The Kingdom of God is Within You - Christianity Not as a Mystic Religion But as a New Theory of Life

By Author	[ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z \| Other Symbols ]
By Title	[ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z \| Other Symbols ]
By Language

Download this book: [ ASCII | HTML | PDF ]

Look for this book on Amazon

We have new books nearly every day.
If you would like a news letter once a week or once a month fill out this form and we will give you a summary of the books for that week or month by email.

Title: The Kingdom of God is Within You - Christianity Not as a Mystic Religion But as a New Theory of Life
Author: Tolstoy, Count Leo
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.

*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The Kingdom of God is Within You - Christianity Not as a Mystic Religion But as a New Theory of Life" ***

produced from images generously made available by The
Internet Archive)

"THE KINGDOM OF GOD IS
WITHIN YOU"

[Illustration: titlepage]

"THE KINGDOM OF GOD IS
WITHIN YOU"

_CHRISTIANITY NOT AS A MYSTIC RELIGION
BUT AS A NEW THEORY OF LIFE_

TRANSLATED FROM THE RUSSIAN OF
COUNT LEO TOLSTOY

BY
CONSTANCE GARNETT

NEW YORK
THE CASSELL PUBLISHING CO.
31 EAST 17TH ST. (UNION SQUARE)

_All rights reserved._

THE MERSHON COMPANY PRESS,
RAHWAY, N. J.

TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE.

The book I have had the privilege of translating is, undoubtedly,
one of the most remarkable studies of the social and psychological
condition of the modern world which has appeared in Europe for many
years, and its influence is sure to be lasting and far reaching.
Tolstoy's genius is beyond dispute. The verdict of the civilized
world has pronounced him as perhaps the greatest novelist of our
generation. But the philosophical and religious works of his later
years have met with a somewhat indifferent reception. They have
been much talked about, simply because they were his work, but, as
Tolstoy himself complains, they have never been seriously discussed.
I hardly think that he will have to repeat the complaint in regard
to the present volume. One may disagree with his views, but no one
can seriously deny the originality, boldness, and depth of the social
conception which he develops with such powerful logic. The novelist
has shown in this book the religious fervor and spiritual insight
of the prophet; yet one is pleased to recognize that the artist is
not wholly lost in the thinker. The subtle intuitive perception of
the psychological basis of the social position, the analysis of the
frame of mind of oppressors and oppressed, and of the intoxication of
Authority and Servility, as well as the purely descriptive passages
in the last chapter--these could only have come from the author of
"War and Peace."

The book will surely give all classes of readers much to think of,
and must call forth much criticism. It must be refuted by those who
disapprove of its teaching, if they do not want it to have great
influence.

One cannot of course anticipate that English people, slow as they are
to be influenced by ideas, and instinctively distrustful of all that
is logical, will take a leap in the dark and attempt to put Tolstoy's
theory of life into practice. But one may at least be sure that his
destructive criticism of the present social and political _régime_
will become a powerful force in the work of disintegration and social
reconstruction which is going on around us. Many earnest thinkers
who, like Tolstoy, are struggling to find their way out of the
contradictions of our social order will hail him as their spiritual
guide. The individuality of the author is felt in every line of his
work, and even the most prejudiced cannot resist the fascination
of his genuineness, sincerity, and profound earnestness. Whatever
comes from a heart such as his, swelling with anger and pity at the
sufferings of humanity, cannot fail to reach the hearts of others. No
reader can put down the book without feeling himself better and more
truth-loving for having read it.

Many readers may be disappointed with the opening chapters of the
book. Tolstoy disdains all attempt to captivate the reader. He
begins by laying what he considers to be the logical foundation
of his doctrines, stringing together quotations from little-known
theological writers, and he keeps his own incisive logic for the
later part of the book.

One word as to the translation. Tolstoy's style in his religious and
philosophical works differs considerably from that of his novels.
He no longer cares about the form of his work, and his style is
often slipshod, involved, and diffuse. It has been my aim to give a
faithful reproduction of the original.

CONSTANCE GARNETT.
_January, 1894._

PREFACE.

In the year 1884 I wrote a book under the title "What I Believe," in
which I did in fact make a sincere statement of my beliefs.

In affirming my belief in Christ's teaching, I could not help
explaining why I do not believe, and consider as mistaken, the
Church's doctrine, which is usually called Christianity.

Among the many points in which this doctrine falls short of the
doctrine of Christ I pointed out as the principal one the absence of
any commandment of non-resistance to evil by force. The perversion
of Christ's teaching by the teaching of the Church is more clearly
apparent in this than in any other point of difference.

I know--as we all do--very little of the practice and the spoken and
written doctrine of former times on the subject of non-resistance to
evil. I knew what had been said on the subject by the fathers of the
Church--Origen, Tertullian, and others--I knew too of the existence
of some so-called sects of Mennonites, Herrnhuters, and Quakers,
who do not allow a Christian the use of weapons, and do not enter
military service; but I knew little of what had been done by these
so-called sects toward expounding the question.

My book was, as I had anticipated, suppressed by the Russian
censorship; but partly owing to my literary reputation, partly
because the book had excited people's curiosity, it circulated
in manuscript and in lithographed copies in Russia and through
translations abroad, and it evoked, on one side, from those who
shared my convictions, a series of essays with a great deal of
information on the subject, on the other side a series of criticisms
on the principles laid down in my book.

A great deal was made clear to me by both hostile and sympathetic
criticism, and also by the historical events of late years; and I was
led to fresh results and conclusions, which I wish now to expound.

First I will speak of the information I received on the history of
the question of non-resistance to evil; then of the views of this
question maintained by spiritual critics, that is, by professed
believers in the Christian religion, and also by temporal ones, that
is, those who do not profess the Christian religion; and lastly I
will speak of the conclusions to which I have been brought by all
this in the light of the historical events of late years.

L. TOLSTOY.
YASNAÏA POLIANA,
_May 14/26, 1893_.

CONTENTS.

CHAPTER PAGE

I. THE DOCTRINE OF NON-RESISTANCE TO EVIL BY FORCE
HAS BEEN PROFESSED BY A MINORITY OF MEN FROM
THE VERY FOUNDATION OF CHRISTIANITY, 1

II. CRITICISMS OF THE DOCTRINE OF NON-RESISTANCE TO
EVIL BY FORCE ON THE PART OF BELIEVERS AND OF
UNBELIEVERS, 29

III. CHRISTIANITY MISUNDERSTOOD BY BELIEVERS, 48

IV. CHRISTIANITY MISUNDERSTOOD BY MEN OF SCIENCE, 85

V. CONTRADICTION BETWEEN OUR LIFE AND OUR CHRISTIAN
CONSCIENCE, 109

VI. ATTITUDE OF MEN OF THE PRESENT DAY TO WAR, 133

VII. SIGNIFICANCE OF COMPULSORY SERVICE, 164

VIII. DOCTRINE OF NON-RESISTANCE TO EVIL BY FORCE MUST
INEVITABLY BE ACCEPTED BY MEN OF THE PRESENT
DAY, 184

IX. THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE CHRISTIAN CONCEPTION OF
LIFE WILL EMANCIPATE MEN FROM THE MISERIES
OF OUR PAGAN LIFE, 208

X. EVIL CANNOT BE SUPPRESSED BY THE PHYSICAL FORCE
OF THE GOVERNMENT--THE MORAL PROGRESS OF
HUMANITY IS BROUGHT ABOUT NOT ONLY BY INDIVIDUAL
RECOGNITION OF THE TRUTH, BUT ALSO
THROUGH THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PUBLIC OPINION, 235

XI. THE CHRISTIAN CONCEPTION OF LIFE HAS ALREADY
ARISEN IN OUR SOCIETY, AND WILL INFALLIBLY PUT
AN END TO THE PRESENT ORGANIZATION OF OUR LIFE
BASED ON FORCE--WHEN THAT WILL BE, 264

XII. CONCLUSION--REPENT YE, FOR THE KINGDOM OF
HEAVEN IS AT HAND, 278

"Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you
free."--JOHN viii. 32.

"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."--MATT. x. 28.

"Ye have been bought with a price; be not ye the servants of
men."--1 COR. vii. 23.

"THE KINGDOM OF GOD IS WITHIN YOU."

CHAPTER I.

THE DOCTRINE OF NON-RESISTANCE TO EVIL BY FORCE HAS BEEN
PROFESSED BY A MINORITY OF MEN FROM THE VERY FOUNDATION OF
CHRISTIANITY.

Of the Book "What I Believe"--The Correspondence Evoked
by it--Letters from Quakers--Garrison's Declaration--Adin
Ballou, his Works, his Catechism--Helchitsky's "Net of
Faith"--The Attitude of the World to Works Elucidating Christ's
Teaching--Dymond's Book "On War"--Musser's "Non-resistance
Asserted"--Attitude of the Government in 1818 to Men who Refused
to Serve in the Army--Hostile Attitude of Governments Generally
and of Liberals to Those who Refuse to Assist in Acts of State
Violence, and their Conscious Efforts to Silence and Suppress
these Manifestations of Christian Non-resistance.

Among the first responses called forth by my book were some letters
from American Quakers. In these letters, expressing their sympathy
with my views on the unlawfulness for a Christian of war and the
use of force of any kind, the Quakers gave me details of their own
so-called sect, which for more than two hundred years has actually
professed the teaching of Christ on non-resistance to evil by force,
and does not make use of weapons in self-defense. The Quakers sent
me also their pamphlets, journals, and books, from which I learnt
how they had, years ago, established beyond doubt the duty for a
Christian of fulfilling the command of non-resistance to evil by
force, and had exposed the error of the Church's teaching in allowing
war and capital punishment.

In a whole series of arguments and texts showing that war--that is,
the wounding and killing of men--is inconsistent with a religion
founded on peace and good will toward men, the Quakers maintain
and prove that nothing has contributed so much to the obscuring of
Christian truth in the eyes of the heathen, and has hindered so much
the diffusion of Christianity through the world, as the disregard of
this command by men calling themselves Christians, and the permission
of war and violence to Christians.

"Christ's teaching, which came to be known to men, not by means of
violence and the sword," they say, "but by means of non-resistance to
evil, gentleness, meekness, and peaceableness, can only be diffused
through the world by the example of peace, harmony, and love among
its followers."

"A Christian, according to the teaching of God himself, can act only
peaceably toward all men, and therefore there can be no authority
able to force the Christian to act in opposition to the teaching of
God and to the principal virtue of the Christian in his relation with
his neighbors."

"The law of state necessity," they say, "can force only those to
change the law of God who, for the sake of earthly gains, try to
reconcile the irreconcilable; but for a Christian who sincerely
believes that following Christ's teaching will give him salvation,
such considerations of state can have no force."

Further acquaintance with the labors of the Quakers and their
works--with Fox, Penn, and especially the work of Dymond (published
in 1827)--showed me not only that the impossibility of reconciling
Christianity with force and war had been recognized long, long ago,
but that this irreconcilability had been long ago proved so clearly
and so indubitably that one could only wonder how this impossible
reconciliation of Christian teaching with the use of force, which
has been, and is still, preached in the churches, could have been
maintained in spite of it.

In addition to what I learned from the Quakers I received about the
same time, also from America, some information on the subject from a
source perfectly distinct and previously unknown to me.

The son of William Lloyd Garrison, the famous champion of the
emancipation of the negroes, wrote to me that he had read my book, in
which he found ideas similar to those expressed by his father in the
year 1838, and that, thinking it would be interesting to me to know
this, he sent me a declaration or proclamation of "non-resistance"
drawn up by his father nearly fifty years ago.

This declaration came about under the following circumstances:
William Lloyd Garrison took part in a discussion on the means of
suppressing war in the Society for the Establishment of Peace among
Men, which existed in 1838 in America. He came to the conclusion
that the establishment of universal peace can only be founded on
the open profession of the doctrine of non-resistance to evil by
violence (Matt. v. 39), in its full significance, as understood by
the Quakers, with whom Garrison happened to be on friendly relations.
Having come to this conclusion, Garrison thereupon composed and laid
before the society a declaration, which was signed at the time--in
1838--by many members.

"DECLARATION OF SENTIMENTS ADOPTED BY THE PEACE CONVENTION.

"BOSTON, 1838.

"We, the undersigned, regard it as due to ourselves, to the
cause which we love, to the country in which we live, to
publish a declaration expressive of the purposes we aim to
accomplish and the measures we shall adopt to carry forward the
work of peaceful universal reformation.

"We do not acknowledge allegiance to any human government.
We recognize but one King and Lawgiver, one Judge and Ruler
of mankind. Our country is the world, our countrymen are all
mankind. We love the land of our nativity only as we love all
other lands. The interests and rights of American citizens are
not dearer to us than those of the whole human race. Hence we
can allow no appeal to patriotism to revenge any national insult
or injury....

"We conceive that a nation has no right to defend itself against
foreign enemies or to punish its invaders, and no individual
possesses that right in his own case, and the unit cannot be of
greater importance than the aggregate. If soldiers thronging
from abroad with intent to commit rapine and destroy life may
not be resisted by the people or the magistracy, then ought no
resistance to be offered to domestic troublers of the public
peace or of private security.

"The dogma that all the governments of the world are approvingly
ordained of God, and that the powers that be in the United
States, in Russia, in Turkey, are in accordance with his will,
is no less absurd than impious. It makes the impartial Author
of our existence 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 regard as unchristian and unlawful not only all wars,
whether offensive or defensive, but all preparations for
war; every naval ship, every arsenal, every fortification,
we regard as unchristian and unlawful; the existence of any
kind of standing army, all military chieftains, all monuments
commemorative of victory over a fallen foe, all trophies won
in battle, all celebrations in honor of military exploits, all
appropriations for defense by arms; we regard as unchristian and
unlawful every edict of government requiring of its subjects
military service.

"Hence we deem it unlawful to bear arms, and we cannot hold
any office which imposes on 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 force him to return anything he
may have wrongly taken from us; if he has seized our coat, we
shall surrender him our cloak also 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 on all his
disciples in all cases whatsoever. To extort money from enemies,
cast them into prison, exile or execute them, is obviously not
to forgive but to take retribution.

"The history of mankind is crowded with evidences proving that
physical coercion is not adapted to moral regeneration, and that
the sinful dispositions of men can be subdued only by love; that
evil can be exterminated only by good; that it is not safe to
rely upon the strength of an arm to preserve us from harm; that
there is great security in being gentle, long-suffering, and
abundant in mercy; that it is only the meek who shall inherit
the earth; for those who take up the sword shall perish by 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, is armed with omnipotent power, and must
ultimately triumph over every assailing force.

"We advocate no Jacobinical doctrines. The spirit of Jacobinism
is the spirit of retaliation, violence, and murder. It neither
fears God nor regards man. We would be filled with the spirit of
Christ. If we abide by our fundamental principle of not opposing
evil by evil we cannot participate in sedition, treason,
or violence. We shall submit to every ordinance and every
requirement of government, except such as are 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 to enemies, we purpose, in a moral and
spiritual sense, to assail iniquity in high places and in low
places, to apply our principles to all existing evil, political,
legal, and ecclesiastical institutions, and to hasten the time
when the kingdoms of this world will have become the kingdom of
our Lord Jesus Christ. 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 these deadly weapons do thus array
themselves against the peaceful dominion of the Son of God on
earth.

"Having thus stated our principles, 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. We
shall endeavor to promulgate our views among all persons, to
whatever nation, sect, or grade of society they may belong.
Hence we shall organize public lectures, circulate tracts and
publications, form societies, and petition every governing body.
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, and calumny. Tumults may
arise against us. The proud and pharisaical, the ambitious and
tyrannical, principalities and powers, may combine to crush
us. So they treated the Messiah whose example we are humbly
striving to imitate. We shall not be afraid of their terror.
Our confidence is in the Lord Almighty and 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, but rejoice
inasmuch as we are partakers of Christ's sufferings.

"Wherefore we commit the keeping of our souls to God. For every
one that forsakes houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or
mother, or wife, or children, or lands for Christ's sake, shall
receive 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, we hereby affix our
signatures to it; commending it to the reason and conscience
of mankind, and resolving, in the strength of the Lord God, to
calmly and meekly abide the issue."

Immediately after this declaration a Society for Non-resistance
was founded by Garrison, and a journal called the _Non-resistant_,
in which the doctrine of non-resistance was advocated in its full
significance and in all its consequences, as it had been expounded in
the declaration. Further information as to the ultimate destiny of
the society and the journal I gained from the excellent biography of
W. L. Garrison, the work of his son.

The society and the journal did not exist for long. The greater
number of Garrison's fellow-workers in the movement for the
liberation of the slaves, fearing that the too radical programme
of the journal, the _Non-resistant_, might keep people away from
the practical work of negro-emancipation, gave up the profession
of the principle of non-resistance as it had been expressed in the
declaration, and both society and journal ceased to exist.

This declaration of Garrison's gave so powerful and eloquent an
expression of a confession of faith of such importance to men, that
one would have thought it must have produced a strong impression on
people, and have become known throughout the world and the subject of
discussion on every side. But nothing of the kind occurred. Not only
was it unknown in Europe, even the Americans, who have such a high
opinion of Garrison, hardly knew of the declaration.

Another champion of non-resistance has been overlooked in the same
way--the American Adin Ballou, who lately died, after spending fifty
years in preaching this doctrine. How great the ignorance is of
everything relating to the question of non-resistance may be seen
from the fact that Garrison the son, who has written an excellent
biography of his father in four great volumes, in answer to my
inquiry whether there are existing now societies for non-resistance,
and adherents of the doctrine, told me that as far as he knew that
society had broken up, and that there were no adherents of that
doctrine, while at the very time when he was writing to me there was
living, at Hopedale in Massachusetts, Adin Ballou, who had taken part
in the labors of Garrison the father, and had devoted fifty years of
his life to advocating, both orally and in print, the doctrine of
non-resistance. Later on I received a letter from Wilson, a pupil and
colleague of Ballou's, and entered into correspondence with Ballou
himself. I wrote to Ballou, and he answered me and sent me his works.
Here is the summary of some extracts from them:

"Jesus Christ is my Lord and teacher," says Ballou in one of his
essays exposing the inconsistency of Christians who allowed a right
of self-defense and of warfare. "I have promised, leaving all else,
to follow him, through good and through evil, to death itself. But
I am a citizen of the democratic republic of the United States; and
in allegiance to it I have sworn to defend the Constitution of my
country, if need be, with my life. Christ requires of me to do unto
others as I would they should do unto me. The Constitution of the
United States requires of me to do unto two millions of slaves [at
that time there were slaves; now one might venture to substitute the
word 'laborers'] the very opposite of what I would they should do
unto me--that is, to help to keep them in their present condition of
slavery. And, in spite of this, I continue to elect or be elected, I
propose to vote, I am even ready to be appointed to any office under
government. That will not hinder me from being a Christian. I shall
still profess Christianity, and shall find no difficulty in carrying
out my covenant with Christ and with the government.

"Jesus Christ forbids me to resist evil doers, and to take from them
an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, bloodshed for bloodshed, and
life for life.

"My government demands from me quite the opposite, and bases a system
of self-defense on gallows, musket, and sword, to be used against its
foreign and domestic foes. And the land is filled accordingly with
gibbets, prisons, arsenals, ships of war, and soldiers.

"In the maintenance and use of these expensive appliances for murder,
we can very suitably exercise to the full the virtues of forgiveness
to those who injure us, love toward our enemies, blessings to those
who curse us, and doing good to those who hate us.

"For this we have a succession of Christian priests to pray for us
and beseech the blessing of Heaven on the holy work of slaughter.

"I see all this (_i. e._, the contradiction between profession and
practice), and I continue to profess religion and take part in
government, and pride myself on being at the same time a devout
Christian and a devoted servant of the government. I do not want
to agree with these senseless notions of non-resistance. I cannot
renounce my authority and leave only immoral men in control of the
government. The Constitution says the government has the right to
declare war, and I assent to this and support it, and swear that I
will support it. And I do not for that cease to be a Christian. War,
too, is a Christian duty. Is it not a Christian duty to kill hundreds
of thousands of one's fellow-men, to outrage women, to raze and burn
towns, and to practice every possible cruelty? It is time to dismiss
all these false sentimentalities. It is the truest means of forgiving
injuries and loving enemies. If we only do it in the spirit of love,
nothing can be more Christian than such murder."

In another pamphlet, entitled "How many Men are Necessary to Change a
Crime into a Virtue?" he says: "One man may not kill. If he kills a
fellow-creature, he is a murderer. If two, ten, a hundred men do so,
they, too, are murderers. But a government or a nation may kill as
many men as it chooses, and that will not be murder, but a great and
noble action. Only gather the people together on a large scale, and a
battle of ten thousand men becomes an innocent action. But precisely
how many people must there be to make it so?--that is the question.
One man cannot plunder and pillage, but a whole nation can. But
precisely how many are needed to make it permissible? Why is it that
one man, ten, a hundred, may not break the law of God, but a great
number may?"

And here is a version of Ballou's catechism composed for his flock:

CATECHISM OF NON-RESISTANCE.

_Q._ Whence is the word "non-resistance" derived?

_A._ From the command, "Resist not evil." (M. v. 39.)

_Q._ What does this word express?

_A._ It expresses a lofty Christian virtue enjoined on us by Christ.

_Q._ Ought the word "non-resistance" to be taken in its widest
sense--that is to say, as intending that we should not offer any
resistance of any kind to evil?

_A._ No; it ought to be taken in the exact sense of our Saviour's
teaching--that is, not repaying evil for evil. We ought to oppose
evil by every righteous means in our power, but not by evil.

_Q._ What is there to show that Christ enjoined non-resistance in
that sense?

_A._ It is shown by the words he uttered at the same time. He said:
"Ye have heard, it was said of old, An eye for an eye, and a tooth
for a tooth. But I say unto you Resist not evil. But if one smites
thee on the right cheek, turn him the other also; and if one will go
to law with thee to take thy coat from thee, give him thy cloak also."

_Q._ Of whom was he speaking in the words, "Ye have heard it was said
of old"?

_A._ Of the patriarchs and the prophets, contained in the Old
Testament, which the Hebrews ordinarily call the Law and the Prophets.

_Q._ What utterances did Christ refer to in the words, "It was said
of old"?

_A._ The utterances of Noah, Moses, and the other prophets, in which
they admit the right of doing bodily harm to those who inflict harm,
so as to punish and prevent evil deeds.

_Q._ Quote such utterances.

_A._ "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be
shed."--GEN. ix. 6.

"He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to
death.... And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for
life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."--EX. xxi.
12 and 23-25.

"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
unto him: breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth."--LEV.
xxiv. 17, 19, 20.

"Then the judges shall make diligent inquisition; and behold, if the
witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his
brother, then shall ye do unto him as he had thought to have done
unto his brother.... And thine eye shall not pity; but life shall
go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for
foot."--DEUT. xix. 18, 21.

Noah, Moses, and the Prophets taught that he who kills, maims,
or injures his neighbors does evil. To resist such evil, and to
prevent it, the evil doer must be punished with death, or maiming,
or some physical injury. Wrong must be opposed by wrong, murder by
murder, injury by injury, evil by evil. Thus taught Noah, Moses,
and the Prophets. But Christ rejects all this. "I say unto you," is
written in the Gospel, "resist not evil," do not oppose injury with
injury, but rather bear repeated injury from the evil doer. What was
permitted is forbidden. When we understand what kind of resistance
they taught, we know exactly what resistance Christ forbade.

_Q._ Then the ancients allowed the resistance of injury by injury?

_A._ Yes. But Jesus forbids it. The Christian has in no case the
right to put to death his neighbor who has done him evil, or to do
him injury in return.

_Q._ May he kill or maim him in self-defense?

_A._ No.

_Q._ May he go with a complaint to the judge that he who has wronged
him may be punished?

_A._ No. What he does through others, he is in reality doing himself.

_Q._ Can he fight in conflict with foreign enemies or disturbers of
the peace?

_A._ Certainly not. He cannot take any part in war or in preparations
for war. He cannot make use of a deadly weapon. He cannot oppose
injury to injury, whether he is alone or with others, either in
person or through other people.

_Q._ Can he voluntarily vote or furnish soldiers for the government?

_A._ He can do nothing of that kind if he wishes to be faithful to
Christ's law.

_Q._ Can he voluntarily give money to aid a government resting on
military force, capital punishment, and violence in general?

_A._ No, unless the money is destined for some special object, right
in itself, and good both in aim and means.

_Q._ Can he pay taxes to such a government?

_A._ No; he ought not voluntarily to pay taxes, but he ought not to
resist the collecting of taxes. A tax is levied by the government,
and is exacted independently of the will of the subject. It is
impossible to resist it without having recourse to violence of some
kind. Since the Christian cannot employ violence, he is obliged to
offer his property at once to the loss by violence inflicted on it by
the authorities.

_Q._ Can a Christian give a vote at elections, or take part in
government or law business?

_A._ No; participation in election, government, or law business is
participation in government by force.

_Q._ Wherein lies the chief significance of the doctrine of
non-resistance?

_A._ In the fact that it alone allows of the possibility of
eradicating evil from one's own heart, and also from one's
neighbor's. This doctrine forbids doing that whereby evil has endured
for ages and multiplied in the world. He who attacks another and
injures him, kindles in the other a feeling of hatred, the root of
every evil. To injure another because he has injured us, even with
the aim of overcoming evil, is doubling the harm for him and for
oneself; it is begetting, or at least setting free and inciting, that
evil spirit which we should wish to drive out. Satan can never be
driven out by Satan. Error can never be corrected by error, and evil
cannot be vanquished by evil.

True non-resistance is the only real resistance to evil. It is
crushing the serpent's head. It destroys and in the end extirpates
the evil feeling.

_Q._ But if that is the true meaning of the rule of non-resistance,
can it always be put into practice?

_A._ It can be put into practice like every virtue enjoined by the
law of God. A virtue cannot be practiced in all circumstances without
self-sacrifice, privation, suffering, and in extreme cases loss of
life itself. But he who esteems life more than fulfilling the will of
God is already dead to the only true life. Trying to save his life he
loses it. Besides, generally speaking, where non-resistance costs the
sacrifice of a single life or of some material welfare, resistance
costs a thousand such sacrifices.

Non-resistance is Salvation; Resistance is Ruin.

It is incomparably less dangerous to act justly than unjustly, to
submit to injuries than to resist them with violence, less dangerous
even in one's relations to the present life. If all men refused to
resist evil by evil our world would be happy.

_Q._ But so long as only a few act thus, what will happen to them?

_A._ If only one man acted thus, and all the rest agreed to
crucify him, would it not be nobler for him to die in the glory of
non-resisting love, praying for his enemies, than to live to wear
the crown of Cæsar stained with the blood of the slain? However, one
man, or a thousand men, firmly resolved not to oppose evil by evil
are far more free from danger by violence than those who resort to
violence, whether among civilized or savage neighbors. The robber,
the murderer, and the cheat will leave them in peace, sooner than
those who oppose them with arms, and those who take up the sword
shall perish by the sword, but those who seek after peace, and
behave kindly and harmlessly, forgiving and forgetting injuries, for
the most part enjoy peace, or, if they die, they die blessed. In
this way, if all kept the ordinance of non-resistance, there would
obviously be no evil nor crime. If the majority acted thus they would
establish the rule of love and good will even over evil doers, never
opposing evil with evil, and never resorting to force. If there were
a moderately large minority of such men, they would exercise such
a salutary moral influence on society that every cruel punishment
would be abolished, and violence and feud would be replaced by peace
and love. Even if there were only a small minority of them, they
would rarely experience anything worse than the world's contempt, and
meantime the world, though unconscious of it, and not grateful for
it, would be continually becoming wiser and better for their unseen
action on it. And if in the worst case some members of the minority
were persecuted to death, in dying for the truth they would have
left behind them their doctrine, sanctified by the blood of their
martyrdom. Peace, then, to all who seek peace, and may overruling
love be the imperishable heritage of every soul who obeys willingly
Christ's word, "Resist not evil."

ADIN BALLOU.

* * * * *

For fifty years Ballou wrote and published books dealing principally
with the question of non-resistance to evil by force. In these
works, which are distinguished by the clearness of their thought
and eloquence of exposition, the question is looked at from every
possible side, and the binding nature of this command on every
Christian who acknowledges the Bible as the revelation of God is
firmly established. All the ordinary objections to the doctrine of
non-resistance from the Old and New Testaments are brought forward,
such as the expulsion of the money-changers from the Temple, and
so on, and arguments follow in disproof of them all. The practical
reasonableness of this rule of conduct is shown independently of
Scripture, and all the objections ordinarily made against its
practicability are stated and refuted. Thus one chapter in a book
of his treats of non-resistance in exceptional cases, and he owns
in this connection that if there were cases in which the rule of
non-resistance were impossible of application, it would prove that
the law was not universally authoritative. Quoting these cases, he
shows that it is precisely in them that the application of the rule
is both necessary and reasonable. There is no aspect of the question,
either on his side or on his opponents', which he has not followed up
in his writings. I mention all this to show the unmistakable interest
which such works ought to have for men who make a profession of
Christianity, and because one would have thought Ballou's work would
have been well known, and the ideas expressed by him would have been
either accepted or refuted; but such has not been the case.

The work of Garrison, the father, in his foundation of the Society of
Non-resistants and his Declaration, even more than my correspondence
with the Quakers, convinced me of the fact that the departure of the
ruling form of Christianity from the law of Christ on non-resistance
by force is an error that has long been observed and pointed out, and
that men have labored, and are still laboring, to correct. Ballou's
work confirmed me still more in this view. But the fate of Garrison,
still more that of Ballou, in being completely unrecognized in
spite of fifty years of obstinate and persistent work in the same
direction, confirmed me in the idea that there exists a kind of tacit
but steadfast conspiracy of silence about all such efforts.

Ballou died in August, 1890, and there was an obituary notice of him
in an American journal of Christian views (_Religio-philosophical
Journal_, August 23). In this laudatory notice it is recorded that
Ballou was the spiritual director of a parish, that he delivered
from eight to nine thousand sermons, married one thousand couples,
and wrote about five hundred articles; but there is not a single
word said of the object to which he devoted his life; even the word
"non-resistance" is not mentioned. Precisely as it was with all the
preaching of the Quakers for two hundred years, and, too, with the
efforts of Garrison the father, the foundation of his society and
journal, and his Declaration, so it is with the life-work of Ballou.
It seems just as though it did not exist and never had existed.

We have an astounding example of the obscurity of works which aim at
expounding the doctrine of non-resistance to evil by force, and at
confuting those who do not recognize this commandment, in the book of
the Tsech Helchitsky, which has only lately been noticed and has not
hitherto been printed.

Soon after the appearance of my book in German, I received a letter
from Prague, from a professor of the university there, informing me
of the existence of a work, never yet printed, by Helchitsky, a Tsech
of the fifteenth century, entitled "The Net of Faith." In this work,
the professor told me, Helchitsky expressed precisely the same view
as to true and false Christianity as I had expressed in my book "What
I Believe." The professor wrote to me that Helchitsky's work was to
be published for the first time in the Tsech language in the _Journal
of The Petersburg Academy of Science_. Since I could not obtain the
book itself, I tried to make myself acquainted with what was known of
Helchitsky, and I gained the following information from a German book
sent me by the Prague professor and from Pypin's history of Tsech
literature. This was Pypin's account:

"'The Net of Faith' is Christ's teaching, which ought to draw man
up out of the dark depths of the sea of worldliness and his own
iniquity. True faith consists in believing God's Word; but now a time
has come when men mistake the true faith for heresy, and therefore
it is for the reason to point out what the true faith consists in,
if anyone does not know this. It is hidden in darkness from men, and
they do not recognize the true law of Christ.

"To make this law plain, Helchitsky points to the primitive
organization of Christian society--the organization which, he says,
is now regarded in the Roman Church as an abominable heresy. This
primitive Church was his special ideal of social organization,
founded on equality, liberty, and fraternity. Christianity, in
Helchitsky's view, still preserves these elements, and it is only
necessary for society to return to its pure doctrine to render
unnecessary every other form of social order in which kings and popes
are essential; the law of love would alone be sufficient in every
case.

"Historically, Helchitsky attributes the degeneration of Christianity
to the times of Constantine the Great, whom the Pope Sylvester
admitted into the Christian Church with all his heathen morals
and life. Constantine, in his turn, endowed the Pope with worldly
riches and power. From that time forward these two ruling powers
were constantly aiding one another to strive for nothing but outward
glory. Divines and ecclesiastical dignitaries began to concern
themselves only about subduing the whole world to their authority,
incited men against one another to murder and plunder, and in creed
and life reduced Christianity to a nullity. Helchitsky denies
completely the right to make war and to inflict the punishment of
death; every soldier, even the 'knight,' is only a violent evil
doer--a murderer."

The same account is given by the German book, with the addition of a
few biographical details and some extracts from Helchitsky's writings.

Having learnt the drift of Helchitsky's teaching in this way, I
awaited all the more impatiently the appearance of "The Net of Faith"
in the journal of the Academy. But one year passed, then two and
three, and still the book did not appear. It was only in 1888 that
I learned that the printing of the book, which had been begun, was
stopped. I obtained the proofs of what had been printed and read
them through. It is a marvelous book from every point of view.

Its general tenor is given with perfect accuracy by Pypin.
Helchitsky's fundamental idea is that Christianity, by allying itself
with temporal power in the days of Constantine, and by continuing
to develop in such conditions, has become completely distorted, and
has ceased to be Christian altogether. Helchitsky gave the title
"The Net of Faith" to his book, taking as his motto the verse of
the Gospel about the calling of the disciples to be fishers of men;
and, developing this metaphor, he says: "Christ, by means of his
disciples, would have caught all the world in his net of faith, but
the greater fishes broke the net and escaped out of it, and all the
rest have slipped through the holes made by the greater fishes,
so that the net has remained quite empty. The greater fishes who
broke the net are the rulers, emperors, popes, kings, who have not
renounced power, and instead of true Christianity have put on what
is simply a mask of it." Helchitsky teaches precisely what has been
and is taught in these days by the non-resistant Mennonites and
Quakers, and in former times by the Bogomilites, Paulicians, and many
others. He teaches that Christianity, expecting from its adherents
gentleness, meekness, peaceableness, forgiveness of injuries,
turning the other cheek when one is struck, and love for enemies,
is inconsistent with the use of force, which is an indispensable
condition of authority.

The Christian, according to Helchitsky's reasoning, not only cannot
be a ruler or a soldier; he cannot take any part in government nor
in trade, or even be a landowner; he can only be an artisan or a
husbandman.

This book is one of the few works attacking official Christianity
which has escaped being burned. All such so-called heretical works
were burned at the stake, together with their authors, so that there
are few ancient works exposing the errors of official Christianity.
The book has a special interest for this reason alone. But apart
from its interest from every point of view, it is one of the most
remarkable products of thought for its depth of aim, for the
astounding strength and beauty of the national language in which
it is written, and for its antiquity. And yet for more than four
centuries it has remained unprinted, and is still unknown, except to
a few learned specialists.

One would have thought that all such works, whether of the Quakers,
of Garrison, of Ballou, or of Helchitsky, asserting and proving as
they do, on the principles of the Gospel, that our modern world takes
a false view of Christ's teaching, would have awakened interest,
excitement, talk, and discussion among spiritual teachers and their
flocks alike.

Works of this kind, dealing with the very essence of Christian
doctrine, ought, one would have thought, to have been examined
and accepted as true, or refuted and rejected. But nothing of the
kind has occurred, and the same fate has been repeated with all
those works. Men of the most diverse views, believers, and, what is
surprising, unbelieving liberals also, as though by agreement, all
preserve the same persistent silence about them, and all that has
been done by people to explain the true meaning of Christ's doctrine
remains either ignored or forgotten.

But it is still more astonishing that two other books, of which I
heard on the appearance of my book, should be so little known. I mean
Dymond's book "On War," published for the first time in London in
1824, and Daniel Musser's book on "Non-resistance," written in 1864.
It is particularly astonishing that these books should be unknown,
because, apart from their intrinsic merits, both books treat not so
much of the theory as of the practical application of the theory to
life, of the attitude of Christianity to military service, which is
especially important and interesting now in these days of universal
conscription.

People will ask, perhaps: How ought a subject to behave who believes
that war is inconsistent with his religion while the government
demands from him that he should enter military service?

This question is, I think, a most vital one, and the answer to it is
specially important in these days of universal conscription. All--or
at least the great majority of the people--are Christians, and all
men are called upon for military service. How ought a man, as a
Christian, to meet this demand? This is the gist of Dymond's answer:

"His duty is humbly but steadfastly to refuse to serve."

There are some people, who, without any definite reasoning about it,
conclude straightway that the responsibility of government measures
rests entirely on those who resolve on them, or that the governments
and sovereigns decide the question of what is good or bad for their
subjects, and the duty of the subjects is merely to obey. I think
that arguments of this kind only obscure men's conscience. I cannot
take part in the councils of government, and therefore I am not
responsible for its misdeeds. Indeed, but we are responsible for our
own misdeeds. And the misdeeds of our rulers become our own, if we,
knowing that they are misdeeds, assist in carrying them out. Those
who suppose that they are bound to obey the government, and that the
responsibility for the misdeeds they commit is transferred from them
to their rulers, deceive themselves. They say: "We give our acts up
to the will of others, and our acts cannot be good or bad; there is
no merit in what is good nor responsibility for what is evil in our
actions, since they are not done of our own will."

It is remarkable that the very same thing is said in the instructions
to soldiers which they make them learn--that is, that the officer
is alone responsible for the consequences of his command. But
this is not right. A man cannot get rid of the responsibility for
his own actions. And that is clear from the following example. If
your officer commands you to kill your neighbor's child, to kill
your father or your mother, would you obey? If you would not obey,
the whole argument falls to the ground, for if you can disobey
the governors in one case, where do you draw the line up to which
you can obey them? There is no line other than that laid down by
Christianity, and that line is both reasonable and practicable.

And therefore we consider it the duty of every man who thinks war
inconsistent with Christianity, meekly but firmly to refuse to serve
in the army. And let those whose lot it is to act thus, remember
that the fulfillment of a great duty rests with them. The destiny of
humanity in the world depends, so far as it depends on men at all, on
their fidelity to their religion. Let them confess their conviction,
and stand up for it, and not in words alone, but in sufferings too,
if need be. If you believe that Christ forbade murder, pay no heed
to the arguments nor to the commands of those who call on you to
bear a hand in it. By such a steadfast refusal to make use of force,
you call down on yourselves the blessing promised to those "who hear
these sayings and do them," and the time will come when the world
will recognize you as having aided in the reformation of mankind.

Musser's book is called "Non-resistance Asserted," or "Kingdom of
Christ and Kingdoms of this World Separated." This book is devoted to
the same question, and was written when the American Government was
exacting military service from its citizens at the time of the Civil
War. And it has, too, a value for all time, dealing with the question
how, in such circumstances, people should and can refuse to enter
military service. Here is the tenor of the author's introductory
remarks: "It is well known that there are many persons in the United
States who refuse to fight on grounds of conscience. They are called
the 'defenseless,' or 'non-resistant' Christians. These Christians
refuse to defend their country, to bear arms, or at the call of
government to make war on its enemies. Till lately this religious
scruple seemed a valid excuse to the government, and those who urged
it were let off service. But at the beginning of our Civil War public
opinion was agitated on this subject. It was natural that persons
who considered it their duty to bear all the hardships and dangers
of war in defense of their country should feel resentment against
those persons who had for long shared with them the advantages of the
protection of the government, and who now in time of need and danger
would not share in bearing the labors and dangers of its defense. It
was even natural that they should declare the attitude of such men
monstrous, irrational, and suspicious."

A host of orators and writers, our author tells us, arose to oppose
this attitude, and tried to prove the sinfulness of non-resistance,
both from Scripture and on common-sense grounds. And this was
perfectly natural, and in many cases the authors were right--right,
that is, in regard to persons who did not renounce the benefits
they received from the government and tried to avoid the hardships
of military service, but not right in regard to the principle of
non-resistance itself. Above all, our author proves the binding
nature of the rule of non-resistance for a Christian, pointing out
that this command is perfectly clear, and is enjoined upon every
Christian by Christ without possibility of misinterpretation.
"Bethink yourselves whether it is righteous to obey man more than
God," said Peter and John. And this is precisely what ought to be
the attitude of every man who wishes to be Christian to the claim
on him for military service, when Christ has said, "Resist not
evil by force." As for the question of the principle itself, the
author regards that as decided. As to the second question, whether
people have the right to refuse to serve in the army who have not
refused the benefits conferred by a government resting on force, the
author considers it in detail, and arrives at the conclusion that
a Christian following the law of Christ, since he does not go to
war, ought not either to take advantage of any of the institutions
of government, courts of law, or elections, and that in his private
concerns he must not have recourse to the authorities, the police,
or the law. Further on in the book he treats of the relation of
the Old Testament to the New, the value of government for those
who are Christians, and makes some observations on the doctrine of
non-resistance and the attacks made on it. The author concludes his
book by saying: "Christians do not need government, and therefore
they cannot either obey it in what is contrary to Christ's teaching
nor, still less, take part in it." Christ took his disciples out of
the world, he says. They do not expect worldly blessings and worldly
happiness, but they expect eternal life. The Spirit in whom they
live makes them contented and happy in every position. If the world
tolerates them, they are always happy. If the world will not leave
them in peace, they will go elsewhere, since they are pilgrims on the
earth and they have no fixed place of habitation. They believe that
"the dead may bury their dead." One thing only is needful for them,
"to follow their Master."

Even putting aside the question as to the principle laid down in
these two books as to the Christian's duty in his attitude to war,
one cannot help perceiving the practical importance and the urgent
need of deciding the question.

There are people, hundreds of thousands of Quakers, Mennonites,
all our Douhobortsi, Molokani, and others who do not belong to
any definite sect, who consider that the use of force--and,
consequently, military service--is inconsistent with Christianity.
Consequently there are every year among us in Russia some men called
upon for military service who refuse to serve on the ground of their
religious convictions. Does the government let them off then? No.
Does it compel them to go, and in case of disobedience punish them?
No. This was how the government treated them in 1818. Here is an
extract from the diary of Nicholas Myravyov of Kars, which was not
passed by the censor, and is not known in Russia:

"TIFLIS, October 2, 1818.

