1858 г.

January 7. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A.P. Tolstoy Most Excellent Count, Dear Sir. Please accept my gratitude for the trust placed in me by providing information about church property. God will bless your feat in protecting it, and will accept it as a sacrifice. It will be a bitter pity if they decide to violate the inviolability of this property, which is extremely just, and twice protected against attacks in Bose by the late Sovereign Emperor. The acquisition will be insignificant, but the state will be charged with a grave sin; because now the church has everything from God and from the sacrifices made to God, and nothing from the state. If her property, taken in the past century at the disposal of the state (which the clergy does not complain about as a visitation from God, and as liberation from many worldly worries), were saved for the benefit of the church: she would be content and would not require benefits from the state. But this has been absorbed by the state, and it now gives only a small share of the treasury to the church; Consequently, he also gives church things from the treasury. To take church things without right - is it really not necessary to fear God’s judgment for this? Or are these thoughts daring? Sorry. They are bold out of jealousy and reverent desire, so that God’s favor towards the kingdom of our most pious Sovereign may remain perfect, inviolable and undiminished. Again invoking God's blessing to you, with perfect respect and devotion I have the honor to be your Excellency, gracious sir, most humble servant, Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow Please accept my sincere gratitude for your favorable attention to Bachelor Sergievsky 313. In January. Thoughts of Metropolitan Philaret on work and wakefulness Anything premature is not good. Struggle is good. What is acquired with difficulty is built on a strong foundation. And a building quickly built on sand is destroyed rather than built. Powers of grace are required. And they are not caused by the increase in food and sleep, from which the mind becomes coarser, the purity of thoughts is darkened, and the speed of thoughts is inhibited. Having fallen asleep for an extra hour, instead of replenishing your bodily strength, you encounter spiritual and mental impoverishment. One must carefully maintain a balance between mind and spirit. By giving in to the unnecessary needs of the body, the mind is stolen. The trial will begin with the church. Church workers need to stock up on strength for the fight. It is more difficult to push aside your own conclusions, introduced by the imagination into the stream of God's revelations. With such fermentation of the imagination, one must hasten to bring it into silence through humble prayer. Why do those who possessed it lose the gift of grace? From conceit and pride, that is, when they appropriate to themselves the actions of the spirit of grace 314. February 17. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A.P. Tolstoy, about fellow believers At the request of your Excellency, I am forwarding herewith the relation returned to me regarding a second vicar who would govern the churches of the same faith 315. The Bishop of Novgorod believes that the schismatics will not accept him, and that he could be harmful to Orthodoxy. Such an opinion of the first person in the hierarchy does not strongly support the assumption. I am forced to agree with the Bishop’s idea that this institution does not promise success in relation to schismatics, provided that the civil authorities in Moscow maintain their current way of thinking and acting in relation to schismatics, and continue to patronize them and feed their hopes. Examples of this are clear in the cases of the Edinoverie almshouse at the Rogozhsky cemetery and about fellow believers denying Edinoverie, as well as in the four 316, patronizingly accepted and presented, petitions of schismatics for what had already been repeatedly denied to them by the highest command. 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, March 12. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A.P. Tolstoy, about Mohammedan propaganda in the Tomsk diocese and about the harmful influence of Hieromonk Joasaph on the Diveyevo community There is a lot to talk about; but the guilty person must first of all talk about his guilt. I am guilty before your Excellency by writing about the crosses of 1856, and I apologize. Archimandrite stauropegic, who was in Rostov on duty, brought information from there that everyone there had crosses. I thank Professor Gorsky 318 and doctor Rakhmanov 319 for requesting the awards. I am enclosing information about the admission of the Greek Litsardopulo to the academy in an extract from the letter from the rector of the academy. He gives hope that the academy will not be a burden. Now, excuse me, I want to talk about other people's affairs. But the Orthodox Church and its world are not strangers to anyone. There is information from a reliable source that in the Tomsk diocese, Tatar merchants are jealously building mosques in the cities, and mullahs are converting pagans to Mohammedanism. It seems that according to the laws of the state, one dominant Orthodox Church has the right to accept from other faiths, which is also required by state care for unity. The transformation of pagans into Mohammedans is harmful: for Mohammedans are further from peace and unity than pagans; and pagans who have converted to Mohammedanism become unreliable for conversion to Christianity. They say that the diocesan bishop 320 is unable to counteract this, and requires higher help. Please pay attention to this. The established Diveyevo hostel is faltering on good grounds. His Grace Jeremiah 321 removed the famous hieromonk Joasaph from him. And I told his successor that Joasaph, taking advantage of his trust, had expanded the arbitrariness of his actions too much, and could hardly be further useful to the monastery. But Joasaph snuck up on him and gained influence over the hostel. Against the will of the abbess, he takes the sisters and sends them to collect, or to study painting. There is division in the monastery: can there be any benefit in division? It seems that the abbess, embarrassed, is already thinking about moving away from her place, so as not to participate in the sins of others. The question arises to me: wouldn’t it be good to tear Joasaph away from this eccentric action by assigning him to another diocese, where he might, perhaps, bring some benefit? You may be closer to solving this issue than I am. 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, I don’t want to tell you about the two nuns who were martyred 323. March 19. Metropolitan Philaret’s opinion on the question of whether it is possible to make any leniency for schismatics, beyond what has already been done for them before, and in particular to give them priests independent of the diocesan authorities When considering this issue, it is best to take into account what was said in the journal on December 3, 1857, in order to indicate the direction towards resolving the issue. It says: firstly, that the schismatics, recognizing the sacraments, “are, as it were, in some connection with the church,” and secondly, that they “usually call it heretical, Nikon’s.” These thoughts are opposite to one another, and therefore it is necessary to determine which of them has the force of truth, and must give direction to the question. There is some connection between the schismatics and the Orthodox Church in that they desire to have priests who have received successive ordination from the apostles; But they completely dissolve this connection when they demand priests who are not dependent on the church hierarchy, or, what is the same, who are rejected from it, and, recognizing them as coming from a heretical church, they think to cleanse them with a special prayer or false anointing. Those who call the Orthodox Church heretical and refuse to obey its hierarchy, through this are completely separated from it and become the opposite of it. The Orthodox Church should not have communication with such people, because church rules prohibit this; should not because this would be incompatible with her dignity, firmness and purity; it should not because it would create a temptation, that is, it would show the appearance of a concession to the opinion of those who call it heretical, and would give them a reason to assert themselves in this opinion; should not because such a deviation of the Russian Church from the rules of the Church could be subject to denunciation from the Eastern Church, to the detriment of Church unity; finally, it should not and cannot because church communion is possible only with the mutual consent of those entering into communion; but schismatics do not want to communicate with the Orthodox Church. To whom the Orthodox Church gives a priest, a performer of church prayers and sacraments, with whom it obviously has communion. So, since she should not be in communion with schismatics, she should not give them priests from herself. At the same time, the question appears, and, for completeness, requires resolution: did the Orthodox Church act in accordance with the above when it gave Orthodox priests to those who joined from the schism with Orthodox priests, with permission to use some special rituals? The following obstacles remove schismatics from church communion: 1) that they consider the Orthodox Church heretical; 2) that they do not obey the church hierarchy; 3) that they use some special rituals, for example, in the sign of the cross there are two fingers instead of three fingers. The first two obstacles are significant, but the third is not significant, because in these rites, although less correct, they do not contradict the essential dogmas of faith. Since the first two obstacles were destroyed by the co-religionists in themselves, because they recognized the church as holy and entered into obedience to the hierarchy, the Orthodox Church correctly accepted them into communion and gave them priests, showing leniency in allowing insignificant differences in rituals, since in the Orthodox churches, from time to time, according to countries, some local insignificant differences in rituals from ancient times were tolerated without condemnation. At the same time, our predecessors did not act with strict accuracy in that they were satisfied with the assumption of the consent of the eastern hierarchy, which participated in the condemnation of the schismatics, to their orders, and did not seek its consent through proper communication. The schismatics found a reason to object to this, and this experience shows how leniency towards schismatics, not protected by strict caution, can turn to the detriment of Orthodoxy. From the respect in which the Orthodox Church showed leniency to its co-religionists, it is clear that it showed them all the leniency that it could show without violating its own duties. Turning to the magazine on December 3, I find in it a justly cautious demand to find measures of leniency towards schismatics, “without shaking in any way the foundations on which our holy church is based,” “without shaking the fundamental rules of the church and state.” Considering this demand, under the protection of this just caution, I find it necessary to conclude that the Orthodox Church cannot, without wavering the sacred rules with which it is firmly established, give priests to schismatics, with the condition they propose of independence from the church hierarchy, and that it does not seem possible to provide them with any new indulgence that would promise benefit and not harm. March 28. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Metropolitan of Novgorod, with a draft message from the Holy Synod to the Ecumenical Patriarch on the revocation of the oath imposed on schismatics by the Moscow Cathedral of 1667 from fellow believers. In my opinion on the 19th day of this March 325, it was mentioned that our predecessors did not act with strict accuracy when, accepting into church communion those who came from the schism of fellow believers and resolving them from the curse placed on the schismatics by the council of 1667, they assumed only the consent of the Eastern patriarchs, and did not ask for this consent through intercourse, and that the schismatics found in this a reason for objections. The schismatics say that the Holy Synod, as a smaller council, did not have the right alone to lift the curse imposed by the larger council, in which the Eastern patriarchs participated, that therefore co-religionists remain under the curse, using rituals condemned by the council, and that therefore it is dangerous to join the co-religionist church. For the impartial, the objection is not strong, and is destroyed by a simple answer: if you are in doubt about joining the Edinoverie Church, then join unconditionally the Orthodox Church, which is obviously immune to the curse of the Council of 1667. But schismatics do not easily recognize the difference between correct and incorrect conclusions, and repeat the same objection, despite the answers they receive. Therefore, it is worthy of attention that the above-mentioned objection, especially often and persistently repeated by schismatics today, should be destroyed in a way that is obvious to them; and in order to enter into communication with the Eastern Patriarch from the Holy Synod, in this way: 1) State that the schismatics excommunicated themselves from the Orthodox Church, uttering slander and blasphemy against it, allegedly damaging it, and even changing the faith, refusing to obey the church hierarchy and stubbornly holding on to uncorrected church books, and did not accept the corrected ones. 2) State the condemnation pronounced on them for this by the council of 1667. 3) State that since the beginning of this century, many schismatics have abandoned their blasphemy against the Orthodox Church and their disobedience, and recognized it as holy and submitted to its hierarchy, but at the same time asked to leave them the use of old printed, uncorrected books, and some imperfect rituals. 4) State that the Holy Synod, after eliminating the important and significant reasons for excommunication, accepted them into church communion and, out of well-intentioned condescension, left without condemnation the use of old printed books and imperfect rituals. 5) In conclusion, state that although the Holy Synod has no doubt that by its order it did not in the least deviate from the unanimity of faith with the Eastern Patriarchs and the entire Eastern Church, but, for the clearer admonition of those who are mistaken and for the confirmation of those who doubt, it proposes this matter to the discretion of the Eastern Patriarchs, in the hope that they will resolve the schismatics who cease their blasphemy and opposition, recognizing the holiness of the Orthodox Churches and those entering into obedience, from the oath of the council of 1667, they deigned to approve with their consent the use of imperfect books and rituals by those entering into the communion of the Orthodox Church and also agreed to leave without condemnation, so that with such condescension those who have gone astray from it would be more conveniently acquired by the Orthodox Church, with the hope that over time they will come to their senses more fully and from the imperfect they will proceed to the perfect. For this very purpose, I present this in addition to my opinion on the 19th day, would it please your Eminence to propose this for the consideration of the Holy Synod. April 3. Metropolitan Philaret's note on Roulier's essay: “The Life of Animals” Prince 327 Odoevsky, in a letter, “very confidential” dated March 20, 1858, to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A.P. Tolstoy, wrote: “I have heard rumors that something is being prepared against geology - I don’t know where and for what. If this concerns you in any way, then out of my old affection and sincere respect for you, I consider it my sacred duty to most convincingly ask you to suspend this matter, if possible. Russia has already suffered enough troubles and losses from the strange persecution of geology, thanks to which we still do not have our daily bread, that is, coal and drainage, while all this persecution is based simply on ignorance of the subject. Anyone who took the trouble to confuse the formation of the earth's crust with the creation of the world is painfully short-sighted in the natural sciences. This is the same as mixing optics with the creation of luminaries, or the sun, or resuming the persecution of the Copernican system, tearing down the Pulkovo Observatory. Few of those involved in the comparison of geological data (such as Wiseman, Desser and others) find, as Cuvier said, that geology serves as a new confirmation of the truths of the Pentateuch. Yes, the main thing is that geology has as much to do with religion as all the physical and mathematical sciences. This science now plays an important role in all industrial production and without it one cannot take a single step; it has already become popular throughout Germany, England and France; it is taught not only in secondary schools, but also in our public schools. What good will it be, given the current state of affairs, to raise laughter throughout Europe, to give food for magazine epigrams, and new weapons to the opponents of our church, of whom, unfortunately, there are already many, and who do not sleep. But you can’t write everything down in writing. How can we see each other? I was so alarmed by this perhaps incorrect rumor (which I sincerely wish) that I would have gone to you immediately, but I have been sick for the past week and am not going anywhere.” Prince Odoevsky's letter was sent to Metropolitan Philaret 328, who devoted the following opinion to his analysis. The defender of geology says that it has already lost persecution and troubles. He does not provide evidence for this. And it is known that geology can freely move from non-public lectures to public ones, then to the Moscow Gazette, then to the Provincial Gazette, and it is precisely that geology that wants to dig up cosmogony from the graves of the ancient mineral, plant and animal world. One should not look for articles of this kind in journals. Rather, you can look into the book: Animal Life. Three public lectures. Roulier. 