Freedom of conscience has its limits

(This diary was distributed to the members of the State Council before the consideration of the bill on "Old Believer communities".)

A special commission of the City Council worked for the whole winter on the draft law on Old Believer communities, devoted 30 meetings to this matter, and finally presented its work to the general meeting of the City Council. The Duma bill, which last year so confused the conscience of the faithful children of the Church with its anti-church character, has undergone a radical revision and has become, it seems, acceptable.

We live in an amazing time: a time of menacing phrases and vague, vague concepts. That is why we often deceive ourselves. The fact is that the wider a known concept is, the more abstract it is, the easier it is to substitute attributes in it. And this is done all the more quickly because now we have lost the habit of thinking strictly about what we read, what we write and say. After all, we live in an age of newspaper frivolity: how many of the intellectuals today read strictly scientific, maturely thought out books? And when a newspaper scribbler lets out some fashionable word, they pick it up, and run around with it, as with the last word of science and human thought. Our ancestors loved to think deeply about every word, treating the printed word especially honestly, and remembered the strict testament of our Savior: "Every idle word, whatsoever men speak, they shall render a word about it on the day of judgment" (Matt. 12:36). A monument to such an honest attitude to the word is our native language: what precision of the features of the concept in each word! We do not know how to find our own word in our native language to denote a new concept, and we often borrow ready-made words from foreign languages, and we have so full of these borrowings in the printed word that an ordinary person without a dictionary sometimes cannot read our writings. And our ancestors created the language in a truly creative way: every word is a pure diamond! That is why it is a real pleasure to study the roots of native words. Take, for example, the words: "man", "book", "nightingale", "baptism"... How many of us know the roots of these words? And yet in these roots are indicated the most essential features of the concepts denoted by them. We imagine that our ancestors were complete ignoramuses, but in fact it is not they, but we who are truly such ignorant in comparison with them. We rattle with our tongues the words they have left us as a treasure as a treasure, but we often do not suspect their meaning, their true meaning. We imagine ourselves to be so clever, so advanced people, that our ancestors are not far from us! You can't reach it with your hand. And if our ancestors had risen from their graves and given us an exam in our native language, you see, and we, such "educated" descendants, would be ashamed. And this frivolity, this - excuse me - our ignorance is used by those who benefit from muddying the waters in order to catch a fish in troubled waters, as the proverb says. They will let some catchphrase walk among us, so broad in its meaning that you can substitute any signs for it, and we will catch it and run around with it... Recently, a lot of such words have been released not only in newspapers, but also in bills. The latter is already a considerable danger, because, having penetrated into the laws, imprecise, insufficiently defined, and elastic concepts can muddy life. Such, for example, is the word: "freedom of conscience." What is conscience? This is the law placed by God in the spiritual nature of man for the moral and religious life of a rational being. And what is freedom? In itself, this word represents some kind of emptiness that needs to be filled. In fact, it means simply - the absence of restrictions on activity, and nothing more. What kind of activity - nothing can be seen from this word. Meanwhile, the conscience, darkened by the fall of the first-created man, is not at all the same among people. The conscience of an Orthodox Christian demands that we wish good even to our enemies, that we do not attract dissidents even to our holy, saving faith by violence and persecution, that we treat everyone with love and benevolence. The conscience of the Talmudist, on the contrary, considers it a virtue to kill the "goy", allows him to be calmly robbed, to inflict all kinds of evil on him. The conscience of the confessor of the Koran demands the extermination of the "giaurs", the spread of the false teaching of Mohammed with fire and sword. The conscience of the pagan kings demanded severe measures of struggle against Christianity. And Christians do not always and not all have the same conscience: the Jesuit's conscience recognizes the rule that the end justifies the means, the Roman Catholic conscience does not prevent the persecution of Lutherans and Orthodox; The same is admitted, although not as openly as among the Roman Catholics, by the conscience of the Lutheran, Protestant, Baptist, Molokian: at least deception, the so-called "pious deception," is often practiced among them. But our Orthodox conscience is not the same for everyone: there is a scrupulous, scrupulous conscience, there is a burned conscience, etc. Now, if we are to speak of the law, which requires special precision of expression, of freedom of conscience, then it is permissible to ask: what kind of conscience? Religious? But I have already said above that sometimes, according to our Christian concepts, it demands from the Talmudists and Mohammedans precisely what is inadmissible by the most elementary laws of human coexistence and common sense. Thus, the concept of "freedom of conscience" has to be limited. It is impossible to allow a Talmudist and a Mohammedan in the name of their religious convictions to exterminate the "giaur" and "goyim", in other words, us, Christians. Let them believe, as they know, we will not persecute them for their inner convictions, but if they begin to put their convictions into practice, if they touch upon our Christian freedom, let them excuse us: we cannot allow this, even if their "free conscience" demands it. We must deprive them of freedom, tie their hands. We should not follow Tolstoy's theory of non-resistance to evil.

