1827 г.

January 19. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Prince A.N. Golitsin, with an opinion on the marriage of adjutant A.P. Mansurova 184 Prince A.N. Golitsyn, in a letter dated December 27, 1826, wrote to the Metropolitan that he, for his part, in the case of Mansurov’s marriage, does not find any difficulty in dividing the trial of two persons guilty of the same case. But since Mansurov was appointed by the Sovereign abroad on an assignment, and it is unknown whether he will soon return from there to Russia, then judgment about him must, of necessity, be postponed until his return. The guilt of another person, consisting of a crime by his position, as being in Moscow, on his face, can, for the reason described above, be separated and judged separately. At the end of the letter, Prince A.N. Golitsyn asked the Metropolitan to notify him “whether he finds this point of view correct.” In another, secret letter, dated January 14, 1827, Prince A. N. Golitsyn informed the Metropolitan that Mansurov was complaining about the consistory, which was making police inquiries about his marriage, and that the Tsar did not want Mansurov to be stopped any longer. Therefore, Prince Golitsyn asked the Metropolitan to notify him, by first mail, of the contents of the complaint, since Mansurov did not receive any request from the police, but probably wrote by hearsay. Illustrious prince, gracious sir! Starting to respond to your Excellency’s letter dated the 14th, which I received today, the 18th of this January, regarding the matter of Mr. Mansurov’s marriage, I cannot help but admit again the difficulty in which I feel in relation to this matter. Rule 54 of the Ecumenical Council, in the decree of the Holy Synod, dated February 17, 1810, was translated from Greek authentically as follows: “Do not allow a cousin to marry a cousin, neither a son and a father to have a daughter and a mother for themselves, nor two brothers to have a mother and daughter in marriage, nor two sisters to marry brothers (among themselves relatives). If any such thing is done, after the dissolution of the marriage, the perpetrators will be subject to seven years of penance” 185. I beg you to pay attention to the composition of this rule. If the first part of it is weakened in court, then the others will also be in danger, since there is only one rule. The rule condemns those who directly entered into marriage, and therefore will not give any reason, bypassing them, to turn the action of the court on one priest who solemnized the marriage. The bishop is bound in seven cases by sacred bonds, and how can he raise his hand to crush them? And if he raises it, how will the church and the Orthodox Sovereign believe his judgment after this? I beg your Excellency to put yourself in my place and enter into a sense of difficulty, into which nothing else puts me but the desire to maintain an untroubled conscience before God and the Sovereign. From this position, I humbly ask you to look at the progress of the case, which I will now outline. On the 12th day of November, the marriage of Mr. Mansurov took place; On the 14th day the dean reported about him and the denunciation was forwarded by me to the consistory for legal consideration. The consistory, in the second half of November and the first of December, having asked the clergy concerned about the matter, reported to the deanery about the demand of the secular persons concerned about the matter. On December 4, I received a notification from your Excellency that Mr. Mansurov was being sent abroad on an errand; that the Sovereign Emperor does not want Mansurov to be detained in the ongoing case, but that His Majesty deigns that the trial of the priest and the clergy be carried out separately, without stopping. I accepted this notification, and I believe that I should not have accepted it, as it is secret, which I cannot use officially. Following this, I was informed of a letter from the Chief of the General Staff of His Imperial Majesty, in which it is recommended that the local military governor-general not only take measures to ensure Mr. Mansurov’s attitude to the matter, but also stop all the opposite measures that could be taken. Here's the whole process. If Mr. Mansurov had followed his appointment, things would naturally have taken the path that your Excellency indicates in your letter dated December 27th. But Mr. Mansurov, not content with the fact that he has every convenience to follow his appointment and at the same time evade the action of the church court, even wants, in his presence, to destroy or transform the action of this court, and the third month remains in the eyes of the capital, as if in order to show his triumph and the destruction of church justice. If he complains to your Excellency about rumors about the actions of the consistory, then the Moscow church prays to God that the insightful gaze of the most pious Sovereign will turn to the matter of church justice to protect the sacred rules and to avert all temptation. I hasten to finish in order to fulfill your Excellency’s request to respond by first post. January 19, 1827 186 . January 31st. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Prince A.N. Golitsin, with an opinion on the marriage of adjutant A.P. Mansurova In a secret letter dated January 24, Prince A. N. Golitsyn informed the Metropolitan that he had immediately read his letter to the Sovereign Emperor, and that His Majesty was surprised that Mansurov had remained in Moscow for so long. But Baron Dibich, who was in the Tsar’s room at that time, certified that Mansurov had already left Moscow. Therefore, in relation to him, your worries have passed. The Emperor found your letter respectful in all respects, and advised you to separate the trial of the priest only because he considered him to have already been put on trial; Therefore, I wondered if it would be convenient to stop this judge when the culprit is in front of him. According to His Majesty, he leaves it to your will, if you find it necessary, and to stop the priest’s work until Mansurov returns. But what will the priest do until then? He will die of hunger, because he is removed from the place. I also ask you to notify me what order you will make regarding this. Illustrious prince, dear sir! Your Excellency's letter, dated January 24, consoles me in my difficulty, providing new proof of the condescension with which the Sovereign Emperor deigns to pay attention to the frank presentation of this difficulty. Your Excellency requires me to notify you what order I will make regarding the well-known case of Mr. Mansurov and the priest. To answer this, I need to continue the presentation of the progress of the case, after where I stopped in the letter of the 19th day. The matter remained in the consistory without movement for over a month, awaiting an answer from the secular authorities. Judging by what I know, there should have been the following notification from this superiors that Mr. Mansurov had left Moscow, on a military-diplomatic commission, abroad, and the proceedings concerning the civil case before him could not be continued. According to such notification, despite the fact that church law does not give the spiritual authorities the slightest right to divide the case of Mr. Mansurov and the priest, the law, of necessity, would lead it to the following definition: so that the case of the priest does not remain unresolved for an unknown time, which would be difficult for both him and the place he occupies, to make an extract from it and pronounce a verdict on his actions in the form in which they have been discovered in the proceedings of the case to this day. Your Excellency please note that I am talking about what could have been. I do this so that my answer is as satisfactory as possible. But what actually happens does not provide me with a means of getting out of the ongoing difficulty, as you will see from the following. On the 19th day, the consistory received a notification from the deanery council that the military governor-general ordered: “due to certain circumstances, in the consideration of the highest government available, further action on this subject should be stopped.” This notification, firstly, does not give the consistory the right to begin anything decisive; since it can be assumed that the consideration of certain circumstances may end in a short time; secondly, it is so vague that the consistory is thinking of submitting it for the permission of the Holy Synod. I advise her to think about the subject more maturely, so that, in an unusual event, she does not take a step that is too hasty or unnecessary. Having received from your Excellency a certificate of the absence of Mr. Mansurov from Moscow, I undertook to compile an official report about this