"In the morning the commandant told me that five peasants
belonging to a landowner in the Tamboff government had lately
been sent to Georgia. These men had been sent for soldiers, but
they would not serve; they had been several times flogged and
made to run the gauntlet, but they would submit readily to the
cruelest tortures, and even to death, rather than serve. 'Let us
go,' they said, 'and leave us alone; we will not hurt anyone;
all men are equal, and the Tzar is a man like us; why should we
pay him tribute; why should I expose my life to danger to kill
in battle some man who has done me no harm? You can cut us to
pieces and we will not be soldiers. He who has compassion on
us will give us charity, but as for the government rations, we
have not had them and we do not want to have them.' These were
the words of those peasants, who declare that there are numbers
like them in Russia. They brought them four times before the
Committee of Ministers, and at last decided to lay the matter
before the Tzar, who gave orders that they should be taken to
Georgia for correction, and commanded the commander-in-chief
to send him a report every month of their gradual success in
bringing these peasants to a better mind."

How the correction ended is not known, as the whole episode indeed
was unknown, having been kept in profound secrecy.

This was how the government behaved seventy-five years ago--this is
how it has behaved in a great number of cases, studiously concealed
from the people. And this is how the government behaves now, except
in the case of the German Mennonites, living in the province of
Kherson, whose plea against military service is considered well
grounded. They are made to work off their term of service in labor in
the forests.

But in the recent cases of refusal on the part of Mennonites to serve
in the army on religious grounds, the government authorities have
acted in the following manner:

To begin with, they have recourse to every means of coercion used in
our times to "correct" the culprit and bring him to "a better mind,"
and these measures are carried out with the greatest secrecy. I know
that in the case of one man who declined to serve in 1884 in Moscow,
the official correspondence on the subject had two months after his
refusal accumulated into a big folio, and was kept absolutely secret
among the Ministry.

They usually begin by sending the culprit to the priests, and the
latter, to their shame be it said, always exhort him to obedience.
But since the exhortation in Christ's name to forswear Christ is for
the most part unsuccessful, after he has received the admonitions of
the spiritual authorities, they send him to the gendarmes, and the
latter, finding, as a rule, no political cause for offense in him,
dispatch him back again, and then he is sent to the learned men, to
the doctors, and to the madhouse. During all these vicissitudes he
is deprived of liberty and has to endure every kind of humiliation
and suffering as a convicted criminal. (All this has been repeated
in four cases.) The doctors let him out of the madhouse, and then
every kind of secret shift is employed to prevent him from going
free--whereby others would be encouraged to refuse to serve as he has
done--and at the same time to avoid leaving him among the soldiers,
for fear they too should learn from him that military service is not
at all their duty by the law of God, as they are assured, but quite
contrary to it.

The most convenient thing for the government would be to kill the
non-resistant by flogging him to death or some other means, as
was done in former days. But to put a man openly to death because
he believes in the creed we all confess is impossible. To let a
man alone who has refused obedience is also impossible. And so
the government tries either to compel the man by ill-treatment
to renounce Christ, or in some way or other to get rid of him
unobserved, without openly putting him to death, and to hide
somehow both the action and the man himself from other people. And
so all kinds of shifts and wiles and cruelties are set on foot
against him. They either send him to the frontier or provoke him to
insubordination, and then try him for breach of discipline and shut
him up in the prison of the disciplinary battalion, where they can
ill treat him freely unseen by anyone, or they declare him mad, and
lock him up in a lunatic asylum. They sent one man in this way to
Tashkend--that is, they pretended to transfer him to the Tashkend
army; another to Omsk; a third they convicted of insubordination and
shut up in prison; a fourth they sent to a lunatic asylum.

Everywhere the same story is repeated. Not only the government, but
the great majority of liberal, advanced people, as they are called,
studiously turn away from everything that has been said, written, or
done, or is being done by men to prove the incompatibility of force
in its most awful, gross, and glaring form--in the form, that is,
of an army of soldiers prepared to murder anyone, whoever it may
be--with the teachings of Christianity, or even of the humanity which
society professes as its creed.

So that the information I have gained of the attitude of the higher
ruling classes, not only in Russia but in Europe and America, toward
the elucidation of this question has convinced me that there exists
in these ruling classes a consciously hostile attitude to true
Christianity, which is shown pre-eminently in their reticence in
regard to all manifestations of it.

CHAPTER II.

CRITICISMS OF THE DOCTRINE OF NON-RESISTANCE TO EVIL BY FORCE ON
THE PART OF BELIEVERS AND OF UNBELIEVERS.

Fate of the Book "What I Believe"--Evasive Character of
Religious Criticisms of Principles of my Book--1st Reply: Use
of Force not Opposed to Christianity--2d Reply: Use of Force
Necessary to Restrain Evil Doers--3d Reply: Duty of Using
Force in Defense of One's Neighbor--4th Reply: The Breach
of the Command of Non-resistance to be Regarded Simply as a
Weakness--5th Reply: Reply Evaded by Making Believe that the
Question has long been Decided--To Devise such Subterfuges
and to take Refuge Behind the Authority of the Church, of
Antiquity, and of Religion is all that Ecclesiastical Critics
can do to get out of the Contradiction between Use of Force and
Christianity in Theory and in Practice--General Attitude of the
Ecclesiastical World and of the Authorities to Profession of
True Christianity--General Character of Russian Freethinking
Critics--Foreign Freethinking Critics--Mistaken Arguments of
these Critics the Result of Misunderstanding the True Meaning of
Christ's Teaching.

The impression I gained of a desire to conceal, to hush up, what I
had tried to express in my book, led me to judge the book itself
afresh.

On its appearance it had, as I had anticipated, been forbidden, and
ought therefore by law to have been burnt. But, at the same time, it
was discussed among officials, and circulated in a great number of
manuscript and lithograph copies, and in translations printed abroad.

And very quickly after the book, criticisms, both religious and
secular in character, made their appearance, and these the government
tolerated, and even encouraged. So that the refutation of a book
which no one was supposed to know anything about was even chosen as
the subject for theological dissertations in the academies.

The criticisms of my book, Russian and foreign alike, fall under
two general divisions--the religious criticisms of men who regard
themselves as believers, and secular criticisms, that is, those of
freethinkers.

I will begin with the first class. In my book I made it an accusation
against the teachers of the Church that their teaching is opposed
to Christ's commands clearly and definitely expressed in the Sermon
on the Mount, and opposed in especial to his command in regard to
resistance to evil, and that in this way they deprive Christ's
teaching of all value. The Church authorities accept the teaching of
the Sermon on the Mount on non-resistance to evil by force as divine
revelation; and therefore one would have thought that if they felt
called upon to write about my book at all, they would have found it
inevitable before everything else to reply to the principal point of
my charge against them, and to say plainly, do they or do they not
admit the teaching of the Sermon on the Mount and the commandment
of non-resistance to evil as binding on a Christian. And they were
bound to answer this question, not after the usual fashion (_i. e._,
"that although on the one side one cannot absolutely deny, yet on
the other side one cannot again fully assent, all the more seeing
that," etc., etc.). No; they should have answered the question as
plainly as it was put in my book--Did Christ really demand from his
disciples that they should carry out what he taught them in the
Sermon on the Mount? And can a Christian, then, or can he not,
always remaining a Christian, go to law or make any use of the law,
or seek his own protection in the law? And can the Christian, or can
he not, remaining a Christian, take part in the administration of
government, using compulsion against his neighbors? And--the most
important question hanging over the heads of all of us in these days
of universal military service--can the Christian, or can he not,
remaining a Christian, against Christ's direct prohibition, promise
obedience in future actions directly opposed to his teaching? And can
he, by taking his share of service in the army, prepare himself to
murder men, and even actually murder them?

These questions were put plainly and directly, and seemed to require
a plain and direct answer; but in all the criticisms of my book there
was no such plain and direct answer. No; my book received precisely
the same treatment as all the attacks upon the teachers of the Church
for their defection from the Law of Christ of which history from the
days of Constantine is full.

A very great deal was said in connection with my book of my having
incorrectly interpreted this and other passages of the Gospel, of
my being in error in not recognizing the Trinity, the redemption,
and the immortality of the soul. A very great deal was said, but not
a word about the one thing which for every Christian is the most
essential question in life--how to reconcile the duty of forgiveness,
meekness, patience, and love for all, neighbors and enemies alike,
which is so clearly expressed in the words of our teacher, and in the
heart of each of us--how to reconcile this duty with the obligation
of using force in war upon men of our own or a foreign people.

All that are worth calling answers to this question can be brought
under the following five heads. I have tried to bring together in
this connection all I could, not only from the criticisms on my book,
but from what has been written in past times on this theme.

The first and crudest form of reply consists in the bold assertion
that the use of force is not opposed by the teaching of Christ; that
it is permitted, and even enjoined, on the Christian by the Old and
New Testaments.

Assertions of this kind proceed, for the most part, from men who
have attained the highest ranks in the governing or ecclesiastical
hierarchy, and who are consequently perfectly assured that no one
will dare to contradict their assertion, and that if anyone does
contradict it they will hear nothing of the contradiction. These men
have, for the most part, through the intoxication of power, so lost
the right idea of what that Christianity is in the name of which they
hold their position that what is Christian in Christianity presents
itself to them as heresy, while everything in the Old and New
Testaments which can be distorted into an antichristian and heathen
meaning they regard as the foundation of Christianity. In support of
their assertion that Christianity is not opposed to the use of force,
these men usually, with the greatest audacity, bring together all the
most obscure passages from the Old and New Testaments, interpreting
them in the most unchristian way--the punishment of Ananias and
Sapphira, of Simon the Sorcerer, etc. They quote all those sayings
of Christ's which can possibly be interpreted as justification of
cruelty: the expulsion from the Temple; "It shall be more tolerable
for the land of Sodom than for this city," etc., etc. According to
these people's notions, a Christian government is not in the least
bound to be guided by the spirit of peace, forgiveness of injuries,
and love for enemies.

To refute such an assertion is useless, because the very people who
make this assertion refute themselves, or, rather, renounce Christ,
inventing a Christianity and a Christ of their own in the place of
him in whose name the Church itself exists, as well as their office
in it. If all men were to learn that the Church professes to believe
in a Christ of punishment and warfare, not of forgiveness, no one
would believe in the Church and it could not prove to anyone what it
is trying to prove.

The second, somewhat less gross, form of argument consists in
declaring that, though Christ did indeed preach that we should turn
the left cheek, and give the cloak also, and this is the highest
moral duty, yet that there are wicked men in the world, and if these
wicked men were not restrained by force, the whole world and all good
men would come to ruin through them. This argument I found for the
first time in John Chrysostom, and I show how he is mistaken in my
book "What I Believe."

This argument is ill grounded, because if we allow ourselves to
regard any men as intrinsically wicked men, then in the first place
we annul, by so doing, the whole idea of the Christian teaching,
according to which we are all equals and brothers, as sons of one
Father in heaven. Secondly, it is ill founded, because even if to
use force against wicked men had been permitted by God, since it is
impossible to find a perfect and unfailing distinction by which one
could positively know the wicked from the good, so it would come to
all individual men and societies of men mutually regarding each other
as wicked men, as is the case now. Thirdly, even if it were possible
to distinguish the wicked from the good unfailingly, even then it
would be impossible to kill or injure or shut up in prison these
wicked men, because there would be no one in a Christian society to
carry out such punishment, since every Christian, as a Christian, has
been commanded to use no force against the wicked.

The third kind of answer, still more subtle than the preceding,
consists in asserting that though the command of non-resistance to
evil by force is binding on the Christian when the evil is directed
against himself personally, it ceases to be binding when the evil
is directed against his neighbors, and that then the Christian is
not only not bound to fulfill the commandment, but is even bound
to act in opposition to it in defense of his neighbors, and to
use force against transgressors by force. This assertion is an
absolute assumption, and one cannot find in all Christ's teaching
any confirmation of such an argument. Such an argument is not
only a limitation, but a direct contradiction and negation of the
commandment. If every man has the right to have recourse to force
in face of a danger threatening another, the question of the use
of force is reduced to a question of the definition of danger for
another. If my private judgment is to decide the question of what is
danger for another, there is no occasion for the use of force which
could not be justified on the ground of danger threatening some
other man. They killed and burnt witches, they killed aristocrats
and girondists, they killed their enemies, because those who were in
authority regarded them as dangerous for the people.

If this important limitation, which fundamentally undermines the
whole value of the commandment, had entered into Christ's meaning,
there must have been mention of it somewhere. This restriction is
made nowhere in our Saviour's life or preaching. On the contrary,
warning is given precisely against this treacherous and scandalous
restriction which nullifies the commandment. The error and
impossibility of such a limitation is shown in the Gospel with
special clearness in the account of the judgment of Caiaphas, who
makes precisely this distinction. He acknowledged that it was wrong
to punish the innocent Jesus, but he saw in him a source of danger
not for himself, but for the whole people, and therefore he said:
It is better for one man to die, that the whole people perish not.
And the erroneousness of such a limitation is still more clearly
expressed in the words spoken to Peter when he tried to resist by
force evil directed against Jesus (Matt. xxvi. 52). Peter was not
defending himself, but his beloved and heavenly Master. And Christ
at once reproved him for this, saying, that he who takes up the sword
shall perish by the sword.

Besides, apologies for violence used against one's neighbor in
defense of another neighbor from greater violence are always
untrustworthy, because when force is used against one who has not
yet carried out his evil intent, I can never know which would be
greater--the evil of my act of violence or of the act I want to
prevent. We kill the criminal that society may be rid of him, and
we never know whether the criminal of to-day would not have been
a changed man to-morrow, and whether our punishment of him is not
useless cruelty. We shut up the dangerous--as we think--member of
society, but the next day this man might cease to be dangerous and
his imprisonment might be for nothing. I see that a man I know to be
a ruffian is pursuing a young girl. I have a gun in my hand--I kill
the ruffian and save the girl. But the death or the wounding of the
ruffian has positively taken place, while what would have happened
if this had not been I cannot know. And what an immense mass of evil
must result, and indeed does result, from allowing men to assume the
right of anticipating what may happen. Ninety-nine per cent. of the
evil of the world is founded on this reasoning--from the Inquisition
to dynamite bombs, and the executions or punishments of tens of
thousands of political criminals.

A fourth, still more refined, reply to the question, What ought to
be the Christian's attitude to Christ's command of non-resistance
to evil by force? consists in declaring that they do not deny the
command of non-resistance to evil, but recognize it; but they only
do not ascribe to this command the special exclusive value attached
to it by sectarians. To regard this command as the indispensable
condition of Christian life, as Garrison, Ballou, Dymond, the
Quakers, the Mennonites, and the Shakers do now, and as the Moravian
brothers, the Waldenses, the Albigenses, the Bogomilites, and the
Paulicians did in the past, is a one-sided heresy. This command has
neither more nor less value than all the other commands, and the man
who through weakness transgresses any command whatever, the command
of non-resistance included, does not cease to be a Christian if
he hold the true faith. This is a very skillful device, and many
people who wish to be deceived are easily deceived by it. The device
consists in reducing a direct conscious denial of a command to a
casual breach of it. But one need only compare the attitude of the
teachers of the Church to this and to other commands which they
really do recognize, to be convinced that their attitude to this is
completely different from their attitude to other duties.

The command against fornication they do really recognize, and
consequently they do not admit that in any case fornication can cease
to be wrong. The Church preachers never point out cases in which the
command against fornication can be broken, and always teach that
we must avoid seductions which lead to temptation to fornication.
But not so with the command of non-resistance. All church preachers
recognize cases in which that command can be broken, and teach the
people accordingly. And they not only do not teach that we should
avoid temptations to break it, chief of which is the military oath,
but they themselves administer it. The preachers of the Church never
in any other case advocate the breaking of any other commandment.
But in connection with the commandment of non-resistance they openly
teach that we must not understand it too literally, but that there
are conditions and circumstances in which we must do the direct
opposite, that is, go to law, fight, punish. So that occasions for
fulfilling the commandment of non-resistance to evil by force are
taught for the most part as occasions for not fulfilling it. The
fulfillment of this command, they say, is very difficult and pertains
only to perfection. And how can it not be difficult, when the breach
of it is not only not forbidden, but law courts, prisons, cannons,
guns, armies, and wars are under the immediate sanction of the
Church? It cannot be true, then, that this command is recognized by
the preachers of the Church as on a level with other commands.

The preachers of the Church clearly do not recognize it; only not
daring to acknowledge this, they try to conceal their not recognizing
it.

So much for the fourth reply.

The fifth kind of answer, which is the subtlest, the most often used,
and the most effective, consists in avoiding answering, in making
believe that this question is one which has long ago been decided
perfectly clearly and satisfactorily, and that it is not worth while
to talk about it. This method of reply is employed by all the more or
less cultivated religious writers, that is to say, those who feel the
laws of Christ binding for themselves. Knowing that the contradiction
existing between the teaching of Christ which we profess with our
lips and the whole order of our lives cannot be removed by words,
and that touching upon it can only make it more obvious, they, with
more or less ingenuity, evade it, pretending that the question of
reconciling Christianity with the use of force has been decided
already, or does not exist at all.[1]

[1] I only know one work which differs somewhat from this general
definition, and that is not a criticism in the precise meaning of
the word, but an article treating of the same subject and having
my book in view. I mean the pamphlet of Mr. Troizky (published at
Kazan), "A Sermon for the People." The author obviously accepts
Christ's teaching in its true meaning. He says that the prohibition
of resistance to evil by force means exactly what it does mean; and
the same with the prohibition of swearing. He does not, as others
do, deny the meaning of Christ's teaching, but unfortunately he does
not draw from this admission the inevitable deductions which present
themselves spontaneously in our life when we understand Christ's
teaching in that way. If we must not oppose evil by force, nor swear,
everyone naturally asks, "How, then, about military service? and the
oath of obedience?" To this question the author gives no reply; but
it must be answered. And if he cannot answer, then he would do better
not to speak on the subject at all, as such silence leads to error.

The majority of religious critics of my book use this fifth method
of replying to it. I could quote dozens of such critics, in all of
whom, without exception, we find the same thing repeated: everything
is discussed except what constitutes the principal subject of
the book. As a characteristic example of such criticisms, I will
quote the article of a well-known and ingenious English writer and
preacher--Farrar--who, like many learned theologians, is a great
master of the art of circuitously evading a question. The article was
published in an American journal, the _Forum_, in October, 1888.

After conscientiously explaining in brief the contents of my book,
Farrar says: "Tolstoy came to the conclusion that a coarse deceit
had been palmed upon the world when these words, 'Resist not evil,'
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 of Christ, viz.: 1. Live in peace with all men. 2.
Be pure. 3. Take no oaths. 4. Resist not evil. 5. Renounce national
distinctions.

"Tolstoy," he says, "rejects the inspiration of the Old Testament;
hence he rejects the chief doctrines of the Church--that of the
Atonement by blood, the Trinity, the descent of the Holy Ghost
on the Apostles, and his transmission through the priesthood."
And he recognizes only the words and commands of Christ. "But is
this interpretation of Christ a true one?" he says. "Are all men
bound to act as Tolstoy teaches--_i. e._, to carry out these five
commandments of Christ?" You expect, then, that in answer to this
essential question, which is the only one that could induce a man
to write an article about the book, he will say either that this
interpretation of Christ's teaching is true and we ought to follow
it, or he will say that such an interpretation is untrue, will show
why, and will give some other correct interpretation of those words
which I interpret incorrectly. But nothing of the kind is done.
Farrar only expresses his "belief" that, "though actuated by the
noblest sincerity, Count Tolstoy has been misled by partial and
one-sided interpretations of the meaning of the Gospel and the mind
and will of Christ." What this error consists in is not made clear;
it is only said: "To enter into the proof of this is impossible in
this article, for I have already exceeded the space at my command."

And he concludes, in a tranquil spirit:

"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," he continues, "the whole of Christendom, from the days
of the Apostles down to our own, has come to the firm conclusion that
it was the object of Christ to lay down great eternal principles, but
not to disturb the bases and revolutionize the institutions of all
human society, which themselves rest on divine sanctions as well as
on inevitable conditions. Were it my object to prove how untenable
is the doctrine of communism, based by Count Tolstoy upon the divine
paradoxes [_sic_], which can be interpreted only on 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 he has not "an ampler canvas at his disposal"!
And what a strange thing it is that for all these last fifteen
centuries no one has had "a canvas ample enough" to prove that
Christ, whom we profess to believe in, says something utterly unlike
what he does say! Still, they could prove it if they wanted to. But
it is not worth while to prove what everyone knows; it is enough to
say, "_securus judicat orbis terrarum_."

And of this kind, without exception, are all the criticisms of
educated believers, who must, as such, understand the danger of
their position. The sole escape from it for them lies in their hope
that they may be able, by using the authority of the Church, of
antiquity, and of their sacred office, to overawe the reader and
draw him away from the idea of reading the Gospel for himself and
thinking out the question in his own mind for himself. And in this
they are successful; for, indeed, how could the notion occur to
anyone that all that has been repeated from century to century with
such earnestness and solemnity by all those archdeacons, bishops,
archbishops, holy synods, and popes, is all of it a base lie and a
calumny foisted upon Christ by them for the sake of keeping safe
the money they must have to live luxuriously on the necks of other
men? And it is a lie and a calumny so transparent that the only way
of keeping it up consists in overawing people by their earnestness,
their conscientiousness. It is just what has taken place of late
years at recruiting sessions; at a table before the zertzal--the
symbol of the Tzar's authority--in the seat of honor under the
life-size portrait of the Tzar, sit dignified old officials, wearing
decorations, conversing freely and easily, writing notes, summoning
men before them, and giving orders. Here, wearing a cross on his
breast, near them, is a prosperous-looking old priest in a silken
cassock, with long gray hair flowing on to his cope, before a lectern
who wears the golden cross and has a Gospel bound in gold.

They summon Ivan Petroff. A young man comes in, wretchedly, shabbily
dressed, and in terror, the muscles of his face working, his eyes
bright and restless; and in a broken voice, hardly above a whisper,
he says: "I--by Christ's law--as a Christian--I cannot." "What is
he muttering?" asks the president, frowning impatiently and raising
his eyes from his book to listen. "Speak louder," the colonel with
shining epaulets shouts to him. "I--I as a Christian----" And at last
it appears that the young man refuses to serve in the army because he
is a Christian. "Don't talk nonsense. Stand to be measured. Doctor,
may I trouble you to measure him. He is all right?" "Yes." "Reverend
father, administer the oath to him."

No one is the least disturbed by what the poor scared young man is
muttering. They do not even pay attention to it. "They all mutter
something, but we've no time to listen to it, we have to enroll so
many."

The recruit tries to say something still. "It's opposed to the law
of Christ." "Go along, go along; we know without your help what is
opposed to the law and what's not; and you soothe his mind, reverend
father, soothe him. Next: Vassily Nikitin." And they lead the
trembling youth away. And it does not strike anyone--the guards, or
Vassily Nikitin, whom they are bringing in, or any of the spectators
of this scene--that these inarticulate words of the young man, at
once suppressed by the authorities, contain the truth, and that the
loud, solemnly uttered sentences of the calm, self-confident official
and the priest are a lie and a deception.

Such is the impression produced not only by Farrar's article, but
by all those solemn sermons, articles, and books which make their
appearance from all sides directly there is anywhere a glimpse of
truth exposing a predominant falsehood. At once begins the series of
long, clever, ingenious, and solemn speeches and writings, which deal
with questions nearly related to the subject, but skillfully avoid
touching the subject itself.

That is the essence of the fifth and most effective means of getting
out of the contradictions in which Church Christianity has placed
itself, by professing its faith in Christ's teaching in words, while
it denies it in its life, and teaches people to do the same.

Those who justify themselves by the first method, directly, crudely
asserting that Christ sanctioned violence, wars, and murder,
repudiate Christ's doctrine directly; those who find their defense
in the second, the third, or the fourth method are confused and can
easily be convicted of error; but this last class, who do not argue,
who do not condescend to argue about it, but take shelter behind
their own grandeur, and make a show of all this having been decided
by them or at least by someone long ago, and no longer offering a
possibility of doubt to anyone--they seem safe from attack, and will
be beyond attack till men come to realize that they are under the
narcotic influence exerted on them by governments and churches, and
are no longer affected by it.

Such was the attitude of the spiritual critics--_i. e._, those
professing faith in Christ--to my book. And their attitude could
not have been different. They are bound to take up this attitude by
the contradictory position in which they find themselves between
belief in the divinity of their Master and disbelief in his clearest
utterances, and they want to escape from this contradiction. So that
one cannot expect from them free discussion of the very essence of
the question--that is, of the change in men's life which must result
from applying Christ's teaching to the existing order of the world.
Such free discussion I only expected from worldly, freethinking
critics who are not bound to Christ's teaching in any way, and can
therefore take an independent view of it. I had anticipated that
freethinking writers would look at Christ, not merely, like the
Churchmen, as the founder of a religion of personal salvation, but,
to express it in their language, as a reformer who laid down new
principles of life and destroyed the old, and whose reforms are not
yet complete, but are still in progress even now.

Such a view of Christ and his teaching follows from my book. But to
my astonishment, out of the great number of critics of my book there
was not one, either Russian or foreign, who treated the subject from
the side from which it was approached in the book--that is, who
criticised Christ's doctrines as philosophical, moral, and social
principles, to use their scientific expressions. This was not done in
a single criticism. The freethinking Russian critics taking my book
as though its whole contents could be reduced to non-resistance to
evil, and understanding the doctrine of non-resistance to evil itself
(no doubt for greater convenience in refuting it) as though it would
prohibit every kind of conflict with evil, fell vehemently upon this
doctrine, and for some years past have been very successfully proving
that Christ's teaching is mistaken in so far as it forbids resistance
to evil. Their refutations of this hypothetical doctrine of Christ
were all the more successful since they knew beforehand that their
arguments could not be contested or corrected, for the censorship,
not having passed the book, did not pass articles in its defense.

It is a remarkable thing that among us, where one cannot say a word
about the Holy Scriptures without the prohibition of the censorship,
for some years past there have been in all the journals constant
attacks and criticisms on the command of Christ simply and directly
stated in Matt. v. 39. The Russian advanced critics, obviously
unaware of all that has been done to elucidate the question of
non-resistance, and sometimes even imagining apparently that the rule
of non-resistance to evil had been invented by me personally, fell
foul of the very idea of it. They opposed it and attacked it, and
advancing with great heat arguments which had long ago been analyzed
and refuted from every point of view, they demonstrated that a man
ought invariably to defend (with violence) all the injured and
oppressed, and that thus the doctrine of non-resistance to evil is an
immoral doctrine.

To all Russian critics the whole import of Christ's command
seemed reducible to the fact that it would hinder them from
the active opposition to evil to which they are accustomed. So
that the principle of non-resistance to evil by force has been
attacked by two opposing camps: the conservatives, because this
principle would hinder their activity in resistance to evil as
applied to the revolutionists, in persecution and punishment
of them; the revolutionists, too, because this principle would
hinder their resistance to evil as applied to the conservatives
and the overthrowing of them. The conservatives were indignant
at the doctrine of non-resistance to evil by force hindering the
energetic destruction of the revolutionary elements, which may ruin
the national prosperity; the revolutionists were indignant at the
doctrine of non-resistance to evil by force hindering the overthrow
of the conservatives, who are ruining the national prosperity. It
is worthy of remark in this connection that the revolutionists have
attacked the principle of non-resistance to evil by force, in spite
of the fact that it is the greatest terror and danger for every
despotism. For ever since the beginning of the world, the use of
violence of every kind, from the Inquisition to the Schlüsselburg
fortress, has rested and still rests on the opposite principle of the
necessity of resisting evil by force.

Besides this, the Russian critics have pointed out the fact that the
application of the command of non-resistance to practical life would
turn mankind aside out of the path of civilization along which it is
moving. The path of civilization on which mankind in Europe is moving
is in their opinion the one along which all mankind ought always to
move.

So much for the general character of the Russian critics.

Foreign critics started from the same premises, but their discussions
of my book were somewhat different from those of Russian critics, not
only in being less bitter, and in showing more culture, but even in
the subject-matter.

In discussing my book and the Gospel teaching generally, as it is
expressed in the Sermon on the Mount, the foreign critics maintained
that such doctrine is not peculiarly Christian (Christian doctrine is
either Catholicism or Protestantism according to their views)--the
teaching of the Sermon on the Mount is only a string of very pretty
impracticable dreams _du charmant docteur_, as Renan says, fit for
the simple and half-savage inhabitants of Galilee who lived eighteen
hundred years ago, and for the half-savage Russian peasants--Sutaev
and Bondarev--and the Russian mystic Tolstoy, but not at all
consistent with a high degree of European culture.

The foreign freethinking critics have tried in a delicate manner,
without being offensive to me, to give the impression that my
conviction that mankind could be guided by such a naïve doctrine as
that of the Sermon on the Mount proceeds from two causes: that such
a conviction is partly due to my want of knowledge, my ignorance
of history, my ignorance of all the vain attempts to apply the
principles of the Sermon on the Mount to life, which have been
made in history and have led to nothing; and partly it is due to
my failing to appreciate the full value of the lofty civilization
to which mankind has attained at present, with its Krupp cannons,
smokeless powder, colonization of Africa, Irish Coercion Bill,
parliamentary government, journalism, strikes, and the Eiffel Tower.

So wrote de Vogüé and Leroy Beaulieu and Matthew Arnold; so wrote
the American author Savage, and Ingersoll, the popular freethinking
American preacher, and many others.

"Christ's teaching is no use, because it is inconsistent with
our industrial age," says Ingersoll naïvely, expressing in this
utterance, with perfect directness and simplicity, the exact notion
of Christ's teaching held by persons of refinement and culture of our
times. The teaching is no use for our industrial age, precisely as
though the existence of this industrial age were a sacred fact which
ought not to and could not be changed. It is just as though drunkards
when advised how they could be brought to habits of sobriety should
answer that the advice is incompatible with their habit of taking
alcohol.

The arguments of all the freethinking critics, Russian and foreign
alike, different as they may be in tone and manner of presentation,
all amount essentially to the same strange misapprehension--namely,
that Christ's teaching, one of the consequences of which is
non-resistance to evil, is of no use to us because it requires a
change of our life.

Christ's teaching is useless because, if it were carried into
practice, life could not go on as at present; we must add: if we have
begun by living sinfully, as we do live and are accustomed to live.
Not only is the question of non-resistance to evil not discussed;
the very mention of the fact that the duty of non-resistance enters
into Christ's teaching is regarded as satisfactory proof of the
impracticability of the whole teaching.

Meanwhile one would have thought it was necessary to point out at
least some kind of solution of the following question, since it is at
the root of almost everything that interests us.

The question amounts to this: In what way are we to decide men's
disputes, when some men consider evil what others consider good, and
_vice versa_? And to reply that that is evil which I think evil, in
spite of the fact that my opponent thinks it good, is not a solution
of the difficulty. There can only be two solutions: either to find a
real unquestionable criterion of what is evil or not to resist evil
by force.

The first course has been tried ever since the beginning of
historical times, and, as we all know, it has not hitherto led to any
successful results.

The second solution--not forcibly to resist what we consider evil
until we have found a universal criterion--that is the solution given
by Christ.

We may consider the answer given by Christ unsatisfactory; we may
replace it by another and better, by finding a criterion by which
evil could be defined for all men unanimously and simultaneously; we
may simply, like savage nations, not recognize the existence of the
question. But we cannot treat the question as the learned critics of
Christianity do. They pretend either that no such question exists at
all or that the question is solved by granting to certain persons
or assemblies of persons the right to define evil and to resist it
by force. But we know all the while that granting such a right to
certain persons does not decide the question (still less so when we
are ourselves the certain persons), since there are always people who
do not recognize this right in the authorized persons or assemblies.

But this assumption, that what seems evil to us is really evil, shows
a complete misunderstanding of the question, and lies at the root of
the argument of freethinking critics about the Christian religion. In
this way, then, the discussions of my book on the part of Churchmen
and freethinking critics alike showed me that the majority of men
simply do not understand either Christ's teaching or the questions
which Christ's teaching solves.

CHAPTER III.

CHRISTIANITY MISUNDERSTOOD BY BELIEVERS.

Meaning of Christian Doctrine, Understood by a Minority,
has Become Completely Incomprehensible for the Majority
of Men--Reason of this to be Found in Misinterpretation
of Christianity and Mistaken Conviction of Believers and
Unbelievers Alike that they Understand it--The Meaning of
Christianity Obscured for Believers by the Church--The First
Appearance of Christ's Teaching--Its Essence and Difference
from Heathen Religions--Christianity not Fully Comprehended
at the Beginning, Became More and More Clear to those who
Accepted it from its Correspondence with Truth--Simultaneously
with this Arose the Claim to Possession of the Authentic
Meaning of the Doctrine Based on the Miraculous Nature of
its Transmission--Assembly of Disciples as Described in the
Acts--The Authoritative Claim to the Sole Possession of the
True Meaning of Christ's Teaching Supported by Miraculous
Evidence has Led by Logical Development to the Creeds of the
Churches--A Church Could Not be Founded by Christ--Definitions
of a Church According to the Catechisms--The Churches have
Always been Several in Number and Hostile to One Another--What
is Heresy--The Work of G. Arnold on Heresies--Heresies
the Manifestations of Progress in the Churches--Churches
Cause Dissension among Men, and are Always Hostile to
Christianity--Account of the Work Done by the Russian
Church--Matt. xxiii. 23--The Sermon on the Mount or the
Creed--The Orthodox Church Conceals from the People the True
Meaning of Christianity--The Same Thing is Done by the Other
Churches--All the External Conditions of Modern Life are such
as to Destroy the Doctrine of the Church, and therefore the
Churches use Every Effort to Support their Doctrines.

Thus the information I received, after my book came out, went to show
that the Christian doctrine, in its direct and simple sense, was
understood, and had always been understood, by a minority of men,
while the critics, ecclesiastical and freethinking alike, denied the
possibility of taking Christ's teaching in its direct sense. All this
convinced me that while on one hand the true understanding of this
doctrine had never been lost to a minority, but had been established
more and more clearly, on the other hand the meaning of it had been
more and more obscured for the majority. So that at last such a depth
of obscurity has been reached that men do not take in their direct
sense even the simplest precepts, expressed in the simplest words, in
the Gospel.

Christ's teaching is not generally understood in its true, simple,
and direct sense even in these days, when the light of the Gospel
has penetrated even to the darkest recesses of human consciousness;
when, in the words of Christ, that which was spoken in the ear is
proclaimed from the housetops; and when the Gospel is influencing
every side of human life--domestic, economic, civic, legislative,
and international. This lack of true understanding of Christ's words
at such a time would be inexplicable, if there were not causes to
account for it.

One of these causes is the fact that believers and unbelievers alike
are firmly persuaded that they have understood Christ's teaching a
long time, and that they understand it so fully, indubitably, and
conclusively that it can have no other significance than the one
they attribute to it. And the reason of this conviction is that the
false interpretation and consequent misapprehension of the Gospel is
an error of such long standing. Even the strongest current of water
cannot add a drop to a cup which is already full.

The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted
man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest
thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is
firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt,
what is laid before him.

The Christian doctrine is presented to the men of our world to-day
as a doctrine which everyone has known so long and accepted so
unhesitatingly in all its minutest details that it cannot be
understood in any other way than it is understood now.

Christianity is understood now by all who profess the doctrines of
the Church as a supernatural miraculous revelation of everything
which is repeated in the Creed. By unbelievers it is regarded as
an illustration of man's craving for a belief in the supernatural,
which mankind has now outgrown, as an historical phenomenon which
has received full expression in Catholicism, Greek Orthodoxy, and
Protestantism, and has no longer any living significance for us. The
significance of the Gospel is hidden from believers by the Church,
from unbelievers by Science.

I will speak first of the former. Eighteen hundred years ago there
appeared in the midst of the heathen Roman world a strange new
doctrine, unlike any of the old religions, and attributed to a man,
Christ.

This new doctrine was in both form and content absolutely new to the
Jewish world in which it originated, and still more to the Roman
world in which it was preached and diffused.

In the midst of the elaborate religious observances of Judaism, in
which, in the words of Isaiah, law was laid upon law, and in the
midst of the Roman legal system worked out to the highest point
of perfection, a new doctrine appeared, which denied not only
every deity, and all fear and worship of them, but even all human
institutions and all necessity for them. In place of all the rules
of the old religions, this doctrine sets up only a type of inward
perfection, truth, and love in the person of Christ, and--as a result
of this inward perfection being attained by men--also the outward
perfection foretold by the Prophets--the kingdom of God, when all men
will cease to learn to make war, when all shall be taught of God and
united in love, and the lion will lie down with the lamb. Instead
of the threats of punishment which all the old laws of religions
and governments alike laid down for non-fulfillment of their rules,
instead of promises of rewards for fulfillment of them, this doctrine
called men to it only because it was the truth. John vii. 17: "If any
man will do His will, he shall know of the doctrine whether it be
of God." John viii. 46: "If I say the truth, why do ye not believe
me? But ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth. Ye
shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. God is a
spirit, and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in
truth. Keep my sayings, and ye shall know of my sayings whether they
be true." No proofs of this doctrine were offered except its truth,
the correspondence of the doctrine with the truth. The whole teaching
consisted in the recognition of truth and following it, in a greater
and greater attainment of truth, and a closer and closer following
of it in the acts of life. There are no acts in this doctrine which
could justify a man and make him saved. There is only the image of
truth to guide him, for inward perfection in the person of Christ,
and for outward perfection in the establishment of the kingdom of
God. The fulfillment of this teaching consists only in walking in the
chosen way, in getting nearer to inward perfection in the imitation
of Christ, and outward perfection in the establishment of the kingdom
of God. The greater or less blessedness of a man depends, according
to this doctrine, not on the degree of perfection to which he has
attained, but on the greater or less swiftness with which he is
pursuing it.

The progress toward perfection of the publican Zaccheus, of the woman
that was a sinner, of the robber on the cross, is a greater state
of blessedness, according to this doctrine, than the stationary
righteousness of the Pharisee. The lost sheep is dearer than
ninety-nine that were not lost. The prodigal son, the piece of money
that was lost and found again, are dearer, more precious to God than
those which have not been lost.

Every condition, according to this doctrine, is only a particular
step in the attainment of inward and outward perfection, and
therefore has no significance of itself. Blessedness consists in
progress toward perfection; to stand still in any condition whatever
means the cessation of this blessedness.

"Let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth." "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 to you,
but seek rather that your names be written in heaven." "Be ye
perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect." "Seek ye first
the kingdom of heaven and its righteousness."

The fulfillment of this precept is only to be found in uninterrupted
progress toward the attainment of ever higher truth, toward
establishing more and more firmly an ever greater love within
oneself, and establishing more and more widely the kingdom of God
outside oneself.

It is obvious that, appearing as it did in the midst of the Jewish
and heathen world, such teaching could not be accepted by the
majority of men, who were living a life absolutely different from
what was required by it. It is obvious, too, that even for those by
whom it was accepted, it was so absolutely opposed to all their old
views that it could not be comprehensible in its full significance.

It has been only by a succession of misunderstandings, errors,
partial explanations, and the corrections and additions of
generations that the meaning of the Christian doctrine has grown
continually more and more clear to men. The Christian view of
life has exerted an influence on the Jewish and heathen, and the
heathen and Jewish view of life has, too, exerted an influence on
the Christian. And Christianity, as the living force, has gained
more and more upon the extinct Judaism and heathenism, and has
grown continually clearer and clearer, as it freed itself from the
admixture of falsehood which had overlaid it. Men went further
and further in the attainment of the meaning of Christianity, and
realized it more and more in life.

The longer mankind lived, the clearer and clearer became the meaning
of Christianity, as must always be the case with every theory of life.

Succeeding generations corrected the errors of their predecessors,
and grew ever nearer and nearer to a comprehension of the true
meaning. It was thus from the very earliest times of Christianity.
And so, too, from the earliest times of Christianity there were men
who began to assert on their own authority that the meaning they
attribute to the doctrine is the only true one, and as proof bring
forward supernatural occurrences in support of the correctness of
their interpretation.

This was the principal cause at first of the misunderstanding of the
doctrine, and afterward of the complete distortion of it.

It was supposed that Christ's teaching was transmitted to men not
like every other truth, but in a special miraculous way. Thus the
truth of the teaching was not proved by its correspondence with the
needs of the mind and the whole nature of man, but by the miraculous
manner of its transmission, which was advanced as an irrefutable
proof of the truth of the interpretation put on it. This hypothesis
originated from misunderstanding of the teaching, and its result was
to make it impossible to understand it rightly.

And this happened first in the earliest times, when the doctrine
was still not so fully understood and often interpreted wrongly,
as we see by the Gospels and the Acts. The less the doctrine was
understood, the more obscure it appeared and the more necessary were
external proofs of its truth. The proposition that we ought not to
do unto others as we would not they should do unto us, did not need
to be proved by miracles and needed no exercise of faith, because
this proposition is in itself convincing and in harmony with man's
mind and nature; but the proposition that Christ was God had to be
proved by miracles completely beyond our comprehension.

The more the understanding of Christ's teaching was obscured,
the more the miraculous was introduced into it; and the more the
miraculous was introduced into it, the more the doctrine was strained
from its meaning and the more obscure it became; and the more it
was strained from its meaning and the more obscure it became, the
more strongly its infallibility had to be asserted, and the less
comprehensible the doctrine became.

One can see by the Gospels, the Acts, and the Epistles how from the
earliest times the non-comprehension of the doctrine called forth the
need for proofs through the miraculous and incomprehensible.

The first example in the book of Acts is the assembly which gathered
together in Jerusalem to decide the question which had arisen,
whether to baptize or not the uncircumcised and those who had eaten
of food sacrificed to idols.

The very fact of this question being raised showed that those who
discussed it did not understand the teaching of Christ, who rejected
all outward observances--ablutions, purifications, fasts, and
sabbaths. It was plainly said, "Not that which goeth into a man's
mouth, but that which cometh out of a man's mouth, defileth him," and
therefore the question of baptizing the uncircumcised could only have
arisen among men who, though they loved their Master and dimly felt
the grandeur of his teaching, still did not understand the teaching
itself very clearly. And this was the fact.