1851 329. On page 8 are written verses from the first chapter of Genesis about the six days of creation. Then comes its own cosmogony. Country 9. “In the most distant era of the existence of the solar system, it looked like a huge air-shaped ball.” This most distant era lies with the writer much further than 7000 years ago, and therefore further than the first book of Genesis; and it already has a solar system. And where it came from, he does not take the trouble to notify us. “The whole ball was spinning on its own axis.” Where did the axle come from? and who made the rotation? Country 19. “This ball, gradually releasing heat into the surrounding space, decreased in volume.” Where does the warmth come from? And if there was an internal source of it, why did it not compensate for the warmth given off? Who measured the reduction in volume! “The cooling of the air-shaped ball continued and increased its speed.” Why did it increase? Look at a steam engine: reduced heat will increase the speed of movement or decrease it! “In its further destinies, the air-shaped ball lost, etc.” Will the reader be able to agree with these further destinies, as well as all of the above, with the first chapter of the book of Genesis? Will he not fall into the temptation to be carried away by scientific dreams from historical truth? Country 21. The process of combustion began “on a huge scale at all points of the airy globe.” Is there anything similar to this in the biblical six days of creation? Country 27. With them (with plants and animals on earth) the reliable history of our planet begins; with them ends that era regarding the earth, which in general history is called mythological”? Before the appearance of plants and animals on earth, it was said: let there be light; let there be firmament; let dry land appear. So all this, according to the author’s reasoning, belongs to the mythological era. Here are examples of the kind of geology we preach. Here is evidence that it is not true. And, in fairness, we can add: here is evidence that it requires careful attention so that wise people, especially through the Moscow and Provincial Gazette, do not teach even the townspeople and peasants to find mythology in the book of Genesis. Let geology look for anthracite. Let him work for industrial purposes. Of course, no one says a word against this, or will say anything. April 7. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, with the attachment of an opinion about the schismatics’ desire to have priests dependent directly on the Holy Synod 331 Yesterday, having given Your Excellency an answer about priests to schismatics from the Holy Synod, I remained in peace. But now the idea of ​​writing about this came to me strongly; and at the same time I send a note explaining the matter, as time allows. I would also like to say goodbye to you personally at your place, but I’m afraid to make it difficult for you at the time when you are preparing to travel. May the Lord grant you a guardian angel of peace, a companion and a mentor. Deign to greet from me the Bishop of Novgorod and other members and those present of the Holy Synod. Your Excellency's most humble servant and pilgrim, To give schismatics priests from the Holy Synod, with their removal from diocesan bishops, under the condition of declaring that they do not consider the church heretical and do not condemn the hierarchy, would be wrong and inconvenient, for the following reasons: 1) An example of this matter cannot be the position of the court and army clergy. There is no doubt about Orthodoxy here, but there is. The special administration of the court clergy is based on reverence for the sovereign, the army - local inconvenience for the diocesan administration - good reasons: the supposed position of priests among the schismatics would be based on the open or hidden thought of non-Orthodoxy and the waywardness of the schismatics. It would be harmful to give in to this. 2) It is incredible that the schismatics accepted the above conditions. To be rejected by them is humiliating and harmful. The dissenters will not fail to spread the idea everywhere that we admit that we were wrong and offered a concession, but that they did not accept, remaining firm in the faith. 3) The court and army clergy are not completely cut off from the diocese, and in this there is both unity and convenience. Diocesan bishops ordain. Some cases, for example divorce cases, go to consistory. What should schismatics do in such cases? Will the Holy Synod really become the first instance of judgment for them? 4) The court and army clergy are governed by persons of high position, members of the Holy Synod. Is it really possible that something similar will be established to supervise and manage schismatics, to please the democratic demands of the schismatics? 5) It sometimes happens that an entire parish is dissatisfied with the priest and bishop, for example, in the event of a dispute about the allocation of land to a church. What if such a parish asks for a priest of its own choice, independent of the bishop, and to prove its request, present an example of such priests given to schismatics, and add the conclusion: we Orthodox, of course, have a greater right to receive what is given to schismatics? April 20. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A.P. Tolstoy, about the Sarov desert Writing to your Excellency for the first time, after recent personal relations, I cannot begin otherwise than with sincere gratitude for your precious disposition, which gave me the freedom and convenience to reveal my thoughts and opinions on the affairs of the Orthodox Church. Please also accept my sincere gratitude for the Master of Sergievsky 333. He will zealously try to justify your patronage. Now I wrote to the Bishop of Novgorod that I decided to confront him about a matter that was foreign to me. I address the same to your Excellency. The Right Reverend of Tambov 334 wants to take the Sarov hermitage for himself. In my opinion, one cannot help but fear that this will upset this, one of the remarkable cenobitic monasteries. The abbot independently rules with authority, according to the legends of the monastery: if, instead of him, there is a bishop's deputy, this one will not have authority; and the Eminence is far away. The goal of the Eminence, probably, as other examples show, is especially to take advantage of the economic methods of the monastery; but this can also damage the economic improvement of the monastery. The Right Reverends, who were taking monasteries for themselves not for the first time, as if for rent, probably pointed to the example of monasteries governed by metropolitans. This is a completely different matter. For the Lavra, the archimandrite would have been displeased with the strength and resources. The Metropolitan has more means both to fill it with worthy people and to cleanse it of unworthy people. In some communal monasteries, monastic education itself is stronger than in regular ones. Therefore, the former especially need to be supported, both for monasticism itself and for the needs of the government. For example, for the Jerusalem mission, a manual was found in the hostel Optina Desert. May you be pleased to pay attention to this when deciding the fate of the Sarov desert. Invoking God's blessing to you, with perfect respect and devotion, I have the honor to be your Excellency, dear sir, most humble servant. April 25. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolaevich, forwarding the book of Hieromonk Parthenius 336 about the providence of God and with a review of the information collected by Mr. Mansurov about holy places In order not to burden Your Imperial Highness too much, I combine the performance of two duties. Firstly, I have the duty to present here the promised, now published, book by Hieromonk Parthenius on the providence of God, which sets out the origin of the schismatic foreign false hierarchy. Secondly, I have the duty to bring to Your Highness the lowest gratitude for the condescending trust shown in me by allowing me to read the regrettable and unnecessary information about holy places collected by Mr. Mansurov 337 and assumptions. In keeping with Your Highness's condescension, I allow myself to say: it is a great pity that this subject was not given the attention it is receiving now, when it was more convenient to act. I also think with concern that this is printed. Print can hardly be useful. And having learned about this frank presentation of our assumptions, the enemies of Orthodoxy and Russia can strengthen the obstacles even to simple acts of love for humanity in order to put an obstacle to our future views. May the Lord show His wisdom and almighty protection of good intentions. May 3. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to Chamberlain A. N. Bakhmetev regarding the proposed restoration of the tombs of the ancestors of the Sovereign Emperor in the Novospassky Monastery Chamberlain A.N. Bakhmetev, dated April 29, 1858, No. 97, wrote to Metropolitan Philaret. The former vice-president of the palace office, chamberlain, Prince Gruzinsky presented to your Eminence, in the month of May last 1857, a note on various information necessary for the restoration, by the highest order, in the Novospassky monastery, of the tombs of the ancestors of His Imperial Majesty. Since, before receiving this information, the palace office stopped the order according to the report of the architect Richter, which included drawings and estimates for the restoration of 19 tombs, I am in the need to trouble your Eminence with the most humble request for the delivery of information on that memorandum of Prince Gruzinsky. If for some reason this information cannot be delivered, then honor me with your notification.” In this regard, Metropolitan Philaret wrote: “May 2. Reply with a list attached, and with a statement of the inquiry.” Then Metropolitan Philaret, in response to the above-mentioned attitude, dated May 3, No. 190, wrote: By reference, dated April 29 (No. 97), Your Excellency, having mentioned the note from the vice-president of the palace office, the chamberlain, Prince Gruzinsky, please demand from me the information necessary for the restoration of the tombs of the ancestors of His Imperial Majesty in the Novospassky monastery. In 1857, Prince Gruzinsky actually gave me a short note, not signed by anyone, containing only a small part of the matter under consideration, indicating the attitude of the Novospassky Archimandrite to the President, without a full statement of its contents. Therefore, I requested information from the Novospassky Archimandrite 339, and the unclear information was verified using documents. In February of this year, the president of the palace office, in relation to the 27th day (No. 48), delivered to me information from the archives of the armory that in 1615, January 13th, by order of the Empress Grand Elder Martha Ivanovna, forty-six cloth covers were made at the Novospassky monastery for the tombs of the royal parents. Based on information and inquiries in the Novospassky monastery, the attached list of ancestors of the safely reigning house of the Romanovs was compiled, identifying the places where one of them rests in the Novospassky monastery. This list shows 28 persons of the Romanov dynasty, of whom it is undoubtedly known where they rest: 23 under the cathedral church, and 5 under the Znamenskaya church. But there are only 20 tombs in mind, because there are no tombs over the 4 young children of Theodore (Filaret) Nikitich, who rest under the cathedral church; and under Znamenskaya, where his 4 brothers and Ivan’s young son rest, there is only one wide tomb. Of the 20 tombs, 11 have inscriptions from which the persons who rested here are reliably known. 9 tombs have no inscriptions. Who is resting under each of them is undoubtedly determined by the instructions of the feed book. This requires explanation. According to ancient custom, the monastery kept a book in which those buried in the monastery were recorded, in which, in addition to their names and rank, the days of their birth and death were shown, in order to know when to make special commemorations for them, and at the same time the place of their grave and tomb was noted, so that, when commemorating each one, one could unmistakably come to his tomb to perform the litiya. Since during such commemorations there was food for the brethren of the monastery, that is, an offer of special funeral food and drink, the above-mentioned notebook was nicknamed fodder. From this it can be seen that the indication of the fodder book on the burial place and tomb of a person, as contemporary with the burial, deserves full confidence and, if the name of the deceased is not on the tomb, makes it possible to restore it with certainty. This is done in the attached list. To this it is not difficult to add the birthdays and deaths of each person from the same fodder book, which is what was done in the above-mentioned relationship of the archimandrite to the city president. The fodder book also indicates the burial place of minors, over whom there are no tombs, but, of course, not as definitely as it would be with the help of a tomb. So that the present inquiry does not seem incomplete and unfinished, it is still necessary to consider some of the questions arising from it. 1) How in 1615 46 covers were placed on the tombs, and this, apparently, leads to the conclusion that there were 46 tombs, but now only 20 tombs have been opened, and only 28 are buried: then why are there not 22 more tombs? There seems to be no means of achieving a satisfactory answer to this. Three hundred years from the burial of the founder of the Romanov dynasty to the present day is such a long stretch of time, changing and destroying everything on earth, which cannot be traced not only by accurate inquiry, but also by guesswork. The tombs of the closest relatives of the royal house, especially known from the inscriptions on them, were of course protected with special care, and were maintained when dilapidated. But tombs that were not inscribed, less well-known, after centuries of decay or damage by some special event, could be completely abolished. In this regard, we can recall the year 1812, when the French, having occupied the Novospassky monastery, unsuccessfully tortured the governor, interrogating him about hidden treasures. It could happen that they continued their search in the tomb in a destructive manner for monuments that did not have ancient inscriptions in their protection. There is another kind of probability that can explain the matter even more simply. The archival record counts 46 tomb covers, without showing how many tombs there are. Could it have happened that for each tomb there were two coverings: one worse, always used, and therefore unable to maintain its appearance for a long time, and the other better, which would be kept carefully and placed on the tombs only on days of remembrance and during visits to the tomb by royal persons? In this case, 46 covers would go to 23 tombs; and this number is close to the current number. 2) Is it necessary to re-arrange the tombs that do not exist for the four minors? It's inconvenient; because the stern book only indicates between which tombs they were buried, and does not determine the exact places. What, by the will of God's providence, is hidden by time, to leave hidden means to submit to the arrangement of God's providence. 