1857 г.

January 15. Metropolitan Philaret's proposal to the Moscow Synodal Office that the bishop's vestments given to him by the Sovereign Emperor on the day of coronation be handed over to the Synodal sacristy for storage, along with other historical monuments Proposal to the Moscow Synodal Office. In the repository of the synodal sacristy there are, among other things, bishop's vestments that have historical remembrance, not only in the names of the clergy who used them, but also in the names of the most pious kings who bestowed them. On the day of the coronation of the most pious Sovereign Emperor Alexander Nikolaevich, from the generosity of His Majesty I was given the bishop's vestments, which I used in the sacred rite on August 26, when by the all-pervading grace of God the sacred coronation and anointing of His Imperial Majesty and Her Imperial Majesty took place. I believe that this vestment, with decency, can take a place in the synodal sacristy, in order to awaken in its visitors a reverent memory of the high and sacred royal celebration, joyful for us today and memorable for those who will come after us. I have reason to think that there will be no obstacle to this thought, generated by reverent devotion to the God-crowned Monarch, and that it will be met with sympathy. Therefore, I propose to the office of the Holy Synod: 1) Instruct the synodal sacristan 204 to accept the above-mentioned vestments from the abbot of the cathedral Chudov Monastery according to the inventory and bring it for storage in the synodal sacristy. 2) Include it in the inventory of the synodal sacristy with the following meaning: “metropolitan vestments used in the sacred rite of the most sacred coronation and anointing of the most pious Sovereign Emperor Alexander Nikolaevich and the most pious Empress Maria Alexandrovna, which took place in the Moscow large Assumption Cathedral, in the Year of the Lord 1856, August on the 26th day." Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow No. 25. January 15, 1857 205 January 20. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to Bishop Philaret of Kharkov regarding the latter’s proposed compilation of biographies of the saints of the Russian Church 206 Bishop Filaret of Kharkov, in a letter dated January 9, 1857 207, complained that A.N. Muravyov intends to raise a storm of the most impudent abuse against him if he does not give up his desire to compile the biographies of saints, and because the Holy Synod demands from him two things, one of which is more difficult than the other, namely, a list of saints and for a sample of one biography of a saint. Therefore, Bishop Filaret asked the Metropolitan to provide him with protection. Your Eminence, Bishop, beloved brother in the Lord. I read your letter dated 9 days, which I received on the 18 days, with sympathy for your sorrow. From the first word you ask for forgiveness. I need more than you to start doing the same. Your words did not offend me, but only encouraged me to participate in your grief, and mine can bring you new grief if you really allow yourself the impatience that you attribute to yourself. When I was told that I would be asked about your proposal to write the lives of Russian saints, and about your report to the Holy Synod that in the biographies already published there are “many errors, injustices and inconsistencies,” then I said that this would be a misfortune for me; because it will hardly be possible for me to get out of this matter without displeasure on the part of you and Mr. Muravyov. And so it happened. Do you know that the books of Mr. Muravyov were examined by the former Archbishop of Kazan, the current Metropolitan, the first member of the Holy Synod, 208 and, upon his consideration, the Holy Synod gave the censorship committee permission to approve them for publication? Do you see at whom you shot an arrow with your denunciation, uttered cruelly and without any proof? Don't you conclude from this, though now, that you could have acted more carefully and correctly? You could talk about your supposed work without berating someone else's. If, in an official report to your superiors, you decided to condemn a book that was legally approved, then decency and legal order required that this be done with evidence. Then the Holy Synod would have the opportunity to pronounce judgment; and there would be no reason for the offended person to complain about an unsubstantiated, insulting review. You say that you repeated “his own words, written in the preface.” Sorry. I did not find your words above in the preface; and I do not consider it probable that any writer would write in the preface of his own book that it contains “many errors, injustices and inconsistencies.” You say that you are required to do two hard cases, without benefits. But if you undertake to write the lives of all the Russian saints, then why is it difficult for you to write one for the sake of experience? From many, you can choose one for which you have benefits. You yourself wrote to the Holy Synod that you have read many manuscripts and done research. Experience could be useful for you to better agree on the details of the matter, and by agreement, it is all the more reliable to continue it. To compile a list of saints, there is material in the book: “Historical Dictionary of the Saints of the Russian Orthodox Church” 209. Research is needed: and for this there are manuals in printed books. Let's assume that your list in the first experiment will not be complete. But it will present the experience of legibility, which is what is needed. When new benefits are opened, they will not be prohibited from adding to the list. Therefore, may I be allowed to disagree with your opinion that you received from the Holy Synod a “response condemning silence.” You seem to find bias in the fact that the Holy Synod demands more clarity in the case of a bishop than in the case of a lay writer. In my opinion, this is not partiality towards the laity, but concern for protecting the dignity of the bishop and the Holy Synod itself, which must take the closest part in the bishop’s work by approving him. In a layman's book on an ecclesiastical subject, even a significant error can be corrected without much difficulty or temptation; not so with a book written by a bishop and approved by the Holy Synod. Putting caution on the first end of the matter, rather than on the last, is certainly no worse. So far it has not been difficult for me to write, although perhaps it will be difficult for you to read. It will be difficult for me to write further if I still need to respond to what is contained in your letter. Should I speak, or is it better to remain silent? Should frankness be matched by frankness, or should one hide emerging thoughts as a precaution so as not to disturb the peace? Should I say to myself, as the fathers command, and as I, of course, it’s time to say to myself: you are dead; don't touch what comes after you? Or should you, who still have a path of life and activity ahead of you, point out something on the way that it would be better for the red feet who are supposed to evangelize the world to pass by at a distance? Would I ask you about this? But far away. I will speak not in wisdom, being ready to hear from you a correction of what was said not in wisdom. You say about someone that I “know this evil spirit.” No! I do not have the misfortune of knowing among the people I know an evil spirit; I wish and advise you not to allow yourself to reach this misfortune. Why such a stern gaze? Why such a harsh word? Does it agree with the teaching of the Apostle: it becomes the servant of the Lord to be meek? Do we know how God sees a person? What if we cruelly condemn the one whom He has mercy on and, perhaps, justifies? Isn’t it safer from error, isn’t it more peaceful for our own soul, to imagine a person better than he seems to us, and, if you like, better than us? Isn't that what the fathers advise? Let a humble thought follow a humble word. I will also copy from your letter: “the papers have been received, and “the answer to my paper, and the grief that Satan is strong on earth has not been separated from other sorrows.” What papers gave you the idea of ​​the power of Satan? – This is a decree that spells out the determination of the Holy Synod. From this we must conclude that you are subordinating the determination of the Holy Synod to the influence of Satan. Of course, you didn’t think this; but you see how indignation, not restrained by patience, carries us further than we thought. Let us cross ourselves, holy master! May God rise again and let His enemies be scattered. Let us remove the thought of Satan from the action of the sacred council. I don’t think that the Holy Synod wrote anything unpleasant to you. And if I wrote only for you to compile a list of saints and write a life for experiment, then there is no insult or oppression in this, just as someone who wants to teach science is not insulted or oppressed when they demand a program and a trial lecture. Instead of wasting time mourning and condemning another writer, sit down, write a list of saints and the life of one saint and send it to the Holy Synod, and the matter will go on a straight path, without looking back at another matter that goes on the side. Say that someone is “scolding” you. Are you really praising when you say that the History of the Russian Church is “an object of ridicule”, and its author is a “mediocre historian”, and that he “disgraces himself and torments the patience of others”? If it would be better for him not to scold, wouldn’t it be better for you too? Perhaps you will say that I am too attacking the expressions and tone of your speech. If I'm wrong, forgive me; but I’ll tell you why I do it. It seems to me that, out of brotherly love, I should inflict on you the wounds of a friend, which, according to the word of scripture, are more reliable than the free kisses of an enemy - namely, to draw your attention to your custom of expressing yourself very harshly, and to suggest that you limit yourself in this, because this can cause harm in business and service. I can prove this with your experience. When you wrote a letter to the late Count Protasov about the accused priest in a harsh and restless tone, in response they sent you an instruction written by a secular person and signed by Metropolitan Anthony 210. I know this because then they sent me lists from your letter and from what was written to you; and this is because they knew the participation I took in you, they wanted, as it were, to justify themselves that they involuntarily wrote you an unpleasant answer caused by your letter. If you had then presented the matter moderately, calmly and convincingly, and not with bitter exclamations, then you would have been more helped in the matter, and would not have written instructions that you yourself know. It seems to me that the inclination to speak strongly sometimes turns into a disposition to speak harshly. But the strong in a word is different from the harsh. A strong thought in a calm word conquers; a harsh word arouses opposition. I wish that your judgment, strong in thought, moderate in word, achieves useful action, not only when you act in a more limited circle, but also when the lot falls on you to pronounce your judgment before the Holy Synod and in the Holy Synod. Finally, once again I humbly apologize for my fraternal insolence. If you are angry with me and scold me, I hope I will accept you as peacefully as I am writing this peacefully: just, finally, forgive me. I sincerely ask for your prayers for my weakness. Your Eminence, Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow. Moscow. January 20, 1857 211 January 27–29. Two letters from Metropolitan Philaret, with a conclusion at the request of honorary citizens the Guchkovs about permission to transport the body of their father Fyodor Guchkov, who died in Petrozavodsk, to Moscow for burial at the Preobrazhenskoe cemetery G. Moscow Governor General, Count A.A. Zakrevsky, in relation to January 24, 1857, No. 100, wrote to Metropolitan Philaret: “The Minister of Internal Affairs forwarded to me for conclusion the request of honorary citizens Evfim and Ivan Guchkov for permission to transport the body of their father Fyodor Guchkov, who died in Petrozavodsk, to Moscow and bury it in the Transfiguration cemetery, where the Edinoverie Church is now consecrated. The schismatic Fyodor Guchkov was expelled from Moscow in 1854, by imperial command, for illegal actions to promote schism. Seeing from the request that Evfim and Ivan Guchkov received the verbal blessing and advice of your Eminence for submitting it, I, in advance of communicating to the Actual Privy Councilor Lansky the response he requested, have the honor to forward at your discretion the genuine request of the honorary citizens of the Guchkovs, humbly asking you, gracious archpastor, with its return, to honor me with the communication of your opinion according to it." In this regard, the Metropolitan wrote: “January 27. With the return of the petition, answer in the affirmative, with the exception of illegal actions unknown to me, and there may be an obstacle on my part.” Then on the same day he answered Count Zakrevsky: In accordance with your Excellency’s secret attitude, dated January 24, 1857, No. 100, when considering the issue of permission to transport the body of the honorary citizen Fyodor Guchkov, a schismatic of the non-popovshchina consensus, who died in Petrozavodsk, and bury it in the Preobrazhenskoye cemetery, the following considerations are presented: 1) transferring the bodies of the deceased, according to their will, or at the request of relatives, from the place of death to another, sometimes distant, place, is an action permitted by law; 2) although in the Transfiguration almshouse a Edinoverie church was built and consecrated: however, schismatic prayer houses in this area remain tolerant, and it is not forbidden to bury schismatics in the local cemetery; 3) honorary citizens Evfim and Ivan Guchkov, from the time of their joining the Edinoverie Church, proved themselves to be well-disposed and zealous parishioners of this church, as evidenced by: the warm Edinoverie Church, which was built internally for the most part with their support and direct activity, and the Assumption Church, which was being prepared for consecration, was spread by their support through the construction of the altar, and internally and externally carefully decorated. Therefore, they deserve that attention, so that they are given the consolation of having their father’s grave nearby. For these reasons, I believed, and believe it is possible to allow the body of Fyodor Guchkov to be transported to the Preobrazhenskoe cemetery and buried here, so that, as mentioned in the sons’ request, this was done with strict precautions against violating the existing law against causing a schism. As for the fact that the schismatic Guchkov was expelled from Moscow for illegal actions on the schism: just as I did not have and do not have information to what extent they were illegal and could be the cause of temptation and harm, I could not, and now I cannot, judge to what extent they can hinder the leniency requested by the children. The petition of the Guchkov brothers forwarded to me is hereby returned 212. The Metropolitan considered it necessary to forward this attitude on January 29 to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A.P. Tolstoy, and wrote to him: Most Excellent Count, Dear Sir. Honorary citizen Fyodor Guchkov, a schismatic, parishioner of the Preobrazhensky cemetery, by the highest command of the late Sovereign Emperor, was expelled from Moscow to live in Petrozavodsk; and died there. His sons Evfim and Ivan Guchkov, co-religionists, turned to me expressing a desire to transfer their father’s body to the Preobrazhenskoe cemetery. I replied that this depended on the civil authorities, and that if my opinion had been asked, I would not have put an obstacle to this. The reasons for this opinion of mine are the following: 1) The Guchkov brothers, one of the first schismatics of the Preobrazhensky cemetery, expressed a desire to join Orthodoxy on the rules of the same faith, and turned the chapel into a church, then, for the most part, they built a warm church with their support, and now they are preparing for the consecration of the cold church built with their support, and therefore they deserve to be given attention and given the requested consolation. 2) It is advisable to act with leniency towards schismatics, as long as this is possible without harm. 3) If the deceased Guchkov had been a respected mentor of schismatics, then it would not have been superfluous to take precautions so that the transfer of his body would not open the door to superstitious rumors in favor of a schism. But since he was respected only as one of the richest schismatics, and, according to rumors, as the custodian of the secret capital of the Preobrazhensky schismatics, one might think that his grave in the Preobrazhensky cemetery would not be harmful. February 6. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A.P. Tolstoy, with a note on the issue of the rights of monastics to dispose of their property On January 4, 1857, the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A.P. Tolstoy, having forwarded to Metropolitan Philaret a note drawn up in the second department of His Imperial Majesty’s own office on the issue of the right of monastics to dispose of their property, he asked for the metropolitan’s opinion on the contents of this note. In November 1845, military inhabitants of the Valkovsky district, Kharkov province, Peter and Nikolai Sipchenko, sent a ticket for the safe treasury of 2,500 rubles via mail to the Moscow Board of Trustees. assign. in their name and in cash 1/t rub. ser., they asked to give two tickets in the name of their mother, merchant Anna Romanova, for Obdulova’s second husband: one in the capital amount with interest indicated in the ticket sent, the other in cash, with evidence that the first of them had received the amount from Peter, the second from Nikolai, and with the condition that, in the event of the death of any of the investors, the survivor has the full right to use the interest and demand back the very capital of the deceased. Tickets written with the following conditions: for No. 10,241, in 1/t rubles, contributed on behalf of Nicholas, and for No. 10,242, in money contributed on behalf of Peter, were sent, by appointment of the depositors, for issuance to them, to the Baturin St. Nicholas Monastery to Hieromonk Nazarius. After that, according to the announcements of the depositor Nikolai Sipchenko, in which he called himself a military man in the street, interest on a ticket in his name in the amount of 1/t rubles, for No. 10,241, was sent to him, according to his appointments, to different monasteries of the Chernigov province in the name of the hieromonks: Nazarius, Palladium and Paisius; the last dispatch was made on November 16, 1853. In February 1854, the rector of the Kozeletsk St. George Monastery, notifying the Moscow guardianship council that Hieromonk Nazariy, who was in that monastery, died in January of that year and in the papers found after his death it turned out that in 1845, being already a monk, for he was tonsured to this rank in 1836, he contributed to the Moscow treasury 1/t. rub. ser. in his secular name of Nikolai Sipchenko, and that the ticket for this money, No. 10241, is with his brother, Hieromonk of the Glinsk Hermitage Paisius, who was called in the secular rank Peter Sipchenko, asked not to give money to anyone on the said ticket, pending the order of the spiritual authorities, since the property and capital of Hieromonk Nazarius should belong to the monastery in which he lived and died. The Chernigov spiritual consistory also asked for the same thing. Following this, a request was received from the rector of the Vysokogorsk Nikolaev hostel hermitage, Hieromonk Paisius (Peter Sipchenko) for the delivery of capital to him with interest, on the basis that the money circulating in the name of his brother was acquired not by the latter, but by him, the petitioner, and that he contributed it to the name of his brother, in consideration of his poverty, but with this, however, so that, in the event of his death, he would have the right to receive his property, which is expressed in condition of the contribution. At the same time, the Chernigov spiritual consistory, informing the council that the Holy Governing Synod recognized the capital at 1/t. rubles, put by Hieromonk Nazarius, the property of the Kozeletsk St. George Monastery, for her part asked for the sending of this money. The Council of Guardians, having considered the circumstances of the present case with the current legislation, reasoned that monastics, except for the authorities, are only prohibited from making wills about their property; It is allowed to contribute your capital to credit institutions, with conditions according to their will, and the treasury is obliged to accept deposits from any person, without exception, and to fulfill the conditions of the investor exactly. Therefore, the council relied on the ticket, No. 10241, for 1/t contributed on behalf of Nikolai Sinchenko. rub. ser. the capital and interest should be given, according to the investor’s terms, to the rector of Paisius, who was in the secular rank, Peter Sipchenko. This opinion of the guardianship council was communicated to the acting chief prosecutor of the Holy Synod, who responded that although monastics are not prohibited from contributing their capital to credit institutions, how, by virtue of Art. 257. IX t vault. zak., their property, except for the authorities, in no case goes to the heirs, but always goes to the monastery treasury, according to the force of Art. 928. X t. arch. zak., monastics, as having renounced the world, are eliminated from the rights of inheritance, then, in the opinion of the Holy Synod, even the rector of the high-mountain Nikolaev hermitage, Hieromonk Paisius, cannot inherit capital 1/t. rub. ser. after Hieromonk Nazarius; There is also no legal basis to consider this capital the property of Paisius, for this capital, as can be seen from the treasury security ticket issued for it, was contributed not by him, but by Nazarius himself. Although the ticket explains the condition for the transfer of capital, upon the death of Hieromonk Nazarius, to Hieromonk Paisius, such a condition, within the meaning of Art. 832. Ht St. zak., should be considered a will, to which the monastics, according to Art. 257. IX volume, do not have the right. Moreover, on the basis of Art. 281. XI t oral credit. established that the capital of childless deceased investors is issued from credit institutions according to certificates and court decisions, according to their affiliation; therefore, the capital of the deceased hieromonk Nazarius, already recognized, by the decision of the Holy Synod, as belonging to the Kozeletsk St. George Monastery, should be subject to the same disposition. Against this conclusion, the guardianship council presented the following considerations: 1) that the Holy Synod, although it meant that monastics are not prohibited by law from contributing their capital to credit institutions with arbitrary conditions, but gave these conditions the meaning and force of spiritual wills, and therefore based its conclusion that the ticket belonged to the monastery, and not to the brother of the investor, based only on those laws by which monastics are prohibited from making wills about their property and receiving inheritance, and with which it is necessary to turn that property into the monastery treasury. But such a conclusion cannot be reconciled with the rules prescribed for the treasury, which it must follow when accepting and issuing deposits entrusted to it; 2) that these rules (1094, 1096 and 1118 art. XI t.) established the duty of the treasury to: accept deposits from persons of any rank, without exception, giving them the right to set conditions for the contribution of capital according to their will, to fulfill these conditions, as the will of the depositor, in the event of his death, with accuracy and only, in the absence of such conditions, to issue capital either according to the certificates of the courts that determined their ownership, or according to the appointments made by the depositors in their spiritual wills, and 3) that the literal meaning of the above rules, for their application to the issuance of capital of deceased investors, does not contain any misunderstandings that require interpretation or explanation, but quite definitively indicates the execution of what and in what particular case the contribution must be made by the safe treasury. For these reasons, the council, taking into account the obligation imposed on it by law to carry out exactly the will of the deceased investor, remained with its previous conclusion regarding the issuance of the said capital, in accordance with the condition established by the investor and accepted by the treasury, to Hieromonk Paisius. Bearing in mind, however, that this conclusion does not agree with the decision of the Holy Governing Synod, the guardianship council entered with a most submissive report on the implementation of its conclusion; but this report, by the highest order, was submitted to the committee of ministers for consideration, and from there it was transferred to the state council. The latter recognized that this matter requires the most detailed consideration, both with the rights of monastics to dispose of their property and conclude any kind of agreements, and with regulations on credit institutions, and therefore asked the highest permission of the Sovereign Emperor to transfer this matter to the 2nd department of His Majesty’s own chancellery, so that, after communication with whomever it should be, it would submit it, with its conclusion, again for consideration by the State Council. The second department of His Imperial Majesty's own office, for the most correct and, as far as possible, thorough judgment on this subject, considered it necessary to enter into a detailed consideration of the origin and gradual development of the current legislation on the right of monastics to dispose of property. The essence of monastic life, as is known, consists of three vows: chastity, obedience and arbitrary poverty. Monasticism strives, by the vow of chastity, to suppress the lust of the flesh, by the vow of obedience, to stop the impulse of worldly pride and any search for vain glory, by the vow of non-covetousness - not to be carried away by the treasures that the world promises its admirers. This final vow is indicated in the strongest terms during tonsure as a monk, when the monk repeatedly repeats to the person entering monasticism that renunciation is nothing more than a promise of the cross and death; that from this day he was crucified and put to death to the world, for parents, and brothers, and wife and children, and kinship, and friendship, and the usual rebellions, cares, acquisitions, estates, etc. that exist in the world are denied. At the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople, called the double council, several rules were established to prevent unrest from creeping in among the monastics, including (rule 6) it was said: monks should not have anything of their own; everything that belongs to them is assigned to the monastery. Those who wish to become monastics are given the freedom to bequeath their property first and sell it to whatever persons they wish, for whom the law does not prohibit it; for, upon entering monasticism, the monastery has power over all their property, and they are not allowed to dispose of anything of their own, nor to bequeath it. “If someone finds himself appropriating some kind of acquisition for himself, without giving it to the monastery, and enslaved by the passion of covetousness: from such an abbot or bishop, let him take it and, having sold it in the presence of many, give it to the poor and needy. And for the one who decided in his heart, like the ancient Ananias, to hide this acquisition, the Holy Council determines admonition with a decent penance.” Civil decrees of the first half of the last century, as well as many of the next time, completely agree with these rules of the church. Thus, in the additions to the Spiritual Regulations of 1722 (4022), paragraph 61, it was decided that, upon the death of bishops, archimandrites and abbots and other monastic ranks, their relatives and in-laws should not give anything of their own property, but those of all higher ranks should be sent to the Governing Spiritual Synod, and the lower ranks should be transferred to the monastic treasury. This rule was confirmed by a synodal decree on October 20, 1737 (7406), indicating the procedure for compiling an inventory of the property left after deceased monastic authorities, and the transfer of belongings of lower ranks to the monastic treasury. In the instructions of the college for the economy of spiritual estates, June 6, 1763 (11844), art. 9, p. 12, she is ordered, after the death of bishops, archimandrites, abbots and other spiritual monastics, to collect the remaining movable estates under her own jurisdiction, and, according to her own reasoning, to sell things at public auction, and to collect money and silver at her own discretion, without interfering with others and without keeping them anywhere without the command of the Imperial Majesty, so that such collections, as stated in the law, could be used for charitable deeds, according to the Empress’s own invention, like that. for the correction of God's churches, or for alms to the poor. By the decree of April 29, 1765 (12389), given by the same board, together with the confirmation of the previous rules on taking into the treasury the belongings remaining after bishops, archimandrites, abbots and other authorities, and using them for charitable deeds, the property of other monks and nuns, even if they were in charge, was commanded, such as governors, treasurers, cellars in men's and corresponding positions in women's, but due to poverty they leave the smallest belongings for themselves, do not take them into the monastery treasury, but, after their death, give them to the poor in kind, according to the consideration of the board, whatever is fit for use. I completely agree with the spirit of these decisions and the decree of June 24, 1812 (No. 25162) (Article 928 of the Civil Code). Accordingly, on the basis of the rules of the Code of 1649 and the Spiritual Regulations, monastics, from the time of their tonsure into the monastic rank, are removed from any right to inheritance. Deviations from the strictness of church and civil rules regarding monastics are found in the decree of February 20, 1766 (12577), which was included in the provision on spiritual wills of October 1, 1831 (4844–§9), and then in Art. 257 t. IX order. about the condition and 846 zak. citizen In this decree, by the way, it was decreed that spiritual immovable estates, which they themselves had managed until that time, with God's help, were brought into such order, which the true zeal of the Empress and faith in the Holy Church demanded from her, and they were maintained under the management of the collegium, and bishops, archimandrites, abbots and other authorities were determined to have sufficient support for their rank from the same spiritual estates, in which was given to them full power to use it according to their will and desire, so that it is not commanded to demand a single penny account from them, then, according to the Empress’s diligent concern for them and their relatives, wanting, and even more so, by their boundless rulers to create that certain property for them, it was decided that bishops, archimandrites, abbots and other monastic authorities can during their lifetime to dispose of the estates left to themselves (with the exception of things that belong to their sacristies) as they belong, according to their own wills in favor of relatives, in-laws and neighbors, or to use it for charitable deeds, according to their invention, without giving an account to anyone else. Later, in the establishment of the state loan bank on June 28, 1786 (16407–Art. 19), subjects of any fortune were allowed to donate their own capital to this bank on the terms at the will of the contributors, and in 1828, on the occasion of the difficulty encountered by the loan bank in fulfilling the conditions of Hieromonk Justin, who contributed capital to this bank, the state council reasoned that although the lower monastic ranks are forbidden to bequeath their estate, and the property remaining after death must be turned into the monastic treasury, but in the present case it is not spiritual wills that are presented, but only the conditions concluded by Hieromonk Justin with a borrowed bank for the transfer of its capital, which is the 19th Art. manifesto of June 28, 1786, it is allowed to all subjects, without distinction of status, and