution, whose works became the basis and guiding thread for the resolution of all legislative changes and administrative measures for the split to this day. Needless to say, we would consider it sacrilege to lay our hands on the wise edition of Metropolitan Philaret’s note; Treasuring every word of this rare document, we place it in our article in complete integrity. For our part, it only remains to say that it is not only not advisable to look for a better illustration of a wiser and more thorough criticism of the serious works of the 1864 committee, but it would also be frivolous to expect. The opinion of His Eminence Metropolitan Philaret on the proposed changes in the current regulations on schismatics was communicated in a letter addressed to the chairman of the 1864 committee, Count Panin. In this letter, the great hierarch of our church, mentioning that he, fulfilling the Highest will, “felt in difficulty when his views on various subjects of the schism turned out to be different from the views of the committee.” “But at the same time (writes Metropolitan Philaret) I felt even more strongly the immutable duty of loyalty to God and His Church and to the most pious Sovereign Emperor with complete sincerity to reveal my convictions, formed during a thorough study of objects, according to my feasible understanding.” “The schism has no mind and feeling to live by. He lived by fanaticism, and fanaticism weakened over time. But the schism arose and grew, arose and grew with money and patronage, which paralyzed both the action of the laws and the action of the Orthodox clergy. May the insightful wisdom of the rulers and the faithfulness of the executors eliminate these causes of evil. However, it must be admitted that the clergy are partly not free from the reproach of insufficiently intense zeal. It is expedient that the Holy Synod, with instruction and conviction, encourage him to act with meek, but intense zeal and self-sacrifice to protect the Orthodox and to bring understanding to the erring.” In this letter from Metropolitan Philaret to Count Panin, we see the deep, experienced and impartial view of the great saint of our church on the schism in general, on its position in the state - and the attitude of the spiritual authorities towards it, but this general view is developed and expressed in all its detail in his note mentioned above - the contents of which we now bring to the attention of our readers. I. From an incorrectly placed beginning, or an inaccurately posed question, one must be wary of incorrectness or inaccuracy in conclusions and decisions. “The question of determining the rights of schismatics,” in my opinion, is an imprecisely posed question. Rights in an Orthodox state belong to the Orthodox Christian and the loyal subject. One who acts out of obedience to the Orthodox Church, like one who deviates from the obligations of loyalty, more or less loses rights or exposes himself to restrictions on rights, and does not acquire any rights in his illegal position. Therefore, the question should not be about the rights of schismatics, but about the possible reduction of those restrictions in general rights to which schismatics subjected themselves and are subject to laws, having emerged from a legal relationship with the Orthodox Church. Thus, the point is not about what schismatics can rightfully demand, but about what state power can give them in its spirit of tolerance and love of freedom. II. The idea that “the complete non-recognition by civil authorities of marital unions between sectarians, not sanctified by a wedding in the Orthodox or Edinoverie church, opening up a vast field for self-will and unrestrained revelry of passions, has a detrimental effect on morals,” contains a strong incentive to recognize such marriages, if it is fair. Therefore, you need to understand whether it is fair. The firmness of marriage, which provides a barrier to the rampant passions, depends on the religious conviction in the sanctity of marriage, and not on its recording in a philistine police book. The marriage of a schismatic who accepts the priesthood, performed by a priest, binds his conscience by the power of God's law and thereby puts a barrier to the rampant passions and protects morals, regardless of whether it is recognized or not recognized by the civil authorities. The marriage of a non-priest, bound only by the will of the parents or an uninitiated highway, does not have such a protective effect on the conscience, and is even more conducive to the rampant passions of completely non-recognition of the marriage, according to the teachings of the sect. So, it is not from the non-recognition of sectarian marriages by the civil authorities that their rampant passions and corruption of morals occur, but from the spirit of the sects themselves, and the civil law on marriages will not heal this evil, because it will not change the spirit of the sects. III. Marital unions between schismatics, not sanctified by a wedding in a church, but recorded in special police books, are supposed to be “recognized as not subject to challenge.” The last expression must be considered inaccurate. In addition to the fact that such marriages in certain cases can be challenged before a church court, they can, of necessity, be challenged if, after being recorded in the police books, it is discovered that they are related in a very close relationship, or that the husband entered into marriage with a living wife, etc. It would be more accurate to say that marriages that were not married in a church, but only recorded in the police books, are recognized as not entirely correct, but nevertheless valid for the enjoyment of civil rights. IV. The basis for recognition of schismatic marriages is an entry in the police register. The foundation is not reliable. The schismatics either do not consider it a sin to tell a lie in favor of schism, or they consider it such a sin that their mentors can easily forgive them or cleanse them with a few prostrations to the ground. So, schismatic witnesses will come to the police record of the marriage and hide that there is a close relationship between the bride and groom, or that one of them has been in three marriages and is entering into a fourth, or that he has joined the Orthodox Church: and the marriage will be recognized to the detriment of Orthodoxy and to the temptation of the Orthodox. However, here it is easier to show what dubious path the legislation is taking than to indicate the undoubted path. V. According to the rules drawn up, the dissolution of a declared schismatic marriage is left to the jurisdiction of the chambers of the civil court. In the application of this rule, inconveniences are foreseen: 1) Before the conscience of schismatics who accept the priesthood, marriage is a church sacrament, just like marriage in the Orthodox Church. For the chamber of the civil court to terminate the effect of the sacrament and take away from the marriage the grace and blessing given to it by the sacrament - this is an inconsistency that strikes religious thought and religious feeling. 2) But if this incongruity comes into practice, and as a result the idea spreads that marriage is a union that can be destroyed by civil authority like a contract or other civil act: then respect for the sanctity of marriage will be undermined and the most reliable support for the firmness and purity of the marriage union will be crushed. And this temptation will threaten not only schismatics, but also the Orthodox, especially given the already spreading weakness of morals. 3) In divorce cases, there will be a need to take into account church rules. But this, by the nature of church legislation, is not as convenient for civil authorities as applying the articles of the Code of Laws to the case. In order to at least partially eliminate the inconveniences shown, would it be possible to replace the proposed rule on the civil dissolution of schismatic marriages as follows: 1) Cases of schismatics’ crimes against the firmness and purity of marital unions are subject to the jurisdiction of a chamber of the civil court. 2) If in these cases there are cases that require the application of church laws, then the chamber will communicate with the Orthodox spiritual authorities on what church law should be applied to the case presented in the case. 3) If the spiritual authorities declare that the present case leads to the dissolution of the marriage, then the chamber declares the marriage destroyed. VI. The birth and death of schismatics must be reported to the police and recorded in special books. In putting this into action, inconveniences are foreseen: 1) It is believed that this applies only to schismatics of less harmful sects. But what will happen to the births and deaths of harmful sects? They cannot be left without recording. And to make a record, where should one turn if not to the same police who keep records of the births and deaths of less harmful sects? 2) When declaring birth and death, an explanation of the hour of the event is required. But the peasant has no watch; and the question of the hour, especially of a long winter night, is insoluble for him. 3) According to the rules drawn up, for each case of birth or death in the village, the applicant and two witnesses must take a certificate of their identity from the village administration and then go to the bailiff, often 20 or more miles away, and, if he is absent on duty, wait for him, not knowing how long, or return, not knowing when it is more reliable to come again. 4) This application operation will require an increase in the offices of police departments and bailiffs, and, consequently, special costs from the treasury. 5) It is difficult to expect that records of statements will be correct; and in case of infidelity it is difficult to find means of verification. 6) A correct birth record is important in many respects and, among other things, in relation to conscription. The registration of Orthodox Christians in the church, the registration of schismatics in the police - is this duality as convenient for the people and for the government as if it were in the same hands? When looking for a way to avoid difficulties, let it not be considered inappropriate if considerations and assumptions are presented to the test, although also not free from difficulties, at least somewhat relieving. The Orthodox Church provides significant free assistance to the Orthodox state, keeping through the clergy records of births, marriages and deaths of the Orthodox population, and partly of the schismatic population in confessional books. The accuracy and safety of these records is ensured by the fact that the parish priest and three or at least two other members of the clergy are responsible for them; that the dean supervises the correctness of these records twice a year; that at the end of the year, one copy of these records remains in the church, and the other is presented to the consistory or spiritual board, where it is controlled, provides statistical tables and is stored. The work is not easy, and it is not easy to decide to increase it. But the clergy does not refuse the burden that it must bear for the benefit of the public. The supposed statement of dissenting marriages to the police is as it should be. It is unusual for the clergy to keep a record of marriages that are incorrect in the eyes of the church. Regarding the events of birth and death, the following rules could be established: 1) The recording of the birth and death of schismatics is carried out by the parish clergy at their place of residence, in the same form as the metric books of the Orthodox, in the form of a separate addition to them. 2) A statement about these events is made in the presence of two witnesses or, in villages, in the presence of a member of the village administration, who sign the record along with the clergy. 3) It is announced about those born: born in marriage or out of wedlock, under the responsibility of witnesses for the accuracy of this testimony. The clergy is not included in the inquiry into the legality of a marriage. Note: If you subsequently need a certificate of legitimacy: then it will be possible to establish yourself on the police record of your parents’ marriage. 4) The deceased is announced at what age he died, whether he died a natural death, and if they know, from what disease. Such an arrangement would have the following advantages: 1) For the applicant of birth and death and witnesses, in the greatest number of cases, it is closer and more convenient to go to the village parish priest than to the bailiff. 2) It is more convenient to obtain the necessary information, certificates and people count from one source than from different ones. 3) The priest gets the opportunity to come into contact with schismatics, so that by friendly and benevolent treatment of schismatics he can gain their favor and open the way to a religious conversation with them, instead of the fact that now schismatics, at the instigation of their mentors, do not accept priests into their homes, and priests do not find opportunities to enter into communication with them. VII. It is supposed to cancel the existing ban on allowing schismatics into icon-painting workshops. The number of schismatics involved in icon painting is a very small proportion of the number of the schism. The existing prohibition does not pose a great burden for them. And while they are prohibited, they engage in icon painting, not only for schismatics, but in part also for Orthodox Christians, and having received the right to this by law, they will with greater force distribute their works, which are harmful to Orthodoxy and to art itself. They do not learn icon painting according to the rules, but they paint icons from old sketches, which they have in large numbers, and produce incorrect, often ugly, images based on false traditions. Even now, when painting or renewing icons in Orthodox churches, they intensify, especially with the favor of some parishioners, to spread the two-fingered sign of the cross on the icons; and it is difficult for priests to preserve unchanged icons that testify in favor of Orthodoxy. With the strengthening of schismatic icon painters, things may reach the point that in some churches all icons will take on a schismatic appearance and become visual evidence in favor of a schism, to seduce the Orthodox. So, the existing prohibition for schismatics to join icon-painting workshops can be preserved without difficulty and with benefit, as a protective measure in favor of Orthodoxy and in favor of art itself. VIII. It is supposed to allow schismatics of less harmful sects to establish schools. The assumption is dubious in many ways. 1) Such an institution comes close to recognizing the class of schismatics and leads to an increase in their separatism, while it is more useful for the state that their separatism decreases and does not create cracks in social unity. 2) If means were sought to strengthen the schism: then, among other things, it would, of course, be proposed to establish schismatic schools, whose founders, owners and patrons would be schismatics, and, if necessary, to admit teachers appointed by the government into them, in the hope that these would give children an education higher than usual among schismatics, but, depending for their content on the schismatics, would not dare to oppose the schismatic direction, and that under They can be shadowed by active schismatic teachers, whom the government cannot prevent, for example, from teaching hook music singing. Can the government, which does not spare the strengthening of the split, use the same means with hope? 3) Here an objection may be raised that now, given the lack of schools for schismatics, they teach children through elders and elders in the spirit of schism. This objection is not strong. This training, not authorized by the government, is not widely distributed. The elders and elders teach children to read the alphabet, the Book of Hours and the Psalter, and they produce ignorant people. But in the proposed schismatic schools there will be more or less educated teachers; will have an effect on the development of the mental abilities of schismatic children, which can produce educated teachers of schism and opponents of Orthodoxy with a strong influence on the masses of schismatics. If school education shakes children’s confidence in schism without proper teaching of the law of God, then people will emerge without religious and moral convictions, harmful to themselves, to the schism and to the state. 4. There is a way to provide education to schismatics in a more reliable way. Public schools established by the clergy are beginning to attract schismatic children. For example, in Bogorodsky district, in one dean district, out of 6 schools, five already have schismatic children. The same applies to some civil schools in Moscow. In the school of the Guslitsky Monastery, under the guidance of a teacher, 17 schismatic children study from those who completed the seminar course: some of their parents themselves express a desire for their children to learn not only to read and write, but also to understand and explain what they read, and the parents were happy to attend the testing of their children in this school. It is natural to expect that the children of schismatics will emerge from such schools with sound initial concepts of faith and not with a hostile, but with a peaceful disposition towards the clergy and the church. If such training spreads, then special schismatic schools will not be needed; on the contrary, if these are established, then one cannot help but fear that the dissenters will kidnap schismatic children from church schools and drag them into their hostile churches. In accordance with the considerations set forth here, it would be either not to establish schismatic schools, or at least to postpone this measure until it is decided whether to provide schismatics with church and civil schools of the desired education, not marked by the nature of separatism. As far as we know, secular scientists of the Moscow district recognized the establishment of schools by schismatics as inappropriate and harmful, and such an opinion was presented through the city trustee. IX. It is supposed to allow schismatics to attend general educational institutions (which, it seems, was not prohibited), without making it mandatory for them to study the law of God. If a schismatic son in school does not think at all about the law of God, and in his parents’ home he finds only ignorance and, perhaps, not a good example: then what will happen to his religion? It would not be offensive to the schism, and it would be spiritually beneficial for the children of schismatics, if the rule were expressed as follows: children of schismatics are admitted to general educational institutions without the obligation to listen to lessons in the law of God, however, with the obligation to study the Creed, the Lord's Prayer and the Ten Commandments, using, if they wish, old printed books. X. On the question: whether to allow children of the Orthodox confession into schools established by schismatics, there were two opinions - negative and affirmative. In matters relating to schism, there is a ruling that can help judge this issue. In 1856 and 1857, we considered the issue of admitting Orthodox children to the Edinoverie school of the Preobrazhensky almshouse. The mentor in it was a fellow believer, or what is the same, in relation to the teaching of faith, an Orthodox priest with an assistant, by his own election and under his leadership. The schismatics had no influence on this school. Orthodox students were in the majority there. With all this, the journal of the secret committee, approved by the Highest on the 20th day of May 1857, decided: in the future, Orthodox children will not be admitted to this school. If the stay of Orthodox children in a Edinoverie school, in which the teacher is an Orthodox priest, which is outside the influence of schismatics, in which Orthodox children are in the majority, is recognized as unsafe from being seduced into schism: then how can one not recognize as dangerous the stay of Orthodox children in a school that is established, maintained and patronized by schismatics, in which Orthodox children will be immersed in the majority of schismatic children, removed from the leadership and supervision of the Orthodox clergy; in which the secular mentor, more or less dependent on the schismatics, occupied with the majority of schismatic children, of course, will not pay special attention to protecting Orthodox children from schismatic propaganda, which, being intensely active in homes and factories, will, of course, not be inactive at the most opportune occasion in a schismatic school. The idea that schools established by schismatics should not have the name and meaning of schools of schismatics is in the essence of the thing impracticable. If the school is named after the schismatic founder, of course, not an unfamous one: by this name everyone will know that it is schismatic. And even no matter what other name is given, the fame that this is a schismatic school will not decrease. The absence of a priest-teacher of the law will be a clear expression for everyone that the school has the significance of a schismatic school. So, by immersing Orthodox children in such a school, the character of a schismatic school will not be removed from it and the spirit of exclusivity will not be driven out of it, but only these children will be exposed to the danger of being seduced into schism. The idea that sending Orthodox children to schools run by schismatics can only be a rare exception is unsettling. At the so-called Preobrazhenskoye Cemetery, the schismatics had a school in which they provided full maintenance to many poor children to train them as followers and agents of the schism. Without a doubt, they will do the same again if they are given the right to maintain a school. Therefore, one cannot help but fear that for many poor Orthodox children, subsistence in schismatic schools will be a bait that draws them into the network of schism. So, even if schismatic schools were destined to exist, Orthodox Christian love for mankind would require protecting Orthodox children from them, as from a net catching them. XI. It is believed that the use of church or monastic attire outside the home is evidence of schism. It is necessary to supplement: church, monastic or priestly attire. XII. It is supposed to allow the correction of schismatic chapels and prayer buildings, the opening of closed ones and, where necessary, to allow residential buildings to be converted into chapels. The basis for this decision is that the number of prayer houses currently existing is far from meeting even the most extreme need. To what extent this testimony is true, it is currently impossible to have positive evidence in relation to the entire state. According to local observations, in some places in the Moscow diocese there is even an excess of schismatic chapels, so that sometimes there are several of them in the parish of one church, but there are more of them in short supply in villages where the schism has spread again or is small in number. According to the list of 1826, there are 41 recognized and tolerated chapels and prayer houses in Moscow, and 137 throughout the Moscow province. Some of them were destroyed due to dilapidation or closed for abuse: but some were opened or built again and, especially in recent years, have multiplied before the eyes of the authorities in the form of household ones, and for the population as public ones. In the Bogorodsky district there are 59 Orthodox parish churches, and schismatic chapels, according to the above-mentioned list, 50, and now more. According to diocesan information for 1863, there are 99,284 Orthodox souls of both sexes in Bogorodsk and its district, and 59,824 schismatics. According to rough calculations, in total there is one parish church for 1,682 Orthodox souls and one chapel for 1,196 schismatic souls. From this it is clear that schismatics in Bogorodsky district are more generously endowed with chapels than Orthodox churches. In addition, schismatic false priests have camp churches, which they set up in houses and perform all church services. So, if in some places schismatics have a shortage of places for general prayer, then in others there is an excess: and the more there are, the greater the temptation and harm for Orthodoxy. As an incentive to multiply schismatic chapels, the following reasoning appears: “schismatic services in public chapels, in some parts similar to the worship of the Orthodox Church, should, of course, have a more beneficial effect on the moral mood of the erring than secret prayer in huts, which, as experience shows, is always much more distant from the rites of the true church, and sometimes loses any religious character.” This reasoning is in no way based on experience and on correct knowledge of the subject. The false priest in a spacious hut sets up a silk altar for the camp church with the royal doors and small icons, sets up a throne inside it, places an antimension, a cross and the Gospel on it and performs the service according to the same service book as it is performed in the church. Where is the distance from the rituals of the church, which would be performed in a large public chapel? Why is there any loss of any religious character here? I also disagree with the essence of the matter and the idea that schismatic services in public chapels should have a more beneficial effect on the moral mood of the erring than worship in huts. Or, due to the sameness of service, there should be one moral action; or service in a well-arranged public chapel, satisfying the sensual taste of a schismatic, will bind him more firmly to the schism than service in a hut. And schismatic propaganda can have a stronger effect on seducing the Orthodox through a service in a public chapel, built more splendidly, equipped with many ancient icons, than through a service in a hut. If in some sects there is a service that has lost any religious character, such as, for example, the whirling and dancing of the eunuchs and whips, then this is not from the hut, but from an absurd teaching, which will act just as absurdly in a magnificent chamber as in a hut. In the above discussion, borrowed from the acts of the committee, the expression “public chapels” is used. This expression is new. The schismatics, not realizing their right to publicity, built their chapels behind the scenes, not in plain sight, not in squares, but in courtyards and cemeteries. Only the prayer chapels of the Rogozhsky and Preobrazhensky cemeteries raised their tops so high that they could be seen far through the fences of the cemeteries; and in some villages, prayer houses are placed in plain sight, although without external signs. If the law does not recognize a hierarchy among schismatics and does not allow public processions: would it be consistent with it to legalize prayer houses as public ones? It must be taken into account that for some time schismatics, with obvious disregard for the law, have been increasing the number of their prayer houses. By the Highest command on August 19, 1826 and the Highest approved on July 5, 1827 by the resolution of the committee of Messrs. ministers are prohibited from building new chapels and repairing old ones. But, for example, in Bogorodsky district, in the village of Tsaplina, instead of the chapel that burned down last year, a new one, more magnificent than the previous one, has now been built; and this is not out of necessity, because there is another warm one right there. In the same district, in the village of Selivanikha, there was even a stone chapel built with royal doors and a throne, in which a false priest of Austrian ordination serves. Here in the Rogozhsky, in the words of the government, almshouse, and in the words of the schismatics, in the Rogozhsky cemetery, a huge chapel, which the schismatics look at from everywhere, as a beacon of their safety, is being replaced with a change of roof, and this is done by the crowd with haste, probably for fear that the law will not come and stop things. With such a direction of schismatics, what should we expect if the law proclaimed the right to have and multiply public schismatic chapels and prayer houses? One cannot help but fear that many provinces will become so densely covered with schismatic chapels and chapels, stationary and mobile, that Orthodox Christians belonging to the common people, especially those living far from churches, will stumble over chapels on the way to church, and as a result, easily fall into schism. All of the above leads to the conclusion that in the present circumstances there is neither a moral nor a political obligation for the Orthodox government to care about the multiplication of schismatic prayer houses; and there is a religious, moral and political obligation to take care of the protection of the Orthodox population from the increasing temptation and increasing danger of seduction due to the excessive and willful proliferation of schismatic chapels and camp churches, carried everywhere by false priests. It would be unconstrained for schism, and protective for Orthodoxy, and the government would appear to act consistently, and not in contradiction to itself, if the following rules were adopted: 1) Schhismatic chapels and prayer houses, which, according to the Highest command of 1826, were included in the lists and enjoy tolerance to this day, can enjoy it in the future, with permission to restore their dilapidation, but without allowing external church accessories, such as domes, domes, crosses, bell towers and bells. 2) In areas where the schismatic population is large, and there is no chapel of 1826, if there is a home chapel open for public use, the same tolerance as chapels of 1826 can be extended to it, with the permission of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, with the supervision that this is not allowed unless absolutely necessary. 3) Chapels and prayer houses, which, in violation of these rules, were built without permission or converted from residential buildings, are subject to closure, and those responsible for this are subject to liability as violators of the law. 4) Schismatic camp churches are not tolerated; and if they are seen in action anywhere, this will be recognized as evidence of a schism, and those guilty of this will be held accountable according to the laws. XIII. It is supposed that no one who fulfills the spiritual requirements of schismatics of less harmful sects should be persecuted, except in cases where they incur the action of general criminal laws. It is characteristic of Christian meekness to show tolerance to those of different opinions, but caution should determine the measure of tolerance. Good can tolerate evil, but evil will not tolerate good. Consequently, to show excessive tolerance to evil means to give it a weapon against good. Already the schismatics have many false bishops, appointed and multiplied at will, and, by the way, Anthony is the false archbishop of Moscow and Vladimir and all Rus'. They form their own false councils, now in Moscow, now abroad; both the actions and acts of these false councils are becoming generally known through the Russian Messenger, although not to their praise. This is a scope for action that the legal hierarchy does not have. Can this remain without a strong influence on the masses of uneducated people? They think to see a bright line in the fact that the Russian false hierarchy abandoned the Belokrinitsky one in June of last year. But this information is incomplete and inaccurate. After the mutual struggle between the false Archbishop Anthony of Moscow and the false Metropolitan Kirill of Belokrinitsky, through councils and acts of mutual condemnation, on January 13, 1864, in a large and noisy meeting of schismatics at the Rogozhskoe cemetery, disputes took place over Anthony and Kirill, and, finally, only about ten people were on Anthony’s side, and a huge crowd declared itself on the side of Kirill. Consequently, the schism has not ceased to have a foothold abroad. And Anthony himself, as a result of the incident on January 13, was forced to bow before Cyril and send peace-loving letters to him in Belaya Krinitsa. But even if the truly Russian false hierarchy set itself up as independent from the Belokrinitsky one, wouldn’t this domestic ulcer, left without treatment, expanding without limits, be too harmful? Along with the greatly increasing number of false bishops and false priests of Austrian and Russian origin, those falling away from Orthodoxy are multiplying. So, for example, in the Bogorodsky district in the last three years the number of schismatics has increased by 18,508 souls of both sexes. Giving the schismatic false hierarchy unlimited freedom of action means giving the wolves the freedom to kidnap sheep. The timber wolf, having kidnapped one sheep, will be satisfied and, albeit temporarily, will leave the herd alone. The spiritual wolf will not be satisfied with hundreds of stolen sheep, but will steal day and night. To prosecute certain cases of seduction into schism is for the most part inconvenient: the seducer is denied, the schismatic over whom and under whom the seduction was committed will confirm his denial. However, a false priest who is not exposed in the seduction of one well-known person, but around whom schismatics are obviously multiplying and who, through his official actions, constantly supports schismatics in schism, does he do less evil to the Orthodox Church than the one who is exposed in the seduction of one Orthodox? So, doesn’t justice and precaution require that at least some limits be set on the schismatic false hierarchy? Tolerance and its limits could be indicated as follows: 1) Those who perform divine services and spiritual requests for schismatics of less harmful sects are not subject to persecution if they do not show schism and do not violate the laws and rules established to protect Orthodoxy. 2) But if any of them allows himself to cause a schism, for example, by leading and serving in a public procession, he is subject to all the more severe liability because by his official action he involves many others in the act of doing so. 3) If an act is opened by which one of them gives someone a church title, for example, a priestly charter: then both of them are subject to responsibility for accepting a title that does not legally belong to them, and the first for drawing up, and the other for accepting, an illegal act. Having brought to the attention of our readers a note from the venerable hierarch of our church, we are quite confident that this precious work will be read with great pleasure and, in addition, will clarify both the view of the state of the schism in the state and all the legislative reforms proposed by the 1864 committee. But, besides this, we consider it our duty to note that the views and opinions of His Eminence Metropolitan Philaret, expressed in the note we placed, were and are of enormous importance not only for illuminating the plans of the committee, but also as a guide in the subsequent detailed development of the law of 1874 on the metric registration of marriages, births and deaths among schismatics and the later legislative act of 1883 on the civil and religious rights of schismatics. When developing these new laws on schism in special commissions, the opinions of Metropolitan Philaret, set out in the said note, on many issues about the schism were of decisive importance; which will be obvious when we present the legislative development of these issues in our next articles. In conclusion of our first article on legislative reforms on the schism in the last twenty years, we can only report that the works of the temporary committee of 1864 to revise the regulations on schismatics were awarded the Highest approval and on August 16th. of the same year, the Sovereign Emperor, after hearing in the Council of Ministers the general journal of the committee, His Highness deigned to command: “the final conclusions of the committee on the affairs of schismatics, set out in the general journal of its meetings, as well as the opinion of the majority of members of the committee on the issue of admitting children of the Orthodox confession to schools maintained by schismatics, to be approved in order: 1) so that the general civil rights granted to schismatics would apply only to schismatics of less harmful sects, except for those cases where it is specifically mentioned in the committee’s conclusions on the abolition of restrictions that exist for schismatics of more harmful sects; 2) that volost elders and their assistants from schismatics should not be allowed to participate in parish councils; 3) that the use of not only church and monastic, but also priestly attire by schismatics outside their homes and chapels should be considered signs of public manifestation of schism; 4) to make known whether schismatic chapels have been established in modern times without proper permission, and in this case to subject police officials guilty of laxity or indulgence to punishment, and 5) so that special instructions and instructions when putting into effect new decrees on schismatics are supposed to be provided to the Most Reverend diocesan bishops - to the Holy Synod, and to the heads of provinces - the Minister of Internal Affairs, were previously submitted for the Highest approval of His Imperial Majesty 10. In our first article on legislative reforms related to the split, we tried to outline with documentary accuracy both the starting point and motives of this legislative reform, long recognized by the government as necessary in a nationwide manner, and those plans that were developed by a special temporary committee in 1864 and in the same year were awarded the Highest approval and approval. We noticed that the works of the temporary committee of 1864 embraced all the subjects of the schism and touched upon all issues requiring resolution to regulate the civil rights of schismatics, determining their position in the state, according to the principles of civil jurisdiction and religious tolerance. We have seen with what care and precision in a short time the committee examined all questions about the schism and developed general provisions and plans for the further detailed development of legislative definitions of the rights of schismatics in civil and religious relations. Now we are faced with considerable work to present a consistent and accurate outline of the private legislative development of the committee’s general provisions on the individual rights of schismatics - both civil and religious, which will form the content of our subsequent articles on legislative reform on schismatics over the past twenty years. True to the task expressed at the beginning of our articles to present to our readers an accurate and detailed outline of the latest government concerns about resolving the situation of schismatics in the state on the basis of reliable documents, with objective accuracy, without personal criticism and our own reasoning, we will not deviate from this rule now. Perhaps, in view of following this rule, our articles will lose their liveliness and excitement, but will retain documentary accuracy, which, in our opinion, is much more important when examining serious and general issues of a legislative nature; here there is no place for cursory, light and lively essays, not devoid of fascinating presentation and interest, but in many ways not accurate in the documentary sense. We turn to the general plans of the special committee, approved by the Highest on the 16th day of August 1864, and we will monitor the consistent progress of their legislative development. On the exact basis of the 11th general journal of the special temporary committee on affairs of schismatics, approved by the Highest on the 16th day of August 1864, the publication and implementation of measures finally authorized by the committee should be carried out “gradually”, dividing the executive orders into approximately two main periods, so that the first would include measures relating to the general civil rights of schismatics, and the second would include facilitating the performance of their spiritual duties. The determination on this basis of further details of execution by the same Highly approved journal is provided to the Minister of Internal Affairs, so that ideas about the necessary changes in the articles of the Code of Laws are made in agreement with the II Department of His Imperial Majesty’s own Chancellery. In pursuance of such the Highest will, the Minister of the Interior intended to begin to put into effect the decisions of the special committee regarding the general civil rights of schismatics and to begin with the implementation of those final conclusions on this subject that relate to the rights of schismatics by origin and property. To enforce the decisions of the special committee on the division of sects and on the rules of schismatics by origin and property, in the opinion of the Minister of Internal Affairs, it would be necessary to: 1) introduce these decisions into the Code of Laws; 2) draw up rules for keeping police books for statements about the events of birth, death and marriage between schismatics of less harmful sects; 3) establish a family list of schismatics of these sects, indicating in it the changes that took place in the composition of families after the national census, and 4) also establish rules and forms for police statements about the events of the birth and death of followers of the “more harmful” sects. Taking into account that the law has already determined the duty of the police (Article 67 of the XIV Vol. of the Holy Legislative Definition and Pres. Pres.) to maintain lists of schismatics and that the aforementioned Article 67 must be consistent with the newly proposed rules for maintaining police lists of schismatics, the Minister of Internal Affairs decided to introduce the resolution on a new division of schismatic sects according to the degree of their harm into the same article. Regarding the compilation of family lists of schismatics, the Minister of Internal Affairs expressed the following considerations: a) in order to compile them, it is necessary to make known the changes that have occurred in the families of schismatics during the period from the last revision to the entry into force of the books of statements; b) this list should include, firstly, those schismatics who have expressed their desire, about whom it is undoubtedly known that they offer prayer “for the king” and recognize marital unions; c) the truth of such statements must be certified by local city or rural authorities, and d) when entering into the list, verification of the real composition of the family must be done by comparing the testimony of schismatics indicated in the list with existing books or lists, revision tales and philistine books. With this procedure, important and complex inconveniences associated with a complete census of sectarians are eliminated, in the form of separating from the total mass that portion that consists of followers of less harmful sects. Regarding schismatics of more harmful sects, according to the above law, the police must still maintain lists established for them. But in order to satisfy the need expressed by the committee for the police to declare the events of birth and death by schismatics of more harmful sects, it is necessary to make such statements mandatory for these sectarians. But since with the establishment of definitive registration rules for schismatics who pray for the Tsar and recognize marriage and with the compilation of precise lists of families, the main goal of the government is fully achieved - to highlight those persons who can be included in the general benefits and conditions of civil life, then the order on the mandatory declaration of birth and death by schismatics who do not recognize marriage, in the opinion of the Minister of Internal Affairs, could be submitted to the Committee of Ministers separately from the submission to the State Council on the legalization of marriages of followers less harmful sects. Having indicated such a procedure for implementing the plans of the 1864 committee on the issue of granting followers of less harmful sects the rights of origin and property, regarding the method of implementing the projected measures, the Minister of the Interior, in a more calm and expedient application, found it useful not to put them into effect simultaneously throughout the entire state, but according to the closest consideration of local conditions, gradually in different provinces. In response to the assumptions and considerations communicated in this form, the head of the II Department of His Imperial Majesty’s own chancellery, Count Panin, found it necessary to make his comments and considerations in relation to the two main subjects of the stated considerations: 1) on the issue of the classification of schismatic sects and 2) on police statements of cases of marriage, birth and death. 