1847 г.

January 25. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count N.A. Protasov, with a conclusion on whether the rules set out in the code of military regulations can be implemented according to the spiritual department, when bringing in the children of schismatics, according to the Orenburg Cossack army, from church metrics Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count N.A. Protasov, in relation, dated November 22, 1846, No. 8660, wrote to Metropolitan Philaret: “when considering the case regarding the inclusion in church metrics of the children of schismatics in the Orenburg Cossack army, on the basis of the rules existing in the set of military regulations, questions arise: can these rules, in accordance with the purpose of church metrics and in general, be conveniently executed according to the spiritual department and how. Wishing to keep in mind your Eminence’s opinion on this matter, based on many years of experience and knowledge of matters relating to church improvement, I consider it my duty to forward an extract from it to your discretion, dear sir and archpastor, and to most humbly ask for your conclusion on this subject to be communicated to me.” The following document is attached to this relation: The military administration of the Orenburg Cossack army informed the local consistory that Archpriest Ilyin of the Chelyabinsk Holy Trinity Church, at the insistence of the Chelyabinsk stanitsa administration about the inclusion of children newly born to schismatics in the metric books, responded that whoever has not been baptized cannot be included in the church metrics. This review of Ilyin was recognized as fair by the Chelyabinsk spiritual board, from which the regimental board asked for an order to include Ilyin in the church metrics of the children of schismatics. And how, based on the provisions of the Don Army, Chapter 7 (which is applied to the regulations on the Orenburg Cossack Army § 223 of its provisions), § 360 and 361 and XIV vol. Code Zak. Mouth of the Presiding and Rev. crimes (ed. 1842), Art. 60, priests should not shy away from including schismatic children in the church records, but are obliged to do this strictly, then the military administration asked the spiritual consistory to make an order that priests must necessarily fulfill the demands of the local military authorities regarding the recording of children born to schismatics in the records on the basis of the following articles of the Code of Military Resolutions: 1944 (§ 352 of the Donskoy Regulations Cossack army, approved on May 26, 1835, in the correct compilation of metric books, where all born babies of both sexes must be recorded, the rulers of each village and parish priests are obliged by subscriptions § 353 (Article of the Code 1945), five ranks, known in the Old Believers or schism at full village gatherings, to strictly confirm their children of both sexes. no more than three days from birth, they recorded in the presence of village atamans and judges in the metric books available in the village boards. § 354 (in the Code, article 1946), parish priests and village rulers record newly born children in the registers of births without the slightest contradiction or retreat, as soon as the father of the newborn comes to them with an explanation that none of them should remain voiceless. § 360 (Article 1952) village boards must include in the books given to them on this subject all born babies without exception: Orthodox from the metric books available to the parish priests, and Old Believers, schismatics, according to the announcement of their fathers. § 361 (Article of the Code of 1953), the village boards report monthly extracts to the parish priests about the children of the Old Believers included in the books for placement in the church records, and at the end of the year they compare their books with the books of the priests, confirming the accuracy of the notes on both sides with mutual signatures, in the same form they present to the district duty and regulations on the Orenburg Cossack army. § 223 (367 Art. second continuation to the Code of Military Regulations), everything prescribed by the regulations on the management of the Don Army in chapters 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 27 and 29 is fully applied to the Orenburg Cossack army and is carried out by it with all accuracy. The Orenburg diocesan authorities 212, finding that the entry into the registers of schismatic children baptized by an unknown person is incompatible with the usual form of church registers, in which the clergy who baptized and the recipients of the baptized are designated, requests permission on this subject. For this reason, information was required from the Right Reverend Don 213 on how those rules were fulfilled in experience in the Don army. To this, the Right Reverend Ignatius reported: 1) Regulations on the management of the Don army, Chapter 9, § 361, the village boards were ordered to report monthly extracts to the parish priests about the children of the Old Believers included in the books for placement in church records; at the end of the year, compare your books with the books of the priests, and confirm the accuracy of the notes according to both mutual signatures, and present them in this form to the district duty. 2) That there was no special order for the implementation of these either from the diocesan authorities, or from the military authorities, the diocesan authorities were not informed; and from experience it is clear that schismatic unbaptized children either do not fit into the metric books at all, or are entered differently: in some places among the Orthodox according to birth order, with a note in each article that they were not baptized due to the schism; in others, a special article, after the Orthodox, for each month. But in church or confessional paintings, all schismatics and their families are written without exception. By decree of the Holy Synod, dated February 20, 1840, No. 1404, it was ordered that schismatics be included in the metrics when one of them joins the Orthodox Holy Church; therefore, some of them, in the case of accessions, can be counted doubly according to metrics if their birth without baptism is also recorded. Volume IX Compendium. Zach. civil (ed. 1842) about states, in articles: 1413, parish books are kept on printed sheets with spaces, outlining all the circumstances necessary for reference relating to birth, marriage and deaths; 1415, births, marriages and deaths are recorded in the books not for memory or from the testimony of families, but immediately after correction of each requirement, such as: prayers at the birth and baptism of a baby, weddings and burials; parishioners must immediately notify their parish priests about deaths in their families. 1424, every parishioner about whom, personally, or about a member of his family, any event is recorded in the registry book, has the right, at the end of the Divine service, to ask the priest to show him exactly how that event was recorded, and if there were errors, to ask for correction and to testify in writing about the accuracy of the testimony in a special column. The priests and church ministers, in aversion to mistakes, having made any requirement and written it down in the metrics, then invite those who participated and were present to review the accuracy of the testimony and testify to this on the metrics themselves. The Charter of Spiritual Consistories, Section 2, Chapter 5, Article 103, all requests of parishioners are fulfilled by their parish priests and clergy. But if there was a need to immediately administer the sacraments to a sick person or to immediately baptize a baby in fear for his life, and the local priest for some reason could not arrive at the required speed, then not a single priest has the right to refuse to fulfill the requirements. 