therefore also to monastics, to contribute their capital to the bank on the terms of their will, and the bank, due to the firmness of its rules, cannot deviate from the fulfillment of these conditions. As a result of this, in an opinion awarded the highest approval on October 27, 1828 (Article 256 Vol. IX of the Law on Statute), the State Council decided: to allow the submission of the Minister of Finance so that both in the fulfillment of the conditions set by Hieromonk Justin for the capital contributed by him to the borrowed bank, and indicated on the very tickets issued to him by the bank, and in the fulfillment of these for deposits monastics in general acted unremittingly, according to the rules established in the highest manifesto of 1786 on this subject 214. From this review of the rules of the church and civil decrees on the right of monastics to property, it is clear that they do not completely, or even in many ways, agree with each other. According to some of them, according to the monastic vows, monastics, as those who have renounced the world, should not have any property, and do not have the right to make, in the event of death, orders about their belongings, and according to others, on the contrary, not only bishops, not only archimandrites, abbots and other monastic authorities are allowed to make wills, but even other monks are allowed to acquire capital and contribute it to credit institutions on the terms according to their will. In order to bring civil laws on this subject into full agreement with the laws of the church, it would be necessary to completely abolish the rules, both about allowing monastic authorities to draw up wills, and about allowing ordinary monks to have capital and dispose of it at will; it should be decided again that everything remaining after the monastics, no matter what level of the church hierarchy they belong to, belongs to the monastic treasury. But such a decree would, perhaps, be too contrary to the thoughts and concepts that prevail today, especially to long-rooted habits, and too strict for the monks of our time. There are not very many so-called monastic authorities, and to prohibit them from making acquisitions and depositing their surpluses in banks, or otherwise saving them and making capital, given the ease of the forms established for the contribution of sums of money to credit institutions, would be almost imaginary; it would remain without effect, and would only provide a new reason for deception and law-abusive transactions. With the current structure of monasteries, when each of the monastic brethren is given a portion of the collections from prayers, pannikhidas and other services, is it possible to demand that the recipient of these collections have nothing? But in order to at least somewhat harmonize civil decrees with the solemn vows pronounced at tonsure as a monk, shouldn’t it at least be accepted as a rule: 1) that neither bishops nor other monastic authorities have the right to bequeath their property to those who are tonsured into monasticism, as people who have renounced the world; 2) that simple monks, when contributing capital to credit institutions, cannot establish any conditions regarding the issuance of this capital, in the event of their death, to anyone, for this cannot but be recognized as one of the types of wills; that these capitals should always be turned, after their death, into the monastery treasury. These rules, of course, will not restore perfect harmony between the laws of the church and civil decrees, but at least there will not be such a striking contradiction between them, and those tonsured into monasticism will no longer receive capital by inheritance. This, of course, will not prevent those wishing to transfer tickets or cash belonging to them to their relatives, during their lifetime, or even after death, through strangers; but there is no way to prevent such a secret transfer, and it, at least without being put into official form, cannot be the reason for a lawsuit, which is always more or less unseemly. Turning to the case itself, which initiated the present case, the Second Department of His Imperial Majesty's own office noted that although monastics are prohibited from making wills and they, as having renounced the world, are excluded from the right of inheritance; but since the opinion of the State Council of 1828 and Article 256, vol. IX, based on it, positively allowed monastics to contribute capital to credit institutions on the terms of their will, then this rule and equally positive resolutions of the mouth. credit. (Articles 1094, 1096 and 1118), constituting an exception to the general laws, must have effect until these regulations are repealed by law, and it would be unfair to allow deviations from them. One can, it seems, believe with certainty that if the above-mentioned rule, decreed by the State Council in 1828, was included in the code of laws (vol. IX Art. 256), did not exist, then neither the deceased hieromonk Nazarius, nor his taker Paisius, would have decided to dispose of their property, the means they had chosen, and would not have exposed themselves to the danger of losing capital, for which they, according to the literal meaning of the law, which is not subject to any doubt, considered their right of ownership inviolable, although, and this is worthy of remark, they made a kind of forgery in doing so, calling themselves by their former secular names. After considering this note, Metropolitan Philaret wrote to Count Tolstoy on February 6: Transmitted to me Confidentially. (dated January 4) in the draft note to the State Council on the right of monastics to dispose of their property, there is a remark that the vow of free poverty is indicated by strong expressions when taking monastic vows. Further, from the consideration of church rules and state laws, the question arises: shouldn’t it at least be accepted as a rule that neither bishops nor other monastic authorities have the right to bequeath their property to those who are tonsured into monasticism, etc. Pointing out strong expressions of the vow of poverty without having had the opportunity to delve into this subject can almost easily lead to the conclusion that the current situation of monasticism in Russia is marked by a violation of the vow: and this can prompt a strong transformation of legislation on this subject. The law can easily say to a monk and nun: you have taken a vow of free poverty; do not have any property. But how will a monk accomplish this, to whom the monastery can give food but cannot give clothes? How will a nun accomplish this, to whom the monastery cannot provide food or clothing? For these reasons, I found it necessary to present the opinion required of me on this subject in several separate questions, and in considering and resolving them most from the practical side. This is how the accompanying note was compiled. I humbly apologize for some delay resulting from the fact that daily non-urgent activities at a local position exhaust my meager strength and time, and do not suddenly allow me to set aside sections of time for special work. I am returning the project that was communicated to me. With perfect respect and devotion, I have the honor to be your Excellency, gracious sovereign, most humble servant, Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow 215. Attached to the letter was a note with the following content: The collision of the law, which does not grant monks the right to bequeath, with the law that commands the capital deposited in the treasury to be issued according to the investor's appointment upon the death of each investor, and therefore the monk, subjected the legislative issue of the property of the monastic clergy and their right to bequeath to new consideration. To achieve its final resolution, it is necessary to resolve some preparatory issues. I. It is necessary to separate the question of property and testamentary right of bishops. A monastic who is elevated to the rank of bishop is, of necessity, obliged to subordinate the character of monasticism to the higher character of episcopacy, and to perform monastic duties to the extent that they are consistent with the position and duties of a bishop. A cenobitic monk can fulfill the vow of poverty without restriction; because he receives everything he needs from the abbot and the monastery: a bishop is an independent person, and must satisfy himself with the needs of life, which are more varied than those of a monk. A bishop must do good, and bishops in Russia, by origin, usually have poor, and often completely helpless, relatives whom they must help, so that, according to the judgment of the apostle, they do not turn out to be the worst. If you impose on a bishop the strict duty of poverty, and order him to borrow what he needs indefinitely from the property of the church and bishop's house entrusted to him, then it may happen that another bishop will exhaust everything, and leave his successor in poverty, completely helpless. The Church foresaw this early, and the 40th Apostolic Canon, dividing and separately protecting the property of the church and the bishop, says: let the bishop’s own property be known, so that the bishop, when he dies, has the power to leave his own to whomever he wants and how he wants. II. The question requires consideration: can all monastics equally be able and must observe the vow of free poverty, without any restrictions, or are restrictions necessary and permitted? In the rite of monastic tonsure, this vow consists of the following question and answer: Question: do you endure all the sorrow and hardship of the monastic life of the kingdom for the sake of the heavenly? Answer: I will help her, God. Further, in the instructions to the one being tonsured, it is commanded: I am always ready to be, even unto death, for all the fulfillment of His (Christ’s) commandments, for I am hungry and thirsty and get hungry, but become annoyed and reproached, humiliate myself and be driven out. From this it is clear that the vow is given to be ready to endure poverty to its very extremes, and not for everyone to constantly be in extreme poverty. How the word to be expelled does not foretell the ever-present expulsion, but the randomness of this state: similarly, the word to be naked does not oblige everyone to be naked every day. The vow and instruction are presented in strong terms so that the monk, no matter what difficulties he encounters in his rank, cannot say that this is more than he promised to endure. Even a monk cannot be without some property. He received clothes from the monastery; the other brother cannot take her from him; consequently, in some way it is already property. The monk acquired edifying or learned books in any way. It is impossible not to leave them his property, at least for life, so as not to upset his worthy pursuits, unless the books are harmful either due to their content or due to reckless use. If a monk comes to the monastery after becoming accustomed to a refined life, with weak strength, without the ability to acquire what he needs through labor; and for some relief he needs, he is ashamed to burden the monastery, or the monastery does not have the means to provide him with it: what to do? We borrow the solution to this question from the strict and holy elder Barsanuphius the Great. Someone, entering the hostel, giving him part of his property, and part of the beggars, with bewilderment proposed to the great elder: keep a small village for my food; I am already weak. The elder gave the answer: have this village for your food (Question 253). So, the saint allowed the monk to even have immovable property and did not consider this contrary to the vow of monasticism. However, this example is given here only to demonstrate the need recognized by the saints to sometimes limit the fulfillment of the vow of free poverty, and not at all with the thought that it was desirable to ask the monks for what Barsanuphius the Great allowed one of them. III. Doesn't monasticism in Russia have special reasons for limiting free poverty? That’s right, especially from the time when the name and special position of regular monasteries arose. When a certain salary was assigned to each monastic, then the monastery authorities did not dare to assign this royal salary to the monastery at all, and began to give it to everyone. Following this example, it began to divide income in relation to personal labor, and, moreover, benefactors sometimes gave alms from hand to hand, and to take it away from the monastery treasury would mean to upset and cool the benefactor. A century has ingrained this custom. The monks use this manual property for clothing and cell needs, and the nuns use it to support themselves at table. Besides ingrained custom, there is another reason that makes this order necessary. For example, in the staff of a first-class monastery, 342 rubles are allocated for repairs to churches and the monastery, 85 rubles for firewood, for the authorities, for visitors, and for 30 monks, and for the same number of novices, 128 rubles are allocated for fish, for wine and beer, and nothing is allocated for bread. Therefore, although the monasteries, by imperial grace, have lands and some lands, the income from them is used up for the maintenance of churches and other buildings, and for other general monastic needs; and brethren - male monasteries for the most part can only provide a common table and heating, and women's monasteries - for the most part cannot even do this; and the nuns and novices have both clothing and table from themselves. Those who can work support themselves by work; those who are unable, due to old age, illness and other reasons, are supported by alms, benefits from relatives and benefactors, and some with interest on small capital, which they left behind for this purpose when entering the monastery. A special category of monks who cannot, in fairness, be deprived of the disposal of personal property are learned monks. Although they are tonsured into the staff of monasteries, they live in school houses, often not in the monastery, on a school salary, without any benefits from the monastery. Saved remnants from salaries and accidental acquisitions, for example, from the publication of works, can constitute their property, to which no monastery has the right not only during their lifetime, but also after death, and whose appointment by them in favor of poor relatives cannot be challenged by an impartial court. IV. Let's come closer to legislative issues. Is it convenient and useful to deprive bishops and monks of the right to bequeath their property to monks? The inconvenience and unhelpfulness of this, in my opinion, can be seen from the application of this rule to particular cases. The archimandrite bequeathed his cassock to the monk for his help and services. The Civil Chamber decided that the monk could not accept an inheritance and destroyed this part of the will; the monastic cassock was given to the heirs of the secular title. Is it good that the archimandrite is deprived of the opportunity to express gratitude to his brother? The nun bequeathed part of the capital with which she lived to another poor nun, who served her, and ate from her. Is it good to take away the way of charity and gratitude from one, and the last bite of bread from another? Quite common examples are that such wills are made privately, with the consent of the abbess, and this, knowing the law that the property of a nun belongs to the monastery, fulfilling the law not in letter, but in spirit, allows the execution of a charitable deed, at the same time, showing on its part the character of impartiality towards acquisition, even legal ones. The archimandrite refuses his pectoral cross to another archimandrite, so that this one will remember him and pray for him. Is it necessary to take away this sign and monument of prayerful communication between the living and the deceased, because the monk has no right to inherit? In my opinion, the following rule would be more consistent with justice, need and benefit: Monks and nuns who have the right to bequeath, that is, abbots and abbess, can bequeath their property to other monks and nuns, and accept this bequeathed by the monks, with the blessing of their abbots and abbess. V. Would it be more useful to prohibit monks, when contributing capital to credit institutions, to establish conditions for the issuance of this capital after their death? The only benefit that will come from this is that difficult cases such as those encountered in the case of Nazarius and Paisius will no longer occur. But if the law of the preservation of the treasury gave capital investors complete freedom regarding conditions, would it be convenient to limit the freedom of monks in this case? Will this not give the idea to other investors that their turn may come to be subject to restrictions; and might not this have an impact on the disposition to contribute capital, which is what the guardianship council is concerned about? If the above prohibition follows, what will a monk do if he wants to transfer his capital, after his death, to a relative? He will probably give it to a relative so that he will put it in a credit institution, and so that the interest will be delivered to him, the monk, until his death. If a relative dies early, the monk’s money will be lost, because there is no legal act. The monk will become poor, and the monastery will not receive money. In my opinion, it is better to leave this matter as it stands. VI. To whom should Nazariy’s capital be given? As the safe treasury usually did, so it should do now, that is, give the capital to whomever was assigned on the ticket. They will say: this has violated the right of the monastery to inherit after the monk. So. But it was Nazarius who violated this, and not the safe treasury. Nazarius, who has died, cannot be called to human justice, and the preserved treasury is not obliged to answer for his illegal act. The monk put his money into a well, from which he kept what he drew and gave it to another. The monastery has the right to take the money out, but it can’t, and whoever took it from will take it out. VII. However, for future cases, the question may still be reconsidered: should the capital on a credit institution note assigned by a monk upon death to a relative be given to this relative, according to the rule of credit institutions, or to the monastery, according to the law on monks? Let it be allowed to resolve this issue by following a similar example. Suppose that an official who had a treasury sum in his custody died, and after him they found a ticket for the safekeeping of the treasury for 10,000 rubles, which he appointed, upon his death, to be given to a relative. And after examining the amount that was in storage, it turned out that 10,000 rubles were missing. The question arises: Should the treasury, according to its own rules, give the capital to a relative, according to the destination on the ticket, or, according to the law of justice, should it be given to the authorities, who see in it a part of the treasury sum, and a means to compensate for those who did not show up? If the safe treasury must issue this capital for the intended purpose in the ticket, then the same must be done with the monastic capital, that is, as stated above in paragraph VI. But if the safe treasury must give the indicated capital to the authorities, according to the law of justice, then the capital assigned by the monk in the ticket past the monastery will have to be given to the monastery, according to the same law of justice; for, after the death of the monk, it belongs to the monastery, and its assignment away from the monastery is a theft made by the deceased. Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow 216. Regardless of this, Metropolitan Philaret, in pursuance of the decree of the Holy Synod, dated December 31, 1856, No. 14518, which required opinions from him and Metropolitan Joseph of Lithuania on the content of the same issue, submitted the said note to the Holy Synod, with the following content: The note of Section II poses the following questions: Shouldn’t it at least be accepted as a rule: 1) that neither bishops nor other monastic authorities have the right to bequeath their property to those who are tonsured into monasticism, as people who have renounced the world. 2) That ordinary monks, when contributing capital to credit institutions, cannot set any conditions for the issuance of this capital to anyone. The word - at least - expresses a concession. Consequently, it may happen that the legislation goes further than what is proposed. The research I have done leads, in my opinion, to the following conclusions: 1) Bishops enjoy the right of property and the right to bequeath, according to the apostolic rule. 2) Abbots and abbess of regular monasteries enjoy the same right, depending on the circumstances of these monasteries. 3) Monastics who are in a special service, receiving support not from monasteries, but from their salaries and labors, enjoy the right of property and the right to bequeath. 4) Monastics who have the right to bequeath can bequeath part of their property in favor of other monks, and these can accept what is bequeathed, with the blessing of their superiors and abbess. 5) Abbots and abbess, if they allow those entering the monasteries to have capital for their needs, must at the same time instill in them that they can use this permission only during their lifetime, and upon death they must provide the monastery with the right over their property that belongs to them. 6) Monastics are not forbidden to contribute such capital to credit institutions in order to receive interest for food and other needs. 7) If, after the death of a monk, it turns out that the capital he put into credit institutions was assigned by him to someone other than the monastery, then this illegal act is left without prosecution, after the death of the culprit, and the capital is dealt with as required by the rules of credit institutions, that is, either give it away as intended by the investor, or turn it into a monastery, from which it can be considered stolen 217. After hearing this report, note and opinion of Metropolitan Joseph of Lithuania 218, the Holy Synod, by definition of September 14, December 8, 1858, decided: to allow the chief prosecutor to inform the II department of His Imperial Majesty’s own office: 1) the rules proposed by this department a) on limiting the testamentary right of monastic authorities, and b) on the prohibition of simple for monks, when contributing capital to credit institutions, to establish a condition for the issuance of these capitals, after their death, the Holy Synod finds worthy of acceptance and approval; 2) at the same time, the Holy Synod would, for its part, consider, not contrary to monastic vows, to rule that the restriction set out in paragraph 1 of the rules does not apply to icons, panagias and pectoral crosses, and that these sacred objects, as monuments of prayerful communication between the living and the deceased, as well as books of spiritual, moral and scientific content, can be bequeathed in favor of those tonsured into monasticism. This opinion of the State Council, on the 29th day of June 1859, received the highest approval and was published publicly by the Governing Senate 219. February 15. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Minister of the Court, Count V.F. Adlerber, with information about the authentic letter regarding the election of Mikhail Fedorovich to the kingdom Minister of the Imperial Household, Count V.F. Adlerberg 220, in relation to January 15, 1857, No. 241, wrote: “Your Eminence Vladyka, gracious sir and archpastor. The Moscow main archive of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs kept the original document on the election of the Tsar and Grand Duke Mikhail Feodorovich to the kingdom, which was transferred to the state ancient repository established in the Terem Palace. Meanwhile, it now turns out that in the archives of His Imperial Majesty’s office there is another authentic letter of election to the kingdom of the same sovereign, but when and where it came from in the said archive, there is no information in it. Since from the inventory of the Moscow Assumption Cathedral of 1632 it is clear that in the altar thereof, in the ark, the same original letter is kept, then I turn to your Eminence with the most humble request to notify me, for a report to the Sovereign Emperor, whether this letter was transferred from the Assumption Cathedral to His Majesty’s office, when exactly and according to what occasion"? In response to this attitude, Metropolitan Philaret, dated February 15, wrote to Count Adlerber: Regarding your Excellency, dated February 15, No. 241, depicts: Since from the inventory of the Moscow Assumption Cathedral of 1632 it is clear that in its altar, in the ark, there is kept the same authentic document on the election of Tsar Mikhail Feodorovich to the kingdom, which is now open in the archives of the office of His Imperial Majesty, then information is required from me, for the report to the Sovereign Emperor, whether this document was transferred from Dormition Cathedral to His Majesty's office, when exactly, and on what occasion. Therefore, I proposed to the Moscow Synodal Office that a thorough investigation be done on this subject from its archives and from the archives of the Assumption Cathedral. On the 14th day of this February I received information about what turned out to be in this inquiry, namely: 1) Which of the inventories of the Assumption Cathedral is the oldest dating back to 1771; but it does not show the original letter of election of Tsar Mikhail Feodorovich to the kingdom, and from the affairs of the Assumption Cathedral it is not clear that this letter was required or transferred anywhere. 2) That in the archives of the synodal office, starting in 1700, nothing related to the present subject was found. All that remains is to resort to personal information and guesswork. In 1823, by order of the late Sovereign Emperor Alexander Pavlovich in Bose, I opened the silver ark in which the state acts in the Assumption Cathedral are kept, to include in it the act of appointing Sovereign Emperor Nikolai Pavlovich to the All-Russian throne. Then the letter of election to the kingdom of Tsar Mikhail Feodorovich was no longer here; and the ark is not so spacious that it could contain it. In all likelihood, this ark was built in 1797, when the Sovereign Emperor Pavel Petrovich placed in the Assumption Cathedral the act of succession to the throne he had drawn up. It is likely that at this time, when a new state legislative act was received for storage in the Assumption Cathedral, following the guidance for future times, the original act on the election of Tsar Mikhail Feodorovich to the throne, as a historical monument, was requested by the Sovereign Emperor Pavel Petrovich, and upon review was transferred to the archives of the imperial cabinet. Perhaps this was done by the highest verbal command, for it was still a time of non-strict forms; or maybe there was a written document about this in the Assumption Cathedral; but he was kidnapped by 1812. March 4th. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A.P. Tolstoy, with information about the proposal to arrange a large Assumption Cathedral in a warm Your Excellency expressed a desire to have information from me about the proposal to arrange the large Moscow Assumption Cathedral warmly. I'm stating what I know. In April 1849, in Bose, the late Sovereign Emperor Nikolai Pavlovich was most pleased to order that the Moscow Assumption and Archangel Cathedrals be made warm, and to entrust the execution of this to the commission for the construction of the Cathedral of Christ the Savior. In 1850, Academician Ton 222 drew up a project for this purpose. It was supposed to build underground galleries inside the Assumption Cathedral, and install several ovens in them. At the same time, raise the floor of the cathedral by 4 inches. The work required at least six summer months. When this project, by the highest command, was communicated to me: my duty was to consider it not in an artificial, but in an ecclesiastical sense, in order, if possible, to eliminate inconveniences and unfavorable impressions on the Orthodox people; and therefore I proposed that during the work the divine service should not be interrupted, at least to the extent possible; so that the iconostasis and reliquaries of holy relics are protected from the action of dust, especially limestone, during excavation and brick work; so that part of the work closest to the altar was completed from the beginning of spring until Dormition Day, so that this church holiday could be celebrated in the cathedral, so that access to the holy relics would not be prevented for fans. In conclusion, I said that it is difficult to expect that the people will quickly and satisfactorily understand the merits of what is being undertaken; that high-monarchal wisdom and piety, without a doubt, are disposed to spare the people's thought, although weak in relation to understanding, but worthy of attention due to the pious feeling associated with it, and that therefore it is desirable that what is being undertaken in the Assumption Cathedral be accomplished with as little change in its interior as possible, and, as much as possible, in a shorter time. On the 9th day of September, 1850, the late Sovereign Emperor in Bose deigned to give the highest command: “for the time being, the cathedrals should be left in their present position.” And on August 25, 1851, the Moscow military governor-general 223 notified me that, according to his most submissive report, whether the Assumption and Archangel Cathedrals in Moscow should remain in their current position forever, or should they be arranged warmly, the Sovereign Emperor, on the 22nd day of August, deigned to give the highest command: “to leave as is forever.” In 1856, from some inhabitants of Moscow, who reverence church antiquity with particular zeal, it became known to me that the proposal to make the Assumption Cathedral warm again attracted the highest attention. In the current year 1857, a new project for this purpose became known to me unofficially, which consisted of constructing underground galleries near the Assumption Cathedral, on its western, northern and southern sides, installing four underground furnaces in them, and by cutting through the walls of the cathedral, introducing pipes under the floor of the cathedral that conduct heat. This second project eliminates some of the difficulties associated with the first project; because opening up the floor in the cathedral to position heat-conducting pipes and installing vents will not, apparently, require much time, will not create a significant obstacle to worship and will not make a significant change in the interior of the cathedral. That is why, probably, this second project was not communicated to me, as the first was communicated. I could stop here, because the second project presents the most questions that tend to receive permission from the Academy of Arts. But the highest command of the deceased Sovereign Emperor to “leave the Assumption Cathedral as it is forever,” in all likelihood, will raise a new, important, requiring multilateral consideration, question: are there quite strong reasons for changing the already stated highest command? Therefore, I consider it necessary to continue the presentation of information and considerations necessary for a complete explanation of the present matter. 