3) After what has been found out, should the search continue for the undiscovered burial places of some individuals of the Romanov family? In all likelihood, there will be no means of obtaining information about this that is as accurate and reliable as has been acquired so far. We thank God that the monuments of the founder of the royal family of the Romanovs and its closest branches have been preserved inviolably. Most pious Sovereign Emperor, it is enough to fulfill his duty to his pious ancestors if, with his royal attention, he preserves for future times those monuments of them that the providence of God preserved before his reign. In Gees. sk. No. 190. May 3, 1858 List of ancestors of the safely reigning house of Romanov, with identification of places where one of them rests in the Novospassky monastery I. Under the Cathedral Church of the Transfiguration: 1) The founder of the House of Romanov, Roman Yuryevich Zakharyin. His stone tomb is undoubtedly known from the inscription of his name on it. 2) His son Nikita Romanovich. His tomb was reliably identified according to the instructions of the fodder book. 3) His other son Dalmat Romanovich. His tomb is known by the inscription on it. 4) The third son of Roman Yuryevich, Daniil Romanovich. His tomb is known by the inscription on it. 5) Daniil Romanovich’s wife is noblewoman Anna. Her tomb was determined according to the instructions of the fodder book. 6) Nikita Romanovich’s wife – Varvara. Her tomb is known by the inscription on it. 7) The first wife of Alexander Nikitich Romanov is Evdokia, daughter of Prince Ioann Yuryevich Golitsyn. Her tomb is known by the inscription on it. 8) The second wife of Alexander Nikitich is Juliania Simeonovna. Her tomb is known by the inscription on it. 9) Nikita Romanovich’s daughter – Irina Nikitichna, wife of Ivan Ivanovich Godunov. Her tomb was determined according to the instructions of the fodder book. 10) Another daughter of Nikita Romanovich is Anna Nikitichna, the wife of Prince Ivan Fedorovich Troekurov. Her tomb was determined according to the instructions of the fodder book. 11) Marfa Nikitichna, sister of Theodore (Filaret) Nikitich, third daughter of Nikita Romanovich Yuryev, wife of Prince Boris Kambulatovich Cherkassky. Her tomb was determined according to the instructions of the fodder book. 12) The mother of Tsar Mikhail Feodorovich is a nun, a great elder, Martha, the former Ksenia, the wife of the courtyard governor Feodor Nikitich Romanov, and then a monk, metropolitan and finally Patriarch Philaret. Her tomb is known by the inscription on it. 13) Daughter of Tsar Mikhail Feodorovich - Irina Mikhailovna. Her tomb is known by the inscription on it. 14) Daughter of Theodore (Filaret) Nikitich Romanov, Tatyana Feodorovna. Her tomb is known by the inscription on it. Young children of Theodore (Filaret) Nikitich: (There are no tombs; their burial place is shown by the fodder book near the tombs of Tatiana Feodorovna and the Great Elder Martha). 19) The daughter of Ioann Nikitich is the maiden Paraskeva Ioannovna. Her tomb is known by the inscription on it. 20) Her young brother Ivan Ivanovich Romanov. His tomb was determined according to the instructions of the fodder book. 21) The daughter of Daniil Nikitich Romanov is Princess Anna, the wife of Prince Feodor Vasilyevich Obolensky. Her tomb is known by the inscription on it. 22) Another daughter of Daniil Nikitich is Princess Fotinia Shestunova. Her tomb was determined according to the instructions of the fodder book. 23) The wife of Ivan Nikitich Romanov is noblewoman Juliania. Her tomb was determined according to the instructions of the fodder book. II. Under the Znamenskaya Church Brothers of Filaret Nikitich Romanov: 27) Their fourth brother is Ivan Nikitich. (The burial place of their stern book indicates under the Znamenskaya Church, where there is one tomb, its size showing that it covers more than one deceased). 28) His son is boyar Nikita Ivanovich. The burial place of his stern book indicates under the Znamenskaya Church near his father 340. May 12. Report of Metropolitan Philaret to the Holy Synod on the current situation of the schism of the priestless sect in Moscow The secret decree of the Holy Synod, dated August 19, 1855 (No. 621), ordered me to draw up an extract from the report on the current situation of the schism of the non-priest sect in Moscow and its appendices and submit it to the Holy Synod with my conclusion. I present such an extract, compiled with literal accuracy. G. Actual State Councilor Ignatiev 341, being in Moscow, at the time when he collected his information presented in this report, entering into relations with both co-religionists and schismatics, acted with such prudence, good intentions, impartiality and goodwill towards everyone that while those disposed towards the same faith were supported and strengthened by him in this disposition, and the schismatics converted to him with a power of attorney. His sudden recall from Moscow stopped an action that had brought significant benefits to the common faith, and promised even greater benefits if it had been continued. Thus, he himself provides an example of what he says in his report: “the schismatics have become accustomed to the conviction that any measure taken by the government that concerns them can in no way be continued in the same spirit until the results are achieved.” The testimony of the actual state councilor Ignatiev about the non-popovschina split in Moscow is important as the testimony of a direct, attentive and impartial observer; because one often notices a prejudice against information about this presented by the clergy, as if originating from a one-sided view, or from an unsatisfactorily correct inquiry. Therefore, it will not be useless here, just as in the attached extract 342, to present in his own words an abbreviated overview of the present subject: “The almshouse, as the main residence of the schism of the priestless sect, had influence on all branches of the priestless sect throughout Russia, directed the spread of the schism everywhere, supported it with money, connections, the appointment of abbots and spiritual fathers to well-known points, resolved all issues, and at the same time acquired capital through various oppressions, permanent and temporary deposits.” “In order to increase his followers, he used cunning charity to persuade them: some were bought off, others were given ways to hire recruits for themselves. They lent money without interest, and, as the debtor became more zealous for a split, they sometimes forgave them; debts were paid for some; sheltered fugitives and criminals pursued by the government.” “Some manufacturers were guided by exceptional rules of preferring their followers to the Orthodox, which is why many of the latter, out of necessity, were sometimes carried away, and are still carried away, into the community of schism.” According to the diocesan observation, this is the general modus operandi of schismatic manufacturers. “Deepening into the moral position of the non-priest schismatics, into their innermost home life and the sectarian concepts they have adopted, everyone, with full inquiries, is amazingly struck by the expression of ignorance, depravity and superstition.” The compiler of the report reveals that “old women mentors, fearing that the need for marriage would not serve as a reason for young people of both sexes to move from the schism to the church, deliberately involve them in fornication, followed by infanticide, excused by the false wisdom of the mentors, and, with the instability of legal unions, a disorder of morality for life.” “The false teaching of priestlessness: - undoubtedly believe that the Antichrist has already come to earth, and, reigning invisibly, destroyed every shrine in the church; The power established by God has been abolished, and one should not pray to God for the tsar at services, and one should not call him emperor.” “In priestless sects, over time, all religious beliefs have been forgotten and destroyed; and everything moves and is based on the same interests and immorality. In them, authorities and civil laws are trampled; The autocracy of God’s anointed is rejected by schisms, the common and firm stronghold and strength of the people in unity bound by religion is destroyed.” “And these very divisions find patronage in influential persons.” The view of the report’s compiler on the priestless schism presented here, in fairness, makes us wish that his last remark about the patronage of this schism by influential persons was not, or ceased to be, fair. For this reason, we must consider the report’s author’s assumptions about ways to weaken the split: 1) Establishment of constant and immediate supervision over schismatics. The requirement is undefined. In my opinion, it should be stated as follows: the establishment of faithful and vigilant supervision over proselytism and manifestations of schism, and the unrelenting use of legal measures against them. 2) In terms of converting schismatics to the church, there is continuous communication with them. And it's uncertain; and, in my opinion, it should mean: the urgent encouragement of the clergy to find opportunities in every possible way and use “means to admonish schismatics. 3) Removal from among schismatic communities of dissenters and mentors who are harmful in influence. This measure is necessary and promising if it is used prudently and fairly, when legitimate reasons for this are revealed. 4) Removal of persons who aspire to become the head of the sect and instill various absurd interpretations. This measure is the same as the previous one. 5) Gradual closure of schismatic prayer houses, especially those newly opened and existing without permission. The measure is necessary. 6) Observation that illegally cohabiting schismatics of the non-popovshchina sect are not registered as their wives, that schismatics of this sect are in no case called Old Believers, that Moscow schismatics of this sect are not registered in other cities with false testimony of their wives and children, under the guise of being legitimate, which has already happened. The measure is fair, and can contribute to the conversion of schismatics to legal marriage in the church. 7) Opening of schools. A measure worthy of encouragement. 8) Of the number of prayer houses included in the extract from the report, as the most noteworthy, it is especially necessary to inquire and consider the authorities about prayer houses No. 3. 4. 6. 7. 9. 10. 11. 12. 17. 18. 21. 22. 23. 9) 32 people shown in the list of schismatics, especially harmful for the spread of heresy, if they were subjected to faithful and vigilant supervision, their illegal actions could be revealed, and at the same time the harm they caused could be averted. It may happen that the assumptions presented here will not meet favorably with the thought of toleration. The thought is plausible, but fair only when its subject and limits are correctly and accurately defined. The idea of ​​​​preserving the unity of religion that dominates the state (which protects the unity of the national spirit, a source of strength for the state and an important aid to governance) must stand above the thought of religious tolerance and set limits to it. This rule, even in England, which boasts of its free institutions, is strong and even excessively strong. Only recently have Roman Catholics been admitted to parliament. Only recently was the government awarded a financial allowance to the Roman Catholic Maynooth Seminary, and those who are zealous for the protection of the dominant Anglican religion have not yet ceased to argue against this in Parliament. In England there is a small church tax, which dissidents (who differ in faith) are obliged to pay in favor of the Church of England, the abolition of which has already been debated in Parliament many times, but without success, because “those belonging to the dominant church, especially conservative politicians, see in the church tax a connection of unity between church and state.” With this foreign example, it is not useless to compare the opinion in Russia of those who are still in favor of a split, in condemnation of the government, bitterly recalling the long-destroyed double tax on schismatics, as if persecution extends to current schismatics. Before foreign states, Russia can boast of religious tolerance towards recognized Christian religions, and even non-Christian ones; but tolerance, unlimitedly extended to the schism, which arose as much from disobedience of the church, as much from rebellion against the state, and with its intensified proselytism constantly acts to the detriment of church and state unity, would be both an injustice against the church and a grave political error. While the most pious Sovereign Emperor demonstrates his sacred character as a defender of the Orthodox Church in action even outside the borders of his power, and when the Austrian government, not for its own benefits, but out of respect for its allied Russia, destroys the nests of schism built within its borders by the Russian Rogozh schismatics, and scares away the night birds that flew there from Russia, without a doubt it must hope that in order to preserve the peace and tranquility of the Orthodox Church in Russia, and to protect it from schismatic slander and tricks against it, the sovereign power will use real means that its piety and wisdom will help it discover. The report of the actual state councilor Ignatiev and the appendices to it, with an inventory, are returned 343. May 17. Comments by Metropolitan Philaret on the draft ceremony for the consecration of St. Isaac's Cathedral 344 Some who were in St. Petersburg brought information to Moscow that a draft ceremony had been drawn up for the celebration of the consecration of St. Isaac's Cathedral, and that this draft contains features that raise doubts as to whether they will be consistent with the spirit of the celebration, and concern about what impression they will make among Orthodox and non-Orthodox people. In the ceremonial procession, by the way, a detachment of troops from non-Christian tribes is appointed. These warriors “of course” will not enter the church. But their presence at a purely church celebration is not as decent as it is at a state celebration. The walk around the cathedral according to the rite of consecration, they say, is supposed to be combined with the walk around the monument to Peter the Great. This requires careful consideration. The circumambulation of the consecrated church, with the cross, the Gospel, icons and holy relics, belongs essentially to the sacred rite of consecrating the church. But the monument does not require consecration, and consecration similar to the consecration of a church does not befit it. Consequently, circumambulation of the monument would be inconsistent with church rites and would upset it. They say that the design of the ceremony calls for stopping the church procession in front of the monument and proclaiming the eternal memory of Peter the Great. It is a very extraordinary spectacle to imagine that your Eminence, in full vestments, with holy relics on your head, among the clergy with a cross, the Gospel and icons, is standing in front of an equestrian statue and the protodeacon is proclaiming and the choir is singing eternal memory in front of the equestrian statue. May I be forgiven for daring to say what I have already heard, that this would represent the elevation of the unsacred over the sacred. Every church prayer proclamation takes place before the altar or before the holy icon. Here, instead, there will be an equestrian statue. Non-Orthodox, especially Western Christians, always strenuously looking for imaginary guilt in the Orthodox Church, will, of course, find in such an action a strong reason for cruel reproaches against it. The schismatics will do the same; and from this great harm can occur for Orthodoxy. It is also necessary to take into account the fact that the Greek hierarchy, strictly adhering to the rules of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, does not even approve of sculptured icons; and I personally happened to hear the harsh expressions of one Greek clergyman about this. By this we can judge to what extent the church ceremony in front of an equestrian statue will seem non-Orthodox to the Orthodox Eastern hierarchy; and the weapons of Western propaganda, trying to upset the unanimity of the Greek Church with the Russian, will, of course, not fail to take advantage of this opportunity and instill in the Eastern hierarchy the most unfavorable thoughts about the Russian Church. The Lord has appointed Your Eminence as the primary guardian of Orthodoxy and peace of the Orthodox Church in Russia. I have no doubt that your enlightened pious zeal will present this subject to the most pious Sovereign Emperor in the light of truth, if the above-mentioned features of the ceremony are known to you in good time. In case they are true and unknown to you, I make it my sacred duty to openly express to you my thoughts, which I present to your prudent attention. If it pleases the most pious Sovereign Emperor, during the consecration of St. Isaac's Church, to honor the memory of Emperor Peter the Great, then this can be done decently and in accordance with church rites, if, after the consecration of the church and after the proclamation of many years of prosperous reign to the Sovereign Emperor, it will be proclaimed: to the most pious Emperor Peter the Great, eternal memory 345. May 28. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count L.P. Tolstoy, with his opinion about the Moscow schismatics and the so-called “spiritual conversations” Count A.P. Tolstoy, in a letter dated May 20, 1858, forwarding to Metropolitan Philaret the following delivered to him by the chief of gendarmes: 1) a note about church utensils found among some of the schismatics living in Moscow; 2) a copy of the relationship between the Moscow military governor-general and the chief of gendarmes, adjutant general Prince Dolgorukov, No. 469, about the search for the schismatic false archbishop Anthony; 3) a copy from the letter of the false bishop Arkady to Anthony and 4) copies from two spiritual conversations, asked the Moscow archpastor, after reading the papers, to return them. With gratitude, for the trust shown, I return the note and copies from the relationship, from the letter and from the two so-called spiritual conversations. I believe that your Excellency will find it remarkable that the discovery made in Moscow by the civil authorities of the schismatics, and which is of significant importance for the Orthodox Church, was not known to the diocesan authorities for a month. The schismatics know this; and interpret this in their favor. True, the deans, by hearsay, informed me that there had been a search in three schismatic houses, which was attributed to great significance; but they could not provide detailed and reliable information. Lay people, Orthodox and fellow believers, told me about this; and, of course, it seemed strange to them that I knew less about this than they did. Only these days, a deputy invited to the investigation presented me with information consistent with the contents of the papers communicated to me by your Excellency. I can present something to your Excellency’s attention about the so-called spiritual conversations. These are the essence of excerpts from the feuilleton No. 6 of the Petersburg Gazette, to which a refutation was written in No. 9 of the Spiritual Conversation. Please see that in these passages equal dignity is attributed to the Christian temple, synagogue, mosque and temple, and consequently to the Christian, Jew, Mohammedan and pagan. If a schismatic false bishop was captivated by such a teaching and described it and honored it with the title of spiritual conversation, is this an old faith that some want to patronize? And if he wrote this out, pointing to No. 9 of the Orthodox, weekly published, Spiritual Conversation, in order to attribute wicked thoughts to the Orthodox timely publication (while it refutes them), and thereby raise schismatics against Orthodoxy, then what a blatant and unscrupulous slander this is! May the Lord not abandon his holy help to the defenders of Orthodoxy; and to those who have the power to protect it, may he bestow insightful and prudent wisdom. June 11. Metropolitan Philaret's comments on the draft general guidance for leadership on matters of schism The Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A.P. Tolstoy, with a Confidential Letter dated June 7, having forwarded, compiled by the highest order to the Ministry of Internal Affairs, a draft general instruction for leadership in executive actions and during meetings on matters related to the schism, asked Metropolitan Philaret to communicate his thoughts regarding this project. At the top, on the 1st page of this relationship, by the hand of Metropolitan Philaret it is marked: June 11. Replies with a note. Something about the draft general instructions for leadership in matters of schism If we accept in full force the first half of § 3: the spiritual authorities in any matters on the subject of schism do not make demands or denunciations to the secular authorities, then it will be impossible to fulfill the second half of the same §: to enter into communication with the local authorities in circumstances of real importance and in individual cases of seduction from Orthodoxy to schism. If the last half must be fulfilled, then in the first the expression is inappropriate: in no matter. Decree of the Holy Synod of April 5, 1845 347 is given here incorrectly. On the subject of schism, this decree prohibits not the ecclesiastical authorities from making demands or denunciations to the secular authorities, but the priests of those parishes where schismatics live and orders them to bring this to the attention of their diocesan bishop. According to the true meaning of this decree, §3 should be stated as follows: The parish clergy does not address any matters regarding the subject of schism with demands or denunciations to the secular authorities, but enters into such matters with reports to their diocesan bishop; and he enters into contact with the secular authorities only in circumstances of real importance, and in certain cases of seduction from Orthodoxy into schism, or in cases of a schism that is tempting for the Orthodox. by the force of existing laws and highest commands, requires the following addition: The reopening of a schismatic prayer room, the placing of a cross over the prayer room, and the use of bells during prayer is also recognized as evidence of schism. But if a schismatic tries to marry an Orthodox person, it is imperative to refuse. In § 13, the following is not clear: without overshadowing the circumstances of the investigative proceedings with secret forms that deprive the persons involved in the case of the means of justification. Here we can see an indirect accusation that someone once used secret forms to deprive the persons involved in the case of the means of justification. This never happened. Investigations into schismatics are always carried out according to the existing legal order; and if above the order to the investigator it is written: secret, then this does not give him any right to violate the laws during the investigation, and to take away the means of acquittal. If § 13 hints that the investigated cases of schismatics are submitted to secret committees, then this is done already when the investigation has been carried out in accordance with the laws that provide means of justification for those involved in the case; and when the investigation clearly reveals the circumstances of the case, the secret committee cannot obscure them. The law should not slander by condemning a crime of clerks that they do not commit and for which they have no reason 348. July 16. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count L.P. Tolstoy, regarding the replacement of the Archbishop of Yaroslavl, who was present at the Synod, with the Bishop of Kharkov I blame myself a lot for not writing to your Excellency for a long time, not being able to grasp the time. I made short trips to the Savvin Monastery to consecrate the church, to the Ugreshsky Monastery to inspect the new buildings and the newly built hostel, to the Davidov Hermitage, and together to consecrate the rural church. Two of these trips, in unfavorable weather, were not without difficulties for me. After the last one, I hurried to the Lavra for the academy to see the preliminary tests, and then the final; set aside a day for the Khotkov monastery, and two for testing the Bethany seminary; returned to Moscow last Friday; on Saturday I was at the Znamensky monastery in a sacred service, in memory of the royal and imperial family 349; on Sunday - at the burial of the Nikitsky abbess 350; on Monday - on probation at the Moscow seminary, and yesterday he was forced to stay at home with his affairs and petitions, leaving the end of the test to the Reverend vicar. Your Excellency kindly informed me that the Right Reverend of Yaroslavl 351 yields his turn at the Holy Synod to the Right Reverend of Kharkov 352 . What can I say to this? I wish that this one will cooperate usefully with the members of the Holy Synod, and receive benefit for himself from communication with them, which his predecessor hardly enjoyed. If he had enjoyed the convenience of council with his brethren, he probably would not have printed what he printed in his word on the great heel in the April book of Christian reading: ancient Rome is inspired by faith in its great destiny; with this faith he takes up arms against kingdoms and nations; and faith does not put him to shame. The king of Moab submits in despair to the suggestions of his faith and offers his son as a burnt offering. Terrible sacrifice! But, being a matter of faith, she writes off the Moabites. Is this the kind of faith that should be preached on Great Heel? Apparently, the huge St. Petersburg censorship bowed before the importance of a person, and not before the pure truth of faith. The good advice that was called would hardly have allowed us to put the name of an Orthodox bishop on a book about Buddhism, in which a detailed description of the rules of Buddhist worship with details only accessible to an eyewitness, and other absurdities of Buddhism, is peppered with unexplained Mongolian words, and Latin verses from Horace, Ovid, Lucretius, etc. I spoke with Mr. Solomon 353 with the frankness instilled in me by your Excellency about everything for which he gave me the opportunity. Only about our diocesan affairs did not happen to have a question from him and enter into a discussion. I think that what is needed here is not any transformation, but the choice of people and supervision. It is necessary for the Bishop of Novgorod to watch over our brethren, the bishops, and sometimes awaken the pure meaning by reminding us. Earnestly 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, Please read the attached note about Professor Lebedev 354 and, if possible, be lenient with his request, based on the advice of a doctor 355. August 24. Metropolitan Philaret's opinion on the note of priest I. L. Yanyshev 356 regarding the issue of establishing a community of sisters of mercy with Orthodox Russia Priest I.L. Yanyshev, in a note regarding the issue of establishing a community of sisters of mercy in Orthodox Russia, made the following comments: “The community of sisters of mercy is not an almshouse or a shelter for female widows and orphans, nor is it like a school or, in general, like any charitable or educational institution for women. This is a holy society of chosen Christian women, for the love of Christ the Savior and for the sake of their salvation, they voluntarily left everything in the world in order to serve the Lord in the person of His lesser brethren: the sick, orphans, children, strangers and wanderers.” The creation of such a society is obviously beyond the power of any person. Having self-sacrifice and love for Christ the Savior as the basis, and the goal being service to Him in the person of suffering or needy neighbors to alleviate their lot spiritually and physically, this society can be created and continue its existence only in the name of Christ the Savior, by the grace of the Holy Spirit, living and acting in the Church of Christ. And if such a society should arise in Orthodox Russia, then this can happen then, firstly, when the impoverishment of love and private charity is discovered among the members of the Orthodox Church and a more or less general conviction matures in the need for a special class of women - official servants of the cause of philanthropy; when, secondly, as a result of the awareness of this need, persons will appear who are actually eager to serve the weak brethren as Christ himself; and when, finally, God will raise up a grace-filled husband-servant of the church, or some great female ascetic, who, through the influence of their example and convictions, would extract from the world and unite around themselves a small flock of chosen women, would strengthen the holy feelings that animate them, and, under the overshadowing and supreme guidance of church authority, would direct them to one or another kind of charitable activity. As long as there is no consciousness in the church of the need for such a community of sisters, until there are persons who are urgently ready, for the sake of serving Christ, to leave and endure everything in the world, and while there is no person, but with an abundance of talents, holiness of life and spiritual influence on others, capable of becoming the head of the chosen Christians and imparting firmness and unity in the direction of their society, until then every attempt to establish this society, all concerns about material means for this, all projects, statutes and rules will be remain fruitless, both for the imaginary founders of communities and for representatives of Christian charity formed at random. The society of deaconesses, who in ancient times had care for the sick on behalf of the church and primarily contributed to the conversion, catechumen and baptism of non-Christian women in the East, as well as the society of parabolans - men who devoted themselves to serving those suffering from contagious diseases, which existed for about two centuries in the ancient Alexandrian church - both of these societies, having some similarities with the communities of sisters of mercy, arose from the needs of the church, existed and acted under the exclusive influence and control of church authority and, strictly speaking, served only as an instrument of the church in its care for the spiritual and physical well-being of its members. The prosperity of some communities of the Roman Catholic Church depends on the fact that they, like deaconesses and parabolans, are not only created by the church, live and governed by it and serve its purposes, but have also become to such an extent necessary for the influence of the church on the mass of the people, always rich in needs and diseases, and especially in preparing the way for missionaries in countries and hearts of non-Catholics, that the decline and prosperity of communities of sisters to some extent can serve as a sign of strengthening or weakening the Roman Catholic faith and the church among the people. It cannot be otherwise: the work and instrument of the church is inseparable from it; otherwise, either the community will deviate from the spirit of the church, or the church will remain a work not of God, but of man. To establish a community for a person who is not called to this work from above, to establish it through non-personal deeds of self-sacrifice, for the sake of Christ, but only with material means and statutes; to establish from persons who have not been at all experienced in the matter of Christian selfless self-sacrifice, who sometimes do not have an ordinary Christian upbringing, who even belong to different faiths and in the community are looking only for shelter and food; therefore, keep this community outside the influence of church authorities and therefore outside its regulations on fasting, prayer, worship, etc.; assign its goal not to save the souls of both the sisters and those to whom they spiritually and materially serve, but, for example, to eradicate the abuses of officials in hospitals, develop honesty in lower servants, etc.; and at the same time decorate the sisters with Christian crosses, and the community with the name of Christian charity: all this is an undertaking that is not only impossible to implement, but also understandable from a church point of view. And such enterprises can be called the so-called communities existing in St. Petersburg: compassionate widows and sisters caring for the sick. Note: You can read about the noble virgin ascetics who performed the duties of sisters of mercy together in the ancient Orthodox Church in St. John Chrysostom in the 13th conversation on the Epistle to the Ephesians, Chron. Readings for May, 1858, pp. 222–223. On Deaconesses and Paravolans: On Church Offices and Institutions, op. Pavel. St. Petersburg. 