But it is not only the body that can be touched: the dissident can also touch the cherished shrines of the human heart, can insult them, can steal these shrines from the heart not only by violence, but also by propaganda of false teachings. We are told: "The profession of faith is naturally expressed not only in the clear and tangible manifestation of one's religious convictions, but also in the desire to lead others along the path of salvation of the soul which the believer finds to be the only right one." This is true. If I believe that my faith alone is holy and saving, then, of course, I must spread it by all the measures that my conscience prescribes to me. But that's the point: what kind of conscience? The conscience of a schismatic belonging to a wandering sect enjoins him to preach that the Antichrist now reigns; the conscience of the priestless commands him to preach that there is no priesthood, there are no sacraments, and, consequently, it is possible to live in fornication; the conscience of every schismatic demands that he blaspheme our holy Mother Orthodox Church: after all, the entire preaching of schismatic false teachers consists precisely in revealing the Church and her sacraments, her ministers, in every possible way: well, in the name of the liberal principle of freedom of conscience, should such preaching be allowed? - The most dangerous deception is deception through truth. We are told that the schismatics have a desire to lead us along the same path of salvation in which they themselves imagine themselves to be saved. This is natural, this is true. But who knows what they want and will want in the name of such truth and freedom of their conscience? They will want to demand that all our historical shrines be given to them: for example, the Kremlin cathedrals; they will, and, of course, give them such freedom to want - they would already like our Sovereign to go over to their consent; After all, their conscience demands it, and she is free... But who will say that their desire, their demand, should be satisfied? So it is with regard to freedom of preaching: they would like to make all Orthodox Christians schismatics like themselves: so should they be given the freedom to draw all Orthodox Rus' into schism? Thank God: the fundamental laws grant this right exclusively to the Orthodox Church. Thank God: our state has not yet separated from its native Church, it still values its life-giving activity, it still knows how to distinguish truth from falsehood in its laws, it does not put schismatic wisdom on the same level with church teaching. Thank God: our government, as a benevolent father, will not allow its children, loyal subjects of the Orthodox Tsar Autocrat, to be corrupted by heresies and false teachings. It would be insane to allow all this in the name of some falsely understood freedom of conscience of the schismatics. It is necessary to preserve and preserve the freedom of our Orthodox simpletons, who are unable to distinguish the right hand from the left in matters of faith – falsehood from truth, pernicious deception from salvific teaching. We are told that our "multi-million people are convinced that for the triumph of the Orthodox Church there is no need for any restrictions on the religious freedom of people of other faiths." Perhaps this is partly true, but the question is, how and what is meant by this religious freedom? If we understand that "let each one pray to God in his own way," then this is hardly the complete truth: there is no doubt that the Orthodox would like not only schismatics, but all Mohammedans, Jews and pagans to convert to the Orthodox faith: after all, the logic of the heart, the logic of convictions is the same for everyone; If the schismatic "strives to lead the Orthodox to the path of his salvation," then does not the Orthodox wish the same for all schismatics? Why do they want to have two brands here? This is the first thing. And secondly, our Orthodox people, complacently admitting that each one should pray to God in his own way, is not at all so indifferent to the fact that they begin to seduce their brothers into another, even "old" faith. He is deeply indignant when he hears blasphemy against his native Church; not being able to verbally defend his beliefs, dear to him, he often uses physical pressure against seducers. Can the Orthodox government be indifferent to the seduction of its Orthodox subjects in schism, not to mention sects and heterodox? Is it possible to protect them from all kinds of seducers? And why would it remove itself from such a fence? In the name of what would he give an open leaf to every false teacher to blaspheme the Church and seduce the Orthodox? In the name of freedom? But for God's sake, consider: for the question is not whether unlimited freedom of preaching is possible or not - there seems to be no doubt that boundaries are necessary - the question is only where to draw these boundaries? After all, the government will not allow it to preach that the Tsar is the Antichrist, that one should not pay taxes to the Antichrist and give him soldiers, that church marriage is fornication, and fornication is a venial sin: "Give birth seven times, but do not marry," and so on. Absurdities. It means that there is a border. They say that this border is a danger to the state and public morality. But - first: the state is in union with the Church, isn't the danger for the Church a danger for the state as well? Are church troubles useful for the state? Blasphemy against the Church, desecration of Orthodox shrines - does it not dishonor the state? Do not think that schismatics are such meek lambs: they are capable not only of mocking the Church and its ministers, but of every Orthodox Christian, if only they feel their freedom. And will all this correspond to the goal that the legislator has set for the laws on freedom of confession: "the exaltation of the Orthodox Church?" Secondly, the freedom to disseminate schismatic false teachings will undoubtedly undermine general morality. Remember that every false teaching, including schism, is infected with terrible pride: we, the ministers of the Church, ask you to take this at our word - their entire religious life in its manifestation, in its deeds, is based on unconscious hypocrisy; "Incapable like other men"... Is this substitution of moral ideals really useful for the state? And in the name of what? In the name of some abstract principle: give freedom to lies and do not hinder their propaganda! Is this really such a sacred principle that it cannot be abandoned? Is it possible to wish that its preachers would experience the sweetness of its fruits on their children? If their children were to be seduced into schism and began to blaspheme the Holy Church, began to blaspheme them, their parents, for not following in their footsteps, what would they say about such freedom? - And in this question the concepts of supporters of freedom of proverb or propaganda are substituted: instead of the frank word "dissemination of false teachings" they say - exposition and explanation of the teaching. But that is the point: listen, if you do not believe the missionaries, what is all this "exposition and explanation"? - In nothing but blasphemy against church teaching. We are told that such freedom of preaching has long been allowed at "interviews." Again, a substitution of concepts: an interview and the preaching of a false teaching with the aim of spreading it are not at all the same thing. During the interview, the blasphemies of the schismatic teachers are immediately exposed, and their effect on the Orthodox listeners is immediately paralyzed. The word "preaching" can be called the same substitution of concepts. What do they want to understand by this word? We are told that it simply means the exposition and exposition of doctrine. But from what can this be seen? Why can't a schismatic understand what he wants? He will say: "The law gives us the right to preach, and to preach means to spread our teaching." And he will be right, because he cannot understand this word otherwise than in its broadest sense. And the law does not limit this value.

