The Kingdom of God is Within You; What is Art?
by graf Leo Tolstoy · English · Gutenberg #43409 · 1,159,971 chars · public domain (US)
The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Kingdom of God is Within You; What is Art?
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.
Title: The Kingdom of God is Within You; What is Art?
Author: graf Leo Tolstoy
Translator: Aline Delano
Release date: August 7, 2013 [eBook #43409]
Most recently updated: October 23, 2024
Language: English
Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/43409
Credits: Produced by David Edwards and the Online Distributed
Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was
produced from images generously made available by The
Internet Archive)
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE KINGDOM OF GOD IS WITHIN YOU; WHAT IS ART? ***
LYOF N. TOLSTOÏ
XIX
THE KINGDOM OF GOD
IS WITHIN YOU
WHAT IS ART?
[Illustration: COUNT TOLSTOÏ PLOWING
FROM THE PAINTING BY REPIN]
THE NOVELS AND OTHER WORKS OF
LYOF N. TOLSTOÏ
THE KINGDOM OF
GOD IS WITHIN YOU
WHAT IS ART?
[Illustration: publisher mark]
NEW YORK
CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS
1902
COPYRIGHT, 1899,
BY THOMAS V. CROWELL & CO.
INTRODUCTION
The present volume contains two contrasting treatises. The first is
religious, and shows in Count Tolstoï's earnest and eloquent manner
the meaning of Christ's words which he takes for his text,--"The
Kingdom of God is within you." The outward forms of religion,
however helpful they may be to some souls, are not essential; the
superstitions with which Faith sometimes clothes or masks herself
may or may not be uplifting; but the foundation of Christianity is
the truth contained in Christ's words, his simple, plain, undogmatic
commands and prohibitions.
One word sums it all up, and that word is Love. If the world should
take love for its guiding star, it is evident that all the evils
of the world would cease,--wars, crimes, poverty, ambitions; the
millennium would come! Count Tolstoï shows how that blessed period
may begin in every man. The translation of this beautiful and
inspiring book has been made by Mrs. Aline Delano of Boston.
In answering the question, "What is Art?" Count Tolstoï analyzes and
tests the various definitions given by other writers. He shows up
with merciless severity what he considers the fallacy in the popular
delusion that the fetish of Art pardons bestiality, obscenity, and
whatever conduces to stimulating the passions. The work is strongly
controversial, and attacks unsparingly many of the popular notions
of the day, as, for instance, that "Art is the manifestation of some
mysterious idea of God," or "the expression of man's emotions by
external signs," or the production of pleasing objects. He believes
that art has a loftier function, and he proceeds elaborately to
argue in favor of this universal activity, which should be to effect
a union among men so that they may have the same noble feelings and
progress together toward universal and individual well-being. "Art
for art's sake" is meaningless to him. It is interesting to notice
that the most original and independent of the French critics has
recently taken practically the same ground in a lecture, in which he
asserts that it is the critic's business to test art and literature,
and that art has a most intimate relation with morality.
Much of the book is racy and amusing; much of it is abstruse,
and requires close attention. But whether one follows the author
in his individual opinions or not, it cannot be denied that the
general tone of the treatise is helpful and uplifting, and that it
is based on sound common sense. Mr. Aylmer Maude of England is the
translator of this work, and has had the benefit of Count Tolstoï's
own suggestions in regard to certain points. As the special preface
explains, the translation accurately represents the author's views,
while the edition published in Russia was in many ways garbled
and distorted. The translators of both treatises have seized the
opportunity of carefully revising their work.
CONTENTS
THE KINGDOM OF GOD IS WITHIN YOU
PAGE
INTRODUCTORY 1
CHAPTER I
Doctrine of non-resistance to evil, from the origin
of Christianity, has been, and still is, professed
by the minority of men 3
CHAPTER II
Opinions of believers and unbelievers in regard to
non-resistance 30
CHAPTER III
Misconception of Christianity by non-believers 47
CHAPTER IV
Misconception of Christianity by scientists 79
CHAPTER V
Contradiction of our life and Christian consciousness 100
CHAPTER VI
Attitude of men of the present day toward war 122
CHAPTER VII
Significance of the military conscription 152
CHAPTER VIII
Certainty of the acceptance of the Christian doctrine
of non-resistance to evil by violence by the men
of our world 171
CHAPTER IX
The acceptance of the Christian life-conception
delivers men from the miseries of our pagan life 194
CHAPTER X
Uselessness of violence for the destruction of
evil--The moral advance of mankind is accomplished,
not only through the knowledge of truth, but also
through the establishment of public opinion 218
CHAPTER XI
Christian public opinion already arises in our
society, and will inevitably destroy the system
of violence of our life--When this will come about 242
CHAPTER XII
Conclusion: "Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at
hand!" 254
WHAT IS ART?
TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE 339
AUTHOR'S PREFACE 341
CHAPTER I
Time and labor spent on art--Lives stunted in its
service--Morality sacrificed to and anger
justified by art--The rehearsal of an opera
described 345
CHAPTER II
Does art compensate for so much evil?--What is
art?--Confusion of opinions--Is it "that which
produces beauty"?--The word "beauty" in
Russian--Chaos in æsthetics 351
CHAPTER III
Summary of various æsthetic theories and definitions,
from Baumgarten to to-day 360
CHAPTER IV
Definitions of art founded on beauty--Taste not
definable--A clear definition needed to enable
us to recognize works of art 376
CHAPTER V
Definitions not founded on beauty--Tolstoï's
definition--The extent and necessity of
art--How people in the past have distinguished
good from bad in art 383
CHAPTER VI
How art for pleasure has come into esteem--Religions
indicate what is considered good and bad--Church
Christianity--The Renaissance--Skepticism of the
upper classes--They confound beauty with goodness 389
CHAPTER VII
An æsthetic theory framed to suit this view of life 396
CHAPTER VIII
Who have adopted it?--Real art needful for all men--Our
art too expensive, too unintelligible, and too
harmful for the masses--The theory of "the elect"
in art 401
CHAPTER IX
Perversion of our art--It has lost its natural
subject-matter--Has no flow of fresh
feeling--Transmits chiefly three base emotions 406
CHAPTER X
Loss of comprehensibility--Decadent art--Recent French
art--Have we a right to say it is bad and that what
we like is good art?--The highest art has always
been comprehensible to normal people--What fails
to infect normal people is not art 412
CHAPTER XI
Counterfeits of art produced by: Borrowing; Imitating;
Striking; Interesting--Qualifications needful for
production of real works of art, and those
sufficient for production of counterfeits 436
CHAPTER XII
Causes of production of counterfeits--Professionalism--
Criticism--Schools of art 446
CHAPTER XIII
Wagner's "Nibelung's Ring" a type of counterfeit
art--Its success, and the reasons thereof 455
CHAPTER XIV
Truths fatal to preconceived views are not readily
recognized--Proportion of works of art to
counterfeits--Perversion of taste and incapacity
to recognize art--Examples 468
CHAPTER XV
THE QUALITY OF ART, CONSIDERED APART FROM ITS
SUBJECT-MATTER--The sign of art: Infectiousness--
Incomprehensible to those whose taste is
perverted--Conditions of infection: Individuality;
Clearness; Sincerity 476
CHAPTER XVI
THE QUALITY OF ART, CONSIDERED ACCORDING TO ITS
SUBJECT-MATTER--The better the feeling the better
the art--The cultured crowd--The religious
perception of our age--The new ideals put fresh
demands to art--Art unites--Religious art--Universal
art--Both coöperate to one result--The new
appraisement of art--Bad art--Examples of art--How
to test a work claiming to be art 479
CHAPTER XVII
Results of absence of true art--Results of perversion
of art: Labor and lives spent on what is useless
and harmful--The abnormal life of the rich--
Perplexity of children and plain folk--Confusion
of right and wrong--Nietzsche and Redbeard--
Superstition, Patriotism, and Sensuality 497
CHAPTER XVIII
The purpose of human life is the brotherly union of
man--Art must be guided by this perception 507
CHAPTER XIX
The art of the future not a possession of a select
minority, but a means toward perfection and unity 510
CHAPTER XX
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.