for the consistory. For this purpose, I instructed the dean, on whose denunciation the case began, to inform me whether Mr. Mansurov was in Moscow or not. He reported that Mr. Mansurov had gone to Kursk on his business, and added that he would return to Moscow in two weeks and stay until April. Thus, my effort to find a solution to the case brought me nothing except new proof that the case of Mr. Mansurov, according to his actions, is more and more taking on the appearance of an arbitrary evasion of church justice. I look at this, and without trying to judge others who evade judgment, I condemn my own unworthiness. How willingly they once resorted to church court when there was no external authority to subjugate it; and how freely they now run away from this court, when it enjoys the protection of royal power and when, to say something closer to the present matter, we have on the throne an excellent example of everything that sanctifies family life. But in this matter of business, I must not detain your Excellency with my domestic thoughts. And I must also respond to your concerns, so that the accused priest does not die of hunger. For this purpose, I will not refer, according to Moscow rumor, to the office of Prince Trubetskoy, in which, they say, the issuance of 5,000 rubles is recorded. priest for the wedding. It is true that the accused priest, according to the general law, receives half of his income during the trial; and this half is still a slightly more complete portion of the clergy. Moreover, from the previous, you can see that, in my opinion, the matter about the priest should be completed immediately, as soon as other circumstances with which it is connected allow. I feel that this correspondence must seem tedious, and if, in addition to a coincidence of circumstances, my misunderstanding turns out to be to blame, I ask for mercy and forgiveness. January 31, 1827 187 In a secret letter dated February 9, 1827, Prince A. N. Golitsyn notified the Metropolitan that, regarding his last letter, he reported to the Emperor about his new difficulties in the Mansurov case, as well as about Mansurov’s desire to come to Moscow again, and that the Sovereign Emperor responded to this that on the same day he would send an order to Mansurov not to stay any longer in Moscow, but go to St. Petersburg and then go to Berlin in the spring. Therefore, Prince A.I. Golitsyn expressed the hope that this would end the metropolitan’s delicate position in this matter. July 14. The opinion of Metropolitan Philaret on the case of the reprehensible and disorderly actions of the priest of the city of Yelets, Oryol diocese, John Poselsky Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Prince P. S. Meshchersky, in a proposal to the Synod, dated June 4, 1827, No. 1376, explained: “By the highest order, I received for consideration the most submissive petition of the priest of the Oryol diocese, the city of Yelets, Ivan Poselsky, who, complaining about the order of the diocesan authorities to remove him from his place on such matters for which he, on the basis of the most merciful manifesto, has been forgiven, asks to be assigned to his former place. From the information delivered regarding the content of this request from the diocesan bishop, it is clear that the petitioner was accused of reprehensible and disorderly acts and, by the way, for disorderly conduct in the church that took place in 1825. For this latter he was banned from the priesthood, but, according to the most merciful manifesto, on August 22, 1826, he was released from judgment on it, with removal from the place to find another. Having been dissatisfied with this decision, the petitioner brought a complaint about this to the Holy Synod. Bearing in mind the highest approved resolution of the Holy Synod, according to which disorderly acts in churches cannot be exempted from judgment according to the most merciful manifesto, I have the honor to propose these circumstances to the Holy Synod for joint consideration with the case carried out on the complaints of the priest Poselsky.” Upon discussing the proposal, in connection with the case of Poselsky, members of the Holy Synod: Seraphim, Metropolitan of Novgorod and St. Petersburg, Filaret, Archbishop of Ryazan, Protopresbyter Pavel Krinitsky, Archpriest Nikolai Muzovsky and Chief Priest Pavel Madzhuginsky, in a meeting on June 17, for their part, believed: a) Priest Poselsky, who dared his the priest's charter and deed for the bronze cross, established in memory of the war of 1812, should be pledged for 250 rubles. the attempter Solomin, as well as this last one, who accepted the said things, with the obligation to correct all cases related to Poselsky, as a thief and a covetous person, to bring him to trial in the criminal chamber; b) Other cases of Poselsky, such as: on the withholding of income from the clergy, on the seizure of the estate of the sexton Glagolev, on the marriage of a close relative, on the release of urine and feces in the church, to order the diocesan authorities to finish as quickly as possible and present it to the Synod, and c) before the resolution of those cases, on the basis of the highest resolution that followed on January 9 1827, on the report of the chief prosecutor, remove Poselsky from office, with a ban on priestly service, blessings of hands, deprivation of the cassock and the performance of worldly duties, but with receiving half of the income from the church. Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow, and Gregory, Bishop of Kaluga, did not agree with this conclusion of the above-mentioned members of the Synod. Metropolitan Philaret, on June 19 of the same year, presented his special opinion on this case with the following content: Since the banned priest of the Yelets Pokrovsk Church, Ivan Poselsky, in bribing the police chief, for the sake of court cases, confessed twice, in a petition and in an interrogation, showing that he committed this crime, gave the letter, rescript, priestly honor and soul to him with them: then the opinion of the diocesan authorities about bringing him to trial for this in the criminal chamber, as if based precisely on the law, I believe to approve. And how, according to the highest command of His Imperial Majesty, by decree of the Holy Synod, March 1827, it was strictly prescribed that from now on those clergymen who are involved in cases that discredited their behavior, and at the same time revealing their unreliability for further holding positions, should be immediately removed from them, and cases about them would be resolved within the time period specified 4 the head of the General Regulations: then, on the basis of this decree, it is now necessary to pay attention to whether the Poselsky priest belongs to the unreliable, and whether he should not be immediately removed from office. To resolve this issue, the following is presented from the case and the certificate: 1) In 1812, having been dismissed from the post of dean, to relieve the clergy from the cart, he submitted from them to the Right Reverend Bishop Dosifei a petition about his honest behavior, on which a resolution was given: “The villager himself submitted this request unsealed; to join the consistory to the case.” This shows that the Right Reverend recognized the request, which was obtained through Poselsky’s effort or cunning. 2) The certificate shows 28 cases against him, of which 24 were resolved. Of these, for some he was convicted and punished with fines and reprimands, some were left without consideration, due to not belonging to the spiritual court, some were brought under the most merciful manifesto, some ended with reconciliation; but there is not a single one of them in which Poselsky turned out to be completely free from unfavorable remarks or suspicions. For although he was freed from court in the case of censure of the honor of his brother, it was not because he did not write an abusive letter, but only because he wrote it on the orders of his father. 3) In 1811, the cutting down of the church timber in the village of Tregubova was completely proven by witnesses. 4) The case of the sale of a girl that did not belong to him by the priest Poselsky in 1823, although it should be consigned to oblivion because the plaintiff abandoned his claim in a settlement with the defendant, nevertheless exposes Poselsky to an unfavorable conclusion. 5) Of no small importance are the cases being carried out about him: the solemnization of three marriages without a search, the seizure of the estate of the sexton Glagolev, for which the spiritual board and consistory have already found him guilty, the concealment by him, Poselsky, for the fourth year, from the authorities in different places of the tradesman Rostovtsev; The case of disorder in the church is especially important. 