1) Finding it inconvenient to apply to resolutions on schismatics both the general division of sects into more and less harmful, and the detailed classification of all sects adopted by the committee, Count Panin noted that the committee did not intend to apply this classification specifically to the issue of marriages and that the final conclusion of the committee on the subject of marriages was stated in the sense that the note and its consequences should be subject to the marriages of all followers of schismatic sects who pray for the Tsar and recognize marriage. Why did he consider it more convenient not to issue a law on a new classification at all and, without mentioning more or less harmful sects, to call them sects: “those accepting permanent marriage or rejecting it?” The Minister of Internal Affairs subsequently agreed with this remark, recognizing that it was absolutely correct to relate the law on the new classification to a further period of application of new regulations, and in the draft and wording of the new law on schismatic marriages, to accept as a basis the division of sects only on the basis of their recognition of the permanence of marriage and prayer for the king, as was assumed in his first draft. 2) On the issue of police statements of births and deaths, Count Panin believed that when establishing marriage records, schismatics should not be obliged to declare births and deaths in their families, subjecting them only to strict liability on the basis of general laws for failure to comply with the rules established on this subject. In his opinion, the main purpose of demanding statements about birth and death is not so much to subject schismatics, unlike other subjects, to strict order, but to ensure for the government the reliability of these statements. The Minister of Internal Affairs believed that by establishing, simultaneously with the registration of marriages, a certain procedure for applications, the government, in addition to ensuring their reliability, in order to determine the number and composition of schismatics as accurately as possible, means, by granting rights by origin and property, at the same time, their subordination to positive duties, so that from the first time they understand that the law, easing their lot, definitely requires the fulfillment of the specified order. According to Art. 67 XIV vol. about prev. and suppress Crime lists of born and dying schismatics are kept by the police; but the uncertainty of this article regarding the forms and order of execution resulted in the inaccuracy of the lists themselves. With the extension of general civil rights to schismatics, it is necessary that the benefit of these rights be as tangible for them as the binding force of the conditions under which they can be introduced into public life, which is why this binding must be expressed with complete certainty of both the forms and the consequences of non-fulfillment. In the establishment of rules and forms for the declaration of births and deaths, Count Panin saw the constraint of schismatics, in contrast to other subjects of the state, and proposed, in replacement of the drafted rules, to subordinate them in this regard to the duties and responsibilities common to all citizens on a common basis. Indeed, we do not have a direct law obliging the Orthodox to make such statements responsibly; therefore, responsibility for non-compliance is not specified - although this exactingness is clear from the police instructions on population registration, as well as from the rules by which registers of births are kept. But since it is impossible without extreme inconvenience to introduce a schism into the existing conditions of metric registration, then, by establishing a record of marriages as a means of extending family and property rights to schismatics, the government at the same time must strengthen among them such a procedure for statements on the merits that would be fully ensured from the formal side, on the basis that the above-mentioned rights are granted only to those persons who are duly included in the police lists. Count Panin thought that the schismatics, recognizing the demanding nature of statements as a new constraint for themselves, would rather renounce the beneficial consequences of registering marriages than submit to mandatory statements - the establishment of voluntary statements would encourage them, in view of their own interests, to fit into the metrics on an equal basis with other citizens. To this, in the opinion of the Minister of Internal Affairs, it should be noted that when issuing new decrees, it is just as important for the government to subordinate the life of schismatics to the new order as it is for the latter to acquire general civil rights. It is obvious that in order to achieve this order, the government cannot rely on the schismatics’ willingness to make the required statements alone, but must ensure the reliability, constancy and ubiquity of their obligatory conditions and known forms. When making arbitrary statements, schismatics will always evade them due to certain personal interests, such as: in cases of inheritance, meanwhile, with a positive demand, they, of course, would rather submit to the obligations of statements under the condition of enjoying civil rights, than to renounce these rights by evading the duties assigned to them. In general, in the opinion of the Minister of the Interior, there was no reason to doubt that the beneficial significance of the proposed reform, beginning with the granting of family and property rights to schismatics, would be fully understood by them, and the obligation of statements, as a necessary consequence of the use of these rights, would not seem burdensome for them in comparison with the disadvantages of their previous position or with those persecutions of a more distant time, about which they have retained and retain fresh memories. In the opinion of Count Panin, it would be more convenient, having limited ourselves at first to establishing a voluntary record of marriages, births and deaths of schismatics, and let practice indicate what corrections need to be made before turning the laws on declaration into an unchangeable mandatory rule. Not sharing this opinion, the Minister of the Interior objected that if we assume that the rules on compulsory declarations will turn out to be burdensome for schismatics at the beginning of their application, then will they not seem even more constraining when it is recognized that it will be necessary to subsequently issue a law on compulsory declarations? He found it more convenient to start the matter with a positive requirement, allowing himself to ease this or that formality in the future, than leaving himself with the need to subsequently issue more restrictive rules. In support of his thought, the Minister of the Interior also pointed to the decision of the committee of 1864, which, having examined the draft rules for statements and police books, admitted that “the proposed procedure was fully consistent with the goal of introducing a more accurate way of recording changes occurring in the families of schismatics. Due to the precautions taken in the draft, the leniency shown to the sectarians will not, as one might hope, turn into encouraging schismatic errors. No less beneficial is the very apparent complexity of the draft of legal rules and forms - the complexity stemming from the fact that they recognize the need to protect by all possible measures the reliability of recorded statements; Through this, schismatics will not take advantage of undeserved ones who can only indulge in self-will and abuse of their relief before other subjects of the empire, but will be subject to the same strict conditions of order that all others are subject to in relation to acts of civil status.” (V journal committee). In addition to the stated objections regarding the classification of schismatic sects and the procedure for statements, Count Panin, in his response to the attitude of the Minister of Internal Affairs, made some private comments on individual articles of the draft rules for maintaining parish registers for schismatics. The Minister of Internal Affairs could not agree with some of them, others were taken into account when revising these rules, which received a corresponding change during the edition for submitting them to the State Council for consideration. The first draft of a note from the Minister of Internal Affairs on the extension of certain civil rights to schismatics, with the appendix to it: a) rules for police statements about the birth, death and marriages of schismatics who recognize marriage, b) rules for police statements about the birth and death of schismatics who do not recognize marriage, and c) rules for compiling a family list of schismatics was presented to the State Council in May 1866. This project, as we will see below, did not receive legislative approval; but for greater clarity and consistency in understanding the provisions and meaning of the subsequently legalized rules on metric registration for schismatics, we consider it necessary to outline its main plans, expressed in the note of the Minister of the Interior. The main provisions of this project are summarized in the following separate sections: 1) In the first period of application of the new regulations on schismatics, to extend to them, by virtue of the police record of recognition of marriage and prayer for the Tsar, general civil rights “by origin and property.” 2) A detailed classification of sects should be assigned to one of the subsequent periods, but now divide all schismatics into two classes: a) those who recognize marriage as a permanent union and pray for the king, and b) those who do not recognize marriage and do not pray for the king. 3) Dissenters who recognize marriage and pray for the Tsar are given the right to record their marriages in the police books established for this subject. 4) Dissenters who do not recognize marriage and do not pray for the Tsar are also subject to a police note and are included in the legalization of existing police lists. 5) Dissenters who have registered their marriages are obliged to report births, deaths and marriages in their families to the police on the basis of (such and such) rules. 7) Article 67 XIV Vol. about the suppression Prest. amend and supplement as follows: Art. 1. The police are obliged to keep registered lists of the births and deaths of schismatics living in the areas under their jurisdiction, and to provide annual reports on the number of schismatics to the civil authorities. The following are subject to inclusion in the aforementioned lists: 1) schismatics who declare themselves to recognize the marriage and pray for the Tsar, and 2) schismatics who have not made this declaration in the prescribed manner. Art. 2. In relation to schismatics who recognize marriage and pray for the Tsar, those marital unions between them are recognized as not subject to challenge, which, although they were not sanctified by a wedding in the church, but, constituting not temporary, but permanent couplings, were duly recorded in revision tales or police statement books or in family lists, namely: a) for the time preceding the last national census, proof of marital status and rights according to to recognize the origin and property of revision tales; b) for the future, the same rights are certified by extracts from the police statement books, and c) during the period from the last national census to the introduction of the said books, the family composition is determined by family lists about the changes that took place in families at that time. Art. 3. Books for statements about the events of birth, death and marriage of schismatics who recognize marriage and pray for the Tsar are kept by the police according to forms taught at one time by the Minister of the Interior. Art. 4. For forgeries in extracts from statement books or family lists issued by the police, as well as for deliberately incorrect actions in maintaining these books or lists and issuing their extracts, the perpetrators are held liable as for forgery in acts of state. False testimony when declaring the events of birth, death and marriage is prosecuted on the basis of general rules. Art. 5. When recording in family lists, in accordance with established rules and forms, the police must inform, as necessary, changes that have occurred in the composition of families during the period from the last revision until the entry into force of the application books. These were the general grounds and assumptions of the draft new law on the civil rights of schismatics, submitted, with rules and forms attached, to the State Council for consideration in December 1866. The State Council, when considering the note and the rules and forms, found that the essence of the assumptions made by the Minister of Internal Affairs is: 1) that schismatic sects, which do not reject the main foundations of civil life, be given the right to record marital unions concluded between them in special police books with certification of the event of the marriage, testimony of witnesses and in compliance with some other rules and conditions; 2) so that marriages recorded in this way (and previously included in audit tales) are assigned in civil terms all the consequences of legal marriages; 3) to establish evenly, in a similar order, a record of the events of birth and death in the families of schismatics, and 4) to give these records the meaning of acts of state and evidence of the legitimacy of children born in the declared marriage. Recognizing for its part that these assumptions, in terms of their content and nature, should be subject to consideration only through legislative procedure, the State Council in the Department of Laws found, however, that in their present form they, even if they fully agreed with them, could not be subject to inclusion in the Code of Laws, as representing, along with legislative instructions, various measures of a strictly administrative nature. As a result of this, without going into consideration of the substance of the said assumptions, to which the necessary convenience will come only when the final draft of the law on this subject is in mind, the Department of Laws decided: “to grant the Minister of the Interior, by agreement with the Chief Administrator of the Second Division of His Imperial Majesty’s own Chancellery and with the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, to draw up and submit such a draft to the State Council with the exclusion from it of all rules that are not subject to approval in legislative order, and with the meaning, in accordance with the established procedure, of those from the articles of St. laws that will be subject to change or addition 12. In pursuance of this resolution of the State Council, the Ministry of Internal Affairs carefully revised all the assumptions included in the minister’s note, which he submitted to the State Council in May 1866. During this revision, of course, primary attention was paid to the exclusion from the draft of all assumptions that are not subject to legislative approval, but relate to administrative measures. But since the definition and precise indication of changes or additions to articles of the Code of Laws, as well as the introduction of projected new articles of the law on the subject of granting schismatics general civil rights in the proper place of the Holy Laws lay on the direct responsibility of the II Department, the Minister of Internal Affairs forwarded to the chief administrator of the II Department a draft revised by him for his precise indication of the necessary changes in the articles of the Code of Laws and the proper places for introducing new legislative definitions into the Holy Laws. Having taken into account the instructions of the State Council, the Second Department necessarily had to enter into consideration of both the substance of the draft resolutions on the civil rights of schismatics, and the determination of whether they belong to the number of laws or administrative measures. Thus, the decisions drafted in the Ministry of Internal Affairs were subject to consideration by the II Department: a) in relation to their essence and wording and b) in relation to the procedure for their approval and inclusion in the Holy Laws. Having set out in full detail its comments on the essence of the draft, the Second Department at the same time did not find it possible to make a detailed indication of both the changes and additions in the subject articles of the Holy Laws, and the sections in which new legislation on the civil rights of schismatics should be included in the Code - until the final development of the draft, not only on its essence, but also in editorial particulars. As a result of such a recall of the head of the II Department, Prince Urusov, after preliminary communication between the Minister of Internal Affairs and the Chief Prosecutor of St. Synod and the Minister of Justice in November 1868, with the Highest permission, a commission was formed under the Ministry of Internal Affairs to develop and draft a law on the marriages of schismatics 13. The 1868 commission was faced with a difficult and complex task - to develop a final draft law on the marriages of schismatics on the basis of the plans of the 1864 committee on this important issue and in view of the assumptions of the draft of the Minister of the Interior, returned by the State Council to isolate from it all the draft rules of an administrative nature, in connection with the detailed objections and comments of the II Department both on the substance of the draft and the editorial details of it. Thus, the material for the commission’s works was all the previous, starting with the project of the Minister of Internal Affairs Valuev, assumptions about the regulation of the life of schismatics and the definition of their civil rights, discussed in detail in the committee of 1864 - the works of this committee and the decisions made by it, undoubtedly, were supposed to serve as a guide and general basis for the commission’s judgments on all issues of the civil rights of schismatics, and the project of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, submitted in 1866 to the State Council, as well as and comments on this by Count Panin and Prince Urusov, determined the program of the commission’s activities to develop the final project in all particulars. In our article, we are far from thinking, based on the materials and information we have, to present the activities of the commission in all detailed accuracy; this would be too complicated and would go beyond the boundaries of a journal article on the exclusive specialty of an accurate examination by the commission of some assumptions and motives in drawing up a new draft of legislative definitions of the rights of family and closely related civil and property rights of schismatics. But in view of the importance of covering the current law on the marriage of schismatics, which, as far as we know, has so far been little examined in the literature even in its general principles, from the works of the commission, according to reliable documents, we will highlight precisely those aspects and parts of the project on the marriage of schismatics that determine its general significance and the main grounds of this law, indicating the motives and reasoning of the commission that led to certain conclusions and decisions in the development of the new bill in particular. Therefore, we, true to our task - to be strictly objective and accurate in reporting documentary material in our articles, following the program outlined by the commission, highlight all the main reasons for the draft law on the marriages of schismatics in the form in which they received final approval when discussed in the commission, indicating in general terms the process of the debates in the meetings of the commission on individual issues of the new bill. Here are the main reasons for the bill on marriages of schismatics: I. “Extend the recognition of marriage to all those schismatics who themselves recognize marriage as a permanent and not temporary union, and then not at all touch on the greater or lesser harmfulness of their other beliefs, extraneous to the concept of a marriage union.” When discussing the question of which of the schismatics should be extended to cover the new law on the recognition of marriages entered into between them and whether the classification of sects should be adopted into the guidelines, the different opinions of the commission members deserve special attention, and they are all the more important and significant because they do not represent a uniform view of this main starting point of the law on schismatic marriages, but examine it from different angles, with different, not entirely consistent, considerations and conclusions both regarding the essence of the issue and the consequences of its application in practice, according to publication of a new law. To resolve this issue, on the exact basis of the conclusions of the committee of 1864, in the opinion of the majority of the commission members, a new question had to be considered first of all: whether the said committee, in order to recognize the marriage of schismatics, believed to take as a basis only their belief in the permanence of the marriage union, without inquiring into the essence of their teaching about various other objects of faith that are alien to the question of marriage; or, on the contrary, the committee intended to recognize the marriages only of such schismatics who, after finding out all their other beliefs, would turn out to belong to less harmful sects. If we assume the latter, then another new question will arise: in what way and according to what classification is it possible to determine the greater or lesser harmfulness of schismatics for the recognition or non-recognition of their marriage, that is, for entering or not entering in each given case a note about the marriage in the police register. When the committee judged the marriages of schismatics, a classification of sects was adopted according to two criteria: prayers for the Tsar and beliefs in the permanence of the marriage union, but at the same time, as we have already said when presenting the works of the committee, it was found insufficient and was subsequently replaced by another, more detailed one, compiled by the Holy Synod and adopted by the committee at the last meeting, when the issue of schismatic marriages was already finally resolved. Not to mention the fact that the application of the first classification on two grounds to the recognition of schismatic marriages would be associated with illegal questioning of schismatics about whether they reject prayers for the Sovereign Emperor, it is obvious that this classification, as canceled by the later one, cannot have application either to the recognition of schismatic marriages or to other subjects of the committee’s judgments. As for the later detailed classification, even allowing for the possibility of its reverse action in relation to the issue of marriage decided by the committee, it is also impossible not to notice that its application, coupled with the same and even more illegal and complex questions of schismatics about the essence of their beliefs, would be even more difficult, extremely inconvenient, and, in the opinion of the Second Department, even impossible. Turning to the committee’s judgments on the marriage of schismatics, one must come to the clear conviction that he did not mean to apply to the question of marriage any classification of sects according to their harmfulness; this question was resolved by him without any relation to the classification of sects. Even before drawing up a detailed classification of sects, regarding the proposal of the Minister of the Interior that only less harmful schismatics should be included in the general benefits of civil life, the committee expressed that “there can be no question of the marriage of more harmful sects, that is, those who reject marriage.” Thus, from among those that were then in view of two signs of greater harm, the committee spoke only about “one” and, therefore, did not allow talk about marriages only among such schismatics who themselves reject marriage as a permanent union. These words do not allow for any other interpretation and in exactly the same sense they were understood and interpreted by the former chairman of the 1864 committee, Count Panin, who believed that in the draft law on marriages of schismatics it was not necessary to mention at all “about sects that are more or less harmful,” but to call them sects that “accept permanent marriage or reject it.” Although the Highest Decree of August 16, 1864 states that general civil rights should be extended to schismatics of less harmful sects, this is not said unconditionally, but with a reservation regarding those cases when the committee decided to grant some rights to schismatics of more harmful sects. Having eliminated the question of the greater or lesser harmfulness of sects when judging the marriages of schismatics, the committee, of course, had to foresee that sometimes (although in rare cases) the marriage of such persons could be entered into the police register of persons who, although they recognize the permanence of the marriage union, however, due to their other beliefs, do not meet the classification requirements for being considered less harmful. But what could happen from entering the marriage of these persons into the register of births? With the recognition of their family union, it is not they themselves who receive any special benefits, but only their children after them will receive the right of legal inheritance and the right to seek an inheritance in court through guardians or on their own behalf, if they managed to reach legal age during the lifetime of their parents. There is hardly any untruth in this, and it is hardly even fair to deny the right to parental property and judicial protection to children simply because their parents professed beliefs that, according to the classification of the Holy Synod, are not considered less harmful by schismatics. Consideration of the issue of applying the classification of sects to the recognition of schismatic marriages in connection with the general course and essence of the committee’s reasoning about classification and marriages, as well as its conclusions about the method of registering marriages with the police according to the statements of those getting married, leads to the conviction that it is impossible to attribute to the committee the idea that, regarding the appearance of schismatics to the police to declare only about their marriage, questions would be raised about the essence of their entire creed and about all their religious and political beliefs. In addition to the illegality of inquiries of this kind, the committee could not help but see that allowing them to repeal the existing law could only push the schismatics away from any applications for marriages and that, thus, at the very beginning the measure taken by the government would be paralyzed not only in the interests of the schismatics, but just as much, and even more, in its own interests. The acquisition of rights by descent through the assimilation of the family rights of schismatics, who mostly belonged to the tax-paying state, could be important for them only in relation to the resulting property rights and the right of judicial protection. The schismatics managed without this, since if the government denied the family law of the schismatics, they could not have hereditary ancestral property and all their property was considered well-acquired, and they could always dispose of such property freely through formal spiritual wills and private trust orders, even verbal ones, carried out inviolably under the influence of the power of secret schismatic communities. It is clear that such a position of schismatics in the state cannot be in the interests of the government, which, on the contrary, would like to attract schismatics to the recognition of general civil laws and to the awareness of the need to seek legal protection for themselves from the judicial power, common to all inhabitants of the empire. To achieve this goal, first of all, it is necessary to assimilate the schismatics to family law, that is, to recognize their marriage union with all its consequences and, as the Minister of Internal Affairs Valuev put it in his project, “to bring the schismatics to more normal conditions of family life that are more consistent with the principles of state improvement.” If recognition of the marriage union of schismatics should be in the interests of the government itself, then any unnecessary difficulty for schismatics who wish to obtain such recognition for their marriages by entering them into the register of births would be inappropriate. From this point of view, the requirement is also fully justified that in order to recognize the marriage of schismatics and enter it into the register of parishes, one must take into account only their belief in the permanence of the marriage union, without raising the question of the greater or lesser harmfulness of the teachings of those getting married about other objects of their faith. Based on such considerations, the chairman and the majority of the commission members decided that the recognition of marriages should be extended to all those schismatics who themselves recognize marriage as a permanent and not temporary union, and then not at all touch on the greater or lesser harmfulness of their other beliefs, extraneous to the question of the marriage union. When discussing this main basis and the initial question of schismatic marriage, many other considerations were expressed in the commission that did not completely agree with the opinion of the majority, but the indication and development of these considerations is beyond the purpose of our article - to indicate the actual development of the main issues of the law on marriage, which served as the basis for the final presentation of the law itself on schismatic marriages. But at the same time, we consider it not superfluous to point out one opinion, developed in detail and set forth in a special note and directly contradicting the conclusion of the majority of members expressed in the provision we have cited. The spokesman for this opinion, one of the members of the commission, found that the Highest approved resolutions of the special committee of 1864 were supposed to grant general civil rights only to schismatics of “less harmful sects”, therefore, the effect of the new law on the recognition of marriages, with the rights arising from this, should be attributed only to schismatics of less harmful sects, which, according to their religious doctrine, accept marriage and prayer for the Tsar, on dissenters of the “more harmful” sects, who are not granted general civil rights by the decisions of the committee, cannot be extended by the law on the recognition of marital cohabitation. This opinion was not of decisive importance, remained isolated and was indicated by us only to contrast with the conclusion of the majority of members when discussing the first main question of which of the schismatics should be extended to the marriage law and the civil rights arising from it. II. “Statements about the marriages of schismatics, as well as about the birth of their children or death, should not be mandatory.” When discussing the issue of the obligatory or optional nature of statements by schismatics about their marriage, as well as on the events of birth and death, the members of the commission unanimously expressed the general opinion that since the rites performed by schismatics are not recognized by the government, then in the eyes of the law, the marriage of schismatics should exist only from the moment of its declaration in the established manner, and therefore there can be no talk of any marriage unions outside the conditions defined by law, and even more so of the obligatory declaration of them. On the issue of the obligatory declaration of birth and death, a disagreement occurred, which formed two opposing opinions of a minority and a majority. In the dissenting opinion of the minority of the commission members, which we summarize here in general terms, the following considerations were expressed: all persons belonging to recognized religions, by virtue of their religious convictions, fulfill certain requirements, which, as recorded by the clergy in the established manner, constitute the main guarantee of an indispensable metric record of births; although there is no law that unconditionally obliges this, clergy are entrusted with the obligation, under threat of penalty, to record all cases that come to their attention due to the requirements fulfilled, in the established metric books. But something completely different is seen regarding the schismatics. Although the majority of sectarians perform demands similar to other Christian rites, their legality, as well as the legal capacity of the clergy performing these demands, is not recognized; the police, although obliged under penalty of penalty to keep lists of schismatics, are not able to fulfill this requirement with such accuracy that these records can be given the character of real metrics, due to the absence of both a positive requirement for statements from private individuals and a law that would practically ensure for the police the possibility of acquiring accurate information about the events of birth and death; and by this, the government will be forced, in the police instructions on this subject, to first issue detailed rules on how to collect information about those born, for which it would inevitably have to turn to the schismatics themselves, as the only true source in this regard, obliging them to declare these events under the threat of the schismatics being held accountable for failure to comply with the published rules. Thus, the issue would be concentrated entirely in the sphere of administrative orders instructing the police to collect information and make notes about events that they can only learn about from private individuals, and these latter, not being directly obliged by law to provide such information, in case of omissions or persistence will be guilty of non-compliance with an administrative procedure unknown to them. Moreover, if the police are instructed to keep lists of schismatics, regardless of their belonging to one or another category of sects, with a mark for those born out of wedlock in the same order as is established in Orthodox metrics, then almost all schismatics of the more harmful sects, of which many reject marriage, and, therefore, who have no benefit from being included in the metrics, will remain not recorded in them, unless they are obliged by law to make statements, why not all persons will be included in the proposed lists. To avoid the above-mentioned inconveniences, the only way, in the opinion of the minority, seems to be to include in the law a positive instruction on this subject, eliminating any reason for conflicting interpretations. Almost the same parallel, in the opinion of the minority, can be drawn between the laws existing for the Orthodox and non-Orthodox, and the supposed innovations for schismatics and regarding their reporting of deaths, but one cannot ignore the fact that the law directly obliges the Orthodox to report cases of death to priests and that failure to comply with this obligation subjects the perpetrators to punishment. There are no obvious reasons to establish in favor of dissenters in relation to their statements to the police of cases of death, an exception from the general order with other residents; on the contrary, as far as is known, the nature of the false teaching of some sects, whose followers recognize as a rule the secret burial of the dead in unspecified places (runners) or believe, due to the misconceptions rooted among them, that infanticide is not a sin, indicates the need to introduce precise control over deaths among all schismatics; This would also put an end to the custom that exists among some sectarians of handing over the passports of the dead to fugitives and vagabonds who find refuge with them. As for the rules on how to act in cases of sudden or violent death, it goes without saying that there is no need to establish a special procedure for schismatics to make statements about these events in view of Art. 918 volume XIII st. medical the police positively prohibit all those who die under dubious circumstances from being buried without a forensic medical examination. Coming, in view of the above considerations, to the conviction of the need to positively express in the law the obligation of schismatics to declare both birth and death, the minority of the commission members believed that at the same time there did not seem to be sufficiently respectful motives for establishing special deadlines for schismatics on this subject and penalties in case of failure to report within these deadlines, which would constitute a real burden imposed on schismatics in contrast to other residents; It would be enough in the law to positively express in general the obligation of schismatics to declare cases of birth and death, from the fulfillment of which they will no longer be able to evade in view of the direct requirement about this. The majority of the members of the commission on the issue of mandatory declarations of births and deaths believed that it hardly seems fair to impose restrictions on schismatics in this regard that are not established by law for Orthodox and non-Orthodox believers. The duty of keeping records is vested in the clergy, and there is no rule by which private persons are compelled to make statements to them. Consequently, schismatics cannot be obliged to do this. According to the meaning of the proposed legalization for schismatics, the main source of proof of the legality of their origin appears to be lists, the maintenance of which will be entrusted to the police, and this latter, like the clergy in relation to other residents, will take care of the correct entry into the metrics of all cases related to them; There is no doubt that every schismatic