Philaret the Great: About the life and preaching works of St. Philaret (Drozdov)

The son of a priest of the city of Kolomna, the future Saint Philaret (Drozdov; 1782–1867), Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna, received a traditional education at the Trinity Seminary and, as a talented seminarian, was left there as a “teacher of poetry,” already enjoying the special – and well-deserved – patronage of Metropolitan Platon of Moscow. In 1809, Filaret was appointed professor of theology at the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, and soon its rector (1812–1819). In 1817 he was elevated to the rank of Bishop of Revel, and in 1819 he was appointed to govern the Tver Archdiocese, with the introduction of members of the Holy Synod. In 1820 he was transferred to Yaroslavl, and the next year to Moscow. Even when Philaret was the rector of the St. Petersburg Academy, here, under his leadership, it finally became possible to solve a long-standing and most important task of national theological science - to prepare the first translation into modern Russian of the books of the New Testament and the Psalter, which was accomplished in the period 1815–1822 1 . Soon these translations began to be published by the Russian Bible Society. The very first Russian-language editions of the New Testament were printed with a parallel traditional Slavic text, but already in 1823 the New Testament was published in Russian only. The Word of God became more and more accessible to Russians and entered more and more into the spiritual life of the nation. Since 1820, they began to translate the Old Testament, and the book of Genesis was translated by Bishop Philaret himself. Already in his personal patronage of such translation activities, the Bishop’s amazing responsiveness to the real demands of the day was reflected: the urgent need for a more complete and accurate knowledge of the Gospel text by the broadest layers of Russian society was very much felt in those years - especially in connection with the gradual penetration of the irreligious ideology of the West into Russia. Under these conditions, the eternal, imperishable word of God, clear and understandable, was necessary equally for everyone - both the bottom and the top. As A.S. wrote then Pushkin: “The Bible, the Bible!.. The Bible for a Christian is the same as history for the people” 2. It is not for nothing that a little later the poet creates an inspired prose panegyric in honor of the Holy Gospel, about which he speaks like this: “There is a book in which every word has been interpreted, explained, preached to all ends of the earth, applied to all kinds of circumstances of life and events of the world; from which it is impossible to repeat a single expression that everyone does not know by heart, which would not already be a proverb of peoples; it no longer contains anything unknown to us, but this book is called the Gospel... if we, satiated with the [surrounding] world or depressed by despondency, accidentally open it, then we are no longer able to resist its sweet passion and are immersed in spirit in its divine eloquence” 3 ; at the same time, here the poet emphasizes that, despite the seemingly universal “famous” of the Gospel, this book is filled with eternal novelty. Further explaining to the reader why the Gospel is wonderful, this “Good News” of Christ, the poet continues: “And it is not in vain... that we dared to mention the Divine Gospel: there were few chosen ones (even among the original shepherds of the Church) who in their creations would approach the preaching of the Heavenly Teacher with meekness of spirit, sweetness of eloquence and infantile purity of heart” 4 . Once, talking with the poet-philosopher A.S. Khomyakov about the poetry of the Bible, Pushkin even spoke (perhaps in the heat of polemical fervor too rigoristically) about his negative attitude towards any general retelling of biblical texts - in the form of abbreviated “sacred stories”, arguing that ““to convey this amazing text in a vulgar modern language is blasphemy even regarding aesthetics, taste and common sense. My children will read the Bible in the original." “In Slavic?” – asked Khomyakov. “In Slavic,” Pushkin confirmed, “I will teach it myself.”5 However, the majority of the Orthodox population of Russia still required a complete edition of the Bible in a more understandable modern language. The significant spread of the Gospel word among the Russian people was precisely facilitated by the literary activity of Metropolitan Philaret - as the constant editor of both Testaments published during his priesthood. The cessation of the activities of the Russian Bible Society in 1826, which initially printed translations of sacred texts, temporarily suspended the preparation of the publication of the entire Bible in Russian. But in the second half of the 1850s, translation work continued. Since 1868, the texts of the Holy Scriptures began to be printed again (in separate editions), as a result of which in 1875 readers were finally able to become acquainted with the complete biblical text in Russian. This year is generally considered to