1837 г.

January 12. Metropolitan Philaret’s opinion on the project of the Minister of Public Education regarding the connection of parish and district religious schools with secular ones Before proceeding with the analysis of the above-mentioned project, Metropolitan Philaret made extracts from the minister’s note with the following content: Philosophy shows the intention to transform into peace everything that is incomprehensible in Christianity. The edifying Church is the focus from which light must come, and with it the strengthening force for the struggle ahead of us. It is with the greatest regret that we see in the ranks of the defenders of rationalism many men worthy of respect and irreproachable in morality. Rationalism is the self-deification of reason, the enemy of power. The current structure of religious schools since 1814. Apart from them, since that time, there is no institution that has not experienced a transformation. Anyone who has seen success from this cannot protect himself from prejudice against the fixed, stereotypical rule. Theological schools, based solely on fear as a system of education, are far behind the secular ones. Now, when the son of a clergyman, a tradesman, the first official in the state listens to university lectures on the same bench, the strict separation of the children of the clergy from the children of the laity is a complete anachronism. It destroys the spirit of sociability and gives rise to extremely harmful egoism of title. Basic knowledge is the same for all classes. The fragmentation of initial training is almost harmful; in any case, it presents difficulties in an administrative sense. Can't district and parish secular schools also serve the clergy? Greek and Latin grammar, or even this, can be included in the subjects of one of the highest classes of secular district schools. For economic reasons, little has been done to supply the lower schools with capable teachers. The combination of religious and secular schools would save costs and increase the number of primary teachers capable of receiving the title. The ministry would invite educated priests to be the initial teachers. The statutes of seminaries and academies are vague regarding the curriculum. We don’t see how long they should stay in these establishments. Approving the correct order in which the teaching of the verbal, philosophical, and theological sciences is arranged, one cannot help but notice that two years is not enough for theology, but a lot for philosophy. The obligation to choose between the Faculty of Physics and Mathematics and the Faculty of History and Philology cannot be explained by the need to educate teachers, because they can be identified from other departments. A disproportionate number of people flock to the seminaries. In Vladimir from 1500 to 2000. Hence the system of fear. Seminary students, having received excellent certificates, often enter other educational institutions, and the results of the exams provide a measure for concluding about the state of the schools in which they received their education. The purpose of the charter to teach philosophical terminology in the seminary and philosophical history in the academy is unsatisfactory in both cases 294 . Parish and district schools are not a great subject, but it requires no small considerations so that the question of the convenience and benefit of combining religious schools of these categories with secular ones can be resolved satisfactorily. This, it seems, was felt when drawing up a note on the seventh question, in which it is furnished not only with the considerations closest to its resolution, but also with distant considerations and comments about the dangerous direction of modern philosophy, about the immobility of the charter of theological schools, about philosophical terminology and philosophical history, which are all much higher than parish district schools. Distrust of philosophy, in which there are noticeable attempts to turn into a moment the incomprehensible in Christianity, careful anticipation of the struggle that threatens this, the timely arousal of caution - all this, as just as it is, is just as worthy of zealous participation. The Orthodox Church should be grateful to the Orthodox government when, from afar, it foresees attempts by rationalism against revealed religion, and, in order to preserve the tranquility of the city of God, is thinking of establishing possible protection for it in the precincts of natural wisdom. In order to better justify the remark made in the note about the immobility of the charter of theological schools, which is called stereotypical in it, it must be admitted that it has existed not only since 1814, as stated in the note, but since 1809. In 1814, only a few corrections were made in it, the need for which was felt, and which the then still strong opinion in favor of its original compilation could allow. But justice also requires us to note that an expression that can evoke a smile is not always the most favorable to thorough reflection and a correct definition of the subject. Is a flexible charter, changing several times in a few years and changing management, always better than a fixed, stereotypical one? Do advances in science require frequent changes to the charter of schools? And if the inconstancy of secular sciences prevents the constancy of the rules in secular schools, then