Chapter 4

January 2. Resolution on an extract from the consistory report register with reviews from architects about repair work in the church: “As for the architectural method of arranging a passage under the roof, from the stairs to the choir - this has nothing to do with decoration or preserving the ancient appearance of the church, and therefore ... let the abbess carry out the said arrangement under the roof of the passage in the way that, at the last meeting of architects, was recognized as the safest for the strength of the building" (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1.S. 1. No. 9589). January 3. Letter to A.N. Muravyov: “At the request of the Spassky parishioners, I said that it is advised to adhere exactly to the will of the testator. It’s a different matter, if there was money bequeathed for a bell, and they wanted to make sacred vessels on it, I would rather agree to this, in the confidence that the soul of the testator would be more pleased with this than with the literal fulfillment. “However, if they don’t accept my advice and they prove that the bell is needed not for church luxury, but for the needs of the parishioners, I will yield so that not to me alone, but with all those who did not accept my advice, I ask forgiveness from the soul of the testator” (Letters. 1869. pp. 104–105. No. 74). A note on the complaint of the Latin clergy about the allegedly oppressive actions on the part of the Orthodox during the conversion of Uniates to Orthodoxy: “The complaint about the action in the return to Orthodoxy of those diverted into Latinism, without a deputy from the Latin side, is contrary to the Highest approved opinion of the State Council, which says: “admonished seduced persons must be removed from heterodox influence”... Entrust Orthodox Eminences should pay special attention to those whose subject to return has not been clearly and reliably deduced and who, having long belonged to Latin parishes, consider themselves to correctly belong to them, and in such cases do not rush into decisive actions, waiting until the belonging of such persons to Orthodoxy is brought into greater clarity and they themselves are convinced of this” (Opinions. Vol. III. pp. 49-51). January 4. The resolution at the consistory decision on the approval of the opinion of the spiritual board is to oblige the clerical servant of this board to stop drunken living by signing: “Drunkenness has been proven by officials. The soldier and the battle marks on him show that he was beaten; and there were no one who beat anyone except Zverev - consequently, he is very suspicious of the riot. Give him a severe reprimand with the implication that if he does not correct his behavior, he will not be tolerated in the service” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 2. No. 9590). January 5th. Resolution on the consistory decision on sending the sexton to a monastery for six months for drunkenness: “As the priest had a dangerous seizure in the church, coupled with falling to the floor unconscious, and as the resumption of such a seizure during the service could be accompanied by an insult to the shrine of the church, then expel him from the clergy and transfer him to the Provincial Board to choose a different kind of life” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1 S. 2. No. 9591). January 6. Resolution on the consistory report of the dean with the provision of clergy records for 1841: “Send a Chan priest... noticed to be drunk to the Starogolutvin Monastery for two weeks to test his behavior and exhort him to sobriety, entrusting for this time the church and parish to another nearest one, with the income divided in half” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 2. No. 9592). Resolution on the report of the council established at the Lavra regarding the new form of reporting in carryover amounts with the explanation that there are no such in the cathedral: “If there are no carryover amounts, then, of course, there is nothing to count” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 70. No. 9727). Resolution on the presentation of the board of the Moscow Theological Academy of an opinion on the falsity of the reports of the dismissed teacher and the refusal to reinstate him (Resolutions. T. 5. Part 1. P. 75. No. 9741). Letter to Bishop Vitaly (Shchepetev): “I think you have received a resolution on the request of the parishioners of the village of Spasskago that the rubles bequeathed for the decoration of the chapel be turned into a bell. I said that I advise you to stick to your will. But they pester you to get permission. I leave it to you to arrange this, on the assumption that the decoration of the chapel that has already been made can be considered borrowed for this amount” (Letters. 1887. P. 64). January 9. Letter to the governor of the Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony (Medvedev): “I wrote to you that Princess Shakhovskaya wants to help the Diveevskys, and would not even refuse to go to them for this; but as it is difficult to imagine what real benefit her presence would bring, one must know what the situation is and what they need” (Letters to St. Anthony. P. 254. No. 313). January 11. Letter to Bishop Vitaly (Shchepetev): “I hear that in Moscow and in Chudov, on holidays, someone walks barefoot. Apparently, on weekdays there is no need for a feat, because there are few who are surprised. Pay attention to this” (Letters. 1887. P. 64). January 13. Resolution in relation to the chief prosecutor about the desire to baptize a couple of exiled Jews: “The consistory should announce this to the priest visiting the transit castle and instructing these Jews, so that if he finds them trustworthy for conversion, he invites them to follow their godly intention, leaving their children to God’s Providence” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 82. No. 9757). January 14. Resolution on a consistory decision on sending a priest to a monastery for disorder committed by him during a marriage: “The priest is to collect for widows and orphans those two rubles in silver, of which he did not want to give due to the clerk” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. pp. 2–3. No. 9593). Resolution regarding the chief prosecutor on the delivery of reports to the spiritual educational department: “As according to a certificate in my field office, it turned out that these reports, by my resolution on April 19, were supposed to be forwarded and forwarded to the same audit committee that was compiled for the report of Bethany Seminary; but there is no report from this committee to this day; then this committee is urgently confirmed to carry out immediately what is assigned and to give an explanation slowly” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 83. No. 9758). Letter to Bishop Vitaly (Shchepetev): “The state of health of the good fellow believer Ilya Semenovich 143 concerns me. Convey to him my concern and the fact that now in my church a prayer is offered for him” (Letters. 1887. P. 65). January 15. Letter to the Viceroy of the Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony (Medvedev): “I still don’t have time to write to you, Father Viceroy, as freely as I would like” (Letters to St. Anthony. P. 255. No. 314). January 16. Resolution on the consistory report of the dean, providing information that the forbidden deacon did not partake of the Mysteries of Christ in 1841: “The forbidden deacon of Preobrazhensk acted wrongly, without following the spiritual advice of his spiritual father, to reconcile with the priest and partake of the Holy Mysteries. The excuse that there will be reconciliation is insincere and unfounded; for the deacon it was enough for his part to do everything due with a feeling of sincere reconciliation. The insincerity of the priest, even if it had happened, would not have harmed a Christianly reconciled deacon” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 3. No. 9594). Resolution on the consistory report of the dean with the presentation of information about the drunken behavior of the sexton: “The sexton, who was subject to corrective measures twice for drunkenness and indulged in drunkenness worse than before, should be expelled from the clergy, but in respect of recognition and the promised correction, show him leniency and only from Moscow, where he lost his good opinion, should be taken to the village and put under the special supervision of a priest for a year” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 4. No. 9595). Letter to his brother’s widow, Anna Ksenofontovna 144: “...what happened, being sad enough to touch an outsider, is at the same time quite unusual to arouse reflection. The strong young man, who saw before him the door to service and family life opened in a rather pleasant way, at this very time dies 145. It's a matter of fate: there is no one to complain about. The act of fate is quite unusual: apparently, Providence saw an important reason why he should not have entered the open door, why the life-companion that was being prepared for him should be protected from this communication. Now I will tell you that before it would have been strange and useless to speak when the deed seemed done; – from the first time I saw the deceased, it seemed incredible to me that he would be close to our family and bring comfort. Only on some occasion did I partially reveal to my mother this thought, to which I myself did not want to attach faith, but which now turns out to be not a dream. And I think that through early sorrow the Lord delivered us from some greater sorrow” (Letters. 1882. pp. 358–359. no. 416). January 17. Resolution on the petition of the parishioners to appoint his grandson, the parish deacon, to replace the deceased priest: “As a deacon has the legal years for the priesthood, the degree of a student, approval from the registers and the election of honorary parishioners, then, in respect of this election and in consideration of the memory of the late archpriest, the Right Reverend, after proper paperwork and testing, whether there is any doubt, has to make this deacon as a priest to this church" (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 4. No. 9596). January 19. Letter to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count N. A. Protasov: “Our pious ancestors, according to the special providence of the Almighty for our dear fatherland, having accepted the Orthodox Christian faith in all its purity, the inspired books of the Holy Scriptures, on which it is based hitherto, reverently kept from any innovation, as a most precious heritage, as an invaluable gift of God and a guarantee of temporary prosperity and eternal bliss. Our great and sacred duty, entrusted to us by God, is to preserve this pledge and pass it on to our descendants in all its purity, so as not to appear shamefully before the face of the Lord God and our Savior Jesus Christ on the day of the revelation of His glory” (Opinions. T. Add. P. 93. No. 28). January 20. Resolution at the consistory resolution on the transfer of a hierodeacon banned from the priesthood to a novice position for unworthy behavior: “The banned hierodeacon... is recognized as deserving of defrocking, but in order for him to take advantage of the High Monarch's mercy, according to the Most Merciful Manifesto, not to deprive him of his title, but to leave him banned from priestly service for a year, so that if he is in this year in drunkenness and disorderliness will not be noticed, then, depending on the degree of approval, he has a judgment about allowing him to serve in the priesthood; whether during this year he will again fall into drunkenness and disorder... then, if he has not taken advantage of mercy, he will certainly and steadily be deprived of his dignity” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. pp. 4–5. No. 9597). Letter to the Viceroy of the Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony (Medvedev): “The Diveyevo people concern me, Father Viceroy. Read the attached letter. They write that the deed is not concluded on the land without the approval of the hostel. But will the Eminence present the approval soon? And how will he present it? It would be necessary to make a deed for the land in the name of one of the hostels who has the right to own the land, and she would give it as a gift to the hostel, and thus the approval of the hostel would be granted. Such a presentation would be in order and would show that the hostel has a way of existing. My letter to the Most Reverend John, apparently, had a little effect. Consequently, it would be useless to write anything else. Would you give instructions to the Diveevskys on this? And if they come to St. Petersburg with this state of affairs, I don’t see what can be done” (Letters to St. Anthony. P. 255. No. 315). January 21. Letter to Lieutenant General Dokhturov: “As a result of your letter about your sister, who privately has a stay in the Khotkovo monastery, and wants to be confirmed in this monastery by decree, according to the information I took, it turned out that two obstacles now face her determination: the first is the lack of a vacancy, the second is her lack of an official certificate. I take upon myself the effort to eliminate the first; the official start of the matter depends on herself” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 93. No. 9779). Letter to Archbishop Gabriel (Rozanov): “I have not yet told you that the comments received from you by the venerable translator into Greek of the Long Catechism, immediately upon receipt, I communicated to whoever should, with my desire that they be accepted and satisfied. Afterwards I heard about the slowdown in this matter, no longer from us” (Letters. 1888. P. 85). Letter to Bishop Vitaly (Shchepetev): “I have a sad family case. A student appointed deacon to the Church of the Ascension, the groom of my late brother’s orphan, died. A daughter who became a bride only out of a sense of obedience to her mother probably grieves only about her mother, and she feels sorry for the sorrowful mother” (Letters. 1887. P. 66). January 22. Attitude to the ataman of the Don Army, Lieutenant General M. To G. Vlasov: “With spiritual consolation, I heard the words of a well-disposed and benevolent greeting, which Your Excellency was pleased to address to me on his own behalf and together on behalf of the Don warriors. It is pleasant to be in such communication and it is especially pleasant to think that it is not some private rapprochement that brings us into this communication, but our common love for the Orthodox faith, the Monarch and the Fatherland” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 93. No. 9780) 146 January 23. Resolution on the additional spiritual will of E. A. Melgunova about donating her to the needs of the parish church: “The consistory to fulfill the will of the petitioner with gratitude” (DC. 1890. Part 2. No. 8. P. 480). January 24. Letter to the abbot of the Chudov Monastery, Archimandrite Ioannikiy (Kholuysky): “Immediately upon receipt of this, father abbot, deliver 500 rubles from my money. to my mother, who is staying with the Trinity priest, which is on Listy, near the Sukharev Tower. I immediately say: because she will leave soon” (Sushkov. P. 112). Letter to Bishop Vitaly (Shchepetev): “Ilya Semenovich Babkin writes to me that he sent a petition to the Holy Synod to bring the famous icon of the Most Holy Theotokos from Simonov to his house. The request was not visible, but I wanted to fulfill his wish. By agreement with some of the oldest members of the Holy Synod, I wrote to Fr. Simonov. archimandrite to do what was asked quietly, unlike in other cases. Pay attention to how this will be fulfilled, and notify me” (Letters. 1887. pp. 66–67). January 26. Resolution at the consistory ruling on the approval of the opinion of the spiritual board on the release from punishment according to the most merciful Manifesto of a deacon accused of malfunctioning in his service: “An unrevealed witness testified that the banned deacon stood behind the pulpit for ten minutes and did not read the apostle. Consequently, it created chaos in the Divine service. Cases of this kind are not covered by the Most Merciful Manifesto; the same witness showed that the apostle was read by the wrong deacon. Therefore, send him to David’s hermitage for a month to teach the rite of worship and deanery in the church” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 5. No. 9598). Letter to his brother’s widow, Anna Ksenofontovna: “You might have thought, venerable Sister, that your second letter would console me after the first. This, however, is not entirely true. The place you were looking at closed before receiving your letter, and two honored, not without family people are waiting for similar places, remaining without a place and support and calling on both justice and the philanthropy of their superiors” (Letters. 1882. pp. 359–360. no. 417). January 27. Resolution on the priest’s petition for permission to find a candidate for his place: “The petitioner knows that due to the abundance of worthy candidates, the authorities can only produce masters and candidates who have some merit in the school service directly to the priesthood of the Moscow churches” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 5. No. 9599). Resolution on the report of the acting dean with the presentation of the clergy records for 1841: “He cannot remain in the position of dean, because the spiritual Board has noticed only a respectable one in the lack of activity and behavior” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 6. No. 9600). Resolution on the letter from the President of the Moscow Committee about those asking for the appointment of a hieromonk and a novice from the Chrysostom Monastery to serve in the Workhouse Church: “The consistory is to instruct the Chrysostom abbot to take special care so that the hieromonk and novice appointed are serviceable and serve in due time with due deanery and reverence” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 83. No. 9759). January 28. Resolution on the dean’s report with the presentation of the clergy lists for 1841: “Georgievsky, in Vspolye, Deacon Lev Protopopov did not preach sermons at all and was not always correct in his position, noticeably due to intoxication. As this has been noticed not for the first time, in order to test, correct and conquer the habit of intoxication with the opposite habit of sobriety, send him for forty days to the Peshnoshsky monastery so that he would be occupied with priestly service and church and other obediences, completely abstain from drinking strong drinks with vigilant supervision and admonition, and whether there will be good success in this and what comments about the deacon will be made by the rector, it was reported to me in detail" (Resolutions Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 6. No. 9601). January 30. Resolution on the priest’s petition to remove his son, who was excluded from the clergy, from his house: “To announce to the petitioner that he has parental authority to remove an unworthy son from the house, and if the assistance of the authorities is needed in this, he must turn to the civilian, since his son is excluded from the clergy” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 7. No. 9602). January 31st. Letter to the Governor of the Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony (Medvedev): “I remember that I heard from you about the lithographed translation of the books of the Old Testament. A denunciation was sent from Vladimir against him, and the case will almost reveal the names of everyone to whom he was sent from St. Petersburg. Wouldn’t it be nice if those who had this publication, not on demand, but themselves presented it to the authorities as one in which there were important inaccuracies? I have not yet happened to consider this translation, except for a short glance, but the errors indicated in the denunciation are important 147 "(Letters to St. Anthony. P. 256. No. 316). From the memoirs of A. N. Muravyov: “In the spring of 1842, an important event took place in the Synod. Three unnamed letters were written to three Metropolitans - Novgorod, Kyiv and Moscow - that at Trinity Academy students were using a lithographic translation of prophecies made in a non-Orthodox spirit. All three letters were presented to the Chief Prosecutor; The Bishop of Moscow had a presentiment that there would be unpleasant consequences from this, especially since the lithography was produced at the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, which the Chief Prosecutor had just taken over from the former Commission of Theological Schools. At his suggestion, the Metropolitan of Kiev proposed that the strictest investigation be ordered into this matter in Moscow, Kyiv and St. Petersburg, and Vladyka Seraphim of Novgorod, already completely decrepit, asked the Count in writing to stand up for Orthodoxy (as if he were in danger). Soon a new proposal from the Chief Prosecutor followed: as if another 5 tons had been found at the Moscow Academy. copies, no longer lithographed, but printed from another translation of the Bible, even worse, and this was also reported to the Emperor, although Metropolitan Philaret begged to be given two weeks of time to expose this denunciation, which indeed turned out to be false” (Letters. 1869. pp. 60–61. no. 43). Letter to Bishop Vitaly (Shchepetev): “Receive, Your Eminence, the petition of the Guslitsky parishioners with a complaint against the clergy for the church trading land. This is not a good thing. The neck of the people there is cruel. If the civil authorities intervene in this matter, then the church can benefit a lot” (Letters. 1887. P. 67). February 3. Resolution on the report of the dean on the direct provision of reports to the diocesan authorities from ordinary priests, not through deans: “Why block the clergy’s path directly to the authorities? If the merits of the elders were presented to the diocesan authorities by the clergy and parishioners, this could be used for certification. Now he intervened in the matter ahead of time and became no longer an outside observer on it” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 7. No. 9603). Resolution on the request of the collegiate councilor for permission to correct the dilapidated iconostasis in the church: “To allow the dean to first inspect and find out whether the proposed corrections can be made while preserving the holy throne. If it is there, then remove it in the presence of the dean, examine whether there are any holy relics or ancient antimensions in it, and report the following in detail” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 7. No. 9604). Letter from mother: “The unfortunate circumstances of my relatives are very painful to me, and especially the fact that they disturb your peace. But the sadness that came instead of the expected consolation came not from people, but from a visit from God. Therefore, one must humbly submit to the will of the Heavenly Father. And again we will find consolation only when He deigns to give it” (Letters. 1882. P. 355. No. 418). February 3. Resolution on the explanation of a deacon who was unfairly asked to leave the position of a teacher of the law and who asked for archpastoral protection: “The good teacher of the law is the one who is sought and desired, and not the one who wants to fight for the position of teacher of the law as if for property” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 8. No. 9605). February 8. Resolution on the presentation of the editorial committee of the MDA of translations of St. Gregory the Theologian: “I don’t think it would be appropriate to force St. Gregory to say: shepherd of oxen and sheep, Brilliant God, etc. <...> Isn't it strange in a biography to refer to the Latin edition and write: or. 4. or. 5, when do you make a Russian edition, and does God grant you to have readers who do not know the Latin edition? <...> Your child commits a crime, and you punish the child: punish the child, but spare the grammar and logic <...> The title is long and not quite intelligible. And what is it for? Is it really enough to write an equally heavy page under it and then write separate articles with their own titles and be subject to the need to use a boring note in the publication: there will be a continuation in the future? (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1.S. 76. No. 9742). Resolution at the presentation of the opinion of the Bethany Theological Seminary on the expulsion of a student: “The student should be expelled from the school immediately because he has disapproving behavior, and it is necessary to quickly take away the bad example from others” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 77. No. 9743). February 10. Letter to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count N.A. Protasov: “The Rector of the Academy, Archimandrite Eusebius, according to this order, having received the Academy with an accurate overview of all parts, reported to me the following about its condition: 1) The educational part of the Academy, both in the highest and lowest departments, is in perfect repair. 2) On the moral side, both in the supervision of students and in their behavior, the rules of the academic regulations on this subject are strictly observed. 3) The amounts: academic, committee for building a bachelor’s corps and commission for building a hospital - they were all there” (Letters. 1888. Part 2. P. 4). Letter to Bishop Vitaly (Shchepetev): “Fulfill, Your Eminence, according to what I wrote on the attached note and on the letter from Fr. Archimandrite. This last shows the remarkable state of our affairs. The prejudice of the chief metropolitan 148 makes it difficult to perform a prayer service in the house of one sick person. Three other metropolitans 149 agree to show leniency; and one of these 150 accepts to announce this and, consequently, accepts responsibility for the announcement and consequences. The Archimandrite does not rely on what the Metropolitan writes, and what the three Metropolitans say, but wants to rely better on what Secretary Voinov 151 signs. A sinner, a lawless one. Meekness will come upon us, and we will be punished... It is perhaps not superfluous to tell you quietly that according to a denunciation sent to the three senior members of the Synod, the existence of a lithographed translation of some books of the Old Testament was revealed. Translation 152, and especially the introductions, are very unorthodox. The details of the research are not yet known, but they say that the copies are very common and are in the hands of some of the lower clergy. And receiving an illegal publication is illegal, and non-announcement may be accepted even more unfavorably, although the former was a matter of curiosity, and the latter of reluctance to be an informer. It seems that those who received it would have done well if they had said and presented it, without waiting for the fact that, perhaps, they would be searched at the direction of those who sent it. I ask you to use this information, whether it happens, for benefit, but not for rumor” (Letters. 