In order to give more scope to the propaganda of schism under the cover of freedom of preaching, the defenders of this freedom want to allow it everywhere on the basis of the general law on freedom of assembly and speech. A schismatic teacher will come to the village, tell the police that he wants to arrange a meeting, get permission, gather the simpletons and begin to scold the Church and its ministers. I have already said that the entire sermon of schismatic preachers boils down to this topic. And this will be done, according to the meaning of the law, allegedly "for the greater exaltation of the Orthodox Church"! Such preaching will resonate with pain in the souls of simple people - Orthodox listeners; some of them will hesitate, not knowing how to repel the attack of the false teacher on the Church, others, on the contrary, may rush at him in indignation, and then what should a representative of the police, some sergeant, or simply a village headman do? Of course, he will have to protect the preacher from violence, but thereby put these simpletons in deep bewilderment, who are defending their faith from a blasphemer-schismatic...

We are frightened: "Any restriction of the effect of privileges already proclaimed is capable of causing bewilderment among the Old Believer population, ready to turn into disappointment and confusion, not far from the Time of Troubles, under favorable circumstances." Again overexposure. In the Highest Decrees there is not a word about the freedom of propaganda - preaching, and what the State Duma has given or "announced" is not yet the Highest decree. If freedom of propaganda is already going on in places, then this is done simply by the right of seizure, apart from any law. This should be cut short as the rapture of the ungifted. What is clearly and precisely indicated in the Highest Decrees, let it enter into life, but by no means more. Any extension of the law is already its distortion. And in relation to the schism, which is itself a distortion of the truth, such an expansion is a deliberate promotion of the spread of lies and errors. - They want to console us with Article 84 of the Criminal Statute, which punishes those guilty of seducing Orthodox Christians into schism through abuse of power (which, of course, false teachers do not have, and, consequently, this does not apply to them), coercion, seduction, promises of profit, deception, violence or threat. But here all this, firstly, must be proved in each individual case, and secondly, it does not belong to the case. None of these signs will be found in the free preaching of the schismatic, and he will always remain right, for he does not coerce, does not threaten, does not abuse power, does not coerce; True, he deceives and deceives, promising the Kingdom of Heaven to those who follow him, but he himself is convinced that he is right, that this is how he should be done... Consequently, this article will never have to be applied to the propagandists of the schism.

