Among the first answers to my book there came some letters from the
American Quakers. In these letters, which express their sympathy
with my views concerning the unlawfulness for Christianity of all
violence and war, the Quakers informed me of the details of their
so-called sect, which for more than two hundred years has in fact
professed Christ's teaching about non-resistance to evil, and which
has used no arms in order to defend itself. With their letters,
the Quakers sent me their pamphlets, periodicals, and books. From
these periodicals, pamphlets, and books which they sent me I
learned to what extent they had many years ago incontestably proved
the obligation for a Christian to fulfil the commandment about
non-resistance to evil and had laid bare the incorrectness of the
church teaching, which admitted executions and wars.
Having proved, by a whole series of considerations and texts, that
war, that is, the maiming and killing of men, is incompatible with
a religion which is based on love of peace and good-will to men,
the Quakers affirm and prove that nothing has so much contributed
to the obscuration of Christ's truth in the eyes of the pagans
and impeded the dissemination of Christianity in the world as the
non-acknowledgment of this commandment by men who called themselves
Christians,--as the permission granted to a Christian to wage war
and use violence.
"Christ's teaching, which entered into the consciousness of men,
not by means of the sword and of violence," they say, "but by means
of non-resistance to evil, can be disseminated in the world only
through humility, meekness, peace, concord, and love among its
followers.
"A Christian, according to the teaching of God Himself, can be
guided in his relations to men by peace only, and so there cannot
be such an authority as would compel a Christian to act contrary to
God's teaching and contrary to the chief property of a Christian in
relation to those who are near to him.
"The rule of state necessity," they say, "may compel those to become
untrue to God's law, who for the sake of worldly advantages try
to harmonize what cannot be harmonized, but for a Christian, who
sincerely believes in this, that the adherence to Christ's teaching
gives him salvation, this rule can have no meaning."
My acquaintance with the activity of the Quakers and with their
writings,--with Fox, Paine, and especially with Dymond's book
(1827),--showed me that not only had the impossibility of uniting
Christianity with violence and war been recognized long ago, but
that this incompatibility had long ago been proved so clearly and
so incontestably that one has only to marvel how this impossible
connection of the Christian teaching with violence, which has been
preached all this time by the churches, could have been continued.
Besides the information received by me from the Quakers, I, at about
the same time, received, again from America, information in regard
to the same subject from an entirely different source, which had
been quite unknown to me before.
The son of William Lloyd Garrison, the famous champion for the
liberation of the negroes, wrote to me that, when he read my book,
in which he found ideas resembling those expressed by his father in
1838, he, assuming that it might be interesting for me to know this,
sent me the "Declaration of Non-resistance," which his father had
made about fifty years ago.
[Illustration: William Lloyd Garrison
_Photogravure from Photograph_]
This declaration had its origin under the following conditions:
William Lloyd Garrison, in speaking before a society for the
establishment of peace among men, which existed in America in 1838,
about the measures for abolishing war, came to the conclusion that
the establishment of universal peace could be based only on the
obvious recognition of the commandment of non-resistance to evil
(Matt. v. 39) in all its significance, as this was understood by the
Quakers, with whom Garrison stood in friendly relations. When he
came to this conclusion, he formulated and proposed to the society
the following declaration, which was then, in 1838, signed by many
members.
DECLARATION OF SENTIMENTS ADOPTED BY THE PEACE CONVENTION, HELD IN
BOSTON IN 1838
"We, the undersigned, regard it as due to ourselves, to the cause
which we love, to the country in which we live, and to the world, to
publish a Declaration, expressive of the principles we cherish, the
purposes we aim to accomplish, and the measures we shall adopt to
carry forward the work of peaceful and universal reformation.
"We cannot 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, rights, and liberties of American citizens are no more
dear to us than are those of the whole human race. Hence we can
allow no appeal to patriotism, to revenge any national insult or
injury....
"We conceive, that if a nation has no right to defend itself against
foreign enemies, or to punish its invaders, no individual possesses
that right in his own case. The unit cannot be of greater importance
than the aggregate.... But if a rapacious and bloodthirsty soldiery,
thronging these shores from abroad, with intent to commit rapine
and destroy life, may not be resisted by the people or 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 not less
absurd than impious. It makes the impartial Author of human freedom
and equality 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 register our testimony, not only against all wars, whether
offensive or defensive, but all preparations for war; against every
naval ship, every arsenal, every fortification; against the militia
system and a standing army; against all military chieftains and
soldiers; against all monuments commemorative of victory over a
foreign foe, all trophies won in battle, all celebrations in honour
of military or naval exploits: against all appropriations for the
defence of a nation by force and arms on the part of any legislative
body; against every edict of government, requiring of its subjects
military service. Hence, we deem it unlawful to bear arms, or to
hold a military office.
