In my book I accuse the church teachers of teaching contrary to
Christ's commandments, which are clearly and definitely expressed in
the Sermon on the Mount, and especially contrary to the commandment
about non-resistance to evil, thus depriving Christ's teaching
of all significance. The church teachers recognize the Sermon on
the Mount with the commandment about non-resistance to evil as a
divine revelation, and so, if they have found it necessary to write
about my book at all, they ought, it would seem, first of all to
answer this chief point of accusation and say outright whether
they consider the teaching of the Sermon on the Mount and of the
commandment about non-resistance to evil obligatory for a Christian,
or not,--and they must not answer it as this is generally done, that
is, by saying that, although on the one hand it cannot properly be
denied, on the other it cannot be affirmed, the more so that, and so
forth,--but must answer it just as the question is put by me in my
book: did Christ actually demand from His disciples the fulfilment
of what He taught in the Sermon on the Mount? and so, can a
Christian, remaining a Christian, go to court, taking part in it and
condemning people, or seeking in it defence by means of violence,
or can he not? Can a Christian, still remaining a Christian, take
part in the government, using violence against his neighbours, or
not? And the chief question, which now, with the universal military
service, stands before all men,--can a Christian, remaining a
Christian, contrary to Christ's injunction, make any promises as
to future acts, which are directly contrary to the teaching, and,
taking part in military service, prepare himself for the murder of
men and commit it?
The questions are put clearly and frankly, and, it would seem, they
ought to be answered clearly and frankly. But nothing of the kind
has been done in all the criticisms upon my book, just as nothing of
the kind has been done in the case of all those arraignments of the
church teachers for departing from Christ's law, with which history
is filled since the time of Constantine.
Very much has been said in reference to my book about how
incorrectly I interpret this or that passage in the Gospel, how
I err in not acknowledging the Trinity, the redemption, and the
immortality of the soul; very much has been said, but this one
thing, which for every Christian forms the chief, essential question
of life: how to harmonize what was clearly expressed in the
teacher's words and is clearly expressed in the heart of every one
of us,--the teaching about forgiveness, humility, renunciation, and
love of all men, of our neighbours and of our enemies,--with the
demand of military violence exerted against the men of one's own
nation or another nation.
Everything which may be called semblances of answers to this
question may be reduced to the five following divisions. I have
tried in this respect to collect everything I could, not only in
reference to the criticisms upon my book, but also in reference to
what has been written upon the subject in former times.
The first, the rudest way of answering, consists in the bold
assertion that violence does not contradict Christ's teaching, and
that it is permitted and even prescribed by the Old and the New
Testament.
Assertions of this kind issue for the most part from people
high up in the governmental or ecclesiastic hierarchy, who are,
therefore, quite convinced that no one will dare to contradict
their assertions, and that if one actually dared to do so, they
would not hear these objections. These men have, in consequence of
their intoxication with their power, for the most part to such an
extent lost the concept of what that Christianity is, in the name
of which they occupy their places, that everything of a Christian
nature in Christianity presents itself to them as sectarian; but
everything which in the writings of the Old and the New Testament
may be interpreted in an anti-Christian and pagan sense, they
consider to be the foundation of Christianity. In favour of their
assertion that Christianity does not contradict violence, these
men with the greatest boldness generally bring forward the most
offensive passages from the Old and the New Testament, and interpret
them in the most non-Christian manner: the execution of Ananias
and Sapphira, the execution of Simon Magus, and so forth. They
adduce all those words of Christ which may be interpreted as a
justification of cruelty, such as the expulsion from the temple, "It
shall be more tolerable on that day for Sodom, than for that city,"
and so forth.
According to the concepts of these men, the Christian government is
not in the least obliged to be guided by the spirit of humility,
forgiveness of offences, and love of our enemies.
