"THE KINGDOM OF GOD IS
WITHIN YOU"
[Illustration: titlepage]
"THE KINGDOM OF GOD IS
WITHIN YOU"
_CHRISTIANITY NOT AS A MYSTIC RELIGION
BUT AS A NEW THEORY OF LIFE_
TRANSLATED FROM THE RUSSIAN OF
COUNT LEO TOLSTOY
BY
CONSTANCE GARNETT
NEW YORK
THE CASSELL PUBLISHING CO.
31 EAST 17TH ST. (UNION SQUARE)
COPYRIGHT, 1894, BY
THE CASSELL PUBLISHING CO.
_All rights reserved._
THE MERSHON COMPANY PRESS,
RAHWAY, N. J.
TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE.
The book I have had the privilege of translating is, undoubtedly,
one of the most remarkable studies of the social and psychological
condition of the modern world which has appeared in Europe for many
years, and its influence is sure to be lasting and far reaching.
Tolstoy's genius is beyond dispute. The verdict of the civilized
world has pronounced him as perhaps the greatest novelist of our
generation. But the philosophical and religious works of his later
years have met with a somewhat indifferent reception. They have
been much talked about, simply because they were his work, but, as
Tolstoy himself complains, they have never been seriously discussed.
I hardly think that he will have to repeat the complaint in regard
to the present volume. One may disagree with his views, but no one
can seriously deny the originality, boldness, and depth of the social
conception which he develops with such powerful logic. The novelist
has shown in this book the religious fervor and spiritual insight
of the prophet; yet one is pleased to recognize that the artist is
not wholly lost in the thinker. The subtle intuitive perception of
the psychological basis of the social position, the analysis of the
frame of mind of oppressors and oppressed, and of the intoxication of
Authority and Servility, as well as the purely descriptive passages
in the last chapter--these could only have come from the author of
"War and Peace."
The book will surely give all classes of readers much to think of,
and must call forth much criticism. It must be refuted by those who
disapprove of its teaching, if they do not want it to have great
influence.
One cannot of course anticipate that English people, slow as they are
to be influenced by ideas, and instinctively distrustful of all that
is logical, will take a leap in the dark and attempt to put Tolstoy's
theory of life into practice. But one may at least be sure that his
destructive criticism of the present social and political _régime_
will become a powerful force in the work of disintegration and social
reconstruction which is going on around us. Many earnest thinkers
who, like Tolstoy, are struggling to find their way out of the
contradictions of our social order will hail him as their spiritual
guide. The individuality of the author is felt in every line of his
work, and even the most prejudiced cannot resist the fascination
of his genuineness, sincerity, and profound earnestness. Whatever
comes from a heart such as his, swelling with anger and pity at the
sufferings of humanity, cannot fail to reach the hearts of others. No
reader can put down the book without feeling himself better and more
truth-loving for having read it.
Many readers may be disappointed with the opening chapters of the
book. Tolstoy disdains all attempt to captivate the reader. He
begins by laying what he considers to be the logical foundation
of his doctrines, stringing together quotations from little-known
theological writers, and he keeps his own incisive logic for the
later part of the book.
One word as to the translation. Tolstoy's style in his religious and
philosophical works differs considerably from that of his novels.
He no longer cares about the form of his work, and his style is
often slipshod, involved, and diffuse. It has been my aim to give a
faithful reproduction of the original.
CONSTANCE GARNETT.
_January, 1894._
PREFACE.
In the year 1884 I wrote a book under the title "What I Believe," in
which I did in fact make a sincere statement of my beliefs.
In affirming my belief in Christ's teaching, I could not help
explaining why I do not believe, and consider as mistaken, the
Church's doctrine, which is usually called Christianity.
Among the many points in which this doctrine falls short of the
doctrine of Christ I pointed out as the principal one the absence of
any commandment of non-resistance to evil by force. The perversion
of Christ's teaching by the teaching of the Church is more clearly
apparent in this than in any other point of difference.
I know--as we all do--very little of the practice and the spoken and
written doctrine of former times on the subject of non-resistance to
evil. I knew what had been said on the subject by the fathers of the
Church--Origen, Tertullian, and others--I knew too of the existence
of some so-called sects of Mennonites, Herrnhuters, and Quakers,
who do not allow a Christian the use of weapons, and do not enter
military service; but I knew little of what had been done by these
so-called sects toward expounding the question.
My book was, as I had anticipated, suppressed by the Russian
censorship; but partly owing to my literary reputation, partly
because the book had excited people's curiosity, it circulated
in manuscript and in lithographed copies in Russia and through
translations abroad, and it evoked, on one side, from those who
shared my convictions, a series of essays with a great deal of
information on the subject, on the other side a series of criticisms
on the principles laid down in my book.
A great deal was made clear to me by both hostile and sympathetic
criticism, and also by the historical events of late years; and I was
led to fresh results and conclusions, which I wish now to expound.
First I will speak of the information I received on the history of
the question of non-resistance to evil; then of the views of this
question maintained by spiritual critics, that is, by professed
believers in the Christian religion, and also by temporal ones, that
is, those who do not profess the Christian religion; and lastly I
will speak of the conclusions to which I have been brought by all
this in the light of the historical events of late years.
L. TOLSTOY.
YASNAÏA POLIANA,
_May 14/26, 1893_.
CONTENTS.