"As every human government is upheld by physical strength, and its
laws are enforced virtually at the point of the bayonet, we cannot
hold any office which imposes upon its incumbent the obligation 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 honours, 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 compel him by
force to restore anything which he may have wrongfully taken from us
or others; but, if he has seized our coat, we shall surrender up our
cloak, 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 upon all His disciples, in
all cases whatsoever. To extort money from enemies, or set them upon
a pillory, or cast them into prison, or hang them upon a gallows, 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; that the
sinful disposition of man can be subdued only by love; that evil
can be exterminated from the earth only by goodness; that it is not
safe to rely upon an arm of flesh ... to preserve us from harm; that
there is great security in being gentle, harmless, long-suffering,
and abundant in mercy; that it is only the meek who shall inherit
the earth, for the violent, who resort to the sword, shall perish
with 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, will ensure all things needful to us, is armed with
omnipotent power, and must ultimately triumph over every assailing
foe.
"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 principles, it is impossible for us to
be disorderly, or plot treason, or participate in any evil work: we
shall submit to every ordinance of man, for the Lord's sake; obey
all the requirements of government, except such as we deem contrary
to the commands of the gospel; and in no wise resist the operation
of law, except by meekly submitting to the penalty of disobedience.
"But, while we shall adhere to the doctrines of non-resistance and
passive submission to enemies, we purpose, in a moral and spiritual
sense, to speak and act boldly in the cause of God; to assail
iniquity in high places and in low places; to apply our principles
to all existing civil, political, legal, and ecclesiastical
institutions; and to hasten the time when the kingdoms of this world
shall become the kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ, and He shall
reign for ever.
"It appears to us as a self-evident truth, that, whatever the gospel
is designed to destroy, 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 ploughshares, 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 briefly, but frankly, stated our principles and
purposes, 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--striving
to commend ourselves unto every man's conscience, in the sight of
God. From the press, we shall promulgate our sentiments as widely
as practicable. We shall endeavour to secure the coöperation of
all persons, of whatever name or sect.... Hence we shall employ
lectures, circulate tracts and publications, form societies, and
petition our State and national governments in relation to the
subject of universal peace. 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, calumny. Tumults may arise against
us. The ungodly and the violent, the proud and pharisaical, the
ambitious and tyrannical, principalities and powers, and spiritual
wickedness in high places, 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, neither be troubled. Our
confidence is in the Lord Almighty, 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 ordeal which is to try us, as though some strange thing had
happened unto us; but rejoice, inasmuch as we are partakers of
Christ's sufferings. Wherefore, we commit the keeping of our souls
to God, in well-doing, as unto a faithful Creator. '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 an
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, in solemn testimony of our
faith in their divine origin, we hereby affix our signatures to
it; commending it to the reason and conscience of mankind, giving
ourselves no anxiety as to what may befall us, and resolving, in the
strength of the Lord God, calmly and meekly to abide the issue."
* * * * *
Immediately after this declaration Garrison founded a society of
non-resistance, and a periodical, called _The Non-Resistant_,
in which was preached the doctrine of non-resistance in all its
significance and with all its consequences, as it had been expressed
in the "Declaration." The information as to the later fate of the
society and the periodical of non-resistance I received from the
beautiful biography of William Lloyd Garrison, written by his sons.
The society and the periodical did not exist long: the majority of
Garrison's collaborators in matters of freeing the slaves, fearing
lest the too radical demands, as expressed in _The Non-Resistant_,
might repel people from the practical work of the liberation of the
negroes, refused to profess the principle of non-resistance, as it
had been expressed in the "Declaration," and the society and the
periodical ceased to exist.
This "Declaration" by Garrison, which so powerfully and so
beautifully expressed such an important profession of faith, ought,
it seems, to have startled men and to have become universally known
and a subject of wide discussion. But nothing of the kind happened.
It is not only unknown in Europe, but even among the Americans,
who so highly esteem Garrison's memory, this declaration is almost
unknown.
The same ingloriousness has fallen to the share of another champion
of non-resistance to evil, the American Adin Ballou, who lately
died, and who preached this doctrine for fifty years. How little is
known of what refers to the question of non-resistance may be seen
from the fact that Garrison's son, who has written an excellent
biography of his father in four volumes, this son of Garrison, in
reply to my question whether the society of non-resistance was
still in existence, and whether there were any followers of it,
answered me that so far as he knew the society had fallen to pieces,
and there existed no followers of this doctrine, whereas at the time
of his writing, there lived in Hopedale, Massachusetts, Adin Ballou,
who had taken part in Garrison's labours and had devoted fifty years
of his life to the oral and printed propaganda of the doctrine of
non-resistance. Later on I received a letter from Wilson, a disciple
and assistant of Ballou, and entered into direct communication with
Ballou himself. I wrote to Ballou, and he answered me and sent me
his writings. Here are a few extracts from them:
"Jesus Christ is my Lord and Master," says Ballou in one of
the articles,[1] in which he arraigns the inconsistency of the
Christians who recognize the right of defence and war. "I have
covenanted to forsake all and follow Him, through good and evil
report, until death. But I am nevertheless a Democratic-Republican
citizen of the United States, implicitly sworn to bear true
allegiance to my country, and to support its Constitution, if need
be, with my life. Jesus Christ requires me to do unto others as I
would that others should do unto me. The Constitution of the United
States requires me to do unto twenty-seven hundred slaves" (there
were slaves then, now we may put the working people in their place)
"the very contrary of what I would have them do unto me, viz.,
assist to keep them in a grievous bondage.... But I am quite easy.