105. Those born, married and dying in parishes are entered into the registers of parishes according to this form. These books are written in two copies, of which one is submitted to the consistory directly, or through the spiritual board, and the other is kept in the church. To the attitude of Count Protasov, No. 8660, Metropolitan Filaret, dated January 25, 1847, responded as follows: Regarding the inclusion in the church metrics of the children of schismatics in the Orenburg Cossack army, on the basis of the rules existing in the Code of Military Regulations, your Excellency demanded my opinion: can these rules, in accordance with the purpose of the church metrics, and in general, be conveniently executed according to the spiritual department and how? Your Excellency is right in the question itself in drawing attention to the purpose of church metrics. Their purpose, and the church’s need for them, is so that the Orthodox Church truly knows her children adopted by her through baptism, and therefore can correctly and undoubtedly teach them the subsequent sacraments. From this it is obvious that the priest is obliged to register only the children of Orthodox Christians baptized in the church, and is not obliged to register schismatic children. And if you entrust this to a priest, in addition to his essential duties, by the permission of his superiors, difficulties in fulfillment will immediately arise. The Orthodox enter into intercourse with the priest at the birth of a baby, if necessary, willingly, with trust; the priest sees the baby and the mother: under these circumstances it is easy to demand fidelity in the recording. The priest does not see the schismatic baby and mother; the schismatic will reluctantly go to announce the birth of a baby to the priest, even if there is a law for that; From whom exactly, and whether from a marriage, albeit a schismatic one, or without a marriage at all, the schismatic baby was born, the priest cannot know; If a priest does not register a schismatic baby without an announcement, and the schismatic later claims that he announced it to the priest, the matter will often be insoluble, because it is inconvenient to gather outside witnesses at each announcement of a schismatic, and in their presence make a record and approve them with their signatures. If the records of the faithful cannot be expected: then what is the use of imposing on the priests the burden of keeping records that cannot be relied upon? This is one side of the case that should be decisively taken if on the opposite side there were no circumstances entitled to respect. 1) The rule of enrolling schismatic children in church records was included in the Code of Military Regulations. It should be regretted that laws on subjects related to spiritual affairs are sometimes drawn up without communication with the spiritual authorities: but when the law has already been awarded the highest approval, it is necessary to find in every possible way a way to fulfill it, without requiring change. 2) Church metrics are of no small importance in civil and state administration and are used for the annual number of people, since audits are rare, for checking the audits themselves, for certifying that people belong to states, for determining the age for coming of age and for fulfilling the important duty of recruitment. It is nice to think that the church brings this service to the state free of charge, imposing on its servants this burden and rather difficult responsibility. With zeal for the common good, there is no reason for the state to want its own national metrics: for they would be expensive, would be difficult for the people, and would hardly achieve not only the highest, but also the degree of fidelity that church metrics achieve under hierarchical discipline. From this it follows that the effort to provide church metrics with the possible completeness should be part of the work of zeal for the common good. Here are two, in my opinion, important incentives to work on the positive side of the issue under consideration whenever possible. I cannot help but draw attention to the fear expressed by His Eminence Don of the confusion in numbers if schismatics are recorded in the metrics: first, at birth, and then when they join the church. Does he really think that those joining the church should be included in the same number as those born? But when misunderstandings are already in mind: it is necessary not to delay measures to eliminate them. It seems to me possible and appropriate to the circumstances to do the following: 1) give the following plan to the metrics, without changing their usual and customary composition. I. Part one, about those born: 1) the first addition to the first part, about those joining the church. 2) The second addition to the first part, about those born to schismatics. II. Part two, about marriages. III. Part three, about the dying. 2) Keep a separate count of those added, and do not add their numbers to the number of those born. 3) Keep a count of those born to schismatics in the second addition to the first part, separately; but in the list also show the total number of Orthodox and non-Orthodox people born. 4) If the birth of a schismatic baby is announced to the parish priest by the village board (Sovd., Art. 1953), then the priest writes: according to the announcement of the village board, such and such was born to such and such. 5) Based on the same announcement, in the baptism column it is written: whether baptized, unknown; how baptized, unknown by whom; or: baptized not by a priest, etc. 6) The clergyman is responsible only for the fact that he correctly wrote down what was announced by the village board, and not for the accuracy of the content of the announcement. 7) If all the schismatics living within the parish belong to the department of the village government, then from this board all announcements about the births of them come to the clergy. 8) But if there are schismatics living in the parish who are not subject to the authority of the village boards, and if it is deemed necessary that those born here be registered in the church registers, then announcements are accepted from the fathers or closest relatives in the presence of the entire clergy; and then it is written in the metric - according to the announcement of such and such, such and such was born to such and such. And the entire clergy, and, if possible, the one who announced it or another literate one for him signs this article, in metrics, at the same time. 9) And in this case, the clergyman is responsible for the accurate recording of what was announced, and the announcer is responsible for the fairness of what was announced. 10) In order to achieve the completeness of the metrics, it would be possible to impose a small penalty on a schismatic who did not announce the parable about the newborn at the time, which would be paid to the church parish and used on printed sheets for the metrics. Such a course of action may not be useless in order to open up relations between priests and schismatics, who, according to the suggestions of their mentors, decisively moving away from the priests, do not give them the opportunity for interviews about Orthodoxy. January 25, 1847 214 . February 16. Report of Metropolitan Philaret to the Holy Synod regarding the publication of the complete works of Metropolitan Plato The St. Petersburg Committee for Spiritual Censorship, dated November 16, 1846, No. 257, reported to the Holy Synod: “The St. Petersburg bookseller Nikolai Korablev entered the committee for censorship of spiritual books with a petition, in which he explained that he wishes to print the complete collected works of Metropolitan Plato 215 in a compact edition, for For greater convenience, instead of 22 volumes, only in 3 large format volumes, I asked the committee, after considering these works, to give him permission to print them.” As a result of this request, the committee entrusted the consideration of the above-mentioned works to three of its members: Archimandrite Avvakum 216, Archpriest of the Kazan Cathedral Timofey Nikolsky 217 and Archpriest of the same cathedral Andrei Okunev 218, who, after considering them, reported to the committee that from the above-mentioned works of the Most Reverend Metropolitan Plato. I. A Brief Russian Church History, published for the third time by Archpriest John Platonov 219, in two volumes, in 1829, with the permission of the Holy Governing Synod, on the basis of § 19 of the statute of spiritual censorship, is not subject to consideration by the committee, why to publish it again the publisher should ask permission from the Holy Governing Synod. II. Orthodox teaching, or abbreviated Christian theology, since it has hitherto been published by the