The attitude of the Holy Orthodox Church to peace and war, according to the teachings of its canon law

(Concerning modern movements in literature for national peace and against militarism) Among the vital questions that science, literature and even art are currently pursuing with great energy is, undoubtedly, the question of militarism. Those involved in the development of this issue act in two ways: some - positive, others - negative. The former focus their efforts on finding means to eliminate the possibility of bloody clashes between nations, the latter try in every possible way to arouse in people the fear of war and aversion to military service as a “craft” 1 . The high goal - the good of peoples and all humanity - pursued by them, rightly earned them the title of “friends of peace” and enemies of militarism. This scientific and literary movement against militarism began to declare itself with particular force, in fact, in Western Europe, as an opposition to the militarism of Prussia, nurtured by the policies of Bismarck and supported de facto by the hero of militarism Moltke, and then, during the safely peaceful reign of the Peacemaker Tsar, unforgettable for the friends of the world, it moved to us in Russia, and recruited quite a large number of people into its ranks. a host of friends of the world. Even more so - here it met an old and very influential friend of the world and a fighter against militarism - in the person of the famous writer-artist Count L.N. Tolstoy, and not only Russians, but also Western “friends of peace” happily enrolled in their ranks. But a strange phenomenon often occurs in human life: despite all the good, purest, sincere intentions, a person, due to some strange blindness, chooses a completely false, i.e., not expedient path to the realization of his pure intentions. It happens, although quite rarely, that, once having taken this path, a person cannot come to the realization of the falsity of this path and goes along it, goes stubbornly, crushing everything on his way that interferes with him, and not only does not achieve the goal, but directly harms its achievement even by others, that is, in the end, he goes precisely against himself and defeats himself, imagining, however, that he is going against others and defeats others. The theory of literature calls this situation tragic. It is in this very situation that, in our opinion, Lev Nikolaevich acts as an ardent fighter against militarism and as the author of his moral and philosophical theory of resistance to evil. That he is a sincere friend of peace and an enemy of war, this is evidenced by almost every line of his famous epic of the Patriotic War of the 12th year. Yes, whoever carefully read this epic at least once could not help but notice with what force the soul of the artist expresses himself, suffering from the sorrows of people doomed by some inexorable, senseless fate, to go into mortal combat and die in an ugly mass of human and animal corpses - victims of that ugly clash of people embittered against each other, even Christians, which is called “battle” or “battle”. This soul of the artist, suffering from the sorrows of all humanity, is visible not only in the sharp contrasts of pictures of the world and pictures of war, alternating in the epic, but also in those abstract discussions that become more frequent as the epic approaches the end. In these arguments, the artist’s effort to solve the question clearly appears: what pushes people to fly headlong into battle and - complete powerlessness in resolving this issue. Hence the extremely difficult impression of the epic... Our deep sympathy for the friends of the world, who are walking the right positive path towards their goal, prompts us to reveal in all detail the true attitude of the Holy Orthodox Church to peace and war; and our deep gratitude to the creator of the famous epic prompts us to make an attempt - to indicate with all clarity the falsity of the path that led Lev Nikolaevich, as the author of “my Gospel” and “My Faith,” to his fatal, deeply tragic enmity with the Holy Orthodox Church. As for the attitude of the Orthodox Church to the world, it is always the same, very clear and definite: the Church desires peace for everyone; He prays intensely, day and night, for peace and - one can say without exaggeration - trembles before the war as a terrible disaster. The correctness of this position for an Orthodox Christian, even an illiterate Christian, does not require proof; the latter are needed, perhaps, only for an intelligent person who does not adhere to any religion, or for our foreign “friends of the world” who have never been to our Orthodox churches during Divine services. And for them there is nothing easier, if necessary - to present the most convincing evidence of this. For it will all consist of the following owls: “Friends! Go to church as often as possible and you will be convinced of its peaceful mood. You will always hear there: “peace be with you,” “peace be with all,” “let us pray to the Lord for the peace of the whole world and the unification of all.” But maybe this is only in peacetime, and during war the Church does not pray for the peace of the whole world and its priest does not greet everyone with the Gospel kiss of peace? No and no! Her Divine service is always the same, whether it is performed in peacetime or in wartime, in a splendid church or on the battlefield; the only difference is that in wartime, as in general during any national disaster, the Church strengthens the call of its children to repentance of sins (for in its opinion, sins are the main cause of social disasters and the strongest of them - war), strengthens prayers to God for the forgiveness of sins and for deliverance “from the sword, the invasion of foreigners and internecine warfare.” And if anyone had any doubt as to whether the Church really prays, even like this on the battlefield, then to dispel this doubt one could point to Leo Nikolayevich Tolstoy’s own testimony in his epic, with only the smallest explanation. Here is his description of the prayer service on the eve of the Battle of Borodino: “A church procession rose from under the mountain from Borodino. In front of everyone, infantry marched orderly along the dusty road with their shakos removed and guns lowered downwards (a military ritual of submission, disarmament). Church singing could be heard behind the infantry. Overtaking Pierre, the militia also ran without hats towards the marching soldiers. - They are carrying Mother! Intercessor!.. Iverskaya!.. “Mother of Smolensk,” corrected another. The militia - both those who were in the village and those who worked at the battery - threw down their shovels and ran towards the church singing. Behind the battalion, walking along a dusty road, were priests in robes, one old man in a hood with a clergyman and choristers. Behind them, soldiers and officers carried a large icon with a black face, framed. It was an icon taken from Smolensk, and from that time on it was carried by the army. Behind the icon, around it, in front of it, from all sides, crowds of military men walked, ran and bowed to the ground with their heads naked. Having ascended the mountain, the icon stopped; The people holding the icon on towels changed, the sextons lit the censer again, and the prayer service began. The hot rays of the sun beat vertically from above; a weak, fresh breeze played with the hair of open heads and the ribbons with which the icon was decorated; singing was heard softly in the open air. A huge crowd of officers, soldiers, and militiamen with their heads open surrounded the icon. Behind the priest and sexton, in a cleared area, stood the officials. One bald general with George around his neck stood right behind the priest and, without crossing himself (obviously a German), patiently waited for the end of the prayer service, which he considered necessary to listen to, probably to arouse the patriotism of the Russian people. Another general stood in a militant pose and shook his hand in front of his chest, looking around him. Among this circle of officials, Pierre, standing in the crowd of men, recognized some acquaintances; but he did not look at them: all his attention was absorbed by the serious expression of faces in this crowd of soldiers and militias, monotonously greedily looking at the icon. As soon as the tired sextons (singing the twentieth prayer service) began to lazily and habitually sing: “Save Thy servants from troubles, Mother of God,” and the priest and deacon picked up: “As we all resort to you for God’s sake, as an indestructible wall and intercession,” the same expression of consciousness of the solemnity of the coming moment, which he saw under the mountain in Mozhaisk and in fits and starts, flared up on all faces again on the many, many faces he met that morning; and more often heads were lowered, hair was shaken, and sighs and the blows of crosses on chests were heard. The crowd surrounding the icon suddenly opened up and pressed Pierre. Someone, probably a very important person, judging by the haste with which they shunned him, approached the icon. It was Kutuzov, driving around the position. He, returning to Tatarinova, approached the prayer service. Pierre immediately recognized Kutuzov by his special figure, different from everyone else. In a long frock coat on a huge thick body, with a stooped back, an open white head and a leaky white eye on his swollen face, Kutuzov entered the circle with his diving, swaying gait and stopped behind the priest. He crossed himself with the usual gesture, reached with his hand to the ground and, sighing heavily, lowered his gray head. Behind Kutuzov was Bennigsen and his retinue. Despite the presence of the commander-in-chief, who attracted the attention of all the highest ranks, the militia and soldiers continued to pray without looking at him. When the prayer service ended, Kutuzov went up to the icon, fell heavily on his knees, bowing to the ground, and tried for a long time and could not get up from heaviness and weakness. His gray head twitched with effort. Finally he stood up and, with a childishly naive stretching of his lips, kissed the icon and bowed again, touching the ground with his hand. The generals followed his example; then the officers, and behind them, crushing each other, trampling, puffing and pushing, with excited faces, the soldiers and militia climbed" 2 . Here is an artistic picture, written with pen and ink! In my opinion, it is a thousand times more truthful and real than any painting by Mr. Vereshchagin, also a “friend of the world,” although too much of a lover of real, strong sensations 3 . But there is no absolute perfection in human creativity. Even this wonderful picture of Lev Nikolaevich has some shortcomings in details, which, in my opinion, occurred because Lev Nikolaevich does not know the church charter well. Namely: 1) Every singer and sexton knows well that the words “like everything is according to God” are picked up by the singers and sextons of the priest and deacon, and not vice versa. 