6) When, in order to announce to him the decision in the case of bribing the police chief and pawning the charter, the spiritual board, through a written summons, summoned him to its presence, then in his signature he refused to appear before the board due to illness; but when the board ordered that, due to his illness, he be announced in the house through those present, then he gave a written testimony on his own, expressing displeasure, why he was not summoned to announce the decision to the consistory, and in this dissatisfied response he does not present any reason to justify himself, and does not even declare himself innocent, but only complains that he was not brought under the all-merciful manifesto (under which the case of does not apply to bribery), and thus reveals only efforts to confuse and delay the matter. 7) By the testimony of the dean, for six years in a row, he, Poselsky, is condemned for his behavior. Based on all these circumstances, I believe: 1) Based on the above decree, priest Poselsky is immediately removed from office. 2) since the parishioners of the Church of the Intercession have already asked the Right Reverend Bishop of Orlovsky four times to appoint another in his place, and, due to his long-term prohibition in the priesthood, and (as the Right Reverend adds, and the cases show) due to the illnesses he often declares, they need a serviceable priest, then appoint a worthy one in his place immediately. 3) The affairs of him, Poselsky, should be completed within the time period prescribed in the above decree. 4) For food, during the continuation of the trial, assign him an allowance from guardianship, or assign him to a place of responsibility, with the receipt of income. Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow This opinion of Metropolitan Philaret, with which Bishop Gregory of Kaluga also agreed, was heard by the Holy Synod on June 20, and on the 27th a unanimous resolution followed, in which the first two points of the opinion of the majority of members were approved, the third is stated as follows: “since Poselsky dealt with 28 different cases and in none of them he was recognized as right, and his behavior for six years in a row is not approved, then remove him from place, with the prohibition of priestly service, blessing of hands, wearing a cassock and performing worldly duties, until such time as, with the end of affairs, or about disorder in the church, or about the pledge of a charter, it is specifically decided whether he can remain in any position in the spiritual part 188. September 12. Opinions of Metropolitan Philaret at the request of parishioners of the village of Baturin, in Belsky district, about the removal of priest Rachitsky from their village for drunkenness and omissions in office In March 1827, parishioners of the village of Baturin complained to the Holy Synod that the Smolensk diocesan authorities did not satisfy their requests to remove priest Vladimir Rachitsky from their village, who had been convicted by investigators of being drunk and derelict in his position. Having considered this complaint, in connection with the information and conclusion delivered on the contents of it by His Eminence Joseph of Smolensk, the Holy Synod found that the said priest, after the last time he was fined for drunkenness by a four-month monastic superior, although he was noticed in a short-term malfunction, but in it he, according to the most merciful manifesto, 1826, August 22, was forgiven, and then in behavior and position he became much more serviceable than before, which was witnessed by the parishioners themselves, declaring that they would agree to have him in the village if they were sure that he would always be like this; Moreover, the dean, in his report for 1826, did not attest to him on the bad side. Therefore, the Holy Synod, on August 19, decided: the request of the Baturin parishioners to remove priest Rachitsky from their church should be left without consequences. This decree was signed by: Filaret, Archbishop of Ryazan, Gregory, Bishop of Kaluga, and Archpriest Nikolai Muzovsky. But Metropolitan of Moscow Filaret presented his own separate opinion on this case with the following content. At the request of the Smolensk diocese, Belsky district, and the village of Baturin parishioners to remove priest Rachitsky from the church for drunkenness, taking into consideration: 1) that in 1816 he was fined for drunkenness by a monthly subordinate; 2) that in 1822 he was obliged to sign a subscription to quit harmful wine drinking; 3) that in 1824 he was fined by being sent to the desert for two months, with the suggestion that such leniency was being given to him for the last time, and that if he did not correct himself, he would be deprived of his rank; 4) that in 1825, for drunkenness and locking the church doors during the inspection of the dean, he was sent, with a ban on priestly service, after which he was released to office out of compassion for his family, in which case the diocesan authorities granted him relief, contrary to their own definition, above shown; 5) that on July 14, 1826, parishioners complained in a petition about him not only for being drunk and rarely serving on Sundays and highly solemn days, but also that he sometimes serves while drunk, according to which the petition, although priest Sokolov was ordered to carry out an on-the-spot verification of the behavior of priest Rachitsky, but no legal investigation of such an important crime is visible, and only a report is mentioned priest Sokolov, which is based on what is unknown; 6) that, according to the report of priest Sokolov, priest Rachitsky corrected the priestly service only until Easter, and after that he became careless, so that four Sunday days passed without liturgy before Pentecost, and on the very day of Pentecost there were only hours, and this leads him to suspect that on this great day in the morning, either he was drunk, or suffered from the remnants of yesterday's drunkenness; 7) that although priest Sokolov states in his report the consent of the petitioners to leave priest Rachitsky at the church, there is no written testimony about this; and their petition to the Holy Synod proves the opposite and refutes the words of priest Sokolov; At the same time, he adds that some peasants regret parting with Rachitsky, and most of them, on the contrary, that is, they want his removal; 8) that the crime of serving while drunk is brought under the most merciful manifesto, without correction by priest Rachitsky, is incorrect; 9) that according to the dean’s records for 1826, priest Rachitsky is shown to be serviceable in his position, but not diligent, and of good behavior; Unlike before, he drinks wine in moderation; in which testimony the certificate of serviceability is refuted by the following certificate of ineptitude: certificate of bad behavior, according to ordinary usage, means dubious and unreliable behavior; moderate consumption of wine against the former, in a word: against the former, hints that there is still no true moderation here. Due to all these circumstances, I propose to carry out an investigation into the service while intoxicated and about the behavior of the priest Rachitsky in the subsequent time, on a legal basis, and remove him from his post until the case is resolved. After hearing this opinion, the Holy Synod, by definition (September 19/October 7), decided: “the priest of Rachitsky, who turned out to be guilty of drunkenness, should be removed from the parish and demoted to clerics, pending repentance and correction. This definition was signed by: Seraphim, Metropolitan of Novgorod and St. Petersburg, Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow, Filaret, Archbishop of Ryazan, Gregory, Bishop of Kaluga, confessor Pavel Krinitsky and Archpriest Nikolai Muzovsky" 189. November 2. Metropolitan Philaret’s proposal to the Holy Synod, with comments on the first part of the book: “Table of Contents to the Laws of the Greek-Russian Church,” compiled by Ya. M. Ginovsky In October 1826, the Secretary of the Holy Synod, Tit. owls Yakov Mikhailovich Ginovsky turned to the Synod with an all-submissive petition, in which he wrote that during his service, while engaged in his free time from office in collecting laws related to spiritual administration, he collected so many of them that almost all of them; Moreover, he tried to include in the composition of this assembly only those laws that should be guided by; he did not include those that were either completely abolished, or received changes due to other special spiritual institutions. But since the publication of the laws he collected in the original would have required very significant costs, then, in order to avoid this, he compiled a detailed