1887. pp. 68–69). February 11. Report to the Holy Synod on the measures taken in the Moscow diocese upon the discovery of an incorrect translation into Russian of some of the books of the Old Testament: “Having received in one of three copies an unsigned denunciation known to the Holy Synod from Vladimir about the existence of a lithographed incorrect translation of some books of the Old Testament, with notes that deviate far from the true reason of the word God and the interpretations of the holy fathers, with the confidence that the other two copies were being properly examined, I immediately felt concerned in relation to the diocese entrusted to me, so that tares would not be sown. The first concern was paid to the Academy, in which, with a special disposition towards curiosity, it was especially necessary to be careful that some would not be attracted by curiosity to the unfortunate news” (Opinions. Vol. III. P. 52). Resolution on the report of the board of the Moscow Theological Academy about lithographed copies of the translation of the Old Testament: “The matter ceases to be secret: however, unnecessary publicity should in any case be avoided... twelve copies should be submitted to me for forwarding to where it should be. At the same time, declare as a precaution so that they do not destroy the copies themselves, because the one who presented it clearly shows a straightforward action, and the one declaring the copy destroyed may be subject to suspicion that he hid it” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 83. No. 9760). February 13. Letter to the Governor of the Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony (Medvedev): “Since it has been revealed that the novice of Behemoths bought an illegally lithographed and non-Orthodox translation of some books of the Old Testament, and this reveals the need for prudent attention to the brethren of the Lavra on this subject, the governor of the Lavra is instructed to carefully inquire whether any of the brethren have this book; and, if this is revealed, explain the illegality of this and arrange, without waiting for a formal investigation, to present the book for presentation to me and for forwarding where it should be” (Letters to St. Anthony. pp. 256–257. No. 317). February 14. Letter to the Viceroy of the Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony (Medvedev): “Peace to your soul, Father Viceroy, and for the peace of my humble soul, say a prayer. It was not so difficult for me to come to terms with the sorrows of my family, because I saw in some way that the Lord, through sorrows, delivers from great sorrows. Church sorrows are difficult. The waves rise, and silence is not visible behind them. Jonah, self-willedly guilty of the storm, is exposed, but the storm does not want to leave those in the ship alone. Let us pray through prayers to Him who forbids the winds and the sea” (Letters to St. Anthony. P. 257. No. 318). February 16. Resolution on the consistory report with the presentation of personal lists of cases not resolved by the presence and not executed by the office: “The list sheet shows 62 cases under the diocesan authorities and added that most of them were resolved and handed over in the genvar. But I mean only one case that was not decided for special reasons; and at the beginning of last January, I did not have in mind the remaining matters for me, except for the necessary time for resolution and forwarding. It must be assumed that the Consistory considered the affairs of the diocesan authorities from the moment they were presented to the Right Reverend for conclusion; and since considerable time is required for consideration by the Eminence and forwarding to me, for review by me and for forwarding back from me, the mass of cases daily leaving the Consistory and before their return to it can be great. In the same case, it would not be superfluous to explain in a note that a significant number of cases are handled by the diocesan authorities, due to the inevitable clerical and postal traffic thereof” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 9. No. 9606). February 17. Resolution on the report of the cathedral established at the Lavra on the provisions of provisions for 1842: “Bread is cheaper, and the consumption is almost more than before. Isn’t it because they didn’t sign it because it’s a shame to sign an unnecessarily increased expense?” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 71. No. 9728). February 18. Letter to Bishop Vitaly (Shchepetev): “Tell the priest Master of Zagorsk why he, having received a lithographed translation of some books of the Old Testament, with obvious contradictions to Orthodoxy, does not present it to his superiors? Why doesn’t he think that this detention could subject him to suspicion before his superiors of being partial to non-Orthodox opinions? Didn't you receive it? But the proof that I received it is clear” (Letters. 1887. P. 69). February 19. Resolution on the report of the abbot of the Chudov Monastery on permission to deduct part of the money from the hieromonk’s income for not serving the liturgy: “It is persuasive to remind Hieromonk Irinarch that it is time for him to improve his life, so that with a thirst for the fiery drink he does not pass into the next century and not be led by it to the land of eternal fire” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 71. No. 9729). February 20. Letter to F. Ya. Repninsky 153: “It is difficult and difficult to be in the fight with the old Adam for a long time, to see him still in strength or renewing his strength after his deposition and not yet see the rather decisive victory of the new man. But you solved this problem well. If everything were done easily, quickly, with just the help given, almost without effort and care of ourselves, then where would there be battle and feat? So, there is no need to be discouraged that the battle continues; but we must look to the Leader, the Lord Jesus, follow Him, with His help, carefully use the weapons He gives, and use strength or even weakness as a weapon; notice where and how the enemy attacks, and, depending on that, take precautions, do not rely on a private victory and do not doze off after it” (RA. 1891. pp. 287–288. no. 5). February 21. Resolution on the report of the inspector of the Bethany Seminary about the modest behavior of a student sent to the seminary for correction: “I ask Fr. rector and inspector, take care of the correction of this youth, admonishing him from me, so that through the stumblings that have happened, he learns to guard against more disastrous falls, so as not to become the cause of an unhappy life for himself and sadness for his parent” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 78. No. 9744). Letter to Bishop Vitaly (Shchepetev): “I again received a letter from Ilya Semenovich Babkin about the raising of the icon from Simonov. But what should I do now more than what I did before? The Synod meetings are over; it is not my business to give orders in a stauropegic monastery, whether there is or would not be a special order of the Holy Synod for this case, much less when there is one” (Letters. 1887. P. 70). February 24. Resolution on the petition of the priest and the elder for permission to sell the unfinished iconostasis, and in its place to build a new one according to the attached drawing: “The ancient Church, more than others, requires an iconostasis in an ancient character, which the presented drawing does not represent” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 9. No. 9607). Review of the translation into Russian of the book “On the Imitation of Jesus Christ” 154: “It is not safe to agree with the rule that the accuracy of the translation should be sought not in words, but in thoughts and spirit. If the translator does not adhere to possible accuracy in the words of the translation, in order to more accurately preserve thoughts, and, neglecting the words, searches for the spirit, then it may happen that he inserts his own spirit into the work being translated, instead of finding the spirit of the writer” (Opinions. T. additional p. 95. No. 29). February 25. Opinion about the visions of a Nizhny Novgorod bourgeois woman: “The matter becomes less specious and darker from the explanations received. Testimony that it is required to build Lukina’s house, and not an almshouse, changes the appearance of the case a lot, but against several witnesses, a particularly important witness, the vice-governor speaks about the almshouse and the house. The testimony left out other necessary information. For example: who is Serebrennikov? Why was Lukina in his house and praying in the chalk circle? Who thought of this and why? Did the clergy at one time report to the Eminence what they knew? If they didn’t inform, why? If they reported, what permissions and instructions did they receive? Information from the Eminence is also needed in order to understand this matter more clearly and reliably” (Opinions. 1905. pp. 83–84). February 26. Resolution on the consistory ruling on the rare service of liturgies during Lent: “The priests showed that the service during the Dormition Lent was carried out in the usual manner, but there was no daily service. What does normal mean? Is this not an admission under the guise of denial that the service was only on Sundays? And if this is so, then this cannot be considered satisfactory with two priests, especially during Lent” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. pp. 9–10. No. 9608). Letter to the Governor of the Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony (Medvedev): “It’s good that you don’t feel sorry for the lithographed translation of the Old Testament, but it’s a pity that you had it. And the translation is not good, and especially bad are the remarks or introductions attached to it, which are contrary to the dignity of the sacred books and destroy the prophecies about Christ in them. Looking at this matter as it has now been revealed, they look here not so much as a simple oversight or bewilderment as to what to do, but as a cover-up for an unorthodox matter, for receiving copies of this translation and not providing them to the authorities immediately” (Letters to St. Anthony. P. 258. No. 319). February 28. Opinion regarding the appearance of a lithographed incorrect translation of some books of the Old Testament into Russian: “Prohibitive means alone are not quite reliable when curiosity, which is spreading more and more from day to day, rushes in all directions for its satisfaction and all the more intensely rushes into illegal paths, where legal ones are not well organized. Therefore, care must be taken to provide a correct and convenient aid to the understanding of the Holy Scriptures. For this purpose, the following assumptions are left to trial and choice: 1. To publish gradually interpretations of the sacred books, starting with the prophetic ones, which are especially attacked and whose thorough interpretation is especially important in relation to their contents to the New Testament 2. To make a publication of the entire Slavic Bible, adapted for the most convenient use and understanding... Above each chapter of the Slavic biblical text, which must remain inviolable in its composition, briefly, but sufficiently, state its contents and print it in distinctive small letters. Such an indication of the content in general will be a useful direction for the attention and reflection of the reader, especially in prophetic and difficult chapters it will guide the correct understanding of the text” (Opinions. Vol. III. pp. 55–56). From the memoirs of N.V. Sushkov: “Once, in a private, friendly conversation between two saints 155, the conversation came up about the ambiguity and inaccuracy in various places of the Slavic translation of the Bible. Discussing how to correct the most important errors and inaccuracies, without expecting a new translation, they came to the conclusion that it is possible: where to add an interpretation, where to replace an incomprehensible word and incorrect expression with another word and expression, where to explain the meaning in a short list of contents (sommaire, summarium) in the table of contents of this or that book, song, message, etc. But according to the word of God: “There is nothing secret things that will not be revealed, nor hidden things that will not be known. Therefore, whatever you have said in the dark will be heard in the light, and what you have spoken in the ear within the house will be proclaimed from the housetops.” The Chief Prosecutor also learned about this conversation. The active, receptive, fiery Count Nikolai Alexandrovich appears to Philaret of Moscow and, with his usual directness, asks him: “Is the rumor that has reached him true?” The saint, with his characteristic sincerity, conveyed the conversation that happened word for word. Then the Chief Prosecutor asked: Would he dare to give him a note about such an important issue in order to think about it himself and evaluate the opinion of the two senior Members of the Synod? - “Willingly!” - said in response. - I will not renounce my words and what I just told Your Excellency, I will say the same in a letter.” Having received the note and, of course, checking the story of one Metropolitan with the story of another, he had to talk about it to the first Seraphim, who, since the closure of the Bible Society, had constantly been against the translation of the Bible. The count, from his words, ordered (to maintain clerical secrecy) in his office to write from him to himself an Attitude in the sense that no interpretations on St. Scripture. The Emperor, having reviewed the report, agreed with the conclusion of the decrepit Seraphim. When signing the protocol on hearing the Highest Review, Filaret of Kiev insisted that a certificate be included in the Protocol stating that there was no judgment on the correction of the Slavic Bible in the synod; that the conversation about this took place in a private conversation between two comrades at home; that if you start a business, you must first propose the raised issue to the presence, take the opinion of all members and then go with the Report to the emperor. Philaret of Moscow little by little calmed him down and convinced him not to start litigation, in essence, not with the Office of the Prosecutor, but with the superior, to the great temptation of the Church; he humbly advised not to return insult for insult, not to be angry, to submit” (CHOIDR. 1869. Part IV. Mixture. pp. 184–185). Letter to the mother: “I cannot miss the day of your Angel, so as not to turn to you with my filial heart with the desire that the Lord will prolong your days in peace, for the comfort and good of your children, who trust in your blessing and prayers” (Letters. 1882. P. 361. No. 419). February. An amendment was made to the draft ruling of the Holy Synod on the case of the wedding of schismatics in Edinoverie churches: “1) The recognition of those married in a Edinoverie Church as decisively belonging to this church is subject to the consideration of the spiritual, and not the secular, authorities; 2) this recognition must depend on how they take advantage of the leniency shown, and, consequently, the question of this cannot be resolved with one general answer, but requires special observations and considerations from the spiritual authorities” (Reports and letters. 1891. P. 9). March 2. Note on the appointment of clergy as teachers of parish schools: “The idea of this note, in order for it to be easy to implement, could be defined as follows: teachers of rural schools can be: a) rural priests, when this is in conjunction with the circumstances of the parish, b) rural deacons or clerks, whichever of them is more capable, under the supervision of a priest, c) students dismissed from the seminary, but not yet received places at churches, also under the supervision of a priest” (Opinions. 1905. P. 85). March 3. Resolution on the testimony of a priest authorized to serve in search of a priestly place: “The priest has been left without a place for a long time and still wants to remain without a place. So that he does not remain a wandering mercenary, confirm to him that he should not hesitate to look for a place” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1.S. 10. No. 9609). March 9. Diary entry: “40 martyr. March. Illness forced me to leave the Holy Synod prematurely, and thus God saved me from hearing somewhat difficult things.” March 10. Letter to Archimandrite Ignatius (Brianchaninov): “Although you forbid me, Most Reverend Father Archimandrite, to write, however, I cannot not respond in this way to the pleasant traits of brotherly love led by the hand. Your communication with my humility is very comforting to me, and for me it would not only be pleasant, but, I hope, edifying to share prayer and conversation with you and see the dispensation of your brethren. But I am a slave of both my occupations and my infirmities, and therefore I am not able to promise you what I do not want to refuse” (BV. 1912. Vol. 4. No. 12. pp. 687–688 - 2nd page). March 11. Resolution on the draft presentation to the Holy Synod of the translation of St. John Chrysostom: “Ephesus is the main city of Asia. Don't translators know geography? What are the Greek words inserted into? – Heading is the compression of a long speech. Is that called the title? - By the luck of the lot. Is it an accident? - For this reason, understand the rest. - So that you can accept it (baptism) again. Does Saint Chrysostom really teach to be re-baptized?” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 78. No. 9745). March 12. Report to the Holy Synod: “In pursuance of the decree of the Holy Synod of November 27, 1841, “Index to the book of the rules of the holy apostles, holy councils and holy fathers,” revised and partially abbreviated and cleared, I present herewith at the further discretion of the Holy Synod” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 93. No. 9781). Resolution on the report of the council established at the Lavra on permission to take land from peasants for rent: “Whether the land will bring benefit and what kind of benefit is not clear. Or you can fall into unforeseen and undesirable consequences by contract” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 71. No. 9730). Letter to the Viceroy of the Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony (Medvedev): “Since salvation lies in much advice, which I often need, and wish to have it from those who fear God, then I ask you, Father Viceroy, to read the attached note and tell me whether you think that I can be peaceful by writing it, and not reproach myself if, beyond hope, some do not only do everything on the saints The fathers based only the sacred books, but they also find the table of contents dangerous. Leave the note with you for me” (Letters to St. Anthony. P. 259. No. 320). March 13. Opinion on the attitude of Major General L.V. Dubelt 156 about the right of monastics, novices and novices to leave monasteries to collect alms in their own and other dioceses: “Diocesan bishops can only allow collection by books in their own diocese, because they cannot manage someone else’s. A collector of the Nizhny Novgorod diocese can come to the Orenburg diocese by right of the passport given to him, without having the right to use the book. But the Orenburg Bishop, who has the power to manage in his diocese, can allow the Nizhny Novgorod collector to collect in his diocese. In this way, the diocesan authorities help one another; and without this, collections in some dioceses would be unsuccessful and unsatisfactory for needs” (Opinions. 1905. P. 91). Letter to Archbishop Gabriel (Gorodkov): “I thank Your Eminence for remembering me, the infirm one. Although I am not quite strengthened, it is advisable for me to be with His Eminence of Kiev 157 in the evening. I hope that I will not lose your visit on another day” (CHOIDR. 1868. Book 2. P. 52). March 17. Resolution at the consistory resolution on submitting for consideration to the Moscow provincial government the deviation from the schism of a Moscow merchant with his family: “The Eminence still has the difficulty of admonishing personally the servant of God Vasily, so that he protects himself from a heavy answer before the court of God for departing from the holy catholic and apostolic church, from which he received the consecration of the sacraments for himself and his children, and for following the mentors, those who do not have blessings and sanctification, and preach only enmity and slander against the holy church. Is there anyone who will not obey: to fulfill this determination” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 11 No. 9610). March 18. Resolution on the relation of the chief prosecutor with the sexton’s request for assistance: “As the most submissive petition attached to this was written by the same hand with a similar petition from the Nepetsinsky sexton and, consequently, certainly one, and probably both, were written and signed by someone else’s hand, then both clerks should be questioned as to who wrote and signed the petition and why they didn’t sign it themselves, being literate.” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 84 No. 9761). Letter to Bishop Vitaly (Shchepetev): “The biblical alphabet, as far as I see... does not show a high opinion of itself. The book does not present the arrangement of objects correctly and conveniently for use and edification. The texts seem to be cobbled together from different places, rather than sorted into subjects of study and reflection. But the main problem is that the lithographed translation of the Old Testament books has hardened jealousy against any translation of the Holy Scriptures into the Russian dialect. There is not the slightest hope that this alphabet will be allowed to be printed” (Letters. 1887. pp. 70–71). March 20. Resolution regarding the landowner on permission to perform divine services in the last days of Lent and on the feast of St. Easter in the church, closed by decree of the Consistory: “As it is clear from the architect’s estimate that the building is not in danger of falling, and it is intended to be corrected by repairs; and as a precaution against falling bricks, a strong wooden machine was installed in the arch, then, in respect of this request and the approaching Easter holiday, the spiritual Board will immediately order the dean, having arrived at the place, to inspect the current position of the building, and whether the local clergy and the landowner will accept their responsibility, that the measures taken completely ensure against a dangerous case, to announce permission to continue the priesthood in this church until the celebration of the holiday Easter" (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 84. No. 9762). March 24. Attitude to the Minister of the Imperial Court, Prince Π. M. Volkonsky: “...to fulfill the Highest charitable will, I instructed the Most Reverend Vicar of Moscow, under his chairmanship, to form a committee of two senior archimandrites and two archpriests with a secretary; to discover those worthy of taking advantage of the Highest mercy, use the rules that were used in the same case in the past 1840; to accurately fulfill the Highest will, use every possible and most rigorous diligence and draw up a list of respects awarded with explanations” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1.S. 94. No. 9782). March 25. Resolution on a consistory decision on a sexton’s complaint about harassment allegedly made to him by a priest: “It would be fairer for a priest suspected of theft and covered up by the priest to be left with the theft-coverer on his responsibility, rather than to be transferred to another and an innocent person exposed to fear of theft” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. pp. 11–12. No. 9611). Resolution on the dean’s report on collecting extra money from parishioners for weddings: “As they admitted, the priest hesitantly asked for ten rubles for marriages, and the clerk, who asked for three rubles and fifty kopecks for searches, but they shouldn’t have asked to stop the marriages, because this is contrary to the rules and humiliating for the rank, and burdensome for the parishioners and It is tempting to collect from them the money received by the priest and the clerk for the marriages shown in this case as a penalty for widows and orphans, and to confirm to them that they act modestly, according to the duty of their rank” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 12. No. 9612). Resolution on the petition of the monastery treasurer for a small, in his opinion, granting him money from the large monastic income: “The petition, as written on plain paper, is left without action. But will it be legal to ask? the Reverend can dismiss him for a decent period. But out of the duty of brotherly love to tell him that it would be more beneficial for his soul if he, already having a lot of money, not only did not get angry because they gave only a hundred rubles, but would distribute these hundred rubles to the poor; a small dacha from a mug does not in the least contradict the dignity of an ancient elder, but unnecessary competition for money does contradict this” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 12. No. 9613). March 26. Opinion about installing circles in churches to collect donations for the benefit of the poor and about separating part of the church collection for their benefit: “Collections already exist in churches. 1) To the church. 2) For the poor of spiritual rank. 3) For those who were ruined by various incidents. 4) For the Holy Sepulcher in some. 5) In some churches in St. Petersburg, circles were set up for the poor from the Imperial Humane Society. 6) The candle collection supports all theological schools, some clergy, helps build churches, and helps the poor of the clergy who suffered from the fire. It is insufficient - for church needs, if they are not satisfied very meagerly. It seems that if anything can be done, then perhaps encourage it, where it is possible to establish almshouses in churches. They will be more willing to give to the poor of their parish, and the poor will be more simply and more truly despised” (Opinions. 1905. P. 87). Resolution on the priest’s report on the design of the royal gates for the iconostasis with a drawing attached: “It goes from one extreme to the other. In the previous project there were two crosses, one above the other, which is incongruous. There’s not even one in the new” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1 P. 13. No. 9614). Resolution on the priest’s petition for the issuance of a new antimension to replace the old one: “The antimension is without holy relics, and there is no noticeable sign that they were there. Order that a new, consecrated one be issued. This, almost a century old, should be kept in the sacristy as an antiquity” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 18. No. 9627). March 27. Resolution on the petition of the priest’s widow for permission to find a worthy candidate for her husband’s place, who would agree to marry her daughter: “The priestly place has worthy and deserved candidates, who also need a placement and call upon the justice and philanthropy of their superiors; and there is no candidate not only equal, but even close to their dignity, from the orphaned family” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 13. No. 9615). Resolution on the report of the economist of the Trinity Compound in St. Petersburg with a request for the issuance of money for household expenses (Resolutions. T. 5. Part 1. P. 71. No. 9731). A note on the baptism of children of other faiths by Orthodox priests: “According to the rulings that existed in 1802 (and have always been the same), parents of the Roman Catholic confession could not allow priests of the Eastern Church to baptize their children according to the Roman Catholic rite, because Eastern priests could not (and cannot) do this; but they could allow children to be baptized according to the Eastern rite” (Opinions. Vol. add. P. 97. No. 30). Letter to Bishop Vitaly (Shchepetev): “From the paper sent yesterday to your Eminence, you see what temptation happened. The highest donated charitable sum 158 did not reach me for about five months. I ask you to use special activities with the committee for the speedy fulfillment of the Highest will” (Letters. 