be the year of the appearance in Russia of the Russian, so-called “Synodal” Bible. The reflection of biblical “divine eloquence” can also be caught in Philaret’s church sermons: they have always been a living gospel of faith, and not just the pious “rhetoric” of a skilled preacher. The Church has always extremely highly valued the theological and preaching works of the Bishop, and “not for nothing,” as noted one of the researchers of his spiritual heritage, professor of the Moscow Theological Academy I.N. Korsunsky, - ... the name “Philaret the Wise” was established for Philaret of Moscow... Truly, he fully deserved the name of the teacher of the Church not only of Moscow, but also of the Russian, not only of the Russian, but also of the universal” 6. The same thing was stated half a century later by the famous theologian V.N. Lossky, calling this great saint “the father of Russian theology” 7. A sober, sharp mind and an exalted structure of soul are the most characteristic personality traits of this truly holy archpastor. He himself invariably lived in the complete spiritual balance of a truly Christian existence, resting on faith in the guiding good will of God the Creator - in that inner balance of all existing “creatures”, about which he so vividly said in one of his sermons: “The creative word is like an adamantine bridge on which creatures are placed and stand, under the abyss of God’s infinity, above the abyss of their own insignificance” 8. While in Moscow - at first still in the same rank of archbishop - already from 1821 and becoming Metropolitan of Moscow in 1826, Bishop Philaret headed the diocese of the “second capital” (and, in fact, all of Orthodox Russia) for more than 40 years - until his death; At the same time, as a church historian of the last century notes, “his leadership and administrative significance was manifested in an amazingly wide scope, which was not limited to the boundaries of the church department, but captured almost the entire Russian life. When looking at the multi-volume edition of his letters, opinions and reviews on a wide variety of matters, it becomes even incomprehensible when this strong and versatile mind had time to think it all over” 9. At the same time, “it would be wrong to define the significance of Metropolitan Philaret in one of his outstanding “philosophies”; no, the charm of his personality for the Russian Church lies precisely in the uniform improvement of both properties of Orthodoxy, that is, “thinking” and “doing,” and no matter how any deep thought of Metropolitan Philaret strikes you, his enlightened image rises before your mental eyes as the fruit of the highest “doing” 10. The Bishop constantly performed divine services in the church, received endless visitors and petitioners, composed spiritual teachings and sometimes state documents, and worked on theological (most often of a practically relevant nature) works. In his articles and sermons, he touched on a variety of topics: these are the principles of maintaining a strong statehood, and the problem of relations with the Catholic West, and the veneration of saints, and the tasks of establishing Christian morality in society, and many, many others. Thus, one of his first striking works (still somewhat archaic in style) - the above-mentioned “Discourse on the moral reasons for our incredible successes in the war of 1812-1813” (1813) - is devoted, in particular, to the presentation of the saint’s views on the internal foundations of Orthodox statehood, on the meaning of the state as such and on the conditions for the inviolability of the latter. Since this is generally one of the earliest works of a similar analytical nature in Russia, it seems useful to cite here at least a few passages, so to speak, of a fundamental nature - as a kind of example of the “moral-political” view of the Church on the problem of the state as a whole. In this treatise Filaret writes: “What is a state? A certain area in the universal dominion of the Almighty, separated in appearance, but linked by invisible power to the unity of the whole. So, the more constantly it maintains itself in the union of the Supreme Ruler of the world by observing His law, piety and virtue, the more accurately it enters into the general order of His rule, the more undoubtedly it is protected by Him, the more abundantly it receives from Him strength for its preservation and improvement. Having left God, it can be left to itself for a while, according to the law of long-suffering, or in anticipation of his correction, or as an instrument of punishment for others, or until the execution of the measure of his iniquities, but is soon struck by justice as an outrageous area of ​​​​God's power. What is a state? A union of free moral beings uniting with each other, sacrificing part of their freedom for the protection and establishment by common forces of the law of morality, which constitutes the necessity of their existence. Civil laws are nothing more than the interpretation of this law applied to special cases and the fences placed against its violation. So, where the sacred law of morality is unshakably established in the hearts by upbringing, faith, sound, undistorted teaching and the respected examples of ancestors, there they remain faithful to the Fatherland and then, when no one guards it, they sacrifice property and themselves to it without motives of reward or glory, there they die for the laws when they are not afraid of dying from the laws, and when they could save their lives by breaking them. If the law living in the hearts is driven out by false enlightenment and unbridled sensuality, there is no life in the written laws, commands have no respect, execution has no trust; self-will goes hand in hand with oppression, and both bring society closer to its downfall” 11. Everything said here, of course, has the most direct relation to the entire subsequent history of Russia, being especially relevant in our time - as it searches for future ways of its state revival. In his literary works, the Bishop vividly responded to the requests of historical science (whether it was the above-mentioned assessment of the military events of 1812–1813 or reflections on the role of St. Sergius of Radonezh in the life of Russia), and to the requests for the spiritual enlightenment of the people (after all, it was thanks to his tireless efforts that the Russians finally received a complete translation of the entire Bible into modern language during the 1860–1870s), and even to requests for purely the socio-political existence of the country, which he invariably viewed in the light of the comprehensive Gospel Truth. Thus, even the 1861 Manifesto on the liberation of peasants from serfdom was drawn up - on behalf of Emperor Alexander II - by Metropolitan Philaret! From time to time, the bishop also labored in the field of hymnographic creativity (it was not for nothing that he was once a “teacher of poetry”) - a number of prayers he composed have reached us (“Prayer of a Prisoner in Prison,” “Prayer on the Day of Remembrance of the Millennium of Russia,” etc.). Most remarkable for the depth of his religious feeling is his “Daily Prayer to the Lord Jesus Christ”: “Lord; I don’t know what to ask of You. You alone know what I need. You love me more than I can love myself. Father! Give to Your servant - what I myself cannot ask for. I don’t dare ask - no cross, no consolation! Only I stand before You; my heart is open. You see needs that I don’t know. Look! - and do to me according to Your mercy: strike and heal, overthrow and raise me. I am in awe and silent before Your holy will and Your destinies, incomprehensible to me. I sacrifice myself to You. I surrender to You. I have no desire except the desire to fulfill Your will... Teach me to pray. Pray within me yourself. Amen" 12. The saint did not shy away from the problems of religious understanding of culture and artistic creativity. His poetic dialogue about the Christian understanding of the purpose and meaning of life with A.S. is well known. Pushkin. The reason for this dialogue was the publication by the poet of the poem “A gift in vain, a gift fortuitous...” (“May 26, 1828”) 13, colored by the deepest internal pessimism in which his restless soul was then, and beginning with the following lines: A vain gift, a random gift, Life, why were you given to me? As Metropolitan Philaret himself recalled, this poem was brought to him by Pushkin’s friend E.M. Khitrovo, whom the bishop sometimes instructed to tell the poet about individual Moscow events. Considering it necessary to give an answer to the Church to such melancholy and spiritually bleak meditations of the poet, who then spoke of himself: “There is no goal before me: The heart is empty, the mind is idle...”, Filaret found it useful to put his admonition (addressed, of course, not only to the famous St. Petersburg poet, but also to the entire educated part of Christian society) in poetic form; his poetic answer soon became known to Pushkin. This is the message from the ruler: I myself am capricious in power Evil called out from the dark abysses, He filled his soul with passion, Remember me, Forgotten by me! Shine through the darkness of thoughts! Pushkin was so touched by this address to him by the Moscow saint that he, in turn, responded to him with these grateful lines from his famous poem: In hours of fun or idle boredom, Madness, laziness and passions. But even then the strings of evil Involuntarily I interrupted the ringing, When your voice is majestic I shed streams of unexpected tears, And the strength of meek and loving Your soul is warmed by your fire, Rejected the darkness of earthly vanities, However, as is known, at the request of the censorship, Pushkin was forced to make significant changes to the last lines, after which the end of the poem acquired the following “corrected” form (it is usually always printed like this): The soul is scorched by your fire, Rejected the darkness of earthly vanities, And the poet listens to the harp of Seraphim In sacred horror 14. Due to his church-administrative workload, the bishop had almost no time left for academic studies, but he still occasionally had time to work on works of a purely theological nature. In the 1820s and 1830s, the saint compiled his famous “Christian Catechism,” or summary of all Orthodox teaching. This work remains to this day a classic doctrinal work of this kind. Metropolitan Philaret was one of the first in Russia to foresee the terrible wave of God- and misanthropic atheism approaching it. Already in the middle of the century, he perfectly felt and understood that the so-called enlightened society, and behind it the “common” people, were beginning to increasingly decompose morally - under the influence of nihilistic ideas coming from the West, based on pagan worship of the blessings of “this world”. The bishop saw all this, grieved, and spoke more than once about the impending danger, but few people took such warnings seriously at that time. As a result, the devilish “ghost of communism”, in the words of K. Marx, “wandered across Europe”, reaching Russia (just half a century after the death of the wise saint), was able to seduce this country of great saints - Prince Vladimir, Alexander Nevsky, Sergius of Radonezh - with a truly satanic temptation of the communist idea and lead it to fall into the revolutionary abyss of 1917. Anticipating the possibility of just such a development of events in Russia, Saint Philaret once remarked - using the biblical image of a “progressive”, essentially God-fighting “Babylonian pandemonium”: “It seems that we are already living on the outskirts of Babylon, if not in it itself” 15. More and more often, starting at least from the late 1820s (!), but especially from the middle of the century, the lines of his numerous notes and letters turn out to be filled with anxiety about the future fate of Russia. Thus, already in the letters of 1828–1829, similar Philaret assessments of the spiritual state of the country are increasingly encountered: “... Neither the evening dawn of this year nor the morning dawn of the coming year will seem bright to me. The clouds darken, the distant rumble of thunder strikes, lightning rods are either missing or they are being broken. The waves are rising. The tongues are reeling. People learn vain lessons. From Christian societies come men who say depravity. Reckless blasphemies are proclaimed as wisdom. Temptation and lawlessness open wide paths for themselves. If, even in one year, you take all the bad things from secular magazines and combine them, then there will be such a stench against which it is difficult to find enough incense to drown it out. How our time is like the last! Salt takes over (that is, it loses its strength - Dr. G.M.). The stones of the sanctuary fall into the dirt onto the street. With grief and fear I look at the abundance of people who deserve defrocking...” 16 ; “Apparently, our sins are great before God. Doesn't judgment begin from the house of God? (Cf.: “For it is time for judgment to begin at the house of God” (1 Pet. 4:17). - D. G.M.) Isn’t it time for repentance to begin from those who serve in this house?” 17; “In general, these days seem to me to be days of temptation, and I am afraid of more temptations ahead, because people do not want to see the temptations of those around them and walk among them as if they were safe” 18. In a certain sense, he was almost sure of the future troubles that were gradually approaching the country. A number of contemporary testimonies have been preserved about such perspicacity of the wise saint. “...Once,” Bishop Leonid (Krasnopevkov) recalled, “I told Metropolitan Philaret (1865) that it would be desirable to set down in writing his views regarding differences with the Old Believers. Filaret replied: “For what?” “For the future,” was my answer. The Metropolitan answered warmly and worriedly that he felt that the future was covered with a dark cloud and that when the storm broke out, people, shocked by thunderclaps, would forget about everything that happened before this storm” 19. And the same Bishop Leonid added: “A.N. Muravyov said that the bishop’s view of the future was sad, and conveyed his true words: “When I look at young children, I cannot remain indifferent to the thought that they, poor things, will have to endure at this time,” and at these words he began to cry.” 20 Another prophecy similar to this is found in the letters of St. Ambrose of Optina: “I remembered the words of Metropolitan Philaret, who did not advise making vestments for icons, because the time is approaching when ill-intentioned people will remove the vestments from icons” 21. Grieving about such future “progress” and, naturally, being suspicious of any manifestations of left-liberal and socialist sentiments in Russian society, Filaret himself, by nature, was by no means an overly conservative and rationally cold guardian of the usual “old times” - even in purely church affairs. On the contrary, he was even often reproached for a certain “free-thinking” - especially in relation to his restrained and tolerant assessment of Western confessions. As always, here too his position was very clear; He combined his strong loyalty to Orthodoxy with love for other Christians, saying, for example, in one of his earliest works, “A Conversation between the Examining and the Confident about the Orthodoxy of the Eastern