I vote on. I help govern on. I am willing to hold any office I may
be elected to under the Constitution. And I am still a Christian.
I profess on. I find no difficulty in keeping covenant both with
Christ and the Constitution....
[1] In _The Non-Resistant_, Vol. i., No. 4, Hopedale, Milford,
Mass., Feb. 15, 1845.
"Jesus Christ forbids me to resist evil-doers by taking 'eye for
eye, tooth for tooth, blood for blood, and life for life.' My
government requires the very reverse, and depends, for its own
self-preservation, on the halter, the musket, and the sword,
seasonably employed against its domestic and foreign enemies.
Accordingly, the land is well furnished with gibbets, prisons,
arsenals, train-bands, soldiers, and ships-of-war. In the
maintenance and use of this expensive life-destroying apparatus,
we can exemplify the virtues of forgiving our injurers, loving our
enemies, blessing them that curse us, and doing good to those that
hate us. For this reason, we have regular Christian chaplains to
pray for us, and call down the sins of God on our holy murderers....
"I see it all; and yet I insist that I am as good a Christian as
ever. I fellowship all; I vote on; I help govern on; I profess on;
and I glory in being at once a devoted Christian, and a no less
devoted adherent to the existing government. I will not give in
to those miserable non-resistant notions. I will not throw away
my political influence, and leave unprincipled men to carry on
government alone....
"The Constitution says, 'Congress shall have power to declare
war.'... I agree to this. I endorse it. I swear to help carry
it through.... What then, am I less a Christian? Is not war a
Christian service? Is it not perfectly Christian to murder hundreds
of thousands of fellow human beings; to ravish defenceless females,
sack and burn cities, and exact all the other cruelties of war? Out
upon these new-fangled scruples! This is the very way to forgive
injuries, and love our enemies! If we only do it all in true love,
nothing can be more Christian than wholesale murder!"
In another pamphlet, under the title, _How Many Does It Take?_[2]
he says, "How many does it take to metamorphose wickedness into
righteousness? One man must not kill. If he does, it is murder.
Two, ten, one hundred men, acting on their own responsibility, must
not kill. If they do, it is still murder. But a state or nation
may kill as many as they please, and it is no murder. It is just,
necessary, commendable, and right. Only get people enough to agree
to it, and the butchery of myriads of human beings is perfectly
innocent. But how many men does it take? This is the question. Just
so with theft, robbery, burglary, and all other crimes.... But a
whole nation can commit it.... But how many does it take?"[3]
[2] Not a pamphlet, but an article in _The Non-Resistant_, Vol. i.
No. 4, and very imperfectly quoted by Tolstóy.
[3] To this Tolstóy adds, on his own responsibility: "Why must one,
ten, one hundred men not violate God's law, while very many may?"
Here is Ballou's catechism, composed for his flock (_The Catechism
of Non-Resistance_[4]):
[4] Translated freely, with some omissions.--_Author's Note._ I fail
to find this _Catechism_ in any of Ballou's writings accessible
in and about Boston. The nearest approach to these questions and
answers is found scattered throughout his _Christian Non-Resistance,
in Its Important Bearings, Illustrated and Defended_, Philadelphia,
1846.
_Q._ Whence originated the term "non-resistance?"
_A._ From the injunction, "Resist not evil," Matt. v. 39.
_Q._ What does the term signify?
_A._ It expresses a high Christian virtue, prescribed by Christ.
_Q._ Is the word "resistance" to be taken in its widest meaning,
that is, as showing that no resistance whatever is to be shown to
evil?
_A._ No, it is to be taken in the strict sense of the Saviour's
injunction; that is, we are not to retaliate evil with evil. Evil is
to be resisted by all just means, but never with evil.
_Q._ From what can we see that Christ in such cases prescribed
non-resistance?
_A._ From the words which He then used. He said, "Ye have heard
that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.
But I say unto you that ye resist not evil; but whosoever shall
smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if
any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him
have thy cloak also."
_Q._ To whom does Jesus refer in the words, "It has been said?"
_A._ To the patriarchs and prophets, to what they said,--to what
is contained in the writings of the Old Testament, which the Jews
generally call the Law and the Prophets.
_Q._ What injunctions did Christ mean by "It hath been said?"
_A._ Those injunctions by which Noah, Moses, and other prophets
authorize men to inflict personal injury on injurers, in order to
punish and destroy evil.
_Q._ Quote these precepts.
_A._ Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for
in the image of God made He man (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, 23-25).
And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death. And if a
man cause a blemish in his neighbour; as he hath done, so shall it
be done to him: breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as
he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again
(Lev. xxiv. 17, 19, 20).
