Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow, as a preacher

So multifaceted, so amazingly extensive and fruitful was the activity of Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow, that under the vivid impression of the death of the ever-memorable saint, his admirers could not find words to depict the immeasurable greatness of the loss suffered in the person of the deceased by the Moscow Church, the All-Russian Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church. “There is no mind so deep, they said then, that it could exhaust the sixty years of amazingly beneficial and varied activity of the deceased saint. There is no knowledge so extensive that could embrace the entire content of this activity, which is mostly hidden and only revealed to the world when necessary. And no matter how hard anyone tries to depict the properties and deeds of the deceased saint, no image will be fully worthy of his great memory: everything will be pale, meager, miserable. It’s more convenient to be silent, reverent, praying” 1 Fifteen years after the death of Metropolitan. Philaret, December 26, 1882, marked the centenary of the birth of the great saint. This anniversary was celebrated with appropriate solemnity, especially in Moscow and St. Petersburg 2 . Quite a few articles, preaching words, speeches and readings dedicated to his memory were caused by this incident, but even then it was noted that “the mental and moral appearance of the late saint, in all its spiritual breadth, integrity and truth, in all the various life manifestations of his being, will not soon become available for historically truthful and complete reproduction, because the time has not yet come when it would be possible to know everything about him and completely impartially judge his activities, clearly imagining the conditions in which he lived and served the Church of Christ. And this time is unlikely to come soon... For now it is only possible to imagine individual, fragmentary and incomplete pages from the book of his life.” 3 This consideration partly explains the fact that the first attempt at a detailed, scientifically compiled biography of Metropolitan. Philareta appeared relatively late, only in 1893, when Archpriest. A. Smirnov published a book: “Childhood, adolescence, youth, years of study and teaching at the Trinity Lavra Seminary, Metropolitan. Philaret" (1782–1808)". Along with the publication of numerous and varied literary works by Metropolitan himself. Philaret, to which the special attention of enlightened admirers of the memory of the late saint was drawn, over the past thirty years, one might say, a whole literature “about Philaret” and “on Philaret” has been compiled. Separately and in periodical publications, extracts from his works appeared and continue to appear, but on one or another issue of church and public life, memories of him, characteristics of his activities in a certain area, etc. Since the most prominent place in his literary activity should be given to church preaching, then, of course, it was not left without research. 4 Brief description of Philaret’s preaching, Metropolitan. Moscow, in memory of the thirty anniversary of the death of our famous church leader, is the subject of this essay, which, of course, cannot claim to be complete, befitting scientific research. For greater integrity of the essay, we consider it not superfluous to first note some information from the biography of the saint, especially those related to his preaching. Filaret, in the world Vasily, was born in the mountains. Kolomna on December 26, 1782. He was the son of the cathedral deacon, later archpriest, Mikhail Fedorovich Drozdov. Despite his relatively low position in the church hierarchy, this cathedral deacon was highly educated, as he was a teacher at the local seminary. He knew not only Latin, but also French, loved to read and acquire books that were interesting to him for some reason, so that even with the meager material resources at his disposal, he could compile a fairly hefty home library. 5 It is natural to think that this father’s love for book studies was inherited by his son. His mother was a simple but kind, pious and gifted woman with a bright mind. As in some examples of the ancient great shepherds of the church: St. Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian, John Chrysostom and Blessed. Augustine - and here the beneficial influence of the mother on the initial development of the spiritual powers of the young son was felt. He learned an excellent guarantee of future bright activity from his home upbringing: this is a pure heart, imbued with the spirit of sincere piety. It was not in vain that he always considered the good family of the pious servant of the altar of the Lord to be the best, irreplaceable preparatory school for those devoting themselves to the clergy. 6 However, the boy V. Drozdov spent most of the first years of his childhood in the house of his grandparents (on his mother’s side). His grandfather was a priest of the Epiphany Church in Kolomna. The receptive grandson constantly went with his pious grandmother to church services and vividly noticed all the details of the service, which made a strong impression on him. “Having always before the eyes of his elderly grandfather and grandmother, observing their sedate appearance and modest way of life, the boy himself easily succumbed to imitation of them, imperceptibly cast himself into the same form, assimilating the stamp of not childish solidity, slowness in movements, seriousness and prudence.” 7 Nine-year-old Vasily Drozdov was assigned to the Kolomna Seminary, where he was noted as a student of “talents, diligence, and commendable success.” After the abolition of the Kolomna Seminary, at the age of 17, he entered the philosophical class of the Trinity Lavra Seminary after an exam. During the first time of his upbringing here, the young man had to endure quite a few inconveniences and hardships of various kinds. Subsequently, in one of his sermons, he characterized the school life of his time in the following way: “from unfurnished dwellings, we often used entire fields to measure the unimproved path to the house of study; and it happened that only in our teaching did the fire flare up (Ps. 39:4), when the educational church needed a warming or illuminating fire.” 8 Despite, however, these external conditions, unfavorable for studies, he, according to the testimony of the prefect, his closest superior, showed “most commendable success” in the philosophy class of the Lavra Seminary. During the next two-year theological course, Drozdov took classes in theology, history, Greek and Hebrew languages, and medicine. In theology he was certified: “excellently sharp, diligent and successful,” in Greek: “excellent, excellent”; in Hebrew - placed above all comrades. Vasily Mikhailovich’s special love for preaching was already evident at the time when he was still at school. With extreme scarcity of material resources, with extreme frugality in spending, which forced one to endure deprivation of the most necessary things, for example. in the accessories of the costume, in one of his letters to his father (No. 30), he expresses his apparently long-standing intention and asks permission to buy “Anastasius’ Words” and an essay on the three temperaments approved by the Bishop, which, in his opinion and expression, is capable of giving good morality. Vasily Mikhailovich Drozdov completed his course of study with brilliant success in 1803. The rector made the following review about him and another of his comrades: “both in diligence and in the acuity of their minds, both in other sciences and mainly in poetry, they are, without a doubt, the best. They are particularly modest." In the same year, the theology student Vasily Drozdov, famous at that time as the Bishop of Moscow, Plato, was appointed teacher of Greek and Hebrew at the school that educated him. The young teacher’s track record for this year states: “He can translate, write and speak Greek perfectly.” Then, here in 1806, he was appointed teacher of poetry and higher eloquence. Thus, the first educational positions that were assigned to him by his superiors contributed to the preparation in him of a godly theologian and church leader. Teaching the two sacred languages ​​of the Bible introduced him to the root sources of Christian doctrine and the writings of the wise Greek fathers. Creations of St. Gregory the Theologian, with their thoughtfulness, was especially akin to his spirit and was studied by him with such love that some of Gregory’s poems, in Greek, were preserved in his fresh memory until the later years of his life. 9 In 1808, rhetoric teacher V.M. Drozdov, “after contented reflection,” as he himself put it in one letter to his parent, finally decided to fulfill his long-standing intention and take a major step towards changing his “condition.” “Having studied and then taught under the archpastoral patronage of your Eminence,” he writes to the Metropolitan, “I have learned, at least, to find pleasure in learning and benefit in solitude. This disposed me towards the rank of monk. I thoroughly tested myself in this disposition during the almost five years I spent as a teacher. And now, Your Eminence, most merciful archpastor and father, I most humbly ask with your archpastoral blessing to fulfill my desire, honoring me with the monastic title.” And his desire was fulfilled: at the most ebullient time of his life (26 years old), he was clothed in a monastic robe. Thus, the teacher Vasily Drozdov became the monk Philaret, who was soon ordained as a hierodeacon. But not long after that, God’s Providence judged Fr. Philaret to serve in the place of his upbringing. From among the monks they call him to the environment of higher service in the northern capital. Here