Greek-Russian Church” (1815): “The present Eastern Church is one in common faith with the ancient Ecumenical Church. Faith and love excite me to zeal for the holy Eastern Church; love, humility and hope teach tolerance towards those of different opinions. I think that in this I will follow exactly the spirit of the Eastern Church, which at the very beginning of each Divine service prays not only “for the well-being of God’s holy churches,” but also “for the unity of all.” 22 He speaks about the same thing, but somewhat more broadly, in his later work “The Significance of Church Prayer for the Union of Churches” (1860): “... let pious zeal pray primarily “for the well-being of God’s holy Orthodox churches” and for the preservation in them by the grace of God of “the unity of the spirit in the union of peace.” But let all-encompassing Christian love pray both “for the unification of all” churches, and for the reunification with the Orthodox Church of those who have deviated from it through wrong teachings, so that, according to the promise of our Lord Jesus Christ, there may be “one flock,” as He already is “one Shepherd” and the Lord of His Church on earth and in heaven, in time and in eternity” 23, although he himself invariably linked the undoubted possibility of Christian salvation for man only with being in the bosom of the Orthodox Church - as the only one that has preserved (since apostolic times) the integrity of the Gospel teaching and Church Tradition 24 . Strict restraint, but also justice, exactingness towards Christian duty and paternal condescension towards forgivable human weaknesses, and most importantly, wise love - always remained the most characteristic features of his communication with his flock. Teaching others faith, love and Christian humility, the saint himself in his personal spiritual life adhered to the same rules: thus, even in the years of very experienced old age, if it was necessary to resolve any complex issue, he did nothing without consulting his own confessor - Archimandrite of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra, Rev. Anthony (Medvedev; canonized as a Radonezh saint in 1996) 25 . For example, a remarkable testimony about this by Archimandrite Leonid (Kavelin) has been preserved, concerning one of the difficult moments in the history of Philaret’s relations with the “powers that be” - and, in general, there were many such moments. The saint was at a loss as to how to resolve yet another problem (here, to a certain extent, the story of St. Mitrophan of Voronezh’s refusal to consecrate statues of ancient deities was repeated), and, after consulting with his confessor, he obediently fulfilled his fatherly will. In Moscow at that time, preparations were being made for the consecration of the Triumphal Gate, and there were images of pagan gods on them, and Metropolitan Philaret refused to consecrate them. The Tsar decided to come to Moscow for the celebration. The aide-de-camp went to the Metropolitan to convey the Emperor’s desire to see him personally at the celebration. After listening to the message, the Metropolitan uttered only one word: “I hear.” The messenger repeated his message. There was no response except the same word: “I hear.” When asked what to convey to the Emperor, the envoy, who was completely bewildered, received the answer: “What do you hear?” When the messenger, reporting his bewilderment, conveyed exactly what the Metropolitan had said to the Emperor, he said: “Oh, so I understand. Prepare the horses: I’m leaving today.” The Emperor left. But here’s what the Lavra’s abbot, Fr., told Bishop Leonid about this matter, like a secret. Anthony: "...When it was announced to Vladyka Philaret that he should consecrate the gates (triumphal with pagan statues), the Vladyka came to the Lavra and told me,” says Father Anthony, “that he was in a battle of thoughts. His conscience told him: don’t hallow; but everyone said: holy! What do you say? After this, the bishop returned to the Lavra extremely embarrassed. - This is what sorrow has come! – This was visible before. - Yes, I did a good thing: I irritated the Emperor. I do not have the virtues of Saint Mitrofan. – Don’t take them upon yourself, but remember that you are a Christian bishop, a shepherd of the Church of Christ, who is afraid of one thing: to diverge from the will of Jesus Christ. They talked until late at night; but the bishop remained confused. He sends for me early in the morning. I was frightened, because I knew that embarrassment [as it happened] had already turned into a bodily illness. However, I came and involuntarily smiled, looking at the bishop. - Yes, you can see the eagle in flight. The Bishop, already radiant, said to me: “Let’s go and thank St. Sergius. He appeared to me in a sensual way. I fell asleep, and it was already five o’clock when I heard a rustling at the door. I woke up a little, stood up: the door, which I usually lock, quietly opened and the Reverend entered, old, gray-haired, thin and of average height, in a robe without an epitrachelion, and, leaning towards the bed, said to me: “Don’t be embarrassed; everything will pass”... And he