1887. P. 72). March 28. Opinion on what to call the buildings in which schismatics hold their services: “It’s a necessary question. But I think it would have been more convenient to resolve it in the past century. The schismatics call churches not all houses of prayer that have the internal structure of churches, but those, in fact, in which the liturgy has long been allowed to be celebrated, after the consecration of the throne by a stolen antimension, without the blessing of the spiritual authorities, by illegal priests. Such houses of prayer, as unblessed and illegal, of course, do not have the true character and dignity of churches, and therefore have no right to this name. But wasn’t this name already given to them in official government acts? This is the difficulty. In the helm of this kind of prayer houses are called churches. But the current language will hardly allow this word. Wouldn't there be, according to the circumstances, a restrictive expression: so-called churches? But schismatic houses of prayer, in which the liturgy is not celebrated, even if they had the structure and external appearance of churches, as far as I know, the government has always called chapels and houses of prayer, and not churches” (Opinions. T. additional p. 98. No. 31). March 29. Resolution at the consistory decision on permission to move the side altars of the church closer to the refectory: “... is it better to leave a door or two windows from the real church to the refectory as is, or, by cutting a window to the floor, to form three doors. The communication between the present and the meal in this case is almost the same as through an arch - and the strength of the building is more likely to be preserved and there is no need to spend money on making the arch. However, this idea is not presented in the form of an order. If they want to eat, they will act on it, and if they don’t want to eat, then according to their proposal and plan” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 13. No. 9616). March 31st. Resolution on the priest’s request to transfer him to another priestly place: “If there is any doubt according to the certificate, this priest should be transferred to this place. In his place, if he wishes, transfer the city of Kolomna to the Boris and Gleb Church of the dean priest Porfiry, who, with considerable merit, due to his exhausted state of health, asks to be transferred to Moscow so that he can more conveniently guide himself with the instructions of experienced doctors” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 14. No. 9617). Resolution on the report of the cathedral established at the Lavra to resolve the confusion about which department belongs to the Trinity Metochion: “To answer the Consistory that its duties include monitoring the bishop’s house of the Moscow See; and the Trinity Metochion, which belongs to the Lavra, should remain under the jurisdiction of the Lavra” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 72. No. 9732). April 2. The highest decree on “obligated peasants” was issued, which gave landowners the right to release their peasants with land plots. Letter to Archbishop Parthenius (Chertkov): “I am afraid to be a burden to you, bothering you about a matter that is foreign to me. But please judge that in my case about the Yuryev Cemetery Church there cannot be any of my views; but it’s just a pity to push away people who bother you because of your sense of piety. They increased their capital. The peasants give them the land; Moreover, they say, it has long been a church. This way the obstacles will be removed. What’s the big deal if there is one more church in the city? You know Sergievsky Posad: it already has two cemetery churches, and the Holy Synod has allowed to build a third. Let the Orthodox rejoice in making sacrifices to God; and may God bless them” (PO. 1872. Book 2/3. No. 9. P. 44. No. 33). April 3. Resolution on an extract from the register of the consistory on the request of the former sexton’s wife for permission to look for a candidate to replace her husband, and the groom’s daughter: “... the Eminence had a reason to dissatisfy Nikiforova’s requests without the consent of the priest and parishioners, because her husband was put on trial for participation in a gang of thieves and therefore the parishioners, perhaps, fear that he would not establish himself with the children in previous residence" (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 14. No. 9618). Letter to the abbot of the Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony (Medvedev): “About the Diveyevo and other communities of the Nizhny Novgorod diocese, the matter reached the Holy Synod following a motion given by the Minister of Internal Affairs, and not by the Eminence. It is supposed to establish the community, but I still don’t know how this will happen. The highest permission is required to unite the two communities of Diveyevo into one, I said. The community will not be bound by the conditions of the investor <...> On March 9 and 10, I was not worthy to receive consolation, but I believe that the Lord eased the temptation for me. The note on aids to the understanding of the Holy Scriptures, which you have from me, was strongly lured out of me under the pretext of better understanding the idea that was not originally presented by me; but it was private; I thought that if they found this possible, they would discuss it in the Holy Synod; instead, the note, which is not yet affirmative, is presented in the form of my personal opinion, without telling me that there is an opposing opinion; a refutation is written in exaggerated terms, with which every interpretation of St. The Scriptures are found to be superfluous and dangerous; this was signed by the Bishop of Novgorod, and his opinion was approved by the Highest. This happened on March 7; 9 I was in the Holy Synod, not knowing this, and to this day it has not been announced; 10 I arrived at the Holy Synod, also not knowing what was being prepared for me; but halfway through the meeting, feeling unwell, I went home, and the sudden announcement prepared for me, which in a state of ill health would have been difficult to listen to, followed without me, not without the surprise of others that I left so suddenly just before the announcement <...>. Isn’t the time indicated to me to retire in order to mourn my sins and, outside the rebellion of affairs, to pray for the well-being of the Holy Church? (Letters to St. Anthony. P. 260. No. 321). April 8. Resolution on the dean’s report about the disorder caused by the sexton’s wife during the service in the church: “The sexton is now required to sign by signature so that he does not allow his wife into the church otherwise than under the supervision of relatives or acquaintances who can keep her from disorder, and so that she does not become close to the altar and to the serving priests and church servants” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part. 1. pp. 14–15. No. 9619). A note to A. N. Muravyov with a translation from Hebrew of the song of King Ezekiah: “He [God the Word] enters into His image, wears flesh <...>. God communes with my flesh in order to save both his image and his flesh to immortalize <...>. Gregory the Theologian in his homily for the Nativity of Christ <...> Look at the dog-eared pages. Word: Canaanites, excluded because Midianites, not Canaanites. You have a copy of the new edition of conversations about Orthodoxy. Can’t you give it to me, due to my need now and the lack of similar ones in the local shop?” (Letters. 1869. P. 107. No. 76–77). April 9. Instruction to the rector of the Moscow Theological Academy: “As there is evidence that bachelor Platon Kapustin received two copies of the famous lithographed translation of some books of the Old Testament; but among the voluntarily submitted copies of this book, two copies were not received from Platon Kapustin, then you have, Fr. rector, do the following. 1) Request the said books from the said bachelor and submit them to me for presentation to the Holy Synod. 2) At the same time, take from him and present to me an explanation of when he received these books, from whom, on what occasion, whether he saw them as incorrect, and why he did not present them to his superiors, neither on his own, nor on the occasion that others had already presented them” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 85. No. 9764). Letter to Bishop Vitaly (Shchepetev): “You call on the dean archpriests: Cathedral, Soborno-Kazan and Trinity-Arbat - and instruct them in the most modest, without official forms, but in the most active and accurate way to find out whether any of the clergy of their department from St. Petersburg, or from someone in Moscow, received a lithographed incorrect translation of prophetic and teaching books of the Old Testament, with some introductions and notes incompatible with the dignity of the sacred books" (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 85. No. 9763). April 11. Letter from M. M. Tuchkova: “For the sake of the Suffered and Risen One, I pray to us that through the saving contemplation of His passion He will lead you into the full joy of His Resurrection” (Letters to Abbess Mary. P. 58). Letter 159 to Bishop Vitaly (Shchepetev): “I wish good air and health to Moscow. And my latest illness began quite unexpectedly. Getting up in the morning, I felt dizzy and was surprised by this accident. Then it passed and I went to the Holy Synod. But there I felt so unwell that I hurried home before my usual time. This was quite timely for me to return safely and without further care. The illness continued while sitting in the cell without further difficulties. Now I’m going out again, although not completely healthy, because I haven’t known myself completely healthy for several years now” (Letters. 1887. P. 73). April 12. Resolution on the petition of parishioners to appoint a worthy priest to the church: “...according to the existing rules, a priestly place can be vacant for no more than a year in favor of someone completing theological studies; and to provide a priestly place in favor of a girl for more than a year is not at all the rule and is not in accordance with the benefit of the parish” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 15. No. 9620). April 14. Resolution on the report of the acting dean about the priest correcting the zemstvo position and causing “grievances and oppression to the peasants”: “interrogate the priest and... oblige him with a strict subscription so that he does not interfere with his father’s affairs and does not engage in rural writing” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1.S. 15–16. No. 9621). April 15. Letter to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count N. A. Protasov, about the essays submitted for academic degrees by students who completed a course at the Kyiv Theological Academy in 1841: “Praise to Feofan Prokopovich should be moderated and limited 160 The writer calls penance a precious veil in which the inner reborn man wraps himself; but he does not speak at all about the main penance, which consists in excommunication for a certain period of time from Holy Communion, and about the main reason for this penance, so that the unclean sinner does not eat and drink for himself” 161 (Opinions. T. add. P. 100. No. 32). April 16. A note to A. N. Muravyov with a translation from Hebrew of the song of King Ezekiah (with questions from A. N. Muravyov and answers from Metropolitan Philaret): “Instead of pigeon pus, you can put peas, or pigeon food, that is, some kind of plant seed, which in good times is used only as food for pigeons, and not as food for people. Question: “Please tell me, Holy Master, what is the best way to replace the word increase (sacrifice, sacrifice, or something else?) - Or should I throw out the entire paragraph?” Answer: “They were not slaughtered, nor sacrificed, just hanged; but if you don’t like this precision, then say: put to death. You can skip the rather dark article, however, it doesn’t matter if you stay, a possible explanation is given.” Question: “Please, Holy Master, change the name of the trees in the legend of Susanna: in French, cherry is a pear; and wouldn’t it be better, in the prophecy of the Messiah, to end with the Slavic translation: and in the sanctuary there will be an abomination of desolation.” Answer: “Σχίνος - under the mastic tree. Πρίνος - under the ash tree. The noted lines of the prophecy about the Messiah should either be omitted, or instead of the words: and after the “bird of abomination” will come devastation; put: and “in the sanctuary there will be an abomination that makes desolate.” The rest is beyond doubt” (Letters. 1869. P. 108. No. 78–80). April 17. Opinion on the petition of a tradesman who petitioned for the conversion of the Intercession Monastery of the Chernigov diocese into a Edinoverie and for the appointment of a missionary as a priest in this monastery: “... to assure the petitioner that the Holy Synod accepted with favor his pious desire to have the blessed priesthood, and the disposition to satisfy this desire through Hieromonk Pachomius or another worthy one, by election of those desiring the blessed priesthood, whom the petitioner would try to discover and bring with him into unanimity, to accomplish the work of peace. Let the Eminence fulfill this with the most vigilant caution, so that this is not announced prematurely among the ill-intentioned and so that they do not manage to form an anti-war crowd” (Opinions. 1908. pp. 16–17). Letter 162 to Prince S. M. Golitsyn: “I am thinking about the consolation of talking with you personally. But I still don’t have permission for my return” (Letters. 1884. P. 38. No. 39). April 20. Resolution at the consistory decision on sending the deacon to the Ugreshsky Monastery for a month for drunken behavior and serving matins while drunk on the feast of the Nativity of Christ: “The deacon was already punished for drunkenness, but fell back into the same vice with aggravating circumstances. It is not consistent with the dignity of the Moscow clergy to have such a person among oneself. Therefore, it is necessary to remove him from this parish, assign him to an idle deacon’s place in the village and place him under the special correctional supervision of the local dean” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 16. No. 9622). April 21. Resolution on the consistory determination on the admission of a peasant to the number of novices of the Bobrenegolutvin Monastery: “This determination says that there is no obstacle visible on the part of the civil authorities, but the case says that there is no agreement either” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 16. No. 9623). April 23. Resolution on the petition of a deacon banned from the priesthood with a complaint about the consistory’s failure to announce to him a resolution on his case and the slowness of the proceedings of his case: “The Eminence orders the case to be presented to yourself, and in his presence to announce to the deacon the resolution that he wants to know; and insist on the speedy completion of the matter. As for the permission they requested to file a complaint with the Holy Synod: this permission does not relate to my responsibility; but he must judge for himself whether there is a legitimate need for him to bring a complaint to the Holy Synod; and if there is a need to eat, then no one prevents him from doing so” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 17. No. 9624). Letter to the governor of the Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony (Medvedev): “As for the accusations laid on me by Maxim: my thoughts do not reproach me. I always went out to litia and polyeleos on holidays, sometimes even minor ones; and since then, as I have become weaker, for the most part only on polyeleos; and no Andrei Nikolaevich is “pulling me out” for this. That I sometimes read the Six Psalms on weekdays, and more willingly on weekdays than on holidays, on which besides this there is enough work and fatigue, you know from the Lavra that Vladyka Plato read stichera and doxologies, I have not heard of that. I know that he read the Apostle on weekdays in Bethany and in cathedral services of paremia on Maundy Thursday and Holy Saturday. In this latter matter, I also followed him, when I was able” (Letters to St. Anthony. pp. 262–263. No. 322). Letter to the governor of the Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony (Medvedev): “The Right Reverend of Kiev has been dismissed to his diocese and, perhaps, will visit the Lavra. For this, prepare my cells and receive him as appropriate” (Letters to St. Anthony. P. 265. No. 324). April 25. Resolution on the presentation of the board of the Bethany Theological Seminary that the student came to church drunk: “The offense is important and especially serious because it was committed on the very day of communion of the Holy Mysteries and shows in the student... deep damage to morality” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 78. No. 9746). Letter to Archbishop Ignatius (Semyonov): “Our Lord Jesus Christ, who prayed and implored His Heavenly Father, that all believers may be one, and after His resurrection, promised to remain with us until the end of the age, and the grace of His presence, and the grace of our unity, primarily manifests in this triumph of triumphs, for the glory of His resurrection. Is it not the grace of His presence that makes our joy so full and living? Is it not the grace of unity that directs us towards mutual communication of words and heartfelt feelings? (CHOLDPr. 1871. Book 4. P. 45. – Materials). Letter to Bishop Nikolai (Sokolov): “The crime of the child killer priest is amazing, and without suspicion of another crime. Shouldn't the signs seen lead to the conclusion that he truly fought against someone else's crime? Vigil and prayer are always needed; but at some time it is especially said: watch and pray, so that you do not fall into misfortune. Doesn’t the present belong to such times?” (CHOLDPr. 1870. Book 11. P. 25. - Materials). Letter to Archbishop Smaragd (Kryzhanovsky): “What should you do, Holy Master, when the fate of God leads you from difficult to difficult field? Of course, the Lord sees that forty churches can withstand the strength of your spirit! Yes, if these are those whose shrine was especially poorly protected; and if you cleanse them of the unworthy, then your reward may be more than for a thousand others. The Holy Apostle Paul did not love to build on someone else’s foundation, but you, if God so desires, will love to build from someone else’s destruction” (CHOLDPr. 1870. Book 12. P. 41. – Materials). Letter to Archbishop Gabriel (Rozanov): “Forgive me for not writing everything myself. Missing me. Thank God that your stay has been arranged. I wish that, according to your efforts, it will serve you for peace and health. I reminded you of the delay in sending the catechism to Greece. They say that there was some kind of obstacle, and they promise” (Letters. 1888. P. 86). April 26. Resolution on the consistory ruling on recognizing the marriage of the provincial secretary as illegal: “In order to avert the doubt that could arise from the name “copy” of the metric book, the consistory was not superfluous to explain that the consistory metric is called the original, and the church copy, only because the main copy of the metric must belong to the public office; that, however, the church copy is also an original and modern document, in ordinary cases having the same power of evidence as the consistory copy, and in case of signs of damage to the consistory copy, it has superior force both to prove the truth and to expose the forgery” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 17. No. 9625). Comments on the opinion of Metropolitan Seraphim regarding the appearance of an incorrect translation into Russian of some books of the Old Testament: “In the first of two relations, the Metropolitan of Novgorod rightly expressed the desire that the reasoning of his Eminence be communicated to the Holy Synod. In both respects, we are talking about dogmatic subjects, which, according to church rules, require conciliar consideration. But this could not be done to the Holy Synod - first because the relationship was not communicated to it, and then because all its attention was directed to the fulfillment of the Highest command about the inviolability of the Slavic edition of the Bible, and about other things, and it was untimely to be distracted by discussions about some special sayings of His Eminence, the Metropolitan of Novgorod. Meanwhile, the following requires attention: the saying that the Holy Scriptures were not given by God to the people, but to the class of shepherds and teachers, opens the way into the Eastern Church for the teaching of the Western Church, which from this began to draw consequences that are inconsistent with the word of God and unfavorable to true Christian enlightenment. The Eastern, or, better to say, the universal Church has always recognized that the Holy Scriptures were handed over by God to the entire Holy Church inseparably, and pastors have the duty to explain it Orthodoxy <...>. The judgment according to which any interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, even compiled by comparing the interpretations of the fathers, is considered unnecessary and dangerous, is also not based on the principles recognized by the Orthodox Church and would lead to unfavorable consequences if it were accepted as a rule” (Opinions. Vol. III. pp. 57-59). Letter to Archbishop Parthenius (Chertkov): “The vicar and I are happy to help you with priestly service with love when you need it; and if you have no need, you are strengthened by God and overcome illness, we rejoice over you all the more” (PO. 1872. Book 2/3. No. 9. P. 45. No. 34). April 27. Opinion on the report of Bishop John (Dobrozrakov) about the visions of a Nizhny Novgorod bourgeois woman: “If it is deemed necessary to achieve a full and accurate inquiry; then it would not be superfluous: 1) To forward to the Right Reverend for consideration the interrogation of Lukina in St. Petersburg and the attitude of the military Governor, 2) In case of need of demand and confrontations in heteroglossia, to send Lukina to the place, which, according to the modesty of her character seen in St. Petersburg, there is no doubt, with proper suggestion to her, so that, apart from a legitimate question from the authorities, no one about her adventures didn’t open it” (Opinions. 1905. P. 89). April 28. Letter to Bishop Jacob (Vecherkov): “1) If schismatic monasteries are agglomerations of self-will and temptation, which is, of course, true, then it is necessary to correctly and firmly, but not in a passionate way, bring these disorders to the attention of the authorities. This gives the authorities a legal way to tame the schism and weaken its strength. 2) It is, of course, difficult with those who have different opinions and who are mistaken. We must act with prudence, with peace, with patience and constantly call for help from above. Sometimes you can use leniency that is not defined by the rules, for example, allowing children to be baptized by a schismatic without requiring an obligation to be raised in Orthodoxy (so that the child, due to the stubbornness of the parents, does not completely lose the grace of baptism); but such permission must be given to priests in instructions from the bishop, as their spiritual father, and it is not always possible to write something like this officially” (Sushkov. P. 184). Letter to Archimandrite Nikodim (Kazantsev): “Most Reverend Father Archimandrite and Rector! The comments made on your Russian Grammar by some mentors of the Moscow Theological Schools, together with the grammar itself, I forward to you for your consideration. Do you have any questions about my opinion? Unfortunately, I don’t find myself convinced that the desired goal has been achieved - simplifying the study of Russian Grammar for children. The big stumbling block is the verb system. It must be admitted that new systems seek their foundation in the spirit of language, and old ones in the patterns of foreign languages ​​that preceded Grammar. It would be possible not to worry about theory for practical convenience, but will Grammar have little advantage in this last respect, than will it be able to repel attacks on theory? Recently, 3 volumes of Philological Observations of Archpriest G. Pavskago on the composition of the Russian language have been published. It is not without benefit for you to get acquainted with this book before you decide on your Grammar. However, I earnestly invoke God’s blessing for your well-intentioned and useful activities” (Kazantsev. pp. 50–52, 93). April 29. Letter to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count N. A. Protasov: “Due to my six-month absence from the diocese most highly entrusted to my management in the coming time, the need for personal on-site performance of the diocesan duties that lie upon me in relation to worship, inspection of the places under charge and supervision of the subordinate clergy and ongoing affairs, prompts me to have the boldness to most submissively ask from the most pious Sovereign Emperor, the most merciful permission for my return to the Moscow diocese” (Opinions. T. add. P. 110. No. 33). April. Opinion regarding the note on the Riga schismatics and the newly drawn up rules for stopping immorality in marriage and families: “The newly proposed rules give the police the right to approve special forms of schismatic unions without weddings (Rules 5–10). This would mean introducing a new type of marital union, unknown and contrary to the laws, recognizing what is not recognized by the laws, legalizing what is illegal, and turning what is tolerated out of necessity into something protected. This would serve as a strong reinforcement of the schism and would create new difficulties in relation to existing laws. The right given by the supposed rules to schismatics (Raw. 47, 48) to baptize children, according to the confession of their mothers, into the Roman or Lutheran confession, is contrary to the state law, according to which tolerant confessions cannot accept people from the dominant religion; schismatics are a branch of the dominant religion, albeit a damaged one. Assuming this, while the schismatics are especially alienated from Orthodoxy, and have become close to the non-believers in Riga due to local circumstances and adopted their customs, there is reason to fear that the schismatic population of Riga would begin to overflow into the heterodox, thereby losing their national character” (Opinions. Vol. III. pp. 62–63). April-May. From the memoirs of Bishop Nikodim (Kazantsev): “Karasevsky asked me to revise the Grammar of Fr. Macarius, wondering whether it is possible to print it and replace Grech’s grammar with it. I found out that Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow read it and did not approve. I read it myself, and also could not approve, even in my judgment. Then Karasevsky said to me: would you like me to take the trouble to write a Grammar? I undertook it willingly, although, incidentally, also frivolously: I thought of writing it in three months, but meanwhile I wrote it for six months. By order of Karasevsky, I have collected up to 47 Russian Grammarians, starting with Lomonosov, even older than him, it seems, Smotritsky. But after reading this bunch of books, I saw that Lomonosov’s Grammar is the foundation for all the others, and that most of the Grammar is the most frivolous and often erroneous. Having written the Grammar, I submitted it to Karasevsky and Graf 163; they handed it over to Konstantin Stepanovich Serbinovich (Manager of the Office of the Chief Prosecutor). I had several conversations with this man: undoubtedly a scientist, he studied with the Jesuits (he said it himself), whose teaching rules do not agree with ours. I soon broke up with him. I demanded my Grammar from him. Metropolitan Philaret wished to see my Grammar. He read it in front of me and noticed it. He promised to print it for the Moscow Schools even then, if the secular ones had not agreed to print it for all our schools; however, he added: “Would you agree that I give your Grammar to read and give an opinion to one of the Moscow Rectors of Spiritual Schools?” I readily agreed. The Metropolitan, leaving St. Petersburg in 1841, took my Grammar and in Moscow gave it to the Rector of the Don Schools, Priest (after Archpriest) Alexander Evfimovich Nechaev (my comrade, the first Student, the son of the Moscow (Theodore-Student) Priest. O. Nechaev severely criticized my Grammar, calling it arrogant, dreamy, and therefore useless for anything. The Metropolitan returned my Grammar to me, already in Odessa, in 1842, with a letter in which he expressed regret that after such disapproving criticism, he could no longer order the publication of my Grammar. The good Bishop began to compare the criticism with the Grammar, and made several notes, which were all in my favor, but, seeing the fervor of criticism, constantly increasing, and at the same time, of course, finding me not always right, he left the difficult work after two or three pages. In May 1842, Metropolitan Philaret sent me from St. Petersburg my ill-fated Grammar in a letter in which he condescendingly explained me the reasons why he could not console me by publishing this Grammar of mine, even for the Schools of the Moscow Diocese” (Kazantsev. pp. 50–52, 93). May 1st. Letter 164 to Archimandrite Macarius (Glukharev): “I don’t know what to do with your initial teaching. Now, more than ever, they are forbidden to replace Slavic with Russian. And don’t really boast about the manuscript of the translation of the Old Testament books. Here a lithographed translation of some appeared, with notes contrary to the dignity of the prophecies and other irregularities, and aroused strong reproach. I advise you to stay stricter within the limits of obedience and not to really trust your own wisdom, although it strives for good. Prince Alexander Nikolaevich 165 remembers you with love. He left the service in peace and is now taking care of his weakened eyesight, which, however, there is hope to preserve, for which you will also make a prayer” (CHOLDPr. 