and thorough systematic table of contents for the collected laws, dividing it into six parts, of which the first part is about church law, faith, worship and Christian positions; the second - about churches, monasteries, church things, church monastic property; the third - about the spiritual rank, its rights and obligations; the fourth - about places and institutions of the spiritual department; the fifth is about the administration of the judiciary and the sixth is about foreign clergy entering Russia and about people of other faiths. Presenting the first three parts, under the general title: “table of contents of the laws of the Greek-Russian Church,” Ginovsky asked permission to print them on his own money, and at the same time added that the last three parts, with the completion of printing the first three parts, would be presented to him one after another. The Holy Synod, having previously resolved the request, by definition of November 29/December 10, 1826, instructed the synodal office to consider and verify the legalization contained in Ginovsky’s work with the original rules and regulations, and, after considering what turns out to be, report to the Holy Synod. On March 14, 1827, Chief Prosecutor Prince P. S. Meshchersky reported to the Holy Synod that the synodal secretaries Von Beyer, Insarsky and Seredinsky, having examined, on his orders, the first part of Ginovsky’s work, found that the laws contained in it were collected and stated correctly, it was sufficient and clear for the concept, but comparison of the other two parts with the original laws cum in a short time. The Holy Synod, by definition on March 22–24, authorized the printing of the 1st part of the table of contents of laws in the St. Petersburg Synodal Printing House at the expense of the author, as many copies as he wishes. In November 1827, Metropolitan Philaret presented to the Holy Synod his opinion on Ginovsky’s book with the following content: Proposal to the Holy Governing Synod. To prevent unfavorable and incongruous consequences for the general benefit, I consider it my duty, at the discretion of the Holy Synod, to present some comments on the first part of the book, a table of contents on the laws of the Greek-Russian Church, printed with the permission of the Holy Governing Synod. It is impossible not to notice that the very title of the book is incorrect. The church has its own rules, and the state has its own laws. The entire sixth part of the book will go under its title; for who will say that the laws about non-religious clergy entering Russia, and about non-religious people existing in the Russian Empire, are the laws of the Greek-Russian Church? The warning, on page 1, says: many of the clergy and clergy, due to the lack of canon law, often in important cases, without any intent, are subject to trial. If the Greek-Russian Church does not yet have canonical law, then one must conclude that it is governed without law. The writer, no doubt, did not think this, but he wrote it. It should be said that there are no abbreviations, or codes, of canon law that have been brought to the present time; to say that there are none at all would again be unfair, for the helmsman and nomocanon are nothing more than a kind of abbreviation of canon law. It is known that, due to the lack of canon law, many clergy and ecclesiastical officials are often put on trial in important cases, without any intent. If it were fair, it would serve as a cruel reproach to the Holy Synod for not using means to protect those under their jurisdiction from being subjected to trial without intent. But the Holy Synod is right, because there is a helmsman, a nomocanon, printed in a large breviary, and consequently found in every church, and in the hands of every clergyman at the catechism there is a short extract from the church rules and Spiritual Regulations, to protect against offenses committed out of ignorance. The author of the book, in order to give it great importance, should not have reproached his superiors for negligence for which they were not to blame. Since the purpose of this book, without a doubt, is convenience in finding church rules and laws related to church government for certain cases, its dignity should largely depend on whether the objects in it are arranged in such a way that it is convenient to find these, but necessary. That this book does not represent this dignity in itself can be shown by the table of contents itself. Section I. On Church Law Section, II chapter 3, about church canons or privileges. Here are two articles in different places, but the subject is the same. Without a doubt, this is not order, and does not provide convenience for searching. The second of these articles contains a provision: the canons of the church must be preserved inviolably. And there is evidence for this. Although in the first article, after the church rules, the sovereign’s decrees are mentioned, after that neither provision was made nor evidence indicated that the sovereign’s laws must be preserved and conformed to them in church governance. One is not consistent with the other; and if evidence for the first is indicated, then evidence for the second should also be indicated. Division II. About the Orthodox faith. Chapter 1, on the Greco-Russian faith. Here again are two titles showing the confusion of concepts and disorder. Division III. About the sacraments. Section IV, on marriages. This is confusion that is contrary not only to logic, but also to dogmatic theology. If marriage is excluded from the sacrament clause, then it is excluded from the sacraments. Section V. On Sacred Rites. Chapter 2, on the Divine Liturgy. Here again is a dogmatic error. The Divine Liturgy is excluded from the article on sacraments and placed under the article on rituals. Section VI, on the burial of the dead. Here's a new confusion. As if burying the dead is not a sacred rite. To show more clearly how confusingly the book is laid out and how inconvenient it is to search through it, let’s present an example. Suppose I need to find a rule for how priests should act in taking gifts at the Great Entrance. How this action relates to the sacrament of holy communion, then I will look for the desired law in section III, on the sacraments; I'll read the whole section and can't find it. Reading the table of contents, may I see that in Section V, Chapter 2, it talks about the divine liturgy. And knowing that the great entrance occurs in the liturgy, I will begin to look here for the desired rule, and again I will not find it. Now there is nowhere else to look: and one must conclude that there is no rule. However, this is not true. There is a rule, but it is stated in Chapter II, on religious processions and church ceremonies, on page 117. This example may lead to despair for those who need to search for this book. Here's another example. There is a provision in the book: the period of mourning for a husband is one year. Where is this situation? Does anyone in Section VI think about burying the dead? Not at all. It is in the section on marriages, in the chapter on betrothals. On page 2 the position is read: do not add anything unnecessary to death. Here the writer either did not understand the conciliar rule from which he took this provision, or did not bother to express it accurately and intelligibly. Rule 7 of the 3rd Ecumenical Council prohibits changing the Nicene Creed. Page 8. Through light baptism, sins are washed away and God’s grace is given. It is a dogma, not a rule, and belongs to theology or catechism, and not to the abbreviation of canon law. Page 8 and 12. About the baptism of the Orthodox. On the baptism of infidels. Both of these titles are strange. Orthodox Christians are not baptized; they are already baptized. Infidels are also not baptized: you must have faith and then be baptized. The writer wanted to distinguish between the baptism of infants born of Orthodox parents and the baptism of non-Christians turning to Christ; but as much as the titles of the articles are confused, so are their contents. For example, in an article about the baptism of Orthodox Christians, he says that sins are washed away by light baptism, but in an article about the baptism of non-believers, this is not the case; as if their sins were not washed away by holy baptism. Page 11. Baptize schismatic children. At the same time, we must remember that this is written in the chapter on the baptism of the Orthodox; consequently, the writer considers schismatics to be Orthodox; and this is with the permission of the Holy Synod. Page 15. A male infant will have one foster child, and a female infant will have one foster child. Page 16. A godfather cannot marry his goddaughter. But what kind of goddaughter can a godparent have when, according to the above statement, a