1. Is there really a need to make the Assumption Cathedral warm? There is a temporary, strong need for this, namely, in the event of the royal arrival in Moscow and a visit to the Assumption Cathedral in the cold season. Then, out of universal concern for everyone’s precious health, we would like the summer sun to come to the cathedral before the highest entry into it. But, to eliminate this concern, is there no other means other than heating the Assumption Cathedral? Why was the majestic monument to great events erected - the Cathedral of Christ the Savior? Shouldn't measures be taken so that this church does not remain a cold monument of the past, unused and unvisited by the Orthodox people? These questions can be resolved by the assumption that the Church of the Savior would be designated for festive and solemn cathedral services for the winter, and the Assumption Cathedral would remain for such services in the summer. Thus the new cathedral church would appear in its characteristic dignity and use. Then the church ceremonial meetings of the Sovereign Emperor in winter could take place in this church. For this purpose, it would be possible to bring into it some especially revered shrine from the Assumption Cathedral. So that the Cathedral of Christ the Savior could be prepared for this use in a short time, it would be possible, instead of lining its interior with marble (unfavorable to heat and giving dampness), to decorate the interior of this church with wall iconography, following the example of ancient churches (which would be very pleasant for Moscow), and to arrange an iconostasis, albeit temporary, without decorations, which are difficult and slow to produce. II. Is heating of the Assumption Cathedral necessary for the people? For the majority of the Moscow population it is not necessary. The Assumption Cathedral on Sundays and holidays is filled with people in winter, as well as in summer. Consequently, the people do not find it difficult to use this cold church. In the upper classes there are a significant number of people who want to see the Assumption Cathedral warm. But they use it little; They will probably not use it much more for heating purposes either. On Easter Day, the Assumption Cathedral is filled with people to the point of crowding; but the church council celebrates with the common people. Of the upper classes in the twenties of this century, the Moscow military governor-general was still in the cathedral at Easter matins; in the thirties there were some senators and a civil governor; For some time now this has no longer been the case. This disgrace, now excused by the cold, will lose this justification when the cathedral is heated. III. Isn't it necessary to heat the Assumption Cathedral for those who perform divine services in it? Without a doubt, this would be easier for them, especially in relation to the celebration of the Divine Liturgy. However, experience shows that the cold of this cathedral does not prevent those serving in it from reaching a ripe old age. IV. Will the opinion of the Orthodox people be favorable to the warm arrangement of the Assumption Cathedral? Perhaps it will be pacified in the future if the matter is completed with complete success, but at present the opinion of many who reverently honor church antiquity is unfavorable to this matter. The reverence of the Orthodox people for the Assumption Cathedral is unprecedentedly strict. When, after 1812, at the entrance to it, a glass lantern with a side door was installed to prevent through wind when opening the doors: the displeasure of the people was so significant that the authorities decided to destroy this extension. In recent years, a significant change was made inside the cathedral by removing the iconostasis from the pillars, and this was accepted by the people without complaint, and even with pleasure; but this is because, after the iconostases were taken away, they saw images of martyrs on the pillars behind them; from which it was clearly clear that in ancient times there were no iconostases near the pillars, and consequently their removal was not an innovation, but a return to antiquity. In 1849 and 1850, when the proposal to arrange heating for the Assumption Cathedral became known, many talked about this with a concerned look; and, by the way, an untitled letter was sent to me, which in thought and style seemed to be the work of pious people, and in which in strong terms they urged me to bring to the highest attention the inconveniences of this enterprise. V. Will the proposed heating be harmful to the interior decorations of the Assumption Cathedral? Experience can answer this decisively; but many reasons make one think about this with great fear. The white stone from which the Assumption Cathedral was built, by its nature, when heated, gives dampness to the inside of the building and is unfavorable to heat. True, the Trinity Cathedral in the Lavra, also built of stone, is heated quite satisfactorily; but this building, in comparison with the Moscow Assumption Cathedral, is very small, and therefore this example does not represent a guarantee for the success of the proposed heating of the Assumption Cathedral. The five domes of the Assumption Cathedral, with windows on all sides, will not only carry away a lot of heat, but will also produce dampness, which will turn out to be rain and streams along the walls, which over time can harm the wall iconography. This inconvenience is noticed to a small extent in the Lavra. White stone does not hold the plaster as tightly as brick. This raises a thoughtful question: whether, when the cathedral is heated, combined with dampness, the plaster will lag behind the walls, and consequently the wall iconography will be damaged, the restoration of which, which for a long time seemed impossible due to a lack of methods, has recently been accomplished with much difficulty. Experience shows that in general, in warm churches, icons, iconostases and wall iconography darken and lose their appearance much more quickly than in cold churches. And in the Trinity Lavra Cathedral, since it is heated, renovation of the wall iconography is more often required, and the iconostasis is kept in good shape by being cleaned annually. If something like this is required for the Assumption Cathedral, it will be very difficult and inconvenient due to its enormity. In the Assumption Cathedral there are icons that consider their existence to be many centuries old and which the special reverence for them makes them so inviolable that, during the recent cleansing of other icons, they did not dare to touch them, and they remain in a rather dark state. Under the influence of soot and dampness, in the case of heating, these icons can in a short time reach the point that their images will not be visible at all. The very boards of these icons, after a long existence, having been exposed to corruption, will they retain their strength? VI. I allow myself to touch on the economic side of the matter at hand only in order to make it known to your Excellency, for your consideration, that if, as some estimate, about 10,000 rubles will be required annually for heating the Assumption Cathedral, then this amount cannot be borrowed from the cathedral’s own methods, but will need to be allocated for annual receipt from the state treasury. Having thus discovered the various aspects of the present matter, it seems clear to me that the command of the late Sovereign Emperor in Bose to “leave the Assumption Cathedral as it is forever” is based on strong reasons, and it is a safe decision that on the one hand is desirable, but on the other hand is doubtful. March 18. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to A.N. Muravyov, with a response to his “note about the embarrassing situation of synodal action” 225 Dear Sir, Andrei Nikolaevich. Your letter, dated the 11th day, (I received, I don’t know why, only yesterday, the 17th day, in the late evening), the first words about my letter say that it upset you a lot; and with his last words he threatens me that you will remain silent. Thank you for your frank word; I wish reproof better than silence; for the distress caused, I apologize. I won't claim that I'm right; at least I hope that you will reduce the severity of your judgment of me. I wrote my letter 226 that preceded this one hastily, so as not to miss a favorable opportunity for the return of your note; and now I don’t remember everything, what and how I wrote. My memory retains some things, but quickly loses others. Already a few days before this, it occurred to me that perhaps it would not be clear to you where my objections to your note stem from and where they were heading, and I wanted to write you an addition to my letter; but before I found time for this, I received your letter. I objected not to the essence of your comments on the constraining position of synodal action, but to the inaccuracy of presentation, from which two unfavorable consequences can occur: first, that objections to this inaccuracy can make, and your entire remark will seem to be refuted; secondly, that an incorrectly defined incorrectness can receive such a correction that it will again be incorrect and unsatisfactory. For example, you imagine the words: read, fulfill, as a sign of the chief prosecutor’s excessive power and arbitrariness to stop synodal decisions. To this they may tell you: this is not true; this is a matter for the chief prosecutor to supervise the office; The chief prosecutors of the Senate do the same; and if the chief prosecutor’s duty is to ensure that in the synodal decisions there is no one who disagrees with state laws, then how can he fulfill this duty if the synodal decisions will be executed without being shown to him? This may make your point seem refuted. And that is why I wrote that it is necessary to distinguish between abuse and legal action. In my opinion, you could say: the Chief Prosecutor is given the right to write on the definitions: read, before their proposals for signing, and before execution to write: execute. This was done for order and supervision, and not at all so that he could leave the decision of the Synod completely without effect; The Chief Prosecutor of the Senate was even given deadlines against slowing down this action; but under the Synod, for some time, the arbitrariness of the chief prosecutor has prevailed, according to which he stops the decisions of the Synod for as long as he wants, or leaves them completely without effect. Here the illegality would be clear, and it would not be possible to argue that in this case the chief prosecutor is acting according to legal rights. In a similar way, please understand my other comments on your note. But you are not looking at my objections to you from this angle, and you see indifference in them, and, by the way, in my comments regarding the transfer of bishops 227. I pointed to the example of the Roman Catholic Church for the same reason that a refutation of your comments can be derived from this. But let me tell you, did you really find indifference in the fact that I pointed to apostolic election, the source and model of all church elections, which had two candidates, to the introduction in the past reign of the election of three candidates for no apparent reason, to the inconvenience of always having three candidates corresponding to the requirements of the place, and consequently to the need to return to the apostolic model? You are amazed that I left vital questions unanswered. Your amazement could end immediately if you paid attention to the fact that I make comments only on parts of your note that are, in my opinion, dubious, and therefore I agree with the rest of its contents. Was it really necessary for me to rewrite all your thoughts, and say to each one that this is fair? It seems strange to you that I touched on an unimportant subject - the definition of consistory secretaries. As far as I remember, this is because I defended the Charter of consistories, which really improved the position of the bishop, and stopped stopping his decisions with the most insignificant appeals; but the Charter provides for the election of the secretary of the consistory to the chief prosecutor; That’s why I needed to mention this, so that it wouldn’t seem that I approve of this too in accordance with the Charter. However, the evil of incapable and willful secretaries is not unimportant; and it had to be mentioned as something that needed to be corrected. You write that, on the occasion of my letter, you began to look more condescendingly at the Balabins and Gagarins 228. The following reasoning is evident in this: one bishop of the Orthodox Church turned out to be indifferent to the unfavorable state of its government, therefore it is necessary to look more leniently at the enemies of the church. Is this conclusion good? I think that the thinness of one bishop should not diminish your zeal for the Orthodox Church. I have no doubt that you think so too. I hope that you will remain, as you were, a sincere zealot of the Orthodox Church. Let this jealousy also act to admonish me with reproof, and not to push me away with silence. If there is something in my letter that has disturbed your spirit, which I do not remember: would it not be appropriate for you to send it to me so that I can either explain myself or admit where I am wrong? But, forgive me, I still think that if your note had been revised, and disorder had been differentiated from order, and with some certainty it had been hinted at what to do to return to order: success would have been more certain. For example, if we were to say that the election of bishops should be returned to the apostolic model, so that there would always be two candidates: it seems to me that the thought of the apostolic model would incline to agreement and would be a weapon against objections. It seems that you wanted to accuse me of more than indifference. You say about yourself: “I was not afraid”; and thereby hinting at your opinion of me that I was afraid. As a precaution so as not to judge your neighbor, could you ask yourself the question: is it truly a person who has already put one foot in the coffin, and for whom the time, although now, if not before 229, to fear the judgment of God, and not of man, really acts out of worldly fear or hope, and not according to some reasoning, although not reasonable? Invoking God's blessing to you, I abide with true reverence and devotion... March 24. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A.P. Tolstoy, with a note attached containing an opinion on improving the spiritual part It was pleasing for your Excellency to have a list from the note that I read on August 9, 1827 in the committee that was considering a project to improve the spiritual part, which note, as my opinion, was submitted by the committee to the highest discretion, and was awarded the highest approval. I am forwarding such a list herewith. Invoking God's blessing upon you, with perfect respect and devotion I have the honor to be your Lordship's most humble servant. Vasily Dmitrievich says that your Excellency expects information from me about our school for poor girls of the clergy. It was sent to you on the 7th day of this March, in a note under the title: “about the house of charity,” because in this one house widows are cared for and girls are brought up. The following document is attached to this letter: On note 231 on the improvement of the spiritual part, an opinion read in the committee on August 9, 1827. In the note, entitled: Some comments and assumptions about improving the spiritual part, the main assumption is: to establish a temporary spiritual council. The need for this institution is derived: 1) from the many personal affairs of the Holy Synod; 2) from the small number of its members, and 3) from the occupation of its members with the affairs of the dioceses. In order to measure the strength of this reasoning, it is necessary to ask: from whom is the temporary spiritual council supposed to be composed? If we use the members of the Holy Synod and diocesan bishops for this, then the multitude of synodal affairs and diocesan activities will also hinder their activity in the council, just as, in the opinion of the author of the project, they hinder it in the Synod, and consequently nothing will be gained by the establishment of the council. And if, when drawing up a council, one bypasses the members of the Holy Synod and diocesan bishops, then it is difficult to guess who, without their assistance, the author considers primarily capable of holding meetings on improving the spiritual part. The number of members of the Holy Synod, which now, including those present, is seven, cannot be considered too small for successful activity; on the contrary, one can also notice that public places, burdened with many members, sometimes act with all the more difficulty, like a polysyllabic machine. Even if we agree that the number of members of the Holy Synod is small, in case of emergency, then it will only follow that, in case of emergency, they need to be multiplied, and not that it is necessary to establish a special temporary spiritual council. So, the need for this new institution has not been proven; and, on the contrary, this institution would entail the following inconveniences: 1) The proposed temporary spiritual council would require a lot of work and time for its formation before embarking on the proposed work. As a new place, he has nothing and knows nothing; and therefore must begin by burdening existing spiritual places with demands for information and aids. 2) This council would attract to itself the affairs of different places, such as: the Synod, the commission of theological schools, dioceses, and thus would put on one narrow road matters that are more convenient and can quickly go their own way, for example, through the Synod and the commission of theological schools, with close information and benefits. 3) What is especially worthy of attention in this case is that hierarchy, based on the rules of the holy apostles, holy councils and holy fathers, and reform, or transformation, are concepts that exclude one another. The establishment of a council for the improvement of the spiritual part will seem to many to be the establishment of a transforming or reforming place, and it is doubtful whether this place will produce as much improvement in affairs as it does excitement in the minds. From everything that has been said so far, in my opinion, it follows that, without establishing a temporary council, it is necessary to consider the proposed comments and suggestions for improving the spiritual part, and what turns out to be necessary and useful in them, then put into action through the existing spiritual authorities. To strengthen their activities, special highest attention on special occasions will be sufficient. The author of the project offers: a) collect information about the state of the clergy; b) find ways to improve it; c) pay attention to the division of parishes; d) establish church houses for priests; e) delve into the quality of church lands; f) consider whether it would be better to replace income with salary. Since the Holy Synod is already dealing with all these subjects, by the highest command, then, in my opinion, it should be left to the members of the Holy Synod participating in the present consideration of the project to try to bring this matter to an end in its own place. The idea of ​​the project, to pay attention especially to the improvement of the clergy in the army, navy and missions, in my opinion, deserves to be entrusted to the care of the above-mentioned members of the Synod. The author of the project says that the moral part of education in religious schools is in decline. Anyone who knows the current state of religious schools cannot recognize this remark as fair. In many religious schools one can find examples of insufficient organization, and in many students examples of damaged morality; but in general, the moral state of theological schools at the present time has not fallen, but, with God’s help, has risen quite considerably in comparison with previous times, when we studied. The remark of the author of the project about the brevity of training courses in religious schools also cannot be considered fair. The courses of theological schools, one after another, are as follows: at the parish school 2 years In addition, local authorities have the power to leave students who have not shown success in one of the departments of a school, but are not hopeless, in the same department for two years to repeat the course of sciences belonging to that department of the school. If, with such an arrangement of training courses, students somewhere are too young and weak, then it is not the educational years that should be blamed, but the orders of the local authorities. The comment about the need to improve educational books is fair. In my opinion, this thought should be entrusted to the special care of the members of the Holy Synod and the commission of theological schools participating in this consideration, although, however, both of these places are already engaged in this thought. The rules that graduates of academic and seminary courses should be given priestly positions over others are required by the author of the project - it’s too late. This rule has existed for a long time, and was recently confirmed by the Holy Synod with new force. The idea of ​​supplementing the lack of clergy in one diocese with an abundance of another is not unfounded, although it is difficult to process it and make it feasible. It is entrusted to the attention of the members of the Holy Synod. The remarks about the economic part of theological schools are not new. What is worthy of study in them is already dealt with by the commission of theological schools, which, by the way, last July of this year determined to revise all the statutes of theological schools. The author of the project thinks that some members of the honorable clergy send their children to civil schools, being dissatisfied with the structure of theological schools. Not true. This is done by the vanity of some parents, and the frivolity of some children, and sometimes by the hope of help and patronage of honorary persons of secular rank. III. On the revision of religious schools and consistories. The revamping of religious schools is already legalized by the charters of these schools; and is carried out, partly at times determined by the statutes, partly at the discretion of a special need for it. In addition, schools constantly submit reports to their commissions of theological schools. And therefore a general revamping of them does not seem necessary. Consistories are not audited often, at the discretion of a particular need, just as provinces are audited. But here, in my opinion, what is needed is not a one-time shock to all places with a general inspection, but constant constancy and vigilance of supervision, and time-by-time private inspection, established and carried out in such a way that the expectation of it serves as a general incentive for serviceability. The comment about the need to increase the regular salaries of the consistory is fair. And the draft of new states of consistories has already been drawn up in the Holy Synod and is being considered in the State Council. The author of the project notes that the Holy Synod does not have sufficient information about the schismatics. Is it true. But it is not convenient to replenish this deficiency through the clergy, from whom schismatics are eliminated incomparably more than from people of other states, and for whom, by a precautionary decree of 1800, March 22, access to schismatics is very difficult. However, this subject must be taken into account when drawing up rules about the manner in which authorities act in relation to schismatics. IV. About diocesan bishops, about the code of laws and about spiritual books. The idea that there are few episcopal departments in terms of the space of the dioceses and the number of people, and that new ones need to be established in provincial cities that do not have them, such as in Saratov and Simbirsk, is very worthy of attention. The Holy Synod was already discussing the establishment of a new episcopal see in Saratov in order to provide a closer bulwark against the growing schisms there. In my opinion, it is necessary to leave it to the members of the Holy Synod participating in this consideration of the project to try in their place to bring this assumption into proper effect. Suggestions to encourage diocesan bishops to conduct frequent reviews of dioceses, and to report in these reviews, as well as to frequent visits to seminaries for the personal encouragement of students and students, deserve to be entrusted to the attention of the members of the Holy Synod. It is also true that some bishops need to be helped by assigning a certain amount from the treasury for traveling. The intention to compile a code of church laws has already been adopted; but other activities of the commission of theological schools and theological academies, even more pressing for time, have not allowed this enterprise, which is associated with many difficulties, to be completed until now. We must be patient while theological schools gather the strength to compile satisfactory educational books on all subjects of spiritual teaching, including church jurisprudence. It is difficult to guess what the author of the project was thinking when he demanded that attention be paid to the Russian translation of the books of the Holy Scriptures. Due attention to this matter has been and is being used in the most important cases; and therefore it does not require any emergency orders. This translation, as much as it has been published to date, was finally examined under the direct supervision of the leading members of the Holy Synod; and accepted by the entire Russian hierarchy in such a way that none of the people knowledgeable in this matter expressed any dogmatic doubts about it. If previously there was a noticeable haste in distributing this translation among the people, now it has stopped. This translation is especially useful and necessary for theological schools and the clergy; for it is known that to this day only a few have achieved a thorough knowledge of the original languages ​​of the Holy Scriptures even in the clergy; it is undeniable that the Slavonic translation in many places is unintelligible for many: so, for the most convenient understanding of difficult passages of Holy Scripture, it is, without a doubt, useful and necessary to cope with a correct and intelligible Russian translation; and of course it is better with Russian than, as is still done, with Latin, French, German, which are all made in different faiths. The author of the project goes on to talk about revising the catechisms. This has already been determined in the Holy Synod. The proposal to start publishing new translations of St. the father is also not now a nascent thought, but already an actual occupation of the clergy, continued as long as circumstances allow, requiring further effort and worthy of encouragement. More titles are visible in the project: V. About monasteries and churches. VI. About the Holy Synod, the commission of theological schools, etc. VII. About the Church under the Holy Synod, etc. But there are no actual articles on these subjects; Therefore, it is not possible to enter into a discussion about these subjects of the project 232. April 2. Metropolitan Philaret's opinion on the composition of the Holy Synod The number of people sitting in the Holy Synod varied at different times; and always with the highest approval. Therefore, there is no number that would be legal over others. To determine what number would be consistent with the needs and benefits of church government, the following must be taken into consideration: I. The number of those sitting in the Holy Synod should not be very small. This is needed: 1) because the Holy Synod has the character of a cathedral; 2) for the convenience of division of labor; 3) in order to have enough advice in important matters; for, according to the word of scripture: salvation is in much counsel; 4) so ​​that synodal decisions have more moral weight in the minds of the Orthodox people. II. The number of people sitting in the Holy Synod should not be very large: 1) because, with many members of one office, it is more difficult to achieve unity in judgment and action, which is especially necessary in church governance; 2) so that few diocesan bishops are present in His Holiness. The Synod was distracted from personal action in the dioceses. III. The number of sitting bishops must be greater than the number of archimandrites and protopresbyters. This can be explained by the example of 12 members of the Holy Synod who signed the addition to the Spiritual Regulations, among whom were 4 bishops and 4 archimandrites, 2 abbots, 1 hieromonk, and 1 protopresbyter. Of the three essential degrees of the priesthood, archimandrites, abbots, hieromonks, protopresbyters, all 8, belong to the second degree, that is, presbyterian. With this composition of the Holy Synod, in which the bishops make up only a third, it could easily happen that in any matter of church government the majority of votes would be on the side of the members of the presbyteral degree; and then, when the matter was decided by a majority vote, it would turn out that the presbyters govern the bishops, and this would be a perversion of the hierarchical order. The following composition of the Holy Synod would correspond to these principles: 4 bishops, constantly sitting, and 1 summoned in turn; and sometimes, according to circumstances, 3 bishops, constantly sitting, and 2, called in turn. His Imperial Majesty's confessor. Chief priest of the army and navies. Archimandrite, summoned in turn. In the case of a matter of particular importance in relation to dogma or church administration, it would be possible to call on one or two more bishops while such a matter is being considered. To reduce the difficulties that accompany the absence of a bishop from the diocese to attend the Holy Synod, it would be useful in the dioceses closest to St. Petersburg, with special attention, to identify such bishops who are appointed or proposed for the Holy Synod. April 8. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to A.N. Muravyov, with an additional response to his “note on the embarrassing situation of synodal action” 234 In your letter 235 I did not find anything bitter for me, but I found delight in what seemed bitter before. The confidence that our peace is not disturbed calms me down and gives me the same freedom not only to talk, but sometimes to argue with you when we don’t see things the same way. Thank you for informing me of the papers, which are being returned. They didn’t come to me any other way. After your note is approved by Bishop 236, as well as Fr. confessor 237, it is difficult for me to talk about her, so as not to put myself above my measure. Is it possible to say something, not as a reasoning, but only as an uncontrollable fermentation of thoughts. I keep thinking 238 that writing instructions to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod is a dubious matter. It seems to me that it would be more convenient to imagine two, three, necessary thoughts that would receive the power of the highest command, or affirmation. Do you know 239 the existing instructions of the Chief Prosecutor, printed under the Spiritual Regulations, under the title: the position of Chief Prosecutor? This instruction is not very favorable to the Holy Synod when it orders us to be careful that the Synod acts correctly and unhypocritically (Article 2). But it also says that the Holy Synod in a certain case can arrest the chief prosecutor and entrust the case to someone else (Article 9). The new instructions will talk about the power of the chief prosecutor; but, of course, they will no longer talk about the power of the Holy Synod. I wrote to you about the word fulfill, what meaning it has according to the law, and why it is needed. I don’t think that your interpretation, which is inconsistent with the law and with the course of the case, would be accepted. You, along with us, complain that the secretary of the consistory is too dependent on the chief prosecutor, and breaks out of obedience to the bishop, and you yourself write that in the consistory all the secular people to the last depend on the chief prosecutor, so that, consequently, the bishop could not change the worthless chief minister without denunciation to the chief prosecutor and without his trial. Here are 240 of your words: all officials in general in the ecclesiastical department are subordinate to the Chief Prosecutor. The improvement of consistories and spiritual boards is also his direct responsibility, and in general everything that is secular in the spiritual government depends on him. It's like being told: write an essay; but the hand with which you should write depends on the censor; she must be subordinate to him, and giving her direction is his direct responsibility. This example, it seems to me, is quite clear; won’t it give you the idea that it is not very easy and not very reliable to write instructions for cases 241 that we did not do and the details of which could not be known to us? But I already argue a lot; and we must be careful that the dispute does not become dangerous again. I’ll say one more thing: can the management of huge capitals and their complex movements be concentrated in the not very important person of the Chief Secretary? Such responsibility cannot rest with such a person. Is it convenient to burden the Holy Synod with heavy financial responsibility, and would this be a hierarchical matter? I stop talking. If you don’t find action in my words, forgive my madness. Accuse me not of indifference to the state of the Orthodox Church, but of grief over the fact that while those who are hostile against her are creating both open and secret paths for themselves, those devoted to her either face obstacles, are not given enough light, or lack unity and harmonious movement towards what is truly useful and salutary. Moscow. April 8, 1857 242 April 11. Submission of Metropolitan Philaret to the Holy Synod on the need to prevent the implementation of the solicitation of the Roman Catholic clergy for the opening of a department of Roman Catholic theology at Moscow University In 1835, the Roman Catholic clergy in Moscow tried to open a department of law teaching on the dogmas of the Roman Church at the Imperial Moscow University, but this request was then rejected by the local authorities of the university, although the number of students of the Roman confession was then significant, as it is now. Now it has come to my attention that the same harassment is being renewed through the Ministry of Public Education. This harassment will arouse the caring attention of every Orthodox, zealous resident of Moscow who learns about it. A church minister would be guilty if he heard about this without care or attention. The ancient capital, the city of the sacred wedding and anointing of the most pious sovereigns, the center of the purely Russian population, the repository of the ancient shrine, for the benefit of the church and the state, requires care for the protection here in full force of the Russian and Orthodox population, and precautions against unnecessary increases in heterogeneity and dissent. Roman Catholics of all classes living in Moscow account for 578 male souls. From this it is not difficult to conclude how few students they will give to Moscow University, and, consequently, how little need there is for a theological department on the dogmas of the Roman Church. As for the significant number of non-resident students of the Roman confession who come to Moscow University, especially the Polish nation: if they want a chair of their religion, in fairness, they can turn to universities that already have one; and the removal from Moscow of this not entirely homogeneous element, of course, would not be a loss for Moscow. I consider it the duty of my ministry to present this to the superior attention of the Holy Governing Synod 243, who is concerned about the good of the Orthodox Church. The stated presentation, as determined by the Holy Synod of April 24/May 5, 1857, was forwarded to the Minister of Public Education, who in June reported that the Ministry of Public Education, recognizing the inconvenience of introducing the teaching of the law of God of the Roman Catholic confession at the Moscow University, left the matter on this subject without consequences 244. April 19–20. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A.P. Tolstoy, about the progress of the investigation into the illegal actions of schismatics at the Rogozhsky cemetery I cannot remain silent so as not to express gratitude to your Excellency for the appointment of State Councilor Gaevsky 245 to the inquiry into the cause of the schism. It was impossible to demand more good intentions, firmness, and art. Without him, what was done would not have been done: he would have done more if the circumstances were more favorable, and if, without stopping, it was possible to follow the thread, the end of which, beyond expectation, was given into hands; I mean the driver Krinin’s confession that he is a “priest.” In my relation to your Excellency, I called it remarkable that on the 17th day one clergyman reported to me about the arrest of Krinin and about him declaring himself to his superiors as a “priest.” It is not surprising that Krinin’s arrest was soon publicized, but what is surprising is that his testimony in the interrogation, no doubt secret, and the exact word of the interrogation, became known to the schismatics in less than 24 hours, and from them, through fellow believers and Orthodox Christians, reached the clergy. This is how schismatics are able to penetrate into the affairs of their superiors. Taking advantage of this art of finding out, schismatics use their measures in a timely manner against those of their superiors. For this reason, sometimes having information from clergy about false priests, it is impossible to use it in business without foreseeing other consequences than harmful for the clergy who presented this information. One village priest discovered a gathering of schismatics, and some of them were arrested. At the beginning of last Holy Week, he came to me with a report that his parish wooden church had burned down without a trace and without the possibility of saving anything; when I told him that this made him suspect of negligence, and that he could be punished, he answered: “I will, if God pleases.” But when I insisted that he say whether he had any idea about the cause of the fire; he answered: “I have it, but I cannot show it in action; I have suspicions about the schismatics who were released from arrest a few days before the fire, but I cannot prove it; and if they burned the church, how much more will they burn my house if I declare suspicion against them.” This is our attitude towards the schism. Meanwhile, the dissenters cover themselves and their friends with a plausible mask, and, looking at it, many say: there is no need to bother the schismatics. May the Lord help our most pious Autocrat and the executors of his sovereign will in what is right and generally beneficial. Invoking God's blessing to you, with perfect respect and devotion, I have the honor to be your Excellency, most gracious sir, most humble servant, The next day, April 20, the Metropolitan wrote to Count Tolstoy: By your Excellency, dated March 25, No. 1968, having been notified of the appointment of State Councilor Gaevsky to inquire into the illegal actions of the schismatics of the Rogozhsky cemetery, I am duty-bound to bring to the attention of your Excellency what has followed to this day. On March 28, the Moscow military governor-general notified me of the appointment for this, on his part, of the actual state councilor Nikiforov 247 for dependent orders. To this end, on March 29, I responded with a proposal to His Excellency to create a secret advisory committee; because the second point of the highest approved opinion of the six members of the St. Petersburg secret committee is to carry out the above-mentioned inquiry according to the direct instructions and observations of the advisory committee. On March 31 (Palm Sunday) there was a meeting of this committee. It is supposed to do the following: 1) In order for the persons appointed to carry out the inquiry to be informed of the circumstances of the case in which they are to carry out the inquiry, provide them with a preliminary reading of the journal of the St. Petersburg committee available in this committee, with the opinion of its members. 2) As the first information about the actions of the Rogozh schismatics subject to inquiry was contained in a letter from Hieromonk Parofeny 248; then let them enter into relations with him, for which he should be summoned to Moscow. 3) since the case mentions the coachman Kirinin, who lives near the Rogozhskaya outpost, revered as a schismatic false priest, who, according to unofficial information, is shown to be in charge of the divine service in the chapel, then attention should first of all be paid to this person and his actions during the subject of inquiry. 4) Then you need to take information that can serve to explain this matter from the trustees of the cemetery, at whose disposal are all the actions related to the schismatics themselves. 5) These first instructions do not set limits to the actions of proxies, who, having entered into the work entrusted to them, can, from the beginning of the inquiry, determine how it should be continued. 6) Since this committee has been given not only instructions for carrying out an inquiry, but also monitoring it, the appointed persons have to report on the progress of the inquiry, and then on its completion, to His Excellency, the Moscow Military Governor-General, for proposal to this committee. 7) What is the definition of the committee and announce to the designated trusted persons extracts from this journal. After signing this determination by all members, on April 5, lists from it were forwarded to the persons appointed for the inquiry, and on the same day they read the journal of the St. Petersburg secret committee and a copy of the letter from Hieromonk Parthenius. On April 6 (Great Saturday) I ordered Hieromonk Parthenius, who is now the rector of the Berliuk Hermitage, so that after spending the first two days of Easter in the monastery, he should come to me on Tuesday. This was accomplished by him; and he is brought into contact with the producers of the inquiry. On April 11, the investigators presented a report to the Moscow military governor-general, from which it is clear that the questions were: Hieromonk Parfeniy and the trustees of the Rogozhsky cemetery, merchants Vinokurov and Zelenkov. The first showed that the schismatics on January 21 and 22, 1856, served all-night vigil and hours in the chapel; and what, as he believes, the co-religion priest Simeon and the elders of the Rogozhsky cemetery can show about the circumstances of this service. Vinokurov testified that he was on January 21 and 22, 1856, in the prayer room both at matins and at the clock; that the royal doors did not open; that no one made any exclamations belonging to the priesthood; that during prayers the clerk Kruchinin and the tradesman Afanasyev are usually present. Zelenkov testified that he was only at the clock; that the royal gates were not opened; no one made any exclamations belonging to the priesthood; that the clerk Kruchinin can know and explain more about everything; that Krinin does not go to the prayer room; that the apostle honorary citizen Babkin often zealously read. It is noteworthy that both trustees are silent about the circumstance that is most visible and noticeable to all those present during the service, and which would show the leader of the service, namely, who read the Gospel. There has not yet been a meeting of the advisory committee to listen to this rapport. This is what is officially known to me about this matter to this day. I don’t think it would be superfluous to add some unofficial information, which is particularly noteworthy. On the 17th day of this April, one clergyman, prompted by zeal for Orthodoxy, came to me with a verbal report that the coachman Krinin was arrested on the evening of the 16th day, and before his superiors he declared himself a “priest.” With perfect respect and devotion, I have the honor to be your Excellency, dear sir, most humble servant, No. 42. April 20, 1857 249 May 29. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Minister of the Imperial Court, V.F. Adlerberg, with a response to his attitude, dated May 1, 1857, No. 2738 By your Excellency, dated May 1 (No. 2738), the highest command of His Imperial Majesty was announced to me: I. bring into the Assumption Cathedral, for storage in a silver ark, with other state acts, the highest confirmed form of oath for members of the imperial family (except for the heir to the throne); II. to enter into the same repository the highest manifesto, given on the 21st day of May, 1855, on the regency and trusteeship; III. the act of the Sovereign Emperor Nikolai Pavlovich, kept in the Assumption Cathedral, on January 28, 1826, on the appointment of Grand Duke Mikhail Pavlovich as the ruler of the state, in the event of the accession of His Majesty, now safely reigning, the Sovereign Emperor to the throne before reaching the age of majority, to be transferred to the office of His Imperial Majesty; IV. the handwritten manuscript of Empress Catherine II, containing the establishment of the provinces, should be transferred to the state archive. In pursuance of this, the following was done: I. The form of the oath of the members of the imperial family (except for the heir to the throne), approved by the highest on the 1st day of December 1851, forwarded to me in the presence of the actual Privy Councilor Count Bludov, dated May 21 (No. 1857), received by me on the 28th day, on this very day I brought it into the Assumption Cathedral and placed it in a silver ark, among other state documents. acts II. The highest manifesto of May 21, 1855, on guardianship and regency, forwarded to me in the presence of the Minister of Justice, on the 8th day of this May (No. 1968), through the actual state councilor Evreinov, who held the position of Chief Prosecutor, was delivered by him to me in the Sergius Lavra, where, after celebrating the birth of Grand Duke Sergius Alexandrovich, I remained due to illness. Upon my return to Moscow on the 28th day, on this very day I brought the above-mentioned highest manifesto into the Assumption Cathedral and placed it in a silver ark, along with other state acts. III. The act of the Sovereign Emperor Nikolai Pavlovich on the appointment of Grand Duke Mikhail Pavlovich as ruler of the state, in the event of the accession to the throne of His Majesty, now safely reigning, the Sovereign Emperor, taken from the storage of the Assumption Cathedral, is hereby forwarded to your Excellency. IV. The handwritten manuscript of Empress Catherine II, taken from the storage of the Assumption Cathedral, was forwarded to the Minister of Foreign Affairs 250, with my reference dated May 29 No. 302 251. Invoking God's blessing upon you, etc. No. 303. May 29, 1857 252 June 24. Report of Metropolitan Philaret to the Holy Synod, with a conclusion on the case of providing parishioners with the St. Nicholas Edinoverie in the Rogozh almshouse, the Antonov Chamber church, or the new In the case of providing the parishioners with the Edinoverie St. Nicholas almshouse, that at the Rogozhsky almshouse, the church of one of the buildings belonging to this house called the Antonovskaya chamber or new premises for the distribution of the Edinoverie almshouse, by decree of the Holy Synod, dated September 17, 1856 (No. 618), with the written response of Mr. Minister of Internal Affairs, I was ordered to submit a proper conclusion. My conclusion on this matter was presented to the Holy Synod in my report dated March 29, 1856 (No. 160) 253; and then by decree of the Holy Synod, dated April 27, 1856 (No. 311), it was given to me to know that the Holy Synod fully shares my conclusion. But in the review of Mr. Minister of Internal Affairs it is stated that the Moscow military governor-general, adjutant general, Count Arseny Andreevich Zakrevsky, according to the respects he has seen, recognizing the request of the Rogozh co-religionists to give them the almshouses occupied by schismatics as unfair, as well as pretentious, believes, for his part, it is necessary to reject the present request of co-religionists. Therefore, in order to see whether we should abandon the conclusion, which the Holy Synod recognized as worthy of acceptance, and move on to the conclusion proposed by the Moscow military governor-general, it is necessary to consider what degree of force those respects on which this latter is based have. 1) The demand by the parishioners of the Edinoverie Church of the Rogozh almshouse for more spacious premises for the awaited coreligionists is countered by the fact that these latter are only 16 people (according to the latest information, 18). But, according to the testimony of the priest and the church warden, they fit crampedly and inconveniently, and there is nowhere to accommodate those who want to open the premises. In order for the highest commands about the gradual liberation of the Preobrazhensky and Rogozhsky cemeteries from their schismatic character to be carried out, those who are destined to turn to the same faith must be given not only equal protection with the schismatics, but also preferential protection; and since it is inconvenient for new coreligionists to remain living among schismatics, it is necessary that for those turning to coreligion there should be several ready-made premises separate from the schismatics. Consequently, an increase in such premises is currently necessary. There is reason to believe that there would now be more of the expected co-religionists if the circumstances of the almshouse had not for some time taken such a form for the schismatics that the schism is winning, as, for example, in the case when the Antonov Chamber, transferred to the co-religionists, and corrected by their dependency, was taken away from them and transferred to the schismatics. Almost all of the intended co-religionists became co-religionists before this incident, and not after. 2) The opposite of the increase in the premises of the Edinoverie almshouse is that its funds are meager, and it is borrowed from sources belonging to schismatics. In this reasoning it is assumed that the Edinoverie almshouse does not have the right to participate in the general funds of the almshouse. To assign the property of an almshouse to only schismatics, with the exception of co-religionists, firstly, is unfair because both current co-religionists and their ancestors, who were schismatics, participated in the creation of this property, and to deprive them of participation in the use of property, with the participation of them and their ancestors, compiled, would not be patronage, but oppression for the transition to co-religion; secondly, this would mean giving the almshouse a decidedly schismatic character, and consequently acting in opposition to the highest commands to free this institution from its schismatic character. It is not without reason to believe that the funds of the co-religionist almshouse would have been increased by new donations from co-religionists, if circumstances had not taken such a form that convenience was given to schismatics, but co-religionists encountered obstacles. As proof of this, an authentic subscription was attached, begun in 1855 by honorary co-religionists, in which they expressed their intention, along with the request for a spacious building for their almshouse, to support it with their donations. But by taking away the Antonov Chamber given to them, they were stopped. That co-religionists not only use the general funds of the almshouse, but also help it themselves, this is also evident from the attitude of the former caretaker of the state councilor Moszhakov to his successor, court councilor Longinov 254, dated September 27, 1855 (No. 128), which says that co-religionists always unconditionally provide maintenance not only to co-religionists, but also in abundance for schismatics. 3) Regarding the city of the Moscow military governor-general, stated in the review of Mr. Minister of Internal Affairs, it is said that the very house of Skachkov, in which, at the request of the former caretaker Moszhakov, the Edinoverie almshouse was located, is disputed by its owners in court; and that, following this example, Moszhakov also considered occupying the Antonov Chamber without permission and allowed his co-religionists to amend it, but, on the complaint of the son of its builder, the tradesman Borisov, the Moscow military governor-general recognized it as fair to stop Moszhakov’s order, returning to his co-religionists the money spent on amending the chamber - 125 rubles. ser. It is impossible not to see that this path of contestation leads to depriving the longed-for co-religionists not only of the Antonov Chamber, but also of the Skachkovsky house they now occupy. I pray the Holy Synod to take into account, in its humaneness and concern for Orthodoxy and Edinoverie, that in this way those who were looked after in an almshouse, who enjoyed housing and maintenance as schismatics, would be deprived of all this through joining Edinoverie. Without a doubt, this would lead to strengthening the schismatic character of the almshouse, and not to liberating it from the schismatic character, as the highest commands require. I pray that firmness will be given to the just rule, consistent with these highest commands, that schismatics who use housing and maintenance in an almshouse are not deprived of the right to enjoy the same from the almshouse even when they become fellow believers. I believe that the Moscow military governor-general, when considering this case, did not have in mind some of the information that is now in mind. In the commission's file on the residents of the Rogozh almshouse, which was received by the advisory committee, there is a statement of 30 houses belonging to the Rogozh almshouse in general, compiled and signed by schismatic trustees Vinokurov and Zelenkov. In this statement, the Antonov Chamber is shown under No. 7, as the common property of the almshouse. From this one can see the confidence of the schismatic trustees themselves that the father of the tradesman Borisov built it for the benefit of an almshouse, without declaring to himself and his children any right to it. Therefore, the advisory committee, by a unanimous decision, which was signed by the Moscow military governor-general, determined (magazine 2nd Gen., 1857, art. III.), the buildings shown in the said statement, and among them the Antonov Chamber, to be recognized as the indisputable property of the Rogozh almshouse. Therefore, there remains no doubt that the authorities of the almshouse had and have the right to dispose of this chamber, and to place in it real schismatics, or former schismatics who have become co-religionists. As for the Skachkovo house, in which the detainees, former schismatics, and now fellow believers, are still housed, if its belonging to the almshouse is disputed, then this represents a new reason to transfer them from the disputed Skakkovo house to the Antonov chamber, which undoubtedly belongs to the almshouse. However, so that the Holy Synod can see what degree of force this dispute has, I make it my duty to present here the information currently available. In the above-mentioned case of the commission, for the analysis of those living in the Rogozhsky almshouse, there is another statement about 29 houses in the fence of the Rogozhsky cemetery, assigned to the ownership of some of its parishioners, compiled by the same trustees Zelenkov and Vinokurov. In it, at No. 7, the house called Skachkov 1st is shown to belong to the tradesman Sviridova, the temporary merchant Shiryaeva, the coachman Bryukhachev, the merchant Turitsyn and the tradesman Turitsyn. This multitude of exhibited owners of one house can hardly be interpreted otherwise than by the fact that the house was built with the contributions of several persons, who are now drawing their contributions back into their property. The advisory committee considered the list of 29 houses, and to resolve the issue of their ownership, the following was taken into consideration: a) The testimony of two trustees about the ownership of these houses by private individuals cannot be accepted as reliable; because it is not based on evidence, and even part of it has already been refuted. The house at No. 13 is shown by the trustees to belong to the honorary citizen Soldatenkov; but Soldatenkov showed that this house does not belong to him, but was allocated by former trustees; the trustees could only dispose of the house that belonged to the cemetery. b) The caretaker, who was tasked with collecting information about these houses from persons within the cemetery fence, notified the commission that only 8 houses (Nos. 2, 10, 14, 18, 20, 23, 24 and the top floor No. 15) were built by the persons whose names they bear, or by their relatives, and the rest were unknown by whom and at whose expense, and this, if it is not decisively proven that they belong to the cemetery, how The caretaker believes that, at the very least, there is strong doubt that they belong to private individuals. c) By law, ownership of private property must be based on documents; but the persons appropriating the said houses declared that they did not have written documents on the right of ownership, and from the records it is clear that neither plans nor permission from the authorities were issued for the construction of houses in the Rogozhskoe cemetery. The closest explanation for why this arbitrariness was allowed in the construction of houses seems to be that this was done in honor of the almshouse itself for its construction. d) The trustees announced that the land for houses was allocated by the society to persons who made donations: and co-religionists, who also previously belonged to the Rogozhsky cemetery and participated in its affairs, claim that houses, after the death of the builders, always became public property; the office of the almshouse gave them to private individuals at its own discretion. There seems no reason why the testimony of fellow believers should be less trustworthy than that of the trustees. From all these considerations, the committee saw that the matter required further clarification, which is why, and by a unanimous decision it allowed the Moscow military governor-general to order who should collect accurate information, which of the buildings listed in statement No. 2 (records commission, l. 129) and on what basis constitute the property of persons who are alive at the present time (magazine 2nd Gen., 1857, art. III). Justice requires adding that if we allow a system of contesting almsgiving property, then, out of justice, it should be allowed not only for schismatics, but also for fellow believers; but in this way the matter of this property can reach a level of confusion that is hardly resolvable. For example, the schismatic trustees in the list of almshouse property under No. 1 showed a chamber called new, but a fellow believer, the merchant Sapelkin 255, claims that this chamber was built by his father-in-law, the merchant Filipchenkov, with his own capital, with the help of philanthropists and a significant amount of him, Sapelkin; and therefore the right to this chamber belongs to Filipchenkov’s heiress, Sapelkin’s wife, and to himself, on which basis he came to me last year with a request, albeit a moderate one, not that the chamber should be placed at his and his wife’s disposal, but only that his co-religionists would be placed in it. But I did not give any movement to the question of property rights, considering it more fair to adhere to the principle that in an almshouse everything should belong to the almshouse, and exceptions can be allowed only by leniency and with special care, so as not to disturb the general property of the institution. 4) The obstacle to the concession of the Antonov Chamber for the cherished co-religionists is that the sick and incurable are placed in it, and that they would need to be placed among the healthy. But the fact that these few patients had a room when the Antonov ward was given to fellow believers allows us to think that even now a decent room can be found for them, especially if we take into account that in 1854, 1855 and 1856, as can be seen from the statement available in the affairs of the advisory committee, 212 people left the Rogozh almshouse by death and removal 157, total 369. 5) The concession to the new chamber is counterbalanced by the fact that in this case more than 120 old women would have to be deprived of shelter and care. It is difficult to understand the lack of premises after the departure of 369 people. However, for the real needs of the co-religionists, they can be satisfied with the Antonov chamber, although the new chamber would be especially suitable for them because it is adjacent to the vestibule of the co-religionist church with one wall. 6) To reject the idea that those in the almshouse, having become co-religionists, continue to use the premises and contents of the almshouse, it is stated that in the highest command of April 18, 1847, the idea of ​​the need for monetary donations from the government is expressed, and from this the conclusion is further drawn that the funds of co-religion parishioners should be strengthened from the sources available to the ecclesiastical department. But, firstly, in the above-mentioned highest command for benefits to the almshouse, it is not the sources of the spiritual department that, both by their origin and by their legal purpose, follow to the churches and clergy, that are indicated, but the amounts of the order of public charity. Secondly, the highest commands do not divide the almshouse into two households, the schismatic one - in favor of the schismatics, and the government one - in favor of fellow believers, but represent one indivisible economy of the almshouse, content with the own methods of this house, and in case of need, supported by the government. To give the existing property of the almshouse to schismatics alone would be unfair against fellow believers, whose ancestors and who themselves, having previously been schismatics, participated in the creation of this property, as shown above in the example of the new chamber; and this would mean giving the almshouse a decidedly schismatic character, and this would be directly opposed to the highest commands, which require the gradual liberation of this house from the schismatic character. 