And 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, 19, 21). These are the precepts of which Jesus
is speaking.
Noah, Moses, and the prophets taught that he who kills, maims, and
tortures his neighbours does evil. To resist such evil and destroy
it, the doer of evil is to be punished by death or maiming or some
personal injury. Insult is to be opposed to insult, murder to
murder, torture to torture, evil to evil. Thus taught Noah, Moses,
and the prophets. But Christ denies it all. "But I say unto you," it
says in the Gospel, "that ye resist not evil, resist not an insult
with an insult, but rather bear the repeated insult from the doer
of evil." What was authorized is prohibited. If we understand what
kind of resistance they taught, we clearly see what we are taught by
Christ's non-resistance.
_Q._ Did the ancients authorize the resistance of insult with insult?
_A._ Yes; but Jesus prohibited this. A Christian has under no
condition the right to deprive of life or to subject to insult him
who does evil to his neighbour.
_Q._ May a man kill or maim another in self-defence?
_A._ No.
_Q._ May he enter a court with a complaint, to have his insulter
punished?
_A._ No; for what he is doing through others, he is in reality doing
in his own person.
_Q._ May he fight with an army against enemies, or against domestic
rebels?
_A._ Of course not. He cannot take any part in war or warlike
preparations. He cannot use death-dealing arms. He cannot resist
injury with injury, no matter whether he be alone or with others,
through himself or through others.
_Q._ May he choose or fit out military men for the government?
_A._ He can do nothing of the kind, if he wishes to be true to
Christ's law.
_Q._ May he voluntarily give money, to aid the government, which is
supported by military forces, capital punishment, and violence in
general?
_A._ No, if the money is not intended for some special object, just
in itself, where the aim and means are good.
_Q._ May he pay taxes to such a government?
_A._ No; he must not voluntarily pay the taxes, but he must also
not resist their collection. The taxes imposed by the government
are collected independently of the will of the subjects. It is
impossible to resist the collection, without having recourse to
violence; but a Christian must not use violence, and so he must give
up his property to the violence which is exerted by the powers.
_Q._ May a Christian vote at elections and take part in a court or
in the government?
_A._ No; the participation in elections, in the court, or in the
government, is a participation in governmental violence.
_Q._ In what does the chief significance of the doctrine of
non-resistance consist?
_A._ In that it alone makes it possible to tear the evil out by the
root, both out of one's own heart and out of the neighbour's heart.
This doctrine forbids doing that by which evil is perpetuated and
multiplied. He who attacks another and insults him, engenders in
another the sentiment of hatred, the root of all evil. To offend
another, because he offended us, for the specious reason of removing
an evil, means to repeat an evil deed, both against him and against
ourselves,--to beget, or at least to free, to encourage, the very
demon whom we claim we wish to expel. Satan cannot be driven out by
Satan, untruth cannot be cleansed by untruth, and evil cannot be
vanquished by evil.
True non-resistance is the one true resistance to evil. It kills and
finally destroys the evil sentiment.
_Q._ But, if the idea of the doctrine is right, is it practicable?
_A._ It is as practicable as any good prescribed by the Law of
God. The good cannot under all circumstances be executed without
self-renunciation, privation, suffering, and, in extreme cases,
without the loss of life itself. But he who values life more than
the fulfilment of God's will is already dead to the one true life.
Such a man, in trying to save his life, shall lose it. Besides,
in general, where non-resistance costs the sacrifice of one life,
or the sacrifice of some essential good of life, resistance costs
thousands of such sacrifices.
Non-resistance preserves, resistance destroys.
It is incomparably safer to act justly than unjustly; to bear
an insult than to resist it with violence,--it is safer even in
relation to the present life. If all men did not resist evil with
evil, the world would be blessed.
_Q._ But if only a few shall act thus, what will become of them?
_A._ If only one man acted thus, and all the others agreed to
crucify him, would it not be more glorious for him to die in the
triumph of non-resisting love, praying for his enemies, than to live
wearing the crown of Cæsar, bespattered with the blood of the slain?
But one or thousands who have firmly determined not to resist evil
with evil, whether among the enlightened or among savage neighbours,
are much safer from violence than those who rely on violence. A
robber, murderer, deceiver, will more quickly leave them alone than
those who resist with weapons. They who take the sword perish with
the sword, and those who seek peace, who act in a friendly manner,
inoffensively, who forget and forgive offences, for the most part
enjoy peace or, if they die, die blessed.
Thus, if all kept the commandment of non-resistance, it is evident
that there would be no offences, no evil deeds. If these formed a
majority, they would establish the reign of love and good-will, even
toward the ill-disposed, by never resisting evil with evil, never
using violence. If there were a considerable minority of these, they
would have such a corrective, moral effect upon society that every
cruel punishment would be abolished, and violence and enmity would
be changed to peace and love. If there were but a small minority of
them, they would rarely experience anything worse than the contempt
of the world, and the world would in the meantime, without noticing
it, and without feeling itself under obligation, become wiser and
better from this secret influence. And if, in the very worst case,
a few members of the minority should be persecuted to death, these
men, dying for the truth, would leave behind them their teaching,
which is already sanctified by their martyr's death.