2) Lev Nikolaevich does not know at all that it is at the prayer service in front of the Smolensk Icon of the Mother of God that the troparion “Diligently to the Mother of God” is sung, which, undoubtedly, was sung for the 20th time, and Lev Nikolaevich did not mention a word about it 4. But even without this amendment, the artistic picture with amazing energy evokes in the minds of the viewer the idea that from the moment the icon and the church clergy appeared at the battle position, the military completely ceased to be military: they threw down their shovels, forgot all subordination. And if so, is it reasonable to accuse the Church of militarism? Wouldn't it be more reasonable to accuse her directly of paralyzing the military spirit and violating military discipline? No! It is too early for us to make any generalizations. As a moral philosopher, Lev Nikolayevich accuses his mother - the Orthodox Church - of lying, of distorting the Gospel, among other things, and with this criminal goal - to justify militarism. Here is this indictment in the Gospel of Lev Nikolaevich, fortunately expressed so delicately that it can be read publicly: “It is said: bless your enemies, but she (the Church) says: you can scold them. The speech of Jesus only says that one should not defend oneself from enemies, that in no case should one fight; The church has been preaching the opposite for 1500 years and blessing soldiers” 5 . The Holy Church is really to blame for this, if you like; but in front of whom and in front of what?! In order to resolve the issue thoroughly and comprehensively, we must first of all consider how and in what forms the Church usually blesses soldiers? Expressed more separately and clearly, we must say that the Church not only blesses soldiers in general, as well as every Christian, but also: 1) He prays deliberately “for the Christ-loving army.” 2) Consecrates military banners with a special rite. Before, however, we begin to consider these t.s. wines of the Church, I consider it necessary to note that, while blessing Christ-loving warriors, the Church does not forget the Lord’s commandments about love for enemies - on the contrary, she prays for them. As proof, I will refer to the following words of one prayer, which is read annually on the Day of the Nativity of Christ: “Oh, most merciful Lord! Add Thy mercy to those who lead Thee: but be revealed to Thee also to those who do not seek; also turn our enemies’ hearts to You: and with all your tongue and tribe, come to know Your One True Christ. Yes, from the east of the sun to the west, with all their tongues, with one heart, all the nations exclaim to You with a voice of joy: glory to You, God, Savior of all, forever and ever” 6. I consider it important to recall these words of the prayer especially because for the first time it was read in that very church (and then is read annually in all churches of the Orthodox Church), which during the war of 12 was subjected to the most terrible reproach from the enemies, about which, let me note apropos, Lev Nikolaevich did not utter a single word in his epic. On this basis, Lev Nikolaevich’s indictment against the Church should modify its final part as follows: it is guilty of blessing the soldiers while praying for its enemies. Starting to consider this indictment, for my part, I consider it necessary to note that during this consideration I will not defend the Church, but, on the contrary, on the one hand, assist Lev Nikolaevich in accusing it, pointing out to him all its weak points, and on the other hand, providing him in the form of a certificate with some passages from the Gospel and liturgical books as documents justifying or only mitigating the guilt of the Church. At the same time, I will not remain silent about those circumstances that will not serve in favor of a very energetic prosecution. In a word, in the ongoing consideration of the accusation against the Church, I will act under Lev Nikolaevich as a secretary at the prosecutor’s office, delivering him only certificates, but without prejudging the question of guilt or innocence. The Orthodox Church, that is, its Bishops and priests 7 blesses soldiers both in peacetime and in wartime - in wartime even with special solemnity: either in the house, if they deliberately call a priest, or in some large church, or simply in the open air. At the same time, there are usually present, for the most part, crying friends and relatives of the mourners, who, according to the age-old Russian custom, themselves bless their warlike friends with their bodily crosses, and for those who are richer, with especially dear ones. in whatever respect, household icons. The circumstance aggravating the guilt of the Church is that with its blessing it, if not directly sanctifies militarism, then, however, encourages soldiers who sometimes go to war directly out of desire, because of a career, or for such naive motives as, for example, Petya Rostov, i.e., wanting it to be conveyed to the Sovereign that he - Petya - was not afraid to lay his head for the Sovereign and flew first into the very desperate attack. Instead, in order to bless such knights, the Church, from the point of view of Lev Nikolaevich, should, on the contrary, preach in every possible way and as loudly as possible the direct prohibition of Jesus: do not fight 8 - preach at precisely this convenient moment. The following circumstances appear to be mitigating the guilt of the Church: 1) The Orthodox Church, that is, bishops and priests, usually, in such cases, are not asked at all about whether it is necessary or not necessary to go to war, but only ask or demand to bless those who are already going, for one reason or another, to war. 2) Refusing to bless a warrior, perhaps already old and pious, such as Kutuzov, who, perhaps, was very favored by the priest in times of peace, the priest would directly be reproached for ingratitude and for violating the duty of friendship, for he refuses to bless a friend at that critical moment when his wife, sister, children and others bless him. Having nothing yet to indicate in weakening or strengthening the first of these mitigating circumstances, regarding the second I must present, as a reference, the following passages from the Gospel of Lev Nikolaevich and the Gospel of the Orthodox Church. In the Gospel of Lev Nikolaevich we read: “Jesus teaches people the true good, how can he remain silent about that phenomenon, which both then and now appears as the greatest evil - enmity of peoples and war? Are we really that smart, but he overlooked this evil and this inexhaustible source of evil, and talked about how to receive communion - with bread or wine, but said nothing about societies of millions, about wars? And that Jesus, the one who said that he preaches goodness to more than just Jews, is the one who does not recognize either his mother, or his brothers, or his family, or the ancient faith, but speaks to vagabonds like him” 9 . Before this certificate, the reference to the fact that the priest actually blesses not soldiers, but friends, fathers, husbands, brothers, etc., is obviously subverted as a clever, one might say, legal subterfuge. But, on the other hand, a priest can, in his own justification, from his Gospel, that is, from the Gospel of the Church, bring for reference the following passages: 1) Jesus not only recognized his mother, brothers, family, but also blessed the soldiers. Thus, He Himself, in the days of His childhood and adolescence, before appearing among people, was in obedience to His parents (Luke 2:21). 2) At the wedding in Cana of Galilee, Jesus, at the direction of his Mother, performed a miracle that eliminated one circumstance that almost overshadowed the festive family joy (John 2:1 – 12). 3) Jesus loved the family of his friend Lazarus so much that even outsiders spoke about it: “See how you love him” (John 11:36). 4) Jesus especially loved children, all of them without distinction – legitimate and illegitimate. 5) Finally, already hanging on the cross, Jesus performed the act of adopting his beloved disciple to His Mother 10. In addition, the priest, to justify his act - blessing the soldiers - can cite the Gospel story about the healing of the beloved slave of the Roman centurion by Jesus. This legend is especially important in various respects, namely: 1) Jesus did not refuse to help the centurion in a relatively minor grief (the illness of his beloved servant). 2) The centurion was not a Jew, but a pagan, but he only had a favorable attitude toward the Jews. 3) The centurion, by his position, was, in the language of our time, none other, namely, a fairly high rank of the military Roman aristocracy. 4) Despite all this, Jesus not only granted the request, but also spoke about his moral personality like this: “I have not found much faith in Israel” (Luke 7:1-9) - isn’t this a blessing? Let us now summarize the consideration of the first point of the accusation against the church of encouraging militarism. 