1857" Metropolitan Philaret gave the following review of this note on August 24, 1858: The note about the sisters of mercy in Russia is a thorough discussion. It is fair that only a person inspired by strong Christian love and self-sacrifice can found and lead an institution of this kind so that it has spirit and life, and bears truly good fruits. But the condemnation that the note pronounces on the establishment of compassionate widows should not be completely accepted. The oath of this society shows that it is appointed to be in a Christian spirit; but this is poorly executed. August 27. Metropolitan Philaret’s opinion on the consideration in the State Council of modern ideas carried out in magazines and newspapers According to the first article about modern ideas and Orthodoxy, one can say that the Holy Synod won the battle against the ministry, but according to the second it is not so. A minister subordinate to the State Council, and together a member of it, cannot object to its determination; on the contrary, a minister who is subordinate to the Holy Synod on matters relating to religion, and cannot be a member of it, objects to the definition of the Holy Synod. One could be prevented from this by informing the minister of the opinion of the spiritual censorship; It would not be offensive to listen to his objections. Or it was necessary to process what was communicated on behalf of the Holy Synod with such caution that any objections that might arise would not require concessions. Many misunderstandings of the present time arise from the fact that the particular is turned into the general. One priest proved unworthy; and they say that the clergy is not good. The editors of one newspaper and two or three secular magazines have published articles with thoughts unfavorable to religion and morality, and zealots say: secular literature is pagan. True, the infection has spread beyond one newspaper and three magazines; but when these are only meant as evidence, then it is easy for the guilty to object to the accusers, that here lies from the particular to the whole, and well-intentioned literature, which has not yet disappeared, is offended. It is necessary to point out the obvious faults of one or another magazine, and contrast them with precise denunciations. Then it is more likely to achieve that the guilty person is appeased; and sic can be useful in taming others. They fight against modern ideas. But aren’t the ideas of Orthodoxy and morality already modern? Are they only in the past? Are we all already pagans? It is not time that is to blame, but the unorthodox and immoral thoughts spread by some people. So, we must fight against thoughts that are unorthodox and immoral, and not against modern ones. September 1st. Note from Metropolitan Philaret regarding the Latin Tiraspol diocesan see, temporarily located in Saratov This note by Metropolitan Philaret was written, probably, regarding an article sent to him, entitled: “On the Latin Tiraspol diocesan see, temporarily located in Saratov.” The Latin Church in Saratov is decorated with paintings inside. As far as I know, this is not common in the Latin churches. They are often content with a picture above the altar. Consequently, this is applied to Russian customs, in the form of proselytism. Could there be several hundred Roman Catholics in Saratov? Has this influx been made to the Latin episcopal see? It seems better not to look for another place for the Latin department other than Tiraspol. For if we appoint something else, then communication with the Roman court will be required, and Latin cunning may once again deceive us. However, the note about the Tiraspol diocese deserves full and careful attention. The pope's expression that he moves the pulpit motu proprio, according to his will, requires attention. First of all, it's a lie; for he was persuaded and forced. Secondly, it is pride that he does not want to admit to yielding to an urgent demand. Thirdly, this trick is unsafe. The general rule is that it operates in Russia with the consent of the emperor. But what the emperor demanded from him is called done according to his, the pope’s, will. He knew that they would not argue about his phrase when he was carrying out the will of the emperor. But when a phrase is allowed once in an act: he gets a reason another time, without the consent of the emperor, to do something motu proprio, and justify himself by the fact that it has already been allowed. September 30. Metropolitan Philaret’s opinion on G. T.’s letter and note by Fr. Savva "split in the Ural army" I. G. T. shows in the Ural army, according to official information: 19,224 Orthodox of both sexes, 37,097 schismatics; in essence: Orthodox 6500, schismatics 53500. The first information is based on documents: what is the latter based on? Round numbers make it clear that this is only an approximate count, and therefore more or less guesswork. The official count, in all likelihood, errs on the side of reduction, because there are schismatics under the guise of Orthodox. But who can guarantee that the latest account is not an exaggeration? This is a constant misfortune in the number of schismatics. They are trying in every possible way to exaggerate their numbers in order to reinforce their own and intimidate the government. II. It is noteworthy that G.T. testified that until 1780 almost the entire army belonged to the Edinoverie Church, and this year it was allowed to accept fugitive priests and build a chapel; and then almost the entire army moved into the chapel. Let us also write down G.T.’s conclusion: “Here is clear proof of the harm caused in Russia by allowing fugitive priests to enter. It is strange that “to this day some people propose this measure.” III. Father Savva writes that, among other things, fugitive soldiers and landowner peasants were housed in the monasteries. This is the case everywhere with schismatics. In Moscow, at the Preobrazhenskoe cemetery, one evil person, long sought by the government, was shown dead, and continued to live after an imaginary death. Inattention to this government may result in the formation of rebel regiments in schismatic dens. IV. Father Savva rightly complains about the heavy words used against schismatics by church writers of past centuries, but does not notice that the conclusions drawn by schismatics from these words are incorrect and unfair. Regarding the previous exaggerated accusations, explanations have been given by writers of the present century. V. O. Savva complains, among other things, about the article on the formation of the finger, published under the Psalter, where those baptized with two fingers are compared to the Armenians, and the Armenians are called damned. When the Holy Synod was in Moscow, in 1856, this was discussed, and a draft amendment to this article was presented at the meeting. What requires attention is why this matter has not been brought to an end; for in the 1857 edition of the Psalter it is printed: damned Armenians (Fol. 5). VI. Father Savva, condemning together Pope Nicholas and Patriarch Photius, put himself higher, being a presbyter and becoming a judge of the ecumenical patriarch and the councils that justified this patriarch. VII. In vain o. Savva thinks to see a contradiction between the 5th apostolic canon and the 12th of the sixth ecumenical council. He does not understand the power of the first of these rules. VIII. O. Savva advises excluding censures against schismatics from books. This deserves attention in relation to the article published under the Psalter, as stated above. Some books with grave roots against schismatics do not need to be printed again, because they have been replaced by new, more satisfactory books written in a peaceful spirit. When printing the “Search” of St. Demetrius, it is not useless to exclude some expressions that are difficult for both schismatic and Orthodox ears. IX. Father Savva advises that those who shave their braids should be allowed to enter Edinoverie churches. This cannot be resolved by a general rule. Fellow believers, at the beginning of their education, asked not to allow barbers into their congregation: this was not rejected in its time. And what is allowed to them must be left with them, so as not to give rise to a complaint about the unfaithfulness of the promises of the authorities. But some co-religionists themselves allowed themselves to be lenient against this severity: there is no need to argue against this, except in those cases when this could remove dissatisfied and peaceful co-religionists from the church. About the Cossacks, you can separately explain to your coreligionists that they are barbers not out of love for worldly custom, but out of duty of rank, in which some holy martyrs were barbers. X. However, the peaceful proposals of Fr. Savvy doesn't promise much. For the most part, schismatics are looking for an excuse to stand in their alienation, and they repeat their resolved objections, not paying attention to the resolution that has already been made. September 30. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to Metropolitan Isidore of Kiev, with a research appendix: “On the dogmatic dignity and protective use of the Greek of the seventy interpreters and the Slavonic translations of the Holy Scriptures” Your Eminence Bishop, gracious archpastor! It is known that in various manuscripts and editions of the Holy Scriptures, as well as when comparing translations with original texts, there are, in places, discrepancies that for the most part do not change the meaning of the speech, and in some cases those that significantly change it. Therefore, when attempting to translate the sacred books into the Russian dialect, questions inevitably arise: should the Slavic text be adhered to preferably, or the Greek, and according to the Old Testament, Greek or Hebrew? Or should both texts be taken into account? And how can this consideration be protected from arbitrariness? For example: in the translation of the Gospel of Mark, chapter four, prescribed by the Holy Synod, verse 11 presents the following discord and question. In the Slavic text: you have been given knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of God. And according to the Greek text: you have been given vedati (τὸ μυστήριον) the secret of the kingdom of God. Which reading should the translation follow? This state of affairs prompted me to agree that the study I wrote back in 1845 on the dogmatic dignity and protective use of the Greek of the seventy interpreters and the Slavonic translations of the Holy Scriptures 361 should be published. I present this to your Eminence as my share of participation in resolving the above-mentioned issues that require resolution so that the matter of translation is not subject to the arbitrariness and random views of the workers in it. Asking for your prayers, with perfect respect and devotion, I have the honor to be your Eminence's most humble servant, No. 394. September 30, 1858 362. October 3. Metropolitan Philaret's opinion on the project of the Greek-Russian literary society The current time is generous with enterprises, but also with difficulties in enterprises. The project of the Greek-Russian literary society would hardly fit into this idea. I. The goal of the society is to acquaint Russians with modern Greek literature, and thereby promote the rapprochement of Russians with the Greeks. Will Greek literature turn out to be so rich and entertaining that it can feed the jealousy of society and arouse the attention of the public? Doubtful. Let us assume that the Russians, having become more familiar with the literature of the Greeks, more than now, will think about them and care about their fate, which, however, they still care about now according to their common faith. Will there be ways for this concern to turn into actions that would have a beneficial effect on the fate of the Greeks, and especially on the preservation of Orthodoxy among them? Doubtful. Isn’t it more necessary to try to bring the Greeks closer to the Russians than the Russians to the Greeks? Isn’t it more necessary for the Greeks to learn how Russians talk about Orthodoxy, and how they defend it against the teachings of non-Orthodox people? For this purpose, it would be necessary not to translate Greek works into Russian, but to translate Russian works into Greek and distribute them among the Greeks. The draft charter does not say anything about this. II. It is intended to send a member of the society to the central writers of Greek activity. But why is not explained. III. It is expected that each member will receive a copy of each publication of the society. It is difficult for society if each member contributes only 10 rubles. per year. IV. Can nonresidents be full members? If they cannot, it is inconvenient to expand society. V. The condition that one cannot be elected as a full member except on the proposal of three members, will not it present difficulties in the spread of the society? October 6. Purpose of icons for the altar iconostasis of the Cathedral of Christ the Savior In the lower tier, to the right of the royal doors: 1) The image of the Lord Almighty. 2) On the southern doors: the first martyr Stephen, in deacon’s vestments, with a censer in his right hand, and with a stone in his left (a sign of his suffering), or: the Archangel Michael, with a fiery sword (there is no need for a dragon under your feet). In this case, the image of the first martyr Stephen should be transferred to the northern door, in the place of Lawrence. 3) Above this icon: the Ascension of the Lord. 4) Next in the niche: the worship of the shepherds. The cave is high and wide open. Among her, in the manger, is the baby Christ the Savior. Near him, from the side of the altar, is the Mother of God. Next is Joseph. Three shepherds approach from the opposite side, the previous one kneeling before the Savior. 1) The image of the Nativity of Christ, depicted in such a way that the Mother of God is especially visible. 2) On the northern door: Archdeacon Lawrence, in deacon’s vestments. The right hand with the orar is extended to the people. There are words in the air: let's become kinder. 3) Above this icon: the image of the Most Holy Trinity, in its ancient form. God's appearance to Abraham. 4) Next in the niche: the adoration of the Magi to the infant Christ the Savior. In the second tier, to the right of the royal doors: 4) Holy Equal-to-the-Apostles Grand Duke Vladimir. 4) Holy Grand Duke Alexander Nevsky. In the third tier, in the middle above the royal doors: Christ the Savior, risen, in a scarlet tunic, in a strong radiance, blessing with his right hand, and with his left supporting the cross standing next to him (and not a fictitious banner). 1) The Mother of God, standing with her head slightly bowed to the Savior, in a position of prayer. 2) An angel in the same position, dressed in an ancient style, holding in his right hand a white round stone with the name: 8) Apostle Simon the Canaanite. 2) An angel holding a stone in his hand with the name: (It is a pity that above the image of the Savior, located in the middle of the second tier, there is not an icon, but a gap. This makes it difficult to position the icons, because the icon, which should occupy the middle, inevitably appears on the side). 1) Image of the Sign of the Mother of God. 1) The image of Sophia, the wisdom of God, according to the Kiev image. If you wish, some of the forefathers and prophets can be given scrolls with inscriptions, such as: Noah: this one will give us rest from our deeds. To Abraham: Will you destroy the righteous with the wicked? To Isaac: All the nations will be blessed because of your seed. To Jacob: Bless you, blessed are you. To Moses: The Lord is their desire. To David: I will set his firstborn high above the kings of the earth. Hezekiah: I will defend this city. Elijah: I am zealous for the Lord. Isaiah: Behold, the virgin will be with child. Daniel: the Holy of Holies will be anointed. Malachi: The sun of righteousness will shine upon all who fear my name. Inside the altar, above the throne, in the middle, on the eastern side: The throne, as it is set up in the church, and on it is the paten, and on it there is bread. 1) Christ the Savior, who turned from the throne to the Apostle Peter and stretched out his hand, teaching his most holy body. 2) Apostle Peter, bowing a little and stretching out his hand to receive the most holy body of Christ. 7) Apostle Simon the Canaanite. 