Peace be with all who seek peace, and all-conquering love be the
imperishable inheritance of every soul, which voluntarily submits to
the Law of Christ: "Resist not evil." In the course of fifty years,
Ballou wrote and edited books dealing mainly with the question
of non-resistance to evil. In these works, which are beautiful
in their lucidity of thought and elegance of expression, the
question is discussed from every possible side. He establishes the
obligatoriness of this commandment for every Christian who professes
the Bible as a divine revelation. He adduces all the customary
retorts to the commandment of non-resistance, both from the Old
Testament and from the New, as, for example, the expulsion from
the temple, and so forth, and all these are overthrown; he shows,
independently of Scripture, the practical wisdom of this rule, and
adduces all the objections which are usually made to it, and meets
all these objections. Thus one chapter of a work of his treats of
non-resistance to evil in exclusive cases, and here he acknowledges
that, if there were cases when the application of non-resistance to
evil were impossible, this would prove that the rule is altogether
untenable. In adducing these special cases, he proves that it is
precisely in them that the application of this rule is necessary and
rational. There is not a single side of the question, either for his
followers or for his adversaries, which is not investigated in these
works. I say all this, in order to show the unquestionable interest
which such works ought to have for men who profess Christianity, and
that, therefore, one would think Ballou's activity ought to have
been known, and the thoughts expressed by him ought to have been
accepted or refuted; but there has been nothing of the kind.
The activity of Garrison the father, with his foundation of a
society of non-resistants and his declaration, convinced me even
more than my relations with the Quakers, that the departure of state
Christianity from Christ's law about non-resistance to evil is
something that has been observed and pointed out long ago, and that
men have without cessation worked to arraign it. Ballou's activity
still more confirmed this fact to me. But the fate of Garrison and
especially of Ballou, who is not known to any one, in spite of
his fifty years of stubborn and constant work in one and the same
direction, has also confirmed to me the other fact, that there
exists some kind of unexpressed but firm understanding as to passing
all such attempts in silence.
Ballou died in August, 1890, and his obituary was given
in an American periodical with a Christian tendency
(_Religio-Philosophical Journal_, August 23d).
In this eulogistic obituary it says that Ballou was a spiritual
guide of a community, that he delivered between eight and nine
thousand sermons, married one thousand pairs, and wrote about five
hundred articles, but not a word is said about the aim to which he
devoted all his life,--the word "non-resistance" is not even used.
Like all that which the Quakers have been preaching for two hundred
years, like the activity of Garrison the father, the foundation of
his society and periodical, and his declaration, so Ballou's whole
activity does not seem to have existed at all.
A striking example of such an ingloriousness of writings intended to
elucidate non-resistance to evil, and to arraign those who do not
recognize this commandment, is found in the fate of the book by the
Bohemian Chelcický, which has but lately become known and has so far
not yet been printed.
Soon after the publication of my book in German, I received a letter
from a professor of the Prague University, which informed me of the
existence of a still unpublished work by the Bohemian Chelcický, of
the fifteenth century, by the name of _The Drawnet of Faith_. In
this work, as the professor wrote me, Chelcický about four centuries
ago expressed the same view in regard to the true and the false
Christianity, which I had expressed in my work, _My Religion_. The
professor wrote to me that Chelcický's work was for the first time
to be published in Bohemian in the periodical of the St. Petersburg
Academy of Sciences. As I was unable to procure the work itself, I
tried to become acquainted with what was known of Chelcický, and
such information I got from a German book sent me by the same Prague
professor, and from Pýpin's "History of Bohemian Literature." This
is what Pýpin says:
"_The Drawnet of Faith_ is that teaching of Christ which is to draw
man out from the dark depths of the sea of life and its untruths.
True faith consists in believing in God's words; but now there has
come a time when men consider the true faith to be heresy, and so
reason must show wherein the true faith consists, if one does not
know it. Darkness has concealed it from men, and they do not know
Christ's true law.
"To explain this law, Chelcický points out the original structure of
Christian society, which, he says, is now regarded as rank heresy by
the Roman Church.
"This primitive church was his own ideal of a social structure,
based on equality, freedom, and brotherhood. Christianity, according
to Chelcický, still treasures these principles, and all that is
necessary is, that society should return to its pure teaching, and
then any other order, in which kings and popes are needed, would
seem superfluous: in everything the law of love alone is sufficient.
"Historically Chelcický refers the fall of Christianity to the
times of Constantine the Great, whom Pope Sylvester introduced into
Christianity with all the pagan customs and life. Constantine, in
his turn, invested the Pope with worldly wealth and power. Since
then both powers have been aiding one another and have striven after
external glory. Doctors and masters and the clergy have begun to
care only for the subjugation of the whole world to their dominion,
have armed men against one another for the purpose of murdering and
plundering, and have completely destroyed Christianity in faith
and in life. Chelcický absolutely denies the right to wage war and
administer capital punishment; every warrior and even 'knight' is
only an oppressor, malefactor, and murderer."