1) She is, indeed, somewhat guilty of this before the gospel of Lev Nikolaevich, but deserves leniency or, perhaps, even justification before the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ, i.e., the Gospel of the Church. 2) Already consideration of this one point gives us the right to state with all thoroughness the following fact: here in Russia, for some time, two Gospels and two Jesuses began to be preached: the Gospel and Jesus, the Son of God, preached by the Church, and the gospel and Jesus the tramp, preached by Lev Nikolaevich. The gospel of the Church allows everyone to be blessed; the gospel of Lev Nikolaevich - everyone, with the exception of the military and their families. Jesus, the Son of God, whom the Church preaches, with His love and participation in family sorrows and joys, draws all people to Himself, without distinction of their age, gender, rank and condition. Jesus the tramp, preached by Lev Nikolaevich, somehow repels with his inexorable consistency and heartlessness, and involuntarily awakens in the mind the memory of the inexorable hardness and coldness of Torquemado and the tramps, once known to families under the name of the holy brothers of Jesus. 3) But, appearing ourselves in such an unfavorable light, don’t we, that is, Lev Nikolaevich, and I, his ally, deserve some leniency? In my opinion, we deserve it, namely: blaming the bishop and priest who bless the soldiers and their families, we saw in the funny, for example, figure of the old man Kutuzov, kissing the icon with childish naivety, in the strange figures of soldiers eagerly looking at the icon, in crying mothers, wives, sisters, maybe even in brides, the very faith of Jesus, which no criticism can shake minute, that humility before God, which is not ashamed of either a brilliant retinue or any human judgment at all. For this viewing, I believe, you will show us leniency, and we will continue our attacks on the church. The Church is guilty of praying for a Christ-loving army: with this epithet it sanctifies militarism, that is, the military craft. Let's consider. Indeed, about the military, and especially about officers, their commanders themselves sometimes say with pleasure that they “thirst for war.” War, in general, “hardens people”: you can find a lot of material on this topic in Lev Nikolaevich’s epic. The embezzlement of quartermaster officials, the greed of suppliers and various commission agents, looting, the arrogance of staff, carousing and, in general, the bivouac atmosphere during campaigns - how little does all this resemble Christianity? And in peacetime—barracks and camp, or service in the navy—aren’t most forms of human life that are least reminiscent of the way of life of Christians? Doesn’t this epithet – “Christ-loving” – sound like bitter irony in the ears of this very army? The circumstances that mitigate this guilt of the church should include the following: for the most part, people go into military service not willingly, but forcedly, and they put up with this necessity precisely with the simple consideration: they have to serve someone. They go to service as Christians and are admonished as Christians, therefore, if forced by necessity, they are always exposed to a greater danger than all other people of deviating from the Christian way of life, then shouldn’t the Church’s prayer for them be even more ardent? No matter how true or false the condemnation of military service as parasitic in peacetime may be, it is still harder than all other types of public service, simply because here the sacrifice of life for others is a direct duty, and not a voluntary feat. The Church does not pray only for the military; it prays (albeit only several times a year deliberately) for other Christians in public service 11. The trouble is not so great if the epithet “Christ-loving” often sounds like a pronation: wouldn’t it be worse if this irony were completely silent?! But at this point my prosecutor is relentless and does not want to know any mitigating circumstances. The Church - according to Lev Nikolaevich's gospel - is gravely guilty of not only recognizing the existence of different types of public service, but also praying for them. In the gospel of Lev Nikolaevich, all public service is condemned, military service in particular; but it is no easier for the ranks and institutions of the judicial department. “The judge and the courts,” we read here, “are people with chips in their eyes, peeping specks in others. These are the blind leading the blind, these are teachers of revenge and malice, who cannot teach anything other than revenge and malice” 12. On this basis, the Church at this point must be found guilty without any leniency, guilty, of course, before the gospel of Lev Nikolaevich. And before the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ? Of course not, for it is the gospel, the gospel of life and joy for all people, no matter what uniform they wear (cf. Luke 3:12 - 14). Having recognized this indictment as firm, we must, however, look at ourselves - in what position we, that is, Lev Nikolaevich and I, are. This situation is very bad: with our gospel we have not only alienated all the servants of the state, but also, what is especially important, we have also alienated all the true friends of the world. For they argue that the very first condition for the possibility of establishing international peace is that each state individually asserts and protects the rule of law and judicial power, and then each of them recognizes as obligatory the principle of international arbitration jurisdiction, and that the fighting force (i.e., the military class) of the state and states must, precisely as a factor of peace, guarantee the power of state and international law, and the judicial power of state and international 13. But in our opinion, courts and judges are people with chips in their eyes... And now I’m becoming a little scared: we (that is, Lev Nikolaevich) will not remain completely alone in the persecution of the Church. But I am consoled by the fact that we only have one point left to consider against the Orthodox Church, namely: why does it consecrate military banners? Isn't this an obvious sanctification of militarism? Here I must, first of all, mention the little trouble that Lev Nikolaevich suffered from one critic of his artistic epic of the 12th year, the person of M. I. Dragomirov, very well known to the Russian people, precisely because Lev Nikolaevich once carelessly touched, so to speak, with the spear of his artistic wit, the military banners under which the Russian troops acted at the Battle of Borodino. Lev Nikolaevich called these banners “pieces of matter on sticks.” For this wit, Lev Nikolaevich received the following suggestion from his critic: “We called,” he says, “the author’s phrase about banners strange and inappropriate on his part. In parting with the reader, we are obliged to show why we think so. Count Tolstoy, of course, knows that feature of human nature, due to which every material thing acquires meaning for a person not so much in itself, but according to the concepts that he connects with this thing. From this point of view, the most insignificant object can become a shrine for a person, the preservation of which for him merges with the preservation of his own honor and becomes immeasurably higher than the preservation of life. We go further: we descend into the category of those things with which a person does not actually associate any special meaning and which he throws away as soon as they have served their time. What feeling arises in you if a stranger comes up to you and grabs the cigarette box you have placed next to him and throws it on the floor? This person insults you with this, while, in essence, he did the most innocent thing - he threw a penny thing on the floor. It follows from this that every most insignificant thing becomes a person’s property, turned, as it were, into a part of himself to such an extent that you consider a rude act regarding it to be an attack on your personal dignity.” “What is true about individual individuals is even more true about those large collective individuals called battalions and regiments. Not representing one being in appearance, they need such symbols, such material signs, which individual individuals do not need - material signs that serve as tactile evidence of the internal spiritual unity of the people who make up a certain part. The banner is precisely this symbol: in a decent part, everything can die for military life, one thing remains unchanged and eternal, just as eternal are the creations of man - the spirit and the banner - its material representative. The unit that preserved the banner in battle kept its honor intact, despite the most difficult, sometimes disastrous situations; the part that lost the banner is the same as a person who was disgraced and did not repay for his shame. Taking this into consideration, everyone will agree that a piece of matter that unites thousands of people around itself, the preservation of which cost the lives of hundreds, and maybe thousands of people who were part of the regiment, during its centuries-long existence, such a piece of matter is a shrine - not a conventional, military shrine only, but a shrine in the direct and immediate meaning of the word, and that of all trophies, this is precisely the one that most of all testifies to the moral victory over the enemy. Count Tolstoy would do well to remember that it was in the battle of Borodino that the French failed to take a single one of these pieces of material on sticks; It would not hurt to not forget that at the end of these sticks there is a symbol of an even higher unity, a symbol that, as he knows, has far more than one formal meaning for the Russian person. It would not hurt to remember, finally, that before Peter’s reform, images were painted on these pieces of material 14, which gave the banners the real meaning of a military and religious shrine, which they had among the people who understood these things best - among the Roman people 15." Here is the suggestion made to Lev Nikolaevich by his critic for his wit! I confess that I re-read this suggestion several times, trying to understand not how offensive or harmless it is for the pride of Lev Nikolaevich, whom, as if the critic deliberately calls him Count Tolstoy, and not just the author, but how serious it is in general, that is, whether it should be taken into account, or left without attention, as completely, so to speak, unimportant and, in fact, not threatening in any way, even if I I'll neglect it. And upon careful reflection, I came to the conviction that it was very serious, and that, strictly speaking, it was not a suggestion, but a very delicate, one might say, friendly warning. It was I who understood it as follows: it is safe for a Russian person to mock Russian military banners, but only at a fairly large distance from them; if someone, with his mocking intentions, even if expressed only in words, comes close to such a distance that he can touch them with his hands, he will act as carelessly and unreasonably as a bear acts carelessly and unreasonably, bravely pressing against the spear piercing him. For, as the Battle of Borodino showed, the Russian military will continue to hold their spears against the enemies pressing on their banners until they themselves are killed. But, reflecting even further on the lesson taught to Lev Nikolaevich Dragomirov, I, in relation to the question of militarism, can bypass this lesson as follows: Lev Nikolaevich, and following him I, will pass by the Russian Kutuzov banners with due respect for them, although on our part not sincere, and will thus enter unhindered into the Orthodox church at the time when what is happening in it rite of consecration of military banners. We will resort to this hypocrisy for a noble purpose, namely, to further strengthen our accusation of the Orthodox Church of militarism. We will reason like this: if the Russian military banner is so terrible in itself that one simple, verbal mockery of it, committed near it, threatens with inevitable and shameful death, then why does the Orthodox Church consecrate this terrible instrument of death? And how can she sanctify him, confessing at the same time that the True God is the God of peace and the Father of bounties? The Orthodox Church prescribes the ritual of illuminating the military banner to be performed with great solemnity. The consecration is performed in the church by a priest or bishop, and, what is especially awkward for us, in the presence of many military personnel. The banner brought into the church for illumination becomes unfurled on the pulpit. The bishop or priest performing the consecration, standing in the altar in front of the throne, begins the usual ekteniya with peace, let us pray to the Lord, but adding some special petitions. Here are some of them: “Oh, let us not remember our sins and iniquities, but rather be merciful and merciful to us, our unworthy servant in troubles, and deliver us from our enemies.” “O turn all our enemies into these signs, boldness into fear, strength into weakness, and courage into cowardice and flight.” “To change all our sorrow and lamentation into joy and joy and misfortune into solid peace and always create invincibility from all enemy slander.” “On the hedgehog tax, I will deliver my faithful servant from the invasion of foreigners and from all the people who want to fight and military presences, and in the deep peace of the Church, the emperor and his people will be preserved, always granting victory to their enemies.” After this actenia, the one illuminating the banner comes out of the altar, stands behind the pulpit in front of the banner and, standing with his face turned to the east, reads one prayer aloud, and after reading it, turns his face to the west - another prayer to the upcoming soldiers (their content is the same as the deacon’s petitions), then sprinkles the banner with holy water, saying the following words: “Blessed and This military sign is illuminated for strength and strengthening of the Christian army and for victory over all enemies, by sprinkling sacred water in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.” Then, if the consecrator is a bishop, then he sits down in his place and gives the consecrated banner into the hands of the kneeling soldier-standard-bearer, saying the following words: “Receive this banner, consecrated by heavenly blessing: be it a terrible and terrible enemy of the Christian race: and may the Lord give you grace, for to the glory of the name of His Most Holy One If you bravely pass through the hostile militia, we will not harm you, in the Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Amen". And he blesses him, saying: “Peace be with you.” He, “having accepted the banner, kisses the right hand of the one who presented it” 16. It is noteworthy that in his first prayer, the one dedicating the banners makes an appeal to God in the following words: “You are the King of the world and God, crushing battles and giving strength to those who trust in You.” I think that this abbreviated presentation of the rite of consecration of the military banner I made is quite sufficient for a decisive answer to the question: Does the Orthodox Church sanctify militarism with this rite, or not? On the contrary, in her prayers during this rite, she with particular zeal calls on the soldiers to turn to God, the Destroyer of Wars, to pray that there will always be peace, that God will deliver Christians from people who want to fight, and all her actions in this rite over the sign end with the fact that it turns into a sacred banner, that is, the banner of peace with which the Church makes its religious processions, that banner peace, which the Western friends of peace, who are so far acting only under the banner of science and conscience, are striving and must strive for. Yes, the Orthodox Church, consecrating the military banner, affirms behind it with its heavenly blessing its religious meaning, which M. I. Dragomirov explained to us. But this is not enough. The Church prays to God, the Breaker of Wars, that He will give the very bearer of this banner the grace-filled strength of courage in the face of death itself and weaken the courage and strength of those who boldly rebel against God, the Breaker of Wars and His Sacred Banner. This, if you like, is the Cross with which a Christian mother blesses her son going to war; these, if you like, are those holy schemas with which St. Sergius blessed his monks, sending them to war against Mamai. And so, Lev Nikolaevich threw his wit at this very banner, not knowing, of course, what he was doing, and he paid for it. Here I end my alliance with him on charges of militarism against the Holy Orthodox Church. I’m finishing because there’s nowhere else to go. We examined the “guilts” of the Church and found ourselves completely guilty before Her, even receiving a very impressive, albeit friendly, warning. With the conscientiousness and dexterity of the secretary of Lev Nikolaevich, I report to him what is strong and what is weak in our act of indictment against the Church, I walked with his Gospel around the Church, uttering blasphemous words and pointing out to him the weak, apparently, places of the Church, and this walk of ours, as everyone saw, led us, more and more, to the consciousness of the absurdity of the case we had undertaken, until, finally, we reached the point in this matter that now Lev Nikolaevich lies, like the once noble Knight of La Mancha, completely broken from the unreasonable use of his critical wit, and I am his faithful Sancho Panza. I stand over him, not knowing how to help my master. And we both remain completely alone in our sad situation, causing in you only smiles and, perhaps, one sympathetic, humane feeling - a feeling of regret. Yes, not I, who hitherto stood before you in the role of Lev Nikolaevich’s squire, and no real squire, and no one else, but perhaps only a Christian, invested with the title of priest by the Holy Orthodox Church, can lead Lev Nikolaevich out of his truly sad and terrible situation. Yes, I am sure that, having humbly submitted to the pastoral influence of the priest, Lev Nikolaevich would have burned with his own hands both his indictment against the Church and all his blasphemous, cynical false gospel; Moreover, he would have begun with true artistic zeal for the further processing of his epic, and then he would have appeared before the face of not only Russia, before all its titles and states, but also before other peoples, as a great, sympathetic Christian artist; Then he - I am obliged to tell him this - would have restored his right to the title of “friend of the world” - a title that he now bears not rightfully, but in a predatory hypocrisy! At the same time, in the name of this same, perhaps naive, but sincere on my part, good wishes to Lev Nikolaevich, I consider it my duty to explain how it happened that he, striving sincerely, which I do not allow myself to doubt, for peace and love, in the name of Christ, now found himself in a tragic position, having become in opposition to states, the Orthodox Church and friends of the world, forming, along with them, a pathetic sect, barely I tolerate. This happened because Lev Nikolaevich imagined himself to be a subtle thinker and, unable to understand the true Gospel, ventured to transform it into a very brief system of morality, basing it, on the one hand, on the misunderstood teaching of the Lord, set out in the Sermon on the Mount, on the other hand, completely rejecting the Divinity in Christ and presenting Him only as an idol of his own, that is, Leo. Nikolaevich, systems in the image of a tramp. He liked this system so much that, in his enthusiasm for it, he lost sight of the fact that his system is still only a system, and not the Gospel itself, he lost sight of the fact that he was not the first and only one to take up this matter, but that since the appearance of the Gospel in the universe, there have already appeared, to say the least, thousands, millions of systems, both