1) Christ the Savior giving the holy cup. October 9. Report of Metropolitan Philaret to the Holy Synod about the inconvenience of breaks for heat-conducting pipes in the altar of the Assumption Cathedral According to the work that has begun at the Moscow Assumption Cathedral, external preparatory work for making it warm, an unofficial information has reached me, but nevertheless requiring urgent attention: that it is planned to make five breaks through the foundation of the five altar semicircular walls for pipes; that one pipe, which introduces heat into the cathedral, and another, which extracts air from the cathedral, is supposed to be installed in the main altar of the cathedral, near the high place, or between the high place and the altar; that, consequently, for these two pipes, in the main altar of the cathedral, between the high place and the altar, it will be necessary to dig holes and carry out stone work in them. I do not know whether, when considering the design of this device, the assumption of five breaks in the foundation of the eastern side of the church was in mind. It is equally unknown to me whether it was discussed and recognized as convenient that those standing on a high place and near it, in sacred service, would have near them a pipe pouring out heat in a wide stream 365 and another drawing air into themselves. Especially, due to the duty of my service, I cannot help but think with care and some fear about what should be happening in the holy altar of the church, the holy one from ancient times, the foremost in the Russian Church, the church of ancient metropolitans, the most holy patriarchs, the Holy Synod, the church of the sacred royal wedding - near the high place from which Saints Peter, Alexy, Jonah, Philip blessed the Orthodox people. Diggers and masons will come, dig holes and fill the altar with piles of earth and rubble from the broken foundation; then they will bring the materials they are working with now, and, by the way, a cauldron of boiling resin 366, and, bringing out a pipe, at the same time, for this pipe, they will carve out a part of the wall also inside the altar. One cannot help but expect that, upon seeing this and hearing about this, the pious feeling of the Orthodox people will be painfully touched; and, as a sad sign, this will be interpreted by those who, being not peaceful with the Orthodox Church, still remain peaceful with the ancient shrine of the Assumption Cathedral. Conviction of the importance of this subject prompts me to strictly submit it to the Holy Synod (which is directly under the jurisdiction of the Assumption Cathedral), so that this consideration can take place before the work begun pierces the altar wall and penetrates the altar. For this reason, I now refer to all of the above to the Moscow military governor-general, as the chairman of the committee for the construction of the Cathedral of Christ the Savior, under whose authority the work is being carried out at the Assumption Cathedral. No. 414. October 9, 1858 367 October 17. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A.P. Tolstoy, on the election of a vicar for the Moscow Metropolis I would like to thank your Excellency for the information that opens up the opportunity for me to find an employee who would be of use to me. We must seek not our own strengths, but those of God and the holy churches. Therefore, I look at the Right Reverend Eugene, recalled from me to a new field of service 368, with peace, and with the desire that he, in the expanding circle of action, will more abundantly benefit the church service. I will do now as I have done nine times in similar cases: I will present both my desire and its submission to the election of the Holy Synod. I will present two candidates for the position of vicar. The first candidate is the rector of the Moscow seminary, Archimandrite Leonid 369. He has sufficient seniority, and prudence, and zeal for the benefits of the holy church and for the improvement of the title. If the objection were presented that he is not happy with his good health: I answer that this objection regarding the Right Reverend Eugene was refuted by experience. The position of vicar, freeing the rector from professorial work and often occupying him with church ministries, is beneficial to both spirit and health. Now I don’t see any other candidate in my department. The rector of Academy 370 has not been in this position for very long; and often changing people in this place is not useful. I present the second candidate to the Kostroma rector, Archimandrite Porfiry 371, with less confidence about the reliability of this election, due to insufficient fame, but with hope. Regarding Archimandrite Leonid, I add that the doctor has been demanding for quite some time to strengthen his health that he give up teaching lessons. This would naturally be fulfilled by the appointment of Archimandrite Leonid as vicar. In this case, it will be necessary to appoint the synodal sacristan Archimandrite Savva 372 as the rector of the seminary, who can be a worthy rector not only of the seminary, but in time and of the academy; and therefore it is useful to immediately turn him into the field of school service. In place of the synodal sacristan there will be found among the local learned monastics. For this reason, I submit this matter to the judgment of the Holy Synod and the sovereign will of the most pious monarch. October 20. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Moscow military governor-general, Count A.A. Zakrevsky, with comments on the report of engineer-captain Bykov, on the subject of the conversion of the Assumption Cathedral into warm In relation to your Excellency, dated October 17, this 1858, No. 750, copies of the reports of engineer-captain Bykov and the senior assistant to the chief architect of the commission for the construction of the Cathedral of Christ the Savior were forwarded to me regarding the elimination of difficulties in arranging a warm altar for the Assumption Cathedral, and notification of the consequences of my orders on this subject is required. The first part of the report by engineer-captain Bykov addresses the question: how many breaks will be made through the foundation of the five altar semicircular walls? The proposal of this question to the engineer-captain from the church commission proves that this question was not previously clearly presented to this commission. From this, your Excellency is pleased to see that it was not in vain that this subject was mentioned in relation to me on October 9, 374, so that the significant issue of the number and safety of these breaches could reach a resolution that eliminates all doubt. Now the question of the safety of the breaches (incomprehensibly and inaccurately previously called returns, whereas they not only return from the cathedral, but also introduce warmth into the cathedral) is resolved according to their belonging: this subject is not subject to my judgment. But in this first part of the report, for further consideration, it is necessary to note the inaccuracy of the testimony that the five sections of the altar do not have any communication with each other, except for small doors. On the contrary, the main altar with the northern altar, where the altar is, is connected not by a small door, but by two open arches below and two above; the southern ante-altary is also connected by an arch, and the extreme northern compartment (Petrovsky chapel) is separated by a low wall; Consequently, there is free air communication between these three compartments. In the second part of the report it is explained that during the warm air flow in the main altar near the high place, and the reverse attraction of the air will not hinder the priests. And this certificate is not subject to my judgment, and remains the responsibility of those who have special knowledge and experience. The third part of the report assumes that work inside the main altar will be carried out in a few days, unnoticed by employees and worshipers. This must be considered satisfactory if it can be done. But it is not clear how this can be accomplished when it is necessary to take away the velvet covering of the wall and the steps of the co-throne, dig up the ground, complete the breach in the foundation and carve out part of the altar wall to double the height of human height? The fourth part of the report examines the question of what measures will be taken to eliminate unseemly behavior during work on the main altar. In this part, Mr. Bykov writes the following words, which he believes he heard from me: “maybe, “I will agree to punching four holes, in four “compartments, except for the main altar; but this last one, “I believe, can be accessed from the adjacent compartment by running a pipe first under the floor, then under the door, after which you can raise the heat pipe along the wall near the same door; there will be no obstacle in this.” I couldn’t say the words: under the door, and: near the door, because there is no door here; and, as stated above, the main altar communicates with the northern ante-altarium by two arches below and two arches above. In fact, I said that if breaking through the four walls of the altar in relation to the method of heating is necessary and in relation to the building is safe, then it must submit to necessity. As for the main altar, out of respect for the primary sanctity of this place, I continued and continue to propose that it should be kept as inviolable as possible. My consideration concerns the church side of the matter, not the artistic one. But as it is clear from what was said above about the doors that Mr. Bykov does not accurately preserve in his memory the internal details of the altars, then I am allowed some considerations that are accessible to a non-specialist. The main altar and the two compartments closest to it are connected by open arches; the fourth northern compartment is separated from the compartment closest to it and from the main altar by a low wall. Consequently, the heat carried into the two northern compartments can be freely communicated from them to the main altar. For the main altar, apparently, it does not matter whether the heat-conducting hole is on the right side of it, near the window, or on the left, near the arch. If with two heat-conducting openings in the windows it is considered possible to fill with heat the huge space of the entire cathedral, from which the domes will carry away a lot of heat, then why, it seems, not to fill the relatively small space of the main altar with heat in two or three ways from the Peter's chapel and from the altar compartment, so that one of the holes will be open into the main altar itself from a pipe laid in the altar compartment? If there is no pipe to the main altar, then the pipe in the altar compartment will need to be doubled, but not quadrupled, as stated in the report. G. Bykov, touching his judgment on church decency, notes that installing a chimney in the altar section will entail more uncleanness than would be the case in the main altar. But he does not know the ecclesiastical considerations that relate to this. The throne of the main altar and the high place are consecrated with Chrismation; the altar has no such consecration; over the throne there is an invocation of the Holy Spirit, and the sacrament is performed; Rule 69 of the 6th Ecumenical Council refers to the main altar: there is only one king, and now let no one from the world enter into purification. From this it can be seen that the altar, and, moreover, the altar of the ancient saints, the altar of the royal church, is not on a par with the altar or altar, but incomparably in the highest degree requires reverent protection. Therefore, and according to my previous considerations, yielding to the need for breaks and heat pipes to be installed in the four side compartments of the altar, I consider it my duty to once again turn to your Excellency with the most humble request that the prevention of any damage to the cathedral, promised in relation to your Excellency on August 29, would be applied primarily to the main altar; so that the arrangement of its heating would be consistent with its inviolability, and for this purpose heat was introduced into it through its arch from the compartment of the altar. I proposed this to the engineer-captain and the architect at the protopresbyter of the Assumption Cathedral, and they, after considering the details, recognized this as possible; and I, for my part, announced to them that in this sense there was no obstacle to continuing the work from ecclesiastical considerations. No. 445. October 20, 1858 375 October 22. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A.P. Tolstoy, regarding the appointment of the rector of the Kostroma seminary as vicar of the Moscow diocese I hasten to answer that I am in peace with the appointment of the Kostroma rector to the Moscow vicar, accepting it as the will of God. And I imagined him as a candidate; only, previously, doubting the health of Archimandrite Leonid, he thought to present him first, and then he put him first when he learned of the doctor’s demand, more urgent than before, that he be relieved of intensive professorial labor; The example of the Right Reverend Eugene testified that the position of vicar is not harmful even for poor health. Just before the opening of the vicar vacancy, without foreseeing this, I was already thinking about dismissing Archimandrite Leonid from the department, leaving him with the position of rector. But I confess that I am reluctantly inclined to this measure. During my administration, this did not happen at the local academy and seminaries. I remember that when I, a newcomer, was appointed a hierodeacon as a professor and inspector of a seminary in which children from St. Petersburg or those familiar with St. Petersburg before me were not very inclined to meek obedience, and I asked the rector to support me in the inspector position, he answered me: “as long as they listen to you well, as a teacher, they will obey you, and as an inspector.” Likewise, I think that a rector who is a teacher of theology can instill the church spirit in students more powerfully than a rector who is not a teacher, or a teacher with less authority than a rector. But one must submit to necessity. Kindly give me some time to figure it out so I can imagine how to separate the department from the rectorship. Then you need to consult with a doctor whether it is healthy for Archimandrite Leonid to go to the St. Petersburg climate for the winter and spring before he gets to Revel. Invoking God's help and prosperity to you in matters of general benefit, with perfect respect and devotion, I have the honor to be your Excellency, gracious sir, most humble servant, It was difficult for me to remain ignorant for a long time about the matter of the Assumption Cathedral. Let me ask that I not remain long in the dark about how what I have written regarding the 26th day and its appendices will be accepted. After the religious procession on the 12th day, I was sick, but now I was in the Kazan Cathedral 376 - 377. October 26. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Moscow military governor-general, Count A. A. Zakrevsky, about the appointment of military guards to guard the Assumption Cathedral during the work of converting it into warm The protopresbyter of the Assumption Cathedral presented me with the following: According to the design of the Moscow Assumption Cathedral in a warm place, an underground stone pipe was laid from the south-eastern corner of the altar to the synodal house, and from it smaller ones were laid to each of the five sections of the altar to the foundation, and all these pipes were covered with earth on top, leaving only one hole at the main pipe at the entrance to the synodal house. Now, passing through this hole, they begin to make breaks in the foundation of the four side compartments of the altar, in order to arrange heat pipes and exhaust pipes inside each compartment, except for the middle one. When holes are punched in the foundation and heat pipes and exhaust pipes are installed, through the designated hole in the large underground pipe it will be possible to pass into the altar, and therefore special measures must be taken to protect the shrine and treasures of the cathedral. For this purpose, inside the cathedral, from morning to evening, during work, it is proposed to establish constant supervision through one of the priests and deacons and through two watchmen of the cathedral. But during the night, from the end to the beginning of the day's work, when the cathedral is locked, a special external guard should be established at the opening of the large ditch to protect it. This guard will also be necessary when a large exhaust pipe is installed in the cathedral at the northern doors, which should have four square arshins in cross-section, which is from the synodal house and has already been brought to the doors of the cathedral. Likewise, the same guard will be needed when, under the two windows of the cathedral, on the north side, holes will be made for the installation of heat pipelines, along which the work between the cathedral and the synodal house has already been completed. If this external guard is created from only the watchmen or bell ringers of the cathedral, then it will not be very trustworthy. Therefore, it is considered necessary that from now until the completion of the said work, a military guard of two sentries 378 should be appointed. Seeing from this description of the work that during the continuation of this the cathedral will indeed have openings accessible to entry from the outside, and that its external protection through the cathedral guards may turn out to be unsatisfactory, I decree it my duty to address your Excellency with the most humble request, so that you would be pleased to draw the authorities' attention to the above circumstances and an order would be made to protect the cathedral from the outside with sufficient guards until the above-described works No. 460. October 26, 1858 In response to this attitude, Count Zakrevsky, in a letter dated October 27, notified