The activities of Moscow Metropolitan Philaret in relation to the schism

Contents Metropolitan Philaret’s general view of the schism Among the recent anti-schism leaders among Russian archpastors, Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow undoubtedly holds one of the most prominent places. In this regard, his name should be placed alongside the names of such fighters against schism as Metropolitan Gregory of St. Petersburg and Archbishop Arkady of Perm and Ignatius of Voronezh. But if the latter are known more as missionaries and polemicists against schism, as the first creators and planters of missionary anti-schism work, as authors of remarkable anti-schism works; then the glory of the Metropolitan of Moscow is based mainly on his administrative activities in relation to the schism, and his merit as an anti-schism polemicist, as the author of the famous “Conversations to the Verbal Old Believer,” adds little to this glory. The beginning of the anti-schism activities of the Moscow saint dates back to the second half of the reign of Alexander I. At this time, approximately in 1817, the first secret committee on schism affairs was established in St. Petersburg. Among the three members of this committee was Filaret, at that time vicar of the St. Petersburg diocese and rector of the academy 1. From that time until his death (November 19, 1867), for a whole half-century, Saint Philaret, enjoying well-deserved authority, was the most zealous guardian and guardian of Orthodoxy and a vigilant fighter against schism. The main aspect of this activity of the Moscow saint is his participation, as a member of the Holy Synod and the capital's secret committees on schism, in the then church-state administrative activities in relation to the schism. This participation, like all the participation of the Moscow archpastor in the affairs of the Russian Church, was enormous. There was, one might say, not a single issue, not a single remarkable incident in the church-state anti-schism activity, where his more or less active, mostly leading participation was not expressed. Therefore, to consider the history of the aforesaid activity of M. Philaret means to present the history of church-state activity in relation to the schism. A monument to this activity of the Moscow saint remains in our heritage his numerous opinions, notes and official letters on various issues relating to the schism, among other official papers published by him, edited by the Reverend. Savva, Archbishop of Tver, under the general title: “Collection of opinions and reviews of Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna, on educational and church-state issues. (St. Petersburg 1885–1888).” A characteristic feature of all these opinions and reviews of the Moscow saint is their remarkable thoroughness. Most of them, in fairness, can be called detailed treatises, exhausting the issue considered in them to the last foundations. In explanation of this, precious for us, feature of his opinions, Filaret wrote at the end of his life and work (May 10, 1862) to the synodal chief prosecutor Akhmatov the following: “You think that I could limit myself to short answers to you. Most of the time it is inconvenient. How can you judge any of my opinions if I don’t show reasons? And I could only attract you to my opinion by trust alone, unaccountably, if I considered my opinions to be infallible, from which may God preserve me” 2 . Thanks to this, we have at our disposal rich material on the basis of which we can form a correct idea of ​​how M. Philaret looked at the various measures taken by the church and the government against the schism in order to weaken it, which of these measures he considered the most appropriate and therefore especially strongly recommended to the government for his part. Another side of the anti-schism activity of Saint Philaret is his activity as a diocesan bishop. Complementing his church-state activities in relation to the schism, his diocesan activities serve at the same time as an excellent illustration of the first; it shows you how he implemented the anti-schismatic measures he recommended in practice, in his diocese (Moscow), densely populated by schismatics of various persuasions. Monuments of this activity of M. Philaret are partly his reports to the Holy Synod, published in the collection of his opinions and reviews, as well as letters to his vicars and official correspondence with the civil Moscow authorities, mainly his resolutions, which have been published for more than 20 years (and have not yet been completed) in “Soulful Reading” and recently (in 1889 d.) published in Orel as a separate book 3. Finally, one cannot help but point out the participation of M. Philaret in matters of splitting other dioceses. Many of the Russian hierarchs of his time, in the difficult circumstances of the difficult struggle against the schism, turned to his intelligence and experience, and he never left them unanswered. Holding on to the conviction that only with mutual support is any fruitful work possible, and even more so in such a difficult area as the fight against schism, he himself, especially at the beginning of his ministry, asked others for advice “how best to act towards the conversion of schismatics” 4, and he always readily gave good instructions to others if they turned to him for such. Moreover, sometimes the Moscow saint himself prevented certain perplexities of the archpastors, being closely familiar with the state of the schism in one or another locality, as evidenced by the expressions found in his letters: “it has come to my attention,” “I have already heard about this,” 5 etc. Departing from the principle of mutual support in the fight against schism, he even condemned those young bishops who thought to live solely by their own minds, ignoring the experience of the old ones. “Is it really possible that the Right Reverend Arkhangelsky,” he wrote, for example, regarding one of these bishops, the Right Reverend Arkady of Perm, does not have the correct understanding of the meaning and useful use of the churches of the same faith? And is it really impossible to help with this with