The same, except for some biographical details and excerpts from
Chelcický's correspondence, is said in the German book.
Having thus learned the essence of Chelcický's teaching, I with much
greater impatience waited for the appearance of _The Drawnet of
Faith_ in the journal of the Academy. But a year, two, three years
passed, and the book did not appear. Only in 1888 I learned that the
printing of the book, which had been begun, had come to a stop. I
got the proof-sheets of as much as had been printed, and I read the
book. The book is in every respect remarkable.
The contents are quite correctly rendered by Pýpin. Chelcický's
fundamental idea is this, that Christianity, having united with the
power in the time of Constantine and having continued to develop
under these conditions, has become absolutely corrupt and has ceased
to be Christianity. The title "The Drawnet of Faith," was given by
Chelcický to his work, because, taking for his motto the verse of
the Gospel about calling the disciples to become fishers of men,
Chelcický, continuing this comparison, says, "Christ by means of
His disciples caught in His drawnet of faith the whole world, but
the larger fish, tearing the net, jumped out of it, and through the
holes, which these larger fish had made, all the others went away,
and the net was left almost empty."
The large fish that broke through the net are the rulers, emperors,
popes, kings, who, in not renouncing their power, did not accept
Christianity, but its semblance only.
Chelcický taught what has been taught until the present by the
Mennonites and Quakers, and what in former years was taught by the
Bogomils, Paulicians, and many others. He teaches that Christianity,
which demands from its followers meekness, humility, kindness,
forgiveness of sins, the offering of the other cheek when one cheek
has been smitten, love of enemies, is incompatible with violence,
which forms an indispensable condition of power.
A Christian, according to Chelcický's interpretation, can not only
not be a chief or a soldier, but cannot even take part in the
government, be a merchant or even a landowner; he can be only an
artisan or an agriculturist.
This book is one of the extremely few that have survived the
auto-da-fés of books in which the official Christianity is
arraigned. All such books, which are called heretical, have been
burned together with the authors, so that there are very few ancient
works which arraign the departure of official Christianity, and so
this book is especially interesting.
But besides being interesting, no matter how we look upon it, this
book is one of the most remarkable productions of thoughts, as
judged by the depth of its contents, and the wonderful force and
beauty of the popular language, and its antiquity. And yet this book
has for more than four centuries remained unprinted, and continues
to be unknown, except to learned specialists.
One would think that all these kinds of works, by the Quakers, and
Garrison, and Ballou, and Chelcický, which assert and prove, on the
basis of the Gospel, that our world comprehends Christ's teaching
falsely, ought to rouse interest, agitation, discussions, in the
midst of the pastors and of the flock.
Works of this kind, which touch on the essence of the Christian
teaching, ought, it seems, to be analyzed and recognized as true, or
to be rejected and overthrown.
But nothing of the kind has happened. One and the same thing
is repeated with all these works. People of the most different
views, both those who believe and, what is most surprising, those
who are unbelieving liberals, seem to have an agreement to pass
them stubbornly in silence, and all that has been done by men to
elucidate the true meaning of Christ's teaching remains unknown or
forgotten.
But still more startling is the ingloriousness of two works, of
which I learned also in connection with the appearance of my book.
These are 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. The ignorance about these two books is particularly
remarkable, because, to say nothing of their worth, both books treat
not so much of the theory as of the practical application of the
theory to life, of the relation of Christianity to military service,
which is particularly important and interesting now, in connection
with the universal liability to do military service.
People will, perhaps, ask: "What are the duties of a subject, who
believes that war is incompatible with his religion, but of whom the
government demands a participation in military service?"
It seems that this is a very living question, one, the answer
to which is particularly important in connection with the
military service of the present time. All, or a vast majority of
men,--Christians,--all males, are called on to perform military
service. What must a man, as a Christian, answer in reply to this
demand? Dymond's answer is as follows:
"It is his duty, mildly and temperately, yet firmly, to refuse to
serve.
"There are some persons, who, without any determinate process of
reasoning, appear to conclude that responsibility for national
measures attaches solely to those who direct them; that it is the
business of governments to consider what is good for the community,
and that, in these cases, the duty of the subject is merged in the
will of the sovereign. Considerations like these are, I believe,
often voluntarily permitted to become opiates of the conscience. 'I
have no part,' it is said, 'in the councils of the government, and
am not therefore responsible for its crimes.' We are, indeed, not
responsible for the crimes of our rulers, but we are responsible for
our own; and the crimes of our rulers are our own, if, whilst we
believe them to be crimes, we promote them by our coöperation.
"But those who suppose that obedience in all things is required, or
that responsibility in political affairs is transferred from the
subject to the sovereign, reduce themselves to a great dilemma.