moral and dogmatic, based on it. And, what is especially remarkable, all these systems, despite the deep discord that sometimes reaches the point of complete contradiction, treating each other as “plus” and “minus”, certainly claim their greatest correspondence with the Gospel. This Gospel alone among these systems always remains identical, always equal to itself, and will remain so until the end of the world. And the Holy Church makes it her sacred task to always preserve this identity of the Gospel and preach to everyone the one eternal Gospel. This, however, does not prevent the existence in the Church itself of millions of systems based on it; does not prevent the Church from approving some of these systems, condemning others: recognizing some as more consistent with the Gospel, others less. But both all these millions of taxonomists, and she herself in her assessment of their systems, are, so to speak, under the control of the Gospel. Hence, every son of the church believes in the same Gospel, but in a more or less deep understanding he can distinguish it from each other. In the miserable sect of Lev Nikolaevich, as in other countless sects, the opposite is true: here it is not the Gospel that controls the system, but the system of the Gospel, here there is faith in the system of Lev Nikolaevich or someone else, but there is no faith in the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. The misfortune that befell Lev Nikolaevich in his reworking of the Gospel would not have been so terrible if, having been ashamed to recognize God in the humble image of Jesus, “coming in the flesh,” he had completely retained at least His moral teaching, even if only one sermon on the mount, but not touching. Then his system, which he called “my Gospel,” “my faith,” would, so to speak, be at least a quarter of the Gospel. Then Lev Nikolaevich himself and his followers would have at least retained the right to be called Christians, since they would still have preached the moral teaching of Christ. But Lev Nikolaevich went much further. He completely distorted the very Sermon on the Mount of Christ, and presented this distortion in the form of a short catechism, in which there is no longer any clothing or the Spirit of Christ, but there is simply some kind of teaching like Buddhism. Here is this catechist of Lev Nikolaevich: “Jesus,” we read from him, “expresses these five rules, namely: do not be angry, do not ... (impossible to pronounce rule) 17, do not swear an oath, do not sue, do not fight.” “Jesus says: here are five rules, but they all add up to one thing. This rule is that whatever you want others to do for you, do the same to others. This rule replaces the entire previous law" 18. I confess that when I read these rules, I was seized with horror, the cold of death blew over me - not physical death, but moral, spiritual death; and for a long time I could not calm down from the thought: was it a human hand that wrote these rules? Yes, these rules of morality are not great, but who can fulfill, I don’t say everything, but only one rule - don’t be angry? How can I not be angry while my heart is beating? How can I not get angry, not worry even this minute, just pronouncing these five rules in the name of the rules of Jesus Christ the Son of God? This rule can only be fulfilled by someone who has suppressed within himself, or in whom every moral feeling, sense of honor, shame, conscience has been suppressed, suppressed, killed - in a word, this rule can only be fulfilled by a moral corpse, so to speak. And all these rules are not for living people leading them to eternal life, which are the true rules of the Lord, but rules that directly lead to moral death, just as the entire gospel of Lev Nikolaevich is not the Gospel of life, but the gospel of death. Why did such a transformation of the Lord’s Sermon on the Mount occur under the reformist pen of Lev Nikolaevich? This happened, in my opinion, firstly, because Lev Nikolaevich overlooked the undoubtedly inherent property of the Sermon on the Mount, namely: that it is not only a moral teaching, as he understood, but also a positive law, and a law, on the one hand, in the highest degree perfect and beautiful 19, but, on the other, a formidable law. So, let us take for proof the following passage from the Sermon on the Mount, on which Lev Nikolaevich worked a lot. “Hear what was said to the ancients: You shall not commit adultery. But I say to you, that everyone who looks at a woman to lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Mo. 5:27 - 28). What is this: a moral maxim, or a law? Law, law to the point of obviousness. What is this law? Let's find out what punishment Moses prescribed for adultery. It turns out - death (through stoning). What then? Does the law of Christ abolish this punishment? It’s not visible from anywhere, any lawyer will say. On the contrary, Christ unusually expands the scope of the concept of “adultery”, punishable by the law of Moses, bringing under the same concept only the violation of the first words of the 10th commandment of the Law of God. Do you see how much more severe the law of the Sermon on the Mount is than the law of Moses?! But it, it must be added, is not only more severe, but also not less belittling, for Christ said: “Amen I say to you: until heaven and earth pass away, one jot, or one tittle shall not pass from the law, until all they shall be” 20 . From what law? From the law of the Sermon on the Mount, and this is its superior perfection over the law of Moses, for the latter can still be somehow circumvented in order to avoid a terrible punishment, for the judge and avenger - the punisher for violating it - is God himself, who said: “Vengeance is mine and I will repay.” From a legal point of view, this is precisely its perfection, for violation of the law entails inevitable punishment, and there was a time, I must say, when no one else, namely Lev Nikolaevich, was very close to the true understanding of this particular legal perfection of the law of the Sermon on the Mount, namely when he wrote his highly artistic novel “Anna Karenina”. From an artistic point of view, this novel seems to me inimitable. But Lev Nikolaevich was not content with writing it only with artistic interests; he wanted to give it a moral and tendentious meaning, putting the epigraph to it: “Vengeance is mine and I will repay.” With this epigraph, the moralist somewhat embarrassed the artist, because at the request of the first, it was not this pretty mother, the adulteress Anna Karenina, who was to end her life under the train, but “who lived according to the rules of everyday morality and who had never done harm to anyone in his life,” the charming Mr. Vronsky. But, fortunately, this time, the artist’s instinct prevailed over the demands of a narrow moralist, and the novel lost nothing either in artistic truth or as an instructive - morally - narrative - but the latter only for a firm believer in the words: “Vengeance is mine and I will repay.” For, just as the reader of the novel has firm faith in This Judge and Avenger, it does not mean anything that Vronsky escaped human judgment - he will not escape God’s Judgment. And if this faith is not there, then the denouement of the novel can indeed lead such an unbelieving reader not only into despondency, but also into despair. I don’t know by what mental process or by what life circumstances Lev Nikolayevich reached this despondency and despair, and rejected faith in God - the impartial Judge and Avenger for violation of His Law - but he himself expressed this despondency and despair, as well as the loss of this faith, in his moral philosophical writings and in his most terrible and monstrous illustrations for them, which are “Power darkness", "Fruits of Enlightenment", "Kreutzer Sonata". Yes, these works by Lev Nikolayevich breathe the coldness of a grave, a grave not only, so to speak, moral, but also physical. And woe to humanity if, listening to these works and their imitations, it decides to organize its family life based on them. Then, soon, eternal peace will come on earth... Cemeteries where the first rule of Lev Nikolayevich’s catechism is truly unswervingly fulfilled by the inhabitants - don’t be angry! Yes, even now, as if sometimes, there are some signs of this terrible consequence of unbelief, despondency and despair, as if even now, in view of some literary and fictional statements, it is not bad to remember the words of the prophet Jeremiah, who said about his time: “A voice was heard in Rama, weeping and sobbing, and much crying: Rachel wept for her children and did not want to be comforted, for they are not” 21, and then the Evangelist repeated regarding the command of Herod: “Kill all the infants in Bethlehem and in all its borders from two years old and under” 22. In the divine Person of Christ, the Son of Man, Lev Nikolaevich did not see the one who came to earth to fulfill all truth, that is, not only the strict law of Moses, but also the even more strict law of the Sermon on the Mount. And this Son of man, as the Church Gospel narrates and as the Jewish prophets predicted long before his coming to earth, fulfilled this entire law and “did not do a single evil, nor was flattery found in His mouth.” That is why He, as the Teacher of the law, was sympathetic to everyone, for the law itself, which He fulfilled completely, was and is a perfect law in its content, that is, according to those commandments that are offered in it as rules of life, although, at times, the most attentive listeners of the Divine Teacher and His most devoted disciples objected to him, saying: “Who can then be saved?” impossible, but with God everything is possible.” What does this mean? This means that if the height of the commandments of the Law of God attracts and delights the heart of a person, then, on the contrary, the weakness of human nature, corrupted by the Fall, leads a person to the consciousness of his eternal guilt before the Law of God and his powerlessness to fulfill it. Or, as the Apostle says: “They delight