7) In order to assign the buildings of the almshouse to the schismatics, another respect is given that they were allowed by the government. Even if we accept this respect in full force, then, nevertheless, for the reasons stated above, the buildings should be assigned not only to the current Rogozh schismatics, but also to the former Rogozh schismatics, who have now become co-religionists. But this respect cannot be accepted in full force, because the imperial government has always looked at the Rogozhsky institution as an almshouse, and because the buildings in question have no plans or other legal documents, and therefore there are no signs of permission from the legal authorities, and their origin can be explained by the mere inattention in former times of the lower police, city or rural, for the Rogozhsky cemetery is located outside the capital, at a considerable distance from the outpost. All of the above leads to the conclusion that the presentation of March 29, 1856, which was awarded the condescending response of the Holy Synod, does not contain anything, neither violent, nor unjust, nor inconsistent with the dignity and holiness of the church, and that the request of the Antonov Chamber for the placement of those in custody, former schismatics, and now co-religionists, and for the preparation of several places in favor of other similar ones is fair, with the highest commands consistent and consistent with the circumstances. As for the new chamber, judgment on it can be postponed until the time when its renewal is required by the increase in the Rogozh almshouse of co-religionists and the decrease in schismatics 256. No. 60. June 24, 1857 257 July 21. Feedback from Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow regarding the opinion of Philaret, Metropolitan of Kyiv, on the issue of translating the New Testament and some other books of Holy Scripture into the Russian dialect Correcting the post of Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Privy Councilor K. S. Serbinovich, in a proposal to the Synod, dated September 16, No. 5692, explained that, due to the question raised in 1856 about the benefits and necessity of translating the Holy Scripture into Russian, upon presentation by the Synodal Chief Prosecutor to His Imperial Majesty received from the Metropolitan Kyiv's opinion on this subject was followed by the highest order: “to submit it to the Holy Synod for joint consideration; but first inform the Metropolitan of Moscow.” In pursuance of this, upon preliminary communication of the said opinion to the Metropolitan of Moscow, the review received from him is my duty to submit to the discretion of the Holy Synod. In the said review, Metropolitan Philaret wrote: On the translation of the New Testament and some other books of the Holy Scriptures into the Russian dialect. Case for the Synodal Discussion On the memorable day of the sacred coronation and anointing of Their Imperial Majesties, the Holy Synod appeared in such completeness of its composition, especially in the number of bishops, as it had hardly been seen since its establishment. It consisted of 8 bishops (including 4 metropolitans and 4 archbishops) and 2 protopresbyters. In addition, there were 4 bishops who were not present at the Holy Synod. According to the instruction of Solomon: salvation lies in much counsel (Proverbs 11:14), the Holy Synod decided to take advantage of this abundance of those conferring in order to mark a memorable time with conferences on some subjects of particular importance for the Orthodox Church, and among them on the translation of the New Testament and some other books of the Holy Scriptures into Russian. The course of the synodal reasoning After repeated private preliminary meetings, at the meeting of the Holy Synod on September 10, a detailed discussion took place on this subject, which led to the unanimous conclusion that it is necessary to proceed with this matter with due caution and certain restrictions inspired by caution. Due to illness, the then leading member, Metropolitan Nikanor of Novgorod of blessed memory, was not present at this meeting due to illness; but his unanimity with the decision taken at this meeting was completely clear from preliminary private meetings. The undersigned was instructed by the others present at this meeting to present in writing the reasoning and the conclusion reached. This is done with speed; but since the meeting on September 10 was the last in Moscow, the drafted statement could no longer be presented to the meeting of the Holy Synod for hearing, but was forwarded in two lists to the current leading member of the Holy Synod 259 (who recognized it as agreeing with the reasoning that took place at the meeting of the Holy Synod) and to the city holding the post of synodal chief prosecutor 260. Due to local convenience, the said statement was also communicated to the synodal member, Eugene, the former archbishop of Yaroslavl, who also recognized it as agreeing with the reasoning that took place at the meeting of the Holy Synod. Presentation of the synodal reasoning and decision In this section, Metropolitan Philaret cites, with literal accuracy, the draft definition he compiled of the Holy Synod, dated September 10, 1856, on the need to translate the Holy Scriptures into the Russian dialect, which definition was already published under No. 445, and then continues: Opinion of the Metropolitan of Kiev and consideration thereof Subsequently, the absent member of the Holy Synod, Filaret, Metropolitan of Kiev, expressed his reasoning and opinion on this subject, disagreeing with the decision of the synodal meeting 261. Since His Imperial Majesty was pleased to command that this opinion be communicated to me, and a response is required from me, I find it necessary to extract from it the thoughts that constitute the basis for it, in order to give my feasible response with reason. I. In the opinion of the Metropolitan of Kyiv it is said that “the Russian dialect cannot convey the Holy Scriptures with all the strength and fidelity that distinguishes the Slavic translation.” It is impossible to agree with him: 1) because the Russian dialect has an abundance of Slavic, and adds its abundance to it, consequently representing either no less or even more means for the correct expression of the sacred text; 2) because languages ​​less abundant than Russian can withstand a satisfactory translation of the sacred text. The Slavic dialect in some expressions has the advantage of brevity and importance, as used in worship. But the advantage of the Russian translation of Holy Scripture should be clarity, a quality most necessary for edifying and spiritual reading. II. The opinion says that in the Slavonic translation “everything that is needed for edification is understandable.” This is true in relation to the main truths and rules of life; but it would be unhelpful and inconvenient to leave the majority of Orthodox Christians in such a position that they understand only a small part of Holy Scripture, and especially at a time when, with the spreading education and the intensifying movement of natural reason, ignorance in the objects of faith would humiliate it in the eyes of reason, produce coldness towards it, and give rise to harmful doubts. The Holy Fathers encourage the faithful to read Holy Scripture, and therefore, if possible, achieve an understanding of it; and therefore a generally intelligible language is needed for this. III. The opinion states that the Russian translation will “displace the Slavonic language, which is already not quite familiar to the educated.” The last thought is proof of the need for Russian translation. The fear that the Russian translation will not supplant the Slavonic one is eliminated by the fact that the Slavonic will invariably remain in liturgical use, which will encourage the study of the Slavonic dialect, and this will be convenient if, as was the case before, the New Testament will be published in the Slavonic and Russian dialects together. As the blessed memory of Metropolitan Nikon of Novgorod, there was no fear of publishing in Russian translation, together with Slavonic, a significant part of the liturgical books, namely: canons for all the great holidays, the great canon of Great Lent, the akathist to the Mother of God, which he published in 1855 and 1856, under his direct supervision: so there is no fear of publishing in Russian translation the books of St. Scriptures, the publication of which in such a translation are incomparably more necessary and useful. IV. The opinion says about the Jewish priests. books that, after the captivity of Babylon, “God did not want them to be translated into a new vernacular language.” This was not pleasing to God, no doubt because the Hebrew language remained understandable to the people; and this can be seen from the book of the Acts of the Apostles (XXI. 40. XXII. 2), which narrates that when the Apostle Paul began to speak in Hebrew before a large gathering of the people of Jerusalem, they listened to him with especially deep attention, and consequently understood his speech in Hebrew. So this example cannot be an objection to the present case. For the Jews, who, living among the pagans, especially in Egypt, less retained the knowledge of their natural language, according to God’s dispensation, a translation of St. books into Greek, as the more commonly used language. V. The opinion says about the Greek translation of the Holy Scriptures that “the fathers of the Greek Church inspired the people to read “St. Scripture is in the very language in which it was “originally received.” This was how it had to be, because this language was common and generally understandable. Therefore, this example cannot be an objection to the present case. VI. The opinion states that the Greek Church even now “does not even think about transferring to a new dialect.” In the Greek Church, which is in poverty “under the heavy yoke of Mohammedanism,” not everything happens in such a way that it could be a model for other churches. So, for example, the Church of Constantinople does not try to give the Orthodox Slavs a national clergy, but usually gives a Greek one, which is not understood by the people. Without a doubt, this should be mourned, and not imitated. Therefore, even if it is true that the Greek Church does not try to make Holy Scripture intelligible to the people, this cannot be taken as a model worthy of imitation. If one patriarch hastened to approve the modern Greek translation of the New Testament, at the solicitation of the British, and another patriarch condemned this translation for the fact that it was undertaken by Hilarion, Metropolitan of Tern, without the prior patriarchal blessing: both do not provide grounds for important conclusions. VII. The opinion says that in the Russian Church “great saints appeared under the guidance of the word of God, read “or heard in the ancient language.” This was when this language was more generally understood; for the Russian dialect has deviated from the Slavonic dialect more than before, and this has become less generally understandable in recent times. So, this example cannot be an objection to the present case. VIII. The opinion says that “our blessed ancestors never thought or considered it necessary to make a new translation, depending on the modifications of the popular language “at different times.” And this example cannot be an objection to the present case: because our ancestors did not have such a need for a new translation of the sacred books as has now emerged; and did not have enough ways to improve the existing translation. However, as needed and possible, our ancestors tried to make the sacred books generally understandable, and for this purpose they replaced outdated words and figures of speech with new ones 262 . Nowadays, when the Russian common dialect has moved farther away from the Slavonic dialect incomparably more than before, in order to bring Holy Scripture closer to the common understanding of the people, changes in some words and expressions are no longer acceptable, and translation is required. Moreover, in general, ancient times cannot always be a model for the new, which has new needs. Before Moses, all pious people lived and were saved without having sacred books: from this one cannot draw the conclusion that even now the sacred books can be completely put aside. IX. The opinion says that the Bulgarian church and other Slavic churches “do not attempt to translate their “language of the Bible” into the current one. And this example cannot be an objection to the present case. The Bulgarian Church does not have an educated national hierarchy, and does not have ways to sufficiently supply itself with Slavic liturgical books; and therefore it is not surprising that the question of translating Holy Scripture into a generally understandable dialect could not yet arise in it. X. The opinion says that the idea of ​​​​translating the Holy Scriptures into the Russian dialect “was initially adopted not in the Holy Synod, but in the office of its chief prosecutor.” But the Russian translation of the New Testament was approved by the leading members of the Holy Synod, metropolitans: Ambrose 263, Michael 264, Seraphim 265 and was published with the blessing of the Holy Synod; Therefore, there is no doubt that this is a church matter. XI. The opinion says that the late Metropolitan of Novgorod Seraphim “when he saw the consequences of this matter, “he rebelled against this with all his strength, and the translation was stopped.” This remark imposes on me the obligation to present here an exact extract from the letter of Metropolitan Philaret of Kiev himself, when he was Bishop of Kaluga, written in his own hand to me on December 17, 1824, and kept intact with me. “It is a misfortune for the church, worthy of lamentation, that meanwhile “as the translation of the New Testament into Russian and the catechism was accepted by everyone very calmly and with respect, and with “hope one could expect a blessed fruit,” some “hostile spirit gave birth in several dreamy “heads to an imaginary danger for the church. And these “dreams are accepted as solid! – I am ready to solemnly testify that in my diocese, perhaps “more than others attached to ancient opinions and “ecclesiastical customs,” there is not the slightest trace of doubt about translation and catechism. Where did this “doubt” come from? Did other shepherds, who were appointed guards in the house of the Lord, send ideas about this to the Holy Synod or the High Hierarch? - “And if they are not there, then isn’t this an obvious slander of a cause so pure and holy? “In the name of the Lord God and His holy church, I ask you not to remain silent, but to testify to the truth in a matter that concerns the peace of the church and the dignity of the hierarchy. I pray “to our Lord and Savior, may he open for you a way to speak to the Lord’s anointed himself about such an important matter for the “people’s well-being, if necessary.” This was the opinion of the Metropolitan of Kiev about the translation of the New Testament in 1824, when he judged it, looking at the matter itself, without being influenced by those prejudices with which he then explained the change of thoughts of the late Metropolitan Seraphim. XII. The opinion says about the translation of the Holy Scripture into the Russian dialect that the late Emperor Nikolai Pavlovich in Bose “during the entire period of his glorious reign “did not allow this matter to be resumed.” This testimony is inaccurate. In 1827, when considering, by the highest order, in a secret committee, a project on improving the spiritual part, which mentioned, among other things, the translation of the Holy Scripture into the Russian dialect, the opinion I gave said: “It is not known what the author of the project thought when he demanded to pay attention to the Russian translation of the books of the Holy Scripture. Due attention to this matter has been and is being used in the most important cases, and therefore it does not require any emergency orders. This translation, as much as it has been published to date, was finally examined under the direct supervision of the leading members of the Holy Synod; and accepted by the entire Russian hierarchy in such a way that none of the people knowledgeable in this matter expressed any dogmatic doubts about it. If before there was haste in distributing this translation among the people, now it has stopped. This translation is especially useful and necessary for theological schools and for the clergy: for it is known that to this day only a few have achieved a thorough knowledge of the original languages ​​of the Holy Scriptures in the clergy; otherwise it is undeniable that the Slavonic translation in many places is not intelligible for many.” In my opinion; of which part is written out here, in Bose the deceased Sovereign Emperor on the 29th day of August 1827 deigned to write in his own hand: “Fairly” 266. Consequently, at this time, Sovereign Emperor Nikolai Pavlovich did not forbid the translation of the Holy Scriptures. And for many years of his reign, the New Testament in the Slavonic and Russian dialects, until the copies were exhausted, was sold under the authority of the Holy Synod, without any controversy on the part of Metropolitan Seraphim. Only the translation of the five books of Moses did not go on sale, although it was published. From this it is clear that Metropolitan Seraphim allowed the translation of the New Testament, and did not only allow the translation of the books of the Old Testament. And the Metropolitan of Kiev, having been present at the Holy Synod for many years, did not protest against the continued sale of the Russian translation of the New Testament. XIII. The opinion asks: “if we translate the Holy Scripture into the Russian dialect, then why not translate it into Little Russian, Belarusian, etc.?” The answer is: because the Russian dialect is a general Russian and educated dialect, and Little Russian and Belarusian are dialects of a small minority and poorly educated; because Little Russians and Belarusians, especially those who can read, understand the Russian dialect, and can read Holy Scripture in it; finally, because for the unity of church and civil it is more useful for one Russian dialect to dominate both Little Russia and Belarus. XIV. The opinion states that St. the fathers “encouraged” the reading of Holy Scripture in the very language in which “they had it,” without thinking about translating it into the popular language.” The answer to this is that the language in which they had the Holy Scripture was popular, and therefore there was no reason to think about any translation. The ancient Greek language, before the fall of the eastern empire, was a folk language, and already during the enslavement and dispersion of the Greeks, through mixing it with other languages ​​and changing some forms, the modern Greek dialect was formed. XV. The opinion states that St. the fathers interpreted Holy Scripture for the people, and that “we need this too.” It is answered that the translation of the Holy Scripture into the Russian dialect is intended for the purpose of serving in some way instead of interpretation, and a brief interpretation is supposed to be added to the prophetic books. XVI. The opinion says, as if to expose the inconsistency: “so the proposed translation is assigned for “those who would like the Holy Scriptures to be intelligible to them without diligent exercise and reading.” But there is no inconsistency here if we delve into what has been said. In the presentation of the synodal reasoning 267 it is said that the Slavic translation for part of the people becomes intelligible through diligent exercise in worship and reading. Since we were talking about the language, and not about the deep mysterious sayings of the Holy Scripture, what was said had such a meaning that part of the people, through daily listening to church services and diligent reading of the Holy Scriptures, comes to understand the Slavic dialect, but the other part, which cannot often attend divine services and often read the Holy Scriptures, remains little understanding of the Slavic dialect, and therefore the Scripture itself. The Russian translation is prescribed so that there is no longer a need to study an unfamiliar dialect, and so that those who are unable to attend divine services every day, at the revelation of the Holy Spirit. books, without much study they understood its language as usual for them. Understanding the deep mysteries of Holy Scripture, even when reading it in a familiar language, requires not only exercise, but also prayer and asceticism. So, there is no reason to conclude that the Russian translation is intended only for those who are not diligent in the word of God. However, it is also prescribed for them, but in order to arouse in them diligence towards the word of God through the intelligibility of the language. XVII. The opinion states that the parish clergy, in theological educational institutions, “instructed in the understanding of “St. Scripture does not need translation." It would be nice to agree with this opinion; but, unfortunately, experience does not convince us of this, especially in relation to the rural clergy. Rural priests, mostly from the 2nd category of seminary students, for the most part know the Greek language imperfectly, and do not know Hebrew; the Greek and Hebrew Bible and in general a spiritual library that guides the understanding of Holy Scripture, due to the poverty of the churches, and themselves, do not have. In the seminary, it is impossible to study all the Holy Scriptures with interpretation and retain everything learned in memory. The Russian translation can be a significant aid to their understanding of Holy Scripture. XVIII. The opinion states that the existence of a popular Russian translation of the Holy Scriptures is “not only unproven, but also unfair.” On the contrary, this is proven by the fact that copies of the New Testament in the Slavonic and Russian dialects were purchased from the ecclesiastical department until they were exhausted; and then they are searched for and bought at high prices from free booksellers, and that the New Testament in one Russian dialect is ordered from abroad. In 1855, 12 copies of the New Testament and 12 copies of the Psalter in Russian, from the Leipzig edition, were suddenly brought to the Moscow customs office. A case was made about this in the Moscow consistory, and all these copies were presented from me to the Holy Synod. And the sale of many copies of the New Testament in the Slavic dialect from the Kyiv printing house cannot serve as proof that there is no popular demand for a Russian translation. When there is no Russian, it is necessary to buy the Slavic New Testament so as not to be left completely without holy books. XIX. The opinion says: “it is known that at the time when Bible societies were established in our country, and the Russian translation of some books appeared, the schism intensified and spread on a large scale.” It has not been proven that the strengthening of the schism coincides with the time of the appearance of the New Testament in the Russian dialect; and among the reasons for the strengthening of the schism (the presentation of which is not relevant to the present case) there is not the slightest reason to believe the Russian New Testament. The schismatics rebel against the Orthodox Church for church books and services: church books and services in the Slavic language are preserved unchanged; and therefore the Orthodox Church has not given the schismatics any new reason for reproaches against it. From time to time, schismatics appear in polemical works against the Orthodox Church, distributed in manuscripts. In none of them was there any reproach for the Russian translation of the New Testament. This has never been encountered in personal relations between the clergy and schismatics and in admonishing those seduced into schism. The schismatics never reproached the Orthodox for reading the Holy Scriptures at home in multilingual translations of the Latin and Lutheran confessions; Moreover, they have no reason to reproach for the homely, not according to the rule, but arbitrarily, reading the New Testament in the Russian dialect. XX. The opinion says that the translation of the Holy Scriptures into Russian “should have been part of a consultation and agreement with the Greek Church.” Such intercourse, firstly, is not necessary. Like the writings of St. father, according to the needs of the Russian church, are translated into Russian for home reading, without the need for communication with the Greek church: the translation of St. books for the same need, for the same purpose. Secondly, it is inconvenient to implement on the subject. In order to judge whether a Russian translation of the Holy Scripture is needed, one must fully know the Slavic and Russian dialects, how far one is removed from the other, to what extent and how many of the Russian people understand or do not understand the Slavic dialect. The Greek hierarchy cannot have all this information; and therefore the Russian translation of St. books cannot at all be the subject of her judgment. For the confidence of the Greek Church in the unanimity of the Russian Church with it, it is enough that even now, as before, it honors the Greek translation of the Holy Scriptures, and has the ancient Slavic translation as its own church translation, and the Russian translation only as an aid to the understanding of the Holy Scriptures. Thirdly, a conference with the Greek hierarchy is inconvenient due to its current difficult situation. The Patriarch of Constantinople is not appointed by pure election of the church, but under the influence of an unfaithful government, is replaced at the arbitrariness of this government, and therefore, especially since the last war, does not have complete ecclesiastical freedom to act and express his opinion, and one cannot hope that he could organize a conciliar meeting of the entire eastern hierarchy. XXI. The opinion expresses the fear that “through the new” translation of the Bible the union of our unity with other Slavic Orthodox churches, which is especially preserved by the fact that we have the Bible and worship in the same language, will be broken.” But in the future, as now, we will have divine services, and in divine services the Holy Scriptures, in the same language with these churches; and consequently the union of unity will be preserved. For these churches it will not mean anything that some Russians, in addition to the Slavonic one, will, at their own request, read the Russian translation of the Holy Scriptures at home. XXII. In the opinion, as a lack of synodal presentation, it is noted that it is not said “who will be entrusted with this matter, etc.” When the main issue was being considered, it was not yet time to discuss the details of execution. If God helps to satisfactorily resolve the main issue, then, of course, the Holy Synod will not fail to determine the details of execution, as reliably as possible. XXIII. The opinion asks: “who can guarantee “that the new translation will be more perfect than the previous one, and that “the same wicked translation of the prophetic books will not appear, which was not so long ago lithographed”? In the statement of the synodal decision, in paragraph 3, it is said that the corrected translation must be certified by the Holy Synod before its publication. One can hope that, with the assistance of God’s grace, the Holy Synod will distinguish a less perfect translation from a more perfect one, and only allow this latter to be published. And I think every bishop of the Russian Church will guarantee that the Holy Synod will not allow the translation of the “ungodly”. XXIV. The opinion proposes, instead of translating the Holy Scripture into Russian, to introduce “particular corrections into the Slavonic text, replacing some words and even entire expressions with others, clearer and more precise.” It cannot be admitted that this was convenient and in accordance with the purpose of making it sacred. books are easier to understand. The introduction of new words into the Slavic text, according to the present state of two dialects, will be adding unbleached payment to the old vestment and will make the text of the Bible so motley that it will be neither Slavic nor Russian, and will not attract, but repel readers. With the retention of Slavic forms, ambiguity will remain even after this correction 268. With regret, submitting to necessity, I went through the race of competition with the thoughts that came from the venerable husband. And, stopping, I grieve over a certain, albeit partial, lack of unity of thoughts where it is most desired. I am consoled, however, by seeing that the reasoning of the Metropolitan of Kyiv, which he had in 1824, agrees with the current unanimous reasoning of the Holy Synod. I also see the hope of complete unanimity in the fact that the Metropolitan of Kiev, considering the presentation of the reasoning of the Holy Synod on the translation of the Holy Scripture into the Russian dialect, and having brought from the first point thereof that this matter should be resumed with extreme caution, and from the fifth point that the progress of this matter cannot be hastened, concludes from himself: “I completely agree with this, I consider it necessary, without haste, to begin this matter, first discuss it thoroughly and from all sides.” Consequently, and after his strict reviews of this matter, he believes that it can be “started,” but only slowly, and after sufficient discussion. Being obligated to give a review on this matter, I call on God, the Creator of Holy Scripture, who in the person of the holy apostles to his church gave the gift of languages ​​and dialects, so that all peoples would first hear what was preached, and then read His written word, each in an understandable language and dialect; I call on God not to allow my thoughts and words to deviate from what is pleasing to Him and useful to His church in general, and to Christian souls individually. Submitting to the advice of the Bishop of Kyiv, I again go through with as much careful thought as possible the reasoning and decision of the Holy Synod, and the raised doubts stated above and considered: and after this I remain convinced to remain in perfect agreement with the reasoning of the Holy Synod on September 10, 1856. The Roman Church, in its special dogmatic direction, keeps the Holy Scripture in the hands of the clergy, and does not allow the reading of it by the people as freely as the Eastern Catholic Church; but it does not deprive the people of its translation into commonly understood languages; and we see it in French and German translations. In this latter language, in 1838, in the third edition, a translation of the Bible was printed, verified with the original text and through brief notes, explained by Dr. I.F. Allioli 269, with the approval of the papal throne, and by the approving comments of many archbishops and bishops. Moreover, the Orthodox Russian Church should not deprive the Orthodox people of reading the word of God in a language that is modern and generally intelligible. For such a deprivation would be inconsistent with the teaching of the holy fathers, with the spirit of the Eastern Catholic Church and with the spiritual good of the Orthodox people 270. August 18. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A.P. Tolstoy about the translation of Holy Scripture into Russian Having forwarded to your Excellency my opinion on the matter of the Russian translation of the Holy Scriptures, I return the handwritten letter from His Eminence the Metropolitan of Kiev on this subject that was communicated to me. It is regrettable to me that I was forced to enter into competition with the judgments of the venerable husband. But respect for truth should not be placed lower than respect for person. In fairness, one can regret that the Most Reverend Metropolitan of Kiev, bearing in mind the opinion of the full meeting of the Holy Synod, did not address his doubts directly to the members of the Holy Synod, through which confidential private relations would have been formed to bring the matter into greater clarity, and it would have been possible to ensure that the matter entered the Holy Synod, already freed from the appearance of disagreement, which, of course, would have been more plausible. This is how we did it before. Here's an example. The late Count Protasov, who, with good intentions and due to his upbringing, sometimes accepted Latin opinions under the name of Orthodoxy, gave the late Sovereign Emperor the idea to declare the Slavic translation of the Bible self-authentic, like the Latin Vulgate. For this reason, the opinion of three metropolitans was required; and, probably, they were counting on the consent of the Metropolitan of Kyiv. Not seeing that this assumption is not in the spirit of the Eastern Orthodox Church, and that it would lead to confusion, like the Tridentine definition of the Vulgate, I decided to give an opinion in the sense of rejecting this assumption. In previous times, on similar occasions, I conferred with Metropolitan Seraphim; but at this time he could no longer, due to the weakness of his health. So, I communicated my opinion to the Metropolitan of Kyiv and the current Metropolitan of Novgorod, took advantage of their comments, received their consent, and then presented my opinion to the Holy Synod. There were no consequences; which means that no one objected to my opinion, and that Count Protasov’s assumption was left without action. The returned handwritten letter from the Most Reverend of Kyiv indicates some manuscripts from the papers of Metropolitan Eugene 271, and the matter of translating the holy books is carried out from some “muddy source.” But your Excellency, I think, knows that in 1824 the rebellion against the Minister of Spiritual Affairs and against the Bible Society and the translation of sacred books was formed by people led by personal interests, who, in order to attract other well-meaning people with them, used not only refined and exaggerated suspicions, but inventions and slander. I have already shown you a contemporary handwritten letter from the Bishop of Kyiv related to this; and now I am enclosing with this an extract from another handwritten letter of his, dated January 5, 1825, which I have kept. As for the burning of several thousand copies of the translation of the five books of Moses, printed by the Bible Society, mentioned by the Kyiv ruler, I agree with him that this cannot be remembered without deep sorrow. This is a dark stain on the one who invented this measure and captivated others with his thoughtless jealousy. It is clear that this does not fall on the supreme spiritual authorities; The Holy Synod did not draw up a ruling on this. There was nothing in the translation of the Pentateuch that would deserve such a strict measure. He suffered as a martyr. In the translation of the Psalter, criticism could have found something more unsatisfactory than in the translation of the Pentateuch of Moses, but the Psalter was then left free from judgment, and the Pentateuch was condemned. This incongruity shows that the matter was carried out not according to a mature consideration of the spiritual authorities, but by the accidental arousal of one of those whom the Bishop of Kiev pointed out in 1825 as “people not called by either God or the authorities.” May the Lord preserve, as the Holy Synod preserved, the right of those who rule to speak the truth of the Gospel. Invoking God's blessing to you, with perfect respect and devotion, I have the honor to be your Excellency, gracious sir, most humble servant and worshiper, Attached to the letter is an extract from the aforementioned letter of the Right Reverend Philaret 272, dated January 5, 1825: “Having received your Eminence’s kind letter dated December 31, I thanked the Lord God that He strengthens your spirit with His peace amid temptations and sorrows. This is what I hoped from your piety, and from the goodness of the Lord to you, whom you serve faithfully. From Bishop 273’s letter it is clear that he was in fact not the actor in stopping the catechism, but only the sufferer.” As proof of this and for your consideration, I am sending you a copy of a letter that I accidentally came across. It is painful to see what dreamers are listened to, and what important affairs people are allowed into who are not called by either God or their superiors. Out of my jealousy, I wanted to send this thing to the bishop, and ask him by the Lord God to beware of these troublemakers for the good and peace of the church and for his own honor and safety. But without your advice I did not dare to begin this. To further prove that the ruler was only suffering, and perhaps dissatisfiedly firm, I am also enclosing a copy of the min. enlightenment. Be that as it may, the church is seriously ill, and God grant that its illnesses end with the birth of joy. The call of the Kyiv Metropolitan, due to its extraordinary nature, makes me think a lot. But I remember that either in the Moskovskie Vedomosti or in the biblical reports his very approving review of the translation of the New Testament was published, which, it seems, would be incongruous for him to contradict. It is desirable that at least he silence the dreamers. However, there is only one Lord Jesus Christ, the affirmation of his church, and He, the eternal wisdom of God the Father, will surely find a way to bring the truth to light through their own destinies. What was said in this letter may give rise to the idea of ​​whether we should now enter into a new relationship with His Eminence of Kyiv, before bringing the matter to the Holy Synod. It's already late; and may lead to new difficulties. In preliminary confidential, so to speak, home meetings, it is convenient to modify opinions and bring different opinions closer to unity, through which the previously different ones turn into nothing. This convenience is gone when the opinion is officially expressed, and this is even brought to the highest attention. It remains to exactly fulfill the highest command to submit the matter to the Holy Synod. Here is another interesting consideration on this matter. Regarding December 21, His Eminence of Kiev wishes to correct an important and dark place in the Slavic text in the book of Genesis, ch. 49. art. 10, and suggests replacing the words “deposited with him” with the word “reconciliator.” And this word is taken from the translation that was burned at the brick factory 274. August 18. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A.P. Tolstoy, with a review of the schismatic Konstantin Egorov Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A.P. Tolstoy, in relation dated June 18, No. 3952, wrote to Metropolitan Philaret that, upon presentation to the secret committee of the review of the Moscow military governor-general about the Moscow merchant, schismatic Konstantin Egorov, who was sent to live in Penza, the highest approved bylaw of this committee decided: to ask this matter is the opinion of your Eminence. By informing your Eminence of this royal will and enclosing a list of his relationship to me, the city is acting. Privy Councilor Lansky, No. 1037, I humbly ask you, dear sir and archpastor, to honor me with a notification on this subject. Metropolitan Filaret responded to this attitude on August 18 of the same year, No. 81, to Count Tolstoy. Most Excellent Count, Dear Sir 275. Your Excellency's order, dated June 18 (No. 3952), due to the highest approved position of the secret committee, requires my opinion on the most submissive request of the merchant Egor Egorov for the return of his father Konstantin Egorov to Moscow. From the list communicated to me by the Minister of Internal Affairs, it is clear that Konstantin Egorov was sent to live in Penza for participating in the fraudulent purchase and sale of a schismatic almshouse in Kolomna? It is mentioned that the house was both purchased by deed and sold without payment of money. This circumstance, known but unexplained, requires, if possible, an explanation in order to judge Konstantin Egorov. An official explanation for this is hardly possible; but there is a secret information among schismatics that has penetrated to the Orthodox, confirmed by reliable persons, and revealed by deeds (such as the case of the Kolomna almshouse), that the schismatic Preobrazhenskoe cemetery had a capital that extended to several million rubles; that, when the government’s attention was drawn to the illegal possession of real estate in the cemetery, the schismatic mentor Semyon Kuzmin, the custodian of the capital, fearing detection by the government, entrusted it to several reliable schismatics; that these, using this capital themselves, use it to maintain the split, and that among them Konstantin Egorov is one of the first. The existence of large capital among the Preobrazhensky schismatics must be considered undoubted, on the basis of the 88 founding clauses of Ilya Kovylin 276, which stipulate that capital should be accepted into the almshouse not only in the form of a pious and charitable offering by those renouncing the world and dying (clause 43. 60. 62), but also in the form of an insurance deposit, as a result of which the impoverished heirs of the investor are supposed to be given a third of the contributed capital, and two thirds remained in the almshouse (paragraph 46). And as such there is no capital in view of the authorities, this confirms the private information that it is secretly kept by some schismatics and is used for such things as the case of the former Kolomna schismatic almshouse with a prayer house, which was established to spread the schism in Kolomna. At the same time, one cannot help but pay attention to Yegor Egorov, who asks for the return of his father. According to the certificate in the consistory, the following was revealed: From the registry book of the Edinoverie Trinity Church of 1854, it is clear that the merchant Egor Egorov joined the Edinoverie Church on November 11, and he also gave a personal signature about his desire to join the Edinoverie Church, which is kept in the affairs of the consistory. But from that time on, according to the confessional statements, Yegor Egorov always appears to have not attended confession and holy communion. And even in December 1856 he went to the Moscow military governor-general with an explanation that although he had presented a certificate of belonging to the same faith in 1855, he did this only at the request of his superiors, and in essence considered himself still in a schism. Consequently, Egor Egorov or the promise given in good conscience before God to remain in the same faith and his subscription, in time, changed; or he gave his subscription and church promise before God hypocritically and unscrupulously. It is also known that Yegor Egorov often comes to the Preobrazhensky almshouse to the schismatic prayer houses. All of the above leads to the conclusion that the return to Moscow of Konstantin Egorov, who has already been found out for illegal actions to strengthen the schism, has funds that he both wants and is obliged to use in favor of the schism, and his union with his son, who has betrayed the same faith, will encourage the schismatics, will open new intensified actions in favor of the schism, and may be harmful for the same faith and for Orthodoxy. By the way, this will excessively strengthen the insolence of Yegor Egorov, who so brazenly swears over his own word of honor given in the subscription, and even over the promise given to God before the church. Therefore, I believe that Konstantin Egorov should not be returned to Moscow at the present time, and that this is exactly in accordance with the highest resolution of His Imperial Majesty, which gave hope for his return to Moscow only if, in the course of affairs to end the schism, no obstacles are encountered 277. No. 81. August 18, 1857 278 September 22. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolaevich regarding his appointment as a member of the committee on schismatics Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolaevich, in a rescript dated September 4, informing Metropolitan Philaret of his appointment as a member of the committee on schismatics, expressed the desire “to have as clear and correct information as possible about their various beliefs and false teachings; and therefore asked the Metropolitan to indicate “from what works this knowledge can be gleaned, and to provide him with any information about various sects and heresies.” I had the good fortune to receive Your Imperial Highness’s rescript while traveling outside Moscow on business. Having returned, I will begin to carry out the will of Your Imperial Highness. Of the sects and schisms that violate church unanimity and damage public life in Orthodox Russia, the following require special attention from the state government: 1) Doukhobors and Molokans; because they do not recognize the obligation to obey the government, but obey only because it is stronger than them. 2) Skoptsy; because by distorting themselves and destroying their offspring, they weaken and deplete the population. 3) Dissenters of two schools – priestly and non-priestly; because they are significantly widespread in contact with the Orthodox and try to seduce them, using for this purpose positions of authority in villages, factories and the power of wealth. In particular, schismatics of the non-priestly type require the careful attention of the government because they recognize the government as Antichrist, and consequently obey it only hypocritically, and are internally hostile to it; and the schismatics of the clerical sense because in recent times they have formed for themselves a false hierarchy, the root of which is in a foreign state. 3 or 4 false bishops, according to government information, and according to some private information, up to 14, with unsatisfactory police action, secretly for the authorities, but not secretly for popular rumors, go everywhere, and the worst, most cunning and most daring of the schismatics are made false priests and their missionaries. Many books have been written about the schism and against the schism since he boldly put himself before the face of the church and the state under Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich and during the childhood of Peter I. They are mostly marked by the special characters of persons, times and circumstances. Revising all of them would require more work than it would bring benefit. At the same time, a small list of books written in recent times is presented that can provide information necessary for judging the schism in the church and partly in the state. The difference between the books The History of the Schism and the Schism, exposed by its history, is that the first is more directly based on documents, and the second is a free presentation of persons and deeds, however, drawn from reliable sources. The exhortation of Metropolitan Plato represents an example of a gentle effort to bring the dispute to reconciliation. The book The Truly Ancient Church, in addition to the completeness of the presentation of controversial subjects, has the special advantage that is strong against the schismatics, that in it all the refutations of their sinful teachings are borrowed from those old printed books for which the schismatics make exaggerated respect their main support. Book The Tale of the Journey of the Monk Parthenius 279; The first part applies to this subject. She represents in living faces the life of the schism, the struggle against it, the Orthodox truth shining through the very errors, and finally its victory. Monk Parfeniy is now the builder of the Berlyuk hermitage in the Moscow diocese; and some of his peers in the schism and conversion to Orthodoxy now live Orthodox and piously in the Gethsemane monastery at the Lavra of St. Sergius. The book: The Tale of the Journey of the Monk Parthenius, is presented at the discretion of Your Imperial Highness. Parthenius also wrote a book about the schism, which describes the illegal and shameful means achieved by the formation of the current schismatic false hierarchy. It is printed, and once printed it is to be presented to Your Imperial Highness. As for the information that I could obtain about the schism from many years of participation in the consideration of cases about it: I did not have time to compose from it something whole that would lead from the experiences of the past to conclusions for the future. But in order to comply with the beneficial views of Your Imperial Highness, as much as my impoverished strength allows, I will try to collect and present to Your Highness some thoughts on issues regarding the schism that should currently occupy and occupy the Orthodox government. 1) History of the Russian schism. Macarius, Bishop of Vinnitsa. St. Petersburg, 1855. 2) A schism exposed by its history. St. Petersburg, 1854 (acting state adviser Muravyov). II. Relating to the admonition and reconciliation of schismatics with the church. 1) Exhortation to affirm the truth. M., 1773 (Metropolitan Plato). 2) The truly ancient and truly Orthodox Church of Christ. Gregory, Archbishop of Kazan (now Metropolitan of Novgorod). 2 hours, St. Petersburg, 1856. 3) Conversations with the verb Old Believer. M., 1835 (Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow). 4) A legend about wandering and traveling through Russia, Moldova, Turkey and the Holy Land. Mountains of Athonite monk Parthenia. M., 1856. A detailed historical description of the eunuchs sect was compiled by the Ministry of Internal Affairs, which was published in a few copies, and can only be obtained from the ministry 280. October 27. Metropolitan Philaret’s opinion on the case of the harassment of schismatics to have priests from the civil authorities The schismatics' demand to have priests from the civil authorities, repeatedly rejected by the government 281, does not cease to concern the government. To enter into consideration of this subject, you need to return from the present to the past, although not very distant time. At the beginning of this century, the schism was fewer in number than now; and schismatic priests were not heard of, except in some privileged places, like Irgiz, and supported by a large society of rich schismatics, like the Rogozhsky cemetery in Moscow. The meekness of Emperor Alexander I expanded the limits of religious tolerance so that Senator Lopukhin 282 speciously described the Doukhobors and Molokans, who later turned out to be extremely harmful, and requested the highest rescript, almost patronizing for them. This disposition of the government is noted by those who differ in faith; and during the reign of Emperor Alexander I, tens of thousands could be counted seduced from Orthodoxy into Latinism, and also the sects multiplied, and the schism greatly increased in number. In the second decade of the reign of Emperor Alexander I, the then Ministry of Police undertook to take a census of schismatics within its department and increased the number of schismatics, because those who signed up were recognized as schismatics without any verification; and, taking advantage of this, the schismatics enrolled Orthodox relatives with them into the schism, and encouraged others who were hesitant to take advantage of this opportunity, offering them, just in case, to acquire the right to be schismatics, which, meanwhile, did not deprive them of the right to remain Orthodox. But those who signed up fell under the stronger influence of the schismatics than ever before, and became mired in schism. Meanwhile, the government, noticing that the schism was raising its head high, felt the need to counteract it, and in those same years a secret committee on schism affairs was founded, 283 which opened its actions with the highest approved determination to destroy the cross and the dome at one schismatic prayer house in the Yaroslavl province. In 1821 or 1822, it was proposed to this committee to send Orthodox priests to the schismatics, who, apparently, would join their society, but, having gained their trust, would try to reconcile them with the church. This proposal was accepted, and the ruling on this, signed, among others, by Metropolitan Seraphim, was awarded the highest approval. But when the Metropolitan was given the opportunity to carry this out, he saw that this could not be agreed with the church rules and the purity of the clergy’s conscience; He revealed his difficulty to the committee, and the Sovereign Emperor deigned that the determination approved by him be left unfulfilled. Under these circumstances, when the highest approved definition turned out to be unenforceable, and it was difficult to decide to imagine its complete destruction, it turned out to be necessary to find a measure that would represent not the complete destruction of the highest approved definition, but changing it into an easily executable form. So it was ordered: not to send priests from the government to the schismatics, but to leave the fugitive priests found among them by the civil authorities, except in the case when these priests are required by the diocese to answer in a criminal case. This is the origin and essence of the secret rules of 1822, coveted by schismatics and glorified among them. After a few years, these rules bore fruit that was not expected by the government, which wanted to calm the schismatics, and not strengthen the schism. The schismatics began to turn more freely to Orthodox priests and invite them to come to them, enticing them with benefits and independence. Those seduced and carried away by them, having already had experience of benefits and independence, intensified the seduction of others. Thus, the successful escape of a priest from one diocese entailed others, so that some previously blameless priests were seduced, as was discovered in the case of priest Peter Nikiforov, who fled from the Kaluga diocese to the Rogozhskoe cemetery, who, with honest and modest behavior, enjoying respect and benefits from schismatics, was finally brought in by remorse for betraying the Orthodox Church was to the Moscow diocesan authorities to return to her. In some dioceses the number of fugitive priests among schismatics has greatly increased. Schismatic proselytism intensified. The temptation of impunity was especially severe when a priest in the same diocese who had fled from the diocesan court for misconduct lived with the schismatics, although in secrecy, but not in publicity. In 1826, at the Rogozhsky cemetery there were 9 priests and 2 deacons, known to the authorities; but, in all likelihood, there were others unknown to the authorities, because schismatics came here from other places to buy priests. Upon the accession of the late Emperor Nikolai Pavlovich to the throne in Bose, perspicacious attention was paid to these bitter fruits of the rules of 1822; and the highest command of 1827 put a limit on their action. Covered by these rules, already with the schismatics, the fugitive priests were left tolerant with them; but it is forbidden to patronize the newly found fugitives; they must be subject to laws and justice. This was a return to general legality from the rules, due to excess leniency, allowed in violation of laws. But the rules of 1822 already gave the schismatics the idea that they could seek satisfaction for themselves even outside the law. And from here begins their, already quite open, desire to have priests, bypassing the church rules, which they themselves respect, and bypassing the existing order of spiritual and civil government. In 1829, this harassment was made by the Yekaterinburg merchant Rezanov 284, who presented himself as a representative of 81,000 souls of schismatics from three provinces. This representation is not recognized; and the solicitation is rejected. In 1838, the Ekaterinburg schismatics resumed the same harassment through the mediation of the mountain chief 285. The solicitation was again considered, and again rejected. Subsequently, this idea passed to Moscow schismatics of the priestly persuasion, and again attracted the attention of the government. In 1848 and 1849, discussions took place on this subject in the Moscow secret advisory committee. Opinions were divided. Three members believed that the Rogozh schismatics would be given priests dependent on the civil authorities. One member believed that it was necessary to give the schismatics priests, but that the condition of their independence from the spiritual authorities was inconsistent with the hierarchical order, and could serve to strengthen and multiply the schism. One member believed that it was necessary to provide them with priests, but on what conditions, he would not accept to express his opinion. One member (the Metropolitan of Moscow, the only clergy member of the committee) believed that giving the schismatics priests from the civil authorities would be neither correct, nor convenient, nor useful 286 . These opinions were transferred to the St. Petersburg secret committee. There were no obvious consequences of this. It was privately known that the Sovereign Emperor Nikolai Pavlovich wanted to leave this matter without consequences; and this, of course, could have no other meaning than the fact that the Sovereign Emperor did not find it convenient to give the schismatics priests from the civil authorities. But failures, as can be seen from the previous one, do not stop the split leaders. They know that a drop pierces a stone, and they think that through importunity and some refined ideas, such as, for example, pointing out their exaggerated numbers, they can shake the firmness of the government and achieve the goal of strengthening themselves. After in 1854 the government paid special attention to the schismatic Preobrazhenskoye and Rogozhskoye cemeteries in Moscow, and Edinoverie churches were opened there, and the last schismatic priest joined Edinoverie, schismatics of both persuasions presented to the now safely reigning Sovereign Emperor, through the Moscow military governor-general, four petitions: the first on March 23, 1855, the second March 24, third April 23, fourth April 26 of the same year 287. Attached to one of them was an extensive note in which many government orders and laws given in favor of the same faith were interpreted in favor of the schism, and which tended to make the schism a recognized religion in the state, like the Roman Catholic and Lutheran faiths. In these petitions, by the way, there is a request for permission to have priests dependent only on the civil authorities. Under the second of these petitions, a note is worthy of attention: “the preliminary permission of the Moscow military governor-general was sought for the submission of the most submissive petition.” This postscript, firstly, is outside the limits of both law and custom; secondly, it shows that the schismatics were aware of the audacity of their determination to ask for what was contrary to the published laws, and what had already been denied to them, and felt the need to avoid responsibility for this to cover themselves with the name of a high dignitary; thirdly, this postscript, having been admitted, of course, by the cunning dissenters, was taken as a plausible reason to assure the schismatics that they enjoy special protection, and through this to support them in the schism and not allow them to reach unity of faith. The rapid succession of four petitions one after another is noteworthy. The schismatics, as if crowding, hurried through the door that suddenly opened. The postscript shown above, which concluded the petitions on March 23 and 24, probably served as encouragement that a month later, on April 23 and 26, two more petitions were received. Thus, the dissenters take advantage of the condescension of the authorities in order to act more urgently and be more persistent. Probably, the rumor that the opinion of some in favor of harassing the Rogozh schismatics arose when considering this case in St. Petersburg, encouraged the trustees Zelenkov and Vinokurov with others to re-enter with a most humble petition for permission to have priests under the authority of the civil authorities. But on the report on introducing it to the secret committee, His Imperial Majesty was pleased to write in his own hand: “To inform you for your information, declaring that I strongly disagree with this.” On the 16th day of June 1856, the highest handwritten resolution approved the following opinion of six members of the St. Petersburg secret committee: “To instruct the Metropolitan of Moscow, together with the Moscow military governor-general, to call upon the elders of the Rogozh cemetery, to decisively announce to them, and through them to all Rogozh schismatics, that their desire to have priests independent of the bishop will never be accepted by the government, as being contrary to the laws of the church and state, and that they can only join the holy church either unconditionally, or on the rules of unity of faith.” To fulfill this, two trustees of the Rogozhsky cemetery and four other significant schismatics were called to the house of the Moscow military governor-general. After reading the above highly approved opinion, the Metropolitan explained to them that church division is not pleasing to God; that they themselves recognize the need for a bishop when they ask for priests ordained by the bishop; that from the beginning of the Christian Church, holy councils and holy fathers never allowed priests to leave their dependence on their church authorities, and those who were alienated from them were condemned; that the rules of the same faith are lenient and sufficiently satisfying to those who are attached to old printed books; and finally invited them to further conference to resolve doubts and to achieve reconciliation. One of them expressed his disposition to join the church on the rules of the same faith; the others were silent, and when it was demanded that they sign only in hearing the highest approved opinion, they did not agree to this, and agreed only after lengthy admonition. Afterwards it was privately found out that there was a preliminary intention not to agree to anything, and those who poorly understood it did not agree to a simple subscription to the hearing. Honorary citizen Bogdanov, who expressed a disposition towards Edinoverie, soon after allowed his daughter to join Edinoverie and get married in the Edinoverie church; but he himself could not resist the power of the schism and has not joined the church to this day. Here is an example before the eyes of the authorities, how the power of a schismatic crowd suppresses a reasonable conviction in favor of the church. There is nothing secret that will not be revealed. Dissenters often skillfully and quickly penetrate even the secret actions of the authorities and the government itself. From them this information sometimes passes on to co-religionists standing on the border of the schism, and then to the Orthodox. There is information that some officials or persons in Moscow have drawn up notes favorable to the harassment of schismatics and submitted them to the government for consideration. The first thought from these notes that became known was this: “fortunately, the displeasure of the schismatics is directed only at the clergy.” Over time, thoughts and considerations have become known more and more accurately, from which some draw the conclusion that it is necessary to give the schismatics priests from the civil authorities. One of these notes says: “while the schismatics asked the priests, without expressing their right to do so, nor that their rituals did not offend the Orthodox Church, the government could still leave the said requests without respect, under the pretext of protecting the rights of the Orthodox Church. But as soon as the schismatics saw that the metropolitan himself was doing everything that was forbidden to them, they were convinced that the prohibition of divine services and the denial of priests subordinate to the civil authorities, equal to the deprivation of civil rights, was unjust persecution on the part of the Orthodox clergy.” Here we can see the reasoning that the schismatics have since received the right to ask the priests, who depend on the civil authorities, as they saw the metropolitan doing everything that was forbidden to them. By these last words nothing else can be understood than that the Metropolitan served in the Edinoverie Church according to the order of the old printed books. But to conclude from this that schismatics have the right to ask priests would mean drawing a conclusion that is completely incorrect and false. The bishop served, with the blessing of the Holy Synod, with priests serving in this rite also with the blessing of the Holy Synod, and schismatics ask for priests who are not dependent on the Holy Synod, but dependent on the secular authorities. Moreover, the service according to the order of old printed books did not begin now, but has existed for 55 years, and the bishop’s service according to the order of these books began a long time ago; there was such a service, not far from the Rogozhsky cemetery, in the Trinity Edinoverie Church, in 1840. But until now, neither the schismatics nor anyone else has derived from this any right in favor of the schismatics; Consequently, the conclusion now put forward about the right of schismatics to ask for priests independent of the spiritual authorities is only a schismatic effort to give themselves the appearance of justice through false reasoning; and therefore, just as before the government left such requests without respect, it is appropriate for it to act now in order to act consistently, and, moreover, not under the pretext of protecting the rights of the Orthodox Church, but for this true reason. For just as military law does not allow a soldier to desert to the enemy, so church rules do not allow a priest to desert to schismatics. The note says: “fortunately, the schismatics’ displeasure is directed not against the government, but against the clergy, who, in their opinion, deliberately obscures the truth and hides from the government the identity of the schism with the same faith.” What a low concept of government is attributed here to schismatics, as if the clergy can present a false opinion to the government under the guise of a true one, and the government will not understand and will be deceived! The schismatics have a better opinion of the government than the note ascribes to them. When communicating directly with schismatics, and when inquiring about their opinions through fellow believers, it is not heard of them recognizing the identity of the schism with common faith, and complaining about the clergy hiding this from the government. And here is the proof: if schismatics recognized the identity of schism with unity of faith, then there would be no reason for them not to join unity of faith. As for the happiness expressed by the note, that the displeasure of the schismatics is directed not against the government, but against the clergy: it is very natural that opponents of Orthodoxy harbor displeasure against the Orthodox clergy. But their happy disposition in favor of the government is suggested here without evidence. More accurately, the facts can show this. Here is a fact from 1812. During the French invasion of Moscow, when loyal Russians were leaving it, sacrificing their property, the Rogozh schismatics entered into favorable relations with the French. This is proven by the fact that these schismatics then received from the French a camp church left in Moscow by one of the Russian regiments, which they erected in their chapel in 1823, which was then carried out by the highest order. Here is a fact of the near future. In 1855, after the accession of the Sovereign Emperor Alexander Nikolaevich to the throne, the Rogozh schismatics did not take the oath for two days; and then by the metropolitan, at the invitation of the elders of them, they were persuaded to swear the oath, and they swore the oath in the presence of an Orthodox priest, which was reported to the Holy Synod in due time 288. Sincere loyal zeal would not have allowed them to be stubborn, and would have prompted them to take the oath on the first day before the Orthodox priest, to which they agreed two days later. From this last case we can partly conclude that the disposition of the schismatics towards the Orthodox clergy is not as bad as it seems in the note. The note says that in respecting the schismatics’ request for priests independent of the spiritual authorities, they are encouraged by the words of the most merciful manifesto of March 19, 1856: “let everyone, under the shadow of laws that are equally fair for everyone, equally patronizing to everyone, enjoy the fruit of the labors of the innocent.” The words of the most merciful manifesto are given here not according to their true reason, but according to a misinterpretation. The most merciful manifesto encourages the fruits of innocent labors to be equally protected by laws for all, and not sects and schisms harmful to state unity. The note says that “millions of schismatics are now awaiting the protection of His Imperial Majesty from the oppression he is making.” And in another place the note demands: “to stop the forcible deprivation of their prayer buildings from schismatics for conversion to churches of the same faith.” This last, without a doubt, refers to the chapels of the Transfiguration and Rogozhsky almshouses, converted into Edinoverie churches. May you be pleased to delve into this. There were 11 chapels in the Preobrazhensky almshouse, and 3 in the Rogozhsky almshouse. Of the schismatics who belonged to the chapels of both, who established and supported the chapels, some became co-religionists. What could be fairer than to set aside a portion of the common property of the remaining schismatics and fellow believers who separated from them for these latter? And in Preobrazhensky, out of 11 chapels, three have been separated to this day, and in Rogozhsky, out of 3 chapels, there is only one, and a smaller one at that. And this was done by the highest order of the late Sovereign Emperor. Let us not hide our surprise that the note so carelessly concerns the highest command and calls such a just action violent. What other oppressions the schismatics expect protection from is not explained in the note. But, by the very purpose of the note, it must be assumed that the prohibition of having fugitive priests is considered oppression. But if the law generally prohibits citizens from keeping fugitive priests, then can the prohibition of keeping fugitive priests be considered oppression? The note says: “About three years have passed since the last of the priests remaining at the Rogozhsky cemetery joined the Edinoverie, and schismatics of the priestly persuasion show no hope of reunification with the church. Forced by extremes, they established a false metropolis in the Austrian and Turkish possessions.” Here the composition of the 289 speech gives such an idea as if the schismatics, after their last priest had joined the Edinoverie, forced by extremes, established a false metropolis in the Austrian and Turkish possessions. On the contrary, this last thing was done by the Rogozh schismatics much earlier, when they still had more than one priest in the cemetery; and consequently, with a foreign false metropolis, they did not want to help themselves to the extreme, but to elevate themselves, strengthen and strengthen themselves. And counteracting this criminal effort, the government intensified its efforts to establish Edinoverie churches in the Rogozhsky and Preobrazhensky cemeteries. At the same time, the hope of reuniting the schismatics with the church was not small, and they joined in significant numbers; but this was stopped by the machinations of the dissenters and the rumors spread by them that the schism enjoys strong patronage, that it will receive more freedom and strength than before, and that the churches of the same faith, converted from the chapels, will again surrender to the schismatics. The note expresses the hope that favorable consequences will occur from the delivery of priests to the schismatics by the civil authorities. The first expected consequence: “the political independence of our schismatics will disappear.” On the contrary, it is not only impossible to hope for this, but one must also fear that their political independence will be more strengthened when they have priests recognized by their superiors, who, as they usually do, will be under the authority of strong schismatics, trustees of chapels; when their priests will be bound together by some influence of the elders on the younger, and the trustees of different chapels and different cities and villages will remain, as now, mutually bound by the spirit of the sect and the influence of the rich Rogozh schismatics; and thus their society is more strongly organized in a democratic manner than now. Then they will be able to gather with great success their false councils, which they attempted to gather more than once at the end of the last and at the beginning of this century, without significant success. The second expected consequence: “the false bishops and priests of foreign consecration who are now in Russia will become unnecessary.” On the contrary, this hope is not firm. Some schismatics, who spent capital to acquire false bishops, will not want to throw away in shame what they bought at a price. The most sensible of schismatics will not accept false bishops; but even now they do not recognize them. But false bishops and false priests are gradually entering the simple schismatic people, and, having received their affection, they will not easily be abandoned by them. The false hierarchy can be overthrown in only one way, namely, by justice against it, and especially against the false bishops. The third expected consequence: “the hostile feeling of the schismatics towards the government will be destroyed.” It is worthy of note here that at the beginning of the note the dissatisfaction of the dissenters against the government was not recognized, but now even a hostile feeling against the government is attributed to them. It is true that the schismatics, just as they now do not have goodwill and heartfelt loyalty to the government, because they consider the government heretical, so, for the same reason, they will not have it even if they received priests. The fourth expected consequence: “the reasons for their resettlement abroad and for the transfer of capital there to support foreign metropolises will be eliminated.” And this expectation is not of great importance. Large capitals were needed to establish a false metropolis abroad, and they were used, but now they are not needed. Those who have recognized the false hierarchy abroad now have no need to either move or send capital abroad; because they already have their own false archbishops and many false priests, whom they will have for a considerable time. But if one needs to prudently think about the consequences of the supposed supply of priests to schismatics from the civil authorities, then one must think about the difficulties and unfavorable consequences that must inevitably arise. 