Holy Synod, the committee has no right to provide a new edition to a private person. III. The work, entitled: Catechism, although dogmatically does not contain anything contrary to the Orthodoxy of our church, and for the clarity and simplicity of its presentation deserves to be published, but since, according to the register of books sent by decree of the Holy Synod, dated August 20, 1834 (No. 8280), it is the property of the Holy Synod, and besides being a dogmatic work, it cannot be otherwise admitted for publication, as with its permission, on the basis of the decree of the Holy Synod, dated May 25, 1845 (No. 6040), then the committee itself cannot give permission for the publication of this work. IV. Instructive words spoken by Metropolitan Plato at the highest court and in other places, as not containing anything contrary to the rules of the statute of spiritual censorship, may be approved for publication, with the exception of: a) one volume, in which, in addition to 8 instructive words, exhortations to schismatics and instructions to deans, there are three short catechisms, of which: 1) in the abbreviated catechism for teaching youths: α) there is no creed, β) it speaks briefly about only three sacraments, namely: baptism, communion and repentance, and γ) there is no Lord’s Prayer with its presentation; 2) in the abbreviated catechism for clergy: α) there is no creed and β) the Lord’s Prayer, which works the committee, due to its bewilderment regarding the incompleteness of those that should be included in these parts, cannot allow for publication; and b) With the exception of the Life of St. Sergius added to the mentioned instructive words, since this work is still being published from the Holy Synod. After listening to these reviews, the censorship committee, taking into account that from the above-mentioned works of Metropolitan Plato, his instructive words do not represent anything contrary to the rules of the statute of spiritual censorship, they themselves gave permission to print them; Regarding all the others, he announced to the bookseller Korablev that, on the above-mentioned grounds, these works are either not subject to consideration by the committee at all, or their publication to a private person cannot be granted without seeking permission from the Holy Governing Synod; that is why I returned the said works to him. But Korablev now turned again to the censorship committee with a petition, in which, explaining that it was desirable for him to publish the works of Plato, including among them those for the publication of which the censorship could not give permission on its own, he asked the committee to use its petition before the Holy Synod for permission to print these volumes in the new complete edition it proposed. The Censorship Committee, in response to the request of the bookseller Korablev, made a determination: “to petition the Holy Governing Synod for permission for Korablev to publish, among other works, the works of Metropolitan Plato, and those of them for which the censorship could not give permission by itself.” The Holy Synod, by resolution of December 4–31, 1846, decided: “The above presentation of the St. Petersburg committee of spiritual censorship, at the request of the bookseller Nikolai Korablev for permission to print the complete collected works of the late Metropolitan Plato, in a compact edition, is to be forwarded to the synodal member, the Eminence of Moscow, so that he delivers your comments on this presentation; about which to send to him, the Right Reverend Metropolitan, a decree with appendices.” To the Holy Governing Synod, from its member, Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow, a report. By decree of the Holy Synod, dated December 31, 1846, No. 17632, a proposal from the St. Petersburg Committee of Spiritual Censorship was forwarded to me regarding the publication of the complete works of Metropolitan Plato of blessed memory, and my comments were requested on this proposal. At the same time, six volumes of the above-mentioned works were forwarded to me. Adhering literally to the instructions of the Holy Synod on submitting comments on the proposal of the censorship committee, I must pay attention to the fact that the committee noticed in the short catechisms of Metropolitan Plato the absence of the creed and the Lord's Prayer, and in one of them the mention of only three sacraments, and concluded that, due to its bewilderment, it could not allow them to be published. The comments and perplexities of the committee cannot have any other meaning than that catechisms in which there is no creed, and in which only three sacraments are mentioned, may seem unsatisfactory in relation to Orthodox teaching. If this doubt arose in the committee, then it may also appear outside it. It is better to avert doubt by precautions than to ignore it, even if it is of minor importance. The reason for the omissions noticed in the catechisms, no doubt, was brevity, especially necessary in times when it was necessary to get used to learning with ease and brevity, and not be intimidated by the difficulty and vastness of the teaching. So the author himself, having counted all seven sacraments, said about baptism and the Eucharist: we undertake to speak about these, sparing time. Volume IX, page 236. However, there is an inaccuracy in the comments of the censorship committee. He says that there is no creed in the catechism for priests and ecclesiastics. This is wrong. Here are the words of the catechism: all this is contained in the symbol of our Orthodox faith: I believe in one God the Father, and so on. The fact that the symbol of faith is indicated only by the initial words, and is not written all the way to the end, as it is very well known to the churchmen, does not mean that it does not exist at all. The same inaccuracy was made by the committee in the comment on the abbreviated catechism for youths. The Censorship Committee still finds difficulty in allowing the printing of the book: Orthodox teaching and catechism because it recognized them as the property of the Holy Synod; but then he decided to leave the printing of them to an outside publisher. Consequently, he abandoned the opinion of appropriating the said books into the exclusive property of the Holy Synod. Consideration with the law forces us to recognize this latest decision of the committee as fair. By virtue of Volume XIV of the Code of Laws, Article 258, the right of ownership of works belongs to the author and his heirs for a period of 25 years from his death; and then the works become public domain, and anyone can publish them. That Metropolitan Plato did not provide any of his works as the property of the Holy Synod, this is evident from the fact that in 1808 he gave his nephew, Archpriest Platonov 220, the right to print all his works without withdrawal. Consequently, none of the works can be considered the property of the Holy Synod, nor the property of the heirs, after the legal period has passed. Consequently, there is no basis on this side to challenge Korablev’s right to publish these books. Here I might end my remarks on the committee's presentation; but, not considering it likely that this matter was forwarded to me just for these comments, I conclude that the instruction given to me also includes this question: how to deal with the books in question. Although it is difficult for me to touch upon the works of my husband of such revered memory, I think his spirit will not be offended by what I decide to do out of duty of obedience to the Holy Synod, and out of desire to eliminate controversy from objects that require reverence. I don’t read books sent from board to board. The Holy Synod did not prescribe this to me; and this was the task of the censorship committee, which was not very convenient for me, to fill my time with activities that belong to my essential duties. I believe that it will be enough to pay attention to what was noticed by the censorship committee and what I know in the books in question. For clarity, I will talk about books separately. I. Abridged Christian theology is known not only in Russia, but also in foreign lands, through translations. Consequently, it is too late and useless to subject it to strict censorship. However, I consider it unnecessary to draw the attention of the Holy