Just in proportion to the failure of the members of the assembly
to understand the doctrine was their need of external confirmation
of their incomplete interpretation of it. And then to settle this
question, the very asking of which proved their misunderstanding of
the doctrine, there was uttered in this assembly, as is described in
the Acts, that strange phrase, which was for the first time found
necessary to give external confirmation to certain assertions, and
which has been productive of so much evil.

That is, it was asserted that the correctness of what they had
decided was guaranteed by the miraculous participation of the Holy
Ghost, that is, of God, in their decision. But the assertion that
the Holy Ghost, that is, God, spoke through the Apostles, in its
turn wanted proof. And thus it was necessary, to confirm this, that
the Holy Ghost should descend at Pentecost in tongues of fire upon
those who made this assertion. (In the account of it, the descent
of the Holy Ghost precedes the assembly, but the book of Acts was
written much later than both events.) But the descent of the Holy
Ghost too had to be proved for those who had not seen the tongues
of fire (though it is not easy to understand why a tongue of fire
burning above a man's head should prove that what that man is going
to say will be infallibly the truth). And so arose the necessity for
still more miracles and changes, raisings of the dead to life, and
strikings of the living dead, and all those marvels which have been
a stumbling-block to men, of which the Acts is full, and which, far
from ever convincing one of the truth of the Christian doctrine, can
only repel men from it. The result of such a means of confirming the
truth was that the more these confirmations of truth by tales of
miracles were heaped up one after another, the more the doctrine was
distorted from its original meaning, and the more incomprehensible it
became.

Thus it was from the earliest times, and so it went on, constantly
increasing, till it reached in our day the logical climax of the
dogmas of transubstantiation and the infallibility of the Pope, or of
the bishops, or of Scripture, and of requiring a blind faith rendered
incomprehensible and utterly meaningless, not in God, but in Christ,
not in a doctrine, but in a person, as in Catholicism, or in persons,
as in Greek Orthodoxy, or in a book, as in Protestantism. The more
widely Christianity was diffused, and the greater the number of
people unprepared for it who were brought under its sway, the less it
was understood, the more absolutely was its infallibility insisted
on, and the less possible it became to understand the true meaning of
the doctrine. In the times of Constantine the whole interpretation
of the doctrine had been already reduced to a _résumé_--supported by
the temporal authority--of the disputes that had taken place in the
Council--to a creed which reckoned off--I believe in so and so, and
so and so, and so and so to the end--to one holy, Apostolic Church,
which means the infallibility of those persons who call themselves
the Church. So that it all amounts to a man no longer believing in
God nor Christ, as they are revealed to him, but believing in what
the Church orders him to believe in.

But the Church is holy; the Church was founded by Christ. God could
not leave men to interpret his teaching at random--therefore he
founded the Church. All those statements are so utterly untrue
and unfounded that one is ashamed to refute them. Nowhere nor in
anything, except in the assertion of the Church, can we find that
God or Christ founded anything like what Churchmen understand by the
Church. In the Gospels there is a warning against the Church, as it
is an external authority, a warning most clear and obvious in the
passage where it is said that Christ's followers should "call no
man master." But nowhere is anything said of the foundation of what
Churchmen call the Church.

The word church is used twice in the Gospels--once in the sense of
an assembly of men to decide a dispute, the other time in connection
with the obscure utterance about a stone--Peter, and the gates of
hell. From these two passages in which the word church is used, in
the signification merely of an assembly, has been deduced all that we
now understand by the Church.

But Christ could not have founded the Church, that is, what we now
understand by that word. For nothing like the idea of the Church as
we know it now, with its sacraments, miracles, and above all its
claim to infallibility, is to be found either in Christ's words or in
the ideas of the men of that time.

The fact that men called what was formed afterward by the same word
as Christ used for something totally different, does not give them
the right to assert that Christ founded the one, true Church.

Besides, if Christ had really founded such an institution as the
Church for the foundation of all his teaching and the whole faith,
he would certainly have described this institution clearly and
definitely, and would have given the only true Church, besides tales
of miracles, which are used to support every kind of superstition,
some tokens so unmistakable that no doubt of its genuineness could
ever have arisen. But nothing of the sort was done by him. And there
have been and still are different institutions, each calling itself
the true Church.

The Catholic catechism says: "L'Église est la société des fidéles
établie par notre Seigneur Jésus Christ, répandue sur toute la terre
et soumise à l'authorité des pasteurs légitimes, principalement
notre Saint Père le Pape,"[2] understanding by the words "pasteurs
légitimes" an association of men having the Pope at its head,
and consisting of certain individuals bound together by a certain
organization.

[2] "The Church is the society of the faithful, established by our
Lord Jesus Christ, spread over the whole earth, and subject to the
authority of its lawful pastors, and chief of them our Holy Father
the Pope."

The Greek Orthodox catechism says: "The Church is a society founded
upon earth by Jesus Christ, which is united into one whole, by one
divine doctrine and by sacraments, under the rule and guidance of a
priesthood appointed by God," meaning by the "priesthood appointed by
God" the Greek Orthodox priesthood, consisting of certain individuals
who happen to be in such or such positions.

The Lutheran catechism says: "The Church is holy Christianity, or the
collection of all believers under Christ, their head, to whom the
Holy Ghost through the Gospels and sacraments promises, communicates,
and administers heavenly salvation," meaning that the Catholic
Church is lost in error, and that the true means of salvation is in
Lutheranism.

For Catholics the Church of God coincides with the Roman priesthood
and the Pope. For the Greek Orthodox believer the Church of God
coincides with the establishment and priesthood of Russia.[3]

[3] Homyakov's definition of the Church, which was received with some
favor among Russians, does not improve matters, if we are to agree
with Homyakov in considering the Greek Orthodox Church as the one
true Church. Homyakov asserts that a church is a collection of men
(all without distinction of clergy and laymen) united together by
love, and that only to men united by love is the truth revealed (let
us love each other, that in the unity of thought, etc.), and that
such a church is the church which, in the first place, recognizes
the Nicene Creed, and in the second place does not, after the
division of the churches, recognize the popes and new dogmas. But
with such a definition of the church, there is still more difficulty
in reconciling, as Homyakov tries to do, the church united by love
with the church that recognizes the Nicene Creed and the doctrine
of Photius. So that Homyakov's assertion that this church, united
by love, and consequently holy, is the same church as the Greek
Orthodox priesthood profess faith in, is even more arbitrary than the
assertions of the Catholics or the Orthodox. If we admit the idea of
a church in the sense Homyakov gives to it--that is, a body of men
bound together by love and truth--then all that any man can predicate
in regard to this body, if such an one exists, is its love and truth,
but there can be no outer signs by which one could reckon oneself
or another as a member of this holy body, nor by which one could
put anyone outside it; so that no institution having an external
existence can correspond to this idea.

For Lutherans the Church of God coincides with a body of men who
recognize the authority of the Bible and Luther's catechism.

Ordinarily, when speaking of the rise of Christianity, men belonging
to one of the existing churches use the word church in the singular,
as though there were and had been only one church. But this is
absolutely incorrect. The Church, as an institution which asserted
that it possessed infallible truth, did not make its appearance
singly; there were at least two churches directly this claim was made.

While believers were agreed among themselves and the body was one, it
had no need to declare itself as a church. It was only when believers
were split up into opposing parties, renouncing one another, that
it seemed necessary to each party to confirm their own truth by
ascribing to themselves infallibility. The conception of one church
only arose when there were two sides divided and disputing, who each
called the other side heresy, and recognized their own side only as
the infallible church.

If we knew that there was a church which decided in the year 51 to
receive the uncircumcised, it is only so because there was another
church--of the Judaists--who decided to keep the uncircumcised out.

If there is a Catholic Church now which asserts its
own infallibility, that is only because there are
churches--Greco-Russian, Old Orthodox, and Lutheran--each asserting
its own infallibility and denying that of all other churches. So that
the one Church is only a fantastic imagination which has not the
least trace of reality about it.

As a real historical fact there has existed, and still exist, several
bodies of men, each asserting that it is the one Church, founded by
Christ, and that all the others who call themselves churches are only
sects and heresies.

The catechisms of the churches of the most world-wide influence--the
Catholic, the Old Orthodox, and the Lutheran--openly assert this.

In the Catholic catechism it is said: "Quels sont ceux qui sont hors
de l'église? Les infidèles, les hérétiques, les schismatiques."[4]
The so-called Greek Orthodox are regarded as schismatics, the
Lutherans as heretics; so that according to the Catholic catechism
the only people in the Church are Catholics.

[4] "Who are those who are outside the Church? Infidels, heretics,
and schismatics."

In the so-called Orthodox catechism it is said: By the one Christian
Church is understood the Orthodox, which remains fully in accord
with the Universal Church. As for the Roman Church and other sects
(the Lutherans and the rest they do not even dignify by the name of
church), they cannot be included in the one true Church, since they
have themselves separated from it.

According to this definition the Catholics and Lutherans are outside
the Church, and there are only Orthodox in the Church.

The Lutheran catechism says: "Die wahre Kirche wird darein erkannt,
dass in ihr das Wort Gottes lauter und rein ohne Menschenzusätze
gelehrt und die Sacramente treu nach Christi Einsetzung gewahret
werden."[5]

[5] "The true Church will be known by the Word of God being studied
clear and unmixed with man's additions and the sacraments being
maintained faithful to Christ's teaching."

According to this definition all those who have added anything to
the teaching of Christ and the apostles, as the Catholic and Greek
churches have done, are outside the Church. And in the Church there
are only Protestants.

The Catholics assert that the Holy Ghost has been transmitted without
a break in their priesthood. The Orthodox assert that the same Holy
Ghost has been transmitted without a break in their priesthood.
The Arians asserted that the Holy Ghost was transmitted in their
priesthood (they asserted this with just as much right as the
churches in authority now). The Protestants of every kind--Lutherans,
Reformed Church, Presbyterians, Methodists, Swedenborgians,
Mormons--assert that the Holy Ghost is only present in their
communities. If the Catholics assert that the Holy Ghost, at the time
of the division of the Church into Arian and Greek, left the Church
that fell away and remained in the one true Church, with precisely
the same right the Protestants of every denomination can assert that
at the time of the separation of their Church from the Catholic
the Holy Ghost left the Catholic and passed into the Church they
professed. And this is just what they do.

Every church traces its creed through an uninterrupted transmission
from Christ and the Apostles. And truly every Christian creed that
has been derived from Christ must have come down to the present
generation through a certain transmission. But that does not prove
that it alone of all that has been transmitted, excluding all the
rest, can be the sole truth, admitting of no doubt.

Every branch in a tree comes from the root in unbroken connection;
but the fact that each branch comes from the one root, does not
prove at all that each branch was the only one. It is precisely the
same with the Church. Every church presents exactly the same proofs
of the succession, and even the same miracles, in support of its
authenticity, as every other. So that there is but one strict and
exact definition of what is a church (not of something fantastic
which we would wish it to be, but of what it is and has been in
reality)--a church is a body of men who claim for themselves that
they are in complete and sole possession of the truth. And these
bodies, having in course of time, aided by the support of the
temporal authorities, developed into powerful institutions, have been
the principal obstacles to the diffusion of a true comprehension of
the teaching of Christ.

It could not be otherwise. The chief peculiarity which distinguished
Christ's teaching from previous religions consisted in the fact
that those who accepted it strove ever more and more to comprehend
and realize its teaching. But the Church doctrine asserted its own
complete and final comprehension and realization of it.

Strange though it may seem to us who have been brought up in the
erroneous view of the Church as a Christian institution, and in
contempt for heresy, yet the fact is that only in what was called
heresy was there any true movement, that is, true Christianity, and
that it only ceased to be so when those heresies stopped short in
their movement and also petrified into the fixed forms of a church.

And, indeed, what is a heresy? Read all the theological works one
after another. In all of them heresy is the subject which first
presents itself for definition; since every theological work deals
with the true doctrine of Christ as distinguished from the erroneous
doctrines which surround it, that is, heresies. Yet you will not find
anywhere anything like a definition of heresy.

The treatment of this subject by the learned historian of
Christianity, E. de Pressensé, in his "Histoire du Dogme" (Paris,
1869), under the heading "Ubi Christus, ibi Ecclesia," may serve as
an illustration of the complete absence of anything like a definition
of what is understood by the word heresy. Here is what he says in
his introduction (p. 3): "Je sais que l'on nous conteste le droit de
qualifier ainsi [that is, to call heresies] les tendances qui furent
si vivement combattues par les premiers Pères. La désignation même
d'hérésie semble une atteinte portée à la liberté de conscience et de
pensée. Nous ne pouvons partager ce scrupule, car il n'irait à rien
moins qu'à enlever au Christianisme tout caractère distinctif."[6]

[6] "I know that our right to qualify thus the tendencies which were
so actively opposed by the early Fathers is contested. The very use
of the word heresy seems an attack upon liberty of conscience and
thought. We cannot share this scruple; for it would amount to nothing
less than depriving Christianity of all distinctive character."

And though he tells us that after Constantine's time the Church did
actually abuse its power by designating those who dissented from it
as heretics and persecuting them, yet he says, when speaking of early
times: "L'église est une libre association; il y a tout profit à se
séparer d'elle. La polémique contre l'erreur n'a d'autres ressources
que la pensée et le sentiment. Un type doctrinal uniforme n'a pas
encore été élaboré; les divergences secondaires se produisent en
Orient et en Occident avec une entière liberté; la théologie n'est
point liée à d'invariables formules. Si au sein de cette diversité
apparait un fonds commun de croyances, n'est-on pas en droit d'y
voir non pas un système formulé et composé par les représentants
d'une autorité d'école, mais la foi elle-même dans son instinct
le plus sûr et sa manifestation la plus spontanée? Si cette même
unanimité qui se révèle dans les croyances essentielles, se retrouve
pour repousser telles ou telles tendances, ne serons-nous pas en
droit de conclure que ces tendances étaient en désacord flagrant
avec les principes fondamentaux du christianisme? Cette présomption
ne se transformera-t-elle pas en certitude si nous reconnaissons
dans la doctrine universellement repoussée par l'Eglise les traits
caractéristiques de l'une des religions du passé? Pour dire que
le gnosticisme ou l'ébionitisme sont les formes légitimes de la
pensée chrétienne il faut dire hardiment qu'il n'y a pas de pensée
chrétienne, ni de caractère spécifique qui la fasse reconnaître. Sous
prétexte de l'élargir, on la dissout. Personne au temps de Platon
n'eût osé couvrir de son nom une doctrine qui n'eut pas fait place
à la théorie des idées; et l'on eût excité les justes moqueries
de la Grèce, en voulant faire d'Epicure ou de Zénon un disciple
de l'Académie. Reconnaissons donc que s'il existe une religion
ou une doctrine qui s'appelle christianisme, elle peut avoir ses
hérésies."[7]

[7] "The Church is a free association; there is much to be gained by
separation from it. Conflict with error has no weapons other than
thought and feeling. One uniform type of doctrine has not yet been
elaborated; divergencies in secondary matters arise freely in East
and West; theology is not wedded to invariable formulas. If in the
midst of this diversity a mass of beliefs common to all is apparent,
is one not justified in seeing in it, not a formulated system, framed
by the representatives of pedantic authority, but faith itself in
its surest instinct and its most spontaneous manifestation? If the
same unanimity which is revealed in essential points of belief is
found also in rejecting certain tendencies, are we not justified in
concluding that these tendencies were in flagrant opposition to the
fundamental principles of Christianity? And will not this presumption
be transformed into certainty if we recognize in the doctrine
universally rejected by the Church the characteristic features of one
of the religions of the past? To say that gnosticism or ebionitism
are legitimate forms of Christian thought, one must boldly deny the
existence of Christian thought at all, or any specific character by
which it could be recognized. While ostensibly widening its realm,
one undermines it. No one in the time of Plato would have ventured
to give his name to a doctrine in which the theory of ideas had no
place, and one would deservedly have excited the ridicule of Greece
by trying to pass off Epicurus or Zeno as a disciple of the Academy.
Let us recognize, then, that if a religion or a doctrine exists which
is called Christianity, it may have its heresies."

The author's whole argument amounts to this: that every opinion which
differs from the code of dogmas we believe in at a given time, is
heresy. But of course at any given time and place men always believe
in something or other; and this belief in something, indefinite at
any place, at some time, cannot be a criterion of truth.

It all amounts to this: since ubi Christus ibi Ecclesia, then
Christus is where we are.

Every so-called heresy, regarding, as it does, its own creed as
the truth, can just as easily find in Church history a series of
illustrations of its own creed, can use all Pressensé's arguments on
its own behalf, and can call its own creed the one truly Christian
creed. And that is just what all heresies do and have always done.

The only definition of heresy (the word αἵρεσις, means a
part) is this: the name given by a body of men to any opinion which
rejects a part of the Creed professed by that body. The more frequent
meaning, more often ascribed to the word heresy, is--that of an
opinion which rejects the Church doctrine founded and supported by
the temporal authorities.

There is a remarkable and voluminous work, very little known,
"Unpartheyische Kirchen- und Ketzer-Historie," 1729, by Gottfried
Arnold, which deals with precisely this subject, and points out all
the unlawfulness, the arbitrariness, the senselessness, and the
cruelty of using the word heretic in the sense of reprobate. This
book is an attempt to write the history of Christianity in the form
of a history of heresy.

In the introduction the author propounds a series of questions: (1)
Of those who make heretics; (2) Of those whom they made heretics;
(3) Of heretical subjects themselves; (4) Of the method of making
heretics; and (5) Of the object and result of making heretics.

On each of these points he propounds ten more questions, the answers
to which he gives later on from the works of well-known theologians.
But he leaves the reader to draw for himself the principal
conclusion from the expositions in the whole book. As examples of
these questions, in which the answers are to some extent included
also, I will quote the following. Under the 4th head, of the manner
in which heretics are made, he says, in one of the questions (in the
7th):

"Does not all history show that the greatest makers of heretics
and masters of that craft were just these wise men, from whom the
Father hid his secrets, that is, the hypocrites, the Pharisees, and
lawyers, men utterly godless and perverted (Question 20-21)? And
in the corrupt times of Christianity were not these very men cast
out, denounced by the hypocrites and envious, who were endowed by
God with great gifts and who would in the days of pure Christianity
have been held in high honor? And, on the other hand, would not the
men who, in the decline of Christianity raised themselves above all,
and regarded themselves as the teachers of the purest Christianity,
would not these very men, in the times of the apostles and disciples
of Christ, have been regarded as the most shameless heretics and
anti-Christians?"

He expounds, among other things in these questions, the theory
that any verbal expression of faith, such as was demanded by the
Church, and the departure from which was reckoned as heresy, could
never fully cover the exact religious ideas of a believer, and that
therefore the demand for an expression of faith in certain words was
ever productive of heresy, and he says, in Question 21:

"And if heavenly things and thoughts present themselves to a man's
mind as so great and so profound that he does not find corresponding
words to express them, ought one to call him a heretic, because he
cannot express his idea with perfect exactness?" And in Question 33:

"And is not the fact that there was no heresy in the earliest days
due to the fact that the Christians did not judge one another by
verbal expressions, but by deed and by heart, since they had perfect
liberty to express their ideas without the dread of being called
heretics; was it not the easiest and most ordinary ecclesiastical
proceeding, if the clergy wanted to get rid of or to ruin anyone, for
them to cast suspicion on the person's belief, and to throw a cloak
of heresy upon him, and by this means to procure his condemnation and
removal?

"True though it may be that there were sins and errors among the
so-called heretics, it is no less true and evident," he says farther
on, "from the innumerable examples quoted here (_i. e._, in the
history of the Church and of heresy), that there was not a single
sincere and conscientious man of any importance whom the Churchmen
would not from envy or other causes have ruined."

Thus, almost two hundred years ago, the real meaning of heresy was
understood. And notwithstanding that, the same conception of it has
gone on existing up to now. And it cannot fail to exist so long as
the conception of a church exists. Heresy is the obverse side of the
Church. Wherever there is a church, there must be the conception
of heresy. A church is a body of men who assert that they are in
possession of infallible truth. Heresy is the opinion of the men who
do not admit the infallibility of the Church's truth.

Heresy makes its appearance in the Church. It is the effort to break
through the petrified authority of the Church. All effort after a
living comprehension of the doctrine has been made by heretics.
Tertullian, Origen, Augustine, Luther, Huss, Savonarola, Helchitsky,
and the rest were heretics. It could not be otherwise.

The follower of Christ, whose service means an ever-growing
understanding of his teaching, and an ever-closer fulfillment of it,
in progress toward perfection, cannot, just because he is a follower
of Christ, claim for himself or any other that he understands
Christ's teaching fully and fulfills it. Still less can he claim this
for any body of men.

To whatever degree of understanding and perfection the follower of
Christ may have attained, he always feels the insufficiency of his
understanding and fulfillment of it, and is always striving toward
a fuller understanding and fulfillment. And therefore, to assert
of one's self or of any body of men, that one is or they are in
possession of perfect understanding and fulfillment of Christ's word,
is to renounce the very spirit of Christ's teaching.

Strange as it may seem, the churches as churches have always been,
and cannot but be, institutions not only alien in spirit to Christ's
teaching, but even directly antagonistic to it. With good reason
Voltaire calls the Church _l'infâme_; with good reason have all or
almost all so-called sects of Christians recognized the Church as
the scarlet woman foretold in the Apocalypse; with good reason is
the history of the Church the history of the greatest cruelties and
horrors.

The churches as churches are not, as many people suppose,
institutions which have Christian principles for their basis,
even though they may have strayed a little away from the straight
path. The churches as churches, as bodies which assert their own
infallibility, are institutions opposed to Christianity. There is not
only nothing in common between the churches as such and Christianity,
except the name, but they represent two principles fundamentally
opposed and antagonistic to one another. One represents pride,
violence, self-assertion, stagnation, and death; the other, meekness,
penitence, humility, progress, and life.

We cannot serve these two masters; we have to choose between them.

The servants of the churches of all denominations, especially of
later times, try to show themselves champions of progress in
Christianity. They make concessions, wish to correct the abuses
that have slipped into the Church, and maintain that one cannot, on
account of these abuses, deny the principle itself of a Christian
church, which alone can bind all men together in unity and be a
mediator between men and God. But this is all a mistake. Not only
have the churches never bound men together in unity; they have always
been one of the principal causes of division between men, of their
hatred of one another, of wars, battles, inquisitions, massacres of
St. Bartholomew, and so on. And the churches have never served as
mediators between men and God. Such mediation is not wanted, and was
directly forbidden by Christ, who has revealed his teaching directly
and immediately to each man. But the churches set up dead forms in
the place of God, and far from revealing God, they obscure him from
men's sight. The churches, which originated from misunderstanding of
Christ's teaching and have maintained this misunderstanding by their
immovability, cannot but persecute and refuse to recognize all true
understanding of Christ's words. They try to conceal this, but in
vain; for every step forward along the path pointed out for us by
Christ is a step toward their destruction.

To hear and to read the sermons and articles in which Church writers
of later times of all denominations speak of Christian truths and
virtues; to hear or read these skillful arguments that have been
elaborated during centuries, and exhortations and professions,
which sometimes seem like sincere professions, one is ready to
doubt whether the churches can be antagonistic to Christianity. "It
cannot be," one says, "that these people who can point to such men
as Chrysostom, Fénelon, Butler, and others professing the Christian
faith, were antagonistic to Christianity." One is tempted to say,
"The churches may have strayed away from Christianity, they may be
in error, but they cannot be hostile to it." But we must look to
the fruit to judge the tree, as Christ taught us. And if we see that
their fruits were evil, that the results of their activity were
antagonistic to Christianity, we cannot but admit that however good
the men were--the work of the Church in which these men took part
was not Christian. The goodness and worth of these men who served
the churches was the goodness and worth of the men, and not of
the institution they served. All the good men, such as Francis of
Assisi, and Francis of Sales, our Tihon Zadonsky, Thomas à Kempis,
and others, were good men in spite of their serving an institution
hostile to Christianity, and they would have been still better if
they had not been under the influence of the error which they were
serving.

But why should we speak of the past and judge from the past, which
may have been misrepresented and misunderstood by us? The churches,
with their principles and their practice, are not a thing of the
past. The churches are before us to-day, and we can judge of them to
some purpose by their practical activity, their influence on men.

What is the practical work of the churches to-day? What is their
influence upon men? What is done by the churches among us, among the
Catholics and the Protestants of all denominations--what is their
practical work? and what are the results of their practical work?

The practice of our Russian so-called Orthodox Church is plain to
all. It is an enormous fact which there is no possibility of hiding
and about which there can be no disputing.

What constitutes the practical work of this Russian Church, this
immense, intensely active institution, which consists of a regiment
of half a million men and costs the people tens of millions of rubles?

The practical business of the Church consists in instilling by every
conceivable means into the mass of one hundred millions of the
Russian people those extinct relics of beliefs for which there is
nowadays no kind of justification, "in which scarcely anyone now
believes, and often not even those whose duty it is to diffuse these
false beliefs." To instill into the people the formulas of Byzantine
theology, of the Trinity, of the Mother of God, of Sacraments, of
Grace, and so on, extinct conceptions, foreign to us, and having no
kind of meaning for men of our times, forms only one part of the
work of the Russian Church. Another part of its practice consists in
the maintenance of idol-worship in the most literal meaning of the
word; in the veneration of holy relics, and of ikons, the offering of
sacrifices to them, and the expectation of their answers to prayer.
I am not going to speak of what is preached and what is written
by clergy of scientific or liberal tendencies in the theological
journals. I am going to speak of what is actually done by the clergy
through the wide expanse of the Russian land among a people of one
hundred millions. What do they, diligently, assiduously, everywhere
alike, without intermission, teach the people? What do they demand
from the people in virtue of their (so-called) Christian faith?

I will begin from the beginning with the birth of a child. At the
birth of a child they teach them that they must recite a prayer over
the child and mother to purify them, as though without this prayer
the mother of a newborn child were unclean. To do this the priest
holds the child in his arms before the images of the saints (called
by the people plainly gods) and reads words of exorcizing power, and
this purifies the mother. Then it is suggested to the parents, and
even exacted of them, under fear of punishment for non-fulfillment,
that the child must be baptized; that is, be dipped by the priest
three times into the water, while certain words, understood by no
one, are read aloud, and certain actions, still less understood,
are performed; various parts of the body are rubbed with oil, and
the hair is cut, while the sponsors blow and spit at an imaginary
devil. All this is necessary to purify the child and to make him a
Christian. Then it is instilled into the parents that they ought to
administer the sacrament to the child, that is, give him, in the
guise of bread and wine, a portion of Christ's body to eat, as a
result of which the child receives the grace of God within it, and
so on. Then it is suggested that the child as it grows up must be
taught to pray. To pray means to place himself directly before the
wooden boards on which are painted the faces of Christ, the Mother of
God, and the saints, to bow his head and his whole body, and to touch
his forehead, his shoulders and his stomach with his right hand,
holding his fingers in a certain position, and to utter some words
of Slavonic, the most usual of which as taught to all children are:
Mother of God, virgin, rejoice thee, etc., etc.

Then it is instilled into the child as it is brought up that at the
sight of any church or ikon he must repeat the same action--_i.
e._, cross himself. Then it is instilled into him that on holidays
(holidays are the days on which Christ was born, though no one knows
when that was, on which he was circumcised, on which the Mother of
God died, on which the cross was carried in procession, on which
ikons have been set up, on which a lunatic saw a vision, and so
on)--on holidays he must dress himself in his best clothes and go to
church, and must buy candles and place them there before the images
of the saints. Then he must give offerings and prayers for the dead,
and little loaves to be cut up into three-cornered pieces, and must
pray many times for the health and prosperity of the Tzar and the
bishops, and for himself and his own affairs, and then kiss the cross
and the hand of the priest.

Besides these observances, it is instilled into him that at least
once a year he must confess. To confess means to go to the church
and to tell the priest his sins, on the theory that this informing
a stranger of his sins completely purifies him from them. And after
that he must eat with a little spoon a morsel of bread with wine,
which will purify him still more. Next it is instilled into him that
if a man and woman want their physical union to be sanctified they
must go to church, put on metal crowns, drink certain potions, walk
three times round a table to the sound of singing, and that then
the physical union of a man and woman becomes sacred and altogether
different from all other such unions.

Further it is instilled into him in his life that he must observe
the following rules: not to eat butter or milk on certain days, and
on certain other days to sing Te Deums and requiems for the dead,
on holidays to entertain the priest and give him money, and several
times in the year to bring the ikons from the church, and to carry
them slung on his shoulders through the fields and houses. It is
instilled into him that on his death-bed a man must not fail to eat
bread and wine with a spoon, and that it will be still better if
he has time to be rubbed with sacred oil. This will guarantee his
welfare in the future life. After his death it is instilled into
his relatives that it is a good thing for the salvation of the dead
man to place a printed paper of prayers in his hands; it is a good
thing further to read aloud a certain book over the dead body, and to
pronounce the dead man's name in church at a certain time. All this
is regarded as faith obligatory on everyone.

But if anyone wants to take particular care of his soul, then
according to this faith he is instructed that the greatest security
of the salvation of the soul in the world is attained by offering
money to the churches and monasteries, and engaging the holy men by
this means to pray for him. Entering monasteries too, and kissing
relics and miraculous ikons, are further means of salvation for the
soul.

According to this faith ikons and relics communicate a special
sanctity, power, and grace, and even proximity to these objects,
touching them, kissing them, putting candles before them, crawling
under them while they are being carried along, are all efficacious
for salvation, as well as Te Deums repeated before these holy things.

So this, and nothing else, is the faith called Orthodox, that is
the actual faith which, under the guise of Christianity, has been
with all the forces of the Church, and is now with especial zeal,
instilled into the people.

And let no one say that the Orthodox teachers place the essential
part of their teaching in something else, and that all these are
only ancient forms, which it is not thought necessary to do away
with. That is false. This, and nothing but this, is the faith taught
through the whole of Russia by the whole of the Russian clergy, and
of late years with especial zeal. There is nothing else taught.
Something different may be talked of and written of in the capitals;
but among the hundred millions of the people this is what is done,
this is what is taught, and nothing more. Churchmen may talk of
something else, but this is what they teach by every means in their
power.

All this, and the worship of relics and of ikons, has been introduced
into works of theology and into the catechisms. Thus they teach it
to the people in theory and in practice, using every resource of
authority, solemnity, pomp, and violence to impress them. They compel
the people, by overawing them, to believe in this, and jealously
guard this faith from any attempt to free the people from these
barbarous superstitions.

As I said when I published my book, Christ's teaching and his very
words about non-resistance to evil were for many years a subject
for ridicule and low jesting in my eyes, and Churchmen, far from
opposing it, even encouraged this scoffing at sacred things. But try
the experiment of saying a disrespectful word about a hideous idol
which is carried sacrilegiously about Moscow by drunken men under the
name of the ikon of the Iversky virgin, and you will raise a groan
of indignation from these same Churchmen. All that they preach is an
external observance of the rites of idolatry. And let it not be said
that the one does not hinder the other, that "These ought ye to have
done, and not to leave the other undone." "All, therefore, whatsoever
they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their
works: for they say, and do not" (Matt. xxiii. 23, 3).

This was spoken of the Pharisees, who fulfilled all the external
observances prescribed by the law, and therefore the words
"whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do," refer to
works of mercy and goodness, and the words "do not ye after their
works, for they say and do not," refer to their observance of
ceremonies and their neglect of good works, and have exactly the
opposite meaning to that which the Churchmen try to give to the
passage, interpreting it as an injunction to observe ceremonies.
External observances and the service of truth and goodness are for
the most part difficult to combine; the one excludes the other. So it
was with the Pharisees, so it is now with Church Christians.

If a man can be saved by the redemption, by sacraments, and by
prayer, then he does not need good works.

The Sermon on the Mount, or the Creed. One cannot believe in both.
And Churchmen have chosen the latter. The Creed is taught and is
read as a prayer in the churches, but the Sermon on the Mount is
excluded even from the Gospel passages read in the churches, so that
the congregation never hears it in church, except on those days when
the whole of the Gospel is read. Indeed, it could not be otherwise.
People who believe in a wicked and senseless God--who has cursed
the human race and devoted his own Son to sacrifice, and a part of
mankind to eternal torment--cannot believe in the God of love. The
man who believes in a God, in a Christ coming again in glory to judge
and to punish the quick and the dead, cannot believe in the Christ
who bade us turn the left cheek, judge not, forgive those that wrong
us, and love our enemies. The man who believes in the inspiration of
the Old Testament and the sacred character of David, who commanded
on his deathbed the murder of an old man who had cursed him, and
whom he could not kill himself because he was bound by an oath to
him, and the similar atrocities of which the Old Testament is full,
cannot believe in the holy love of Christ. The man who believes in
the Church's doctrine of the compatibility of warfare and capital
punishment with Christianity cannot believe in the brotherhood of all
men.

And what is most important of all--the man who believes in salvation
through faith in the redemption or the sacraments, cannot devote all
his powers to realizing Christ's moral teaching in his life.

The man who has been instructed by the Church in the profane doctrine
that a man cannot be saved by his own powers, but that there is
another means of salvation, will infallibly rely upon this means and
not on his own powers, which, they assure him, it is sinful to trust
in.

The teaching of every Church, with its redemption and sacraments,
excludes the teaching of Christ; most of all the teaching of the
Orthodox Church with its idolatrous observances.

"But the people have always believed of their own accord as they
believe now," will be said in answer to this. "The whole history
of the Russian people proves it. One cannot deprive the people of
their traditions." This statement, too, is misleading. The people
did certainly at one time believe in something like what the Church
believes in now, though it was far from being the same thing. In
spite of their superstitious regard for ikons, house-spirits, relics,
and festivals with wreaths of birch leaves, there has still always
been in the people a profound moral and living understanding of
Christianity, which there has never been in the Church as a whole,
and which is only met with in its best representatives. But the
people, notwithstanding all the prejudices instilled into them by the
government and the Church, have in their best representatives long
outgrown that crude stage of understanding, a fact which is proved
by the springing up everywhere of the rationalist sects with which
Russia is swarming to-day, and on which Churchmen are now carrying on
an ineffectual warfare. The people are advancing to a consciousness
of the moral, living side of Christianity. And then the Church comes
forward, not borrowing from the people, but zealously instilling into
them the petrified formalities of an extinct paganism, and striving
to thrust them back again into the darkness from which they are
emerging with such effort.

"We teach the people nothing new, nothing but what they believe, only
in a more perfect form," say the Churchmen. This is just what the man
did who tied up the full-grown chicken and thrust it back into the
shell it had come out of.

I have often been irritated, though it would be comic if the
consequences were not so awful, by observing how men shut one another
in a delusion and cannot get out of this magic circle.

The first question, the first doubt of a Russian who is beginning to
think, is a question about the ikons, and still more the miraculous
relics: Is it true that they are genuine, and that miracles are
worked through them? Hundreds of thousands of men put this question
to themselves, and their principal difficulty in answering it is
the fact that bishops, metropolitans, and all men in positions of
authority kiss the relics and wonder-working ikons. Ask the bishops
and men in positions of authority why they do so, and they will say
they do it for the sake of the people, while the people kiss them
because the bishops and men in authority do so.

In spite of all the external varnish of modernity, learning, and
spirituality which the members of the Church begin nowadays to assume
in their works, their articles, their theological journals, and their
sermons, the practical work of the Russian Church consists of nothing
more than keeping the people in their present condition of coarse
and savage idolatry, and worse still, strengthening and diffusing
superstition and religious ignorance, and suppressing that living
understanding of Christianity which exists in the people side by side
with idolatry.

I remember once being present in the monks' bookshop of the Optchy
Hermitage while an old peasant was choosing books for his grandson,
who could read. A monk pressed on him accounts of relics, holidays,
miraculous ikons, a psalter, etc. I asked the old man, "Has he the
Gospel?" "No." "Give him the Gospel in Russian," I said to the monk.
"That will not do for him," answered the monk. There you have an
epitome of the work of our Church.

But this is only in barbarous Russia, the European and American
reader will observe. And such an observation is just, but only so far
as it refers to the government, which aids the Church in its task of
stultification and corruption in Russia.

It is true that there is nowhere in Europe a government so despotic
and so closely allied with the ruling Church. And therefore the share
of the temporal power in the corruption of the people is greatest in
Russia. But it is untrue that the Russian Church in its influence on
the people is in any respect different from any other church.

The churches are everywhere the same, and if the Catholic, the
Anglican, or the Lutheran Church has not at hand a government as
compliant as the Russian, it is not due to any indisposition to
profit by such a government.

The Church as a church, whatever it may be--Catholic, Anglican,
Lutheran, Presbyterian--every church, in so far as it is a church,
cannot but strive for the same object as the Russian Church. That
object is to conceal the real meaning of Christ's teaching and to
replace it by their own, which lays no obligation on them, excludes
the possibility of understanding the true teaching of Christ, and
what is the chief consideration, justifies the existence of priests
supported at the people's expense.

What else has Catholicism done, what else is it doing in its
prohibition of reading the Gospel, and in its demand for unreasoning
submission to Church authorities and to an infallible Pope? Is the
religion of Catholicism any other than that of the Russian Church?
There is the same external ritual, the same relics, miracles, and
wonder-working images of Notre Dame, and the same processions; the
same loftily vague discussions of Christianity in books and sermons,
and when it comes to practice, the same supporting of the present
idolatry. And is not the same thing done in Anglicanism, Lutheranism,
and every denomination of Protestantism which has been formed into a
church? There is the same duty laid on their congregations to believe
in the dogmas expressed in the fourth century, which have lost
all meaning for men of our times, and the same duty of idolatrous
worship, if not of relics and ikons, then of the Sabbath Day and the
letter of the Bible. There is always the same activity directed to
concealing the real duties of Christianity, and to putting in their
place an external respectability and cant, as it is so well described
by the English, who are peculiarly oppressed by it. In Protestantism
this tendency is specially remarkable because it has not the excuse
of antiquity. And does not exactly the same thing show itself even
in contemporary revivalism--the revived Calvinism and Evangelicalism,
to which the Salvation Army owes its origin?

Uniform is the attitude of all the churches to the teaching of
Christ, whose name they assume for their own advantage.

The inconsistency of all church forms of religion with the teaching
of Christ is, of course, the reason why special efforts are
necessary to conceal this inconsistency from people. Truly, we need
only imagine ourselves in the position of any grown-up man, not
necessarily educated, even the simplest man of the present day, who
has picked up the ideas that are everywhere in the air nowadays
of geology, physics, chemistry, cosmography, or history, when he,
for the first time, consciously compares them with the articles
of belief instilled into him in childhood, and maintained by the
churches--that God created the world in six days, and light before
the sun; that Noah shut up all the animals in his ark, and so on;
that Jesus is also God the Son, who created all before time was;
that this God came down upon earth to atone for Adam's sin; that he
rose again, ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of
the Father, and will come in the clouds to judge the world, and so
on. All these propositions, elaborated by men of the fourth century,
had a certain meaning for men of that time, but for men of to-day
they have no meaning whatever. Men of the present day can repeat
these words with their lips, but believe them they cannot. For such
sentences as that God lives in heaven, that the heavens opened and
a voice from somewhere said something, that Christ rose again, and
ascended somewhere in heaven, and again will come from somewhere on
the clouds, and so on, have no meaning for us.

A man who regarded the heavens as a solid, finite vault could believe
or disbelieve that God created the heavens, that the heavens opened,
that Christ ascended into heaven, but for us all these phrases have
no sense whatever. Men of the present can only believe, as indeed
they do, that they ought to believe in this; but believe it they
cannot, because it has no meaning for them.

Even if all these phrases ought to be interpreted in a figurative
sense and are allegories, we know that in the first place all
Churchmen are not agreed about it, but, on the contrary, the majority
stick to understanding the Holy Scripture in its literal sense; and
secondly, that these allegorical interpretations are very varied and
are not supported by any evidence.

But even if a man wants to force himself to believe in the doctrines
of the Church just as they are taught to him, the universal diffusion
of education and of the Gospel and of communication between people
of different forms of religion presents a still more insurmountable
obstacle to his doing so.

A man of the present day need only buy a Gospel for three copecks
and read through the plain words, admitting of no misinterpretation,
that Christ said to the Samaritan woman "that the Father seeketh
not worshipers at Jerusalem, nor in this mountain nor in that, but
worshipers in spirit and in truth," or the saying that "the Christian
must not pray like the heathen, nor for show, but secretly, that is,
in his closet," or that Christ's follower must call no man master or
father--he need only read these words to be thoroughly convinced that
the Church pastors, who call themselves teachers in opposition to
Christ's precept, and dispute among themselves, constitute no kind of
authority, and that what the Churchmen teach us is not Christianity.
Less even than that is necessary. Even if a man nowadays did continue
to believe in miracles and did not read the Gospel, mere association
with people of different forms of religion and faith, which happens
so easily in these days, compels him to doubt of the truth of his
own faith. It was all very well when a man did not see men of any
other form of religion than his own; he believed that his form of
religion was the one true one. But a thinking man has only to come
into contact--as constantly happens in these days--with people,
equally good and bad, of different denominations, who condemn each
other's beliefs, to doubt of the truth of the belief he professes
himself. In these days only a man who is absolutely ignorant or
absolutely indifferent to the vital questions with which religion
deals, can remain in the faith of the Church.

What deceptions and what strenuous efforts the churches must employ
to continue, in spite of all these tendencies subversive of the
faith, to build churches, to perform masses, to preach, to teach, to
convert, and, most of all, to receive for it all immense emoluments,
as do all these priests, pastors, incumbents, superintendents,
abbots, archdeacons, bishops, and archbishops. They need special
supernatural efforts. And the churches do, with ever-increasing
intensity and zeal, make such efforts. With us in Russia, besides
other means, they employ simple brute force, as there the temporal
power is willing to obey the Church. Men who refuse an external
assent to the faith, and say so openly, are either directly punished
or deprived of their rights; men who strictly keep the external forms
of religion are rewarded and given privileges.

That is how the Orthodox clergy proceed; but indeed all churches
without exception avail themselves of every means for the
purpose--one of the most important of which is what is now called
hypnotism.

Every art, from architecture to poetry, is brought into requisition
to work its effect on men's souls and to reduce them to a state of
stupefaction, and this effect is constantly produced. This use of
hypnotizing influence on men to bring them to a state of stupefaction
is especially apparent in the proceedings of the Salvation Army,
who employ new practices to which we are unaccustomed: trumpets,
drums, songs, flags, costumes, marching, dancing, tears, and dramatic
performances.

