495. Слово в день тезоименитства Благоверного Государя Наследника Цесаревича, Великого Князя Александра Николаевича

(Said in the Assumption Cathedral on August 30, 976.) Submit yourselves therefore to every human authority for the Lord's sake: whether to a king, as if he is predominant; or else to a prince, as if sent from him, for vengeance as a villain, or for praise as a doer of good. (1 Peter 2:13–14). This is how the Holy Apostle Peter teaches the Christians of his time to fulfill civic duties. Then there was a special need to instill in Christians obedience to the authorities: firstly, because, with the spread of the teaching about salvation through faith in Christ, and about the insignificance of the law of rituals, respect for the Law of Moses in general was shaken by misunderstandings, and therefore ordinary human laws began to seem even less important; secondly, because all the human authorities of that time were not Christian, and for the most part were hostile to Christianity. Now, when both the Tsar and the subject recognize the same Tsar as kings; when the Christian faith exalts and sanctifies the dignity of our King, and He mutually exalts and enthrones faith with Himself, protects from the infidels, patronizes, reassures, is zealous for the dissemination of its pure truths, its perfect virtues, law, authority, example, with that, however, generous tolerance towards the ignorant and erring, which the meek faith itself inspires; - here, where I see the chosen council of the sons of the kingdom, who came to give thanks to God for their Tsar, and for the hope of having him for posterity, as for a priceless gift from heaven, and to pray for the preservation of this gift; - now, and here, to proclaim the commandment of obedience to the Tsar and all authorities, which is as familiar to the heart as to the mind, is it necessary, is it not unnecessary, is it not even insulting? No, another Apostle teaches me to justify myself in this, “I am not lazy, but you are steadfast” (Phil. 3:1). That obedience in any society is necessary, that without it there can be neither order nor security, that society cannot exist on its own, this is obvious. People, whom disobedience has driven to such madness that they do not notice this evidence, flee from society, and in the wilds and forests they form a gathering of thieves and robbers. Well? Having reached the extreme of lawlessness, have they abandoned the law of obedience? Not at all. In order to act successfully, they are forced to obey, not the boss, but the villain, not the law, but a frantic will. Thus, the very enemies of obedience testify to the need for obedience. But even if there is obedience in a gathering of thieves and robbers, then it is impossible not to notice in this case that there is a kind of obedience that does not constitute a great virtue. Therefore, in the doctrine of obedience, it is especially important to determine the type of obedience that constitutes true and perfect virtue. For this reason, the Apostle, teaching obedience, drew attention to the question, for what reason should one obey? By the way, he notes that the leaders are sent from the Tsar, “for vengeance by a villain, and for praise by a benefactor.” So, a person can obey, either for his own benefit, because the rulers, sent to take revenge on the evildoers, protect his safety from every evildoer; - or for the sake of fear, because the bosses taking revenge on the villains would turn vengeance on the disobedient one, as if he were doing evil to the whole society, which is established by obedience and destroyed by disobedience; - or for the sake of praise and glory, because the princes, sent to praise the benefactor, among other virtues, distinguish and reward accuracy of obedience. We have discovered three types of obedience: selfish for one's own benefit, slavish out of fear, ambitious for achieving advantages. What should be said about their dignity? “Undoubtedly, they are all better than disobedience; all can, in different cases, be successfully used against the temptations of disobedience: but is there pure and solid virtue here? In whom only fear dominates and drives thought and will from evil to good: he is good only in front of fear, and is already evil behind fear. Whoever avoids evil and does good only for his own benefit, which comes from such behavior, has, either by deliberate calculation, or without noticing it, already placed his own self-interest above virtue. Ambition, no matter how hard they try to give it a noble and sublime appearance, is also self-interest, only refined, which does not put heavy self-interest in a dark closet, but catches light and shiny self-interest with which one could decorate one’s name, or the opening of one’s clothes, and which would float through the air in popular rumor. Therefore, one can judge whether selfish, slavish and ambitious obedience is pure virtue. A virtue that is not quite pure cannot be quite constant, just as impure gold changes its appearance and shows impurity. Just as it is natural that every action should be equal to its cause and should not extend beyond it: so one should expect that obedience, based only on fear, on self-interest, on the satisfaction of ambition, will waver when ambition is not satisfied, either through the inattention of the rewarder, or through the greed of ambition itself, when the obedience required by the common good is contrary to private benefits; when frightening with legal vengeance or punishment, the power is either not quite strong, or not quite insightful and active. Before we speak, according to the instructions of the Apostle, about the best and most perfect kind of obedience, let me be allowed to mention in passing how the wise men of this age teach public obedience, who did not want to learn from fishermen. One must, they say, obey public authorities, on the basis of a social contract by which people were united into society, and for the common good, by common consent they established superiority and subordination. This is an excellent basis for building a state on it, in a highly intelligent book or in a dreamy head, and not at all in the nature of things. If they think that it is impossible to found a society otherwise than on a social contract, then isn’t the society of bees and ants