eternal religion, especially taken not in a preparatory state, in which it was during the Old Testament, but in a perfect revelation, in which it appears in the New Testament, the church, based on the immovable stone of faith, an unchangeable dogma, can’t innocently give spiritual teaching and spiritual-educational structure more constancy, rather than how much to find a secular view permissible? Is there only one way to correct the imperfections of the school charter, to write a new charter, or can another be used for a while, namely, supplementing and correcting the existing charter with special instructions and instructions to teachers? Wasn’t this last method used in the ecclesiastical school administration, and aren’t they even thinking, although perhaps unhappily hastily, about using the first? A careful consideration of these issues would perhaps make it unnecessary to reproach the ecclesiastical school regulations for immobility. The rule of this charter to teach philosophical terminology in a seminary is just as insufficient as the other rule for teaching the history of philosophical systems in an academy. Terminology is not a science; but philosophical history, without a thorough and dogmatic presentation of philosophy consistent with religion, will not so much serve to strengthen the mind as to fermentation, whirling and dangerous scouring along rapids and abysses. However, the charter, due to the incorrectness of these rules, was not completely altered, but its shortcoming was corrected through notes of philosophical teaching given to teachers. It cannot be said that this correction was satisfactory in all respects, but the matter is no longer in the situation in which it is seen at first glance at the statute. The classic books on the philosophy class are old; this is because the unfavorable direction of modern philosophy has prevented the taking of new ones; There were incentives from the commission of theological schools to compile new ones for their teachers, but this has not yet been achieved. The remark that two years is a lot for philosophy, but not enough for theology, is fully valid if you do not pay attention to other classes of theological schools; but it becomes less strong if we consider that the class of reading the Holy Scripture belongs to all years of the academic and seminary course; that the two-year department of the educational course, called philosophical, is named by this name not from a single, but from a special academic subject; that those who belong to the philosophical department partly study the Hebrew language, and in this class they analyze the text of the Holy Scriptures, and every single one of them continues to study the Greek language, and in this class they read the writings of the Holy Fathers. However, the need to reduce the scope of philosophical teaching in favor of theological teaching has been seen and is occupying the attention of the ecclesiastical school authorities. Not without surprise, one can see in the note a remark that it is not clear from the statutes of theological seminaries and academies how long students should remain in these institutions. The note sees two years for the philosophical and two for the theological department: it is incredible that she did not also see the remaining two years for the literature department at the seminary: But let’s hasten to get to the main question: can’t district and parish secular schools also serve the clergy? In support of an affirmative answer to this, it is noted in the note that elementary knowledge is the same for all classes. This remark, firstly, is unfair. Let's start with the most basic teaching, with the alphabet and reading. A secular student should be taught the alphabet and reading mainly Russian, and slightly Slavic; on the contrary, a student of clergy should be taught more strongly how to read Slavonic and bring it to the perfection of a church reader. The teaching necessary for preparation for the position of reader and singer must be contained in the district theological school, from which students partly enter the clergy, without going to the seminary; therefore, Slavic grammar, church singing, the elementary teaching of the church charter should be taught here: all this does not apply to secular schools. Greek and Latin grammar, as well as elementary knowledge, are available in theological district schools, but not in secular ones. The assumption of including one for the ecclesiastical in the subjects of one of the higher classes of the county secular schools would be unnecessary for many secular students, would not satisfy the ecclesiastical, and would create confusion in the school, instead of the fact that now the county theological and secular schools each have their own subjects of study that are common to all students. Secondly, the remark that elementary knowledge is the same for all classes, even if it were true, would not lead to the conclusion that elementary spiritual and secular schools should be united. Elementary knowledge is the same in military institutions and in civilian schools; but it does not follow from this that it would be possible to close the lower classes of military schools and send lower-age cadets to civilian district schools. Accustoming from an early age to the precision of military discipline is an important reason for the separate structure and elementary classes