good advice? If the new bishops consider the advice of the old ones unnecessary, then we have not lived to see good times” 6. The extensive correspondence of M. Philaret with the Russian archpastors of his time was partly published in various spiritual and historical secular magazines, as well as in separate books, partly remains unpublished 7. These are the main aspects of the administrative anti-schism activity of the Moscow archpastor. This activity of his will serve as the subject of our research. As for the activities of M. Philaret as an anti-schismatic polemicist, we do not promise to dwell on it for a long time, considering it quite sufficient to limit ourselves in our place to just a few comments regarding it. Our study is not the first of its kind. Not too long ago, A. Zykov’s work appeared on the pages of “Brotherly Word” under the same title as ours 8 . Mr. Zykov’s work is not finished; but from what is written by the author, the goals and objectives that he pursued in his work are clearly visible. He set himself the task of historically tracing the anti-schism activities of the Moscow saint, while noting the important influence that the latter had on government relations to the schism. Within the limits of this task, the work was completed by the author quite satisfactorily. But having set himself such a task, the author quite naturally focused all his attention on the official notes and opinions of M. Philaret, with which the latter actually influenced government relations towards the split, and almost completely ignored his resolutions and private correspondence 9 . The result of this was that the question of civil measures against the schism, which the Moscow saint almost exclusively concerns in his opinions, was examined by the author quite thoroughly; Meanwhile, another no less important question, the question of spiritual measures against schism, which has to be decided mainly on the basis of the diocesan practice of M. Philaret and his private correspondence, is touched upon by the author very superficially. To avoid this, in our opinion, very significant drawback, we set ourselves a slightly different task. The purpose of our study is not so much to note the participation of the Moscow saint in church-state anti-schism activities, but to systematize his opinions on issues related to the schism, so to speak, to give the reader, in some way, a reference book to the judgments of the famous hierarch on these issues. In accordance with this, we decided to give our essay a substantive structure and present in the first part the question of spiritual measures against schism and in the second about civil measures. And since the question of unity of faith is closely connected with the question of schism, we consider it necessary to clarify this question as well, which will constitute the third part of our study. We preface all this with a short introduction, in which we outline M. Philaret’s general view of the schism, its essence and significance 10 . Metropolitan Philaret’s general view of the schism 11 The very first and at the same time the most important question about the schism is the question of its essence and significance, since it serves as the starting point for resolving other issues related to the schism, and the natural basis for this or that relationship of a famous historical figure to the schism. Therefore, before talking about the activities of M. Philaret in relation to the schism, it is necessary to get acquainted with his general views on the schism, on the essence and significance of the latter. M. Philaret’s view of the schism was formed under the influence of two factors: on the one hand, under the influence of those current views that dominated in the far from rich and extremely one-sided literature of that time on this issue, and on the other hand, and mainly under the impression of living reality - under the influence of those facts that took place in the anti-schism practice of the Moscow saint himself. This explains the extremely negative nature of the Moscow archpastor’s views on the schism and the method of his reasoning, which is not so much scientific and theoretical as, so to speak, practical, simpler and more visual: when solving the issue under consideration, the Moscow saint takes the schism that was contemporary to him and draws evidence for his views in most cases from his time and mainly from his anti-schism practice. The modern schism, according to M. Filaret. a church-state phenomenon in its significance, although it was born and raised on church soil. “In former times,” he wrote in 1851 in response to a question about the significance of the schism in the Russian state, the schism had a predominantly ecclesiastical significance, and in the eyes of Empress Catherine II, schismatics could still seem more ridiculous or pitiful than dangerous. But at present, the split is important mainly in civil terms” 12. In both respects, schism is “evil” 13, a “disease” and, moreover, a “rather old one” 14, “a terrible ulcer that is constantly spreading more and more and requiring urgent and serious treatment” 15. From an ecclesiastical point of view, a schism is “a broken off, damaged branch of the dominant religion, to which all schismatics completely belonged in their ancestors” 16 - “a society of people who, as a result of long-standing discord and intensely refined doubts about the universal Orthodox Church, have alienated themselves from the universal Orthodox Church” 17 . Having broken the union with the one holy catholic and apostolic church and for this, quite rightly, “excommunicated from it by the canonical decree of the Moscow Council of 1667,” 18 “the schismatics decided to build some other (church), the foundation and supports of which are fugitives of the priesthood and self-appointed mentors, never dedicated to anyone” 19. Thus, the existing churches are schismatic - “unauthorized and self-made structures, erected in hostility against the (Orthodox) Church, newly built and opened the gates of hell, feignedly embellished to deceive the ignorant with some small semblance of a church” 20. Given its nature, schism in itself is