who has already declared marriage of his own free will, and, therefore, in order to acquire the conferred family rights, will not fail to declare in the established order the birth of his children, and even if he does not declare due to carelessness or negligence, then through this his children will in no case be deprived of the right to prove their origin in other ways, in the same order to which Orthodox and non-Orthodox people are subject in this regard, if they are allowed into metric book or in case of doubt about the correctness of the metric record of their birth. Failure to fulfill the moral obligation of parents to stock up on undoubted documents about the legality of the birth of their children can entail only civil consequences and exposes them or their children to a somewhat more complex procedure for proving the legality of birth, but cannot at all be subject to criminal prosecution. Establishing exclusively for schismatics any restrictive rules in the form of forcing them to declare births in order to provide themselves and their children with the easiest way to prove the granted family rights, on the one hand, would not correspond to the fundamental principle of civil law, by virtue of which no one can be forced to use the right granted to him; on the other hand, it is incompatible with the right of parents to challenge, within a certain time frame, the legality of the birth of children resulting from the adultery of a wife, and, finally, having the consequence of the dissenters’ submission to the arbitrariness of the police and generally constraint in their home life, would cause complaints and complaints on their part, which the government did not have and cannot have in mind, allowing them to participate, on an equal basis with all citizens, in the enjoyment of the rights of a marriage resulting. As for schismatics who reject marriage, forcing them to declare the birth of children for whom they do not acquire any rights would mean recognizing their family ties, while they themselves reject marriage as the basis of family life. Due to the same considerations, the majority of the commission members considered it fair, without establishing special rules for schismatics in relation to death declarations, to subject them in this regard to the rules issued for Orthodox and non-Orthodox people. Although Art. 1564 St. law. Vol. IX places the duty on parishioners of Orthodox churches to notify parish priests about the dead in their families; but their considerations of the circumstances that gave rise to this legalization, in the form of establishing the correctness of keeping lists of the dead by priests, it turns out that this rule, not having a general nature and not extending to the procedure for keeping lists of other religions, cannot be considered as an expression of a general duty on this subject, and can hardly serve as a basis for determining the order of declaration of death cases by schismatics. Regarding the statement of sudden death, there is and is in force a procedure that is equally obligatory for all residents, both Orthodox and non-Orthodox and schismatics. In addition, in order for the police to maintain information about births and deaths of persons of all religions, there are special administrative orders of the relevant authorities, by which the collection and delivery of this information to the police is entrusted to its agents, as well as householders and other persons. On the same basis, information should be collected about the events of birth and death of schismatics (in pursuance of Article 67, Art. III. “To allow schismatics to declare their marriages, in the established order and under certain conditions, to the police, who will enter these statements in special books: for the elapsed time from the Xth National Census before the introduction of the said books, take as the basis for the schismatics’ proof of their rights by origin the audit tales and the newly established family list, which the police undertakes to compile when issuing new rules, to place in them the families of those schismatics who express their desire.” When developing and discussing the given basis for the bill on the metric recording of schismatic marriages, the commission had two assumptions in mind: the first - the Minister of Internal Affairs Valuev, who attributed the recognition of the validity of marriages in the past to marital unions shown in the revision tales of the Xth National Census, for the future - registered in specially established books for this purpose, and in the interval between the last revision and the introduction of these books - included in family lists that are to be compiled by the police - and the second, belonging to the chief administrator of the II Department of His Imperial Majesty’s own office, Prince Urusov, and consisting in the fact that the marriages of schismatics should be considered valid from the time they were entered by the police in the established metric books, with the allowance of a temporary exception for applications for marriages concluded in the past, shown in the revision tales and recorded in a book established for such marriages. In relation to the main views of the above two assumptions, two different opinions were expressed in the commission, which mainly depended on the difference in views on the works and the decisions of the 1864 committee when discussing this issue. Two members of the commission found that in order to fulfill the plans of the 1864 committee, one should be guided by the exact meaning of the committee’s decisions on the recognition of schismatic marriages under certain conditions. On the grounds established by the committee, schismatic marriages are valid only through registration with the police; registration is carried out only under the following conditions: a) recognition of the marriage as a permanent union, b) certification of the spouses’ incompatibility in the prohibited degrees of kinship and property. These essential conditions, indicated by the committee, as necessary for the recognition of the validity of schismatic marriages in relation to civil consequences, cannot be ignored when resolving the issue both about marriages concluded before the last revision and, therefore, shown in the revision tales, as well as about marriages concluded in the period of time between the last national census and the day of promulgation of the draft law. According to the opinion of the exponents of this opinion, neither in the general journal of the committee of 1864, nor in the journals of individual meetings, there is anywhere an indication that “all, without distinction, marital unions between schismatics, recorded in revision tales or concluded after the X revision of 1857, “should be recognized as valid.” Obviously, this instruction does not exist because it directly contradicts all the final conclusions of the committee, which are based on the following principle: schismatic marriages, although recorded in revision tales according to the testimony of the schismatics themselves about their being married, but without observing all the essential conditions required by the committee, should not have any civil consequences. This idea is very clearly expressed in the general journal of the committee, where it is said: “to recognize as not subject to dispute those marital unions between schismatics that, although they were not consecrated by a wedding in St. churches of the Orthodox and other faiths, but, “making up not temporary, but permanent connections,” are recorded in the proper order in revision tales or in special police books or lists.” The same idea is developed in more detail in the journal of the third meeting of the committee, in this journal it is said: “the committee, in resolving the general issue of schismatic marriages, recognized that the marriage unions of schismatics recorded in the audit and in the police lists, certified in the manner that will be determined when considering executive measures, if they constitute not an urgent, but permanent cohabitation between schismatics, cannot be subject to challenge.” Guided by the above considerations, two members of the commission believed that of the unions existing between schismatics, only those that, at the request of the spouses, would be registered (in addition to being recorded in the audit trails) with the police in compliance with all the conditions specified by the 1864 committee should be recognized as valid. This was the conclusion of the minority, but the majority of the commission members found that, according to the 1864 committee, the rights expiring from the recognition of marriages were supposed to be granted not only to unions that may have legal existence in the future, through police registration of marriages, but also to those concluded in the past, for which the nature of not a temporary, but a permanent union would be recognized. In the general journal of the committee, this rule is expressed as follows: to recognize as not subject to challenge the marriages of schismatics, duly recorded in revision tales or in special police books or lists, namely: a) for the time preceding the last national census, recognize revision tales as proof of the marital status and rights by origin and property of schismatics; b) for the future, marriages of schismatics, at the request of their police, should be included in special books, and c) to make known the changes that have occurred in the families of schismatics during the period from the last revision to the introduction of statement books, compile a family list for schismatics. In the opinion of the majority of members of the commission, this resolution, both in terms of the general idea underlying the new bill on the civil rights of schismatics and in terms of the specificity of the instructions for the method of execution itself, does not present any doubt about its meaning or difficulty in application. The general idea of ​​the bill is that none of the schismatics who meet the known requirements will be deprived of the rights granted in the name of the idea of ​​general justice. Definitive conditions are established for the future. Over the past period, the verification condition is the fact of permanent cohabitation, evidenced by documents specified by the 1864 committee. These documents have two types: one of state significance, the data of which is not subject to any refutation - this is the X national census, the other is family lists. In the journal of the V meeting of the committee it is said that regarding the intermediate time from the last national census until the introduction of the proposed new police books or lists, in order to have accurate information about the changes that followed in the composition of schismatic families during this period, the best way seems, according to the Minister of Internal Affairs, when the new order is being established, to compile a general family list for schismatics, and inclusion in this list should not be mandatory, but everyone should be allowed to be included in it with their family; to prevent new statements, it is useful to rule that during this initial recording, the truth of the statements made is certified by the local city or rural authorities. The above decisions completely exhaust the committee’s judgment on the subject of the final determination of the procedure for recognizing the rights of schismatics by origin in the time before the introduction of statement books. Thus, it turns out that the committee, in establishing the rules for recording the marriages of schismatics for the future while observing certain conditions, also drew attention to the need to provide means to prove their origin to those of the sectarians who, having been born before the publication of the new rules and outside the marriage legitimized by them, would be deprived of the opportunity to enjoy the rights extended to subsequent generations; since the law on the metric registration of marital unions cannot, by its very essence, have a retroactive effect, all that remained was to find a means to determine, within a certain period of time, the composition of the families of schismatics in order to give it official significance; in this regard, the committee focused, first of all, on the revision tales of the 10th national census, in which schismatics were shown as part of families, like other ordinary people, and then established a family list, which would include all the phenomena among schismatic families before the introduction of statement books. As a result of this, the committee unconditionally accepted the beginning of recognition of the family composition of schismatics, determined on the basis of revision tales and a family list. Therefore, in the opinion of the majority of members of the commission, three principles should be adopted as the basis for legislation relating to marriage unions of schismatics: 1) to determine the rights by origin of persons born before the Xth revision, the testimony of this revision on the composition of families; 2) for persons born in marriages recorded under the Xth Revision after the Revision Record, as well as for persons who entered into marriages and were born from these marriages after the Revision, rights by descent are determined by the family list, and 3) assigning the value of legal marriages to those marital unions of schismatics, which will be subsequently recorded in special books of statements in the proper manner. According to this view, the rights of legality of descent will apply to all children of schismatics born in marriages recorded according to the Tenth National Census, as well as to those who were born in permanent marriages after the revision before the introduction of statement books and will be shown as part of families in the family list; As for marriages entered into the newly designed police books, their legality, and, consequently, the legality of the descent from these children, should be considered from the day of the police registration. As a result of such considerations and recognizing the above-mentioned assumptions of the Minister of Internal Affairs Valuev in the main grounds, they are quite consistent with the conclusion of the special committee on the schismatics, the majority of the commission members came to the above conclusion. IV. “Marital unions shall be recognized as invalid or subject to dissolution in those cases where this is determined for Orthodox marriages on the basis of church and civil laws.” When considering the question of what conditions must be established for recognition of the legality of schismatic marriages, as well as what grounds to accept for the recognition of invalidity and for the dissolution of these marriages, the commission had in mind that the main conditions in this regard are the failure of the spouses to meet the degrees of kinship and property prohibited by St. church. But these relations between Orthodox Christians are determined on the basis of their marriages performed in St. church, but schismatics cannot have such legal ties, with very rare exceptions; Therefore, for these latter, the only source of kinship and property can be considered marriage unions recorded in police books, or those that will be certified by their testimony in audit tales or in family lists, since outside the indicated conditions, a schismatic marriage, in the eyes of the law, cannot have significance and must be recognized in relation to the offspring and kinship descended from it as if it did not exist. Although from undeclared marriages of schismatics a natural kinship arises, which, if proven, can serve as an obstacle to the recognition as legal of marital unions concluded with the existence of close degrees of such kinship, in relation to the practice established in this regard in the Orthodox Church; however, it hardly seems necessary to speak in the proposed law about the inability of those marrying to be related by natural kinship; even if questions related to its existence may subsequently arise in judicial places, then these cases are most conveniently resolved through special each time relations between secular courts and the spiritual authorities. V. “Cases concerning schismatic marriages should be carried out in secular civil and criminal courts.” When discussing this provision, the commission, bearing in mind that all cases relating to marriages are carried out in spiritual courts, to which the marital unions of schismatics cannot be subordinated, recognized the need to issue special rules regarding schismatic marriages for the proceedings of these cases in secular courts, civil and criminal, to which, by their nature, they should belong. At the same time, it was considered useful to keep in mind the assumption of the Secretary of State, Prince Urusov, that when dealing with marriages of schismatics in secular courts, the latter would be allowed to enter into relations with the spiritual authorities on issues of kinship with the only limitation that the law on this subject should not mention spiritual kinship, and also that these relations would not be mandatory, but would always be left to the discretion of the courts themselves. VI. “The rules on marriages of schismatics should apply to those persons who themselves are not baptized in the Orthodox Church or do not belong to any other faith confession.” When discussing in the commission the question of what guidelines should be adopted to determine who exactly should be subject to the proposed rules on schismatic marriage unions, that is, who should be considered a schismatic as opposed to followers of the Orthodox or other faith confessions, opinions were divided. Two members, in the form of both defining the essence of the present issue and its practical significance, and explaining the exact meaning of the decisions of the committee of 1864 on this subject, presented the following considerations: the totality of the government's views and actions on the split convinces that it has always sought to possibly limit the circle of its followers. Based on official information, there are 907,157 schismatics in the “dismissed” list. This figure refers to that circle of schismatics, which, according to police lists, constitutes the main core of this population, the numerical composition of which can only increase through natural increase, i.e. birth. Regardless of this, according to numerical data collected by the Ministry of Internal Affairs in 1865, there are up to 160,000 “unsigned” schismatics, that is, those whose mass increases not through natural birth, but through seduction from Orthodoxy into schism and the non-baptism of the children of such seduced children into the Orthodox Church. Then follows an incomparably large mass of “secret” schismatics, i.e. performing for appearances the rituals of the Orthodox Church and therefore recorded in its metrics, but prone to schism and often revealing in their midst statements of open affiliation with it. By adding this category of schismatics to the two above-mentioned, we can approximately determine the entire schismatic population figure of 11 million. The mass of secret schismatics primarily distinguishes from themselves, through seduction and non-baptism in the Orthodox Church, those sectarians who then enter the category of unsubscribers. The first generation of those not baptized into St. Church, on the basis of §4 of the Most Highly approved instruction 14 in 1858, by virtue of which those who are in schism from birth are not persecuted for their opinions about the faith, that is, when their parents are truly schismatics, and not seduced from Orthodoxy into schism - is not yet recognized as schismatics, although they are not listed as Orthodox, but then the second generation of schismatics, in which neither the parents nor the children were baptized in the Orthodox Church, according to the same rule, is already recognized as indigenous schismatics. The resolution of the present issue, in the opinion of two members, should fully comply with the view of the 1864 committee on the beginning established by §4 of the 1858 manual. To understand the decisions of the committee on this subject, it is necessary to consider the draft of the Minister of Internal Affairs Valuev on schismatic marriages with its annexes, which was subject to discussion by the committee. According to the exact meaning of the named project, the documents required from schismatics declaring both death and marriage must positively certify that “the parents of both the deceased” (IV appendix to the project) and those “getting married” (VI appendix) “are schismatics from birth.” Having determined this with such documentary precision, the project, of course, did not assume that one could doubt the affiliation of a certain person with the schism. The correctness of this view is also confirmed by the fact that the 1864 committee, in its reference to the aforementioned draft, directly places it among the sources and specifically points to the following provision expressed in the draft: “statements to the police about birth, death and marriage are allowed only if the persons making the said statements certify that those born, died and entering into marriage”, and also that “their parents themselves were not baptized in Orthodox and heterodox churches." From the above considerations and instructions, in the opinion of two members, there can be no doubt that when making statements about the birth, death and marriages of schismatics, certification is required that not only those born, died and married, “but also their parents were not baptized.” Why should only such persons be recognized as schismatics in relation to the projected civil rights who themselves and whose parents are not baptized in the Orthodox Church and do not belong to other faiths? This was the opinion and conclusion of the minority. But the majority of members found that the Highest approved instruction of 1858 distinguished between those seduced into schism and schismatics from birth. Based on §4 of this instruction, schismatics from birth are those whose parents are actual schismatics, and not seduced from Orthodoxy into a schism - therefore, in order to be recognized as a schismatic, non-baptism according to the rites of the Orthodox Church in two generations is required. If these rules had been left in force by the 1864 committee in relation to the recognition of schismatic marriages, then the new rules on schismatic marriages should only apply to persons who neither themselves nor their parents were baptized in the Orthodox faith. But the committee abolished the rule of 1858 as applied to schismatic marriages and decided to accept applications for marriages from such schismatics who had not themselves been baptized, without at all raising the question of whether their parents were baptized or not. Consequently, to be recognized as a schismatic, the committee considered non-baptism in only one generation sufficient. To prove that this is precisely the view of the committee, the majority of the commission members provided instructions and references to the conclusions of the committee, expressed in its journal decisions. In the journal of the V meeting of the committee, which considered the projects of the Minister of Internal Affairs Valuev on the metric recording of marriages, births and deaths of schismatics and the rules and forms for maintaining these records, among other things, it is said: ... “it is especially important that the condition found in the projects is that cases of birth, death and marriage are recorded in police books only with a positive certification that those who entered into marriage, those who died and were born, as well as the parents of the latter, were not baptized in the Orthodox or other faiths churches; thus, only persons who have truly been in schism for a long time will appear in the books.” According to this instruction, information about the non-baptism of parents is required only when applying for a “birth”; for a statement about the event of marriage, information about the non-baptism of only the applicant himself is required, and no certificates are required about whether his parents are baptized. Obviously, schismatics declaring their marriage are obliged to certify only that they themselves were not baptized, and that the committee completely eliminated the question of the religion of their parents, and therefore no one had the right to touch on this issue when applying for marriage. In the general journal of the committee, which was awarded the Highest approval, among its conclusions the following is said about this subject: “the form of such books, the procedure for entering statements made in them and the procedure for issuing extracts about this should be determined on the basis of the considerations indicated in the journal of the 5th meeting and the assumptions of the Ministry of Internal Affairs attached to that journal.” Although the committee in the journal of the V meeting did not finally approve the rules and forms of applications proposed by the Ministry of Internal Affairs and recognized them as subject to more detailed consideration, nevertheless, in the considerations of the committee given in the journal of the V meeting and mentioned in the general journal, the position is quite clearly expressed by virtue of which schismatics declaring their marriage should not be required to have a certificate of the religion of their parents, and therefore the rules of 1858 in relation to the marriages of schismatics are not required may have no force. For the above reasons, the majority of the commission members believed that the draft rules on the marriages of schismatics should apply to those persons who were not themselves baptized in the Orthodox Church or do not belong to any other faith confession, and that the principle established by the instruction of 1858 should relate only to the statement of cases of birth of children to schismatics, and a certificate of non-baptism in the Orthodox Church or non-belonging at all should be required recognized religions of both those born themselves and their parents. VII. “The conversion of one or both spouses to Orthodoxy should not be accompanied by any consequences regarding non-recognition of the validity of their civilly recorded marriage.” On the question of whether to recognize schismatic marriages entered in the police registers as obligatory for one or both spouses who have converted to Orthodoxy, the commission accepted as a basis that the main condition of a schismatic marriage is its indissolubility, with the exception of cases of dissolution specified by law. In view of this basic provision, as well as Art. 79 parts I volume X of the Holy Order. citizen, by virtue of which a person of non-Christian confession according to the perception of St. baptism can live in cohabitation with an unbaptized wife and their marriage remains in force, the conversion of one or both spouses to Orthodoxy, in the opinion of the commission, should not be accompanied by any consequences regarding non-recognition of the validity of a marriage recorded by civil law. VIII. “Changes in the beliefs of the spouses or even the actual termination of cohabitation, in the eyes of the law, should not be accompanied by any consequences in relation to the marriage itself.” On the question raised in the commission about whether to continue the recognition of marriage when one or both spouses fall away to a sect that rejects marriage, there was a unanimous opinion that the strength of marital ties concluded in the established manner can depend only on the general conditions with which the recognition of the invalidity of marriages or their dissolution is connected, and therefore changes in the beliefs of the spouses or even the actual termination of cohabitation, in the eyes of the law, should not be accompanied by any consequences for the marriage itself. On the above main grounds, the commission drafted a bill on the marriages of schismatics. But before submitting this project legislatively to the State Council, the works of the said commission to draw up a law on certain civil rights of schismatics, contained in the journals of 13 meetings, were submitted for consideration to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, the Chief Administrator of the Second Department of His Imperial Majesty’s own Chancellery and the Minister of Justice. The review by the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod expressed full agreement with the views of the majority of its members set out in the journals of the commission. The chief administrator of the II Department, Prince Urusov, responded that having examined both the journals of the commission and the draft resolutions proposed by it, and agreeing with most of the conclusions adopted by the majority of the commission members, he, at the same time, found it necessary to present some of his own considerations, which we are communicating in general terms here to our readers. In the draft resolutions on the marriages of schismatics, as Prince Urusov noted, it is assumed that marriages between them, performed according to their rites, can have the consequences of legal marriages only if they are recorded in the police registers. Thus, this note, made under certain conditions, gives significance to such marital cohabitations that were not previously recognized as legal. But at the same time, the question arises in relation to marital cohabitations that existed before the time when this newly proposed law is approved - whether they can take advantage of the beneficial consequences of this law, that is, legitimize the consequences of their marital couplings. While answering this question in a positive sense, the commission members could not, however, come to an agreement on ways to more conveniently achieve this goal. The majority believed that special temporary rules should be established for this purpose, by virtue of which schismatics born before the establishment of police registers of births were allowed to prove the legality of their origin by showing them as part of families in revision tales with their subsequent inclusion in family lists, as well as on the basis of these lists. But in this way, in the opinion of Prince Urusov, the importance of the main rule of legitimizing schismatic marriages by entering them into the police registers of parishes is weakened, because other methods are established next to it, and at the same time this matter becomes more complicated both legislatively, leading to the need to establish special temporary rules, and in practice, establishing two orders of registration. Meanwhile, these inconveniences can easily be avoided by allowing only the entry of already existing schismatic marriages into the newly established police registers on the basis of general rules established by the proposed law, with the condition that after the registration of such marriages, the children previously born in them can also be entered in these registers and recognized as legal. Having expressed this view, Prince Urusov fully agreed with the opinion of the minority of members of the commission, which we cited above, which allowed the legitimation of children of schismatics adopted before the registration of marriages through a note in the police register - subsequently, when registering the marriages themselves, and recognized the temporary rules for the legitimation of children adopted by schismatics in marital unions before the promulgation of the law on the registration of marriages as inconvenient and unnecessary. The Minister of Justice, Count Palen, in his extensive and detailed review, subjected to careful consideration all the opinions and considerations expressed in the commission to develop a new law on schismatic marriages and, in general, expressed his agreement with the essence of the view of the majority of the commission members; but regarding many particulars and individual articles of the bill, he expressed many detailed instructions and comments. We considered it unnecessary for our purpose to include the commission’s bill itself in our article, and therefore we must leave without presentation the detailed instructions of the Minister of Justice regarding the substance and wording of the articles of the bill on schismatic marriages. For our purpose, it is quite sufficient to cite Count Palen’s opinions on general issues regarding schismatic marriages and the main reasons for the bill developed in the commission. First of all, Count Palen, like Prince Urusov, drew attention to the temporary rules for registering schismatic marriages that existed before the publication of the law on metric registration and legitimizing the children born in them. For this purpose, as stated above, family lists of schismatics and rules for maintaining these lists were designed. In this regard, Count Palen, like Prince Urusov, recognized the admission of entries “in family lists” of marriages concluded before the publication of the new law, and especially those marriages that had already ceased due to the death of one or both spouses, and thereby giving them the force and meaning of legal ones from the time of their conclusion, as inconvenient and in most cases useless, and the very establishment of “special family lists” that have no significant significance in relation to civil rights schismatics, and therefore believed that the marriages of schismatics, concluded before the publication of the new law, should be legitimized by entering them on a general basis in the police registers. But at the same time, Count Palen found it necessary to limit the right to legitimize children through the entry of a marriage into the register of births for a period of two years, with the fact that in the case of entry of a marriage into the register of births during this period, the right should be given to legitimate children born not only before the publication of the law on schismatic marriages, as the commission assumed, but also within a year after its publication. In view of the disagreements that arose on the issue of establishing special temporary rules for registering marital cohabitation between schismatics, which existed before the publication of the law on marriages of schismatics, and based on careful considerations given in the comments of the head of the II Department of His Imperial Majesty’s own Chancellery and the Minister of Justice, the Minister of the Interior considered it possible to come to an agreement in that the basis for the bill on schismatic marriages would be based on two main provisions: 1) uniformity of registration rules for all schismatic marriages without exception and 2) legitimation of children born before the publication of the law on schismatic marriages through the registration of parents’ marriages. But at the same time, he considered the temporary rules proposed in his review and the establishment of deadlines for applications for marriages on the basis of these rules unnecessary, since the existence of a marriage is considered only from the moment it is entered in the registry, then for marriages of schismatics, which actually already exist, there is no need to establish deadlines for applications. Thus, all the initial assumptions “about a family list of schismatics” were finally rejected, but the draft on schismatic marriages developed by the commission on those main grounds that we reported above separately from the presentation of reasoning and differences of opinion on individual issues expressed in the commission of 1868 and 1869 did not undergo significant changes even after those expressed in the reviews of Prince Urusov and Count Palen's considerations and comments on some private articles of the bill and after the final edition in the Ministry of Internal Affairs were submitted in 1872 for consideration and approval by the State Council. We consider it useful to introduce our readers to this bill developed by the commission, both for a clearer and more distinct idea of ​​the essence of the law on schismatic marriage in its initial processing in detail, and for comparison of the changes that this bill underwent during consideration in the State Council and in what form and final version it received the Highest approval and was published for general information and guidance. By placing here the exact wording of the commission’s draft law, we draw the readers’ special attention to the comments provided on each individual article thereof; these comments briefly but clearly indicate the motives and reasons for editing the articles of the draft law, and from them a complete and clear idea of ​​the essence of the draft law is formed. The bill developed by the commission consisted of the following 11 articles: 1) “Marriages of schismatics have the consequences of a legal marriage only when they are recorded in the police registers.” In this article, it is considered convenient, without mentioning marriages concluded according to schismatic rites, to express that all the consequences of legal marriages apply to those unions of schismatics that will be registered in the established order; As a result, the effect of any article of the Code of Civil Laws that contains any recognition or definition of the consequences of a legal marriage in general will naturally apply to marital unions legalized on the basis of Article 1 of the draft. 2) “To record a schismatic marriage in the police register, a personal statement about this by the spouses themselves is required, as well as their presentation of the provisions established by Articles 6 and 9, Volume X, Part 1 of the Holy Law. citizen permissions." This article, according to its edition, suggested, according to the opinion of the majority of the commission members, contains a reference to the subject articles of X t., requiring the permission of the parents or guardians of those getting married, and for those in the service - their superiors. 3) “Marriages of persons who are not in schism from birth are not subject to entry in police registers.” In the opinion of the majority of the commission members, based on the interpretation of the relevant decisions of the committee on schismatics of 1864, the effect of the draft law should extend to such persons who have been in the schism from birth; According to this view, the revision of both this and the next 4th article is assumed. 4) “By virtue of the preceding article, a signature is taken from those declaring their marriage that they have not been baptized in the Orthodox faith and do not belong to any other religion recognized in the state.” The subscription requirement set out in this article, in view of the practical difficulties of those getting married to provide any evidence on this subject, is recognized, in the opinion of the majority of the commission members, as the only means for determining membership in the schism from birth. 5) “Such marriages of schismatics, which are prohibited in the Code of Civil Laws by Articles 3, 4, 5, 12, 20, 21 and 23, are not subject to entry in the police registers.” The indicated references to articles of Vol. X, Part 1 of civil laws are made on the basis that these articles exhaust all cases of invalidity of marriages, which are fully applicable to the marriages of schismatics. These articles do not mention only violent marriages. But violence in the narrow sense in which it is given is hardly even conceivable in the presence of the police, and therefore there is hardly any need to warn them in law so that they do not register such marriages, the announcement of which would commit such a crime in the eyes of the police. In any case, violence, firstly, will fit partly under one of the above articles of civil laws (Article 12 Vol. X Part 1), which says that marriage cannot be legal without the mutual unconstrained consent of the couple and where, after that, coercion is mentioned only on the part of parents and guardians, and, secondly, it will fit completely under Article 10 of this draft, which explains which of the registered marriages of schismatics are recognized by the court insignificant, and where coercion is spoken of in a more general sense, without distinguishing the persons on whose part it was used. 6) “To certify that the marriage reported to the police does not belong to those specified in the previous article, a testimony to this effect is required from the guarantors of the marriage, signed by them.” This article of the bill has been edited in accordance with Art. 28 vol. X part 1 and appendix. to Art. 26 onwards 1863, which specifies the form of a marriage search. 7) “Guarantors, two from each marriage party, must be present at the marriage application.” But this article of the draft is also set out in relation to Art. 26 t. X h. 1, which requires, in the form of a marriage search, three or two guarantors on each side. 8) “The existence of a marriage of schismatics is considered from the day it is recorded in the police register.” This point, in the opinion of the commission, must certainly be defined in law both for the needs of civil life and in order to reject any thought about any meaning of a schismatic wedding. 9) “A marriage recorded in the police register can be dissolved only by court in cases specified in Article 46 of civil laws.” The establishment of this rule eliminated any need for questioning schismatics by the police about the essence of their religious doctrine regarding the permanence or urgency of their marriage. 