1872. Book 6. P. 103. - Materials). May 2. Letter to the governor of the Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony (Medvedev): “The Bishop of Kiev will be with you, perhaps, for 10 days. When he goes to church, receive him with a ringing ring; and when leaving, send them off with a ringing sound. I don’t yet have permission to return, but I hope to have it soon” (Letters to St. Anthony. P. 265. No. 325). Letter to Bishop Vitaly (Shchepetev): “I preface your Eminence that the Bishop of Kiev can arrive in Moscow earlier than the 9th day and serve on this day. Take the trouble to pay attention so that my house is ready to receive him” (Letters. 1887. P. 73). May 3. A note about the cohabitation of persons of the Fedoseyev sect: “... in the spirit of the law, schismatics for fornication will be sent under penance to the Orthodox spiritual authorities, who in this will have the opportunity to exhort the schismatic to return to Orthodoxy” (Opinions. T. Add. P. 112. No. 34). May 6. Opinion on the synodal reviews of diocesan administration: “Each diocesan bishop, by oath, upon consecration, undertakes to visit the diocese entrusted to him, for the immediate consideration of how the faithful remain in the faith and in the correction of good deeds, in what condition the places under his control are, how subordinate persons act, so that edification, motivation, correction correspond exactly to the identified need, improvement. What is the relationship of the diocese to the local bishop: this is the relationship of all dioceses together to the Holy Synod. Therefore, there can and should be synodal reviews of diocesan administration. To review the diocese, one of the bishops is appointed. He ensures that the administration of the local bishop remains inviolable during the review and the respect of the flock for their archpastor is inviolable. Therefore, in the diocese under review, he enjoys the ecclesiastical benefits of his rank to the extent that this is granted by church rules to a bishop residing in the diocese of another bishop, with the consent of this latter, in the spirit of mutual brotherly love. review magazines" (Opinions. Vol. III. pp. 64–67). May 7. Report to the Holy Synod on the case of the lithographed translation of some books of the Old Testament: “...those who wrote out the lithographed translation decided on this, wanting to have an aid to understanding the books of the Old Testament, and not assuming in the translation such qualities as were later found in it” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 96. No. 9783). Letter to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count N. A. Protasov, about the publication of the work of Patriarch Photius of Constantinople “On the Procession of the Holy Spirit” translated into Russian: “The importance of the author and the subject of the work makes one wish: so that the first part of the work be translated into Russian at the local Academy, so that later consideration can be given to publishing it either in one translation, or with the original; 2) that measures be taken to remove the correct complete copy of this work from the manuscripts of one of the above-mentioned foreign libraries. In Paris, this could be accomplished through the priest of the mission there” (Opinions. T. add. pp. 112–113. No. 35). Letter to the governor of the Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony (Medvedev): “I am asking to go to Moscow as before, but I do not yet have permission. Pray that the Lord will arrange it for peace and good” (Letters to St. Anthony. P. 266. No. 326). Letter to Bishop Vitaly (Shchepetev): “Let it be known to Your Eminence that my most humble request for my return to Moscow was followed by the Highest permission. Therefore, stop sending things to me in St. Petersburg. The day of departure I can’t yet determine with accuracy, because even now things fall into the hands of the case” (Letters. 1887. P. 74). May 10. Resolution regarding the Moscow postal director with a petition for appointment to a priestly place at the request of the student choir inspector Lebedev: “To respond that one of the honored mentors of the seminary has been appointed before receiving this petition; and that although the request of the student Lebedev was in mind before, it could not be satisfied according to the existing rules, according to which such people can enter Moscow only as deacons; since for the priesthood both candidates with the highest dignity and merit are required and there are” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 86. No. 9765). May 11. Letter to son-in-law: “With sincere sympathy, I learned about the sadness of your son and yours with him 166. Convince him and yourself to humble yourself with filial obedience before the fate of the Heavenly Father, incomprehensible, but always good” (Letters. 1882. P. 362. No. 420). May 12. Akt about the end of the interrogation of the archpriest of the Tauride Palace G. Pavsky in the case of incorrect translation into Russian of some books of the Old Testament: “... in compiling the translation, table of contents, introductions and notes, Archpriest Pavsky admitted, in addition to the inscription over the book of Ecclesiastes and the large, after the two initial sections, inscription over the last chapters of the book of Isaiah... Part of the blame is in the translation he accepts temptations upon himself, and asks his indiscretion to be covered with prudence, and the temptations that have occurred and may arise from translation to be tamed with pastoral instruction” (Opinions. Vol. III. p. 69). May 14. Opinion on the abbreviated hermeneutics compiled by Archimandrite Afanasy (Drozdov), rector of St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences: “It would be desirable if rules were taught and examples were given on how to think and compare and identify passages of Holy Scripture related to one subject, and distinguish between those of different subjects, although representing some kind of similarity. Saint Chrysostom, in his interpretation of the Gospel of Matthew, provides examples of this hermeneutic action <...> The importance of liturgical books of various degrees. The importance of the liturgy of St. James the Apostle, St. Basil and St. Chrysostom is not at all like that of some church hymns, the compilers of which are not even considered saints by the Church. In thorough and careful teaching, discrimination is necessary <...> The Holy Scripture makes the church the supreme judge in matters of faith. It is the Lord Himself who says: command the church, etc. Here the proof is not precise; because the above saying of the Lord was spoken not about dogmas, but about sins: if your brother sins against you. And the position itself is one-sided, because another important aspect of the matter is left unattended, namely, that judgment in matters of faith belongs to the word of God. Test the Scriptures - and that essence testifies about Me, and so on. The well-known books of the Holy Scriptures are canonized, that is, by the rules of the holy councils and holy fathers, the well-known books of the Holy Scriptures, but no text is canonized, that is, it is not determined which reading and expression to follow in all parts of the Holy Scriptures and which options to reject. The church fathers in some places of the Holy Scripture present different readings, refer to the Hebrew text and even use expressions from different translations of the Holy Scripture, as can be seen in the interpretations of St. Basil the Great and St. Chrysostom. The wondrous work of God’s providence in preserving the Holy Scriptures in the church is that the Divine teaching is not obscured in it by variants and differences in translations, that different readings either do not change the essential meaning, or are found in subjects that do not relate to the essential truths of the revelation of God” (Opinions. Vol. III. pp. 71–76). May. Metropolitan Philaret's departure to Moscow. From the memoirs of A. N. Muravyov: “When at the beginning of spring both Metropolitans, Kiev and Moscow, began to ask to go to their dioceses, according to custom, they were released without return. The Metropolitan of Moscow, who had long wanted to settle in Moscow, without the trips to the northern capital that were so difficult for his infirmity, could not, however, help but grieve in spirit that after many years of work at the Synod, he was released as if out of displeasure and a shadow of suspicion from unfair criticism fell on him. I was present at his departure on May 15 and saw how he cried, saying goodbye to the brethren in the church of the courtyard, which involuntarily struck me given his strong character. He was no longer destined to return to St. Petersburg, although they soon felt the lack of his presence in the Synod. “He breathed freely when he saw himself in Moscow among his own people, and this feeling is echoed in his first letter to me” (Letters. 1869. pp. 60–61. no. 43). From the memoirs of N.V. Sushkov: “... asking for leave for the summer in his Diocese, he meekly but firmly expressed his whole truth to the Chief Prosecutor, i.e., that it would be better to carry this matter through the Synod. “Well, won’t you return to the Synod?” “The Sovereign orders, I can’t disobey. But I wouldn’t return on my own” “Why?” “Because it’s impossible to conduct business this way and it’s dangerous.” He feared that the metropolitan of the same name did not enter into an obvious, on occasion, struggle with the first presence in the Synod. When dismissing him to Moscow, the Tsar always wrote on the report: “I agree, but in order to return to a certain date.” This time there is no word about a return. So both Filarets returned to their flocks, blessing and thanking God” (CHOIDR. 1869. Part IV. Mixture. pp. 185–186). May 18. Diary entry: “Much. Theodota Agkir. Late". May 21. Liturgy and prayer service in the Assumption Cathedral on the namesake day of Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolaevich and Grand Duchess Elena Pavlovna and on the birthday of Grand Duchess Elizabeth Mikhailovna. The sermon was delivered by the priest of the Trinity Church of the Kitai-Gorod Forty, Ioann Andreev (MV. 1842. No. 41. P. 281). May 23. Resolution on the consistory decision on obliging the priest to sign so that he would be more careful in his position: “As a priest from old age falls into oblivion, which is unfavorable for the position and leads to doubt, then we advise him to carefully examine himself whether he should ask for dismissal from office, so that from oblivion no new Major difficulties arise” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. pp. 17–18. No. 9626). May 24. Report to the Holy Synod about the author of an unnamed denunciation about the existence of an incorrect translation of some books of the Old Testament: “The rector of the Moscow Theological Academy, Archimandrite Eusebius, informed me that on this May 18th day of the Academy, the inspector Hieromonk Agafangel announced to him that three petitions sent from the provincial city of Vladimir, addressed to the members of the Holy Synod, regarding the spread lithographed translation of the Holy Scriptures came from him. I entrust this duty to be reported to the Holy Synod, in the hope that this circumstance will contribute to maintaining the favor of the Holy Synod towards the Moscow Theological Academy, as proving that this Academy not only did not participate in an illegal enterprise, but from it arose the first denunciation of an unorthodox deed” (Opinions. Vol. III pp. 79-80). Letter to the governor of the Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony (Medvedev): “I thank you for the blessing from the holy monastery on my return to my own, which the Lord graciously granted and accomplished” (Letters to the Monk Anthony. P. 266. No. 327). May 25. Resolution regarding the synodal chief prosecutor on leave for the secretary: “I wish that the improvement of health will give Mr. Schastnev the opportunity to continue his useful service, and I also agree to his dismissal on leave to the Ryazan province for three months” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 86. No. 9766). Letter to Prince S. M. Golitsyn: “You console me a lot, being kind to my return to my homeland. I wanted to see you quickly, but the previous days were filled with work, and today I begin to receive treatment. If it is possible to agree on travel with treatment, tomorrow I will try to greet you face to face” (Letters. 1884. P. 39. No. 40). May 29. Resolution on the consistory resolution about the remark made to the priest and deacon that they come to church - the first in a cassock, and the second with loose hair: “The testimony that the priest reads Lenten prayers to others in the church prompts the priest to confirm that he is not lazy in visiting the houses of parishioners to fulfill his pious duty according to ancient custom” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 18. No. 9628). Resolution on the presentation from the rector of the Moscow Theological Academy with a review of subjects for exams: “I remember I used to say before that the articles are too short. This constrains both the examiner and the subject, and encourages them to literally repeat lessons, for fear of shortening the test; and this is not the best way to test. Wouldn’t it be better to assign several more items with the assumption that the free answers will reduce the details?” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 79. No. 9747). Resolution on the sexton’s request for a one-time allowance to support his large family: “The petitioner is advised to correct his behavior, which is shown to be unreasonable and absurd” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 81. No. 9753). Letter to the Governor of the Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony (Medvedev): “If there is a message from the Tambov Consistory on the Sarov case, submit it quickly for resolution. “You are telling the truth that this is why the Right Reverend’s attitude towards me should have been.” But he did not mention this in his letter to me during Easter, and when I mentioned in response to him that I wish him to approve the improvement of the important Sarov monastery by the good abbot, he continues to remain silent about this. Perhaps this is based on the new rules of the new generation of bishops. May they be good for good. Do you have rain and, if not, do you pray? “We are praying, but after a little rain in the past few days, the dry season continues. Call to the Venerable One, so that he may cry out to the Lord for us” (Letters to the Venerable Anthony. P. 267. No. 328). Between April 16 and May 30 (no date). Letter to A.N. Muravyov with a translation of Daniel’s prophecy: “...And after sixty-two weeks Christ will be killed, and not for himself. Then the hail and the sanctuary will destroy the people of the elder of the coming; and its end in drowning; and devastation is predetermined until the end of the battle. And one week will strengthen the Covenant for many. And in the midst of the week, sacrifice and offering will cease. And behind the bird of abomination is devastation. And before the decisive accomplishment, he will cry over the devastation. This is from Jewish. But the reading and meaning of the last words needs to be verified with the reading followed by seventy interpreters” (Letters. 1869. P. 109. No. 81). May 30. Resolution on the priest’s petition to transfer him to another dean due to oppression: “Notice to the petitioner that in his defense he writes an absurdity, as if he cannot live now differently from how he lived before. It is possible for something good to become bad” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 19. No. 9629). Resolution on the priest’s petition for the formal approval of two spiritual wills: “Out of respect for the memory of Archpriest John, all his relatives are advised to obey his will, expressed in the will, although not clothed in civil forms, but in no way doubtful, and therefore obligatory in conscience” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 20. No. 9630). Resolution on the testimony of the priest that he did not fulfill the position of zemstvo clerk, but at the request of the general’s wife and the headman, he read orders to the peasants: “The priest, for interfering in matters that do not belong to his rank and harming the peaceful relationship in which a priest should maintain himself towards his parishioners, should make fifty bows in the Archangel Cathedral in three days” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. pp. 20–21. No. 9631). Resolution on the former sexton’s petition to place his daughter in a nursing home: “The consistory will consider whether it is in accordance with the rules and the law that the petitioner abandoned his young daughter and went to a monastery” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 82. No. 9754). Letter to A.N. Muravyov: “On the evening of the 15th day in the Novgorod Bishops' House there was a knock, but on the morning before Matins in the Sophia and Znamensky Cathedrals, I found the doors open. On Sunday, in Vyshny Volochok, I came to the cathedral for the liturgy in good time, and on the same day I reached Tver, where I found the Right Reverend alive. In the village of Zavidovo, the first from the border in the Moscow diocese, in the close quarters between peasants and their children, I felt at home. The feast of St. Alexis was celebrated with his relics from the evening service. I don’t see time between classes and people, which is why I haven’t written to you for a long time” (Letters. 1869. P. 111. No. 82). Letter to Archbishop Parthenius (Chertkov): “Most Reverend Vladyka, venerable brother in the Lord! And I’m ashamed to bother you and I’m afraid that it’s unpleasant for you too; however, I’m making up my mind, at least for the last, perhaps, time. It's all about the cemetery church in Yuryev. During the proceedings of this matter in the Holy Synod, it was clear how zealous they were. Please know that the Holy Synod showed leniency towards zeal. Now they fear a slowdown in your Consistory. Please pay attention to this. They will pray for you if you add your condescension to the condescension of the Holy Synod” (PO. 1872. Book 2/3. No. 9. P. 45. No. 35). Letter to Archbishop Gabriel (Gorodkov): “In Moscow I don’t see time between studies on the Church, on governance and on dealing with the children of the flock in the world. And the said Old Believers of the Rogozhsky cemetery visited me and talked with me peacefully. Glory to God's mercy in everything. If Your Eminence is on your way through Moscow, do not miss your servant. But, I confess, I would like you to extend your work in St. Petersburg, for the common benefit of the church. However, may God arrange good things with the right hand of the Most Pious Sovereign, his heart is in the hand of God” (CHOIDR. 1868. Book 2. pp. 52–53). June 1st. Resolution on the priest’s request for permission to consecrate the altars that were moved from their places due to a fire in the church: “As the thrones were moved from their places, which implies the touch of unconsecrated hands on them; then expose them in the presence of the dean; then properly correct and approve locally; and then the dean will perform the consecration according to the order and report on what follows” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 21. No. 9632). Resolution on the dean’s report on the storage of the antimension: “St. it is indecent and unsafe to store the antimension on the throne, which has already been removed and exposed, and, moreover, in the meal, when work was being done in the church; and order it to be transferred for storage to the altar of the nearest church, paying special attention to the safety of the holy relics” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 21. No. 9633). Resolution on the consistory decision on the issuance of a birth certificate: “The Consistory Charter allows the issuance of birth certificates to guardians of children who do not have parents, and the girl Alexandra has a father” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 22. No. 9634). June 5. Resolution regarding the Synodal Chief Prosecutor on the assignment to conduct a review of the Moscow Theological Academy: “To remind students, although this should be known by itself, that knowledge of the main truths, ready to answer every questioner, is the first thing needed, which can be decorated and supplemented by knowledge of details, but in which the perceived deficiency would not be covered by the studied knowledge of details in this or another part of science” (Resolutions. T. 5. Part 1. P. 86. No. 9767). 4 June. Resolution on the selection of a new headman on the request of the previous headman to renounce his position: “From the affairs carried out in the Consistory, it is clear that there was disagreement in the choice of the headman for this church. Therefore... The Bogorodsk archpriest should go to the place at a convenient time, having, if possible, made up a full meeting of parishioners in the church, especially honorable ones and zealous ones for the church, to make the choice of the headman, without hesitation the same, and to convince them to do it in peace and according to the duty of care for the good of the church, putting aside extraneous matters and any private displeasures” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. pp. 22–23. No. 9635). Resolution on the consistory determination about the rude behavior of the priest: “... to call the petitioner’s displeasure, even if it were as the priest describes, with the grave name of malice, is inconsistent with the modesty and meekness befitting a priest” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 23. No. 9636). Resolution on the consistory decision on the church house: “The deacon is refused to provide him with the walls of the house as his property: because they are appointed by the depositor and the authorities to future deacons in general... The deacon will pay a clergy fee of 50 rubles. per year for the walls of the house to stop from the time of his petition for this, without giving this decision a retroactive effect on the previous time. Should one hundred rubles be put into the church at all, or should it be imposed on the entire clergy, who now all use the church premises, instruct the dean to make a consideration with the clergy, the church warden and the parishioners, and present with an opinion” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 24. No. 9637). June 5. Resolution on the consistory determination about the money remaining after the death of the hieromonk: “Accepting as a basis: 1) that Hieromonk Ioannikis, as he served in a cenobitic monastery and ended his life as a member of the brotherhood, does not have the right to bequeath; that the will has no legal form or force; 3) that the Davidov Hermitage has the right to a significant part of the money remaining after Ioannikiy... do the following: 1) to the Davidov Hermitage, where there is a need for the construction of a bell tower, give the amount of 4000 rubles assigned in Ioannikiy’s note. ass., including in it a penalty of 1800 ass. 2) Give the rest to the Peshnoshsky Monastery” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 25. No. 9638). Resolution on the report of the housekeeper of the Trinity Sukharevsky metochion about the drunkenness and rude behavior of the choirmaster: “To send twenty-five bows to the Sretensky Monastery for three days under supervision in obedience and for the position of every day during Divine services” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 72. No. 9733). Letter to the Governor of the Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony (Medvedev): “Let me talk about a stupid subject. They say that the Lavra treasurer has a good cook, but it is known that the metropolitan, and a sick one at that, is very poor. Would you consider bringing justice to this?” (Letters to St. Anthony. P. 267. No. 329). June 7. Letter to the governor of the Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony (Medvedev): “Seeing that I will not have time to finish reviewing the description of the Lavra this month, I am sending it to you. Will Mr. Gorsky find time to read it? Perhaps he will object to the changes I have made. We need to add more about the coverings, but there seems to be nothing about the icons” (Letters to St. Anthony. P. 268. No. 330). June 8. The pronunciation of the Word on the day of the descent of the Holy Spirit after the consecration of the Church of the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary: “... the upper room of Zion, the Apostolic, the upper room of the descent of the Holy Spirit, is nothing more than the original example of the holy Christian church; and the mutually holy Christian church, consequently the now consecrated church, is the repeated, renewed, multiplied Apostolic Upper Room of the Descent of the Holy Spirit” (Works. Vol. 4, p. 164). Resolution on the consistory decision on the defrocking of a banned priest: “In relation to the misconduct of the accused banned priest, the decision of the Consistory is fair. But so that he also takes advantage of the Highly Monarchal mercy granted by the All-Merciful Manifesto, do not deprive him of his dignity; since it is impossible to entrust the priestly service in the present situation to someone who has not corrected himself, then leave him in the present position for correction and testing under the strict supervision of the dean and local priest for three years, during which time his serviceability and behavior should be reported to me every third of the year, and in the case of new offenses - immediately and without fail” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 26. No. 9639). June 9. Resolution on the report of the spiritual board about a priest depriving the clergy of income: “The Spiritual Board, having called upon the clergy, to count the income and collect the charge recognized on the priest immediately. Collect what he deducted from his wife, allegedly for baking prosphora; because the priest already has a large share of the income and his wife, if she is diligent, should bake prosphora for free” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 26. No. 9640). Resolution at the consistory resolution on the appointment of a schema-nun to the number of sisters of the monastery according to the testimony of the caretaker of the Jerusalem temple Misail: “Based on an inaccurate translation from Greek, in this definition referred to as the caretaker of the Jerusalem temple Misail is the Right Reverend Misail, Metropolitan of Petra, Patriarchal Locum Tenens in Jerusalem, now introduced in blessed memory. The seal is undeniable; and the handwriting of his hand is known; and therefore the testimony he gave is worthy of respect” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 27. No. 9641). Resolution on the certificate of the Moscow Trusteeship for the Poor Clergy on the request of the wife of a former sexton for the issuance of benefits: “According to this certificate, the request does not require satisfaction, as it contains false circumstances” (Resolutions. T. 5. Part 1. P. 82. No. 9755). Resolution on the consistory determination: “... as a result of a report received about three icons: the Savior, the Mother of God and John the Baptist, Bronnitsky district of the Sechenkovsky parish in the village of Vyalki, announced self-renewed and as a result of a meeting with His Excellency the civil governor... explain to the head (owner) of the house in which these icons are located that they, according to in accordance with the usual legal procedure, for examination and certification they must be presented to a church in which they could be under the closest and direct supervision of the spiritual authorities. In taking and delivering icons, proceed with due reverence and decent security” (DC. 1890. Part 3. No. 11. P. 457). June 10. Resolution on a consistory certificate about a priest who asked for permission to occupy a priestly place: “The Methodius priest, with permission to minister, in accordance with the decision of October 11, 1841, to assign the city of Dmitrov to the Church of the Transfiguration, to an idle place for six months, so that at this time he could obtain approval from the parishioners for approval on the spot” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 27. No. 9643). June 12. Letter to the Governor of the Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony (Medvedev): “Our small affairs somehow go on in a clever way, as if they were not small. It would be possible to be healthier with the treasury cook, but he says that he is left with an unfinished house. And in Jewish law, those who built and did not renovate houses were given leave from a military campaign. That’s why I let the cook finish building the house. Is it possible to sell him the house and move to the yard? “Remind me of this on the spot” (Letters to St. Anthony. P. 268. No. 331). Letter to Archbishop Gabriel (Gorodkov): “I think you remember the matter of building a cemetery church in the city of Yuryev, due to the special zeal of some and quite generally in the city. Out of compassion for those who are being made difficult by the continuation of this matter, with these lines I send a parting request to Your Eminence, that you would favor, if possible, to facilitate the short-lived and desired completion of this matter” (CHOIDR. 