obviously a great evil, since it holds “thousands of unfortunates” in its networks, alienating them “from the Church of God, which leads to salvation” 21 . But an even greater evil of the schism lies, according to M. Philaret, in its relationship to the Orthodox Church. Born “from disobedience to her” 22 and from enmity with her, the schism hates her to this day, although not as fanatically as in the first time of its existence. Dividing into numerous sects, all schismatics however agree on this point - in the same attitude towards the Orthodox Church: they all “blaspheme it” 23 and “consider it heretical” 24. Closer to other sects, in its views and external similarity, is clericalism, which alone can be called a schism in the proper sense 25. But it is enough to read “the rite of renunciation from the Orthodox Church, as if it were a heretical society, and joining their society, as if it were a true church, invented by its followers” ​​to see that the priests are no different from the non-priests in this respect. In this, so-called curse of Nikon’s heresies, which “in the form of an oath” every priest who comes to them must pronounce, “the ancient true church rites, the hierarchy, the government and all the true sons of the Orthodox Church” are cursed 26. The main reason for this hatred and enmity is that the self-created schismatic churches transfer their main property - a state without grace - to the Orthodox Church and strive to take its place, as the true Church of Christ, this is their cherished dream. Hence the constant complaints of schismatics about imaginary oppression by the Orthodox Church, “which can only stop when they triumph” 27 . Hence their intensive propaganda among the Orthodox, without which the schism might have ceased to exist long ago. Thus, by their very essence, Orthodoxy and schism are so opposed to each other that the existence and growth of one can only occur at the expense and to the detriment of the other: “schismatics, in the spirit of their proselytism, will never differentiate themselves from the Orthodox. That is why there are a significant number (up to 600 thousand) who waver between Orthodoxy and schism” 28. Being so harmful for the church, the schism, according to M. Philaret, is no less harmful for the state. The harmful state significance of the schism, in his opinion, inevitably follows and is clearly revealed from its hostile attitude towards the Orthodox Church. “At all times, among all peoples, the dominant state religion,” he says, was, is and will be the bond, connection, cement, so to speak, of the elements of the people: language, laws, morals, rights, customs. Where the unity of religion was violated, the elements of the nationality decomposed, fragmented, and disappeared. With them governments fell, nations were fragmented" 29 . “Unity in faith,” he notes in another place, is, of course, important for the unity and improvement of the state” 30, because “by the unity of religion dominant in the state, he adds in the third place, the unity of the people’s spirit, a source of strength for the state and an important aid to governance is protected” 31. Therefore, “the protection of the church, in his opinion, is the protection of the state” 32. “The pious government of Russia itself recognizes the Orthodox faith as one of the firmest foundations of state unity and strength.” “Consequently, he concludes, that if he threatens harm to the unity of faith, he threatens harm to the state” 33. The schism, with its intensified proselytism, constantly and clearly acts to the detriment of church unity, destroying church unanimity and unanimity, and, thus, inevitably acts to the detriment of state unity; “with the destruction of unanimity and unanimity of the church, leads to the disorder and destruction of the unity of the national spirit in relation to the civil and patriotic,” which is dangerous especially in Russia, in which the center of the national spirit has since ancient times been faith: for the faith and for the Orthodox for the Tsar! » 34. The political views and moral teachings of the schismatics fully confirm this conclusion regarding the dividing and demoralizing influence of the schism and leave no doubt about its great danger for the state. According to their political views, schismatics not only “do not have goodwill and heartfelt loyalty to the government” 35, but they are the same irreconcilable opponents of it as of the Orthodox Church, because they transfer all their hatred of the church entirely onto the government for the patronage they provide to the church and agreement with it. A clear proof of this is that they transfer all their wicked names attached to the first to the latter. Therefore, all schismatics, without distinction of sects, agree on the point that “they do not recognize the sovereign as God’s anointed and do not consider any legal authority, which should be obeyed according to conscience” 36, and, thus, “they constantly shake the people’s understanding of the legitimacy of the supreme authorities” 37. Due to this view of the government as heretical and anti-Christ, schismatics do not recognize as legal the decrees that this government issues. “That is why,” according to Philaret, they evade some civil decrees by various illegal means, while others are carried out (by them), as they put it, only for the sake of clarity, fear for the sake of the Jews” 38. Hence their “protest against government innovations and opposition to all the successes of civil life” 39. Hence their “desire to form a closed separation from the general state structure (status in statu)” 40. At the same time, in contrast to the existing monarchical civil principle, as a hierarchical church principle, the schism develops the opposite democratic principle. This is clearly evidenced, according to M. Filaret, by the very nature of the structure of priestly schismatic communities - “independent and republican” 41, in which “the democratic principle dominates over the hierarchical” 42. “Usually, Philaret explains his thought, and how many arbitrarily chosen or self-appointed trustees or elders manage the priests, income and affairs of the