"It is to say that we must resign our conduct and our consciences to
the will of others, and act wickedly or well, as their good or evil
may preponderate, without merit for virtue, or responsibility for
crime."
What is remarkable is this, that precisely the same is expressed in
the instruction to the soldiers, which they are made to learn by
rote: it says there that only the general is responsible for the
consequences of his command. But this is not true. A man cannot
shift the responsibility for his acts. And this may be seen from
what follows:
"If the government direct you to fire your neighbour's property, or
to throw him over a precipice, will you obey?[5] If you will not,
there is an end of the argument, for if you may reject its authority
in one instance, where is the limit to rejection? There is no
rational limit but that which is assigned by Christianity, and that
is both rational and practicable.
[5] Tolstóy's translation from the English, which is generally
loose, here departs entirely from the text. Tolstóy writes: "If a
chief direct you to kill your neighbour's child, or your father, or
your mother, will you obey?"
"We think, then, that it is the business of every man, who believes
that war is inconsistent with our religion, respectfully, but
steadfastly, to refuse to engage in it. Let such as these remember
that an honourable and an awful duty is laid upon them. It is upon
their fidelity, so far as human agency is concerned, that the cause
of peace is suspended. Let them be willing to avow their opinions
and to defend them. Neither let them be contented with words, if
more than words, if suffering also, is required. If you believe
that Jesus Christ has prohibited slaughter, let not the opinion or
the commands of a world induce you to join in it. By this 'steady
and determinate pursuit of virtue,' the benediction which attaches
to those who hear the sayings of God and do them, will rest upon
you, and the time will come when even the world will honour you, as
contributors to the work of human reformation."
Musser's book is called _Non-Resistance Asserted; or, Kingdom of
Christ and Kingdom of This World Separated_, 1864.[6]
[6] A thorough search through bibliographies, catalogues, and
libraries has failed to reveal such a book or such an author, and as
Tolstóy speaks above of the book as being written, it may be that
Tolstóy had a manuscript before him.
The book is devoted to the same question, which it analyzes in
relation with the demand made by the government of the United States
on its citizens as regards military service during that Civil War,
and it has the same contemporary importance, in that it analyzes the
question as to how and under what conditions men must and can refuse
to do military service. In the introduction the author says:
"It is well known that in the United States there are many people
who consciously deny war. They are called 'non-resistant' or
'defenceless' Christians. These Christians refuse to defend their
country or to bear arms, or to engage, at the request of the
government, in war against its enemies. Until now this religious
cause has been respected by the government, and those who professed
it were excused from service. But with the beginning of our civil
war public opinion has been wrought up by this state of affairs.
Naturally, people who consider it their duty to bear all the burdens
and perils of a military life for the defence of their country feel
harsh toward those who for a long time have with them enjoyed the
protection and the advantages of the government, but in time of
necessity and danger do not wish to share in bearing the labours and
dangers in its defence. It is also natural for the condition of such
men to be considered irrational, monstrous, and suspicious.
"Many orators and writers," says the author, "have raised their
voice against this state and have tried to prove the injustice of
non-resistance from common sense and from Scripture; and this is
quite natural, and in many cases these authors are right,--they
are right in relation to those persons who, declining the labours
connected with military service, do not decline the advantages
which they receive from the governments,--but they are not right in
relation to the principle of non-resistance itself."
First of all the author proves the obligatoriness of the rule of
non-resistance for every Christian in that it is clear and that it
is given to a Christian beyond any possibility of misinterpretation.
"Judge yourselves whether it is right to obey man more than God,"
said Peter and John. Similarly every man who wants to be a Christian
must act in relation to the demand that he should go to war, since
Christ has told him, "Resist not evil with violence."
With this the author considers the question as to principle itself
completely solved. The author analyzes in detail the other question
as to whether persons, who do not decline the advantages which
are obtained through the violence of government, have a right to
refuse to do military service, and comes to the conclusion that a
Christian, who follows Christ's law and refuses to go to war, can
just as little take part in any governmental affairs,--either in
courts or in elections,--nor can he in private matters have recourse
to power, police or court. Then the book proceeds to analyze the
relation of the Old Testament to the New,--the significance of
government for non-Christians; there are offered objections to
the doctrine of non-resistance, and these are refuted. The author
concludes his book with the following:
"Christ chose His disciples in the world," he says. "They do not
expect any worldly goods or worldly happiness, but, on the contrary,
everlasting life. The spirit in which they live makes them satisfied
and happy in every situation. If the world tolerates them, they are
always satisfied. But if the world will not leave them in peace,
they will go elsewhere, since they are wanderers on the earth and
have no definite place of abode. They consider that the dead can
bury the dead,--they need but one thing, and that is to follow their
teacher."
Without touching the question whether the duty of a Christian in
relation to war, as established in these two books, is correct
or not, it is impossible not to see the practical importance and
urgency of the solution of this question.