a wider and more prominent field of activity opens up for him, which, of course, requires new efforts. But his successes quickly grow, and he rises from glory to glory. First of all, he is entrusted with the difficult and hectic, in his own words, position of inspector of the St. Petersburg Seminary, with the occupation of the department of philosophical sciences, then he is ordained as a hieromonk, appointed successively as the rector of the Alexander Nevsky School, a bachelor of theological sciences at the Theological Academy, elevated to the rank of archimandrite, appointed rector and professor of the academy, rector of the Novgorod Yuryev and then Moscow Novospassky Monastery, receives a doctorate in Orthodox theology, participates as a member in various societies and institutions, 10 audits various religious educational institutions and, finally, in 1817, is elevated to the high rank of bishop. For less than two years he served as vicar of the St. Petersburg Metropolis with the rank of Bishop of Revel. For a short time then, Philaret ruled the dioceses of first Tver and then Yaroslavl with the rank of archbishop and with the title of member of the Holy Synod: in 1821, he assumed the primacy of the throne of Moscow, and 5 years later he was elevated to the rank of metropolitan of Moscow. At this, so to speak, extreme height of the hierarchy, the spiritual virtues of the famous hierarch were revealed even more clearly. Despite the extreme complexity and versatility of his works, the archpastor did not cease with intense zeal to serve the cause of disseminating and establishing the sound teaching of the faith of Christ both through administrative and literary means, and through extensive private correspondence and oral conversations with those who only wished to receive instruction from him, but especially and preferably through church preaching. In 1867, August 5th, he celebrated the fiftieth anniversary of his service as a bishop. The Highest Rescript for this occasion indicates and evaluates this multifaceted activity of the venerable saint. Namely, for continuous concern for the spiritual prosperity of the flock, for the development and increase of charitable and educational institutions, for the planting and establishment of common faith, for the improvement of spiritual and educational institutions of the diocese, for their generous support, numerous pastoral writings, deep experience in matters of higher church administration, pastoral care for the highest interests of Orthodoxy and lively attention to the destinies of the Orthodox world, extending far beyond the borders of the fatherland - he was given the right, according to Kyiv custom, to present a cross in the priesthood, to wear a cross on a miter and two panagias on his chest. At the same time, the All-Merciful One was also granted one of the panagias, specially made for him and decorated with precious stones on a diamond chain. Moreover, he was granted portraits of three Crowned Princes, during whose reign he carried out his illustrious service to the church and fatherland 12. The fiftieth anniversary of the Moscow saint was perhaps the best and highest reward that the world could bring to the famous hero of the day, who marked his service to the church and state with innumerable merits. On this day, he had the consolation of seeing and hearing expressions of greetings from the Russian Crown Bearer and the persons of the reigning house, from the Holy Council of the Russian Church, from the Eastern Patriarchs and from the Orthodox churches of the East, from a host of Russian saints and shepherds, the Moscow flock, various societies, institutions, departments and persons, even from non-Orthodox people. 13 Unfortunately, the venerable hero of the day was not destined to live out his day for long. Three and a half months after the anniversary, on November 19, 1867, after performing divine services, he died at the 85th year of his life. 12 strokes of the big Moscow bell notified Moscow of the misfortune that had befallen it and all of Orthodox Rus'. 14 This difficult news quickly spread everywhere. And these are the thoughts and feelings expressed by society at this news: “Metropolitan Philaret has passed away!.. The great, moral, social power in which the entire Russian world heard and felt its own power has been abolished - a power not created from the outside, generated by the power of the personal spirit, growing on the church’s people’s soil... The lamp that shone for half a century on all of Russia, without becoming scarce, without fading, has gone out... Half a century has been interrupted edification to all Russian people in the wondrous example of a spirit that was tirelessly awake to the end. The artistically important word fell silent, which had been heard in Russia for half a century and more than half a century, now penetrating deeply into the secrets of the knowledge of God, now dressing the mind of divine truths with strict and powerful beauty. 15 This valiant servant of the eternal Word went to his grave, but he left us his powerful word in his creations. As a writer, he stood and will stand at an unattainable height. “Everywhere the only one, everywhere inimitable, the deceased saint in God created with his writings a special world, inaccessible to the ordinary mind. This is an ideal, and the dignity of a church writer will long be measured by the measure of one’s approach to this ideal. The destiny of his literary works is immortality along with all works of genius. His creations sparkle with thoughts like diamonds. His word is as if forged from steel and gold. The comprehensiveness of his literary genius is clear from the fact that in almost all types of verbal works he left monuments created by the hand of genius... He is a great preacher and orator, poet, philosopher, historian, dogmatist, apologist, canonist.” 16 But the most prominent page in the biography of the deceased saint is, as we said, his preaching ministry. Filaret’s “Words and Speeches” is the most extensive work of all his literary works, the work of his entire life. The genius of Met. Philareta did not manifest himself anywhere with such completeness, strength and brightness as in his sermons, which earned him the glory of a great teacher even among the heterodox world. Due to their high dignity, they “will forever remain the unattainable ideal of church preaching, deep, sparkling with abundance, power and height of thought - an ideal to which every preacher of the Orthodox Church should strive. Many generations of preachers have been brought up according to them and will always study them as an example of true Christian development in Orthodox Russia” 17. Philaret’s immortal preaching works contain an abundant source of edification for all those seeking religious and moral enlightenment in the spirit of the Orthodox Church, and for those who are called to participate in one way or another in the dissemination of this enlightenment, they should have guiding significance. The great hierarch applied special care to fulfilling his preaching duty, because he understood the high dignity of the church word. Therefore, he was a strict judge of others and a demanding critic of those numerous preaching works that came to him for consideration. Despite his genius abilities, despite his extensive and deep knowledge of the word of God and human nature with all its twists, with its weaknesses, despite his strong logical mind, his extraordinary gift of speech, Filaret carefully prepared his sermons and usually spoke them from a notebook 18. Moreover, he was not at all embarrassed to sometimes even entrust his sermons to the revision of other persons, his students, and humbly obeyed their instructions, recognizing that “in much counsel is wisdom.” He valued the church-public word so highly. But “the glory of his preaching gift was a constant companion of his ministry,” as it is beautifully said, by the way, in the greeting address from the St. Petersburg Theological Academy to the Moscow Bishop on the day of his fiftieth anniversary. And this glory of his as a preacher, we add, preceded the glory of his service in all other fields. The honor of discovering and recognizing his great preaching gift belongs to the famous Moscow Metropolitan Plato, the famous preacher of the time of Catherine the 2nd. Having appointed Drozdov as a teacher of poetry in 1806, the archpastor at the same time determined by the same resolution: “for his special gift, he should be a preacher at the Trinity Lavra, and preach sermons every other week, and, when it happens, on holidays, and present those sermons to us.” The appointment of a layman, a secular person, and still a very young one, although a theologian, as an official church preacher, and even in the Trinity Lavra, this hotbed of theological science - along with the vicar of the monastery - Simeon (Krylov), later the Archbishop of Yaroslavl 19 - is, one might say, an exceptional, unusual phenomenon. One can see here both the foresight of the archpastor, who knew how to choose talents, and the outstanding talent of the appointee, which attracted attention. And indeed, V.M. Drozdov fully met the expectations of his archpastor, and the elder Vitia, Plato, was able to adequately appreciate and encourage the young Vitia. When he read “the sermon on the day of the triumph of the liberation of the monastery of St. Sergius from the invasion of enemies, spoken in 1806 on the 12th day of January, in Greek and Hebrew by the teacher Vasily Drozdov,” he was so pleased with this sermon that he ordered it to be printed, more than once he read it to others and wrote to his vicar, the Reverend Augustine: “and I have an excellent preacher, teacher Drozdov. I will tell you his sermon, and you will be surprised." This was V.M.’s first printed