female baby should not have a goddaughter at all? It was not difficult for the writer to compare these two provisions, located on two pages side by side, and from the contradiction between them to conclude that he was mistaken in his presentation. Page 19. The spiritual priest at the university should be a learned hieromonk, who will teach catechism to students every Saturday. The author, citing this law, did not keep his word given in the preface that the laws that received changes were abandoned by him. Page 20. Children of both sexes should confess annually in their seventh year of age. What does it mean in the seventh year every year? Page 22. Sins do not prohibit a truly repentant person from receiving the sacrament. Page 25. Those under penance should not receive communion until it ends. This situation proves that the previous one requires correction. Page 23. Receive communion from the church. This provision may be misleading in that no exception has been added in favor of the sick. Page 37. The marriage is celebrated in the groom's house. And if it happens to a bride, will this marriage really be contrary to canon law? Page 38. On the same page, two provisions are placed side by side, of which one recognizes the bride’s majority at 12, and the other at 13 years of birth. For the first, it is indicated to the helmsman, and for the latter, to the decree of 1774, December 17. There are two errors here. Firstly, the reference to the helmsman was also missing for the second case. Secondly, since the second case is based on both the helmsman and the decree, this is the decisive law in force in the Greek-Russian Church. Therefore, the provision on the age of majority at 12 years old should be completely excluded from the code of laws, so as not to give rise to underage marriages. Page 45. Marriages between people of different faiths, i.e. Roman, Greek-Russian and Svangelite, are not prohibited, but it is up to the priests of the confession who will be the bride. In my opinion, this provision does not belong to the laws in force in the Russian church administration; for it is based, firstly, on a treatise with the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, which no longer exists, and consequently the treatise; secondly, at a Finnish institution, which should in no way be extended to Russia. Page 48. A newly baptized person who marries his own niece can be a cleric. The situation is false and seductive. Rule 5 of Theophilus of Alexandria resolves one particular case of Panuf; leaves him in the clergy if he married his niece, a catechumen, that is, before baptism, and not newly baptized, and with the condition that if she dies, and after baptism not by them. This is a completely different matter. A deacon who marries in the 6th degree of relationship is prohibited from becoming a priest. It is doubtful that this is a valid law. Page 53. Serfs who married academic artists and craftsmen enjoy freedom. Is this really the law of the Greek-Russian Church? Page 90. Every week the deans must report to their eminences that the service of God and all sacred events in the churches took place in a decorous manner. Is it really possible to oblige every dean to report seven fifty-two times a year? Page 96. The reasons for the common elevation of names are mutual Christian love and evidence of common faith, and the elevation of one’s own is subordination. This is not a canonical thought, but a dogmatic one; and it can serve as an example of how one should beware of dogmatizing in a canonical book. The writer says that we raise names in the church out of love, as evidence of common faith, as a sign of subordination. How? the reverent reader will say. Is this done only to please people, and not to ask for grace from God, both, firstly, to the authorities, and for them and other neighbors? Page 99. There are no prayers before the oak tree. As if it were the law! If the writer thinks so, then why didn’t he write out from the Spiritual Regulations that he shouldn’t bring a simple-haired woman under the name of Friday? What will people who do not know the true state of the Greek-Russian Church think when they see in its canonical book such provisions as if necessary and belonging to the current state of its governance? Page 100. Read services throughout the year about the 12 apostles in the thinking menaions. Why is this in the code of laws? You never know how many similar instructions the printing house has. Page 101. Call for the dead. This is not a law or a rule, but a custom, and even then not general, but private, varied from place to place. Page 125. Do not bury dead bodies in churches or near them. Not only in churches, you can’t even bury them in front of them! Where will the strict writer allow? Page 131. Make coffins of lead, not dugouts. Here is another church law! What if they bring a dead man in a dugout coffin? Will he be deprived of a church burial? This law would be a godsend for unworthy priests looking for an opportunity to embarrass parishioners and seek income. I think that these examples are enough to attract the attention of the Holy Synod to the book. No. 340. November 2 days, 1827 190 November 28. Metropolitan Philaret's opinion on the case of deacon Stefan Ivanov striking non-commissioned officer Demyanov in the chest in church On March 29, 1827, Bishop Afanasy of Tambov reported to the Holy Synod that non-commissioned officer Akinei Demyanov addressed the diocesan authorities with a complaint, in which he accused the deacon of the village of Vyshe-Bago, Kozlovsky district, Stefan Ivanov, firstly, of the fact that he, at the time when the priest of the said village Onisifor, began to celebrate the marriage of the petitioner's nephew, he took the cross and the gospel from the lectern, took them to the altar, closed the royal doors and lowered the curtain, thereby stopping the marriage; secondly, in the fact that, upon leaving the altar, being in vestments, he hit Demyanov, at the northern doors, with his fist in the chest so hard that Demyanov fell unconscious on the floor. After considering the investigation carried out on the content of this complaint, the diocesan authorities decided: Deacon Ivanov, who allegedly showed such disrespect for the church of God, on the basis of the first rule for the eradication of crimes, even though he should have been deprived of the diaconate and sent to the Tambov provincial government for consideration, where he turns out to be fit; but since this deacon was convicted of this act for the first time and, moreover, committed it not at the time of the marriage itself, but before that, for some time, and even before that he was neither on trial nor under a fine, then, having forbidden him to serve in the priesthood, assign him to a place of clergy, with the obligation of the strictest signature, so that he would not dare to do this in the future, for fear of inappropriate behavior. therefore, the strictest judgment. After requesting the case from the consistory and after considering it, members of the Holy Synod: Seraphim, Metropolitan of Novgorod, Filaret, Archbishop of Ryazan, and Gregory, Bishop of Kaluga, confessor, Protopresbyter Pavel Krinitsky, and the main headquarters of His Imperial Majesty, Chief Priest Muzovsky, came to the following conclusion: “in accordance with paragraph 167 of the conciliar Code, Chapter 10, taking as a basis: a) the testimony of the general reference, however, on some differences between them, having in mind the majority of them, and b) the peace petition of the petitioner and the defendant, the Synod finds no doubt that Deacon Stefan Ivanov in the northern door of the altar pushed non-commissioned officer Demyanov in the chest once so hard that he fell to the floor, which with this act he stopped for some time the wedding of Demyanov’s nephew, and that for this act, committed in the church and when he was in surplice, deserves severe punishment; but taking into account: 1) that this defendant, being 35 years old and serving as a deacon since 1819, had never been tried or fined for anything before the present case, and in relation to his lifestyle and character, he was not noticed by the local dean for anything other than rudeness; 2) that his act, about which the case is being discussed and for which he was subject to trial and punishment, is the first, and consequently requires another corrective measure against the guilty person, and 3) that this very act, not accompanied by either excitement or a dispute about the marriage, of which the offended person speaks in his request, for which the defendant himself is not aware of himself, nor the witnesses confirm, and is in action one-time, it seems not so much intentional as careless to allow the deacon’s explanation, not refuted by anything on Demyanov’s part, that he kept the latter at the door so that he would not enter the St. the altar, where the 69th Rule of the Sixth Ecumenical Council forbids the entry of a layman - the Synod believed that neither the 27th Rule of St. apostles, not 1 point of the highest approved on December 22, 1823, rules for the eradication of crimes in churches; since rule 27, on which the force of this 1st point is based, has as its subject a direct battle, or beating, showing an action that is continued and usually carried out in strong force and bitterness, which is not visible in the action of Deacon Ivanov, as stated above, and therefore the decision of the Tambov diocesan authorities to demote Ivanov to the position of clerk, with the appointment of a signature in the correction and supervision over him from the outside the dean, leaving it in his power, to order the bishop by decree, to carry it out. Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow did not agree with this conclusion and submitted a special opinion 191. Although Deacon Ivanov testified during the interrogation that he did not beat the non-commissioned officer Demyanov, but only stopped him out of duty so that he would not enter the altar, but contrary to this: 1) a common witness for the plaintiff and the defendant and even a relative of the deacon, Priest Onisiphorus by priesthood testified that Deacon Ivanov Demyanov, who had already entered the altar and asked for a marriage ceremony, being in the surplice, he pushed at the northernmost door once in the chest, but whether Demyanov fell - he, the priest, being in the altar, did not notice; 2) the priest Avdiy, also showing that Onesiphorus, added that he, Avdiy, had already dressed for the wedding, but, following the above-mentioned act of Deacon Ivanov, he married another, which also confirms that part of the plaintiff’s complaint that the deacon stopped at the wedding; 3) general witnesses testified under oath: the same-palace Baklakov, that the deacon, being in full vestments, hit Demyanov in the neck with his fist so hard that he staggered to the floor from such a blow; fellow palace Guriy Kulakov, that Deacon Demyanov, who entered the altar, through the side doors, pushed him in the chest so hard that he fell to the floor near the wing; fellow palace member Platon Kulakov, that Deacon Demyanov, who entered the altar, in the side altar doors, hit him with his fist so hard that he fell to the floor near the wing; the tradesman Moiseev, that the deacon, being in a surplice, in the northern altar doors pushed Demyanov in the chest so hard that he fell to the floor; the same-lord Pyotr Volkov also showed that Guriy Kulakov, with the only difference that Demyanov fell while standing in front of the newlyweds, for the confusion of the people, did not see; 4) fellow nobleman Baklakov, in addition to the above, also testified that the deacon, after the end of the marriages, in Merzlyakov’s house boasted that he had hit that non-commissioned officer Demyanov well; 5) Demyanov wrote in his petition and proved with witnesses that the deacon, for the offense, promised to pay him 34 rubles, and actually gave 18 rubles, but, having therefore received a peace letter from Demyanov, the deacon not only did not give him the rest of the money, but also out of the previous 10 rubles, under the pretext of exchanging a 25 ruble banknote, he deceived him from himself held; and in this part of the complaint, although the deacon did not make a confession, he did not bring any justification and did not give an answer, and the investigators gave the deacon some relief, not believing the witnesses and this part of the complaint, which represents new features of the moral character of the accused deacon. For all these circumstances, I believe: on the basis of the first rule for the eradication of crimes (which the diocesan authorities recognized as fair), Deacon Ivanov should be defrocked; the leniency for this given to him by the diocesan authorities due to the fact that he was convicted of this act for the first time cannot be considered correct, both because it disagrees with the above law, which does not make an exception for the first time of crime, and because Deacon Ivanov testified to the dean of the state of rudeness in 1825, was noticed in rudeness many times, and in 1826 he reads and sings bad, average condition. In view of the difference of opinions, the synodal chief prosecutor, in a proposal to the Synod, explained that he, having taken into account the essence of the matter and the laws of the different opinions that occurred in the Holy Synod, when judging the act of Deacon Stefan Ivanov, finds that the testimony of the said deacon clearly exposes the said deacon in all those arrogant and violent actions about which the non-commissioned officer complained Demyanov, and therefore, fully agreeing with the opinion of the Right Reverend Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow, he would consider dealing with Ivanov according to the exact force of 27 rights. St. Apostles and 1 paragraph of the highest rules approved in 1823 on the eradication of crimes in the churches, about which he proposes to the Holy Synod, whether it would be good to reach a unanimous conclusion on this subject. After hearing this proposal and after a second consideration of the case of Deacon Ivanov, the above-mentioned members of the Synod (except for Archbishop Philaret, who, having moved to the Kazan diocese, was not present in the meeting), announced that they remained with their previous opinions, and therefore decided to allow the Chief Prosecutor to act on the said case on the exact basis of paragraph 2 of the instructions given to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, June 13, 1722 As a result of this determination, the Chief Prosecutor came to the Sovereign Emperor with a most submissive report, at which the highest resolution was adopted: “To be in the opinion of a smaller number of members.” December 11. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to Count V.P. Kochubey, with an opinion: a) on the education of people of clergy and b) on the means of ensuring the maintenance of the rural clergy 192 Count V.P. Kochubey, in a letter dated December 8, 1827, forwarding to Metropolitan Philaret a note about the essence of the conversation he had with the single-distant chief prosecutor, Prince A.N. Golitsyn, asked to read this note and make in it all those changes or additions that he recognizes for the good, since it could easily happen that he forgot something else, and expressed others not in accordance with his thoughts, Metropolitan. The additions and corrections made by Metropolitan Philaret in the text of the opinion are underlined, in contrast to the text of the note by Count V.P. Kochubey. The constant attention of His Imperial Majesty, extending to all parts of government and to everything that can be useful for the state, naturally turned His Majesty's guardianship to the welfare of the clergy, especially the rural one. In this regard, His Majesty has already repeatedly deigned to express the desire that the shortcomings or needs of our clergy be investigated, and that His Majesty be presented with ways to achieve the dual goal of improving the education of people who dedicate themselves to the spiritual calling, and extracting parish priests from that poor state, which, often depriving them of their first, so to speak, needs, gives rise to vices in them, general disrespect or contempt parishioners who turn to them. Upon the announcement of the highest command to the Metropolitan of Moscow to take part in discussions about ways to fulfill the beneficial intentions of His Imperial Majesty, these discussions, in the order stated above, related to two subjects. A) To the formation of the spiritual rank of people, and C) to the means to ensure the maintenance of the parish, especially rural clergy. A) On the education of people of clergy rank I. The lack of education observed to this day in people of the clergy, in the opinion of the Metropolitan, comes partly from insufficient home education, partly from incorrect school education, unsatisfactorily adapted to the needs of church service. Before the rules for the formation of theological schools, published in 1808 and put into effect in relation to seminaries in 1814, were drawn up, some of these schools relied on their knowledge of the Latin language as an advantage over others. Hence, the priests, who knew pagan writers better than sacred and church writers, spoke and wrote better in Latin than in Russian, were more capable of shining in the circle of scientists with selected expressions of a dead language, rather than shining the light of living knowledge of the truth among the people. Only dogmatic theology was taught, using