It is useless to refute such an assertion, because the men who
assert this refute themselves, or rather, turn away from Christ,
inventing their own Christ and their own Christianity in place of
Him in whose name the church exists and also the position which
they occupy in it. If all men knew that the church preaches Christ
punishing, and not forgiving, and warring, no one would be believing
in this church, and there would be no one to prove what it is
proving.
The second method is a little less rude. It consists in asserting
that, although Christ really taught to offer one's cheek and give up
a shirt, and this is a very high moral demand, there are malefactors
in the world, and if these are not curbed by the exercise of
force, the whole world and all good men will perish. This proof I
found for the first time in John Chrysostom and I pointed out its
incorrectness in my book, _My Religion_.
This argument is ungrounded, because, in the first place, if we
allow ourselves to recognize any men as special malefactors (Raca),
we thus destroy the whole meaning of the Christian teaching,
according to which we are all equal and brothers, as the sons of
one heavenly Father; in the second place, because, even if God
permitted the exertion of violence against malefactors, it is
absolutely impossible to find that safe and indubitable sign by
which a malefactor may be unerringly told from one who is not,
and so every man, or society of men, would recognize another as a
malefactor, which is the case now; in the third place, because even
if it were possible unerringly to tell malefactors from those who
are not malefactors, it would still not be possible in a Christian
society to execute, or maim, or lock up these malefactors, because
in Christian society there would be no one to do this, because every
Christian, as a Christian, is enjoined not to use violence against a
malefactor.
The third method of answering is still shrewder than the previous
one. It consists in asserting that, although the commandment of
non-resistance to evil is obligatory for a Christian when the evil
is directed against him personally, it ceases to be obligatory
when the evil is directed against his neighbours, and that then a
Christian is not only not obliged to fulfil the commandments, but
is also obliged in the defence of his neighbours, contrary to the
commandment, to use violence against the violators.
This assertion is quite arbitrary, and in the whole of Christ's
teaching no confirmation of such an interpretation can be found.
Such an interpretation is not only a limitation of the commandment,
but a direct negation and annihilation of it. If any man has a right
to use violence when another is threatened by danger, then the
question as to the use of violence reduces itself to the question
of defining what constitutes a danger for another person. But if my
private judgment decides the question of danger for another, then
there does not exist such a case of violence that it could not be
explained on the basis of a danger with which another is threatened.
Wizards were executed and burned, aristocrats and Girondists were
executed, and so were their enemies, because those who were in power
considered them to be dangerous for others.
If this important limitation, which radically undermines the meaning
of the commandment, entered Christ's mind, there ought somewhere to
be mention made of it. But in all the preaching and the life of the
teacher there is not only no such limitation, but, on the contrary,
there is expressed a particular caution against such a false and
offensive limitation, which destroys the commandment. The mistake
and the blunder of such a limitation is with particular clearness
shown in the Gospel in connection with the judgment of Caiaphas, who
made this very limitation. He recognized that it was not good to
execute innocent Jesus, but he saw in Him danger, not for himself,
but for the whole nation, and so he said: "It is expedient for us
that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation
perish not." And more clearly still was the negation of such a
limitation expressed in the words said to Peter when he attempted
with violence to resist the evil which was directed against Jesus
(Matt. xxvi. 52). Peter was not defending himself, but his beloved
and divine teacher. And Christ directly forbade him to do so, saying
that he who takes the sword shall perish with the sword.
Besides, the justification of violence used against a neighbour
for the sake of defending another man against worse violence is
always incorrect, because in using violence against an evil which is
not yet accomplished, it is impossible to know which evil will be
greater,--whether the evil of my violence or of that against which
I wish to defend my neighbour. We execute a criminal, thus freeing
society from him, and we are positively unable to tell whether
the criminal would not have changed on the morrow and whether our
execution is not a useless cruelty. We lock up a man whom we suppose
to be a dangerous member of society, but beginning with to-morrow
this man may cease to be dangerous, and his incarceration is futile.