1) According to the requests of the schismatics, it is assumed that the schismatics will submit a petition to the civil authorities for the priest they want and who wants them; The civil authorities will communicate with the diocesan authorities about whether he was under trial or prohibition, and, in case of a satisfactory answer, about his expulsion from the ecclesiastical department. But the bishop, according to church rules, for the very fact that a priest goes over to the schismatics, is obliged to prohibit him from serving in the priesthood, subject him to admonition and, in his conscience, do everything possible to prevent his transition from the Orthodox Church to the schismatics. If the bishop follows this duty, he will enter into an insoluble conflict with the civil authorities. And if he neglects this duty and betrays the priest to the schismatics, then other Orthodox bishops, according to the same church rules, will be obliged to break off communication with him; and thus, to please the schismatics, a division will be made in the Orthodox hierarchy. And will bishops of such a weak conscience be useful to the church and state (if they open up) who, neglecting church rules, decide to hand over priests to schismatics? 2) The diocesan bishops are supposed to only demand information about the priests asked from the civil authorities, and thus the Orthodox bishop is not given the right to express consent or disagreement to the dismissal of a priest to schismatics; one is supposed to simply take those approved from him. This should lead to the weakening of church power. 3) To more clearly imagine the type of matter, let one diocese be taken as an example. In the Moscow diocese, there are 138 schismatic chapels known to the government of the priestly and non-priestly interpretations (except for those at the Transfiguration cemetery), not counting the semi-known ones, which, under favorable circumstances, of course, will seek equal rights with those. This includes a strong majority of priestly chapels. Therefore, the schismatics will suddenly wish to have 50 or more priests, and will scour the 290 diocese and tempt the priests with offers that are more profitable than the usual position of the majority of rural priests. It must be hoped that the Orthodox government will not dare to expose Orthodox priests to this devilish temptation, and will not issue a law that would invite priests to sacrifice their priestly conscience for selfish gain. 4) A means is being sought to please 3,000,000 or 5,000,000 schismatics. But shouldn’t 49,000,000 Orthodox Christians be concerned about peace and protecting them from temptation? The zealous of them will be upset by the triumph of the schism, and the weak will be subject to strong temptation from the authorized schism. At the pleasure of 5,000,000 schismatics, a new disorder will be introduced into 49,000,000 Orthodox Christians. 5) At the request of the schismatics, it is assumed that from the diocese they will take to the schismatics priests who have not been under trial and prohibition, in a word, of impeccable behavior, and those who fall into vices with the schismatics will be returned to the diocese for trial. But in order to judge, it is necessary to first examine every matter; but how can this be done when the society of schismatics, where the priest was declared guilty, is inaccessible to the diocesan authorities? Thus, the diocesan authorities will receive the lot not to judge, but only to carry out executions on those accused by schismatics; and a priest who speaks before them in favor of Orthodoxy will most easily be subject to accusation from them, and even a general one. And if we assume that the schismatics will send to the diocese priests who have actually been damaged in behavior: is it decent, isn’t it harmful, isn’t it offensive to the diocese for the schismatics to take honest people from the diocese, and, having corrupted them, throw this uncleanness into the diocese? 6) There are matters, by the way, marriages, in which the power of decision belongs partly to the bishop, and partly even to the Holy Synod. Is it possible that schismatic priests independent of bishops will be given episcopal power in such matters, or even greater power, belonging to the Holy Synod? This would mean giving over church rules and laws to violation with impunity, and making schismatic freedom from the laws by which the Orthodox are bound a means of drawing the Orthodox into schism. From all that has been stated here, no other conclusion can be drawn than that in response to the solicitation of schismatics, to receive a refusal from the civil authorities of priests independent of the bishop, repeatedly made in Bose by the late Sovereign Emperor Nikolai Pavlovich, and repeatedly confirmed by the now safely reigning Sovereign Emperor Alexander Nikolaevich, is a matter of royal truth and foresight, a matter of the unshakable firmness of the sacred royal word, a matter, truly, the most pious defender and patron of the Orthodox Church. October 27, 1857 291 . November 4. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A.P. Tolstoy, about ways to help the Jerusalem mission and Christians in need in the East Now I have heard a question about two ways to help the Jerusalem mission and Christians in need in the east: a more public one, and a more modest one, and I decide to write to you. It is doubtful whether we know how to run voluntary societies. For example: a prison society was formed, freely, diligently; the highest and lowest went side by side to the prison and took care of the prisoners. But, over time, the first examples disappeared, jealousy decreased, instead of mutual trust and help, business was constrained by writing forms and compulsory orders; from this, some, who have remained zealous for a long time, have withdrawn; it is difficult to attract people to form a committee, which should be the center of society; the society itself no longer exists. Almost all of those who promised annual cash benefits, except for the committee members, stopped paying them, without being ashamed of reminders. This is, of course, an unreliable model for the establishment of a voluntary charitable society. But collecting benefits through priests is not a very reliable means. They will be given rubles and kopecks, even those to whom it would be easy to give hundreds. Please consider the following project: 1) Out of reverence for the Jerusalem shrine, and in consideration of the state of Orthodox Christians in the East, who need benefits of faith and education, some women from the highest circle of society wish to form a committee auxiliary to the Russian spiritual mission in Jerusalem. 2) The number of members can be from 6 to 12. 3) He enjoys the highest or highest patronage. 4) He opens, with the assistance of his members, a subscription for the collection of offerings, which he intends to renew annually. 5) He is in continuous, if possible, relations with the spiritual Russian mission in Jerusalem; receives from her information about the needs of Orthodoxy in the East, and tries to satisfy them in the most convenient and reliable ways. 6) One of the first objects of concern of the committee will be that the local Orthodox do not have a shortage (as they do now) in the means of church worship, such as church utensils, vestments, and books. 7) The subject of the committee’s careful care will also be the initial education of poor children, confirming them in the Orthodox faith. 8) Careful care will be taken to ensure that Orthodox worshipers in Jerusalem are not subject to difficulties regarding housing and other needs. 9) From time to time the committee will give benefactors information about their actions and an account of the use of offerings, which will also be made publicly known. 10) Based on the nature of the subject of its studies, the committee will invite one of the members of the Holy Synod, or from others from the highest clergy, to directly participate in them. Here's the project. The spiritual member, it seems, could most conveniently be the confessor of Their Imperial Majesties, through which the committee would enter into convenient relations with the Holy Synod. Depending on the success of this project, the Holy Synod could decide in time whether, after the harvest of the committee, it is necessary to pick up small ears of grain through the priests? I think. And you judge. May the Lord help the good cause. Invoking God's blessing to you, with perfect respect and devotion I have the honor to be your Excellency's most humble servant, Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow. November 5th. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A. II. Tolstoy, with a recommendation for the Jerusalem mission of Archimandrite Porfiry 293 Addition. I apologize that yesterday’s letter was written carelessly, both because of haste and because of the illness from which I have been suffering quite a lot for several days, namely, a head cold. Unfortunately, I cannot imagine anyone for the Spanish mission. The priests to whom I offered this all find it difficult to take with them and leave without them either their young children or their adult daughters. This inconvenience cannot be disputed. For the Constantinople mission, the Right Reverend Vicar 294 recommends the Kostroma rector, Archimandrite Porfiry, finding him capable of skilfully conducting himself in unusual relationships. He studied at the Moscow Academy, but I don’t remember him. If you haven’t decided on this place, you can call him and have a look. November 24. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, with feedback on the proposed establishment of two chapels in St. Petersburg and Moscow with circles to collect alms to increase the funds of the Russian spiritual mission in Jerusalem for benefits to poor fellow believers in the East Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A.P. Tolstoy, in November 1857, informed Metropolitan Philaret that when he reported to the Empress Maria Alexandrovna his thoughts on the organization of a society for benefits to the Russian Jerusalem mission, Her Majesty “came up with the idea: is it possible to establish two Jerusalem chapels: one in Moscow, and the other in St. Petersburg with circles for benefits, through our mission, to our fellow believers in need. But how to arrange these chapels? How to attract prayer bookers? What special services can be performed in them, or special prayers read? Wouldn't the very construction of such chapels be something new? and so on. The Empress deigned to talk about this as an assumption about which she would like to know your Eminence’s opinion.” In response to this, Metropolitan Philaret wrote: In response to my thoughts about the means of benefits for the Jerusalem mission, Your Excellency finds that it is useful to collect benefits through the clergy. I wrote to you hastily, sick, and I do not remember exactly what I wrote; but, I remember, I proposed that the auxiliary committee have a spiritual member, among other things, precisely for this purpose, so that through him the committee would have contact with the spiritual authorities to collect benefits through the clergy. The idea of ​​​​establishing a Jerusalem chapel had already been presented to me, and I expressed my thoughts 296. I still can’t change my convictions. According to church tradition and custom, chapels are built: 1) In memory of sacred local memories, such as, for example, in Moscow, near the Trinity Gate, a chapel on the site where the relics of St. Philip were met when brought to Moscow; in front of the Sergius Lavra, a chapel on the site where the relics of St. Sergius were placed, taken out during the danger of fire. 2) In the place of the throne of the abolished church, so that the consecrated place would not be trampled upon. 3) Sometimes in the village, so that, due to the lack of a church, at least the village would be sanctified by a chapel, and so that from time to time a visiting priest could perform prayers for the entire village. If in any chapel any shrine attracts the zeal of the pious and offerings are made and income is generated: this is not the purpose of the construction of the chapel, but a consequence that occurred according to the arrangement of the providence of God; and then all that remains is to use the income in a worthy manner. But to build a chapel for income would not be in the spirit of faith and the church. This would not be without cause for complaint. I think that in this regard it is appropriate to recall the judgment of Christ the Savior, who praised the widow who put the offering into the treasury of the Jerusalem temple, and expelled those selling and buying from the church. You can point to the chapel of the Kanev monastery in St. Petersburg, built without any reason other than the acquisition of income for the maintenance of the monastery. In my opinion, this is not an example worthy of imitation. Moreover, very few chapels, at least as far as I know in Moscow and in the Moscow diocese, attract special zeal from the people and significant offerings: and this does not depend on the art and considerations of the organizers, but, as I said above, occurs according to the arrangement of God’s providence. For example, many resort to the Iveron Icon of the Mother of God and take it into their homes: this is because they have, and one another communicates experiences of the benefits received through prayer before it, which is sometimes expressed by the very offerings, as, for example, they bring a silver eye, in gratitude for the healing of an eye disease. According to the general order, there are no clergy or specific services at the chapels, except for some special days. But pilgrims come and demand an all-night vigil, or prayer service; and the clergy is called and does what is required. And if such demands are daily, then a special order is made so that the clergy of the church or monastery to which the chapel belongs is ready to satisfy the pilgrims. No matter how much I wish for abundant benefits and good success for the Jerusalem mission, but, for the reasons stated above, the idea of ​​​​a Jerusalem chapel seems to me unfeasible. The Caucasus, of course, requires Christian care. But secular differences will not make missionaries. They must be formed and animated with pious zeal; but this is not so quick and easy to do. December 24. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to Metropolitan Gregory of Novgorod and St. Petersburg regarding the new solicitation of schismatics to receive priests from the civil authorities Your Eminence Bishop, gracious archpastor and father. The note 298 forwarded to your Eminence outlines the extreme difficulties that would occur if the proposal to give the schismatics priests from the civil authorities was carried out. It is difficult to imagine that no attention was paid to them, when there is no doubt that it would be harmful and inconsistent with the dignity of the state government to change civil laws at the request of some unruly party, and even more so to violate church rules at the request of schismatics; that, however, changing some civil laws depends on the state power, but changing church laws based on the word of God and on the rules of holy councils does not depend on the current church power; that to shake the church rules relating to the hierarchy would mean to shake the hierarchy itself, and to create a chasm in the spiritual building of the church. It is known that a minute of an earthquake can create such a cleft in a century-old building that for a long time, or at all, will not allow it to return to its former perfect integrity. It must be assumed that the immediate unfavorable consequence of providing schismatics with priests independent of the spiritual authorities will not go unnoticed: - the shock may even lead to the destruction of churches of the same faith. The very rumor that the idea of ​​civil priests for schismatics enjoyed strong patronage, due to the influence of numerous, rich, strong schismatics, caused a considerable number of new co-religionists to waver, and even, contrary to clear evidence and handwritten signatures, against their conscience, declared themselves not to be affiliated with the co-religionist church, which was reported to the Holy Synod. Therefore, when these numerous, rich, strong schismatics open their services in the two huge and magnificent chapels of the Rogozhsky cemetery, one cannot but fear that the few parishioners of the small Edinoverie St. Nicholas Church, oppressed even now, as the Holy Synod knows, will be subjected to extreme temptation. The effect of such a predominance of schism over common faith cannot but reverberate throughout Russia. And experimental proof of this can be seen in the letter of the Ekaterinburg co-religionist: the Rogozh schismatics hold a service of thanksgiving for including illegal marriages in the audit, and the Siberian co-religionists suffer; and the Siberian schismatics are encouraged in their perseverance. Meanwhile, according to rumors here, the schismatics’ hope is growing to take advantage of the government’s excessive leniency and tear away priests from the church. When thinking about the threatening consequences of this, the long-concerning question again rises with force: is there still a way for the spiritual authorities to facilitate the government's leniency towards schismatics, without violating church rules and without fear of upsetting the hierarchy? Calling upon the Divine Chief Shepherd, Our Lord Jesus Christ, for help and invoking the prayers of Saints Peter, Alexis, Jonah and Philip, I decide to present the following assumptions to the judgment of the hierarchy: 1) Establish a second vicar in the Moscow diocese, with the name Bishop of Bogorodsk (the district city of Bogorodsk has one church, serving according to the rank of Edinoverie, and the largest number of schismatics of all the districts of the Moscow diocese). 2) Entrust him with especially the Edinoverie churches of the Moscow diocese. 3) At the discretion of the need, and according to convenience, you can entrust him with the churches of the same faith and some nearby dioceses. 4) To establish it at the existing, beautifully constructed, Edinoverie church cemetery in Moscow, which also has two two-story stone buildings. Here to build a bishop's house and together a monastery of the same faith, in the likeness of Chudov. 5) Subordinate the Bogorodsk spiritual government to the Bishop of Bogorodsk, so that it replaces him with a consistory for co-religious affairs. 6) Allow him, as an experiment, at the request of the parishioners of the chapels of the Rogozhsky almshouse, with the consent of the Moscow diocesan bishop, from one to three of the supernumerary priests, honest behavior, according to instructions in the rite of church service according to old printed books, to allow him to perform vespers, matins, hours, prayer singing, the sacrament of repentance in the chapel of the Rogozhsky almshouse, baptism, confirmation, marriage, blessing of oil, burial and commemoration of the dead, as well as in the homes of designated parishioners. 7) Before accepting this commission, the priest must, before the Holy Gospel and the cross, give the bishop a promise that, accepting, with condescension, the given commission to serve among those not affiliated with the Orthodox Church, he remains and will remain in unity with the Orthodox Church invariably; that he will not commit any action on anyone, much less allow himself to perform any action that would signify alienation from the Orthodox Church, or condemnation and curse on it. 8) The Bishop of Bogorodsk will demand from such priests an account of their service and the fruits thereof. 9) If the parishioners of the chapels will reverently listen to the divine service performed by such priests, accept blessings from them, confess to them, and if, after the proper examination of their conscience at confession, they are recognized as worthy and receive resolution of their sins through priestly prayer and blessing: then in such persons the alienation from the Orthodox Church can be recognized as having ceased. 10) Based on the satisfied observation of the priests over such parishioners, if they continue to demonstrate zeal for church services, good living according to the commandments of God and a good disposition towards the priest given to them, then they can be honored with communion of the holy mysteries, at which point they can be given to the priest to perform the liturgy in one of the churches of the same faith, for the preparation of reserve holy gifts. 11) To the extent that such a dispensation is established and spread among these parishioners, it will be possible to begin discussing how to turn one of their chapels into a church, consecrating it on the ancient antimension. 12) If God blesses this experience with the desired fruits of peace and spiritual well-being, then the same measures will gradually be applied to some other significant chapels, located among the many inhabitants who are alien to the church, and have enjoyed tolerance since 1827. I present these assumptions for testing to your Eminence, and, if you find them not inconvenient to implement, to other members of the Holy Synod; Let there be, according to the word of Scripture, salvation through much counsel. I repeat that I submit for testing; because I tried to open a way out of the difficulty, but whether I achieved this, I cannot say decisively. With utmost respect and devotion, I have the honor to be your Eminence's most humble servant, No. 105. December 24, 1857 299 December 24. Response telegram from Metropolitan Philaret to Archimadrite Anthony regarding the death of Metropolitan Philaret of Kiev Archimandrite Anthony, later Bishop of Smolensk 300 and Archbishop of Kazan, by telegram dated December 21, notified Metropolitan Philaret of the death of Metropolitan Philaret of Kiev, which followed on December 21, at 8 o’clock, 15 minutes in the morning. Metropolitan Philaret responded to this telegram: I share the sadness not only of the Kyiv flock, but also of the Russian Church, and then yours. I ask: fall at the feet of the deceased ruler in God, with thoughts of me and with the last kiss on earth from me of reverence and love. Let him pray: may I walk on it in peace 301. December 12, 1857 302 . December 27. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod on the election of an exarch and on the direction of rural literature I am writing to your Excellency, thinking that by doing this I am fulfilling your will. I was told that you would like to know my thoughts on who could usefully take the place of Exarch of Georgia if he 303 is taken to Kyiv. Close to this place stands the Eminence of Kazan 304; but I doubt whether he will find this place on his own. Precious and very useful in him is his disposition for close communication with the people; but there this is not favored by the foreign language nature of most of the flock. I also don’t know whether he will find it convenient to apply himself to the peculiarities of the local administration and to the plenipotentiary head of the region. A year older than the Eminence of Kazan in the bishopric, the Eminence of Mogilev Anatoly 305. You know him from his writings. He has zeal to edify his flock, and to call those who are not from the court of Orthodoxy into it. I think that I am capable of maintaining good relations with secular authorities. I believe that he is one of the most capable of taking the place I am talking about. The Right Reverend Eusebius of Irkutsk 306 could have done the same if he had not been so far away, and if there had been no doubt about the state of his health, which suffered from difficulties in Samara and was greatly shaken on the way to Irkutsk. I think that transferring him to Russia will save him several years of service and life, like the late Right Reverend Meletius 307. They confuse us more than once with news, sometimes about a magazine, sometimes about a book, in which the clergy will be reproachfully and mockingly portrayed, just like in well-known provincial essays. And the fact that in secular books secular officials and all kinds of people are presented as vicious and reckless, and, moreover, beyond probability, is very harmful: it will be incomparably more harmful if they do the same with the clergy. The type of literature currently suggests to the discerning authorities the question: is there a conspiracy that is trying to bring everything respected in society into contempt and shake the convictions of faith and morality, in order to more easily turn everything into democratic chaos. Recently in Moscow, in the newspapers, an article was published about suicide, in which the question was asked whether it was a sin; it is said that the philosophers approved of it; in a word, the whole article tends to weaken the disgust from this crime, and there are barely two or three lines in it about how this is not approved by Christianity. One secular man came to me with a printed notebook and began to read, calling by name some persons described without a name. By some features one can actually recognize faces; but to these are added others, the darkest ones. What kind of book is this? General entertaining magazine. Another time, the same person brought me another notebook from the same magazine (I think No. 15), in which, under the title: “drinking song,” the exploits and then corruption of the hermit are described in verse, and a chorus of immoral and shameless content is added to each stanza. I am writing this without being concerned about saving my brethren from being hurt by ridicule. By the will of God, we will endure. Concern is about preserving faith, morality, public order and tranquility. Your Excellency's most humble servant, Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow 308 Metropolitan Philaret's opinion on the significance of the schism in the Russian state What is the significance of the split in the Russian state? In former times, it had a predominantly ecclesiastical meaning, and in the eyes of Empress Catherine II, schismatics could still seem more ridiculous or pitiful than dangerous. But at the present time the split is important, mainly in civil terms. This is a terrible and constantly spreading state ulcer that requires urgent and serious treatment. The schismatics are divided into many sects; but they all agree on one point, that they do not recognize the sovereign as God’s anointed and do not consider any legal authority, which should be obeyed according to conscience; and that is why they evade some civil decrees by various illicit means, while others are carried out, as they put it, only for the sake of clarity, fear for the sake of the Jews. When the government, convinced by experience of the criminal and harmful self-will of the schismatics, begins to use certain measures to curb them and turn them to the path of truth and order, and when some of them, as a result of these measures, begin to turn to the Orthodox Church, then the patrons of the schism, who derive great benefits from it, begin to act in its favor with the most Christian judgments, calling every measure a coercion of conscience, and with such judgments they soften pure souls, unaware of cunning and guile. them, and are multiplying the voices in favor of a split. Thus, when in 1854, at the Preobrazhenskoe and Rogozhskoe cemeteries in Moscow, more than 2 thousand schismatics joined the Edinoverie and the sons of Orthodox Russia rejoiced with all their hearts and thanked God, voices were immediately heard that they joined not out of conviction, but because they did not want to give up some rights that the schismatics were deprived of 309. It is very possible to believe that some and perhaps many of the schismatics did not join entirely out of zeal; but this could only be done by those who were not sincerely, but outwardly only schismatics; otherwise they would not have joined the common faith because of some unimportant benefits. Moreover, this can only be said about merchants, while the townspeople and peasants did not lose anything by remaining in schism. It should be noted that between the peasants and the bourgeoisie, and especially their wives, there are many who sincerely maintain the split; But among the merchants, and especially the young, very few believe in the schism, but remain in it either because of the benefits arising from