disappeared.” “Thank you,” the bishop told me, “you spoke to me against everyone.” And the words of the Reverend came true!” (I heard from the Father Superior for the secret on August 16, 1853 in the monastery during the all-night vigil in the altar)” 26. The memory of the lively, at the same time morally exalted and sober-practical character of Bishop Philaret (not without natural wit) is associated with many different instructive stories, which were carefully preserved later in the church, mainly Moscow, environment. Here, for example, is one of those edifying, as they said then, “anecdotes” (i.e., funny historical cases). One day, a secretary came to Vladyka with a report on office work. Metropolitan Philaret knew that the official received a bribe from the petitioners for his troubles in this matter. The case, as befits, was placed in a folder on which was printed in large letters: “REPORT.” Before the secretary had time to place it in front of the Metropolitan, he stopped him with a gesture of his hand. - Wait, don’t rush, brother: you need to do everything in order. Tell me first, what does it say on the cover? – The word “report”, Your Eminence. - So, right... well, if I cover the first letter with my hand, what will remain then? “The word “salary”, Your Eminence,” the secretary answered in bewilderment. - Salary? Fine. What salary do you receive for your position? The confused secretary named the amount. – You say: so much? Well, the amount is considerable. Are you family? – Single, Your Eminence! - Well, for a single person your salary is quite sufficient. So try, serve well, without having to worry about your daily bread... So, let’s continue: well, cut one more letter, what’s left? “Treasure,” muttered the secretary, realizing that the ruler was asking these questions for a reason, and vaguely guessing that all this did not bode well for him. - Treasure? What kind of treasure could this deed that you present to me contain? I don't understand something. What kind of treasure have you found in this matter? Well, why are you silent? Answer when asked. The secretary remained stubbornly silent and blinked his eyes in confusion. - Don’t know? I can’t believe it... Well, continue further, shorten one more letter. “The word “lad” remains, Your Eminence,” answered the secretary, already quite clearly understanding that his affairs were bad. - “Lada”? Right. What mode are we talking about? Are you really trying to get along with me regarding the “treasure” that you found in this matter? A? So, what? And you dared to think that you could get along with me? That I will sign this wrong paper of yours without question? Do you know what awaits you for this?! The secretary was neither alive nor dead - not so much from repentance as from the threat of the lord's punishment. – So you want to know what awaits you for this? – the bishop continued, looking inquisitively into his eyes. - Well, drop another letter, the fourth, and read, brother, don’t be embarrassed! “Hell,” muttered the secretary and, unable to bear it, fell at Filaret’s feet. – That’s right: hell awaits everyone who sins in covetousness! Stand up. You are not guilty before me, but before Christ, before Him and you must atone for your sins. The secretary, convicted of taking a bribe, was sent by Saint Philaret to repentance - under the strict supervision of the abbot of one of the Russian monasteries” 27. Metropolitan Philaret died on November 19 (December 2), 1867 - just as piously as he lived, always remaining a true ascetic monk: “a bishop from morning to evening and from evening to morning” 28. He was warned in advance about his death by his father who appeared to him in a dream and said: “Take care of the 19th.” And indeed, on November 19 (December 2), 1867 - the third after the vision of the “19th” - after serving the Sunday Liturgy in his home church, Bishop Philaret a few hours later painlessly passed on to the Lord. Later recalling this last service of the Liturgy in the saint’s earthly life, the already mentioned Bishop Leonid said: “Metropolitan Philaret’s face always shone, and his spirit rejoiced during the celebration of the Liturgy. Everyone knew that after mass he was meek and approachable; when he himself performed the Holy Liturgy, he usually cried. But during the consecration of the Holy Gifts on the day of his death, his tenderness was exceptional and his tears were abundant” 29. All of Moscow gathered to venerate the saint’s tomb, saying: “There will be no other Philaret.” The holiness of the Metropolitan’s life’s feat, gradually becoming more and more recognized by Orthodox Russia, as well as his enormous services to the Church and the Fatherland, finally led to his canonization by the Russian Orthodox Church in 1994. Despite all the mentioned transfers from department to department, the bishop primarily continued to remain in St. Petersburg, from where he managed diocesan affairs; At the same time, he did not cease to direct the translation activities of the Theological Academy and even himself translated the Gospel of John into Russian. Letter from L.S. Pushkin and O.S. Pushkina dated December 4, 1824 - Quoted. by: Vasiliev B.A. The spiritual path of Pushkin. M., 1994. P. 94. Note that the poet especially vividly felt the inextricable connection of Christianity with human history. Thus, in one of his articles he stated: “The greatest spiritual and political revolution on our planet is Christianity. In this sacred element the world disappeared and was renewed. Ancient history is the history of Egypt, Persia, Greece, Rome. Modern history is the history of Christianity. Woe to the country that is outside the European system (in the sense of precisely the Christian system of spiritual values. - Dr. G.M.)" (Pushkin A.S. Complete collection of works. T. 8. M., 1936. P. 741). See Pushkin’s preface to the book published in St. Petersburg in 1836: “On the Duties of Man,” essay by Silvio Pellico / Pushkin A.S. Full collection op. T. 8. P. 276. Right there. pp. 276–277. On the significance of Christianity in the life and work of the great poet, see also: Anthony (Khrapovitsky), Metropolitan. Pushkin as a moral person and an Orthodox Christian. Belgrade, 1929; Anastasy (Gribanovsky), metropolitan. Pushkin in his attitude to religion and the Orthodox Church. Munich, 1947 (also reprinted: M., 1991); Anastasy (Gribanovsky), metropolitan. The moral character of Pushkin. Jordanville, 1949; Pushkin in Russian philosophical criticism. M., 1990; Frank S.L. Pushkin's religiosity (1933) / Sketches about Pushkin. M., 1999. P. 7–33; Gift. Russian priests about Pushkin Comp. M.D. Filin and V.S. Nepomnyashchy. M., 1999; Nepomnyashchiy V.S. Pushkin. Russian picture of the world. M, 1999; A.S. Pushkin: the path to Orthodoxy Comp. A.N. Strizhev. M., 1999; Nepomnyashchiy V.S. “Let the descendants of the Orthodox know”: Pushkin. Russia. We. M., 2001. Smirnova O.A. Notes. St. Petersburg, 1894. P. 205. Quote by: Maxim Kozlov, priest. Saint [Enter. article] / Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna, creations. M., 1994. P. 12. Peru I.N. Korsunsky owns, in particular, the books: “Characters from the life of the holy righteous Philaret the Merciful in the life of Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow” (Sergiev Posad, 1893) and “St. Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow” (Kharkov, 1894). This estimate was given by V.S. Nepomniachtchi in his book “Let the descendants of the Orthodox know” (M., 2001. P. 212). Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow. Word on the day of the discovery of the relics of St. Alexis / Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow. Words and speeches. T. 2. M., 1877. P. 436. Znamensky P.V. History of the Russian Church [reprinted several times in the period 1870–1904]. M., 1996. P. 339. Istomin V.K. Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow. Publication of the Holy Trinity Sergius Lavra, 1911. pp. 12–13. Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna, creations. pp. 312–313. Written by the poet on his birthday. For more information about this religious and poetic dialogue, see: Anastasy (Gribanovsky), Metropolitan. Decree. op. pp. 37–42. Quote by: Georgy Florovsky, archpriest. Decree. op. P. 184. Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna, creations. pp. 346–348. Letters from Metropolitan Philaret to Bishop. Innocent (Selno-Krinov). Letter 137. March 13, 1829 / Additions to the publication of the Holy Fathers. Part 25. M., 1872. P. 210. Letters of Metropolitan Philaret... Letter 73. February 28, 1828 / Ibid. P. 14. Quote by: Maxim Kozlov, priest. Saint (Introductory article) / Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna, creations. P. 28. Quote from: Ibid. pp. 28–29. Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna, creations. pp. 426, 450. In general, the truly humble archpastors of Russia who live Christian love have always adhered to a very clear and definite idea that Orthodox Christians can be saved only in the one Ecumenical Orthodox Church - leaving the problem of saving members of other denominations to the discretion of God and His love. As later (already at the end of the 19th century) to the question of a certain Baptist - who will be saved? - the great saint and apostle of Japan, Archbishop Nicholas (Kasatkin), answered very simply and spiritually soberly: “We are firmly convinced that besides Christ there is no other door to the Kingdom of Heaven, and also that before us is the most direct path to this door, but whether they will get through this door from the roundabout paths, we do not know and we leave God to judge this, being afraid to do it ourselves” (Nicholas. St. Nicholas of Japan. Brief biography. Excerpts from diaries. St. Petersburg, 2001. P. 118). See about him: Life of St. Anthony (Medvedev), abbot of the Holy Trinity Lavra of St. Sergius Comp. Archimandrite Georgy (Tertyshnikov). Publication of the Holy Trinity Sergius Lavra, 1996. Quote by: Kontsevich I.M. Optina Pustyn and its time. Publication of the Holy Trinity Sergius Lavra, 1995. pp. 143–144. [Reprint edition: Jordanville, 1970.] Based on materials from the Yaroslavl Diocesan Gazette. Georgy Florovsky, archpriest. Decree. op. P. 182. Quote By:. Maxim Kozlov, priest. Decree. op. pp. 31–32.