Synod to one expression in this book: sacraments or sacred rites. The book was written when theological terminology in Russian had not yet been established. Subsequently, the word: rite began to be used (to which its meaning also leads) to express the only visible actions of the Divine service, and therefore is even opposed to the sacrament, which consists of a visible sacred action and an invisible grace-filled one. Therefore, in order to take away the reason for incorrect interpretations, it would not be useless in the new edition to replace the inaccurate expression: sacred rite with the more accurate: sacred action. A sacred action can be visible and invisible, spiritual, grace-filled, and therefore will represent a decent description of the sacrament. If this is accepted, the following corrections will occur: II. Short Catechism for Small Children, if it is necessary to print, then the following changes seem necessary: But there are good reasons for completely excluding this catechism from the new edition. It is not needed for the completeness of the publication: for it contains for the most part a repetition of what is in other works of the same writer. Thus, the interpretation of the Lord's Prayer is literally taken from the abbreviated theology, with only some expressions omitted. Prayers for rising from sleep, before going to bed, before lunch and after lunch, are copied from the same book. Then, as the Holy Synod, by compiling catechisms, carefully examined, tried to give completeness and unity to the catechism of the whole people, it would not be quite appropriate to return to the initial experiences of this matter, the language of which is already somewhat outdated. For if you do not interfere with the publication of this catechism in collected works, then there will be no reason to interfere with its printing separately for educational use at home. III. The Abridged Catechism for Youth does not mention four of the seven sacraments at all. Contains the same thing as the catechism for priests and clergy. Therefore, it can also be omitted in the new edition without damage. IV. A shortened catechism for clergy and clergy. Quite similar to the previous one; but mentions all seven sacraments. That the writer did not interpret the Lord's Prayer in it, the reason for this, no doubt, was the need for brevity. The Lord’s Prayer can be used reverently and usefully by those who have not received an interpretation of it. Moreover, the catechism is a very noteworthy statement of church rules, especially necessary for clergy. Why is it useful to print this catechism? V. The Catechism, publicly interpreted, contained a lot of useful information, although in some places it presents some inaccuracy and incompleteness; it has sufficient protection from exacting contradictions in the fact that it is, as stated on the first page, the work of a nineteen-year-old mentor in a lay rank. However, when publishing this book, it is useful to change some expressions. It is better to completely exclude the following passage: Volume VIII. Country 168 and 169. What is now God the Father, our ancestors had Perun; What is now the dignity of God the Son, the wicked Dido was venerated by our ancestors; The kind of goodness we are now endowed with from the Holy Spirit is the kind of goodness we once expected from the wicked Lada. V. A brief Russian church history, as can be seen from the decree of the Holy Synod, was already considered in 1823 221, and, with the exception of some places, was allowed for publication by the Holy Synod: and therefore now does not require new consideration. Which I most respectfully report to the Holy Synod, with the return of the report of the censorship committee and books. Your Holiness's humblest novice. Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow. The Holy Synod, by definition of May 19–31, 1847, decided: “contained in the VI volume of the works of Metropolitan Plato: a) a short catechism for teaching small children and b) an abbreviated catechism for teaching young people, not to be allowed for printing, according to what was noted in them, explained in the report to the Holy Synod of His Eminence Philaret, Metropolitan Moscow, dated February 16 of this year, No. 81, shortcomings. Regarding the works contained in the same, VI, VII, VIII and IX volumes, under the name: c) an abbreviated catechism for priests and clergy, d) Orthodox teaching or abbreviated Christian theology and e) a catechism, or the original instruction in Christian law, which was publicly interpreted in the audience of the Slavic-Greek-Latin Moscow Academy, since the right to publish such books belongs to The Holy Synod should especially consider the need for a new edition of these works. Then, other works of Metropolitan Plato, about which a presentation was made by the St. Petersburg Committee of Spiritual Censorship, should be given to the committee for approval for a new edition. What to send to the said committee, for proper execution, a decree with the return of the six volumes of the works of Metropolitan Plato presented by the committee 222.” April 10. The opinion of Metropolitan Philaret on the need for the Holy Synod to communicate with the Patriarch of Constantinople so that it would subject the former Bosnian Bishop Ambrose, in addition to the prohibition, to ecclesiastical condemnation and excommunication for his arrival in the Austrian possessions among the schismatics 223 In the papers of Metropolitan Philaret there is preserved, translated into Russian, “submitted by Metropolitan Ambrose 224 to the Austrian Emperor,” from Vienna, dated July 11–23, 1846, a petition with the following content: Your Imperial Majesty. By the highest decision of September 18, 1844, Your Imperial Majesty most mercifully deigned to the Old Believer society located in Bukovina to find, wherever it pleases, abroad, a bishop, and to have them forever as their supreme shepherd, regardless of other religions. As a result of this highest mercy, two envoys, monks: Alimpy Miloradov and Pavel Vasiliev, immediately went to the Turkish state from the Belokrinitsky monastery; having visited not only European Turkey, but also Asian Turkey, together with the Holy Land of Jerusalem, and even Arabia and Egypt; They worked on this matter solely to find such a bishop who would be useful to the Old Believer societies and entrusted to the Austrian state. Under special circumstances, these Christians have been oppressed by the Great Russian Church for many years, and with extreme fear they would not be able to elect a shepherd who would desire the unity sought from the Russian Church by words and oppression. According to their desire, it was pleasing to the mercy of God, and with the deepest reverence, the undersigned Greek Metropolitan, according to the rules of St. ecumenical councils and following the examples of St. Father, to the above-mentioned society of Old Believers, agreed to be their supreme shepherd on a condition made on the 16th day of April 1846, personally signed by me. I explain my type of life. I was born in the city of Enosh; I am now 55 years old; baptized in the name of Andrey; son of the local priest George; entered into marriage 1811; ordained as a priest by Metropolitan Matei of Yenoinsk, being the twenty-third priest in his family; but my wife died in 1814, the widow accepted the monastic rank in 1817, and after many years of service with the named metropolitan, he was appointed, in 1823, abbot of the monastery of St. Trinity on the island of Helki, near Constantinople, where he remained until 1827. At that very time, by the will of the Patriarch of Constantinople, he was appointed primate of the church in Mekharevmi, in the Bosphorus of Constantinople. And after that, Costantius was installed as Patriarch, the proto-Singelian of the Patriarchate itself. Finally, he was synodally elected to Constantinople and appointed metropolitan of Bosnia, confirmed by the patriarchal charter dated September 9, 1835, which I present in the original for the discretion of your imperial majesty. But as at that time various changes were taking place in the patriarchates under the alternating two patriarchs Gregory and Anthimus of Picompdia, and under Anthimus the Patriarch of Kizicus, I was summoned from my metropolis to Constantinople in 1841, and in my place