10) “Marriages that were announced to the police as a result of someone else’s coercion, and in general marriages that were improperly recorded in police registers (Article 3:5), are recognized as invalid.” In this article of the draft, the commission had in mind, if possible, to eliminate, although only for schismatic marriages, some of the shortcomings of the general current law, consisting in the fact that, firstly, the law mentions coercion into marriage only from parents and guardians, while it is possible from any relatives and strangers, and, secondly, the invalidity of forced marriages is not directly stated anywhere in the law, but is expressed only indirectly at the beginning of Article 12. 1 part X vol. 11). “Failure to comply with the rules established in Articles 2, 4, 6 and 7 when recording a marriage in the police registry book exposes those responsible to legal liability, but does not destroy the marriage itself recorded in the registry book.” The bill on marriages between schismatics, edited in this form, together with the rules on the conduct of marriage affairs of schismatics and the rules for maintaining metric books for schismatics, with a note from the Minister of Internal Affairs, was submitted in December 1872 for the approval and permission of the State Council. The State Council in the general meeting, having begun to consider the bill on the civil rights of schismatics, focused on the differences of opinion that had arisen in the united departments of laws and civil and spiritual affairs on the following issues: a) whether in relation to the marriages of schismatics, a procedure for certifying that there were no obstacles to marriage should be established in accordance with the announcement and search, and b) in what order, i.e. judicial or administrative, should recognition of the legality of the birth of those living before the publication of the law dated schismatic marriages of persons whose parents one or both have died and therefore cannot enter their marriage in the register of births. On the first question, the State Council reasoned that since the recognition of a schismatic marriage as legal is connected with a note in the registry register, then there is a direct state need to surround the said action with all those precautions and forms that, not being part of the church wedding rite, are established by law in relation to all marriages in general in order to prevent them from being carried out in violation of existing regulations or in violation of the rights of third parties. Based on this principle and in view of the fact that the bill on schismatic marriages recognizes the same circumstances as obstacles to marriage in the existence of which marriage unions of persons of Orthodox and other faith confessions are not allowed, the State Council, for its part, did not find any reason for not extending to the marriages of schismatics those provisions of the law that are aimed at ensuring the actual implementation of it. In the opinion of the State Council, the purpose of the announcement and search established by law for marriages celebrated in the church is not only to prevent the church temptation associated with illegal marriage, but also to prevent that harm from a national point of view, which is an inevitable consequence of violating civil laws on marriage, which form the basis of a family union. It is obvious that the latter basis has full force in relation to the marriages of schismatics, who, just like persons of the Orthodox and other faiths, should not marry before the age determined by law or in close degrees of kinship, with insane or insane people, and in the presence of other similar obstacles to marriage. But, in addition, when applied to schismatic marriages, their preliminary announcement takes on a special, very important meaning. With the assumption, of necessity, of the recognition of the marriage of sectarians without positive certification of the performance of the church wedding ceremony, every effort should be made to ensure that the new law issued exclusively for schismatics is actually applied to schismatics only and that the marriage record in the metric books established for this purpose, without the blessing of the church, cannot be used by those belonging to the Orthodox faith or to other Christian confessions of persons who, due to lack moral development and lack of strong religious convictions, would prefer to legitimize their marriage this way. To prevent such and all other abuses, perhaps the most reliable and incomparably more reliable means than the representation of guarantors seems to be some preliminary publicity of marriage unions that are subject to entry into the police books. The possibility of proving the invalidity of a marriage in court does not in any way weaken the entire significance of preventive measures, for there is no doubt that preventing evil is always more desirable than pursuing it later. In marriage matters, this consideration seems especially important in view of the fact that when a marriage is dissolved, persons who are completely innocent of its incorrect execution often suffer: a spouse who did not know about the obstacles to marriage, and children recognized as illegitimate. Based on these respects and not recognizing the possibility of establishing rules on the announcement of marriage through administrative instructions, which obviously constitute the subject of the law, the State Council found it necessary to introduce into the considered bill special articles on this subject, included in it according to the opinion of the majority of members of the United Departments of Law, Spiritual and Civil Affairs Art. 3-7 and found in the current law. On the second question, the State Council found that no matter how the recognition of the legitimacy of the children of schismatics born before the publication of the new law is carried out, in any case, it is necessary to protect the property rights that already exist on a legal basis from harassment that could be brought against them as a result of the said recognition. Therefore, the State Council recognized the need to supplement the draft legal provision with a general rule that the provisions contained in this resolution on the recognition of the validity of marriages and the legality of the birth of children of schismatics in the past do not have, in cases of property, retroactive force and cannot serve as the basis for any claim regarding property for the time preceding the publication of this law. With this addition, fears about the fluctuation of property rights acquired before the publication of the new law are completely eliminated, and with this, the objection raised during the preliminary development of the bill against the proposal of the Supremely Established Committee of 1864, which recognized the need to not only provide schismatics with a way to legitimize their marriages and family ties for the future, but also to eliminate the precariousness and uncertainty of the marital status of the existing generation Raskolnikov, for which purpose the committee decided to consider audit tales as evidence of the marital status and legality of the children of schismatics in the time preceding the 10th revision, and in the subsequent time before the publication of the new law, specially compiled family lists. The deviation from this assumption proposed by some members of the State Council by limiting the effect of the law issued only to the future tense and allowing the existing generation of schismatics to seek their legitimation through the courts would be tantamount to a positive statement on the part of the government that all living schismatics, pending judicial consideration of each of them, are illegitimate children descended from the prodigal union of parents, and that all generally existing family ties between schismatics are invalid. To assess what a grave impression such a statement would make and what unfavorable consequences it would have, we must take into account that although the marriages of schismatics do not enjoy explicit recognition and protection among us and are considered invalid in a strictly legal sense, there was no direct, general regulation about this in our laws. General civil laws on the subject of marriages of schismatics are decreed only (vol. X, part 1, art. 33 note) that “cases of marriages celebrated by schismatic priests outside the church, in houses and chapels, are subject to trial and decision by the civil authorities.” Special orders and resolutions regarding the split, issued for the most part in secret, reveal the instability and variability in the government’s views on this subject. Back in 1808, the Holy Synod, having examined the cases of some marriages married by Old Believer priests in houses and chapels, in a decree addressed to the diocesan bishop, expressed that these marriages should be recognized as fornicating. In 1827, it was ordered that this decree of the synod be published for uniform and universal implementation; but when the next year one of the local authorities raised the question: whether the non-recognition of marriages married according to schismatic rites as legal should be extended over time, then the opinion of the State Council (December 10, 1828) explained that the decree of the Holy Synod of 1808 does not extend to schismatic marriages in general, but applies only to those marriages that are specifically designated in that decree. In the thirties, at the request of the schismatics of the Rogozhsky cemetery for the need to have certificates about their wives, it was found that the marriages of schismatics, although not recognized as legal, nevertheless remained tolerable in civil terms, and therefore the police were allowed to issue certificates to schismatics about their wives. Similar orders followed in 1846 and 1847. Finally, in revision tales, schismatics were always shown as part of their families on a common basis. During the IX revision, an exception was made from this in relation to the non-priests, “whose marriages are completely rejected,” their children were ordered to be shown as illegitimate and their mothers were not to be recorded as the wives of schismatics; but during this audit, the wives and children of schismatic priests were also ordered to be shown “as such” in the audit tale on the basis of police evidence or philistine books (Vysoch. pov. June 10, 1850). The proposal stated by the former Chernigov, Poltava and Kharkov governor-general that all schismatics in general should be shown unmarried and their children considered illegitimate, was rejected, because, as stated in the Highest approved position of the secret committee on schismatics on this subject, the implementation of this “could have extremely harmful consequences and arouse strong murmurs and displeasure among the large population schismatics of the priestly sect" (Vysoch. pov. December 8, 1850). Other ideas from the civil and ecclesiastical authorities about the decisive recognition of schismatic marriages as illegal and their children as illegitimate were equally rejected. Under the influence of these decrees, as well as due to the age-old customary law that has taken root among the schismatics, the children descended from their marriages are accustomed to considering themselves the legitimate children of their parents, and this view of theirs has rarely been challenged in practice. Therefore, inheriting on a general basis from their parents not only property, but in most cases their social position, the mass of schismatics did not realize the full gravity of the abnormal conditions in which they were placed by the non-recognition of general civil rights for them by positive law. In this state of affairs, the promulgation of a law imposing the obligation on the entire living generation of schismatics to seek formal recognition of the legality of their birth would inevitably threaten with the same consequences, in fear of which the government never decided to make a general statement about the illegality of marriages that existed between schismatics. On the other hand, the judicial consideration of questions about the origin of schismatics, no matter how simplified the proceedings of these cases would be, would be fraught with such difficulties for schismatics, who mostly belong to the bourgeois and peasant classes, that many of them, in all likelihood, would prefer to remain in their previous abnormal position, which does not correspond to the types of government. It is difficult to imagine that a peasant, without encountering an urgent need in his own affairs to certify the legality of his birth, would go for this to a court located in a city remote from him, look for an attorney there and, finally, would spend money on legal costs and living in a foreign place without business for a long time. That cases of this kind could not end quickly, there can be no doubt, because people uneducated and unfamiliar with judicial procedures and requirements usually would not present from the very beginning all the evidence necessary for the trial. Meanwhile, the legalization of the actual family relations of schismatics seems necessary, regardless of moral respects, also in order to provide the government with the most accurate data that could serve as a guide in the distribution of taxes and duties that fall on schismatics on an equal basis with the rest of the population. This need, when considering the bill on schismatic marriages in the State Council, became even more palpable in view of the upcoming introduction into force of the new statute on military service, which granted very significant benefits to only sons and to the only brothers capable of working who had young brothers or sisters in their care. If the kinship relationships of the schismatics are not determined with precision, then when performing the indicated duty they will be presented with the opportunity for various abuses, which there will be no means to prevent. To recognize the family ties of schismatics in relation to their military service and not to recognize at the same time these ties with regard to their family rights, in the opinion of the State Council, would be an injustice inconsistent with the dignity of the law and the government. Recognizing the need to establish on a legal basis the family life of schismatics and considering the assumption that schismatics would have to prove their rights by origin in court as inconvenient and extremely burdensome, the State Council reasoned that with the adoption of the committee’s proposal of 1864, that in the past, proof of marital unions of schismatics would be accepted mainly by revision tales, certification of the existence of the marriage of schismatics and the legality of the origin of their children, it would be so It is simply that there cannot be any need to entrust the resolution of issues of this kind to judicial decisions. In the opinion of the State Council, there is no reason to recognize the revision tales as insufficiently reliable evidence of the existence of schismatic marriages, for they, on the basis of paragraph III of Art. 1559 of the Code of Estates are considered estate acts for rural and urban inhabitants; Article 123 of the Code of Civil Laws (vol. X part. I) and Article 1356 of the statute of civil proceedings, on November 20, 1864, it was directly decided that in case of impossibility of obtaining a metric certificate, either due to the lack of metric books, or due to the dubiousness of the circumstances that are shown in them, various documents, including audit certificates, can be accepted as proof of birth from a legal marriage. This rule should have a full application to the schismatics, since they did not have metric books; In addition, the government constantly attached decisive importance to revision tales when collecting taxes and all kinds of other duties from schismatics. As for those marital unions of schismatics that were concluded after the tenth national census, the children born from these unions, in the opinion of the State Council, should be recorded in the newly established metric books with exact confirmation that between their parents there was a permanent marital cohabitation concluded according to the rites of their beliefs, and it would be necessary to observe, as far as possible, those general conditions and precautions that are prescribed in the draft rules regarding the recording of newly concluded marriages by schismatics. In the opinion of the State Council, there is no fear that, if these precautions are observed, persons descended from a legal marriage who should not enjoy the rights of legitimate children will be entered into the registers of births; if in these records, as well as in the audit tales, there may be errors, then they, of course, will be only rare exceptions and instead of burdening the entire schismatic population with legal proceedings because of a few exceptions, it is better to allow those persons whose interests would be violated by the ensuing error to challenge the correctness of the testimony made in court and demand proper correction of the audit tale or record. The State Council considered it very useful to make a reservation about such a right in the new law. Having moved on to a detailed discussion of the bill in the order of articles, the State Council focused its attention only on some of the main articles of the draft, on which, having expressed its reasoning, it found it necessary to indicate the corresponding editorial corrections. These articles are as follows: 1) Article 1 of the draft stipulates that marriage unions of schismatics, recorded in the registry books, have the civil significance and consequences of a legal marriage. When discussing this rule, agreeing with the essence of it, the State Council took into account that all articles of the new law should be edited so as not to give rise to the idea that the government, for persons belonging to the schism, introduces civil marriage in the strict sense of the word and sees in the established entry in the registry register the basis and essence of the marriage union between husband and wife. This, of course, is not the idea underlying the new bill on schismatic marriages. The establishment of an exclusively civil marriage would not correspond either to the spirit of our existing marriage laws or to actual needs, and could have unfavorable consequences in many respects. Our legislation has always recognized the marriage union as a predominantly spiritual union. The power of this fundamental rule extends not only to persons of the Orthodox faith, but also to all subjects of the empire in general. In the popular consciousness, marriage also has the meaning of establishing the spiritual. This view is fully shared by a significant majority of schismatics, and sects that accept the priesthood recognize marriage as a church sacrament on a par with the Orthodox. If the rites of schismatics cannot be assigned the same significance as the rites of the Orthodox Church and other religions recognized in the state, and therefore it is necessary, in order to legitimize schismatic marriages, to require the observance of a special formality, which has the form of a civil act, then, according to very important moral respects, it cannot be considered desirable that schismatics, in fact, limit themselves when entering into marriage to performing only the said formality, without any spiritual rite and thus reduced their marriage to the meaning of a simple contract, for the conclusion of which it is enough to appear at the police department. Allowing such marriages by law would inevitably arouse rumors about the government’s desire to leave the historical ground on which it has always stood so firmly in protecting the spiritual side of marriages, and would shake respect for their holiness not only among sectarians, but also in the general consciousness of the people. It goes without saying that directly ordering schismatics to perform their customary marriage rites, and even more so allowing police departments to enter into investigations into the wedding rites performed, depending on the difference between sects, when registering their marriages, would be inconvenient in many respects. But, in the opinion of the State Council, it is necessary, while completely eliminating the interference of government authorities in the worship and rituals of schismatics, to express, however, in the wording of the law the general idea that a civil act acquires legal force only to such a union of husband and wife, for which they laid the foundation by prayer and asking for God’s blessing according to the rules of their belief. Based on the foregoing, the State Council considered it necessary to state Article 1 of the bill as follows: “Marriages of schismatics acquire in civil terms through recording in the special metric books established for this purpose the power and consequences of a legal marriage,” and at the same time supplement Article 9 with a special rule stating that “the execution of marriage rites observed by schismatics prior to the registration in the metric book is not subject to police officials.” Article 2, for greater clarity, in the opinion of the State Council, should have been stated as follows: “Such marriages of schismatics, which are prohibited by civil laws, are prohibited and are not subject to entry in the registers of parishes (Vol. X, Part 1, Articles 3, 4, 5, 12, as continued in 1863, 20, 21 and 23).” Based on Art. 11th, the existence of a marriage of schismatics is considered proven from the day it is recorded in the police register. Without objecting to the essence of this rule, the State Council, however, accepted that according to Article 10, in cases where there is a serious obstacle to the registration of a marriage, the police department must, having stopped this recording, draw up a ruling on that, which can be appealed according to the procedure established in the bill. In view of this rule and since the doubts raised by the police about obstacles to marriage cannot always be recognized as correct by higher institutions, the State Council found it useful to supplement Art. 11th in the sense that in the indicated cases, a marriage at the request of one or both spouses is considered to have legal force not from the day it is entered into the register of births, but from the time it is declared. In application to Art. The 16th decrees that children born from schismatic marriages before the publication of these rules are recognized as legitimate, if only the reality of their origin from the parents recorded in the birth register is proven. According to the State Council, the force of the above note should have been extended to children born within two years after the publication of the rules on metric registration, since it is difficult to assume that all schismatics who want to register their marriage in metric books would have time to do this before the specified period. Therefore, the said note should be moved to Art. 15 and stated in the following form: “Children born from schismatic marriages before the publication of the new law, as well as during the first two years after its publication, can be recorded in the metric register even if they were born before the registration of the marriage of their parents, if their origin from the marriage union subsequently recorded, as well as the time of their birth, are certified as indicated in Art. 18th witnesses." In accordance with the above reasoning and the instructions of the State Council, the bill for the metric registration of marriages, births and deaths of schismatics received its final edition and legislative sanction by the Highest approval thereof on April 19, 1874. It should be noted that the commission’s bill outlined above, amended in the Ministry of Internal Affairs, after communication with the Chief Prosecutor of St. Synod, the chief administrator of the II Department of His Imperial Majesty's own Chancellery and the Minister of Justice, when considering it in the State Council, did not undergo significant changes in the foundations and principles and even in many of its particulars remained in the same form, receiving only in places a new routine and more precise editorial processing in the sense of codicilation. To prove this idea, it is enough for us to point to the Highest approved opinion of the State Council on the consideration of this law, which serves as an explanation and interpretation of the foundations of the new law and an indication of the essential rules in the particular provisions and definitions of this law, both regarding schismatic marriages themselves, and records of the birth and death of schismatics. We consider it necessary to present this Supremely approved opinion on the 19th day of April 1874 here without changes and thereby complete our outline of the legislative development of the issue of the rights of schismatics by origin. The law itself in its particulars, as published and in force for more than 10 years, should be known to most of our readers, and considering it from a critical point of view is beyond our task. The opinion of the State Council serves us as the most convenient and thorough conclusion for a holistic and visual understanding of the essence of the new law in its fundamental provisions and general indications of particulars, expressed in detail in the articles of the law. In the introduction to this opinion of the State Council, first of all, there is a confirmation of our idea that the new bill of the commission of 1868, even in its final version, remained little changed in essence - it says “that the State Council, in the united departments of the laws of spiritual and civil affairs and in the general meeting, having considered the presentation of the Minister of the Interior and “agreeing in essence with the conclusion of him, the minister”, the opinion adopted: 1) Draft rules on the metric recording of marriages, births and deaths schismatics should be submitted to His Highest Imperial Majesty for approval. 2) In relation to marriages that have existed between schismatics up to the present time, he decided: 1) The schismatics recorded in the tales of the tenth revision as husband and wife are recognized as legally married spouses, and their children shown in the revision are considered their legitimate children, until the correctness of the said testimony is refuted in court in accordance with Article 5 of this conclusion. 2) Children born from the marriages mentioned in Article 1 after the tenth national census and therefore not included in the revision tales may be recorded at the request of themselves or at the request of their parents or guardians so that their origin from the marriage recorded in the revision tale and the time of their birth are certified by the testimony of at least two witnesses. From these witnesses, as well as from parents or guardians who asked for registration, a signature is taken that the children being recorded are in schism from birth. 3) Marriages concluded after the tenth national census, as well as children born in such marriages, during the lifetime of both spouses, are recorded in metric books on the exact basis of the general rules currently published. 4) When only one of the spouses is alive, or both of them have already died, then the marriage between them is not subject to entry in the registry register. But if between the spouses there was a permanent marital union concluded according to the rites of their beliefs, not contrary to the rules depicted in civil laws (Art. 4, 5, 12, 20, 21 and 23), then children born from such a union can be recorded in the register at their own request or at the request of their parents or guardians, and the following is observed: a) prior to the registration of these children, those asking for this must declare the name, nickname and condition of both the children themselves and their parents to the police or volost administration; these departments comply with the order prescribed in articles 4–6 and 10 and the rules currently published; b) during the registration there must be at least two witnesses who, together with the parents or guardians who requested the registration, must certify both the time of birth of the children being registered, and 1) that these children came from a marital union that meets the conditions specified in this article, 2) that the married spouses or one of them are no longer alive and 3) that those being registered have been separated from birth. 5) Everyone is granted, in order to protect their rights, to challenge the validity of a marriage recognized on the basis of an audit fairy tale (Article 1), as well as the legal origin of children shown in an audit or entered in the birth register in accordance with the rules set out above in Art. 2–4. In this case, the following is observed: a) those challenging the validity of the marriage must prove that between the recorded husband and wife there was no permanent marital union concluded according to the rites of their beliefs, or that their union was concluded in violation of the rules established in Art. 4, 5, 12, 20, 21 and 23 civil laws (vol. X, part 1); b) disputes against the validity of a marriage or against the legality of the birth of children shown to be living in it must be submitted to a court subject to judicial determination no later than “two years” from the date of promulgation of this law, if the validity of the marriage or the legality of the birth of children listed in the audit tale (Article 1) is disputed, and in other cases - from the day the children are recorded in the birth register, from this disputes of the persons themselves recorded under Art. 1–4 by someone's legitimate children: their disputes against the correctness of such testimony can be presented at any time. 6) The decisions of this law (Articles 1–4) on the recognition of the validity of marriages and the legality of the birth of children of schismatics in the past do not have retroactive force in cases of property and cannot serve as the basis for any claim regarding property for the time preceding the publication of this law.” The above provisions of the Supremely approved Opinion 15 of the State Council on April 19, 1874 contain a complete summary of the new law - its essence, and for our purpose it is quite enough to finish our present essay - which was intended to present a gradual and consistent examination of the issue of granting schismatics rights by origin - family rights. Having presented in this article to our readers all the successive phases of the legislative processing of the new law on the metric registration of marriages, births and deaths of schismatics with documentary accuracy for the entire period of ten years of correct activity on the issue of granting schismatics the most basic civil rights - family rights, we hope that we have fulfilled our task in good faith, and it seems to us that the essence of the law - its foundations and principles - has been understood by us with sufficient completeness. We paid primary attention to the main foundations and principles of the draft law on the family rights of schismatics; why, in order not to get lost in the details and not bore the reader with a detailed presentation of the development of private issues that arose on many aspects of the unregulated civil position of schismatics in the state for two centuries, we tried to distribute the material we had according to the main phases of the development of the law, indicating the most general and essential provisions on the essence of the entire issue of the civil rights of schismatics, - in one form or another, expressed both by representatives of government institutions in which this important issue was discussed, and in the debates of a special commission for drafting a bill. Much of the material we have was not included in our article for fear of disseminating it in detail to the detriment of a clear and consistent presentation of the main principles of the issue that occupied us for a visual and clear representation in the minds of readers of the essence of one of the most important state legislative acts of the great extensive reforms of the past reign, unforgettable for history and state life. It is beyond our power to make a detailed assessment of a special legislative act on the civil legal capacity of schismatics who were previously deprived of civil full rights - this is a matter for experts in state and civil law and codification specialists. Therefore, in concluding our article, we limit ourselves to only pointing out those general opinions that were expressed both in society and in the literature, both according to rumors about the draft new law during its legislative development, and when assessing its significance after its publication and publication for general knowledge and guidance. Just as during the development of the law on schismatic marriages and the metric registration of births and deaths, many opinions, doubts and fears were expressed regarding the essence, importance and necessity of the law, which had to give legal rights to a schismatic family, and after its publication there were many laudatory and enthusiastic reviews about the new humane law, which granted at least 1/8 of the population of the state a strong civil family, legitimizing in no way guilty, but doomed to civil alienation of children both by rights of origin and by closely related rights of inheritance. In secular literature, many laudatory praises were expressed for government activities in the spirit of liberal principles of religious tolerance. But the party of guardians of the fundamental foundations of state life and mainly champions of the old system of government action on schism expressed many fears and expressed doubts about the conditions for applying the new law for schismatics, both from a national and social point of view, and in relation to the dignity and authority of the dominant Orthodox Church and its representatives. The strongest and most widespread fear regarding the inconvenience of applying the new law to national life - representatives of the protective principle saw that the new law on schismatic marriages is a purely civil act, while marriage at its very core is an ecclesiastical act - and therefore the government, having recognized the possibility of legalizing the marriages of schismatics exclusively in a civil manner, is supposedly introducing into state life a new principle of civil marriage in general, tempting for the Orthodox too. This apparently strong objection was a current opinion in society among people unfamiliar with either the essence or forms of the new law, and for supporters of the ephemeral doctrine of civil marriage in general, the new legalization was a desirable fact and a pleasant phenomenon. But no matter how unfounded the fears of the former were, the desires of the latter were just as dreamy. The new law, as we saw from the detailed presentation of its general principles and indications of its detailed rules, not only eliminated any thought about the possibility of civil marriage in the state along with the church sacrament of marriage, but provided for all possible particulars of deviation and temptation for the Orthodox and dispelled the fantastic desires and hopes of frivolous supporters and followers of the negative teaching about marriage as a union only civil-economic, and not a real sacrament of the church. Delving into the essence and content of the new law on schismatic marriages, there is no doubt for everyone that between the legalization of schismatic marriages and the introduction of the new law on civil marriage in general into state, social life and among members of the Orthodox Church, there is not the slightest organic connection, these issues are extraneous to each other, and the exclusive special purpose of the new law only for schismatics eliminates any idea that the government not only directly, but also indirectly recognized the possibility of legalizing civil marriage unions together with church marriage as a sacrament existing on the basis of the dominant Orthodox Church in the state. The principle underlying the new law on schismatic marriages is identical with the principle of recognition of marriages concluded by persons of heterodox and non-religious subjects of the state, whose marriages, concluded according to the rites of their beliefs, have only significance as acts of civil status. Just as in relation to the recognition of marriages of heterodox subjects and people of other faiths, our Orthodox government, allowing for the principle of religious tolerance, recognizes their marriages in the sense of civil acts, without touching the essence of their doctrine, in the same way the law on schismatic marriage, as well as a civil act, is based on the beginning of the same religious tolerance and does not allow research on the religious side of the marriage of schismatics, it does not examine the methods of concluding marriages between schismatics of different sects, leaving it to be in charge the schismatics themselves according to their beliefs and rituals. This law directly defines the government’s view that the schismatic rite of marriage as a marriage in the religious, sacramental sense is not given any legality; the law defines only the purely civil form of schismatic marriage as a necessary act of the civil legal capacity of each subject of the state, as a member of a certain family, it knows only the desire of those getting married and monitors the conditions prescribed by existing civil laws in family rights - kinship, marriage, etc., and subject to purely civil conditions, it consolidates the union of schismatics purely as a civil act, specially legalized for schismatics from birth, and not for other subjects of the state, depending on their desire. Only by admitting the latter, one could come to the idea that the government, by legitimizing schismatic marriages, determining the civil legal capacity of a schismatic family, at the same time makes it possible to legitimize marriages in general in the civil sense, in addition to and along with the marriages of the Orthodox Church. But then the law would have to be based on another principle, tantamount to either the destruction of marriage as a sacrament of the Orthodox Church, or, at least, the weakening of the church’s view of marriage as a sacrament, the principle of religious indifference. But to eliminate even the thought of this, the new law provides all possible guarantees for the registration of marriage exclusively by schismatics, under the strict control of civil authorities only, in order to protect the sanctity of the sacrament of marriage of the Orthodox Church and any possibility of abuse in the use of the rights of the new law on the part of Orthodox subjects. Guardian skeptics, fearing any innovations and defending the old order in relation to schismatics, saw in them benefits for the church and usually said that when the legality of schismatic marriages was not recognized, many schismatics were forced to go to get married in the Orthodox Church, and since a church wedding, according to the law, had to be preceded by the fulfillment of Christian duty and then a subscription to raise children in Orthodoxy, the aforesaid order, in the opinion guardians, helped to weaken the schism through the accession to the church of those of his followers who, wishing to lead a married life, at the same time cared about consolidating marriage ties and the legitimacy of their children. That among schismatics there was a widespread desire to consolidate marriage bonds through church weddings is a historically known fact. At the beginning of the second half of the 18th century, even a theory about the possibility and necessity of concluding marriages of Bespopovites through a church wedding appeared and was significantly widespread among the Bespopovites. Then, when this theory was suppressed at the end of the same century by a new one - about the possibility of marriage through one parental blessing with the consent of the bride and groom, the desire of schismatics to marry in the church still did not stop, and under the influence of certain government measures in the forties and fifties of the current century, it was expressed by significant factual evidence. At the same time, it is impossible not to mention that in addition to the general desire of schismatics to conclude their marriages in the Orthodox Church, according to the exclusive doctrine of some sectarians, for example, the Spasovites, who still exist today, baptism and marriages must certainly take place in the church. But these facts speak in favor of the old order only from the outside, and when illuminated they lose their value and dignity as useful factors for weakening the schism and for the benefit of Orthodoxy. It's not just about the visible facts, but about the meaning of the facts. And the meaning of the facts of schismatics getting married in Orthodox churches spoke completely opposite to the intended and desired goal of bringing the schism closer to Orthodoxy and weakening it. According to precise historical verification and moral results, it turned out that some of the schismatics who were married in the Orthodox Church did not even think of entering into unity with it, while others, if they signed to leave the schism, did not do it sincerely and in their souls remained, as before, the same schismatics. Among the first were newlyweds in the 18th century, followers of Ivan Alekseev Starodubsky, who taught that for the firmness of a marriage a wedding in the Great Russian Church was necessary, and thus accepted those married into his priestless society, sometimes only imposing a weak penance, consisting of several bows. Followers of Spasov's consent still teach that baptism and marriage must be performed in church, since a layman cannot act sacredly, and therefore, in confirmation of this necessity, they say: “even a heretic, but a priest, even a Satan, but in vestments.” The insincerity of