Thus it was from the beginning of the Christian era, and thus
it continued to increase, until in its own time it has reached
its logical consummation in the dogma of transubstantiation, the
infallibility of the Pope, the bishops, and Scriptures, which is
something utterly incomprehensible and nonsensical, requiring
a blind faith, not in God or Christ, nor even in the doctrine,
but a faith either in one person, as in Catholicism, or in many
persons, as in Orthodoxy, or in a book, as in Protestantism. The
more widely spread Christianity became, and the larger the number
of uninstructed men it received, the less it was understood, the
more the infallibility of its conceptions was insisted upon,
and the more slender grew the possibility of understanding its
true meaning. Already, about the time of Constantine, the entire
conception of the doctrine amounted to the _résumé_ formulated by
the temporal power,--the outcome of discussions that took place in
the council,--to the Credo, in which it is said: I believe in this
and that, etc., and at the end, "in the one holy, Apostolic and
Œcumenical Church," that is, in the infallibility of the persons
who constitute it; so that it all amounted to this, that a man
believed not in God, nor in Christ, as they revealed themselves to
him, but in that which was believed by the Church.
But the Church is holy, and was founded by Christ. God could not
allow men to interpret His doctrine as they chose, and therefore He
established the Church. All these propositions are so unjust and
unfounded, that one is actually ashamed to refute them. In no place,
and in no manner whatsoever, save in the assertion of the Church,
is it seen that either God or Christ can ever have founded anything
like the Church in its ecclesiastical sense. There is a distinct
and evident warning in the New Testament against the Church, as
an outside authority, in the passage which bids the disciples of
Christ call no man father or master. But nowhere is there a word
in regard to the establishment of what the ecclesiastics call the
Church. The word "church" is used in the New Testament twice, once
in speaking of the assembly which is to decide a dispute; the second
time in connection with the obscure words in regard to the rock,
Peter, and the gates of hell. From these two references, where the
word is used only in the sense of an assembly, men have derived the
institution which we recognize at present under the same of the
Church.
But Christ could by no means have founded a church, that is, what we
understand by that word at the present time, because nothing like
our Church, as we know it in these days, with the sacraments, the
hierarchy, and above all the establishment of infallibility, was to
be found either in the words of Christ, or in the ideas of the men
of those times.
Because men have called something which has been established since,
by the same word that Christ used in regard to another thing, by no
means gives them a right to assert that Christ founded only one true
Church.
Moreover, if Christ had it in his mind to establish a church which
was to be the depository of the whole doctrine and faith, He would
surely have expressed this so plainly and clearly, and would have
given, apart from all stories of miracles which are repeated with
every variety of superstition, such signs as would leave no doubt as
to its authenticity; yet this was not the case, and now, as always,
one finds different institutions, each one calling itself the only
true Church.
The Catholic catechism says: "L'Eglise est la société des fidèles
établie par N.-S. Jésus-Christ, répandue sur toute la terre et
soumise à l'autorité de pasteurs légitimes, principalement notre
S.-P. le pape,"--meaning by "pasteurs légitimes,"[3] a human
institution made up of a number of men bound together by a certain
organization of which the Pope is the head.
[3] The Church is the society of the faithful, established by our
Lord Jesus Christ, diffused throughout the world, subject to the
authority of its lawful pastors and our holy father the Pope.
The Orthodox catechism says: "Our Church is a society established
on earth by Jesus Christ, united by the divine doctrine and the
sacraments under the government and direction of a hierarchy
established by the Lord,"--those words, "established by the Lord,"
signifying a Greek hierarchy, composed of certain men who are
ordained to fill certain places.
The Lutheran catechism says: "Our Church is a holy Christian society
of believers under Christ, our Master, in which the Holy Ghost, by
means of the Bible and the sacraments, offers, communicates, and
dispenses the divine salvation,"--meaning by that, that the Catholic
Church is in error, and has fallen away from grace, and that the
genuine tradition has been preserved in Protestantism.
For Catholics the divine Church is identified with the Pope and
the Roman hierarchy. For the Orthodox it is identified with the
institution of the Eastern and Russian hierarchy.[4] For Lutherans
the divine Church signifies a congregation of men who acknowledge
the Bible and the Lutheran catechism.
[4] The definition of Homiakov, which had a certain success among
the Russians, does not help the case, if one believes with him
that the Orthodox is the only true Church. Homiakov asserts that
a church is a society of men (without distinction between the
ecclesiastics and the laity) united by love, and to whom the truth
is revealed ("Let us love one another, that we may unanimously
profess," etc.), and that such a church is, in the first place, one
that professes the Nicene creed, and, secondly, one which, after
the division of the churches, refused to recognize the authority of
the Pope and the new dogmas. With such a definition as this, the
difficulty of identifying a church which is united by love with a
church professing the Nicene creed, and the accuracy of Photius, as
Homiakov would have it, is still greater. Hence the statement of
Homiakov that this church united by love, and therefore holy, is
the same as that of the Greek hierarchy, is still more arbitrary
than the assertions of the Catholics and the old Greek Orthodox
believers. If we admit the existence of the Church according to the
idea of Homiakov, that is, as a society of men united by love and
truth, then all that any man can say in regard to it, is that it
would be most desirable to be a member of that society,--if such
an one exists,--that is, to live in the spirit of love and truth;
but there are no outward manifestations by which one could either
acknowledge one's self, or recognize others as members of this holy
society, or exclude one's self from it, for there is no outward
institution to be found which corresponds to that idea.
When those who belong to any one of the existing churches speak of
the beginnings of Christianity, they generally use the word "church"
in the singular, as though there had never been but one church. This
is quite unfair. The Church, which as an institution declares itself
to be the depository of infallible truth, did not arise until there
were already two.
While the faithful still agreed among themselves, the congregation
was united, and there was no occasion for calling itself a church.
It was only when it separated into two hostile parties that each
party felt obliged to assert its possession of the truth by claiming
infallibility.
During the course of the controversies between the two parties,
while each one claimed infallibility for itself and declared its
opponent heretical, arose the idea of the one church.
We know that there was a church in the year 51, which granted
the admission of the uncircumcised, and we know it only because
there was another, the Jewish Church, which denied their right to
membership.
If at the present time there is a Catholic Church which asserts
its infallibility, it is because there are other churches, namely,
the Greek Orthodox and the Lutheran, each one asserting its own
infallibility, and thus disowning all other churches. Hence the idea
of one church is but the product of the imagination, containing not
a shadow of reality.
It is an historical fact that there have existed, and still continue
to exist, numerous bodies, each one of whom maintains itself to be
the true Church established by Christ, declaring at the same time
that all the others who call themselves churches are heretical and
schismatic.
The catechisms of those churches which possess the greatest number
of communicants, the Catholic, the Orthodox, and the Lutheran,
express this in the plainest language.
The Catholic catechism says: "Quels sont ceux qui sont hors de
l'Eglise? Les infidèles, hérétiques, et schismatiques."[5] By
schismatics it means the so-called Orthodox, and by heretics the
Lutherans; so that, according to the Catholic catechism, the Church
is composed only of Catholics.
[5] Who are those outside the Church? The infidels, heretics, and
schismatics.
In the so-called Orthodox catechism it says: "The name Church of
Christ means only the Orthodox Church, which has remained in perfect
union with the universal Church. As to the Roman Church and the
Protestant creeds" (they are not even called a church), "they cannot
belong to the one true Church, for they have separated themselves
from it."
According to this definition the Catholics and the Protestants are
outside of the Church, and only the Orthodox are in it.
The Lutheran catechism says: "Die wahre Kirche wird darein erkannt,
das in ihr das Wort Gottes lauter und rein ohne Menschenzusetzung
gelehrt und die Sacramenten treu nach Christ Einsetzung gewartet
werden."[6]
[6] Thereby may be the true Church known that in it the word of God
is taught plainly and clearly, without human additions, and that
sacraments are administered faithfully according to the teaching of
Christ.
According to this definition, those who have added anything
whatsoever to the teaching of Christ and the apostles, as the
Catholic and Greek Churches have done, are outside the Church, and
the Lutherans alone are in it.
The Catholics assert that the Holy Ghost dwells perpetually with
their hierarchy; the Orthodox assert that the same Holy Ghost
resides also with them; the Arians claim that the Holy Ghost
manifests itself to them (and they have the same right to assert
this as have the prevailing religions of the present day); all the
denominations of Protestants--Lutherans, Reformed Presbyterians,
Methodists, Swedenborgians, and Mormons--assert that the Holy Ghost
manifests itself only with them.