I see that a man whom I know to be a robber is pursuing a girl, and
I have a gun in my hand,--I kill the robber and save the girl; the
robber has certainly been killed or wounded, but it is unknown to
me what would happen if that were not the case. What an enormous
amount of evil must take place, as it actually does, as the result
of arrogating to ourselves the right to prevent an evil that may
occur! Ninety-nine hundredths of the evil of the world, from the
Inquisition to dynamite bombs and the executions and sufferings of
tens of thousands of so-called political criminals, are based on
this reflection.
The fourth, still more refined answer to the question as to how a
Christian should act toward Christ's commandment of non-resistance
to evil consists in asserting that the commandment of non-resistance
to evil is not denied by them, but is accepted like any other; but
that they do not ascribe to this commandment any special exclusive
significance, as the sectarians do. To ascribe to this commandment
an invariable condition of Christian life, as do Garrison, Ballou,
Dymond, the Quakers, the Mennonites, the Shakers, and as did the
Moravian brothers, the Waldenses, Albigenses, Bogomils, Paulicians,
is one-sided sectarianism. This commandment has neither more nor
less significance than all the others, and a man who in his weakness
transgresses any one of the commandments about non-resistance
does not cease to be a Christian, provided he believes correctly.
This subterfuge is very clever, and men who wish to be deceived
are easily deceived by it. The subterfuge consists in reducing
the direct conscious negation of the commandment to an accidental
violation of the same. But we need only compare the relation of
the church teachers to this commandment and to others, which they
actually recognize, in order that we may convince ourselves that
the relation of the church teachers to the commandments which they
recognize is quite different from their relation to this one.
They actually recognize the commandment against fornication, and so
never, under any condition, admit that fornication is not an evil.
The preachers of the church never point out any cases when the
commandment against fornication ought to be broken, and they always
teach that we must avoid the offences which lead to the temptation
of fornication. But this is not the case with the commandment about
non-resistance. All the church preachers know cases when this
commandment may be broken. And thus they teach men. And they not
only do not teach how to avoid these offences, of which the chief
one is the oath, but themselves commit them. The church preachers
never and under no condition preach the violation of any other
commandment; but in relation to the commandment of non-resistance
they teach outright that this prohibition must not be understood in
too direct a sense, and not only that this commandment must not be
carried out at all times, but that there are conditions, situations,
when directly the opposite should be done, that is, that we should
judge, wage war, execute. Thus, in reference to the commandment
about non-resistance to evil, they in the majority of cases preach
how not to fulfil it. The fulfilment of this commandment, they
say, is very difficult and is characteristic only of perfection.
But how can it help but be difficult, when its breach is not
only not prohibited, but is also directly encouraged, when they
directly bless the courts, prisons, guns, cannon, armies, battles?
Consequently it is not true that this commandment is recognized
by the church preachers as of equal significance with the other
commandments. The church preachers simply do not recognize it, and
only because they do not dare to confess it, try to conceal their
failure to recognize it.
Such is the fourth method of answers.
The fifth method, the most refined, most popular, and most powerful
one, consists in begging the question, in making it appear as though
the question had long ago been decided by some one in an absolutely
clear and satisfactory manner, and as though it were not worth while
to speak of it. This method is employed by more or less cultivated
ecclesiastic writers, that is, such as feel the laws of logic to be
obligatory for them. Knowing that the contradiction which exists
between Christ's teaching, which we profess in words, and the whole
structure of our life cannot be solved with words, and that, by
touching it, we can only make it more obvious, they with greater or
lesser agility get around it, making it appear that the question
about the connection of Christianity with violence has been decided
or does not exist at all.[7]
[7] I know but one piece of writing, not a criticism in the strict
sense of the word, but an article which treats the same subject,
and which has my book in view, that departs from this common
definition. It is Tróitski's pamphlet (Kazán) _The Sermon on the
Mount_. The author obviously recognizes Christ's teaching in its
real significance. He says that the commandment about non-resistance
to evil means what it does, and the same is true of the commandment
about swearing; he does not deny, as others do, the significance
of Christ's teaching, but unfortunately he does not make from this
recognition those inevitable deductions, which in our life beg for
recognition in connection with such a comprehension of Christ's
teaching. If it is not right to resist evil and to swear, every
man will naturally ask: "How about military service?" And to this
question the author gives no answer, though an answer is demanded.