CHAPTER PAGE
I. THE DOCTRINE OF NON-RESISTANCE TO EVIL BY FORCE
HAS BEEN PROFESSED BY A MINORITY OF MEN FROM
THE VERY FOUNDATION OF CHRISTIANITY, 1
II. CRITICISMS OF THE DOCTRINE OF NON-RESISTANCE TO
EVIL BY FORCE ON THE PART OF BELIEVERS AND OF
UNBELIEVERS, 29
III. CHRISTIANITY MISUNDERSTOOD BY BELIEVERS, 48
IV. CHRISTIANITY MISUNDERSTOOD BY MEN OF SCIENCE, 85
V. CONTRADICTION BETWEEN OUR LIFE AND OUR CHRISTIAN
CONSCIENCE, 109
VI. ATTITUDE OF MEN OF THE PRESENT DAY TO WAR, 133
VII. SIGNIFICANCE OF COMPULSORY SERVICE, 164
VIII. DOCTRINE OF NON-RESISTANCE TO EVIL BY FORCE MUST
INEVITABLY BE ACCEPTED BY MEN OF THE PRESENT
DAY, 184
IX. THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE CHRISTIAN CONCEPTION OF
LIFE WILL EMANCIPATE MEN FROM THE MISERIES
OF OUR PAGAN LIFE, 208
X. EVIL CANNOT BE SUPPRESSED BY THE PHYSICAL FORCE
OF THE GOVERNMENT--THE MORAL PROGRESS OF
HUMANITY IS BROUGHT ABOUT NOT ONLY BY INDIVIDUAL
RECOGNITION OF THE TRUTH, BUT ALSO
THROUGH THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PUBLIC OPINION, 235
XI. THE CHRISTIAN CONCEPTION OF LIFE HAS ALREADY
ARISEN IN OUR SOCIETY, AND WILL INFALLIBLY PUT
AN END TO THE PRESENT ORGANIZATION OF OUR LIFE
BASED ON FORCE--WHEN THAT WILL BE, 264
XII. CONCLUSION--REPENT YE, FOR THE KINGDOM OF
HEAVEN IS AT HAND, 278
"Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you
free."--JOHN viii. 32.
"Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the
soul; but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and
body in hell."--MATT. x. 28.
"Ye have been bought with a price; be not ye the servants of
men."--1 COR. vii. 23.
"THE KINGDOM OF GOD IS WITHIN YOU."
CHAPTER I.
THE DOCTRINE OF NON-RESISTANCE TO EVIL BY FORCE HAS BEEN
PROFESSED BY A MINORITY OF MEN FROM THE VERY FOUNDATION OF
CHRISTIANITY.
Of the Book "What I Believe"--The Correspondence Evoked
by it--Letters from Quakers--Garrison's Declaration--Adin
Ballou, his Works, his Catechism--Helchitsky's "Net of
Faith"--The Attitude of the World to Works Elucidating Christ's
Teaching--Dymond's Book "On War"--Musser's "Non-resistance
Asserted"--Attitude of the Government in 1818 to Men who Refused
to Serve in the Army--Hostile Attitude of Governments Generally
and of Liberals to Those who Refuse to Assist in Acts of State
Violence, and their Conscious Efforts to Silence and Suppress
these Manifestations of Christian Non-resistance.
Among the first responses called forth by my book were some letters
from American Quakers. In these letters, expressing their sympathy
with my views on the unlawfulness for a Christian of war and the
use of force of any kind, the Quakers gave me details of their own
so-called sect, which for more than two hundred years has actually
professed the teaching of Christ on non-resistance to evil by force,
and does not make use of weapons in self-defense. The Quakers sent
me also their pamphlets, journals, and books, from which I learnt
how they had, years ago, established beyond doubt the duty for a
Christian of fulfilling the command of non-resistance to evil by
force, and had exposed the error of the Church's teaching in allowing
war and capital punishment.
In a whole series of arguments and texts showing that war--that is,
the wounding and killing of men--is inconsistent with a religion
founded on peace and good will toward men, the Quakers maintain
and prove that nothing has contributed so much to the obscuring of
Christian truth in the eyes of the heathen, and has hindered so much
the diffusion of Christianity through the world, as the disregard of
this command by men calling themselves Christians, and the permission
of war and violence to Christians.
"Christ's teaching, which came to be known to men, not by means of
violence and the sword," they say, "but by means of non-resistance to
evil, gentleness, meekness, and peaceableness, can only be diffused
through the world by the example of peace, harmony, and love among
its followers."
"A Christian, according to the teaching of God himself, can act only
peaceably toward all men, and therefore there can be no authority
able to force the Christian to act in opposition to the teaching of
God and to the principal virtue of the Christian in his relation with
his neighbors."
"The law of state necessity," they say, "can force only those to
change the law of God who, for the sake of earthly gains, try to
reconcile the irreconcilable; but for a Christian who sincerely
believes that following Christ's teaching will give him salvation,
such considerations of state can have no force."
Further acquaintance with the labors of the Quakers and their
works--with Fox, Penn, and especially the work of Dymond (published
in 1827)--showed me not only that the impossibility of reconciling
Christianity with force and war had been recognized long, long ago,
but that this irreconcilability had been long ago proved so clearly
and so indubitably that one could only wonder how this impossible
reconciliation of Christian teaching with the use of force, which
has been, and is still, preached in the churches, could have been
maintained in spite of it.
In addition to what I learned from the Quakers I received about the
same time, also from America, some information on the subject from a
source perfectly distinct and previously unknown to me.
The son of William Lloyd Garrison, the famous champion of the
emancipation of the negroes, wrote to me that he had read my book, in
which he found ideas similar to those expressed by his father in the
year 1838, and that, thinking it would be interesting to me to know
this, he sent me a declaration or proclamation of "non-resistance"
drawn up by his father nearly fifty years ago.
This declaration came about under the following circumstances:
William Lloyd Garrison took part in a discussion on the means of
suppressing war in the Society for the Establishment of Peace among
Men, which existed in 1838 in America. He came to the conclusion
that the establishment of universal peace can only be founded on
the open profession of the doctrine of non-resistance to evil by
violence (Matt. v. 39), in its full significance, as understood by
the Quakers, with whom Garrison happened to be on friendly relations.
Having come to this conclusion, Garrison thereupon composed and laid
before the society a declaration, which was signed at the time--in
1838--by many members.
"DECLARATION OF SENTIMENTS ADOPTED BY THE PEACE CONVENTION.
"BOSTON, 1838.
"We, the undersigned, regard it as due to ourselves, to the
cause which we love, to the country in which we live, to
publish a declaration expressive of the purposes we aim to
accomplish and the measures we shall adopt to carry forward the
work of peaceful universal reformation.
"We do not acknowledge allegiance to any human government.
We recognize but one King and Lawgiver, one Judge and Ruler
of mankind. Our country is the world, our countrymen are all
mankind. We love the land of our nativity only as we love all
other lands. The interests and rights of American citizens are
not dearer to us than those of the whole human race. Hence we
can allow no appeal to patriotism to revenge any national insult
or injury....