a too school-like method. Hence the dry and cold knowledge, the lack of active edification, the forced tone and futility of teachings, the inability to speak with people about truths that seemed very familiar in school. Instead of testing in the highest subjects of learning, so-called disputes were used, in which most of the students did not participate, and therefore were not tested at all, and some were divided into two sides, so that the art of proving a lie competed with the art of defending the truth, and a cunning objection was approved no less than a thorough refutation; hence the tendency to disputes, often seductive and mostly useless for instructing the people, because school objections and decisions are not included in the circle of concepts circulating among the people. Since the transformation of theological schools in 1814, the teaching of active theology was introduced; In this way, theological teaching became closer to application in life. Instead of disputes between a few about a few, tests were introduced for all students in all subjects of study; Thus, monitoring progress in learning is henceforth aimed at improving students and learning itself. It is allowed to teach theological lessons in Russian; from this, however, Knowledge of the Latin language became weaker, but school terminology began to give way to a purer and clearer presentation of the truth, the dissemination of essential knowledge increased and the communication of it to the people in teachings became easier. For these and similar considerations, the Metropolitan believes that the outline of the rules on theological schools, published in 1808, with some partial corrections therein followed in 1814, can continue to serve as a solid basis for the good organization of theological schools. But the following seems necessary: 1) The draft statutes of theological schools drawn up on this basis (not submitted at the time for the highest approval out of precaution), according to the instructions of more than ten years of experience, correct and supplement what the commission of theological schools has already undertaken and can be accomplished in a short time. 2) Constantly adhere to accepted and approved rules. For when in 1825, when graduating from the St. Petersburg Theological Academy of students whose merit was proven by the four volumes of their dissertations and sermons published at the same time, the commission of theological schools, contrary to 94 points of the highest approved rules, did not raise any of them to the degree of master, this produced in the schools despondency and bewilderment that was unfavorable for learning about what the authorities were dissatisfied with and what they wanted from schools 3) To use care so that schools that are not yet well-maintained are corrected, and those that are well-maintained are maintained in order and directed towards further improvement, which requires the attentive and unrelenting action of the commission of theological schools and diocesan bishops. 4) since, in 1825, the commission of theological schools, taking a reverse course from common teaching to scholasticism, ordered theology to be taught exclusively in Latin, from books in which insufficient teaching is burdened with heavy school terminology, but this forced way of instruction is especially not conducive to the education of parish priests, who are obliged to expound the truths of faith, for the most part, to the unlearned people, as simply as possible, in a natural language, and at the same time the Latin language, which, in its original formation, has a pagan character, and, according to its current use, belongs to the Western Church, without rights and decency constrains the presentation of truth in the Eastern Church: then again allow the teaching of theological teaching in the Russian language (with preservation, however, in favor of Latin, as a classical one, a more appropriate place for it in the classes of literature and philosophy), and to encourage capable people to compile theological textbooks, in the true spirit of the word of God and the Holy Fathers, with precise teaching, but as much as possible, a generally understandable presentation of truths, with a careful application of the teaching to the state of the Eastern, and especially the Russian Church, that is, with a statement of the true reasons why it accepts or rejects something, and with thorough refutations of those false teachings that priests can currently encounter in field of his ministry. 5) since those who have completed seminary studies do not suddenly enter into priestly positions, but often spend more than a year waiting for vacancies, then, so that during this time they are not left without supervision and guidance, and, on the contrary, in order to more accurately use this time for further education of themselves and for preparing for their future ministry, it is decided that those who have completed the seminary training course are on the seminary lists and belong to the department of the seminaries, until they are actually assigned to positions clergy, so that, during this time, they are engaged in repeated listening to theological teaching, reading the writings of the holy fathers and other books that guide their future ministry, writings, translations and preaching the word of God, and that the poorest of them benefit from the contents of seminaries, or are placed, according to convenience, at bishops' houses and in monasteries, with the above purpose. II. In the current state of our needs for priests, the Metropolitan finds that the number of theological schools currently existing is sufficient. From time to time, due to the large population, the need arises to divide classes and increase the number of teachers in the same school; In some dioceses there may be a need to add an entire parish or district school, but these needs are small and require small expenses. One measure that seems necessary is to increase the number of students in diocesan schools funded by the state. The great poverty of many priests and clergy often deprives them of all means of supporting their children on their own in seminaries. Therefore, it will be useful for schools, and it will be easier for the clergy, to increase the number of government students. Their number in some dioceses can be doubled compared to the present set, so, for example, instead of 200 students currently contained in two seminaries belonging to the Moscow Metropolitanate, up to 400. But even for this increase in pupils, not in large numbers, additional sums will be required because in some small seminaries the number of 100 pupils set by the approximate states can be reduced to 75 or even to 50. The commission of theological schools has sufficient methods for this need. C) On the means to ensure the maintenance of the rural clergy. III. The Metropolitan of Moscow, in the note that he previously presented 193, outlined his thoughts on this subject. He believes that it would be inconvenient, according to the respects he has already explained, to destroy the data for the administration of demands in order to satisfy the priests exclusively with their salaries. The habit of the people to such rewards for priests, on the one hand, and on the other, the lack of education in these latter and the difficulty of those who are accustomed to income to suddenly turn to disinterested, in the strict sense, fulfillment of their duties, can give rise to great omissions in the fulfillment of requirements, instead of the fact that now even those who are dissatisfied with the sense of their duty are encouraged by their own interest to be active. Therefore, the Metropolitan believes that it is more convenient to maintain the present order of giving for the fulfillment of needs, raising only the dacha determined by law, in accordance with the increase in all prices, from the time it was established in 1801, and, moreover, to pay attention to the fact that 36 tithes of land were certainly allocated to rural churches, so that it would serve them as food for the clergy, through their own cultivation, or providing rugi, that is, a grain or monetary salary, which the parishioners give the parishion, by mutual agreement, in exchange for a specified amount of land. In judging this, the question arose: is it not possible to combine both of these systems for the first time, that is, maintaining income while correcting the requirements and determining a small salary for priests, so that although the poorest of them may not be so in need of their maintenance and, after the first test (in) this, it would be possible to later turn to determining large salaries, with the abolition of the dacha for correcting the requirements. It will not be very difficult to meet this expense, if we take into