in the law of God according to the inward man... but I do not want evil, I do this” (Rom. 7:19-22). In the Divine Face of Christ, Lev Nikolaevich, like some other moral philosophers, did not see the Redeemer and Savior of all people. What is the meaning of the mystery of redemption? It consists in the fact that Christ, who did not commit a single evil, was crucified on the cross, and with this sacrifice, once made, he justified all people before the justice of God. One can more clearly imagine the meaning of this atoning sacrifice like this: every person who has violated the gospel law is guilty of the Divine judgment and is subject to the retributive judgment of Divine Justice. And this judgment will be carried out by the Son of God, who came in the flesh in the humble form of a servant, but for His voluntary sacrifice on the cross, having received from the Father the power to judge the living and the dead, when He comes to earth again in His glory. But by his sacrifice for the sins of the world, Christ not only freed people from punishment for breaking the law, that is, from curse and death, but also reconciled them with the Father and received from Him all power in heaven and on earth, that is, not only punitive, but also merciful and forgiving. As a result of this, it happened that the gospel, on the one hand, preaches a very strict law, before which no one can be right, but on the other hand, it preaches God the Word, who by His sacrifice on the cross delivered us from curse and death, and gives us grace - grace - the all-forgiving mercy of God, which is not overcome by any human sins. Thus, it turns out that the Orthodox priest, as a teacher of the Law of God, proclaiming the law of the Gospel, on the one hand, arouses in his disciples a sense of humility before God and a consciousness of guilt, and on the other hand, arouses love for the Executor of this law and the desire to imitate Him, and, finally, hope for their humility and consciousness of guilt and powerlessness to fulfill the law, to receive grace-filled help in striving to fulfill it, hence courage in the fight against the evil aspirations. So, Lev Nikolaevich’s system, although negatively, but very convincingly proves that the duty of a taxonomist of moral Christian teaching consists of unconditional faith in the Gospel: only with this faith is it possible to protect oneself from the possibility of becoming in sharp contradiction to it. Secondly, one must always remember that the moral rule derived by a taxonomist from the genuine teachings of Christ is always a rule of the system, and not a rule of the Gospel. Thirdly, we must never forget that the Sermon on the Mount is not only the basis for moral Christian teaching, but also the Divine Law, of which not a single jot or line should be crossed out. Guided by these rules, we will now begin to resolve the question of how we should look at war and military service from the point of view of the Gospel? Lev Nikolaevich claims that Christ directly said “don’t fight,” but I maintain that this is only his conclusion, and not at all the rule of the Lord Jesus Christ. What then? So does the Gospel legitimize war? No. The Gospel does not answer this question, but there are passages in the Sermon on the Mount on the basis of which this question can be resolved. The closest place to this is: “Hear what was said to the ancients: Thou shalt not kill; Whoever kills is guilty of justice. But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother in vain is guilty of judgment; Whoever speaks cancer to his brother is guilty of the host, and whoever speaks to the freak is guilty of hell fire” (Matthew 5:21, 22). Based on this Gospel law, one can easily draw the following conclusion to deny the moral legitimacy of war. Since the Gospel law says clearly: “Thou shalt not kill”, and war presupposes the necessity of killing, it necessarily follows that war is a clear violation of the law “Thou shalt not kill”, that it is neither defensive nor offensive – illegal, but is a grave sin and a grave crime of the Gospel law. A conclusion that is logically possible, and, one might even say, correct and true. But, firstly, we must still admit that this is still a conclusion, and not a genuine gospel law; secondly, the same gospel law does not eliminate the possibility of drawing from it the opposite conclusion, namely: Firstly, people commit murders not only in war, but also in peacetime, and in human court they are completely justified, for example, in the case of necessary self-defense, done in passion and irritation, done without the desire to kill, but only to instill fear. Secondly, the law of the Gospel, taken in all its severity, is unenforceable for a person, and in life it is possible that they commit a violation of commandments, albeit lesser than the commandment “thou shalt not kill,” but do not apologize, whereas violation of a commandment is readily apologized under mitigating circumstances. Thirdly, the Gospel law says: “thou shalt not kill,” but it does not say “thou shalt not kill,” and, in general, nothing is said about war; Therefore, another question: doesn’t this mean only the unauthorized killing of another by one person - murder in the sense of a criminal offense? And, in any case, since there is no clear prohibition of war in the gospel, it may be legal. And I must say that these are not only possible conclusions, but also, indeed, already made: an example of the first is presented in Lev Nikolaevich’s system, examples of the other - in some polemical articles against him. Moreover, it seems to me that both conclusions are logically equally legitimate, and therefore, it seems, one cannot hope that the controversy between these radically opposed systems will ever end. Therefore, the question can only be resolved about the comparative merits of one or the other, but not about complete inconsistency. And now, I, who had hitherto polemicized against Lev Nikolayevich, recalling the prayers of the Orthodox Church for the peace of the whole world, am even forced, beyond his expectations, to say that his teaching on war, as a system, is more similar to the view of the Church than the teaching of his opponents. But, making this, so to speak, concession to him, I demand with even greater insistence that he admit that in the law of the Gospel there is no direct solution to the question of war, either in a positive or negative sense. This is where I would end my speech on war and peace if my task was only to express my personal opinion on which of the moral systems is more consistent with the Gospel and the Holy Orthodox Church. But this is not my task and I have no right to take on it. I have no right because the personal opinion of anyone, especially mine, has no meaning. My task is to show how this issue should be resolved precisely from the point of view of the canons of the Orthodox Church. What do the canons of the Church say about war? Is it permissible or not? They say, I must answer, the same as the Gospel, that is, they do not give a direct and clear answer. But they talk about the inevitable consequences of war - murders, about soldiers killing enemies, and soldiers killed in war, about clergymen participating in wars. And so, for the solution of these questions, the canons of the Orthodox Church provide such a solid foundation that it would be in vain to look for in the various systems of moralists. Thus, to the first, most important of these questions - whether it is permissible or impermissible to kill an enemy in war - the canons clearly say: murder is never permissible; murder is always murder, i.e. sin. “He who deals a mortal blow to his neighbor is a murderer; whether he struck first or took revenge,” says the 43rd rule of St. Basil the Great. With such a clear and categorical tone of the Holy Father’s rule, there is apparently no need for further searches for any kind of clarification. But this, however, is far from the case. The same Holy Father in his 13th canon says the following: “Our fathers did not charge killing in battle as murder, excusing, as it seems to me, the champions of chastity and piety. But perhaps it would be good to advise that they, as having unclean hands, refrain from communion (only) of the holy mysteries for three years.” The first half of the rule seems to suggest that killing an enemy in war is not a sin at all, because it is not charged with murder. But to this it must be said that the concept of “imputation” or “non-imputation” in legal language means something slightly different from what these words mean in everyday, common language. In the latter, very often “not to impute” simply means to consider innocent, while in legal language “not to impute” only means “to release from punishment” determined for guilt. That's exactly what this rule says. The fathers of whom Saint Basil the Great speaks had no doubt about whether killing an enemy in war is murder or not murder; They were not deciding this question, but the question of whether to punish them or forgive them, forgive them completely? And they decided to excuse them as being covered by their feat in defending chastity and piety with weapons. But Saint Basil the Great considered this attitude towards murder in war too lenient and advised that people should receive Holy Communion only after three years of repentance. It must be said, however, that among the church canons there is one rule that stands out sharply for its peculiarity on this issue, namely the rule of St. Athanasius of Alexandria, which, by the way, says: “It is not permissible to kill, but killing enemies in battle is both legal and worthy of praise. Thus great honors are awarded to the valiant in battle, and pillars are erected for them, proclaiming their excellent deeds. Thus, the same thing, depending on the time, and in some circumstances is not permissible, but in other circumstances, and in good time, is permissible and permitted” 23. It is noteworthy that the classical commentators point to these very words of St. Athanasius in explaining the initial words