Metropolitan Philaret that he had ordered the Moscow commandant to immediately appoint sufficient military guards during the entire heating work of the Moscow Assumption Cathedral, to guard it in those places where, in the course of work, such guards are recognized as necessary 379. In October. Opinion regarding the one published in No. 10 of the magazine “Landowners”, for the month of September, 1858, in the department. VII, article offensive to the entire clergy For some time now, Russian literature among a considerable number of writers, under the guise of a desire for the whole people, has received a direction in which both the dignity of thought and the correctness of speech are lost. Instead of solid reasoning, presented in order and consistency, there are one-sided, impetuous, arrogant thoughts. Opinions that are not strong in truth, but only in loud proclamation, are taken as immutable principles. Those who talk about Russia in various respects move from the extreme of self-praise to the extreme of condemnation. Instead of a modest denunciation of imperfections and shortcomings, offensive reproaches and rude ridicule are uttered. People who still have a lot of work to do to fulfill their duties in the circle in which they are placed step out of it and enter into judgment about matters to which they are not called, and about which they have not had the opportunity to acquire correct, sufficient information. Writers imitate the language of the most uneducated common people who have a low level of morality, while common people, who have a more developed sense of morality and a sense of decency, consider this language low for themselves, and approach the language of an educated society, especially trying to ennoble their speech when they talk about important or spiritual subjects. A strange direction towards the people! Lack of education becomes an idol to which the educated sacrifice their education. I present an example that alone can serve as a verification of several observations now outlined. In the Journal of Landowners (1858, September, No. 10. Dept. VII, pages 28, 29.) the following is read: “a venerable old man, a tireless and most useful employee of the Land. Gaz., founder of the Zimenkovo library 380, patron and church builder, highly respected Andrei Ivanovich, in his short article, imbued, like everything he wrote, with warm, Christian love, this time touched upon a question of enormous importance and significance for the future of all classes of beloved Russia - and, in my extreme understanding, relating mainly to the superior class, to the poor nobles, who make up the vast majority of our caste and, moreover, endowed, by the will of God, with numerous families. The following words of the author cannot apply so closely to them and to anyone else: “for someone preparing to be a rural priest, science alone is not enough: he must have a heart, soul, mood, calling”; further - “that it would not be forbidden for people from more than one clergy to become rural priests, as long as the diocesan authorities, after testing, see and make sure that the person who wants to be a priest combines all the required conditions for the reliable passage of this sacred and extremely difficult position.” How happy I was when I read these golden lines! For a long time now, this sincere dream has occupied and disturbed my mind, persistently and many times I tried to express it publicly, here and there at least with a hint; but, I confess, timidity prevailed, and therefore, like a miser, I hid my treasure in the innermost corner of my heart, I was afraid to speak out completely even in front of my best friend - the senseless noble arrogance still nests so deeply in us! A thousand thanks to the venerable old man: he removed the stone from my soul that had been crushing it for so long. Merciful God! Are we really not soon going to renounce the most painful, all-crushing yoke of lordly arrogance? All you can hear from everywhere is: this is indecent for the son of a nobleman; this is not a noble matter; and meanwhile, the unfortunate noble children, mother’s sons, are mired deeper and deeper, in a terrifying pool of ignorance, and sometimes depravity, losing all moral influence on the peasants around them. It is sad and ashamed to admit that even the noble, bright field of a mentor, a teacher of youth, and the like, is still considered not a noble thing in our country; and what could be higher, nobler, more pleasing to God and more useful for humanity than to unite in one’s person a mentor of the young generation, strictly impeccable and reasonable, with warm Christian love for one’s fellow neighbor, and at the same time to be a shepherd and leader of one’s flock and a worthy representative before the altar of the Almighty Creator? But in order to achieve this happy time for our fatherland, we ourselves must first change in many ways, recreate many things, and renounce much that is old and decrepit. On the other hand, it would seem good to open faculties of theology at universities, where those who have completed a full gymnasium course could be admitted, without distinction of condition. Our seminaries, with their current composition and condition, are completely unsuitable for this; and even the most spiritual academies require rational transformation, especially regarding their exceptional position. Now, probably, no decent father, who naturally values ​​the morality of his son, would never dare to send him to a theological academy, much less to a seminary. This very name, in my opinion, should be expelled from the Russian language: it has become so vulgar and disgusting. The word seminarian has become almost a swear word expressing contempt. The raised question must inevitably be followed by another similar one: what to do with our spiritual, extremely numerous class? What to do! – It is impossible for one class to destroy and leave in gross ignorance millions of other classes, children of the same huge family, eager to taste the joy of spiritual development, and at the same time improve and elevate their own and their descendants’ material being, and besides, this family is very large; the most worthy of this class will always find a decent place and occupation; but from the unworthy, may the Lord God save everyone.” You see that the magazine, which has assigned agriculture as its subject and limit, does not stay within the boundaries of the estate, arable land and meadow, it runs across boundaries, runs into the university, into the seminary, and with an inexorable plow undertakes to plow up by the roots everything that has been sown in the vast field of the ecclesiastical rank, and to sow it with new seeds from the nobility, citizenship and peasantry. He finds it unnecessary to go to the trouble of proving that the seminaries are “unfit”, that their very name is “disgusted”; he finds it sufficient that he uttered a severe censure. He does not pay attention to the fact that the law prohibits disparaging expressions even on the person against whom the complaint is brought, as if he is guilty; and in highly offensive words condemns a whole circle of institutions enjoying the highest patronage. He decisively determines to expel more than 100,000 souls of the clergy, except families, from this rank; because he asks: “what to do” with them next? He does not find a solution to this question: but this does not convince him to soften the punitive definition. There is no need to provide examples of tongue damage. They happen too often. The statute of spiritual censorship, protecting the dignity of church literature, determined that works with great shortcomings in the thoroughness of thoughts, kindness of style, clarity and correctness of presentation are disgusting to the educated, useless to the uneducated and harmful to the educated, and therefore should not be approved 381. November 18. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Moscow military governor-general, Count A.A. Zakrevsky, with a notification about a failure that had opened under a section of one of the altars of the Assumption Cathedral Moscow Military Governor-General, Count A.A. Zakrevsky, in relation to Metropolitan Philaret, dated November 17, 1858, No. 853, wrote the following: “The engineer-captain Bykov, who was producing the heating device for the Moscow Assumption Cathedral, on this November 17th, reported to the commission (for the construction of a church in Moscow in the name of Christ the Savior) that under the separation of one of the altars of the cathedral, a significant earthen failure had opened, from which may cause dangerous consequences; why the commission now ordered the highest architectural council established under it to make an immediate order to examine the said failure and make a detailed resolution, with the participation of a person trusted on the spiritual side, about the situation of that failure and about the measures that must be taken to avert dangerous consequences from this. Notifying your Eminence of this, I, in accordance with the conclusion of the commission, forward, in a copy, the report of Captain Bykov and humbly ask for the appointment of a person trusted from the spiritual side to be present at the said examination, to make the appropriate order and to honor me with this notification.” To this attitude, Metropolitan Philaret, dated November 18, No. 492, responded to Count Zakrevsky: In accordance with your Excellency’s attitude, dated November 17, No. 853, regarding the appointment of a spiritually trusted person to be present at the examination of the failure observed in the Assumption Cathedral, under the altar section, I have laid down the following: 1) For the proposed examination of the sinkhole discovered in the Assumption Cathedral under the altar section, appoint Sacellar Peter Vinogradov as a deputy from the spiritual side. 2) since it is intended to remove the floor in one half of the altar compartment, which, according to the engineer, may entail, first of all, the fall of the altar: then the altar should be exposed in the presence of the protopresbyter and both sacellarii, and carefully examined to see if there are any objects that require special preservation, and such should be removed and placed according to decency. 3) At the same time, for the same reason, remove from here the icons with arks, one of which stands behind the altar, and the other against the wall. 4) Carefully close the place of the relics of St. Peter from the side of the altar compartment with a decent thick curtain. Close the arches in the main altar in a similar manner. 5) Then allow the altar to be dismantled and its material taken out and placed in a decent place separately from other materials. 6) After this, allow the floor to be dismantled and what else is necessary. 7) To continue the priestly service, build a temporary altar in one of the above arches, mainly in the eastern one. 8) To protect the shrine, establish a rotation of cathedral clergy and clergy during work in the cathedral. 9) Since the matter cannot tolerate delay, this order is (and was) announced directly to the protopresbyter for immediate execution. Notifying your Excellency of this, with perfect respect and devotion, I have the honor to be Your Excellency, dear sir, No. 492. November 18, 1858 382 December 14. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Moscow military governor-general, Count A.A. Zakrevsky, with an opinion on the sketch of the image for the altarpiece of the “Last Supper” Moscow Military Governor-General, Count A.A. Zakrevsky, in relation to December 11, 1858, No. 913, wrote to Metropolitan Philaret: “Your Eminence, gracious archpastor. According to my most humble report regarding the determination of the plot for the altarpiece, the Cathedral of Christ the Savior being built, now the Sovereign Emperor has deigned to order the painting of the “Last Supper” for the altarpiece. And since the commission 383 was presented with a sketch of this image, drawn up by Professor Nef, who, by the highest will, was granted the execution of it, the commission instructed its senior architect, collegiate adviser Kaminsky, to immediately submit this sketch, with all the necessary explanations on this subject, for the discretion of your Eminence. As for whatever conclusion it would be appropriate to make about the dignity and completeness of the above-mentioned sketch in religious terms, I humbly ask you, gracious archpastor, to honor me with your notification for further orders of the commission on this subject.” In this regard, Metropolitan Philaret wrote: “December 13. Reply that the sketch cannot be approved. December 14. It is necessary to collect all correspondence regarding the Cathedral of Christ the Savior and hand it over to the consistory for storage and order, in case of reference.” Then Metropolitan Philaret, dated December 14th, No. 531, wrote to Count A.A. Zakrevsky: Your Excellency's letter, dated December 11, 1858, No. 913, requires my opinion on the dignity and religious completeness of the sketch of the image of the Last Supper for the newly built Cathedral of Christ the Savior. In this sketch, Christ the Savior is depicted sitting at a table, with his right hand placed on the table, and with his hand raised above the cup, with the position of his fingers taken at the moment when they are folded for blessing. But blessing with the left hand is inappropriate. Only four apostles sit at the meal, while the rest stand. This is contrary to the gospel narrative. If we assume that the artist wanted to depict the moment when the apostles, having heard the word about the traitor from the Lord, ask: food? isn't it me? - and in this case the picture does not agree with the gospel narrative, which does not say that any of them got up from the meal. And this could not have happened, because if the eight apostles had risen untimely from the meal, this would have been a violation of the decorum of the meal, which they could not afford in the presence of the Lord. The meal in the picture is so small that there is no more empty space left for two. Consequently, of the eight standing apostles, six never sat at a meal and could not sit. This again is contrary to the gospel narrative. The two outermost apostles in the picture have their backs cut off by the edge of the picture, and one even has the back of his head. It is advisable that the artist avoid this; and, it seems, it is not difficult to achieve this, given the space of the designated place in the church for this image. On this side of the table, to the right of the Lord, sits, of course, Judas, with tightly clenched fists. It is impossible to imagine the thought that would have prompted Judas, sitting at the sacred meal, to accept such a position. From this, of necessity, the conclusion arises that the proposed sketch for painting the image of the Last Supper on the high place of the altar of the Cathedral of Christ the Savior cannot be approved in church terms 384. No. 531. December 14, 1858 385 December 18. Metropolitan Philaret's proposal to the Moscow Synodal Office on the procedure for performing divine services in the Assumption Cathedral Proposal to the Moscow Synodal Office. The construction of the Assumption Cathedral is warmly approaching completion. Will the only benefit from this be that the body will not feel cold? Everything in the church should be directed towards spiritual benefit. Zealots of strict observance of church rites often noticed that in the leading church of the ancient capital, divine services were performed with haste and with imperfect completeness. In winter, the cold in the church served as an excuse for this. Habit transferred this imperfection from winter to summer. Now the reason for this imperfection is eliminated and there will be no previous justification for it. Without doubt that Fr. The protopresbyter and the brethren are disposed to improve, after the removal of the obstacle, nevertheless, I consider it timely to reinforce the superior power of the abbot and the zeal of the brethren with the following reminder: 1) The leading church must set an edifying example to others. 2) One must ensure that the service of Vespers, Matins and Divine Liturgy is performed according to church rules, with uninterrupted attention and reverence. 3) Reading and singing should be done as intelligibly as possible and without haste. The voice should open, not close, the word. The singing of the choir should not begin before the last word of the deacon pronouncing the ectenia, or the reader reading the psalm. 4) During worship, no arbitrary word should come from the lips of priests and clergy, from one to another or to strangers. 5) It is desirable that the conciliar be jealous of restoring the reading of the Gospel and the Prologue at Matins, and other readings at the times specified by the charter. 