And if it cannot be answered, it is best not to speak at all,
because silence produces error.--_Author's Note._
The majority of the ecclesiastic critics of my book employ this
method. I could adduce dozens of such criticisms, in which without
exception one and the same thing is repeated: they speak of
everything but the chief subject of the book. As a characteristic
example of such criticisms, I shall quote an article by the famous,
refined English writer and preacher, Farrar, a great master, like
many learned theologians, of evasions and reticence. This article
was printed in the American periodical, _Forum_, in October, 1888.
Having conscientiously given a short review of my book, Farrar says:
"Tolstóy came to the conclusion that a coarse deceit was palmed
upon the world when these words were held by civil society to
be compatible with war, courts of justice, capital punishment,
divorce, oaths, national prejudice, and indeed with most of the
institutions of civil and social life. He now believes that the
kingdom of God would come if all men kept these five commandments,
... (1) Live in peace with all men; (2) be pure; (3) take no oaths;
(4) never resist evil; (5) renounce national distinctions.
"Tolstóy," he says, "rejects the divine inspiration of the Old
Testament and of the epistles; he rejects all the dogmas of the
church, that of the atonement by blood, that of the Trinity, that of
the descent of the Holy Ghost upon the apostles ... and recognizes
only the words and commandments of Christ.
"Is this interpretation of Christ a true one?" he asks. "Are all men
bound, or is any man bound, to act as Tolstóy has taught, that is,
to fulfil the five commandments of Christ?"
One just hopes that in reply to this essential question, which
alone could have urged the man to write an article on the book, he
will say that this interpretation of Christ's teaching is correct,
or that it is not correct, and so will prove why, and will give
another, a correct interpretation to the words which I interpret
incorrectly. But nothing of the kind is done. Farrar only expresses
his conviction that, "though actuated by the noblest sincerity,
Tolstóy has been misled by partial and one-sided interpretations of
the meaning of the Gospel and the mind and will of Christ."
No explanation is given as to what this error consists in, but all
there is said, is:
"To enter into the proof of this is impossible in this article, for
I have already exceeded the space at my command."
And he concludes with an easy mind:
"Meanwhile the reader who feels troubled lest it should be his duty
also to forsake all conditions of his life, and to take up the
position and work of a common labourer, may rest for the present
on the principle, _Securus judicat orbis terrarum_. With few and
rare exceptions," he continues, "the whole of Christendom, from
the days of the apostles down to our own, has come to the firm
conclusion that it was the object of Christ to lay down great
eternal principles, but not disturb the bases and revolutionize the
institutions of all human society, which themselves rest on divine
sanction as well as on inevitable conditions. Were it my object to
prove how untenable is the doctrine of communism, based by Tolstóy
upon the divine paradoxes (_sic!_), which can be interpreted on only
historical principles in accordance with the whole method of the
teaching of Jesus, it would require an ampler canvas than I have
here at my disposal."
What a misfortune,--he has not any space! And, strange to say, space
has been lacking for fifteen centuries, to prove that Christ, whom
we profess, said something different from what He said. They could
prove it, if they only wanted to. However, it does not pay to prove
what everybody knows. It is enough to say: "_Securus judicat orbis
terrarum_."