schismatic society, depending on the need, collect money from it and, contrary to the laws, sometimes en masse draw up petitions to the government from many thousands of souls” 43. As for the Bespopovites, “of them, Pyotr Onufriev L. (according to the dictionary of famous schismatics, Curious) 44, in his essay on the Keys, without hesitation, preaches democracy and a republic. Here are his exact words: “he (the transition of the keys), like thunder, strikes the monarchy of consecration in the keys of Christ in all corners of the world, and dedicates them to the sacred democracy of the house of Jacob.” And again: “it (natural law), despite the empty noise of literalism, and not horrified by the anathemas of superstition, mercilessly everywhere strikes the power of the monarchy of the keys, always equates it with the power of democracy, and puts them on the same level of power and perpetuates them together.” And one more thing: “in this sacred rite of the stichera of every day, the keys of the republic reign everywhere” 45. However, not all schismatic sects are equally harmful, according to the court of M. Philaret, in this regard. Less harmful in this regard are the schismatics—the priests. In his classifications of schismatic sects, made “from a civil point of view,” 46 M. Filaret nowhere ascribes directly harmful political significance to clericalism. The harm of clericalism for the state can only be deduced from its harm for the Orthodox Church. But in other places he declares that the “schismatics of the priestly sect,” although “not in such sharp terms” as the non-priests, “imagine a government that is equally wicked and evil.” They admit (as can be seen from the report of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. according to the Nizhny Novgorod province), “that the Russian government since the time of Tsar Alexy Mikhailovich has become without grace, and that the Antichrist reigns in Russia spiritually, being invisibly present in the Orthodox Church, and the Sovereign Emperor and government officials who worship him rule the people according to the secret and unconscious suggestions of the devil for themselves” 47 Some at that time were quite skeptical about such statements of harm schismatics - priests in civil terms. One “official in Moscow” in his note favorable to the schism and submitted for consideration by the government, M. Filaret testifies, directly expressed the idea that “fortunately, the displeasure of the schismatics (priests) is directed not against the government, but against the clergy” 48 . Against such skeptics, the Moscow saint puts forward living, tangible facts, from which it follows that they are contrary to their assurances of the harmlessness of the priestly schism for the state. This is what he noticed in response to the above-mentioned note from Count Zakrevsky: “Their (Rogozhsky schismatics) happy disposition in favor of the government is offered here without evidence. More accurately, the facts can show this. Here is a fact from 1812. During the French invasion of Moscow, when the faithful Russians withdrew from it, sacrificing their property, the Rogozhsky schismatics entered into favorable relations with the French. This is proven by the fact that these schismatics then received from the French a camp church left in Moscow by one of the Russian regiments, which they erected in their chapel in 1823, which was then carried out according to the Highest command 49 . Here is a fact of the near future. In 1855, after the accession of the Sovereign Emperor Alexander Nikolaevich to the throne, the Rogozh schismatics did not take the oath for two days; and then by the metropolitan, at the invitation of the elders of them, they were persuaded to swear the oath and swore the oath in front of an Orthodox priest, which was reported to the Holy Synod in due time 50. Sincere religious zeal would not have allowed them to be stubborn and would have prompted them to take the oath on the first day before an Orthodox priest, to which they agreed two days later” 51 . Much more harmful, according to M. Philaret, in this respect are non-priest sects, especially those who do not pray for the Tsar. “In particular, schismatics of the non-priestly kind, he says, require the careful attention of the government because they recognize the government as Antichrist and, consequently, obey it only hypocritically, and are internally hostile to it” 52. “The rule of some schismatics not to pray for the Tsar,” writes the Moscow saint in another place, is a consequence and expression of the schismatic theory that the current state government is the Antichrist. Whoever does not therefore want to pray for the king does not wish him well and cannot be firmly faithful to him, even if he promised this in words. Therefore, the schism of those who do not pray for the Tsar is extremely harmful for the state” 53 . “The sect of those who do not pray for the Tsar,” he notes in the third opinion, is especially harmful because it is contrary to the principle of the state. A sectarian who considers the tsar to be the enemy of God, mercilessly condemned to destruction, cannot be completely faithful to the tsar” 54. And of these priestless sects, in terms of their harm, the Fedoseev sect, in the opinion of M. Philaret, especially stands out, the “central and governmental place” of which is the Preobrazhenskoye cemetery in Moscow. As factual proof of this and, again, in contrast to the statement of one note attached to the all-submissive petition of the schismatics of the Preobrazhensky cemetery, that “this schism does not contain anything harmful in its teaching,” M. Filaret points to some manuscripts “opened” at the Preobrazhensky cemetery and from one schismatic of the Vladimir province, in which the teaching of the Fedoseevites is set out without all sorts of embellishments 55. M. Filaret very often returned in his opinions to these non-popovshchina manuscripts in order to show the government how harmful the teaching of the schismatics of the Preobrazhensky Cemetery 56 was. In one of these manuscripts - in the so-called “Fatherly Testaments”, “which in the original were signed