the subscriptions given by schismatics to belong to Orthodoxy and to raise their children in it is evidenced by many cases of deviations into schism that were carried out in the forties and fifties of the current century. The schismatics who were married in the church neither became Orthodox themselves nor raised their children in it; for the time being, they belonged to secret schismatics, and then, when inquired about being seduced into schism, they again turned out to have deviated into it - but in fact, they had never sincerely and consciously accepted Orthodoxy. Thus, the apparent benefit of non-recognition of schismatic marriages without a church wedding, indicated by the followers of the old system of government actions in relation to the schism, turns out to be completely illusory and even harmful for the church, which is deceived by schismatics with imaginary affiliations. The new law on schismatic marriages destroyed this ambiguity, it did not bind schismatics with the need for a church wedding to regulate their family life, to acquire civil family rights, and freed the Orthodox Church from imaginary treacherous sons who unworthily appropriated its holy name... This, in our opinion, is the most important merit of the new law in the moral and religious sense... After the law was published, some of its examiners found many more supposedly possible irregularities and inaccuracies in the application of its particular rules in practice in social life, but we consider it unnecessary to make these particular indications of inaccuracies and shortcomings in the details of legislative definitions in their practical application - such particulars are always correctable according to the instructions of experience. But what experience has shown during the ten-year application of the law on the metric recording of schismatics, we do not have accurate information and data on this, and this is beyond our task. Having presented in the previous article all the successive phases of legislative processing of the remarkable legislative act on the metric registration of marriages, births and deaths of schismatics with documentary accuracy for the entire period of ten years of government activity on the issue of granting schismatics the most basic civil rights - family rights, we have completed only part of our task. The Law of April 19, 1874, for all its importance in the field of civil law, in any case, has an exclusive special purpose, defining only the rights of legality of a schismatic family, but in a wide range of general civil relations of schismatics in state, social and religious relations - for general legislative reform on the schism in the sense of equalizing rights for state purposes - there was still a lot left to be done and, moreover, not in any one special area of known law, but in all the various definitions of legal relations of a full citizen. A detailed examination of the entire range of civil relations of schismatics who were outside civil jurisdiction, as we have seen, was carried out by the special temporary committee established in 1864 by the Highest for matters concerning schismatics. In our first article, based on the works of the said committee, we thoroughly outlined and understood the principles of broad political freedom and the foundations of broad religious tolerance and humane condescension of the government towards schismatics and sectarians, who, due to religious separatism and antagonism to government power and the dominant church, due to stubbornness and inertia, were deprived of civil rights and freedom in the performance of religious duties and needs. The same committee of 1864, as we have shown, clearly outlined the limits of political and religious freedom to which the humane, in relation to sectarians, leniency of state power should extend without prejudice to state unity and the authority of the church. In any case, the publication of a positive law, the abolition of restrictions and the granting of new benefits and rights, the exclusion of punitive and restrictive articles from existing laws and the introduction into the code of mitigating restrictions that equalized schismatics in legal relations with other subjects of the state, required many more concerns and extreme caution and prudence of the government authorities. Why, “for a comprehensive discussion and development of the plans of the special temporary committee on the affairs of schismatics, approved by the Highest on August 16, 1864,” a commission was established in 1875 under the Ministry of Internal Affairs from the ranks of various departments 16. This commission opened its meetings on March 6, 1875 and ended its sessions on June 14 of the same year. Despite the importance of the task, the work of the 1875 commission was soon completed. is easily and obviously explained by the fact that there was no need to establish principles and norms and determine common initial principles for its activities according to new legislative plans regarding the provision of sectarians, according to the differences in their interpretations and sects, with certain civil rights and freedom in the practice of worship and spiritual needs. All this was established with full knowledge of the matter and experienced wisdom by the committee of 1864, the plans of which required only revision in particulars to develop a bill in detail, without touching the substance of maturely thought-out principles and sharply defined general principles. Thus, the task and active role of the 1875 commission is clearly defined - the role is primarily editorial. This is how it was, as we will show, on almost all issues of schism considered by the committee of 1864, the highest approved plans of which for 10 years already served as a guide for this or that direction and resolution of schism cases. Ten years of experience in leading those appointed by the 1864 committee. rules and instructions assigned to them their expedient practical applicability in relation to the system of government actions in general in relation to schism and sectarianism. But while these plans were only an indicator of the relationship of government authorities to schismatics, and not a legal civil act, the entire active role of managing the schism was left to administrative discretion, and not to the exact instructions of a positive law: principles were established, as we said, boundaries were outlined, but there were still no precise definitions in the details of this or that right, in special particulars, in the abolition of exceptions and restrictions defined in different parts of our code of laws for schismatics and sectarians. It was these exact definitions of particulars, the abolition of exceptions and restrictions and exceptions of the subject articles of the law from the existing code that the commission of 1875 should have dealt with and was engaged in. Having carefully familiarized ourselves with the works of this commission based on the original documents contained in the journals of its meetings, we will first outline in detail its activities in discussing the plans of the committee of 1864 and report the conclusions it developed for a new legislative reform in the civil and religious rights of sectarians, and in the end - the conclusions it developed will be comparable with the definitions of the legislative act of May 3, 1883, which were granted to schismatics and sectarians have civil rights and freedom to fulfill religious needs according to their sectarian rituals. With a consideration and assessment of this new law, we will complete our essays on modern legislative reforms on the split over the twenty years closest to our days. The program for the activities of the commission of 1875 was drawn up according to the final conclusions of the special temporary committee on cases of schismatics, approved by the Highest on August 16, 1864, since the very task of the commission was almost exclusively to develop the provisions and plans presented by the committee of 1864. The final conclusions of the committee covered the entire range of general civil rights of schismatics and the rights to perform divine services and spiritual needs according to the rituals of their sects. These two groups are divided into two categories of orders: legislative and administrative. The first group, i.e., general civil rights, included the conclusions of the committee, which also required both legislative and administrative orders. Legislative orders were required by the following conclusions of the committee: a) on the division of sects into more and less harmful according to the criteria specified in the Highest approved conclusion of the same committee; b) on issuing leave permits for schismatics within the empire on a general basis, except for those followers of more harmful sects who will be convicted of spreading their errors; c) on the registration of schismatics in the guild and their trade; d) on the abolition of the ban on the enrollment of schismatics in icon-painting workshops; e) on the admission of schismatics of less harmful sects to occupy public positions; f) on the abolition of the prohibition for schismatics to be assigned to tax societies in some places of the empire, and g) on ​​the abolition of the prohibition on Molokans and Doukhobors to have people of the Orthodox confession in their service and to enter into the service of the Orthodox themselves. Administrative orders were required by the following measures, established solely for the purpose of restricting the free activity of schismatics in the form of propaganda, namely: a) the abolition of the special rule on inspecting the homes of schismatics in the Arkhangelsk and Olonets provinces; b) awarding schismatics with insignia and honorary titles; c) permission for schismatics, with some restrictions, to open literacy schools; d) preventing volost elders and their schismatic assistants from participating in parish councils; e) cancellation of the assumption of imposing special increased taxes on schismatics; f) the abolition of the ban on issuing dissenters with permissible certificates for the right to educate children; g) abolition of restrictions on the right of schismatics to acquire real estate; h) prohibition for the future from publishing in the press separate editions of the works of schismatic teachers, containing their false thinking and systematic presentation of schismatic dogmas and rituals without proper explanations or objections from the spiritual authorities and without their approval. The second group of committee conclusions, i.e., the rights to administer spiritual services, in the commission program should have included the following conclusions, which also required both legislative and administrative orders. Legislative orders were required by the following questions: a) about allowing the correction of chapels and other prayer buildings, the opening of closed houses of worship, as well as addressing residential buildings on this subject in places where the former prayer houses were destroyed, and b) about the non-persecution and non-restraint of those performing spiritual demands for schismatics without, however, recognizing such persons of clergy rank or rank. The administrative order required an indispensable condition to prevent open gatherings of schismatics of more harmful sects for prayer, so that this rule did not apply to gatherings in houses that were not associated with criminal actions. This was the clearly and definitely outlined program for the commission’s activities. But, in addition, the same committee of 1864 entrusted the commission with the task of repealing all those existing decisions on schismatics that would disagree with the spirit of the newly adopted measures. In addition, the position of the Committee of Ministers, approved on the 13th day of December 1874, also entrusted the commission with the task of drawing up draft instructions for governors, ranks of police and gendarmerie departments and persons of prosecutorial supervision and the nature of actions in general in relation to schismatics and, especially, on the subject of worship and the fulfillment of spiritual demands according to schismatic rites. According to the stated program, the first issue to be discussed by the commission was the question of dividing sects into more and less harmful ones according to the criteria specified in the Highest approved conclusion of the committee in 1864. There is no doubt that this complex, dangerous, uncertain and at the same time the most necessary, root question - in determining the civil legal capacity of schismatics in accordance with one or another degree of moral reliability and the least degree of social harm from one or another branch of the schism, from one or another sectarian creed, and now, as in the committee of 1864, turned out to be the Achilles heel. The commission would like to bypass it and recognized its resolution as necessary, it would be desirable to end it as quickly as possible, but it was not given a quick categorical decision. After many preliminary negotiations, the commission found that the question of dividing schismatic sects according to the degree of their harm constituted the most difficult and most important part of its task, and the correct determination of the degree of harm brought by one or another of the sects in the state was highly desirable, since only after solving this problem would it be possible to determine what the attitude of the state authorities should be towards different sects and what kind of benefits could be granted to one or another of the sects. The commission was fully aware that it could not base the rational implementation of this kind of task on official information about the split available in the Ministry of the Interior, since the official nature of such information deprives it of the necessary accuracy and completeness; therefore, it should be guided by scientific and, most importantly, statistical data on the split. Meanwhile, from all the available information, both official and scientific, the commission could not extract complete explanations and accurate answers to all the questions that arose among its circle about the degree of harm of this or that sect for state and social life. The commission, in any case, was convinced that the schism is not something immovable, but, on the contrary, there is a constant movement in it, both internal in changing the very beliefs and teachings of various sects, and external in changes in the names of sects, fragmentation of the same sects into different sects and the merging of sects into one new sect, etc. In view of this situation, the chairman of the commission, in order to obtain more accurate information, considered it useful to propose to the commission to invite on Wednesday, as if as an expert on the schism, the active state councilor P. I. Melnikov, who was attached to the Ministry of Internal Affairs, who devoted both his entire official activity (over twenty-five years) and most of the works of his private life to the study of the schism. In addition to carrying out repeated and complex official assignments for the study and administration of the schism in its various types and manifestations, P. I. Melnikov supplemented his information about the schism not only by studying government archives, but also by becoming familiar with the life, rituals and beliefs of various sectarians in their places of settlement. Appearing at one of the commission meetings, Melnikov presented verbal explanations to the questions proposed to him by the members and thoroughly developed his view on the classification of schismatic sects, which he outlined in a special note on schismatic sects from the point of view of the danger and harm of one or another type of schism for state and social life. But even after Melnikov’s explanations, the question of the classification of sects remained full of doubts and new questions among the commission members; There was a noticeable desire on the part of some members to make a maneuver in order to bypass these difficulties, or, at least, not to enter into a detailed consideration of the classification, but to obscure this issue with some general provision, a common place. Some of the members, repeating indications of the difficulty of making a correct and accurate classification of sects in view of the constant movement noticed in the schism, the birth of new and changes in old sects, even raised doubts about the need for classification and, especially, about its obligatory nature for the commission; one of the members explained this idea with the question of what should actually be understood by the expression: “separation of sects”, that is, is it necessary to mean by this the actual naming of all schismatic sects, more or less harmful, or to fulfill the task of the commission it would be enough to limit ourselves to a firm establishment of only those signs on the basis of which the very naming of sects more or less harmful could be carried out by the underlying legislative or administrative authority as it comes into action legalizations intended for schismatics. In view of this question, the chairman of the commission considered it necessary, before discussing the issue of dividing sects in the commission, to essentially propose the following two questions: 1) to what extent the commission should engage in dividing existing sects into more and less harmful ones and 2) what should be meant by the expression “division of sects” found in the plans of the 1864 committee. On the first of these issues, the commission found that its entire task was exclusively to develop those provisions and rules that logically follow from the general principles already outlined by the 1864 committee as the main provisions and set out, most importantly, in the General Journal of this committee, approved on August 16, 1864. The Highest Resolution that followed the approval of this general journal depicts: “The final conclusions of the committee on cases of schismatics, set out in the general journal of its meetings, are to be approved so that the general civil rights granted to schismatics are applicable only to schismatics of less harmful sects, with the exception of those cases where it is specifically mentioned in the committee’s conclusions about the abolition of restrictions existing for schismatics of more harmful sects.” harmful" 17. From the literal meaning of the above Highest command, the commission came to the conclusion that the final conclusions of the committee of 1864 were most importantly approved, and among these final conclusions, their first paragraph was decided: “to divide all sects and schismatic opinions into more and less harmful” according to the six criteria given in the same conclusions. Guided by the power of this Highest command, the commission came to the conclusion that the division of sects into more and less harmful is directly obligatory for the commission and constitutes its task. Joining this conclusion of the commission, one member considered it his duty to make one remark on the commission’s interpretation of the task assigned to it. In the opinion of this member, it would be desirable to stipulate that the task of the commission is not only to develop those rules that directly follow from the letter of the general “provisions developed by the 1864 committee,” but also to determine such rules that, although they do not follow by themselves from the provisions of the 1864 committee, can be discovered from the coordination of the provisions of the 1864 committee. with those real life goals for which the entire transformation of laws and rules about schismatics, according to the Highest will, was undertaken. According to this remark of one member, the commission decided that its task should be primarily determined by the limits indicated to it by the literal meaning of the plans of the 1864 committee. On the second of the above questions, about what exactly should be meant by the “separation of sects” obligatory for the commission, different opinions were expressed in the commission. One opinion was that if the committee of 1864 had already established the signs of separating more harmful sects from less harmful sects, then the only work that remains on this subject cannot consist of anything other than the actual division of schismatic sects according to their names into more and less harmful. Another opinion believed that the commission would not have deviated from its task of dividing sects if it had limited itself to introducing into the draft law the signs of more harmful sects established by the 1864 committee. The enumeration of more harmful and less harmful sects, which is necessary in the implementation of this law, could be made by a committee of ministers in order to resolve the ideas on this subject of the Minister of the Interior, on whom it will depend to enter with these ideas gradually, as the characteristics of both currently existing and newly emerging schismatic sects and interpretations are fully and accurately explained. Having compared both opinions, the commission considered it obligatory for itself to proceed, on the basis of the signs contained in the first paragraph of the final conclusions of the 1864 committee, to the actual division of sects. Taught by the 1864 committee six signs of the greater harmfulness of schismatic sects were as follows: 1) non-recognition by schismatics of the coming into the world of the Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ; 2) their non-recognition of any sacraments and any God-ordained authority; 3) their admission of human adoration in outward communication with the church; 4) an attempt to emasculate oneself and others; 5) rejection of prayer for the king; 6) rejection of marriage or acceptance of it as a temporary only conjugal union. Taking as a basis the above-mentioned signs of the classification of sects and based on official data on the essence of the doctrine and the nature of different sects according to information available in the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the commission designed the following division of sects. According to the conviction of the commission members, the following sects should be classified as more harmful: the Judaizers, who do not recognize the coming into the world of the Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ (which is the first sign of the conclusions of the committee of 1864), the Molokans, the Doukhobors, the generals, the jumpers, the Stundas, who do not recognize any sacraments and any authority of God (2nd sign); Khlysty, who allow human adoration in outward communication with the church (3rd sign); eunuchs, jumpers and rogues who, in addition to teaching Khlystism, encroach on the emasculation of themselves and others (3 and 4 signs). All the numerous rumors of the non-popovshchina sect, such as the Fedosievsky, Filippovsky, Pomeranian, self-baptized, spasova consent, wanderer and Sotselkovsky (runners) and others (3rd and 4th signs) and, finally, the priestly sect of the Lulikovsky consent and dissenters or anti-circumstances who do not pray for the Tsar (5th sign). The only people who should be considered less harmful would be the schismatics of the priestly consensus, known as okrugniks. Having made such a division of sects, the commission found it necessary to stipulate that the sects were differentiated by name, while the movements that took place in the schism show that the same names of sects do not always correspond to the same beliefs and rituals; it also happens that the same sects according to the dogmas of beliefs bear different names, often borrowing names from the name of their nearest and local preacher; It also happened that a sect, sometimes splitting into many types, then again uniting into one, accordingly changed its name. Having completed this division of sects, the commission could not help but focus on the fact that the exact application of all the signs taught by the 1864 committee to leadership leads to the fact that, of the large schismatic population in the empire, only the circlers, who make up the smallest part of the schismatics, turned out to be less harmful. Thus, it would turn out that the government’s attempt to regulate the life of the schismatics with the aim of pacifying them and thereby achieving a possible weakening of the schism could hardly have been realized if the intended relief had actually been granted mainly to “the circle members alone.” According to official information, there are several more than a million registered schismatics in the empire, while non-registered schismatics, considered Orthodox, i.e., those to whom the proposed transformations, in any case, do not affect, number up to 12 million, so that the Okrugniks in the entire mass of schismatics would constitute only an insignificant part. Based on the conclusion of the majority of the commission members that the proposed transformations could only apply to an insignificant number of schismatics, one member considered it his duty to return to the starting point of his views on the task of the commission, which he outlined above, according to which only the coordination of the goals of the ongoing transformation of the laws on schismatics with the plans of the committee of 1864 could lead in practice to the actual achievement of the fruitful goals indicated as in the most comprehensive report of the former Minister of the Interior Valuev, - a report which, as we have seen, served as the basis for the formation of the committee in 1864, and in the very journals of this committee. Experience has sufficiently proven that the application of strict measures to schismatics did not, contrary to expectations, lead to a reduction and weakening of the schism, but, on the contrary, united the schismatics together, gave the greatest, hardly probable strength to their ignorant religious fanaticism and propaganda, and therefore had as its constant consequence the most significant spread of the schism. In this regard, the reference to the testimony of P. I. Melnikov deserves special attention, who claims that he has more than once heard from schismatics of the previous generation their deep complaints that the government no longer applies the previous measures of severity to schismatics, which leads to the decline of the schism, its former meaning and generally weakens the power of faith. The very assumption of the schismatics providing various benefits and relief, as we have seen, arose, most importantly, in the form of a possible weakening of the schism and facilitating the spontaneous conversion of schismatics to Orthodoxy. In view of so many fruitful goals of the transformation, undoubtedly feasible in practice, in the opinion of one of the members of the commission, it would seem inevitably necessary to pay the main attention to the most important fact in this matter that the “recorded schismatics,” i.e., those whom the transformation only concerns, constitute approximately no more than 1/12 of the entire schismatic population in the empire, while in relation to 11/12 parts all established measures of severity will retain their full force. schismatics will be subject to punishment if they discover their heresy and are recognized as having strayed from Orthodoxy. Thus, if it is really true that the application of measures of severity in the matter of religious fanaticism can only lead to an increase in fanaticism, then the inevitable consequence of the application of all existing legislation to non-recorded schismatics will, as before, be an increase in the schism among non-recorded schismatics; such an increase in numerical ratio will make positively insignificant the weakening that will occur in that environment of schism after the legislative reform to which this reform is supposed to be extended. The undoubted, in the opinion of one of the commission members, the significance of these considerations, relating to the very essence of the task lying on the commission, forced him to raise the question of whether the supposed relief in any respect could be extended to those of the non-recorded schismatics, considered Orthodox, who, due to the reliefs allowed in favor of the registered schismatics, would no longer wish to hypocritically hide behind the name of the Orthodox and would declare their long-standing affiliation with split? On the raised issue, the commission recognized that the limits of its task, precisely defined by the provisions of the committee of 1864, decisively exclude the possibility of extending any benefits to non-recorded schismatics in cases where they, having declared themselves schismatics, seem to be seduced from Orthodoxy. Therefore, the commission decided that the projected transformations cannot in any way affect unregistered schismatics. Returning to the judgments about the classification of sects within the limits of the rights granted to the commission, wanting to achieve the useful goal for which the reform in the legislation on schism was undertaken, the majority of the commission members considered it necessary, in the form of a comprehensive discussion of the issue, to turn to extracting the reasons why the division of schismatic sects made on the basis of the committee of 1864 classifies as less harmful such an insignificant, in number, part of the schismatics, as circlers and through deprives the undertaken transformation of any practical significance. These reasons, in the opinion of all members of the commission, could perhaps be clarified from a discussion of both the meaning of the signs given by the 1864 committee and the official information by which the character of each sect was determined above. Allowing themselves to turn to such a discussion of one of the provisions of the committee of 1864, the members of the commission saw a legal basis for this, mainly in the fact that although the committee of 1864 included the question of their marriages among the general civil rights of schismatics, regarding which, i.e., the general civil rights of schismatics, the first paragraph of the Highest Resolution that followed on August 16. 1864, when approving the general journal of the committee of 1864, it was stated: “general civil rights granted to schismatics should be attributed only to schismatics of less harmful sects,” however, when issuing the law on marriages of schismatics, it was recognized as impossible to limit the application of this law only to those schismatic sects that could be recognized as less harmful based on the characteristics taught by the committee of 1864. The first three signs, such as: non-recognition of the coming of the Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, non-recognition of any sacraments and the admission of man-worship, obviously belong to the religious, dogmatic sphere. Without denying the harm that followers of such teachings can bring, the members of the commission could not, however, come to the conclusion that such schismatic sects were more harmful than the pagans, Mohammedans, Jews, etc., tolerated by our legislation; why, in their opinion, it would seem fair not to take the three above-mentioned signs as a basis for dividing sects into more and less harmful ones. A clear example of the extent to which the degree of harm caused by one or another schismatic sect would be little determined, if we take purely church signs into account, can serve as the following: the Molokans, who reject all external rituals, would seem from the church point of view to be the most harmful sect, more harmful than the Sopelkovsky consensus (wanderers, runners), while the followers of this last sect, avoiding all labor and public duties, have no comparison with the Molokans from a civil point of view. Followers of the Spasov consent of the non-priest sect, performing the sacraments of baptism and marriage in Orthodox churches and thus seeming not so harmful from a church point of view, accept these sacraments only to obtain civil rights, thereby, as hiding their teachings before the government, they are more harmful in civil terms. As for the last three signs taught by the 1864 committee, namely: encroachment on castration of oneself and others, rejection of prayer for the Tsar and rejection of marriage, the members of the commission found that the first and third of these signs do not raise doubts, while the expression “reject prayer for the Tsar” seems not entirely accurate; in the Orthodox Church, prayer for the Tsar is said in “public worship” and is not considered obligatory in home prayer. Therefore, the thought would hardly have been more accurately and definitively expressed if, instead of the words “prayer for the king,” the words “recognition of royal power” had been used. Intending to make a new classification of schismatic sects on the basis of these modified characteristics, the chairman of the commission and the majority of its members could not help but express some considerations regarding the information about the schism that should determine the properties of one or another sect. The official information of the Ministry of Internal Affairs could be usefully supplemented by the new information about the schism that was first expressed personally and then set out in a special note 18 by the actual state councilor P.I. Melnikov, who was invited as an expert, who devoted more than 20 years of his official career to studying the schism and gained fame for his research and fictional articles on the characteristics of ritual and everyday side of different types and sects of schism. Melnikov did not recognize the canonical classification of sects, published in 1842 by the Holy Synod, as satisfactory from a civil point of view, according to which all sects that had fallen away from the Orthodox Church were divided: 1) into the most harmful, which included all heretics, as well as non-priestly sects that reject prayer for the Tsar and marriages; 2) harmful, which include priestless sects that pray for the Tsar and accept marriages; 3) less harmful, which includes sub-church people or clericalism. According to this classification, Melnikov writes, the Molokans, for example, who reject all ritual, all church appearance, all church tradition, from the church point of view, seem to be a most harmful, even destructive sect, while they constitute the calmest, most developed and most hardworking part of the Russian common people. The Sopelkovsky consent (wanderers-runners) in the synodal classification is placed on a par with the Molokans, while its followers, renouncing society and carefully avoiding all kinds of work and all kinds of public duties, appear to civil society as completely useless people, parasites living at the expense of others. Likewise, the expert Melnikov did not find the new classification of sects compiled by the committee of 1864 to be thorough and expedient from a civil point of view. In the general journal of the special temporary committee on the affairs of schismatics approved on February 6, 1864, six criteria were set for the distribution of schismatic sects into more and less harmful ones, of which the first four are exclusively ecclesiastical in nature. When determining the harm caused by any sect to the state as a civil society, according to Melnikov, these four signs can hardly be taken into account. The first sign, for example, is defined as follows: they do not recognize the coming of the Son of God into the world! But Jews, Mohammedans, Buddhists, followers of shamanism, idolaters also do not recognize the coming of the Son of God into the world, yet they are tolerant and have never been considered by anyone to be harmful to the state. The remaining two signs, i.e., rejection of prayer for the king and marriages, can serve as signs of the harmfulness of the sect. But here there are inaccuracies in expressions and incorrectness in applying them to the actions of the sectarians. Prayer for the king! Prayer is a religious action that falls within the realm of the church, but not at all within the realm of civil life. It would be more accurate, more correct, more definitive, instead of the words “prayer for the king,” to use the expressions: “recognition of royal power or recognition of the monarchical principle.” Followers of harmful sects are prohibited from public worship. All they have left is home prayer. Is it fair to demand from them what is not required from the Orthodox? True, in some sects recognized as harmful, there are public services that are not open, not public, but performed in secret. At these public prayers, prayers for the Tsar are not offered, for example, in the worship of the Molokans. Molokan worship consists of the following: reading the Lord's Prayer - “Our Father”, reading a chapter from the Old Testament, a chapter from the Gospel, a chapter from the Epistles of the Apostles and sermons. Between every two readings, the psalms of King David are sung, and at the end the Lord’s Prayer is repeated. When asked why they do not pray for the Tsar, the Molokans answer the following: because we do not dare to violate the clear command of the Lord Jesus Christ. We never pray for ourselves or for anyone. The Lord said: “Do not be like the pagans who read many prayers; there is no salvation in talking too much.” Here is a prayer for you: “Our Father” and so on. We fulfill His word exactly. Every other word, every other command can be changed, but earth and heaven will pass away, but His words will not pass away. How can we deviate from the clear command of the Lord?.. The Molokans say something similar about the oath. In the synodal classification of sectarians, compiled in 1842, it is said about the Molokans: “without taking an oath, they do not respect loyalty.” The Molokans and their similar Dukhobors, the Stundists, and the generals do indeed reject the oath according to the formula that we now use, but they do not reject allegiance to state power and are faithful to its spiritual representative, the sovereign emperor... About the Molokans and Dukhobors, Melnikov writes further, in this synodal classification it is said: “they do not recognize any authority, they only submit, to the extent that they cannot resist.” But it's not fair. They are faithful to the monarchical principle, they recognize the supreme power of the sovereign emperor and the authorities supplied by him. They express this by strictly fulfilling state duties; Molokans and in general all sectarians, rationalists, good tax payers; there is no unrest between them; The most common crimes and misdeeds among our people, such as theft and deception, are extremely rare among them. They are hardworking and they call work reverence for God... The Molokans, exiled at different times to the Caucasus for sectarianism, made up the best and most useful part of the population of the local region. Anyone who has been to the Caucasus will agree that of the diverse and multilingual inhabitants there, none are better than the Lenkoran and other Molokans in their hard work, in their housekeeping, in their exemplary morality and in their fulfillment of all state, social and family duties. To show the harm of the Molokans, they usually recall the murders at Molokani Vody, the fanaticism of the fanatic Uklein, who went to Tambov to destroy idols, meaning holy icons, and the fact that among the Molokans there were sometimes discovered makers of counterfeit coins. All this happened a long time ago, about sixty years ago, and all these are isolated cases that have nothing to do with the religious beliefs of the Molokans... As proof of the infidelity of the Molokans to state power, writes P. I. Melnikov, they could, perhaps, also point to the following little-known fact. About eighteen years ago, the Transcaucasian Molokans of the “common sect” declared their mentor Komar, or Rudomyotkin, king and even crowned him 19 . But it was a puppet comedy, from which nothing but laughter came out. There was neither excitement nor the slightest confusion solely because they did not pay attention to it and treated this coronation as buffoonery. However, if, on the basis of the coronation of Komar, anti-state aspirations are attributed to all Molokans, then the priesthood itself, which is always revered by everyone as a less harmful sect, should be suspected of the same thing. Soon after the establishment of the Belokrinitsky false hierarchy, the priestly schismatics had an idea within the Persian borders to install a most pious king, that is, a schismatic, and crown him king by the hand of a schismatic bishop. A candidate for tsar was also found, and money was collected in Moscow for his coronation, but the named pious tsar drank that money in Moscow taverns, which ended his Persian kingdom 20 . Why was such a coronation started? The only purpose was to take out a special prosphora for the pious Tsar and to make it possible to proclaim the words printed in pre-Nikon’s service books: “God-protected, God-crowned, Christ-loving, pious Tsar and Grand Duke” - a title that is not given by clerical service during the service to the Emperor, because in their eyes he is a non-believer. Can funny manifestations of human stupidity, as Melnikov asks, really be considered indignations against the sovereign and the state? Is it really because of the clownish coronation of Komar or because of the collection of money for the pious Persian king that it is possible to bring a grave accusation against millions of people of their disloyalty to the sovereign and the fatherland?.. In addition, the Molokans are accused of evading military service. This is true. But how did they evade until 1874? We bought recruitment receipts. If someone was unable to buy it, a contribution was made in his favor, and if the funds of an entire district inhabited by Molokans turned out to be insufficient, money was sent from other places, from their coreligionists. In the same way, Melnikov further says, the Molokans are accused of not only not praying for the Tsar, but not even recognizing the Tsar’s power. This accusation arose as a result of what they said openly and fearlessly: “Our body belongs to the king of the earth; To the King of Heaven both our body and soul; before the earthly king we are obliged to fulfill earthly, bodily laws, and before the heavenly king we are obliged to fulfill earthly, heavenly, and spiritual laws. In matters of inner faith, the king of the earth has no power; God alone has power in them. That is why it is said: “Render what is God’s to God, and what is Caesar’s to Caesar.” Can this be called resistance to royal power or non-recognition? According to P.I. Melnikov, there are no schismatics who reject state power, but if some schismatics are credited with rejecting royal power, then this happened due to a misunderstanding. As proof of the complete validity of this opinion, Mr. Melnikov cites the fact that the Fedoseevites and other rumors, recognized as rejecting tsarist power, turned out to be the most sincere loyal subjects: for example, they armed themselves in the western region in 1863 against the rebellious Polish bands, captured and presented to the government persons who sought to distribute outrageous proclamations among the people, the so-called golden charters, and in general, in all such In cases, not in words, but in deeds, they declared loyalty to the government. Such a review by P.I. Melnikov, when verified by the commission, turned out to be in complete agreement with official information, namely: Kiev, Podolsk and Volyn Governor-General dated August 10. 