for military educational institutions; Likewise, sending children from an early age to church service is an important reason for the separate establishment of religious schools. A special direction in this case is required not only by the peculiarity of the church service, but also by precaution so that the students, without having a special direction to church service, connected with the very structure of the schools, do not lose their hereditary disposition towards it. For only the hereditary disposition towards this service and direction towards it in theological schools predisposes those who have received an education to enter it, but having received an inevitably more secular direction in secular schools, they would be placed in a strong temptation to prefer the benefits and brilliant views that open up in other ranks to poverty, needs and strict dependence of the church service, and the church service, which now still needs educated priests for the villages, would become even more impoverished in people. Here it should be noted against the testimony of the note that the number of students at the Vladimir Seminary is not up to 2000, but about 800; that not many seminaries represent anything close to this crowd; that some give graduates of theological teaching from 10 to 25 people; that some dioceses have a great shortage of graduates in theological teaching and have difficulty acquiring them from other dioceses; that, due to the meager number of such, the spiritual authorities must inevitably assign them directly to priestly places, without detaining them in the diaconal degree; and consequently it is not quite convenient to observe gradualism in hierarchical production. Meanwhile, the number of students in many district and parish religious schools naturally opposes their connection with secular ones. Already in some cities it turned out to be necessary to have more than one district theological school, and in many to divide classes according to the population. How can secular schools also serve the clergy? If you send students from religious schools to secular ones, to increase their numbers, it will be necessary to establish new secular schools. What is the use of destroying what has been built and building again? Instead of having one theological district school and one secular school, is it really better to have two, in which children of both ranks would be mixed, and the doctrine, according to the difference in ranks, would inevitably be taught differently? The note approves of this confusion and states that the strict separation of the children of the clergy in schools from the children of the laity is a complete anachronism. But let it be allowed to examine the basis of thought through strong expression. Is the separation of children in military schools from civilian schools an anachronism? No, for the reason presented above. Likewise, the separation of children in religious schools is not an anachronism, for the reasons presented above. The note also says that separating the children of the clergy from the children of the laity destroys the spirit of community and gives rise to extremely harmful egoism of the title. If, unfortunately, this were completely fair, then it would be necessary to quickly destroy not only parish and district religious schools, but also seminaries and academies. And since it is clear from the note that she decisively believes in preserving theological seminaries and academies, one must conclude that she herself is not entirely sure of the validity of her strict remark, since she says elsewhere hesitantly that the fragmentation of primary education is almost harmful. These last words do not express inquiry and confidence, but on the contrary, lack of knowledge and uncertainty; and therefore it is surprising that at the same time a decisive, grave sentence was pronounced. If, before this sentence, it had been recognized as a good thing to carry out an investigation and trial based on the evidence of experiences and events, based on the accusation or suspicion of the clergy and religious schools of a lack of the spirit of sociability and the egoism of the title, then one can hope that it would not have come to a strict sentence. Why do they notice the lack of a spirit of sociability in the clergy? Probably not because the clergy does not participate in all secular meetings and activities; for the removal of the clergy in some cases corresponds to the nature of this title and the rules of the church. From what? Is it because secular people dissatisfiedly use the communication of the clergy for their edification? But this comes either from the fact that a secular person himself does not want to have a spiritual person near him, or from the fact that it does not presuppose in him the sought-after edification. So, the reason for unsociability is either in the secular person himself, or in the imperfection of the spiritual person, and not in the difference in the schools in which they studied. People come to a pious elder or an edifying priest who not only did not study with them in the same school, but also did not have any contact before hearing about their piety and edification. The spirit of piety is accompanied by a spirit of sociability, without the mediation of a common school bench. The secular and worldly spirit removes itself from communication with spiritual people. What is the