by the senior trustees of the Preobrazhensky almshouse Alexy Nikiforov and others,” “there is a teaching” that “since 1666, the royal power established by God was abolished” 57... In another manuscript - in the “Announcement of the consent of the monastic or Manuils” - “revered It is wickedness that the king is called the most pious and they pray for him, these are her words: “By faith a pious man is also a pious king, but by wicked faith a king is called a wicked one. And further: for in this monastery they are wicked, even in the form of prayer they call the wicked faithful and pious, and with other titles in piety they are decent” 58. Finally, in the third manuscript, written at the Preobrazhenskoe cemetery in the summer of 7350 (1842), as evidenced by the signature, in “Testimony of the one common Christian narrow path and “the teaching that one must pray to God for the current royal power is called an abominable tradition” 59. No one, of course, will prove it, notes M. Filaret, - citing these extracts from the manuscripts of the non-priests, - that this teaching is not harmful to the state 60; on the contrary, it is not difficult to see that these rules lead to rebellion” 61. “From them it is undoubtedly (also) revealed that the schismatics of the Preobrazhensky cemetery not only follow old sinful opinions, but also again draw up harmful rules and distribute them even with the appearance of formality, signed by their superiors” 62. An equally harmful teaching is contained in a manuscript discovered in 1855 by a non-popovschinist ustavnik in the village of Ivanovo, Vladimir province of Shuisky district, to which M. Filaret more than once points out. In this manuscript, under the title: “Mirror for the spiritual inner man,” among other things it is said: “Jesus Christ forgave sins, and the Antichrist (?) established judgment and built fortresses and set up mining factories to torment the people” 63. In most cases, this extreme dislike of the Fedoseev schismatics towards the government is latent, but sometimes it clearly breaks out in the most fanatical representatives of this sect. Several such cases were discovered in 1855, on the occasion of the oath of allegiance to the new Sovereign. About one of these cases - the refusal of the warrior of the 113th squad, Ivan G-v, a schismatic of the non-priest sect, to swear allegiance to Emperor Alexander II, “under the pretext that he (G-ov) has a different law, according to which he is obliged to serve only the King of Heaven,” M. Filaret reports in a letter to the Minister of External Affairs. affairs, D. G. Bibikov 64. He cites similar facts in his report to the Holy Synod. When swearing in 114 squads of the state militia, one schismatic showed not only resistance, but also insolence, “so that in front of everyone who was present, he said that he did not want to serve the Emperor, called him the Antichrist.... Another of the schismatics, before taking the oath, proposed the condition that he would take an oath to serve God and defend the fatherland, but would not say that he swears this to the Sovereign Emperor” 65. “From these experiments, it is clear,” the Moscow Archpastor concludes his letter and report, what a spirit contrary to the government lies in the dissenters and the most persistent schismatics of the non-priestly persuasion of the Preobrazhensky cemetery, long hidden behind tricks, money and careless patronage, and finally revealed in the most important matter in the most unfavorable way for public improvement.” But if the rules of the schismatics of the Preobrazhensky cemetery only lead, in the opinion of M. Philaret, to rebellion and are rarely manifested in practice; then the same cannot be said about the “most harmful sect of wanderers”, accidentally discovered in the middle of this century in the Yaroslavl province. “The daughter of the priestless sect, the evil legacy of her mother,” in the words of M. Philaret, the sect of wanderers or runners represents a further, completely logical development of those principles that underlie the priestless sect. She “multiplies to the extreme and brazenly proclaims and puts into effect the rules that she is trying to cover up” 66. Therefore, she is not content with a hidden recognition of the priestless view of the government, but promotes clear disobedience to him as the Antichrist. Clear evidence of this most harmful nature of this sect “is found,” says M. Filaret, “in the testimony of the sectarians and in the writings of the leader of the sect and his followers” ​​67 . Already the founder of the pilgrim teaching, Euthymius, in his writings reproaches the Filippovites, Fedoseyevites and others for the fact that, “although in their souls they do not recognize earthly power, considering it the Antichrist, they obey it, and in this they deceive God.” “That is, explains M. Philaret, he accepts their teaching, but wants the power of the sovereign not secretly, but openly to be recognized as Antichrist and not to be obeyed” 68. This same teaching is also preached in the work of another mentor of pilgrims, Nikita (Semyonov), under the title: “A Small Image of Heresies” 69, in which, among other things, it is written: “Heresy 3. By the description (i.e., by recording in the revision), they concluded that it was inevitable for themselves to be from the realm of the ruler of the world and thus renounced the freedom of the Gospel content. Heresy 7. Tribute to all authorities has become sophisticated. Heresy21. One enters the leadership with an oath. Heresy 22. In the wickedness of the military yoke, all those who participate, even if not by themselves, are hired, all one, and even worse, to send instead of themselves into wickedness” 70. Finally, this same doctrine is clearly visible from the personal testimony of the sectarians given during the investigation carried out by Count Stenbock, “consistently under such circumstances,” notes M. Filaret, “when they not only had no reason to exaggerate, but had strong incentives to hide or soften their opinions, leading to the severity of justice” 71 . “The mentor of wanderers, Mokey, says that, according to the rules of their teaching, he refused to obey earthly authority. The wanderer Apollinaria says that wanderers, excluding themselves from being subject to the king, that is, in their opinion, to the Antichrist, should not be included in the records; civil laws do not exist for them, and they do not recognize any authority. The wanderer Methodius says: since the years of Patriarch Nikon I have not recognized kings as pious, but as apostates, resisters, antichrists; civil authorities are also servants of the Antichrist. The wanderer Vassa says: The wanderers accept in agreement all fugitives and vagabonds, and, on the basis of the main dogma of the teaching, those who have a manumission document or a passport are obliged to exterminate them in advance. Wanderer Julitta says: in the wanderer faith it is considered a sin to have a passport. Wanderer Irina Nikiforova says: they don’t recognize the authorities, that’s why they don’t pay taxes.” 