And such are, without exception, all the criticisms of the
cultivated believers, who, therefore, do not understand the
perilousness of their position. The only way out for them is the
hope that, by using the authority of the church, of antiquity,
of holiness, they may be able to confuse the reader and draw him
away from the thought of reading the Gospel for himself and of
considering the question with his own mind. And in this they are
successful. To whom, indeed, will it occur that all that which
with such assurance and solemnity is repeated from century to
century by all these archdeacons, bishops, archbishops, most
holy synods, and Popes, is a base lie and calumny, which they
foist on Christ in order to secure the money which they need for
the purpose of leading a life of pleasure, while sitting on
the backs of others,--a lie and a calumny, which is so obvious,
especially now that the only possibility of continuing this lie
consists in frightening men into belief by their assurance, their
unscrupulousness? It is precisely the same that of late years has
taken place in the Recruiting Sessions: at the head of the table,
with the Mirror of Laws upon it, and beneath the full-sized portrait
of the emperor, sit dignified old officials in their regalia,
conversing freely and unreservedly, noting down, commanding,
calling out. Here also, with the cross over his breast and in
silk vestments, with his gray hair falling down straight over his
scapulary, stands an imposing old man, the priest, in front of the
pulpit, on which lies a gold cross and a gold-trimmed Gospel.
Iván Petróv is called out. A young man steps out. He is poorly
and dirtily dressed and looks frightened, and the muscles of his
face tremble, and his fugitive eyes sparkle, and in a faltering
voice, almost in a whisper, he says: "I--according to the law I, a
Christian--I cannot--"
"What is he muttering there?" impatiently asks the presiding
officer, half-closing his eyes and listening, as he raises his head
from the book.
"Speak louder!" shouts to him the colonel with the shining
shoulder-straps.
"I--I--I--as a Christian--"
It finally turns out that the young man refuses to do military
service, because he is a Christian.
"Talk no nonsense! Get your measure! Doctor, be so kind as to take
his measure. Is he fit for the army?"
"He is."
"Reverend father, have him sworn in."
No one is confused; no one even pays any attention to what this
frightened, pitiable young man is muttering.
"They all mutter something, but we have no time: we have to receive
so many recruits."
The recruit wants to say something again.
"This is against Christ's law."
"Go, go, we know without you what is according to the law,--but
you get out of here. Reverend father, admonish him. Next: Vasíli
Nikítin."
And the trembling youth is taken away. And to whom--whether the
janitor, or Vasíli Nikítin, who is being brought in, or any one else
who witnessed this scene from the side--will it occur that those
indistinct, short words of the youth, which were at once put out
of court by the authorities, contain the truth, while those loud,
solemn speeches of the self-possessed, calm officials and of the
priest are a lie, a deception?
A similar impression is produced, not only by the articles of a
Farrar but by all those solemn sermons, articles, and books, which
appear on all sides, the moment the truth peeps out and arraigns
the ruling lie. Immediately there begin long, clever, elegant
conversations or writings about questions which touch closely upon
the subject with a shrewd reticence concerning the question itself.
In this consists the fifth and most effective means for removing
the contradiction in which the ecclesiastic Christianity has placed
itself by professing Christ in words and denying His teaching in
life, and teaching the same to others.
Those who justify themselves by the first method, asserting
outright and rudely that Christ has permitted violence,--wars,
murder,--withdraw themselves from Christ's teaching; those who
defend themselves according to the second, the third, and the fourth
methods get themselves entangled, and it is easy to point out their
untruth; but these last, who do not discuss, who do not condescend
to discuss, but hide themselves behind their greatness and make
it appear that all this has been decided long ago by them, or by
somebody else, and that it no longer is subject to any doubt, seem
invulnerable, and they will be invulnerable so long as people will
remain under the influence of hypnotic suggestion, which is induced
in them by governments and churches, and will not shake it off.
Such was the attitude which the ecclesiastics, that is, those who
profess Christ's faith, assumed toward me. Nor could they have
acted otherwise: they are bound by the contradiction in which they
live,--the faith in the divinity of the teacher and the unbelief
in His clearest words,--from which they must in some way extricate
themselves, and so it was not possible to expect from them any free
opinion concerning the essence of the question, concerning that
change in the lives of men which results from the application of
Christ's teaching to the existing order. Such opinions I expected
from the freethinking lay critics, who are in no way bound to
Christ's teaching and who can look upon it without restraint. I
expected that the freethinking writers would look upon Christ not
only as the establisher of a religion of worship and personal
salvation (as which the ecclesiastics understand him), but, to
express myself in their language, as a reformer, who destroys the
old, and gives the new foundations of life, the reform of which is
not yet accomplished, but continues until the present.