extremely harmful egoism of the title, which is supposedly generated by the separate existence of theological schools? Isn’t this a desire for the benefits of the title, in prejudice to the benefits of the fatherland? The more serious the accusation, or even the suspicion and fear, the more the duty of justice requires that it be believed with experience and events. Let this important need be an excuse if a few words are said here about the patriotic disposition of the Russian clergy, well known throughout the Russian Empire. Also, need forces in this case, in particular, to turn to memories that are sad for the fatherland. At the touchstone of 1825, the devotion to the throne and fatherland turned out to be pure not only of the Orthodox Russian clergy, but also of secular officials who were educated in theological schools: none of them were among those seduced by foreign evil. Similarly, during the Polish rebellion, the Orthodox clergy, educated in Orthodox theological schools, themselves maintained pure loyalty to the throne and the fatherland, and affirmed the Orthodox people in it, and contributed to the authorities in discovering and preventing malicious attempts. When foreign political secret societies, having infected foreign universities, attempted to extend their influence to Russia, some secular schools required special insight from their superiors in order to suppress the seeds of evil that were partly sown; but the Orthodox theological schools remained completely untouched by infection: so their spirit, as much national as church, itself reflected alien elements, and did not give hope to attempts. It is worth noting one more feature here. During the last analysis of the clergy, not a single case was observed in which the ecclesiastical authorities, out of selfishness of rank, tried to keep in their rank persons who were going into military service; on the contrary, out of zeal for the good of the fatherland, they acted according to the rules given for this purpose so relentlessly that many of those sent to military service were later, with the highest condescension, returned from it. Thus, not by guesswork, but by experience, one must conclude that the separate existence of theological schools does not give rise to harmful egoism of the title, and if it does give them a special character, it is ecclesiastical and purely national, not threatened by foreign influence, which the note that introduced the case for these considerations acknowledges for the secular schools. Based on the experiments presented now, one can judge to what extent the note rightly says that theological schools, through a system based on fear alone, have lagged far behind the secular ones. The spirit and fruits of these schools should be judged by their true works, that is, by people who, with the approval of their superiors, enter the clergy, and partly into the secular rank (as, for example, in recent years, several students from two theological academies were twice taken into the department of His Imperial Majesty’s own chancellery), and not by the branches cut off, that is, by students expelled, or sometimes dismissed in in a sense close to exclusion. What was said in the note that the fragmentation of primary education presents difficulties in an administrative sense cannot be attributed to the separate existence of lower theological schools. There is no visible difficulty in the fact that they have their own administration, separate from the Ministry of Education; on the contrary, let them imagine the difficulties and confusion that would occur if, in order to determine, for example, a student of a district or parish school as a clergyman, the consistory had to communicate with the director of secular schools, and in the event of any misunderstanding, the matter would go up to the trustee of the university and the minister of education. One can talk about economic reasons for connecting religious schools with secular ones only if there are no opportunities to closely and in detail learn about the poverty of religious schools, which could not enrich secular schools, but in comparison with their salaries would require new large costs. October 7. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count N. A. Protasov about the opening of the Khlysty sect in Moscow Most Excellent Count, Dear Sir! Last June, the Moscow police opened a secret meeting of the sect known as Khlystovshchina. Based on the observation in which parishes those who were in this congregation and those detained live, I asked the priests of those parishes how these people were known to them, and if they were suspected of sectarianism, then why was this not reported to the authorities. Their answer was the same, that these people were suspected of sectarianism, due to their removal from marriage and their way of life, secretive and alienated from society with others; but there was no reason for the authorities to report them, because not only do they not reveal any teaching contrary to the church, but they also go to church and begin the sacraments, except for the sacrament of consecration of oil, from which, however, evasion is given the appearance of an accidental, and not a deliberate omission, and which some of them accepted after the last discovery of their sect. At my request, that they intensify their observations and inquiries and report on the consequences, in