72 Summarizing all this data, M. Philaret notes: “So, according to the teachings of the wandering sect, it is not permissible either to enroll in the revision, or to pay taxes, or to accept positions with an oath, or to enter into military service, or even to hire others as recruits.” “Thus, the teaching of the wandering sect is not only contrary to the Orthodox Church, but also rejects the supreme authority, and all authority and laws, and the fulfillment of all public duties, and as a result, those who live according to this teaching resolutely refuse to bring any benefit to the state, but are aimed at causing harm and disorder to it” 73. In the opinion of M. Philaret, everything that has been said regarding the hostile disposition of the schismatics towards the government is not at all contradicted by the various expressions of their loyal feelings that began to be frequently practiced since the reign of Alexander II through deputations, solemn prayers, etc., because all these deputations and prayers do not at all testify to the sincerity of feelings and do not prove the political unanimity and unanimity of the schismatics with the Orthodox, but are based only on their personal interests, to receive large existing benefits and concessions. “Schismatics,” he says, “usually try to unnoticeably direct each of their actions, by which they express their zeal for the Sovereign Emperor and for the Fatherland, towards their schismatic goals” 74 . He provides clear evidence of this in an incident that took place on April 10, 1866. On this day, Moscow co-religionists performed a prayer of thanks for the deliverance of the Sovereign Emperor from the danger that threatened him. The schismatics, although they also had the opportunity to perform a prayer service in the middle of the chapel with the altar closed, as they performed divine services every day, except for the liturgy, did not do this, “wanting to use this opportunity to reinforce their desire to open the altars,” 75 for which they petitioned the governor-general and the chief of police. “If they are driven by zeal for the Tsar,” wrote M. Philaret on this occasion to the chief prosecutor of the Holy Synod, D. A. Tolstoy, “then why don’t they perform a prayer of thanks? But they stop the work of loyal zeal in order to turn this case into a means to achieve their schismatic goal” 76. Being opponents of the state in their views, schismatics, according to the court of M. Philaret, cause significant harm to the state with their moral, or more precisely, immoral in some respects, teaching. The lower general level of moral views and actions of schismatics, compared with the Orthodox, inevitably follows from their religious views mixed with errors. “A sect is never completely honest,” says M. Filaret. Religious and moral truth are rays of the same light: where the former is mixed with error, the latter is also impure.” 77 By this he explains that all schismatics, without distinction of sects, consider all kinds of means permissible for themselves and not at all immoral for disseminating and establishing their teachings, as well as for counteracting church and civil measures directed against them, such as: bribery, deceit, violence, etc., “thinking to excuse these means by their not quite free position.” But this is not the main harm of the split in this respect. Schism is especially harmful because it “spreads immorality under the guise of belief” 78 . These are some non-priestly sects that “do not recognize marriage, preaching the immoral teaching that fornication is less sinful than marriage” 79. As proof of this nature of some non-priestly sects, known, however, to everyone, M. Filaret liked to point to manuscripts already known to us - to the “Testaments of the Fathers” and to the “Testimony of the One Christian Close Path”, discovered at the Preobrazhenskoye Cemetery, in which Fedoseyev’s teaching on marriage was expressed in the harshest terms. “The contents of the wills,” reported Metropolitan Philaret to St. Synod, is not to recognize any marriages; so that schismatics who are in a marriage union with persons who do not belong to the schism are separated from the marriage union; so that in Christian marriages there is no physical kinship to recognize that now Christians getting married are the serpent’s nest of Satan and his demons’ vile yard; that now Satan is working on the multiplication of the human race, and for the conception of a baby the soul is given from the devil.” The Testimony “also confirms the harmful teaching, which is also set forth in the so-called Fatherly Testaments. Here are the exact words: 4) to the conception of such a marriage, the soul is from the devil; 5) do not recognize such marriages as physical kinship; 6) in the present last and bitterly lamentable time and in the kingdom of Antichrist, God does not provide for the multiplication of the human race, but Satan cares.” “It is not difficult to see,” notes M. Filaret, that these rules lead to debauchery and infanticide” 80 . As factual proof of this, Metropolitan Philaret points out, in his report to the Holy Synod (dated May 12, 1858), about the current situation of the schism of the non-priest sect in Moscow, to the gloomy picture of the