If the Catholics assert that the Holy Ghost during the separation of
the Arian and Greek Churches withdrew from the separating churches
and remained in the one true Church, then the Protestants of any
denomination whatsoever may assert with as much right that during
the separation of their Church from the Catholic, the Holy Ghost
left the Catholic Church and entered into their own. And this is
exactly what they do say. Every church professes to derive its creed
by an unbroken tradition from Christ and the apostles. And certainly
every Christian creed derived from Christ must have reached the
present generation through tradition of some sort. But this is no
proof that any one of these traditions embodies infallible truth, to
the exclusion of all others.
Every branch proceeds from the root without interruption; but the
fact that each one comes from one root, by no means proves it to
be the only branch. And so it is in regard to the churches. The
proofs which each church offers of its apostolic succession, and
the miracles which are to prove its authenticity, are the same in
every case; consequently there is but one exact definition of what
is called a church (not the imaginary church which we may desire,
but the actual church which has really existed). The Church is a
body of men which lays claim to the exclusive possession of the
truth. All these various societies which were afterward transformed
by State authority into powerful organizations have really been the
chief obstacles to the diffusion of true Christianity. It could not
be otherwise: for the principal characteristic which distinguishes
the doctrine of Christ from those of earlier times is that the men
who accepted it strove to understand and to fulfil it more and more
perfectly; whereas the doctrine of the Church affirmed that it was
already thoroughly understood and also fulfilled.
However strange this may seem to us, reared as we have been in the
false doctrine of the Church, as if it were a Christian institution,
and taught to despise heresy, it is nevertheless in that which men
call heresy that true progress, that is, true Christianity, was
manifested, and it only ceased to be such when these heresies were
checked, and it was, so to speak, stamped with the immutable imprint
of the Church.
What, then, is heresy? Read all the theological works which treat of
heresies, of that subject which above all others calls for an exact
definition, for every theologian speaks of the true doctrine in the
midst of the false ones by which it is surrounded, and nowhere will
you find even the shadow of a definition of heresy.
As an instance of the complete absence of the definition of what
is understood by the word heresy, we will quote the opinion of a
learned Christian historian, E. de Pressensé in "Histoire du Dogme,"
with its epigraph, "Ubi Christus, ibi Ecclesia" (Paris, 1869). This
is what he says in his preface (p. 4):--
"I know that they dispute our right to qualify thus" (that is, to
pronounce them heretical) "the tendencies which were so actively
resisted by the early Fathers. The very name of heresy seems an
attack upon liberty of conscience and thought. We cannot share
these scruples, for they would simply deprive Christianity of any
individual character."
And having said that after Constantine the Church did in fact
abuse its authority to describe the dissenters as heretics and
to persecute them, he says, in speaking of the early ages of
Christianity: "The Church is a free association; there is an
advantage to be gained in separating from it. The controversy
against error is based on feelings and ideas; no uniform body of
dogma has as yet been adopted; differences of secondary importance
appear in the East and West with perfect freedom; theology is not
limited by unalterable formulas. If amid these varying opinions a
common groundwork of faith is discerned, have we not the right to
see in this, not a definite system devised and formulated by the
representatives of a school, but faith itself in its most unerring
instinct and spontaneous manifestation? If this very unanimity
which is revealed in the essential matters of faith is found to be
antagonistic to certain tendencies, have we not the right to infer
that these tendencies disagreed with the fundamental principles of
Christianity? Will not this supposition become a certainty if we
recognize in the doctrine rejected by the Church the characteristic
features of one of the religions of the past? If we admit that
gnosticism or ebionitism are legitimate forms of Christian thought,
we must boldly declare that Christian thought does not exist, nor
does it possess any specific characteristic by which it may be
recognized. We should destroy it even while pretending to enlarge
its limits. In the time of Plato no one would have dared to advocate
a doctrine which would leave no room for the theory of ideas, and he
would have been subjected to the well-deserved ridicule of Greece,
if he attempted to make of Epicurus or of Zeno a disciple of the
Academy. Let us then admit that if there exists a religion or a
doctrine called Christianity, it may have its heresies."
The writer's argument amounts to this, that every opinion which does
not accord with the code of dogmas that we have professed at any
given time, is a heresy. At a certain time and in a certain place
men make a certain profession, but this profession can never be a
fixed criterion of the truth. All is summed up in the "Ubi Christus,
ibi Ecclesia," and Christ is wherever we are.
Every so-called heresy which claims that what it professes is the
actual truth, may likewise find in the history of the Church a
consistent explanation of the faith it professes, and apply all
the arguments to its own use. Pressensé simply calls his own creed
Christian truth, precisely as every heretical sect has done.
The primary definition of the word heresy (the word ἁίρεσις means
a part) is the name given by a society of men to any opinion
contradicting any part of the doctrine professed by the society. A
more specific meaning is an expression of an opinion which denies
the truth of the creed, established and maintained by the temporal
power.
There is a remarkable, although little known, work entitled
"Unpartheyische Kirchen und Ketzer-Historie," 1729, by Gottfried
Arnold, which treats of this subject, and points out the illegality,
the perversity, the lack of sense, and the cruelty of employing the
word heresy in the sense of refutation. This book is an attempt to
relate the history of Christianity in the form of a history of
heresies.
In his introduction the author asks a series of questions: (1) Of
those who make heretics (Von denen Ketzermachern selbst); (2) Of
those who have become heretics; (3) Of the subjects of heresy; (4)
Of the ways of making heretics; and (5) Of the aims and consequences
of the making of heretics. To each of these points he adds scores
of other questions, giving the answers from the works of well-known
theologians, but principally leaving it to the reader to draw his
own deductions from the contents of the book. As instances of
questions which are to a certain extent their own answers I will
quote the following:--Concerning the 4th question, of the methods
for making heretics, he asks in one of the questions (the 7th):
"Does not all history tend to show us that the greatest makers of
heretics, the adepts in the art, were those very wiseacres from
whom the Father concealed his secrets--that is, the hypocrites, the
Pharisees, and the Scribes, or utterly godless and evil-minded men?
(Question 20-21) And in the corrupted times of Christianity did
not the hypocrites and envious ones reject the very men, talented
and especially indorsed by the Lord, who would have been highly
esteemed in periods of pure Christianity? (21) And, on the other
hand, would not those men who during the decadence of Christianity
rose above all others, and set themselves up as teachers of the
purest Christianity, would not they, during the times of the
apostles of Christ and his disciples, have been considered as the
shameful heretics and anti-Christians?" Among other things, while
expressing the idea that the verbal declaration of the essence of
faith which was required by the Church, the abjuration of which was
regarded as a heresy, could never cover all the ideas and beliefs
of the faithful, and that hence the requirement that faith shall be
expressed by a certain formula of words is the immediate cause of
heresy, he says in the 21st question:--
"And supposing that holy acts and thoughts appear to a man so high
and so profound that he finds no adequate words wherewith to convey
them, should he be considered a heretic if he is unable to formulate
his conception? (33) And was not this the reason why there were no
heresies in the early times of Christianity, because Christians
judged each other, not by their words, but by their hearts and by
their deeds, enjoying a perfect freedom of expression, without the
fear of being called heretic?" "Was it not one of the convenient and
easiest methods of the Church," he asks in the 31st question, "when
the ecclesiastics wished to rid themselves of any one, or ruin his
reputation, to excite suspicion in regard to the doctrine he held,
and by investing him in the garment of heresy, condemn and cast him
out?"
"Although it is true that among so-called heretics sins and errors
have been committed, it is no less true, as the numerous examples
here quoted bear testimony" (that is to say, in the history of
the Church and of heresies), "that there has never been a sincere
and conscientious man of any importance whose safety has not been
endangered through the envy of the ecclesiastics."
This was the interpretation of heresy almost 200 years ago, and the
same meaning is attached to it to-day, and so long as the idea of
the Church shall exist it will never change. Where the Church exists
there must also exist the idea of heresy. The Church is a body of
men claiming possession of indisputable truth. A heresy is the
opinion of men who do not acknowledge the truth of the Church to be
indisputable.
Heresy is the manifestation of a movement in the Church; it is
an attempt to destroy the immutable assertion of the Church, the
attempt of a living apprehension of the doctrine. Each advance that
has been made toward the comprehension and the practice of the
doctrine has been accomplished by heretics: Tertullian, Origen,
Augustine, and Luther, Huss, Savonarola, Helchitsky, and others were
all heretics. It could not be otherwise.