the written information presented on September 27, they showed: the dean, Epiphany, on Elokhov, Archpriest Alexander Pokrovsky, that in his parish, 4 male people were noticed suspected of belonging to the Khlysty sect, including honorary citizen Anton Vasilyev Rozanov, 13 female; Adrian priest Dimitry Novsky, that in his parish there were 4 men, 27 women, but of these, only one was not at confession and holy communion, while others were there both in the current and in previous years; Nikolaevsky, that in fights, priest Vasily Alexandrov, that in his parish there are 1 male, 13 female; Preobrazhensky, which is in Spasskaya, priest Nikolai Petrov, that in his parish there are no men, 12 women; Preobrazhensky, who is in the Pushkars, priest Trofim Ivanov, who in his parish has 3 males and 18 females; Pankratievsky priest Theodot Dmitriev, that in his parish there are 2 males, 29 females. Information about the secret opinions and rituals of the sect is presented vague, based only on rumors and guesses by all of the above, except for the last one, who had the opportunity from the Tsarskoe Selo peasant woman Lisina, who belonged to the sect, but left it, to receive certain information about the founder, opinions, rules and rituals of the sect. An extract from his report is attached herewith, for accuracy, without changing the words. On October 4, Three Hierarch Archpriest Nikolai Drugov presented information that in his parish there were 1 male and 12 female Khlysty suspects. In Predtechenskoe, which is in the stables, the parish did not contain more than 2 females, indicated in Lisina’s testimony. In this matter I have done the following: 1) The archpriests and priests, in whose parishes the catechumens in the sectarianism live, were given secret instructions so that they would have a modest but careful observation of these people, and if they see signs of deviation from Orthodoxy in their actions or words, they would try with admonitions and exhortations to turn them to the right path, and those noticed would be secretly reported; Even if they did not notice evidence of sectarianism, they tried, while performing the duties of spiritual fathers, to give the suspects the instructions required by the suspicion that arose. 2) An extract from the above-mentioned report, in a confidential manner, was forwarded from me to the Moscow Governor-General, for consideration of the secretly ongoing matter. 3) According to the testimony about Danil Filippov, buried in the village of Krivushin, and the last of his family, Ulyana Vasilyeva, I secretly asked the Eminence of Kostroma 296 whether he would consider it necessary, with all possible precautions against publicity and incorrect action, through a trustworthy and trusted clergyman worthy of power of attorney, to make the nearest reconnaissance and inquiry, how to take measures to protect the Orthodox from seduction into the sect, and to bring greater clarity to the emerging information about the sect, for further superior considerations, and what will be revealed, he asked not to leave me without notification. Bringing this to the attention of your Excellency, I have the honor to add that I have also reported this to the Holy Synod. With true respect and devotion, I have the honor to be your Lordship's most humble servant. Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow Attached to this letter is the following document: Extract from the report of the Moscow Pankratievskaya, which is at the Sukharev Tower, the church of the priest Theodot Dmitriev, to His Eminence, Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow. In my parish there are five houses in which the inhabitants are called Khlysty; they are timid, hardworking, do work and trade in silks, and are more illiterate girls; receive communion to St. The Mysteries of Christ are celebrated every year, and the clergy are respectful. There were no marriages from their houses during the 38 years of my stay in this parish, and until July of this year no one in their houses was blessed with oil. Despite my constant efforts, I could not find out the secrets of their society, and therefore did not dare to bother my superiors with unfounded denunciations. But how, in June of this year, according to a denunciation, openly, in the house of the Nikolodrachev parish, in the house of the bourgeois Marya Petrova Borisova, a meeting of the Khlysty was held by the secular government, in which girls from all the above-mentioned five houses participated, I tried harder to find out the purpose of it, but did not find out anything. Remembering that her niece, the Tsarskoye Selo peasant Irina Fedorova Lisina, who lived with the bourgeois Nastasya Maksimova Lisina, my former spiritual daughter, three years ago, after a quarrel with her aunt, left her house and built her own, not far from the Lazarev cemetery, I convinced her that she opened it to me on September 11th and replenished it on the 16th. the following: that she herself was a member of the Khlyst sect for almost seven years. There are very many crowded meetings of the Khlystys throughout the year, and more on holidays, or on the eve of them, even on the eve of the Epiphany of the Lord. The houses of their meetings, which have their own prayer houses, are: 1st - Marya Petrova Borisova, the most revered of them all, a house, according to their faith, holy, existing in one place since