immoral life of schismatic virgins and virgins of the Preobrazhensky cemetery, which he found in the report of Mr. Ignatiev, “whose testimony,” notes the Metropolitan, “is important as evidence a direct, attentive and impartial observer”; - is especially important because “one often notices a prejudice against information about this presented by the clergy, as if originating from a one-sided view, or from an unsatisfactory correct inquiry” 81. “Deepening into the moral position of the non-priest schismatics,” this report says, “into their innermost home life and the sectarian concepts they have adopted, everyone, with full inquiries, is amazingly struck by the expression of ignorance, depravity and superstition. The elder women-mentors, fearing that the need for marriage would not serve as a reason for young people of both sexes to move from the schism to the church, deliberately involve them in fornication, followed by infanticide, excused by the false wisdom of the mentors, and, if legal unions are unstable, a disorder of morality for life” 82. - “It is shameful to eat and talk about the affairs of strangers” 83, wrote M. Philaret. In view of all this, “this schism” i.e. The priestless schism, “rejecting marriage and preaching universal womanlessness,” according to the court of the Moscow saint, is extremely harmful for the state, since “it destroys the foundation of the family and damages the foundation of the state, the beginning and first knot of which is the family union” 84. In general, according to M. Philaret, the schism is harmful not because of the difference from the church in some rituals and not because of its attachment to old printed books with some incorrect expressions in them, for both “are not contrary to the essence of faith”; but “what is most condemnable and harmful in the schism is the alienation” of its followers “from the church and a rebellious disposition against it, in which the same disposition is hidden against the government” 85 . In view of such a harmful nature of the schism for the Church and the state, both have an indispensable duty to take care of the “urgent and serious treatment” of this disease. Metropolitan Philaret is aware that healing the disease of schism, as a “rather old” disease, is not easy. Therefore, “measures used against splits must be chosen very carefully” 86. Like any measures against those who disagree, they “must be determined with discrimination, with insight, with foresight.” They “must be considered, firstly, with the spirit of Christianity itself; secondly, with the spirit and types of government patronizing Orthodoxy; thirdly, with the concepts, dispositions and various circumstances of those whom we wish to reunite with the Orthodox Church” 87. What, in M. Philaret’s opinion, these measures should consist of, by which the church and the state can influence schismatics, will be the subject of our further research. Based on the information reported about this, almost unknown until now, by the committee of Metropolitan Filaret (letters to Archimandrite Anthony, vol. III, p. 242; Collected copies and reviews, vol. IV, p. 270), it is impossible to accurately determine the year of its establishment. True, Nadezhdin, in his “study on the scopal heresy,” apparently reports the exact date of the establishment of this first St. Petersburg secret committee on matters of schism and sectarianism, when he says that “a special secret committee was established, by imperial command of February 17, 1820, from Metropolitan Michael of Novgorod and St. Petersburg, Archbishop. Tver Filaret, Prince A. N. Golitsyn, Count Miloradovich and Count Kochubey.” (Kelsiev. Collection of government information about schismatics, issue III, p. 56). But since Nadezhdin names five members of this committee, while M. Filaret positively states that there were initially only three of them (the first three of those listed by Nadezhdin); then from this one can think that at the time given by Nadezhdin, the committee was only replenished with new members, and not re-established. This is all the more certain since the Moscow saint, mentioning among the three members of that committee the Reverend. Mikhail (Desnitsky); calls him Archbishop of Chernigov, and not Metropolitan of St. Petersburg. And since the last one is His Eminence. Mikhail became in May 1818, then we can conclude that the committee was founded earlier than this year, and almost in 1817, since from that time, as we will see in its place, a significant turn in government relations towards a split was noticed, which cannot be explained otherwise than by the influence of the newly established committee Letters from M. Philaret to the highest persons and various other persons. Tver. 1888, part II, p. 121. Being valuable material for studying the diocesan activities of M. Philaret, his resolutions lose a lot from their careless publication: printing them in fragmentary form, without any statement of the matter itself, about which each of them was written by the Metropolitan, makes it much more difficult to use them. A pleasant exception in this regard is the resolution that appeared in the Collection published in 1883 by the Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment on the occasion of the centennial anniversary of the birth of Metropolitan Philaret. This is what Simeon testifies. bishop Yaroslav. in a letter to the Reverend. Parthenia (Chertkov). Orthodox Review 1872, enclosed, p. 21. See eg. his letters to Nicholas, bishop. Kaluga (Reader. general. lyub. spiritual. enlightenment. 