of the previous rule: “our fathers.” But it seems to us that this instruction is completely unfounded, for if this were so, then nothing would prevent Saint Basil from expressing himself like this: “our father Athanasius”; secondly, this link is unsuccessful because the link is on the wrong topic. The two fathers talk about two different subjects: St. Basil about living soldiers who returned from the war, and St. Athanasius about famous commanders in whose memory columns are erected. It seems to me, finally, that Saint Athanasius himself had in mind some Roman generals of ancient times, about whom in his time only these columns spoke,” which, again, were no longer erected by the Fathers of the Church of the 3rd century. In general, these words of Saint Athanasius, inserted into the message, so to speak, in passing, as an argument, will be more convenient to remember when we are talking about the attitude of the Church specifically to those killed in war, and not to those who kill. So, having left historians to decide the question of which fathers St. Basil had in mind (the second half of the 4th century), a question of mainly historical interest, we will focus on solving another question, a purely practical one: did the rule of St. Basil have and does it have the force of law? Fortunately for us, it did and even served, many centuries later, the fathers of the Church a great service, helping to moderate the excessive respect for militarism in one Byzantine emperor, namely: “When Emperor Phocas demanded that those killed in war be counted as martyrs, the then bishops, taking advantage of this rule, forced the king to abandon his demand, saying: “How can we count among martyrs those who fell in war, who Basil the Great excluded them from the sacrament for three years as having unclean hands” 24 - and Phokas was forced to give in to them. It seems to me, however, that you are not satisfied with my art of reconciling the rules of St. Basil and St. Athanasius, and will object that they still contradict; But after all, according to your method, the law, even the Gospel, should be understood literally, without missing a single point? I fully recognize the validity of this objection and will even strengthen it myself with a very important reference from another code of canons of our Holy Church - the “Helmsman’s Book”. Here we read rule 13: “A warrior in battle for good faith, if he kills, will not accept fellowship for three years. Interpretation: Those who have been in battle, murder is not murder, imputed from the holy fathers: just as the great Athanasius said to Ammon in his epistle, those who have braved in battle are worthy of great honor, to set up images of their likeness; Behold, this man will not avenge the judgment of those great ones, since for chastity and for good faith the brave man kills in battle: otherwise he advises, it is good, saying to such a person, he should not receive communion for three years only, since his hands are not clean.” Below, on the same sheet, printed in red ink: “Murder in battle is not murder; but do not receive communion for three summers” 25. As can clearly be seen from here, both contradictory rules are mixed here in such a way that it is difficult to understand whether to honor murder as murder, to praise brave soldiers or to punish them? With this certificate against myself, I put myself in a difficult position, as you can see, but I will try to get out of it. There are two paths before me: one, so to speak, is scientifically liberal, the other is scientifically conservative. Having taken the first path, I would have eliminated the information that was unpleasant for me instantly, even with some effect, namely, I would have declared: how is it possible for the opinions of such a decrepit old woman as the helmsman to guide a 19th-century lawyer in resolving such issues as the question of militarism? And now, I am justified... But, neither officially nor unofficially, in the name of the principles of my science and academic scientific tradition, I cannot at all be liberal in science. One of the basic principles of our church legislation is precisely the principle of inviolability, not only, in general, of the rules of the Holy Apostles, Councils and Holy Fathers, but even their text, approved by the highest church-governmental authority of each local church, and, for example, our Holy Synod very carefully protects the text of the canons from encroachment on it by private individuals and does not allow any corrections to be made in it without its knowledge. My teacher and predecessor in the department, His Eminence Alexy, both stated in print, and repeatedly inspired me, that the text of the printed Slavic “Helmsman” is “such a sacred antiquity and, one might say, a shrine, that it should be published constantly, despite the fact that now for practice it is required less often than before” 26 . My unofficial teacher A. S. Pavlov is horrified by how little work we do with the copies and manuscripts of the Helmsman’s Book. And then a whole series of canonists, historians, Slavists, who enjoy indestructible authority in our Academy, such as: Gorsky, Golubinsky, Rosenkampf, Kalachev, Vostokov, Sreznevsky and tutu-quanti, unanimously say that the lists of “Helmsmen” are such a treasure that must be kept behind seven locks from scientific liberalism. As for the interpretative method of church rules, the greatest authority of our science, the medieval canonist F. Balsamon, bequeaths the following formula as a principle of interpretation: “Observe the canonical decrees wherever and however they are pronounced, and do not say that there are contradictions between them: for in all verbs is the All-Holy Spirit” 27 . No matter how strange this method may seem, but, in fact, this technique is quite common in the so-called legal or antinomian logic, which is still practiced by our sworn attorneys in civil and criminal trials, and is usually called “legal technique.” What kind of technique is this? This is “scholasticism,” you say. Yes, precisely scholasticism. The father of our science of canon law, precisely, is called, and calls himself, John Scholasticus. But do not judge strictly by this name, taking into account at least the difficulty of the tasks assigned to us; but, however, there are many of us and do not feel sorry for us: only the root of the teaching is bitter, but the fruits are sweet. For, having become somewhat accustomed to this scholasticism, you can learn to easily solve the most seemingly insoluble problems. So it is now. I have to decide, firstly, the question: by what rule should a priest act if he needs to honor some commander? Is it according to the rule of St. Athanasius or according to the rule of St. Basil? And I will answer without hesitation: according to both - first according to Afanasyev, and then according to Vasiliev. If the authorities order you, that is, the priest, to meet the commander with the ringing and sing a prayer service for him with many years - ring and sing. And if this commander says: “I want, father, to receive communion tomorrow,” then answer: “What time would you like to confess?” And then, during confession, read to him Vasiliev’s rule, which interpret as God bestows on your soul, at least according to the “Helmsman” of Nikon’s or even Joseph’s edition, if the commander adheres to the old days. Second question: if the military authorities ask to serve a memorial service, for example, at the monument to Bagration, the tomb of Kutuzov or Tuchkov, considering them worthy of martyr’s crowns, then go without a doubt, capturing the most magnificent sacristy, and sing the requiem mass and memorial service, and then, at the end, be the first to bow to the ground in front of their tombs; and about the crowns of martyrdom, say that I don’t know anything, this is God’s Judgment and God’s Will. Third question: my superiors order me to go with a detachment, for example, Dolokhov, and he is a desperate card player and zhuir. And in general, the officer’s camp atmosphere is saturated with tobacco and wine: is it proper for me to live in this atmosphere with the Holy Sacrament, and besides, it’s unsafe: there the bashi-bazouks will shoot me down like a hare? And I, without any hesitation, will say: “Go with the Holy Gifts and there confess and receive communion, without taking any weapons with you, and if you shoot even one bashi-bazouk, you will be deprived of the priesthood according to the 5th rule of St. Gregory of Nyssa; and if, out of fear of staining your pure blessing hand with dirt, tears and blood, disfigured by the mortal wounds of Dolokhov, and, remembering his previous peaceful adventures, you turn away from him, then woe to you! It would be better if you were not born! For here is what the 52nd Apostolic Canon says about this: “If anyone, a bishop or presbyter, does not accept someone who is converted from sin, but rejects him: let him be expelled from the sacred rank. For Christ is saddened when he says: there is joy in heaven for the only sinner who repents." And if you start complaining about why you can’t defend yourself from bashi-bazouks, I’ll tell you: “Because you enjoy the privilege of freedom from military service and only go to the dressing station, while Dolokhov and his teammates must immediately rush straight into the enemy’s fire.” Fourth. If I were asked the question: it is now necessary for political reasons to declare war, what would you say? If I wanted to remain faithful to the principles of my strictly conservative science, I would answer without hesitation: “In this case, murders are foreseen; and I have not, and do not find, what answer to this” 28. Yes, my strict scholasticism obliges me to answer this question with stubborn silence. Contact the scientific-liberal school, Lev Nikolaevich: there these issues are resolved more boldly. However, to justify my stubborn silence (if it is not clear), I can resort to the following visual explanation. Let's assume an unlikely, but possible case, that Kurds, Bashi-Bazouks or something similar appeared