ancient times, a house revered by them as the Jerusalem upper room, and holy because it was visited in ancient times by the founder of their sect, the rich guest Danila Filippov, who celebrated suppers in this house, which serve as the basis for their current meetings. At first he was a convert, and therefore had many Old Believer books; then, founding his sect, he spread a rumor about himself that he did not have an earthly origin, and came down from heaven from God, and therefore has direct communication with the Holy Spirit, from Whom he receives instructions, according to which he performed miracles. Therefore, he threw all his books into the Volga River, since they were unnecessary, and decided not to have book learning, but to be guided by the traditions and inspirations of their prophets and prophetesses. The content of the teachings of the Khlysty is as follows: the Lord God enlightened the Divine Jerusalem with the teachings, and Danila Filippov, having the same properties with Him, enlightened Russia, starting this education from Kostroma, which they call the Upper Side; he is depicted and revered as the Most High God, in the form of the Lord of Hosts, due to the similarity of his face, which image is in all their prayer rooms, and the oldest and most important of all is in the prayer room of Nastasya Maximova Lisina. In this Boris's house, like a shrine, Danila's hats, canes, or wands, burial mounds, dishes and all sorts of small things, even rags, pieces of which are placed in the coffins of the dead, in chests and caskets for consecration, and his hair is worn on crosses, have been kept to this day. She has more meetings than anyone else, even at the expense of other Khlystys who do not have prayer houses, which meetings are very expensive; for to their co-religionists, who are poorer and who, due to the large number of people, cannot fit comfortably in her house, they send out rich kulebyaks, and so on. Irina Lisina does not know when this Danila lived, but she only knows that he is buried 20 versts, beyond Kostroma, in the village of Krivushin, where the Khlysts, who live more in Moscow and its district, and in the provinces: Kostroma, Kaluga, Nizhny Novgorod, in Murom, and in many villages near Onago, in the city. Chistopol, on the Kama and in some other places, they come to worship at his coffin and serve memorial services for him, enriching the employees, and moreover, the goddess they call Ulyana Vasilyeva, an economic peasant of the village of Staraya, in the parish of the said village of Krivushin, whose countless wealth is stored in one of the village priests, who was in the winter in Moscow, lodged, the Spasopushkar parish, in the house I visited the merchant Ivan Emelyanov, with his entire family committed to this sect, and others. She is credited with the power to resolve sins, so that if she forgives someone’s sins, then the one who received forgiveness from her must consider himself sinless. Borisova's house is revered as a saint also because Ivan Timofeev, a native of the Murom district, St. George parish, from the village of Mikhalits, lived in it; He was dark-haired, of excessive, as they say, beauty, and was allegedly born from a virgin without a husband, performed miracles, and, calling him Jesus Christ, all his life they compared him to the life of our Lord Jesus Christ. Living in Borisova's house, he wound up a bell, weighing a pound, which he struck and said that through its sound a prophecy was aroused and all the heavenly secrets that he had told his disciples were revealed to him. He, Timofeev, was interrogated, as the Khlys say, by Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich and Patriarch Nikon, then he was kept in the Epiphany Monastery, which is why the Khlys hate this monastery, they do not enter it, calling it the dwelling of the Jews who crucified their Christ. The Khlys also say that Timofeev, their Christ, was punished on Red Square, his skin was taken off alive, but some girl, of the same heresy as him, covered his body with a white linen, which supposedly, having grown to him, replaced the skin, and the Khlys, in memory of this event, wear long white shirts; from this torment he died, then rose again, performed miracles, rose into the air much higher than the bell tower of Ivan the Great, prophesied, lived again in the house of the said Borisova, then died and was buried at the Nikolodrachevskaya church, which they hold in special respect for this. There is also something about the goddess Ulyana Vasilyeva: she comes from the family of Danila Filippov, whose family was exclusively allowed to marry, so that their, according to them, divine generation would not be cut short; however, she is a girl and the last of his kind. 2nd house of Irina Grigorieva Bernikova, in the parish of the Three Hierarchs, at the red gate. 3rd - Grigory Petrov, who is now their main prophet and teacher, in the Sergius parish, in the Pushkars. 4th – Marya and Matrona Kalushin, in the Adrianovsky parish, of which Marya is a prophetess. 5th – the Shestovs, who are held in special esteem due to their wealth and frequent gatherings; They have prophetesses: Elena Matveeva and Pelagia Fedorova. 6th Dmitry Ivanov of Chistopol, who is a prophet, and his sister Catherine is a prophetess, in the Nikolodrachev parish. 7th – Anna Artemyeva Mokeeva. 8th – Varvara Ivanova Luzhnikova, in the Spasopushkar parish. 