But this only displeases us because these are new practices. Were
not the old practices in churches essentially the same, with their
special lighting, gold, splendor, candles, choirs, organ, bells,
vestments, intoning, etc.?

But however powerful this hypnotic influence may be, it is not the
chief nor the most pernicious activity of the Church. The chief and
most pernicious work of the Church is that which is directed to the
deception of children--these very children of whom Christ said: "Woe
to him that offendeth one of these little ones." From the very first
awakening of the consciousness of the child they begin to deceive
him, to instill into him with the utmost solemnity what they do not
themselves believe in, and they continue to instill it into him
till the deception has by habit grown into the child's nature. They
studiously deceive the child on the most important subject in life,
and when the deception has so grown into his life that it would be
difficult to uproot it, then they reveal to him the whole world of
science and reality, which cannot by any means be reconciled with the
beliefs that have been instilled into him, leaving it to him to find
his way as best he can out of these contradictions.

If one set oneself the task of trying to confuse a man so that he
could not think clearly nor free himself from the perplexity of two
opposing theories of life which had been instilled into him from
childhood, one could not invent any means more effectual than the
treatment of every young man educated in our so-called Christian
society.

It is terrible to think what the churches do to men. But if one
imagines oneself in the position of the men who constitute the
Church, we see they could not act differently. The churches are
placed in a dilemma: the Sermon on the Mount or the Nicene Creed--the
one excludes the other. If a man sincerely believes in the Sermon
on the Mount, the Nicene Creed must inevitably lose all meaning and
significance for him, and the Church and its representatives together
with it. If a man believes in the Nicene Creed, that is, in the
Church, that is, in those who call themselves its representatives,
the Sermon on the Mount becomes superfluous for him. And therefore
the churches cannot but make every possible effort to obscure the
meaning of the Sermon on the Mount, and to attract men to themselves.
It is only due to the intense zeal of the churches in this direction
that the influence of the churches has lasted hitherto.

Let the Church stop its work of hypnotizing the masses, and deceiving
children even for the briefest interval of time, and men would begin
to understand Christ's teaching. But this understanding will be
the end of the churches and all their influence. And therefore the
churches will not for an instant relax their zeal in the business
of hypnotizing grown-up people and deceiving children. This, then,
is the work of the churches: to instill a false interpretation of
Christ's teaching into men, and to prevent a true interpretation of
it for the majority of so-called believers.

CHAPTER IV.

CHRISTIANITY MISUNDERSTOOD BY MEN OF SCIENCE.

Attitude of Men of Science to Religions in General--What
Religion is, and What is its Significance for the Life of
Humanity--Three Conceptions of Life--Christian Religion the
Expression of the Divine Conception of Life--Misinterpretation
of Christianity by Men of Science, who Study it in its
External Manifestations Due to their Criticising it from
Standpoint of Social Conception of Life--Opinion, Resulting
from this Misinterpretation, that Christ's Moral Teaching is
Exaggerated and Cannot be put into Practice--Expression of
Divine Conception of Life in the Gospel--False Ideas of Men
of Science on Christianity Proceed from their Conviction that
they have an Infallible Method of Criticism--From which come
Two Misconceptions in Regard to Christian Doctrine--First
Misconception, that the Teaching Cannot be put into Practice,
Due to the Christian Religion Directing Life in a Way Different
from that of the Social Theory of Life--Christianity holds up
Ideal, does not lay down Rules--To the Animal Force of Man
Christ Adds the Consciousness of a Divine Force--Christianity
Seems to Destroy Possibility of Life only when the Ideal held
up is Mistaken for Rule--Ideal Must Not be Lowered--Life,
According to Christ's Teaching, is Movement--The Ideal and
the Precepts--Second Misconception Shown in Replacing Love
and Service of God by Love and Service of Humanity--Men of
Science Imagine their Doctrine of Service of Humanity and
Christianity are Identical--Doctrine of Service of Humanity
Based on Social Conception of Life--Love for Humanity, Logically
Deduced from Love of Self, has No Meaning because Humanity is
a Fiction--Christian Love Deduced from Love of God, Finds its
Object in the whole World, not in Humanity Alone--Christianity
Teaches Man to Live in Accordance with his Divine Nature--It
Shows that the Essence of the Soul of Man is Love, and that his
Happiness Ensues from Love of God, whom he Recognizes as Love
within himself.

Now I will speak of the other view of Christianity which hinders the
true understanding of it--the scientific view.

Churchmen substitute for Christianity the version they have framed of
it for themselves, and this view of Christianity they regard as the
one infallibly true one.

Men of science regard as Christianity only the tenets held by the
different churches in the past and present; and finding that these
tenets have lost all the significance of Christianity, they accept it
as a religion which has outlived its age.

To see clearly how impossible it is to understand the Christian
teaching from such a point of view, one must form for oneself an
idea of the place actually held by religions in general, by the
Christian religion in particular, in the life of mankind, and of the
significance attributed to them by science.

Just as the individual man cannot live without having some
theory of the meaning of his life, and is always, though often
unconsciously, framing his conduct in accordance with the meaning
he attributes to his life, so too associations of men living in
similar conditions--nations--cannot but have theories of the meaning
of their associated life and conduct ensuing from those theories.
And as the individual man, when he attains a fresh stage of growth,
inevitably changes his philosophy of life, and the grown-up man
sees a different meaning in it from the child, so too associations
of men--nations--are bound to change their philosophy of life and
the conduct ensuing from their philosophy, to correspond with their
development.

The difference, as regards this, between the individual man and
humanity as a whole, lies in the fact that the individual, in
forming the view of life proper to the new period of life on which
he is entering and the conduct resulting from it, benefits by the
experience of men who have lived before him, who have already passed
through the stage of growth upon which he is entering. But humanity
cannot have this aid, because it is always moving along a hitherto
untrodden track, and has no one to ask how to understand life, and to
act in the conditions on which it is entering and through which no
one has ever passed before.

Nevertheless, just as a man with wife and children cannot continue
to look at life as he looked at it when he was a child, so too in
the face of the various changes that are taking place, the greater
density of population, the establishment of communication between
different peoples, the improvements of the methods of the struggle
with nature, and the accumulation of knowledge, humanity cannot
continue to look at life as of old, and it must frame a new theory of
life, from which conduct may follow adapted to the new conditions on
which it has entered and is entering.

To meet this need humanity has the special power of producing men
who give a new meaning to the whole of human life--a theory of life
from which follow new forms of activity quite different from all
preceding them. The formation of this philosophy of life appropriate
to humanity in the new conditions on which it is entering, and of the
practice resulting from it, is what is called religion.

And therefore, in the first place, religion is not, as science
imagines, a manifestation which at one time corresponded with the
development of humanity, but is afterward outgrown by it. It is a
manifestation always inherent in the life of humanity, and is as
indispensable, as inherent in humanity at the present time as at
any other. Secondly, religion is always the theory of the practice
of the future and not of the past, and therefore it is clear that
investigation of past manifestations cannot in any case grasp the
essence of religion.

The essence of every religious teaching lies not in the desire for
a symbolic expression of the forces of nature, nor in the dread
of these forces, nor in the craving for the marvelous, nor in the
external forms in which it is manifested, as men of science imagine;
the essence of religion lies in the faculty of men of foreseeing and
pointing out the path of life along which humanity must move in the
discovery of a new theory of life, as a result of which the whole
future conduct of humanity is changed and different from all that has
been before.

This faculty of foreseeing the path along which humanity must move,
is common in a greater or less degree to all men. But in all times
there have been men in whom this faculty was especially strong, and
these men have given clear and definite expression to what all men
felt vaguely, and formed a new philosophy of life from which new
lines of action followed for hundreds and thousands of years.

Of such philosophies of life we know three; two have already been
passed through by humanity, and the third is that we are passing
through now in Christianity. These philosophies of life are three
in number, and only three, not because we have arbitrarily brought
the various theories of life together under these three heads, but
because all men's actions are always based on one of these three
views of life--because we cannot view life otherwise than in these
three ways.

These three views of life are as follows: First, embracing the
individual, or the animal view of life; second, embracing the
society, or the pagan view of life; third, embracing the whole world,
or the divine view of life.

In the first theory of life a man's life is limited to his one
individuality; the aim of life is the satisfaction of the will of
this individuality. In the second theory of life a man's life is
limited not to his own individuality, but to certain societies and
classes of individuals: to the tribe, the family, the clan, the
nation; the aim of life is limited to the satisfaction of the will
of those associations of individuals. In the third theory of life a
man's life is limited not to societies and classes of individuals,
but extends to the principle and source of life--to God.

These three conceptions of life form the foundation of all the
religions that exist or have existed.

The savage recognizes life only in himself and his personal desires.
His interest in life is concentrated on himself alone. The highest
happiness for him is the fullest satisfaction of his desires. The
motive power of his life is personal enjoyment. His religion consists
in propitiating his deity and in worshiping his gods, whom he
imagines as persons living only for their personal aims.

The civilized pagan recognizes life not in himself alone, but
in societies of men--in the tribe, the clan, the family, the
kingdom--and sacrifices his personal good for these societies. The
motive power of his life is glory. His religion consists in the
exaltation of the glory of those who are allied to him--the founders
of his family, his ancestors, his rulers--and in worshiping gods who
are exclusively protectors of his clan, his family, his nation, his
government.[8]

[8] The fact that so many varied forms of existence, as the life of
the family, of the tribe, of the clan, of the state, and even the
life of humanity theoretically conceived by the Positivists, are
founded on this social or pagan theory of life, does not destroy the
unity of this theory of life. All these varied forms of life are
founded on the same conception, that the life of the individual is
not a sufficient aim of life--that the meaning of life can be found
only in societies of individuals.

The man who holds the divine theory of life recognizes life not in
his own individuality, and not in societies of individualities (in
the family, the clan, the nation, the tribe, or the government),
but in the eternal undying source of life--in God; and to fulfill
the will of God he is ready to sacrifice his individual and family
and social welfare. The motor power of his life is love. And his
religion is the worship in deed and in truth of the principle of the
whole--God.

The whole historic existence of mankind is nothing else than the
gradual transition from the personal, animal conception of life
to the social conception of life, and from the social conception
of life to the divine conception of life. The whole history of the
ancient peoples, lasting through thousands of years and ending with
the history of Rome, is the history of the transition from the
animal, personal view of life to the social view of life. The whole
of history from the time of the Roman Empire and the appearance of
Christianity is the history of the transition, through which we are
still passing now, from the social view of life to the divine view of
life.

This view of life is the last, and founded upon it is the Christian
teaching, which is a guide for the whole of our life and lies at the
root of all our activity, practical and theoretic. Yet men of what is
falsely called science, pseudo-scientific men, looking at it only in
its externals, regard it as something outgrown and having no value
for us.

Reducing it to its dogmatic side only--to the doctrines of the
Trinity, the redemption, the miracles, the Church, the sacraments,
and so on--men of science regard it as only one of an immense number
of religions which have arisen among mankind, and now, they say,
having played out its part in history, it is outliving its own age
and fading away before the light of science and of true enlightenment.

We come here upon what, in a large proportion of cases, forms the
source of the grossest errors of mankind. Men on a lower level of
understanding, when brought into contact with phenomena of a higher
order, instead of making efforts to understand them, to raise
themselves up to the point of view from which they must look at the
subject, judge it from their lower standpoint, and the less they
understand what they are talking about, the more confidently and
unhesitatingly they pass judgment on it.

To the majority of learned men, looking at the living, moral teaching
of Christ from the lower standpoint of the state conception of
life, this doctrine appears as nothing but a very indefinite and
incongruous combination of Indian asceticism, Stoic and Neoplatonic
philosophy, and insubstantial anti-social visions, which have
no serious significance for our times. Its whole meaning is
concentrated for them in its external manifestations--in Catholicism,
Protestantism, in certain dogmas, or in the conflict with the
temporal power. Estimating the value of Christianity by these
phenomena is like a deaf man's judging of the character and quality
of music by seeing the movements of the musicians.

The result of this is that all these scientific men, from Kant,
Strauss, Spencer, and Renan down, do not understand the meaning of
Christ's sayings, do not understand the significance, the object, or
the reason of their utterance, do not understand even the question
to which they form the answer. Yet, without even taking the pains
to enter into their meaning, they refuse, if unfavorably disposed,
to recognize any reasonableness in his doctrines; or if they want
to treat them indulgently, they condescend, from the height of
their superiority, to correct them, on the supposition that Christ
meant to express precisely their own ideas, but did not succeed in
doing so. They behave to his teaching much as self-assertive people
talk to those whom they consider beneath them, often supplying
their companions' words: "Yes, you mean to say this and that." This
correction is always with the aim of reducing the teaching of the
higher, divine conception of life to the level of the lower, state
conception of life.

They usually say that the moral teaching of Christianity is very
fine, but overexaggerated; that to make it quite right we must reject
all in it that is superfluous and unnecessary to our manner of life.
"And the doctrine that asks too much, and requires what cannot be
performed, is worse than that which requires of men what is possible
and consistent with their powers," these learned interpreters of
Christianity maintain, repeating what was long ago asserted, and
could not but be asserted, by those who crucified the Teacher because
they did not understand him--the Jews.

It seems that in the judgment of the learned men of our time the
Hebrew law--a tooth for a tooth, and an eye for an eye--is a law of
just retaliation, known to mankind five thousand years before the law
of holiness which Christ taught in its place.

It seems that all that has been done by those men who understood
Christ's teaching literally and lived in accordance with such an
understanding of it, all that has been said and done by all true
Christians, by all the Christian saints, all that is now reforming
the world in the shape of socialism and communism--is simply
exaggeration, not worth talking about.

After eighteen hundred years of education in Christianity the
civilized world, as represented by its most advanced thinkers,
holds the conviction that the Christian religion is a religion of
dogmas; that its teaching in relation to life is unreasonable, and
is an exaggeration, subversive of the real lawful obligations of
morality consistent with the nature of man; and that very doctrine of
retribution which Christ rejected, and in place of which he put his
teaching, is more practically useful for us.

To learned men the doctrine of non-resistance to evil by force
is exaggerated and even irrational. Christianity is much better
without it, they think, not observing closely what Christianity, as
represented by them, amounts to.

They do not see that to say that the doctrine of non-resistance to
evil is an exaggeration in Christ's teaching is just like saying
that the statement of the equality of the radii of a circle is an
exaggeration in the definition of a circle. And those who speak
thus are acting precisely like a man who, having no idea of what a
circle is, should declare that this requirement, that every point
of the circumference should be an equal distance from the center,
is exaggerated. To advocate the rejection of Christ's command of
non-resistance to evil, or its adaptation to the needs of life,
implies a misunderstanding of the teaching of Christ.

And those who do so certainly do not understand it. They do not
understand that this teaching is the institution of a new theory
of life, corresponding to the new conditions on which men have
entered now for eighteen hundred years, and also the definition
of the new conduct of life which results from it. They do not
believe that Christ meant to say what he said; or he seems to them
to have said what he said in the Sermon on the Mount and in other
places accidentally, or through his lack of intelligence or of
cultivation.[9]

[9] Here, for example, is a characteristic view of that kind from the
American journal the _Arena_ (October, 1890): "New Basis of Church
Life." Treating of the significance of the Sermon on the Mount and
non-resistance to evil in particular, the author, being under no
necessity, like the Churchmen, to hide its significance, says:

"Christ in fact preached complete communism and anarchy; but one must
learn to regard Christ always in his historical and psychological
significance. Like every advocate of the love of humanity, Christ
went to the furthest extreme in his teaching. Every step forward
toward the moral perfection of humanity is always guided by men who
see nothing but their vocation. Christ, in no disparaging sense be it
said, had the typical temperament of such a reformer. And therefore
we must remember that his precepts cannot be understood literally as
a complete philosophy of life. We ought to analyze his words with
respect for them, but in the spirit of criticism, accepting what is
true," etc.

Christ would have been happy to say what he ought, but he was not
able to express himself as exactly and clearly as we can in the
spirit of criticism, and therefore let us correct him. All that he
said about meekness, sacrifice, lowliness, not caring for the morrow,
was said by accident, through lack of knowing how to express himself
scientifically.

Matt. vi. 25-34: "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? 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? Which of you
by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature? And why take
ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field how they
grow; they toil not, neither do they spin; and yet I say unto you,
That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.
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? Therefore take no thought, saying, What
shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Where-withal shall we
be clothed? (For after all these things do the Gentiles seek), for
your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things.
But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness, and
all these things shall be added unto you. 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: "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. For where your
treasure is, there will your heart be also." Sell all thou hast and
follow me; and he who will not leave father, or mother, or children,
or brothers, or fields, or house, he cannot be my disciple. Deny
thyself, take up thy cross each day and follow me. My meat is to do
the will of him that sent me, and to perform his works. Not my will,
but thine be done; not what I will, but as thou wilt. Life is to do
not one's will, but the will of God.

All these principles appear to men who regard them from the
standpoint of a lower conception of life as the expression of an
impulsive enthusiasm, having no direct application to life. These
principles, however, follow from the Christian theory of life, just
as logically as the principles of paying a part of one's private
gains to the commonwealth and of sacrificing one's life in defense of
one's country follow from the state theory of life.

As the man of the state conception of life said to the savage:
Reflect, bethink yourself! The life of your individuality cannot be
true life, because that life is pitiful and passing. But the life
of a society and succession of individuals, family, clan, tribe, or
state, goes on living, and therefore a man must sacrifice his own
individuality for the life of the family or the state. In exactly
the same way the Christian doctrine says to the man of the social,
state conception of life, Repent ye--μετανοσετε--_i. e._,
bethink yourself, or you will be ruined. Understand that this casual,
personal life which now comes into being and to-morrow is no more can
have no permanence, that no external means, no construction of it can
give it consecutiveness and permanence. Take thought and understand
that the life you are living is not real life--the life of the
family, of society, of the state will not save you from annihilation.
The true, the rational life is only possible for man according to the
measure in which he can participate, not in the family or the state,
but in the source of life--the Father; according to the measure
in which he can merge his life in the life of the Father. Such is
undoubtedly the Christian conception of life, visible in every
utterance of the Gospel.

One may not share this view of life, one may reject it, one may show
its inaccuracy and its erroneousness, but we cannot judge of the
Christian teaching without mastering this view of life. Still less
can one criticise a subject on a higher plane from a lower point of
view. From the basement one cannot judge of the effect of the spire.
But this is just what the learned critics of the day try to do. For
they share the erroneous idea of the orthodox believers that they
are in possession of certain infallible means for investigating a
subject. They fancy if they apply their so-called scientific methods
of criticism, there can be no doubt of their conclusion being correct.

This testing the subject by the fancied infallible method of science
is the principal obstacle to understanding the Christian religion for
unbelievers, for so-called educated people. From this follow all the
mistakes made by scientific men about the Christian religion, and
especially two strange misconceptions which, more than everything
else, hinder them from a correct understanding of it. One of these
misconceptions is that the Christian moral teaching cannot be carried
out, and that therefore it has either no force at all--that is,
it should not be accepted as the rule of conduct--or it must be
transformed, adapted to the limits within which its fulfillment is
possible in our society. Another misconception is that the Christian
doctrine of love of God, and therefore of his service, is an obscure,
mystic principle, which gives no definite object for love, and should
therefore be replaced by the more exact and comprehensible principles
of love for men and the service of humanity.

The first misconception in regard to the impossibility of following
the principle is the result of men of the state conception of life
unconsciously taking that conception as the standard by which the
Christian religion directs men, and taking the Christian principle
of perfection as the rule by which that life is to be ordered; they
think and say that to follow Christ's teaching is impossible, because
the complete fulfilment of all that is required by this teaching
would put an end to life. "If a man were to carry out all that Christ
teaches, he would destroy his own life; and if all men carried it
out, then the human race would come to an end," they say.

"If we take no thought for the morrow, what we shall eat and what we
shall drink, and wherewithal we shall be clothed, do not defend our
life, nor resist evil by force, lay down our life for others, and
observe perfect chastity, the human race cannot exist," they say.

And they are perfectly right if they take the principle of perfection
given by Christ's teaching as a rule which everyone is bound to
fulfill, just as in the state principles of life everyone is bound to
carry out the rule of paying taxes, supporting the law, and so on.

The misconception is based precisely on the fact that the teaching
of Christ guides men differently from the way in which the precepts
founded on the lower conception of life guide men. The precepts of
the state conception of life only guide men by requiring of them an
exact fulfillment of rules or laws. Christ's teaching guides men by
pointing them to the infinite perfection of their heavenly Father, to
which every man independently and voluntarily struggles, whatever the
degree of his imperfection in the present.

The misunderstanding of men who judge of the Christian principle from
the point of view of the state principle, consists in the fact that
on the supposition that the perfection which Christ points to, can
be fully attained, they ask themselves (just as they ask the same
question on the supposition that state laws will be carried out) what
will be the result of all this being carried out? This supposition
cannot be made, because the perfection held up to Christians is
infinite and can never be attained; and Christ lays down his
principle, having in view the fact that absolute perfection can never
be attained, but that striving toward absolute, infinite perfection
will continually increase the blessedness of men, and that this
blessedness may be increased to infinity thereby.

Christ is teaching not angels, but men, living and moving in
the animal life. And so to this animal force of movement Christ,
as it were, applies the new force--the recognition of Divine
perfection--and thereby directs the movement by the resultant of
these two forces.

To suppose that human life is going in the direction to which Christ
pointed it, is just like supposing that a little boat afloat on a
rapid river, and directing its course almost exactly against the
current, will progress in that direction.

Christ recognizes the existence of both sides of the parallelogram,
of both eternal indestructible forces of which the life of man is
compounded: the force of his animal nature and the force of the
consciousness of kinship to God. Saying nothing of the animal force
which asserts itself, remains always the same, and is therefore
independent of human will, Christ speaks only of the Divine force,
calling upon a man to know it more closely, to set it more free from
all that retards it, and to carry it to a higher degree of intensity.

In the process of liberating, of strengthening this force, the true
life of man, according to Christ's teaching, consists. The true life,
according to preceding religions, consists in carrying out rules, the
law; according to Christ's teaching it consists in an ever closer
approximation to the divine perfection held up before every man, and
recognized within himself by every man, in an ever closer and closer
approach to the perfect fusion of his will in the will of God, that
fusion toward which man strives, and the attainment of which would be
the destruction of the life we know.

The divine perfection is the asymptote of human life to which it
is always striving, and always approaching, though it can only be
reached in infinity.

The Christian religion seems to exclude the possibility of life only
when men mistake the pointing to an ideal as the laying down of a
rule. It is only then that the principles presented in Christ's
teaching appear to be destructive of life. These principles, on the
contrary, are the only ones that make true life possible. Without
these principles true life could not be possible.

"One ought not to expect so much," is what people usually say in
discussing the requirements of the Christian religion. "One cannot
expect to take absolutely no thought for the morrow, as is said in
the Gospel, but only not to take too much thought for it; one cannot
give away all to the poor, but one must give away a certain definite
part; one need not aim at virginity, but one must avoid debauchery;
one need not forsake wife and children, but one must not give too
great a place to them in one's heart," and so on.

But to speak like this is just like telling a man who is struggling
on a swift river and is directing his course against the current,
that it is impossible to cross the river rowing against the current,
and that to cross it he must float in the direction of the point he
wants to reach.

In reality, in order to reach the place to which he wants to go, he
must row with all his strength toward a point much higher up.

To let go the requirements of the ideal means not only to diminish
the possibility of perfection, but to make an end of the ideal
itself. The ideal that has power over men is not an ideal invented by
someone, but the ideal that every man carries within his soul. Only
this ideal of complete infinite perfection has power over men, and
stimulates them to action. A moderate perfection loses its power of
influencing men's hearts.

Christ's teaching only has power when it demands absolute
perfection--that is, the fusion of the divine nature which exists in
every man's soul with the will of God--the union of the Son with the
Father. Life according to Christ's teaching consists of nothing but
this setting free of the Son of God, existing in every man, from the
animal, and in bringing him closer to the Father.

The animal existence of a man does not constitute human life alone.
Life, according to the will of God only, is also not human life.
Human life is a combination of the animal life and the divine life.
And the more this combination approaches to the divine life, the more
life there is in it.

Life, according to the Christian religion, is a progress toward the
divine perfection. No one condition, according to this doctrine, can
be higher or lower than another. Every condition, according to this
doctrine, is only a particular stage, of no consequence in itself,
on the way toward unattainable perfection, and therefore in itself
it does not imply a greater or lesser degree of life. Increase of
life, according to this, consists in nothing but the quickening of
the progress toward perfection. And therefore the progress toward
perfection of the publican Zaccheus, of the woman that was a sinner,
and of the robber on the cross, implies a higher degree of life than
the stagnant righteousness of the Pharisee. And therefore for this
religion there cannot be rules which it is obligatory to obey. The
man who is at a lower level but is moving onward toward perfection
is living a more moral, a better life, is more fully carrying out
Christ's teaching, than the man on a much higher level of morality
who is not moving onward toward perfection.

It is in this sense that the lost sheep is dearer to the Father than
those that were not lost. The prodigal son, the piece of money lost
and found again, were more precious than those that were not lost.

The fulfillment of Christ's teaching consists in moving away from
self toward God. It is obvious that there cannot be definite laws
and rules for this fulfillment of the teaching. Every degree of
perfection and every degree of imperfection are equal in it; no
obedience to laws constitutes a fulfillment of this doctrine, and
therefore for it there can be no binding rules and laws.

From this fundamental distinction between the religion of Christ
and all preceding religions based on the state conception of life,
follows a corresponding difference in the special precepts of
the state theory and the Christian precepts. The precepts of the
state theory of life insist for the most part on certain practical
prescribed acts, by which men are justified and secure of being
right. The Christian precepts (the commandment of love is not a
precept in the strict sense of the word, but the expression of the
very essence of the religion) are the five commandments of the Sermon
on the Mount--all negative in character. They show only what at a
certain stage of development of humanity men may not do.

These commandments are, as it were, signposts on the endless road to
perfection, toward which humanity is moving, showing the point of
perfection which is possible at a certain period in the development
of humanity.

Christ has given expression in the Sermon on the Mount to the eternal
ideal toward which men are spontaneously struggling, and also the
degree of attainment of it to which men may reach in our times.

The ideal is not to desire to do ill to anyone, not to provoke ill
will, to love all men. The precept, showing the level below which we
cannot fall in the attainment of this ideal, is the prohibition of
evil speaking. And that is the first command.

The ideal is perfect chastity, even in thought. The precept, showing
the level below which we cannot fall in the attainment of this ideal,
is that of purity of married life, avoidance of debauchery. That is
the second command.

The ideal is to take no thought for the future, to live in the
present moment. The precept, showing the level below which we cannot
fall, is the prohibition of swearing, of promising anything in the
future. And that is the third command.

The ideal is never for any purpose to use force. The precept, showing
the level below which we cannot fall is that of returning good for
evil, being patient under wrong, giving the cloak also. That is the
fourth command.

The ideal is to love the enemies who hate us. The precept, showing
the level below which we cannot fall, is not to do evil to our
enemies, to speak well of them, and to make no difference between
them and our neighbors.

All these precepts are indications of what, on our journey to
perfection, we are already fully able to avoid, and what we must
labor to attain now, and what we ought by degrees to translate into
instinctive and unconscious habits. But these precepts, far from
constituting the whole of Christ's teaching and exhausting it, are
simply stages on the way to perfection. These precepts must and
will be followed by higher and higher precepts on the way to the
perfection held up by the religion.

And therefore it is essentially a part of the Christian religion to
make demands higher than those expressed in its precepts; and by no
means to diminish the demands either of the ideal itself, or of the
precepts, as people imagine who judge it from the standpoint of the
social conception of life.

So much for one misunderstanding of the scientific men, in relation
to the import and aim of Christ's teaching. Another misunderstanding
arising from the same source consists in substituting love for men,
the service of humanity, for the Christian principles of love for God
and his service.

The Christian doctrine to love God and serve him, and only as a
result of that love to love and serve one's neighbor, seems to
scientific men obscure, mystic, and arbitrary. And they would
absolutely exclude the obligation of love and service of God, holding
that the doctrine of love for men, for humanity alone, is far more
clear, tangible, and reasonable.

Scientific men teach in theory that the only good and rational life
is that which is devoted to the service of the whole of humanity.
That is for them the import of the Christian doctrine, and to that
they reduce Christ's teaching. They seek confirmation of their own
doctrine in the Gospel, on the supposition that the two doctrines are
really the same.

This idea is an absolutely mistaken one. The Christian doctrine has
nothing in common with the doctrine of the Positivists, Communists,
and all the apostles of the universal brotherhood of mankind, based
on the general advantage of such a brotherhood. They differ from one
another especially in Christianity's having a firm and clear basis
in the human soul, while love for humanity is only a theoretical
deduction from analogy.

The doctrine of love for humanity alone is based on the social
conception of life.

The essence of the social conception of life consists in the
transference of the aim of the individual life to the life of
societies of individuals: family, clan, tribe, or state. This
transference is accomplished easily and naturally in its earliest
forms, in the transference of the aim of life from the individual to
the family and the clan. The transference to the tribe or the nation
is more difficult and requires special training. And the transference
of the sentiment to the state is the furthest limit which the process
can reach.

To love one's self is natural to everyone, and no one needs any
encouragement to do so. To love one's clan who support and protect
one, to love one's wife, the joy and help of one's existence, one's
children, the hope and consolation of one's life, and one's parents,
who have given one life and education, is natural. And such love,
though far from being so strong as love of self, is met with pretty
often.

To love--for one's own sake, through personal pride--one's tribe,
one's nation, though not so natural, is nevertheless common. Love
of one's own people who are of the same blood, the same tongue,
and the same religion as one's self is possible, though far from
being so strong as love of self, or even love of family or clan.
But love for a state, such as Turkey, Germany, England, Austria,
or Russia is a thing almost impossible. And though it is zealously
inculcated, it is only an imagined sentiment; it has no existence in
reality. And at that limit man's power of transferring his interest
ceases, and he cannot feel any direct sentiment for that fictitious
entity. The Positivists, however, and all the apostles of fraternity
on scientific principles, without taking into consideration the
weakening of sentiment in proportion to the extension of its object,
draw further deductions in theory in the same direction. "Since,"
they say, "it was for the advantage of the individual to extend his
personal interest to the family, the tribe, and subsequently to the
nation and the state, it would be still more advantageous to extend
his interest in societies of men to the whole of mankind, and so all
to live for humanity just as men live for the family or the state."

Theoretically it follows, indeed, having extended the love and
interest for the personality to the family, the tribe, and thence
to the nation and the state, it would be perfectly logical for men
to save themselves the strife and calamities which result from the
division of mankind into nations and states by extending their
love to the whole of humanity. This would be most logical, and
theoretically nothing would appear more natural to its advocates, who
do not observe that love is a sentiment which may or may not be felt,
but which it is useless to advocate; and moreover, that love must
have an object, and that humanity is not an object. It is nothing but
a fiction.

The family, the tribe, even the state were not invented by men, but
formed themselves spontaneously, like ant-hills or swarms of bees,
and have a real existence. The man who, for the sake of his own
animal personality, loves his family, knows whom he loves: Anna,
Dolly, John, Peter, and so on. The man who loves his tribe and
takes pride in it, knows that he loves all the Guelphs or all the
Ghibellines; the man who loves the state knows that he loves France
bounded by the Rhine, and the Pyrenees, and its principal city Paris,
and its history and so on. But the man who loves humanity--what does
he love? There is such a thing as a state, as a nation; there is the
abstract conception of man; but humanity as a concrete idea does not,
and cannot exist.

Humanity! Where is the definition of humanity? Where does it end and
where does it begin? Does humanity end with the savage, the idiot,
the dipsomaniac, or the madman? If we draw a line excluding from
humanity its lowest representatives, where are we to draw the line?
Shall we exclude the negroes like the Americans, or the Hindoos like
some Englishmen, or the Jews like some others? If we include all men
without exception, why should we not include also the higher animals,
many of whom are superior to the lowest specimens of the human race.

We know nothing of humanity as an eternal object, and we know
nothing of its limits. Humanity is a fiction, and it is impossible
to love it. It would, doubtless, be very advantageous if men could
love humanity just as they love their family. It would be very
advantageous, as Communists advocate, to replace the competitive,
individualistic organization of men's activity by a social universal
organisation, so that each would be for all and all for each.
Only there are no motives to lead men to do this. The Positivists,
the Communists, and all the apostles of fraternity on scientific
principles advocate the extension to the whole of humanity of the
love men feel for themselves, their families, and the state. They
forget that the love which they are discussing is a personal love,
which might expand in a rarefied form to embrace a man's native
country, but which disappears before it can embrace an artificial
state such as Austria, England, or Turkey, and which we cannot
even conceive of in relation to all humanity, an absolutely mystic
conception.

"A man loves himself (his animal personality), he loves his family,
he even loves his native country. Why should he not love humanity?
That would be such an excellent thing. And by the way, it is
precisely what is taught by Christianity." So think the advocates of
Positivist, Communistic, or Socialistic fraternity.

It would indeed be an excellent thing. But it can never be, for the
love that is based on a personal or social conception of life can
never rise beyond love for the state.

The fallacy of the argument lies in the fact that the social
conception of life, on which love for family and nation is founded,
rests itself on love of self, and that love grows weaker and weaker
as it is extended from self to family, tribe, nationality, and state;
and in the state we reach the furthest limit beyond which it cannot
go.

The necessity of extending the sphere of love is beyond dispute. But
in reality the possibility of this love is destroyed by the necessity
of extending its object indefinitely. And thus the insufficiency of
personal human love is made manifest.

And here the advocates of Positivist, Communistic, Socialistic
fraternity propose to draw upon Christian love to make up the default
of this bankrupt human love; but Christian love only in its results,
not in its foundations, They propose love for humanity alone, apart
from love for God.

But such a love cannot exist. There is no motive to produce it.
Christian love is the result only of the Christian conception of
life, in which the aim of life is to love and serve God.

The social conception of life has led men, by a natural transition
from love of self and then of family, tribe, nation, and state, to
a consciousness of the necessity of love for humanity, a conception
which has no definite limits and extends to all living things. And
this necessity for love of what awakens no kind of sentiment in a man
is a contradiction which cannot be solved by the social theory of
life.

The Christian doctrine in its full significance can alone solve
it, by giving a new meaning to life. Christianity recognizes love
of self, of family, of nation, and of humanity, and not only
of humanity, but of everything living, everything existing; it
recognizes the necessity of an infinite extension of the sphere
of love. But the object of this love is not found outside self in
societies of individuals, nor in the external world, but within self,
in the divine self whose essence is that very love, which the animal
self is brought to feel the need of through its consciousness of its
own perishable nature.

The difference between the Christian doctrine and those which
preceded it is that the social doctrine said: "Live in opposition
to your nature [understanding by this only the animal nature], make
it subject to the external law of family, society, and state."
Christianity says: "Live according to your nature [understanding by
this the divine nature]; do not make it subject to anything--neither
you (an animal self) nor that of others--and you will attain the very
aim to which you are striving when you subject your external self."

The Christian doctrine brings a man to the elementary consciousness
of self, only not of the animal self, but of the divine self, the
divine spark, the self as the Son of God, as much God as the Father
himself, though confined in an animal husk. The consciousness of
being the Son of God, whose chief characteristic is love, satisfies
the need for the extension of the sphere of love to which the man of
the social conception of life had been brought. For the latter, the
welfare of the personality demanded an ever-widening extension of
the sphere of love; love was a necessity and was confined to certain
objects--self, family, society. With the Christian conception of
life, love is not a necessity and is confined to no object; it is the
essential faculty of the human soul. Man loves not because it is his
interest to love this or that, but because love is the essence of his
soul, because he cannot but love.

The Christian doctrine shows man that the essence of his soul is
love--that his happiness depends not on loving this or that object,
but on loving the principle of the whole--God, whom he recognizes
within himself as love, and therefore he loves all things and all men.

In this is the fundamental difference between the Christian doctrine
and the doctrine of the Positivists, and all the theorizers about
universal brotherhood on non-christian principles.

Such are the two principal misunderstandings relating to the
Christian religion, from which the greater number of false reasonings
about it proceed. The first consists in the belief that Christ's
teaching instructs men, like all previous religions, by rules, which
they are bound to follow, and that these rules cannot be fulfilled.
The second is the idea that the whole purport of Christianity is to
teach men to live advantageously together, as one family, and that
to attain this we need only follow the rule of love to humanity,
dismissing all thought of love of God altogether.

The mistaken notion of scientific men that the essence of
Christianity consists in the supernatural, and that its moral
teaching is impracticable, constitutes another reason of the failure
of men of the present day to understand Christianity.

CHAPTER V.

CONTRADICTION BETWEEN OUR LIFE AND OUR CHRISTIAN CONSCIENCE.

Men Think they can Accept Christianity without Altering their
Life--Pagan Conception of Life does not Correspond with Present
Stage of Development of Humanity, and Christian Conception
Alone Can Accord with it--Christian Conception of Life not yet
Understood by Men, but the Progress of Life itself will Lead
them Inevitably to Adopt it--The Requirements of a New Theory of
Life Always Seem Incomprehensible, Mystic, and Supernatural--So
Seem the Requirements of the Christian Theory of Life to the
Majority of Men--The Absorption of the Christian Conception of
Life will Inevitably be Brought About as the Result of Material
and Spiritual Causes--The Fact of Men Knowing the Requirements
of the Higher View of Life, and yet Continuing to Preserve
Inferior Organizations of Life, Leads to Contradictions and
Sufferings which Embitter Existence and Must Result in its
Transformation--The Contradictions of our Life--The Economic
Contradiction and the Suffering Induced by it for Rich and
Poor Alike--The Political Contradiction and the Sufferings
Induced by Obedience to the Laws of the State--The International
Contradiction and the Recognition of it by Contemporaries:
Komarovsky, Ferri, Booth, Passy, Lawson, Wilson, Bartlett,
Defourney, Moneta--The Striking Character of the Military
Contradiction.

There are many reasons why Christ's teaching is not understood. One
reason is that people suppose they have understood it when they have
decided, as the Churchmen do, that it was revealed by supernatural
means, or when they have studied, as the scientific men do, the
external forms in which it has been manifested. Another reason
is the mistaken notion that it is impracticable, and ought to be
replaced by the doctrine of love for humanity. But the principal
reason, which is the source of all the other mistaken ideas about it,
is the notion that Christianity is a doctrine which can be accepted
or rejected without any change of life.

Men who are used to the existing order of things, who like it and
dread its being changed, try to take the doctrine as a collection of
revelations and rules which one can accept without their modifying
one's life. While Christ's teaching is not only a doctrine which
gives rules which a man must follow, it unfolds a new meaning in
life, and defines a whole world of human activity quite different
from all that has preceded it and appropriate to the period on which
man is entering.

The life of humanity changes and advances, like the life of the
individual, by stages, and every stage has a theory of life
appropriate to it, which is inevitably absorbed by men. Those who
do not absorb it consciously, absorb it unconsciously. It is the
same with the changes in the beliefs of peoples and of all humanity
as it is with the changes of belief of individuals. If the father
of a family continues to be guided in his conduct by his childish
conceptions of life, life becomes so difficult for him that he
involuntarily seeks another philosophy and readily absorbs that which
is appropriate to his age.

That is just what is happening now to humanity at this time of
transition through which we are passing, from the pagan conception
of life to the Christian. The socialized man of the present day
is brought by experience of life itself to the necessity of
abandoning the pagan conception of life, which is inappropriate to
the present stage of humanity, and of submitting to the obligation
of the Christian doctrines, the truths of which, however corrupt
and misinterpreted, are still known to him, and alone offer him a
solution of the contradictions surrounding him.

If the requirements of the Christian doctrine seem strange and even
alarming to the man of the social theory of life, no less strange,
incomprehensible, and alarming to the savage of ancient times seemed
the requirements of the social doctrine when it was not fully
understood and could not be foreseen in its results.

"It is unreasonable," said the savage, "to sacrifice my peace of mind
or my life in defense of something incomprehensible, impalpable, and
conventional--family, tribe, or nation; and above all it is unsafe to
put oneself at the disposal of the power of others."

But the time came when the savage, on one hand, felt, though vaguely,
the value of the social conception of life, and of its chief motor
power, social censure, or social approbation--glory, and when, on
the other hand, the difficulties of his personal life became so
great that he could not continue to believe in the value of his old
theory of life. Then he accepted the social, state theory of life and
submitted to it.

That is just what the man of the social theory of life is passing
through now.

"It is unreasonable," says the socialized man, "to sacrifice my
welfare and that of my family and my country in order to fulfill
some higher law, which requires me to renounce my most natural and
virtuous feelings of love of self, of family, of kindred, and of
country; and above all, it is unsafe to part with the security of
life afforded by the organization of government."

But the time is coming when, on one hand, the vague consciousness in
his soul of the higher law, of love to God and his neighbor, and,
on the other hand, the suffering, resulting from the contradictions
of life, will force the man to reject the social theory and to
assimilate the new one prepared ready for him, which solves all the
contradictions and removes all his sufferings--the Christian theory
of life. And this time has now come.

We, who thousands of years ago passed through the transition, from
the personal, animal view of life to the socialized view, imagine
that that transition was an inevitable and natural one; but this
transition through which we have been passing for the last eighteen
hundred years seems arbitrary, unnatural, and alarming. But we
only fancy this because that first transition has been so fully
completed that the practice attained by it has become unconscious and
instinctive in us, while the present transition is not yet over and
we have to complete it consciously.

It took ages, thousands of years, for the social conception of life
to permeate men's consciousness. It went through various forms
and has now passed into the region of the instinctive through
inheritance, education, and habit. And therefore it seems natural to
us. But five thousand years ago it seemed as unnatural and alarming
to men as the Christian doctrine in its true sense seems to-day.

We think to-day that the requirements of the Christian doctrine--of
universal brotherhood, suppression of national distinctions,
abolition of private property, and the strange injunction of
non-resistance to evil by force--demand what is impossible. But it
was just the same thousands of years ago, with every social or even
family duty, such as the duty of parents to support their children,
of the young to maintain the old, of fidelity in marriage. Still
more strange, and even unreasonable, seemed the state duties of
submitting to the appointed authority, and paying taxes, and fighting
in defense of the country, and so on. All such requirements seem
simple, comprehensible, and natural to us to-day, and we see nothing
mysterious or alarming in them. But three or five thousand years ago
they seemed to require what was impossible.

The social conception of life served as the basis of religion because
at the time when it was first presented to men it seemed to them
absolutely incomprehensible, mystic, and supernatural. Now that we
have outlived that phase of the life of humanity, we understand
the rational grounds for uniting men in families, communities, and
states. But in antiquity the duties involved by such association were
presented under cover of the supernatural and were confirmed by it.

The patriarchal religions exalted the family, the tribe, the nation.
State religions deified emperors and states. Even now most ignorant
people--like our peasants, who call the Tzar an earthly god--obey
state laws, not through any rational recognition of their necessity,
nor because they have any conception of the meaning of state, but
through a religious sentiment.

In precisely the same way the Christian doctrine is presented to men
of the social or heathen theory of life to-day, in the guise of a
supernatural religion, though there is in reality nothing mysterious,
mystic, or supernatural about it. It is simply the theory of life
which is appropriate to the present degree of material development,
the present stage of growth of humanity, and which must therefore
inevitably be accepted.

The time will come--it is already coming--when the Christian
principles of equality and fraternity, community of property,
non-resistance of evil by force, will appear just as natural and
simple as the principles of family or social life seem to us now.

Humanity can no more go backward in its development than the
individual man. Men have outlived the social, family, and state
conceptions of life. Now they must go forward and assimilate the
next and higher conception of life, which is what is now taking
place. This change is brought about in two ways: consciously through
spiritual causes, and unconsciously through material causes.

Just as the individual man very rarely changes his way of life at
the dictates of his reason alone, but generally continues to live
as before, in spite of the new interests and aims revealed to him
by his reason, and only alters his way of living when it has become
absolutely opposed to his conscience, and consequently intolerable
to him; so, too, humanity, long after it has learnt through its
religions the new interests and aims of life, toward which it must
strive, continues in the majority of its representatives to live as
before, and is only brought to accept the new conception by finding
it impossible to go on living its old life as before.

Though the need of a change of life is preached by the religious
leaders and recognized and realized by the most intelligent men, the
majority, in spite of their reverential attitude to their leaders,
that is, their faith in their teaching, continue to be guided by the
old theory of life in their present complex existence. As though the
father of a family, knowing how he ought to behave at his age, should
yet continue through habit and thoughtlessness to live in the same
childish way as he did in boyhood.

That is just what is happening in the transition of humanity from
one stage to another, through which we are passing now. Humanity
has outgrown its social stage and has entered upon a new period. It
recognizes the doctrine which ought to be made the basis of life in
this new period. But through inertia it continues to keep up the old
forms of life. From this inconsistency between the new conception of
life and practical life follows a whole succession of contradictions
and sufferings which embitter our life and necessitate its alteration.

One need only compare the practice of life with the theory of it, to
be dismayed at the glaring antagonism between our conditions of life
and our conscience.

Our whole life is in flat contradiction with all we know, and with
all we regard as necessary and right. This contradiction runs through
everything, in economic life, in political life, and in international
life. As though we had forgotten what we knew and put away for a time
the principles we believe in (we cannot help still believing in them
because they are the only foundation we have to base our life on) we
do the very opposite of all that our conscience and our common sense
require of us.

We are guided in economical, political, and international questions
by the principles which were appropriate to men of three or five
thousand years ago, though they are directly opposed to our
conscience and the conditions of life in which we are placed to-day.

It was very well for the man of ancient times to live in a society
based on the division of mankind into masters and slaves, because he
believed that such a distinction was decreed by God and must always
exist. But is such a belief possible in these days?

The man of antiquity could believe he had the right to enjoy the
good things of this world at the expense of other men, and to keep
them in misery for generations, since he believed that men came
from different origins, were base or noble in blood, children of
Ham or of Japhet. The greatest sages of the world, the teachers of
humanity, Plato and Aristotle, justified the existence of slaves and
demonstrated the lawfulness of slavery; and even three centuries ago,
the men who described an imaginary society of the future, Utopia,
could not conceive of it without slaves.

Men of ancient and mediæval times believed, firmly believed, that
men are not equal, that the only true men are Persians, or Greeks,
or Romans, or Franks. But we cannot believe that now. And people
who sacrifice themselves for the principles of aristocracy and of
patriotism to-day, don't believe and can't believe what they assert.

We all know and cannot help knowing--even though we may never have
heard the idea clearly expressed, may never have read of it, and may
never have put it into words, still through unconsciously imbibing
the Christian sentiments that are in the air--with our whole heart we
know and cannot escape knowing the fundamental truth of the Christian
doctrine, that we are all sons of one Father, wherever we may live
and whatever language we may speak; we are all brothers and are
subject to the same law of love implanted by our common Father in our
hearts.

Whatever the opinions and degree of education of a man of to-day,
whatever his shade of liberalism, whatever his school of philosophy,
or of science, or of economics, however ignorant or superstitious
he may be, every man of the present day knows that all men have an
equal right to life and the good things of life, and that one set
of people are no better nor worse than another, that all are equal.
Everyone knows this, beyond doubt; everyone feels it in his whole
being. Yet at the same time everyone sees all round him the division
of men into two castes--the one, laboring, oppressed, poor, and
suffering, the other idle, oppressing, luxurious, and profligate.
And everyone not only sees this, but voluntarily or involuntarily,
in one way or another, he takes part in maintaining this distinction
which his conscience condemns. And he cannot help suffering from the
consciousness of this contradiction and his share in it.

Whether he be master or slave, the man of to-day cannot help
constantly feeling the painful opposition between his conscience and
actual life, and the miseries resulting from it.

The toiling masses, the immense majority of mankind who are suffering
under the incessant, meaningless, and hopeless toil and privation
in which their whole life is swallowed up, still find their keenest
suffering in the glaring contrast between what is and what ought to
be, according to all the beliefs held by themselves, and those who
have brought them to that condition and keep them in it.

They know that they are in slavery and condemned to privation and
darkness to minister to the lusts of the minority who keep them down.
They know it, and they say so plainly. And this knowledge increases
their sufferings and constitutes its bitterest sting.

The slave of antiquity knew that he was a slave by nature, but our
laborer, while he feels he is a slave, knows that he ought not to be,
and so he tastes the agony of Tantalus, forever desiring and never
gaining what might and ought to be his.

The sufferings of the working classes, springing from the
contradiction between what is and what ought to be, are increased
tenfold by the envy and hatred engendered by their consciousness of
it.

The laborer of the present day would not cease to suffer even if
his toil were much lighter than that of the slave of ancient times,
even if he gained an eight-hour working day and a wage of three
dollars a day. For he is working at the manufacture of things which
he will not enjoy, working not by his own will for his own benefit,
but through necessity, to satisfy the desires of luxurious and idle
people in general, and for the profit of a single rich man, the
owner of a factory or workshop in particular. And he knows that all
this is going on in a world in which it is a recognized scientific
principle that labor alone creates wealth, and that to profit by the
labor of others is immoral, dishonest, and punishable by law; in a
world, moreover, which professes to believe Christ's doctrine that we
are all brothers, and that true merit and dignity is to be found in
serving one's neighbor, not in exploiting him. All this he knows, and
he cannot but suffer keenly from the sharp contrast between what is
and what ought to be.

"According to all principles, according to all I know, and what
everyone professes," the workman says to himself. "I ought to
be free, equal to everyone else, and loved; and I am--a slave,
humiliated and hated." And he too is filled with hatred and tries to
find means to escape from his position, to shake off the enemy who
is over-riding him, and to oppress him in turn. People say, "Workmen
have no business to try to become capitalists, the poor to try to
put themselves in the place of the rich." That is a mistake. The
workingmen and the poor would be wrong if they tried to do so in a
world in which slaves and masters were regarded as different species
created by God; but they are living in a world which professes the
faith of the Gospel, that all are alike sons of God, and so brothers
and equal. And however men may try to conceal it, one of the first
conditions of Christian life is love, not in words but in deeds.

The man of the so-called educated classes lives in still more glaring
inconsistency and suffering. Every educated man, if he believes in
anything, believes in the brotherhood of all men, or at least he has
a sentiment of humanity, or else of justice, or else he believes in
science. And all the while he knows that his whole life is framed on
principles in direct opposition to it all, to all the principles of
Christianity, humanity, justice, and science.

He knows that all the habits in which he has been brought up, and
which he could not give up without suffering, can only be satisfied
through the exhausting, often fatal, toil of oppressed laborers,
that is, through the most obvious and brutal violation of the
principles of Christianity, humanity, and justice, and even of
science (that is, economic science). He advocates the principles
of fraternity, humanity, justice, and science, and yet he lives so
that he is dependent on the oppression of the working classes, which
he denounces, and his whole life is based on the advantages gained
by their oppression. Moreover he is directing every effort to
maintaining this state of things so flatly opposed to all his beliefs.

We are all brothers--and yet every morning a brother or a sister
must empty the bedroom slops for me. We are all brothers, but every
morning I must have a cigar, a sweetmeat, an ice, and such things,
which my brothers and sisters have been wasting their health in
manufacturing, and I enjoy these things and demand them. We are all
brothers, yet I live by working in a bank, or mercantile house,
or shop at making all goods dearer for my brothers. We are all
brothers, but I live on a salary paid me for prosecuting, judging,
and condemning the thief or the prostitute whose existence the whole
tenor of my life tends to bring about, and who I know ought not to
be punished but reformed. We are all brothers, but I live on the
salary I gain by collecting taxes from needy laborers to be spent
on the luxuries of the rich and idle. We are all brothers, but I
take a stipend for preaching a false Christian religion, which I
do not myself believe in, and which only serves to hinder men from
understanding true Christianity. I take a stipend as priest or
bishop for deceiving men in the matter of the greatest importance to
them. We are all brothers, but I will not give the poor the benefit
of my educational, medical, or literary labors except for money.
We are all brothers, yet I take a salary for being ready to commit
murder, for teaching men to murder, or making firearms, gunpowder, or
fortifications.

The whole life of the upper classes is a constant inconsistency.
The more delicate a man's conscience is, the more painful this
contradiction is to him.

A man of sensitive conscience cannot but suffer if he lives such a
life. The only means by which he can escape from this suffering is
by blunting his conscience, but even if some men succeed in dulling
their conscience they cannot dull their fears.

The men of the higher dominating classes whose conscience is
naturally not sensitive or has become blunted, if they don't suffer
through conscience, suffer from fear and hatred. They are bound to
suffer. They know all the hatred of them existing, and inevitably
existing in the working classes. They are aware that the working
classes know that they are deceived and exploited, and that they
are beginning to organize themselves to shake off oppression and
revenge themselves on their oppressors. The higher classes see the
unions, the strikes, the May Day Celebrations, and feel the calamity
that is threatening them, and their terror passes into an instinct
of self-defense and hatred. They know that if for one instant they
are worsted in the struggle with their oppressed slaves, they will
perish, because the slaves are exasperated and their exasperation is
growing more intense with every day of oppression. The oppressors,
even if they wished to do so, could not make an end to oppression.
They know that they themselves will perish directly they even relax
the harshness of their oppression. And they do not relax it, in spite
of all their pretended care for the welfare of the working classes,
for the eight-hour day, for regulation of the labor of minors and of
women, for savings banks and pensions. All that is humbug, or else
simply anxiety to keep the slave fit to do his work. But the slave is
still a slave, and the master who cannot live without a slave is less
disposed to set him free than ever.

The attitude of the ruling classes to the laborers is that of a man
who has felled his adversary to the earth and holds him down, not
so much because he wants to hold him down, as because he knows that
if he let him go, even for a second, he would himself be stabbed,
for his adversary is infuriated and has a knife in his hand. And
therefore, whether their conscience is tender or the reverse, our
rich men cannot enjoy the wealth they have filched from the poor
as the ancients did who believed in their right to it. Their whole
life and all their enjoyments are embittered either by the stings of
conscience or by terror.

So much for the economic contradiction. The political contradiction
is even more striking.

All men are brought up to the habit of obeying the laws of the state
before everything. The whole existence of modern times is defined by
laws. A man marries and is divorced, educates his children, and even
(in many countries) professes his religious faith in accordance with
the law. What about the law then which defines our whole existence?
Do men believe in it? Do they regard it as good? Not at all. In the
majority of cases people of the present time do not believe in the
justice of the law, they despise it, but still they obey it. It was
very well for the men of the ancient world to observe their laws.
They firmly believed that their law (it was generally of a religious
character) was the only just law, which everyone ought to obey. But
is it so with us? we know and cannot help knowing that the law of
our country is not the one eternal law; that it is only one of the
many laws of different countries, which are equally imperfect, often
obviously wrong and unjust, and are criticised from every point of
view in the newspapers. The Jew might well obey his laws, since
he had not the slightest doubt that God had written them with his
finger; the Roman too might well obey the laws which he thought had
been dictated by the nymph Egeria. Men might well observe the laws if
they believed the Tzars who made them were God's anointed, or even if
they thought they were the work of assemblies of lawgivers who had
the power and the desire to make them as good as possible. But we all
know how our laws are made. We have all been behind the scenes, we
know that they are the product of covetousness, trickery, and party
struggles; that there is not and cannot be any real justice in them.
And so modern men cannot believe that obedience to civic or political
laws can satisfy the demands of the reason or of human nature. Men
have long ago recognized that it is irrational to obey a law the
justice of which is very doubtful, and so they cannot but suffer in
obeying a law which they do not accept as judicious and binding.

A man cannot but suffer when his whole life is defined beforehand for
him by laws, which he must obey under threat of punishment, though
he does not believe in their wisdom or justice, and often clearly
perceives their injustice, cruelty, and artificiality.

We recognize the uselessness of customs and import duties, and are
obliged to pay them. We recognize the uselessness of the expenditure
on the maintenance of the Court and other members of Government, and
we regard the teaching of the Church as injurious, but we are obliged
to bear our share of the expenses of these institutions. We regard
the punishments inflicted by law as cruel and shameless, but we must
assist in supporting them. We regard as unjust and pernicious the
distribution of landed property, but we are obliged to submit to it.
We see no necessity for wars and armies, but we must bear terribly
heavy burdens in support of troops and war expenses.

But this contradiction is nothing in comparison with the
contradiction which confronts us when we turn to international
questions, and which demands a solution under pain of the loss of
the sanity and even the existence of the human race. That is the
contradiction between the Christian conscience and war.

We are all Christian nations living the same spiritual life, so that
every noble and pregnant thought, springing up at one end of the
world, is at once communicated to the whole of Christian humanity and
evokes everywhere the same emotion of pride and rejoicing without
distinction of nationalities. We who love thinkers, philanthropists,
poets, and scientific men of foreign origin, and are as proud of
the exploits of Father Damien as if he were one of ourselves, we,
who have a simple love for men of foreign nationalities, Frenchmen,
Germans, Americans, and Englishmen, who respect their qualities, are
glad to meet them and make them so warmly welcome, cannot regard war
with them as anything heroic. We cannot even imagine without horror
the possibility of a disagreement between these people and ourselves
which would call for reciprocal murder. Yet we are all bound to take
a hand in this slaughter which is bound to come to pass to-morrow--if
not to-day.

It was very well for the Jew, the Greek, and the Roman to defend
the independence of his nation by murder. For he piously believed
that his people was the only true, fine, and good people dear to
God, and all the rest were Philistines, barbarians. Men of mediæval
times--even up to the end of the last and beginning of this
century--might continue to hold this belief. But however much we
work upon ourselves we cannot believe it. And this contradiction for
men of the present day has become so full of horror that without its
solution life is no longer possible.

"We live in a time which is full of inconsistencies," writes Count
Komarovsky, the professor of international law, in his learned
treatise. "The press of all countries is continually expressing the
universal desire for peace, and the general sense of its necessity
for all nations.

"Representatives of governments, private persons, and official
organs say the same thing; it is repeated in parliamentary debates,
diplomatic correspondence, and even in state treaties. At the same
time governments are increasing the strength of their armies every
year, levying fresh taxes, raising loans, and leaving as a bequest
to future generations the duty of repairing the blunders of the
senseless policy of the present. What a striking contrast between
words and deeds! Of course governments will plead in justification
of these measures that all their expenditure and armament are
exclusively for purposes of defense. But it remains a mystery to
every disinterested man whence they can expect attacks if all
the great powers are single-hearted in their policy, in pursuing
nothing but self-defense. In reality it looks as if each of the
great powers were every instant anticipating an attack on the part
of the others. And this results in a general feeling of insecurity
and superhuman efforts on the part of each government to increase
their forces beyond those of the other powers. Such a competition
of itself increases the danger of war. Nations cannot endure the
constant increase of armies for long, and sooner or later they will
prefer war to all the disadvantages of their present position and
the constant menace of war. Then the most trifling pretext will be
sufficient to throw the whole of Europe into the fire of universal
war. And it is a mistaken idea that such a crisis might deliver us
from the political and economical troubles that are crushing us. The
experience of the wars of latter years teaches us that every war
has only intensified national hatreds, made military burdens more
crushing and insupportable, and rendered the political and economical
position of Europe more grievous and insoluble."

"Modern Europe keeps under arms an active army of nine millions of
men," writes Enrico Ferri, "besides fifteen millions of reserve, with
an outlay of four hundred millions of francs per annum. By continual
increase of the armed force, the sources of social and individual
prosperity are paralyzed, and the state of the modern world may be
compared to that of a man who condemns himself to wasting from lack
of nutrition in order to provide himself with arms, losing thereby
the strength to use the arms he provides, under the weight of which
he will at last succumb."

Charles Booth, in his paper read in London before the Association
for the Reform and Codification of the Law of Nations, June 26,
1887, says the same thing. After referring to the same number, nine
millions of the active army and fifteen millions of reserve, and
the enormous expenditure of governments on the support and arming
of these forces, he says: "These figures represent only a small
part of the real cost, because besides the recognized expenditure
of the war budget of the various nations, we ought also to take
into account the enormous loss to society involved in withdrawing
from it such an immense number of its most vigorous men, who are
taken from industrial pursuits and every kind of labor, as well as
the enormous interest on the sums expended on military preparations
without any return. The inevitable result of this expenditure on war
and preparations for war is a continually growing national debt. The
greater number of loans raised by the governments of Europe were
with a view to war. Their total sum amounts to four hundred millions
sterling, and these debts are increasing every year."

The same Professor Komarovsky says in another place: "We live in
troubled times. Everywhere we hear complaints of the depression of
trade and manufactures, and the wretchedness of the economic position
generally, the miserable conditions of existence of the working
classes, and the universal impoverishment of the masses. But in spite
of this, governments in their efforts to maintain their independence
rush to the greatest extremes of senselessness. New taxes and duties
are being devised everywhere, and the financial oppression of the
nations knows no limits. If we glance at the budgets of the states
of Europe for the last hundred years, what strikes us most of all is
their rapid and continually growing increase.

"How can we explain this extraordinary phenomenon, which sooner or
later threatens us all with inevitable bankruptcy?

"It is caused beyond dispute by the expenditure for the maintenance
of armaments which swallows up a third and even a half of all the
expenditure of European states. And the most melancholy thing is
that one can foresee no limit to this augmentation of the budget
and impoverishment of the masses. What is socialism but a protest
against this abnormal position in which the greater proportion of the
population of our world is placed?"

"We are ruining ourselves," says Frederick Passy in a letter read
before the last Congress of Universal Peace (in 1890) in London,
"we are ruining ourselves in order to be able to take part in the
senseless wars of the future or to pay the interest on debts we have
incurred by the senseless and criminal wars of the past. We are dying
of hunger so as to secure the means of killing each other."

Speaking later on of the way the subject is looked at in France, he
says: "We believe that, a hundred years after the Declaration of the
Rights of Man and of the citizen, the time has come to recognize
the rights of nations and to renounce at once and forever all those
undertakings based on fraud and force, which, under the name of
conquests, are veritable crimes against humanity, and which, whatever
the vanity of monarchs and the pride of nations may think of them,
only weaken even those who are triumphant over them."

"I am surprised at the way religion is carried on in this country,"
said Sir Wilfrid Lawson at the same congress. "You send a boy to
Sunday school, and you tell him: 'Dear boy, you must love your
enemies. If another boy strikes you, you mustn't hit him back, but
try to reform him by loving him.' Well. The boy stays in the Sunday
school till he is fourteen or fifteen, and then his friends send him
into the army. What has he to do in the army? He certainly won't
love his enemy; quite the contrary, if he can only get at him, he
will run him through with his bayonet. That is the nature of all
religious teaching in this country. I do not think that that is a
very good way of carrying out the precepts of religion. I think if
it is a good thing for a boy to love his enemy, it is good for a
grown-up man."

"There are in Europe twenty-eight millions of men under arms," says
Wilson, "to decide disputes, not by discussion, but by murdering one
another. That is the accepted method for deciding disputes among
Christian nations. This method is, at the same time, very expensive,
for, according to the statistics I have read, the nations of Europe
spent in the year 1872 a hundred and fifty millions sterling on
preparations for deciding disputes by means of murder. It seems to
me, therefore, that in such a state of things one of two alternatives
must be admitted: either Christianity is a failure, or those who have
undertaken to expound it have failed in doing so. Until our warriors
are disarmed and our armies disbanded, we have not the right to call
ourselves a Christian nation."

In a conference on the subject of the duty of Christian ministers
to preach against war, G. D. Bartlett said among other things: "If
I understand the Scriptures, I say that men are only playing with
Christianity so long as they ignore the question of war. I have lived
a longish life and have heard our ministers preach on universal peace
hardly half a dozen times. Twenty years ago, in a drawing room, I
dared in the presence of forty persons to moot the proposition that
war was incompatible with Christianity; I was regarded as an arrant
fanatic. The idea that we could get on without war was regarded as
unmitigated weakness and folly."

The Catholic priest Defourney has expressed himself in the same
spirit. "One of the first precepts of the eternal law inscribed
in the consciences of all men," says the Abbé Defourney, "is
the prohibition of taking the life or shedding the blood of a
fellow-creature without sufficient cause, without being forced
into the necessity of it. This is one of the commandments which
is most deeply stamped in the heart of man. But so soon as it is
a question of war, that is, of shedding blood in torrents, men of
the present day do not trouble themselves about a sufficient cause.
Those who take part in wars do not even think of asking themselves
whether there is any justification for these innumerable murders,
whether they are justifiable or unjustifiable, lawful or unlawful,
innocent or criminal; whether they are breaking that fundamental
commandment that forbids killing without lawful cause. But their
conscience is mute. War has ceased to be something dependent on moral
considerations. In warfare men have in all the toil and dangers they
endure no other pleasure than that of being conquerors, no sorrow
other than that of being conquered. Don't tell me that they are
serving their country. A great genius answered that long ago in the
words that have become a proverb: 'Without justice, what is an empire
but a great band of brigands?' And is not every band of brigands a
little empire? They too have their laws; and they too make war to
gain booty, and even for honor.

"The aim of the proposed institution [the institution of an
international board of arbitration] is that the nations of Europe may
cease to be nations of robbers, and their armies, bands of brigands.
And one must add, not only brigands, but slaves. For our armies are
simply gangs of slaves at the disposal of one or two commanders or
ministers, who exercise a despotic control over them without any real
responsibility, as we very well know.

"The peculiarity of a slave is that he is a mere tool in the hands
of his master, a thing, not a man. That is just what soldiers,
officers, and generals are, going to murder and be murdered at the
will of a ruler or rulers. Military slavery is an actual fact, and
it is the worst form of slavery, especially now when by means of
compulsory service it lays its fetters on the necks of all the strong
and capable men of a nation, to make them instruments of murder,
butchers of human flesh, for that is all they are taken and trained
to do.

"The rulers, two or three in number, meet together in cabinets,
secretly deliberate without registers, without publicity, and
consequently without responsibility, and send men to be murdered."

"Protests against armaments, burdensome to the people, have not
originated in our times," says Signor E. G. Moneta. "Hear what
Montesquieu wrote in his day. 'France [and one might say, Europe]
will be ruined by soldiers. A new plague is spreading throughout
Europe. It attacks sovereigns and forces them to maintain an
incredible number of armed men. This plague is infectious and
spreads, because directly one government increases its armament, all
the others do likewise. So that nothing is gained by it but general
ruin.

"'Every government maintains as great an army as it possibly could
maintain if its people were threatened with extermination, and people
call peace this state of tension of all against all. And therefore
Europe is so ruined that if private persons were in the position of
the governments of our continent, the richest of them would not have
enough to live on. We are poor though we have the wealth and trade of
the whole world.'

"That was written almost 150 years ago. The picture seems drawn
from the world of to-day. One thing only has changed--the form
of government. In Montesquieu's time it was said that the cause
of the maintenance of great armaments was the despotic power of
kings, who made war in the hope of augmenting by conquest their
personal revenues and gaining glory. People used to say then: 'Ah,
if only people could elect those who would have the right to refuse
governments the soldiers and the money--then there would be an end
to military politics.' Now there are representative governments in
almost the whole of Europe, and in spite of that, war expenditures
and the preparations for war have increased to alarming proportions.

"It is evident that the insanity of sovereigns has gained possession
of the ruling classes. War is not made now because one king has
been wanting in civility to the mistress of another king, as it was
in Louis XIV.'s time. But the natural and honorable sentiments of
national honor and patriotism are so exaggerated, and the public
opinion of one nation so excited against another, that it is enough
for a statement to be made (even though it may be a false report)
that the ambassador of one state was not received by the principal
personage of another state to cause the outbreak of the most awful
and destructive war there has ever been seen. Europe keeps more
soldiers under arms to-day than in the time of the great Napoleonic
wars. All citizens with few exceptions are forced to spend some years
in barracks. Fortresses, arsenals, and ships are built, new weapons
are constantly being invented, to be replaced in a short time by
fresh ones, for, sad to say, science, which ought always to be aiming
at the good of humanity, assists in the work of destruction, and is
constantly inventing new means for killing the greatest number of
men in the shortest time. And to maintain so great a multitude of
soldiers and to make such vast preparations for murder, hundreds of
millions are spent annually, sums which would be sufficient for the
education of the people and for immense works of public utility,
and which would make it possible to find a peaceful solution of the
social question.

"Europe, then, is, in this respect, in spite of all the conquests of
science, in the same position as in the darkest and most barbarous
days of the Middle Ages. All deplore this state of things--neither
peace nor war--and all would be glad to escape from it. The heads of
governments all declare that they all wish for peace, and vie with
one another in the most solemn protestations of peaceful intentions.
But the same day or the next they will lay a scheme for the increase
of the armament before their legislative assembly, saying that
these are the preventive measures they take for the very purpose of
securing peace.

"But this is not the kind of peace we want. And the nations are not
deceived by it. True peace is based on mutual confidence, while
these huge armaments show open and utter lack of confidence, if not
concealed hostility, between states. What should we say of a man who,
wanting to show his friendly feelings for his neighbor, should invite
him to discuss their differences with a loaded revolver in his hand?

"It is just this flagrant contradiction between the peaceful
professions and the warlike policy of governments which all good
citizens desire to put an end to, at any cost."

People are astonished that every year there are sixty thousand cases
of suicide in Europe, and those only the recognized and recorded
cases--and excluding Russia and Turkey; but one ought rather to be
surprised that there are so few. Every man of the present day, if we
go deep enough into the contradiction between his conscience and his
life, is in a state of despair.

Not to speak of all the other contradictions between modern life and
the conscience, the permanently armed condition of Europe together
with its profession of Christianity is alone enough to drive any man
to despair, to doubt of the sanity of mankind, and to terminate an
existence in this senseless and brutal world. This contradiction,
which is a quintessence of all the other contradictions, is so
terrible that to live and to take part in it is only possible if one
does not think of it--if one is able to forget it.

What! all of us, Christians, not only profess to love one another,
but do actually live one common life; we whose social existence beats
with one common pulse--we aid one another, learn from one another,
draw ever closer to one another to our mutual happiness, and find
in this closeness the whole meaning of life!--and to-morrow some
crazy ruler will say some stupidity, and another will answer in the
same spirit, and then I must go expose myself to being murdered,
and murder men--who have done me no harm--and more than that, whom
I love. And this is not a remote contingency, but the very thing we
are all preparing for, which is not only probable, but an inevitable
certainty.

To recognize this clearly is enough to drive a man out of his senses
or to make him shoot himself. And this is just what does happen, and
especially often among military men. A man need only come to himself
for an instant to be impelled inevitably to such an end.

And this is the only explanation of the dreadful intensity with which
men of modern times strive to stupefy themselves, with spirits,
tobacco, opium, cards, reading newspapers, traveling, and all kinds
of spectacles and amusements. These pursuits are followed up as an
important, serious business. And indeed they are a serious business.
If there were no external means of dulling their sensibilities, half
of mankind would shoot themselves without delay, for to live in
opposition to one's reason is the most intolerable condition. And
that is the condition of all men of the present day. All men of the
modern world exist in a state of continual and flagrant antagonism
between their conscience and their way of life. This antagonism is
apparent in economic as well as political life. But most striking of
all is the contradiction between the Christian law of the brotherhood
of men existing in the conscience and the necessity under which all
men are placed by compulsory military service of being prepared
for hatred and murder--of being at the same time a Christian and a
gladiator.

CHAPTER VI.

ATTITUDE OF MEN OF THE PRESENT DAY TO WAR.

People do not Try to Remove the Contradiction between Life and
Conscience by a Change of Life, but their Cultivated Leaders
Exert Every Effort to Obscure the Demands of Conscience, and
Justify their Life; in this Way they Degrade Society below
Paganism to a State of Primeval Barbarism--Undefined Attitude
of Modern Leaders of Thought to War, to Universal Militarism,
and to Compulsory Service in Army--One Section Regards War as
an Accidental Political Phenomenon, to be Avoided by External
Measures only--Peace Congress--The Article in the _Revue des
Revues_--Proposition of Maxime du Camp--Value of Boards of
Arbitration and Suppression of Armies--Attitude of Governments
to Men of this Opinion and What they Do--Another Section
Regards War as Cruel, but Inevitable--Maupassant--Rod--A
Third Section Regard War as Necessary, and not without its
Advantages--Doucet--Claretie--Zola--Vogüé.

The antagonism between life and the conscience may be removed in two
ways: by a change of life or by a change of conscience. And there
would seem there can be no doubt as to these alternatives.

A man may cease to do what he regards as wrong, but he cannot cease
to consider wrong what is wrong. Just in the same way all humanity
may cease to do what it regards as wrong, but far from being able to
change, it cannot even retard for a time the continual growth of a
clearer recognition of what is wrong and therefore ought not to be.
And therefore it would seem inevitable for Christian men to abandon
the pagan forms of society which they condemn, and to reconstruct
their social existence on the Christian principles they profess.

So it would be were it not for the law of inertia, as immutable a
force in men and nations as in inanimate bodies. In men it takes the
form of the psychological principle, so truly expressed in the words
of the Gospel, "They have loved darkness better than light because
their deeds were evil." This principle shows itself in men not trying
to recognize the truth, but to persuade themselves that the life
they are leading, which is what they like and are used to, is a life
perfectly consistent with truth.

Slavery was opposed to all the moral principles advocated by Plato
and Aristotle, yet neither of them saw that, because to renounce
slavery would have meant the break up of the life they were living.
We see the same thing in our modern world.

The division of men into two castes, as well as the use of force in
government and war, are opposed to every moral principle professed by
our modern society. Yet the cultivated and advanced men of the day
seem not to see it.

The majority, if not all, of the cultivated men of our day try
unconsciously to maintain the old social conception of life, which
justifies their position, and to hide from themselves and others its
insufficiency, and above all the necessity of adopting the Christian
conception of life, which will mean the break up of the whole
existing social order. They struggle to keep up the organization
based on the social conception of life, but do not believe in it
themselves, because it is extinct and it is impossible to believe in
it.

All modern literature--philosophical, political, and artistic--is
striking in this respect. What wealth of idea, of form, of color,
what erudition, what art, but what a lack of serious matter, what
dread of any exactitude of thought or expression! Subtleties,
allegories, humorous fancies, the widest generalizations, but nothing
simple and clear, nothing going straight to the point, that is, to
the problem of life.

But that is not all; besides these graceful frivolities, our
literature is full of simple nastiness and brutality, of arguments
which would lead men back in the most refined way to primeval
barbarism, to the principles not only of the pagan, but even of the
animal life, which we have left behind us five thousand years ago.

And it could not be otherwise. In their dread of the Christian
conception of life which will destroy the social order, which some
cling to only from habit, others also from interest, men cannot but
be thrown back upon the pagan conception of life and the principles
based on it. Nowadays we see advocated not only patriotism and
aristocratic principles just as they were advocated two thousand
years ago, but even the coarsest epicureanism and animalism, only
with this difference, that the men who then professed those views
believed in them, while nowadays even the advocates of such views do
not believe in them, for they have no meaning for the present day. No
one can stand still when the earth is shaking under his feet. If we
do not go forward we must go back. And strange and terrible to say,
the cultivated men of our day, the leaders of thought, are in reality
with their subtle reasoning drawing society back, not to paganism
even, but to a state of primitive barbarism.

This tendency on the part of the leading thinkers of the day is
nowhere more apparent than in their attitude to the phenomenon in
which all the insufficiency of the social conception of life is
presented in the most concentrated form--in their attitude, that is,
to war, to the general arming of nations, and to universal compulsory
service.

The undefined, if not disingenuous, attitude of modern thinkers to
this phenomenon is striking. It takes three forms in cultivated
society. One section look at it as an incidental phenomenon, arising
out of the special political situation of Europe, and consider
that this state of things can be reformed without a revolution in
the whole internal social order of nations, by external measures
of international diplomacy. Another section regard it as something
cruel and hideous, but at the same time fated and inevitable, like
disease and death. A third party with cool indifference consider war
as an inevitable phenomenon, beneficial in its effects and therefore
desirable.

Men look at the subject from different points of view, but all alike
talk of war as though it were something absolutely independent of
the will of those who take part in it. And consequently they do not
even admit the natural question which presents itself to every simple
man: "How about me--ought I to take any part in it?" In their view
no question of this kind even exists, and every man, however he may
regard war from a personal standpoint, must slavishly submit to the
requirements of the authorities on the subject.

The attitude of the first section of thinkers, those who see a way
out of war in international diplomatic measures, is well expressed in
the report of the last Peace Congress in London, and the articles and
letters upon war that appeared in No. 8 of the _Revue des Revues_,
1891. The congress after gathering together from various quarters the
verbal and written opinion of learned men opened the proceedings by
a religious service, and after listening to addresses for five whole
days, concluded them by a public dinner and speeches. They adopted
the following resolutions:

"1. The congress affirms its belief that the brotherhood of man
involves as a necessary consequence a brotherhood of nations.

"2. The congress recognizes the important influence that Christianity
exercises on the moral and political progress of mankind, and
earnestly urges upon ministers of the Gospel and other religious
teachers the duty of setting forth the principles of peace and good
will toward men. _And it recommends that the third Sunday in December
be set apart for that purpose._

"3. The congress expresses the opinion that all teachers of history
should call the attention of the young to the grave evils inflicted
on mankind in all ages by war, and to the fact that such war has been
waged for most inadequate causes.

"4. The congress protests against the use of military drill in
schools by way of physical exercise, and suggests the formation of
brigades for saving life rather than of a quasi-military character;
and urges the desirability of impressing on the Board of Examiners
who formulate the questions for examination the propriety of guiding
the minds of children in the principles of peace.

"5. The congress holds that the doctrine of the Rights of Man
requires that the aboriginal and weaker races, their territories and
liberties, shall be guarded from injustice and fraud, and that these
races shall be shielded against the vices so prevalent among the
so-called advanced races of men. It further expresses its conviction
that there should be concert of action among the nations for the
accomplishment of these ends. The congress expresses its hearty
appreciation of the resolutions of the Anti-slavery Conference held
recently at Brussels for the amelioration of the condition of the
peoples of Africa.

"6. The congress believes that the warlike prejudices and traditions
which are still fostered in the various nationalities, and the
misrepresentations by leaders of public opinion in legislative
assemblies or through the press, are often indirect causes of war,
and that these evils should be counteracted by the publication of
accurate information tending to the removal of misunderstanding
between nations, and recommends the importance of considering the
question of commencing an international newspaper with such a
purpose.

"7. The congress proposes to the Inter-parliamentary Conference that
the utmost support should be given to every project for unification
of weights and measures, coinage, tariff, postage, and telegraphic
arrangements, etc., which would assist in constituting a commercial,
industrial, and scientific union of the peoples.

"8. The congress, in view of the vast social and moral influence
of woman, urges upon every woman to sustain the things that make
for peace, as otherwise she incurs grave responsibility for the
continuance of the systems of militarism.

"9. The congress expresses the hope that the Financial Reform
Association and other similar societies in Europe and America should
unite in considering means for establishing equitable commercial
relations between states, by the reduction of import duties. The
congress feels that it can affirm that the whole of Europe desires
peace, and awaits with impatience the suppression of armaments,
which, under the plea of defense, become in their turn a danger by
keeping alive mutual distrust, and are, at the same time, the cause
of that general economic disturbance which stands in the way of
settling in a satisfactory manner the problems of labor and poverty,
which ought to take precedence of all others.

"10. The congress, recognizing that a general disarmament would be
the best guarantee of peace and would lead to the solution of the
questions which now most divide states, expresses the wish that
a congress of representatives of all the states of Europe may be
assembled as soon as possible to consider the means of effecting a
gradual general disarmament.

"11. The congress, in consideration of the fact that the timidity of
a single power might delay the convocation of the above-mentioned
congress, is of opinion that the government which should first
dismiss any considerable number of soldiers would confer a signal
benefit on Europe and mankind, because it would, by public opinion,
oblige other governments to follow its example, and by the moral
force of this accomplished fact would have increased rather than
diminished the conditions of its national defense.

"12. The congress, considering the question of disarmament, as of
peace in general, depends on public opinion, recommends the peace
societies, as well as all friends of peace, to be active in its
propaganda, especially at the time of parliamentary elections, in
order that the electors should give their votes to candidates who are
pledged to support Peace, Disarmament, and Arbitration.

"13. The congress congratulates the friends of peace on the
resolution adopted by the International American Conference, held
at Washington in April last, by which it was recommended that
arbitration should be obligatory in all controversies, whatever their
origin, except only those which may imperil the independence of one
of the nations involved.

"14. The congress recommends this resolution to the attention of
European statesmen, and expresses the ardent desire that similar
treaties may speedily be entered into between the other nations of
the world.

"15. The congress expresses its satisfaction at the adoption by the
Spanish Senate on June 16 last of a project of law authorizing the
government to negotiate general or special treaties of arbitration
for the settlement of all disputes except those relating to the
independence or internal government of the states affected; also
at the adoption of resolutions to a like effect by the Norwegian
Storthing and by the Italian Chamber.

"16. The congress resolves that a committee be appointed to address
communications to the principal political, religious, commercial,
and labor and peace organizations, requesting them to send petitions
to the governmental authorities praying that measures be taken
for the formation of suitable tribunals for the adjudicature of
international questions so as to avoid the resort to war.

"17. Seeing (1) that the object pursued by all peace societies is
the establishment of judicial order between nations, and (2) that
neutralization by international treaties constitutes a step toward
this judicial state and lessens the number of districts in which war
can be carried on, the congress recommends a larger extension of the
rule of neutralization, and expresses the wish, (1) that all treaties
which at present assure to certain states the benefit of neutrality
remain in force, or if necessary be amended in a manner to render the
neutrality more effective, either by extending neutralization to the
whole of the state or by ordering the demolition of fortresses, which
constitute rather a peril than a guarantee for neutrality; (2) that
new treaties in harmony with the wishes of the populations concerned
be concluded for establishing the neutralization of other states.

"18. The sub-committee proposes, (1) that the annual Peace Congress
should be held either immediately before the meeting of the annual
Sub-parliamentary Conference, or immediately after it in the same
town; (2) that the question of an international peace emblem be
postponed _sine die_; (3) that the following resolutions be adopted:

"_a._ To express satisfaction at the official overtures of the
Presbyterian Church in the United States addressed to the highest
representatives of each church organization in Christendom to unite
in a general conference to promote the substitution of international
arbitration for war.

"_b._ To express in the name of the congress its profound reverence
for the memory of Aurelio Saffi, the great Italian jurist, a member
of the committee of the International League of Peace and Liberty.

"(4) That the memorial adopted by this congress and signed by the
president to the heads of the civilized states should, as far as
practicable, be presented to each power by influential deputations.

"(5) That the following resolutions be adopted:

"_a._ A resolution of thanks to the presidents of the various
sittings of the congress.

"_b._ A resolution of thanks to the chairman, the secretaries, and
the members of the bureau of the congress.

"_c._ A resolution of thanks to the conveners and members of the
sectional committees.

"_d._ A resolution of thanks to Rev. Canon Scott Holland, Rev. Dr.
Reuen Thomas, and Rev. J. Morgan Gibbon for their pulpit addresses
before the congress, and also to the authorities of St. Paul's
Cathedral, the City Temple, and Stamford Hill Congregational Church
for the use of those buildings for public services.

"_e._ A letter of thanks to her Majesty for permission to visit
Windsor Castle.

"_f._ And also a resolution of thanks to the Lord Mayor and Lady
Mayoress, to Mr. Passmore Edwards, and other friends who have
extended their hospitality to the members of the congress.

"19. The congress places on record a heartfelt expression of
gratitude to Almighty God for the remarkable harmony and concord
which have characterized the meetings of the assembly, in which so
many men and women of varied nations, creeds, tongues, and races
have gathered in closest co-operation, and for the conclusion of the
labors of the congress; and expresses its firm and unshaken belief
in the ultimate triumph of the cause of peace and of the principles
advocated at these meetings."

The fundamental idea of the congress is the necessity (1) of
diffusing among all people by all means the conviction of the
disadvantages of war and the great blessing of peace, and (2) of
rousing governments to the sense of the superiority of international
arbitration over war and of the consequent advisability and
necessity of disarmament. To attain the first aim the congress
has recourse to teachers of history, to women, and to the clergy,
with the advice to the latter to preach on the evil of war and the
blessing of peace every third Sunday in December. To attain the
second object the congress appeals to governments with the suggestion
that they should disband their armies and replace war by arbitration.