A disciple of Christ, who possesses an ever growing sense of
the doctrine and of its progressive fulfilment as it advances
toward perfection, cannot, either for himself or others, affirm,
simply because he is a disciple of Christ, that he understands and
practises the doctrine of Christ to its fullest extent; still less
could he affirm this in regard to any body of men. To whatsoever
state of comprehension and perfection he may have arrived, he
must always feel the inadequacy both of his conception and of its
application, and must ever strive for something more satisfactory.
And therefore to claim for one's self, or for any body of men
whatsoever, the possession of a complete apprehension and practice
of the doctrine of Christ is in direct contradiction to the spirit
of Christ's doctrine itself.
However strange this statement may appear, every church, as a
church, has always been, and always must be, an institution not
only foreign, but absolutely hostile, to the doctrine of Christ. It
is not without reason that Voltaire called it "_l'infâme_"; it is
not without reason that all so-called Christian sects believe the
Church to be the Scarlet Woman prophesied by the Revelation; it is
not without reason that the history of the Church is the history of
cruelties and horrors.
Churches in themselves are, as some persons believe, institutions
based upon a Christian principle, from which they have deviated to a
certain extent; but considered in the light of churches, of bodies
of men claiming infallibility, they are anti-Christian institutions.
Between churches in the ecclesiastical sense and Christianity,
not only is there nothing in common except the name, but they are
two utterly contradictory and hostile elements. One is pride,
violence, self-assertion, inertia, and death. The other is meekness,
repentance, submission, activity, and life.
No man can serve these two masters at the same time; he must choose
either the one or the other.
The servants of the churches of every creed, especially in these
modern times, strive to represent themselves as the partisans of
progress in Christianity; they make concessions, they try to correct
the abuses that have crept into the Church, and protest that it is
wrong to deny the principle of the Christian Church on account of
these abuses, because it is only through the medium of the Church
that unity can be obtained, and that the Church is the only mediator
between God and man. All this is untrue. So far from fostering the
spirit of unity, the churches have ever been the fruitful source of
human enmity, of hatred, wars, conflicts, inquisitions, Eves of St.
Bartholomew, and so on; neither do the churches act as the mediators
between God and man,--an office, moreover, quite unnecessary, and
directly forbidden by Christ himself, who has revealed his doctrine
unto each individual; it is but the dead formula, and not the living
God, which the churches offer to man, and which serves rather to
increase than diminish the distance between man and his Creator.
The churches, which were founded upon a misconception, and which
preserve this misconception by their immutability, must of necessity
harass and persecute any new conception, because they know, however
they may try to conceal it, that every advance along the road
indicated by Christ is undermining their own existence.
Whenever one reads or listens to the essays and sermons in which
ecclesiastical writers of modern times belonging to the various
creeds discuss the Christian truths and virtues, when one hears
and reads these artificial arguments, these exhortations, these
professions of faith, elaborated through centuries, that now and
then sound sincere, one is almost ready to doubt if the churches can
be inimical to Christianity. "It cannot be possible that men like
John Chrysostom, Fénelon, Butler, and other Christian preachers,
could be inimical to it." One would like to say, "The churches may
have gone astray from Christianity, may have committed errors, but
they cannot have been hostile to it." But one must first see the
fruit before he can know the tree, as Christ has taught, and one
sees that their fruits were evil, that the result of their works has
been the distortion of Christianity; and one cannot help concluding
that, however virtuous the men may have been, the cause of the
church in which these men served was not Christian. The goodness
and virtue of certain individuals who served the churches were
peculiar to themselves, and not to the cause which they served. All
these excellent men, like Francis of Assisi and Francis de Sales,
Tichon Zadònsky, Thomas à Kempis, and others, were good men, even
though they served a cause hostile to Christianity; and they would
have been still more charitable and more exemplary had they not
yielded obedience to false doctrines.
But why do we speak of, or sit in judgment on, the past, which may
be falsely represented, and is, in any event, but little known to
us? The churches, with their principles and their works, are not of
the past; we have them with us to-day, and can judge them by their
works and by their influence over men.
What, then, constitutes their power? How do they influence men? What
is their work in the Greek, the Catholic, and in all the Protestant
denominations? and what are the consequences of such work?
The work of our Russian so-called Orthodox Church is visible to all.
It is a factor of primary importance, which can neither be concealed
nor disputed.
In what manner is the activity of the Russian Church
displayed,--that vast institution which labors with so much zeal,
that institution which numbers among its servants half a million of
men, and costs the people tens of millions?
The activity of the Church consists in forcing, by every means in
its power, upon the one hundred millions of Russian people, those
antiquated, time-worn beliefs which have lost all significance,
and which were formerly professed by foreigners, with whom we had
nothing in common, beliefs in which nearly every man has lost
his faith, even in some cases those very men whose duty it is to
inculcate them.
The endeavor to force upon the people those formulas of the
Byzantine clergy, marvelous to them and senseless to us, concerning
the Trinity, the Virgin, the sacraments, grace, and so forth,
embraces one province of the activity of the Russian Church; another
function is the encouragement given to idolatry, in the literal
sense of the word: the veneration of holy relics and holy images,
the sacrifices offered to them in the faith that they will hear and
grant prayers. I will pass over in silence what is written in the
ecclesiastical magazines by the clergy who possess a semblance of
learning and liberality, and will speak only of what is really done
by the clergy throughout the immense extent of Russia, among its one
hundred millions of inhabitants. What is it that is taught to the
people with such unremitting pains and endeavor, and with so much
earnestness? What is required of them for the sake of the so-called
Christian religion?
I will start at the beginning, with the birth of the child. When
a child is born, we are taught that a prayer must be read over
the mother and child, in order to purify them, for without that
prayer the mother remains unclean. For that purpose, and facing the
ikons of the saints, whom the common people simply call gods, the
priest takes the infant in his arms, reads the exhortation, and by
that means he is supposed to cleanse the mother. Then the parents
are instructed, nay, even ordered, under penalty of punishment
in the event of non-compliance, to christen the child--that is,
to let the priest immerse it three times in the water, while
words unintelligible to all present are read, and still less
intelligible ceremonies are performed, such as the application of
oil to different parts of the body, the cutting of the hair, the
blowing and spitting of the sponsors at the imaginary devil. All
this is necessary to cleanse the child, and make a Christian of
him. Then the parents are told that the child must receive the
holy sacrament--that is, he is to swallow, in the form of bread
and wine, a particle of the body of Christ, by which means the
child will receive the blessing of Christ, and so on. Then they
are told that as the child grows it must be taught to pray, which
means that he is to stand in front of boards upon which the faces
of Christ, the Virgin, and the saints are painted, bow his head
and body, while with his right hand, his fingers being folded in
a peculiar manner, he touches his forehead, his shoulders, and
his stomach, and utters certain Slavonic words, the commonest of
which, those which all children learn, are the following: "Mother
of God, ... Virgin, rejoice," etc. Then the child is taught that he
must repeat this--that is, that he must make the sign of the cross
whenever he sees a church or an ikon. Furthermore, he is taught
that on a holiday (holidays are either the day on which Christ was
born, although no one knows when that took place, or the day of his
circumcision, or that on which the Virgin died, or when the cross or
the ikon was brought, or when some fanatic beheld a vision, etc.) he
should array himself in his best clothes, go to church, buy candles,
and set them up before the ikons of the saints, give to the priest
memoranda bearing the names of the dead who are to be prayed for,
receive bread with triangular pieces cut out of it, pray repeatedly
for the health and welfare of the Czar and bishops, as well as for
himself and his own affairs, and then kiss the cross and the hand of
the priest.
Thus is he taught to pray; and besides this, he is also taught
that he must perform his devotions once a year. To perform one's
devotions means to go to church and tell one's sins to the priest,
it being assumed that this recital of one's sins to a stranger will
have a purifying effect on a man; then he is to swallow a spoonful
of bread and wine, which will purify him still more. Moreover,
men are told that if a man and woman desire to have their sexual
relation sanctified they must come to church, put crowns of metal
upon their heads, swallow some wine, walk three times round a table,
accompanied by the sound of singing, and this will make their sexual
relation holy and entirely different from any others.
In daily life the observation of the following rules is enjoined:
to eat no meat nor drink no milk on certain days, to say _Te Deums_
and _Requiems_ on certain other days, to invite the priest to
one's house on holidays and present him with money; to take from
the church several times a year boards upon which are painted the
images of the saints, and to carry them on towels through fields and
houses. Before death a man must without fail receive a spoonful of
bread and wine; and if there be time to be anointed with oil, that
is still better, for it insures his welfare in the future life.
After his death his relatives are told that, in order to save his
soul, it is well to place in his hand a printed prayer; it is also a
good thing to read a certain book over the dead, and for his name to
be mentioned in church at stated times.
This is what constitutes every man's religious obligation. But
if any one wishes to take a special care of his soul, this creed
teaches that the greatest amount of happiness may be secured in
the next world by bequeathing money for churches and monasteries,
thereby obliging the saints to pray for one. According to this faith
it is also well to visit monasteries and kiss the miraculous ikons
and the relics.
These are believed to impart a peculiar holiness, strength, and
grace; and to be near these objects, as one must be in kissing them,
placing tapers before them, crawling under them, and repeating _Te
Deums_ before them, greatly promotes salvation.
And this is the faith called Orthodox, this is the true faith,
the one which, under the garb of a Christian religion, has been
energetically taught to the people for many centuries, and is
inculcated at the present time more vigorously than ever.
Let it not be said that the Orthodox teachers look upon all this as
an ancient form of faith which it was not considered worth while
to abolish, and that the essence of the doctrine abides elsewhere.
This is not the truth. Throughout Russia, and lately with increased
energy, the entire Russian clergy teaches this faith, and this
alone. Nothing else is taught. Men may write about other doctrines
and discuss them in the capitals, but among the hundred million
inhabitants this, and only this, is taught. The ecclesiastics may
discuss other doctrines, but only this is what is taught.
All this--the worship of relics and shrines--is included in theology
and the catechism; the people are carefully instructed in all this,
theoretically and practically, by every kind of solemnity, splendor,
authority, and violence; the people are compelled to believe in it
all; they are hypnotized, and the faith is jealously guarded against
any attempt to deliver them from these foolish superstitions.
As I said in my book, I have during the course of many years had
frequent opportunities to remark the ridicule and rude jests
that have been applied to Christ's words and doctrine, and the
ecclesiastics not only failed to condemn it, they even encouraged
this scoffing; but let a man venture to say one disrespectful word
of the ugly idol called the Iverskaya,[7] sacrilegiously carried
around Moscow by intoxicated men, and a groan of indignation will
rise from these same Orthodox ecclesiastics. In fact, it is only an
external worship in the form of idolatry that is propagated. And
let it not be said that the one does not exclude the other, that
"All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do;
but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not" (Matthew
xxiii. 3). This is said concerning the Pharisees, who fulfilled
all the outward commands of the law, and therefore the words,
"whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do," refer to
acts of benevolence and charity; whereas the words, "do not ye after
their works, for they say and do not," refer to their observances of
the rites and their indifference to works of charity, and directly
contradicts the clerical interpretation of this passage, which
explains it as a commandment which has to do only with the rites. An
external worship is hardly compatible with the service of charity
and truth; one is apt to exclude the other. It was so with the
Pharisees, and the same may be said of our professing Christians.
[7] The ikon of the Virgin which stands in a chapel in the heart
of Moscow, and which is the object of a special veneration to the
Russians.--TR.
If a man is to be saved by redemption, the sacraments, and prayer,
good works are no longer of any value to him. It must be either the
Sermon on the Mount or the Credo. No man can believe in both, and
the ecclesiastics have chosen the latter. The Credo is taught and
recited as a prayer in the churches, while the Sermon on the Mount
is excluded even from selections from the Bible which are read in
churches, so that the congregation never hear it, except on the days
when the entire Bible is read. It is inevitable; the men who can
believe that a cruel and unreasonable God had condemned humanity to
eternal death and sacrificed his own Son, and who had destined a
certain portion of mankind to everlasting torture, cannot believe
in a God of love. A man who believes in God, in the Christ who is
coming in his glory to judge and punish the dead and the living,
cannot believe in a Christ who commands us to turn the other cheek
to the offender, who forbids us to sit in judgment, and who bids us
to forgive our enemies and to love them. A man who believes in the
inspiration of the Old Testament and in the holiness of David, who
on his deathbed ordered the murder of an old man who had offended
him, and whom he could not kill himself because he was bound by
an oath (1 Kings ii. 8,9), and many other horrors of a similar
character, in which the Old Testament abounds, cannot believe in the
moral law of Christ; a man who believes in the doctrine and sermons
of the Church, wherein the practice of war and the penalty of death
are reconciled with Christianity, cannot believe in the brotherhood
of humanity.
But, above all, a man who believes in salvation through faith, in
redemption, and in the sacraments, cannot strive with all his might
to live up to the moral precepts of Christ. A man who has been
taught by the Church the sacrilegious doctrine that he is to be
saved through a certain medium, and not by his own efforts, will
surely have recourse to that medium; he will not trust to his own
efforts, on which, he has been assured, it is sinful to rely. Every
Church, with its doctrines of redemption and salvation, and above
all, the Orthodox faith, with its idolatry, excludes the doctrine
of Christ. But it is said, "This has always been the faith of the
people, and that they will continue to hold it is proved by the
whole history of the Russian nation. It would be wrong to deprive
them of their traditions." Herein lies the fallacy. The people,
it is true, did once upon a time profess something like what is at
present professed by the Church; but besides this worship of images
and relics, the people had always a profound moral conception of
Christianity never possessed by the Church, and only met with in
her noblest representatives; but the people, in the better class,
and in spite of the obstacles raised by the State and the Church,
have long since abandoned the cruder phase of belief, a fact that
is proved by the rationalistic sects that are beginning to spring
up on every side, sects that Russia is filled with at the present
day, and against which the ecclesiastics wage so hopeless a warfare.
The people are beginning to recognize the moral, vital side of
Christianity more and more plainly. And now the Church appears,
failing to give them a moral support, but forcibly teaching old-time
paganism,--the Church, with its immutable formulas, endeavoring to
thrust men back into the gloom from which they are struggling so
earnestly to escape.
The ecclesiastics say: "We are teaching nothing new; it is the same
faith which the people already hold, only we teach it in a more
perfect manner." It is like binding a chicken and trying to put it
back into the shell from which it came. I have often been struck by
the spectacle, which would be simply absurd were not its results so
terrible, of men traveling, so to speak, in a circle, deceived and
deceiving, but wholly unable to escape from the charmed circle.
The first question, the first doubt, that enters the head of
every Russian when he begins to reason, is a suspicion of the
miraculous ikons, and principally of the relics: is it true that
they are incorruptible, and that they perform miracles? Hundreds
and thousands of men ask these questions, and are at a loss for an
answer, especially since bishops and metropolitans and other eminent
persons kiss both the relics and the miraculous images. Ask the
bishops and other personages of importance why they do this, and
they will tell you that they do it in order to impress the masses,
and the masses do it because the bishops and other magnates do it.
The activity of the Russian Church, despite the veneer of modernity
and the scientific and spiritual standards which its members have
begun to establish by their essays, their religious reviews, and
their sermons, consists not only in encouraging the people in a
coarse and grotesque idolatry, but in strengthening and promulgating
superstition and religious ignorance, and in endeavoring to destroy
the vital conception of Christianity that exists in the people side
by side with this idolatry.
I remember being once in a book-shop of the monastery of Optinæ
Desert while an old peasant was selecting spiritual reading for
his educated grandson. The monk was offering him a description of
relics, of holy days, of miraculous ikons, the Book of Psalms, and
the like. I asked the old man if he had a Bible. "No," he replied.
"Give him a Russian Bible," I said to the monk. "We don't sell that
to them," said the monk. This, in short, is the activity of our
Church.
But the European or American reader may say, "That only happens in
barbaric Russia," and the remark will be correct, but only so far as
it applies to the government, which supports the Church to maintain
in our land its stupefying and demoralizing influence.
It is true that there is nowhere in Europe a government so despotic,
or that is in more perfect accord with the established Church.
Therefore in Russia the government authorities play an important
part in demoralizing the people; but it is not true that the Russian
Church differs from other churches in respect to its influence over
the people.
Churches are everywhere alike, and if the Catholic, Anglican, and
Lutheran have not at their beck so submissive a government as the
Russian, we may be sure that they would not fail to take advantage
of it were it within their reach.
The Church as a church, whether it be Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran,
or Presbyterian, or any denomination whatsoever, inasmuch as it is
a church, cannot help striving after the same object as the Russian
Church--namely, to conceal the true meaning of the doctrine of
Christ, and to substitute a meaning of its own, which imposes no
obligations, which excludes the possibility of understanding the
true, living doctrine of Christ, and which above all justifies the
existence of a priesthood living at the expense of the people.
Do we not find Catholicism with its prohibition against reading the
Bible, and with its demand for implicit obedience to the clergy
and the infallible Pope? Wherein does Catholicism differ in its
preaching from the Russian Church? The same external worship, the
same relics, miracles, and statues, miracle-performing Madonnas
and processions; the same vague and mystical utterances concerning
Christianity in books and sermons, and all in support of the
grossest idolatry.
And is it not the same in the Anglican or in the Lutheran, or in any
other Protestant denomination with an established form of church?
The same demands that the congregation shall acknowledge a belief in
dogmas which were defined in the fourth century, and which have lost
all meaning for the men of our time; the same call for idol worship,
if not of relics or ikons, at least of the Sabbath and the letter
of the Bible; the same endeavor to conceal the real requirement of
Christianity and the substitution of exterior rites, and "cant," as
the English so happily define the tendency which finds such sway
among them.
This activity is more noticeable in Protestantism, because that
creed has not even the excuse of antiquity. And is not the same
thing going on in the present "Revivalism," a regenerated Calvinism,
which has given birth to the Salvation Army? Inasmuch as the
attitude of all ecclesiastical dogmas toward the doctrine of Christ
is very much the same, so are their methods of a similar character.
The attitude they have taken obliges them to make every effort to
conceal the doctrine of that Christ in whose name they speak.
The disparity between ecclesiastical creeds and the doctrine of
Christ is so great that a special effort is required to keep mankind
in ignorance. Indeed, one needs but to consider the position of
any adult, I do not say educated, but one who has assimilated
superficially the current notions concerning geology, physics,
chemistry, cosmography, and history, when for the first time he
actually reflects on the faith impressed upon him in his childhood,
and maintained by the Church, concerning the creation of the world
in six days, the appearance of light before the sun was created, the
story of Noah's ark and the animals preserved in it,--concerning
Jesus and his divine origin as the Son of God who created all things
before time existed; that this God came down to earth because of
Adam's sin; that he rose from the dead, ascended into heaven, and
sits on the right hand of the Father; that he will come in the
clouds to judge the living and the dead, etc.
All these ideas evolved by the men of the fourth century, which had
for them a certain meaning, have none whatever for us. The present
generation may repeat these words, but it can never believe in them,
because the statements that God dwells in heaven, that the heavens
opened and a voice was heard to utter certain words, that Christ
arose from the dead and ascended into heaven, that he will come
again from some place in the clouds, etc., have no meaning for us.
It was possible for a man who believed that heaven was a substantial
arch of limited dimensions to believe or to disbelieve that God
created it, that it opened, and that Christ ascended thither,--but
for us there is no sense in such ideas. Men of our time can only
affirm that it is one's duty to believe all this,--which they do.
But they cannot really believe in what has no meaning in it for them.
But if all these utterances are supposed to have an allegorical
signification and are only intended as similes, then we know in the
first place that all the churchmen will not agree to this--on the
contrary, the majority insist on taking the Scriptures literally;
and in the second place, that these interpretations differ greatly,
and are supported by no reliable authority.
And even if a man wished to believe the doctrine of the Church as
it is taught, the increase of culture, the reading of the Bible,
and the intercourse among the members of different churches, form a
greater and more insurmountable obstacle to belief.
Nowadays a man has but to buy the Bible for threepence, and to read
the simple, indisputable words of Christ to the Samaritan woman,
that the Father seeketh worshipers neither in Jerusalem nor in this
or that mountain, but worshipers in spirit and truth; or the words,
that a Christian should pray not like the heathen in the temples,
nor at the corners of streets, but in the secrecy of his closet; or,
that a disciple of Christ may call no one father or mother,--one has
but to read these words to be indubitably convinced that priests who
call themselves teachers in opposition to the teaching of Christ,
and dispute among themselves, cannot be authorities, and that that
which they teach is not Christian.
But this is not enough. If the modern man were to go on believing
in miracles and never read the Bible, the fellowship with men of
other creeds and professions, which is so much a matter of course in
these days, will compel him to question the truth of his religion.
It was natural enough for a man who had never met a believer in a
creed different from his own, to think that his was the only faith;
but an intelligent man has but to encounter--and that is an everyday
occurrence--good and bad men of all creeds, who criticize each
other's beliefs, in order to question the truth of his own religion.
Now, only a man either totally ignorant or indifferent to the
problems of life as dealt with by religion can remain in the faith
of the Church.
What shrewdness is needed, and what efforts must the churches make,
in order to go on, in the face of all these faith-destroying
influences, building temples, saying masses, preaching, instructing,
converting, and above all receiving for this the large compensations
which all those priests, pastors, stewards, superintendents, abbots,
archdeacons, bishops, and archbishops receive!
A special and supernatural effort is called for, and to this the
Church responds, exerting herself more and more. In Russia, besides
many other measures, they employ a simple, rude violence, by virtue
of the power invested in the Church. People who shrink from an
outward observance of faith and who do not conceal the fact are
simply punished or deprived of their civil rights; and to those who
strictly comply with the rites, privileges and rewards are granted.
So much for the Orthodoxy; but every church, without exception,
makes the most of the means at its disposal, and hypnotism is one of
the chief agents.
Every art, from architecture to poetry, is enlisted, in order to
move and intoxicate the human soul. This hypnotic and mesmerizing
influence is markedly displayed in the activity of the Salvation
Army, which employs novel, and to us abnormal, methods, such, for
instance, as drums, horns, singing, banners, uniforms, processions,
dancing, outbursts of tears, and dramatic gestures.
Still, these methods are startling simply because of their novelty.
Is not the familiar form of worship in cathedrals, with their
peculiar illumination, the golden pomp, the candles, choirs, organs,
bells, vestments, the weeping preachers, etc., of a similar nature?
And yet, however powerful may be the influence of this hypnotism,
it is by no means the chief or most harmful form which the activity
of the Church assumes. Its most malign activity is that which is
devoted to deceiving the children--those little ones of whom Jesus
has said, "Woe be unto him who tempts the least of these." From
the earliest awakening of a child's intelligence he is deceived
and formally taught that which his teachers no longer believe
themselves, and this goes on until the delusion becomes from habit
a part of his nature. A child is systematically deceived concerning
the most important affair in life, and when this deception has
become so incorporated with his being that it is difficult to uproot
it, then the world of science and reality is opened to him--a world
that is wholly at variance with the faith which he has imbibed from
his teachers--and he is left to reconcile those contradictions as
best he may.
Given the problem of how to muddle a man so that he will be unable
to discriminate between two antagonistic conceptions that have been
taught to him since his childhood, one could never have devised
anything more effectual than the education of every young man in our
so-called Christian society.
Shocking as it is to contemplate the work of the churches among men,
still, if we consider their position, we shall see that they cannot
act otherwise. They are face to face with a dilemma: the Sermon on
the Mount or the Nicene creed; the one excludes the other. If a man
sincerely believes the Sermon on the Mount, the Nicene creed must
inevitably lose all its meaning for him, and the same would hold
true as regards the Church and its representatives; but if a man
accepts the Nicene creed, that is to say, the Church, or those who
call themselves its representatives, then he will find no use for
the Sermon on the Mount. Hence it is incumbent on the churches to
make every effort to obscure the meaning of the Sermon on the Mount
and to endeavor to draw the people toward them. It is only due to
their intense activity in that direction that the influence of the
churches has not decreased. Let the Church but pause in this effort
to influence the masses by hypnotizing men and deceiving children
for ever so short a time, and men will comprehend the doctrine
of Christ, and this comprehension will do away with churches and
their influence. Therefore the churches cease not for one moment
their compulsory activity through the hypnotism of adults and the
deception of children. And it is this activity of the churches that
gives people a false conception of Christ's doctrine, and prevents
the majority of men, the so-called believers, from understanding it.
CHAPTER IV
MISCONCEPTION OF CHRISTIANITY BY SCIENTISTS
The relation of scientists to religions in general--What
are religions, and their significance to human life--Three
conceptions of life--The Christian doctrine is the expression of
the divine life-conception--The misconception of Christianity
by scientists who study its outward manifestations due to
the fact that they consider it from the standpoint of the
social life-conception--Opinion resulting therefrom, that
the teaching of Christ is exaggerated and unpractical--The
expression of the life-conception of the gospel--Erroneous
judgments of scientists concerning Christianity are based upon
the assurance that they possess an infallible criterion of
knowledge--Hence arise two misapprehensions in regard to the
Christian doctrine--The first misapprehension concerning the
impracticability of the doctrine arises from the fact that the
Christian doctrine presents a conduct of life different from
that of the social life-conception--Christianity offers not a
rule, but an ideal--Christ adds the consciousness of a divine
power to that of an animal power--Christianity seems to exclude
the possibility of life only when the indication of the ideal
is taken for the rule--An ideal cannot be belittled--According
to the doctrine of Christ, life is movement--The ideal and
the commandments--The second misapprehension arises from the
attempt to replace the love of God and His service by the love
and service of humanity--Scientists believe that Christianity
and their doctrine concerning the service of humanity are
identical--The doctrine of love toward humanity has for its
foundation the social life-conception--The love for humanity
which springs logically from love for the individual has no
meaning, because humanity is a fiction--Christian love springing
from the love of God has for its object not only humanity but
the whole world--Christianity teaches a life in accordance with
its divine nature--It indicates that the essence of a man's soul
is love, and that its good is obtained from its love of God,
whom he feels to be within him through love.
Let us now turn our attention to another fallacious conception of
Christianity, which is antagonistic to its actual principles,--the
scientific conception.
The Christianity of the churchmen is something which they have
evolved for themselves, and which they believe to be the only true
interpretation of Christian doctrine.
The scientists take the professions of faith of the various
churches for Christianity, and assuming that these dogmas embody
an exhaustive definition of Christian doctrine, they affirm that
Christianity has had its day.
One needs but to take into consideration the important part
which all religions, and especially Christianity, have played in
the life of man, and the significance which science attaches to
them, to see at once how impossible it would be to obtain any just
apprehension of Christian doctrine through these conceptions. As
each individual must possess certain impressions in regard to the
meaning of his life, and, though often unconsciously, conform his
conduct thereunto, so mankind in the aggregate, or groups of men
living under the same conditions, must likewise possess a conception
of the meaning of their common life and its consequent activities.
As an individual passing from one period of life to another
inevitably changes his ideas, the point of view of a grown-up man
differs from that of a child, so also mankind in the aggregate--the
nation--inevitably, and in conformity with its age, changes its
views of life and the activity that springs therefrom.
The difference in this respect between an individual and mankind
in general lies in the fact that while the individual, in forming
his conception of the significance and responsibilities of that new
period of life upon which he is about to enter, may avail himself of
the advice of his predecessors who have already passed that stage,
mankind can have no such advantage, because it is advancing along an
unbeaten track and there is no one of whom it can ask for the clue
to the mystery of life, or how it shall demean itself under these
unfamiliar conditions to which no nation has ever yet been subjected.
The married man with a family of children will not continue to
view life as he did when he was a child; neither is it possible
for mankind, with the many changes that have taken place,--the
density of the population, the constant intercourse of nations,
the perfected means of combating the forces of nature, and the
increase of knowledge generally,--to view the life of the present
day in the light of the past; hence it becomes necessary to evolve
a life-conception from which activities corresponding with a new
system which is to be established will naturally develop.
And this need is supplied by that peculiar capacity of the race for
producing men able to impart a new significance to human life,--a
significance developing a different set of activities.
The birth of the life-conception, which always takes place when
mankind enters upon new conditions and its subsequent activities, is
what we call religion.
Therefore, in the first place, religion is not, as science regards
it, a phenomenon which formerly traveled hand in hand with the
development of mankind, and which has since been left behind; on the
contrary, it is a phenomenon inherent to human existence itself, and
never more distinctly manifested than at the present day. In the
second place, religion defines future rather than past activities;
therefore it is evident that an investigation of the phenomena of
the past can by no means touch the essence of religion.
The longing to typify the forces of nature is no more the essence
of religion than is the fear of those same forces, or the need of
the miraculous and its outward manifestations, as the scientists
suppose. The essence of religion lies in the power of man to
foreknow and to point out the way in which mankind must walk. It is
a definition of a new life which will give birth to new activities.
This faculty of foreknowledge concerning the destiny of humanity
is more or less common, no doubt, to all people; still from time
to time a man appears in whom the faculty has reached a higher
development, and these men have the power clearly and distinctly
to formulate that which is vaguely conceived by all men, thus
instituting a new life-conception from which is to flow an unwonted
activity, whose results will endure for centuries to come. Thus far
there have been three of these life-conceptions; two of them belong
to a bygone era, while the third is of our own time and is called
Christianity. It is not that we have merged the various conceptions
of the significance of life into three arbitrary divisions, but that
there really have been but three distinct conceptions, by which the
actions of mankind have been influenced, and save through these we
have no means of comprehending life.
These three life-conceptions are--firstly, the individual or animal;
secondly, the social or pagan; and thirdly, the universal or divine.
According to the first of these, a man's life is his personality,
and that only, and his life's object is to gratify his desires.
According to the second, his life is not limited to his own
personality; it includes the sum and continuity of many
personalities,--of the family, of the race, and of the State,
and his life's object is to gratify the will of the communities
of individuals. And according to the third, his life is confined
neither to his personality nor to that of the aggregate of
individuals, but finds its significance in the eternal source of all
life,--in God Himself.
These three life-conceptions serve as the basis for the religions of
every age.
The savage sees life only through the medium of his own desires. He
cares for nothing but himself, and for him the highest good is the
full satisfaction of his own passions. The incentive of his life is
personal enjoyment. His religion consists of attempts to propitiate
the gods in his favor, and of the worship of imaginary deities, who
exist only for their own personal ends.
A member of the pagan world recognizes life as something concerning
others besides himself; he sees it as concerning an aggregate of
individuals,--the family, the race, the nation, the State, and is
ready to sacrifice himself for the aggregate. The incentive of his
life is glory. His religion consists in honoring the chiefs of his
race, his progenitors, his ancestors, his sovereigns, and in the
worship of those gods who are the exclusive patrons of his family,
his tribe, his race, and his State.[8]
[8] The unity of this social and pagan life-conception is by no
means destroyed by the numerous and varied systems which grow out of
it, such as the existence of the family, of the nation, and of the
State, and even of that life of humanity conceived according to the
theory of the Positivists.
These multifarious systems of life are based upon the fundamental
idea of the insignificance of the individual, and the assurance that
the meaning of life is to be sought and found only in humanity,
taken in its broadest sense.--AUTHOR.
The man who possesses the divine life-conception neither looks upon
life as centered in his own personality nor in that of mankind at
large, whether family, tribe, race, nation, or State; but rather
does he conceive of it as taking its rise in the eternal life of
God, and to fulfil His will he is ready to sacrifice his personal,
family, and social well-being. Love is the impelling motive of his
life, and his religion is the worship, in deed and in truth, of the
beginning of all things,--of God Himself.
History is but the transcript of the gradual transition from the
animal life-conception of the individual to the social, and from
the social to the divine. The history of the ancients for thousands
of centuries, culminating in that of Rome, is the history of the
evolution from the animal life-conception of the individual to that
of society and the State. From the advent of Christianity and the
fall of Imperial Rome we have the history of that change which is
still going on from the social to the divine life-conception.
The latter, together with the Christian doctrine which is based
upon it, and by which our lives are shaped, and our activities,
both practical and scientific, are quickened, is regarded by the
pseudo-scientists, who judge it only by its outward signs, as
something outlived, which has lost all meaning for us.
According to scientists this doctrine is embodied in the dogmas
of the Trinity, the Redemption, the miracles, the Church and its
sacraments, etc., and is only one of the many religions which have
arisen during the progress of human history, and now, having played
its part and outlived its time, is vanishing before the dawn of
science and true enlightenment.
The grossest of human errors spring in most cases from the fact
that men who stand on a low intellectual plane, when they encounter
phenomena of a higher order, instead of trying to rise to the
higher plane from which these phenomena may be fitly regarded, and
making an effort to understand them, judge them by their own low
standard, and the less they know of what they speak, the more bold
and determined are their judgments.
Most scientists, who treat of the moral doctrine of Christ from the
lower standpoint of a social life-conception, regard it as nothing
more than an amalgam without cohesion of the asceticism of India
with the doctrine of the Stoics and Neo-Platonists, and of vague
anti-social dreams, devoid of all serious meaning in these latter
days; they simply see its outward manifestation in the form of
dogmas in Catholicism, in Protestantism, and in its struggle with
the powers of the world. Interpreting the design of Christianity
from its outward aspects, they are like unto deaf men, who judge
of the meaning and excellence of music by the movements of the
musicians.
Hence it is that all such men, from Comte and Strauss to Spencer
and Renan, not understanding the purport of Christ's words, knowing
nothing whatever of their intention, ignorant of the question
to which they serve as an answer, and taking no pains to learn
it,--such men, if they are inimical to Christianity, utterly deny
the sense of the doctrine; but if they are leniently inclined, then,
from the height of their superior wisdom, they amend it, taking for
granted that Christ would have said what they think He meant, had He
known how to express himself. They treat His doctrine just as men
of overweening self-conceit treat their inferiors, correcting them
in their speech: "You mean so and so." And the spirit of emendation
is always such as to reduce the doctrine of the higher, the divine
life-conception, to that of the lower and the social conception.
It is usually admitted that the moral teaching of Christianity
is good but exaggerated; that in order to make it perfect, its
hyperboles, which are incompatible with our present mode of life,
should be discarded. "A doctrine which requires so much that is
impracticable is more hurtful than one which demands of men only
what is in proportion to their strength." Thus declare the learned
interpreters of Christianity, thus unwittingly reiterating the
assertion of those who misunderstood the Christian doctrine long
years ago, and crucified the Master.
The Hebrew law, "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth," the
retributive justice known to mankind thousands of years ago, seems
far better suited to the court of contemporary scientists than the
law of love which Christ preached 1800 years ago, and which was to
replace this identical law of justice.
It would seem that every action of those men who accepted the
teaching of Christ in its literal sense, and lived up to it, all the
words and deeds of sincere Christians, and all the agencies which,
under the guise of socialism and communism, are now transforming
the world, are merely exaggeration, not worth discussing. Nations
which have lived under Christian influences, and which are now
represented by their advanced thinkers, the scientists, have
arrived at the conclusion that the Christian doctrine is a matter
of dogma; that its practical teaching has been a mistake and an
exaggeration, inimical to the just requirements of morality that
are in accord with human nature, and that the very doctrine which
Christ repudiated, and for which he substituted a dogma of his own,
is far better suited to us. The scientist considers the commandment
of non-resistance to evil by violence an exaggeration, and even an
act of folly. It would be far better, in his opinion, to reject it,
never dreaming that it is not the doctrine of Christ which he is
controverting, but something which he assumes to be the doctrine in
question. He does not realize when he says that the commandment of
non-resistance in the doctrine of Christ is an exaggeration, that
he is like one who, teaching the theory of the circle, declares
that the equality of the radii is an exaggeration. It is just as
if one who has no idea of the form of a circle were to affirm that
the law which requires that each point of its circumference shall
be equidistant from its center, is an exaggeration. As a suggestion
to reject or modify the proposition concerning the equality of the
radii of a circle signifies an ignorance in regard to the circle
itself, so also does the idea of rejecting or modifying, in the
practical teaching of Christ, the commandment of non-resistance to
evil by violence signify a misunderstanding of the doctrine.
And those who entertain these views do not really comprehend the
doctrine. They do not understand that it is the unfolding of a new
conception of life, corresponding to the new phase of existence
upon which the world entered 1800 years ago, and a definition of
the new activity to which it gave birth. Either they do not believe
that Christ said what He meant to say, or that what is found in the
Sermon on the Mount and elsewhere He said either from His enthusiasm
or lack of wisdom and simplicity of character.[9]
[9] Here, for example, is a characteristic expression of opinion
in the American periodical, _The Arena,_ for November, 1890,
from an article entitled "New Basis of Church Life." Discussing
the significance of the Sermon on the Mount, and especially the
doctrine of non-resistance to evil, the author, having no reason for
obscuring its meaning as the ecclesiastics do, says:--
"Devout common sense must gradually come to look upon Christ
as a philanthropic teacher, who, like every enthusiast who
ever taught, went to an Utopian extreme in his own philosophy.
Every great agitation for the betterment of the world has been
led by men who beheld their own mission with such absorbing
intensity that they could see little else. It is no reproach to
Christ to say that he had the typical reformer's temperament;
that his precepts cannot be literally accepted as a complete
philosophy of life; and that men are to analyze them reverently,
but, at the same time, in the spirit of ordinary truth-seeking
criticism," etc.
"Christ did in fact preach absolute communism and anarchy; but,"
and so on. Christ would have been glad to have expressed Himself
in more fitting terms, but He did not possess our critical
faculty in the use of exact definitions, therefore we will set
Him right. All He said concerning meekness, sacrifice, poverty,
and of taking no thought for the morrow, were but haphazard
utterances, because of His ignorance of scientific phraseology.
Matt. vi. 25-34.--25. _Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought
for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor
yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more
than meat, and the body than raiment?_
26. _Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither
do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father
feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?_
27. _Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his
stature?_
28. _And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of
the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin:_
29. _And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory
was not arrayed like one of these._
30. _Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which
to-day is, and to-morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not
much more clothe you, O ye of little faith?_
31. _Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or,
What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed?_
32. _(For after all these things do the Gentiles seek:) for your
heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things._
33. _But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his
righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you._
34. _Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow
shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the
day is the evil thereof._
Luke xii. 33-34.--33. _Sell that ye have, and give alms; provide
yourselves bags which wax not old, a treasure in the heavens
that faileth not, where no thief approacheth, neither moth
corrupteth._
34. _For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also._
Matt. xix. 21.--"_Go and sell that thou hast, and give to the
poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and
follow me._"
Mark viii. 34.--"_Whosoever will come after me, let him deny
himself, and take up his cross, and follow me._"
John iv. 34.--"_My meat is to do the will of him that sent me,
and to finish his work._"
Luke xxii. 42.--"_Not my will, but thine, be done._"
_Not what I wish, but what Thou wishest, and not as I wish, but
as Thou wishest. Life consists in doing not your own will, but
the will of God._
All these doctrines are regarded by men who adhere to the lower
life-conception as expressions of enthusiastic exaltation, with no
special reference to daily life. And yet these doctrines are no less
the natural outcome of the Christian life-conception than is the
idea of giving one's labor for the common good, or of sacrificing
one's life to defend one's country, the outcome of the social
life-conception.
As the believer in the social life-conception says to the savage:
"Rouse yourself! Consider what you are doing! The life that man
lives for himself alone cannot be the true one, for life is fleeting
and full of woe. It is the life of the community at large, the
race, the family, the State, that endures: therefore a man must
sacrifice his personality for the life of the family and the State;"
Christianity in like manner says unto him who believes in a social
life-conception of the community: "Repent, μετανοετα, that
is, arouse yourself, consider your ways, else shall you perish. Know
you that this bodily, animal life is born to-day and dies to-morrow;
nothing can assure its permanence, no outward expedients, no system
whatsoever can give it stability. Consider your ways and learn that
the life you live is not the real life, that neither family, social,
nor State life will save you from perdition. An honest rational
life is possible for man provided that he be, not a participant
of the life of the family or life of the State, but a partaker of
the source of all life--that of the Father Himself; then his life
is united to the life of the Father." Such is beyond a doubt the
meaning of the Christian conception of life, clearly set forth in
every maxim of the New Testament.
One may not share such a conception of life, one may deny it, or
prove it to be inaccurate and fallacious; but no man can possibly
judge a doctrine without having first made himself familiar with the
life-conception which forms its basis; and still more impossible is
it to judge a lofty subject from a low standpoint, to pronounce upon
the belfry from a knowledge of the foundation. Yet this is precisely
what is done by contemporary scientists. And this is because they
are laboring under an error similar to that of the clergy, in
believing that they possess such infallible methods of studying
their subject that, if they but bring their so-called scientific
methods to bear upon the subject under consideration, there can be
no doubt as to the accuracy of their conclusion.
The possession of a guide to knowledge, which they believe to be
infallible, is really the chief obstacle to the comprehension of
the Christian doctrine among unbelievers and so-called scientists,
by whose opinions the great majority of unbelievers, the so-called
educated classes, are guided. All the errors of the scientists
concerning Christianity, and especially two strange misapprehensions
that avail more than anything else to blind men to its real
signification, arise therefrom.
One of these misapprehensions is that the doctrine of a Christian
life not being practical, it remains optional with the individual
whether he take it for his guide or no; and if he chooses to do
so, it may then be modified to suit the exigencies of our social
life. The second misapprehension is that the Christian doctrine o
Showing first 200,000 characters. Full text: gutenberg.org/ebooks/43409