"We conceive that a nation has no right to defend itself against
foreign enemies or to punish its invaders, and no individual
possesses that right in his own case, and the unit cannot be of
greater importance than the aggregate. If soldiers thronging
from abroad with intent to commit rapine and destroy life may
not be resisted by the people or the magistracy, then ought no
resistance to be offered to domestic troublers of the public
peace or of private security.
"The dogma that all the governments of the world are approvingly
ordained of God, and that the powers that be in the United
States, in Russia, in Turkey, are in accordance with his will,
is no less absurd than impious. It makes the impartial Author
of our existence unequal and tyrannical. It cannot be affirmed
that the powers that be in any nation are actuated by the spirit
or guided by the example of Christ in the treatment of enemies;
therefore they cannot be agreeable to the will of God, and
therefore their overthrow by a spiritual regeneration of their
subjects is inevitable.
"We regard as unchristian and unlawful not only all wars,
whether offensive or defensive, but all preparations for
war; every naval ship, every arsenal, every fortification,
we regard as unchristian and unlawful; the existence of any
kind of standing army, all military chieftains, all monuments
commemorative of victory over a fallen foe, all trophies won
in battle, all celebrations in honor of military exploits, all
appropriations for defense by arms; we regard as unchristian and
unlawful every edict of government requiring of its subjects
military service.
"Hence we deem it unlawful to bear arms, and we cannot hold
any office which imposes on its incumbent the obligation to
compel men to do right on pain of imprisonment or death. We
therefore voluntarily exclude ourselves from every legislative
and judicial body, and repudiate all human politics, worldly
honors, and stations of authority. If we cannot occupy a seat
in the legislature or on the bench, neither can we elect others
to act as our substitutes in any such capacity. It follows that
we cannot sue any man at law to force him to return anything he
may have wrongly taken from us; if he has seized our coat, we
shall surrender him our cloak also rather than subject him to
punishment.
"We believe that the penal code of the old covenant--an eye for
an eye, and a tooth for a tooth--has been abrogated by Jesus
Christ, and that under the new covenant the forgiveness instead
of the punishment of enemies has been enjoined on all his
disciples in all cases whatsoever. To extort money from enemies,
cast them into prison, exile or execute them, is obviously not
to forgive but to take retribution.
"The history of mankind is crowded with evidences proving that
physical coercion is not adapted to moral regeneration, and that
the sinful dispositions of men can be subdued only by love; that
evil can be exterminated only by good; that it is not safe to
rely upon the strength of an arm to preserve us from harm; that
there is great security in being gentle, long-suffering, and
abundant in mercy; that it is only the meek who shall inherit
the earth; for those who take up the sword shall perish by the
sword.
"Hence as a measure of sound policy--of safety to property,
life, and liberty--of public quietude and private enjoyment--as
well as on the ground of allegiance to Him who is King of
kings and Lord of lords, we cordially adopt the non-resistance
principle, being confident that it provides for all possible
consequences, is armed with omnipotent power, and must
ultimately triumph over every assailing force.
"We advocate no Jacobinical doctrines. The spirit of Jacobinism
is the spirit of retaliation, violence, and murder. It neither
fears God nor regards man. We would be filled with the spirit of
Christ. If we abide by our fundamental principle of not opposing
evil by evil we cannot participate in sedition, treason,
or violence. We shall submit to every ordinance and every
requirement of government, except such as are contrary to the
commands of the Gospel, and in no case resist the operation of
law, except by meekly submitting to the penalty of disobedience.
"But while we shall adhere to the doctrine of non-resistance
and passive submission to enemies, we purpose, in a moral and
spiritual sense, to assail iniquity in high places and in low
places, to apply our principles to all existing evil, political,
legal, and ecclesiastical institutions, and to hasten the time
when the kingdoms of this world will have become the kingdom of
our Lord Jesus Christ. It appears to us a self-evident truth
that whatever the Gospel is designed to destroy at any period
of the world, being contrary to it, ought now to be abandoned.
If, then, the time is predicted when swords shall be beaten
into plowshares and spears into pruning hooks, and men shall
not learn the art of war any more, it follows that all who
manufacture, sell, or wield these deadly weapons do thus array
themselves against the peaceful dominion of the Son of God on
earth.
"Having thus stated our principles, we proceed to specify the
measures we propose to adopt in carrying our object into effect.
"We expect to prevail through the Foolishness of Preaching. We
shall endeavor to promulgate our views among all persons, to
whatever nation, sect, or grade of society they may belong.
Hence we shall organize public lectures, circulate tracts and
publications, form societies, and petition every governing body.
It will be our leading object to devise ways and means for
effecting a radical change in the views, feelings, and practices
of society respecting the sinfulness of war and the treatment of
enemies.
"In entering upon the great work before us, we are not unmindful
that in its prosecution we may be called to test our sincerity
even as in a fiery ordeal. It may subject us to insult, outrage,
suffering, yea, even death itself. We anticipate no small amount
of misconception, misrepresentation, and calumny. Tumults may
arise against us. The proud and pharisaical, the ambitious and
tyrannical, principalities and powers, may combine to crush
us. So they treated the Messiah whose example we are humbly
striving to imitate. We shall not be afraid of their terror.
Our confidence is in the Lord Almighty and not in man. Having
withdrawn from human protection, what can sustain us but that
faith which overcomes the world? We shall not think it strange
concerning the fiery trial which is to try us, but rejoice
inasmuch as we are partakers of Christ's sufferings.
"Wherefore we commit the keeping of our souls to God. For every
one that forsakes houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or
mother, or wife, or children, or lands for Christ's sake, shall
receive a hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.
"Firmly relying upon the certain and universal triumph of the
sentiments contained in this declaration, however formidable
may be the opposition arrayed against them, we hereby affix our
signatures to it; commending it to the reason and conscience
of mankind, and resolving, in the strength of the Lord God, to
calmly and meekly abide the issue."
Immediately after this declaration a Society for Non-resistance
was founded by Garrison, and a journal called the _Non-resistant_,
in which the doctrine of non-resistance was advocated in its full
significance and in all its consequences, as it had been expounded in
the declaration. Further information as to the ultimate destiny of
the society and the journal I gained from the excellent biography of
W. L. Garrison, the work of his son.
The society and the journal did not exist for long. The greater
number of Garrison's fellow-workers in the movement for the
liberation of the slaves, fearing that the too radical programme
of the journal, the _Non-resistant_, might keep people away from
the practical work of negro-emancipation, gave up the profession
of the principle of non-resistance as it had been expressed in the
declaration, and both society and journal ceased to exist.
This declaration of Garrison's gave so powerful and eloquent an
expression of a confession of faith of such importance to men, that
one would have thought it must have produced a strong impression on
people, and have become known throughout the world and the subject of
discussion on every side. But nothing of the kind occurred. Not only
was it unknown in Europe, even the Americans, who have such a high
opinion of Garrison, hardly knew of the declaration.
Another champion of non-resistance has been overlooked in the same
way--the American Adin Ballou, who lately died, after spending fifty
years in preaching this doctrine. How great the ignorance is of
everything relating to the question of non-resistance may be seen
from the fact that Garrison the son, who has written an excellent
biography of his father in four great volumes, in answer to my
inquiry whether there are existing now societies for non-resistance,
and adherents of the doctrine, told me that as far as he knew that
society had broken up, and that there were no adherents of that
doctrine, while at the very time when he was writing to me there was
living, at Hopedale in Massachusetts, Adin Ballou, who had taken part
in the labors of Garrison the father, and had devoted fifty years of
his life to advocating, both orally and in print, the doctrine of
non-resistance. Later on I received a letter from Wilson, a pupil and
colleague of Ballou's, and entered into correspondence with Ballou
himself. I wrote to Ballou, and he answered me and sent me his works.
Here is the summary of some extracts from them:
"Jesus Christ is my Lord and teacher," says Ballou in one of his
essays exposing the inconsistency of Christians who allowed a right
of self-defense and of warfare. "I have promised, leaving all else,
to follow him, through good and through evil, to death itself. But
I am a citizen of the democratic republic of the United States; and
in allegiance to it I have sworn to defend the Constitution of my
country, if need be, with my life. Christ requires of me to do unto
others as I would they should do unto me. The Constitution of the
United States requires of me to do unto two millions of slaves [at
that time there were slaves; now one might venture to substitute the
word 'laborers'] the very opposite of what I would they should do
unto me--that is, to help to keep them in their present condition of
slavery. And, in spite of this, I continue to elect or be elected, I
propose to vote, I am even ready to be appointed to any office under
government. That will not hinder me from being a Christian. I shall
still profess Christianity, and shall find no difficulty in carrying
out my covenant with Christ and with the government.
"Jesus Christ forbids me to resist evil doers, and to take from them
an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, bloodshed for bloodshed, and
life for life.
"My government demands from me quite the opposite, and bases a system
of self-defense on gallows, musket, and sword, to be used against its
foreign and domestic foes. And the land is filled accordingly with
gibbets, prisons, arsenals, ships of war, and soldiers.
"In the maintenance and use of these expensive appliances for murder,
we can very suitably exercise to the full the virtues of forgiveness
to those who injure us, love toward our enemies, blessings to those
who curse us, and doing good to those who hate us.
"For this we have a succession of Christian priests to pray for us
and beseech the blessing of Heaven on the holy work of slaughter.
"I see all this (_i. e._, the contradiction between profession and
practice), and I continue to profess religion and take part in
government, and pride myself on being at the same time a devout
Christian and a devoted servant of the government. I do not want
to agree with these senseless notions of non-resistance. I cannot
renounce my authority and leave only immoral men in control of the
government. The Constitution says the government has the right to
declare war, and I assent to this and support it, and swear that I
will support it. And I do not for that cease to be a Christian. War,
too, is a Christian duty. Is it not a Christian duty to kill hundreds
of thousands of one's fellow-men, to outrage women, to raze and burn
towns, and to practice every possible cruelty? It is time to dismiss
all these false sentimentalities. It is the truest means of forgiving
injuries and loving enemies. If we only do it in the spirit of love,
nothing can be more Christian than such murder."
In another pamphlet, entitled "How many Men are Necessary to Change a
Crime into a Virtue?" he says: "One man may not kill. If he kills a
fellow-creature, he is a murderer. If two, ten, a hundred men do so,
they, too, are murderers. But a government or a nation may kill as
many men as it chooses, and that will not be murder, but a great and
noble action. Only gather the people together on a large scale, and a
battle of ten thousand men becomes an innocent action. But precisely
how many people must there be to make it so?--that is the question.
One man cannot plunder and pillage, but a whole nation can. But
precisely how many are needed to make it permissible? Why is it that
one man, ten, a hundred, may not break the law of God, but a great
number may?"
And here is a version of Ballou's catechism composed for his flock:
CATECHISM OF NON-RESISTANCE.
_Q._ Whence is the word "non-resistance" derived?
_A._ From the command, "Resist not evil." (M. v. 39.)
_Q._ What does this word express?
_A._ It expresses a lofty Christian virtue enjoined on us by Christ.
_Q._ Ought the word "non-resistance" to be taken in its widest
sense--that is to say, as intending that we should not offer any
resistance of any kind to evil?
_A._ No; it ought to be taken in the exact sense of our Saviour's
teaching--that is, not repaying evil for evil. We ought to oppose
evil by every righteous means in our power, but not by evil.
_Q._ What is there to show that Christ enjoined non-resistance in
that sense?
_A._ It is shown by the words he uttered at the same time. He said:
"Ye have heard, it was said of old, An eye for an eye, and a tooth
for a tooth. But I say unto you Resist not evil. But if one smites
thee on the right cheek, turn him the other also; and if one will go
to law with thee to take thy coat from thee, give him thy cloak also."
_Q._ Of whom was he speaking in the words, "Ye have heard it was said
of old"?
_A._ Of the patriarchs and the prophets, contained in the Old
Testament, which the Hebrews ordinarily call the Law and the Prophets.
_Q._ What utterances did Christ refer to in the words, "It was said
of old"?
_A._ The utterances of Noah, Moses, and the other prophets, in which
they admit the right of doing bodily harm to those who inflict harm,
so as to punish and prevent evil deeds.
_Q._ Quote such utterances.
_A._ "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be
shed."--GEN. ix. 6.
"He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to
death.... And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for
life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."--EX. xxi.
12 and 23-25.
"He that killeth any man shall surely be put to death. And if a man
cause a blemish in his neighbor, as he hath done, so shall it be done
unto him: breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth."--LEV.
xxiv. 17, 19, 20.
"Then the judges shall make diligent inquisition; and behold, if the
witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his
brother, then shall ye do unto him as he had thought to have done
unto his brother.... And thine eye shall not pity; but life shall
go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for
foot."--DEUT. xix. 18, 21.
Noah, Moses, and the Prophets taught that he who kills, maims,
or injures his neighbors does evil. To resist such evil, and to
prevent it, the evil doer must be punished with death, or maiming,
or some physical injury. Wrong must be opposed by wrong, murder by
murder, injury by injury, evil by evil. Thus taught Noah, Moses,
and the Prophets. But Christ rejects all this. "I say unto you," is
written in the Gospel, "resist not evil," do not oppose injury with
injury, but rather bear repeated injury from the evil doer. What was
permitted is forbidden. When we understand what kind of resistance
they taught, we know exactly what resistance Christ forbade.
_Q._ Then the ancients allowed the resistance of injury by injury?
_A._ Yes. But Jesus forbids it. The Christian has in no case the
right to put to death his neighbor who has done him evil, or to do
him injury in return.
_Q._ May he kill or maim him in self-defense?
_A._ No.
_Q._ May he go with a complaint to the judge that he who has wronged
him may be punished?
_A._ No. What he does through others, he is in reality doing himself.
_Q._ Can he fight in conflict with foreign enemies or disturbers of
the peace?
_A._ Certainly not. He cannot take any part in war or in preparations
for war. He cannot make use of a deadly weapon. He cannot oppose
injury to injury, whether he is alone or with others, either in
person or through other people.
_Q._ Can he voluntarily vote or furnish soldiers for the government?
_A._ He can do nothing of that kind if he wishes to be faithful to
Christ's law.
_Q._ Can he voluntarily give money to aid a government resting on
military force, capital punishment, and violence in general?
_A._ No, unless the money is destined for some special object, right
in itself, and good both in aim and means.
_Q._ Can he pay taxes to such a government?
_A._ No; he ought not voluntarily to pay taxes, but he ought not to
resist the collecting of taxes. A tax is levied by the government,
and is exacted independently of the will of the subject. It is
impossible to resist it without having recourse to violence of some
kind. Since the Christian cannot employ violence, he is obliged to
offer his property at once to the loss by violence inflicted on it by
the authorities.
_Q._ Can a Christian give a vote at elections, or take part in
government or law business?
_A._ No; participation in election, government, or law business is
participation in government by force.
_Q._ Wherein lies the chief significance of the doctrine of
non-resistance?
_A._ In the fact that it alone allows of the possibility of
eradicating evil from one's own heart, and also from one's
neighbor's. This doctrine forbids doing that whereby evil has endured
for ages and multiplied in the world. He who attacks another and
injures him, kindles in the other a feeling of hatred, the root of
every evil. To injure another because he has injured us, even with
the aim of overcoming evil, is doubling the harm for him and for
oneself; it is begetting, or at least setting free and inciting, that
evil spirit which we should wish to drive out. Satan can never be
driven out by Satan. Error can never be corrected by error, and evil
cannot be vanquished by evil.
True non-resistance is the only real resistance to evil. It is
crushing the serpent's head. It destroys and in the end extirpates
the evil feeling.
_Q._ But if that is the true meaning of the rule of non-resistance,
can it always be put into practice?
_A._ It can be put into practice like every virtue enjoined by the
law of God. A virtue cannot be practiced in all circumstances without
self-sacrifice, privation, suffering, and in extreme cases loss of
life itself. But he who esteems life more than fulfilling the will of
God is already dead to the only true life. Trying to save his life he
loses it. Besides, generally speaking, where non-resistance costs the
sacrifice of a single life or of some material welfare, resistance
costs a thousand such sacrifices.
Non-resistance is Salvation; Resistance is Ruin.
It is incomparably less dangerous to act justly than unjustly, to
submit to injuries than to resist them with violence, less dangerous
even in one's relations to the present life. If all men refused to
resist evil by evil our world would be happy.
_Q._ But so long as only a few act thus, what will happen to them?
_A._ If only one man acted thus, and all the rest agreed to
crucify him, would it not be nobler for him to die in the glory of
non-resisting love, praying for his enemies, than to live to wear
the crown of Cæsar stained with the blood of the slain? However, one
man, or a thousand men, firmly resolved not to oppose evil by evil
are far more free from danger by violence than those who resort to
violence, whether among civilized or savage neighbors. The robber,
the murderer, and the cheat will leave them in peace, sooner than
those who oppose them with arms, and those who take up the sword
shall perish by the sword, but those who seek after peace, and
behave kindly and harmlessly, forgiving and forgetting injuries, for
the most part enjoy peace, or, if they die, they die blessed. In
this way, if all kept the ordinance of non-resistance, there would
obviously be no evil nor crime. If the majority acted thus they would
establish the rule of love and good will even over evil doers, never
opposing evil with evil, and never resorting to force. If there were
a moderately large minority of such men, they would exercise such
a salutary moral influence on society that every cruel punishment
would be abolished, and violence and feud would be replaced by peace
and love. Even if there were only a small minority of them, they
would rarely experience anything worse than the world's contempt, and
meantime the world, though unconscious of it, and not grateful for
it, would be continually becoming wiser and better for their unseen
action on it. And if in the worst case some members of the minority
were persecuted to death, in dying for the truth they would have
left behind them their doctrine, sanctified by the blood of their
martyrdom. Peace, then, to all who seek peace, and may overruling
love be the imperishable heritage of every soul who obeys willingly
Christ's word, "Resist not evil."
ADIN BALLOU.
* * * * *
For fifty years Ballou wrote and published books dealing principally
with the question of non-resistance to evil by force. In these
works, which are distinguished by the clearness of their thought
and eloquence of exposition, the question is looked at from every
possible side, and the binding nature of this command on every
Christian who acknowledges the Bible as the revelation of God is
firmly established. All the ordinary objections to the doctrine of
non-resistance from the Old and New Testaments are brought forward,
such as the expulsion of the money-changers from the Temple, and
so on, and arguments follow in disproof of them all. The practical
reasonableness of this rule of conduct is shown independently of
Scripture, and all the objections ordinarily made against its
practicability are stated and refuted. Thus one chapter in a book
of his treats of non-resistance in exceptional cases, and he owns
in this connection that if there were cases in which the rule of
non-resistance were impossible of application, it would prove that
the law was not universally authoritative. Quoting these cases, he
shows that it is precisely in them that the application of the rule
is both necessary and reasonable. There is no aspect of the question,
either on his side or on his opponents', which he has not followed up
in his writings. I mention all this to show the unmistakable interest
which such works ought to have for men who make a profession of
Christianity, and because one would have thought Ballou's work would
have been well known, and the ideas expressed by him would have been
either accepted or refuted; but such has not been the case.
The work of Garrison, the father, in his foundation of the Society of
Non-resistants and his Declaration, even more than my correspondence
with the Quakers, convinced me of the fact that the departure of the
ruling form of Christianity from the law of Christ on non-resistance
by force is an error that has long been observed and pointed out, and
that men have labored, and are still laboring, to correct. Ballou's
work confirmed me still more in this view. But the fate of Garrison,
still more that of Ballou, in being completely unrecognized in
spite of fifty years of obstinate and persistent work in the same
direction, confirmed me in the idea that there exists a kind of tacit
but steadfast conspiracy of silence about all such efforts.
Ballou died in August, 1890, and there was an obituary notice of him
in an American journal of Christian views (_Religio-philosophical
Journal_, August 23). In this laudatory notice it is recorded that
Ballou was the spiritual director of a parish, that he delivered
from eight to nine thousand sermons, married one thousand couples,
and wrote about five hundred articles; but there is not a single
word said of the object to which he devoted his life; even the word
"non-resistance" is not mentioned. Precisely as it was with all the
preaching of the Quakers for two hundred years, and, too, with the
efforts of Garrison the father, the foundation of his society and
journal, and his Declaration, so it is with the life-work of Ballou.
It seems just as though it did not exist and never had existed.
We have an astounding example of the obscurity of works which aim at
expounding the doctrine of non-resistance to evil by force, and at
confuting those who do not recognize this commandment, in the book of
the Tsech Helchitsky, which has only lately been noticed and has not
hitherto been printed.
Soon after the appearance of my book in German, I received a letter
from Prague, from a professor of the university there, informing me
of the existence of a work, never yet printed, by Helchitsky, a Tsech
of the fifteenth century, entitled "The Net of Faith." In this work,
the professor told me, Helchitsky expressed precisely the same view
as to true and false Christianity as I had expressed in my book "What
I Believe." The professor wrote to me that Helchitsky's work was to
be published for the first time in the Tsech language in the _Journal
of The Petersburg Academy of Science_. Since I could not obtain the
book itself, I tried to make myself acquainted with what was known of
Helchitsky, and I gained the following information from a German book
sent me by the Prague professor and from Pypin's history of Tsech
literature. This was Pypin's account:
"'The Net of Faith' is Christ's teaching, which ought to draw man
up out of the dark depths of the sea of worldliness and his own
iniquity. True faith consists in believing God's Word; but now a time
has come when men mistake the true faith for heresy, and therefore
it is for the reason to point out what the true faith consists in,
if anyone does not know this. It is hidden in darkness from men, and
they do not recognize the true law of Christ.
"To make this law plain, Helchitsky points to the primitive
organization of Christian society--the organization which, he says,
is now regarded in the Roman Church as an abominable heresy. This
primitive Church was his special ideal of social organization,
founded on equality, liberty, and fraternity. Christianity, in
Helchitsky's view, still preserves these elements, and it is only
necessary for society to return to its pure doctrine to render
unnecessary every other form of social order in which kings and popes
are essential; the law of love would alone be sufficient in every
case.
"Historically, Helchitsky attributes the degeneration of Christianity
to the times of Constantine the Great, whom the Pope Sylvester
admitted into the Christian Church with all his heathen morals
and life. Constantine, in his turn, endowed the Pope with worldly
riches and power. From that time forward these two ruling powers
were constantly aiding one another to strive for nothing but outward
glory. Divines and ecclesiastical dignitaries began to concern
themselves only about subduing the whole world to their authority,
incited men against one another to murder and plunder, and in creed
and life reduced Christianity to a nullity. Helchitsky denies
completely the right to make war and to inflict the punishment of
death; every soldier, even the 'knight,' is only a violent evil
doer--a murderer."
The same account is given by the German book, with the addition of a
few biographical details and some extracts from Helchitsky's writings.
Having learnt the drift of Helchitsky's teaching in this way, I
awaited all the more impatiently the appearance of "The Net of Faith"
in the journal of the Academy. But one year passed, then two and
three, and still the book did not appear. It was only in 1888 that
I learned that the printing of the book, which had been begun, was
stopped. I obtained the proofs of what had been printed and read
them through. It is a marvelous book from every point of view.
Its general tenor is given with perfect accuracy by Pypin.
Helchitsky's fundamental idea is that Christianity, by allying itself
with temporal power in the days of Constantine, and by continuing
to develop in such conditions, has become completely distorted, and
has ceased to be Christian altogether. Helchitsky gave the title
"The Net of Faith" to his book, taking as his motto the verse of
the Gospel about the calling of the disciples to be fishers of men;
and, developing this metaphor, he says: "Christ, by means of his
disciples, would have caught all the world in his net of faith, but
the greater fishes broke the net and escaped out of it, and all the
rest have slipped through the holes made by the greater fishes,
so that the net has remained quite empty. The greater fishes who
broke the net are the rulers, emperors, popes, kings, who have not
renounced power, and instead of true Christianity have put on what
is simply a mask of it." Helchitsky teaches precisely what has been
and is taught in these days by the non-resistant Mennonites and
Quakers, and in former times by the Bogomilites, Paulicians, and many
others. He teaches that Christianity, expecting from its adherents
gentleness, meekness, peaceableness, forgiveness of injuries,
turning the other cheek when one is struck, and love for enemies,
is inconsistent with the use of force, which is an indispensable
condition of authority.
The Christian, according to Helchitsky's reasoning, not only cannot
be a ruler or a soldier; he cannot take any part in government nor
in trade, or even be a landowner; he can only be an artisan or a
husbandman.
This book is one of the few works attacking official Christianity
which has escaped being burned. All such so-called heretical works
were burned at the stake, together with their authors, so that there
are few ancient works exposing the errors of official Christianity.
The book has a special interest for this reason alone. But apart
from its interest from every point of view, it is one of the most
remarkable products of thought for its depth of aim, for the
astounding strength and beauty of the national language in which
it is written, and for its antiquity. And yet for more than four
centuries it has remained unprinted, and is still unknown, except to
a few learned specialists.
One would have thought that all such works, whether of the Quakers,
of Garrison, of Ballou, or of Helchitsky, asserting and proving as
they do, on the principles of the Gospel, that our modern world takes
a false view of Christ's teaching, would have awakened interest,
excitement, talk, and discussion among spiritual teachers and their
flocks alike.
Works of this kind, dealing with the very essence of Christian
doctrine, ought, one would have thought, to have been examined
and accepted as true, or refuted and rejected. But nothing of the
kind has occurred, and the same fate has been repeated with all
those works. Men of the most diverse views, believers, and, what is
surprising, unbelieving liberals also, as though by agreement, all
preserve the same persistent silence about them, and all that has
been done by people to explain the true meaning of Christ's doctrine
remains either ignored or forgotten.
But it is still more astonishing that two other books, of which I
heard on the appearance of my book, should be so little known. I mean
Dymond's book "On War," published for the first time in London in
1824, and Daniel Musser's book on "Non-resistance," written in 1864.
It is particularly astonishing that these books should be unknown,
because, apart from their intrinsic merits, both books treat not so
much of the theory as of the practical application of the theory to
life, of the attitude of Christianity to military service, which is
especially important and interesting now in these days of universal
conscription.
People will ask, perhaps: How ought a subject to behave who believes
that war is inconsistent with his religion while the government
demands from him that he should enter military service?
This question is, I think, a most vital one, and the answer to it is
specially important in these days of universal conscription. All--or
at least the great majority of the people--are Christians, and all
men are called upon for military service. How ought a man, as a
Christian, to meet this demand? This is the gist of Dymond's answer:
"His duty is humbly but steadfastly to refuse to serve."
There are some people, who, without any definite reasoning about it,
conclude straightway that the responsibility of government measures
rests entirely on those who resolve on them, or that the governments
and sovereigns decide the question of what is good or bad for their
subjects, and the duty of the subjects is merely to obey. I think
that arguments of this kind only obscure men's conscience. I cannot
take part in the councils of government, and therefore I am not
responsible for its misdeeds. Indeed, but we are responsible for our
own misdeeds. And the misdeeds of our rulers become our own, if we,
knowing that they are misdeeds, assist in carrying them out. Those
who suppose that they are bound to obey the government, and that the
responsibility for the misdeeds they commit is transferred from them
to their rulers, deceive themselves. They say: "We give our acts up
to the will of others, and our acts cannot be good or bad; there is
no merit in what is good nor responsibility for what is evil in our
actions, since they are not done of our own will."
It is remarkable that the very same thing is said in the instructions
to soldiers which they make them learn--that is, that the officer
is alone responsible for the consequences of his command. But
this is not right. A man cannot get rid of the responsibility for
his own actions. And that is clear from the following example. If
your officer commands you to kill your neighbor's child, to kill
your father or your mother, would you obey? If you would not obey,
the whole argument falls to the ground, for if you can disobey
the governors in one case, where do you draw the line up to which
you can obey them? There is no line other than that laid down by
Christianity, and that line is both reasonable and practicable.
And therefore we consider it the duty of every man who thinks war
inconsistent with Christianity, meekly but firmly to refuse to serve
in the army. And let those whose lot it is to act thus, remember
that the fulfillment of a great duty rests with them. The destiny of
humanity in the world depends, so far as it depends on men at all, on
their fidelity to their religion. Let them confess their conviction,
and stand up for it, and not in words alone, but in sufferings too,
if need be. If you believe that Christ forbade murder, pay no heed
to the arguments nor to the commands of those who call on you to
bear a hand in it. By such a steadfast refusal to make use of force,
you call down on yourselves the blessing promised to those "who hear
these sayings and do them," and the time will come when the world
will recognize you as having aided in the reformation of mankind.
Musser's book is called "Non-resistance Asserted," or "Kingdom of
Christ and Kingdoms of this World Separated." This book is devoted to
the same question, and was written when the American Government was
exacting military service from its citizens at the time of the Civil
War. And it has, too, a value for all time, dealing with the question
how, in such circumstances, people should and can refuse to enter
military service. Here is the tenor of the author's introductory
remarks: "It is well known that there are many persons in the United
States who refuse to fight on grounds of conscience. They are called
the 'defenseless,' or 'non-resistant' Christians. These Christians
refuse to defend their country, to bear arms, or at the call of
government to make war on its enemies. Till lately this religious
scruple seemed a valid excuse to the government, and those who urged
it were let off service. But at the beginning of our Civil War public
opinion was agitated on this subject. It was natural that persons
who considered it their duty to bear all the hardships and dangers
of war in defense of their country should feel resentment against
those persons who had for long shared with them the advantages of the
protection of the government, and who now in time of need and danger
would not share in bearing the labors and dangers of its defense. It
was even natural that they should declare the attitude of such men
monstrous, irrational, and suspicious."
A host of orators and writers, our author tells us, arose to oppose
this attitude, and tried to prove the sinfulness of non-resistance,
both from Scripture and on common-sense grounds. And this was
perfectly natural, and in many cases the authors were right--right,
that is, in regard to persons who did not renounce the benefits
they received from the government and tried to avoid the hardships
of military service, but not right in regard to the principle of
non-resistance itself. Above all, our author proves the binding
nature of the rule of non-resistance for a Christian, pointing out
that this command is perfectly clear, and is enjoined upon every
Christian by Christ without possibility of misinterpretation.