9th – Boris Bernikov, in Spasopushkar parish. 10th – Natalia and Elena Ivanov Lamovka, in the parish of Sergius, in the gunners. 11th – Nastasya Maximova Lisina. 12th – house of Fedora Dmitrieva Kutusova; She has the prophetess Vassa Ivanova Pekareva. The owners of the above houses, with all their families, are committed to this sect. There are still many followers of this sect, such as: Moscow bourgeois women - Matrona Danilova and Praskeva Artemova Sazhen, in the parish of John the Baptist, in the stables, known for their wealth, and others, who, since they do not have places of worship, do not fit here due to the crowd. Their gatherings begin in the morning and continue until late at night, and as soon as all the expected prophets and prophetesses gather in whose house, they undress and have breakfast; then, having placed the guards and taken off their shoes, they enter the prayer room and all sit down in their places, taking them according to seniority. After this they pray into the ground on their arms; then, bowing, they say goodbye to each other and the men sit on one side, and the women on the other; the elders talk about their god Daniel and Ivan Timofeev quietly, so as not to be heard from the younger ones, about their teaching, about their old men and old women who have died, considering the old men to be the apostles, and the old women to be equal to the apostles, about their teaching, which has long existed, according to oral tradition inherited from them; the eldest mistress of the house stands at the door and listens to their conversation; according to their contented conversation, she removes the rugs from the floor and sweeps the floor, prays on the hand-held, bows at the feet of almost everyone sitting on the benches and benches, saying: please and pray for the success of the prophecy that is about to happen; then he distributes to each prophet, of whom there are two, three or more in the congregation, two long towels, called banners, with which he, in the likeness of a deacon’s orarion, girds himself; some prophets, wearing white shirts, girded with different belts, wave a third rolled up towel, spinning and jumping until they sweat and come on, singing some songs to themselves in a coherent manner, remembering their gods with prayer, and after this they prophesy as having received enlightenment from above, calling some righteous, others sinners, and at another meeting they often say the opposite and all the prophets say different things, assuring that they they know what is happening in heaven and in hell, with the king and in the world, and so on. and so on. Then the prophetesses do the same, and the storytellers and old women remind them what they should do according to what Daniel told them. At the end of the said prophecies, everyone who came begins to drink intoxicating drinks and tea, and eat sweet foods and fruits until they are satiated, continuing the lunch for four hours or more; then, in the evening, or already at night, they go home. When the priests come to them on holidays, with a shrine, they are received by one or two of the elders, and they force the rest to hide from the priests, calling them in absentia bastards, troublemakers, fornicators, nesters, i.e., married, Jewish spawn, so that they do not convince their girls to marry and would not reveal their errors, and even remove the girls after accepting them into their family. houses, from any communication with strangers for five years or much more, and no less than after a ten-year stay in their houses, they take them to worship the above-mentioned goddess with the richest gifts. And when these girls, who never fast or fast, eating fish on all days thereof, even on Friday and Saturday, go to confession, they are forced to swear by heaven and earth and other oaths that they will not reveal their sins to the priests, and therefore, out of fear, keeping the oath, they hide their sins during confession; and when they go to church to receive St. Christ's mysteries, then before this one of them, the eldest, will give directly into the mouth from her hands each a small piece of black bread, calling it holy, which is sent for this purpose from the same goddess, and then they receive communion in the church of St. Christ's mysteries, hypocritically, without any respect. She, Irina Lisina, also discovered that the followers of this sect consider marriage and baptism to be desecration, they consider those entering into marriage to have destroyed their soul, and out of contempt they cannot be together with them or with those who gave birth, nor speak with them for up to six weeks, as if they were defiled. Some of them keep virginity, and some commit fornication, but not in their homes, but secretly from their family, only when they are pregnant, they leave for distant places in advance for childbirth, and then do not return soon 297. From a handwritten original, kept. to Moscow spirits academic; package number 3; No. 9. From a handwritten original, kept. to Moscow spirit, academician; package number 3; doc. No. 10; keeps a copy. in secret. papers chancellor Chief Prosecutor St. Synod, 1836; No. 154; ll. 22–34. Bishop Vladimir (Alyavdin), later Archbishop of Tobolsk; †2 April 1842 Original letter from Metropolitan. Filareta, with the attachment, stores. in secret. office papers. Chief Prosecutor Holy Synod. Case 1837, No. 55; ll. 43–51.