near a fairly large Russian border village. The village is guarded, let's say, by one battery of field artillery under the command of a colonel with five or six officers and a hundred or two lower ranks. The Kurds and Bashi-Bazouks, taking advantage of the completely peaceful mood of the village, quietly gather in a whole gang, about 500 people, and one fine morning they appear before the eyes of the village, although at a still distant distance, but with a fairly clear intention to attack the village. The battery colonel did not doze and, just in case, installed his battery in a combat position. The colonel, pointing to this colorful, frolicking band, says: “I know these people; if you miss, they will burst into the village, and then I cannot vouch for the consequences; but if now, this minute, I fire a volley from my guns, then this whole gang will scatter like a herd of sheep.” What do you think should be done? I, based on the Gospel and the canons, say: “You will kill and mutilate many people with your weapons; and I do not have and do not find what to answer to this.” Lev Nikolaevich is more decisive, he says that the Gospel says: “don’t fight.” But the colonel remains dissatisfied with both my evasive answer and Lev Nikolayevich’s categorical statement, and decides to fire a salvo, the consequence of which is that in the place where a noisy band of daredevils joyfully pranced for a minute, there were 30 corpses left and 100 mortally wounded people. There was no trace of the rest. This result was due to the colonel’s determination, but what would have happened if he had listened to Lev Nikolayevich and, under the influence of his “don’t fight”, “don’t be angry” and so on, had not fired a salvo? Instead of answering, I will allow myself to read from last year’s Russian Thought the following passage from the article: "Turkish atrocities of Armenia" “Last year (written November 16, 1894), in Talvorik, the Armenians successfully repelled the attack of the neighboring Kurds. Great anxiety spread throughout the country. This year, the (Turkish) government intervened and sent detachments of regular troops to pacify the Armenians. The regular troops were assisted by Kurdish Hamidiye (irregular troops). The Armenians were attacked in the mountain fortifications and eventually had to surrender due to lack of food and military supplies. About 20 villages were destroyed, the population was killed and houses were burned. Several young, full of strength Armenians were captured, tied up, covered with twigs and burned alive. A number of Armenians, variously defined, but no less than 100, surrendered and begged for mercy. Many of them were shot on the spot, and the rest were stabbed to death with sabers and bayonets. A group of women, variously defined as from 60 to 160 people, were locked in the Church and soldiers were “let in” among them. Many of these women were tortured to death, and the rest were killed with sabers and bayonets. Several young women were captured as spoils of war. Two stories are told about them: 1) that they were taken to the harems of the Muslims who kidnapped them; 2) that they were offered to convert to Islam and enter the harems, and when they refused, they were killed. The children were lined up one after the other and shot at one end of the line, apparently to see how many people could be killed with one bullet. Young children and infants were laid one on top of the other, and their heads were cut off. The soldiers surrounded the houses, set them on fire, and used bayonets to force people back into the flames as they tried to escape from them. The number of human victims is from 3 to 8 thousand. These are modest numbers... What will Christendom do now? (This is how this message ends) 29. But, in general, on behalf of my science, I must say that in the matter of declaring war, the Church must be eliminated in every possible way: this is the business of the Head of State, for neither in the Gospel nor in the canons of the Church is there a law: neither “don’t fight” nor “fight.” But, since His decision to declare war followed, all members of the state, each in his own rank, must participate in it in one way or another: warriors - stand courageously until they sacrifice their lives for the dignity and holiness of their banner, “for the honor of God and the dignity of the State” - as our pious ancestors expressed it 30; priests must intensify their prayers everywhere, and on the battlefield itself show themselves not only as performers of the Bloodless Sacrifice, but also set the example of the Evangelical Samaritan in serving the sick and those seeking consolation for their brothers, and pray for the eternal repose of those who laid down their lives for the faith, the king and the fatherland... Presenting to your judgment, M. G., these conclusions on such an important, vital issue as the question of militarism, I am far from the idea of claiming their infallibility, for I am convinced that the law of errare humanum est seems to weigh heavily on us with special force, if you recognize the sincerity of my efforts to convince you that the Holy Orthodox Church, both with its prayers and its rituals, is completely in the spirit of the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ and in in the spirit of her canons, with maternal trepidation protects her children from war, as a terrible disaster, that she cares with maternal tenderness for the victims of war, when the latter is already coming, as the inevitable fruit of human sins, that, finally, she not only now, when the learned friends of the world with commendable zeal have taken up the search for means of weakening militarism, but for more than 1500 years she has been tirelessly striving for the same goal with her, her pre-ordained ways and means, and strives always under the same banner of peace, on which it is written: “Repent and believe the Gospel” (Mark 1:15). The literature on the issue can be found in the following articles of “Russian Thought” for 1895: a) L. A. Kamarovsky, “Peace factors in modern life” (September). b) Psychologie de Militaere professionnel, par A. Hamon. Paris, Bruxelles. 1894. (September). c) I.K. “War among different nations” (November). "War and Peace", vol. III, (Part VII). Ed. VI, 1886, pp. 274, 277. “At the war in Asia and Europe. Memoirs of the artist V.V. Vereshchagin.” M. 1894 “Russian Thought”, 1895 November, pp. 556 – 557. Apparently, this is a small thing... No, not a small thing, but a rather large mistake. If this troparion had been given in its entirety in the description, then it would have become obvious to any foreign reader why Kutuzov, having forgotten his high post, humbly bowed his gray head before the icon of the Mother of God, why the soldiers eagerly looked at the icon, why even on the very evening on the eve of the Borodino battle “the militia put on clean, white shirts to prepare for death” (p. 280), why “the soldiers did not drink vodka, “It’s not such a day,” they say” (p. 293). In my opinion, they did all this because they repented of their sins - the only moment, it seems, when a soldier refuses vodka offered to him. "Gospel Study" RKP Library M.D. Academy No. 118/210, p. 227. "Thanksgiving and prayer singing on the day of the Nativity of Jesus Christ." Ed. 1886 It is in this sense that Lev Nikolaevich understands the word “Church” when he wants to accuse it. Quoted above from RCP, pp. 228–229. The Lord condemns only that love for parents, children, wife or relatives, for the sake of which love for Christ is sacrificed. Whoever, because of this carnal love, renounces Christ, for example, is no longer worthy of Him. Here is her prayer of this kind: “Confirm (Lord) Thy blessing on the Most Pious Autocratic Great Sovereign our Emperor NN, and let Thy good Spirit bring forth honor upon Him. Grant in His pious power the shrine of His shepherd, the ruler of justice and truth, peace and silence to the people, strength and prosperity to the laws” (“Thankful prayer singing on the day of the Nativity of Christ”). “Give Him wisdom (the Most Pious Autocratic Great Sovereign Emperor) and instruct Him not to go through this great service to You: give Him reason and wisdom to judge Your people in truth and preserve this property in silence and without sorrow. Show Him victorious as an enemy, terrible as a villain, merciful and trustworthy as a good one. Warm His heart to show concern to the poor, to welcome the strange, to intercede for those who suffer. Guiding the governments subordinate to him on the path of truth and righteousness and repelling partiality and bribery, and all the people entrusted to You by His power in unfeigned loyalty. Make His Father, O children, rejoicing, and may you surprise Your mercy on us. Multiply the days of His life in Indestructible health and unchangeable well-being; Grant in His days to all of us peace, silence, and prosperity, the goodness of the air, the fruitfulness of the earth, and everything necessary for temporary and eternal life” (“Prayer of Thanks to the Lord,” March 2 and May 15). "Peace factors in modern life." "Russian Thought". 1895 September. Page 114–119. And every true military man will deeply regret that this wonderful custom has been abandoned. In the last reign, fortunately, it was restored (note from the publisher or the author himself). M. I. Dragomirov. “Analysis of the novel “War and Peace.” Maple. 1895, pp. 92–94. "The rite of consecration of the banner." “The law of Your mouth is better to me than thousands of gold and silver.” Psalm. 118. Saint Athanasius of Alexandria. "Message to Ammun the Monk." "Zonara and Balsamon to the 13 rules of St. Basil the Great." I quote from the edition of Pikanovsky’s edition of “The Helmsman” of 1653. A. Lavrov, printed letter to Alexei Stepanovich Pavlov. 1876 Wed. 15th question and answer of St. Timothy of Alexandria. "Russian Thought", November, 1895, pp. 110–111. Synodik of the Church of the Intercession in Cheboksary (letters from the 18th century). News of the Kazan diocese, 1895, No. 18. You might be interested in: