THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE CHRISTIAN CONCEPTION OF LIFE WILL
EMANCIPATE MEN FROM THE MISERIES OF OUR PAGAN LIFE.
The External Life of Christian Peoples Remains Pagan Though
they are Penetrated by Christian Consciousness--The Way Out
of this Contradiction is by the Acceptance of the Christian
Theory of Life--Only Through Christianity is Every Man Free,
and Emancipated of All Human Authority--This Emancipation can
be Effected by no Change in External Conditions of Life, but
Only by a Change in the Conception of Life--The Christian
Ideal of Life Requires Renunciation of all Violence, and in
Emancipating the Man who Accepts it, Emancipates the Whole
World from All External Authorities--The Way Out of the Present
Apparently Hopeless Position is for Every Man who is Capable
of Assimilating the Christian Conception of Life, to Accept
it and Live in Accordance with it--But Men Consider this Way
too Slow, and Look for Deliverance Through Changes in Material
Conditions of Life Aided by Government--That Will Lead to No
Improvement, as it is simply Increasing the Evil under which Men
are Suffering--A Striking Instance of this is the Submission to
Compulsory Military Service, which it would be More Advantageous
for Every Man to Refuse than to Submit to--The Emancipation of
Men Can Only be Brought About by each Individual Emancipating
Himself, and the Examples of this Self-emancipation which are
already Appearing Threaten the Destruction of Governmental
Authority--Refusal to Comply with the Unchristian Demands
of Government Undermines the Authority of the State and
Emancipates Men--And therefore Cases of such Non-compliance
are Regarded with more Dread by State Authorities than any
Conspiracies or Acts of Violence--Examples of Non-compliance
in Russia, in Regard to Oath of Allegiance, Payment of Taxes,
Passports, Police Duties, and Military Service--Examples of such
Non-compliance in other States--Governments do not Know how to
Treat Men who Refuse to Comply with their Demands on Christian
Grounds--Such People, without Striking a Blow, Undermine
the very Basis of Government from Within--To Punish them is
Equivalent to Openly Renouncing Christianity, and Assisting in
Diffusing the Very Principle by which these Men Justify their
Non-compliance--So Governments are in a Helpless Position--Men
who Maintain the Uselessness of Personal Independence, only
Retard the Dissolution of the Present State Organization Based
on Force.
The position of the Christian peoples in our days has remained just
as cruel as it was in the times of paganism. In many respects,
especially in the oppression of the masses, it has become even more
cruel than it was in the days of paganism.
But between the condition of men in ancient times and their condition
in our days there is just the difference that we see in the world
of vegetation between the last days of autumn and the first days of
spring. In the autumn the external lifelessness in nature corresponds
with its inward condition of death, while in the spring the external
lifelessness is in sharp contrast with the internal state of reviving
and passing into new forms of life.
In the same way the similarity between the ancient heathen life and
the life of to-day is merely external: the inward condition of men in
the times of heathenism was absolutely different from their inward
condition at the present time.
Then the outward condition of cruelty and of slavery was in complete
harmony with the inner conscience of men, and every step in advance
intensified this harmony; now the outward condition of cruelty and of
slavery is completely contradictory to the Christian consciousness
of men, and every step in advance only intensifies this contradiction.
Humanity is passing through seemingly unnecessary, fruitless agonies.
It is passing through something like the throes of birth. Everything
is ready for the new life, but still the new life does not come.
There seems no way out of the position. And there would be none,
except that a man (and thereby all men) is gifted with the power of
forming a different, higher theory of life, which at once frees him
from all the bonds by which he seems indissolubly fettered.
And such a theory is the Christian view of life made known to mankind
eighteen hundred years ago.
A man need only make this theory of life his own, for the fetters
which seemed so indissolubly forged upon him to drop off of
themselves, and for him to feel himself absolutely free, just as a
bird would feel itself free in a fenced-in place directly it took to
its wings.
People talk about the liberty of the Christian Church, about giving
or not giving freedom to Christians. Underlying all these ideas and
expressions there is some strange misconception. Freedom cannot be
bestowed on or taken from a Christian or Christians. Freedom is an
inalienable possession of the Christian.
If we talk of bestowing freedom on Christians or withholding it from
them, we are obviously talking not of real Christians but of people
who only call themselves Christians. A Christian cannot fail to be
free, because the attainment of the aim he sets before himself cannot
be prevented or even hindered by anyone or anything.
Let a man only understand his life as Christianity teaches him to
understand it, let him understand, that is, that his life belongs
not to him--not to his own individuality, nor to his family, nor to
the state--but to him who has sent him into the world, and let him
once understand that he must therefore fulfill not the law of his own
individuality, nor his family, nor of the state, but the infinite
law of him from whom he has come; and he will not only feel himself
absolutely free from every human power, but will even cease to regard
such power as at all able to hamper anyone.
Let a man but realize that the aim of his life is the fulfillment of
God's law, and that law will replace all other laws for him, and he
will give it his sole allegiance, so that by that very allegiance
every human law will lose all binding and controlling power in his
eyes.
The Christian is independent of every human authority by the fact
that he regards the divine law of love, implanted in the soul of
every man, and brought before his consciousness by Christ, as the
sole guide of his life and other men's also.
The Christian may be subjected to external violence, he may be
deprived of bodily freedom, he may be in bondage to his passions (he
who commits sin is the slave of sin), but he cannot be in bondage in
the sense of being forced by any danger or by any threat of external
harm to perform an act which is against his conscience.
He cannot be compelled to do this, because the deprivations and
sufferings which form such a powerful weapon against men of the state
conception of life, have not the least power to compel him.
Deprivations and sufferings take from them the happiness for which
they live; but far from disturbing the happiness of the Christian,
which consists in the consciousness of fulfilling the will of God,
they may even intensify it, when they are inflicted on him for
fulfilling his will.
And therefore the Christian, who is subject only to the inner divine
law, not only cannot carry out the enactments of the external law,
when they are not in agreement with the divine law of love which
he acknowledges (as is usually the case with state obligations), he
cannot even recognize the duty of obedience to anyone or anything
whatever, he cannot recognize the duty of what is called allegiance.
For a Christian the oath of allegiance to any government
whatever--the very act which is regarded as the foundation of the
existence of a state--is a direct renunciation of Christianity.
For the man who promises unconditional obedience in the future
to laws, made or to be made, by that very promise is in the most
positive manner renouncing Christianity, which means obeying in every
circumstance of life only the divine law of love he recognizes within
him.
Under the pagan conception of life it was possible to carry out the
will of the temporal authorities, without infringing the law of
God expressed in circumcisions, Sabbaths, fixed times of prayer,
abstention from certain kinds of food, and so on. The one law was
not opposed to the other. But that is just the distinction between
the Christian religion and heathen religion. Christianity does not
require of a man certain definite negative acts, but puts him in
a new, different relation to men, from which may result the most
diverse acts, which cannot be defined beforehand. And therefore the
Christian not only cannot promise to obey the will of any other man,
without knowing what will be required by that will; he not only
cannot obey the changing laws of man, but he cannot even promise to
do anything definite at a certain time, or to abstain from doing
anything for a certain time. For he cannot know what at any time will
be required of him by that Christian law of love, obedience to which
constitutes the meaning of life for him. The Christian, in promising
unconditional fulfillment of the laws of men in the future, would
show plainly by that promise that the inner law of God does not
constitute for him the sole law of his life.
For a Christian to promise obedience to men, or the laws of men, is
just as though a workman bound to one employer should also promise
to carry out every order that might be given him by outsiders. One
cannot serve two masters.
The Christian is independent of human authority, because he
acknowledges God's authority alone. His law, revealed by Christ, he
recognizes in himself, and voluntarily obeys it.
And this independence is gained, not by means of strife, not by
the destruction of existing forms of life, but only by a change
in the interpretation of life. This independence results first
from the Christian recognizing the law of love, revealed to him by
his teacher, as perfectly sufficient for all human relations, and
therefore he regards every use of force as unnecessary and unlawful;
and secondly, from the fact that those deprivations and sufferings,
or threats of deprivations and sufferings (which reduce the man of
the social conception of life to the necessity of obeying) to the
Christian from his different conception of life, present themselves
merely as the inevitable conditions of existence. And these
conditions, without striving against them by force, he patiently
endures, like sickness, hunger, and every other hardship, but they
cannot serve him as a guide for his actions. The only guide for the
Christian's actions is to be found in the divine principle living
within him, which cannot be checked or governed by anything.
The Christian acts according to the words of the prophecy applied to
his teacher: "He shall not strive, nor cry; neither shall any man
hear his voice in the streets. A bruised reed shall he not break, and
smoking flax shall he not quench, till he send forth judgment unto
victory." (Matt. xii. 19, 20.)
The Christian will not dispute with anyone, nor attack anyone, nor
use violence against anyone. On the contrary, he will bear violence
without opposing it. But by this very attitude to violence, he will
not only himself be free, but will free the whole world from all
external power.
"Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."
If there were any doubt of Christianity being the truth, the
perfect liberty, that nothing can curtail, which a man experiences
directly he makes the Christian theory of life his own, would be an
unmistakable proof of its truth.
Men in their present condition are like a swarm of bees hanging
in a cluster to a branch. The position of the bees on the branch
is temporary, and must inevitably be changed. They must start off
and find themselves a habitation. Each of the bees knows this, and
desires to change her own and the others' position, but no one of
them can do it till the rest of them do it. They cannot all start
off at once, because one hangs on to another and hinders her from
separating from the swarm, and therefore they all continue to hang
there. It would seem that the bees could never escape from their
position, just as it seems that worldly men, caught in the toils of
the state conception of life, can never escape. And there would be
no escape for the bees, if each of them were not a living, separate
creature, endowed with wings of its own. Similarly there would be
no escape for men, if each were not a living being endowed with the
faculty of entering into the Christian conception of life.
If every bee who could fly, did not try to fly, the others, too,
would never be stirred, and the swarm would never change its
position. And if the man who has mastered the Christian conception
of life would not, without waiting for other people, begin to live
in accordance with this conception, mankind would never change its
position. But only let one bee spread her wings, start off, and fly
away, and after her another, and another, and the clinging, inert
cluster would become a freely flying swarm of bees. Just in the same
way, only let one man look at life as Christianity teaches him to
look at it, and after him let another and another do the same, and
the enchanted circle of existence in the state conception of life,
from which there seemed no escape, will be broken through.
But men think that to set all men free by this means is too slow a
process, that they must find some other means by which they could
set all men free at once. It is just as though the bees who want to
start and fly away should consider it too long a process to wait for
all the swarm to start one by one; and should think they ought to
find some means by which it would not be necessary for every separate
bee to spread her wings and fly off, but by which the whole swarm
could fly at once where it wanted to. But that is not possible; till
a first, a second, a third, a hundredth bee spreads her wings and
flies off of her own accord, the swarm will not fly off and will not
begin its new life. Till every individual man makes the Christian
conception of life his own, and begins to live in accord with it,
there can be no solution of the problem of human life, and no
establishment of a new form of life.
One of the most striking phenomena of our times is precisely this
advocacy of slavery, which is promulgated among the masses, not by
governments, in whom it is inevitable, but by men who, in advocating
socialistic theories, regard themselves as the champions of freedom.
These people advance the opinion that the amelioration of life, the
bringing of the facts of life into harmony with the conscience, will
come, not as the result of the personal efforts of individual men,
but of itself as the result of a certain possible reconstruction
of society effected in some way or other. The idea is promulgated
that men ought not to walk on their own legs where they want and
ought to go, but that a kind of floor under their feet will be moved
somehow, so that on it they can reach where they ought to go without
moving their own legs. And, therefore, all their efforts ought to
be directed, not to going so far as their strength allows in the
direction they ought to go, but to standing still and constructing
such a floor.
In the sphere of political economy a theory is propounded which
amounts to saying that the worse things are the better they are; that
the greater the accumulation of capital, and therefore the oppression
of the workman, the nearer the day of emancipation, and, therefore,
every personal effort on the part of a man to free himself from the
oppression of capital is useless. In the sphere of government it
is maintained that the greater the power of the government, which,
according to this theory, ought to intervene in every department
of private life in which it has not yet intervened, the better it
will be, and that therefore we ought to invoke the interference of
government in private life. In politics and international questions
it is maintained that the improvement of the means of destruction,
the multiplication of armaments, will lead to the necessity of making
war by means of congresses, arbitration, and so on. And, marvelous
to say, so great is the dullness of men, that they believe in these
theories, in spite of the fact that the whole course of life, every
step they take, shows how unworthy they are of belief.
The people are suffering from oppression, and to deliver them from
this oppression they are advised to frame general measures for the
improvement of their position, which measures are to be intrusted to
the authorities, and themselves to continue to yield obedience to
the authorities. And obviously all that results from this is only
greater power in the hands of the authorities, and greater oppression
resulting from it.
Not one of the errors of men carries them so far away from the aim
toward which they are struggling as this very one. They do all kinds
of different things for the attainment of their aim, but not the one
simple obvious thing which is within reach of everyone. They devise
the subtlest means for changing the position which is irksome to
them, but not that simplest means, that everyone should refrain from
doing what leads to that position.
I have been told a story of a gallant police officer, who came to
a village where the peasants were in insurrection and the military
had been called out, and he undertook to pacify the insurrection
in the spirit of Nicholas I., by his personal influence alone. He
ordered some loads of rods to be brought, and collecting all the
peasants together into a barn, he went in with them, locking the door
after him. To begin with, he so terrified the peasants by his loud
threats that, reduced to submission by him, they set to work to flog
one another at his command. And so they flogged one another until
a simpleton was found who would not allow himself to be flogged,
and shouted to his companions not to flog one another. Only then
the flogging ceased, and the police officer made his escape. Well,
this simpleton's advice would never be followed by men of the state
conception of life, who continue to flog one another, and teach
people that this very act of self-castigation is the last word of
human wisdom.
Indeed, can one imagine a more striking instance of men flogging
themselves than the submissiveness with which men of our times will
perform the very duties required of them to keep them in slavery,
especially the duty of military service? We see people enslaving
themselves, suffering from this slavery, and believing that it must
be so, that it does not matter, and will not hinder the emancipation
of men, which is being prepared somewhere, somehow, in spite of the
ever-increasing growth of slavery.
In fact, take any man of the present time whatever (I don't mean a
true Christian, but an average man of the present day), educated
or uneducated, believing or unbelieving, rich or poor, married or
unmarried. Such a man lives working at his work, or enjoying his
amusements, spending the fruits of his labors on himself or on those
near to him, and, like everyone, hating every kind of restriction and
deprivation, dissension and suffering. Such a man is going his way
peaceably, when suddenly people come and say to him: First, promise
and swear to us that you will slavishly obey us in everything we
dictate to you, and will consider absolutely good and authoritative
everything we plan, decide, and call law. Secondly, hand over a
part of the fruits of your labors for us to dispose of--we will use
the money to keep you in slavery, and to hinder you from forcibly
opposing our orders. Thirdly, elect others, or be yourself elected,
to take a pretended share in the government, knowing all the while
that the government will proceed quite without regard to the foolish
speeches you, and those like you, may utter, and knowing that its
proceedings will be according to our will, the will of those who have
the army in their hands. Fourthly, come at a certain time to the
law courts and take your share in those senseless cruelties which
we perpetrate on sinners, and those whom we have corrupted, in the
shape of penal servitude, exile, solitary confinement, and death. And
fifthly and lastly, more than all this, in spite of the fact that
you may be on the friendliest terms with people of other nations,
be ready, directly we order you to do so, to regard those whom we
indicate to you as your enemies; and be ready to assist, either in
person or by proxy, in devastation, plunder, and murder of their
men, women, children, and aged alike--possibly your own kinsmen or
relations--if that is necessary to us.
One would expect that every man of the present day who has a grain
of sense left, might reply to such requirements, "But why should I
do all this?" One would think every right-minded man must say in
amazement: Why should I promise to yield obedience to everything that
has been decreed first by Salisbury, then by Gladstone; one day by
Boulanger, and another by Parliament; one day by Peter III., the next
by Catherine, and the day after by Pougachef; one day by a mad king
of Bavaria, another by William? Why should I promise to obey them,
knowing them to be wicked or foolish people, or else not knowing them
at all? Why am I to hand over the fruits of my labors to them in the
shape of taxes, knowing that the money will be spent on the support
of officials, prisons, churches, armies, on things that are harmful,
and on my own enslavement? Why should I punish myself? Why should
I go wasting my time and hoodwinking myself, giving to miscreant
evildoers a semblance of legality, by taking part in elections, and
pretending that I am taking part in the government, when I know
very well that the real control of the government is in the hands
of those who have got hold of the army? Why should I go to the law
courts to take part in the trial and punishment of men because they
have sinned, knowing, if I am a Christian, that the law of vengence
is replaced by the law of love, and, if I am an educated man, that
punishments do not reform, but only deprave those on whom they are
inflicted? And why, most of all, am I to consider as enemies the
people of a neighboring nation, with whom I have hitherto lived and
with whom I wish to live in love and harmony, and to kill and rob
them, or to bring them to misery, simply in order that the keys of
the temple at Jerusalem may be in the hands of one archbishop and not
another, that one German and not another may be prince in Bulgaria,
or that the English rather than the American merchants may capture
seals?
And why, most of all, should I take part in person or hire others to
murder my own brothers and kinsmen? Why should I flog myself? It is
altogether unnecessary for me; it is hurtful to me, and from every
point of view it is immoral, base, and vile. So why should I do
this? If you tell me that if I do it not I shall receive some injury
from someone, then, in the first place, I cannot anticipate from
anyone an injury so great as the injury you bring on me if I obey
you; and secondly, it is perfectly clear to me that if we our own
selves do not flog ourselves, no one will flog us.
As for the government--that means the tzars, ministers, and officials
with pens in their hands, who cannot force us into doing anything,
as that officer of police compelled the peasants; the men who will
drag us to the law court, to prison, and to execution, are not tzars
or officials with pens in their hands, but the very people who are
in the same position as we are. And it is just as unprofitable and
harmful and unpleasant to them to be flogged as to me, and therefore
there is every likelihood that if I open their eyes they not only
would not treat me with violence, but would do just as I am doing.
Thirdly, even if it should come to pass that I had to suffer for it,
even then it would be better for me to be exiled or sent to prison
for standing up for common sense and right--which, if not to-day,
at least within a very short time, must be triumphant--than to
suffer for folly and wrong which must come to an end directly. And
therefore, even in that case, it is better to run the risk of their
banishing me, shutting me up in prison, or executing me, than of my
living all my life in bondage, through my own fault, to wicked men.
Better is this than the possibility of being destroyed by victorious
enemies, and being stupidly tortured and killed by them, in fighting
for a cannon, or a piece of land of no use to anyone, or for a
senseless rag called a banner.
I don't want to flog myself and I won't do it. I have no reason to do
it. Do it yourselves, if you want it done; but I won't do it.
One would have thought that not religious or moral feeling alone,
but the simplest common sense and foresight should impel every man of
the present day to answer and to act in that way. But not so. Men of
the state conception of life are of the opinion that to act in that
way is not necessary, and is even prejudicial to the attainment of
their object, the emancipation of men from slavery. They hold that
we must continue, like the police officer's peasants, to flog one
another, consoling ourselves with the reflection that we are talking
away in the assemblies and meetings, founding trades unions, marching
through the streets on the 1st of May, getting up conspiracies, and
stealthily teasing the government that is flogging us, and that
through all this it will be brought to pass that, by enslaving
ourselves in closer and closer bondage, we shall very soon be free.
Nothing hinders the emancipation of men from slavery so much as this
amazing error. Instead of every man directing his energies to freeing
himself, to transforming his conception of life, people seek for an
external united method of gaining freedom, and continue to rivet
their chains faster and faster.
It is much as if men were to maintain that to make up a fire there
was no need to kindle any of the coals, but that all that was
necessary was to arrange the coals in a certain order. Yet the fact
that the freedom of all men will be brought about only through the
freedom of individual persons, becomes more and more clear as time
goes on. The freedom of individual men, in the name of the Christian
conception of life, from state domination, which was formerly
an exceptional and unnoticed phenomenon, has of late acquired
threatening significance for state authorities.
If in a former age, in the Roman times, it happened that a Christian
confessed his religion and refused to take part in sacrifices, and to
worship the emperors or the gods; or in the Middle Ages a Christian
refused to worship images, or to acknowledge the authority of the
Pope--these cases were in the first place a matter of chance. A man
might be placed under the necessity of confessing his faith, or he
might live all his life without being placed under this necessity.
But now all men, without exception, are subjected to this trial of
their faith. Every man of the present day is under the necessity
of taking part in the cruelties of pagan life, or of refusing all
participation in them. And secondly, in those days cases of refusal
to worship the gods or the images or the Pope were not incidents that
had any material bearing on the state. Whether men worshiped or did
not worship the gods or the images or the Pope, the state remained
just as powerful. But now cases of refusing to comply with the
unchristian demands of the government are striking at the very root
of state authority, because the whole authority of the state is based
on the compliance with these unchristian demands.
The sovereign powers of the world have in the course of time been
brought into a position in which, for their own preservation, they
must require from all men actions which cannot be performed by men
who profess true Christianity.
And therefore in our days every profession of true Christianity, by
any individual man, strikes at the most essential power of the state,
and inevitably leads the way for the emancipation of all.
What importance, one might think, can one attach to such an incident
as some dozens of crazy fellows, as people will call them, refusing
to take the oath of allegiance to the government, refusing to pay
taxes, to take part in law proceedings or in military service?
These people are punished and exiled to a distance, and life goes
on in its old way. One might think there was no importance in such
incidents; but yet, it is just those incidents, more than anything
else, that will undermine the power of the state and prepare the
way for the freedom of men. These are the individual bees, who are
beginning to separate from the swarm, and are flying near it, waiting
till the whole swarm can no longer be prevented from starting off
after them. And the governments know this, and fear such incidents
more than all the socialists, communists, and anarchists, and their
plots and dynamite bombs.
A new reign is beginning. According to the universal rule and
established order it is required that all the subjects should take
the oath of allegiance to the new government. There is a general
decree to that effect, and all are summoned to the council-houses to
take the oath. All at once one man in Perm, another in Tula, a third
in Moscow, and a fourth in Kalouga declare that they will not take
the oath, and though there is no communication between them, they
all explain their refusal on the same grounds--namely, that swearing
is forbidden by the law of Christ, and that even if swearing had not
been forbidden, they could not, in the spirit of the law of Christ,
promise to perform the evil actions required of them in the oath,
such as informing against all such as may act against the interests
of the government, or defending their government with firearms
or attacking its enemies. They are brought before rural police
officers, district police captains, priests, and governors. They are
admonished, questioned, threatened, and punished; but they adhere to
their resolution, and do not take the oath. And among the millions of
those who did take the oath, those dozens go on living who did not
take the oath. And they are questioned:
"What, didn't you take the oath?"
"No, I didn't take the oath."
"And what happened--nothing?"
"Nothing."
The subjects of a state are all bound to pay taxes. And everyone
pays taxes, till suddenly one man in Kharkov, another in Tver, and
a third in Samara refuse to pay taxes--all, as though in collusion,
saying the same thing. One says he will only pay when they tell him
what object the money taken from him will be spent on. "If it is for
good deeds," he says, "he will give it of his own accord, and more
even than is required of him. If for evil deeds, then he will give
nothing voluntarily, because by the law of Christ, whose follower he
is, he cannot take part in evil deeds." The others, too, say the same
in other words, and will not voluntarily pay the taxes.
Those who have anything to be taken have their property taken from
them by force; as for those who have nothing, they are left alone.
"What, didn't you pay the tax?"
"No, I didn't pay it."
"And what happened--nothing?"
"Nothing."
There is the institution of passports. Everyone moving from his
place of residence is bound to carry one, and to pay a duty on it.
Suddenly people are to be found in various places declaring that to
carry a passport is not necessary, that one ought not to recognize
one's dependence on a state which exists by means of force; and these
people do not carry passports, or pay the duty on them. And again,
it's impossible to force those people by any means to do what is
required. They send them to jail, and let them out again, and these
people live without passports.
All peasants are bound to fill certain police offices--that of
village constable, and of watchman, and so on. Suddenly in Kharkov
a peasant refuses to perform this duty, justifying his refusal on
the ground that by the law of Christ, of which he is a follower, he
cannot put any man in fetters, lock him up, or drag him from place
to place. The same declaration is made by a peasant in Tver, another
in Tambov. These peasants are abused, beaten, shut up in prison,
but they stick to their resolution and don't fill these offices
against their convictions. And at last they cease to appoint them as
constables. And again nothing happens.
All citizens are obliged to take a share in law proceedings in the
character of jurymen. Suddenly the most different people--mechanics,
professors, tradesmen, peasants, servants, as though by agreement
refuse to fill this office, and not on the grounds allowed as
sufficient by law, but because any process at law is, according to
their views, unchristian. They fine these people, trying not to let
them have an opportunity of explaining their motives in public, and
replace them by others. And again nothing can be done.
All young men of twenty-one years of age are obliged to draw lots for
service in the army. All at once one young man in Moscow, another in
Tver, a third in Kharkov, and a fourth in Kiev present themselves
before the authorities, and, as though by previous agreement, declare
that they will not take the oath, they will not serve because
they are Christians. I will give the details of one of the first
cases, since they have become more frequent, which I happen to know
about.[15] The same treatment has been repeated in every other case.
A young man of fair education refuses in the Moscow Townhall to take
the oath. No attention is paid to what he says, and it is requested
that he should pronounce the words of the oath like the rest. He
declines, quoting a particular passage of the Gospel in which
swearing is forbidden. No attention is paid to his arguments, and he
is again requested to comply with the order, but he does not comply
with it. Then it is supposed that he is a sectary and therefore does
not understand Christianity in the right sense, that is to say,
not in the sense in which the priests in the pay of the government
understand it. And the young man is conducted under escort to the
priests, that they may bring him to reason. The priests begin to
reason with him, but their efforts in Christ's name to persuade
him to renounce Christ obviously have no influence on him; he is
pronounced incorrigible and sent back again to the army. He persists
in not taking the oath and openly refuses to perform any military
duties. It is a case that has not been provided for by the laws. To
overlook such a refusal to comply with the demands of the authorities
is out of the question, but to put such a case on a par with simple
breach of discipline is also out of the question.
[15] All the details of this case, as well as those preceding it, are
authentic.
After deliberation among themselves, the military authorities
decide to get rid of the troublesome young man, to consider him
as a revolutionist, and they dispatch him under escort to the
committee of the secret police. The police authorities and gendarmes
cross-question him, but nothing that he says can be brought under the
head of any of the misdemeanors which come under their jurisdiction.
And there is no possibility of accusing him either of revolutionary
acts or revolutionary plotting, since he declares that he does not
wish to attack anything, but, on the contrary, is opposed to any
use of force, and, far from plotting in secret, he seeks every
opportunity of saying and doing all that he says and does in the
most open manner. And the gendarmes, though they are bound by no
hard-and-fast rules, still find no ground for a criminal charge in
the young man, and, like the clergy, they send him back to the army.
Again the authorities deliberate together, and decide to accept
him though he has not taken the oath, and to enrol him among the
soldiers. They put him into the uniform, enrol him, and send him
under guard to the place where the army is quartered. There the chief
officer of the division which he enters again expects the young man
to perform his military duties, and again he refuses to obey, and in
the presence of other soldiers explains the reason of his refusal,
saying that he as a Christian cannot voluntarily prepare himself to
commit murder, which is forbidden by the law of Moses.
This incident occurs in a provincial town. The case awakens the
interest, and even the sympathy, not only of outsiders, but even
of the officers. And the chief officers consequently do not decide
to punish this refusal of obedience with disciplinary measures. To
save appearances, though, they shut the young man up in prison, and
write to the highest military authorities to inquire what they are
to do. To refuse to serve in the army, in which the Tzar himself
serves, and which enjoys the blessing of the Church, seems insanity
from the official point of view. Consequently they write from
Petersburg that, since the young man must be out of his mind, they
must not use any severe treatment with him, but must send him to a
lunatic asylum, that his mental condition may be inquired into and
be scientifically treated. They send him to the asylum in the hope
that he will remain there, like another young man, who refused ten
years ago at Tver to serve in the army, and who was tortured in
the asylum till he submitted. But even this step does not rid the
military authorities of the inconvenient man. The doctors examine
him, interest themselves warmly in his case, and naturally finding in
him no symptoms of mental disease, send him back to the army. There
they receive him, and making believe to have forgotten his refusal,
and his motives for it, they again request him to go to drill, and
again in the presence of the other soldiers he refuses and explains
the reason of his refusal. The affair continues to attract more and
more attention, both among the soldiers and the inhabitants of the
town. Again they write to Petersburg, and thence comes the decree
to transfer the young man to some division of the army stationed on
the frontier, in some place where the army is under martial law,
where he can be shot for refusing to obey, and where the matter can
proceed without attracting observation, seeing that there are few
Russians and Christians in such a distant part, but the majority are
foreigners and Mohammedans. This is accordingly done. They transfer
him to a division stationed on the Zacaspian border, and in company
with convicts send him to a chief officer who is notorious for his
harshness and severity.
All this time, through all these changes from place to place, the
young man is roughly treated, kept in cold, hunger, and filth, and
life is made burdensome to him generally. But all these sufferings
do not compel him to change his resolution. On the Zacaspian
border, where he is again requested to go on guard fully armed, he
again declines to obey. He does not refuse to go and stand near
the haystacks where they place him, but refuses to take his arms,
declaring that he will not use violence in any case against anyone.
All this takes place in the presence of the other soldiers. To let
such a refusal pass unpunished is impossible, and the young man is
put on his trial for breach of discipline. The trial takes place,
and he is sentenced to confinement in the military prison for two
years. He is again transferred, in company with convicts, by étape,
to Caucasus, and there he is shut up in prison and falls under the
irresponsible power of the jailer. There he is persecuted for a year
and a half, but he does not for all that alter his decision not to
bear arms, and he explains why he will not do this to everyone with
whom he is brought in contact. At the end of the second year they
set him free, before the end of his term of imprisonment, reckoning
it contrary to law to keep him in prison after his time of military
service was over, and only too glad to get rid of him as soon as
possible.
Other men in various parts of Russia behave, as though by agreement,
precisely in the same way as this young man, and in all these cases
the government has adopted the same timorous, undecided, and
secretive course of action. Some of these men are sent to the lunatic
asylum, some are enrolled as clerks and transferred to Siberia, some
are sent to work in the forests, some are sent to prison, some are
fined. And at this very time some men of this kind are in prison,
not charged with their real offense--that is, denying the lawfulness
of the action of the government, but for non-fulfillment of special
obligations imposed by government. Thus an officer of reserve, who
did not report his change of residence, and justified this on the
ground that he would not serve in the army any longer, was fined
thirty rubles for non-compliance with the orders of the superior
authority. This fine he also declined voluntarily to pay. In the same
way some peasants and soldiers who have refused to be drilled and
to bear arms have been placed under arrest on a charge of breach of
discipline and insolence.
And cases of refusing to comply with the demands of government when
they are opposed to Christianity, and especially cases of refusing
to serve in the army, are occurring of late not in Russia only,
but everywhere. Thus I happen to know that in Servia men of the
so-called sect of Nazarenes steadily refuse to serve in the army,
and the Austrian Government has been carrying on a fruitless contest
with them for years, punishing them with imprisonment. In the year
1885 there were 130 such cases. I know that in Switzerland in the
year 1890 there were men in prison in the castle of Chillon for
declining to serve in the army, whose resolution was not shaken by
their punishment. There have been such cases in Sweden, and the
men who refused obedience were sent to prison in exactly the same
way, and the government studiously concealed these cases from the
people. There have been similar cases also in Prussia. I know of the
case of a sub-lieutenant of the Guards, who in 1891 declared to the
authorities in Berlin that he would not, as a Christian, continue
to serve, and in spite of all admonitions, threats, and punishments
he stuck to his resolution. In the south of France a society has
arisen of late bearing the name of the Hinschists (these facts are
taken from the _Peace Herald_, July, 1891), the members of which
refuse to enter military service on the grounds of their Christian
principles. At first they were enrolled in the ambulance corps, but
now, as their numbers increase, they are subjected to punishment for
non-compliance, but they still refuse to bear arms just the same.
The socialists, the communists, the anarchists, with their bombs and
riots and revolutions, are not nearly so much dreaded by governments
as these disconnected individuals coming from different parts, and
all justifying their non-compliance on the grounds of the same
religion, which is known to all the world.
Every government knows by what means and in what manner to
defend itself from revolutionists, and has resources for doing
so, and therefore does not dread these external foes. But what
are governments to do against men who show the uselessness,
superfluousness, and perniciousness of all governments, and who do
not contend against them, but simply do not need them and do without
them, and therefore are unwilling to take any part in them?
The revolutionists say: The form of government is bad in this respect
and that respect; we must overturn it and substitute this or that
form of government. The Christian says: I know nothing about the
form of government, I don't know whether it is good or bad, and I
don't want to overturn it precisely because I don't know whether it's
good or bad, but for the very same reason I don't want to support it
either. And I not only don't want to, but I can't, because what it
demands of me is against my conscience.
All state obligations are against the conscience of a Christian--the
oath of allegiance, taxes, law proceedings, and military service. And
the whole power of the government rests on these very obligations.
Revolutionary enemies attack the government from without.
Christianity does not attack it at all, but, from within, it destroys
all the foundations on which government rests.
Among the Russian people, especially since the age of Peter I., the
protest of Christianity against the government has never ceased, and
the social organization has been such that men emigrate in communes
to Turkey, to China, and to uninhabited lands, and not only feel no
need of state aid, but always regard the state as a useless burden,
only to be endured as a misfortune, whether it happens to be Turkish,
Russian, or Chinese. And so, too, among the Russian people more and
more frequent examples have of late appeared of conscious Christian
freedom from subjection to the state. And these examples are the more
alarming for the government from the fact that these non-compliant
persons often belong not to the so-called lower uneducated classes,
but are men of fair or good education; and also from the fact that
they do not in these days justify their position by any mystic and
exceptional views, as in former times, do not associate themselves
with any superstitious or fanatic rites, like the sects who practice
self-immolation by fire, or the wandering pilgrims, but put their
refusal on the very simplest and clearest grounds, comprehensible to
all, and recognized as true by all.
Thus they refuse the voluntary payment of taxes, because taxes are
spent on deeds of violence--on the pay of men of violence--soldiers,
on the construction of prisons, fortresses, and cannons. They as
Christians regard it as sinful and immoral to have any hand in such
deeds.
Those who refuse to take the oath of allegiance refuse because to
promise obedience to authorities, that is, to men who are given to
deeds of violence, is contrary to the sense of Christ's teaching.
They refuse to take the oath in the law courts, because oaths are
directly forbidden by the Gospel. They refuse to perform police
duties, because in the performance of these duties they must use
force against their brothers and ill treat them, and a Christian
cannot do that. They refuse to take part in trials at law, because
they consider every appeal to law is fulfilling the law of vengeance,
which is inconsistent with the Christian law of forgiveness and love.
They refuse to take any part in military preparations and in the
army, because they cannot be executioners, and they are unwilling to
prepare themselves to be so.
The motives in all these cases are so excellent that, however
despotic governments may be, they could hardly punish them openly.
To punish men for refusing to act against their conscience the
government must renounce all claim to good sense and benevolence. And
they assure people that they only rule in the name of good sense and
benevolence.
What are governments to do against such people?
Governments can of course flog to death or execute or keep in
perpetual imprisonment all enemies who want to overturn them by
violence, they can lavish gold on that section of the people who are
ready to destroy their enemies. But what can they do against men
who, without wishing to overturn or destroy anything, desire simply
for their part to do nothing against the law of Christ, and who,
therefore, refuse to perform the commonest state requirements, which
are, therefore, the most indispensable to the maintenance of the
state?
If they had been revolutionists, advocating and practicing violence
and murder, their suppression would have been an easy matter; some
of them could have been bought over, some could have been duped, some
could have been overawed, and these who could not be bought over,
duped, or overawed would have been treated as criminals, enemies
of society, would have been executed or imprisoned, and the crowd
would have approved of the action of the government. If they had
been fanatics, professing some peculiar belief, it might have been
possible, in disproving the superstitious errors mixed in with their
religion, to attack also the truth they advocate. But what is to be
done with men who profess no revolutionary ideas nor any peculiar
religious dogmas, but merely because they are unwilling to do evil to
any man, refuse to take the oath, to pay taxes, to take part in law
proceedings, to serve in the army, to fulfill, in fact, any of the
obligations upon which the whole fabric of a state rests? What is to
done with such people? To buy them over with bribes is impossible;
the very risks to which they voluntarily expose themselves show that
they are incorruptible. To dupe them into believing that this is
their duty to God is also impossible, since their refusal is based on
the clear, unmistakable law of God, recognized even by those who are
trying to compel men to act against it. To terrify them by threats is
still less possible, because the deprivations and sufferings to which
they are subjected only strengthen their desire to follow the faith
by which they are commanded: to obey God rather than men, and not to
fear those who can destroy the body, but to fear him who can destroy
body and soul. To kill them or keep them in perpetual imprisonment
is also impossible. These men have friends, and a past; their way
of thinking and acting is well known; they are known by everyone
for good, gentle, peaceable people, and they cannot be regarded as
criminals who must be removed for the safety of society. And to put
men to death who are regarded as good men is to provoke others to
champion them and justify their refusal. And it is only necessary
to explain the reasons of their refusal to make clear to everyone
that these reasons have the same force for all other men, and that
they all ought to have done the same long ago. These cases put the
ruling powers into a desperate position. They see that the prophecy
of Christianity is coming to pass, that it is loosening the fetters
of those in chains, and setting free them that are in bondage, and
that this must inevitably be the end of all oppressors. The ruling
authorities see this, they know that their hours are numbered, and
they can do nothing. All that they can do to save themselves is only
deferring the hour of their downfall. And this they do, but their
position is none the less desperate.
It is like the position of a conqueror who is trying to save a town
which has been been set on fire by its own inhabitants. Directly he
puts out the conflagration in one place, it is alight in two other
places; directly he gives in to the fire and cuts off what is on fire
from a large building, the building itself is alight at both ends.
These separate fires may be few, but they are burning with a flame
which, however small a spark it starts from, never ceases till it has
set the whole ablaze.
Thus it is that the ruling authorities are in such a defenseless
position before men who advocate Christianity, that but little is
necessary to overthrow this sovereign power which seems so powerful,
and has held such an exalted position for so many centuries. And
yet social reformers are busy promulgating the idea that it is not
necessary and is even pernicious and immoral for every man separately
to work out his own freedom. As though, while one set of men have
been at work a long while turning a river into a new channel, and had
dug out a complete water-course and had only to open the floodgates
for the water to rush in and do the rest, another set of men should
come along and begin to advise them that it would be much better,
instead of letting the water out, to construct a machine which would
ladle the water up from one side and pour it over the other side.
But the thing has gone too far. Already ruling governments feel their
weak and defenseless position, and men of Christian principles are
awakening from their apathy, and already begin to feel their power.
"I am come to send a fire on the earth," said Christ, "and what will
I, if it be already kindled?"
And this fire is beginning to burn.