1863, among other things, reported: “that at the present time, when all Russian loyal subjects, at the sight of the enemy’s attempt on the integrity of the Russian empire, hastened to declare before the sovereign emperor their readiness to sacrifice property and life in defense of the fatherland, the schismatics also did not lag behind other classes and in their all-submissive addresses solemnly declared their deepest unchanging devotion to the sovereign emperor and their complete readiness to sacrifice everything for the good of the fatherland." At the same time, the Vilna military, Kovno, Grodno and Minsk governor-general reported: “under the present circumstances, the Old Believers not only remained unshakably devoted to the throne and the fatherland, but also took an active part in suppressing the rebellion,, to the best of their ability and ability, unquestioningly fulfilled all the demands of their superiors, set up reliable rural guards, stationed not only foot soldiers, but and mounted guards, and in general proved worthy of the government’s trust and praise.” I fully agree with such official information and Mr. Melnikov makes the same nice review about the Fedoseevites. By the way, he writes: “in the synodal classification of 1842 it is said about the Fedoseevites: “they consider all the power of the present time to be Antichrist.” This is true. But there is nothing terrible about this. This figurative expression, when translated into ordinary language, means: “the authorities of the present time recognize that they do not belong to their sect,” which is absolutely fair. It should be noted that the Fedoseevites and some other non-priest sects in their teaching about the Antichrist are completely at odds with the teaching of the Orthodox Church and the schismatics of the priestly and other sects. Our church, as well as the priesthood, the Pomeranians and some sections of the Spasov consensus recognize the coming into the world of the Antichrist before the end of the “sensual” world, as the schismatics put it, that is, a person who will once be born, who, having reached the highest power, will appear as a persecutor of the Church of Christ. The Fedoseevites, on the contrary, recognize a “spiritual” Antichrist, not a “sensual” one, not a person, but an anti-Christian teaching. According to their concepts, everything that is contrary, that disagrees not only with Christian teaching, but also with the contents or traditions and rituals, is the Antichrist, who, according to their concepts, appeared even when Christ was on earth. The scribes mentioned in the Gospel, the Pharisees, Iscariot, the Jewish bishops, Herod, Pilate, then Nero and other Roman emperors, Mohammed, heretics, the Pope, Luther, Patriarch Nikon, in a word, everything that not only persecuted the church or was at enmity against it, but also everything that did not belong and does not belong to the Church of Christ - the Antichrist. And the Church of Christ, according to the Fedoseevites, was preserved only in their society, therefore the tsar, the authorities, both spiritual and civil, all Orthodox, all Gentiles - in a word, everyone who does not belong to the Fedoseevites sect - is the Antichrist. This is a fallacy, this is a harsh expression - yes, but is it a crime? – asks Melnikov. And what is harmful in civil terms? Recently, anti-monarchical and democratic aspirations have been attributed to the schismatics by our foreign emigrants, Herzen and his followers and admirers. And how did the schismatics respond to this and other flirtations with them by London publicists? Anathema, proclaimed in the well-known archpastoral letter to Herzen and everyone who will be in relations with them. This letter, signed by the schismatic bishops, was printed in Iasi and was not allowed into Russia; Melnikov notes that they looked at her as harmful to public peace. Before the archpastoral message on February 24, 1864, the false metropolitan Kirill said to the Russian schismatics: “I command you with this, beloved: show all prudence and obedience before your king and remove yourself from all his enemies and traitors, as well as from the rebellious Poles, and especially from the malicious atheists nesting in London and from there with their writings outraged the European powers. Flee from these damned ones, in the same way a person flees from the face of terrible beasts and reptiles, because they are traitors to the Antichrist, trying to prepare the way for the son of destruction without leadership. Don’t listen to the barking of these dogs of hell, who pretend to be compassionate to humanity, but believe that God created the authorities for the common benefit, without him they will all turn and perish” 21. The letter of Pavel Velikodvorsky, a native of the city of Valdai, then the abbot of the Belokrinitsky monastery, an extremely intelligent and educated man, the author of the charter of the schismatic hierarchy, approved in 1844 by Emperor Ferdinand, best of all, according to Mr. Melnikov, shows the political mood of the schismatics. Paul, a fugitive from Russia, sets up a schismatic hierarchy abroad, but Metropolitan Ambrose, seduced by him into the schism, “out of the malice of the North” (i.e., the Russian government), as Paul put it, and at the insistence of Prince Metternich, was arrested and taken to the Tsims fortress, Belaya Krinitsa was sealed, the local monks dispersed. Paul, who worked for many years on the creation of the Belokrinitsa hierarchy, went to Turkey, Persia and Egypt, looking for the “ancient pious bishops” there, sees the destruction of his work, to which he devoted his whole life, is outraged to the depths of his soul and in the revolution that took place in Vienna then he sees the finger of God taking revenge on the Austrian government for the destruction of the hierarchy he created. “On the very day when the metropolitan was taken,” he writes to Moscow (in June 1848), a revolution happened, and Tsar Ferdinand was forced to sign the constitution, and on the day when Belaya Krinitsa was sealed, Prince Metternich was almost killed and he fled.” Paul is glad of this, glad of the hardships that befell Austria, but turning to his fellow countrymen, to Russian schismatics, to Muscovites, he says: “Now we have freedom for all faiths, but this is grief, and twice as much is coming. The Constitution is a knife, anointed with honey for the destruction of people, it is from the Antichrist, for the king was appointed by God. And if you, when you hear from anyone one word “constitution”, run away from him” 22. This is the view of Russian schismatics on tsarist power. Only the dislike of Russia, its internal peace and quiet, Mr. Melnikov concludes, can attribute anti-monarchical and democratic aspirations to the schismatics. In addition to Herzen, such aspirations were attributed to them by the Poles, who were bitterly deceived in their hopes for the schismatics. All this leads to the conviction that the existence of sects that do not recognize the supreme power of the sovereign emperor can hardly be proven in the sense of an unconditional categorical position, and then it is obvious that if such a grave accusation cannot be recognized as proven, then there is no reason to base the division of sects according to the degree of their harm in civil terms on a still controversial circumstance. The rejection of marriage or the admission of fixed-term or temporary marital unions is the second sign of the harmfulness of schismatic sects in civil matters. “Just as the monarchical principle, says P. I. Melnikov (regarding the schismatics, expressed not in their prayers, but in the free and completely conscious recognition of the tsarist power not only for fear, but also for conscience), forms the basis of the state system of Russia, so the marriage union is the cornerstone of the family and civil society. Based on these two signs, and only these two, it is possible and should divide schismatics into two sections: harmful and less harmful. There is no third sign and there cannot be. Raskolnikov, who accept marriage as an urgent marital union, according to Mr. Melnikov, does not really exist.” As for the non-priests who do not recognize the marriage union, there is a misunderstanding regarding them. Both Fedoseevites, and the few remnants of the once numerous Filippovshchina, and other Bespopovites recognize marriages de facto, without recognizing them de jure. They say: since the time of Patriarch Nikon, grace has been taken to heaven, the consecrated order has crumbled, and there has been no sanctifying hand that could perform the sacraments. That is why they do not have sacraments, except for two, which, in case of need, the Orthodox Church allows commoners to perform: baptism and repentance. There is no one to sanctify the marriage, that’s why they don’t have a church marriage. But non-church marriage does not exist. Every non-priest member, from his youth to his old age, has one partner with whom he gets along without any rituals. It is a terrible sin to use prayers during such a marriage, for this, according to the concepts of the priestless people, is not a marriage, but an adulterous cohabitation, although sinful, but tolerated, tolerated “for the sake of human weakness.” Those living in such a marriage are “sinners,” which is why they are not allowed into the chapels for worship, but can only stand in the vestibule, as if they have sinned seriously. After each correction (confession), they perform heavy penances, hundreds of five prostrations a day. Those who have ended marital relations due to old age are considered “virgins”, “pure”, completely belonging “to the chosen herd”... The cohabitation of Fedoseevites and other non-priests who do not have a sanctified marriage is strong, inseparable. The infidelity of a cohabitant or cohabitant happens extremely rarely... Having established such a view on the strength of non-priest marital cohabitations, P. I. Melnikov is perplexed as to what the Holy Synod, when adding to the classification compiled by the Highest Approved Special Temporary Committee on Cases of Dissenters, meant by urgent or temporary marital cohabitations. “Abuse occurs among the non-priests, as elsewhere, when a partner separates from his partner and lives separately, but this happens incomparably less frequently than among educated people who have had a church marriage... It must be assumed,” Mr. concludes. Melnikov, that the Holy Synod by “temporary” marriages means cases of marital separation from cohabitation among non-priests, so common only in Riga, but what did he mean by “urgent” marriages? The word “fixed-term” implies a preliminary agreement on the duration of cohabitation, made at the time the cohabitants get together. Such agreements, such conditions have never happened even in Riga.” Therefore, the non-priests, who are considered not to recognize marriages, cannot be recognized as such, for they do not only have a sanctified church-ritual marriage, but their cohabitation completely has the character of a firm, lasting and indissoluble civil union, although, according to their concepts, sinful, but incessant in relation to the household, raising children and mutual assistance, even when the cohabitants, by mutual agreement, diverge to “clean living,” that is, they stop sharing the bed. This means the family of the Bespopovites is solid and strong, and this is the only important thing in civil terms. According to the view of P.I. Melnikov, expressed in his note reported to the commission in 1875, only two sects, the Skoptsy and the Khlysty, should be classified as the most harmful sects that reject marriage. “The latter, not only do they themselves reject marriage, but also on the side interfere with the conclusion of marriages.” To prove this idea, Mr. Melnikov presents a light description of Khlystism and illustrates with very interesting facts this harmful sect from the point of view of its propaganda of celibacy. “Of the Khlysty,” he says, more than four-fifths are women, mostly old girls who have doomed themselves to celibacy. They do not live in the family homes of their relatives, but mainly in the so-called “cell rows” in the backyards and gardens of their relatives... These old fasting girls, zealous prayer workers, who come to the Orthodox Church almost every day, go to confession and holy communion four times a year (which they, however, call at their meetings and zeal only as “the prison”), have a reputation as the most zealous people for the Church of God and are always under the patronage of not only the rural, but also the higher clergy. They quite often teach children to read and write, and try to instill in them the sanctity of a celibate life. From an early age, they persuade village girls to celibacy, especially those who are sick, weak, bad-looking, have physical disabilities, in a word, those who do not count on suitors. But even the healthy, strong and beautiful do not escape the nets of whips... Such propaganda of celibacy is carried out, however, not only from the backyards; women's communities, which have multiplied so much recently, and even some nunneries are very involved in such propaganda. We must not forget, says Mr. Melnikov, that Khlystism in the last century spread throughout Russia from Moscow women's monasteries (all without exception) and some men's monasteries, that nuns were Khlyst Mother of God, and monks were prophets and Christs. In the black clergy, even until recently, whips and even eunuchs constantly appeared, about which investigative cases were carried out; So in 1866, in the Svyatogorsk monastery, Kharkov diocese, castrated novices were discovered as a result, in the last century even one bishop (Disefei of Rostov) was a whip 23. In general, Khlystism is not very far from monasticism; That is why some monastics sympathize with the Khlysts, who, fulfilling all Christian duties, fasting four times a year, killing their flesh, are considered Orthodox. That is why it is difficult, almost impossible, to keep track of them. In 1842, the Khlyst heresy was discovered in the Nizhny Novgorod province. Its leader was the Mordovian Irina Lazarevna, and its followers were residents of the Zelenogorsk women's community, the dean of the village of Revezeni, the bishop's confessor, the adviser to the provincial government, the assistant manager of the appanage office and others. In the Yagodinskaya community (Knyagininsky district) whips were also noticed, and in 1862 even impostors appeared, two grand duchesses - Maria Nikolaevna and Olga Nikolaevna, who worried the temporarily obliged peasants 24. Widows, even married women, also join the whips, breaking off their marriage, of course. Around 1860, in Gorbatovsky district, a case was carried out about how the Khlysts gave arsenic solution to the peasants to poison their husbands with the goal of later joining the Khlyst ship. After such a vivid factual illustration of Khlystism and its dangerous propaganda, Mr. Melnikov concludes: “The Khlyst sect, quite numerous, although almost completely elusive, must certainly be recognized as harmful, constrained in the exercise of its zeal and persecuted for the spread of celibacy. They must be strictly prohibited from teaching children, no matter how much the clergy, even the highest, intercede for them. Khlystovism is a terrible ulcer of Russia, hiding under the guise of hypocrisy and hypocrisy; this ulcer sometimes penetrates into the upper strata of society; in the Mikhailovsky Castle (Engineering - in St. Petersburg) there was Tatarinova’s Khlyst ship, in which even ministers and department directors participated, along with soldier-musicians and at the same time prophets (Nikita Fedorov). And now, as we hear, there are Khlysty here and there in the upper classes of society 25 . Skoptsy descended from the Khlysty, and to this day the Khlysts constitute a contingent of the Skoptsy. In addition to the deformation of the human body, due to the strong propaganda of celibacy, supported by money, eunuchs should also be recognized as harmful, like whips. In the general conclusion of all his considerations and factual evidence, P.I. Melnikov concludes: that all those who have fallen away from the Orthodox Church and who do not belong to tolerant faiths of other faiths, with the exception of “Skoptsy and Khlysty,” should be classified as less harmful sects and given the rights that were proposed by the committee of 1864. The arguments set out in Melnikov’s note were recognized as so thorough by the commission of 1875 that it came to the same conclusion conclusion. In her opinion, as we said above, the first three signs, namely the non-recognition of the Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, who came into the world, the non-recognition of any sacraments and the admission of man-worship, as belonging to the religious, dogmatic sphere, cannot be taken as a basis for dividing sects into more and less harmful ones. The 1875 commission expressed that, in its opinion, only the last three of those indicated by the 1864 committee should be accepted for leadership in the division of sects. signs of more harmful sects, as determining their harmfulness in relation to the state: encroachment on emasculation of themselves and others, rejection of prayer for the king and rejection of marriages, and she recognized it necessary to replace the expression “rejection of prayer for the king,” as not entirely accurate and definitive, with the expression “non-recognition of royal power.” The commission, on the basis of the official information available to it and presented as an expert by P.I. Melnikov, came to the conviction that since the existence of schismatics who reject the supreme power has not been proven, and only eunuchs and Khlys reject marriage, then only the last two sects should be classified as more harmful sects, while the others should be recognized as less harmful. At the same time, the 1875 commission found it necessary to list in the law the sects recognized as more harmful, instructing the Minister of the Interior, in cases of the emergence of any new sects, which, according to their teachings, are as harmful as the Skoptsy and the Khlysty, to take measures to classify such sects as more harmful. At the same time, the commission drew attention, among other things, to the fact that the Penal Code defines punitive measures and types of punishment only for eunuchs, but for the Khlys, which the commission placed in the same category as them, there are no articles in the law defining punitive measures and types of punishment, since the very name of the sect is not found in the law, although, in essence of the doctrine, its followers undoubtedly fit under the instructions of Article 203. Lay down about nak. Considering this article, which clearly defines, according to the commission’s view, punishments for belonging to sects “associated with ferocious fanaticism and fanatical encroachment on the life of oneself or others, as well as with immoral and vile actions,” one cannot help but notice that the form of expression of this article, embracing too wide a range of concepts and undoubtedly referring to eunuchs, at the same time, can only vaguely be attributed to the Khlysts and in general requires a change in the wording regarding the breadth of some concepts contained in its expression. After the division of the sects had been made, the chairman drew the attention of the commission to questions closely related to this, namely: 1) in what form is it more desirable to express this division, i.e., should the name of the more harmful sects be placed in the very text of the law, or should we limit ourselves to indicating in the law that the intended benefits apply only to followers of the less harmful sects? appropriate orders to extend relief only to sects recognized as less harmful, and 2) what power and in what form to provide in each individual case to determine at the place of settlement of schismatics whether they belong to sects more or less harmful and, depending on this, to provide or not to provide followers of one or another sect with various reliefs. On the first question, the chairman and the majority of members found that if the most important rights of schismatics depend on their belonging to sects that are more or less harmful, then it would be positively necessary to place in the very text of the law a listing of the sects recognized as more harmful, that is, to name the Skoptsy and Khlysty and then express that the benefits granted apply to all other sects, with the exception of those that in the same legislative manner will be recognized as harmful as two named sects. The chairman and the majority of members could not help but keep in mind the inconveniences that are associated with placing in the text of the law the very enumeration of more harmful sects; such inconveniences may, by the way, include the fact that a sect named in the law as a more harmful sect could, by changing its name, seek to move into the category of less harmful ones; nevertheless, the majority of the commission members remained with their conclusion, based on the following considerations: in whatever form the division of sects could be expressed according to the degree of their harm, nevertheless, it would be impossible to avoid the significant inconveniences that are caused by the very properties of the split in the empire, subtle, not yet sufficiently studied in the laws of its development and being in constant motion. Therefore, the members of the commission (in the majority) preferred to choose the form that would present less inconvenience compared to the other and would be in agreement with the rules in force in this regard and previous examples of the law. In addition to the chosen form, two more methods were presented, namely: a) without making any division of sects now, it would be necessary to recognize the power behind certain signs of greater or lesser harm of various sects so that the division itself would be carried out according to these signs by the administrative authority, or b) the division of sects made should be reported for the leadership of the subject authority, and in the law only a general expression should be placed that relief applies to the followers of less harmful sects. Both of these methods would present more inconveniences: without repeating about the first of them what was said above, namely, that the commission would directly evade the task assigned to it if it did not make a division of sects, recognizing that this division should be made by administrative power. The fundamental rights of schismatics are made dependent on their belonging to more or less harmful sects, as a result of which it cannot be allowed that it would depend solely on the administrative power, and not the law, to grant or deprive one or another of the sects of various rights, in which case, contrary to the basic laws, the rights of a significant part of the population of the empire would not find any definition in the law, which would be an inconvenience significantly greater than that which accompanies the inclusion of more harmful sects in the law, for then all other sects would base your rights on the exact force of the law. This solution to the issue is fully consistent with the procedure adopted in the law 26 and with the laws in force specifically regarding schismatics, which establish that general rules defining the rights of schismatics are issued only by legislative procedure 27 through the State Council, and only matters related to the management of schismatics, on the application to them of rules issued by legislative procedure, are left to the jurisdiction of the relevant ministers. On the second question, namely, how in each individual case to distinguish between a person’s membership in a more or less harmful sect, in what form to certify this membership and, accordingly, to provide or not to provide relief granted to less harmful sects, the commission recognized it as necessary to discuss three possible ways, namely: a) to require certification of membership in a more harmful sect only in the form of a court decision, in the absence of such a decision, to recognize the schismatic as legally capable, i.e., as belonging to a less harmful sect; b) allow local executive authorities to determine membership in more harmful sects; c) solely on the basis of the discretion of these authorities or on the basis of data more or less proven by these authorities and entered into the protocols. Regarding the first method, the commission unanimously recognized that although it would be desirable that none of the schismatics should be subjected, on suspicion of belonging to a sect, to more harmful restrictions on their rights without accurate evidence collected in the proper judicial manner and by a court decision, the application of this method, as the only one to a significant mass of the schismatic population, is obviously impossible. First of all, it should be noted that if a schismatic is recognized by a court decision as belonging, for example, to a scopal sect, then, in most cases, he, at the same time, will be sentenced by the court to criminal punishment and, thus, will be placed in a special position that excludes any correlation in the reliefs supposed to be in favor of the schismatics. Regardless of this, the formalities of the criminal process, which are quite appropriate in the prosecution of isolated criminal cases, take on a completely different meaning when applied to entire masses of schismatics. The majority of those suspected of belonging to more harmful sects of schismatics, with the help of strict forms of legal proceedings, would undoubtedly emerge, as the facts indicate, acquitted from the court and, in this case, by virtue of a judicial verdict, would receive the indisputable right to enjoy all rights. The government's means of stopping evil from the spread of, for example, such heresy as skoptchestvo would lose almost all meaning if it were deprived of the opportunity to take direct measures, without waiting for judicial verdicts, to stop the spread of such heresy and possibly limit, so to speak, localize evil. Thus, the commission unanimously recognized that, when determining whether a schismatic belongs to a more harmful sect, it is impossible to limit oneself solely to the certificates arising from judicial verdicts, but that it is also necessary to give importance to the certificates of the relevant local executive officials. As for the greater or lesser formalities that should surround the actions of executive officials with such certificates, disagreements arose during the discussion of this in the commission. One of the members stated that the majority of the commission had sought measures to ensure that the essential rights of schismatics were precisely defined in the law and that the definition of such rights could not depend solely on the discretion of the administrative authorities. Meanwhile, if the determination of whether one or another schismatic belonged to a more or less harmful sect was left to the sole discretion of local executive officials, then such a rule would give even less certainty to all the rights of schismatics than in the case where the highest administration in the empire was left to establish only the norms for the division of sects. It is impossible not to accept as a fundamental rule that no one can be considered criminal until his criminality is proven. Followers of more harmful sects are considered guilty of belonging to such sects in the state and only because of this are subject to various restrictions and restrictions on their rights. Thus, with regard to these followers, there must be a requirement of universal justice that until their belonging to more harmful sects is “proven”, they cannot be subjected to restrictions on their rights. If extreme necessity does not allow, in relation to the mass of the schismatic population, to expect in all numerous cases the discovery of schismatics of more harmful sects only through judicial sentences, then this necessity cannot yet have the consequence of eliminating all evidence of a person’s belonging to a more harmful sect; it would seem, in the opinion of this member, it would be more expedient to make it obligatory for local executive officials in all cases of the application of restrictions established by laws on the rights of schismatics of more harmful sects with all data and evidence possible for those authorities in relation to the rules of preliminary investigation of the Constitution. Corner. Sudopr. November 20, 1864 to certify that a person belongs to a more harmful sect with the obligatory drawing up of a proper protocol for each case and issuing to the interested person a copy of it, which must also contain an indication of the person’s right to appeal the decision, the place where complaints are brought and the deadlines for this. In general, for such actions of local executive authorities, the parties directly interested should be given the right to bring complaints in the general administrative procedure and to the government senate. Such an order, perhaps, in some isolated cases will present some inconveniences, because it may partly restrain executive officials, who for some reason did not have time to collect and preserve all the data of a person’s belonging to a more harmful schismatic sect, in the prosecution of those responsible, but in most cases it will have a beneficial effect and will possibly ensure the rights of persons innocent of belonging to more harmful sects. The rules that local police officials, as well as volost and village commanders, could be guided by in determining whether different persons belong to more harmful sects should be approximately the following: a) first of all, if the police have in mind more or less accurate information about a person’s membership in a more harmful sect, membership in which is punishable in court, information that, in general, under Art. 250, 255, 256, 257 and others. Est. corner. court. oblige the police to transfer the case to the judicial investigator and report the crime to the prosecutor, then the police must in such cases make prescribed reports to the investigator and the prosecutor and, until the case is decided by the court, apply restrictions on the rights established for more harmful sects, after which the case will be decided by the court, on which subsequent measures will depend; b) in cases where the signs of a person or many persons belonging to a more harmful sect, although they convince the local authorities that the person belongs to a more harmful sect, are not put into that more or less reliable form in which formal prosecution can be launched with the probable hope of indicting the suspected person by the court, local authorities should be given the right to carry out either secret surveillance or an inquiry with the interrogation of witnesses, searches and seizures in houses and beyond, if after If such data is not discovered on which the case could be brought forward in court, but, nevertheless, the conviction of the authorities who carried out the inquiry that the suspects belong to more harmful sects is further strengthened, then these authorities are obliged to draw up protocols containing in them all the data and evidence that served to accuse the person in an administrative manner. Only on the basis of such protocols can all relevant authorities and institutions be obliged to apply to persons recognized as followers of more harmful sects all restrictions established by law, for example, class institutions are obliged not to issue passports to such persons, etc. It goes without saying that after taking such nothing more than preliminary measures, local authorities are not only not exempt from the obligation to collect more accurate data on the guilt of those suspected of belonging to more harmful sects and give the case a judicial proceeding, but should be even more encouraged to ensure that generally not entirely accurate evidence, which is given temporary significance for the administrative prosecution of a person, is replaced by accurate judicial evidence and a judicial verdict. Although the said protocols may be subject to appeal by interested parties, nevertheless, the force of these protocols cannot be suspended until the expiration of the period for appeal or until their approval by the highest administrative institutions, unless such a suspension would follow the direct order of the highest institutions, since due to the properties of the split, local executive authorities can very often be forced to take quick measures, delay in taking which could sometimes turn out to be irreparable in the future. Such an order, in the opinion of the member who developed the stated rule, eliminating the arbitrariness of local executive authorities in distinguishing followers of less harmful sects from followers of more harmful sects, would be consistent with the considerations expressed by the Committee of Ministers when refusing to approve the instructions submitted to its consideration for executive officials on cases of schismatics, that it would not be possible to give the executive officials of the police an opportunity to make an arbitrary classification of schismatic sects. In addition to this, one of the members of the commission considered it necessary to add that a more detailed course of action for executive officials could be developed and indicated to those officials in the instructions with which they should be provided on this subject. On the same issue, another member of the commission stated that the commission, in determining the classification of sects according to the degree of their harm, had in mind, mainly, the goal that sectarians recognized by it as harmful would be subject to special vigilant supervision by the administration and that the police, on the basis of information obtained by it about individuals belonging to harmful sects, could prevent the development of their secret propaganda; If we assume that belonging to harmful sects, which entails restrictions established by law for followers of harmful sects, can only be determined in court, then the very purpose of classification will not be achieved. Therefore, it is necessary to give the police power the right to prevent the development of harmful sects and, on the basis of the information available to them, to subject persons convicted of belonging to harmful sects to the restrictions established by law. At the end of the debate on the same issue, another member said that it would be inconvenient to let the police distinguish between more harmful and less harmful sects; that by legitimizing such a measure it would hardly achieve the desired goal for the following reasons: 1) until now the law has seemed to ignore the Khlysty movement - probably due to the extreme difficulty of giving a definitive formula for what in this sect should be, as criminal, prohibited and persecuted. The ritual, visible side of heresy does not provide evidence. It would be necessary to introduce into the law such terms as sexual sin, communion with the body from the maiden breast, the slaughter of boys born to the Mother of God, and similar things, which science has partly abandoned, and partly is ready to abandon. But is it convenient to introduce into law, as a criminal act, an action that no one has actually seen; 2) the police power, which would be granted to restrict the population in the rights granted by law, should be armed with the most detailed instructions, but the instruction in general is nothing more than an explanation of this law; 3) the police authorities could base their orders in this case either on indisputable evidence, or on popular rumor, on suspicions; but in the first case, the subject authority is obliged by force of law (Article 203 of the Code of Laws of 1866) to begin prosecution, and in the second, the motive for the accusation would not represent a sufficient basis for restricting rights; 4) there is no doubt that the district police would be forced to trust, to a certain extent, in this matter the volost administration, i.e. in most cases, the volost clerk, from whom he would have to pay off for suspicion of Khlystism, since paying off is still more profitable than sometimes suffering a complete breakdown of his affairs; finally 5) it is difficult to assume that the accused, based on rumors or slander (and only such an accusation can take place here), was not acquitted in court. That a repeated similar outcome of this kind of case may, over time, diminish the dignity of the protocols of the police power, this can hardly be doubted. At the conclusion of all the debates about the form of classification and methods of suppressing the dangerous propaganda of followers of more harmful sects, the chairman and the majority of the commission members came to the only conclusion that the police authorities, when refusing to issue passports for absence to persons belonging to more harmful sects, must each time draw up a protocol about this, and the protocol itself must stipulate that such a police order can be appealed legally. Having finished with the question of the classification of schismatic sects, the commission began to discuss the following points of the program outlined in the conclusions of the committee of 1864, namely, to resolve the issues of 1) issuing schismatics with leave permits within the empire on a general basis, except for those followers of more harmful sects who will be convicted of spreading their errors, and 2) about the registration of schismatics in the guild and their trade. When discussing these issues, the commission, first of all, focused its attention on those places in the Highest approved general journal of the committee of 1864, in which the corresponding plans were made regarding the said subjects. The Committee of 1864, as we indicated above, after reviewing the legislation on the issuance of passports and on the guild and trade rights of schismatics, according to the Code of current decrees on schismatics compiled by the II Department of His Imperial Majesty’s own Chancellery, which established various restrictions for schismatics in obtaining passports for absences, found that earnings and trades on the side for a significant part of our people constitute the necessary adaptation to to earn a living, therefore an unconditional ban on issuing passports to followers of one or another sect seems inconvenient. This inconvenience was repeatedly noticed in experience, and the highest authorities already made exceptions for some places and sectarians, for example, for the Molokans of the Tauride province and the cities of western Siberia, despite the prohibition existing in the law, absences were allowed. But since the followers of harmful sects, especially those prone to hidden propaganda of their delusions, it goes without saying that strict control by the police authorities and close supervision of them locally from residence are necessary, and the dismissal of such schismatics to other places, weakening the necessary control, would threaten with harmful consequences. Having now turned to the question of the schismatics’ absences outside the empire, the committee reasoned that there does not seem to be a particular need for an unconditional ban on the dismissal of the said people abroad, because of their trips to foreign lands, only those undertaken by our schismatics for criminal relations with sectarians living in other lands, especially with the schismatic false hierarchy in Bukovina, can be considered truly harmful. In view of these considerations, the committee was approved by the Highest on August 18, 1864. The magazine decided: “to allow the issuance of leave permits for schismatics within the empire on a general basis, except for followers of more harmful sects who will be convicted of spreading their errors (clause 2).” “Allow the dismissal of all schismatics abroad with special permission from the Ministry of Internal Affairs, but leave in force the existing ban