was appointed, at the request and petition of Vizier Khuzrev, Pasha of Bosnia, another Metropolitan Ignatius. Such illegal mixtures and new decrees of bishops, even during the life of the first, are cruelly prohibited in Christian law, as another is adultery; however, in the Greek Church this superabundance is already taking place, so that now in Constantinople there are six widowed patriarchs, and more than twenty metropolitans and bishops (among whom is the humble metropolitan the undersigned), and all such hierarchs have been removed from their thrones without changing their rank, and other persons have been installed in their places. I mourned all this, even many other vicious deeds of the Greek Church, during my removal from my diocese with pity and heartache; and therefore I was completely convinced that all the dogmas and statutes of the Greek Church were contained only by the said Old Believers in their original purity and accuracy. According to my title from my metropolis, I also have, in the unchanged content, my high dignity of priestly service, as is clear from the patriarchal inscription given to me on March 5, 1846, for the Divine service in Constantinople, which was also presented in the original to your Imperial Majesty, and being free, I firmly decided to accept the election of the said Old Believer society as the supreme shepherd, seeing before by itself the most obvious Divine providence, which destined me, so that this society, hitherto deprived of a sacred archpastor (numbered, in addition to the Austrian kingdom, in the neighboring powers up to three million) to lead to the eternal bliss of the path, for this purpose, with the most sincere desire, and being animated, with love and jealousy, to sacrifice all my strength and life for the well-being of such a society, which is under the highest through the patronage of your imperial majesty, he confesses his inviolable and well-known loyalty and commitment to the blessed royal house to the glory of God. I, the most humbly undersigned, having unlimited hope for the highest mercy of your imperial majesty, personally dared to bring this request of mine to the level of the highest imperial throne, for which I undertook a journey directly to Austria, without waiting for a report about me and my integrity, so that after a long explanation there could not be any obstacles on the part of the Greek Church; and since my conscience is clear, and my desire is God-fearing and humble, so I am confident that your Imperial Majesty will consider the urgent spiritual needs of the Old Believer society and will most mercifully justify my boldness and quick coming. Finally, I still most humbly ask that Your Imperial Majesty would deign me, the undersigned, to allow me to enter into Caesar's royal Austrian citizenship, due to the public position I am accepting. The original is signed: Metropolitan Ambrose. Vienna, July 11–23, 1846. As a rule, the 10th Apostolic Council, the 2nd Council of Antioch and the 35th Council of Laodicea command those who communicate with those excommunicated from the church and schismatics to condemn and excommunicate themselves; The schismatics excommunicate themselves from the Orthodox Church, and are excommunicated from it by the canonical decree of the Moscow Council of 1667, which was approved and signed, among other things, by the Eastern Patriarchs: Paisius of Alexandria and Macarius of Antioch. Then, on this basis, it is necessary that His Holiness the Patriarch of Constantinople, in addition to the present prohibition, subject the said bishop to ecclesiastical condemnation and excommunication, if he does not make amends for his crime by immediately appearing to the patriarch with repentance for it, ceasing all communication with schismatics, solemnly condemning it, and recognizing all his actions in Bukovina as sinful and insignificant. Communication on this subject with the Most Holy Patriarch of Constantinople could take place through a canonical message to him from the Holy Synod, in addition to personal negotiations on the part of the actual state councilor Ustinov 225. April 10. Report to the Holy Synod of Metropolitan Philaret about the need to enter into relations with the Patriarch of Constantinople, about the former Bosnian Bishop Ambrose, who arbitrarily transferred to the Austrian possessions of the Bukovinian schismatics In the papers of Metropolitan Philaret, translations have been preserved: “the confidential dispatch of Mr. Ustinov, from Constantinople, dated March 14–26, 1847,” and the synodal message of the Ecumenical Patriarch 226 attached to the dispatch, to the Karlovich Metropolitan, dated October 14–26, 1846.” G. Ustinov was ordered to verify whether the news received by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs from Lemberg was correct “regarding the recent arrival of the Greek Metropolitan to the Russian schismatics of the Bukovina district and his installation among them”; and also “to verify the above-mentioned event, and at the same time find out whether there were any circumstances that could prompt the Patriarch of Constantinople to promote an enterprise of this kind.” In his dispatch, Mr. Ustinov, among other things, wrote: “from the information collected here on this subject, it turns out that no bishop has ever been appointed by the local synod to Bukovina to perform any spiritual duties there; which order would not even be joint with his power because Bukovina is outside the circle of his control. But about eight months before this, one former Bosnian bishop, named Ambrose, who was dismissed from the administration of his diocese and lived here in poverty, using a monthly allowance from the patriarchate, suddenly disappeared from this capital, and the measures taken to find traces of him did not lead to any discovery. According to the testimony that reached the Patriarch of Constantinople, Anthimus, that the said bishop was in Austria and in one monastery, near Vienna, it was ordered at the same time to make searches aimed at ascertaining this circumstance, and although no positive news confirmed it, nevertheless, the patriarch decided at the same time to enter into communication, through a synodal message, with the Orthodox metropolitan Joseph of Karlovich, in order to warn him, just in case, about the flight of Bishop Ambrose and to oblige him not to admit the guilty person to any positions if he arrived or subsequently arrives in the Austrian possessions, with the intention of obtaining refuge and position there.” In the copy attached to the dispatch from the message of the Ecumenical Patriarch to Metropolitan Joseph, it was told about the flight of Bishop Ambrose and his guilt before the church, and also that he should not be allowed to exercise any spiritual positions; and asked to be notified “whether it is really fair that the bishop in question should be within the limits of his administration.” The Metropolitan of Karlovichi left this message from Patriarch Anfim without an answer, as Mr. Ustinov reported. Partly last year, and more so this year, a rumor spread from the Austrian border to Siberia that the border schismatics entered into relations with those abroad and achieved that they had a bishop in the Austrian possessions, who accepted them into his church communion. One of the information about this subject, with evidence, which I received from the Klintsy Ratman Baryshnikov, without using it in Moscow as a precaution against unfavorable publicity, was immediately forwarded by me to the Synodal Chief Prosecutor, Adjutant General, Count Nikolai Aleksandrovich Protasov, in reference dated January 3, No. 11. What consideration was made on this, I do not know. Meanwhile, publicity about this in Moscow has become significant; and there is information that cannot be given official authenticity, but which is not incredible, because it has come to my attention more than once from trustworthy zealots of Orthodoxy that a schismatic foreign bishop had already been sent to Moscow, entered into relations with the Rogozh schismatics and received monetary benefits from them. There is no doubt that the Moscow dissenters, of the priestly persuasion, look at this as a bright dawn for themselves. Now they can inspire their followers that their society is strengthened and elevated because it already has a