based on it? And shouldn’t those who truly break out honeycombs and tear up anthills be instructed to look for the established charter of bees and ants in them? And until this is done, nothing prevents us from thinking that bees and ants form societies not by agreement, but by nature, by the idea of ​​​​communication impressed in their being, which the Creator of the world deigned to embody in this low circle of His creatures. If, however, an example was found in nature of composing a society according to nature itself, or according to a purpose from the Creator of nature: then is it necessary to invent another way of composing human society? And what good is the fiction of a social contract? No one can argue against the fact that the initial type of society is a family society. So, the baby obeys the mother, and the mother has power over the baby, is it because they agreed among themselves so that she would breastfeed him, and he would scream as little as possible when he was swaddled? What if the mother offered the baby conditions that were too harsh? Will the inventors of the social contract order him to go to someone else’s mother and negotiate with her about his upbringing? How convenient the application of the social contract is in this case: it is almost as convenient in all other cases, for every person, from baby to old man, from first to last. Any human agreement can only be valid when it is entered into with consciousness and good will. How many people are there in society who have heard about the social contract? and of the few who have heard a lot about him, how many have a clear understanding of him? Ask, I don’t say an ordinary citizen, ask a sage of contracts: when and how did he enter into a social contract? During adulthood? But who determined this time? And was he outside of society until he came of age?.. Through birth? This is excellent. With this thought, I gladly congratulate every Russian for the fact that he was able, I don’t know, with his parents, or with Russia itself, to come to an agreement so that he could be born in powerful Russia, under a government that is both strong and authoritative, and at the same time meek and favorable to legal freedom. The only thing to fear is that neither the child nor the parents thought about this agreement at one time, and therefore, to refer to it now does not mean to falsify it? And consequently, wouldn’t it be more correct, since it is simpler, both in obedience and in other relations to society, to understand the right and duty of the birth of a real, instead of a fictitious contract - this dream of social life, which, being told at the wrong time, has produced and is producing material disasters in human societies. “The transgressors have told me mockery, but not like Thy law, O Lord” (Ps. 119:85). I return to the teaching of Your servants, who alone know how to teach, and for a child it is simple, and for a wise man it is profound, and for the future life it is salutary, and for the present it is beneficial in all respects. The true and perfect, properly Christian image of obedience to superiors is revealed by the Apostle when he says: “Obey yourself, ... for the Lord’s sake.” You know that the Lord created you; that in His providence He continually protects you and cares for you; that, finally, He arranges for you eternal salvation. You have come to know Him; believed in Him; you feel either very love for Him, or at least a complete obligation to love Him, “for He loved us first” (1 John 4:19), and to obey His will without limit. But how He rules over all, and how He does good to you through human society; then mutually and through you he wants to do good to human society, among other things through the simplest means - through obedience. So, out of faith in Him, out of love for Him, out of obedience to Him - in the word “For the Lord’s sake, submit yourselves... to every human authority.” Subject this kind of obedience to any tests you like - in purity, in firmness, in perfection; he is able to withstand anything. Let there be no fear, let never human forgiveness be threatened for disobedience; a Christian will obey, because the Lord looks at his obedience with the eye of love, and would look at disobedience with the eye of wrath. Let there be no benefit or praise to the faithful in obedience; a Christian will remain such because praise from God, in conscience, rewards him completely sufficiently; because his external benefits are in the care of the Lord, and will be faithfully preserved as long as this is in accordance with his internal good. Even if the faithful in obedience were confronted with infidelity, seduction, reproach for the very fidelity: there is no need, says the teacher of perfect obedience, who foresaw this extreme temptation: “obey” the lawful “authority of the Lord for the sake of”, even then, even if vice and disaster rebelled with extreme forces against the virtue of obedience. “For this is the will of God, that it is good for those who do good to curb the ignorance of foolish men” (1 Peter 2:15). Russians! The thought of the Beloved Sovereign makes the duty of obedience easy and sweet for you. Christians! May the thought of God and Christ make the perfection of obedience desirable and easy for you. “Apologize, ...for the Lord’s sake.” Amen. We place this word from the handwritten collection of M. M. Evreinov, in which, however, neither the occasion nor the time of pronunciation is indicated. In the Index of words and speeches by M. Filaret, placed in the readings of the General. Love. Spirit. Enlightenment (Book 6) the following is said about this word: “This word is found in manuscripts under the name Philaret, but without indicating the occasion on which it was uttered; in one of the manuscripts it is marked as pronounced on the 30th day of August, 1830, i.e. on the name day of the Sovereign Heir; but we doubt that this note is undoubtedly correct because the word mentions those gathered “to give thanks to God for the King.” We do not share this doubt because we find it natural to give thanks to God and for the King when such thanks is offered for His Heir. Moreover, the word mentions those gathered to “give thanks to God” not only “for their King,” but “and for the hope of having Him for posterity.” You might be interested in: