The connection between science and art--The mendacious
sciences; the trivial sciences--Science should deal
with the great problems of human life, and serve as
a basis for art 517
APPENDICES
APPENDIX I 528
APPENDIX II 530
APPENDIX III 537
APPENDIX IV 542
THE KINGDOM OF GOD IS
WITHIN YOU
OR,
CHRISTIANITY NOT AS A MYSTICAL DOCTRINE,
BUT AS A NEW-LIFE CONCEPTION
AUTHOR'S PREFACE
In this book I have endeavored to show that our modern Christianity
has been tried and found wanting, that the armed camp of Europe
is not Christian, but Pagan, as is latter-day religion, of which
the present state of affairs is the outcome. The book contains
three principal ideas,--the first, that Christianity is not only
the worship of God and a doctrine of salvation, but is, above all
things, a new conception of life, which is changing the whole fabric
of human society; the second, that from the first appearance of
Christianity there entered into it two opposite currents,--the one
establishing the true and new conception of life, which it gave to
humanity, and the other perverting the true Christian doctrine and
converting it into a Pagan religion, and that this contradiction
has attained in our days the highest degree of tension which now
expresses itself in universal armaments, and on the Continent in
general conscription; and the third, that this contradiction, which
is masked by hypocrisy, can only be solved by an effort of sincerity
on the part of every individual endeavoring to conform the acts of
his life,--independent of what are regarded as the exigencies of
family, society, and the State,--with those moral principles which
he considers to be true.
* * * * *
_The above is an extract (slightly adapted) from an article on
Count Tolstoï which appeared in the London_ Daily Chronicle _of
26th December,1893. Sent by Miss Tatiana Tolstoï, on behalf of
her father, to the publishers of this edition of his work, it is
inserted here as a Preface at the suggestion of Count Tolstoï._
THE KINGDOM OF GOD IS
WITHIN YOU;
OR,
CHRISTIANITY NOT AS A MYSTICAL DOCTRINE,
BUT AS A NEW LIFE-CONCEPTION
"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you
free."--JOHN viii. 32.
"And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill
the soul; but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul
and body in hell."--MATTHEW x. 28.
"Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men."--I
CORINTHIANS vii. 23.
INTRODUCTORY
In 1884 I wrote a book entitled "My Religion," wherein I formulated
my creed.
While affirming my faith in the doctrine taught by Christ, I could
not refrain from manifesting at the same time the reason why I look
upon the ecclesiastical doctrine commonly called Christianity as
erroneous, and to me incredible.
Among the many deviations of the latter from the doctrine of Christ,
I called attention to the principal one; namely--the evasion of
the commandment that forbids man to resist evil by violence, as a
striking example of the perversion of the doctrine of Christ by
ecclesiastical interpretation.
I knew but little, no more than other men, of what had been taught
or written on the subject of non-resistance in former times. I
was familiar with the opinions of the Fathers of the Church,
Origen, Tertullian, and others; and I also knew of the existence
of certain sects called Mennonites, Herrnhuters, and Quakers, all
of which forbid Christians the use of arms, and will not submit to
conscription, but I never knew the arguments by which these sects
sought to maintain their views.
My book, as I had anticipated, was prohibited by the Russian
censors, but partly in consequence of my reputation as a writer,
partly because it excited curiosity, it had a circulation in
manuscript, and while, on the one hand, it called forth from those
persons who sympathized with my ideas, information concerning works
written on the same subject, on the other, it excited criticisms on
the opinions therein maintained.
These two results, together with the historical events of recent
years, made many things clear to me, and led me to many new
deductions and conclusions which I now desire to set forth.
I shall speak in the first place of the information I received in
regard to the history of this matter of non-resistance to evil;
and in the second place, of the arguments upon the subject offered
by religious critics, that is, by critics who profess the religion
of Christ, as well as those of secular critics, that is to say, of
men who make no such profession; and finally, the conclusions which
I drew from the arguments of both parties, as well as from the
historical events of later years.
CHAPTER I
DOCTRINE OF NON-RESISTANCE TO EVIL FROM THE ORIGIN OF CHRISTIANITY,
HAS BEEN, AND STILL IS, PROFESSED BY THE MINORITY OF MEN
Concerning the book "My Religion"--Information called forth by
this book--Letters of Quakers--Professions of Garrison--Adin
Ballou, his works and Catechism--"The Net of Faith" of
Helchitsky--Relations of men toward works that explain the
teachings of Christ--The book of Dymond "On War"--Assertion of
Non-resistance by Musser--Relations of government in 1818 toward
those who refuse to join the military service--General inimical
attitude of governments and liberal men toward those who refused
to take part in the violence of governments and their conscious
effort to conceal and ignore these demonstrations of Christian
Non-resistance.
Among the early responses called forth by my book were letters
from American Quakers. In these letters, while expressing their
sympathy with my ideas in regard to the unlawfulness of violence
and war where Christians are concerned, the Quakers made known to
me many details in relation to their sect, which for more than two
hundred years has professed the doctrine of Christ in the matter of
non-resistance, and which never has, nor does it now use weapons for
self-defense. Together with the letters, the Quakers sent me many
of their pamphlets, periodicals, and books. From these publications
I learned that already, many years ago, they had demonstrated the
Christian's duty of keeping the commandment of non-resistance to
evil by violence, and the error of the church which countenances
wars and executions.
Having shown by a succession of arguments and texts that war--the
slaughter and mutilation of men--is inconsistent with a religion
founded on peace and good-will to men, the Quakers go on to assert
that nothing is so conducive to the defamation of Christ's truth in
the eyes of the heathen, or so successful in arresting the spread
of Christianity throughout the world, as the refusal to obey this
commandment, made by men who call themselves Christians, and by the
sanction thus given to war and violence. The doctrine of Christ,
which has entered into the consciousness of men, not by force or by
the sword, as they say, but by non-resistance to evil, by humility,
meekness, and the love of peace, can only be propagated among men by
the example of peace, love, and concord given by its followers.
A Christian, according to the teaching of the Lord, should be guided
in his relations toward men only by the love of peace, and therefore
there should be no authority having power to compel a Christian to
act in a manner contrary to God's law, and contrary to his chief
duty toward his fellow-men.
The requirements of the civil law, they say, may oblige men, who,
to win some worldly advantages, seek to conciliate that which is
irreconcilable, to violate the law of God; but for a Christian,
who firmly believes that his salvation depends upon following the
teaching of Christ, this law can have no meaning.
My acquaintance with the activity of the Quakers and with their
publications, with Fox, Paine, and particularly with a work
published by Dymond in 1827, proved to me not only that men have
long since recognized the impossibility of harmonizing Christianity
and war, but that this incompatibility has been proved so clearly
and irrefragably, that one can only wonder how it is possible for
this incongruous union of Christianity with violence--a doctrine
which is still taught by the church--to remain in force.
Besides the information obtained from the Quakers, I also received
from America about the same time advices on the subject from another
and hitherto unknown source. The son of William Lloyd Garrison, the
famous anti-slavery champion, wrote to me that, having read my book,
wherein he had found ideas similar to those expressed by his father
in 1838, and taking it for granted that I should be interested to
know that fact, he sent me a book written by Mr. Garrison some fifty
years ago, entitled "Non-resistance."
This avowal of principle took place under the following
circumstances:--In 1838, on the occasion of a meeting of the Society
for the Promotion of Peace, William Lloyd Garrison, while discussing
means for the suppression of war, arrived at the conclusion that the
establishment of universal peace can have no solid foundation save
in the literal obedience to the commandment of non-resistance by
violence (Matthew v. 39), as understood by the Quakers, with whom
Garrison was on friendly terms. Having arrived at this conclusion,
he wrote, offering to the Society the following proclamation, which
at that time, in 1838, was signed by many of its members:--
"_Declaration of Sentiments adopted by the Peace Convention,
held in Boston, September 18, 19, and 20, 1838_:--
"Assembled in Convention, from various sections of the American
Union, for the promotion of Peace on earth and Good-will among
men, 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, universal
reformation.
"We cannot acknowledge allegiance to any human government;
neither can we oppose any such government by a resort to
physical force. We recognize but one King and Lawgiver, one
Judge and Ruler of mankind. We are bound by the laws of a
Kingdom which is not of this world; the subjects of which are
forbidden to fight; in which Mercy and Truth are met together,
and Righteousness and Peace have kissed each other; which has no
state lines, no national partitions, no geographical boundaries;
in which there is no distinction of rank or division of caste,
or inequality of sex; the officers of which are Peace, its
exactors Righteousness, its walls Salvation, and its gates
Praise; and which is destined to break in pieces and consume
all other kingdoms. 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, 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; the Principle of Peace,
under whose stainless banner we rally, came not to destroy, but
to save, even the worst of enemies. He has left us an example,
that we should follow His steps. God commendeth his love toward
us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
"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. If one
man may take life, to obtain or defend his rights, the same
license must necessarily be granted to communities, states,
and nations. If _he_ may use a dagger or a pistol, _they_ may
employ cannon, bombshells, land and naval forces. The means
of self-preservation must be in proportion to the magnitude
of interests at stake, and the number of lives exposed to
destruction. 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 troubles of the public peace or of private security.
No obligation can rest upon Americans to regard foreigners as
more sacred in their persons than themselves, or to give them a
monopoly of wrong-doing with impunity.
"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 fallen foe, all trophies won in battle, all
celebrations in honor of military or naval exploits; against all
appropriations for the defense of a nation by force and army,
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 compel men to do right, on pain of imprisonment
or death. We therefore voluntarily exclude ourselves from every
legislative and judicial body, and repudiate all human politics,
worldly honors, and stations of authority. If we cannot occupy
a seat in the legislature or on the bench, neither can we elect
_others_ to act as our substitutes in any such capacity.
"It follows that we cannot sue any man at law, to 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 gallows, is obviously not to forgive, but to
take retribution. 'Vengeance is mine, I will repay, saith the
Lord.'
"The history of mankind is crowded with evidences proving that
physical coercion is not adapted to moral regeneration; that the
sinful disposition of men 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, upon man whose breath is
in his nostrils, 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 are destined to 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 insure all things needful to us,
is armed with omnipotent power, and must ultimately triumph over
every assailing force.
"We advocate no jacobinical doctrine. 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
Jesus 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 case resist the operation of law, except by meekly submitting
to the penalty of disobedience.
"But while we shall adhere to the doctrine of non-resistance and
passive submission, 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 will have become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His
Christ, and He shall reign forever.
"It appears to us a self-evident truth, that, whatever the
gospel is designed to destroy at any period of the world, being
contrary to it, ought now to be abandoned. If, then, the time
is predicted when swords shall be beaten into plowshares, and
spears into pruning-hooks, and men shall not learn the art of
war any more, it follows that all who manufacture, sell, or
wield those deadly weapons do thus array themselves against the
peaceful dominion of the Son of God on earth.
"Having thus briefly 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
endeavor to secure the coöperation of all persons, of whatever
name or sect. The triumphant progress of the cause of Temperance
and of Abolition in our land, through the instrumentality of
benevolent and voluntary associations, encourages us to combine
our own means and efforts for the promotion of a still greater
cause. Hence, we shall employ lecturers, 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 violent, the proud and pharisaical,
the ambitious and tyrannical, principalities and powers, and
spiritual wickedness in high places, may contrive to crush
us. So they treated the Messiah, whose example we are humbly
striving to imitate. If we suffer with Him we know that we
shall reign with Him. 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 trial 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 house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother,
or wife, or children, or lands, for Christ's sake, shall receive
a hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.
"Firmly relying upon the certain and universal triumph of the
sentiments contained in this declaration, however formidable may
be the opposition arrayed against them--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."
Later on, Garrison founded a Non-resistance Society and started
a periodical entitled _The Non-resistant_, wherein the full
significance and consequences of the doctrine were plainly
set forth, as has been stated in the proclamation. I gained,
subsequently, further information concerning the fate of this
society and the periodical from a biography of William Lloyd
Garrison, written by his sons.
Neither the periodical nor the society enjoyed a long life. The
majority of Garrison's associates in the work of liberating the
slaves, apprehensive lest the too radical views expressed in
the _The Non-resistant_ might alienate men from the practical
business of the abolition of slavery, renounced the doctrine of
non-resistance as expressed in the declaration, and both periodical
and society passed out of existence.
One would suppose that this declaration of Garrison, formulating,
as it did, an important profession of faith in terms both energetic
and eloquent, would have made a deeper impression on men, and have
become a subject for universal consideration. On the contrary, not
only is it unknown in Europe, but even among those Americans who
honor the memory of Garrison there are but few who are familiar with
this.
A similar fate befell another American champion of the same
doctrine, Adin Ballou, who died recently, and who for fifty years
had preached in favor of non-resistance to evil. How little is known
in regard to the question of non-resistance may be gathered from
the fact that the younger Garrison (who has written an excellent
biography of his father in four large volumes), in answer to my
inquiry whether any society for the defense of the principles of
non-resistance was yet alive and possessed adherents, wrote me
that, so far as he knew, the society had dissolved and its members
were no longer interested, while at this very time Adin Ballou, who
had shared Garrison's labors, and who had devoted fifty years of
his life to the teaching of the doctrine of non-resistance, both
by pen and by tongue, was still living in Hopedale, Massachusetts.
Afterward I received a letter from Wilson, a disciple and co-worker
of Ballou, and subsequently I entered into correspondence with
Ballou himself. I wrote to him, and he sent me his works, from
one of which I made the following extract:--"Jesus Christ is my
Lord and Master," says Ballou in one of his articles, written to
show the inconsistency of Christians who believe in the right of
defensive and offensive warfare. "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 thousand slaves" (they had slaves then;
now they could easily be replaced by workmen) "the very contrary
of what I would have them do unto me--viz., assist to keep 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
difficulty in keeping covenant both with Christ and the Constitution.
"Jesus Christ forbids me to resist evil-doers by taking
'eye for eye, tooth for tooth, 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.
"In the maintenance and use of this expensive life-destroying
apparatus we can exemplify the virtues _of forgiving our injuries,
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 smiles of God on our holy
murders.
"I see it all" (that is, the contradiction between profession and
life), "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, grant letters of marque and reprisal,' and I agree to this,
I indorse it. I swear to help carry it through. I vote for men to
hold office who are sworn to support all this. 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 defenseless females, sack and burn cities, and enact 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, entitled "How many does it take?" he says--"One
man must not kill. If he does, it is murder; two, ten, one hundred
men, acting on their 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 does it
take? This is the question. Just so with theft, robbery, burglary,
and all other crimes. Man-stealing is a great crime in one man, or
a very few men only. But a whole nation can commit it, and the act
becomes not only innocent, but highly honorable."
The following is, in substance, a catechism of Ballou, compiled for
the use of his congregation:--
THE CATECHISM OF NON-RESISTANCE.[1]
[1] From the Russian version, which Count Tolstoï calls a free
translation made with some omissions. After diligent search and
inquiry I have been unable to find this catechism among Ballou's
works.--TR.
_Q._ Whence comes the word non-resistance?
_A._ From the utterance: "But I say unto you, That ye resist not
evil."--Matthew v. 39.
_Q._ What does this word denote?
_A._ It denotes a lofty Christian virtue, commanded by Christ.
_Q._ Are we to understand the word non-resistance in its broad
sense, that is, as meaning that one should offer no resistance to
evil whatsoever?
_A._ No; it should be understood literally as Christ taught it--that
is, not to return evil for evil. Evil should be resisted by all
lawful means, but not by evil.
_Q._ From what does it appear that Christ gave that meaning to
non-resistance?
_A._ From the words which he used on that occasion. 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 cloke also."
_Q._ Whom did he mean by the words: "Ye have heard that it hath been
said"?
_A._ The patriarchs and the prophets, and that which they spoke and
which is contained in the Old Testament, that the Jews generally
call the Law and Prophets.
_Q._ To what laws did Christ allude in the words: "Ye have heard"?
_A._ To those in which Noah, Moses, and other prophets grant the use
of personal violence against those who commit it, for the purpose of
punishing and destroying evil deeds.
_Q._ Mention such commandments.
_A._ "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be
shed."--Genesis 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."--Exodus
xxi. 12, 23, 24, 25.
"And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death. And if
a man cause a blemish in his neighbor; as he hath done, so shall
it be done to him; breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for
tooth."--Leviticus 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."--Deuteronomy xix. 18, 19, 21.
These are the injunctions of which Jesus speaks.
Noah, Moses, and the prophets taught that he who murders, mutilates,
or tortures his neighbor doeth evil. In order to combat and destroy
this evil, the evil-doer must be chastised by death, mutilation,
or some personal torture. Transgressions are to be avenged by
transgressions, murder by murder, torture by torture, evil by evil.
Thus taught Noah, Moses, and the prophets. But Christ forbids all
this. The gospel says: "I say unto you, resist ye not evil, avenge
not one transgression by another, but rather bear a repetition of
the offense from the evil-doer." That which has been allowed is now
forbidden. Having understood what resistance we have been taught, we
know exactly what Christ meant by non-resistance.
_Q._ Did the teaching of the Ancients admit of resisting
transgression by transgression?
_A._ Yes; but Christ forbade it. A Christian has no right in any
case to take the life of, or to offend against, the evil-doer.
_Q._ May he not kill or wound another in self-defense?
_A._ No.
_Q._ May he enter a complaint to the magistrates for the purpose of
chastising the offender?
_A._ No. For that which he does through others, he practically does
himself.
_Q._ May he fight in the army against foreign or domestic enemies?
_A._ Certainly not. He can take no part in war, or in the
preparation therefor. He cannot make use of weapons. He cannot
resist one transgression by another, whether he is alone or in
company, either personally or through other agents.
_Q._ May he voluntarily select or drill soldiers for the government?
_A._ He cannot do this, if he wishes to be _faithful_ to the law of
Christ.
_Q._ May he voluntarily contribute money to assist a government
which is supported by military power, executions, and violence in
general?
_A._ No; unless the money is to be used for some special purpose,
justifiable in itself, where the object and the means employed are
good.
_Q._ May he pay taxes to such a government?
_A._ No; he should not pay taxes on his own accord, but he should
not resist the levying of a tax. A tax imposed by the government
is levied independently of the will of the citizens. It may not be
resisted without recourse to violence, and a Christian should not
use violence; therefore he must deliver his property to the forced
damage caused by authorities.
_Q._ May a Christian vote at elections and take part in courts of
law or in the government?
_A._ No. To take a part in elections, courts of law, or in the
administration of government is the same thing as a participation in
the violence of the government.
_Q._ What is the chief significance of the doctrine of
non-resistance?
_A._ To show that it is possible to extirpate evil from one's own
heart, as well as from that of one's neighbor. This doctrine forbids
men to do that which perpetuates and multiplies evil in this world.
He who attacks another, and does him an injury, excites a feeling
of hatred, the worst of all evil. To offend our neighbor because he
has offended us, with ostensible motive of self-defense, means but
to repeat the evil act against him as well as against ourselves,--it
means to beget, or at least to let loose, or to encourage the Evil
Spirit whom we wish to expel. Satan cannot be driven out by Satan,
falsehood cannot be purged by falsehood, nor can evil be conquered
by evil. True non-resistance is the only real method of resisting
evil. It crushes the serpent's head. It destroys and exterminates
all evil feeling.
_Q._ But admitting that the idea of the doctrine is correct, is it
practicable?
_A._ As practicable as any virtue commanded by the law of God.
Good deeds cannot be performed under all circumstances without
self-sacrifice, privations, suffering, and, in extreme cases,
without the loss of life itself. But he who prizes life more than
the fulfilment of God's will is already dead to the only true life.
Such a man, in trying to save his life, will lose it. Furthermore,
wherever non-resistance costs the sacrifice of one's life, or of
some essential advantage of life, resistance costs thousands of such
sacrifices.
_Non-resistance preserves; resistance destroys._
It is much safer to act justly than unjustly; to endure an offense
rather than resist it by violence; safer even in regard to the
present life. If all men refused to resist evil, the world would be
a happy one.
_Q._ But if only a few were to act thus, what would become of them?
_A._ Even if but one man were to act thus, and the others should
agree to crucify him, would it not be more glorious for him to die
in the glory of non-resisting love, praying for his enemies, than
live wearing the crown of Cæsar, besprinkled with the blood of the
murdered? But whether it be one man or thousands of men who are
firmly determined not to resist evil by evil, still, whether in the
midst of civilized or uncivilized neighbors, men who do not rely
on violence are safer than those who do. A robber, a murderer, a
villain, will be less likely to harm them if he finds them offering
no armed resistance. "All they that take the sword shall perish with
the sword," and he who seeks peace, who acts like a friend, who is
inoffensive, who forgives and forgets injuries, generally enjoys
peace, or if he dies, he dies a blessed death.
Hence, if all were to follow the commandment of non-resistance,
there would manifestly be neither offense nor evil-doing. If even
the majority were composed of such men they would establish the rule
of love and good-will even toward the offenders, by not resisting
evil by evil nor using violence. Even if such men formed a numerous
minority, they would have such an improving moral influence over
society that every severe punishment would be revoked, and violence
and enmity would be replaced by peace and good-will. If they formed
but a small minority, they would rarely experience anything worse
than the contempt of the world, while the world, without preserving
it or feeling grateful therefor, would become better and wiser from
its latent influence. And if, in the most extreme cases, certain
members of the minority might be persecuted unto death, these men,
thus dying for the truth, would have left their doctrine already
sanctified by the blood of martyrdom.
Peace be with all ye who seek peace; and may the all-conquering love
be the imperishable inheritance of every soul who submits of its own
accord to the law of Christ.
_Resist not evil by violence._--ADIN BALLOU.
* * * * *
For fifty years Ballou wrote and published books chiefly on the
subject of non-resistance. In these writings, remarkable for their
eloquence and simplicity of style, the question is considered in
all its aspects. He proved it to be the duty of every Christian
who professes to believe that the Bible is a revelation from God,
to obey this commandment. He enumerates the arguments against the
commandment of non-resistance, drawn from the Old as well as the
New Testament, the expulsion from the Temple, among others, and
answers each one in turn. Setting the Bible aside, he points out the
practical good sense on which this principle is founded, sums up the
arguments against it, and refutes them. For instance, in one chapter
of his work he treats of non-resistance to evil in exceptional
cases, and affirms that granting the truth of the supposition that
there are cases to which the rule of non-resistance cannot be
applied, that would prove that the rule in general is inconsistent.
Citing such exceptional cases, he proves that these are the very
occasions when the application of this rule is both wise and
necessary. The question has been viewed from every side, and no
argument, whether of opponent or sympathizer, has been neglected or
left unanswered. I mention this in order to call attention to the
deep interest which works of this class ought to excite in men who
profess Christianity; and it would seem therefore that Ballou's
zeal should have been recognized, and the ideas he expressed either
accepted or disproved. But such was not the case.
The life-work of Garrison, the father, his founding the society
of the Non-resistant, and his declaration, convinced me, more
even than my intercourse with the Quakers, that the divergence of
the Christianity of the State from Christ's law of non-resistance
by violence has been long since noticed and pointed out, and men
have labored and still do labor to counteract it. Thus Ballou's
earnestness has fortified my opinion. But the fate of Garrison, and
particularly that of Ballou, almost unknown, notwithstanding fifty
years of active and persistent work in one direction, has confirmed
me in the belief that there exists a certain inexpressed but fixed
determination to oppose all such attempts by a wall of silence.
In August of 1890 Ballou died, and his obituary appeared in the
American _Religio-Philosophical Journal_ of August 23d.
From this obituary we learn that Ballou was the spiritual leader of
a community, that he had preached from 8000 to 9000 sermons, married
1000 couples, and written 500 articles, but in regard to the object
of his life's devotion not a word is said; the word "non-resistance"
is never mentioned.
All the exhortations of the Quakers for 200 years, all the efforts
of Garrison, the father, the foundation of his society, his
periodical, and his declarations, as well as the life-work of
Ballou, are the same as if they had never existed.
Another striking example of the obscurity into which a work written
for the purpose of explaining the principle of non-resistance, and
to denounce those who refuse to recognize this commandment, may
fall, is the fate of a book by the Czech Helchitsky, which has only
recently been discovered, and which up to the present time has never
been printed.
Shortly after the publication of my book in German, I received a
letter from a professor of the Prague University, who wrote to tell
me of a book which had never been printed, a work written in the
fifteenth century by the Czech Helchitsky, and entitled "The Net of
Faith." In this work, written four centuries ago, Helchitsky, as
the professor tells me, has expressed exactly the same opinion in
regard to true and false Christianity that I did in my work entitled
"My Religion." The professor wrote that the work of Helchitsky was
to appear in print for the first time in the Czech language in one
of the publications of the St. Petersburg Academy of Science. As I
was unable to obtain the book, I endeavored to ascertain all that
was known of Helchitsky himself, and this knowledge I gained from
a German book sent to me by the same professor in Prague. Besides
that I learned something from Pipin's "History of Czech Literature."
Pipin says:--
"'The Net of Faith' is the doctrine of Christ, wherewith man
is to be raised from the gloomy depths of the social sea of
iniquity. True faith is to believe the words of God; but we are
living in times when men call the true faith heresy; hence it is
upon our own reason that we must rely to discover the truth if
we possess it not. Darkness has concealed it from men, and they
no longer recognize the true law of Christ.
"As an illustration of the law, Helchitsky cites the original
social organization of Christian society, which is considered by
the Church of Rome of the present time as rank heresy.
"This primitive church was his own ideal of a social order
founded upon equality, liberty, and fraternity. Christianity,
according to Helchitsky, still preserves this foundation, and
has but to return to its pure teaching to render any other
social order, whose existence requires the authority of pope or
king, quite superfluous. The law of love will suffice for all....
"Historically, Helchitsky assigns the decadence of Christianity
to the time of Constantine the Great, whom the Pope Silvester
received into the Church in spite of his pagan life and morals.
Constantine, in return, rewarded the Pope by endowing him with
riches and temporal power. Since then these two forces have
played into each other's hands, seeking only outward glory.
Doctors, men of learning, and the clergy, caring only to
maintain their influence over the world, excited the nations one
against the other, encouraging the crimes of murder and rapine,
and thus destroying Christianity, both in faith and practice.
Helchitsky totally denies the right of man to wage war or to
exact the penalty of death. According to him, every soldier,
even if he be a 'knight,' is only a transgressor, a criminal,
and a murderer."
All this, with the addition of some biographical details and
extracts from the correspondence of Helchitsky, is related in the
German book.
Having thus become acquainted with the essence of Helchitsky's
teachings, I waited with still greater impatience the appearance of
"The Net of Faith" in the Academy's periodical. But one, two, three
years passed, and the book was not forthcoming. It was only in 1888
that I learned that the printing had been suspended. I obtained
the proof-sheets of what had been printed, and read them. In many
respects it was a wonderful book.
Its contents have been accurately summarized by Pipin. Helchitsky's
principal idea is that Christianity, in league with sovereignty
during the reign of Constantine the Great, and continuing to
develop under these conditions, became corrupted, and ceased to be
Christianity. He called his book "The Net of Faith" because he had
chosen for his motto that verse from the New Testament which speaks
of the disciples as fishers of men. He carries on the simile thus:
"Through His disciples, Christ caught the world in the net of His
faith, but the larger fishes, breaking the net, escaped; then others
followed through these same holes made by the large fishes, and the
net was left almost empty." By the big fish he means the popes,
emperors, and sovereigns who, without giving up their authority,
accepted Christianity, not in its reality, but in its semblance.
Helchitsky teaches the same doctrine that is now taught by the
non-resistant Mennonites and Quakers, and in former times by
the Bogomiles, the Paulicians, and other sects. He teaches that
Christianity, requiring, as it does from its followers, humility,
gentleness, a forgiving spirit, the turning of the other cheek when
one is struck, and the love of one's enemies, is not compatible
with that violence which is an essential element of authority. A
Christian, according to Helchitsky, should not only refuse to be a
commander or a soldier, but he should take no part in government,
neither should he become a tradesman, nor even a landowner. He
might be an artisan or a farmer. This book is among the few which
have been saved from the flame into which books denouncing official
Christianity were commonly cast. As all such so-called heretical
works were usually burned with their authors, very few of those
which denounce official Christianity have been preserved--and for
this reason the book of which we speak has a special interest.
But apart from its interest, concerning which there may be
differences of opinion, it is one of the most remarkable results of
human thought, both on account of its profundity and the wonderful
power and beauty of its language, not to mention its antiquity. And
yet this book has remained unprinted for centuries, and continues to
be unknown except to a few specialists. (_See Note, end of Chapter._)
One would think that works like these of the Quakers, of Garrison,
of Ballou, and of Helchitsky,--which affirm and prove by the
authority of the Bible that the world misinterprets the teaching of
Christ,--would arouse an interest, would make a sensation, would
give rise to discussions between the clergy and their flocks.
One might suppose that works which deal with the very essence of the
Christian doctrine would be reviewed, and either acknowledged to be
just, or else refuted and condemned.
Not at all. Every one of these works suffers the same fate. Men
of widely differing opinions, believers, and, what is still more
surprising, unbelieving liberals, as though by common consent,
preserve an obstinate silence in regard to them. Thus every attempt
to explain the true meaning of Christ's doctrine goes for nothing.
And more astonishing still is the ignorance concerning two works
whose existence was made known to me after the publication of my
own book. One is a work by Dymond, "On War," printed for the first
time in London in 1824, and the other by Daniel Musser, entitled
"Non-resistance Asserted," was written in 1864.
The ignorance in regard to these books is amazing; the more so, that
apart from their merit, both treat, not so much of the theory as of
its practical application to life; of the relations of Christianity
to military service, which is particularly interesting in view of
the system of conscription. It may be asked, perhaps, what action is
befitting for a subject who believes that war is incompatible with
religion when his government calls upon him for military service?
One would take this to be a vital question, whose answer, in view
of our present system of conscription, becomes one of serious
importance. All men, or the majority of mankind, are Christians,
and every male is required to do military duty. How man, in his
Christian character, is to meet this demand, Dymond gives the
following reply:--
"_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....
"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."
It is worthy of notice that the same is expressed in a maxim to
soldiers, which they are required to memorize. Dymond says that only
a commander answers for the consequences of his order. But this
is unjust. A man cannot remove the responsibility for his actions
from himself. And this is evident from the following: "If your
superior orders you to kill your child, your neighbor, your father,
or your mother, will you obey? If you will not, there is an end of
the argument; for if you may reject his 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....
"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 honorable 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, then, 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.
It is only by the unyielding fidelity of virtue that corruption
can be extirpated. If you believe that Jesus Christ has prohibited
slaughter, let not the opinions 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 honor you as contributors to the work
of human reformation."
Musser's work, entitled "Non-resistance Asserted; or, Kingdom of
Christ and Kingdom of this World Separated," was published in 1864.
This book deals with the same question, drawing its illustrations
from the drafting of the United States citizens during the time of
the Civil War. In setting forth the reasons why men should have
the right to decline military service, his arguments are no less
applicable to the present time. In his Introduction the author says:
"It is well known that there are great numbers of people in the
United States who profess to be conscientiously opposed to war. They
are mostly called non-resistants, or defenseless Christians, and
refuse to defend their country, or take up arms at the call of the
government and go forth to battle against its enemies. Hitherto this
conscientious scruple has been respected by the government in this
country; and those claiming it have been relieved or excused from
this service.
"Since the commencement of the present civil war in the United
States the public mind has been unusually agitated on this subject.
It is not unreasonable that such persons as feel it to be their
duty to go forth and endure the hardships of camp life, and imperil
health, life, and limb in defense of their country and government,
should feel some jealousy of those who have, with themselves, long
enjoyed the protection and benefits of the government, and yet, in
the hour of its need, refuse to share the burden of its defense
and protection. Neither is it strange that such a position should
be looked upon as most unreasonable and monstrous, and those who
hold it be regarded with some suspicion. "Many able speakers and
writers," says the author, "have raised their voices and pens
to refute the idea of non-resistance, as both unreasonable and
unscriptural. This is not to be wondered at, seeing that those who
profess the principle and do not possess it, or correctly understand
it, act inconsistently, and thereby bring the profession into
disrepute and contempt. However much misapplication or abuse of a
principle may prejudice the minds of those who are unacquainted with
a subject, it is yet no argument against its truth."
The author at first proves it to be the duty of each Christian to
obey the rule of non-resistance. He says that the rule is perfectly
explicit, and that it has been given by Christ to all Christianity
without any possibility of being misinterpreted. "Judge for
yourselves, whether it is right or wrong to obey man more than you
do the Lord," said both Peter and John; and in exactly the same way
every man who wishes to be a Christian should regard the requirement
of his nation to be a soldier, remembering that Christ has told him,
"Do not resist evil."
This, in the opinion of Musser, decides the question of principle.
Another point, as to the right of declining military duty while
one enjoys the advantages accruing through violence, the author
considers in detail, and arrives at the conclusion that should a
Christian who follows the teaching of Christ refuse to go to the
war, he must also decline to take any position under the government
or any part in the elections, neither must he have recourse to any
officer of the law for his own personal advantage. Our author goes
on to consider the relation between the Old and New Testaments,
and the significance of government for non-Christians; arguments
against the doctrine of non-resistance are enumerated and refuted.
The author closes his book with the following words:--"Christians
need no governments: for they ought not to obey it in those matters
wherein Christ's teaching is set at naught, and still less should
they take an active part in it. Christ has chosen His disciples out
of the world. They have no promise of temporal good or happiness,
but the contrary. Their promise is in the world to come. The spirit
which they possess renders them happy and contented in any sphere of
life. So long as the world tolerates them, they are contented; but
if it will not let them dwell in peace, they flee to another city or
place; and so they are true pilgrims and strangers on earth, having
no certain abiding place.... They are well contented that the dead
may bury their dead, if they are only permitted to follow Christ."
Without deciding upon the merits of this definition of a Christian's
duty in regard to war, which we find set down in these two works, we
cannot fail to see the urgent need for a decision in regard to the
question itself.
There are men--hundreds of thousands of Quakers, Mennonites, our
own Duhobortzi, Molokani, men who belong to no sect whatsoever--who
believe that violence and therefore military service is incompatible
with Christianity; every year, for instance, we see in Russia a
number of men refusing to obey the conscription because of their
religious opinions. And how does the government deal with them?
Does it release them? Oh, no!... Does it use force, and in case
of disobedience punish them? Not exactly.... In 1818, government
managed the affair in this wise.
The following is an extract, hardly known to any one in Russia, from
a letter of Muraviev-Karsky, which was prohibited by the Russian
censor:--
"TIFLIS, _October 2d, 1818_.
"This morning the commander of the fortress told me that five
peasants belonging to the landowners of the government of Tambov
had been recently sent into the province of Grusia. These men
were intended to serve as soldiers, but they refused to obey.
They were flogged several times and made to run the gantlet,
but they were ready to give themselves up to the most cruel
tortures, yea, even to death itself, to escape military service.
'Let us go our way and harm us not; we do no harm ourselves. All
men are equal. The sovereign is a man like one of us, why should
we pay him taxes, and wherefore should we risk our lives to
kill in battle those who have never done us any harm? Draw and
quarter us, if you will, and we shall never change our minds; we
will never wear the uniform, nor mess at the soldier's table.
Some pitying soul may give us alms but from the government we
neither have had nor will have anything whatsoever.' Such are
the words of these peasants, who assure us that there are many
men in Russia like themselves. Four times they were brought
before the Committee of Ministers, and it was finally decided
that a report be made to the Czar, who ordered them to be sent
to Grusia for discipline, and desired the Commander-in-Chief to
forward a monthly report of the progress made in bringing these
peasants to a proper frame of mind."
The final result of this discipline is not known, for the matter was
kept a profound secret, and the episode may never have been made
public.
This was the conduct of the government seventy-five years ago in the
greater number of cases, always carefully hiding the truth from the
people; and it pursues the same policy at the present day, except
in regard to the German Mennonites, who live in the government of
Kherson, and who in lieu of military duty serve a corresponding term
as foresters,--the justice of their refusal to obey the conscription
being recognized.
But they are the sole exception; all others who, from religious
scruples, refuse to perform military duty are treated in the manner
just described.
At first the government employs all the methods of coercion now in
use to discipline and _convert_ the rebels, while at the same time
the most profound secrecy envelops all these proceedings. I know of
a process which was begun in 1884 against a man who had declined to
serve,--a long-drawn-out trial which was guarded by the Ministry as
a great secret.
The first step is usually to send the accused to the priests,
and, be it said to their shame, they always try to win over the
insubordinate. But as the influence exercised in the name of Christ
is generally unsuccessful, the delinquent is sent from the clergy to
the gendarmes, who, finding in him no political offense, send him
back; whereupon he is despatched to the scientists, the doctors, and
thence into the insane hospital. While he is thus sent to and fro,
the delinquent, deprived of his liberty like a condemned convict,
is made to endure every kind of indignity and suffering. Four such
cases have come to my knowledge. The doctors generally release the
man from the insane hospital, and then every underhanded and crafty
device is employed to delay the accused, because his release might
encourage others to follow his example. He is not allowed to remain
among the soldiers lest they discover from him that conscription
is not, as they are taught to believe, in accordance with the law
of God, but opposed to it. The most satisfactory arrangement for a
government would be either to execute the delinquent, or beat him
with rods until he died, as was done in former times. But it is
awkward to condemn a man to public execution because he is true to
the doctrine which we all profess to believe. Nor is it possible to
take no notice of a man when he refuses to obey. So the government
either tortures the man in order to compel him to deny Christ, or
tries to rid itself of him by some means which will hide both the
man and the crime from the eyes of the world, rather than resort to
public execution. All sorts of cunning manœuvers and tricks are
employed to torment the man. He is either banished to some remote
province, or exasperated to disobedience and then imprisoned, or
sent to the reform battalion, where he may be subjected to torture
without publicity or restriction; or he is pronounced insane and
locked up in the insane asylum. For instance, one was exiled to
Tashkent; that is to say, a pretense was made of transferring him
thither. Another was sent to Omsk, a third was court-martialed for
disobedience and imprisoned, and a fourth was put into a house for
the insane. The same thing is repeated on every side. Not only
the government, but the majority of liberal free-thinkers, as
though by preconcerted agreement, carefully avoid alluding to what
has been said, written, or done in this matter of denouncing the
inconsistency of violence, as embodied in its most shocking, crude,
and striking form, in the person of a soldier,--this readiness to
commit murder,--not only with the precepts of Christianity, but with
the dictates of mere humanity, which the world professes to obey.
Hence all the information that I have gathered concerning what
has been accomplished, and what is still going on in this work of
explaining the doctrine of Christ and the light in which it is
regarded by the ruling powers of Europe and America, has confirmed
me in the conviction that a spirit inimical to true Christianity
dwells in these authorities, exhibited chiefly by the conspiracy of
silence with which they enshroud any manifestation of it.
NOTE
"The publication of this book ('The Net of Faith') was ended
[completed] by the Academy in the last months of the present
year (1893)."--_Note received by the Publisher from Count
Tolstoï while this work was going to press._
CHAPTER II
OPINIONS OF BELIEVERS AND UNBELIEVERS IN REGARD TO NON-RESISTANCE
The fate of the book, "My Religion"--The evasive answers
of religious critics to the questions propounded in that
book--1st answer, Violence does not contradict Christianity--2d
answer, Necessity of violence for the purpose of repressing
evil-doers--3d answer, Necessity of violence for the defense of
one's neighbor--4th answer, The violation of the commandment of
Non-resistance regarded as a weakness--5th answer, Evasion of
the answer by a pretense that this matter has long since been
decided--The cloak of church authority, antiquity, the holiness
of religious men, explain for many the contradictions between
violence and Christianity, in theory as well as in life--Usual
attitude of the clergy and authorities in regard to the
profession of true Christianity--General character of Russian
secular writers--Foreign secular critics--Incorrectness of the
opinions of the former and the latter caused by a failure to
understand the true meaning of the doctrine of Christ.
All the criticisms of the statements contained in my own book have
given me a similar impression of a wish to ignore the subject.
As I had anticipated, no sooner was the book published than it
was prohibited, and should, according to law, have been burned.
But instead of being consumed by the flames, every copy was taken
by the government officials and circulated in large numbers,
both in manuscript and in the lithographed sheets, as well as in
translations which were published abroad. It was not long before
criticisms began to appear, not only from the clergy, but from the
secular world, which the government, so far from forbidding, took
pains to encourage. Hence the very refutation of the book, the
existence of which they assumed to be unknown, was made the theme of
theological controversy.
These criticisms, both foreign and domestic, may be divided into two
classes, religious and secular; the former by persons who consider
themselves believers, and the latter by free-thinkers. I shall
begin by considering the former. In my book I accuse the clergy
of inculcating doctrines contrary to the commandments of Christ,
plainly and clearly expressed in the Sermon on the Mount, and
particularly in regard to the commandment of non-resistance to evil,
thereby depriving the doctrine of Christ of all its significance.
Do the ministers of the gospel believe the Sermon on the Mount,
including the commandment of non-resistance, to be of divine origin?
Having felt themselves obliged to review my book, it would seem as
if they must first of all answer the principal charge, and declare
at once whether they do or do not consider the Sermon on the Mount
and the commandment of non-resistance obligatory upon a Christian.
Instead of making the usual reply, couched in words such as, "Though
one cannot deny, neither can one affirm, the more so as," etc.,
let them give a categorical answer to my question: Did Christ
practically require his disciples to do that which he taught in
the Sermon on the Mount, and therefore may a Christian appeal to a
legal tribunal, either for defense or prosecution, and still remain
a Christian? May he consistently take a part in a government which
is the instrument of violence? And that most important question,
which, since the introduction of the general conscription, concerns
us all: May a Christian remain a Christian and still disobey the
direct command of Christ; may he promise to conduct himself in a
manner directly opposed to the doctrine of Christ, by entering into
military service and putting himself in training to be a murderer?
The questions are put plainly and directly, and would seem to call
for plain and direct answers. But no; my book has been received
just as all previous denunciations have been, those denunciations
of the clergy who have deviated from the law of Christ, with which
history abounds since the time of Constantine the Great. Many
words have been expended in noting the errors of my interpretation
of this or that passage of the Scriptures, of how wrong I am in
referring to the Trinity, the Redemption, and the Immortality of
the soul, but never a word of that vital question: How are we to
reconcile those lessons of forgiveness, humility, patience, and
love toward all mankind, our neighbors as well as our enemies,
taught us by the Teacher, which dwell in the heart of each of us,
with the necessities caused by military aggressions against our
own countrymen as well as against foreigners? All that deserves
the name of a response to these questions may be summed up under
five headings. I have endeavored to bring together in this book not
only the criticisms upon my book, but everything that has ever been
written on this subject.
The first criticisms with which I deal come mostly from men of high
position, either in Church or State, who feel quite sure that no one
will venture to combat their assertions; should any one make the
attempt, they would never hear the arguments. These men, intoxicated
for the most part by their authority, have forgotten that there is a
Christianity in whose name they hold their places. They condemn as
sectarian all that which is truly Christ-like in Christianity, while
on the other hand, every text in both Old and New Testaments which
can be wrested from its meaning so as to justify an anti-Christian
or pagan sentiment--upon these they establish the foundation of
Christianity. In order to confirm their statement that Christianity
is not opposed to violence, these men generally quote, with the
greatest assurance, equivocal passages from the Old and New
Testaments, interpreting them in the most anti-Christian spirit--the
death of Ananias and Sapphira, the execution of Simon the Sorcerer,
etc. All of Christ's words that can possibly be misinterpreted are
quoted in vindication of cruelty--the expulsion from the Temple, the
words "... it shall be more tolerable in that day for Sodom than
for that city" (Luke x. 12), and other passages. According to these
men, a Christian is not at all obliged to be guided by the spirit
of humility, forgiveness, and love of his enemies. It is useless
to try to refute such a doctrine, because men who affirm it refute
themselves, or rather they turn away from Christ Himself, to invent
an ideal and a form of religion all their own, forgetful of Him in
whose name both the Church and the offices they hold exist. If men
but knew that the Church preaches an unforgiving, murder-loving, and
belligerent Christ, they would not believe in that Church, and its
doctrines would be defended by none.
The second method, somewhat more awkward, consists in affirming that
though Christ did, in point of fact, teach us to turn the other
cheek, and to share our cloak, and that these are indeed lofty
moral laws, still ... the world abounds in evil-doers, and if these
wretches are not subdued by force, the righteous will perish and the
world will be destroyed. I met with this argument for the first time
in St. John Chrysostom, and have called attention to its unfairness
in my book entitled "My Religion."
This argument is groundless, because if we allow ourselves to look
upon our fellow-men as evil-doers, outcasts (Raka), we sap the very
foundations of the Christian doctrine, which teaches us that we,
the children of the Heavenly Father, are brothers, and equal one to
the other. In the second place, if the same Father had permitted
us to use violence toward wrong-doers, as there is no infallible
rule for distinguishing the good from the evil, every individual
or every community might class its neighbors under the head of
evil-doers, which is practically the case at the present time. In
the third place, if it were possible to distinguish the righteous
from the unrighteous, even then it would not be expedient in a
Christian community to put to death, to cripple, or to imprison the
evil-doers, as in such a community there would be no one to execute
these sentences, since every man in his quality of Christian is
forbidden to do violence to a malefactor.
The third mode of reply, more ingenious than the preceding ones,
consists in affirming that while to obey the commandment of
non-resistance is every Christian's duty, when the injury is a
personal one, it ceases to be obligatory when harm is done to one's
neighbor, and that in such an emergency a Christian is bound to
break the commandment and use force against the evil-doer. This
assertion is purely arbitrary, and one finds no justification for it
throughout the whole body of the doctrine of Christ.
Such an interpretation is not only a narrow one, but actually
amounts to a direct negation. If every man has the right to employ
violence whenever his neighbor is threatened with danger, then the
question becomes reduced to this: How may one define what is called
danger to one's neighbor? If, however, my private judgment is to be
arbiter in this matter, then any violence which I might commit on
any occasion whatever could be excused by the declaration that my
neighbor was in danger. Magicians have been burned, aristocrats and
Girondists put to death, because the men in power considered them
dangerous.
If this important condition, which destroys the significance of the
commandment, ever entered into the thought of Christ, it would have
been formulated somewhere. Not only is no such exception to the
commandment to be found throughout the Teacher's life and lessons,
but there is on the other hand a warning against an interpretation
so false and misleading.
The error and the impracticability of such a definition is vividly
illustrated in the Bible story of Caiaphas, who made use of this
very same interpretation. He admitted that it was not well to put
to death the innocent Jesus, but at the same time he perceived the
existence of a danger, not for himself, but for all the people, and
therefore declared it better for one man to die, rather than that a
whole nation should perish.
And we have a still more explicit proof of the fallacy of this
interpretation in the words addressed to Peter, when he tried to
revenge by violence the attack upon Jesus (Matthew xxvi. 51). Peter
was defending not himself, but his beloved and divine Master, and
Christ distinctly forbade him, saying, "For all they that take
the sword shall perish with the sword" (Matthew xxvi. 52). One
can never justify an act of violence against one's fellow-man by
claiming to have done it in defense of another who was enduring some
wrong, because in committing an act of violence, it is impossible
to compare the one wrong with the other, and to say which is the
greater, that which one is about to commit, or the wrong done
against one's neighbor. We release society from the presence of a
criminal by putting him to death, but we cannot possibly know that
the former might not have so changed by the morrow as to render the
execution a useless cruelty. We imprison another, we believe him a
dangerous man; but no later than next day this very man may have
ceased to be dangerous, and his imprisonment has become unnecessary.
I see a robber, a man known to me, pursuing a girl; I hold a gun
in my hand; I wound or perhaps kill the robber, and save the girl.
The fact that I have either wounded or killed the robber remains,
but I know not what might have happened had I not done so. And what
a vast amount of harm must and does accrue from the assurance that
a man feels of his right to provide against a possible calamity.
Ninety-nine parts of the world's iniquity, from the Inquisition to
the bomb-throwing of the present day, and the execution of tens of
thousands of political criminals, so called, result from this very
assurance.
The fourth and still more ingenious reply to this question of
the Christian's responsibility in regard to the commandment of
Christ concerning non-resistance to evil by violence, consists in
asserting that this commandment is not denied, but acknowledged,
like all the others; it is only the special significance attributed
to it by sectarians that is denied. Our critics declare that the
views of Garrison, Ballou, and Dymond, as well as those professed
by the Quakers, the Shakers, the Mennonites, the Moravians, the
Waldenses, Albigenses, Bogomiles, and Paulicians, are those of
bigoted sectarians. This commandment, they say, has the importance,
no more and no less, of all the others; and one who through weakness
has transgressed against any of the commandments, whether that of
non-resistance or another, does not for that cause cease to be a
Christian, provided his creed be true.
This is a very cunning and persuasive subterfuge, especially for
those who are willing to be deceived, reducing the direct negation
of the commandment to its accidental infraction. One has, however,
but to compare the attitude of the clergy toward this or any of the
other commandments which they do acknowledge, to be convinced that
it is quite different from their attitude toward this one.
The commandment against fornication they acknowledge without
reservation, and in no case will they ever admit that this sin is
not an evil. There are no circumstances mentioned by the clergy
when the commandment against fornication may be broken, and they
always insist that the occasions for this sin must be avoided.
But in regard to non-resistance it is a very different matter.
Every clergyman believes that there are circumstances wherein this
commandment may be held in abeyance, and they preach accordingly.
So far from teaching their parishioners to avoid the temptations
to this sin, chief among which is the oath of allegiance, they
take the oath themselves. Clergymen have never been known to
advocate the breaking of any other commandment; but in regard to
the doctrine of non-resistance, they distinctly teach that this
prohibition must not be taken too literally, that so far from
always obeying this commandment, one should on occasion follow
the opposite course--that is, one should sit in judgment, should
go to war, and should execute criminals. Thus in most of the cases
where non-resistance to evil by violence is in question, the
preachers will be found to advocate disobedience. Obedience to this
commandment, they say, is difficult, and can only be practicable
in a state of society whose members are perfect. But how is it to
become less difficult, when its infraction is not only condoned, but
directly encouraged, when legal tribunals, prisons, the implements
of warfare, the cannon and muskets, armies and battles, receive the
blessing of the Church? Therefore this reply is not true. Evidently
the statement that this commandment is acknowledged by the clergy to
be of equal validity with the other commandments cannot be true.
Clergymen do not really acknowledge it, yet, unwilling to admit this
fact, they try by evasion to conceal their non-acknowledgment.
Such is the fourth method of answering.
The fifth, more ingenious than its predecessor, is the popular one
of all. It consists in quietly evading reply, pretending that the
question was solved ages ago, in a cogent and satisfactory manner,
and that it would be a waste of words to reopen the subject. This
method is employed by all the more cultured authors, who, if they
made answer at all, would feel themselves bound to be logical.
Realizing that the inconsistency between that doctrine of Christ,
of which we make a verbal profession, and the scheme of our daily
lives, is not to be solved by words, and that the more it is talked
the more glaring this inconsistency becomes, they evade it with
more or less circumspection, pretending that the question of union
between Christianity and the law of violence has either been already
solved, or else that it cannot be solved at all.[2]
[2] I know of but one criticism, or rather essay, for it can hardly
be termed criticism, in the strict sense of the word, which treats
of the same subject, having my book in view. It is a pamphlet by
Troïtzky, called "The Sermon on the Mount" (printed in Kazan).
Evidently the author acknowledges the doctrine of Christ in the
fullness of its meaning. He declares that the commandment of
non-resistance to evil means what it says, and the same with the
commandment as to taking an oath. He does not deny, as others have
done, the meaning of Christ's teaching, but unfortunately neither
does he draw those inevitable conclusions which must result from
a conception such as his own of Christ's doctrine. If one is not
to resist evil by violence, nor to take an oath, it is but natural
to ask: Then what is the duty of a soldier? And what is to be done
about taking the oath of allegiance? But to these questions the
author makes no reply, and surely a reply should have been given. If
he had none to make, it would have been better to have said nothing
at all.
Most of my clerical critics have made use of this method. I might
quote scores of criticisms of this class, wherein everything
is discussed except the vital principle of the book. As a
characteristic specimen of these criticisms I will quote from an
article by that well-known and scholarly Englishman, the writer and
preacher, Canon Farrar, who, like so many other learned theologians,
is an expert in the art of silently ignoring and evading a
statement. The article appeared in an American magazine, _The
Forum_, for October, 1888.
After briefly but conscientiously setting forth the subject-matter
of my book, Farrar says:--"After repeated search the central
principle of all Christ's teaching seemed to him [Tolstoï] to be,
'Resist not evil' or 'him that is evil.' He came to the conclusion
that a coarse deceit had been 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, which he holds to be the pith of
all Christ's teaching--viz.: 1. Live in peace with all men. 2. Be
pure. 3. Take no oaths. 4. Never resist evil. 5. Renounce national
distinctions.... Most of the Bible does not seem to him to reflect
the spirit of Christ at all, though it has been brought into
artificial and unwarrantable connection with it. Hence he rejects
the chief doctrines 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 the transmission to the priesthood by laying on of
hands, that of the need of the seven sacraments for salvation. He
sets aside the authority of Paul, of councils, of fathers, popes,
or patriarchs, and believes himself to be the immediate disciple of
Christ alone.... But we are compelled to ask, Is this interpretation
of Christ a true one? Are all men bound, or is any man bound, to act
as this great writer has done?"
One might naturally expect that this vital question, which alone
could induce a man to write a dissertation on the book, would be
answered either by admitting that my interpretation of the doctrine
of Christ is correct and should be accepted, or declaring that
it is erroneous, proving his point, and offering a more correct
interpretation of the words which I have misconstrued. But no;
Farrar merely expresses his belief that "though actuated by the
noblest sincerity, Count Tolstoï has been misled by partial and
one-sided interpretations of the meaning of the gospel and the
mind and will of Christ." In what this error consists he does not
explain, but says: "_To enter into the proof of this is impossible
in this article, for I have already exceeded the space at my
command_." And concludes with equanimity: "Meanwhile the reader
who feels troubled lest it should be his duty also to forsake all
the conditions of his life, and to take up the position and work
of a common laborer, may rest for the present on the principle,
'Securus judicat orbis terrarum.' With few and rare exceptions 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 to disturb the
bases and revolutionize the institutions as well as all inevitable
conditions. Were it my object to prove how untenable is the doctrine
of communism, based by Count Tolstoï upon the divine paradoxes,
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 pity that he
has no space! And, wonderful to relate, no one for fifteen centuries
ever had the space to prove that the Christ whom we profess said one
thing and meant another. And of course they could prove it if they
would! But it is not worth while to prove what everybody knows to be
true. It is enough to say: "Securus judicat orbis terrarum."
The criticisms of all educated believers are very much alike,
because realizing as they must the danger of their position, they
feel that their only safeguard lies in the hope that by sheltering
themselves behind the authority and holiness of the Church, they may
succeed in intimidating their readers, or diverting them from any
idea of reading the Bible for themselves or using their own reason
to solve this question. And this is a method that succeeds. To whom
would it ever occur, indeed, that all these assurances, repeated
with so much solemnity, century after century, by archdeacons,
bishops, and archbishops, synods and popes, are a base falsehood,
a calumny against the character of Christ, uttered for the purpose
of assuring to themselves the money they require to lead a life
of ease at the expense of others,--a falsehood and a calumny so
palpable, particularly now, that the only chance of perpetuating
this falsehood lies in holding the people in awe by their arrogance
and audacity?
The very same thing has been going on of late years in the Bureau
of military conscription. A number of aged officials, decorated
and self-important, are at a table, a full-lengthed portrait of
the Emperor with the mirror of justice before them, and, while
leisurely chatting with each other, they write, call out the names,
and give their orders. Here also, with a cross upon his breast, his
hair blowing over his stole, a genial and venerable-looking priest
dressed in a silk robe sits before a pulpit on which is placed a
golden cross and a Bible with gilt clasps.
Ivan Petrov is called. An untidy, poorly clad youth, with a
frightened expression, twitching muscles, and gleaming eyes that
have a wandering look, steps forward, and in a hesitating, broken
voice almost whispers: "I ... according to law ... as a Christian
... I ... I cannot...." "What is he muttering?" asks the chairman,
impatiently, squinting and making an effort to hear, as he raises
his head from the book. "Speak louder!" exclaims the colonel with
the glittering shoulder-straps. "As a Christian ... I ... I...."
And at last it becomes plain that the youth refuses to enter the
military service because he is a Christian. "Don't talk nonsense!
Measure him! Doctor, be kind enough to look at the measure. Will he
do?" "He will do." "Holy Father, let him take the oath."
Not only is there no uneasiness on the part of the officers, but no
one pays the least attention to the muttering of this frightened,
pitiable youth. "They always mutter, and we are in a hurry; we have
still so many more to receive."
The recruit tries to speak again. "This is against the law of
Christ!" "Move on! move on! We know what is lawful and what is not!
Move on! Father, make him understand! Next! Vassili Nikitin!"
Then the trembling youth is led away. Now which of all these men,
the soldiers, Vassili Nikitin, the new man on the list, or any other
witness of the scene,--which of these would ever dream that the
unintelligible, broken utterances of the youth, silenced forthwith
by the magistrates, embodied the real truth, while the loud,
arrogant speeches of the officials, of the priest, uttered with
authority, were actually false?
The same impression is made not only by Farrar's essay, but by
all those grandiloquent sermons, reviews, and other publications
which spring into existence on every side wherever truth is found
combating the arrogance of falsehood. At once these orators and
writers, subtle or bombastic, begin by dwelling upon points closely
allied to the vital question, while preserving an artful silence on
the question itself.
And this is the fifth and most efficacious method of accounting for
the inconsistent attitude of ecclesiastical Christianity, which,
while professing Christ, with its own life denies, and teaches
others to deny, this doctrine in the practice of daily life.
They who employ the first method of justification by boldly and
distinctly affirming that Christ sanctioned violence, meaning wars
and murders, put themselves beyond the pale of Christ's teaching;
while they who defend themselves according to the second, third, and
fourth methods soon become entangled, and are easily convicted of
falsehood; but the fifth class, they who condescend not to reason,
use their dignity for a screen, and insist that all these questions
were settled ages ago, and need no reconsideration; they, apparently
invulnerable, will maintain an undisputed authority, and men will
repose under the hypnotic suggestion of Church and State, nor seek
to throw off the yoke.
Such were the views of the clergy, of the professors of
Christianity, in regard to my book, nor could anything different
have been expected: they are in bonds to their inconsistent
position, believers in the divinity of the Teacher, and yet
discrediting His plainest words,--an inconsistency which they are
bound to reconcile in some way. Hence it is not to be supposed
that they would give unbiased opinions in regard to the essential
question of that change which must take place in the life of one
who makes a practical application of the doctrine of Christ to
the existing order. From secular critics and free-thinkers, who
acknowledge no obligation to the doctrine of Christ, and who might
be expected to judge them without prejudice, I had prepared myself
for criticisms such as these. I thought that the Liberals would look
upon Christ not only as the founder of a religion involving personal
salvation (as understood by the ecclesiastics and their followers),
but, to use their own expression, as upon a reformer who tears down
the old foundations to make way for new ones, and whose reformation
is not even yet complete.
To set forth that conception of Christ and his doctrine has been
the object of my book. But to my surprise not one out of the many
criticisms, Russian or foreign, that have appeared, has accepted my
view, or even discussed it from my standpoint, which is, that the
teaching of Christ is a philosophical, moral, and social doctrine.
(I use the phraseology of the scientists.) The Russian secular
critics, conceiving the sum and substance of my book to be a plea
in favor of resistance to evil, and taking it for granted (probably
for the sake of argument) that the doctrine forbade any struggle
whatsoever against the wrong, made a virulent, and for several
years, most successful attack upon this doctrine, proving that the
teaching of Christ must be false, since it forbids any effort to
overcome evil. Their refutations of this so-called _false_ doctrine
had all the more chance of success, because the censorship had
prohibited, not only the book itself, but also all articles in its
defense, and consequently they knew beforehand that their arguments
could not be assailed.
It is worthy of note that here in Russia, where not a word against
the Holy Scriptures is allowed by the censor, for several years
in succession the distinct and unmistakable commandment of Christ
(Matthew v. 39) was criticized, distorted, condemned, and mocked at
in all the leading periodicals.
The Russian secular critics, apparently ignorant of all that had
been said and done in regard to non-resistance to evil, seemed to
think that I had invented the principle myself, and attacked it
as if it were my idea, first distorting and then refuting it with
great ardor, bringing forward time-worn arguments that had been
analyzed and refuted over and over again, showing that the oppressed
and downtrodden should be defended by violence, and declaring the
doctrine of Christ concerning non-resistance to be immoral.
All the significance that the Russian critics saw in Christ's
preaching was, that it seemed expressly intended to hamper them
in their struggles against what they believe to be an evil in the
present day. Thus it came about that the principle of non-resistance
to evil by violence was attacked from two opposite camps; the
Conservatives, because this principle interfered with them in their
efforts to suppress sedition, and as opposed to all persecution,
as well as to the punishment of death; the Revolutionists, because
this principle forbade them to resist the oppression of the
Conservatives, or to attempt their overthrow. The Conservatives were
indignant that the doctrine of non-resistance to evil by violence
should thwart an energetic suppression of revolutionary elements,
which might imperil the welfare of a nation; the Revolutionists
in the like manner were indignant because this same doctrine
averted the downfall of the Conservatives, who, in their opinion,
imperil the welfare of the people. It is a circumstance worthy
of notice that the Revolutionists should attack the principle of
non-resistance to evil by violence; for of all the doctrines dreaded
by despotism, and dangerous to its existence, this is the chief one.
Since the creation of the world the opposite principle of resistance
by violence has been the corner-stone of every despotic institution,
from the Inquisition to the fortress of Schlüsselburg.
Moreover, the Russian critics declared that the progress of
civilization itself would be checked were this commandment of
non-resistance applied to everyday life, by which they mean the
civilization of Europe, which is, according to them, the model for
all mankind.
Such was the substance of Russian criticism.
Foreign critics start from the same premises, but their deductions
differ somewhat from those of the Russian critics; not only are they
less captious and more cultivated, but their modes of analysis are
not the same.
In discussing my book, and more particularly the gospel doctrine
as it is expressed in the Sermon on the Mount, the foreign critics
affirmed that the latter could not really be called Christian
doctrine (they believe that the Christian doctrine is embodied in
Catholicism or Protestantism), and that the precepts of the Sermon
on the Mount are only a series of the delightful but unpractical
visions of the "charmant docteur," as Renan says, suited to the
artless, half-civilized Galileans who lived 1800 years ago, or to
the Russian and semi-barbarous peasants, to Sutaev and Bondarev, and
to the Russian mystic Tolstoï, but which are by no means adapted to
the lofty plane of European culture. The foreign secular critics, in
a courteous way, in order not to wound my feelings, have endeavored
to show that my belief that mankind may be guided by so simple a
doctrine as the Sermon on the Mount arises partly from my limited
knowledge of history and ignorance of the many vain attempts to
carry out in daily life the principles of the Sermon on the Mount,
which history tells us have always proved an utter failure, and
partly from my misconception of the significance of our modern
civilization, with its Krupp guns, its smokeless powder, its African
colonization, its Home Rule, its parliaments, journalism, strikes,
and constitutions, not to mention the Eiffel Tower,--on which the
entire population of Europe is at present reposing.
Thus wrote Vogüé, thus wrote Leroy-Beaulieu, Matthew Arnold, the
American writer Talmage, who is also a popular preacher, the
free-thinker Ingersoll, and others.
"The teaching of Christ is no longer practicable, because it does
not suit our industrial times," Ingersoll ingenuously remarks, and
thereby he no doubt gives utterance to the views which this cultured
generation holds in regard to the doctrine of Christ. The doctrine
has no affinity with the industrialism of the present age, as though
industrialism were a sacred institution which can suffer no change.
A drunkard might thus reply to one who calls upon him to be sober,
that a man in liquor finds such advice absurd.
The arguments of all secular writers, Russian as well as foreign,
however varied in form or expression, are substantially alike;
they all agree in misapprehending the doctrine of Christ, with its
outcome of non-resistance, and in affirming that it is not expedient
because it implies a need of a change of life.
The doctrine of life is inexpedient, because if we lived up to it
our lives could not go on as they have done hitherto; in other
words, if we were to begin to live like righteous men, as Christ
bids us, we must abandon the wicked ways to which we have grown
accustomed. So far from discussing the question of non-resistance of
evil by violence, the very mention of the fact that the precepts of
Christ include such a command is considered as sufficient proof of
the inexpediency of the whole doctrine.
And yet it would seem necessary to offer some solution of this
question, as it lies at the root of all that most interests us.
The question is how to settle these differences among men, when the
very action that is considered evil by one man is considered good by
another. It is no answer to say that I think an action evil although
my adversary may consider it a good one. There are but two ways of
solving the difficulty. One is to find a positive and indisputable
standard of evil, and the other is to obey the command, resist not
evil by violence.
Men have tried to achieve the former from the earliest historical
ages, and we all know with what unsuccessful results.
The second solution--that is, the non-resistance of what we must
consider evil until we have found a universal standard: that
solution has been suggested by Christ himself.
It might be thought that the solution suggested by Christ was the
wrong one, and a better one might be substituted after the standard
had been found which is to define evil once and for all. One might
not know of the existence of such a question, as is the case with
the barbarous races, but no one can be permitted to pretend,
like the learned critics of the Christian doctrine, that no such
question does exist, or that the recognition of the right of certain
individuals or groups of individuals, and still less of one's own
right, to define evil, and to resist it by violence, decides the
question, because we all know that such a recognition does not
decide it at all, for there are always persons who will refuse to
admit that such a prerogative can exist.
And yet this very acknowledgment, that anything that seems evil to
us is evil, or else an utter misconception of the question, affords
a basis for the conclusions of secular critics concerning the
doctrine of Christ; hence not only the utterances of the clerical,
but also those of the secular critics in regard to my book, have
made it evident to me that most men totally fail to comprehend
either the doctrine of Christ, or the questions which it is intended
to decide.
CHAPTER III
MISCONCEPTION OF CHRISTIANITY BY NON-BELIEVERS
The meaning of the Christian doctrine, which is clear for
the minority, has become unintelligible for the majority of
men--The cause of it is the false conception of Christianity
and the misguided assurance of believers, as well as of
unbelievers, that they apprehend it--The apprehension of
Christianity for believers is concealed by the Church--The
apprehension of Christianity--Its essence and its unlikeness
to the pagan doctrines--Misunderstood at first, it has grown
clear to those who embrace it owing to its correspondence with
the truth--Contemporaneously with it arose the assertion that
the true meaning of the doctrine was understood, and had been
confirmed by miraculous transmission--The Council of Disciples
according to the Acts--Authoritative and miraculous assertion
of the true conception of Christ's doctrine has found its
logical conclusion in the acknowledgment of the Credo and
the Church--The Church could not have been established by
Christ--Definition of Churches according to the Catechism--There
are various Churches, ever antagonistic to one another--Where is
heresy?--The work of Mr. Arnold concerning heresies--Heresies
are the sign of activity in the Churches--Churches always divide
mankind, and are ever inimical to Christianity--In what the
activity of the Russian Church consists--Matthew xxiv. 23--The
Sermon on the Mount, or the Credo--The Orthodox Church conceals
from the people the true meaning of Christianity--The same is
done by other Churches--All the contemporary external conditions
are such that they destroy the doctrine of the Church, and
therefore Churches use all their efforts to defend it.
The knowledge which I obtained after the publication of my book in
regard to the views which the minority of mankind have held, and
still hold, concerning the doctrine of Christ in its simplicity
and real significance, as well as the criticisms of clerical and
secular writers, who deny the possibility of apprehending it in
its actual meaning, have convinced me that while the minority has
not only always possessed a true conception of this doctrine, and
that this conception has grown steadily more and more clear, for
the majority, on the other hand, its sense has become more and more
vague, reaching at last such a degree of obscurity that men fail to
understand the simplest commands expressed in the Bible, even when
couched in the plainest possible language.
The inability that prevails at the present time to comprehend the
doctrine of Christ in its true, simple, and actual meaning, when
its light has penetrated into the remotest recesses of the human
understanding, when, as Christ said, they proclaim from the roofs
that which He whispered in the ear; when this doctrine penetrates
every phase of human life, domestic, economical, civil, politic, and
international,--this failure to apprehend it would be inexplicable,
if one had not discovered the reasons for it.
One of the reasons is, that believers as well as unbelievers are
perfectly sure that they long ago understood the doctrine of Christ
so completely, unquestionably, and finally, that it can have no
other meaning but the one which they attribute to it. That is
because the tradition of this false conception has been handed down
for ages,--and therefore its misconception.
The most powerful stream of water cannot add one single drop to a
vessel that is already full.
One might succeed in explaining to the dullest of men the most
difficult of problems, if he had no previous conception in regard to
them; but it is impossible to explain to the cleverest man even the
simplest matters, if he is perfectly sure that he knows everything
about it.
The Christian doctrine appears to men of the present times to be a
doctrine of that kind, known for ages, and never to be questioned
in its most trivial details, and which is susceptible of no other
interpretation.
At the present time Christianity is conceived by those who profess
the doctrines of the Church as a supernatural, miraculous revelation
of all that is expressed in the Credo; while unbelievers look upon
it as an affair of the past, a manifestation of the demand of
humanity for a belief in the supernatural, as an historical fact,
which has found its fullest expression in Catholicism, Orthodoxy,
and Protestantism, and which has for us no vital meaning. For the
believers the real significance of the doctrine is concealed by the
Church; for the unbelievers it is hidden by science.
Let us begin by considering the former.
Eighteen hundred years ago, in the pagan world of Rome, there
appeared a strange and novel doctrine, unlike any of its
predecessors, which was ascribed to the man Christ.
It was a doctrine wholly new in form as well as in substance, both
for the Hebrew world, from whose midst it had sprung, as well as for
the Roman world, in whose midst it was preached and promulgated.
Among the accurately defined religious precepts of the Jews, where,
according to Isaiah, there was precept upon precept, and among the
highly perfected Roman legislative assemblies, there appeared a
doctrine that not only repudiated all deities, all fear of them,
all augury and all faith in it, but also denied the necessity for
any human institutions whatsoever. Instead of the precepts and
creeds of former times, this doctrine presented only an image of
interior perfection, truth, and love in the person of Christ, and
the attainment of this interior perfection possible for men, and, as
a consequence, of the outward perfection foretold by the prophets:
the coming of the Kingdom of God, when all enmity shall cease, when
every man will hear the word of the Lord and be united with another
in brotherly love, and when the lion and the lamb shall lie down
together. Instead of threats of punishment for the non-observance of
the commandments of the old laws, religious no less than secular,
instead of tempting men by promise of rewards to observe these laws,
this doctrine attracted mankind only by proclaiming itself to be the
truth.
"If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether
it be of God, or whether I speak of myself."--John vii. 17.
"Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do
ye not believe me?"--John viii. 46.
"But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the
truth...."--John viii. 40.
"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you
free."--John viii. 32.
God must be worshiped in truth. All the doctrine will be made plain
by the Spirit of Truth. Do as I command you, and you will know
whether what I say is the truth.
No evidence was brought to prove the doctrine, except the truth and
its harmony therewith. The whole substance consisted in learning the
truth and in following its guidance, drawing nearer and nearer to it
in the affairs of everyday life.
According to this doctrine, there is no mode of action that can
justify a man or make him righteous; as regards interior perfection
we have only the image of truth, in the person of Christ, to win our
hearts, and outward perfection is expressed by a realization of the
Kingdom of God. In order to fulfil the doctrine it needs but to take
Christ for our model, and to advance in the direction of interior
perfection by the road which has been pointed out to us, as well as
in that of exterior perfection, which is the establishment of the
Kingdom of God. The degree of human happiness, whether it be more
or less, depends, according to this doctrine, not on the degree
of perfection at which it arrives, but on the comparative rate of
progress toward that perfection.
The advance toward perfection of Zacchæus the publican, of the
adulteress, of the thief on the cross, is, according to this
doctrine, better than the stagnation of the righteous Pharisee.
The shepherd rejoices more over the one sheep which was lost and
is found than over the ninety and nine which are in the fold. The
prodigal returned, the piece of money which was lost and is found,
is more precious unto God than that which was never lost.
According to this doctrine, each state is but a step on the road
toward the unattainable interior and exterior perfection, and
therefore it has no significance in itself. The progress of this
movement toward perfection is its merit; the least cessation of this
movement means the cessation of good works.
"Let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth," and "No
man, having put his hand to the plow, and looking back, is fit for
the kingdom of God." "Rejoice not that the spirits are subject unto
you; but rather rejoice, because your names are written in heaven."
"Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is
perfect." "Seek ye first the kingdom of God and his righteousness."
The fulfilment of the doctrine lies in a continual progress toward
the attainment of a higher truth, and in the growing realization of
that truth within one's self, by means of an ever increasing love;
as well as in a more and more keen realization of the Kingdom of
God in the world around us. It is evident that the doctrine that
appeared in the midst of the Hebrew and pagan world could not be
accepted by the majority of men, who lived a life so totally unlike
the one prescribed by this new doctrine; and even those who did
accept it could not comprehend its full meaning, because of its
contradiction of all former ideas.
It is only through a series of misapprehensions, errors, one-sided
explanations, corrected and supplemented by generations of men,
that the meaning of the Christian doctrine has become more and more
plain. The Christian world-conception and that of the Hebrew and
pagan peoples mutually acted and reacted upon each other, and the
Christian principle being the more vital, it penetrated deeper and
deeper into the Hebrew and pagan principles that had outlived their
usefulness, and became more clearly defined, freeing itself from
the spurious admixtures imposed upon it. Men understood its meaning
better and better, and realized it more and more unmistakably in
life.
The older the world grew, the more lucid became its apprehension of
Christianity, as must always be the case with any doctrine relating
to human life.
Successive generations rectified the mistakes of the preceding ones
and approached nearer and nearer to the apprehension of its true
meaning. Thus it was from the very beginning of Christianity. And
it was then that certain men came to the front who affirmed that
the only true interpretation was the one which they themselves
proclaimed, adducing the miracles as a proof thereof.
This was the principal cause of its misapprehension in the first
place, and of its complete perversion in the second.
The doctrine of Christ was supposed to be transmitted to mankind not
like any other truth, but in a peculiar, supernatural manner; hence
they propose to prove its authority, not because it satisfies the
demands of reason and of human nature in general, but because of the
miraculous character of its transmission, which is supposed to be
an incontrovertible proof of the validity of its conception. This
idea sprang from a misconception, and the result was that it became
impossible to understand it.
It originated at the very beginning, when the doctrine was so
imperfectly understood and often so erroneously construed; as, for
example, in the Gospels and the Acts. The less men understood it,
the more mysterious it appeared, and the greater need was there for
visible proof of its authenticity. The rule for doing unto others as
you would wish them to do unto you, called for no miraculous proof,
neither did it require faith, because the proposition is convincing
in itself, both to reason and to human nature. But the proposition
that Christ was God needed miraculous testimony.
The more mystical grew the apprehension of Christ's teaching, the
more the miraculous element entered into it; and the more miraculous
it became, the farther it was from its original meaning; and the
more complicated, mystical, and remote from its original meaning it
came to be, the more necessary it was to declare its infallibility,
and the less intelligible it became.
From the very beginning of Christianity one could see from the
Gospels, the Acts, and the Epistles how the misapprehension of the
doctrine called forth the necessity of proofs--miraculous and beyond
human intelligence.
It dated from the time mentioned in the Acts, when the disciples
went up to Jerusalem to consult with the elders in regard to the
question that had arisen as to whether the uncircumcised and those
who abstained not from the meat offered to idols should be baptized.
The very manner of asking the question showed that those who
discussed it misconceived the doctrine of Christ, who rejected all
external rites, such as the washing of the feet, purification,
fasts, and the Sabbath. It is said distinctly: "Not that which goeth
into the mouth defileth a man; but those things which proceed out
of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man."
And therefore the question in regard to the baptism of those not
circumcised could only arise among men who, loving their Teacher and
with the intuitive perception of the grandeur of his doctrine, could
not as yet comprehend its exact meaning. And so it was.
And in proportion as the members of the assembly failed to
comprehend the doctrine, did they stand in need of an outward
affirmation of their incomplete conception. And in order to decide
the question, whose very proposal proves the misconception of
the doctrine, it was that in this assembly for the first time,
according to the description given in the Acts, were uttered those
awful words, productive of so much harm, by which the truth of
certain propositions has been for the first time confirmed: "For it
seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us;" that is to say, it was
a declaration that the truth of what they said was witnessed by a
miraculous participation of the Holy Ghost, that is--of God.
But the assertion that the Holy Ghost--that is to say, God--had
spoken through the apostles, in its turn required proof. And
therefore it became necessary to declare that on the fiftieth day
the Holy Ghost, in the shape of fiery tongues, descended on those
who had made this assertion. [In the description the descent of the
Holy Ghost precedes the council, but the Acts were written much
later than either.] But the descent of the Holy Ghost must also
be proved, though it would be difficult to say why a fiery tongue
hovering over a man's head should be a proof of the truth of what
he says any more than the miracles, the cures, the resurrections,
the martyrdoms, and all the rest of those persuasive miracles with
which the Acts are filled, and which serve rather to repel than to
convince one of the truth of the Christian dogmas. The results of
these methods were such that the more pains they took to confirm
their statements, accumulating stories of miracles, the more the
doctrine itself deviated from its original meaning, and the less
intelligible it became.