There are some people,--hundreds of thousands of Quakers,--and
all our Spirit Wrestlers and Milkers, and people belonging to
no definite sects, who assert that violence--and so military
service--is not compatible with Christianity, and therefore every
year several recruits in Russia refuse to do military service on
the basis of their religious convictions. What does the government
do? Does it excuse them? No. Does it compel them to serve, and, in
case of a refusal, punish them? No. In 1818 the government acted as
follows. Here is an excerpt, which is almost unknown in Russia, from
a diary by N. N. Muravév-Kárski, which was not sanctioned by the
censor.
"TIFLIS, October 2, 1818.
"In the morning the commandant told me that lately five manorial
peasants from the Government of Támbov had been sent to Georgia.
These men had been sent to the army, but they refused to serve;
they have been flogged several times and have been sent between
the rows, but they gladly undergo the most cruel torments and
are prepared for death, if only they can avoid serving. 'Send
us away,' they say, 'and do not touch us; we shall not touch
any one. All men are equal and the Tsar is just such a man as
we are. Why should we pay him tribute? Why should I subject my
life to danger in order to kill in war a man who has done me no
wrong? You may cut us into small pieces, but we will not change
our ideas, we will not put on the military cloak, and will
not eat rations. He who will pity us will give us an alms, but
we have nothing belonging to the Crown and we want nothing.'
Such are the words of these peasants, who assert that there is
a large number like them in Russia. They have four times been
taken before the Committee of Ministers, and it was finally
decided to refer the matter to the Tsar, who commanded that
they be sent to Georgia to mend their ways, and ordered the
commander-in-chief to report to him every month concerning the
gradual success in turning these peasants to the proper ideas."
It is not known how this improvement ended, just as nothing is known
of the whole episode, which was kept a profound secret.
Thus the government acted seventy-five years ago,--thus it has acted
in the vast majority of cases, which are always cautiously concealed
from the people. Thus it acts even at present, except in relation to
the German Mennonites, who live in the Government of Khersón, for
their refusal to do military service is heeded and they are made to
serve their time in connection with forestry work.
In the late cases of refusal to do military service in consequence
of religious convictions, other than those of the Mennonites, the
authorities have acted as follows:
At first they use all means of violence employed in our time for
the purpose of "mending" them and bringing them back to "the proper
ideas," and the whole matter is kept a profound secret. I know that
in the case of one man in Moscow, who in 1884 refused to serve, they
wrote up voluminous documents two months after his refusal, and
these were kept in the ministry as the greatest secret.
They generally begin by sending the one who refuses to the priests,
who, to their shame be it said, always admonish the person refusing.
But since the admonition, in the name of Christ, to renounce Christ
is generally fruitless, the refusing person is after the admonition
by the clergy sent to the gendarmes. The gendarmes, finding nothing
of a political nature in the case, generally return him, and then
the refusing person is sent to the learned, to the physicians, and
into the insane asylum. In all these recommitments the refuser, who
is deprived of his liberty, undergoes all kinds of humiliations and
sufferings, like a condemned criminal. (This was repeated in four
cases.) The physicians dismiss the refuser from the insane asylum,
and then begin all kinds of secret, cunning measures, in order not
to dismiss the refuser and thus encourage others to refuse like him,
and at the same time not to leave him amidst the soldiers, lest the
soldiers might find out from him that the levy for military service
does not at all take place in accordance with God's law, as they are
assured, but contrary to it.
The most convenient thing for the government to do would be to
have the refuser executed, beaten to death with sticks, as they
used to do of old, or executed in some other manner. But it is
impossible openly to execute a man for being true to a teaching
which we all profess, and it is equally impossible to let a man
alone, who refuses to serve. And so the government tries either
through suffering to compel the man to renounce Christ, or in some
way imperceptibly to get rid of the man, without having him publicly
executed,--in some way to conceal this man's act and the man himself
from other people. And so there begin all kinds of devices and
cunning and tortures of this man. Either he is sent to some outlying
region, or he is provoked to commit some act of insubordination,
and then he is tried for breach of discipline and is locked up in
prison, in a disciplinary battalion, where he is freely tortured
in secret, or he is declared insane and is locked up in an insane
asylum. Thus one man was sent to Tashként, that is, as though he
were transferred to the Tashként army, another to Omsk, a third was
tried for insubordination and sent to prison, and a fourth was put
into a lunatic asylum.
Everywhere the same is repeated. Not only the government, but also
the majority of liberals, of freethinkers, as though by agreement,
carefully turn away from everything which has been said, written,
and done by men to show the incompatibility of violence in its most
terrible, rude, and lurid form, in the form of militarism, that
is, the readiness to kill anybody, with the teaching, not only of
Christianity, but even of humanitarianism, which society pretends to
be professing.
Thus the information which I received concerning the extent to which
the true significance of Christ's teaching has been elucidated and
is being elucidated more and more, and concerning the attitude which
the highest ruling classes, not only in Russia, but also in Europe
and in America, take toward this elucidation and execution of the
teaching, convinced me that in these ruling classes there existed a
consciously hostile relation toward true Christianity, which found
its expression mainly in the silence observed concerning all its
manifestations.