word. Drozdova. In the same way, another sermon of Vasily Mikhailovich, delivered by him on the special assignment of the bishop on Great Friday, was awarded archpastoral approval. The preacher then received two pomegranate apples from the bishop as a gift (Letter No. 78). Having given the young teacher a copy of his “Brief Church History,” Plato made the following inscription on the book: “Mr. Drozdov, an excellent preacher.” In general, Metropolitan Plato loved and appreciated Drozdov’s sermons so much that he sometimes compared him with Athanasius of Alexandria; on one of his sermons he made the inscription: “tu es princeps praeconum” - (you are the head of preachers, a prince among preachers), and used to say, comparing himself with him: “I write like a man, and he like an angel.” This is how Plato, our famous preacher, spoke about him, who himself, even in the 20th year of his birth, soared in the church pulpit with such glory that many of his listeners sought to get to know him and called him nothing more than the second Chrysostom or the Moscow Apostle 20. So, to replace the setting star, a new star, extraordinary in size and radiance, rose on the church horizon. “I’m keeping him in his place,” the perspicacious archpastor said about Drozdov. In St. Petersburg, Filaret, as a preacher, gains general fame. His powerful word is heard on the most important, on the most solemn occasions. He is invited to preach to listeners of the highest aristocratic society; he even preaches at court. And it must be said that the preaching activity of the archpastor was recognized and appreciated. It is remarkable that the first All-Merciful award he received in 1811 - a pectoral cross with precious stones - was awarded precisely for his excellence in preaching the word of God. Then he is assigned to the Order of St. Equal to the Apostles Prince Vladimir, 2nd degree, to the Order of St. Alexander Nevsky, awarded with diamond signs of the Order of St. Andrew the First-Called, by the way, for his edifying and eloquent work in preaching the word of God. Both from spiritual critics, and from secular listeners and readers - from the entire society, even from foreigners, the most flattering reviews of Philaret’s sermons were heard. Thus, Metropolitan Seraphim of St. Petersburg, having read Philaret’s sermon on the day of the Annunciation in manuscript, wrote to the preacher: “I read your sermon on the Annunciation: it, in my opinion, is the best of all your sermons.” Another reviewer, a member of the Holy Synod present, Methodius of Tver, calls Philaret’s sermon on the day of Pentecost “worthy of a dignified mentor.” The then chief prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Prince A.N. Golitsyn called Filaret “our famous preacher” and said about the word at the tomb of Prince Kutuzov-Smolensky that “the public received him with special praise” 21, more than once asked Metropolitan Ambrose to instruct Philaret to give sermons in the Lavra every holiday and constantly visited the Lavra on holidays along with other high-ranking officials. The fact that society was captivated by Philaret’s sermons is very clearly evidenced by the very choice of days appointed for his preaching and the fact that the speaker was vied with by the nobles of the capital in their house churches for service and preaching 22, and finally, that his sermons quickly diverged among listeners and readers. In response to his father’s request to send him a copy of one sermon, Filaret writes: “I have few copies left. Until now there are those who ask. One secular man, having owned and read, came here several times to find me: with his love for Christianity, he convinced me to become his acquaintance 23 . One of the Greek metropolitans, who visited Russia in the fifties, when he described in our language, inaccessible to him, supplementing his speech with gestures, the impressions that some of our saints made on him, expressed himself this way about Philaret: “Oh, happy Moscow! Happy Russia! Oh, Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian, John Chrysostom! saw, saw...” I.e. in him, the Moscow Metropolitan, he saw these three preachers and teachers 24. There is no need yet to cite reviews of Philaret’s preaching activities from the greetings that were addressed to him from all over Russia on the day of the fiftieth anniversary of the archpastor. It is enough to point out that the most fellow believers expressed their gratitude to him for his sermons on that day. “Through your tireless labors and preaching of the word of God,” they greeted the hero of the day, the light of true Christian teaching penetrated even into the places in which a reserve of discord, strife and the darkness of superstition was prepared and stored for warfare with the Holy Church” 25. So great was the glory of Philaret the preacher and thundered so widely! And no wonder. For sixty years, almost without interruption, his inspired word was heard, although in the last five years the preacher’s advancing old age had a noticeable influence in this regard. From 1862 until the saint’s death, he no longer preached sermons in the proper sense, but only speeches on some special occasions, for example. welcome speeches. It is natural to expect that with everyone’s attention to Philaret’s sermons, they could not remain unpublished for long and, indeed, appeared in periodicals, sometimes in separate brochures, or in entire collections at the choice of the preacher himself. During his lifetime, 6 such collections were published. But despite the fact that with regard to sermons, Philaret’s activity was almost completely finished with the last collection, at that time it was still difficult to form a definite, completely complete and clear bibliographic judgment about them. The time of pronouncing some words in these meetings was not indicated, 26 in some words in later editions the names were changed and in general many corrections were made, and most importantly, not all the sermons spoken by the Bishop were chosen by him for publication. It is also known that the preacher himself gave some sermons with a handwritten note to those of his friends who asked him to do so. In 1885, a new complete edition of the words and speeches of Philaret was published, of which over 500 are placed in five voluminous volumes of this edition. For convenience in using this valuable property of our theological literature, in 1886 the book S.K.B. was published as a separate edition: “Indices to the words and speeches of the most reverend. Philareta, Metropolitan Moscow". The book contains three indexes: 1) items contained in sermons; 2) texts inscribed above sermons and 3) all sacred passages. Scriptures cited in sermons. Let us note by the way that there have been experiments in translating Philaret’s sermons into foreign languages. So two translations were made into French: the first time 26 words, the second the whole collection in three volumes. But is it necessary to add that Filaret’s works, due to the sublimity of their thoughts and the originality of their language, present insurmountable difficulties for the translator. Even the most successful translation cannot preserve the features of the structure, all the colors and characteristic shades of Filaret’s speech. Not only in quantity, but also in their incomparable dignity, Philaret’s sermons constitute the immortal heritage of our theological literature. In them, a modern theologian-preacher can find models worthy of imitation for all types of church eloquence. There are many examples among them that show how an edifying explanation of any place from Holy Scripture can be offered in sermons: there are exemplary sermons setting forth the Orthodox teaching about dogmatic truths - objects of faith (for example, about the incorruptibility of holy relics, about the immortality of the soul); there are sermons devoted to the development of any subject from the field of Christian moral teaching - how a Christian should live (for example, about devotion to God, about ambition, against luxury and decoration in clothing, etc.); There are sermons with historical content (for example, on St. Sergius, gravestones); some sermons explain the spirit and meaning of liturgical forms and church rites (on Easter Day 1845 and the procession of the cross); in others, the preacher raises listeners to higher knowledge by explaining phenomena observed by natural senses (for example, the voice of one crying in the wilderness). Let us not dwell on the fact that in Philaret’s sermons one can find guidance as to which truths should preferably form the content of teachings for certain days, for certain occasions that require teaching. It is not possible, and we are not trying to convey in a cursory review all the comprehensive and varied content of Philaret’s sermon. “No, I think,” says the author of Notes on his life and times, “there is no theological question, there is no tradition from ancient times, there is no truth of the Gospel that he would not touch upon with application to the life of a Christian. There is no lesson in the acts and epistles of the apostles, in the writings of St. fathers, in the lives of the saints of God and miracle workers, which he would not have developed for those who rarely read such books and, moreover, are very little prepared to understand them by their very upbringing and non-Christian life. And indeed, his sermons and conversations fill the spiritual gap in the education of the Russian people and especially the so-called educated and enlightened part of it. Even the hidden tales of the Apocalypse, when he cites them, are presented, applied, and explained in such a way that even those who have little studied the Revelation of John the Theologian partially penetrate into the secret meaning of the mysterious visions. And how many questions did unbelief and ignorance pose to his faith and knowledge! Questions about relics and images, questions about miracles, questions about fasting, etc. and he will have irrefutable answers to everything” 27. His speeches clearly demonstrate the inexhaustibility of his preaching genius. How many eg. He gave speeches to newly ordained bishops or welcoming speeches, and in subsequent ones he never repeated what was said in the previous ones: in each there was a new deep thought, a unique expression. If some sermons were delivered more than once, then each time with new additions and significant changes. In a word, suffice it to say that Philaret’s sermons in their entirety provide rich material for an extensive, complete and complete system of Christian doctrine and moral teaching 28 . In order to judge the qualities that characterize the sermons of the Moscow high priest and make them examples of church eloquence, let us allow ourselves to make a small digression. The preacher, appearing in the church pulpit, is a mediator between two parties. Behind it is the sanctuary, where the whole being of the listeners should be directed; before him are listeners who need to be drawn into this sanctuary. The task of the mediator-preacher is to faithfully convey the teaching emanating from this sanctuary, to lay before the hearers all that is required to achieve the goal of their aspirations and to indicate the sure and reliable means to this end. Hence there are two main conditions for effective preaching. A sermon meets its purpose if, firstly, it fully agrees with the word of God and the teachings of the Orthodox Church and, secondly, if it satisfies the needs of the listeners, i.e. if it is modern. We see both qualities in Philaret’s sermon. “Every sermon of his,” says one competent connoisseur, is a strictly exegetical development of the biblical text; therefore, the truths expressed in it are not only immutably true and, therefore, convincing for every believer, but also serve as an accurate guide in explaining the Holy Scriptures as the truth of the divine truth itself. – Centuries will pass, new generations will come, many eloquent sermons will lose their shine, but Philaret’s sermons will never lose their value, like the sermons of St. fathers of the ancient universal church" 29. The passages of Holy Scripture for him not only serve as a reason for thinking about a well-known subject, but also as the basis on which he strictly adheres, on which he builds the entire sermon, the main evidence for confirming his thoughts and a means for explaining them. This is, for example, his sermon on the text: “touch not my anointed” (Ps. 54:15), representing as many parts as there are concepts in the text. Having established the concept of inviolability, the preacher indicates in the text “an explanation of this requirement and a conviction for obedience. Do not touch the powers that be, says the Almighty, for they are Mine; do not touch, for they are anointed from Me.” 30 In apparently simple texts, he finds aspects that another could not see; when explaining texts that are difficult to understand, he reveals such subtlety, such depth and completeness of theological thought that not many people are capable of. This is, for example. sermon on the Annunciation, explaining the text: For the sure foundation of God stands, having this seal: the Lord knows His beings, and let everyone who names the name of the Lord depart from unrighteousness (2 Tim. 2:19), or a conversation about prayer in spirit and mind in response to the words of St. Apostle Paul: I will pray in the spirit, and I will also pray with the mind: I will sing in the spirit, and I will sing also with the mind (1 Cor. 14:15). He was convinced that “In every line of God’s word there is hidden light, in every sound there is wisdom.” 31 And no one except him is able to understand with such completeness, with such detail and clarify the “light” and “wisdom” contained in the writings of the sacred books. To do this, he pays strict attention to the relationship of the text being explained to others with which it stands in connection, to the occasion, to the persons, to the circumstances, to the time, to the shades of expression, to the turns of speech, etc. With amazing, inimitable ease, he makes connections and comparisons from different books of the Holy Scriptures, both the new and the old testament. It is clear that the books of Holy Scripture were known to him in all their completeness and breadth. Thus, proving the idea that the spirit of love was at work in the Old Testament law, the preacher says: “I bear witness to this by the very commandments of the Law of Moses. Love the Lord your God, he writes. I am especially amazed at this commandment when I compare it with the commandment about parents: honor your father and your mother. How? To honor the Father and love God? We usually love what is closer to us and similar to us; and what is above us, we honor. Why, it seems, it would be more typical to demand love for the father and respect for God. No, says the divine law: honor your father; love God. As if it were said: it is natural for you to love your father even without a commandment, and also to honor the great God; the commandment teaches you something that would be difficult for you to understand without it; So, not only love your father by nature, but also honor your father according to the will of the Heavenly Father; Do not only honor God according to the inspiration of nature and conscience; but dare to come closer to Him, which you would not have dared to do without the gracious commandment; love God like a father; Call Him your God, the God of your heart and your portion forever (Ps. 72:26). O beloved commandment of love! How worthy of regret is that for so long they did not understand your power, crushed their teeth on the hard bark of writing, and did not know how to taste the sweet grain contained in it.” 32 When an inspired preacher, so inimitably skillfully penetrating under the “hard bark of writing,” extracts the sweet grains contained in it, it even seems as if he himself was a participant in the work of the divinely inspired writer of one or another sacred book. Therefore, his comments: “I speak with the apostle” ..., “I wish with the apostle” ..., “I care with the apostle” ... etc. - receive special power and authority in his mouth. Faithful to the word of God, the preacher firmly adheres to what is committed to St. fathers and what St. keeps. Orthodox Church. This is evidenced by the choice of the very subjects for preaching, such subjects that constitute the distinctive teaching of our Orthodox Church from other Christian confessions, for example. about the importance of sacred and mysterious institutions, about tradition, about the incorruption of relics, about the commemoration of the dead. This is evidenced by the very way the thoughts are developed in some sermons, for example. one sermon a day Easter is dedicated to an edifying explanation of the morning service on this day; one sermon on the day of the Dormition of the Blessed Virgin Mary is based on an explanation of the image of the remembered event on St. icons, etc. True, the personality of the great Philaret was not free from reproaches in this regard. There was eg. the case that one secular man, who “by his own will made himself not only a theologian, but also a judge of the faith and the church,” suspected the preacher of not being Orthodox because in one of his beautiful sermons on the day of the Annunciation, Joseph, before the appearance of the angel, was attributed to ignorance of the mystery of the Bride of God. But this incident only gave the preacher an opportunity to more clearly reveal his firm and deep knowledge of Orthodox teaching. Justifying himself, he wrote, among other things, to Metropolitan Seraphim: “If I should be condemned for the fact that I, not on my own, but according to the explanation of the words of the Gospel, attribute ignorance to Joseph in this case, then St. should be condemned much more. Chrysostom, who in this same case, in his words quoted by me, attributes to Joseph not only ignorance, but also contempt. Much more than my sermon, the Akathist to the Mother of God should be condemned, in which not only ignorance is attributed to Joseph, which is expressed in sharp terms; “With a storm inside, having doubtful thoughts, the chaste Joseph was confused, to you in vain, unmarried, and thinking about the stolen marriage, the immaculate one”... If St. Chrysostom is right, if the akathist is sacred, then the sermon in agreement with them, approved by your Eminence, is approved in perfect conformity with the teachings of the Orthodox Church.” 33 As for the modernity of Philaret’s sermons, some almost refuse to recognize this property in them - on the supposed grounds that, in their content, they represent, with a few exceptions, treatises on subjects that have no practical application, on the general truths of Christian dogma, that their moral teaching consists for the most part in an invitation to the passive virtues of silence, humility, patience and devotion to the will of God, 34 that they are detached from real life, do not point out ordinary particular cases, do not expose private deviations from the Christian ideal, that they are presented abstractly, in the tone of some sublime contemplations, inaccessible to the understanding of listeners. At first glance, such a judgment about the sermons of Metropolitan Philaret may seem truly fair. It cannot be denied, of course, that the personal characteristics of the preacher, who deeply understood the mysteries of theology accessible to reason and faith, who loved to immerse himself in these mysteries, and who developed a sublimely abstract way of presentation, are reflected in his works. But it is difficult to agree that such a great preacher as Philaret was, who himself repeatedly condemned the sermons of other shepherds, not adapted to the life of the listeners, who calls such sermons “vain work”, who, in order to avoid such sermons, suggests that the shepherd “make every possible effort to know his sheep and their inner state”, 35 it is difficult, we say, to agree that he himself did not mean and did not apply in his own activities what he strongly recommended to others. And indeed, if we pay close attention to them, we can discern the features of modernity both in the choice of subjects for sermons and in the character of the latter - but the features are subtle and therefore elude the superficial observer. 