bishop, and one recognized by the government; that now their fear of losing priests, who, if necessary, can be obtained from abroad, is significantly reduced; that under such circumstances it is possible to move away more decisively than before from all relations with the Russian pan-Orthodox and co-religious priesthood. Obviously, here is a new strong obstacle to the rapprochement of the Rogozh schismatics with the Orthodox Church. Such a new attempt by schismatics to confirm and strengthen the schism should not be left without the attention of the spiritual authorities. Allowing an Orthodox bishop to be diverted into communicating with schismatics is not an unimportant incident for the church and Orthodoxy. There are church rules, the force of which the Orthodox hierarchy is obliged to turn against this case, and in this find a means to secure the world of the church, and to crush the support that the schism thinks to provide itself with the formation of its own schismatic hierarchy. Those who communicate and pray with those excommunicated from the church and with schismatics, Apostolic Canon 10, Council of Antioch 2 and Laodicea 33, are themselves commanded to be condemned and excommunicated from the church. The schismatics excommunicate themselves from the Orthodox Church, and were excommunicated from it by the canonical decree of the Moscow Council of 1667, which was approved and signed by the Eastern Patriarchs: Paisius of Alexandria and Macarius of Antioch. Consequently, a bishop who has entered into communion with schismatics is himself subject to condemnation and excommunication if he does not correct his mistake, perhaps committed out of ignorance. Since the bishop found by schismatics in the Austrian possessions and adopted by them, in all likelihood, belongs to the department of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, I humbly submit to the discretion of the Holy Synod whether it will not be recognized as possible and necessary to enter into canonical relations with the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Synod, and, depending on the need, with other Orthodox patriarchs, so that he communicates with The bishop was corrected by the schismatics for this error, and he ceased communication with them, and otherwise he was subjected to the force of the above-mentioned church rules. Draft message to the Ecumenical Patriarch. To His Holiness Anthimus, Archbishop of Constantinople, New Rome, Ecumenical Patriarch. Holy Governing All-Russian Synod, rejoice in the Lord. The All-Russian Orthodox Church, at first the daughter of the holy Church of Constantinople, has always strived and strives to preserve with it, and with the entire universal Church of the Eastern confession, unanimity of faith and unanimous communion. At present, we have a special reason to point to an example of such relations from the church events of the seventh century. When the All-Russian Church had the need to once again verify the correctness of certain rites and rituals, against some doubters or disobedient ones: it acquired identification with the Church of Constantinople, as evidenced by the charter of His Holiness Patriarch Parthenius and who was in that cathedral, in the summer of 1654. In the confidence that such unanimous concern for the general peace and welfare of the churches continues and will continue as invariably as the Lord’s invariable promise that the gates of hell will not prevail against His Church, we consider it our duty to expose before your Holiness and the synod present with you a case that is as offensive to the dignity of the hierarchy of Constantinople as it is unfavorable for the Russian Church. It has become known to us that a certain Bishop Ambrose, removed from the administration of the Bosnian diocese, and staying in Constantinople, under the shelter of the mercy of the patriarchal ecumenical throne, suddenly became disobedient and ungrateful, without the blessing of your Holiness, he retired to Bukovina, and there he entered into communication with people like him, disobedient, who, stubbornly holding on to some, those who disagree with the church, rituals, even from their ancestors excommunicated themselves from it, and blaspheme it, and therefore were excommunicated by the holy church from communion by the decree of the Moscow Council, summer 1667, which was approved by the most blessed eastern patriarchs: Paisius of Alexandria and Macarius of Antioch and others, from the sacred rank of the eastern church; and the unblessed one began to act sacredly among the unblessed. Your wisdom does not require us to explain what kind of judgment the sacred canons pronounce on such unrighteous workers who are destroying the world of the church, and especially the tenth canon of the holy apostles, the second canon of Antioch and the thirty-fifth canon of the Laodicean councils. But out of the general duty of preserving the peace of the church and as a precaution so that the evil of schism does not spread, we cannot remain inactive spectators of such a daring violation of sacred rules; and for this reason we urge and pray your Holiness to use the power of these most sacred rules and the power given to you by God in order to stop this new temptation, in order to induce the disobedient bishop to bring repentance, reject and condemn schismatic communion, and return to true church communion; and otherwise, condemn him with the self-condemned, to whom he joined, and, if he dared to perform unblessed ordinations, then abolish them by the force of church rules. We humbly pray to the Supreme Shepherd-Chief, who came from heaven, our Lord Jesus Christ, that with his Divine grace, abundantly poured out on your service, he will help you, through sacred pastoral deeds, and through the good shepherds led by you, to keep the flock of God unharmed from mercenaries who feed themselves, and not the sheep of the Lord, and then run and betray the sheep even worse wolves who do not spare the herd 227. April 21. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Moscow military governor-general, Prince A.G. Shcherbatov, with the application of assumptions regarding objects for the twelve gates of the Cathedral of Christ the Savior Moscow military governor-general, Prince A.G. Shcherbatov, in a letter dated April 5, 1847, No. 185, asked Metropolitan Philaret to hurry up with the delivery of subjects selected from sacred history needed for the entrance doors of the Cathedral of Christ the Savior, which he asked for, in a letter dated October 16, 1846, No. 741 228. In this regard, Metropolitan Philaret wrote: April 20. Reply, with transmission of the assumption. Due to your Excellency’s relations, dated October 16, last 1846, and April 5, this past 1847, No. 185, I have the honor to forward with this proposal of objects for images on the twelve gates of the newly built Cathedral of Christ the Savior. Suggestion of items for the twelve gates of the Cathedral of Christ the Savior 229 West side and main entrance In the arch of the middle gate, the following have already been appointed and most highly approved: 1) Image of Christ the Savior sitting on the throne. In the gate arch on the right side 9) St. Queen Alexandra. 10) St. Archangel Michael. In the gate arch on the left side 11) St. Grand Duke Alexander Nevsky. 13) St. Equal to the Apostles King Constantine. 14) The image of the Lord of hosts, in the form of the ancient of days, with the image in the chest of His Son of God in the form of a baby, in accordance with the saying of the prophet: from the womb before the star I gave birth to Thee. Note. An example of this image is in the Assumption Cathedral in the upper tier of the iconostasis. 17) St. Basil the Great. 18) St. Gregory the Theologian. 19) St. John Chrysostom. 20) St. Gregory Dvoeslov. In the gate arch on the right side: 21) St. Martyr Agathonik (the Good Victorious), celebrated on the day of the coronation of the Sovereign Emperor Nikolai Pavlovich. 22) Venerable Martyr Fevronia, celebrated on the birthday of the Sovereign Emperor Nikolai Pavlovich. 23) St. Gregory Dekapolit, celebrated on the day of accession to the throne of the Sovereign Emperor Nikolai Pavlovich. In the gate arch on the left side: 24) St. Cosmas the Unmercenary, celebrated on the birthday of the Empress Alexandra Feodorovna. 