their commercial connections, or because of the inclination towards self-will and debauchery allowed by their false beliefs, or out of fear of persecution from powerful elders. As for their elders or horse breeders, for them splitting is a trade that brings them great benefits and honor. For the most part, they look at schismatics from the same point of view as at non-believers; but this is a big misconception. Gentiles, differing with us in dogma, have nothing against the government and follow the rule: God's to God, Caesar's to Caesar, and schismatics express it this way: God's to God, and the demon's to the demon. The government, while showing leniency towards schismatics, should not lose sight of the thousands of unfortunates who, through the cunning of their leaders, are stagnant in ignorance and depravity and are alienated from the Church of God, which leads to salvation, not through their own fault, but through the slavery in which they are kept by their trustees and their elders, who rule them despotically. For such unfortunate people, the measures taken by the government to curb the self-will of schismatics would be a true blessing, because without these measures they cannot disentangle themselves from the networks of schism. What does the clergy do? The clergy could act successfully on the lower strata of the schism if they were not under the yoke of the higher strata, i.e., the Preobrazhensky and predominantly Rogozh elders in Moscow, on whom no pastoral instructions can have a beneficial effect, because they adhere to the schism not out of delusion of mind, but solely out of earthly unclean motives. When the bishops, while reviewing dioceses, visiting schismatic villages, with their archpastoral conversations sometimes manage, with the help of God, to bring schismatics into a good disposition, and on this favorable occasion invite them to join the Orthodox Church, then, as a rule, they receive the answer: “we have no power in this; let them hang us from Moscow.” How should the government deal with schismatics? To correct their children, earthly fathers use not only gentle admonitions, but also other measures. The Heavenly Father, with all his infinite goodness, turns the lost to the path of truth, mostly through strict measures, and sinners often begin to correct themselves first out of fear of God’s wrath and punishment, and not out of zeal and love for virtue. The government, paternally concerned about the welfare of those entrusted to it, should deal with the people, who, due to their lack of education, do not know how to distinguish truth from error, useful from harmful, as with small children who rarely learn anything useful and good without coercion, and later remember it with gratitude. Having taken certain measures to curb the split, the government must unswervingly and unremittingly follow them, because the slightest weakening of them leads the schismatics to become convinced of the impotence and weakness of the government and of their power, through intrigues and money, to make the measures taken against them futile. And what about Russian religious tolerance, glorified by everyone? Good and noble Russia! Not only strangers, but also their own people often abuse your respected tolerance and want to humiliate it to shameful weakness. It is very, very sufficient for Christian tolerance to tolerate beliefs that are harmless to morality and to the state in general, but schism undermines the very foundation of the state and spreads immorality under the guise of belief. To be completely convinced of this, one need only look at the reports on the current state of the schism compiled by the Ministry of the Interior. Although they vary in presentation, all these reports present one amazingly gloomy picture. The report on the Nizhny Novgorod province states: “the schismatics divulge that among the highest state dignitaries there are secret followers of the Nicodemus schism who quench the Antichrist (?) and create sorrowless Christians. Regarding the decisions of the committee Messrs. ministers who always weakened the decisions of the criminal chambers on the punishment of schismatics, they say: we have a big minister in St. Petersburg; he doesn’t give the king his will, and he doesn’t indulge the local judges, and for now he’s holding on to us in secret, but when the time comes, he’ll show up.” The report on the Courland province states: “the schism, “like Jewish teaching, commands its adherents to unconditionally support each other against the infidels and to cause the latter all kinds of harm. “Therefore, harboring criminals and fugitives is considered “even a noble deed.” The report on the Kostroma province states: “schismatics are not only harmful as religious fanatics, but also as people hostile to the government and society, condemning the real order of things; they are especially harmful because most of them do not respect “the sacred person of the sovereign emperor and do not pray for him; they despise the clergy, hate officials and landowners, or, as they put it, the laity, and finally, not respecting or recognizing St. sacraments, they are immoral to the highest degree. Thus, the schismatics shake two great and fundamental concepts in the minds of the people: God and the king! At present, the schism does not yet “dares to rise up openly and preach its teachings publicly; but over time, if strict measures are not taken in advance, it can greatly shake the moral well-being of the entire region.” The report of the Novgorod province states: “the spirit of the Krestets sectarians is distinguished by intolerance, violence and persistent alienation from the community with the Orthodox. Particularly dangerous in this regard are schismatics living in Msta; they publicly preach disobedience to all earthly authorities.” In the village of Dubkakh, Krestetsky district, since the appearance of the Poshekhon monk Danila in 1850, rumors about the last times of the world and the possibility of achieving the kingdom of heaven through the killing of the wicked britous have intensified. The spirit and direction of minds between the schismatic military villagers, in the 7 districts of arable soldiers, especially in the city of Staraya Russa, is the most nasty and dangerous. The Old Russians are violent, disobedient and very prone to squatting. Among them, more than anywhere else, there are rumors about the last times, about the dissipation of Orthodoxy and the heresy of the authorities. In relation to the Moscow Metropolitan to the Minister of Internal Affairs, dated September 21, 1855, it is said: 1) in 1844, a note was discovered at the Preobrazhenskoe cemetery, signed by the trustee and mentor, and a handwritten book, in which the teaching is found that “since 1666, the royal power established by God will be abolished,” that now “Christians getting married are the serpent’s nest, Satan, that now Satan is concerned about the multiplication of the human race, and for the conception of a baby the soul given from the devil." 2) In the current year of 1855, in the Vladimir province, Shui district, in the village of Ivanovo, a manuscript of the non-popovschinist type was opened by a guide with the title: a mirror for the spiritual inner man, in which, among other things, it says: “Jesus Christ forgave sins; and the Antichrist (?) established a court and forged fortresses and set up mining factories to torment the people” 310. But they will say that this cannot be applied to the clerical sect. Yes, the schismatics of the priestly sect do not imagine the government in such harsh terms, but it is equally wicked and malicious. They admit that “the Russian government since the time of Tsar Alexy Mikhailovich has become “graceless”, and that the Antichrist reigns in Russia “spiritually, being invisibly present in the Orthodox Church, and “the sovereign emperor and government officials who worship him rule the people according to the secret and unconscious suggestions of the devil for themselves” (From the report of the Ministry of Internal Affairs for the Nizhny Novgorod province). Dissenters-fanatics renounce the oath; non-fanatics, for the sake of clarity, fear for the sake of the Jews, and to lull the government, swear the oath unquestioningly. But in order to reconcile the oath with their wicked concepts, they replace the word swear with the words: don’t give a damn about your beard. (From the report of the Ministry of Internal Affairs for the Nizhny Novgorod province) 311. Archim. Savva. Now the Archbishop of Tver. The case of the Muscovites. St. Synod Office, 1857, No. 16; ll. 1 and 2. This letter is mentioned by Filaret Gumilevsky himself in a letter to A.V. Gorsky, dated May 11, 1857. See letters from Filaret, architect. Chernigovsky, to A.V. Gorsky Moscow, 1885, pp. 290–293. Published in 1836. In 1862, printed in a second, corrected and expanded edition. Here is the letter: “Your Eminence, beloved brother in the Lord! The Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod informed me of the letter he received from your Eminence on June 23, which I read with sincere sympathy and with spiritual sorrow. I fully understand the burden we bear, and, of course, you cannot doubt my most sincere desire to see your labors and cares achieve their goals, to the true benefit of the holy Orthodox Church and to our own consolation. But if a successful course of action depends on a correct view of the possibility of means, then it was all the more unfortunate for me to see from the mentioned letter that the view expressed in it does not correspond to the current circumstances of Orthodoxy in Livonia, despite the fact that they are best known to you. In a region where other faiths predominate and where the number of Orthodox residents is negligible, and cities, courts and administrations are filled with people of other faiths, hostility to the spread of Orthodoxy is very natural. But to this it must also be added that no measures can suddenly avert the sad events occurring from it, and can only bear fruit in the future, while our clergy must act among the majority of ill-wishers. What means, when earthly, human ones become scarce? Those who are stronger than them: purely spiritual, truly Christian means, precisely those with which the church from time immemorial was planted, grew and finally triumphed over its persecutors. You, as the shepherd of souls, know these holy remedies. Not by worldly oppression, not by judgment, not by consequences, and not by complaints about oppression, did the truth of the Gospel spread across the face of the earth, but by the grace of God, which filled the hearts of preachers with holy zeal for the salvation of souls, combined with meekness and long-suffering in the image of the Savior Himself, Whom we reproach, those who do not rebuke (1 Peter 11:23), while suffering, did not defend himself even for murderers prayed for his own. Not overcome by evil, but conquering evil with good, they showed themselves in everything as God’s servants, in the patience of many, in sorrows, in bids, in distress, in wounds, in prisons, in labors, in solitude, in fastings (2 Cor. 6:4,5). - They spoke of themselves with hunger and thirst, and with nakedness and suffering, and we wander and toil, doing with our own hands: we reproach, we bless: we are young, we endure: we blaspheme, we are comforted: as the world was cut off by the byom, all are trampled upon until now (1 Cor. 4:11-13). And yet, has their right teaching perished? No, it embraced the whole world. Such were the followers of these Divine disciples of Christ; In this way our holy faith was established in different parts of our fatherland. If, in the country entrusted to your spiritual care, the fate of providence has determined that the true Orthodox teaching will be established in the same way, sorrowful, but holy and great, then does not it also serve as an undoubted guarantee of success, if only the clergy led by you corresponds everywhere to their sacred title, but they are slandered about him, those who slander his good life in Christ will be ashamed ( 1 Peter 3:16). And how else is it better to prove to non-believers the superiority of Orthodoxy? Of course, not by repelling violence by force, even if it is legal, but by the fruits of our faith: the spirit of meekness, patience, kindness and love for our very enemies. Let the ill-wishers of Orthodoxy harbor feelings that are contrary to this: our pious clergy, who receive, with the laying on of holy hands, the gifts of the Holy Spirit, should boast only of those feelings by which the true disciples of Christ are recognized, and without which faith itself is dead; to boast in the cross and in the imitation of the Lord Crucified on it, who promised his confessors not the blessings of this world, but eternal life. I am sure that your Eminence, as a good shepherd, ready to lay down his life for the sheep, is deeply convinced of everything I set forth here. Nevertheless, I could not help but state this when the recent case of a priest’s deviation from the rules of prudence and from the very spirit of the teaching of our faith indicates the need to intensify the instructions to the clergy under your command about the method of action in all such circumstances. It is obvious that he did not have a true calling to such a sacred rank when, on the first occasion, he did not understand his real position, and instead of silently yielding to violence, showing before everyone the experience of humility, betraying the insolence of the one who offended the righteous judge, he exchanged the venerable and, in the very humiliation, high position of a shepherd for the position of a police officer, to which he had no right, and thus deprived himself of the honor that I expected him not only before people, but also before the All-Seeing One. Such clergy will in vain be teachers and mentors of the flock to whom they cannot give a good example and from whom, on the contrary, they themselves should take an example of patience in simplicity of heart. Therefore, in the present circumstances, of all the concerns for the good of the flock entrusted to your Eminence, undoubtedly the first place belongs to the all-powerful and continuous effort, with words and messages, to direct the clergy on the only path appropriate for them: let the holy zeal for planting the kingdom of God in the hearts of Christian love and compassion for the lost be dissolved; let him accompany his actions with a fiery prayer for their enlightenment; let him rejoice over the sorrowful path taken to recover them, and let him place firm hope in the goodness of the Lord, which replenishes the impoverished strength of His servants, in short, to inspire them with all those feelings, filled with which, they could strengthen themselves and those they flock, preferring the right teaching of faith, as a guarantee of eternal salvation, to all earthly blessings. If anywhere you see clergy who are incapable, cowardly, or in their treatment inappropriate for such a great title, it is up to you to enter the Holy Synod with ideas about the need to replace them with more worthy ones. In our church there will always be true servants of Christ who will willingly, with selflessness, bear this holy burden, zealous for Orthodoxy in the true spirit of the Gospel. Let everyone who works in the field of sowing remember that he is accomplishing his feat in the face of the Almighty ascetic, and that the Orthodox Church of Christ looks at him, blessing the good ascetics of the truth, and offering warm prayers for their strengthening. I, too, who am unworthy, humbly pray to the Supreme Lord God and our Savior Jesus Christ, to instruct you in holy service to Him to do His will for the edification and consolation of the flock; may He bestow strength in the vigorous performance of the labors that He deigns to choose for your part; may despondency not allow despondency to prevail in the place of rejoicing about such a choice of the Lord; on the day of my righteous reward, may I grant you the unfading end prepared for the good and faithful shepherd of the verbal flock who endured to the end, having acquired it with his honest blood. With true respect and brotherly love for the Lord, I have the honor to be your Eminence’s most zealous servant. Anthony, Metropolitan of Novgorod and St. Petersburg." St. Petersburg. July 28, 1847. . From a copy, storing in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 81; document No. 7. From a handwritten draft original stored in the Moscow diocesan library. Dept. IV, pp. 81–83. From a handwritten draft original, kept. in Moscow diocesan biba. Dept. IV, 1 l. 84 and 85. See Read. in general love spirit. asking Moscow, December, 1881 Dept. III, p. 537. It is impossible not to notice that the State Council, having accepted the words of the manifesto of 1786 - “every fortune for people” - in such a broad sense, and referring these words to monks, completely deviated from the rules that should be kept in mind when interpreting laws. It is clear that the manifesto meant those persons of any status who are allowed to own property and dispose of it at will, therefore: not minors, not under repression, not deprived of the rights of the estate, and as non-monastics should think. From an original letter, keeping. in the archives of the Holy Synod; case No. 62, for 1854; l. 67–68. Not complete black. authentic this letter is stored. to Moscow diocesan bib. Dept. IX; l. 203–204. From the original stored in the archives of the Holy Synod; No. 62, for 1854, pp. 83–94. From the original, stored. in the archives of the Holy Synod; No. 62, for 1854; pp. 80–82. Metropolitan Joseph believed that the existing legal provisions on the raised issue should be supplemented with the following rule: “capitals contributed by monastics, except for the authorities, to credit institutions, after their death, become the property of the monasteries, to which tickets for these capitals are also transferred.” Adlerberg, Count V.F., gene from-inf., member. State of Owls; r. 1792 † March 8, 1884 From the original papers, storing in Moscow diocesan Library Dept. III, pp. 80–83. Tone, Const. Andr.; r. 1794; † 25 Jan 1881 From rough original, storing. in Moscow diocesan library. Dept. VIII; ll. 90–95. A. N. Muravyov’s note was not preserved in the papers of Metropolitan Philaret. A. N. Muravyov himself says that he presented his “lengthy” note on the state of church affairs to Chief Prosecutor A. P. Tolstoy. See letters to A.N. Muravyov. Kiev, 1869, p. 509. The present letter of Metropolitan Philaret was also published in the same edition. See No. 331, pp. 510–514. This letter is not in the papers of M. Philaret, left after his death; but it was published in “letters of the Metropolitan to A.N. Muravyov,” No. 330, pp. 507–509. For greater clarity, we place this letter in a note: “Thank you for the January Lives of Russians. Another copy was presented to Prince Sergius Mikhailovich. I found a copy of September, which I searched in vain, after receiving another from you. Since he is scattering your copies of the entire publication, I will send it to you. I am returning the article. If my opinion were asked at the right time, I would not advise saying everything as it is said. "Power is initiating." I think the Senate Chief Prosecutor also ensures that cases are reported in the manner required by law, or due to the special circumstances of the case. The supervision is necessary, and the power is unfettered. It is necessary to distinguish between abuse and deed. “Read” is also a word of supervision to the office, so that a correctly drawn up protocol is presented for signing. Again it is necessary to distinguish between abuse and deed. “Fulfill” is a word of order that, I think, is also used in the Senate. If you recognize that the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod is the guardian of the state law with the Synod, then, before executing the ruling, he needs to see whether it is contrary to the state law. If he finds this, then suggest that they pay attention to the law; if he does not find something inconsistent with the state law, he will write “to fulfill.” Again it is necessary to distinguish between abuse and deed. The former minister of spiritual affairs did not have more rights than he had under the name of chief prosecutor, and did not allow himself the same freedom that he allowed himself at the beginning of his chief prosecutor, when he did not yet know the case and did not receive due respect for it. The revolt against the Minister of Spiritual Affairs was mainly for the so-called mystical books, which he passed through secular censorship. But even on this subject, the minister respected spiritual authority; and when the clergy began to make verbal comments on the Zion Messenger, the minister forbade it to pass through secular censorship and ordered him to go to the spiritual; and the Zion Messenger died on the road from secular to spiritual censorship. The case against the minister was turned sharply by 1. Manitsky, who, having aroused the bishop (Metropolitan Seraphim of Novgorod) to go against the Sovereign Emperor, kept watch on the palace square to see if the ruler would soon leave the palace in order to judge the successes based on time, and who, after the overthrow (as he thought) of the minister, sang a grateful prayer service for this, and then wanted to go to the overthrown minister, as his adherent, if Prince Golitsyn’s doorman had not prevented this. Is there more of the church here than in the affairs of a minister? “Why is it not the bishop who determines the members of consistories?” For our sins. At the time when the Rules of consistories were drawn up, one could point to a bishop who was still alive and appointed a protodeacon as a member of the consistory. The statute of consistories established the power of the bishop in the diocese better than it was before the statute. That the appointment of secretaries from St. Petersburg makes it difficult for bishops and harms business, this is true. But it needs to end. When the article is used: comments are late. I'm sorry". Here are the words of the Metropolitan on this matter: “The Sovereign Emperor Nikolai Pavlovich ordered the presentation of three candidates for the bishopric. The first apostolic choice in the Christian Church had two candidates. A third that meets the space requirement is not always convenient to have; and for the transfer it happened that one candidate was presented. Have you noticed that, upon the death of the Parisian archbishop, they immediately expected a transfer to this place from another see, which followed in a short time. Consequently, in the Roman Church, movement by state power is not prohibited.” Letters to Muravyov, p. 509. Well-known traitors to the Orthodox Church who converted to Catholicism and joined the Jesuit order. In the publication of letters to Muravyov, the words “on the Balabins and Gagarins” were replaced with the words “on the cooling of some towards the church.” In the mentioned edition of letters to Muravyov, the words “although now, if not before, are not present.” From a copy, corrected. Metropolitan and storage in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 80, document. No. 3. On August 29, His Imperial Majesty’s own hand wrote: “Fair.” From secrecy. papers, storage in the office Chief Prosecutor St. Synod, 1857, No. 113, l. 1–12. With own black authentic, storage in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 80; document No. 6. In the publication of letters from Metropolitan. Filareta to A.N. To Muravyov, this letter begins like this: “Christ is risen. Let us embrace each other with joy, as the church inspires, as my soul desires, and yours, I hope, accepts me. May the joy and peace of the Lord be with you, although the image of this world is not illuminated by joy, and is not overshadowed by peace. After your letter of March 20, I delayed writing to you, partly because from the 25th day until the last days of Holy Week I struggled with illness, partly because I was looking to see if there would be an opportunity to return the papers I had been given to you through good hands.” Further, as in our list. See letters to Muravyov. No. 333, p. 517. Metropolitan Gregory of Novgorod. V. B. Bazhanov; † July 31, 1883 In the publication of letters to Muravyov, the words “also Fr. confessor" no. In the same place: “I keep thinking that it would be more convenient to imagine two, three, necessary thoughts that would receive the power of affirmation.” The entire present section in the publication of letters to Muravyov is omitted. The following extract from Muravyov’s letter is not included in the publication of the Metropolitan’s letters to him. There, instead of the words: “instructions for business,” it is printed: “write about business.” From a copy, storing in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 80; dokui. No. 4 From his own handwritten drawing. authentic, storing in the archives of the Holy Synod Inventory No. 33; document No. 3. Mean. rep. kept in the archives of the Holy Synod; d. 1857, No. 2222, pp. 1–2. In the same file of the archives of the Holy Synod, ml. 3–4. Gaevsky, Pav. Iv., official for chief prosecutor. table From a handwritten original kept in the file of the office of the chief prosecutor of the Holy Synod in 1857; according to II department, 1st article, No. 18; according to architect No. 55. Nikiforov, Petr Petr., officials. esp. charge under the governor general Parofeny, hierome, later abbot, rector of Berlyukovsk, and then Guslitsky monastery; author of “Tales of Wanderings and Travels in Russia, Moldova, Turkey and the Holy Land” (4 books, 2nd ed. Moscow 1856); † in Feb. 1878 in the Trinity-Sergius Lavra. Case of the chancellor. Chief Prosecutor Holy Synod 1856; according to the II department No. 18; according to architect No. 55. A. M. Gorchakov, † February 27. 1883 A short draft relation, under the indicated number, is kept in the Moscow file. synod. office 1857, No. 23; l. 23. An act was drawn up regarding all these orders, that is, regarding the contribution to the ark and the taking from it of the above-mentioned acts, which was signed by Metropolitan Philaret, Protopresbyter of the Assumption Cathedral Dimitri Novsky and the Moscow Synod who corrected the position of prosecutor. office, chamber cadet Alexey Lopukhin. The act is kept in the office file, No. 23; ll. 3–5. With his own hand Chernov. original, storing in the Moscow case. Office of the Holy Synod, 1857, No. 23; ll. 24 and 25. Longinov M.N., later (from 1867) Oryol governor, and from 1871 head of the main department for press affairs; † 23 Jan 1875 About Sapelkin, see above, No. 430, p. 97. A copy of this report was communicated to the Metropolitan and Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, A.P. Tolstoy, in a letter dated June 25. The letter, written by the Metropolitan in pencil, is kept in Moscow. diocesan bib. Dept. IV; l. 38, and the original is in the case of the chancellor. Ober-Prok., 1857, No. 79. From a copy, corrected. by the hand of the Metropolitan, keeping in Moscow diocesan library. Dept. IV; ll. 25–35; clerical matter chief proc. Holy Synod, 1857, No. 79. Nikanor (Klementyevsky), Art. November 4, 1848, Metropolitan. Novgorod; †17 Sep. 1856 Metropolitan Gregory; † 17 June 1860 A.I. Karasevsky; † 25 Dec 1856 Case of the Holy Synod, 1857 No. 3440 (according to the archival inventory); ll. 1, 18–23. Ambrose (Podobedov), Metropolitan. novg. and St. Petersburg; † May 21, 1818 Mikhail (Desnitsky), Metropolitan. novg. and St. Petersburg; † March 24, 1821 Seraphim (Glagolevsky), Metropolitan. novg. and St. Petersburg; † Jan 17, 1843 Consideration of the opinion of the Metropolitan of Kyiv by the Metropolitan of Moscow, in an abbreviated version, is published in the essay. “The history of translating the Bible into Russian”, I. Chistovich, St. Petersburg. 1873, part II, pp. 38–44. Allioli Ios. Franz, cathedral archpriest (Domprobst) in Augsburg; born August 10, 1793 From the original, signed. Metropolitan and guardian in a special collection, in the library. St. Petersburg spirits academic; ll. 48–63. Evgeniy (Bolkhovitinov), p. January 30, 1822 Met. Kiev; † 23 Feb 1837 Filaret Amphitheatrov occupied the bishop's chair at this time. Kaluga, from which January 12, 1825, alternating. to Ryazan. Metropolitan of Novgorod Seraphim. From secret papers stored in the office of the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, 1856, No. 192; l. 63–68. This letter was published in Reading. total love spirit. Enlightenment, December, 1881, pp. 534–537. Kovylin, Ilya Alekseevich, schismatic Fedoseevite, founder of the schismatic Preobrazhensky cemetery, in Moscow, † 1809 When conducting a study in 1853 on the actions of the schismatics of the Preobrazhensky cemetery in Moscow, by the way, it was discovered that the Moscow merchant Konst. Egorov and the merchant Fyodor Guchkov owned, by deed of sale, but without paying money, garden plots and a house in the city of Kolomna, where a schismatic almshouse was located; and when the authorities ordered them to destroy the almshouse, Egorov and Guchkov handed over the house and garden plots to the tradesman Makinnikov, also a schismatic, according to the deed of sale, but without money, on the assumption, as Egorov admitted, that they hoped to subsequently receive permission from the government to reopen the almshouse. Thurs. total love spirit. Enlightenment, Dec., 1881, p. 536. Case of the chancellor. Chief Prosecutor Holy Synod of 1856, according to the II department. No. 18; according to architect No. 55. See about him above, No. 464, note. 2. From his own handwritten drawing. original, stored in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 27; Dogum No. 6. See Vol. II; Nos. 198, 230; vol. III, nos. 275, 311, 323, 325. Lopukhin, Iv. Vl., actual privy councilor and senator, writer and translator; † 1816 The Committee for the Affairs of Dissenters was established in St. Petersburg on March 14, 1825. It must be assumed that the Metropolitan’s opinion on this subject is in the affairs of the St. Petersburg Secret Committee. Note Metropolitan Philaret. In original opinion, keeping in secret dept. chancellor chief proc. St. Synod, 1857, No. 62, l. 9, there is no note about this. In draft. authentic “movement” instead of “composition”. A copy, corrected and supplemented by the hand of the Metropolitan, is kept. in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 87; document No. 10. Genuine. note - confidential department. chancellor Chief Provost of the Holy Synod; d. 1857, No. 62; ll. 10–25; second, eczema, ibid., ll. 26–43. From the secret papers of the office of the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, 1856, No. 190; l. 11 and 12. Porfiry (Sokolovsky), 10th year student at the Moscow Theological Academy; 1845 rector of the Tobolsk Theological Seminary, and then Kostroma; November 21, 1858 vicar of Dmitrov; March 21, 1859 Bishop of Ufa; September 13, 1860 – Tomsk; November 14, 1864, retired; † June 3, 1865 Evgeny (Sakharov-Platonov), from the rectors of the Moscow Theological Academy. October 6, 1857 list of Dmitrov, vicar of Moscow; from October 13, 1858, Bishop of Simbirsk; in 1874 he was retired. From the secret papers of the office of the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, 1856, No. 190; l. 13. The mentioned statement of thoughts was not preserved in the metropolitan’s papers. A copy of the letter, without beginning and end, is kept in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 13, document. Nos. 1 and 2; The original letter is in the secret papers of the chief prosecutor's office. St. Synod, 1856, No. 190; ll. 16–18. Chernov. original, keeps. in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 87; document No. 11. Authentic secret. dept. Chancellor Chief Procurator of the Holy Synod, 1857, No. 62, pp. 45–48. † November 8, 1879, elevated to the rank of archbishop of Kazan. This telegram was published in the work of Archimandrite Sergius (Vasilievsky) “The Most Reverend Anthony, Archbishop of Kazan and Sviyazhsk.” T. 1, Kazan, 1885, p. 256. Sl. handwritten draft original. Inventory No. 53, document. No. 10 Nowadays Isidor is Metropolitan of Novgorod and St. Petersburg. Afanasy (Sokolov); † January 1, 1868, having been in retirement since November 9, 1866, in the Kizich monastery. Anatoly (Martynovsky), from the vicarage of Ostrozhsk, November 24, 1844, list of Mogilev; April 19, 1853, archbishop; July 17, 1860, discharged; † August 9, 1872. Eusebius (Orlinsky), from the list. Samara, November 3, 1850, Irkutsk; March 23, 1858, archbishop; 1860, August 29, Mogilev; †, upon retirement, February 21, 1883. Meletiy (Leontovich), June 22, 1835, moved from Irkutsk to Kharkov, where † April 25, 1840 From an autograph, keeping. in the secret papers of the office of the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, 1856; No. 190; ll. 21 and 22. So what of this? Only that the measures taken by the government have proven to be valid and useful. See above, no. 414, pp. 40–41. From the secret papers of the chief prosecutor's office. St. Synod, 1857, No. 62; pp. 285–290.