36 As far as one can judge about this now, the society of that time, to which the best period of Philaret’s preaching activity mainly belongs, was distinguished by extreme ignorance in the matter of religion. The time of simple faith is over. They began to treat her critically, even with condemnation. The activity of the mind was placed above all else. A wide field opened up for various generally anti-religious and anti-Orthodox ideas. Some adhered directly to materialistic views, denying the resurrection of the dead, the afterlife, the incorruptibility of relics, others were indifferent to any creed, or went into religious exaltation, which we see in Freemasonry, others gave preference to the Roman Catholic dogma, under the influence of the Jesuits, etc. These circumstances determined both the content and the nature of Philaret’s sermon. “Can he say, with indifference, to see many of the children of the faith living in such ignorance of what they believe that one can say to them exactly what was said to the Samaritans: you worship Him without knowing him (John 4:22). 37 “In our time,” he says in another place, 38 when people seek the thoughts of many more than before (Eccl. 7:30), when from the early years of life they try to stimulate and intensify mental activity, when in the diversity of thoughts of many they seek imaginary education, grace, pleasure, self-interest, glory, when therefore their souls are so easily sowed with thoughts of tares, it is especially necessary to call people to reflection solid, pure, sublime, pious." Responding to modern demands primarily from the educated, mentally developed class of society, and trying to include in the sermon the greatest possible completeness of Christian knowledge, the preacher naturally had to talk primarily about the truths of faith and in a philosophical-dogmatic tone. Thus, showing the insufficiency of natural reason alone for the knowledge of the highest religious truths, the preacher says: “truly there are enough sad experiences to verify that the very salvation of humanity by natural means and the efforts of reason is nothing more than a dream and a painful delirium of spiritually ailing humanity. The best and truly saving feat of the human mind towards the perfection and bliss of mankind can only consist in impartially testing and measuring its strengths, means, and shortcomings for this great goal; understand the possibility, recognize the need for revelation from above.” In another sermon, he shows the powerlessness of one so-called secular education to provide a person with help and consolation in difficult circumstances of life. “I affirm that both in illness and in misfortunes in general, no means or benefits are sufficient without religion. One religion, and a frank one at that, reconciles the mind with the spectacle of disasters that outrages it. When trouble and evil are before your eyes, although they are not attacking us, this one sight strikes the feeling and the heart. If it is difficult to be a spectator of disasters, then, of course, it is even more difficult to experience them yourself. But just as sometimes it is impossible to avoid them, you must somehow know how to deal with them... Find a means of consolation. Here I would like to experience this proud philosophy, which thinks of nothing other than to make a person prosperous, independent of external adventures, through his own philosophies. I would send her, for example. to the hospital to test the power of her wisdom. What will she say to the sufferer? “Be generous; you suffer due to the action of natural causes, according to the laws of nature, from which you cannot free yourself, being a link in the chain of beings and changes. Will he not, on the contrary, feel himself more burdened by the bonds of causes and laws than before? What else can philosophy say to the suffering? “Be patient, if there is no healing, then death will end your suffering.” But if she stops there—and she is forced to stop there because she doesn’t see further—then she will sooner invite despair than joy. Let us put aside the vain wisdom of man, which promises much but delivers little. Come, wisdom of God, help, divine religion.” 39 The preacher devotes quite a few other words to clarifying the idea that without piety, without religious education, merely enriching the mind with worldly teachings does not produce strong and well-behaved leaders for private and public benefit... “Our mind requires knowledge of the truth... Well, does nature satisfy the requirements of our rational nature? Let's ask the thorough seekers of knowledge, let's ask the wise. One of the most trustworthy among them admitted that by increasing his wisdom he achieved only one knowledge - that he “knows nothing.” If so, then prudence demands that we follow the call of Christ as actively as possible, as faithfully as possible: if anyone thirsts, let him come to Me and drink. So, thirsty souls, come to Christ. He alone can quench your thirst for truth, for “He Himself is the truth.” 40 To protect the two listeners from wrong opinions about the objects of faith, he reveals the true teaching that undermines these opinions. Thus, in view of the spread of Roman Catholic influences, the preacher refutes the Western dogma about visible primacy in the church, exposes the error of the Latins regarding the communion of the laity, in particular infants. He says: “The Lord did not say about the mysterious bread: eat, all of you, for some cannot eat, for example. infants, but about the mysterious cup he said: let all of you drink from it... Notice how those who do not allow the holy ones to deviate from the accuracy of the Lord’s commandment. The secret of infants and young children up to a certain age.” 41 Many other examples could be given to confirm the idea that the dogmatic content of Philaret’s sermons could not have been more consistent with the requirements of the time. The same must be said about sermons that are predominantly of a moralizing nature. The preacher’s favorite subjects are thoughts about justice, about mercy, about philanthropy, especially about love for the poor, the sick, and the offended. These subjects were also caused by the incorrect relations between the various classes of the then society. If the preacher does not go into detail in developing these thoughts, but reveals only the general foundations of well-known virtues, this can be explained by the fact that he first of all tries to root in his listeners the true concept of the spirit of Christian morality in the fair assumption that the private phenomena of life will then be determined by themselves, without his guidance. However, it cannot be said that the Reverend Philaret did not touch upon particular cases in the lives of those he taught, and his sermons, on the one hand, testify to the observance of the preacher himself, and on the other, introduce him to various aspects of the life of his contemporaries, with their customs, requirements, in a word - not only, as he puts it, with their “unsound concepts,” but “and wrong rules.” So he preaches a sermon against intemperance on cheese week, against luxury and decoration in clothing, points out that many come to worship at the wrong time because the time taken away from the service was “dedicated to the body from which an idol was being created at that time,” that for many the church is not a place of prayer, but a place of “dates, conversations, even strife,” so that “the sinful noise of idle talk often fights with church sounds of church reading and singing"; Armed against custom, booths will be set up near churches during church holidays - “those evil tabernacles prepared for the service of delicacy or drunkenness, for vain shows, for games typical of children, but which are not established by children and in which not children are engaged. If on a holiday the church is full, the houses are empty, the street and marketplace are silent: this is a beautiful view of the Christian city.” He proves the holiness and necessity of visiting churches, the inappropriateness of worldly activities on days dedicated exclusively to serving God; denounces the worries of husbands who spend most of their time acquiring thousands for themselves one way or another, and the worries of wives who spend a lot of money on purchasing the necessary jewelry for the evening; indicates that many devote time to “worldly spectacles, where a toy - a thing or a toy - a person plays with the attention of their mind and movements of the heart, where variously personified passions and vices challenge their praise, take money from them - perhaps the money that is denied to the poor” 42 and many more. etc. The Preacher even points out that “the prudent of them, i.e. people who indulge in such a pastime - internally recognize the vanity of these activities and therefore only slavishly slavishly vanity and waste time and money with it, because, having refused, they have reason to fear that they will seem strange, backward, and - they are afraid of being excommunicated from a society in which vanity has become the law. 43 Or eg. Regarding the rumors about why the printing of the Catechism compiled by the Bishop was stopped, on the day of St. Alexis he said a word to the text in the Chudov Monastery: “Don’t be too many teachers, for we all sin a lot.” (1824). 44 If a preacher avoids formidable reproaches and sharp denunciations, then he does this not without calculation, but based on the fair position that by means of a gentle positive explanation of the truth, it is more likely to attract listeners to it than by an abundance of reproaches and denunciations. Not only in the content, but also in the very way of developing thoughts, one cannot help but see the desire of the preacher to adapt to modern requirements. A time of special development of mental activity, when they stopped following authorities, when objects of faith were subjected to criticism, questions were raised: why is this so, for what purpose, is this true, etc., such a time demanded “reasoning, research, reflection” from the herald of divine truths from the height of the hierarchal pulpit, as Filaret calls his sermons. Hence rationality is their distinguishing feature. The preacher invites his listeners to “delve into” his words, to “follow him with the eye of the mind.” These same requirements are met by the completeness and extraordinary strength of evidence in favor of the truth that the preacher reveals. To disagree with the correctness of his conclusions means to reveal the most rude, ignorant stubbornness. He prevents any objections on the part of the listener and puts him in the positive impossibility of objecting to anything else, or in any way justifying his evasion of preaching instructions. 45 Wanting to teach thorough knowledge about a well-known subject, the preacher first of all tries to establish an accurate concept about it and then decomposes it into its component parts. This is for example He has an excellent definition of the concept of clothing and many others. etc. Sometimes with this whole in his definitions he even turns to word production. Eg. he says: “Obedience, by its name, is following what we hear as an instruction or as a command.” Or in another place: “Blessing, by its name, comes from a good word,” etc. However, such a rational, so to speak, scientific, abstract character of Philaret’s sermons does not exclude the cordiality, soul, warmth of feeling with which they are everywhere imbued and warmed. It is true what they say that sometimes philosophy borders on poetry. In this regard, what he expresses in one of them is quite applicable to Philaret’s sermons, namely, that “the conviction of the mind itself is reborn in him into a living feeling of the heart, and to the extent that the light from the sun of truth multiplies in the mind, the heart warms and ignites.” For example, how vividly the pious feeling speaks in the preacher, let us cite one passage from the word on the Annunciation. “Wonderful are your mysteries, Mother of God! exclaims the preacher. Who hears your quiet verb in your closed prayer church? Who can foresee what huge things your little word will lead to? Does the world feel this moment, at which a turning point is made in its entire destiny, at which the relationship between heaven and earth changes? Does Rome, dreaming of world dominion, know that in one of its distant regions, a certain Daughter of the kings, calling herself the handmaid of the Lord, pronounced a sentence that is preparing for the world a new, better, highest Ruler, and for Rome the destruction of a proud and capricious dominion? Do the glorious soothsayers of the pagan peoples guess that from the lips of the unknown Virgin a prophecy has flown out that will silence them, bring down idols and idols, stop bloody sacrifices, and destroy bloodthirsty priests? Do the wise men of the world imagine that at the voice of a Jewish woman, a hitherto unknown Wisdom will descend from heaven, Who will envelop the wisdom of the wise and cast away the understanding of the prudent (1 Cor. 1:19), but will reveal to babes secrets incomprehensible to the wise (Matt. 11:25)? What am I saying? Jerusalem and the tribes of Israel, who from distant ancestors know and keep the promise of God about the great Deliverer and Pacifier, and continually hope day and night to reach fulfillment (Acts 26:7), have they reached the point of knowing that, having passed through a vast area of promise, on this day, or this night, they suddenly approached the limit of fulfillment, and that this limit was set at Nazareth? The scribes, who read so many times in the book of Isaiah (Is. 7:11): the virgin will conceive in her womb and give birth to a Son, and they will call His name Immanuel, and almost as many times wondered about this, do they think that the Virgin foreseen by the prophet has already understood this prophecy and is preparing to fulfill it? Does righteous Joseph, no longer completely alien to the mysteries of the Ever-Virgin, know how he betrothed Her to himself so that She could remain a virgin, does he know that after this, She is betrothed to the Holy Spirit in order to become the Mother of the Lord? In the whole world, no one except one knows the Annunciation of the Archangel when it is accomplished: and it must be announced to the whole world when it is accomplished. And having heard early on the seemingly simple words of Mary’s Annunciation: Behold the handmaid of the Lord, wake me according to your word - who would exhaust all their intelligence, would feel all their strength? And their mind merges with the abyss of the mind of God and embraces time and eternity, their power is coupled with the power of the Most High, and will transform the earth and fill the sky” ... (Vol. 1, p. 154). In their external form, Philaret’s sermons mostly resemble scientific discussions, they are distinguished by their special separation of parts, strict logical sequence in the development of thoughts and remarkable harmony. His speech breathes with some kind of majesty, importance, dignity and sounds unusually strong. Regarding Shishkov’s book “On the Old and New Syllable,” the famous Count Speransky used to say, “but I don’t know either one or the other: I only know the syllable of Karamzin and Filaret.” 46 No matter how much time the Russian language changes (towards its development, or distortion), the language of Filaret has hardened in its granite outlines and will forever remain the language of the Orthodox Church, understandable to the Russian people and the entire Slavic brethren in the whole world. 47 The preacher expresses sublime thoughts and their subtle nuances with such precision that he is sometimes forced to use even words of his native language that are little used or not used at all in ordinary conversations, 48 ​​but he carefully avoids foreign words. The wealth of the Slavic language represents for him an abundant treasury, from which the preacher, with inimitable ease and freedom, extracts pearls for his speech, everywhere imbued with the biblical spirit. He values ​​the preaching word, tries to say as much as possible in a small volume, to express many thoughts in a few words. Therefore, the concise style of Philaret’s sermons serves as an outstanding feature of them. If we began to present in our own words the content of any of his sermons, trying to preserve the fullness of the thoughts contained in it, we would certainly use more words and time on this than the preacher. Philaret's sermons, like diamonds, shine with an abundance of artistic figurative turns, various dialectical convergences 49 and many such apt and meaningful sayings that themselves can be the subject of explanation and instruction, like proverbs, for example. “humble prayer and praying humility constitute poverty of spirit,” “you can live in the world, but not be of the world,” etc. Often the preacher resorts to comparisons to explain the thought being expressed, and his comparisons are always extremely successful. – “Love for God,” he says, turns everything into a means to our salvation and bliss; without it, all means fail to achieve this goal. A lamp will not shine without oil, and prayer will not illuminate the spirit without love. Without fire, incense will not rise; and prayer without love will not rise to God.” 50 Thanks to all its high merits, Philaret’s sermons made and continue to make a strong impression on educated listeners and... especially readers. “The Moscow saint constantly teaches his flock, and through them all of Holy Rus',” says one of his zealous listeners. 