"Bethink yourselves whether it is righteous to obey man more than
God," said Peter and John. And this is precisely what ought to be
the attitude of every man who wishes to be Christian to the claim
on him for military service, when Christ has said, "Resist not
evil by force." As for the question of the principle itself, the
author regards that as decided. As to the second question, whether
people have the right to refuse to serve in the army who have not
refused the benefits conferred by a government resting on force, the
author considers it in detail, and arrives at the conclusion that
a Christian following the law of Christ, since he does not go to
war, ought not either to take advantage of any of the institutions
of government, courts of law, or elections, and that in his private
concerns he must not have recourse to the authorities, the police,
or the law. Further on in the book he treats of the relation of
the Old Testament to the New, the value of government for those
who are Christians, and makes some observations on the doctrine of
non-resistance and the attacks made on it. The author concludes his
book by saying: "Christians do not need government, and therefore
they cannot either obey it in what is contrary to Christ's teaching
nor, still less, take part in it." Christ took his disciples out of
the world, he says. They do not expect worldly blessings and worldly
happiness, but they expect eternal life. The Spirit in whom they
live makes them contented and happy in every position. If the world
tolerates them, they are always happy. If the world will not leave
them in peace, they will go elsewhere, since they are pilgrims on the
earth and they have no fixed place of habitation. They believe that
"the dead may bury their dead." One thing only is needful for them,
"to follow their Master."
Even putting aside the question as to the principle laid down in
these two books as to the Christian's duty in his attitude to war,
one cannot help perceiving the practical importance and the urgent
need of deciding the question.
There are people, hundreds of thousands of Quakers, Mennonites,
all our Douhobortsi, Molokani, and others who do not belong to
any definite sect, who consider that the use of force--and,
consequently, military service--is inconsistent with Christianity.
Consequently there are every year among us in Russia some men called
upon for military service who refuse to serve on the ground of their
religious convictions. Does the government let them off then? No.
Does it compel them to go, and in case of disobedience punish them?
No. This was how the government treated them in 1818. Here is an
extract from the diary of Nicholas Myravyov of Kars, which was not
passed by the censor, and is not known in Russia:
"TIFLIS, October 2, 1818.
"In the morning the commandant told me that five peasants
belonging to a landowner in the Tamboff government had lately
been sent to Georgia. These men had been sent for soldiers, but
they would not serve; they had been several times flogged and
made to run the gauntlet, but they would submit readily to the
cruelest tortures, and even to death, rather than serve. 'Let us
go,' they said, 'and leave us alone; we will not hurt anyone;
all men are equal, and the Tzar is a man like us; why should we
pay him tribute; why should I expose my life to danger to kill
in battle some man who has done me no harm? You can cut us to
pieces and we will not be soldiers. He who has compassion on
us will give us charity, but as for the government rations, we
have not had them and we do not want to have them.' These were
the words of those peasants, who declare that there are numbers
like them in Russia. They brought them four times before the
Committee of Ministers, and at last decided to lay the matter
before the Tzar, who gave orders that they should be taken to
Georgia for correction, and commanded the commander-in-chief
to send him a report every month of their gradual success in
bringing these peasants to a better mind."
How the correction ended is not known, as the whole episode indeed
was unknown, having been kept in profound secrecy.
This was how the government behaved seventy-five years ago--this is
how it has behaved in a great number of cases, studiously concealed
from the people. And this is how the government behaves now, except
in the case of the German Mennonites, living in the province of
Kherson, whose plea against military service is considered well
grounded. They are made to work off their term of service in labor in
the forests.
But in the recent cases of refusal on the part of Mennonites to serve
in the army on religious grounds, the government authorities have
acted in the following manner:
To begin with, they have recourse to every means of coercion used in
our times to "correct" the culprit and bring him to "a better mind,"
and these measures are carried out with the greatest secrecy. I know
that in the case of one man who declined to serve in 1884 in Moscow,
the official correspondence on the subject had two months after his
refusal accumulated into a big folio, and was kept absolutely secret
among the Ministry.
They usually begin by sending the culprit to the priests, and the
latter, to their shame be it said, always exhort him to obedience.
But since the exhortation in Christ's name to forswear Christ is for
the most part unsuccessful, after he has received the admonitions of
the spiritual authorities, they send him to the gendarmes, and the
latter, finding, as a rule, no political cause for offense in him,
dispatch him back again, and then he is sent to the learned men, to
the doctors, and to the madhouse. During all these vicissitudes he
is deprived of liberty and has to endure every kind of humiliation
and suffering as a convicted criminal. (All this has been repeated
in four cases.) The doctors let him out of the madhouse, and then
every kind of secret shift is employed to prevent him from going
free--whereby others would be encouraged to refuse to serve as he has
done--and at the same time to avoid leaving him among the soldiers,
for fear they too should learn from him that military service is not
at all their duty by the law of God, as they are assured, but quite
contrary to it.
The most convenient thing for the government would be to kill the
non-resistant by flogging him to death or some other means, as
was done in former days. But to put a man openly to death because
he believes in the creed we all confess is impossible. To let a
man alone who has refused obedience is also impossible. And so
the government tries either to compel the man by ill-treatment
to renounce Christ, or in some way or other to get rid of him
unobserved, without openly putting him to death, and to hide
somehow both the action and the man himself from other people. And
so all kinds of shifts and wiles and cruelties are set on foot
against him. They either send him to the frontier or provoke him to
insubordination, and then try him for breach of discipline and shut
him up in the prison of the disciplinary battalion, where they can
ill treat him freely unseen by anyone, or they declare him mad, and
lock him up in a lunatic asylum. They sent one man in this way to
Tashkend--that is, they pretended to transfer him to the Tashkend
army; another to Omsk; a third they convicted of insubordination and
shut up in prison; a fourth they sent to a lunatic asylum.
Everywhere the same story is repeated. Not only the government, but
the great majority of liberal, advanced people, as they are called,
studiously turn away from everything that has been said, written, or
done, or is being done by men to prove the incompatibility of force
in its most awful, gross, and glaring form--in the form, that is,
of an army of soldiers prepared to murder anyone, whoever it may
be--with the teachings of Christianity, or even of the humanity which
society professes as its creed.
So that the information I have gained of the attitude of the higher
ruling classes, not only in Russia but in Europe and America, toward
the elucidation of this question has convinced me that there exists
in these ruling classes a consciously hostile attitude to true
Christianity, which is shown pre-eminently in their reticence in
regard to all manifestations of it.