on allowing schismatic foreigners into Russia (clause 3).” In paragraph 5 of the same journal, the committee, discussing the subject of allowing schismatics to enroll in the guild, among other things, decided: “all followers of more harmful sects who have discovered their heresy are to be placed under police supervision and, based on the application of the rules on this supervision, not to be dismissed from their place of residence.” Based on the above plans of the 1864 committee, some members of the commission found that the 1864 committee, when discussing the issuance of absentee permits to schismatics, first pointed out only one exception to the rule on issuing passports to schismatics, namely, it prohibited the issuance of passports to those followers of more harmful sects who would be convicted of spreading their errors. If we were to limit ourselves to a literal interpretation of just this one point, we would have to admit that, according to the committee’s plans, passports should be issued to followers of all, both more and less harmful sects, except for “convicted disseminators of the teachings of more harmful sects.” Meanwhile, the majority of the commission members could not dwell on the interpretation of this separate paragraph of the provisions of the committee of 1864, but recognized the positive need to examine this point in connection with paragraph 5 of the provisions of the same committee, the considerations given in the journal of this committee, and the reference made to those articles of the Code of Legislation on schismatics, compiled by the II Department of His Imperial Majesty’s own Chancellery, which, with the publication of the rules on extradition proposed by the committee passports will be subject to cancellation. From the excerpt literally cited above from the committee’s journal of 1864, by the way, it is clear that the committee found it inconvenient to deprive police authorities of the opportunity to keep in their places of residence, under their closest supervision, such schismatics, whose dismissal to the side would undoubtedly threaten with harmful consequences; from the 5th paragraph of the committee’s conclusions it is seen that the committee decided that all followers of more harmful sects who discovered their heresy should be placed under police supervision and not dismissed from their place of residence; finally, among the articles indicated by the committee, which will be subject to repeal from the moment the issuance of leave of absence to schismatics is authorized, Art. 45 volumes XIV st. about the pas., which prohibits the issuance of passports to a more harmful sect, namely the eunuchs. Comparing all that has been said, the majority of the commission members came to the conclusion that the cumulative interpretation of the above provisions of the committee cannot leave the slightest doubt that the committee generally intended to allow the issuance of passports for absences within the empire only to followers of less harmful sects, while the more harmful sectarians decided not to issue them, but to subject them to police supervision and keep them in place; therefore, the committee’s failure to indicate the repeal of Art. 45 on the non-issuance of passports to eunuchs cannot be considered an oversight, but must be recognized as a deliberate exclusion of this article from among those repealed in order to preserve it in the current legislation. Thus, rather, the wording of paragraph 2 of the committee’s provisions, which, contrary to other provisions, excludes not all followers of more harmful sects, but only exposed propagandists of such sects, from the right to receive absentee passports, should be considered not entirely accurate. However, the granting of one of the general civil rights to the followers of more harmful sects cannot be based solely on some minor inaccuracy of one of the points of the provisions of the committee of 1864, when all other points clarify any doubt about this inaccuracy, and the Highest Resolution that followed the approval of the general journal of the committee on August 16, 1864, said that the general civil rights granted to schismatics generally apply only to schismatics of less harmful sects with the extension of these rights to schismatics of more harmful sects only when the conclusions of the committee speak positively about the abolition of restrictions existing for these sects. In addition to all that has been said, the members of the commission, in support of the considerations they expressed, also took into account the fact that in practice it would hardly be possible to raise the issue of issuing passports only to convicted distributors of more harmful sects, because such persons, by law (Articles 196 and 197 of the Code, o punishment.) are subject to deprivation of all rights of state and exile to the Transcaucasian region or Siberia and, therefore, by virtue of court decisions about them, they cannot exercise the right to absence from their place of residence on a general basis and are subject to the rules established in the statute on exiles. Based on such considerations, the members of the commission could not help but come to the conclusion that passports for absences within the empire, according to the exact meaning of the committee’s plans of 1864, can only be issued to less harmful sects, but more harmful sects, i.e., eunuchs, Khlysty and those who are generally recognized by law as more harmful, such a right cannot be granted. At the same time, one of the commission members recognized it as necessary, regardless of the prohibition on issuing absentee passports to followers of harmful sects, to establish the same restriction for persons who send spiritual requests to schismatics, as those who most contribute to the maintenance and even spread of the schism. The introduction of this prohibition into the draft resolution by the chairman and other members of the commission was recognized as inconvenient, since such a restriction introduced into the law would give the appearance of recognition for persons performing spiritual services for schismatics as spiritual rank, which would positively contradict the Highest approved plans of the committee of 1864, which decreed: no one performing spiritual services for schismatics should be subjected to persecution or embarrassment, except cases when they incur the action of general criminal laws, but do not recognize their clergy title or rank, but consider them, in civil terms, to belong to the classes in which they belong. Some members of the commission also found that the 1864 committee decreed restrictions on the issuance of passports for absences only for such schismatics of more harmful sects, who are convicted of spreading their errors, which is clearly and definitively expressed in the final journal, and therefore they did not consider it possible to accept the above-explained reasoning of the majority of members about granting the right to absences only to schismatics of less harmful sects, but believed to extend this rule to schismatics of all sects, with the limitation specified by the committee. On the subject of the dismissal of schismatics abroad and the admission of schismatic foreigners into the empire, the commission, bearing in mind that regarding one private petition for the dismissal of a schismatic abroad, the regulation of the Committee of Ministers, approved by the Highest on October 12, 1873, granted permission for such petitions to the immediate discretion of the Minister of the Interior, and by the Highest approved on June 10, 1870. the regulations of the same committee allowed the entry into the empire of schismatics of less harmful sects from abroad, while maintaining the prohibition for followers of more harmful sects, discussed whether there was any danger from allowing the dismissal of schismatics abroad, and from allowing them to enter the empire from abroad, and after a careful consideration of these issues came to the conclusion that the trips of our schismatics abroad not only could not bring any harm, but, on the contrary, there is sufficient reason to expect very good consequences from such trips - the dispersal of schismatic errors. At the same time, the majority of the commission members reasoned that since schismatics of more harmful sects, in their opinion, should not be allowed absences within the empire, it would not only be inconsistent, but also difficult to grant them the right to absences abroad (because under the guise of trips abroad they could be absent within the empire), and therefore they would consider establishing for the future that passports to schismatics of less harmful sects for absences abroad are issued on a general basis, and the minority members were given the right to leave abroad, as well as within the empire, to be granted to schismatics of all sects. As for the entry into Russia of schismatics from abroad, in view of the information available in the Ministry of Internal Affairs about the presence in Austria, Turkey and the Danube principalities of a significant number of eunuchs, the admission of whom into the empire would bring undoubted harm, the commission unanimously decided that the entry from abroad into Russia of schismatics of more harmful sects should be prohibited in the future. After this, the commission moved on to reasoning on the above-mentioned third point of the provisions of the 1864 committee on the guild and trade rights of schismatics. According to the regulations in force until 1853, schismatics had the right to enroll in the guild on a general basis; only eunuchs were subject to exclusion from this; since 1843, they were prohibited from issuing certificates for the right to trade if they were not in the merchant rank before that time; those who were members of the merchant class were not allowed to move from lower to higher guilds 28 . In 1853, it was decided to admit all schismatics into the guild only on a temporary basis 29, but with the publication on January 1, 1863 of a new regulation on duties for the right to trade, the previous resolution was considered cancelled. Following the general principle of granting schismatics greater or lesser rights, depending on the degree of harm that could result from them, the 1864 committee found that followers of less harmful sects could henceforth be allowed to enroll in guilds and trade on a general basis. But regarding those belonging to more harmful sects, the former Minister of Internal Affairs (Valuev) explained at the IV meeting of the committee that engaging in trade and crafts, associated with absences from their place of residence, often serves as a means for them to hide propaganda that is harmful and dangerous for the church and state. From the information that reached the highest government, it is clear that a significant number of seductions into our least tolerant sects, for example, the Skoptchestvo, are committed by people traveling around cities and villages under the pretext of their trade affairs. When discussing this issue, some members of the commission found that depriving schismatics of trade and industrial rights not only could not bring any benefit in eradicating schismatic errors among the people, but would undoubtedly strengthen schismatic fanaticism as any restraining measure, which is fully confirmed by many years of experience; granting them these rights on an equal basis with the Orthodox, having a beneficial effect on schismatics in a moral sense as proof of the government’s lenient attitude towards them, will serve to develop industry and trade in the state, and at the same time to strengthening the people’s well-being, therefore, some members believed not to establish any restrictions at all on the rights of industrial and trade, but so that followers of more harmful sects would be prohibited from joining the merchant class. But other members of the commission, based on the same reasoning, recognized the possibility of allowing schismatics of all sects, both more and less harmful, to enroll as merchants and trade on a common basis. In connection with this issue, the commission also drew attention to the fact that the current decrees on the production of trade by schismatics also contain a prohibition on allowing followers of any schismatic sects to register in icon-painting workshops. The 1864 Committee, recognizing that this prohibition could be abolished, since with few exceptions schismatics generally use icons, which are revered by the Orthodox Church, and therefore decided to cancel the existing ban on allowing schismatics into icon painting workshops. The commission, for its part, finding that allowing schismatics to enroll in icon-painting guilds cannot cause harm to Orthodoxy, since on the basis of the law, vol. XIV of the Constitution. def. and pres. Prest. 127 and 128 art. special supervision was established to prevent indecent images on icons; it was unanimously recognized that the existing prohibition of allowing schismatics into icon-painting workshops should be abolished. Following the program determined on the basis of the conclusions of the 1864 committee, the commission moved on to discussing issues: the admission of schismatics to occupy public positions and the awarding of schismatics with insignia and honorary titles. On the first issue, the commission found that the final conclusion of the committee of 1864, expressed in its general journal, decided: “in those societies where there are more schismatics than Orthodox, schismatics of less harmful sects should be allowed to occupy the positions of village elders, conscientious, volost elders, tax collectors and others, except for the position of the city mayor, so that, however, where the volost elder is a schismatic, his assistant will always be from the Orthodox." The highest resolution that followed on August 16th. 1864, it was ordered (paragraph 2), “that volost elders and their assistants from schismatics should not be allowed to be present in parish councils” 30. By order of the chairman, the commissions were presented and the following resolutions on this subject were read: 1) The opinion of the State Council, highly approved on June 16, 1870, which states: to grant the Minister of Internal Affairs, in the event that public administrations formed on the basis of the new city regulations raise questions about admission to city elections and to the election to city positions of persons in schism, to resolve these ideas in the sense of expanding within the limits reasonable possibility of suffrage for schismatics.” 2) Followed by the most humble report of the Minister of the Interior on March 9, 1874. The highest command: “to propose circularly to all governors that, pending the issuance of special rules on the rights of schismatics in public service, in order to remove misunderstandings that may arise on this subject, in the event of the election of schismatics to any public position, prior approval of such election should be submitted each time for the permission of the Minister of Internal Affairs, who is provided with detailed information at the meeting about the elected person to allow or not allow schismatics to exercise public positions at their nearest discretion." At the same time, the chairman told the commission that the Ministry of Internal Affairs, guided by the above Highest commands, for the most part allowed schismatics of less harmful sects, on the basis of information received from governors about the elected person, to occupy public positions, and there were even cases of admitting schismatics to the position of mayor, and that no harm from such admission was noticed anywhere. After a thorough and comprehensive discussion in the commission of this issue, the majority of its members considered it possible: the right of public service to be granted to schismatics on a general basis, except for followers of more harmful sects, but at the same time there was some fear of harm from allowing schismatics to occupy the position of city mayor as the most influential in its significance, this fear was set aside by the consideration that confirmation in the position of city mayor, on the basis of the law, depends in district cities on the governor, and in provincial cities on the Minister of Internal Affairs, and that, Thus, there is always a complete possibility of not allowing such a person to occupy the position of mayor whose admission would seem dangerous for some reason. Moreover, the commission had in mind that neither in the judicial charters for election to magistrate judges, nor in the regulations on zemstvo institutions for election to zemstvo vowels, no restrictions were made regarding schismatics, and that there were cases of schismatics being elected both to magistrate judges, even honorary ones, and to zemstvo councils, and a person elected to zemstvo councils, under certain conditions, can enter the position of member and even chairman of the zemstvo council, of which the last position matters no less than the mayor. For this, the commission decided that clause 2 of the Highest Resolution, that volost elders and their schismatic assistants should not be allowed to be present in parish councils, should be accepted for strict execution. On the second issue, the 1864 committee decided: “without honoring the followers of the more harmful sects with any insignia or honorary titles, regarding the schismatics of the less harmful sects, submit to the relevant authorities about exceptional cases constituting state merit or special feats of charity of such schismatics, after collecting the necessary information, submit it to the Highest discretion of His Imperial Majesty.” The commission fully agreed with this position of the committee, without entering into any of the content of this reasoning. Next in line was the question of allowing schismatics, with some restrictions, to open literacy schools. Turning to the plans of the committee of 1864, the commission found that the journal of this committee decided: “to allow schismatics of less harmful sects to establish literacy schools in which teaching would be limited to reading, writing and the four rules of arithmetic, so that these schools, both with regard to the selection and appointment of teachers, and with regard to the supervision of teaching, would be under the jurisdiction of those institutions that would generally be under the jurisdiction of public schools, however, without any encouragement or support from the government. Likewise, allow the children of schismatics to attend general schools and educational institutions, without making it mandatory for them to learn the law of God. When discussing in the committee the question of whether Orthodox children should be admitted to schools that will be maintained at the expense of sectarians, a disagreement ensued - the majority of members decided not to issue any general resolution on the permission or prohibition of sending children of the Orthodox confession to schools maintained at the expense of schismatics. In the opinion of the majority of members, such schools should neither bear the name nor have the significance of schismatic schools, but should simply be literacy schools, in which, with the special permission of the government, teaching will be limited to the circle of secular primary education, and the mandatory order to prevent the admission of anyone other than the children of sectarians into them would inevitably give them that very character that it is most desirable to avoid; it would develop in both teachers and students the spirit of exclusivity characteristic of any closed mug and weakens only when faced with faces of different views and habits. This opinion of the majority of committee members has received the highest approval. Before starting to discuss the present issue, by order of the chairman, the commission was presented with the correspondence carried out in the Ministry of Internal Affairs, after having already followed the Supremely approved proposal of the committee of 1864, with the relevant departments on the petition of the Moscow schismatics for permission to open in Moscow separate schools for their male and female children, and the following on this petition in the journal of the Committee of Ministers, for whose consideration it was submitted, The highest resolution. Moscow schismatics, in a petition submitted to the trustee of the Moscow educational district, petitioned for permission to open schools on the following main grounds: 1) these institutions should be of a private nature and managed by persons elected by schismatics with the rights and with the responsibility of the owners of private educational institutions; 2) appointment as mentors of persons vested with the legal right to teach and with the consent of the inspector of private educational institutions; 3) subjects of study: reading in Russian and Church Slavonic languages ​​with the use of church and early printed books for reading and studying, writing, Russian grammar, arithmetic, Russian history, church singing and needlework in a girls’ school; 4) adoption of government approved guidelines; 5) summer students from seven and not older than sixteen. At this petition, it was explained that the stated petition is caused by the lack of obvious, properly organized schools among the schismatics, as a result of which the children of poor parents from among the priests have been forced to this day to study in secret from illiterate cell attendants, which causes a lot of harm to the moral direction of the children simply because these mentors, in order to avoid penalties from the police, either shelter their students or students, or force them to tell lies. With the same petition, the Moscow schismatics addressed the Minister of Public Education, and in addition to the conditions stated above for the establishment of the named schools, they presented the following assumptions: the choice of teachers should be limited to those who have completed a course in theological academies or seminaries, to introduce geography and the law of God into the number of subjects of study, with the teaching of this latter primarily for the purpose of proving the existing unity between the dogmas of the Orthodox Church and the teachings of the priesthood, with some only differences in rituals. To support their petition, the Moscow schismatics referred to the following circumstances: 1) the alienation of the mass of sectarians due to religious exclusivity from the general paths of education indicated by the government; 2) the need to introduce education among them in the form of eradicating fanaticism and this exclusivity itself; 3) the failure to achieve this goal by the order to admit schismatics into general educational institutions without compulsory teaching of the law of God due to the distrust of the institutions by this schismatic population, which suspects them of lacking a religious basis, and 4) fear of insults that children of schismatics may be subjected to from their non-schismatic comrades; what inconveniences will be eliminated if the institutions and management of schools are entrusted to persons from among the schismatics who enjoy authority among them. Upon consideration of the said petition in the Committee of Ministers and the responses on it from the relevant departments, opinions were divided, and the chairman of the committee, five members who agreed with him, and Secretary of State Count Panin, who was invited to the meeting, believed that the petition of the Moscow schismatics should be rejected. The committee journal was followed by a resolution handwritten by His Imperial Majesty: “to carry out in the opinion of the chairman and the members who agree with him.” When discussing this issue in the commission, one of the members expressed the following considerations: the schism, as is known, is mainly supported by the ignorance existing among the mass of the people, to dispel which, and at the same time to eradicate schismatic errors, it is necessary to spread education among the people, but the schools designed by the 1864 committee for the children of schismatics can give them the opportunity to learn only literacy, which is already more common among schismatics than among the Orthodox population; Such schools will not provide the education necessary for a correct understanding of the dogmas of the Orthodox Church, therefore it would seem very desirable to provide schismatics of all sects in general with the opening of schools with a broader program of educational subjects than outlined by the 1864 committee. The chairman and other members of the commission reasoned that the issue of allowing schismatics to establish schools to educate their children was discussed in the committee in 1864. the most thorough and comprehensive discussion, after which the need for such permission was unanimously recognized, but at the same time it was established as an indispensable condition that the schools opened by the schismatics be simply literacy schools, in which teaching would be limited to the circle of secular primary education. Although it is true that literacy among schismatics is somewhat more widespread than among Orthodox Christians, this literacy is mostly limited to the ability to read old printed church books and, in rare cases, statutory letters, while the schools designated by the 1864 committee will give schismatics the correct initial preparation for further education, which they can then receive in general educational institutions, where their access is facilitated by the fact that when entering them they are not required to have knowledge the law of God and listening to its lessons is not necessary for them. Under this condition, schismatics, according to information available from the Ministry of Internal Affairs, do not shy away from general schools and willingly send their children to them, although this benefit for schismatics has not yet been accepted everywhere. For these reasons and in view of the Highest order to refuse the request of Moscow schismatics to open schools with a broader educational program, the members of the commission came to the positive conclusion that schismatics of less harmful sects could be allowed to establish only such schools as those indicated by the committee of 1864, especially since the program outlined by the committee is fully consistent with that subsequently established by the Highest approved on May 25, 1874 d. regulations on primary public schools. At the same time, the commission considered it necessary to decide that both regarding the request for permission for schismatics to open the said schools, and regarding the procedure for managing them and appointing teachers, they should be strictly guided by the rules prescribed by the Regulations on Public Schools approved by the Highest on May 25, 1874. Regardless of this, it is desirable that the rule regarding the admission of children of schismatics to attend general schools and educational institutions becomes generally known. Having made such a conclusion on the issue of schools for the children of schismatics, the commission turned to a discussion of the final conclusions of the committee, which proposed: to cancel the rule issued for the Arkhangelsk and Olonets provinces about sending officials by governors to inspect the homes of schismatics, allowing the governors of the provinces through personal observation, as well as sending the highest officials of the provincial administration to act as necessary to prevent the spread of the schism and the establishment of new sectarian hermitages. The abolition of this rule was recognized by the committee as necessary in order to avoid abuses and various types of harassment towards schismatics. Fully sharing this view of the committee, the commission decided to accept the stated plans for exact execution. Then, regarding the committee’s proposal to prohibit the publication in separate editions of the works of schismatic teachers, containing their false thinking and systematic exposition of schismatic dogmas and rituals, without proper explanations or objections from the spiritual authorities or approved by the authorities, the commission did not find it necessary to enter into a discussion of this subject after the re-enactment of the general law on the press in 1865. In conclusion, the commission examined the articles of the set of resolutions on schismatics, which, on the basis of the Highly approved conclusions of the 1864 committee, were subject to abolition as disagreeing with the general spirit of the measures taken. Having considered, in the order of the program, all the proposals of the 1864 committee about granting schismatics general civil rights, the commission, on the basis of the instructions and plans of the same committee, began to consider the simplifications proposed for schismatics in the performance of divine services according to the rites of their sects, the correction of existing and the construction of new schismatic prayer buildings, as well as the non-prosecution of persons performing liturgical rites for schismatics. Article III of the conclusions of the committee on cases of schismatics, approved on August 16, 1864, decreed: “with regard to the fulfillment of spiritual requirements and worship, do not provide followers of sects that are more harmful with any relief in the existing order and do not allow them to openly gather for prayer, but this should not be extended to gatherings in houses that are not associated with criminal acts or unlawful intent, sufficiently discovered, and not to subject such gatherings to persecution unless they violate the general rules of decency and public order. Likewise, the charterers and mentors of these sects should be brought to trial only in the event of the spread of their errors or other crimes and misdemeanors subject to punishment under criminal or police laws. For schismatics of less harmful sects, allow the following relief: 1) allow them to perform public prayer, perform religious services and perform divine services according to their rites, both in homes and in specially designated prayer buildings and cemeteries, under the indispensable condition that there is no public, tempting for the Orthodox, manifestation of schism; 2) recognize as a public demonstration of schism, tempting for the Orthodox: a) religious processions and public processions in church vestments; b) wearing church or monastic attire outside houses and chapels and wearing icons in public; and c) schismatic singing in the streets and squares; 3) in cemeteries, during burials it is allowed to pray according to the rituals accepted by schismatics with singing, but without the use of church vestments; 4) allow the repair of chapels and other prayer buildings that are falling into disrepair with the special permission of the head of the province each time and with the condition that the appearance of the building being repaired is not changed in any way, regardless of strict adherence to the prohibition of having external bells or crosses and icons above the doors; 5) to allow the opening of closed houses of worship with the special permission of the Minister of Internal Affairs, upon preliminary communication of each case between the head of the province and the local diocesan authorities and with the condition that the opening is carried out without any celebration; this permission, however, should not be extended to schismatic monasteries and monasteries, the opening of which should not be allowed in any case; 6) in places where the former prayer houses have been destroyed and a significant number of the population belonging to less harmful sects of schismatics do not have any means for public prayer, allow, with the permission of the Minister of Internal Affairs, after preliminary communication between the head of the province and the local diocesan authorities, residential buildings for this purpose, so that no external decorations characteristic of Orthodox churches are attached to them; 7) not to subject anyone who fulfills the spiritual requirements of these schismatics to persecution or embarrassment, except in cases where they incur the action of general criminal laws, but not to recognize for them a clergy title or dignity, but to consider them, in civil terms, as belonging to the classes in which they belong. The transition to the schismatics of the priestly sect of the clergy of the Orthodox Church with the falling away from Orthodoxy should not be allowed; 8) accept as a rule that the above-mentioned reliefs granted to schismatics of less harmful sects are provided to those sectarians who themselves ask for them, recognizing themselves by their religion as belonging to less harmful sects. Moreover, demand from them a statement that they will sacredly fulfill those conditions on the basis of which they are recognized as belonging to movements closer to the confession of the Orthodox Church and will refrain from any dissemination of their beliefs among the Orthodox.” The highest resolution that followed on August 16, 1864 on the journal of the committee, among other things, ordered: that the use of not only church and monastic, but also priestly attire by schismatics outside their homes and chapels should be considered signs of public manifestation of schism. Upon consideration of the above provisions of the 1864 committee, the chairman of the commission stated that in view of such a clear and positive definition by the committee of the rights of schismatics to conduct worship and fulfill spiritual requirements, this issue, in his opinion, can be left by the commission without special considerations, and that the commission should not enter into the consideration of particulars, on the basis of which the 1864 committee developed general provisions that are quite appropriate to the goals (with the exception of paragraph 8, which will be discussed below); why the entire task of the commission regarding this issue is limited only to some editorial changes in the provisions of the committee in relation to the view established by the commission regarding the division of sects into more and less harmful ones. At the same time, one member of the commission expressed doubt: since the 1864 committee allows gatherings in the houses of followers of more harmful sects, as long as these gatherings are not connected with criminal actions, it is obvious that, under the pretext of gatherings, worship will take place at the followers of more harmful sects. Therefore, the question arises whether any kind of divine service is absolutely prohibited, covered by the pretext of a permitted gathering in the houses of schismatics of more harmful sects, at least in the places of their settlement, and whether, for example, zeal among the Khlysty can be allowed. This question, according to a statement from its member, is posed by them not at all in the sense of recognizing the right to worship for schismatics of harmful sects, but in the sense of explaining how the authorities will distinguish the gatherings in houses allowed to schismatics of more harmful sects from their gatherings exclusively for prayer and performing their rituals, sometimes combined with criminal moral teachings and even actions. To this, the chairman, in agreement with the other members, stated that this doubt is eliminated by the view developed by the commission on the especially harmful sects it recognizes, according to which no relief can be allowed for them in the practice of their religious rites. The sects of Skoptsy and Khlysty, which, according to the commission’s view, are recognized as especially harmful, should be deprived of all freedom of worship, even if it is not accompanied by public worship, because their most secret meetings in houses for the performance of so-called zeal are subject to prosecution and even serve as evidence in court that the persons participating in them belong to the mentioned especially harmful sects. According to paragraph 4 of the provisions of the committee of 1864, which allows for the repair of chapels and other prayer buildings that are falling into disrepair with the special permission of the head of the province each time and with the condition that the appearance of the building being repaired should not be changed in any way, regardless of strict adherence to the prohibition of having external bells, crosses and icons above the doors, a disagreement arose in the commission. According to one of the members, there is no reason, following the principles of broad religious tolerance, which the committee of 1864 adhered to, and allowing schismatics to perform divine services according to the rites of their sects, at the same time prohibiting some external differences and decorations on the prayer buildings of schismatics, which, moreover, is allowed for all non-Orthodox confessions tolerated in the state, and it would be necessary to remove crosses and icons from existing ones with these decorations of schismatic prayer houses. Some members saw this idea as a departure from the exact position of the 1864 committee. and, in addition, they found in its practical implementation too much expansion of the rights of schismatics, equating such permission with permission to build schismatic churches, which, if their hierarchy was not recognized, would seem incompatible with the general view of schism, which does not recognize the right of a special religion recognized in our empire, not to mention the temptation from such permission for the Orthodox. But at the same time, the chairman, in agreement with the majority of members, expressed a desire to change the wording of clause 4, omitting the words “and above-door icons”, since decorations of this kind do not constitute a direct and significant sign of the external accessories of prayer buildings and are used indifferently by schismatics in their homes. Therefore, if the ban on having icons above the doors was in effect in those schismatic settlements where every residential building had an icon above the door, then only the houses where they gather for prayer would be deprived of icons above the doors, whereas in such a house it is much more appropriate than in private houses, so it would be desirable to eliminate such a prohibition in order to prevent possible misunderstandings and a clash between local authorities and schismatics. To this, one member objected that by lifting the prohibition set forth in paragraph 4 of the committee’s journal of 1864 to have schismatics “and door icons” on their prayer buildings, schismatics would be allowed to have external decorations on their chapels, and that at the same time it would be difficult to determine the very shape of the door icons, and schismatics, taking advantage of this permission, would begin to put such icons and crosses on the doors of their prayer houses that would clearly indicate the purpose of such buildings, which directly contradicts the position of the 1864 committee, set out in paragraph 6. the same magazine, according to the literal definition of which external decorations of prayer buildings, characteristic of Orthodox churches, should not be allowed. At the same time, regarding the measures indicated by the 1864 committee regarding the repair of dilapidated buildings and the opening of new prayer buildings, one member noted that here it would be necessary to pay special attention to the definition of the wording in the draft legislation. On the one hand, the requirement that the appearance of the building being repaired should not be changed in any way gives wide scope to any interpretation that will, of course, cause useless embarrassment for parishioners; on the other hand, permission to turn residential buildings into chapels could sometimes cause undesirable phenomena. In this parish, for a preconceived purpose, a residential building is being erected, for example, with a dome, closely similar in the design of the dome to the church building. Then such a residential building turns into a chapel. It is understandable that the schismatics wanted to see the chapel, in their own way, as an Orthodox church; It is clear that such a desire can lead builders into temptation, and sometimes the attempt would be successful; then the severity of persecution, irritation among the masses, etc., phenomena well known in the schismatic world. The chairman and other members of the commission found that fears regarding abuses of this kind, even if they could happen, do not seem possible for the reasons that the very permission to turn residential buildings into chapels will be made, as stated in the same paragraph 6, by agreement of the local civil and spiritual authorities, which neither one nor the other will allow, and the Ministry of Internal Affairs, in case of any doubt, can demand a plan of the building and if it finds it in any way inappropriate, it will not allow such a building to be converted into a house of worship. After this, to put an end to the doubts that arose and to eliminate the alleged abuses, all members unanimously put in paragraph 4 the words: “and the icons above the door” to be deleted, and the conclusion of paragraph. 