I reduce everything to brief provisions. Conscience is an inner law, a law placed by God in the heart of man, a law hidden in this heart so deeply that no one can constrain it or limit it in its inner action, except for the bearer of this law himself, man. Another thing is the manifestation of this law externally, in word, in deed. But it will no longer be freedom of conscience, but freedom of speech, freedom of action in relation to others. To confuse these concepts means to replace them with one another. Freedom of speech, freedom of action of one person is always necessarily limited by the same freedom of others who come into contact with him. When a false teacher spreads his false teaching, he already touches the conscience of others, often weak, who are not able, in their simplicity, to contradict him. From his point of view, according to the judgment of his distorted conscience, he does good. But if the law distinguishes truth from falsehood, if it is not indifferent to it whether the true teaching or the harmful lie is spread, whether the Russian people are enlightened by the grace-filled teaching of Orthodoxy, which educates the people's spirit, or whether they are infected with irreconcilable enmity towards it, enmity towards the Church, the ally of the state, then it must stand guard over the truth and firmly say to the false teacher: "Go away until now and not take a step further!" Don't you dare touch someone else's conscience! Here is the limit to the freedom of the false teacher, the limit is not to the freedom of his conscience - let him believe as he wishes, pray as he pleases - but the limit to the freedom of his speech, his actions (for, having allowed freedom of speech, it is no longer logical to deny freedom of action). The need to set such limits naturally follows, first, from the sense of state self-preservation: as long as Russia lives by the ideals of Orthodoxy, the state is obliged, in its own interests, to protect these ideals from distortion and destruction, the Orthodox conscience from insult, the spiritual unity of the Russian people from fragmentation into sects, brotherly love from sectarian enmity and spiritual strife. Secondly, the limits of freedom of propaganda are needed for the state out of respect for the holy truth of Christ, recognized by the Orthodox state, and in the name of simple justice: it is necessary to protect the simpletons from invasion of their conscience; The Orthodox state cannot calmly watch how the defenseless infants of faith are taken by the enemy and taken captive by errors, how he sows enmity, the most bitter - religious enmity between the Russian people, between members of one and the same family. Finally, the law must put a limit to the freedom of all propaganda in order not to contradict itself. If the right to attract dissident believers to one's confession is granted by our Fundamental Laws to the Orthodox Church alone, then it is clear that such a right does not exist for all sects and schisms, and consequently any propaganda of false teachings should be prohibited by law. And this is all the more so since our Tsar is called in the laws the defender and protector of the Orthodox Church, which designation would turn into a simple honorific title, if the law did not protect his vitality by strictly forbidding any propaganda by threatening punishment for it...

Сторонникам раскола очень хотелось бы, чтобы закон называл их духовных (какие они "духовные"! Ведь в расколе благодати нет) - "священнослужителями". Ссылаются на римско-католиков и армян, указывая, что вот-де не боятся же называть их митрополитов, епископов и др. духовных лиц присвоенными им именами. Да, не боимся, ибо и у католиков, и у армян православная Церковь признает иерархию и приемлет от них приходящих в их сущем сане. А раскольничьих лжеархиереев и попов она признает простыми мирянами и принимает их как мирян. Уже по одному этому нельзя заставить закон величать их так, как величают раскольники. Но, кроме того: довольно с них и того, что закон усвоил им вовсе на деле им не принадлежащее наименование якобы "старообрядцев": ведь если уж прилагать сей термин, то позволительно было бы не к раскольникам, а только к единоверцам. И почему это такая милость к раскольникам: нас хотят заставить величать даже по закону их лжеиерархов и попов священнослужителями, а вот нам хотят запретить называть их так, как велит нам наша православная совесть? Ведь уж если свобода и уважение к совести и убеждению, так и нам дайте сию свободу! Позвольте нам именовать их так, как велит нам Церковь своими канонами, а не мирская власть ее законами. Я уже не говорю о том, что наименование священнослужителями раскольничьих лжепопов и лжеархиереев будет великим соблазном для простецов православных. Ведь наша простота доходит до того, что в пребывание армянского католикоса в Петербурге простецы подходили к нему под благословение, хотя по канонам церковным он и есть еретик. Надо же ограждать младенчествующих в вере от соблазна, а для сего гражданский закон должен держаться, по крайней мере, в сем отношении воззрений православной Церкви и не угодничать пред расколом. Во имя терпимости к расколу не оскорбляйте православных. Не забывайте, что и правительство наше должно быть по духу только православное...

Христиане ли мы?

Вместо очередных дневников на темы по вопросам о текущих явлениях церковной, общественной и государственной жизни, хочу побеседовать с читателями "Троицкого Слова" на более тревожную тему: христиане ли мы? Ряд бесед на эту тему был предложен мною в доме одной почтенной ревнительницы Православной Церкви в Петербурге (слава Богу: еще есть такие и в маловерном Петербурге); сущность их и предлагаю здесь, хотя эти размышления уже и изданы мною в виде книжки, под названием "Где же наше христианство?".

I