1868. Book 2. P. 56). June 13. Resolution on the petition of the wife of a deacon removed from office due to illness for the issuance of a deacon's income from the time of her husband's illness until the new deacon's entry into the vacant position: “As a newly appointed deacon has the right to receive income only from the time of production and entry into office, then for the previous time the income can be given to the petitioner due to poverty” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 27. No. 9642). June 15. Resolution on the presentation from the board of the Moscow Theological Academy of the two best works of students: “I do not prevent printing, but after revision and correction. One word: “Dalmatius” would expose the writer of ignorance of history and the calendar” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 79. No. 9748). Resolution on the presentation of the board of the Moscow Theological Academy on the time of holding exams: “At this point, return to the discussion about the behavior of Christians in relation to pagans... I will only read part of it. It is necessary either not to write so much or to submit it for consideration earlier. Discourse is not a book; and the thickness of a notebook is not the height of perfection” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 80. No. 9749). June 16. Resolution on the testimony of a prohibited deacon in the case of transferring him to another place for possible correction: “The deacon... so that he is not left without a place and support, should be transferred to an idle deacon’s place in the Church of the Sign... in order to better stop the temptation to remove himself from the church and return him to order, he is allowed to serve as a priest” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. pp. 28–29. No. 9645). June 20. Resolution regarding the Moscow civil governor on moving the chapel from the road along which highway work is being carried out: “The consistory instructs the Perervinsky abbot to immediately dismantle the chapel and transfer the icons to the monastery” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 87. No. 9768). Letter to the Governor of the Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony (Medvedev): “I appointed 26 to be at the Academy, not realizing that it would be the tenth Friday. However, this is not an open trial. This will happen later. I'm surprised they didn't tell you properly. You don’t need to take care of me on day 26, but pray with those who come. If I happen to come to the all-night vigil on Thursday or to the liturgy on Friday, this should not entertain you; You will be in the work of God. I cannot come before the all-night vigil on Thursday or before the liturgy on Friday, and you should not change the time of service. If it happens that I arrive during the service, but am not able to go to church, in this case I need to make sure that I do not wait at the unlocked door of the cell” (Letters to St. Anthony. pp. 268–269. No. 332). June 22. Presence at the ceremonial meeting on the occasion of the end of public exams at the Moscow Commercial School. He listened to the students’ performances, asked questions from the Law of God, and presented awards to excellent students (MV. 1842. No. 103. P. 782). June 24. Resolution on the case of the consecration of the church after repairs: “1) The dean should examine whether the throne and iconostasis are decently arranged and approved, and whether the former antimension and the holy relics in it have been preserved intact and intact. 2) If all this turns out to be like this: then consecrate the church according to the rites with the antimension” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 28. No. 9644). June 25. Serving the liturgy and prayer service, pronouncing the Word on the birthday of Emperor Nikolai Pavlovich: “The vast and comprehensive law of love was concluded by the Holy Apostle Paul in a few words: let all love be with you. Everything you do should be done with love, as if by universal strength and universal instrument; everything should be done out of love, for the sake of love, at least with the help and participation of love” (Works. Vol. 4. P. 169). June 30. The stay of Metropolitan Philaret in the Trinity-Sergius Lavra (MV. 1842. No. 53. P. 387). June. Letter to Archbishop Gabriel (Gorodkov): “You know from the Holy Synod that the matter of the Abbreviated Hermeneutics is not completed. By coincidence, I had the opportunity to review this essay, in a time crunch, before my departure from St. Petersburg. I hastily put down a few comments on paper. There was no time to confer, and the matter, in my opinion, requires advice. Please take the trouble to read the accompanying notes. If you find them correct, help protect the teaching from deviations that are well-intentioned with the goal of protecting the tradition, but not safe with thoughts that degrade the dignity of the Holy Scriptures. If you see anything wrong in my comments, tell me your judgment, not for my sake, but also for the sake of protecting the teaching strictly and safely” (CHOIDR. 1868. Book 2. pp. 53–54). July 1st. Letter to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod N. A. Protasov about abbreviated hermeneutics: “The expression is unclear: “The Holy Scripture has become the property of reason.” Property means worthily owned or legally owned property. Can Holy Scripture become the legal property of the mind? On the other hand, it is not determined whether the official use of reason is allowed in the knowledge and recognition of the truth revealed in the Holy Scriptures; since the ability given by God to man for the knowledge and recognition of the revealed truth is the mind, just as for the acceptance of feelings of good - the heart, for the impressions of the bodily world - the bodily senses <...> Options do not prove damage to the Holy Scriptures, but only damage to this or that list: because between the options, according to fundamental signs, a pure and worthy reading of God’s word is revealed” (Opinions. Vol. III. pp. 83, 87). July 2. Resolution on the cadet’s petition for his inclusion in the number of Lavra novices: “This cadet, in another petition, attached hereto, calls himself a poor and rootless nobleman, without mentioning his rank and service. How does this reveal a sign of indirectness; and such a quality is not suitable for a monastery, then declare to him that he cannot be accepted into the brotherhood of the Lavra” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 73. No. 9734). July 3. Resolution regarding the Synodal Chief Prosecutor N.A. Protasov with a request to notify him of the consequences of the spiritual exhortations of the noblewoman: “To respond that, according to the last report of the abbess, the exhortations of the noblewoman... to return to Orthodoxy do not achieve the desired success, although all the spiritual exhortations were offered without omission. The reports of the Mozhaisk archpriest, who was entrusted with the exhortation, also agree with this. With a gentle appeal and exhortations, the only thing that has been achieved is that she is not as averse to visiting the Orthodox Church during Divine services as she did at the beginning” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 87. No. 9769). • Letter to A. N. Muravyov: “Both what I heard about your circumstances before, and the last decision by which you leave the Holy Synod are sad for me. We have been in communication here for such a long time, and it was so pleasant to communicate with you, because of your love for everything churchly. Your writing activities at this time constituted an active and useful service to the Church and spiritual enlightenment” (Letters. 1869. P. 112. No. 83). July 4th. Opinion on the autopsy for medical purposes of the bodies of people who died in hospitals after communion of the Holy Mysteries and Blessing of Anointing: “The obstacles to autopsy are reverence for the Sacraments with which the deceased was sanctified before death. But the duty of philanthropy prompts the possible removal of this obstacle: because with the discovery, through the opening of the body, of a painful cause of death, a way may be opened to preserve the life of patients with a similar disease. In a hospital this can be more conveniently allowed than in another place, because here witnesses to the action who could be embarrassed by it can be more conveniently eliminated. From these principles the following rules can be extracted: 1) Do not allow autopsies of bodies in hospitals, if the patient died on the very day on which the Holy Mysteries were received or unction with Oil. (This rule will not be difficult to implement, and it will also be useful if it encourages doctors to help ensure that the sick receive communion at the right time, and not in the last moments of despair in life.) 2) Do not allow autopsies on the bodies of clergy. 3) In addition to these seizures, autopsies of bodies in hospitals should be allowed, so that only the necessary people according to duty and science are present, and outsiders are eliminated. 4) An autopsy, by law, must occur no earlier than 24 hours after death” (Opinions. 1905. P. 93). • Resolution on the consistory decision on the transfer of the Volokolamsk spiritual board from the Joseph Monastery to the city of Volokolamsk: “The Spiritual Board was previously in Volokolamsk and was transferred to the monastery not by decree of the Holy Synod, but by diocesan order, which is why even now it can be returned to the city by diocesan decree, with this being brought to the attention of the Holy Synod.” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 29. No. 9646). July 4th. Resolution on the consistory ruling in the case of a soldier’s wife asking for permission for a second marriage: “The above law applies, without a doubt, only to the wives of actually serving soldiers and those who are in the department of the military authorities, and not those who have left the department of this authorities, for example, retired ones, as well as those on the run. A fugitive soldier, whose flight and the duration of his flight have been proven both by the certificate of the military authorities and local research, should be judged not according to the special law about soldiers, but according to the general law about fugitives who left their wives. Therefore, I believe: 1) the marriage... to be dissolved and she, as an innocent person, to be allowed to enter into a second one; 2) the person who fled, if discovered as guilty, will be deprived of the right to a new marriage” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. pp. 29–30. No. 9647). The resolution on the promotion of a deacon to a priest: “Let the first priest of the Danilovsky cemetery know by decree that, according to the perceived need, Georgiev has been appointed second, with equal responsibilities and preserving the primacy of the first by the rector of the church” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 30. No. 9648). Resolution on a certificate from the field office about the delay in the ordination of teacher Sergius Tsvetkov 167 to the diaconate: “How, as a result of a message from the Consistory, the seminary Board came to me with a representation, from which it is clear that there is no obstacle to the entry of this teacher to the place; and this idea has been approved by me: then the Consistory should issue the teacher a ticket for marriage now, while the matter should be completed and presented in its entirety afterwards” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 30. No. 9649). July 8. Resolution on the petition of the former deacon in the case of moving him to another place of service: “As this deacon was removed from the Savior Church out of necessity, due to not going to church and due to the reluctance of the parishioners to have him, and he was given leniency by permission of the priesthood: this decision should be left in its force” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 31. No. 9650). July 9. Resolution on the report of the cathedral established at the Lavra with the presentation of a report on the receipt and expenditure of Lavra sums: “The treasurer in vain shows axes and ladles in the remainder in order to reduce the expenditure. According to this calculation, he could build a charity house as a remainder and eliminate 24,000 rubles of expenses” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 73. No. 9735). July 11. Resolution on the dean’s report on the case of prohibition of service for frequent absences and sloppy writing: “The priest, for frequent absences from church and for omissions in church writing, is prohibited from serving for six months until the church writing is brought into proper order and serviceability” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 31. No. 9651). July 14. Letter to the Governor of the Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony (Medvedev): “I made the journey well, but, having come to work and not soon feeling the need for rest, I let the cold on the road get worse and spent Sunday with difficulty - and now I am not freed from the consequences of the cold. I want to resume my previous treatment” (Letters to St. Anthony. P. 269. No. 333). • Letter from E. V. Novosiltseva: “You didn’t say what kind of doubt was fighting with your soul. Maybe it's not necessary. There are thoughts that, like a dark wind, the enemy blows on the soul, the repetition of which brings burden to her, and evil pleasure to him, and which are therefore better to bury in non-remembering as in the ground. To avoid the sin of condemnation, one must think that condemnation returns to the condemner, not only by the judgment of God, but, according to the secret destinies of God, often by deed itself. Where a man condemns his neighbor for stumbling, he himself stumbles beyond his fear. The blessing is prayer for enemies and, when necessary, helping them. Whoever does this, God grants him perfect love for his enemies” (Letters. 1911. P. 215). July 15. Resolution at the consistory ruling on the recovery of money from the former sacristan for the lost cross with relics: “Since the description of the cross mentions particles of St. relics, then this constitutes an irreparable loss and the most important abuse; Therefore, if Hieromonk Ambrose does not present the cross intact within three weeks, in order to prevent such abuses, if this example would remain without responsibility, to prohibit him from serving as a priest until discretion” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 31. No. 9652). July 16. Resolution regarding the Moscow civil governor on the acceptance into the spiritual department as a gift of the Bogolyubsk Icon of the Mother of God and money (Resolutions. T. 5. Part 1. P. 88. No. 9770). July 17. Resolution on the sexton’s petition for placement in a monastery, and in his place - a cousin: “Is he looking for salvation, or is he selling the place? There is a reason for suspicion of the latter, because he asks out of order, without the knowledge of the priest and parishioners. To declare that if anyone is truly looking for a way of salvation in the monastery, then he would ask for it with the consent of the abbot without conditions about the place” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. pp. 31–32. No. 9653). July 18. Resolution on an extract from the consistory register on sending literate clerics to work with land surveyors: “As the law requires a priest or cleric to sign for illiterate people, then to send for this purpose mainly deacons and clerics; because the priests are more busy with parish duties that require urgent fulfillment” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1.S. 32. No. 9654). July 19. Resolution on the consistory decision on leaving without satisfaction the soldier’s request for a second marriage (Resolutions. T. 5. Part 1. P. 32. No. 9655). July 20. Letter to the governor of the Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony (Medvedev): “Prince Alexander Nikolaevich Golitsyn has arrived. It's nice to see him in a peaceful state. He will be in the Lavra, I think, in August” (Letters to St. Anthony. P. 270. No. 334). July 21. Letter to the governor of the Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony (Medvedev): “Prince Alexander Nikolaevich wants to be in the Lavra. He intends to come on August 2, fast for three days and partake of the Holy Mysteries at the Transfiguration of the Lord. If he wishes to have you as his spiritual father, I hope you will not refuse. If you want a hieromonk, I think you can appoint Macarius. Let him stay in my cells. If it is necessary to relieve him, arrange a service for him in the house church” (Letters to St. Anthony. P. 270. No. 335). Diary entry: “Simeon the Holy Fool. Garlic for hydrophobia. (Bib[liotheque] For reading [mixture]).” July 22. A prayer service in the Assumption Cathedral on the namesake day of Grand Duchess Maria Nikolaevna, Grand Duchess Maria Mikhailovna and Grand Duchess Maria Pavlovna. The Liturgy was celebrated by Bishop Vitaly of Dmitrov. The sermon was delivered by the priest of the Trinity Church on Arbat, Sergius Ivanov (MV. 1842. No. 59. P. 432). July 23. Resolution on the priest’s petition to build a new fence: “Allow so that the entire line of the ofada is drawn straight, and the altar is located inside the fence; since the main purpose of the fence is to protect the inviolability of the altar” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 33. No. 9656). Letter to the Governor of the Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony (Medvedev): “You will receive this, Father Viceroy, from a foreigner who enjoys the attention and patronage of our government. Receive him with attention and show him the memorable things in the Lavra, using someone from the Academy for conversation. If he wants to be at the Academy, tell Fr. rector, to satisfy his curiosity” (Letters to St. Anthony. P. 271. No. 336). July 25. Resolution on the consistory decision on the placement of petitioners in an almshouse (Resolutions. T. 5. Part 1. P. 33. No. 9657). July 27. Letter to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod about the audit of the Moscow Theological Academy: “In general, the state of the Academy, both educational and moral, presented comforting and satisfactory views to observation. The spirit of brief piety, reverence for the throne of God’s anointed, filial obedience to church authority, mutual peace and harmony, zeal for the benefits of the service, animating superiors and mentors, laid corresponding impressions in students, whose behavior and treatment show signs of this good succession” (Opinions. Vol. add. P. 116. No. 36). July 31st. Resolution on the priest’s report on the investigation into the case of suspicion of blasphemy: “As both clerics are suspected of blasphemy... it is obvious that leaving both of these clerics at the church would be inconsistent with its safety and improvement; and therefore the sexton, as the worst, should now be dismissed and further consideration of him should be carried out at the end of this case in a secular court” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. pp. 33–34. No. 9658). Resolution on the deacon’s request to transfer him to another place: “Let us make another experience of condescension towards the deacon, so that, if possible, we can extract him from the disastrous state of enmity and alienation from the church. Transfer him to the Nikolaevskaya church in Kotelniki” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 34. No. 9659). August 4th. Resolution on the elder’s petition for dismissal from office: “It is revealed that there is a disagreement between the priest and the churchwarden. Instruct the dean to try to stop this - by explaining to the elder that the priest, by virtue of his position, is obliged to ensure that the most important church affairs are not done without his knowledge and supervision - and to the priest that the elder, who brings voluntary service to the church, must be treated with respect and trust, and in case of disagreement with his opinion, carefully explain to him the legitimate need for this” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 34. No. 9660). Resolution on the report of the acting dean on the case of a banned priest leading a drunken lifestyle: “As the parishioners have already entered with a request to appoint a truly serving priest, then the banned priest should be removed from this place and assigned to the clergy until the case about him is decided” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. pp. 39–40. No. 9672). • Resolution on the report of the cathedral established at the Lavra presenting the service record of the economist, abbot Michael (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 73. No. 9736). August 5th. Resolution on the petition of the priest’s widow to receive half of the income from the demands of a hired priest from another village in her husband’s place: “Natalia is only 11 years old, therefore, it would be a long time to wait for a available priest, and whether the parish requires it and a willing one is found, the demand must be satisfied. But while there is no priest, let the Alekseevsky priest perform the position with half the income, and the other will provide food for the orphaned family” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 35. No. 9661). August 6. Letter to Archbishop Gabriel (Gorodkov): “It seems that I will have to wait a long time for your judgments regarding my thoughts about Hermeneutics. And I needed advice all the more because it turned out to be necessary for me to continue the unfinished consideration. So that you do not know the rest, I forward it with the same disposition as before. What is fair, then reinforce it, and what I am lacking or wrong in, correct and protect me, if it is not for me, then for the cause itself, related to the common good. Is there a “Lighthouse” that wants to proclaim the dogma of legends: what’s the problem? Let at least one secular magazine preach dogmas, when many idlely talk against dogmas and commandments!” (CHOIDR. 1868. Book 2. P. 55). August 8. Resolution on the priest’s petition for protection from the tyranny of the elder: “Since the speech prescribed by the priest, delivered by him upon leaving the altar before the liturgy, when the agitation of the peasants began to subside, was delivered unnecessarily against decency and with harsh expressions could again arouse unrest, then, having made a stern reprimand for this in the Consistory to the priest, confirm that he treats parishioners meekly and behaves in church reverently" (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 35. No. 9662). August 10. Letter to the Vicar of the Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony (Medvedev): “Grace and peace to you, Father Vicar, and to the brethren. Prince Alexander Nikolaevich also thanks you, and I thank you for him. He loved you and says that you knew how to occupy him and give him rest, so that everything was with pleasure and convenience” (Letters to St. Anthony. P. 271. No. 337). August 11. Resolution on the case regarding the assessment of a house for a priest: “To instill in a widow that when God visited her with a disaster and possible care was taken for her family, it is sinful for her to embarrass a really serving priest by delaying the delivery of a house for him to live in” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 36. No. 9663). Resolution on the report of the audit committee with an opinion on collecting a fine from members of the board of the Perervinsky school for incorrect savings orders (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 80. No. 9750). August 14. Resolution on the consistory certificate on the deacon’s request to dismiss him from office due to old age: “Deacon Vasiliev asked to find someone worthy to take his place with a relative of the maiden Mary, but now she is arranged differently; parishioners write that they know that he has no relationship to whom he could give up his place, and consequently he called the maiden Maria a relative not in truth, but for selfish reasons” (Resolutions Vol. 5. Part 1.S. 36. No. 9664). Letter from E. V. Novosiltseva: “A thought that could hardly be written is an alien wind blown upon the soul. To fight against such a thought is the work of the strong, but the weak need to remain silent, not listen to alien noise, and rush to the Lord in prayer, as if to safety from a beast. But you must keep your soul in reverence and humility in order to protect yourself from such accidents. The wind is more threatening to the high than to the low. Confusion about external affairs is worldly. There is less attachment to earthly things, there are fewer such confusions, and they are weaker” (Letters. I911 P. 215). August 15. Letter to the Governor of the Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony (Medvedev): “You handled the matter of the lithographed translation imprudently. You report that no one in the Lavra has; I report this to the Holy Synod, but it turns out that Meletius had a copy. Why didn’t they say earlier that it was given away? The rector of the Academy also wrote that the copy was received from an outsider. Is it possible to write like this in practice, and especially when it is already clear that they are looking for something? This means arousing suspicion, even if there was none” (Letters to St. Anthony. P. 273. No. 338). August 16. Pronunciation of the Word on the day of the Dormition of the Most Holy Theotokos: “Forgive me, brethren, if I spend a long time with you, as if without you, I meditate. On days like this, one can completely forget the earth in conversation with Heaven. And it would be good if we talked more willingly and longer with Heaven, and less willingly and hastily turned to earth, and then only so that, having encountered our shortcomings and needs, the more relentlessly we would resort to the abundance and bounty of Heaven” (Works. Vol. 4, p. 176). Resolution on the transfer of the nun to another monastery by the abbess: “If the nun Euphrosyne accepts the calling, the Consistory will provide her with the appropriate written form for departure and prepare a response from me, with a track record. As for the dismissal of one or two more sisters of the Spaso-Borodinsky monastery with the nun Euphrosyne, let the abbess confer with Euphrosyne about this, pay careful attention to the qualities, dispositions and consent of those elected” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 88. No. 9771). August 17. A letter to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, N. A. Protasov, with an opinion on which of the schismatic sects and opinions the spiritual authorities recognize as especially contrary to the teachings of the Orthodox Church: “1. Sects are the most harmful. Judaizers. For this is worse than heresy. This is a complete falling away from Christianity and significant enmity against Christianity. Those priestless sects that reject marriage and prayer for the king. They write and pronounce cruel blasphemies against the Church and the Sacraments, and they consider every power of the present time to be Antichrist. By rejecting marriage, immorality is introduced. 2. The sect is harmful. Those from the priestless side who accept marriage (newlyweds) and do not refuse to pray for the king. Based on these traits, they could be considered less harmful; but they are decidedly harmful because they reject the priesthood and the Sacrament of the Eucharist and, in addition to what has been said, they all borrow from the worst branches of priestlessness and, by the way, the democratic spirit. 3. The sect is less harmful. Popovshchina. This is not a heresy, but a schism. The more churchly preserves and the more provides hope” (Opinions. Vol. III. P. 92). Letter to Bishop Philaret (Gumilevsky): “As Your Eminence knows the Academy, I would like you to name which of its students you would like to have, with the hope that they will graciously accept the calling and be useful” (CHOIDR. 1874. Book 3. P. 91). August 21. The service of liturgy and prayer (MV. 1842. No. 68. P. 502) The Word was pronounced in the Assumption Cathedral on the anniversary of the coronation of Emperor Nikolai Pavlovich: “Truly, brethren, if fate, birth, the law brought us into a single assembly, united into a single society, then, of course, it was not so that everyone knew only himself and did not care to know others and promote their good. This would be contrary to the concept and essence of society. The union of society is bound together by nothing other than reciprocity: mutual assistance, assistance, and assistance. The mutual responsibilities of members of society are partly determined by laws and distributed according to ranks and positions; are partly uttered by conscience and extend to everyone. If thus everyone has the duty to avert evil, private or public, is it less universal, less powerful, or more noble the duty to spread private good, and, as far as possible, through the private, public, and especially the highest moral and spiritual good, which is the soul of true public well-being? (Works. T. 4. P. 183). Letter from M. M. Tuchkova: “About Euphrosyne, I think, has already been written to you from the Consistory. She was just now with me and says that her health does not prevent her from going. She said, among other things, that it was inconvenient for her to refuse because the matter had been made public. It seems to me that this is not so much a feeling of discomfort as an inclination to accept the call. However, I consider it my duty not to stop the work that was started without me. The arrival of Prince Alexander Nikolaevich to you is not postponed, but it is not completely decided either. There are still some expectations that must be fulfilled. I'm glad you're at peace. May the Lord preserve this treasure for you. And you guard it and do not allow those who try to steal it. Peace again to all of you, and may relief come to the sick” (Letters to Abbess Maria. P. 60. No. 43). August 26. Liturgy and prayer service on the occasion of the birth of a daughter from Grand Duchess Maria Alexandrovna 168. The Word was spoken by Archpriest of the Kazan Cathedral Sergius Alekseev (MV. 1842 No. 69. P. 512). • Resolution on the petition of parishioners in the case of removing a temporarily appointed priest from their parish: “The priest, appointed temporarily for testing, but who did not pass the test, should be removed from this place and prohibited from serving as a priest” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 36. No. 9665). August 27. Resolution on the consistory ruling on the case of the restoration of the church: “The consistory, in its ruling on June 9, 1839, recognized that the throne is not firm. How could it become hard in 1842? The architect's testimony is not valid here; because he, as a worldly person, has no right to touch the throne. The architect found everything in good shape, but other evidence found rotten logs and leaks in the altar, which disrepair even a non-architect could understand” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 37. No. 9666). August 28. Letter to the Governor of the Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony (Medvedev): “Tomorrow at 7 o’clock in the morning His Serene Highness the Prince of Oldenburg travels to the Lavra. Receive him, Father Vicar, with love. He loves the Orthodox Church. You can present him with an icon of the Savior or the Holy Trinity as a blessing. For rest, you can offer him my rooms, unless it is located otherwise, for special reasons” (Letters to St. Anthony. P. 273. No. 339). August 30. Letter from M. M. Tuchkova: “The letter that was returned says that I wrote to Priest Vasiliy to send money for the trip. This is not true. I did not write and did not promise to write on my own behalf. And if she says that she has no way to go, then I will write this. If E[frosinia] does this, then, of course, she will not bring any benefit to the place, nor will she gain the favor of the new authorities. In all likelihood, more will be required of her than she can fulfill. And her health does not call for great feats. What does it call for? - I wish this was pure jealousy, and not lust. I am writing this by fire, almost unable to see the lines. I celebrated today, and tomorrow I think I will be in Novospassky 169 for the burial of Hieromonk Philaret 170 . Therefore, I write no more” (Letters to Abbess Maria. P. 61. No. 44). September 2. Liturgy and prayer service in the Assumption Cathedral on the heir's name day and on the birthday of Grand Duchess Olga Nikolaevna. The sermon was delivered by Archimandrite Mitrofan of the Znamensky Monastery (MV. 1842. No. 70. P. 518). Letter to the Minister of the Imperial Court, Prince Π. M. Volkonsky: “I received the most mercifully granted three thousand rubles in silver for distribution in Moscow to orphans, the poor and the sick on the 1st day of this September, and to fulfill the beneficial Highest will with all due diligence, I immediately began with the appropriate order to open those who should receive the benefit” (CHOLDPr. 1873. Book 5. P. 111–112. – Materials). September 3. Meeting of Emperor Nikolai Pavlovich in the Assumption Cathedral. A short prayer service was served, an icon of Christ the Savior was presented to the emperor, and a speech was made: “Most Pious Sovereign! The crown of the old is children of children, said the Wise Solomon (Proverbs 17:6). Before old age, this pleasant crown is attached to you to the most majestic crowns of the Victorious King, Peacemaker, Lawgiver, Disseminator of Orthodoxy. With the recent joy of this, now uniting the joy of Your contemplation with hearts devoted to You, we pray to the One who crowns You with mercy and bounty, and who also multiplies and beautifies Your crowns, just as You continually continue, renew, and multiply Your royal deeds” (Works. Vol. 4, p. 602). Resolution on the testimony of the priest about the construction of a new chapel with the permission of the dean: “To announce to the priest that on this subject it was impossible to rely on the verbal permission of the dean, but it was necessary to ask for written permission from the highest authorities” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 38. No. 9667). Resolution on the consistory ruling in the case of priests issuing information about those who were at confession and holy communion: “The opinion of the Consistory is approved with the addition to leave it to the discretion of the Provincial Board, whether it would be appropriate to make an order so that the police do not accept certificates issued by priests about being at confession and holy communion as a document for permission to live in the city, because such certificates would require passports and other legal written forms given by the authorities, which one is subordinate to” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 38. No. 9668). Resolution at the consistory ruling in the case of incorrect calculations during the restoration of the iconostasis: “The matter was carried out incorrectly. After interrogation, no evidence or justification was taken. There is no mention of witnesses. Neither the investigation nor the extract from it was announced to the affected parties. The decision is based on the testimony of the Zvenigorod archpriest and the dean, about whom the headman complained, as well as about the priest” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 38. No. 9669). Resolution on the decree of the Holy Synod on the refusal to dissolve the marriage of a retired staff captain sent to the monastery for repentance: “1) Staff captain Pevtsov, appointed for repentance, should be placed in the Berlyukova hermitage. 2) Bogorodsk Archpriest Nestor Arkhangelsky is appointed to test his conscience and then determine the image of repentance. 3) The archpriest, upon satisfaction with the exhortation about the Christian duty of cleansing the conscience and correcting one’s life, should test his conscience during the sacrament of repentance and, as a result, on the basis of the rules of St. father, assign him a time and manner of performing penance; and announce the appointed time and manner of penance to the Berlyukovsky rector. And convey it to me, of course, without mentioning the falls, for which penance is determined, so that the secret of confession remains inviolable. 4) The rector should entrust Mr. Pevtsov to the supervision of an experienced and reverent elder, who would confirm him on the path of repentance and monitor his behavior” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 88. No. 9772). September 4. Resolution on the dean’s report on the case of the sexton’s drunken life: “Sexton Modestov, even in the year of trial, turned out to not abandon his former vice. Why remove him from this place, assign him as a clerk to a village where there is no drinking house, and again place him under the special supervision of the dean for a year” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 39. No. 9670). Resolution on the report of the acting dean about a prohibited deacon who does not serve, but receives income: “The prohibited deacon receives half the income. The other half should be kept in the church until the case is resolved” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 39. No. 9671). Resolution at the consistory decision on the prayerful memory of Princess E. D. Tsitsianova 171, donor of St. relics (DC. 1882. Part 3. No. 9. P. 126). Resolution on the report of Abbot Mikhail about the misdeeds of the choirboy (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 74. No. 9737). Resolution on the attitude of the Moscow Chief of Police about a Jew who came to Moscow to be baptized: “For four days it was expected that the Jew Vulfovich would appear with a request for baptism, which is required by legal order, which on his part should be a natural consequence of a sincere desire, and for the spiritual authorities the first sign of this desire. It is my duty to treat His Excellency so that he would be pleased to announce to the Jew Vulfovich that, according to the law, he must make a request for baptism to the spiritual authorities, and otherwise recognize his announcement as a pretext and not the truth” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 89. No. 9773). September 5. A prayer service in the Assumption Cathedral on the name day of Grand Duchess Elizabeth Mikhailovna. The Liturgy was celebrated by Bishop Vitaly of Dmitrov. The word was spoken by the priest of the St. Sophia Church, Alexander Efimov (MB. 1842. No. 74. P. 547). September 6. Letter to the Governor of the Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony (Medvedev): “Thank you, Father Viceroy, for praying for the Tsar’s heart. May it be in the hand of God, may there be peace in it, and may the Good Lord speak in it about His Church and about His people” (Letters to St. Anthony. P. 273. No. 340). September 7. Letter to the Governor of the Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony (Medvedev): “Today I heard extraordinary news. The author of Hermeneutics, about which you know something, is thinking of bringing this matter to the court of the Eastern Patriarchs. If something that did not seem probable has already been done, the incredible can happen again. And really, our peaceful hierarchy should be involved in strife for no reason? Let us pray to the Lord for peace and the unification of the holy Churches of God” (Letters to St. Anthony. P. 274. No. 341). September 9. Resolution on the dean’s report on the readiness of the new chapel of the church for consecration: “In the inventories of both chapels it is said that the chalice is in the inventory of the main church; but one chalice for three altars is not enough: for just as it is forbidden to perform two liturgies on one day on one altar, so it is not allowed to celebrate the sacrament in one chalice on one day on two or three altars” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 40. No. 9673). September 11th. Letter from M. M. Tuchkova: “If you want to know my opinion about the letter, know that I cannot approve of it. The content of the letter is as follows: “I don’t want to become one of the sisters, but I want to become an abbess!” Can monastic lips speak like that? And what is the goal? If the Most Reverend Vasily wanted to have the writer of this letter as abbess, then after this letter, of course, he will not want to. I know that I don’t need to ask you to do everything possible to admonish and calm the tempted one; I ask that you do not complain too much about temptation and with a peaceful heart call on the Lord for a peaceful end to it” (Letters to Abbess Maria. pp. 61–62. No. 45). September 18. The cross donated by the emperor for the middle chapter of the Archangel Cathedral was consecrated. The cross was erected on the dome (MB. 1842. No. 74. P. 548). September 19. Resolution on the report of the dean about the painful attack of the choirboy during the service (Resolutions. T. 5. Part 1. P. 40. No. 9674). September 23. Resolution on the extract from the consistory register in the case of an antimension that ended up in a church without holy relics: “The consistory should announce the rules to the dean and the local priest and explain that the case could be innocent only if the altar was consecrated by the bishop’s consecration. And the holy relics were placed under the altar, but since the consecration at the old antimension after 1812 does not favor this assumption, then a sin was committed against the rule, and they must pray to God for forgiveness” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 2. P. 41. No. 9675). • Resolution on the priest’s report about the fall of a peasant in the church, where he bloodied the church platform: “The consistory should order that during the consecration of water and sprinkling of the entire church, the prayer laid down in the large breviary in chapter 44 should be read for the opening of the church, in which a person will die of necessity, with a change of words: from an attack and the necessary death, to the following: from sudden fall and outpouring of blood" (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 41. No. 9676). September 24. Report to the Holy Synod with a conclusion on the recognition of the miraculous Kazan Icon of the Mother of God from the Simonov Monastery: “Some icons that have been miraculous since ancient times, for example, the Most Holy Theotokos, Vladimir from the Assumption Cathedral, the Image of the Lord Not Made by Hands from the Verkhospassky Cathedral, Iverskaya and others, are raised in the homes of those who wish throughout Moscow. Some are brought into houses only in the immediate vicinity of the capital, or in nearby villages outside the capital, such as, for example, the image of the Most Holy Theotokos of Don from the Don Monastery. In general, holy icons from churches are brought into the houses of their parish only; and whether there is any further for the sake of the sick, then only with the special permission of the local bishop. The above laws and rules of local custom lead to the conclusion in this case that, in accordance with the decree of the Holy Synod on April 6, 1744, the petitioner can be allowed to raise the icon of the Most Holy Theotokos from the Simonov Monastery to her home, especially in case of illness” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part. 1. P. 96. No. 9785). Report to the Holy Synod with a conclusion on petitions for prayer services before the Kazan Icon of the Mother of God: “Although the above decree of the Holy Synod is allowed to carry only St. icons that were previously worn, however, since the icon of the Most Holy Theotokos in Simonovo, called Kazanskaya, is revered by many with special zeal, and since the honorary citizen Babkin asks to bring it to his house due to illness, then his request can be granted since the daughters of the major general, the maiden Novitskaya and the major wife Kupriyanova, in their petition do not show that due to illness they could not come to veneration of the holy icon, then through their spiritual father explain to them that it would be more consistent with Christian reverence and humility for them to take the trouble to come to venerate the icon of the Mother of God in the church of the monastery where she resides” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 97. No. 9786). Resolution on the petition of the teacher of the Dmitrov Theological School for resignation after a request for dismissal: “The place is occupied; and someone who has been legally assigned to it cannot be deprived of it without guilt, and therefore this petition cannot be satisfied” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 80. No. 9751). September 25. Pronunciation of the Word on the day of remembrance of St. Sergius: “Commanding to especially look at the end of the life of mentors, the Apostle, it seems, especially had in mind examples of martyrdom firmness in the faith, since he had a special need to indicate them for the confirmation of believers in the troubled times of the Church. But if the Apostolic commandment must embrace all times of the Church, and the needs of each and every believer, then it must also have this universal meaning: imitate the faith and life of the Saints. And truly, why did the Lord illuminate the church sky with such a multitude of glorified Saints, just like the elemental sky with a multitude of stars - why else, if not so that each of us could conveniently, according to our own needs, receive from them the light and direction of our path to heaven? (Works. T. 4. P. 191). September 27. Pronunciation of the Word upon the consecration of the Church of the Appearance of the Mother of God to St. Sergius, built over the relics of St. Micah in the Holy Trinity Lavra of Sergius: “Brothers of this holy monastery! if the Sergius desert, once deserted, wild, barren, waterless, meager, defenseless, helpless, was populated, grew, flourished, was blessed from the fatness of the earth and from the dew of heaven and heaven, discovered in itself sources of water and grace, was able to sometimes defend cities and help the people: what does all this mean? Is it not that since its founder and his associates hoped for a saving God, their hope was justified and is still being justified, even beyond hope? What reinforcement is there for our trust in God who saves? For me, who talk for a short time with the desert and about the desert and then remain for a long time in the rumors and cares of the city and human affairs - who will give me a krill like a dove; and I will fly and rest! Can I say to myself - or when will I finally be able to say: behold, I went away in flight and settled in the desert! When will I be relieved from the burdens of others, in order to turn all my care to the relief of my own, lest by preaching to others, I myself will not be turned off (1 Cor. 9:27)? (Works. T. 4. P. 199). October 5. Resolution at the consistory decision on the case of a religious procession in memory of the liberation of Moscow in 1812: “The eldest of the deans who are in the religious procession assumes for this time the special duty of a taxiarch or guardian of order; he ensures that the religious procession begins at a given sign strictly and continues without stopping; so that order is strictly observed during the return of the religious procession; for observation and for orders, the dean taxiarch appoints two or more clerics, who must walk in surplices next to him on both sides of the line of the religious procession and be ready to carry out his orders and communicate his reminders to whoever is needed; at the end of each religious procession, the taxiarch will inform me whether the proper order was observed by everyone and in everything” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 42. No. 9677). • Resolution at the consistory ruling on the reprehensible behavior of a novice of the David’s Hermitage: “What requires special attention is that under the current abbot, in the David’s Hermitage, strife and disorder are opening up too often, mostly associated with complaints and denunciations against the abbot. About the incident of the present case, which happened at a meal in front of all the brethren, except for the four who signed the denunciation, the Builder referred to one Alexei with some trustworthiness; and defamed most of the brethren, not excluding the common former confessor. Such a relationship between the abbot and the brethren is extremely unfavorable for the peace and improvement of the monastery. Does this also happen because some of the brethren are not distinguished by good qualities: but at the same time, the fact that the Builder did not acquire several trustworthy brethren for his management raises doubts about his ability to bring this monastery to the desired improvement” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 42. No. 9678). • Letter from M. M. Tuchkova: “I hesitated to let Euphrosyne go before talking about a travel allowance for her, fearing that she herself would be difficult and would make it difficult for others with requests, but seeing from your letter that she wanted to go without an allowance, I allowed it. It’s a pity that she’s trying so hard, not knowing where to go. I have a letter from Prince Alexander Nikolaevich that doesn’t say anything about improving her vision. I am very sad about its removal, but it does not seem to be the last. May the Lord protect him as the message Himself” (Letters to Abbess Maria. pp. 62–63. No. 46). October 6. Letter to the Governor of the Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony (Medvedev): “I returned to Moscow safely. But on Sunday I had the imprudence to take the opportunity to look at the newly built palace, and I got a cold, and today I needed a doctor. In the sermon you want to print, you needed to change one place. I am attaching a note about this. While I am writing this, they bring me a manuscript approved by the censor. I don’t dare change it without the knowledge of the censor. I am sending the manuscript and a note; show it to the censors and take their decision” (Letters to St. Anthony. P. 275. No. 342). October 9. Resolution on the attitude of the landowner about the intemperate life of the priest: “Because priest Afanasyev... now for drunkenness and disorder is to prohibit the priesthood; now it is finally stated that his bad example and lack of pastoral admonitions revived the disastrous incident, the rebellious action of the peasant wives, then the priest Afanasyev is to be removed from this place and, with the continuation of the prohibition of priestly service, wearing a cassock and blessing with the hand, assigned to a place of priesthood in another district, until the matter concerning him is resolved” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 90. No. 9774). October 10. Resolution on the aide-de-camp’s request for a new one to be transferred to his estate in place of the deceased priest: “It’s a pity for the orphaned family. But the desire of the landowner also deserves respect, because from him the contents and houses are derived. Therefore, do the following. The Sosninsky priest, whether there is any doubt according to the certificate, will be transferred to Voskresensk. Let the widow find a worthy person who, with the capture of her daughter, could be placed in Sosnino” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 45. No. 9679). Resolution on the sexton’s testimony about his unauthorized absence from office: “For his unauthorized absence from this church, he should be excommunicated. Determine what is provided to the village priest for the village” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 46. No. 9681). October 11. Serving the liturgy and prayer service, accompanying the religious procession around the Kremlin on the day of remembrance of the expulsion of the French from Moscow in 1812 (MV. 1842. No. 82. P. 613). Resolution on the dean’s report about the theft of church money with damage to the altar, through which the thief could have entered the church: “The dean should be confronted with his lack of judgment, writing about the loss of money and being silent about the most important thing - the loss of consecration” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 45. No. 9680). October 12. Resolution on the priest’s request for the consecration of new chapels: “The consecration of one of the chapels is entrusted to the Zvenigorod archpriest, so that he first carefully examines the structure of them and, at the discretion of all decency, proceeds to the consecration” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 46. No. 9682). October 13. Letter to mother: “The request of the Kalitnichesk Priest is not easy to fulfill. About fifty people are asking for Nikolsky’s place in Novaya Sloboda, including about ten deacons, several Teachers and Students. The son of a Kalitnichesk priest does not have these advantages. It's better not to rush him. I will apply all possible care, but you will not require any excessive care, deviating from the truth, and it would not bear good fruit” (Letters. 