6 should be edited as follows: “so that these buildings do not have a common appearance in terms of internal structure and generally no external accessories inherent exclusively in Orthodox churches.” When discussing clause 7, the chairman and the majority of members considered changing the wording of it by excluding the last words: “transitions to the schismatics of the priestly sect of clergy of the Orthodox Church, with a fall from Orthodoxy, will not be allowed in the future” on the basis that this exclusively relates to the ecclesiastical department and should not be included in the draft articles of the law on schismatics as relating to a completely different area of ​​legislation. But one member recognized the need to preserve, if not literally, then with the same meaning, this remark, since the ecclesiastical department always encounters insurmountable difficulties in selecting protege letters from fugitive Orthodox priests, using which these fugitive priests send all sorts of demands to the schismatics and, thus, contribute not only to maintaining the schism, but also to spreading it. The preservation of this rule and its strict implementation must certainly be observed, especially with those rights and benefits by virtue of which a schismatic priest can be both a merchant and a manufacturer, and travel freely both throughout Russia and abroad. These benefits will predispose many bad priests to go into schism. When discussing this remark, that in the set of decrees on schismatics, compiled by the II Department of His Imperial Majesty’s own Chancellery, there are certain articles 126, 127 and 128, prohibiting the transition of Orthodox priests to schismatics and indicating ways of persecuting such persons, and that while maintaining the force of these decrees, which could be placed in the proper place of St. laws, the ecclesiastical department will have every opportunity to prosecute such persons and subject them to legal liability. As for what was projected in paragraph 8 of the provisions of the 1864 committee. rules on granting the above-mentioned reliefs granted to schismatics of less harmful sects to those sectarians who themselves will ask for them, recognizing themselves by their religious doctrine as belonging to sects less harmful and on requiring them to declare membership in sects closer to the confession of the Orthodox Church, then the establishment of such a rule, which diverges in essence from the view developed by the commission regarding the division of sects into more or less harmful ones, would also disagree with the principles underlying the law on the metrical registration of marriages, births and deaths of schismatics, approved by the Highest on April 19, 1874, according to which such statements from schismatics are not required in order to avoid unnecessary questions from the police about the essence of religious teachings, why the chairman and other members, except for those who expressed the above opinion, believed that the said rule should not be introduced into the draft resolutions. At the conclusion of its activities, the commission turned to the consideration of the issue raised at its first meeting about instructions to governors, ranks of police and gendarmerie departments and persons of prosecutorial supervision 31. When establishing the law on the marriages of schismatics, the State Council found that although the legalization of the marriages of schismatics depends on their recording in the police registers, it is understood that prior to such recording a wedding ceremony was performed according to their beliefs and that with the publication of this law, in order to perform their rituals, it is necessary to give the schismatics the opportunity to perform divine services, and therefore recognized it as necessary to give instructions to governors, ranks of police and gendarmerie departments and persons of prosecutorial supervision on the subject of their actions in relation to schismatics, especially regarding their worship. A draft of such instructions was drawn up by agreement with the Minister of Justice and the Chief of Gendarmes and submitted by the Minister of the Interior to the Committee of Ministers, which did not consider it possible to approve the part of this project concerning the actual relief for schismatics in conducting divine services, and ordered it to be revised in connection with the general plans of the 1864 committee. Although the commission, as we have seen, reviewed all the plans of the 1864 committee. both in relation to the civil rights of schismatics, and regarding their worship according to their rites, and it is quite clear what relief in this regard can be provided to them, but after all this, the commission recognized that the instructions could be drawn up no earlier than the final establishment of the wording of the articles of the law, which would include those of the projected assumptions that are subject to consideration in the legislative order, and the rest of the administrative assumptions would be subject to inclusion in the instructions, Therefore, the commission decided not to enter into judgments on this subject. (Article three – end) Having outlined in detail the entire process of developing the plans of the Highly approved special committee of 1864 on the affairs of schismatics by the commission that was in 1875 under the Ministry of Internal Affairs, we presented only the very process of the commission’s discussion of the complex and varied plans of the said committee to determine the civil rights and religious needs for schismatics deprived of these rights. Having the courage to think that the process of discussing all issues at the direction of the 1864 committee in the 1875 commission is presented by us in detail, fully and separately, and the active role of the commission is outlined clearly and clearly with the obviousness of its conclusions on each individual issue during a detailed discussion of it, we at the same time do not consider it superfluous to offer our readers the results of the commission’s work, expressing them in strictly formulated separate provisions on each issue separately and constituting, in general, all the final determinations of the commission on the plans of the 1864 committee that it examined. A separate presentation of the strictly formulated final determinations of the commission of 1875, in addition to indicating the obviousness and clarity of the results obtained by it, seems to us to be very important and even necessary for comparing these determinations with the final edition of the rights currently in force and defined by the legislative act of May 3, 1883, granted to schismatics general civil rights and freedom in worship. The first final and, so to speak, general provision, in the opinion of the majority of the commission members, for legislative reform in the general civil rights and religious needs of schismatics should be made by dividing all existing schismatic sects into more and less harmful ones, as was designed and suggested by the former Minister of Internal Affairs Valuev, and established by the committee in 1864. On this issue, the final definition of the commission was expressed as follows: “recognize the sects as more harmful sects: Skoptsov and Khlysty". In the event of the emergence of new sects of an equally harmful nature with the two named sects, the Minister of Internal Affairs requests, in accordance with the established procedure, to classify such sects as more harmful. All other sects should be recognized as less harmful. Further, in accordance with the above program, the commission determined: “1) regarding the civil rights of schismatics: a) Allow the issuance of passports for absences both within the Empire and abroad, on a general basis, to followers of less harmful sects, without extending this permission to followers of more harmful sects, i.e. eunuchs and Khlysty, and those who will generally be recognized by law as more harmful. b) Allow schismatics of less harmful sects to enter from abroad, while denying such entry to followers of more harmful sects. c) For schismatics of less harmful sects, do not establish any restrictions on industrial and commercial rights; followers of more harmful sects are prohibited from joining merchant guilds. d) The existing prohibition in the Code of Laws to allow schismatics into icon-painting workshops will be repealed. e) The right of public service to provide schismatics of less harmful sects on a general basis; followers of more harmful sects should not be allowed to occupy public positions under any circumstances. f) Parish elders and their assistants who belong to the schism are not allowed to participate in parish councils. g) To provide the relevant authorities with exceptional cases constituting state merit or special feats of charity on the part of schismatics of less harmful sects, after collecting the necessary information, submit it to the highest discretion of His Imperial Majesty. h) Allow schismatics of less harmful sects to establish at their own expense literacy schools for the initial education of children, so that teaching in them is limited to reading, writing and the 4 rules of arithmetic, and that in relation to the request for permission by schismatics to open the said schools, as well as the procedure for managing them and appointing teachers, the rules prescribed by the Highest, approved on May 25, are strictly observed 1874 regulations on public schools. i) Cancel the rule issued for the Arkhangelsk and Olonets provinces about sending officials by governors to inspect the homes of schismatics, allowing the governors of the provinces to act through personal observation, as well as sending the highest officials of the provincial administration, as necessary to prevent the spread of the schism and the establishment of new sectarian hermitages.” In accordance with such conclusions, the commission identified and precisely indicated that both individual restrictive articles of the current legislation for schismatics and many separate Highest commands, which imposed and determined restrictive and restrictive conditions for schismatics in the enjoyment of certain general civil rights, were subject to repeal. II. Regarding the conduct of divine services by schismatics according to their rites, the commission of 1875 developed the following final definitions: a) With regard to the fulfillment of spiritual requirements and worship, do not provide followers of more harmful sects with any relief in the existing order and do not allow them to open gatherings for prayer, but do not extend this to gatherings in houses that are not associated with criminal actions or unlawful intent, sufficiently discovered, and do not subject such gatherings to persecution unless they violate the general rules of decency and public order. Likewise, the charterers and mentors of these sects should be brought to trial only in the event of the spread of their errors or other crimes and misdemeanors subject to punishment established by law. For schismatics of less harmful sects, allow the following relief: 1) allow them to perform public prayer, perform religious services and perform divine services according to their rites, both in homes and in specially designated prayer buildings and cemeteries, on the indispensable condition that there is no public, tempting for the Orthodox, manifestation of a schism; 2) recognize as a public demonstration of schism, tempting for the Orthodox: a) religious processions and public processions in church vestments; b) the use of church, monastic and priestly attire outside houses and chapels and the public wearing of icons and c) schismatic singing in the streets and squares; 3) in cemeteries, during burials it is allowed to pray according to the rituals accepted by schismatics with singing, but without the use of church vestments; 4) allow the repair of chapels and other prayer buildings that are falling into disrepair with the special permission of the head of the province each time and with the condition that the appearance of the building being repaired should not be changed in any way, regardless of strict adherence to having external bells or crosses; 5) to allow the opening of closed houses of worship with the special permission of the Minister of Internal Affairs, upon preliminary notification of each case of communication between the head of the province and the local diocesan authorities and with the condition that the opening is carried out without any celebration - this permission, however, should not be extended to schismatic monasteries and monasteries, the opening of which should not be allowed in any case; 6) in places where the former prayer houses have been destroyed, and a significant population of schismatics belonging to less harmful sects does not have any means for public prayer, allow, with the permission of the Minister of Internal Affairs, after preliminary communication between the head of the province and the local diocesan authorities, residential buildings for this purpose so that these buildings do not have a common internal appearance and generally no external accessories inherent exclusively in Orthodox churches; 7) not to subject anyone who fulfills the spiritual requirements of these schismatics to oppression, except in cases where they incur the action of general criminal laws, but not to recognize their clergy or dignity, but to consider them, in civil terms, as belonging to the classes in which they belong. These are the final definitions of the commission of 1875, expressed in separate provisions - for the most part, these definitions repeat the essential plans of the committee of 1864 and fully confirm the idea expressed at the beginning of our article that the role of the said commission was primarily editorial. The works of the commission, submitted for consideration and conclusion by some higher government institutions, remained without movement for 8 years; in 1883, most of the final determinations of the commission were almost unchanged included in the articles of the legislative act on the new civil rights of schismatics. As far as we know, St. did not find it possible to agree with many of the final determinations of the 1875 commission. Synod and chief administrator of the former II department of His Imperial Majesty's own chancellery (then Prince Urusov); Especially strong objections were raised by the above-mentioned higher institutions against the commission’s determination to divide sects according to the degree of their harm. Disagreeing with the conclusion of the commission chaired by Prince Lobanov-Rostovsky, St. The Synod and the Second Department of His Imperial Majesty’s own Chancellery argued for the need to leave the classification of schismatic sects according to the degree of their harm in civil terms in the form in which it was established by the 1864 committee. It is impossible not to pay attention to the fact that the main subject of attacks and objections was the opinion of specialist expert P.I. Melnikov, in accordance with whose considerations and conclusions the 1875 commission made its final determination on the issue of classifying sects. Both Melnikov’s opinion and the commission’s definition met with strong opposition not only from St. Synod and the II Department of His Imperial Majesty's own Chancellery, but also even from the Ministry of Internal Affairs during the discussion in the State Council of the law of May 3, 1883, for which the works of the 1875 commission were preparatory work. The issue of classification was overwritten and has not received a positive legislative definition to this day. When discussing the new law in the State Council, it was decided not to introduce the characteristics established by the 1864 committee into the law at all due to the abundance and variability of the names of different sects, but to allow the Minister of the Interior to be guided by them in determining by agreement with the Chief Prosecutor of St. The Synod will determine the followers of which schismatic sects should be given rights and relief. The results of the commission’s work, as we said, did not receive legislative sanction for eight years. During this time the question of the granting of civil rights and religious reliefs was pushed into the background by many political events of recent times and by large facts of the internal life of the state, which are still fresh in the memory of all. Finally, on May 3, 1883, the highest approval was given to the opinion of the State Council on granting schismatics certain civil rights and the administration of spiritual duties, which on the 20th of the same May was made public for general knowledge and guidance. From this day forward, a very important revolution in the government’s view of its attitude towards the split in the new history of the schism should be considered as having actually been determined. Needless to say, the May 1883 law on the rights of schismatics, under a fresh impression, was met with many varied greetings from our press, in general, very sympathetic, and sometimes even enthusiastic; advocates of the interests of the church and defenders of the schism, and even indifferent people who were simply interested in learning the meaning and significance of the new legislative act out of simple curiosity, spoke about it with equal interest. Quite a lot has been said and written in the periodical press, but all of these were, for the most part, only cursory notes and some reflections in a favorite direction, and in the essence of the matter, the essence and meaning of the new law and its practical significance have not yet been subject to serious critical analysis by competent people; about the results of its practical life application, and at the present time it is premature to say a firm and positive conclusion. But in any case, in our final article about the latest legislative reforms over the course of twenty years, we must necessarily touch upon the last act that completes the reforms in the legislative sense. We must report the exact content of the legislative act of May 3, 1883, indicate its relationship with the text of the articles of the law of 1883. Of the private final determinations of the commission of 1875, the text of the new law does not mention anything only about the admission of foreign schismatics into Russia, about awards for schismatics both in general and for special feats of philanthropy and self-sacrifice, and about the right of schismatics to establish special schools for their children. That's it. But the most important and significant difference between the law of May 3, 1883, both from the final determinations of the commission of 1875 and the plans of the committee of 1864, is that it forgot or, more precisely, deliberately left the original and main point of legislative reform. This is, first of all, a division of sects according to the degree of their harm. In the text of the law, contrary to the principles of the committee of 1864. and the edition of the final definitions of the commission of 1875, the division of sects according to the degree of harm is resolutely ignored, there are not even the words “more harmful and less harmful sects”; and everywhere in the edition of the text the word “schismatic” is used indifferently. As a result, both from the plans of the 1864 committee and from the final determinations of the commission, the text of the new law did not include those restrictions that were projected for the followers of the “more harmful” sects, along with the rights that were supposed to be granted to the followers of the “less harmful” sects. Time will tell how practical and expedient this is. Now let's turn to the content of the law of May 3, 1883 and see what new it gave? Reading the articles of the new law that define the new civil rights of schismatics, we see that in practical meaning, the meaning of life, the definitions of these articles did not introduce anything actually new into the general civil life of schismatics; they only stated, sanctioned and generalized those facts of life that in many cases represented long-standing and already existing ones in use, if not as rights, then as civil relations of schismatics, in the general civil sense, on a par with other subjects of the state. True, the law contained many restrictive definitions of the rights of schismatics, but in reality these restrictions have long since lost all meaning. 1) Article 1 of the new law allows the issuance of passports for absences within the Empire to schismatics of all sects, except eunuchs. But this, in essence, was nothing new... Let’s not even talk about the fact that since the 1864 committee During the last years, when the Highest approved plans thereof had the force of law, the question of absentee passports for schismatics within the Empire was devoid of any practical significance, when not only the less harmful schismatics, but also the more harmful Molokans, constrained by absences even only by a thirty-verst distance, without hindrance entire villages and settlements received passports for traveling to other provinces in populated and shopping centers. But let us remember older times and stricter measures, and then restrictions on absences existed only in print - the letter of the law, but in reality they had no application. Everyone has known for a long time and not only through rumors, but also through newspaper correspondence - news about schismatic false bishops arriving in Moscow from the Austrian border on various spiritual matters, about their councils, called ecumenical, and also about the fact that Prussian false bishops traveled to Belaya Krinitsa, on the Austrian border. And these persons, firstly, for the most part, were known to the administration, and secondly, knowing that special strict police supervision was established over them and they themselves were afraid of falling into the hands of police argus, what then can be said about simple ordinary schismatics who do not constitute prominent units? Even in the old, strict times, in the thirties and forties, schismatics found it possible to go abroad, sometimes with passports in the name of others, sometimes without any passports, and schismatic monasteries sent out their missionaries without worrying at all about the “father.” Freedom of movement, limited by passports for schismatics, actually did not exist even where the vigilant control of the administration should have instilled in them not only apprehension, but also fear, as, for example, in their relations with their foreign fellow believers and especially with their foreign false hierarchy in the Austrian possessions. But if all these well-known facts were only a matter of secret, deception, oversight and bribery of police argus and cannot serve as positive evidence that the non-issuance of passports for the absence of schismatics in other places has long become an anachronism, then the best, real and categorical proof of this idea is the view of the government itself on this restrictive measure. Since the forties of our century, the government itself was aware of the practical inconvenience of this measure and therefore often made exceptions, and these exceptions were repeated more and more often and, moreover, with easier conditions not only for schismatics of less harmful sects, but also for sectarians who were dangerous, in the opinion of the administration, such as, for example, Molokans, Doukhobors and even, in isolated cases, for some privileged eunuchs. By the highest order on November 28, 1836, at the request of the chief administrator of Georgia, the Caucasus and Transcaucasian regions, Baron Rosen, it was allowed to issue passports for earnings to the Molokans of the Transcaucasian provinces with a limit of only eight months 32. In 1842, by a separate Highest decree of February 19, 33, it was allowed, at the request of the landowner Chamberlain Ryumin, the peasants of the Molokan sect of the village of Rastashi, Balashevsky district, Saratov province, to go to other places to transport landowner products. The above exceptions from the existing law on passports for schismatics and sectarians, however, were rare until the 60s, but from that time they ceased to be isolated and exceptional, and although they were always permitted by special Highest commands in view of the existing prohibitory law, they became so common and easily achievable even for harmful sectarians that they actually completely ignored the law. Having at hand a collection of government orders, we could quote a whole series of the Highest commands, successively allowing the absence of Molokans and Doukhobors in consideration of their petitions, indicating various special services. But we find such details unnecessary. We don’t think it’s superfluous to note that when Molokans and Doukhobors were allowed to leave for more than 30 miles (as limited by law), the highest approved provisions of the committees of ministers always determined restrictions on the duration of absences, generally only short-term absences of up to 2 months were allowed, for the period of field work, etc., and in the passports affiliation with the sect was indicated with an exact indication of the place of dismissal, the local authorities of which were informed at that time the same time to ensure that those dismissed do not leave beyond the places shown, do not remain there longer than the period shown in the passport, and most importantly, do not spread the sect they contain... But what practically did these restrictive conditions entail, especially the last one - about the prohibition of disseminating sectarian teaching in places of exile? Nothing - except the pious desire of a vigilant police power... Meanwhile, with similar and frequent, as we said, permission for sectarians to leave in recent times, the administration itself made the prohibitive law on the non-issuance of passports to schismatics an obvious anachronism, and this fact was only stated by the May 1883 law. 2) Article two of the new law allows all schismatics in general to carry out trade and crafts in compliance with the generally applicable regulations on this subject. But the schismatics actually had this right before the law was issued. Deviations from the restrictions established on this subject in the sense of special exemptions and indulgences with special Highest permission were allowed back in 1850, when, in order to encourage the resettlement of Russian merchants and townspeople to the cities of the Western Territory, schismatics who accepted the priesthood (a less harmful sect) were allowed to be counted among the merchants and townspeople of this region and to enjoy the special benefits provided to the Russian merchants of these areas 34. By the highest order of June 10, 1853, all dissenters everywhere were allowed to be accepted into the guild on the so-called temporary right 35. In 1855, schismatic merchants on a temporary basis, according to a special Highest command “until further notice,” should not be involved in serving conscription duty 36. Thus, in this respect, the schismatics did not experience any particular constraint and, in practice, managed to adapt well to the commercial world, despite the restrictive conditions established by law. Likewise, the permission (Article 3) for schismatics to join icon-painting workshops with the permission of the Minister of Internal Affairs cannot have much significance in practice. Long ago, and without this permission, at least a troublesome matter, they were diligently engaged in icon painting and will continue to do so, in all likelihood, conveniently bypassing the hassle of a ministerial permit. There are well-known facts not only that many icons painted by schismatics are bought and snapped up indiscriminately by our Orthodox people, but that even icons painted by schismatics were bought for Orthodox churches 37 . Article 4 of the new law allows schismatics to occupy public positions with approval, in cases specified by law, subject to government authorities. And in this case, we have many examples in the past when the government made exceptions for schismatics, allowing them to occupy public positions - by the time the new law was published, schismatics in many cities already occupied the positions of city mayors, and, moreover, often even in cities in which the predominant population was Orthodox. From the facts of the distant past, it is impossible not to point out in this case the permission of the committee of ministers at the mining factories in the Perm province in 1831 to appoint Old Believers as managers and clerks, so that such persons were first warned not to seduce the Orthodox into schism 38 . In 1835, in Yekaterinburg, it was allowed to elect schismatics to some public positions with the restriction that in each city presence the number of Orthodox members was greater than schismatics, and that in particular the senior ranks of the magistrate, i.e., burgomasters, were Orthodox or co-religionists 39 . The highest decree of April 11, 1840 positively determined “that schismatics as members of society are not deprived of the right to participate in elections and in general in public affairs.” Moreover, in paragraph 2 of the above-mentioned Highest command also names the very positions to which schismatics can be elected and appointed, namely: a) to the Ratman of the magistrate, town hall and orphan's court; b) as a headman to compile a city philistine book; c) as a deputy to draw up a breakdown of zemstvo duties; d) as a member of city apartment commissions; e) member of the committee on the equalization of city duties; f) as a member of the property assessment commission for regular service; g) as an assistant to the bourgeois elders; h) as supervisory foremen and senior comrades, i) as supervisors of outbid and reference prices 40. The closer time went to the reform, the more the circle of participation of schismatics in public affairs expanded - in their occupation of more influential and honorable public positions, such as, for example, the position of mayor. But the occupation of influential positions by schismatics should undoubtedly raise concerns about their pressure on the Orthodox. This fear was and still is shared by many. But this was also foreseen by the drafters of the new legislative act, which, of course, explains the restriction edited in the article we are interpreting, “that if a schismatic is confirmed in the post of elder in a volost, then his assistant must be an Orthodox Christian.” It goes without saying, says Prof. Ivanovsky, that this restriction does not eliminate the possibility of pressure, just as in general written laws alone cannot eliminate abuses. This circumstance prompts us, the venerable professor further writes, to express, at least, the desire for especially careful monitoring on the part of the administrative authorities over the exact fulfillment of legal requirements by the said elected officials. At the same time, it would be desirable to have one more restriction so that these positions would not include persons from among the priests who have illegal hierarchical degrees, and from among the non-priests the so-called mentors and demand-correctors and generally known propagandists. Information about these persons may be known to local governors either directly or through communication with diocesan eminences. This restriction, in addition to a new legislative regulation, can be made by the Minister of the Interior on the basis of § 12 of the new regulations. In any case, concludes Pr. Ivanovsky, it is difficult to foresee what practical consequences the new law on the election of schismatics to public office will lead to. We are glad in this case that the schismatics, who for many years complained about restrictions in civil relations, should now remain silent, and for the Orthodox missionary there will be at least one less charge. If they fail to use this right wisely, then let them complain about themselves 41 . In a general opinion regarding the definitions of the new law on May 3, 1883. of civil rights itself, it remains to repeat what we have already expressed when discussing its articles in particular; namely, that these legal provisions only confirmed and sanctioned facts already existing in practice in life; they, so to speak, reconciled the law with reality. But by abolishing existing restrictions and elevating practiced relief into actual, precisely defined rights, the legal provisions of 1883 are very important for schismatics for the sole reason that by abolishing restrictions on civil rights that served as punishment for sectarianism, they enabled schismatics to view themselves as full citizens of the state, and not as people outside civil jurisdiction, which, undoubtedly, should have weakened their antagonism and hidden dissatisfaction with civil law. power, as if it were still unfairly persecuting them. Now there is no longer any basis for the hostile fanaticism of schismatics towards the government, based on administrative repression. If it has not faded away yet, and maybe will not fade away soon, then this is only exclusively religious fanaticism, against which the spiritual government has already taken spiritual and educational measures. In general, when the new legislation was promulgated, our press welcomed it as a very gratifying fact. Joining the friendly greetings of the press, Professor Ivanovsky, one of our best experts on schism, says in his detailed article: “We see in the new rights the granting of what should have been given from the point of view of religious tolerance, and in which we do not see harm for the Orthodox Church, unless spiritual activity is reduced and weakened, but develops and strengthens. On the other hand, we welcome the new legal provisions for the wise prudence that cannot be overlooked in them. With the abolition of direct restrictions and restrictions for the content of the schism, it stipulates everything that would have a seductive character, that would go beyond the limits of tolerance and receive the meaning of legal recognition of the schism; which, along with the Orthodox Church, would place the so-called Old Believers Church, or rather the schismatic sects that have broken up among themselves, starting from the priests and marriage-less priests and ending with Filippov’s with his principled fanaticism of agreement, self-baptism and flight with their anti-social doctrines. The basic nature of the laws remains the same: schismatics are not persecuted for their opinions about the faith, but they are prohibited from spreading their errors; and public display of schism is also prohibited” 42 . Professor Ivanovsky, in the article we quoted, notes the inaccuracy and uncertainty in the wording of the new laws on schismatics, which can, in his opinion, give scope for different interpretations and applications of this kind, which, very possibly, will give such illumination to legal provisions that were not included in the plans of the legislators, and which in any way provide the executive power with a basis for different discretions. Fully agreeing with the opinion of the venerable professor, we conclude our review with his comments on the new law: “The new law ignores the issue of dividing sects into more harmful and less harmful; This ignoring occurred, probably because so many different opinions had already appeared on it, so that it would have been very difficult to give any one the advantage. This is why there is some uncertainty in the law. And precisely: it is not clear whether the granting of civil rights and the administration of spiritual needs applies to all sectarians or not to all. The existing division of sects into more and less harmful ones in the law has not been abolished. But the wording of the new regulations does not say which sects they concern - whether they are less harmful or more harmful. True, the issuance of passports is allowed to all sectarians, except eunuchs, and all sectarians without exception receive the right to trade; but then these definite expressions are replaced by an indefinite word: schismatic. Thus, “schismatics” are allowed to join icon-painting workshops, hold public positions, perform public prayer, and own public buildings. But who is meant here by the word schismatic - all sectarians, or only in the narrow sense schismatic Old Believers? There is no direct answer to this question in the law. If the new laws apply to all sectarians, then there is bewilderment: can the Molokan, who rejects the veneration of icons, be allowed into icon-painting workshops, or can the Khlysty be allowed to carry out their zeal and have legal places for this? “to schismatics of all sects,” or: “to all schismatics in general,” then the following perplexed questions arise: a) is it possible for a Molokan, Stundist, or Dukhobor to hold public positions or not? b) Is it possible for the said sectarians to perform public prayer and perform divine services, let’s say, albeit in private homes? c) Is it possible for them to read any prayers at the cemetery when burying the dead? d) Are their mentors persecuted for this? We again do not have the opportunity to answer these questions on the basis of new legal provisions. The previous legislation on these subjects did not have anything specific and was the same as in relation to other schismatics, with the exception of the Khlyst and skopic assemblies. We have provided sample questions; but from them it is already clear that in order to avoid various kinds of misunderstandings and arbitrary interpretations, it seems necessary either to establish again by legislative procedure the division of sects in the same or modified form with an explanation of what rights all sects can enjoy and which ones are less harmful, or in each legislative paragraph to name the sects, at least by their generic name: Old Believer, rationalist, mystical or secret sects, etc. This task, Of course, it is very difficult, requiring both special knowledge and deliberation, but, nevertheless, it cannot be avoided.” “The uncertainty of the law is replaced by the discretion of administrative power. In §12, the Minister of the Interior is given the right, in cases where his permission or approval is required, to comply both with local conditions and circumstances, as well as with the moral character of the teaching and other properties of each sect. Thus, the law avoided the most difficult issues, without giving at the same time any, at least general, instructions for the leadership of the administration, leaving everything to the discretion of the minister. Therefore, it is also difficult to say how widely the new laws will be applied; everything will depend on this discretion, and any discretion, depending on administrative departments, must naturally be accompanied by greater fluctuations than a clearly expressed law. Therefore, let it be allowed to wish that the ministry understands its program of action and, if possible, establishes a uniform method of action for a greater number of years, and even better, if this understood program receives the force of law.” From the files of the secret committee about schismatics. Collection regulation on schism, ed. 1875, pp.538–540. Collection fast. according to plan ed. 1875 pp. 546–548. Valuev’s project was outlined in a most submissive memorandum to the Sovereign Emperor dated October 4, 1863. At the beginning of this note, the fact of the Sovereign’s gracious reception of deputies from St. Petersburg and Moscow schismatics in the Winter Palace on April 17, 1863 is mentioned. The following persons participated in this committee: Chairman Count Panin. Members: Eminence Philotheus, Eminence Platon, Protopresbyter Bazhanov, Prince Dolgorukov, Zeleny, Valuev, Zamyatin, Akhmatov, Prince Urusov and Solsky. When presenting the proceedings of the committee of 1864, we had at hand exact copies of the journals of all 9 meetings of the committee from March 14 to May 9, 1864, which we used when compiling the article, observing strict accuracy in the communication of the committee’s decisions. An indication of the “District Message” published by some priests, which divided them into two parties: “okrugniks and non-okrugniks.” His Eminence Philotheus, Protopresbyter Bazhanov, Akhmatov and Prince Urusov. The 1864 Committee opened its meetings on March 14; graduated on May 19. On May 27, Count Panin, by the will of the Sovereign, forwarded the journals of the committee meetings to Metropolitan Philaret; On July 5, the Moscow Metropolitan, in a letter to Count Panin, reported his note; and only on August 16 of the same 1864 the Highest approval of the committee’s plans followed. Collection fast. on the split ed. 1875, pp. 609–610. Collection of resolutions on the 1875 schism, pp. 609–617. Collection regulation on schism, ed. 1875. High pov January 20, 1867, pp. 637–638. Collection regulation on schism, ed. 1875, p. 646. Collection of resolutions on the schism, ed. 1875, pp. 557–559. Published in October 1874. Collection of laws, No. 1090. The 1875 Commission was established under the chairmanship of Prince Lobanov-Rostovsky (now Ambassador in Vienna), a former comrade of the Minister of Internal Affairs from the ranks of the Minister. internal Affairs, II department. Sob. E.I.V. Chancellery, Ministry of Justice, Holy Synod and III Department. personal E.I.V. Office. This note was published in the July book of the Historical Bulletin magazine for 1885, pp. 41–63. Historical West. 1885 July, page 45. Historical West. 1885 July, page 46. Histor. Vestn. 1885 July, page 51. Histor. West. 1885 July, page 52. Historical West. 1885 June, page 53. Histor. Vestn. 1885 July, page 54. Basics State Zak., vol. I, p. 49. Post code o rask. composed II department Sob. E.I.V. Chancellor Art. 3, 4 and 6. Post code about the story, Art. 95 and 96. Collection fast. on the schism of 1875, pp. 609–610. Collection fast. on the split ed. 1876 ​​pp. 609–610. Collection fast. by race ed. 1875, pp. 183–184. Collection fast. by race ed. 1875, p. 305. Collection fast. along the river ed. 1875 p. 415. Collection fast. along the river ed. 1875 p. 472. There along the river. ed. 1875 p. 504. Right Social security 1883 Sept. page 27. Collection fast. along the river ed. 1875 pp. 107–108. Collection fast. along the river ed. 1875 pp. 281–282. Orthodox. Social security 1883 Sept., pp. 30–31. Orthodox Sob. 1883 Sept. Art. Ivan.