1870, book XI, section II, p. 19), and Gabriel, bishop. Kaluga, later Ryazan (Reading general history and ancient history, 1868, ext. 2, department V, p. 128). Read total love spirit. enlightenment 1878 dept. III, p. 219. A detailed, although not entirely complete, index of this already published correspondence of M. Philaret is placed in the preface to the first part of Gavrilov’s “Index”. pp. V–VIII. To our regret, the letters of the Moscow saint to Metropolitan Gregory and Archbishop have not been published in full. Arkady, with whom he was in particularly lively correspondence on issues related to the schism. “The activities of M. Filaret in the fight against the schism.” Brother. Word 1893 Nos. 2–10. There are also individual prints. The exception in this regard is the rather extensive introduction (Nos. 2–4), in which the author, using all the rich material at his fingertips, skillfully outlined Metropolitan Philaret’s general views on the schism. We consider it necessary to make a reservation in advance that such a structure of the work will result in its various partial divisions being too uneven, since some issues are barely touched upon by M. Philaret, while others, due to the demands of his time, are considered by him in particular detail. But we decided to sacrifice this purely formal dignity in favor of clarity and distinctness of presentation. This introduction does not represent anything original: it was compiled with the help of the above-mentioned work by Mr. Zykov; Only in some places its extensive introduction is significantly reduced, and in others it is supplemented with new facts. Assembled. opinion and review, vol. IV. page 297. Ibid., vol. V, part 2, p. 594. Ibid., vol. III, p. 511. Ibid., vol. IV. p. 297; Wed vol. supplement., p. 466. Ibid., vol. II, p. 373; vol. III, p. 63. Works of M. Philaret, vol. V according to the ed. 1883, p. 289. Assembled. opinion and reviews, vol. III, pp. 229 and 232. Works of M. Philaret, vol. II, ed. 1874 p. 410. Assembled. opinion and review vol. IV, p. 299. Ibid., vol. III, p. 233. Ibid., vol. III, p. 92; Wed vol. V, part 2, pp. 603–604. Assembled. opinion and review, vol. supplement., pp. 235–236. Assembled. opinion and review vol. IV, p. 556. Letter from M. Filaret to M. N. Muravyov. Read total loves. spirit. enlightenment 1883, dept. III, p. 32. Assembled. opinion and review, vol. IV, p. 330. Letter from M. Philaret, Eminence. Ioannikiy of Saratov. Read total loves. spirit. enlightenment 1878, dated. III, p. 13. Assembled. opinion and review, vol. IV, p. 89. Ibid., volume V, part 2, page 742. Ibid., pp. 297–298; Wed vol. IV, p. 303. Ibid., vol. V, part 2, p. 601. Ibid., Wed. pp. 294 and 291; t, IV, p. 281; vol. V, part 1, p. 468. Pavel Onufriev the Curious (M. Filaret mistakenly called him Peter) is a famous writer of the Pomeranian sect, the author of the “Dictionary” itself (1773–1848). Assembled. opinion and review And. additional, pp. 90–91; Wed Remarks of M. Philaret on the Note on the Russian Schism. Read total love spirit. enlightenment 1881 dept. III, p. 525, VI. These are the classifications in Sobran. opinion and review vol. IV, pp. 266–267; vol. V, part 2, pp. 555–556 and 603. Assembled. opinion and review vol. IV, p. 303. Ibid., pp. 276 and 277. Here, of course, is the most loyal note (dated April 11, 1857) from Count Zakrevsky, which is a petition for the Rogozh schismatics. Russian Vestn. vol. 156, pp. 693–697. M. Filaret points out this fact more than once in his opinions. The first time he points out this is in his opinion of 1841, also regarding assurances of the schismatics’ complete political trustworthiness from one schismatic, a certain Krugloumov. This latter, in his manuscript, under the title: “An explanation of the defenseless Old Believers about the greatest difference between the Uniates and the Old Believers and the Edinoverie Church,” submitted by the Holy Synod for the consideration of Metropolitan Philaret, “between praises to the schismatics,” also wrote that “the defenseless Old Believers showed exemplary zeal and love for the fatherland in 1812.” Pointing, in contrast to this unfounded assurance, to the above-mentioned act of acquiring a marching regimental church from the enemy by the Rogozh schismatics, Metropolitan Filaret notes at the same time; “This is known from a case that was carried out in Moscow and St. Petersburg in the indicated year (1823); and shows such friendly relations between the schismatics and the French that it is not easy to reconcile with exemplary zeal and love for the fatherland” (Collected opinions and reviews and. additional, p. 91; Wed; 226; vol. III, p. 497. vol. IV, p. 43). About the case carried out in this regard, see Varadinov. History min. ext. affairs, book. VIII. History of Secession Orders, p. 105. This is a report from Metropolitan Philaret to the Holy Synod, as well as a letter to the Minister of Internal Affairs (S.S. Lanskov) and the current Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod (A.I. Karasevsky), from where you can see the details of this case, see Collected. opinion and review vol. IV, pp. 5–13. Assembled. opinion and review t, IV, pp. 278–279. Assembled. opinion and review vol. IV, pp. 267. Ibid., vol. V, part 2, p. 555. Ibid., vol. IV, pp. 40–41. Ibid., vol. III, p. 107; vol. IV; pp. 40 and 302; vol. supplement, p. 227. Assembled. opinion and review vol. III, p. 107; vol. IV, pp. 40 and 302; v. supplement., p. 227. Ibid., vol. III, p. 108. Ibid., vol. IV, pp. 302–303; 40–41. The question mark belongs to M. Filaret. For excerpts from this manuscript, see Kelsiev, no. I, p. 209. Soulful. Thurs. 1892, part II, p. 657. Assembled. opinion and review vol. IV, pp. 22–23. Ibid., vol. supplement., p. 379. An extract from this work is included in the Kelsiev Collection, no. IV, pp. 274–277. However, the edition of this work here is somewhat different from the one used by M. Filaret. Assembled. opinion and review vol. additional, p. 382. Ibid., p. 382. Some of these testimonies of wanderers of the investigative commission are also given in the IV edition of the Kelsiev Collection. Assembled. opinion and review t. add. pp. 382–383. Ibid., vol. V, part 2, p. 938; Wed page 977. Ibid., vol. V, part 2, p. 874. Ibid. vol. III, p. 288; Wed pp. 251–252. Ibid., vol. V, part I, p. 496. Assembled. opinion and review vol. III, pp. 107–108; Wed vol. IV, pp. 40 and 302. Met. Filaret considered it his pastoral duty, even in his teachings, to touch upon this harmful teaching on marriage, contained in the newly discovered non-priestly writings. See composed. m. Philaret vol. IV, pp. 376–377. Assembled. opinion and review vol. IV, pp. 327–328. Ibid., vol. supplement., p. 383. Ibid., vol. V, part 2, pp. 555 and 603. Ibid., vol. IV, p. 159; Wed p. 310.