Such a view of Christ and His teaching results from my book, but,
to my surprise, out of the large number of criticisms upon my book,
there was _not one_, either Russian or foreign, which treated the
subject from the same side from which it is expounded in my book,
that is, which looked upon Christ's teaching as a philosophical,
moral, and social doctrine (again to speak in the language of the
learned). This was not the case in a single criticism.
The Russian lay critics, who understood my book in such a way
that all its contents reduced themselves to non-resistance to
evil, and who understood the teaching about non-resistance to evil
itself (apparently for convenience of refutal) as meaning that
it prohibited any struggle against evil, furiously attacked this
teaching and very successfully proved for the period of several
years that Christ's teaching was incorrect, since it taught us
not to resist evil. Their refutals of this supposed teaching of
Christ were the more successful, since they knew in advance that
their views could neither be overthrown nor corrected, because the
censorship, having failed to sanction the book itself, did not
sanction the articles in its defence either.
What is remarkable in connection with the matter is this, that
with us, where not a word may be said about the Holy Scripture
without a prohibition by the censorship, the clearly and directly
expressed commandment of Matt. v. 39 has for several years been
openly contorted, criticized, condemned, and ridiculed in all the
periodicals.
The Russian lay critics, who evidently did not know all that had
been done in the development of the question as to non-resistance
to evil, and who at times even seemed to assume that I personally
invented the rule of not resisting evil with violence, attacked the
idea itself, rejecting and contorting it, and with much fervour
advancing arguments which have long ago been analyzed from every
side and rejected, proved that a man is obliged (with violence) to
defend all the insulted and the oppressed, and that, therefore, the
doctrine about not resisting evil with violence is immoral.
The whole significance of Christ's preaching presented itself to the
Russian critics as though maliciously interfering with a certain
activity, which was directed against what they at a given moment
considered to be an evil, so that it turned out that the principle
of not resisting evil with violence was attacked by two opposite
camps,--by the conservatives, because this principle interfered
with their activity of resisting the evil which was produced by the
revolutionists, and with their persecutions and executions; and
by the revolutionists, because this principle interfered with the
resistance to the evil which was produced by the conservatives, and
with the overthrow of the conservatives. The conservatives were
provoked, because the doctrine of non-resistance to evil interfered
with the energetic suppression of the revolutionary elements,
who are likely to ruin the welfare of the nation; while the
revolutionists were provoked, because the doctrine of non-resistance
to evil interfered with the overthrow of the conservatives, who were
ruining the well-being of the nation.
What is remarkable is, that the revolutionists attacked the
principle of non-resistance, although it is most terrible and most
dangerous for every despotism, because ever since the beginning of
the world the opposite principle of the necessity of resisting evil
with violence has been lying at the basis of all violence, from the
Inquisition to the Schlüsselburg Fortress.
Besides, the Russian critics pointed out that the application to
life of the commandment about non-resistance to evil would turn
humanity away from the path of civilization, on which it was
marching now; but the path of civilization, on which the European
civilization is marching, is, in their opinion, the one on which all
humanity must always march.
Such was the chief character of the Russian criticisms.
The foreign critics proceeded from the same bases, but their reviews
of my book differed from those of the Russian critics not only in a
lesser degree of irritability and a greater degree of culture, but
also in the essence of the matter.