1882. P. 363. No. 421). October 14. Pronunciation of the Word after the consecration of the church of the apostle and evangelist John the Theologian in Bronnaya: “When here, as once in the temple of Jerusalem, on this eminence, as on the mountain of Judea, as on the stern of Peter’s ship, the Lord Jesus also speaks to us in His Gospel the same word of life and salvation; when here, as once in the upper room of Zion, the Spirit of the Lord breathes in the word of God and Divine hymns: oh, how the most silent silence, the deepest attention, is still small before the terrible and longed-for greatness of what is heard and acted! (Works. T. 4. P. 205). October 15. Resolution on the consistory certificate about the landowner’s request to transfer to his church a deacon capable of teaching: “As Mr. Landowner’s intention to start a school requires possible promotion, then Deacon Ilyin, who is not capable of this, should be transferred to another church” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 47. No. 9683). Resolution on the consistory decision on the punishment of clergy who insulted each other: “Since two witnesses, according to Theophylact’s own exile, showed that he hit the deacon in the face with his hand, then he is a murderer and, according to the apostolic rule, is subject to eruption. Therefore, a lenient punishment will be to ban him from priestly service for a month; the Abbot will note that either he acted unworthy of the abbot’s prudence when, seeing two of the brethren bowing at his feet, he did not think to find out from them why they were doing this, or he is not telling what happened truthfully” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 47. No. 9684). October 16. Resolution on the petition of the officials for the sexton to purchase their hereditary house: “The condition about the house and garden on church land without the approval of the authorities is not valid, especially about the removal of the sexton from the place” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 47. No. 9685). October 17. Resolution on the consistory certificate about petitioners for a priestly position: “The priest has an employee’s son for his charity. What kind of relationship with the deacon is unknown; and the deacon does not promise any benefit to the priest. Is it possible to allow priests to transfer a place to whomever they want, then there will be no place for rewarding the worthy, and selfish views will harm the correct occupation of places” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 48. No. 9686). Resolution on the consistory decision on the punishment of the sexton for drunken behavior: “The sexton... should be expelled from the clergy and transferred to the Provincial Board for its consideration, among other things, and on the case concerning stolen things concerning him; A consistory sexton should not be called a sexton, as is done in this definition” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 48. No. 9687). October 18. Letter to the Governor of the Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony (Medvedev): “I am sending Princess Elisaveta Dmitrievna the book that was mentioned. I am sending you a piece of fabric for a cassock or half-caftan, as you find suitable, in memory of me” (Letters to St. Anthony. P. 276. No. 343). Letter to the governor of the Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony (Medvedev): “On the economic affairs of the Lavra” (Letters to St. Anthony. P. 277. No. 344). October 20. Letter to Archbishop Gabriel (Gorodkov): “Now it may happen that I will lose my current Vicar 173. I wish to take advantage of his kind cooperation, but I do not wish to hinder whether the Lord will call him to independent service in the flock. I only wish that he be called to the department in accordance with his service, dignity and expected benefit. In this case, a consolation would have been given to me if the ironclad had been removed from the furnace to Moscow by the Most Reverend Riga. But if this does not turn out to be possible, then the Moscow Seminary would have a good Rector Joseph 174, a pious, sensible man, respectfully known in Moscow, familiar with local circumstances” (CHOIDR. 1868. KN. 2. P. 58). October 21. Resolution on the testimony of the archpriest, why he accepted the petition to the no longer existing spiritual board (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 49. No. 9688). Letter to the governor of the Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony (Medvedev): “Why entrust a lot of money to someone who has recently arrived and, therefore, is little known, and, moreover, to an old man who is being shortchanged? Why not give him an assistant? One would have the key and the other the seal. One would count, and the other would look with the eye of caution” (Letters to St. Anthony. P. 278. No. 345). Letter to A. Ya. Bulgakov 175: “With gratitude for satisfying my curiosity, I return to Your Excellency two letters from a French magazine. Anyone who knows at least somewhat the history of the beginning of the union in Russia will more easily see in the pope’s manifesto that an infallible sinner against the truth is like a fairy tale; and therefore the ignorant can guess about the slander of modern events 176. It’s a pity that Europe willingly trusted slander against Russia: so those who have now lost virtue willingly believe slander against the good” (Letters on Spiritual Life. 2008. P. 67). • Letter to A.V. Gorsky: “I was not the only one who read your note, Alexander Vasilyevich, to Abraham, and it seems useful for it to be known to the public. But we need to reconsider the presentation. Do not point to the writer, but to the essay. It is clearer to separate what the essay says from what you say. Make some forms of speech less polysyllabic and extend far from one node, so that it is easier for the reader to understand and less confused in some of your sayings. More clarity or precision is needed so that it can be seen where they are heading and what they are directed against. Would you like to complete your work? (Additions. 1882. Part 29. P. 541). October 23. Resolution regarding Prince G. Avalov for permission to print the attached manuscript “The Voice of a Sinner”: “I suggest that the Censorship Committee pay attention to the work in Georgian that is being forwarded herewith, so that it does not remain unapproved for publication only because the language is unknown. The Georgian people and the clergy themselves are so poor in edifying reading in their language that they should not lose a single opportunity to help this need, especially since such cases are rare” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 90. No. 9775). October 25. Letter to the governor of the Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony (Medvedev): “What does it mean that you wish me well on my journey? “Nothing threatens me along the way, except for some rumors, which I do not consider solid” (Letters to St. Anthony. P. 279. No. 346). October 26. Resolution on the petition of the sexton’s widow to encourage her son to provide assistance for her daughter’s marriage: “As the second son has recently arrived, he may not be able to provide significant assistance for his sister’s marriage. If the marriage is really arranged, give the Guardianship ten rubles in silver as an allowance for this, and inform the consistory to encourage the other brother to provide all possible assistance” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 82. No. 9756). Letter to the governor of the Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony (Medvedev) about the economic affairs of the Lavra (Letters to St. Anthony. P. 279. No. 347). October 27. Resolution on a letter from the rector of the Kolomna Trinity Novoglutvin Monastery, reporting on the daring behavior of the monastery hieromonk Jonah, removed from the priesthood: “What Jonah scolds me, I forgive him. The brethren must be told not to be embarrassed by what seems to be not so much Jonah speaking as his illness. He should not be removed from the priesthood without important reasons, but whether there are important reasons or concerns, it must be presented in detail” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 90. No. 9776). Letter to the governor of the Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony (Medvedev): “Why don’t they give me printed sermons? Will they really send from Moscow to the Lavra in order to send from the Lavra to me in Moscow? Or do you think that it will improve from the road, like porter from being transported by sea? (Letters to St. Anthony. P. 281. No. 348). October 28. Letter to A. Ya. Bulgakov: “... one could laugh at how dad freezes the former Uniate, not realizing that the reunification took place in the summer, or in the confidence that in Russia you can freeze in the summer. Here slander is marked by the revenge of a fool, and by a more cunning one by malice, in an effort to quarrel with Russia’s allies, but the trust of our king is in the God of truth” (Letters on Spiritual Life. 2008. P. 69). October 29. Resolution on the priest’s petition to turn over the Treasury ticket he found in favor of the church: “The ticket could appear in the church in two ways: either lost, or deposited by a depositor who wanted to remain anonymous. If the first thing is not revealed, then the last must be recognized” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 50. No. 9689). Resolution on a consistory decision on the refusal of a soldier to enter into a second marriage due to the unknown absence of his wife: “The soldier who was then in service cannot be blamed for failure to submit a petition to appear and for failure to indicate the day of his wife’s escape, therefore this reason for refusal is not sufficient. Pay attention to whether the wife had a soldier’s passport, and therefore whether she is definitely on the run or on an allowed absence according to her passport” (Resolutions. T. 5. Part 1. P. 50. No. 9690). Letter to the governor of the Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony (Medvedev) about the economic affairs of the Lavra (Letters to St. Anthony. P. 281. No. 349). October 31st. Resolution on the priest’s testimony about the time he was summoned to the consistory: “If the priest received permission for the marriage on the 10th day, and the decree on the consistory on the complaint on the 28th day, then why did he not perform a marriage within 18 days, or make any publications below? In order to avoid further stopping the marriage, instruct the dean that publications be made, and whether there are any obstacles, the marriage was consummated, if not through this, then through a neighboring priest, and what followed was reported to me” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 51. No. 9691). November 3. Resolution on the report of the cathedral established at the Lavra about those asking to be admitted to the almshouse: “It is permissible to go to the Vladimir Spiritual Consistory to receive notification of what age they are, what kind of behavior they have and whether there are any obstacles to placing them in the almshouse” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 74. No. 9738). November 4. Letter to Archbishop Gabriel (Gorodkov): “The conversion of the Buryat Taisha to Christianity, whether it happens with the expected consequences, is a great gift of God in Russia. May the Lord help the S. Synod to find capable workers for this new field of the Lord. Should I tell you the news that should be heard from you? Here they say that His Eminence of Kherson 177 will be the Exarch of Georgia. It is likely that Georgia requires another Exarch, but hardly this one, who is too old to learn the Georgian language” (CHOIDR. 1868. Book 2. pp. 60–61). November 5th. Resolution on the elder’s petition about the theft of money from the church: “... Pay attention to the fact that church money is deposited in the Safe Treasury not in the name of the church, and thus is not protected from theft” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 51. No. 9692). Resolution on the priest’s report with the presentation of antimensions that were not in use: “Of the presented antimensions, two, at the request of the priest, were returned to the church as the antiquity of this church itself” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 52. No. 9693). November 6. The resolution on the payment of the deacon’s salary: “To avert disputes, the dean is obliged to give the income to the deacon only with a receipt” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 52 No. 9694). November 7. Resolution on the consistory report on the issuance by priests of smallpox vaccinations of information about newborn babies: “If in any parish, or in some families of the parish, the prejudice against smallpox vaccination has not yet been defeated, and if in such a case the priest will announce the births to the smallpox vaccinator, and this one strenuously demands that children be vaccinated for smallpox, then the priest will appear to the parishioners as dangerous for them an informer, and through this the peace between him and the parishioners, so necessary for the successful fulfillment of the spiritual duties of the priesthood, will be disrupted” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 53. No. 9695). November 8. The service of liturgy and prayer (MV. 1842. No. 90. P. 676). Pronunciation of the Word on the name day of the Grand Dukes Mikhail Nikolaevich and Mikhail Pavlovich, on the day of the Council of the Holy Archangel Michael: “In honor of the Council of disembodied heavenly spirits, the now flesh-bearing, but also spiritual, Church Council has gathered here. Wonderful, only possible to faith, the rapprochement of the earthly with the heavenly, the visible with the invisible. Angels are in heaven, and we are on earth, but we celebrate for them, as if having them with us. They are invisible to us; without a doubt, we are not always visible to them, as we are not present everywhere and not all-seeing, but we celebrate for them as if they were before our eyes, as if we were before their eyes. For it would be strange and useless to organize a holiday for them, to address words of praise and prayer to them, if they do not see, do not hear and do not know. So this feast is a witness to us that the Holy Church recognizes our close communion, Christians, with the Angels. In what relation are they to us? What attitude should we have towards them? (Works. T. 4. P. 208). Resolution on the dean’s report on the behavior of the priest: “The expression attributed to the peasant: the money was taken according to his condition, almost senselessly and not in the peasant character, since the priest takes a lot for marriages, before the wedding, with the addition of his debt payments, and refused one woman the fortieth prayer, and did not visit the peasant Makarov in the house with the icon on the day of St. Nicholas, then leave him in suspicion of incorrect and pretentious actions to the parishioners and place them under the special supervision of the dean for a year” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 53. No. 9696). Resolution on the consistory report demanding that priests provide information to the authorities about the foundlings they baptize: “The essential duties of a parish priest, performing Divine services in the church according to the daily rite of the church... teaching the parishioners in the church... teaching the children of parishioners the rudiments of the faith... all this is enough to fill the life of the most active person. Is it possible to add to this, given the largely unsecured position of the parish clergy, labors and worries to feed themselves and their families, then the inevitable constraint of some necessary occupations by others may often follow. Under these circumstances, with this, given the strength and, more than strength, obedience of the parish clergy, it would obviously be inconvenient to assign to it new outsiders, time and expenses requiring responsibilities that lie under law on police officers and mayors” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 55. No. 9697). November 10. Resolution on the report of the council established at the Lavra on forgiveness of a debt to a merchant: “... the debtor does not say that he wants the debt forgiven. Maybe he might be willing to pay. You cannot rely on the words of the treasurer for this” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. pp. 74–75. No. 9739). Resolution on the report of the cathedral established at the Lavra on the permission to fine the person responsible for the discovered shortage of the cup amount: “The cathedral will henceforth use the caution inspired by the present case, such as: not to entrust much to newcomers, to have an employee with the cup, not to give him what should not be distributed from his hands” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 75. No. 9740). November 13. Resolution on the abbot’s petition to move the throne: “... draw up a plan of the altar indicating the proposed place of the throne, altar and iconostasis, adding a scale, and submit for approval. Meanwhile, the existing throne should be exposed and removed in the presence of Abbot Nazarius, and the wood that will not be used for the construction of a new throne should be burned in the church oven and the ashes poured into the flowing river” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 56. No. 9698). Resolution on the testimony of the priest that he performed the marriage on the eve of Lent by forgetting the time of the beginning of Lent: “The priest... declares himself to have forgotten on the Sunday of All Saints, that tomorrow is Lent. If he is so unconscious, then one must fear that his forgetfulness will cause important disturbances in the ministry” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 56. No. 9699). November 14. Resolution on the decree of the Holy Synod on the election of a priest and clerics from among the Old Believers who wish to convert to Orthodoxy for the Edinoverie Church in the Kingdom of Poland: “For appointment to the opened priestly place, priests of the Edinoverie churches of the Moscow Diocese were accepted for consideration, but the appointment of any of them will face obstacles. In the position of dean, Vasily Mikhailov has many families and is needed for the improvement of the Moscow Edinoverie Church; John Nikitin has many families and, while serving as dean in his present place, did not, however, have any experience in influencing the conversion of those who had fallen away from the church of the Mikhailovskaya Sloboda. Georgy Alekseev, having been called up, responded from the assignment due to poor health, and this review deserves attention. John Andreev, who did not receive a higher school education, due to his long service in the churches of the same faith, has significant ability for this service, but was subjected to criticism for unpeaceful actions and is under investigation. Therefore, in order to fulfill the order of the Holy Synod, as satisfactorily and strictly as possible, I entered into the relationship prescribed by the Holy Synod with the Most Reverend Bishop of Kaluga. As... new co-religionists, without a doubt, it would be more pleasant to receive at least some original old printed [books]: then I am duty-bound to submit to the discretion of the Holy Synod whether it will not be recognized as a good thing from those available in his repository of old printed books taken from Vologda, assign one copy of the old printed Gospel to the newly established Edinoverie church” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 91. No. 9777). November 15. Resolution on the presentation of the board of the Moscow Theological Academy that a seminarian in a drunken state broke out the windows in a tradesman's house: “If we assume that the incident is less important, the investigation will be useful for restoring the honor of the students of the seminary, humiliated before the police and some inhabitants of the city” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 81. No. 9752). November 17. Letter to the Governor of the Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony (Medvedev): “I am sending you, Father Viceroy, several copies of the sermon on the birthday of the Sovereign Emperor, for distribution to those reading. And I need several copies of the sermon for the consecration of the church of St. Micah. Those left with me have been dismantled” (Letters to St. Anthony. P. 282. No. 350). • Letter to the governor of the Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony (Medvedev): “I cannot come to terms with the idea of ​​giving the almshouse to a tavern, in view of the Lavra, near the Lavra hotel, near the charity house. Although before it was a little further, it was still further, and not in our buildings. When indecency is noticed in the townsman shops against the Lavra, we can speak against this with force until they can object to us that we have a tavern in the same line” (Letters to St. Anthony. P. 282. No. 351). November 18. Resolution on the deacon’s petition to force his successor to buy the deacon’s house: “The petitioner, as not being attached to this church, is obliged to sell the house. Whether to sell it to a deacon or to the church, he cannot decide, and the authorities dispose of it not arbitrarily, but at the request of revealed circumstances” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 57. No. 9700). November 19. Resolution on the dean's report about the incident in the church when in St. More often than not, an unknown liquid was consumed instead of wine, which led to the illness of the clergy who received communion: “There were two bottles, one with wine, and the other with a harmful substance (it seems with sulfuric acid); If there is evidence that it was poured from one instead of another by mistake, then a chemical study of the substance can be carried out on the substance remaining in the bottle. This is what you will demand during the investigation; and if there is a need to study the substance in the vessel, then report it for permission with an explanation of the reason why it seems necessary” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 58. No. 9701). Resolution on the same report: “How, according to private information that has reached me, there is no criminal offense, but the matter arose from one accidental error; the incident is completely ecclesiastical, concerning sacred objects” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 59. No. 9702). November 20. Liturgy and prayer service in the Assumption Cathedral on the day of the accession to the throne of Emperor Nicholas I. The word was spoken by the archimandrite of the Zaikonospassky Monastery, the rector of the Moscow Theological Seminary, Joseph Kobylsky-Theologian (MB. 1842. No. 94. P. 708). November 21st. Report to the Holy Synod on the case of poisoning of the Holy Gifts with sulfuric acid (Reports and letters. 1891. P. 10). Letter from M. M. Tuchkova: “I am returning your book. This is under the name of the history of Jerusalem - Sacred History, as I remember, I already told you by guess, without having seen the book. The writer is not without faith, but the now fashionable romanticism interferes with it. Is it good to call the books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy “The Jewish Odyssey”? Is it good to say about the Jewish people: “from the magnificent and gigantic epic of Jehovah they passed on to the meager comedy of mysterious liars imprisoned in dark caves”? is a literal translation from your book. It seems to me that better reading than this can be found for a monastery” (Letters to Abbess Maria. P. 64. No. 47). • Letter to A. N. Muravyov: “...if you know how to find the instructions of Providence in cases, then will you explain to me what happened to me today. After the liturgy at the holiday in the winter church of the Nikitsky Monastery, I visited the Mother Superior; and when, upon leaving her, the people were still waiting for me and taking the blessing, an unknown person from the crowd said: “The Archangel Council is struggling for you and your comrade.” When I looked at him with a questioning gaze, he repeated: “For you and your comrade.” “Which one?” – I asked. Answered: “Tverskogo” Question: doesn’t the past block the path to the future? – difficult in our service. The rules are for the most part strict, but there is a degree of leniency in one. There are also examples of Saints, although not many, who allow leniency. I heard about Vladyka Plato that he deliberately took the side of leniency. According to the ancient rules, baptism covered everything that had passed and was strictly punished for what followed after baptism, but this was when many spent half their lives testing themselves and preparing for baptism. The fathers of subsequent times repeated the rules of their predecessors. Would the ancient Saints have been so strict with a generation that is struggling with the sins of youth and ignorance, no longer having in front of them the font of baptism, which is hastened savingly for pious families, but is unsafe for the wicked? Who can ask them now? – We must pray, take note of the instructions of God’s Providence, and listen to the judgments of those who strive well in piety. I think that out of love and humility, they will not condemn the unworthy, and with their blessing and prayer they will make him worthy” (Letters. 1869. pp. 113–114. no. 84). November 22. Resolution on the request of the head of the Jerusalem metochion for the transfer of a private donation to Jerusalem: “In consideration of the fact that the government offices may not be aware of the trust granted by the authorities to the abbot of the Jerusalem metochion, Athanasius, to accept contributions for the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem and forward them according to their ownership, the Consistory will determine whether the loan letter presented in this regard should be forwarded to the appropriate government office at legal consideration and determination, giving him further care of this matter on a legal basis” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 59. No. 9703). November 23. Resolution on the petition of the peasants for release from penance: “The petitioners promise in this fast in their parish church to fulfill the Christian duty required of them. The local priest is ordered to confirm their intention, and accept them for confession in this fast, and whether, according to church rules, there will be no obstacles, allow them to receive the Holy Mysteries, and report on what follows at the end of the fast” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part. 1. P. 59. No. 9704). Proposal of the Consistory on supervision of the Sukharevsky metochion (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 60. No. 9705). Letter to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count N. A. Protasov on the appointment of Bishop Philaret of Riga or the rector of the seminary Joseph as Bishop of Dmitrov, vicar of the Moscow diocese: “...if, based on past examples, it is permissible for me to think that during the Synodal election of a vicar the opinion and information of the local Bishop may be taken into account, let me present to your attention, firstly, The Most Reverend Philaret, Bishop of Riga, whose dignity, as far as I know, and recognized by Your Excellency, no longer requires my testimony and whose health, suffering, and more likely to suffer in the Riga climate, could more conveniently be supported in Moscow for the benefit of the service; secondly, the rector of the Moscow Seminary, Joseph, a pious and prudent man, who knows Moscow and is respectfully known by it. Whether this idea exists will be considered in accordance with the benefit of the service, to which it strives; then I humbly ask Your Excellency to provide him with all possible assistance; in any case, forgive me for my troubles” (Opinions. 1905. pp. 96–97). Letter to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count N. A. Protasov: “Today, at five o’clock in the evening, Archpriest Sotnichenko, who is in the Moscow Odessa diocese, came to my house, first verbally, then in writing, announced: yesterday Novospassky Archimandrite Apollos 178 revealed to him, the archpriest, that he, the archimandrite, knows about the existence conspiracy against the person of the Sovereign Emperor. This announcement put me in a quandary. On the one hand, judging by the behavior of Archimandrite Apollos, there was no reason to suspect him of criminal relations or criminal silence about the malicious intent known to him; on the other hand, there was no reason to suspect the archpriest of a false denunciation, who, having lived in Moscow for a considerable time, with the confidence of his bishop 179, always proved himself pious, meek and reasonable. No evidence was presented either that the denunciation was true or that it was false. The archpriest said that there were no witnesses. There was a danger of falling into gullibility, but incomparably more grave was the danger of not violating the duty of a loyal subject by silence. Therefore, I found myself obliged not to remain silent; and therefore, in order to have solid proof, at least, that the denunciation was really made, I decided to accept it in writing, although the archpriest does not belong to the department of the highest diocese entrusted to me, like the one against whom the denunciation was made” (Reports and letters. 1891. pp. 12–13). • Letter from E. V. Novosiltseva: “It’s easy to judge people, it’s difficult for judges to judge, but it’s easier for someone who judges the judges who are judging his case to sin. One must be careful in this, even according to the simple rule of prudence, much less according to the commandment of God. Let us seek love, which covers all, and humility, which condemns only itself, and may we find this, and then we will be justified and will not have the need to blame anyone” (Letters. 1911. P. 216). November 24. Letter to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count N.A. Protasov regarding the appointment of His Grace Vitaly, Bishop of Dimitrovsky, Bishop of Kostroma and Galich: “With gratitude, I had the honor to receive Your Excellency’s notification of the Most Reverend Vitaly, Moscow Vicar, to be Bishop of Kostroma, given on the 15th, and received by me on the 23rd of this November in the evening. As this was somewhat preceded by rumor, then in the morning of that day I already wrote to Your Excellency what I would write now. Therefore, it remains for me to humbly ask for favorable attention to what I have been writing for 23 days” (Opinions. 1905. pp. 97–98). November 25. Resolution on the petition of the residents of the city of Kolomna for permission to perform services in the Vozdvizhenskaya church, inside the fortress: “To allow, pending discretion, all-night vigils in this church in the winter in the evening at a set hour, so that for the good news the middle bell is struck no more than twelve times. But on the day of the Nativity of Christ and on the day of Holy Easter from the evening of the All-Night Vigil and Matins there will not be, but according to the charter at the same time as other churches” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 60. No. 9706). November 26. Letter to the governor of the Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony (Medvedev): “I submit to you regarding the return of the former almshouse, although reluctantly. Another thought came to mind: is there a legal distance? I ask you to inquire about this” (Letters to St. Anthony. P. 283. No. 352). November 27. Resolution on the dean’s report with a request to allow the honorary citizen to be registered in another parish, where he will be the headman: “In respect of the care of the honorary citizen Lepeshkin about the Maronian Church, he is now allowed, in accordance with his desire, to perform church services with his family in the Maronian Church and through the Maronian priest” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part. 1. P. 61. No. 9707). Resolution on the dean's report about damage to the base of the altar, through which the thief crawled under the altar and from there, opening the floor boards, into the church (Resolutions. T. 5. Part 1. P. 61. No. 9708). Resolution based on the consistory determination: to refuse the merchant’s request to remain in the parish of the village. Khomutov: “The petitioner was in the Khomutov parish and wanted to stay there... The reasons why he wants to stay at the Khomutov church, namely that his relatives rest in this church and that he helped this church, deserve attention when there are no stronger people on the other side” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. S 62. No. 9709). November 29. Pronunciation of the Word upon the consecration of the Church of the Nativity of the Mother of God, which is in Stoleshniki: “When the Gospel and the Church introduce you to the consecrated church, as into the House of God, they bring you closer to its throne, as to the throne of grace, they point you to the water of baptism or sprinkling and tell you that there is an overshadowing of the Spirit of God over it; point to the anointing oil and form with it the seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit; point to the secretly efficacious types of bread and wine and proclaim: this is the true Body of the Lord, this is the true Blood of the Lord - believe without testing, commune with the believer with love and devotion; and you will find in the visible the invisible, in the sensible the spiritual, in signs and sights truth and power, in the natural the supernatural, draw closer to the Divine even to the point of communion, as the Apostle says, of the Divine nature (2 Peter 1:4); taste and see, but not with the eye of the body, for the Lord is good, you will receive participation in the bliss of those who have not seen and believed” (Works. Vol. 4, p. 224). Resolution on the consistory decision on the case of the incident with sulfuric acid used instead of wine at the liturgy; what to do with the unconsumed Holy Gifts: “What is closer to the present matter was not written out from the missal and was not accepted as a basis. Namely: “if the Holy Gifts are either consecrated or unconsecrated, they are corrupted, as if they have no power to be consumed in receiving life, the priest will pour this into the flowing river.” Therefore, make sure that this is done early in the morning and in the middle of the river” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 62. No. 9710). Resolution on the dean’s report on the same case about the needlessness of further storage of a poisonous substance: “... is it safe to leave in office a church warden who does not provide church wine for the supervision of the priests and keeps a poisonous substance in the church next to the church wine, which is what caused the disastrous and offensive incident for the shrine” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 63. No. 9711). November. Establishment of the Roman Catholic Theological Academy in St. Petersburg for the education of Polish clergy. December 1st. Letter from E. V. Novosiltseva: “Do not attribute more appropriate things to my insignificance, and do not complain about anyone for me, just as I, by the goodness of God, do not complain. Glory to God about everything” (Letter from Ma. 1911. P. 217). December 2. Letter to the Viceroy of the Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony (Medvedev): “May the blessing of the Lord, and peace, and, whatever you require, forgiveness be given to you, Viceroy Father, and brethren, with the hope and joy of salvation. I hope that you also grant me forgiveness, which in this hope I did not ask for last week” (Letters to St. Anthony. P. 283. No. 353). December 4. Resolution on an extract from the consistory register about the reconstruction of two side-chapels: “How will the removal of the srachits show the integrity or non-integrity of the consecration? “The person in the position of dean was given a proper admonition on this matter, and he submitted a new report. I don’t really understand the reasoning of the Consistory, why inquire about the integrity of consecration, whether there are thrones that need to be corrected? After correction, in any case, sanctification is necessary, even if the previous one was preserved until correction” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 2. P. 63. No. 9712). Letter to the governor of the Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony (Medvedev): “I spent November 30 and December 1 in the Ugreshsky and Perervinsky monasteries, with greater silence and freedom for work and for peace than usually in Moscow” (Letters to the Monk Anthony. P. 284. No. 354). December 5th. Resolution at the consistory ruling on the refusal to return the mortgage on the monastery to the merchant: “For greater clarity in such cases; for the future, instruct the monastery that the mortgage money be brought into the parish and kept specially” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 64. No. 9713). Resolution on a consistory decision on the refusal to give the wife of the provincial secretary a copy of the investigative documents in the case of her marriage (Resolutions. T. 5. Part 1. P. 64. No. 9714). December 8th. Letter to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count N.A. Protasov: “Since there were no witnesses, there was no other way to bring the case to possible clarity than to try to reveal the details of the former relationship and conversation. Therefore, the questions are continued as follows: “if this did not happen, then what would have caused the testimony of Archpriest Sotnichenko? Was there anything in the conversation that, through a misunderstanding, or in some other way, gave rise to a denunciation?” To this, Archimandrite Apollos added in his fifth answer that he does not remember that the content of the previous conversation gave rise to the possibility of concluding this. To my remark that it is impossible to imagine that of two people who were always known to each other on good terms, talked peacefully and parted, suddenly one, without any reason, made a serious denunciation against the other, Archimandrite Apollos, in the seventh answer, said that he noticed Archpriest Sotnichenko prone to spreading false rumors, and presented an example, however, far from explaining the real matter "(Reports and letters. 1891. P. 14). December 9. Letter to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count N.A. Protasov: “When my question was: was there a conversation about transformations, and what kind, the informer and the defendant were prompted to recall to each other what was said, then Archimandrite Apollos, turning to Archpriest Sotnichenko, and outlining the content of the former conversation, for his part, said, among other things: “I told you that there are a lot of rumors in Moscow, but It’s dangerous to believe them.” I noticed the last words and expected that the archpriest would confirm them and wish that they be included in the act. But he kept silent about them. Wanting this circumstance not to be lost, I addressed the following question to the archpriest: “Fr. Archimandrite says that, among other things, he told you that there are many rumors in Moscow, but it is dangerous to believe them; do you confirm that this was said in your conversation?” - The archpriest, perhaps not understanding the significance of these words at the time, answered that perhaps they were said among other speeches. But Archimandrite Apollos at the same time answered: “I didn’t say it’s dangerous to believe, but I said that not all rumors can be believed.” Since in this way the defendant denied the words: “it is dangerous to believe,” the informer did not confirm them positively, and I did not have an employee with me who would confirm what I noticed, there was no way left for me to insist that these words be included in the act of confrontation. The informer’s failure to pay attention to these words then led to the conclusion that he took them in the simple sense of the danger of being deceived; that, perhaps, the defendant also uttered them in this sense, but renounced them, noticing later that they could have a dubious meaning. But just as, despite all this, the expression used by the archimandrite and then his renunciation of it seemed remarkable to me, this especially prompted me to say in relation to the 8th day that he showed some instability in his words” (Reports and letters. 1891. pp. 17–18). December 12. Resolution at the consistory decision on a severe reprimand to the priest: “The priest Judah cannot be blamed much for not going to the dying man, whom his son declared to be unconscious from drunkenness. Although, of course, he would have done better if he had gone, waiting to see if he would remember and bring repentance” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 64. No. 9715). December 14. Resolution on the elder’s petition for the appointment of a priest to the church during the ban on a local one: “Since the latest evidence about the local priest suggests leniency, as well as the need of the parish, especially on the occasion of the approaching holiday, but the appointment of another priest cannot soon be made, then the parish priest is allowed to serve as a priest” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 65. No. 9716). December 18. Resolution on the dean’s report about the deacon’s loss of the registry book: “In the deacon’s actions, the guilt of negligence is not noticeable, but an accident that can happen to anyone” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 65. No. 9717). Letter from M. M. Tuchkova: “I thank God with you that you returned safely, and that your assistant has relief from her illness. May the Lord’s help not forsake you all, both in everything that is beneficial and, especially, for the salvation of souls” (Letters to Abbess Maria. P. 64. No. 48). Letter to the Governor of the Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony (Medvedev): “My soul overwhelmed by the world thanks you for thoughts of solitude. In these two weeks, illness taught me solitude, but I didn’t manage to do much. People and things came to the bedside irresistibly” (Letters to St. Anthony. P. 284. No. 355). Resolution at the consistory ruling on the release of the priest from trial due to lack of proof of the charge: “To the omissions of the priest... must be added a strange incongruity in his house. He hears ringing in the bell tower; he runs to look for the culprits, to the church, to the elder, but he does not know that the keys to the bell tower were taken from his daughter in his house by a famous person. This can happen more conveniently with an owner who is sleeping while drunk than with a sober and decent one” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 66. No. 9718). Resolution at the consistory decision on the punishment of those who quarreled - a priest and a sexton: “The priest is condemned for wrongfulness, by the way, from his own mouth. He says that if he had been delivered a note from his confessor, he would have turned the sexton into a former one from a non-former. But this would again be a lie: because the note only proves being at confession; and that the sexton did not commune with the parish priest in the church, he knows indisputably” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 66. No. 9719). Resolution at the consistory decision on permission to serve a priest who missed the services of the cheese week: “The illness has not been proven, and whether he was sick, he had to precede another priest to begin serving. Without doing this, he remains guilty of stopping worship at an important time, and even of suspecting intemperance during the cheese fast week” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 67. No. 9720). Resolution at the consistory ruling on the release of the priest from trial for not incriminating what was reported: “It is difficult to be confident in the innocence and dignity of this priest; it is noteworthy that he did not refer about his behavior to a single person from his clergy and from the entire parish, in which there are non-landowner people. Tell him to look for another place, not because he deserves it, but because the landowner does not want to have it and that he does not have time to encourage the parishioners to begin the sacraments” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 67. No. 9721). Resolution at the consistory ruling on sending the deacon to the monastery for two weeks for indecent acts during the burial of the deceased: “The peasant Semyon showed that the surplice and orarion were lying on the grave, and Grigoriev explained that the deacon had placed them. Consequently, the deacon acted improperly with the vestments” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 68. No. 9722). Letter to the governor of the Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony (Medvedev): “Hello and many years of joy and blessing of the Lord, who was born for us in the flesh. On the next day of the holiday, distribute from me to the ministers 200 rubles in ass[ignations], for the poor 100 rubles, for the poor 50 rubles, for the students of the school, use, as you know, 50 rubles” (Letters to St. Anthony. P. 285. No. 356). December 20. Delivering a Conversation during the solemn service on the occasion of the bringing into the church of the holy martyrs Florus and Laurus of the cross, arranged with the goodwill and generosity of the Sovereign Tsarevich, Grand Duke Alexander Nikolaevich and the Empress Tsesarevna Grand Duchess Maria Alexandrovna and its consecration: “When did the Christian Church on earth both know by teaching and reveal its though a mostly invisible, but real union with the heavenly Church, with the multitudes of Angels, with the souls of the perfect righteous, then it was characteristic of her wisdom to choose and introduce into constant use decent means for preserving and maintaining this union in its beneficial power. For this purpose, the memory of the saints was introduced into Divine services, distributed according to the days of the year and partly according to the days of the week. The Church praises their exploits and virtues before you in order to arouse our love for them and, following it, imitation; turns prayerful voices to them in order to incline towards you their love, which is beneficial for you. For the foundation of a pure spiritual union is pure love” (Works. Vol. 4. P. 606). Resolution regarding the Chief Prosecutor on the appointment of Archimandrite Joseph (Kobylsky-Theologian) Bishop of Dmitrov, Vicar of Moscow with ordination to the episcopal rank (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 92. No. 9778). December 21st. Resolution on an extract from the consistory journal about forcing landowners to build houses for the clergy: “To announce to the parishioners, and especially to the landowners, that their duty is to unite in mutual consultation and assistance in satisfying the clergy with the necessary needs of residence and maintenance, and that if, due to failure to fulfill this duty, the clergy is removed from this church and subsequent inconveniences, then they will be held accountable for this is before God” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 69. No. 9723). • Resolution on the petition of parishioners for permission to serve as a deacon: “This petition cannot come into effect: because it is not indicated who composed and rewrote; 2) because it contains a certificate about the defendant given outside of court, without an oath, without the requirement and supervision of superiors; 3) because the signatures are not witnessed by the dean or anyone, and therefore it is impossible to know whether it is genuine from the parishioners with their consent” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 69. No. 9724). December 22. Congratulations from the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count N. A. Protasov, on the occasion of the Nativity of Christ in 1842: “Having accepted the appointment of a new Vicar to me with the deepest loyal gratitude to the most pious Sovereign Emperor, I make it my duty to bring to Your Lordship my most grateful gratitude, as a representative before the Highest Throne of His Majesty.” (Opinions. 1905. P. 98). December 23. Letter to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count N.A. Protasov, regarding the appointment of the rector of the Moscow Theological Seminary, Archimandrite Joseph, as Bishop of Dmitrovsky: “This place requires not only a capable and worthy, but also a fairly deserved one; because, according to the present premises of the seminary, it is connected with the abbot of the highest of the second-class, stavropegial Zaikonospassky monastery... Committing this to the favorable and patronizing attention of your Excellency, with perfect respect and devotion I have the honor to be your Excellency, the gracious sovereign, most humble servant, Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow " (Opinions. T. additional. P. 122. No. 37). December 24. Letter from E.V. Novosiltseva: “As for the judgment that you pronounce on the mayor, be careful that it is not a sin by will. Maybe the consequence is inaccurate? - May be. But a decisive judgment cannot yet be established on this. Was the deceased sick? - Let's assume that this is so. But isn’t it possible to beat a sick person and thereby bring him closer to death, just like a healthy person? “I don’t need to protect the boss and the researcher - I want to protect your soul from the sin of judging your neighbor without a solid foundation and, perhaps, completely without the truth” (Letters. 1911. P. 217). December 27. Delivering a Speech to the Most Reverend Joseph (Kobylsky-Theologian), Bishop of Dmitrov, upon his ordination in the Cathedral Church of St. Alexis: “Amidst the high Trisagion hymn, we received you into the Sanctuary and, so to speak, into the midst of the solemn doxology of the Most Holy Trinity, we immersed the mystery of your consecration. This signifies both that from the glory of the Most Holy Trinity the light of the Holy Father’s grace mysteriously shines, and also that the primary purpose of the sending of this grace is to serve the mystery and glory of the Most Holy Trinity” (Works. Vol. 4, p. 226). Resolution on the report of the acting dean about the demanding actions of the clergy: “As the clergy’s pretentiousness is noticeable, then through the dean now instill in the clergy to perform demands without stopping, without first demanding or assigning money, but being content with what is given as required, under the fear of being removed from the place” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 69 No. 9725). December 28. Letter to the Governor of the Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony (Medvedev): “You wanted to write me an encouragement to speak, but you wrote a reprimand for not having my word on the holiday. I accept and condemn myself, but I could not avoid it. For about three weeks, a cold has been bothering me in everything” (Letters to St. Anthony. P. 285. No. 357). December 31st. Resolution on the dean’s report that the permitted priest returned from Moscow drunk: “The priest is prohibited from performing priestly services again, with his removal from this place; and so that he is under supervision and has maintenance, assign him to a place of clergy under the special supervision of the local priest and local dean until the decision of the case in which this is imputed to him as punishment, or send him to a monastery” (Resolutions. Vol. 5. Part 1. P. 69. No. 9726). Letter to Archbishop Smaragd (Kryzhanovsky): “God gives your Eminence all such dioceses that provide many opportunities for exploits. Is it possible to begin to enlighten those who sit in the darkness of paganism? The disposition of the Kalmyks towards Christianity under one of your predecessors, which was released by the action of the secular authorities, could you have made known in secret communication in St. Petersburg with the true circumstances of what was happening then, and, perhaps, the blocked path to the cause would have been opened and leveled” (CHOLDPr. 1870. Book 12. P. 42. - Materials). From the memoirs of Archbishop Gregory (Postnikov): “At a public December (1842) exam at the Moscow Seminary, after hearing about the miracles of Jesus Christ, Vladyka said to one student: “You are smarter than Mrs. Steel, who wrote about religion”” (DC. 1871. Part 2. No. 7. P. 154). 1842. Addition to the Instruction of the Holy Synod to the vicar of Pskov: “Unanimity and consistent action of the authorities must be protected with extreme care. Vigilant caution is also required in cases in which secular persons, especially those of other faiths, turning to the spiritual authorities with needs related to their action, mix in with them objects that are not subject to the consideration of the spiritual authorities. Prudence and legal order require that such mixed petitions should not be accepted at all, but that they should be submitted purely for consideration by the spiritual authorities. Especially cases of joining the Orthodox Church should be based on pure spiritual and moral conviction, without the slightest admixture of extraneous species” (Opinions. 1908. P. 17). 1842 (no date). Pronouncing the Word (“Conversation on Gratitude to God”): “When considering human societies, the thought of the beneficent hand of God is often obscured by the thought of human free will. But God, the beneficent Creator of the world and man, can he not also be the beneficent Creator of human society? For human society independent of Him and not controlled by Him would prevent Him from fulfilling beneficent intentions for the world and man, would limit God, which contradicts the fundamental concept of the Divine” (Works. Vol. 4, p. 231). 1842. According to the highest command, it is allowed to accept seminary graduates into public service. Transformation of the Kazan Theological Seminary into the Theological Academy. On the initiative of the Minister of State Property, Count P. D. Kiselev, rural parochial schools were created. 1842. From the memoirs of Bishop Jacob (Vecherkov): “Professor Shevyrev in 1842 asked Filaret: “Why don’t you say improvisation, like Metropolitan Plato?” Philaret said: “I don’t rely on myself and I don’t dare. The word to be pronounced from the pulpit must be thought out. Plato’s works did not survive him because, of course, he did not care about their finishing. Once I tried to speak without a notebook, but, having said a fit, I forgot what I wanted to say and barely managed to finish” (RA. 1889. Part 1 (No. 1–4) P. 360). Widow of Archpriest Nikita Mikhailovich Drozdov. Smirnov, the former groom of Evdokia, the second daughter of Nikita Mikhailovich. Publication of the same letter in DC. 1886. Part 1. No. 2. P. 257, dates it to January 28. In January 1842, MDA teacher Hieromonk Agafangel (Soloviev) wrote letters against the translation of the Bible into Russian made by St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences professor G.P. Pavsky, seeing non-Orthodox thoughts in the text of the translation, and anonymously sent these letters to three metropolitans - Seraphim (Glagolevsky), Filaret (Drozdov) and Filaret (Amphiteatrov). Kyiv, Moscow and former exarch of Georgia, Metropolitan Jonah. Saint Philaret means himself. Petr Voinov is the secretary of the synodal office. On the history of translations by G. P. Pavsky, see: Christian Reading. 1872. Part II.C. 92–150, 183–229. Fyodor Yakonlevich Repninsky is a Moscow nobleman, retired captain, cousin of E. S. Gerard. This refers to the translation from Latin by Count M. M. Speransky: Thomas a Kempis. About imitation of Jesus Christ. St. Petersburg, 1835. Metropolitan of Moscow Philaret and Metropolitan of Kiev Philaret (Amphiteatrov). Leonty Vasilyevich Dubelt (1792–1862) – chief of staff of a separate corps of gendarmes (1835–1856), manager of the Third Department (1839–1856). On the occasion of the wedding of the heir to the Tsarevich on April 16, 1841. Undated letter, received April 11, 1842. About the work of Hieromonk Macarius (Bulgakov), later Metropolitan of Moscow, “History of the Kiev Academy,” published in 1843. About the essay “On Confession” by Matthew Muretov. An undated letter written on the eve or after Easter, April 19, 1842. The letter was also published in the collection: Letters of Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna to the highest persons and various other persons / Collection. and ed. Savva, Archbishop of Tver and Kashin: At 2 o’clock. Tver, 1888. P. 133 - indicating the date “May 8.” Ivan Grigorievich’s wife died. Sergius Dmitrievich Tsvetkov was going to marry Evdokia Nikitichnaya Drozdova, the niece of Metropolitan Philaret. Grand Duchess Alexandra Alexandrovna (1842–1849). Moscow Novospassky Monastery. Hieromonk Filaret (Pulyashkin, d. 1842). Tsitsianova Elizaveta Dmitrievna (1800–1885). Tsitsianova Elizaveta Dmitrievna, princess. Bishop Vitaly (Shchepetev) was moved to Kostroma on November 14, 1842. Joseph (Theological), Archbishop. Voronezh and Zadonsk, ordained December 27, 1842 Alexander Yakovlevich Bulgakov (1781–1863) – senator (1832–1856), Moscow postal director. In July 1842, the “Appeal of His Holiness Pope Gregory XVI was adopted, accompanied by a statement, supplemented by documents, of His Holiness’s incessant concerns about correcting the grave evils that befell the Catholic faith in the domains of His Imperial Majesty Russia and Poland.” Gabriel (Rozanov, d. 1858) – Archbishop of Kherson and Tauride. The rector of the Novospassky Preobrazhensky Stavropegic Monastery is Archimandrite Appolos (Alekseev).