6) Since the cathedral has some details of the orders that actually belong to it, it is not useless for the protopresbyter with the sacellaries to turn to the cathedral library and archive, whether some of the orders will be revealed, abandoned by time and arbitrariness, which should be brought into ancient force. 7) The protection of the shrine by the clergy should be unforgivable, and should not be left to the clergy. 8) It is fitting for the dignity of the church that its clergy should have clothing appropriate to their clergy, and that hair cutting and barber shaving should not be allowed between them. It is my duty to propose this to the consideration of the synodal office, believing that improvements can serve for the edification of the Orthodox people. Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow. No. 539. December 18, 1858 386 In December. Metropolitan Philaret’s opinion on the draft charter of the Society for the Restoration of Orthodoxy in the Caucasus There is a plan for a society for the restoration of Orthodoxy in the Caucasus, which has already received a definite form, and, perhaps, is close to fulfillment. But as long as this is only a design, and not a fulfillment, it is permissible, and even necessary, to enter into a discussion about it, so that any doubts that may arise, which, if encountered late on the path of fulfillment, could cause difficulty, can be considered and resolved in a timely manner. I. The name – Society for the Restoration of Orthodoxy in the Caucasus – does it accurately correspond to the subject? If Orthodoxy needs to be restored in the Caucasus, then this shows that it is in decline there. But there, by the goodness of God, the Orthodox Georgian Church stands firmly. II. Should society really limit itself to restoring Orthodoxy in some countries of the Caucasus, where it existed but was suppressed by paganism or Mohammedanism? Without a doubt, its goal is to found it again if it meets on its way people or entire tribes who have never been enlightened by Christianity. So, doesn’t the name of the company limit the limits of the matter? III. Christianity is opposed to paganism or Mohammedanism. Orthodoxy is opposed to heresy or schism. From this the question arises again: is the name of the society quite accurate and clear? IV. If the Orthodox Russian Church should strengthen its exploits for the spread of Christianity, if Orthodox Russia should be called to promote these exploits: then in the Caucasus alone? Are there other fields within the borders of our fatherland that are awaiting the sowing of the seed of the word of Christ, and, by the way, near the newly established border in the East? Observation of the spread of Christianity in China by foreign missions and the freedom acquired for Christianity in China by the new treatise have already raised a voice: will Russia really refuse to participate in this matter on its part? Is it really possible to allow foreign missionaries to penetrate here and spread their actions here, which, of course, will not be in favor of our religious and state views? If the destined society is limited to the Caucasus, will another society be formed for Siberia and China? In one church, in one state, for one Orthodox Christian goal, with the same sources of benefits, two societies, completely separate, would represent in their division an incongruity with the obvious reasons and incentives for unity. One society is more convenient than two to supply itself with people and dispose of them. Instead of one administration of one society, two societies would have two, no doubt at great expense. People disposed to contribute and do good would stop before this division in bewilderment, what does it mean, and which society should join? If the first destined society, by its brilliant discovery and the proposed signs of participation, which, obviously, are signs of distinction, had strongly attracted public charity; and another society equally worthy of participation, without similar advantages, would be poor in people and methods of action: wouldn’t such an imbalance, unfavorable for the cause, be sad? So, it is desirable that one Russian Society for the Propagation of Orthodox Christianity be formed. V. In the drawn up plan of the society, the highest direction of its actions is given to a high secular dignitary, with such authority that he alone appoints members of the council of the society, and has the power to destroy the determination of this council, in which, as vice-chairman, one of the oldest bishops participates with his voice. To discuss this, it is not useless to turn to examples. In England there is a society for the dissemination of enlightenment among the poor who belong to the established church. Since the purpose of society belongs to the church, its president is the first archbishop of the Church of England. The Bible Society in England has a secular dignitary as its president; but this is because he does not do the work that belongs to bishops, does not teach Christian teaching: he collects money, prints Bibles and distributes, among other things, publications that the Anglican Church does not approve of. The Bible Society in Russia had a secular dignitary as its chairman for the same reasons, and because it was more convenient for him to communicate with the president of the English society than for the bishop. So, if the compilers of the plans for the society for the restoration of Orthodoxy in the Caucasus thought in the structure of it to imitate the examples of foreign societies, then these examples do not provide a basis for such a structure, but confirm the idea, natural for the Orthodox, that when a society has as its subject a matter, by divine decree, belonging to the church hierarchy, then it is fitting for a member of the hierarchy to be the chairman or leading member of such a society. VI. And that unlimited power by which the chairman of the proposed society, by his own will, appoints members of the council of the society and destroys the appointments of the entire council, is unusual in societies formed by voluntary consent. And is such unlimited authority necessary? And the thought of having to submit to the unlimited will of one person will not keep some people from joining society who could be useful to it? VII. These are the initial features of society, which, by the way, will show that the deviation from the subordination of a bishop to a secular dignitary does not arise from a desire for honor, but is in accordance with the subject. The society will be awarded the highest patronage. 1) Three leading members. 3) Active members who make up the council of the society, or, if there are many of them, elect it from among themselves. 4) Members are employees who help the society through deeds. 5) Contributing members who help the society with charity. All members are obligated to contribute to the society, except the honorary ones, on whom the society does not impose this obligation, without however refusing their contributions, according to their will. One of the leading members must be a member of the hierarchy (most appropriately the leading member of the Holy Synod), another from secular dignitaries, the third from clergy or secular persons, as appropriate. This can be useful for the division of labor. Their unanimity makes it impossible to doubt the purpose of their action - to serve the spread of the kingdom of Christ. The society may have persons of both sexes as honorary members and supportive members. The center of society in St. Petersburg. Branches may be formed within dioceses, according to need and convenience. If there is one society of the whole church and all of Russia, the more convenient it will be to arouse and determine the assistance of the church itself. Monasteries can subscribe for annual benefits, as well as parish churches, except for the poorest 387. From an autograph, keeping. in secret. stationery papers Chief Prosecutor St. Synod, 1856, No. 190; ll. 28 and 29. Sergievsky, N.A., now trustee of Vilensk. textbook districts, secrets advisor. With his own hand authentic, reported by the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, K. P. Pobedonostsev. With original, keeping in secret department. office Chief Prosecutor St. Synod, 1857; case No. 62; l. 44. Gorsky, A.V., later rector of the Moscow Theological Academy; † 11 October 1875 Rakhmanov, Vlad. Iv. doctor of the Moscow Theological Seminary; he treated the metropolitan himself until the end of his life; † Oct 11 1885 Pareseny (Popov), from March 14, 1854, Tomsk; from September 13, 1860, Irkutsk; † consecrated archbishop, 21 January 1872 Jeremiah (Soloviev); from 1850 bishop. Nizhny Novgorod; in 1857, June 17, he was retired; † 6 Dec 1884 Bishop Nektary, later Archbishop of Kharkov († 1874). From an autograph, keeping. in the secret papers of the Chancellor's Office of the Holy Synod, 1856, No. 190; ll. 23 and 24. Keeps a copy. in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 87; document No. 13; authentic in secrecy. did Ph.D. Chief Prosecutor St. Synod, 1857, No. 62; dl. 49–52. From a handwritten draft original, kept. in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 87; document No. 14; keeps a copy. in secret. department. office chief proc. St. Synod, 1857, No. 62; ll. 293–295. Odoevsky, Prince Vl. Feud.; † February 27, 1869. See about him in the brochure: in memory of V.F. Odoevsky. Meeting total love Russian Literature, April 13, 1869 Moscow, 1869 The latter returned it to A.P. Tolstoy with a note dated April 3rd. The note is kept confidential. stationery papers chief proc. Holy Synod, 1856; house No. 190; l. 25. Roulier, Karl. F., pressor of zoology to Moscow. university, † 1858 From a handwritten draft original, kept. in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 37; document No. 5; a letter from Prince Odoevsky and a copy from the opinion of Metropolitan. Filaret is kept. in the secret papers of the chief prosecutor's office. St. Synod, 1843, No. 171, pp. 32–36. A copy is kept in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 87, document. No. 15; original in the secret file of the office of the chief prosecutor of the Holy Synod, 1857, No. 62. l. 33–55. Sergievsky, N.A., now a trustee of the Vilna educational district. The Metropolitan thanks the Count for granting Sergievsky the position of an official of special assignments under the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod. Nikolay (Dobrokhotov); † in the Tregulyaev Monastery, October 21, 1864 From an autograph kept in the secret papers of the office of the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, 1856, No. 190, pp. 26 and 27. Mansurov, B.P. Currently a member of the State Council From an autograph. Inventory No. 91, document. No. 26. Agapit (Vvedensky), magician. VIII course. Moscow ac.; † May 28, 1877 with the rank of member of Moscow. Holy Synod office. From a handwritten original, and the appendix to it from a copy, corrected by the hand of the Metropolitan, is stored. in the Moscow dioceses. Library Dept. IX; ll. 13–19. Ignatiev, Alexey Dmitrievich, later Privy Councilor and Saratov Governor. Having retired due to illness in 1862, he lived on his estate, the village of Ovchinniki, Rzhev district, Tver province, and here on March 4, 1875 he died. There was no extract in the papers. From the papers of Metropolitan. Philaret, in copies kept by the Archbishop of Tver Savva. The comments were stated in a letter to Metropolitan Gregory of Novgorod and St. Petersburg. From a handwritten draft original. Inventory No. 104; dock no. 10; a copy is kept confidential. papers hamtz. Ober-prok., 1856, No. 154; ll. 67–69. From a copy, storing in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 86; document Nos. 18 and 19; keeps the original letter. in the secret department office Chief Prosecutor St. Synod; d. 1857, No. 62; ll. 291 and 292. This decree was published in the Collection of Resolutions regarding the schism on the 5th of April 1845. From a handwritten draft original. Inventory No. 58, document. No. 11. In accordance with the comments stated here, published in the Collection of Resolutions regarding the Schism (Continued 1), under the 15th day of October 1858, “Instructions for leadership in executive actions and meetings on matters related to the schism.” Since 1857, on the occasion of the restoration and restoration, by the highest command, to their original form of the ancient chambers of the Romanov boyars, where the first Russian Tsar from the blessed house of the Romanovs, Mikhail Feodorovich, was born, and which adjoined the buildings of the Znamensky Monastery, in this monastery a liturgy with a memorial service is annually celebrated by the bishop's ecclesiastical rite, on July 12, on the Tsar's name day Mikhail Feodorovich. It is this priestly service that we are talking about here. Neil (Isakovic); from 8 Dec. 1835, Bishop of Vyatka; from April 23, 1838, Irkutsk; from April 13, 1840, archbishop, from December 24, 1853, Yaroslavl, † 1874 Filaret (Gumilovsky); † August 9, 1866, Archbishop of Chernigov. Solomon, P.I., who managed the office of the Holy Synod, now the first present community. personal Cass. dept. Governing Senate and acting. secrets advisor. Lebedev, Amv. Step., Professor of the Moscow Theological Seminary, Master of the XX course Moscow. spirit of the academy; now a professor at Kharkov University in the department of church history. The mentioned note talks about Mr. Lebedev’s vacation abroad to recover from his illness. From an autograph, keeping. in secret Chief Prosecutor's papers. Holy Synod, 1856, No. 190; ll. 30 and 31. Now protoprisbyter and confessor of Their Imperial Majesties. From secret papers stored in the office of the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, 1858, No. 114, pp. 1–7. From copies of Inventory No. 69; document No. 1. From secret stationery papers Chief Prosecutor, 1856; No. 194; ll. 17 and 18. From a handwritten draft original. Inventory No. 99; document No. 13. Printed in add. to the work of St. father in Russian per., M. 1858, part XVII, pp. 452 et seq. With authentic papers, stored in a special collection, in a library. S.-Pb. spirit of acad. d 42. From a handwritten draft script. Inventory No. 89; document No. 2. From a handwritten draft original, kept. in Moscow, eparch library. Dept. VII; ll. 1–6. For the extent to which these assumptions have been fulfilled, see Historical. description of the church in the name of Christ the Savior, M. Mostovsky, M 1883, pp. 97–101. As far as we know, there are 5 square quarters in the hole. For pouring stonework into the ground, which is now visible in the work outside the cathedral. For Moscow Holy Synod Office, 1858–1865, No. 65; ll. 27 and 28. Evgeny (Sakharov), from October 13, 1858, bishop. Simbirsk, December 7, 1874, retired and lived in Siib. Pokrovsk monastery Leonid (Krasnopevkov), from April 26, 1859, bishop. Dmitrovsky; from May 15, 1876, archbishop. Yaroslavl; † Dec 15, 1876 Sergius (Lyapidevsky), now Archbishop of Chisinau. Porfiry (Sokolovsky), November 21, 1858, Bishop of Dmitrov, vicar of Moscow; subsequently Ufa and Tomsk; † June 13, 1865, having been retired since November 14, 1864 Now the Archbishop of Tver. From an autograph, keeping. in secret. office papers Chief Prosecutor St. Synod, 1856, No. 190; ll. 32 and 33. The mentioned relationship is not in the papers of Metropolitan. Philareta. The case of the Muscovites. Office of the Holy Synod, 1858–1865, No. 65, pp. 43–47. That is, for serving the liturgy, on the occasion of the church holiday and the religious procession, annually on this day performed from the Assumption Cathedral. From an autograph, keeping. in secret, candidate's papers. Chief Prosecutor Holy Synod, 1856, No. 190; ll. 34 and 35. Hitherto from the corrected report of Protopresbyter D. Novsky. The case of the Muscovites. St. Synod office, 1858–1865, for No. 65; ll. 11–13. The village of Zimenki is located in Kovrov district, Vladimir province. Andr was built at the church of this village. Iv. Chikhachev public library, for free use. Donations were made to this library, at the request of Mr. Chikhachev, in Bose by the deceased Emperor Alexander Nikolaevich and Empress Maria Alexandrovna, the Academy of Sciences and various persons (Geographical-statistical Dictionary of the Russian Empire, P. Semenov, St. Petersburg 1865, vol. 1, p. 275). From an autograph. Inventory No. 107; document No. 4. The case of the Muscovites. St. Synod Office, 1858–1865, No. 65; dl. 79 and 84. Of course, the commission for the construction of the Church of the Savior in Moscow. Note Instead of the image of the Last Supper, an image of the Nativity of Christ is performed, according to the church song “Virgin of the Day.” (See Historical Description of the Mostovsky Church, p. 102). From a handwritten original, kept. to Moscow diocesan bib. Dept. VIII; ll. 9–11. This letter was published in Reading. Moscow total love spirit. enlightenment May, 1882, Dep. III, pp. 141–142. Case of the Moscow Holy Synod office, 1858, No. 89; ll. 1 and 2. From a copy. Inventory No. 90; document No. 8.