account that the people have received during the present reign some, quite significant, reliefs, a reduction in zemstvo duties, such as: postal and road fees, a reduction in expenses for recruiting, etc. In this situation, it would not seem burdensome for the peasants to pay forty kopecks per head for the maintenance of the clergy and schools, adding the latter to the decree about this, so that the collection could be directed, without inconvenience, to schismatics. Regardless of this, many of the landowners, of course, without imposing anything on the peasants, would themselves determine the proper salary for the priests, and the administrations of state-owned and appanage peasants, probably in many places, would also find means to ensure the maintenance of the priests, through some kind of income, such as quitrents, articles, and the like. The Metropolitan of Moscow found various inconveniences in this last assumption. He believes that no matter how hidden it is from the peasants that they pay taxes on the salaries of the priests, they will inevitably get through, and then various reproaches and displeasures will arise from the peasants against the priests, which are now often occurring, and at the same time the peasants will begin to pay less for the services, and from this will arise complaints, investigations, etc. Moreover, if the expected salary was assigned to all clergy, then some clergy, who even now have a sufficient income from their income, would receive their salary in vain; others, having received a meager salary instead of land that brings a satisfactory income, would end up in a worse situation than their current one. If we assume that the salary is assigned only to some meager accounts, then some of the peasants will have reason to say: “Why are we paying taxes on foreign priests?” In addition, the one-time decisive compilation of a list of clergy with meager content, in order to determine their salaries, is fraught with difficulties set out in the previous note of the Metropolitan of Moscow. The Metropolitan, arguing in this way about the inconvenience of a special tax for determining the salary of priests, concluded that the elevation of the dacha for services determined by law and the endowment of churches with lands can significantly contribute to improving the condition of the rural clergy, believing, however, that there are such poor parishes that need help, and that this help should consist in assigning salaries to clergy and clergy in the manner shown in the previous note. Such a salary could have been made from the sums of theological schools, if the plan of 1808, which was supposed to release two million rubles a year from the treasury before the designated capital was made up, had been carried out, but since the production of these sums was stopped, now the ecclesiastical department has no way to satisfy this necessary expenditure. The commission of theological schools now has from its capital (except for special church construction capital) up to two million rubles of income, which are used to maintain the schools. On top of this, the annual candle income extends from a million rubles to 1,400,000, but which, however, cannot be considered boldly, since it is subject to change and decline. The annual commission costs not only exhaust the annual interest, but also about half of the annual candle income. At the same time, the commission uses frugality, trying to increase its capital so that with interest it would be possible to cover all the regular expenses of the schools, through which the regular salaries of the schools would be completely ensured, and then the annual candle income could be spent with greater security. In this situation, the commission of theological schools can devote little to helping insufficient parishes, and must certainly find other ways for this, which it would have had if the government had decided to release two million rubles from the treasury, according to the mentioned initial assumption. The note about the impossibility that in the present state of our finances it would be possible to allocate such a significant amount to the treasury, no matter how useful its use, led to considerations of what other measures, although to some extent, can the above-mentioned assumption be achieved, that is, assistance in maintaining the clergy in the poorest parishes and through this providing them with the best priests? For many reasons, it is recognized that if the government allocates 500,000 rubles a year solely for this subject, then a significant benefit will be provided. And the Metropolitan of Moscow was of the opinion that in the present situation of theological schools, when there cannot be such a significant number of priests, well-educated, who need to be paid more, and in ten years it is unlikely that an increase in the annual amount of this (500,000 rubles) appointments will be required. But in order not to lose sight of or postpone the useful idea of supplying poor parishes with as many capable priests as possible, then in the current situation, as class salaries for doctors, masters and candidates are made from the sums of theological schools, determine the corresponding salary for those students who, after passing the established exam, will enter the priesthood in such rural parishes, which, according to the recognition of the diocesan bishops, do not provide them with satisfied with the content. This salary, according to the Metropolitan, could be at least 150 rubles a year. IV. When paying attention to improving the situation of the rural clergy, it was necessary not to lose sight of the dwellings of the rural priests, which His Eminence Philaret touched upon in his note presented to His Imperial Majesty. On this subject, it has been found most convenient to be guided by the following rules: 1) Try to ensure that in all rural parishes there are houses for priests and clergy that belong to the church. 2) For greater convenience, do this gradually, and for the first time bring the houses of priests into this position. 3) Build and repair these houses in parishes sufficient for their expense, and, moreover, in the landowners’ houses, demand this from the landowners. 4) For parishes of the poor, but for special reasons requiring the maintenance of the clergy, issue a one-time allowance for this subject from the amounts of the commission of theological schools. V. For this reason, it was discussed about the proposal of the Marquis Paulucci, so that, on the basis of a decree given by Emperor Paul I of blessed memory, the peasants would cultivate the lands of the parish priests. The Metropolitan, based on the many inconveniences that, during the implementation of this position, opened up and prevented its continuation, believed that it would encounter the same difficulties and arouse the displeasure of the peasants against the priests and the complaints of these latter. In conclusion, it was discussed how the intention of His Imperial Majesty could be more conveniently fulfilled, so that the Synod would more actively and rigorously take up everything that could firmly establish the existence of the rural clergy and improve their education. Does the Synod need a decree for this, or can it be done differently? The Metropolitan of Moscow responded that it is possible to fulfill this highest intention by now forwarding to the Synod the presentation of the Marquis Paulucci, so that the Synod would consider it, and generally not delay in fulfilling the assignment entrusted to him, as announced by Secretary of State Muravyov, or give the Holy Synod a decree, regardless of the presentation of the Marquis Paulucci, expressing this decree, in terms common, the highest will, for otherwise if the subjects with which the Synod must deal are fragmented, then the matter, which has become difficult in the course of its progress, may become more difficult and prolong even more. In both cases, the metropolitan, when judging the case, can present, in the form of his opinion, everything that from his note presented to the Sovereign Emperor will be accepted by His Majesty as good 194. 1st full collection Order vol. XXXI, No. 24091. Decree. St. Syn. from 19 Jan. 1810 From a handwritten original. Inventory No. 50; document No. 1–6. From a handwritten original. Inventory No. 50; document Nos. 7 and 8. File of the archive of the Holy Synod of 1823, No. 1270, pp. 43–45. File of the archive of the Holy Synod, 1827, No. 321; l. 1–19. From a rough original, storing. in the Moscow library. spirit. acad. 1827, No. 2; file of the archives of the Holy Synod, 1826, No. 817. The word “opinion” is written in the Metropolitan’s own hand, while the text of the opinion is written in the hand of a copyist. See above. No. 177. p.156 et seq. Inventory, No. 102, document. No. 3.