In discussing my book and the Gospel teaching in general, as it is
expressed in the Sermon on the Mount, the foreign critics asserted
that such a teaching is really not Christian (Christian in their
opinion is Catholicism and Protestantism), and that the doctrine
of the Sermon on the Mount is only a series of very charming,
impracticable reveries "_du charmant docteur_," as Renan used to
say, which were good enough for the naïve and half-wild inhabitants
of Galilee, who lived eighteen hundred years ago, and for the
Russian peasants, Syutáev and Bondarév, and the Russian mystic,
Tolstóy, but can in no way be applied to the high degree of European
culture.
The foreign lay critics tried, in a refined manner, without giving
me any offence, to let me know that my opinion that humanity can
be guided by such a naïve teaching as the Sermon on the Mount is
due partly to my ignorance, lack of acquaintance with history,
lack of knowledge of all those vain attempts to realize in life
the principles of the Sermon on the Mount, which have been made in
history, and have led to nothing, thanks to ignorance concerning the
whole significance of that high degree of culture on which European
civilization now stands, with its Krupp guns, smokeless powder, the
colonization of Africa, the government of Ireland, parliaments,
journalism, strikes, constitutions, and Eiffel Tower.
Thus wrote Vogüé, and Leroy Beaulieu, and Matthew Arnold, and the
American writer Savage, and Ingersoll, a popular American preacher
of free thought, and many others.
"Christ's teaching is no good, because it does not harmonize with
our industrial age," naïvely says Ingersoll, thus expressing with
absolute precision and naïveté what the refined and cultured men
of our time think about Christ's teaching. The teaching is no good
for our industrial age, as though the existence of the industrial
age is something sacred which must not and cannot be changed. It is
something like what drunkards would do, if, in response to advice
about how to get themselves into a sober state, they should reply
that the advice is out of place in connection with their present
alcoholic state.
The discussions of all the lay writers, both Russian and foreign, no
matter how different their tone and the manner of their arguments
may be, in reality reduce themselves to one and the same strange
misunderstanding, namely, that Christ's teaching, one of the
consequences of which is non-resistance to evil, is useless to us,
because it demands that our life be changed.
Christ's teaching is useless, because, if it were put into practice,
our life could not continue; in other words,--if we began to live
well, as Christ has taught us, we could not continue to live
badly, as we live and are accustomed to live. The question of
non-resistance to evil is not discussed, and the very mention of the
fact that the demand for non-resistance to evil enters into Christ's
teaching is considered a sufficient proof of the inapplicability of
the whole teaching.
And yet, it would seem, it is indispensable to point out some kind
of a solution to this question, because it lies at the foundation of
nearly all affairs which interest us.
The question consists in this: how are we to harmonize the conflicts
of men, when some consider an evil what others consider to be good,
and vice versa? And so, to consider that an evil which I consider
an evil, although my adversary may consider it good, is no answer.
There can be but two answers: either we have to find a true and
indisputable criterion of what an evil is, or we must not resist
evil with violence.
The first solution has been tried since the beginning of historical
times, and, as we all know, has so far led to no satisfactory
results.
The second answer, not to resist with violence what we consider
evil, so long as we have found no common criterion, was proposed by
Christ.
It may be found that Christ's answer is not correct: it may be
possible to put in its place another, better answer, by finding
a criterion which would indubitably and simultaneously for all
define the evil; we may simply not recognize the essence of the
question, as it is not recognized by the savage nations,--but it is
impossible, as the learned critics of the Christian teaching do, to
make it appear that such a question does not at all exist, or that
the relegation of the right to determine the evil and resist it with
violence to certain persons or assemblies of men (much less, if we
are these men), solves the question; whereas we all know that such
a relegation does not at all solve the question, since there are
some people who do not recognize this right as belonging to certain
people or to assemblies of men.
But it is this recognition that what to us appears evil is evil,
or an absolute failure to comprehend the question, which serves as
a foundation for the judgment of the lay critics concerning the
Christian teaching, so that the opinions concerning my book, both of
the ecclesiastic and the lay critics, showed me that the majority of
men absolutely fail to comprehend, not only Christ's very teaching,
but even those questions to which it serves as an answer.