25) St. Simeon of Persia, celebrated on the birthday of the Sovereign Heir Tsarevich. 26) St. Great Martyr Panteleimon, celebrated on the birthday of the Empress Tsarevna. North side to the square 27) Image of the Mother of God sitting on a throne with the eternal Child. 37) St. Daniel, Prince of Moscow. 38) St. Michael, Prince of Chernigov, resting in the Archangel Cathedral. 39) Holy martyr boyar Theodore, who rests there. Midday side to the river 40) Image of the Holy Spirit, in the form of a dove, in radiance and in the clouds. 41) Venerable Anthony of Pechersk. 42) Venerable Sergius of Radonezh. 43) St. Michael, Metropolitan of Kiev. 44) St. John, Archbishop of Novgorod. 45) St. Demetrius, Metropolitan of Rostov. 46) St. Mitrofan, Bishop of Voronezh. In the arch there is a gate on the right side: 48) Venerable Euphrosyne, Grand Duchess of Moscow. 49) St. Basil the Blessed, Moscow wonderworker. In the arch there is a gate on the left side: 50) St. Stephen, Bishop of Perm, resting in the Spassky Cathedral, which is on the forest. 51) Reverend Savva of Zvenigorod. 52) Venerable Joseph of Volokolamsk 230. May 5. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count N.A. Protasov, with an opinion on the proposed provision of teachers of rural schools and seminary students with special rights and advantages for this title Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count N.A. Protasov, in relation to Metropolitan Philaret, dated April 23, 1847, No. 2939, wrote: “the Minister of State Property 231 approached me about granting seminary students with the rank of teachers of rural parish schools special rights and benefits according to this rank.” Since this subject requires a new legal resolution, then, wishing to keep in mind the opinion of your Eminence on it, I consider it my duty to forward the above-mentioned attitude of Count Kiselyov and the following appendix to it, in the lists, with the addition of a most humble request to inform me of your conclusion, dear sir and archpastor, on these papers. The following documents are attached to this regard: a) Relation of the Minister of State Property to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, dated March 18, 1847, No. 1085. The manager of the Saratov Chamber of State Property 232 reports that most of the students who completed their studies at the theological seminary in 1846 were placed by the local Eminence 233 as mentors in rural parish schools. Being adults, these persons, before receiving priestly positions, would like to enter into marriage, but are held back from this, not knowing which class they belong to and their children born into teaching positions in rural parish schools will belong to. As a result of this and at the request of the Right Reverend, the manager of the chamber presents such mentors and children with the same rights as priests. I consider it my duty to report the list from this presentation at the discretion of your Excellency, believing on my part that providing seminarians who have completed the course of study and entered as mentors in rural parish schools with the requested advantages would be a very useful measure for the success of the moral and religious education of state peasants; for this can attract to schools for a long time experienced and free from other activities mentors, who even now, wherever they are identified, are especially successful in teaching peasant children. I will have the honor to await your Lordship's notification of the consequences of this. b) Submission of the manager of the Saratov Chamber of State Property, dated January 31, 1847, No. 99, to the Minister of State Property Upon completion of the course of science, in July 1846, students of the Saratov Theological Seminary, most of them were placed by the Reverend as tutors in parish schools established in state-owned villages. The Eminence of Saratov informed me that the said students of the seminary, enjoying the same rights as their comrades already invested in the priesthood, were placed in teaching positions, at their own request, with the hope that they too would subsequently be given priestly positions; the uncertainty of the time of entry into such positions and the age of majority force them to enter into marriage, but they are restrained from this because they do not know to which class they belong and their children born from them while holding teaching positions in rural parish schools will belong. In order to keep these students in real positions for a longer time, the Reverend asks me to obtain for them the right according to which the children of rural parish teachers who have completed a course of seminary sciences can enjoy the same rights as priestly children. Students from the seminary entered teaching positions in rural schools six months ago. During the audit of rural schools, in January, I made sure that the success of boys in those schools in which seminary students are mentors is more satisfactory than before when the priests were in teaching positions: a seminary student has only one lesson in a teaching position; the priest is constantly distracted from his teaching duties during school hours, in order to administer Christian needs in the parish. Why is it more useful to have seminary students as mentors, and in order to keep them in these positions, it is necessary to provide them and their children with the same rights as priests; Without this measure, the seminary students, not finding it useful for themselves to be constantly in the teaching rank, will move to priestly positions, and at the first opportunity and under such conditions will not bring satisfactory success in teaching peasant children. Submitting this to the discretion of your Excellency, I have the honor to humbly request that seminary students who have completed a full course of science and holding teaching positions in rural schools and children be granted the same rights as priests. To the attitude of Count Protasov, No. 293, Metropolitan Philaret, dated May 5, the same 1847, responded as follows: On April 23, No. 2939, your Excellency demanded my opinion that seminary students who have completed a full course of science and holding teaching positions in rural schools and their children should be given the same rights as priests. In this assumption, which arose in the Ministry of State Property, there is an idea that has a basis and is worthy of acceptance; but in its expression it is given excessive vastness and uncertainty. And the son of a priest cannot have the same rights as a priest: even more so, the son of a teacher who has not yet been promoted to priest is lower to the rank of deacon. To bring an assumption within its proper limits, one must turn to its origin and the need that gave rise to the assumption. Rural teachers want to get married, but do not know which class they belong to and their children will belong to. By the way, it is necessary to take into account here that regarding the children of teachers of academies, seminaries and lower theological schools, the laws do not define what rights their children have, whether the rights of clergy children, or only the rights of clergy children. When they and their children enter the spiritual rank, there is no difficulty from this; but in the case of their children transferring to a secular rank, bewilderment may be encountered. This consideration can be combined with the requirement of the Ministry of State Property, and therefore the following rules can be applied for the force of law: 1) Children of clergy and clergy who have completed a full course of study in theological academies and seminaries and occupy the positions of mentors in theological academies and seminaries, as well as teachers in lower theological schools, and in rural parish schools, are recognized as belonging to the clergy, unless they are dismissed from it on special petitions and have not received special rights to be promoted to civil ranks. 2) since, by their education, they could have taken clergy positions if they had not entered the rank of teachers, they enjoy the rights granted to clergy in the laws. 3) As a result of this, their children also enjoy the rights of clergy children. In this way, the bewilderment of teachers of rural schools would be satisfactorily resolved, and in general, what was silent in the law 234 would be supplemented, not without benefit. July 15. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to Prince S. M. Golitsyn with an opinion regarding the image, in bas-relief, of the Lord of Hosts in the image of the ancient of days Prince S. M. Golitsyn 235, regarding July 15, 1847, No. 442, wrote to Metropolitan Philaret: Your Eminence Bishop, gracious archpastor. The vice-president of the Imperial Academy of Arts, Count Tolstoy 236, notifying the commission of the receipt of the items 237 proposed by your Eminence for the entrance gates of the church in the name of Christ the Savior, presented to the general presence that, when examining and discussing them from the artistic side, he finds one subject, precisely in the arch of the middle gate, on the eastern side: the image of the Lord of hosts in the image of the ancient of days, with the image of His Son in the chest God, in the form of an infant, in accordance with the saying of the prophet “from the womb before the star gave birth to Thee” - not easily executable according to the laws of sculpture. Therefore, in accordance with the conclusion of the general presence, I humbly ask your Eminence to select another subject from sacred history, or instead of the proposed one, to allow one to depict the Lord of Hosts, with suitable accessories, and to honor me with a subsequent notification. July 15. Answer what can be allowed Most illustrious prince, gracious sir! To your Excellency’s attitude, dated the 15th day of this July, No. 442, I have the honor to respond that, for the reason presented by the vice-president of the Academy of Arts, the image in the bas-relief of the Lord of Hosts in the form of the ancient of days, without the image in the chest of His Son of God in the form of a baby, may be allowed, although the combination of the two images had its basis in dogma and in the example of such an image in the Assumption cathedral, at the height of the iconostasis. With deep respect and devotion, I have the honor to be Your Lordship, dear sir 238. Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow September 14. Proposal of Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow to the Holy Synod office to perform prayer singing in the churches subordinate to the offices, which was ordered during the destructive epidemic Moscow Synodal Office, proposal. A list of the instructions given by me to the Moscow Spiritual Consistory regarding the issuance of orders for the performance of prayer singing during a destructive epidemic, forwarded by this, I offer to the office of the Holy Synod for similar orders depending on its department. No. 435. September 14, 1847 Attached to this proposal is the following document: 1847, September 12 noon. From repeated announcements from the government in the newspapers, it is known that the disease cholera, known to Moscow in 1830, appeared again this year, and already in some provinces not very distant from Moscow. Although this city and its region, by the goodness of God, have been protected from this disaster to this day: nevertheless, the disaster that befell our brethren, our compatriots, in other places, out of the duty of Christian brotherly love, requires from us special prayers for their deliverance. And for our own deliverance from the threatening disaster, prayers are useful, which cannot be considered early because the disaster has not yet touched us, since we must pray not only to endure the disaster, but even before that, so that, if God’s mercy is pleasing, it will not touch us. Therefore, the Moscow clergy is invited: 1) on Sundays, some holidays and depending on the requirements of circumstances and convenience, and on non-holiday days, according to the liturgy, to perform (with a reduction in the current circumstances of some petitions at the litanies) prayer singing during the destructive epidemic, printed in the sequence of prayer songs, at the end. 2) At the same time, the parish clergy should explain to parishioners that prayer is considered beneficial not because the danger for these places is already great or obvious, but out of compassion for those in need in other places, and in order to ask for God’s mercy to protect us from the onslaught of disaster. 3) In teachings, it is necessary to touch on this subject in such a way as not to lead the people into decline of spirit with danger, but to encourage them, so that through prayer and cleansing of conscience, everyone affirms himself in trust in God, and when using natural means to protect health according to the instructions of his superiors, he looks without timidity at the possibility of disaster. If it turns out to be possible to convey this teaching with this content: then read it at the liturgy before the first prayer service, on September 14th.” At the Great Litany, the fifth petition is to say this: for the hedgehog to hear our voice from the church of our saint and to heal the mortal diseases that beset our brothers in other cities, let us pray to the Lord. At the special litany, omit the second and third petitions. The consistory will bring this to the attention of the monastic, cathedral and parish clergy in the capital and county towns. The original is signed: Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow 239. Ioannikiy (Obraztsov), from 1849 sp. Caucasian. Ignatius (Semyonov), archbishop. Donskoy from 17 Oct. 1842; from 13 Jan. 1847 Voronezh; mind. January 20, 1850. From the draft papers of Metropolitan. Philaret, keeping in Moscow spirit. Academic, package No. 3, doc. Nos. 28–30. Plato (Levshin), about him see above, p. 133, note. 5. Archim. Avvakum (Honest), since 1828 member of the Beijing mission; from 1845 to 1849 member of the spiritual censorship of St. Petersburg. committee; mind. March 10, 1866 Nikolsky, Timofey Ferapontovich, prot. Kazansky sob., in St. Petersburg; mind. July 16, 1848 See Historical and Statistical. information about St. Petersburg dioceses, vol. 1, dept. II, p. 154.. St. Petersburg. 1871 Okunev, Andrey Ivanovich, prot. Kazan personal; mind. Dec. 23, 1860 Prot. I. Platonov, the nephew of Metropolitan Plato, was first rector of the court Verkhospassky Cathedral, then transferred to the Intercession (St. Basil the Blessed) Cathedral. See above, p. 219, note. 5. See Vol. II, No. 160, pp. 87–91. From rough. suppressed Metropolitan Philaret, keeping to Moscow spirit. acad., nac. No. 3. doc. Nos. 31–33. Case of the Holy Synod, 1846, No. 2504. The opinion does not indicate the time it was written; but a different opinion about Ambrose was written by the Metropolitan on April 10, 1847, and therefore the present one, as homogeneous, is dated to the same time. In 1846 Patr. Constantinople. Anfim VI deprived the Bosnian Metropolitan. Ambrose sparchia and summoned him to Constantinople for graduation. decisions about him. Ustinov, Mikhail Mikhailovich, t. sov., member. Council M.I. d.; mind. June 24, 1871 From a copy, storing in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory No. 86; doc. Nos. 3 and 4. Anthimus VI, Patriarch of Constantinople, elected April 18, 1845; Until now he was the Metropolitan of Ephesus. See the chronicle of church events, Archimandrite Arseny. St. Petersburg, 1880, pp. 796 and 797. With black autogr., storage in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory No. 86, doc. Nos. 6 and 7 Print in "Historical" description of the Cathedral of Christ the Savior", M. Mostovsky M., 1883, pp. 59–62. In addition to the “assumption” written by the copyist, the rest is from the handwritten original, stored in the Moscow diocesan library, dep. VIII, sheet. 54–57. Kiselev, Count Pavel Dmitrievich, adjutant general; died in Paris in 1873. Bodisko, Leonty Nikolaevich, was manager in 1847. Saratov chamber of state property. Jacob (Vecherkov), list. Saratov from March 27, 1832: from January 13 1847 Nizhny Novgorod; mind. May 20, 1850. With his own hand. Chernov. authentic, storing to Moscow spiritual acad., package No. 3, document. Nos. 36–39. Golitsyn, book. Sergei Mikhailovich, member. state council, chairman Moscow guardian Sov., mind. Feb. 7, 1839 Tolstoy, gr. Fyodor Petrovich, known. rus. sculptor, medalist and engraver; mind. president acad. artist, in 1873 From a copy. Storage to Moscow diocesan library, dept. VIII, sheet. 58–59. The case of the Muscovites. Office of the Holy Synod, 1847, No. 153, sheet. 1–3.