51 Both shepherds and flocks eagerly listen to his words, marveling at the abundance, diversity, maturity, completeness and power of his teachings.” The preacher was called “Chrysostom of Moscow” and they were so carried away by his sermons that some constantly read one or two sermons a day. Our famous Vitia Innocent, Archbishop of Kherson, during his dying illness, drew courage to his spirit mainly from reading the sermons of the Moscow saint 52. Comparing Philaret with Chrysostom expresses only the thought of the extraordinary sweetness of the words of the Moscow saint, of his extraordinary eloquence in general, but in reality - in the turn of his mind and direction, in sublime subjects and in the sublime presentation of them, he has more similarities with another hero of the golden Christian age - Gregory the Theologian. Due to this peculiar nature of Metropolitan Philaret’s sermons - too careful and, so to speak, covert depiction of the exposed phenomena of modern life, they cannot be called popular or publicly accessible. The archpastor considered the desire for popularity, both in the choice of “petty” topics and in the method of expression, as well as secularism, to be inconsistent with the height and dignity of the church word. “Many have found,” writes the author of some memoirs about Metropolitan. Filarete, M. Evreinov, that the sermons of our bishop are dark and not quite clear. This reached his ears, and so one day he told me: “They say that I write so darkly that they don’t understand me, but it seems to me that I write very simply; what do you say about this? “I answered him that in his sermons I see nothing but light and that I always listen to him with special pleasure” 53 . In our opinion, such an answer is subjective and can be accepted only with some restrictions. In Philaret’s sermons you need to read and read them carefully, with concentration, you need to study them; - only under this condition can their merits be understood and appreciated. “It will not be soon,” says Professor Shevyrev, to penetrate into the depth of their content... But it is edifying and pleasant to immerse your thought, distracted by various objects, into the thought of a person, which all lives in the pure spiritual sphere, is all concentrated in the study of its deep secrets... Not everyone is capable of this: this requires an internal predisposition and determination is needed... One must decide to entrust oneself to the wings of an eagle, and fly with it across the sky, or the bell of a diver, and descend with it into the depths of the sea. After such mental wanderings, the eye of the mind is strengthened by the eye of the spirit, and the most earthly objects, shedding their shell, appear to us clearer and more transparent. The soul experienced many high impressions when, voluntarily entrusting itself to the guidance of a resident of the spiritual realms, it wandered with him through their reserved depths. She brought away many treasures of thought, feeling and words from this journey. We know, those who have not experienced it doubt, but it is impossible to put into his rational consciousness that which has not passed through his vital consciousness” 54 . The essence of the impression produced by the mighty word of Philaret is perfectly described in the beautiful verses of our immortal Pushkin. The great poet says about him: 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 Rejected the darkness of earthly vanities, - In sacred horror the poet 55 Here, first of all, we must not lose sight of the fact that this is said by a man who, by his upbringing, and by his spiritual make-up, and by his genius talent, and by his worldly relationships, occupations and calling, walked with brilliant glory along a completely different path, usually moved in a sphere where the voice of church development was most difficult to penetrate - in a word, - a man who, apparently, was least of all capable of so humbly bowing before any influences. Meanwhile, we see that the majestic voice of the preacher strikes this man more than once and not under the same circumstances. And every time the preacher’s speeches make an extremely strong, irresistible impression on the poet. He interrupts his poetic outpourings, which now seem to him empty “sounds of madness, laziness and passions,” he unexpectedly breaks out into uncontrollable sobs, finds the only consolation only in the fragrant speeches of the preacher, sees in them a healing balm for his painful conscience, for him it is dear that is not a reproach, not a formidable word of reproof that can plunge into despair, but meek and love comes to his aid from a spiritual height and pacifies his wild dreams, his soul burns with heavenly fire, everything earthly seems gloomy and vain to him, he rejects everything, renounces everything in order to completely surrender to the sounds of the seraphic harp of the preacher; everyone turns to ear and in silent, sacred horror, which does not weaken, but inspires the spirit, listens to these truly unearthly sounds. This is how receptive natures are beneficially softened under the influence of the powerful, inimitable word of the great preacher. “Such reading,” says one admirer of him, serves as a kind of protective medicine for the whole day against bad habits and inclinations, an aid to the vital struggle against vice and passion; Sometimes a good thought sinks into the heart - and one desires purity, meekness, and kindness; a loving call to repentance will be heard - and conscience will speak in humility, and the light of truth will flash before the eyes of the spirit, and the soul will be filled with zeal for prayer... and you will often remember that man is the church of God - and you will be filled with trepidation, lest you desecrate the church of God within yourself. In this way, little by little, you will get used to caution and self-observation, and sometimes one manages to refrain from an unreasonable or offensive word, from an unholy glance; one sometimes manages to curb the movement of annoyance, suppress an unkind feeling, drive away a bad thought.” 56 As for sermons of a so-called journalistic nature - sermons addressed to a civil meaning, they “in our days not only have not lost their meaning, but have acquired more than they had in those distant times, when the Bishop himself delivered them from the church pulpit. Now they will become understandable not only speculatively, but also experimentally; now they can become an effective force in our lives. Much in these teachings will seem to us to be said to stimulate current events and issues. The Bishop spoke as if in anticipation of these questions that concern us; he spoke as if as a lesson for our time. Reading it, we seem to listen to his voice, as if he himself ascends again to his hierarchal pulpit to admonish those who are troubled, to strengthen those who waver 57 . “Soul. Thu." 1868 January, p.27. Words from Prof. Moscow spiritual acad. A.F. Lavrov-Platonov, later Alexy, Archbishop. Lithuanian In Moscow, in 1883, the Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment published a “Collection on the occasion of the centennial anniversary of the birth (1782–1882) of Philaret, Metropolitan. Moscow", in 2 extensive volumes. The second of them (pp. 1–825) contains a description of the anniversary celebration and original articles caused by this event. In St. Petersburg from the Society for the Dissemination of Religious and Moral Education in the Spirit of Rights. The church was invited to read in the hall of the City Duma on December 17, 1882 about Metropolitan. St. Philaret A.A. Dernov, and on the very day of the anniversary, December 26, and the next Sunday, January 9, 1883, there were two readings by Ya.I. Zarnitsky according to the program of this article. On January 9th in St. Isaac's Department. cathedral in the presence of the Holy Synod at the liturgy, the former chairman of the Society, Rev. N.I. Ryazanov, said a word about the merits of the ever-memorable saint for the Russian Church. "Wanderer" 1882 December, p. 652. In this regard, the following special works should be noted: 1) Book by F.S. Levashov under the title: “The direction and character of the sermon of Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow.” St. Petersburg 1876 ​​(From the magazine “The Wanderer” for 1875) 2) Articles published in the magazine “Guide for Rural Pastors” for 1877, under the title: “To what extent in the sermons of Rev. Philaret of Moscow expressed the preacher’s attitude towards modernity.” 3) Brochure M.A. Chenika: “Mr. Moscow Filaret as a homilet.” Tver. 1892 (Published by “Tversk. Eparch. Vedas”). 4) Prof. Moscow Theological Academy I.N. Korsunsky, in addition to various articles about Filaret, published in the magazine “Faith and Reason” (1884–1893) a number of articles reviewing Filaret’s preaching activities over its different periods. From these articles, an extensive volume (1053 pages) was published in a separate edition in 1894 under the title: “St. Philaret, Met. Moscow His life and activities at the Moscow pulpit according to his sermons, in connection with the events and circumstances of that time (1821–1867).” This is, without a doubt, the most thorough and outstanding special work on the study of the preaching activity of such a great preacher as Philaret, Metropolitan. Moscow This can be judged by some features in his son’s letters to him. See “Letters” Nos. 127, 85. 200 and 202. Prot. A.V. Gorsky from the words at the funeral service. Prot. A. Smirnova. “Childhood, adolescence”... page 24. From the word according to the sanctification. church in moscow spirit. seminary. Funeral sermon by Rev. A.V. Gorsky. Somehow: in the commission of theological schools, in the committee on deciding how cases about people of the clergy of the Greek-Russian confession should be carried out in Finnish courts, in the council of the Imperial Philanthropic Society, in the construction committee at the St. Petersburg Theological Academy and in the main board of the schools. We will allow ourselves to cite only a few brief excerpts from his extensive service record, where, as is known, larger official works are included and where one cannot look for indications of private activities that fall outside the circle of direct official duties. These marks, at least, may indicate the diversity of the works of the Moscow High Hierarch. Here we read: “June 2, 1823, by the Highest Rescript, for active service to the church and spiritual enlightenment, both in the pastoral field in various dioceses, and equally in rank as a member of the Holy Synod and the Commission of Theological Schools, for edifying works in the teaching of the flock and the inscription in the spirit of the Orthodox Eastern Church and in the mind of the Gospel truth of the Catechism, approved by the Holy. Synod, assigned to the Order of St. Alexander Nevsky. January 7, 1828, upon printing in the Synodal Printing House, by the Highest permission, the “Short Sacred History” compiled by him, as well as the “Short and Long Catechisms”, with the addition of instructions for soldiers, and presented to His Majesty, the Highest gratitude was declared. November 6, 1854, for the labor incurred in converting the Rogozh schismatics to St. Church and truly pastoral stewardship in this matter, the gratitude and gratitude of the Holy Synod was declared. May 31, 1857, for special constant care for the improvement of Moscow. spirit. The Academy was declared grateful to the Holy Synod. December 30, 1860, by the Highest Rescript, the highest gratitude was declared to him for his efforts in collecting sacred utensils and vestments for the benefit of the rural churches of the Mogilev diocese. May 21, 1861, He was most mercifully awarded a gold medal, established for his work in the peasant business. April 23, 1864, the gratitude of the Holy Synod was declared for the efforts to change the images and inscriptions on the sacred antimensions. October 23, the Holy Synod declared gratitude for its care and efforts to increase candle income. “Soul. Thu." 1867 vol. 2, pp. 303–304. Letters to him on the occasion of the anniversary from the Primate of the Episcopal Church in Scotland Robert, Bishop of Murray, and the Oxford Bishop Samuel are placed in “Dushep. Thu." 1868 May. Page 23–24. “Soul. Thu." 1867 vol.3, p.197. Words by Aksakov. See Notes of I.V. Sushkova, p. 152. “Soul. Thu." 1868, January, pp. 41–42. “Soul. Thu." 1868, January, p.42. They say that Innocent, Archbishop of Kherson, wondered why Moscow Metropolitan Philaret, such a great preacher, spoke from a notebook; this surprise, as if on his own, was expressed before the bishop by Archimandrite Anthony, the Lavra governor. Why, he asked, don’t you talk to the people in church without preparation, as Metropolitan Plato often did? And in your ordinary conversation, write every word you say in a book... “I lack courage,” answered the Bishop. There were, however, cases when I dared to speak without a notebook and with almost no preparation. So, at the ordination of Agapit as bishop of Tomsk in the Assumption Cathedral, I decided to speak to him already during the reading of the apostle. And what I said then, I forgot at the end of the speech. Three days later, when I was driving somewhere, I remembered what I said and wrote it down on the way in the carriage. (This speech was made on August 12, 1834). Another time, during the ceremonial laying of the church in the name of the Savior in Moscow on September 10, 1839. I didn’t even think about speaking about this case, out of precaution, so as not to detain the Tsar, and is it even necessary to speak - I didn’t have time to ask the Minister of the Court, Prince. Volkonsky Already on the way to the laying site, the thought came to me that it would not be good to leave a gap; I thought a little and came up with thoughts; spoke and got into such a conversation that he would have been ready to talk for an hour or more at the end of his speech.” – Story by F.A. Golubinsky. Notes of Sushkov: appendix. – p.48. Notes from I.V. Sushkova, p.70. Minutes of pasta, leisure - ep. Hermogene. T.2, p.157. Minutes of pasta, leisure - ep. Hermogene. T.2, p.169. Thanks to his sermons, Filaret became friendly with Prince A.N. Golitsyn, the then Minister of Spiritual Affairs and the Tsar’s favorite. Oct 10 1813 Filaret, by the way, gave a sermon at the consecration of the house church of Prince Golitsyn in the presence of the Holy Synod and a brilliant meeting of the nobility. This sermon was such a success that the preacher was asked to repeat it. But he “could not force himself to do so; instead he spoke in conversation. She is happy because, he writes, that on the 30th day of last month I was forced to serve in the same church and repeat it in front of a person whom I could never imagine as my listener. On the eve of this day, I would not have believed any prediction about what happened to me on this day. I heard such words of meekness that melted me like wax; such words of piety that inflamed me.” Although the name of the listener mentioned here is not said, one can guess that it was Emperor Alexander 1. “Readings in general. love spirit. enlightened." 1883 January. Bibliography, p.40. Letter No. 126. “Thurs. in general love spirit. enlightened." 1883. January. page 40. Notes from I.V. Sushkova, p.98. Minutes of pasta, leisure - ep. Hermogene. T.2, p.207. It is reported that when the Metropolitan was preparing his “Words and Speeches” (1845) for publication in three books, someone asked him to indicate the time of delivery of each of his teachings so that one could judge the gradual development of his preaching gift. “God is judging me,” said the saint (Dushep. Read. April 1869, p. 116). As far as we know, the first experience of such systematization was published in “Kursk Eparchs. Vedomosti" for 1880 under the title: "Systematic presentation of the dogmatic teaching contained in the sermons of Metropolitan Philaret of blessed memory." In the Kazan spirit. Academy, His Eminence Palladius, when Vladyka was Archbishop of Kazan, awarded a prize of 300 rubles. for a candidate's or master's essay on the topic: “Dogmatic theology according to the works of Philaret, Metropolitan, Moscow” (Right. Sobes. 1883 Jan., p. 92). And under this title a book by Mr. A. Gorodkov was published there in 1887. And in the magazine “Strannik” priest. G. Vysheslavtsev published “Moral Theology Based on the Works of Philaret, Metropolitan, Moscow.” Tolmachev - “The Spirit of Christians.” 1861–62, p.495 Words and Speeches 1848 Part 2, p. 134. Journal Minister People. Enlightenment 1868 January. See From the papers of the Metropolitan. Filareta, p.27. F. Ternovsky “New Time” 19898 January 9 No. 2466. Sl. and R. Part 1, page 218. See also Collection. pl. and review m. Phil. T.2, pp. 22–24. Research by Prof. I.N. Korsunsky, who examined the preaching activities of Metropolitan. Filareta, in connection with the events and circumstances of his time, presents a lot of evidence of how the preacher tried to respond to the needs of his contemporary society, and that this society does not remain without characteristics in his sermons. According to ed. 1885 T.5, p.152. Word on consecration Church Ave. Mother of God. Direction and character. prop. Phil. m. Moscow F. Levasheva, p. 52. “Dushen. Thu." 1870 May, page 18. The importance Metropolitan Philaret attached to logical argumentation can be seen, for example. from the following. Correspondence with Countess Rostopchina, who had transferred to the Roman church and objected to the bishop, was stopped by him, because the countess, to whom the abbots wrote, not being able to prove the groundlessness of her opponent’s judgments, evaded the opinion she was defending and started new disputes. In his last reply to the Countess, he wrote: “Logic teaches, or if you prefer otherwise, reason says that when the proof is fair and the conclusion from the proof is correctly deduced, then one cannot argue against the conclusion; for whatever is deduced from the truth and deduced correctly: that is necessarily the truth and not a lie. – I was offered an object and assigned a type of evidence. Having used this type of evidence, I drew a conclusion. They do not say that the evidence is false: they do not say that the conclusion was drawn incorrectly: therefore, the conclusion is not disputable. But, bypassing the proof, they again begin to argue against the conclusion: thus, anyone who has the leisure can continue any argument endlessly, looking for various ghosts of opposing evidence. By the way, they require a lot of evidence. Evidence is not money, of which the more someone has, the more he can buy. If there is one solid proof: then the truth stands safe, even if there are clouds of arrows, i.e. objections, they let her in. The Lord had to prove an important truth against the Sadducees - the resurrection of the dead. He used one proof: Concerning the resurrection of the dead, did you not hear what was spoken to you by God, saying: I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living (Matthew 22:31, 32). Is it really possible to say that this proof is not suitable, because there is only one, but many are needed? And the enemies of the Lord did not say this; But when the people heard it, they marveled (33), and even the Pharisees themselves confessed that the Sadducees were disgraced (34). So, the demand for many proofs does not weaken one given; although, however, it is useful for many to imagine when circumstances require it.” “Soul. Thu." 1870 May, pp.19–20. Life of Count Speransky, op. bar. M.A. Korfa, vol. 2, pp. 77–78, note. Notes of Sushkov, – page 99. Here are some examples of such word usage: “man has stopped in himself the ever-animal circulation of the glory of God, ... there is no state more abundant than the poverty of Jesus, ... with a secret hand the newly painted image of the age to come, ... the beloved exists, ... is consumed under us, ... to give vitality to life, ... not nominally to hearing and knowledge, but essentially to being and well-being, ... the activity of the body is perceived by sleep, ... through far-sighted glass" (including telescopes) and many others. etc. Examples of figures: appeals - in the word at the tomb of Emperor Alexander 1, questioning - in the same word and in the speech at the coronation of Emperor Nicholas 1, personifications - in the word at the consecration. Church in the Trinity Lavra, etc., dialectical turns: “What do you now expect, listeners, from the servants of the word? There is no more word. The Word, co-originating with the Father and the Spirit, ... fell silent,” etc. “About this love, Christians, may I be allowed to speak a little before you.” Memories of Rev. Innocent. Priest I. Florinsky “Soul. Thu." 1872. July. p.205. “Soul. Thu." 1870 July, p.77. Muscovite. 1846 No. 1, p.181. Collection pl. p review Phil. mit. Moscow T.2. p.254. Notes of Sushkov, p. 99. “Russian. News.” 1882. December p. 1001.