To preach to men of the evil of war and the blessing of peace! But
the blessing of peace is so well known to men that, ever since there
have been men at all, their best wish has been expressed in the
greeting, "Peace be with you." So why preach about it?

Not only Christians, but pagans, thousands of years ago, all
recognized the evil of war and the blessing of peace. So that the
recommendation to ministers of the Gospel to preach on the evil of
war and the blessing of peace every third Sunday in December is quite
superfluous.

The Christian cannot but preach on that subject every day of his
life. If Christians and preachers of Christianity do not do so,
there must be reasons for it. And until these have been removed no
recommendations will be effective. Still less effective will be the
recommendations to governments to disband their armies and replace
them by international boards of arbitration. Governments, too, know
very well the difficulty and the burdensomeness of raising and
maintaining forces, and if in spite of that knowledge they do, at the
cost of terrible strain and effort, raise and maintain forces, it is
evident that they cannot do otherwise, and the recommendation of the
congress can never change it. But the learned gentlemen are unwilling
to see that, and keep hoping to find a political combination, through
which governments shall be induced to limit their powers themselves.

"Can we get rid of war"? asks a learned writer in the _Revue des
Revues_. "All are agreed that if it were to break out in Europe, its
consequences would be like those of the great inroads of barbarians.
The existence of whole nationalities would be at stake, and therefore
the war would be desperate, bloody, atrocious.

"This consideration, together with the terrible engines of
destruction invented by modern science, retards the moment of
declaring war, and maintains the present temporary situation, which
might continue for an indefinite period, except for the fearful cost
of maintaining armaments which are exhausting the European states and
threatening to reduce nations to a state of misery hardly less than
that of war itself.

"Struck by this reflection, men of various countries have tried to
find means for preventing, or at least for softening, the results of
the terrible slaughter with which we are threatened.

"Such are the questions brought forward by the Peace Congress shortly
to be held in Rome, and the publication of a pamphlet, 'Sur le
Désarmement'.

"It is unhappily beyond doubt that with the present organization of
the majority of European states, isolated from one another and guided
by distinct interests, the absolute suppression of war is an illusion
with which it would be dangerous to cheat ourselves. Wiser rules and
regulations imposed on these duels between nations might, however, at
least limit its horrors.

"It is equally chimerical to reckon on projects of disarmament, the
execution of which is rendered almost impossible by considerations
of a popular character present to the mind of all our readers. [This
probably means that France cannot disband its army before taking
its revenge.] Public opinion is not prepared to accept them, and
moreover, the international relations between different peoples are
not such as to make their acceptance possible. Disarmament imposed
on one nation by another in circumstances threatening its security
would be equivalent to a declaration of war.

"However, one may admit that an exchange of ideas between the nations
interested could aid, to a certain degree, in bringing about the good
understanding indispensable to any negotiations, and would render
possible a considerable reduction of the military expenditure which
is crushing the nations of Europe and greatly hindering the solution
of the social question, which each individually must solve on pain of
having internal war as the price for escaping it externally.

"We might at least demand the reduction of the enormous expenses
of war organized as it is at present with a view to the power of
invasion within twenty-four hours and a decisive battle within a week
of the declaration of war.

"We ought to manage so that states could not make the attack suddenly
and invade each other's territories within twenty-four hours."

This practical notion has been put forth by Maxime du Camp, and his
article concludes with it.

The propositions of M. du Camp are as follows:

1. A diplomatic congress to be held every year.

2. No war to be declared till two months after the incident which
provoked it. (The difficulty here would be to decide precisely what
incident did provoke the war, since whenever war is declared there
are very many such incidents, and one would have to decide from which
to reckon the two months' interval.)

3. No war to be declared before it has been submitted to a
plebiscitum of the nations preparing to take part in it.

4. No hostilities to be commenced till a month after the official
declaration of war.

"No war to be declared. No hostilities to be commenced," etc. But who
is to arrange that no war is to be declared? Who is to compel people
to do this and that? Who is to force states to delay their operations
for a certain fixed time? All the other states. But all these others
are also states which want holding in check and keeping within
limits, and forcing, too. Who is to force them, and how? Public
opinion. But if there is a public opinion which can force governments
to delay their operations for a fixed period, the same public opinion
can force governments not to declare war at all.

But, it will be replied, there may be such a balance of power, such
a _pondération de forces_, as would lead states to hold back of
their own accord. Well, that has been tried and is being tried even
now. The Holy Alliance was nothing but that, the League of Peace was
another attempt at the same thing, and so on.

But, it will be answered, suppose all were agreed. If all were agreed
there would be no more war certainly, and no need for arbitration
either.

"A court of arbitration! Arbitration shall replace war. Questions
shall be decided by a court of arbitration. The Alabama question was
decided by a court of arbitration, and the question of the Caroline
Islands was submitted to the decision of the Pope. Switzerland,
Belgium, Denmark, and Holland have all declared that they prefer
arbitration to war."

I dare say Monaco has expressed the same preference. The only
unfortunate thing is that Germany, Russia, Austria, and France have
not so far shown the same inclination. It is amazing how men can
deceive themselves when they find it necessary! Governments consent
to decide their disagreements by arbitration and to disband their
armies! The differences between Russia and Poland, between England
and Ireland, between Austria and Bohemia, between Turkey and the
Slavonic states, between France and Germany, to be soothed away by
amiable conciliation!

One might as well suggest to merchants and bankers that they should
sell nothing for a greater price than they gave for it, should
undertake the distribution of wealth for no profit, and should
abolish money, as it would thus be rendered unnecessary.

But since commercial and banking operations consist in nothing but
selling for more than the cost price, this would be equivalent to
an invitation to suppress themselves. It is the same in regard to
governments. To suggest to governments that they should not have
recourse to violence, but should decide their misunderstandings in
accordance with equity, is inviting them to abolish themselves as
rulers, and that no government can ever consent to do.

The learned men form societies (there are more than a hundred such
societies), assemble in congresses (such as those recently held in
London and Paris, and shortly to be held in Rome), deliver addresses,
eat public dinners and make speeches, publish journals, and prove by
every means possible that the nations forced to support millions of
troops are strained to the furthest limits of their endurance, that
the maintenance of these huge armed forces is in opposition to all
the aims, the interests, and the wishes of the people, and that it is
possible, moreover, by writing numerous papers, and uttering a great
many words, to bring all men into agreement and to arrange so that
they shall have no antagonistic interests, and then there will be no
more war.

When I was a little boy they told me if I wanted to catch a bird I
must put salt on its tail. I ran after the birds with the salt in
my hand, but I soon convinced myself that if I could put salt on a
bird's tail, I could catch it, and realized that I had been hoaxed.

People ought to realize the same fact when they read books and
articles on arbitration and disarmament.

If one could put salt on a bird's tail, it would be because it could
not fly and there would be no difficulty in catching it. If the bird
had wings and did not want to be caught, it would not let one put
salt on its tail, because the specialty of a bird is to fly. In
precisely the same way the specialty of government is not to obey,
but to enforce obedience. And a government is only a government so
long as it can make itself obeyed, and therefore it always strives
for that and will never willingly abandon its power. But since it is
on the army that the power of government rests, it will never give up
the army, and the use of the army in war.

The error arises from the learned jurists deceiving themselves
and others, by asserting that government is not what it really
is, one set of men banded together to oppress another set of men,
but, as shown by science, is the representation of the citizens in
their collective capacity. They have so long been persuading other
people of this that at last they have persuaded themselves of it;
and thus they often seriously suppose that government can be bound
by considerations of justice. But history shows that from Cæsar
to Napoleon, and from Napoleon to Bismarck, government is in its
essence always a force acting in violation of justice, and that it
cannot be otherwise. Justice can have no binding force on a ruler
or rulers who keep men, deluded and drilled in readiness for acts
of violence--soldiers, and by means of them control others. And so
governments can never be brought to consent to diminish the number of
these drilled slaves, who constitute their whole power and importance.

Such is the attitude of certain learned men to the contradiction
under which our society is being crushed, and such are their methods
of solving it. Tell these people that the whole matter rests on the
personal attitude of each man to the moral and religious question
put nowadays to everyone, the question, that is, whether it is
lawful or unlawful for him to take his share of military service,
and these learned gentlemen will shrug their shoulders and not
condescend to listen or to answer you. The solution of the question
in their idea is to be found in reading addresses, writing books,
electing presidents, vice-presidents, and secretaries, and meeting
and speaking first in one town and then in another. From all this
speechifying and writing it will come to pass, according to their
notions, that governments will cease to levy the soldiers, on whom
their whole strength depends, will listen to their discourses,
and will disband their forces, leaving themselves without any
defense, not only against their neighbors, but also against their
own subjects. As though a band of brigands, who have some unarmed
travelers bound and ready to be plundered, should be so touched by
their complaints of the pain caused by the cords they are fastened
with as to let them go again.

Still there are people who believe in this, busy themselves over
peace congresses, read addresses, and write books. And governments,
we may be quite sure, express their sympathy and make a show of
encouraging them. In the same way they pretend to support temperance
societies, while they are living principally on the drunkenness of
the people; and pretend to encourage education, when their whole
strength is based on ignorance; and to support constitutional
freedom, when their strength rests on the absence of freedom; and
to be anxious for the improvement of the condition of the working
classes, when their very existence depends on their oppression; and
to support Christianity, when Christianity destroys all government.

To be able to do this they have long ago elaborated methods
encouraging temperance, which cannot suppress drunkenness; methods of
supporting education, which not only fail to prevent ignorance, but
even increase it; methods of aiming at freedom and constitutionalism,
which are no hindrance to despotism; methods of protecting the
working classes, which will not free them from slavery; and a
Christianity, too, they have elaborated, which does not destroy, but
supports governments.

Now there is something more for the government to encourage--peace.
The sovereigns, who nowadays take counsel with their ministers,
decide by their will alone whether the butchery of millions is to
be begun this year or next. They know very well that all these
discourses upon peace will not hinder them from sending millions of
men to butchery when it seems good to them. They listen even with
satisfaction to these discourses, encourage them, and take part in
them.

All this, far from being detrimental, is even of service to
governments, by turning people's attention from the most important
and pressing question: Ought or ought not each man called upon for
military service to submit to serve in the army?

"Peace will soon be arranged, thanks to alliances and congresses,
to books and pamphlets; meantime go and put on your uniform, and
prepare to cause suffering and to endure it for our benefit," is the
government's line of argument. And the learned gentlemen who get up
congresses and write articles are in perfect agreement with it.

This is the attitude of one set of thinkers. And since it is that
most beneficial to governments, it is also the most encouraged by all
intelligent governments.

Another attitude to war has something tragical in it. There are men
who maintain that the love for peace and the inevitability of war
form a hideous contradiction, and that such is the fate of man. These
are mostly gifted and sensitive men, who see and realize all the
horror and imbecility and cruelty of war, but through some strange
perversion of mind neither see nor seek to find any way out of this
position, and seem to take pleasure in teasing the wound by dwelling
on the desperate position of humanity. A notable example of such an
attitude to war is to be found in the celebrated French writer Guy de
Maupassant. Looking from his yacht at the drill and firing practice
of the French soldiers the following reflections occur to him:

"When I think only of this word war, a kind of terror seizes upon
me, as though I were listening to some tale of sorcery, of the
Inquisition, some long past, remote abomination, monstrous, unnatural.

"When cannibalism is spoken of, we smile with pride, proclaiming
our superiority to these savages. Which are the savages, the real
savages? Those who fight to eat the conquered, or those who fight to
kill, for nothing but to kill?

"The young recruits, moving about in lines yonder, are destined to
death like the flocks of sheep driven by the butcher along the road.
They will fall in some plain with a saber cut in the head, or a
bullet through the breast. And these are young men who might work, be
productive and useful. Their fathers are old and poor. Their mothers,
who have loved them for twenty years, worshiped them as none but
mothers can, will learn in six months' time, or a year perhaps, that
their son, their boy, the big boy reared with so much labor, so much
expense, so much love, has been thrown in a hole like some dead dog,
after being disemboweled by a bullet, and trampled, crushed, to a
mass of pulp by the charges of cavalry. Why have they killed her boy,
her handsome boy, her one hope, her pride, her life? She does not
know. Ah, why?

"War! fighting! slaughter! massacres of men! And we have now, in our
century, with our civilization, with the spread of science, and the
degree of philosophy which the genius of man is supposed to have
attained, schools for training to kill, to kill very far off, to
perfection, great numbers at once, to kill poor devils of innocent
men with families and without any kind of trial.

"_And what is most bewildering is that the people do not rise against
their governments. For what difference is there between monarchies
and republics? The most bewildering thing is that the whole of
society is not in revolt at the word war._"

"Ah! we shall always live under the burden of the ancient and
odious customs, the criminal prejudices, the ferocious ideas of our
barbarous ancestors, for we are beasts, and beasts we shall remain,
dominated by instinct and changed by nothing. Would not any other man
than Victor Hugo have been exiled for that mighty cry of deliverance
and truth? 'To-day force is called violence, and is being brought to
judgment; war has been put on its trial. At the plea of the human
race, civilization arraigns warfare, and draws up the great list of
crimes laid at the charge of conquerors and generals. The nations
are coming to understand that the magnitude of a crime cannot be
its extenuation; that if killing is a crime, killing many can be no
extenuating circumstance; that if robbery is disgraceful, invasion
cannot be glorious. Ah! let us proclaim these absolute truths; let us
dishonor war!'

"Vain wrath," continues Maupassant, "a poet's indignation. War is
held in more veneration than ever.

"A skilled proficient in that line, a slaughterer of genius, Von
Moltke, in reply to the peace delegates, once uttered these strange
words:

"'War is holy, war is ordained of God. It is one of the most sacred
laws of the world. It maintains among men all the great and noble
sentiments--honor, devotion, virtue, and courage, and saves them in
short from falling into the most hideous materialism.'

"So, then, bringing millions of men together into herds, marching by
day and by night without rest, thinking of nothing, studying nothing,
learning nothing, reading nothing, being useful to no one, wallowing
in filth, sleeping in mud, living like brutes in a continual state
of stupefaction, sacking towns, burning villages, ruining whole
populations, then meeting another mass of human flesh, falling upon
them, making pools of blood, and plains of flesh mixed with trodden
mire and red with heaps of corpses, having your arms or legs carried
off, your brains blown out for no advantage to anyone, and dying in
some corner of a field while your old parents, your wife and children
are perishing of hunger--that is what is meant by not falling into
the most hideous materialism!

"Warriors are the scourge of the world. We struggle against nature
and ignorance and obstacles of all kinds to make our wretched life
less hard. Learned men--benefactors of all--spend their lives in
working, in seeking what can aid, what be of use, what can alleviate
the lot of their fellows. They devote themselves unsparingly to their
task of usefulness, making one discovery after another, enlarging the
sphere of human intelligence, extending the bounds of science, adding
each day some new store to the sum of knowledge, gaining each day
prosperity, ease, strength for their country.

"War breaks out. In six months the generals have destroyed the work
of twenty years of effort, of patience, and of genius.

"That is what is meant by not falling into the most hideous
materialism.

"We have seen it, war. We have seen men turned to brutes, frenzied,
killing for fun, for terror, for bravado, for ostentation. Then
when right is no more, law is dead, every notion of justice has
disappeared. We have seen men shoot innocent creatures found on the
road, and suspected because they were afraid. We have seen them kill
dogs chained at their masters' doors to try their new revolvers. We
have seen them fire on cows lying in a field for no reason whatever,
simply for the sake of shooting, for a joke.

"That is what is meant by not falling into the most hideous
materialism.

"Going into a country, cutting the man's throat who defends his house
because he wears a blouse and has not a military cap on his head,
burning the dwellings of wretched beings who have nothing to eat,
breaking furniture and stealing goods, drinking the wine found in
the cellars, violating the women in the streets, burning thousands
of francs' worth of powder, and leaving misery and cholera in one's
track--

"That is what is meant by not falling into the most hideous
materialism.

"What have they done, those warriors, that proves the least
intelligence? Nothing. What have they invented? Cannons and muskets.
That is all.

"What remains to us from Greece? Books and statues. Is Greece great
from her conquests or her creations?

"Was it the invasions of the Persians which saved Greece from falling
into the most hideous materialism?

"Were the invasions of the barbarians what saved and regenerated Rome?

"Was it Napoleon I. who carried forward the great intellectual
movement started by the philosophers of the end of last century?

"Yes, indeed, since government assumes the right of annihilating
peoples thus, there is nothing surprising in the fact that the
peoples assume the right of annihilating governments.

"They defend themselves. They are right. No one has an absolute right
to govern others. It ought only to be done for the benefit of those
who are governed. And it is as much the duty of anyone who governs to
avoid war as it is the duty of a captain of a ship to avoid shipwreck.

"When a captain has let his ship come to ruin, he is judged and
condemned, if he is found guilty of negligence or even incapacity.

"Why should not the government be put on its trial after every
declaration of war? _If the people understood that, if they
themselves passed judgment on murderous governments, if they refused
to let themselves be killed for nothing, if they would only turn
their arms against those who have given them to them for massacre, on
that day war would be no more. But that day will never come."_[10]

[10] "Sur l'Eau," pp. 71-80.

The author sees all the horror of war. He sees that it is caused by
governments forcing men by deception to go out to slaughter and be
slain without any advantage to themselves. And he sees, too, that
the men who make up the armies could turn their arms against the
governments and bring them to judgment. But he thinks that that
will never come to pass, and that there is, therefore, no escape
from the present position. "I think war is terrible, but that it is
inevitable; that compulsory military service is as inevitable as
death, and that since government will always desire it, war will
always exist."

So writes this talented and sincere writer, who is endowed with that
power of penetrating to the innermost core of the subjects which
is the essence of the poetic faculty. He brings before us all the
cruelty of the inconsistency between men's moral sense and their
actions, but without trying to remove it; seems to admit that this
inconsistency must exist and that it is the poetic tragedy of life.

Another no less gifted writer, Edouard Rod, paints in still more
vivid colors the cruelty and madness of the present state of
things. He too only aims at presenting its tragic features, without
suggesting or forseeing any issue from the position.

"What is the good of doing anything? What is the good of undertaking
any enterprise? And how are we to love men in these troubled times
when every fresh day is a menace of danger?... All we have begun, the
plans we are developing, our schemes of work, the little good we may
have been able to do, will it not all be swept away by the tempest
that is in preparation?... Every where the earth is shaking under
our feet and storm-clouds are gathering on our horizon which will
have no pity on us.

"Ah! if all we had to dread were the revolution which is held up
as a specter to terrify us! Since I cannot imagine a society more
detestable than ours, I feel more skeptical than alarmed in regard
to that which will replace it. If I should have to suffer from the
change, I should be consoled by thinking that the executioners of
that day were the victims of the previous time, and the hope of
something better would help us to endure the worst. But it is not
that remote peril which frightens me. I see another danger, nearer
and far more cruel; more cruel because there is no excuse for it,
because it is absurd, because it can lead to no good. Every day one
balances the chances of war on the morrow, every day they become more
merciless.

"The imagination revolts before the catastrophe which is coming
at the end of our century as the goal of the progress of our era,
and yet we must get used to facing it. For twenty years past every
resource of science has been exhausted in the invention of engines
of destruction, and soon a few charges of cannon will suffice to
annihilate a whole army. No longer a few thousands of poor devils,
who were paid a price for their blood, are kept under arms, but whole
nations are under arms to cut each other's throats. They are robbed
of their time now (by compulsory service) that they may be robbed
of their lives later. To prepare them for the work of massacre,
their hatred is kindled by persuading them that they are hated. And
peaceable men let themselves be played on thus and go and fall on one
another with the ferocity of wild beasts; furious troops of peaceful
citizens taking up arms at an empty word of command, for some
ridiculous question of frontiers or colonial trade interests--Heaven
only knows what.... They will go like sheep to the slaughter, knowing
all the while where they are going, knowing that they are leaving
their wives, knowing that their children will want for food, full
of misgivings, yet intoxicated by the fine-sounding lies that are
dinned into their ears. _They will march without revolt, passive,
resigned--though the numbers and the strength are theirs, and they
might, if they knew how to co-operate together, establish the reign
of good sense and fraternity_, instead of the barbarous trickery of
diplomacy. They will march to battle so deluded, so duped, that they
will believe slaughter to be a duty, and will ask the benediction
of God on their lust for blood. They will march to battle trampling
underfoot the harvests they have sown, burning the towns they have
built--with songs of triumph, festive music, and cries of jubilation.
And their sons will raise statues to those who have done most in
their slaughter.

"The destiny of a whole generation depends on the hour in which some
ill-fated politician may give the signal that will be followed.
We know that the best of us will be cut down and our work will be
destroyed in embryo. _We know it and tremble with rage, but we can
do nothing._ We are held fast in the toils of officialdom and red
tape, and too rude a shock would be needed to set us free. We are
enslaved by the laws we set up for our protection, which have become
our oppression. _We are but the tools of that autocratic abstraction
the state, which enslaves each individual in the name of the will of
all, who would all, taken individually, desire exactly the opposite
of what they will be made to do._

"And if it were only a generation that must be sacrificed! But there
are graver interests at stake.

"The paid politicians, the ambitious statesmen, who exploit the
evil passions of the populace, and the imbeciles who are deluded by
fine-sounding phrases, have so embittered national feuds that the
existence of a whole race will be at stake in the war of the morrow.
One of the elements that constitute the modern world is threatened,
the conquered people will be wiped out of existence, and whichever
it may be, we shall see a moral force annihilated, as if there were
too many forces to work for good--we shall have a new Europe formed
on foundations so unjust, so brutal, so sanguinary, stained with so
monstrous a crime, that it cannot but be worse than the Europe of
to-day--more iniquitous, more barbarous, more violent.

"Thus one feels crushed under the weight of an immense
discouragement. We are struggling in a _cul de sac_ with muskets
aimed at us from the housetops. Our labor is like that of sailors
executing their last task as the ship begins to sink. Our pleasures
are those of the condemned victim, who is offered his choice
of dainties a quarter of an hour before his execution. Thought
is paralyzed by anguish, and the most it is capable of is to
calculate--interpreting the vague phrases of ministers, spelling out
the sense of the speeches of sovereigns, and ruminating on the words
attributed to diplomatists reported on the uncertain authority of the
newspapers--whether it is to be to-morrow or the day after, this year
or the next, that we are to be murdered. So that one might seek in
vain in history an epoch more insecure, more crushed under the weight
of suffering."[11]

[11] "Le Sens de la Vie," pp. 208-13.

Here it is pointed out that the force is in the hands of those who
work their own destruction, in the hands of the individual men who
make up the masses; it is pointed out that the source of the evil is
the government. It would seem evident that the contradiction between
life and conscience had reached the limit beyond which it cannot go,
and after reaching this limit some solution of it must be found.

But the author does not think so. He sees in this the tragedy of
human life, and after depicting all the horror of the position he
concludes that human life must be spent in the midst of this horror.

So much for the attitude to war of those who regard it as something
tragic and fated by destiny.

The third category consists of men who have lost all conscience and,
consequently, all common sense and feeling of humanity.

To this category belongs Moltke, whose opinion has been quoted above
by Maupassant, and the majority of military men, who have been
educated in this cruel superstition, live by it, and consequently are
often in all simplicity convinced that war is not only an inevitable,
but even a necessary and beneficial thing. This is also the view of
some civilians, so-called educated and cultivated people.

Here is what the celebrated academician Camille Doucet writes in
reply to the editor of the _Revue des Revues_, where several letters
on war were published together:

"DEAR SIR: When you ask the least warlike of academicians
whether he is a partisan of war, his answer is known beforehand.

"Alas! sir, you yourself speak of the pacific ideal inspiring
your generous compatriots as a dream.

"During my life I have heard a great many good people protest
against this frightful custom of international butchery, which
all admit and deplore; but how is it to be remedied?

"Often, too, there have been attempts to suppress dueling; one
would fancy that seemed an easy task: but not at all! All that
has been done hitherto with that noble object has never been and
never will be of use.

"All the congresses of both hemispheres may vote against
war, and against dueling too, but above all arbitrations,
conventions, and legislations there will always be the _personal
honor of individual men_, which has always demanded dueling, and
_the interests of nations_, which will always demand war.

"I wish none the less from the depths of my heart that the
Congress of Universal Peace may succeed at last in its very
honorable and difficult enterprise.

"I am, dear sir, etc.,
"CAMILLE DOUCET."

The upshot of this is that personal honor requires men to fight, and
the interests of nations require them to ruin and exterminate each
other. As for the efforts to abolish war, they call for nothing but a
smile.

The opinion of another well-known academician, Jules Claretie, is of
the same kind.

"DEAR SIR [he writes]: For a man of sense there can be but one
opinion on the subject of peace and war.

"Humanity is created to live, to live free, to perfect and
ameliorate its fate by peaceful labor. The general harmony
preached by the Universal Peace Congress is but a dream perhaps,
but at least it is the fairest of all dreams. Man is always
looking toward the Promised Land, and there the harvests are to
ripen with no fear of their being torn up by shells or crushed
by cannon wheels.... But! Ah! but--since philosophers and
philanthropists are not the controlling powers, it is well for
our soldiers to guard our frontier and homes, and their arms,
skillfully used, are perhaps the surest guarantee of the peace
we all love.

"Peace is a gift only granted to the strong and the resolute.

"I am, dear sir, etc.,
"JULES CLARETIE."

The upshot of this letter is that there is no harm in talking about
what no one intends or feels obliged to do. But when it comes to
practice, we must fight.

And here now is the view lately expressed by the most popular
novelist in Europe, Émile Zola:

"I regard war as a fatal necessity, which appears inevitable for
us from its close connection with human nature and the whole
constitution of the world. I should wish that war could be put
off for the longest possible time. Nevertheless, the moment will
come when we shall be forced to go to war. I am considering it at
this moment from the standpoint of universal humanity, and making
no reference to our misunderstanding with Germany--a most trivial
incident in the history of mankind. I say that war is necessary and
beneficial, since it seems one of the conditions of existence for
humanity. War confronts us everywhere, not only war between different
races and peoples, but war too, in private and family life. It seems
one of the principal elements of progress, and every step in advance
that humanity has taken hitherto has been attended by bloodshed.

"Men have talked, and still talk, of disarmament, while disarmament
is something impossible, to which, even if it were possible, we ought
not to consent. I am convinced that a general disarmament throughout
the world would involve something like a moral decadence, which would
show itself in general feebleness, and would hinder the progressive
advancement of humanity. A warlike nation has always been strong and
flourishing. The art of war has led to the development of all the
other arts. History bears witness to it. So in Athens and in Rome,
commerce, manufactures, and literature never attained so high a point
of development as when those cities were masters of the whole world
by force of arms. To take an example from times nearer our own, we
may recall the age of Louis XIV. The wars of the Grand Monarque were
not only no hindrance to the progress of the arts and sciences,
but even, on the contrary, seem to have promoted and favored their
development."

So war is a beneficial thing!

But the best expression of this attitude is the view of the most
gifted of the writers of this school, the academician de Vogüé.
This is what he writes in an article on the Military Section of the
Exhibition of 1889:

"On the Esplanade des Invalides, among the exotic and colonial
encampments, a building in a more severe style overawes the
picturesque bazaar; all these fragments of the globe have come
to gather round the Palace of War, and in turn our guests mount
guard submissively before the mother building, but for whom they
would not be here. Fine subject for the antithesis of rhetoric, of
humanitarians who could not fail to whimper over this juxtaposition,
and to say that '_ceci tuera cela_,'[12] that the union of the
nations through science and labor will overcome the instinct of war.
Let us leave them to cherish the chimera of a golden age, which
would soon become, if it could be realized, an age of mud. All
history teaches us that the one is created for the other, that blood
is needed to hasten and cement the union of the nations. Natural
science has ratified in our day the mysterious law revealed to Joseph
de Maistre by the intuition of his genius and by meditation on
fundamental truths; he saw the world redeeming itself from hereditary
degenerations by sacrifice; science shows it advancing to perfection
through struggle and violent selection; there is the statement of
the same law in both, expressed in different formulas. The statement
is disagreeable, no doubt; but the laws of the world are not made
for our pleasure, they are made for our progress. Let us enter this
inevitable, necessary palace of war; we shall be able to observe
there how the most tenacious of our instincts, without losing any of
its vigor, is transformed and adapted to the varying exigencies of
historical epochs."

[12] Phrase quoted from Victor-Hugo, "Notre-Dame de Paris."

M. de Vogüé finds the necessity for war, according to his views, well
expressed by the two great writers, Joseph de Maistre and Darwin,
whose statements he likes so much that he quotes them again.

"DEAR SIR [he writes to the editor of the _Revue des Revues_]:
You ask me my view as to the possible success of the Universal
Congress of Peace. I hold with Darwin that violent struggle
is a law of nature which overrules all other laws; I hold
with Joseph de Maistre that it is a divine law; two different
ways of describing the same thing. If by some impossible
chance a fraction of human society--all the civilized West,
let us suppose--were to succeed in suspending the action of
this law, some races of stronger instincts would undertake
the task of putting it into action against us: those races
would vindicate nature's reasoning against human reason; they
would be successful, because the certainty of peace--I do
not say _peace_, I say _the certainty of peace_--would, in
half a century, engender a corruption and a decadence more
destructive for mankind than the worst of wars. I believe that
we must do with war--the criminal law of humanity--as with all
our criminal laws, that is, soften them, put them in force as
rarely as possible; use every effort to make their application
unnecessary. But all the experience of history teaches us that
they cannot be altogether suppressed so long as two men are left
on earth, with bread, money, and a woman between them.

"I should be very happy if the Congress would prove me in error.
But I doubt if it can prove history, nature, and God in error
also.

"I am, dear sir, etc.,
"E. M. DE VOGÜÉ."

This amounts to saying that history, human nature, and God show
us that so long as there are two men, and bread, money and a
woman--there will be war. That is to say that no progress will lead
men to rise above the savage conception of life, which regards no
participation of bread, money (money is good in this context) and
woman possible without fighting.

They are strange people, these men who assemble in Congresses, and
make speeches to show us how to catch birds by putting salt on their
tails, though they must know it is impossible to do it. And amazing
are they too, who, like Maupassant, Rod, and many others, see clearly
all the horror of war, all the inconsistency of men not doing what
is needful, right, and beneficial for them to do; who lament over
the tragedy of life, and do not see that the whole tragedy is at
an end directly men, ceasing to take account of any unnecessary
considerations, refuse to do what is hateful and disastrous to them.
They are amazing people truly, but those who, like De Vogüé and
others, who, professing the doctrine of evolution, regard war as not
only inevitable, but beneficial, and therefore desirable--they are
terrible, hideous, in their moral perversion. The others, at least,
say that they hate evil, and love good, but these openly declare that
good and evil do not exist.

All discussion of the possibility of re-establishing peace instead of
everlasting war--is the pernicious sentimentality of phrasemongers.
There is a law of evolution by which it follows that I must live
and act in an evil way; what is to be done? I am an educated man, I
know the law of evolution, and therefore I will act in an evil way.
"_Entrons au palais de la guerre._" There is the law of evolution,
and therefore there is neither good nor evil, and one must live for
the sake of one's personal existence, leaving the rest to the action
of the law of evolution. This is the last word of refined culture,
and with it, of that overshadowing of conscience which has come upon
the educated classes of our times. The desire of the educated classes
to support the ideas they prefer, and the order of existence based
on them, has attained its furthest limits. They lie, and delude
themselves, and one another, with the subtlest forms of deception,
simply to obscure, to deaden conscience.

Instead of transforming their life into harmony with their
conscience, they try by every means to stifle its voice. But it is in
darkness that the light begins to shine, and so the light is rising
upon our epoch.

CHAPTER VII.

SIGNIFICANCE OF COMPULSORY SERVICE.

Universal Compulsory Service is not a Political Accident, but
the Furthest Limit of the Contradiction Inherent in the Social
Conception of Life--Origin of Authority in Society--Basis of
Authority is Physical Violence--To be Able to Perform its
Acts of Violence Authority Needs a Special Organization--The
Army--Authority, that is, Violence, is the Principle which
is Destroying the Social Conception of Life--Attitude of
Authority to the Masses, that is, Attitude of Government to
Working Oppressed Classes--Governments Try to Foster in Working
Classes the Idea that State Force is Necessary to Defend Them
from External Enemies--But the Army is Principally Needed
to Preserve Government from its own Subjects--The Working
Classes--Speech of M. de Caprivi--All Privileges of Ruling
Classes Based on Violence--The Increase of Armies up to Point
of Universal Service--Universal Compulsory Service Destroys all
the Advantages of Social Life, which Government is Intended
to Preserve--Compulsory Service is the Furthest Limit of
Submission, since in Name of the State it Requires Sacrifice of
all that can be Precious to a Man--Is Government Necessary?--The
Sacrifices Demanded by Government in Compulsory Service have No
Longer any Reasonable Basis--And there is More Advantage to be
Gained by not Submitting to the Demands of the State than by
Submitting to Them.

Educated people of the upper classes are trying to stifle the
ever-growing sense of the necessity of transforming the existing
social order. But life, which goes on growing more complex, and
developing in the same direction, and increases the inconsistencies
and the sufferings of men, brings them to the limit beyond which
they cannot go. This furthest limit of inconsistency is universal
compulsory military service.

It is usually supposed that universal military service and the
increased armaments connected with it, as well as the resulting
increase of taxes and national debts, are a passing phenomenon,
produced by the particular political situation of Europe, and that
it may be removed by certain political combinations without any
modification of the inner order of life.

This is absolutely incorrect. Universal military service is only the
internal inconsistency inherent in the social conception of life,
carried to its furthest limits, and becoming evident when a certain
stage of material development is reached.

The social conception of life, we have seen, consists in the
transfer of the aim of life from the individual to groups and their
maintenance--to the tribe, family, race, or state.

In the social conception of life it is supposed that since the
aim of life is found in groups of individuals, individuals will
voluntarily sacrifice their own interests for the interests of
the group. And so it has been, and still is, in fact, in certain
groups, the distinction being that they are the most primitive
forms of association in the family or tribe or race, or even in the
patriarchal state. Through tradition handed down by education and
supported by religious sentiment, individuals without compulsion
merged their interests in the interest of the group and sacrificed
their own good for the general welfare.

But the more complex and the larger societies become, and especially
the more often conquest becomes the cause of the amalgamation of
people into a state, the more often individuals strive to attain
their own aims at the public expense, and the more often it becomes
necessary to restrain these insubordinate individuals by recourse
to authority, that is, to violence. The champions of the social
conception of life usually try to connect the idea of authority,
that is, of violence, with the idea of moral influence, but this
connection is quite impossible.

The effect of moral influence on a man is to change his desires and
to bend them in the direction of the duty required of him. The man
who is controlled by moral influence acts in accordance with his own
desires. Authority, in the sense in which the word is ordinarily
understood, is a means of forcing a man to act in opposition to
his desires. The man who submits to authority does not do as he
chooses but as he is obliged by authority. Nothing can oblige a
man to do what he does not choose except physical force, or the
threat of it, that is--deprivation of freedom, blows, imprisonment,
or threats--easily carried out--of such punishments. This is what
authority consists of and always has consisted of.

In spite of the unceasing efforts of those who happen to be in
authority to conceal this and attribute some other significance to
it, authority has always meant for man the cord, the chain with
which he is bound and fettered, or the knout with which he is to be
flogged, or the ax with which he is to have hands, ears, nose, or
head cut off, or at the very least, the threat of these terrors. So
it was under Nero and Ghenghis Khan, and so it is to-day, even under
the most liberal government in the Republics of the United States
or of France. If men submit to authority, it is only because they
are liable to these punishments in case of non-submission. All state
obligations, payment of taxes, fulfillment of state duties, and
submission to punishments, exile, fines, etc., to which people appear
to submit voluntarily, are always based on bodily violence or the
threat of it.

The basis of authority is bodily violence. The possibility of
applying bodily violence to people is provided above all by an
organization of armed men, trained to act in unison in submission to
one will. These bands of armed men, submissive to a single will, are
what constitute the army. The army has always been and still is the
basis of power. Power is always in the hands of those who control the
army, and all men in power--from the Roman Cæsars to the Russian and
German Emperors--take more interest in their army than in anything,
and court popularity in the army, knowing that if that is on their
side their power is secure.

The formation and aggrandizement of the army, indispensable to the
maintenance of authority, is what has introduced into the social
conception of life the principle that is destroying it.

The object of authority and the justification for its existence
lie in the restraint of those who aim at attaining their personal
interests to the detriment of the interests of society.

But however power has been gained, those who possess it are in no
way different from other men, and therefore no more disposed than
others to subordinate their own interests to those of the society.
On the contrary, having the power to do so at their disposal, they
are more disposed than others to subordinate the public interests to
their own. Whatever means men have devised for preventing those in
authority from over-riding public interests for their own benefit, or
for intrusting power only to the most faultless people, they have not
so far succeeded in either of those aims.

All the methods of appointing authorities that have been tried,
divine right, and election, and heredity, and balloting, and
assemblies and parliaments and senate--have all proved ineffectual.
Everyone knows that not one of these methods attains the aim either
of intrusting power only to the incorruptible, or of preventing
power from being abused. Everyone knows on the contrary that men
in authority--be they emperors, ministers, governors, or police
officers--are always, simply from the possession of power, more
liable to be demoralized, that is, to subordinate public interests
to their personal aims than those who have not the power to do so.
Indeed, it could not be otherwise.

The state conception of life could be justified only so long as
all men voluntarily sacrificed their personal interests to the
public welfare. But so soon as there were individuals who would
not voluntarily sacrifice their own interests, and authority, that
is, violence, was needed to restrain them, then the disintegrating
principle of the coercion of one set of people by another set entered
into the social conception of the organization based on it.

For the authority of one set of men over another to attain its object
of restraining those who override public interests for their personal
ends, power ought only to be put into the hands of the impeccable,
as it is supposed to be among the Chinese, and as it was supposed to
be in the Middle Ages, and is even now supposed to be by those who
believe in the consecration by anointing. Only under those conditions
could the social organization be justified.

But since this is not the case, and on the contrary men in power
are always far from being saints, through the very fact of their
possession of power, the social organization based on power has no
justification.

Even if there was once a time when, owing to the low standard of
morals, and the disposition of men to violence, the existence of an
authority to restrain such violence was an advantage, because the
violence of government was less than the violence of individuals,
one cannot but see that this advantage could not be lasting. As
the disposition of individuals to violence diminished, and as the
habits of the people became more civilized, and as power grew more
demoralized through lack of restraint, this advantage disappeared.

The whole history of the last two thousand years is nothing but
the history of this gradual change of relation between the moral
development of the masses on the one hand and the demoralization of
governments on the other.

This, put simply, is how it has come to pass.

Men lived in families, tribes, and races, at feud with one another,
plundering, outraging, and killing one another. These violent
hostilities were carried on on a large and on a small scale: man
against man, family against family, tribe against tribe, race against
race, and people against people. The larger and stronger groups
conquered and absorbed the weaker, and the larger and stronger
they became, the more internal feuds disappeared and the more the
continuity of the group seemed assured.

The members of a family or tribe, united into one community, are less
hostile among themselves, and families and tribes do not die like one
man, but have a continuity of existence. Between the members of one
state, subject to a single authority, the strife between individuals
seems still less and the life of the state seems even more secure.

Their association into larger and larger groups was not the result
of the conscious recognition of the benefits of such associations,
as it is said to be in the story of the Varyagi. It was produced, on
one hand, by the natural growth of population, and, on the other, by
struggle and conquest.

After conquest the power of the emperor puts an end to internal
dissensions, and so the state conception of life justifies itself.
But this justification is never more than temporary. Internal
dissensions disappear only in proportion to the degree of oppression
exerted by the authority over the dissentient individuals. The
violence of internal feud crushed by authority reappears in authority
itself, which falls into the hands of men who, like the rest, are
frequently or always ready to sacrifice the public welfare to their
personal interest, with the difference that their subjects cannot
resist them, and thus they are exposed to all the demoralizing
influence of authority. And thus the evil of violence, when it passes
into the hands of authority, is always growing and growing, and in
time becomes greater than the evil it is supposed to suppress, while,
at the same time, the tendency to violence in the members of the
society becomes weaker and weaker, so that the violence of authority
is less and less needed.

Government authority, even if it does suppress private violence,
always introduces into the life of men fresh forms of violence, which
tend to become greater and greater in proportion to the duration and
strength of the government.

So that though the violence of power is less noticeable in government
than when it is employed by members of society against one another,
because it finds expression in submission, and not in strife, it
nevertheless exists, and often to a greater degree than in former
days.

And it could not be otherwise, since, apart from the demoralizing
influence of power, the policy or even the unconscious tendency of
those in power will always be to reduce their subjects to the extreme
of weakness, for the weaker the oppressed, the less effort need be
made to keep him in subjection.

And therefore the oppression of the oppressed always goes on growing
up to the furthest limit, beyond which it cannot go without killing
the goose with the golden eggs. And if the goose lays no more eggs,
like the American Indians, negroes, and Fijians, then it is killed in
spite of the sincere protests of philanthropists.

The most convincing example of this is to be found in the condition
of the working classes of our epoch, who are in reality no better
than the slaves of ancient times subdued by conquest.

In spite of the pretended efforts of the higher classes to ameliorate
the position of the workers, all the working classes of the present
day are kept down by the inflexible iron law by which they only
get just what is barely necessary, so that they are forced to work
without ceasing while still retaining strength enough to labor for
their employers, who are really those who have conquered and enslaved
them.

So it has always been. In ratio to the duration and increasing
strength of authority its advantages for its subjects disappear and
its disadvantages increase.

And this has been so, independently of the forms of government
under which nations have lived. The only difference is that under
a despotic form of government the authority is concentrated in a
small number of oppressors and violence takes a cruder form; under
constitutional monarchies and republics as in France and America
authority is divided among a great number of oppressors and the
forms assumed by violence is less crude, but its effect of making
the disadvantages of authority greater than its advantages, and of
enfeebling the oppressed to the furthest extreme to which they can be
reduced with advantage to the oppressors, remains always the same.

Such has been and still is the condition of all the oppressed, but
hitherto they have not recognized the fact. In the majority of
instances they have believed in all simplicity that governments exist
for their benefit; that they would be lost without a government; that
the very idea of living without a government is a blasphemy which
one hardly dare put into words; that this is the--for some reason
terrible--doctrine of anarchism, with which a mental picture of all
kinds of horrors is associated.

People have believed, as though it were something fully proved, and
so needing no proof, that since all nations have hitherto developed
in the form of states, that form of organization is an indispensable
condition of the development of humanity.

And in that way it has lasted for hundreds and thousands of years,
and governments--those who happened to be in power--have tried it,
and are now trying more zealously than ever to keep their subjects in
this error.

So it was under the Roman emperors and so it is now. In spite of the
fact that the sense of the uselessness and even injurious effects of
state violence is more and more penetrating into men's consciousness,
things might have gone on in the same way forever if governments were
not under the necessity of constantly increasing their armies in
order to maintain their power.

It is generally supposed that governments strengthen their forces
only to defend the state from other states, in oblivion of the fact
that armies are necessary, before all things, for the defense of
governments from their own oppressed and enslaved subjects.

That has always been necessary, and has become more and more
necessary with the increased diffusion of education among the masses,
with the improved communication between people of the same and of
different nationalities. It has become particularly indispensable
now in the face of communism, socialism, anarchism, and the labor
movement generally. Governments feel that it is so, and strengthen
the force of their disciplined armies.[13]

[13] The fact that in America the abuses of authority exist in spite
of the small number of their troops not only fails to disprove this
position, but positively confirms it. In America there are fewer
soldiers than in other states. That is why there is nowhere else so
little oppression of the working classes, and no country where the
end of the abuses of government and of government itself seems so
near. Of late as the combinations of laborers gain in strength, one
hears more and more frequently the cry raised for the increase of the
army, though the United States are not threatened with any attack
from without. The upper classes know that an army of fifty thousand
will soon be insufficient, and no longer relying on Pinkerton's
men, they feel that the security of their position depends on the
increased strength of the army.

In the German Reichstag not long ago, in reply to a question why
funds were needed for raising the salaries of the under-officers, the
German Chancellor openly declared that trustworthy under-officers
were necessary to contend against socialism. Caprivi only said
aloud what every statesman knows and assiduously conceals from the
people. The reason to which he gave expression is essentially the
same as that which made the French kings and the popes engage Swiss
and Scotch guards, and makes the Russian authorities of to-day so
carefully distribute the recruits, so that the regiments from the
frontiers are stationed in central districts, and the regiments from
the center are stationed on the frontiers. The meaning of Caprivi's
speech, put into plain language, is that funds are needed, not to
resist foreign foes, but to _buy under-officers_ to be ready to act
against the enslaved toiling masses.

Caprivi incautiously gave utterance to what everyone knows perfectly
well, or at least feels vaguely if he does not recognize it, that
is, that the existing order of life is as it is, not, as would be
natural and right, because the people wish it to be so, but because
it is so maintained by state violence, by the army with its _bought
under-officers_ and generals.

If the laborer has no land, if he cannot use the natural right of
every man to derive subsistence for himself and his family out of the
land, that is not because the people wish it to be so, but because a
certain set of men, the land-owners, have appropriated the right of
giving or refusing admittance to the land to the laborers. And this
abnormal order of things is maintained by the army. If the immense
wealth produced by the labor of the working classes is not regarded
as the property of all, but as the property of a few exceptional
persons; if labor is taxed by authority and the taxes spent by a
few on what they think fit; if strikes on the part of laborers are
repressed, while on the part of capitalists they are encouraged; if
certain persons appropriate the right of choosing the form of the
education, religious and secular, of children, and certain persons
monopolize the right of making the laws all must obey, and so dispose
of the lives and properties of other people--all this is not done
because the people wish it and because it is what is natural and
right, but because the government and ruling classes wish this to be
so for their own benefit, and insist on its being so even by physical
violence.

Everyone, if he does not recognize this now, will know that it is so
at the first attempt at insubordination or at a revolution of the
existing order.

Armies, then, are needed by governments and by the ruling classes
above all to support the present order, which, far from being the
result of the people's needs, is often in direct antagonism to them,
and is only beneficial to the government and ruling classes.

To keep their subjects in oppression and to be able to enjoy the
fruits of their labor the government must have armed forces.

But there is not only one government. There are other governments,
exploiting their subjects by violence in the same way, and always
ready to pounce down on any other government and carry off the
fruits of the toil of its enslaved subjects. And so every government
needs an army also to protect its booty from its neighbor brigands.
Every government is thus involuntarily reduced to the necessity of
emulating one another in the increase of their armies. This increase
is contagious, as Montesquieu pointed out 150 years ago.

Every increase in the army of one state, with the aim of self-defense
against its subjects, becomes a source of danger for neighboring
states and calls for a similar increase in their armies.

The armed forces have reached their present number of millions not
only through the menace of danger from neighboring states, but
principally through the necessity of subduing every effort at revolt
on the part of the subjects.

Both causes, mutually dependent, contribute to the same result at
once; troops are required against internal forces and also to keep
up a position with other states. One is the result of the other.
The despotism of a government always increases with the strength of
the army and its external successes, and the aggressiveness of a
government increases with its internal despotism.

The rivalry of the European states in constantly increasing their
forces has reduced them to the necessity of having recourse to
universal military service, since by that means the greatest possible
number of soldiers is obtained at the least possible expense. Germany
first hit on this device. And directly one state adopted it the
others were obliged to do the same. And by this means all citizens
are under arms to support the iniquities practiced upon them; all
citizens have become their own oppressors.

Universal military service was an inevitable logical necessity, to
which we were bound to come. But it is also the last expression
of the inconsistency inherent in the social conception of life,
when violence is needed to maintain it. This inconsistency has
become obvious in universal military service. In fact, the whole
significance of the social conception of life consists in man's
recognition of the barbarity of strife between individuals, and the
transitoriness of personal life itself, and the transference of
the aim of life to groups of persons. But with universal military
service it comes to pass that men, after making every sacrifice to
get rid of the cruelty of strife and the insecurity of existence,
are called upon to face all the perils they had meant to avoid. And
in addition to this the state, for whose sake individuals renounced
their personal advantages, is exposed again to the same risks of
insecurity and lack of permanence as the individual himself was in
previous times.

Governments were to give men freedom from the cruelty of personal
strife and security in the permanence of the state order of
existence. But instead of doing that they expose the individuals to
the same necessity of strife, substituting strife with individuals of
other states for strife with neighbors. And the danger of destruction
for the individual, and the state too, they leave just as it was.

Universal military service may be compared to the efforts of a man to
prop up his falling house who so surrounds it and fills it with props
and buttresses and planks and scaffolding that he manages to keep the
house standing only by making it impossible to live in it.

In the same way universal military service destroys all the benefits
of the social order of life which it is employed to maintain.

The advantages of social organization are security of property and
labor and associated action for the improvement of existence--universal
military service destroys all this.

The taxes raised from the people for war preparations absorb the
greater part of the produce of labor which the army ought to defend.

The withdrawing of all men from the ordinary course of life destroys
the possibility of labor itself. The danger of war, ever ready to
break out, renders all reforms of social life vain and fruitless.

In former days if a man were told that if he did not acknowledge
the authority of the state, he would be exposed to attack from
enemies domestic and foreign, that he would have to resist them
alone, and would be liable to be killed, and that therefore it would
be to his advantage to put up with some hardships to secure himself
from these calamities, he might well believe it, seeing that the
sacrifices he made to the state were only partial and gave him the
hope of a tranquil existence in a permanent state. But now, when the
sacrifices have been increased tenfold and the promised advantages
are disappearing, it would be a natural reflection that submission to
authority is absolutely useless.

But the fatal significance of universal military service, as the
manifestation of the contradiction inherent in the social conception
of life, is not only apparent in that. The greatest manifestation of
this contradiction consists in the fact that every citizen in being
made a soldier becomes a prop of the government organization, and
shares the responsibility of everything the government does, even
though he may not admit its legitimacy.

Governments assert that armies are needed above all for external
defense, but that is not true. They are needed principally against
their subjects, and every man, under universal military service,
becomes an accomplice in all the acts of violence of the government
against the citizens without any choice of his own.

To convince oneself of this one need only remember what things are
done in every state, in the name of order and the public welfare, of
which the execution always falls to the army. All civil outbreaks
for dynastic or other party reasons, all the executions that follow
on such disturbances, all repression of insurrections, and military
intervention to break up meetings and to suppress strikes, all forced
extortion of taxes, all the iniquitous distributions of land, all
the restrictions on labor--are either carried out directly by the
military or by the police with the army at their back. Anyone who
serves his time in the army shares the responsibility of all these
things, about which he is, in some cases, dubious, while very often
they are directly opposed to his conscience. People are unwilling to
be turned out of the land they have cultivated for generations, or
they are unwilling to disperse when the government authority orders
them, or they are unwilling to pay the taxes required of them, or
to recognize laws as binding on them when they have had no hand in
making them, or to be deprived of their nationality--and I, in the
fulfillment of my military duty, must go and shoot them for it.
How can I help asking myself when I take part in such punishments,
whether they are just, and whether I ought to assist in carrying them
out?

Universal service is the extreme limit of violence necessary for the
support of the whole state organization, and it is the extreme limit
to which submission on the part of the subjects can go. It is the
keystone of the whole edifice, and its fall will bring it all down.

The time has come when the ever-growing abuse of power by governments
and their struggles with one another has led to their demanding such
material and even moral sacrifices from their subjects that everyone
is forced to reflect and ask himself, "Can I make these sacrifices?
And for the sake of what am I making them? I am expected for the
sake of the state to make these sacrifices, to renounce everything
that can be precious to man--peace, family, security, and human
dignity." What is this state, for whose sake such terrible sacrifices
have to be made? And why is it so indispensably necessary? "The
state," they tell us, "is indispensably needed, in the first place,
because without it we should not be protected against the attacks of
evil-disposed persons; and secondly, except for the state we should
be savages and should have neither religion, culture, education, nor
commerce, nor means of communication, nor other social institutions;
and thirdly, without the state to defend us we should be liable to be
conquered and enslaved by neighboring peoples."

"Except for the state," they say, "we should be exposed to the
attacks of evil-disposed persons in our own country."

But who are these evil-disposed persons in our midst from whose
attacks we are preserved by the state and its army? Even if, three
or four centuries ago, when men prided themselves on their warlike
prowess, when killing men was considered an heroic achievement, there
were such persons; we know very well that there are no such persons
now, that we do not nowadays carry or use firearms, but everyone
professes humane principles and feels sympathy for his fellows, and
wants nothing more than we all do--that is, to be left in peace
to enjoy his existence undisturbed. So that nowadays there are no
special malefactors from whom the state could defend us. If by these
evil-disposed persons is meant the men who are punished as criminals,
we know very well that they are not a different kind of being like
wild beasts among sheep, but are men just like ourselves, and no more
naturally inclined to crimes than those against whom they commit
them. We know now that threats and punishments cannot diminish their
number; that that can only be done by change of environment and moral
influence. So that the justification of state violence on the ground
of the protection it gives us from evil-disposed persons, even if it
had some foundation three or four centuries ago, has none whatever
now. At present one would rather say on the contrary that the action
of the state with its cruel methods of punishment, behind the general
moral standard of the age, such as prisons, galleys, gibbets, and
guillotines, tends rather to brutalize the people than to civilize
them, and consequently rather to increase than diminish the number of
malefactors.

"Except for the state," they tell us, "we should not have any
religion, education, culture, means of communication, and so on.
Without the state men would not have been able to form the social
institutions needed for doing anything." This argument too was well
founded only some centuries ago.

If there was a time when people were so disunited, when they had so
little means of communication and interchange of ideas, that they
could not co-operate and agree together in any common action in
commerce, economics, or education without the state as a center, this
want of common action exists no longer. The great extension of means
of communication and interchange of ideas has made men completely
able to dispense with state aid in forming societies, associations,
corporations, and congresses for scientific, economic, and political
objects. Indeed government is more often an obstacle than an
assistance in attaining these aims.

From the end of last century there has hardly been a single
progressive movement of humanity which has not been retarded by the
government. So it has been with abolition of corporal punishment, of
trial by torture, and of slavery, as well as with the establishment
of the liberty of the press and the right of public meeting. In our
day governments not only fail to encourage, but directly hinder
every movement by which people try to work out new forms of life for
themselves. Every attempt at the solution of the problems of labor,
land, politics, and religion meets with direct opposition on the part
of government.

"Without governments nations would be enslaved by their neighbors."
It is scarcely necessary to refute this last argument. It carries its
refutation on the face of it. The government, they tell us, with its
army, is necessary to defend us from neighboring states who might
enslave us. But we know this is what all governments say of one
another, and yet we know that all the European nations profess the
same principles of liberty and fraternity, and therefore stand in
no need of protection against one another. And if defense against
barbarous nations is meant, one-thousandth part of the troops now
under arms would be amply sufficient for that purpose. We see that
it is really the very opposite of what we have been told. The power
of the state, far from being a security against the attacks of our
neighbors, exposes us, on the contrary, to much greater danger of
such attacks. So that every man who is led, through his compulsory
service in the army, to reflect on the value of the state for whose
sake he is expected to be ready to sacrifice his peace, security, and
life, cannot fail to perceive that there is no kind of justification
in modern times for such a sacrifice.

And it is not only from the theoretical standpoint that every
man must see that the sacrifices demanded by the state have no
justification. Even looking at it practically, weighing, that is to
say, all the burdens laid on him by the state, no man can fail to see
that for him personally to comply with state demands and serve in the
army, would, in the majority of cases, be more disadvantageous than
to refuse to do so.

If the majority of men choose to submit rather than to refuse, it is
not the result of sober balancing of advantages and disadvantages,
but because they are induced by a kind of hypnotizing process
practiced upon them. In submitting they simply yield to the
suggestions given them as orders, without thought or effort of
will. To resist would need independent thought and effort of which
every man is not capable. Even apart from the moral significance of
compliance or non-compliance, considering material advantage only,
non-compliance will be more advantageous in general.

Whoever I may be, whether I belong to the well-to-do class of the
oppressors, or the working class of the oppressed, in either case the
disadvantages of non-compliance are less and its advantages greater
than those of compliance. If I belong to the minority of oppressors
the disadvantages of non-compliance will consist in my being brought
to judgment for refusing to perform my duties to the state, and
if I am lucky, being acquitted or, as is done in the case of the
Mennonites in Russia, being set to work out my military service at
some civil occupation for the state; while if I am unlucky, I may be
condemned to exile or imprisonment for two or three years (I judge
by the cases that have occurred in Russia), possibly to even longer
imprisonment, or possibly to death, though the probability of that
latter is very remote.

So much for the disadvantages of non-compliance. The disadvantages of
compliance will be as follows: if I am lucky I shall not be sent to
murder my fellow-creatures, and shall not be exposed to great danger
of being maimed and killed, but shall only be enrolled into military
slavery. I shall be dressed up like a clown, I shall be at the beck
and call of every man of a higher grade than my own from corporal to
field-marshal, shall be put through any bodily contortions at their
pleasure, and after being kept from one to five years I shall have
for ten years afterward to be in readiness to undertake all of it
again at any minute. If I am unlucky I may, in addition, be sent to
war, where I shall be forced to kill men of foreign nations who have
done me no harm, where I may be maimed or killed, or sent to certain
destruction as in the case of the garrison of Sevastopol, and other
cases in every war, or what would be most terrible of all, I may be
sent against my own compatriots and have to kill my own brothers for
some dynastic or other state interests which have absolutely nothing
to do with me. So much for the comparative disadvantages.

The comparative advantages of compliance and non-compliance are as
follows:

For the man who submits, the advantages will be that, after exposing
himself to all the humiliation and performing all the barbarities
required of him, he may, if he escapes being killed, get a decoration
of red or gold tinsel to stick on his clown's dress; he may, if he is
very lucky, be put in command of hundreds of thousands of others as
brutalized as himself; be called a field-marshal, and get a lot of
money.

The advantages of the man who refuses to obey will consist in
preserving his dignity as a man, gaining the approbation of good
men, and above all knowing that he is doing the work of God, and so
undoubtedly doing good to his fellow-men.

So much for the advantages and disadvantages of both lines of conduct
for a man of the wealthy classes, an oppressor. For a man of the poor
working class the advantages and disadvantages will be the same, but
with a great increase of disadvantages. The disadvantages for the
poor man who submits will be aggravated by the fact that he will by
taking part in it, and, as it were, assenting to it strengthen the
state of subjection in which he is held himself.

But no considerations as to how far the state is useful or beneficial
to the men who help to support it by serving in the army, nor of
the advantages or disadvantages for the individual of compliance or
non-compliance with state demands, will decide the question of the
continued existence or the abolition of government. This question
will be finally decided beyond appeal by the religious consciousness
or conscience of every man who is forced, whether he will or no,
through universal conscription, to face the question whether the
state is to continue to exist or not.

CHAPTER VIII.

DOCTRINE OF NON-RESISTANCE TO EVIL BY FORCE MUST INEVITABLY BE
ACCEPTED BY MEN OF THE PRESENT DAY.

Christianity is Not a System of Rules, but a New Conception of
Life, and therefore it was Not Obligatory and was Not Accepted
in its True Significance by All, but only by a Few--Christianity
is, Moreover, Prophetic of the Destruction of the Pagan Life,
and therefore of Necessity of the Acceptance of the Christian
Doctrines--Non-resistance of Evil by Force is One Aspect of
the Christian Doctrine, which must Inevitably in Our Times be
Accepted by Men--Two Methods of Deciding Every Quarrel--First
Method is to Find a Universal Definition of Evil, which All Must
Accept, and to Resist this Evil by Force--Second Method is the
Christian One of Complete Non-resistance by Force--Though the
Failure of the First Method was Recognized since the Early Days
of Christianity, it was Still Proposed, and only as Mankind
has Progressed it has Become More and More Evident that there
Cannot be any Universal Definition of Evil--This is Recognized
by All at the Present Day, and if Force is Still Used to Resist
Evil, it is Not Because it is Now Regarded as Right, but
Because People Don't Know How to Avoid It--The Difficulty of
Avoiding It is the Result of the Subtle and Complex Character
of the Government Use of Force--Force is Used in Four Ways:
Intimidation, Bribery, Hypnotism, and Coercion by Force of
Arms--State Violence Can Never be Suppressed by the Forcible
Overthrow of the Government--Men are Led by the Sufferings of
the Pagan Mode of Life to the Necessity of Accepting Christ's
Teaching with its Doctrine of Non-resistance by Force--The
Consciousness of its Truth which is Diffused Throughout
Our Society, Will also Bring About its Acceptance--This
Consciousness is in Complete Contradiction with Our Life--This
is Specially Obvious in Compulsory Military Service, but Through
Habit and the Application of the Four Methods of Violence by
the State, Men do not See this Inconsistency of Christianity
with Life of a Soldier--They do Not even See It, though the
Authorities Themselves Show all the Immorality of a Soldier's
Duties with Perfect Clearness--The Call to Military Service is
the Supreme Test for Every Man, when the Choice is Offered Him,
between Adopting the Christian Doctrine of Non-resistance, or
Slavishly Submitting to the Existing State Organization--Men
Usually Renounce All They Hold Sacred, and Submit to the Demands
of Government, Seeming to See No Other Course Open to Them--For
Men of the Pagan Conception of Life there is No Other Course
Open, and Never Will Be, in Spite of the Growing Horrors of
War--Society, Made Up of Such Men, Must Perish, and No Social
Reorganization Can Save It--Pagan Life Has Reached Its Extreme
Limit, and Will Annihilate Itself.

It is often said that if Christianity is a truth, it ought to have
been accepted by everyone directly it appeared, and ought to have
transformed men's lives for the better. But this is like saying that
if the seed were ripe it ought at once to bring forth stalk, flower,
and fruit.

The Christian religion is not a legal system which, being imposed by
violence, may transform men's lives. Christianity is a new and higher
conception of life. A new conception of life cannot be imposed on
men; it can only be freely assimilated. And it can only be freely
assimilated in two ways: one spiritual and internal, the other
experimental and external.

Some people--a minority--by a kind of prophetic instinct divine
the truth of the doctrine, surrender themselves to it and adopt
it. Others--the majority--only through a long course of mistakes,
experiments, and suffering are brought to recognize the truth of the
doctrine and the necessity of adopting it.

And by this experimental external method the majority of Christian
men have now been brought to this necessity of assimilating the
doctrine. One sometimes wonders what necessitated the corruption of
Christianity which is now the greatest obstacle to its acceptance in
its true significance.

If Christianity had been presented to men in its true, uncorrupted
form, it would not have been accepted by the majority, who would have
been as untouched by it as the nations of Asia are now. The peoples
who accepted it in its corrupt form were subjected to its slow but
certain influence, and by a long course of errors and experiments and
their resultant sufferings have now been brought to the necessity of
assimulating it in its true significance.

The corruption of Christianity and its acceptance in its corrupt form
by the majority of men was as necessary as it is that the seed should
remain hidden for a certain time in the earth in order to germinate.

Christianity is at once a doctrine of truth and a prophecy. Eighteen
centuries ago Christianity revealed to men the truth in which they
ought to live, and at the same time foretold what human life would
become if men would not live by it but continued to live by their
previous principles, and what it would become if they accepted the
Christian doctrine and carried it out in their lives.

Laying down in the Sermon on the Mount the principles by which to
guide men's lives, Christ said: "Whosoever heareth these sayings of
mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, who built his
house upon a rock; and the rain descended, and the floods came, and
the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not, for it was
founded upon a rock. And everyone that heareth these sayings, and
doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, who built his
house upon the sand; and the rain descended, and the floods came, and
the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was
the fall of it" (Matt. vii. 24-27).

And now after eighteen centuries the prophecy has been fulfilled. Not
having followed Christ's teaching generally and its application to
social life in non-resistance to evil, men have been brought in spite
of themselves to the inevitable destruction foretold by Christ for
those who do not fulfill his teaching.

People often think the question of non-resistance to evil by force
is a theoretical one, which can be neglected. Yet this question
is presented by life itself to all men, and calls for some answer
from every thinking man. Ever since Christianity has been outwardly
professed, this question is for men in their social life like the
question which presents itself to a traveler when the road on which
he has been journeying divides into two branches. He must go on and
he cannot say: I will not think about it, but will go on just as I
did before. There was one road, now there are two, and he must make
his choice.

In the same way since Christ's teaching has been known by men they
cannot say: I will live as before and will not decide the question of
resistance or non-resistance to evil by force. At every new struggle
that arises one must inevitably decide; am I, or am I not, to resist
by force what I regard as evil.

The question of resistance or non-resistance to evil arose when
the first conflict between men took place, since every conflict is
nothing else than resistance by force to what each of the combatants
regards as evil. But before Christ, men did not see that resistance
by force to what each regards as evil, simply because one thinks evil
what the other thinks good, is only one of the methods of settling
the dispute, and that there is another method, that of not resisting
evil by force at all.

Before Christ's teaching, it seemed to men that the one only means
of settling a dispute was by resistance to evil by force. And they
acted accordingly, each of the combatants trying to convince himself
and others that what each respectively regards as evil, is actually,
absolutely evil.

And to do this from the earliest time men have devised definitions of
evil and tried to make them binding on everyone. And such definitions
of evil sometimes took the form of laws, supposed to have been
received by supernatural means, sometimes of the commands of rulers
or assemblies to whom infallibility was attributed. Men resorted to
violence against others, and convinced themselves and others that
they were directing their violence against evil recognized as such by
all.

This means was employed from the earliest times, especially by those
who had gained possession of authority, and for a long while its
irrationality was not detected.

But the longer men lived in the world and the more complex their
relations became, the more evident it was that to resist by force
what each regarded as evil was irrational, that conflict was in no
way lessened thereby, and that no human definitions can succeed in
making what some regard as evil be accepted as such by others.

Already at the time Christianity arose, it was evident to a great
number of people in the Roman Empire where it arose, that what was
regarded as evil by Nero and Caligula could not be regarded as evil
by others. Even at that time men had begun to understand that human
laws, though given out for divine laws, were compiled by men, and
cannot be infallible, whatever the external majesty with which they
are invested, and that erring men are not rendered infallible by
assembling together and calling themselves a senate or any other
name. Even at that time this was felt and understood by many. And it
was then that Christ preached his doctrine, which consisted not only
of the prohibition of resistance to evil by force, but gave a new
conception of life and a means of putting an end to conflict between
all men, not by making it the duty of one section only of mankind
to submit without conflict to what is prescribed to them by certain
authorities, but by making it the duty of all--and consequently of
those in authority--not to resort to force against anyone in any
circumstances.

This doctrine was accepted at the time by only a very small number
of disciples. The majority of men, especially all who were in power,
even after the nominal acceptance of Christianity, continued to
maintain for themselves the principle of resistance by force to
what they regarded as evil. So it was under the Roman and Byzantine
emperors, and so it continued to be later.

The insufficiency of the principle of the authoritative definition of
evil and resistance to it by force, evident as it was in the early
ages of Christianity, becomes still more obvious through the division
of the Roman Empire into many states of equal authority, through
their hostilities and the internal conflicts that broke out within
them.

But men were not ready to accept the solution given by Christ, and
the old definitions of evil, which ought to be resisted, continued to
be laid down by means of making laws binding on all and enforced by
forcible means. The authority who decided what ought to be regarded
as evil and resisted by force was at one time the Pope, at another
an emperor or king, an elective assembly or a whole nation. But both
within and without the state there were always men to be found who
did not accept as binding on themselves the laws given out as the
decrees of a god, or made by men invested with a sacred character,
or the institutions supposed to represent the will of the nation;
and there were men who thought good what the existing authorities
regarded as bad, and who struggled against the authorities with the
same violence as was employed against them.

The men invested with religious authority regarded as evil what the
men and institutions invested with temporal authority regarded as
good and _vice versa_, and the struggle grew more and more intense.
And the longer men used violence as the means of settling their
disputes, the more obvious it became that it was an unsuitable means,
since there could be no external authority able to define evil
recognized by all.

Things went on like this for eighteen centuries, and at last reached
the present position in which it is absolutely obvious that there
is, and can be, no external definition of evil binding upon all.
Men have come to the point of ceasing to believe in the possibility
or even desirability of finding and establishing such a general
definition. It has come to men in power ceasing to attempt to prove
that what they regard as evil is evil, and simply declaring that they
regard as evil what they don't like, while their subjects no longer
obey them because they accept the definition of evil laid down by
them, but simply obey because they cannot help themselves. It was not
because it was a good thing, necessary and beneficial to men, and the
contrary course would have been an evil, but simply because it was
the will of those in power that Nice was incorporated into France,
and Lorraine into Germany, and Bohemia into Austria, and that Poland
was divided, and Ireland and India ruled by the English government,
and that the Chinese are attacked and the Africans slaughtered, and
the Chinese prevented from immigrating by the Americans, and the Jews
persecuted by the Russians, and that landowners appropriate lands
they do not cultivate and capitalists enjoy the fruits of the labor
of others. It has come to the present state of things; one set of
men commit acts of violence no longer on the pretext of resistance
to evil, but simply for their profit or their caprice, and another
set submit to violence, not because they suppose, as was supposed in
former times, that this violence was practised upon them for the sake
of securing them from evil, but simply because they cannot avoid it.

If the Roman, or the man of mediæval times, or the average Russian of
fifty years ago, as I remember him, was convinced without a shade of
doubt that the violence of authority was indispensable to preserve
him from evil; that taxes, dues, serfage, prisons, scourging, knouts,
executions, the army and war were what ought to be--we know now that
one can seldom find a man who believes that all these means of
violence preserve anyone from any evil whatever, and indeed does not
clearly perceive that most of these acts of violence to which he is
exposed, and in which he has some share, are in themselves a great
and useless evil.

There is no one to-day who does not see the uselessness and
injustice of collecting taxes from the toiling masses to enrich idle
officials; or the senselessness of inflicting punishments on weak or
depraved persons in the shape of transportation from one place to
another, or of imprisonment in a fortress where, living in security
and indolence, they only become weaker and more depraved; or the
worse than uselessness and injustice, the positive insanity and
barbarity of preparations for war and of wars, causing devastation
and ruin, and having no kind of justification. Yet these forms of
violence continue and are supported by the very people who see their
uselessness, injustice, and cruelty, and suffer from them. If fifty
years ago the idle rich man and the illiterate laborer were both
alike convinced that their state of everlasting holiday for one and
everlasting toil for the other was ordained by God himself, we know
very well that nowadays, thanks to the growth of population and
the diffusion of books and education, it would be hard to find in
Europe or even in Russia, either among rich or poor, a man to whom
in one shape or another a doubt as to the justice of this state
of things had never presented itself. The rich know that they are
guilty in the very fact of being rich, and try to expiate their guilt
by sacrifices to art and science, as of old they expiated their
sins by sacrifices to the Church. And even the larger half of the
working people openly declare that the existing order is iniquitous
and bound to be destroyed or reformed. One set of religious people
of whom there are millions in Russia, the so-called sectaries,
consider the existing social order as unjust and to be destroyed on
the ground of the Gospel teaching taken in its true sense. Others
regard it as unjust on the ground of the socialistic, communistic,
or anarchistic theories, which are springing up in the lower strata
of the working people. Violence no longer rests on the belief in its
utility, but only on the fact of its having existed so long, and
being organized by the ruling classes who profit by it, so that those
who are under their authority cannot extricate themselves from it.
The governments of our day--all of them, the most despotic and the
liberal alike--have become what Herzen so well called "Ghenghis Khan
with the telegraph;" that is to say, organizations of violence based
on no principle but the grossest tyranny, and at the same time taking
advantage of all the means invented by science for the peaceful
collective social activity of free and equal men, used by them to
enslave and oppress their fellows.

Governments and the ruling classes no longer take their stand
on right or even on the semblance of justice, but on a skillful
organization carried to such a point of perfection by the aid of
science that everyone is caught in the circle of violence and has
no chance of escaping from it. This circle is made up now of four
methods of working upon men, joined together like the links of a
chain ring.

The first and oldest method is intimidation. This consists in
representing the existing state organization--whatever it may be,
free republic or the most savage despotism--as something sacred and
immutable, and therefore following any efforts to alter it with the
cruellest punishments. This method is in use now--as it has been from
olden times--wherever there is a government: in Russia against the
so-called Nihilists, in America against Anarchists, in France against
Imperialists, Legitimists, Communards, and Anarchists.

Railways, telegraphs, telephones, photographs, and the great
perfection of the means of getting rid of men for years, without
killing them, by solitary confinement, where, hidden from the
world, they perish and are forgotten, and the many other modern
inventions employed by government, give such power that when once
authority has come into certain hands, the police, open and secret,
the administration and prosecutors, jailers and executioners of
all kinds, do their work so zealously that there is no chance of
overturning the government, however cruel and senseless it may be.

The second method is corruption. It consists in plundering the
industrious working people of their wealth by means of taxes and
distributing it in satisfying the greed of officials, who are bound
in return to support and keep up the oppression of the people. These
bought officials, from the highest ministers to the poorest copying
clerks, make up an unbroken network of men bound together by the same
interest--that of living at the expense of the people. They become
the richer the more submissively they carry out the will of the
government; and at all times and places, sticking at nothing, in all
departments support by word and deed the violence of government, on
which their own prosperity also rests.

The third method is what I can only describe as hypnotizing the
people. This consists in checking the moral development of men,
and by various suggestions keeping them back in the ideal of life,
outgrown by mankind at large, on which the power of government rests.
This hypnotizing process is organized at the present in the most
complex manner, and starting from their earliest childhood, continues
to act on men till the day of their death. It begins in their
earliest years in the compulsory schools, created for this purpose,
in which the children have instilled into them the ideas of life of
their ancestors, which are in direct antagonism with the conscience
of the modern world. In countries where there is a state religion,
they teach the children the senseless blasphemies of the Church
catechisms, together with the duty of obedience to their superiors.
In republican states they teach them the savage superstition of
patriotism and the same pretended obedience to the governing
authorities.

The process is kept up during later years by the encouragement of
religious and patriotic superstitions.

The religious superstition is encouraged by establishing, with
money taken from the people, temples, processions, memorials, and
festivals, which, aided by painting, architecture, music, and
incense, intoxicate the people, and above all by the support of the
clergy, whose duty consists in brutalizing the people and keeping
them in a permanent state of stupefaction by their teaching, the
solemnity of their services, their sermons, and their interference
in private life--at births, deaths, and marriages. The patriotic
superstition is encouraged by the creation, with money taken from
the people, of national fêtes, spectacles, monuments, and festivals
to dispose men to attach importance to their own nation, and to the
aggrandizement of the state and its rulers, and to feel antagonism
and even hatred for other nations. With these objects under
despotic governments there is direct prohibition against printing
and disseminating books to enlighten the people, and everyone who
might rouse the people from their lethargy is exiled or imprisoned.
Moreover, under every government without exception everything is
kept back that might emancipate and everything encouraged that
tends to corrupt the people, such as literary works tending to keep
them in the barbarism of religious and patriotic superstition, all
kinds of sensual amusements, spectacles, circuses, theaters, and
even the physical means of inducing stupefaction, as tobacco and
alcohol, which form the principal source of revenue of states.
Even prostitution is encouraged, and not only recognized, but even
organized by the government in the majority of states. So much for
the third method.

The fourth method consists in selecting from all the men who
have been stupefied and enslaved by the three former methods a
certain number, exposing them to special and intensified means of
stupefaction and brutalization, and so making them into a passive
instrument for carrying out all the cruelties and brutalities needed
by the government. This result is attained by taking them at the
youthful age when men have not had time to form clear and definite
principles of morals, and removing them from all natural and human
conditions of life, home, family and kindred, and useful labor. They
are shut up together in barracks, dressed in special clothes, and
worked upon by cries, drums, music, and shining objects to go through
certain daily actions invented for this purpose, and by this means
are brought into an hypnotic condition in which they cease to be men
and become mere senseless machines, submissive to the hypnotizer.
These physically vigorous young men (in these days of universal
conscription, all young men), hypnotized, armed with murderous
weapons, always obedient to the governing authorities and ready for
any act of violence at their command, constitute the fourth and
principal method of enslaving men.

By this method the circle of violence is completed.

Intimidation, corruption, and hypnotizing bring people into a
condition in which they are willing to be soldiers; the soldiers give
the power of punishing and plundering them (and purchasing officials
with the spoils), and hypnotizing them and converting them in time
into these same soldiers again.

The circle is complete, and there is no chance of breaking through it
by force.

Some persons maintain that freedom from violence, or at least a great
diminution of it, may be gained by the oppressed forcibly overturning
the oppressive government and replacing it by a new one under which
such violence and oppression will be unnecessary, but they deceive
themselves and others, and their efforts do not better the position
of the oppressed, but only make it worse. Their conduct only tends
to increase the despotism of government. Their efforts only afford a
plausible pretext for government to strengthen their power.

Even if we admit that under a combination of circumstances specially
unfavorable for the government, as in France in 1870, any government
might be forcibly overturned and the power transferred to other
hands, the new authority would rarely be less oppressive than the
old one; on the contrary, always having to defend itself against its
dispossessed and exasperated enemies, it would be more despotic and
cruel, as has always been the rule in all revolutions.

While socialists and communists regard the individualistic,
capitalistic organization of society as an evil, and the anarchists
regard as an evil all government whatever, there are royalists,
conservatives, and capitalists who consider any socialistic or
communistic organization or anarchy as an evil, and all these
parties have no means other than violence to bring men to agreement.
Whichever of these parties were successful in bringing their schemes
to pass, must resort to support its authority to all the existing
methods of violence, and even invent new ones.

The oppressed would be another set of people, and coercion would take
some new form; but the violence and oppression would be unchanged or
even more cruel, since hatred would be intensified by the struggle,
and new forms of oppression would have been devised. So it has always
been after all revolutions and all attempts at revolution, all
conspiracies, and all violent changes of government. Every conflict
only strengthens the means of oppression in the hands of those who
happen at a given moment to be in power.

The position of our Christian society, and especially the ideals most
current in it, prove this in a strikingly convincing way.

There remains now only one sphere of human life not encroached upon
by government authority--that is the domestic, economic sphere, the
sphere of private life and labor. And even this is now--thanks to the
efforts of communists and socialists--being gradually encroached upon
by government, so that labor and recreation, dwellings, dress, and
food will gradually, if the hopes of the reformers are successful, be
prescribed and regulated by government.

The slow progress of eighteen centuries has brought the Christian
nations again to the necessity of deciding the question they have
evaded--the question of the acceptance or non-acceptance of Christ's
teaching, and the question following upon it in social life of
resistance or non-resistance to evil by force. But there is this
difference, that whereas formerly men could accept or refuse to
accept the solution given by Christ, now that solution cannot be
avoided, since it alone can save men from the slavery in which they
are caught like a net.

But it is not only the misery of the position which makes this
inevitable.

While the pagan organization has been proved more and more false,
the truth of the Christian religion has been growing more and more
evident.

Not in vain have the best men of Christian humanity, who apprehended
the truth by spiritual intuition, for eighteen centuries testified to
it in spite of every menace, every privation, and every suffering. By
their martyrdom they passed on the truth to the masses, and impressed
it on their hearts.

Christianity has penetrated into the consciousness of humanity,
not only negatively by the demonstration of the impossibility of
continuing in the pagan life, but also through its simplification,
its increased clearness and freedom from the superstitions
intermingled with it, and its diffusion through all classes of the
population.

Eighteen centuries of Christianity have not passed without an
effect even on those who accepted it only externally. These
eighteen centuries have brought men so far that even while they
continue to live the pagan life which is no longer consistent with
the development of humanity, they not only see clearly all the
wretchedness of their position, but in the depths of their souls
they believe (they can only live through this belief) that the
only salvation from this position is to be found in fulfilling
the Christian doctrine in its true significance. As to the time
and manner of salvation, opinions are divided according to the
intellectual development and the prejudices of each society. But
every man of the modern world recognizes that our salvation lies in
fulfilling the law of Christ. Some believers in the supernatural
character of Christianity hold that salvation will come when all men
are brought to believe in Christ, whose second coming is at hand.
Other believers in supernatural Christianity hold that salvation
will come through the Church, which will draw all men into its
fold, train them in the Christian virtues, and transform their
life. A third section, who do not admit the divinity of Christ,
hold that the salvation of mankind will be brought about by slow
and gradual progress, through which the pagan principles of our
existence will be replaced by the principles of liberty, equality,
and fraternity--that is, by Christian principles. A fourth section,
who believe in the social revolution, hold that salvation will come
when through a violent revolution men are forced into community
of property, abolition of government, and collective instead of
individual industry--that is to say, the realization of one side of
the Christian doctrine. In one way or another all men of our day in
their inner consciousness condemn the existing effete pagan order,
and admit, often unconsciously and while regarding themselves as
hostile to Christianity, that our salvation is only to be found in
the application of the Christian doctrine, or parts of it, in its
true significance to our daily life.

Christianity cannot, as its Founder said, be realized by the majority
of men all at once; it must grow like a huge tree from a tiny seed.
And so it has grown, and now has reached its full development, not
yet in actual life, but in the conscience of men of to-day.

Now not only the minority, who have always comprehended Christianity
by spiritual intuition, but all the vast majority who seem so far
from it in their social existence recognize its true significance.

Look at individual men in their private life, listen to their
standards of conduct in their judgment of one another; hear not
only their public utterances, but the counsels given by parents
and guardians to the young in their charge; and you will see that,
far as their social life based on violence may be from realizing
Christian truth, in their private life what is considered good by
all without exception is nothing but the Christian virtues; what is
considered as bad is nothing but the antichristian vices. Those who
consecrate their lives self-sacrificingly to the service of humanity
are regarded as the best men. The selfish, who make use of the
misfortunes of others for their own advantage, are regarded as the
worst of men.

Though some non-Christian ideals, such as strength, courage, and
wealth, are still worshiped by a few who have not been penetrated by
the Christian spirit, these ideals are out of date and are abandoned,
if not by all, at least by all those regarded as the best people.
There are no ideals, other than the Christian ideals, which are
accepted by all and regarded as binding on all.

The position of our Christian humanity, if you look at it from the
outside with all its cruelty and degradation of men, is terrible
indeed. But if one looks at it within, in its inner consciousness,
the spectacle it presents is absolutely different.

All the evil of our life seems to exist only because it has been so
for so long; those who do the evil have not had time yet to learn how
to act otherwise, though they do not want to act as they do.

All the evil seems to exist through some cause independent of the
conscience of men.

Strange and contradictory as it seems, all men of the present day
hate the very social order they are themselves supporting.

I think it is Max Müller who describes the amazement of an Indian
convert to Christianity, who after absorbing the essence of the
Christian doctrine came to Europe and saw the actual life of
Christians. He could not recover from his astonishment at the
complete contrast between the reality and what he had expected to
find among Christian nations. If we feel no astonishment at the
contrast between our convictions and our conduct, that is because
the influences, tending to obscure the contrast, produce an effect
upon us too. We need only look at our life from the point of view of
that Indian, who understood Christianity in its true significance,
without any compromises or concessions, we need but look at the
savage brutalities of which our life is full, to be appalled at the
contradictions in the midst of which we live often without observing
them.

We need only recall the preparations for war, the mitrailleuses, the
silver-gilt bullets, the torpedoes, and--the Red Cross; the solitary
prison cells, the experiments of execution by electricity--and the
care of the hygienic welfare of prisoners; the philanthropy of the
rich, and their life, which produces the poor they are benefiting.

And these inconsistencies are not, as it might seem, because men
pretend to be Christians while they are really pagans, but because of
something lacking in men, or some kind of force hindering them from
being what they already feel themselves to be in their consciousness,
and what they genuinely wish to be. Men of the present day do not
merely pretend to hate oppression, inequality, class distinction,
and every kind of cruelty to animals as well as human beings. They
genuinely detest all this, but they do not know how to put a stop to
it, or perhaps cannot decide to give up what preserves it all, and
seems to them necessary.

Indeed, ask every man separately whether he thinks it laudable and
worthy of a man of this age to hold a position from which he receives
a salary disproportionate to his work; to take from the people--often
in poverty--taxes to be spent on constructing cannon, torpedoes, and
other instruments of butchery, so as to make war on people with whom
we wish to be at peace, and who feel the same wish in regard to us;
or to receive a salary for devoting one's whole life to constructing
these instruments of butchery, or to preparing oneself and others for
the work of murder. And ask him whether it is laudable and worthy
of a man, and suitable for a Christian, to employ himself, for a
salary, in seizing wretched, misguided, often illiterate and drunken,
creatures because they appropriate the property of others--on a much
smaller scale than we do--or because they kill men in a different
fashion from that in which we undertake to do it--and shutting them
in prison for it, ill treating them and killing them; and whether
it is laudable and worthy of a man and a Christian to preach for a
salary to the people not Christianity, but superstitions which one
knows to be stupid and pernicious; and whether it is laudable and
worthy of a man to rob his neighbor for his gratification of what
he wants to satisfy his simplest needs, as the great landowners do;
or to force him to exhausting labor beyond his strength to augment
one's wealth, as do factory owners and manufacturers; or to profit
by the poverty of men to increase one's gains, as merchants do. And
everyone taken separately, especially if one's remarks are directed
at someone else, not himself, will answer, No! And yet the very man
who sees all the baseness of those actions, of his own free will,
uncoerced by anyone, often even for no pecuniary profit, but only
from childish vanity, for a china cross, a scrap of ribbon, a bit of
fringe he is allowed to wear, will enter military service, become
a magistrate or justice of the peace, commissioner, archbishop, or
beadle, though in fulfilling these offices he must commit acts the
baseness and shamefulness of which he cannot fail to recognize.

I know that many of these men will confidently try to prove that they
have reasons for regarding their position as legitimate and quite
indispensable. They will say in their defense that authority is given
by God, that the functions of the state are indispensable for the
welfare of humanity, that property is not opposed to Christianity,
that the rich young man was only commanded to sell all he had and
give to the poor if he wished to be perfect, that the existing
distribution of property and our commercial system must always remain
as they are, and are to the advantage of all, and so on. But, however
much they try to deceive themselves and others, they all know that
what they are doing is opposed to all the beliefs which they profess,
and in the depths of their souls, when they are left alone with their
conscience, they are ashamed and miserable at the recollection of it,
especially if the baseness of their action has been pointed out to
them. A man of the present day, whether he believes in the divinity
of Christ or not, cannot fail to see that to assist in the capacity
of tzar, minister, governor, or commissioner in taking from a poor
family its last cow for taxes to be spent on cannons, or on the pay
and pensions of idle officials, who live in luxury and are worse
than useless; or in putting into prison some man we have ourselves
corrupted, and throwing his family on the streets; or in plundering
and butchering in war; or in inculcating savage and idolatrous
superstitions in the place of the law of Christ; or in impounding
the cow found on one's land, though it belongs to a man who has no
land; or to cheat the workman in a factory, by imposing fines for
accidentally spoiled articles; or making a poor man pay double the
value for anything simply because he is in the direst poverty;--not
a man of the present day can fail to know that all these actions are
base and disgraceful, and that they need not do them. They all know
it. They know that what they are doing is wrong, and would not do
it for anything in the world if they had the power of resisting the
forces which shut their eyes to the criminality of their actions and
impel them to commit them.

In nothing is the pitch of inconsistency modern life has attained to
so evident as in universal conscription, which is the last resource
and the final expression of violence.

Indeed, it is only because this state of universal armament has been
brought about gradually and imperceptibly, and because governments
have exerted, in maintaining it, every resource of intimidation,
corruption, brutalization, and violence, that we do not see its
flagrant inconsistency with the Christian ideas and sentiments by
which the modern world is permeated.

We are so accustomed to the inconsistency that we do not see all
the hideous folly and immorality of men voluntarily choosing the
profession of butchery as though it were an honorable career, of
poor wretches submitting to conscription, or in countries where
compulsory service has not been introduced, of people voluntarily
abandoning a life of industry to recruit soldiers and train them as
murderers. We know that all of these men are either Christians, or
profess humane and liberal principles, and they know that they thus
become partly responsible--through universal conscription, personally
responsible--for the most insane, aimless, and brutal murders. And
yet they all do it.

More than that, in Germany, where compulsory service first
originated, Caprivi has given expression to what had been hitherto
so assiduously concealed--that is, that the men that the soldiers
will have to kill are not foreigners alone, but their own countrymen,
the very working people from whom they themselves are taken. And
this admission has not opened people's eyes, has not horrified them!
They still go like sheep to the slaughter, and submit to everything
required of them.

And that is not all: the Emperor of Germany has lately shown still
more clearly the duties of the army, by thanking and rewarding a
soldier for killing a defenseless citizen who made his approach
incautiously. By rewarding an action always regarded as base and
cowardly even by men on the lowest level of morality, William has
shown that a soldier's chief duty--the one most appreciated by
the authorities--is that of executioner; and not a professional
executioner who kills only condemned criminals, but one ready to
butcher any innocent man at the word of command.

And even that is not all. In 1892, the same William, the _enfant
terrible_ of state authority, who says plainly what other people
only think, in addressing some soldiers gave public utterance to
the following speech, which was reported next day in thousands of
newspapers: "Conscripts!" he said, "you have sworn fidelity to _me_
before the altar and the minister of God! You are still too young to
understand all the importance of what has been said here; let your
care before all things be to obey the orders and instructions given
you. You have sworn fidelity _to me_, lads of my guard; _that means
that you are now my soldiers_, that _you have given yourselves to me
body and soul_. For you there is now but one enemy, _my_ enemy. _In
these days of socialistic sedition it may come to pass that I command
you to fire on your own kindred, your brothers, even your own fathers
and mothers--which God forbid!_--even then you are bound to obey my
orders without hesitation."

This man expresses what all sensible rulers think, but studiously
conceal. He says openly that the soldiers are in _his_ service, at
_his_ disposal, and must be ready for _his_ advantage to murder even
their brothers and fathers.

In the most brutal words he frankly exposes all the horrors and
criminality for which men prepare themselves in entering the army,
and the depths of ignominy to which they fall in promising obedience.
Like a bold hypnotizer, he tests the degree of insensibility of the
hypnotized subject. He touches his skin with a red-hot iron; the skin
smokes and scorches, but the sleeper does not awake.

This miserable man, imbecile and drunk with power, outrages in this
utterance everything that can be sacred for a man of the modern
world. And yet all the Christians, liberals, and cultivated people,
far from resenting this outrage, did not even observe it.

The last, the most extreme test is put before men in its coarsest
form. And they do not seem even to notice that it is a test, that
there is any choice about it. They seem to think there is no course
open but slavish submission. One would have thought these insane
words, which outrage everything a man of the present day holds
sacred, must rouse indignation. But there has been nothing of the
kind.

All the young men through the whole of Europe are exposed year after
year to this test, and with very few exceptions they renounce all
that a man can hold sacred, all express their readiness to kill
their brothers, even their fathers, at the bidding of the first crazy
creature dressed up in a livery with red and gold trimming, and only
wait to be told where and when they are to kill. And they actually
are ready.

Every savage has something he holds sacred, something for which he is
ready to suffer, something he will not consent to do. But what is it
that is sacred to the civilized man of to-day? They say to him: "You
must become my slave, and this slavery may force you to kill even
your own father;" and he, often very well educated, trained in all
the sciences at the university, quietly puts his head under the yoke.
They dress him up in a clown's costume, and order him to cut capers,
turn and twist and bow, and kill--he does it all submissively. And
when they let him go, he seems to shake himself and go back to his
former life, and he continues to discourse upon the dignity of man,
liberty, equality, and fraternity as before.

"Yes, but what is one to do?" people often ask in genuine perplexity.
"If everyone would stand out it would be something, but by myself, I
shall only suffer without doing any good to anyone."

And that is true. A man with the social conception of life cannot
resist. The aim of his life is his personal welfare. It is better for
his personal welfare for him to submit, and he submits.

Whatever they do to him, however they torture or humiliate him, he
will submit, for, alone, he can do nothing; he has no principle for
the sake of which he could resist violence alone. And those who
control them never allow them to unite together. It is often said
that the invention of terrible weapons of destruction will put an end
to war. That is an error. As the means of extermination are improved,
the means of reducing men who hold the state conception of life to
submission can be improved to correspond. They may slaughter them by
thousands, by millions, they may tear them to pieces, still they will
march to war like senseless cattle. Some will want beating to make
them move, others will be proud to go if they are allowed to wear a
scrap of ribbon or gold lace.

And of this mass of men so brutalized as to be ready to promise
to kill their own parents, the social reformers--conservatives,
liberals, socialists, and anarchists--propose to form a rational and
moral society. What sort of moral and rational society can be formed
out of such elements? With warped and rotten planks you cannot build
a house, however you put them together. And to form a rational moral
society of such men is just as impossible a task. They can be formed
into nothing but a herd of cattle, driven by the shouts and whips of
the herdsmen. As indeed they are.

So, then, we have on one side men calling themselves Christians, and
professing the principles of liberty, equality, and fraternity, and
along with that ready, in the name of liberty, to submit to the most
slavish degradation; in the name of equality, to accept the crudest,
most senseless division of men by externals merely into higher and
lower classes, allies and enemies; and, in the name of fraternity,
ready to murder their brothers.[14]

[14] The fact that among certain nations, as the English and the
American, military service is not compulsory (though already one
hears there are some who advocate that it should be made so) does not
affect the servility of the citizens to the government in principle.
Here we have each to go and kill or be killed, there they have
each to give the fruit of their toil to pay for the recruiting and
training of soldiers.

The contradiction between life and conscience and the misery
resulting from it have reached the extreme limit and can go no
further. The state organization of life based on violence, the aim of
which was the security of personal, family, and social welfare, has
come to the point of renouncing the very objects for which it was
founded--it has reduced men to absolute renunciation and loss of the
welfare it was to secure.

The first half of the prophecy has been fulfilled in the generation
of men who have not accepted Christ's teaching. Their descendants
have been brought now to the absolute necessity of putting the truth
of the second half to the test of experience.

CHAPTER IX.

THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE CHRISTIAN CONCEPTION OF LIFE WILL
EMANCIPATE MEN FROM THE MISERIES OF OUR PAGAN LIFE.

The External Life of Christian Peoples Remains Pagan Though
they are Penetrated by Christian Consciousness--The Way Out
of this Contradiction is by the Acceptance of the Christian
Theory of Life--Only Through Christianity is Every Man Free,
and Emancipated of All Human Authority--This Emancipation can
be Effected by no Change in External Conditions of Life, but
Only by a Change in the Conception of Life--The Christian
Ideal of Life Requires Renunciation of all Violence, and in
Emancipating the Man who Accepts it, Emancipates the Whole
World from All External Authorities--The Way Out of the Present
Apparently Hopeless Position is for Every Man who is Capable
of Assimilating the Christian Conception of Life, to Accept
it and Live in Accordance with it--But Men Consider this Way
too Slow, and Look for Deliverance Through Changes in Material
Conditions of Life Aided by Government--That Will Lead to No
Improvement, as it is simply Increasing the Evil under which Men
are Suffering--A Striking Instance of this is the Submission to
Compulsory Military Service, which it would be More Advantageous
for Every Man to Refuse than to Submit to--The Emancipation of
Men Can Only be Brought About by each Individual Emancipating
Himself, and the Examples of this Self-emancipation which are
already Appearing Threaten the Destruction of Governmental
Authority--Refusal to Comply with the Unchristian Demands
of Government Undermines the Authority of the State and
Emancipates Men--And therefore Cases of such Non-compliance
are Regarded with more Dread by State Authorities than any
Conspiracies or Acts of Violence--Examples of Non-compliance
in Russia, in Regard to Oath of Allegiance, Payment of Taxes,
Passports, Police Duties, and Military Service--Examples of such
Non-compliance in other States--Governments do not Know how to
Treat Men who Refuse to Comply with their Demands on Christian
Grounds--Such People, without Striking a Blow, Undermine
the very Basis of Government from Within--To Punish them is
Equivalent to Openly Renouncing Christianity, and Assisting in
Diffusing the Very Principle by which these Men Justify their
Non-compliance--So Governments are in a Helpless Position--Men
who Maintain the Uselessness of Personal Independence, only
Retard the Dissolution of the Present State Organization Based
on Force.

The position of the Christian peoples in our days has remained just
as cruel as it was in the times of paganism. In many respects,
especially in the oppression of the masses, it has become even more
cruel than it was in the days of paganism.

But between the condition of men in ancient times and their condition
in our days there is just the difference that we see in the world
of vegetation between the last days of autumn and the first days of
spring. In the autumn the external lifelessness in nature corresponds
with its inward condition of death, while in the spring the external
lifelessness is in sharp contrast with the internal state of reviving
and passing into new forms of life.

In the same way the similarity between the ancient heathen life and
the life of to-day is merely external: the inward condition of men in
the times of heathenism was absolutely different from their inward
condition at the present time.

Then the outward condition of cruelty and of slavery was in complete
harmony with the inner conscience of men, and every step in advance
intensified this harmony; now the outward condition of cruelty and of
slavery is completely contradictory to the Christian consciousness
of men, and every step in advance only intensifies this contradiction.

Humanity is passing through seemingly unnecessary, fruitless agonies.
It is passing through something like the throes of birth. Everything
is ready for the new life, but still the new life does not come.

There seems no way out of the position. And there would be none,
except that a man (and thereby all men) is gifted with the power of
forming a different, higher theory of life, which at once frees him
from all the bonds by which he seems indissolubly fettered.

And such a theory is the Christian view of life made known to mankind
eighteen hundred years ago.

A man need only make this theory of life his own, for the fetters
which seemed so indissolubly forged upon him to drop off of
themselves, and for him to feel himself absolutely free, just as a
bird would feel itself free in a fenced-in place directly it took to
its wings.

People talk about the liberty of the Christian Church, about giving
or not giving freedom to Christians. Underlying all these ideas and
expressions there is some strange misconception. Freedom cannot be
bestowed on or taken from a Christian or Christians. Freedom is an
inalienable possession of the Christian.

If we talk of bestowing freedom on Christians or withholding it from
them, we are obviously talking not of real Christians but of people
who only call themselves Christians. A Christian cannot fail to be
free, because the attainment of the aim he sets before himself cannot
be prevented or even hindered by anyone or anything.

Let a man only understand his life as Christianity teaches him to
understand it, let him understand, that is, that his life belongs
not to him--not to his own individuality, nor to his family, nor to
the state--but to him who has sent him into the world, and let him
once understand that he must therefore fulfill not the law of his own
individuality, nor his family, nor of the state, but the infinite
law of him from whom he has come; and he will not only feel himself
absolutely free from every human power, but will even cease to regard
such power as at all able to hamper anyone.

Let a man but realize that the aim of his life is the fulfillment of
God's law, and that law will replace all other laws for him, and he
will give it his sole allegiance, so that by that very allegiance
every human law will lose all binding and controlling power in his
eyes.

The Christian is independent of every human authority by the fact
that he regards the divine law of love, implanted in the soul of
every man, and brought before his consciousness by Christ, as the
sole guide of his life and other men's also.

The Christian may be subjected to external violence, he may be
deprived of bodily freedom, he may be in bondage to his passions (he
who commits sin is the slave of sin), but he cannot be in bondage in
the sense of being forced by any danger or by any threat of external
harm to perform an act which is against his conscience.

He cannot be compelled to do this, because the deprivations and
sufferings which form such a powerful weapon against men of the state
conception of life, have not the least power to compel him.

Deprivations and sufferings take from them the happiness for which
they live; but far from disturbing the happiness of the Christian,
which consists in the consciousness of fulfilling the will of God,
they may even intensify it, when they are inflicted on him for
fulfilling his will.

And therefore the Christian, who is subject only to the inner divine
law, not only cannot carry out the enactments of the external law,
when they are not in agreement with the divine law of love which
he acknowledges (as is usually the case with state obligations), he
cannot even recognize the duty of obedience to anyone or anything
whatever, he cannot recognize the duty of what is called allegiance.

For a Christian the oath of allegiance to any government
whatever--the very act which is regarded as the foundation of the
existence of a state--is a direct renunciation of Christianity.
For the man who promises unconditional obedience in the future
to laws, made or to be made, by that very promise is in the most
positive manner renouncing Christianity, which means obeying in every
circumstance of life only the divine law of love he recognizes within
him.

Under the pagan conception of life it was possible to carry out the
will of the temporal authorities, without infringing the law of
God expressed in circumcisions, Sabbaths, fixed times of prayer,
abstention from certain kinds of food, and so on. The one law was
not opposed to the other. But that is just the distinction between
the Christian religion and heathen religion. Christianity does not
require of a man certain definite negative acts, but puts him in
a new, different relation to men, from which may result the most
diverse acts, which cannot be defined beforehand. And therefore the
Christian not only cannot promise to obey the will of any other man,
without knowing what will be required by that will; he not only
cannot obey the changing laws of man, but he cannot even promise to
do anything definite at a certain time, or to abstain from doing
anything for a certain time. For he cannot know what at any time will
be required of him by that Christian law of love, obedience to which
constitutes the meaning of life for him. The Christian, in promising
unconditional fulfillment of the laws of men in the future, would
show plainly by that promise that the inner law of God does not
constitute for him the sole law of his life.

For a Christian to promise obedience to men, or the laws of men, is
just as though a workman bound to one employer should also promise
to carry out every order that might be given him by outsiders. One
cannot serve two masters.

The Christian is independent of human authority, because he
acknowledges God's authority alone. His law, revealed by Christ, he
recognizes in himself, and voluntarily obeys it.

And this independence is gained, not by means of strife, not by
the destruction of existing forms of life, but only by a change
in the interpretation of life. This independence results first
from the Christian recognizing the law of love, revealed to him by
his teacher, as perfectly sufficient for all human relations, and
therefore he regards every use of force as unnecessary and unlawful;
and secondly, from the fact that those deprivations and sufferings,
or threats of deprivations and sufferings (which reduce the man of
the social conception of life to the necessity of obeying) to the
Christian from his different conception of life, present themselves
merely as the inevitable conditions of existence. And these
conditions, without striving against them by force, he patiently
endures, like sickness, hunger, and every other hardship, but they
cannot serve him as a guide for his actions. The only guide for the
Christian's actions is to be found in the divine principle living
within him, which cannot be checked or governed by anything.

The Christian acts according to the words of the prophecy applied to
his teacher: "He shall not strive, nor cry; neither shall any man
hear his voice in the streets. A bruised reed shall he not break, and
smoking flax shall he not quench, till he send forth judgment unto
victory." (Matt. xii. 19, 20.)

The Christian will not dispute with anyone, nor attack anyone, nor
use violence against anyone. On the contrary, he will bear violence
without opposing it. But by this very attitude to violence, he will
not only himself be free, but will free the whole world from all
external power.

"Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."
If there were any doubt of Christianity being the truth, the
perfect liberty, that nothing can curtail, which a man experiences
directly he makes the Christian theory of life his own, would be an
unmistakable proof of its truth.

Men in their present condition are like a swarm of bees hanging
in a cluster to a branch. The position of the bees on the branch
is temporary, and must inevitably be changed. They must start off
and find themselves a habitation. Each of the bees knows this, and
desires to change her own and the others' position, but no one of
them can do it till the rest of them do it. They cannot all start
off at once, because one hangs on to another and hinders her from
separating from the swarm, and therefore they all continue to hang
there. It would seem that the bees could never escape from their
position, just as it seems that worldly men, caught in the toils of
the state conception of life, can never escape. And there would be
no escape for the bees, if each of them were not a living, separate
creature, endowed with wings of its own. Similarly there would be
no escape for men, if each were not a living being endowed with the
faculty of entering into the Christian conception of life.

If every bee who could fly, did not try to fly, the others, too,
would never be stirred, and the swarm would never change its
position. And if the man who has mastered the Christian conception
of life would not, without waiting for other people, begin to live
in accordance with this conception, mankind would never change its
position. But only let one bee spread her wings, start off, and fly
away, and after her another, and another, and the clinging, inert
cluster would become a freely flying swarm of bees. Just in the same
way, only let one man look at life as Christianity teaches him to
look at it, and after him let another and another do the same, and
the enchanted circle of existence in the state conception of life,
from which there seemed no escape, will be broken through.

But men think that to set all men free by this means is too slow a
process, that they must find some other means by which they could
set all men free at once. It is just as though the bees who want to
start and fly away should consider it too long a process to wait for
all the swarm to start one by one; and should think they ought to
find some means by which it would not be necessary for every separate
bee to spread her wings and fly off, but by which the whole swarm
could fly at once where it wanted to. But that is not possible; till
a first, a second, a third, a hundredth bee spreads her wings and
flies off of her own accord, the swarm will not fly off and will not
begin its new life. Till every individual man makes the Christian
conception of life his own, and begins to live in accord with it,
there can be no solution of the problem of human life, and no
establishment of a new form of life.

One of the most striking phenomena of our times is precisely this
advocacy of slavery, which is promulgated among the masses, not by
governments, in whom it is inevitable, but by men who, in advocating
socialistic theories, regard themselves as the champions of freedom.

These people advance the opinion that the amelioration of life, the
bringing of the facts of life into harmony with the conscience, will
come, not as the result of the personal efforts of individual men,
but of itself as the result of a certain possible reconstruction
of society effected in some way or other. The idea is promulgated
that men ought not to walk on their own legs where they want and
ought to go, but that a kind of floor under their feet will be moved
somehow, so that on it they can reach where they ought to go without
moving their own legs. And, therefore, all their efforts ought to
be directed, not to going so far as their strength allows in the
direction they ought to go, but to standing still and constructing
such a floor.

In the sphere of political economy a theory is propounded which
amounts to saying that the worse things are the better they are; that
the greater the accumulation of capital, and therefore the oppression
of the workman, the nearer the day of emancipation, and, therefore,
every personal effort on the part of a man to free himself from the
oppression of capital is useless. In the sphere of government it
is maintained that the greater the power of the government, which,
according to this theory, ought to intervene in every department
of private life in which it has not yet intervened, the better it
will be, and that therefore we ought to invoke the interference of
government in private life. In politics and international questions
it is maintained that the improvement of the means of destruction,
the multiplication of armaments, will lead to the necessity of making
war by means of congresses, arbitration, and so on. And, marvelous
to say, so great is the dullness of men, that they believe in these
theories, in spite of the fact that the whole course of life, every
step they take, shows how unworthy they are of belief.

The people are suffering from oppression, and to deliver them from
this oppression they are advised to frame general measures for the
improvement of their position, which measures are to be intrusted to
the authorities, and themselves to continue to yield obedience to
the authorities. And obviously all that results from this is only
greater power in the hands of the authorities, and greater oppression
resulting from it.

Not one of the errors of men carries them so far away from the aim
toward which they are struggling as this very one. They do all kinds
of different things for the attainment of their aim, but not the one
simple obvious thing which is within reach of everyone. They devise
the subtlest means for changing the position which is irksome to
them, but not that simplest means, that everyone should refrain from
doing what leads to that position.

I have been told a story of a gallant police officer, who came to
a village where the peasants were in insurrection and the military
had been called out, and he undertook to pacify the insurrection
in the spirit of Nicholas I., by his personal influence alone. He
ordered some loads of rods to be brought, and collecting all the
peasants together into a barn, he went in with them, locking the door
after him. To begin with, he so terrified the peasants by his loud
threats that, reduced to submission by him, they set to work to flog
one another at his command. And so they flogged one another until
a simpleton was found who would not allow himself to be flogged,
and shouted to his companions not to flog one another. Only then
the flogging ceased, and the police officer made his escape. Well,
this simpleton's advice would never be followed by men of the state
conception of life, who continue to flog one another, and teach
people that this very act of self-castigation is the last word of
human wisdom.

Indeed, can one imagine a more striking instance of men flogging
themselves than the submissiveness with which men of our times will
perform the very duties required of them to keep them in slavery,
especially the duty of military service? We see people enslaving
themselves, suffering from this slavery, and believing that it must
be so, that it does not matter, and will not hinder the emancipation
of men, which is being prepared somewhere, somehow, in spite of the
ever-increasing growth of slavery.

In fact, take any man of the present time whatever (I don't mean a
true Christian, but an average man of the present day), educated
or uneducated, believing or unbelieving, rich or poor, married or
unmarried. Such a man lives working at his work, or enjoying his
amusements, spending the fruits of his labors on himself or on those
near to him, and, like everyone, hating every kind of restriction and
deprivation, dissension and suffering. Such a man is going his way
peaceably, when suddenly people come and say to him: First, promise
and swear to us that you will slavishly obey us in everything we
dictate to you, and will consider absolutely good and authoritative
everything we plan, decide, and call law. Secondly, hand over a
part of the fruits of your labors for us to dispose of--we will use
the money to keep you in slavery, and to hinder you from forcibly
opposing our orders. Thirdly, elect others, or be yourself elected,
to take a pretended share in the government, knowing all the while
that the government will proceed quite without regard to the foolish
speeches you, and those like you, may utter, and knowing that its
proceedings will be according to our will, the will of those who have
the army in their hands. Fourthly, come at a certain time to the
law courts and take your share in those senseless cruelties which
we perpetrate on sinners, and those whom we have corrupted, in the
shape of penal servitude, exile, solitary confinement, and death. And
fifthly and lastly, more than all this, in spite of the fact that
you may be on the friendliest terms with people of other nations,
be ready, directly we order you to do so, to regard those whom we
indicate to you as your enemies; and be ready to assist, either in
person or by proxy, in devastation, plunder, and murder of their
men, women, children, and aged alike--possibly your own kinsmen or
relations--if that is necessary to us.

One would expect that every man of the present day who has a grain
of sense left, might reply to such requirements, "But why should I
do all this?" One would think every right-minded man must say in
amazement: Why should I promise to yield obedience to everything that
has been decreed first by Salisbury, then by Gladstone; one day by
Boulanger, and another by Parliament; one day by Peter III., the next
by Catherine, and the day after by Pougachef; one day by a mad king
of Bavaria, another by William? Why should I promise to obey them,
knowing them to be wicked or foolish people, or else not knowing them
at all? Why am I to hand over the fruits of my labors to them in the
shape of taxes, knowing that the money will be spent on the support
of officials, prisons, churches, armies, on things that are harmful,
and on my own enslavement? Why should I punish myself? Why should
I go wasting my time and hoodwinking myself, giving to miscreant
evildoers a semblance of legality, by taking part in elections, and
pretending that I am taking part in the government, when I know
very well that the real control of the government is in the hands
of those who have got hold of the army? Why should I go to the law
courts to take part in the trial and punishment of men because they
have sinned, knowing, if I am a Christian, that the law of vengence
is replaced by the law of love, and, if I am an educated man, that
punishments do not reform, but only deprave those on whom they are
inflicted? And why, most of all, am I to consider as enemies the
people of a neighboring nation, with whom I have hitherto lived and
with whom I wish to live in love and harmony, and to kill and rob
them, or to bring them to misery, simply in order that the keys of
the temple at Jerusalem may be in the hands of one archbishop and not
another, that one German and not another may be prince in Bulgaria,
or that the English rather than the American merchants may capture
seals?

And why, most of all, should I take part in person or hire others to
murder my own brothers and kinsmen? Why should I flog myself? It is
altogether unnecessary for me; it is hurtful to me, and from every
point of view it is immoral, base, and vile. So why should I do
this? If you tell me that if I do it not I shall receive some injury
from someone, then, in the first place, I cannot anticipate from
anyone an injury so great as the injury you bring on me if I obey
you; and secondly, it is perfectly clear to me that if we our own
selves do not flog ourselves, no one will flog us.

As for the government--that means the tzars, ministers, and officials
with pens in their hands, who cannot force us into doing anything,
as that officer of police compelled the peasants; the men who will
drag us to the law court, to prison, and to execution, are not tzars
or officials with pens in their hands, but the very people who are
in the same position as we are. And it is just as unprofitable and
harmful and unpleasant to them to be flogged as to me, and therefore
there is every likelihood that if I open their eyes they not only
would not treat me with violence, but would do just as I am doing.

Thirdly, even if it should come to pass that I had to suffer for it,
even then it would be better for me to be exiled or sent to prison
for standing up for common sense and right--which, if not to-day,
at least within a very short time, must be triumphant--than to
suffer for folly and wrong which must come to an end directly. And
therefore, even in that case, it is better to run the risk of their
banishing me, shutting me up in prison, or executing me, than of my
living all my life in bondage, through my own fault, to wicked men.
Better is this than the possibility of being destroyed by victorious
enemies, and being stupidly tortured and killed by them, in fighting
for a cannon, or a piece of land of no use to anyone, or for a
senseless rag called a banner.

I don't want to flog myself and I won't do it. I have no reason to do
it. Do it yourselves, if you want it done; but I won't do it.

One would have thought that not religious or moral feeling alone,
but the simplest common sense and foresight should impel every man of
the present day to answer and to act in that way. But not so. Men of
the state conception of life are of the opinion that to act in that
way is not necessary, and is even prejudicial to the attainment of
their object, the emancipation of men from slavery. They hold that
we must continue, like the police officer's peasants, to flog one
another, consoling ourselves with the reflection that we are talking
away in the assemblies and meetings, founding trades unions, marching
through the streets on the 1st of May, getting up conspiracies, and
stealthily teasing the government that is flogging us, and that
through all this it will be brought to pass that, by enslaving
ourselves in closer and closer bondage, we shall very soon be free.

Nothing hinders the emancipation of men from slavery so much as this
amazing error. Instead of every man directing his energies to freeing
himself, to transforming his conception of life, people seek for an
external united method of gaining freedom, and continue to rivet
their chains faster and faster.

It is much as if men were to maintain that to make up a fire there
was no need to kindle any of the coals, but that all that was
necessary was to arrange the coals in a certain order. Yet the fact
that the freedom of all men will be brought about only through the
freedom of individual persons, becomes more and more clear as time
goes on. The freedom of individual men, in the name of the Christian
conception of life, from state domination, which was formerly
an exceptional and unnoticed phenomenon, has of late acquired
threatening significance for state authorities.

If in a former age, in the Roman times, it happened that a Christian
confessed his religion and refused to take part in sacrifices, and to
worship the emperors or the gods; or in the Middle Ages a Christian
refused to worship images, or to acknowledge the authority of the
Pope--these cases were in the first place a matter of chance. A man
might be placed under the necessity of confessing his faith, or he
might live all his life without being placed under this necessity.
But now all men, without exception, are subjected to this trial of
their faith. Every man of the present day is under the necessity
of taking part in the cruelties of pagan life, or of refusing all
participation in them. And secondly, in those days cases of refusal
to worship the gods or the images or the Pope were not incidents that
had any material bearing on the state. Whether men worshiped or did
not worship the gods or the images or the Pope, the state remained
just as powerful. But now cases of refusing to comply with the
unchristian demands of the government are striking at the very root
of state authority, because the whole authority of the state is based
on the compliance with these unchristian demands.

The sovereign powers of the world have in the course of time been
brought into a position in which, for their own preservation, they
must require from all men actions which cannot be performed by men
who profess true Christianity.

And therefore in our days every profession of true Christianity, by
any individual man, strikes at the most essential power of the state,
and inevitably leads the way for the emancipation of all.

What importance, one might think, can one attach to such an incident
as some dozens of crazy fellows, as people will call them, refusing
to take the oath of allegiance to the government, refusing to pay
taxes, to take part in law proceedings or in military service?

These people are punished and exiled to a distance, and life goes
on in its old way. One might think there was no importance in such
incidents; but yet, it is just those incidents, more than anything
else, that will undermine the power of the state and prepare the
way for the freedom of men. These are the individual bees, who are
beginning to separate from the swarm, and are flying near it, waiting
till the whole swarm can no longer be prevented from starting off
after them. And the governments know this, and fear such incidents
more than all the socialists, communists, and anarchists, and their
plots and dynamite bombs.

A new reign is beginning. According to the universal rule and
established order it is required that all the subjects should take
the oath of allegiance to the new government. There is a general
decree to that effect, and all are summoned to the council-houses to
take the oath. All at once one man in Perm, another in Tula, a third
in Moscow, and a fourth in Kalouga declare that they will not take
the oath, and though there is no communication between them, they
all explain their refusal on the same grounds--namely, that swearing
is forbidden by the law of Christ, and that even if swearing had not
been forbidden, they could not, in the spirit of the law of Christ,
promise to perform the evil actions required of them in the oath,
such as informing against all such as may act against the interests
of the government, or defending their government with firearms
or attacking its enemies. They are brought before rural police
officers, district police captains, priests, and governors. They are
admonished, questioned, threatened, and punished; but they adhere to
their resolution, and do not take the oath. And among the millions of
those who did take the oath, those dozens go on living who did not
take the oath. And they are questioned:

"What, didn't you take the oath?"

"No, I didn't take the oath."

"And what happened--nothing?"

"Nothing."

The subjects of a state are all bound to pay taxes. And everyone
pays taxes, till suddenly one man in Kharkov, another in Tver, and
a third in Samara refuse to pay taxes--all, as though in collusion,
saying the same thing. One says he will only pay when they tell him
what object the money taken from him will be spent on. "If it is for
good deeds," he says, "he will give it of his own accord, and more
even than is required of him. If for evil deeds, then he will give
nothing voluntarily, because by the law of Christ, whose follower he
is, he cannot take part in evil deeds." The others, too, say the same
in other words, and will not voluntarily pay the taxes.

Those who have anything to be taken have their property taken from
them by force; as for those who have nothing, they are left alone.

"What, didn't you pay the tax?"

"No, I didn't pay it."

"And what happened--nothing?"

"Nothing."

There is the institution of passports. Everyone moving from his
place of residence is bound to carry one, and to pay a duty on it.
Suddenly people are to be found in various places declaring that to
carry a passport is not necessary, that one ought not to recognize
one's dependence on a state which exists by means of force; and these
people do not carry passports, or pay the duty on them. And again,
it's impossible to force those people by any means to do what is
required. They send them to jail, and let them out again, and these
people live without passports.

All peasants are bound to fill certain police offices--that of
village constable, and of watchman, and so on. Suddenly in Kharkov
a peasant refuses to perform this duty, justifying his refusal on
the ground that by the law of Christ, of which he is a follower, he
cannot put any man in fetters, lock him up, or drag him from place
to place. The same declaration is made by a peasant in Tver, another
in Tambov. These peasants are abused, beaten, shut up in prison,
but they stick to their resolution and don't fill these offices
against their convictions. And at last they cease to appoint them as
constables. And again nothing happens.

All citizens are obliged to take a share in law proceedings in the
character of jurymen. Suddenly the most different people--mechanics,
professors, tradesmen, peasants, servants, as though by agreement
refuse to fill this office, and not on the grounds allowed as
sufficient by law, but because any process at law is, according to
their views, unchristian. They fine these people, trying not to let
them have an opportunity of explaining their motives in public, and
replace them by others. And again nothing can be done.

All young men of twenty-one years of age are obliged to draw lots for
service in the army. All at once one young man in Moscow, another in
Tver, a third in Kharkov, and a fourth in Kiev present themselves
before the authorities, and, as though by previous agreement, declare
that they will not take the oath, they will not serve because
they are Christians. I will give the details of one of the first
cases, since they have become more frequent, which I happen to know
about.[15] The same treatment has been repeated in every other case.
A young man of fair education refuses in the Moscow Townhall to take
the oath. No attention is paid to what he says, and it is requested
that he should pronounce the words of the oath like the rest. He
declines, quoting a particular passage of the Gospel in which
swearing is forbidden. No attention is paid to his arguments, and he
is again requested to comply with the order, but he does not comply
with it. Then it is supposed that he is a sectary and therefore does
not understand Christianity in the right sense, that is to say,
not in the sense in which the priests in the pay of the government
understand it. And the young man is conducted under escort to the
priests, that they may bring him to reason. The priests begin to
reason with him, but their efforts in Christ's name to persuade
him to renounce Christ obviously have no influence on him; he is
pronounced incorrigible and sent back again to the army. He persists
in not taking the oath and openly refuses to perform any military
duties. It is a case that has not been provided for by the laws. To
overlook such a refusal to comply with the demands of the authorities
is out of the question, but to put such a case on a par with simple
breach of discipline is also out of the question.

[15] All the details of this case, as well as those preceding it, are
authentic.

After deliberation among themselves, the military authorities
decide to get rid of the troublesome young man, to consider him
as a revolutionist, and they dispatch him under escort to the
committee of the secret police. The police authorities and gendarmes
cross-question him, but nothing that he says can be brought under the
head of any of the misdemeanors which come under their jurisdiction.
And there is no possibility of accusing him either of revolutionary
acts or revolutionary plotting, since he declares that he does not
wish to attack anything, but, on the contrary, is opposed to any
use of force, and, far from plotting in secret, he seeks every
opportunity of saying and doing all that he says and does in the
most open manner. And the gendarmes, though they are bound by no
hard-and-fast rules, still find no ground for a criminal charge in
the young man, and, like the clergy, they send him back to the army.
Again the authorities deliberate together, and decide to accept
him though he has not taken the oath, and to enrol him among the
soldiers. They put him into the uniform, enrol him, and send him
under guard to the place where the army is quartered. There the chief
officer of the division which he enters again expects the young man
to perform his military duties, and again he refuses to obey, and in
the presence of other soldiers explains the reason of his refusal,
saying that he as a Christian cannot voluntarily prepare himself to
commit murder, which is forbidden by the law of Moses.

This incident occurs in a provincial town. The case awakens the
interest, and even the sympathy, not only of outsiders, but even
of the officers. And the chief officers consequently do not decide
to punish this refusal of obedience with disciplinary measures. To
save appearances, though, they shut the young man up in prison, and
write to the highest military authorities to inquire what they are
to do. To refuse to serve in the army, in which the Tzar himself
serves, and which enjoys the blessing of the Church, seems insanity
from the official point of view. Consequently they write from
Petersburg that, since the young man must be out of his mind, they
must not use any severe treatment with him, but must send him to a
lunatic asylum, that his mental condition may be inquired into and
be scientifically treated. They send him to the asylum in the hope
that he will remain there, like another young man, who refused ten
years ago at Tver to serve in the army, and who was tortured in
the asylum till he submitted. But even this step does not rid the
military authorities of the inconvenient man. The doctors examine
him, interest themselves warmly in his case, and naturally finding in
him no symptoms of mental disease, send him back to the army. There
they receive him, and making believe to have forgotten his refusal,
and his motives for it, they again request him to go to drill, and
again in the presence of the other soldiers he refuses and explains
the reason of his refusal. The affair continues to attract more and
more attention, both among the soldiers and the inhabitants of the
town. Again they write to Petersburg, and thence comes the decree
to transfer the young man to some division of the army stationed on
the frontier, in some place where the army is under martial law,
where he can be shot for refusing to obey, and where the matter can
proceed without attracting observation, seeing that there are few
Russians and Christians in such a distant part, but the majority are
foreigners and Mohammedans. This is accordingly done. They transfer
him to a division stationed on the Zacaspian border, and in company
with convicts send him to a chief officer who is notorious for his
harshness and severity.

All this time, through all these changes from place to place, the
young man is roughly treated, kept in cold, hunger, and filth, and
life is made burdensome to him generally. But all these sufferings
do not compel him to change his resolution. On the Zacaspian
border, where he is again requested to go on guard fully armed, he
again declines to obey. He does not refuse to go and stand near
the haystacks where they place him, but refuses to take his arms,
declaring that he will not use violence in any case against anyone.
All this takes place in the presence of the other soldiers. To let
such a refusal pass unpunished is impossible, and the young man is
put on his trial for breach of discipline. The trial takes place,
and he is sentenced to confinement in the military prison for two
years. He is again transferred, in company with convicts, by étape,
to Caucasus, and there he is shut up in prison and falls under the
irresponsible power of the jailer. There he is persecuted for a year
and a half, but he does not for all that alter his decision not to
bear arms, and he explains why he will not do this to everyone with
whom he is brought in contact. At the end of the second year they
set him free, before the end of his term of imprisonment, reckoning
it contrary to law to keep him in prison after his time of military
service was over, and only too glad to get rid of him as soon as
possible.

Other men in various parts of Russia behave, as though by agreement,
precisely in the same way as this young man, and in all these cases
the government has adopted the same timorous, undecided, and
secretive course of action. Some of these men are sent to the lunatic
asylum, some are enrolled as clerks and transferred to Siberia, some
are sent to work in the forests, some are sent to prison, some are
fined. And at this very time some men of this kind are in prison,
not charged with their real offense--that is, denying the lawfulness
of the action of the government, but for non-fulfillment of special
obligations imposed by government. Thus an officer of reserve, who
did not report his change of residence, and justified this on the
ground that he would not serve in the army any longer, was fined
thirty rubles for non-compliance with the orders of the superior
authority. This fine he also declined voluntarily to pay. In the same
way some peasants and soldiers who have refused to be drilled and
to bear arms have been placed under arrest on a charge of breach of
discipline and insolence.

And cases of refusing to comply with the demands of government when
they are opposed to Christianity, and especially cases of refusing
to serve in the army, are occurring of late not in Russia only,
but everywhere. Thus I happen to know that in Servia men of the
so-called sect of Nazarenes steadily refuse to serve in the army,
and the Austrian Government has been carrying on a fruitless contest
with them for years, punishing them with imprisonment. In the year
1885 there were 130 such cases. I know that in Switzerland in the
year 1890 there were men in prison in the castle of Chillon for
declining to serve in the army, whose resolution was not shaken by
their punishment. There have been such cases in Sweden, and the
men who refused obedience were sent to prison in exactly the same
way, and the government studiously concealed these cases from the
people. There have been similar cases also in Prussia. I know of the
case of a sub-lieutenant of the Guards, who in 1891 declared to the
authorities in Berlin that he would not, as a Christian, continue
to serve, and in spite of all admonitions, threats, and punishments
he stuck to his resolution. In the south of France a society has
arisen of late bearing the name of the Hinschists (these facts are
taken from the _Peace Herald_, July, 1891), the members of which
refuse to enter military service on the grounds of their Christian
principles. At first they were enrolled in the ambulance corps, but
now, as their numbers increase, they are subjected to punishment for
non-compliance, but they still refuse to bear arms just the same.

The socialists, the communists, the anarchists, with their bombs and
riots and revolutions, are not nearly so much dreaded by governments
as these disconnected individuals coming from different parts, and
all justifying their non-compliance on the grounds of the same
religion, which is known to all the world.

Every government knows by what means and in what manner to
defend itself from revolutionists, and has resources for doing
so, and therefore does not dread these external foes. But what
are governments to do against men who show the uselessness,
superfluousness, and perniciousness of all governments, and who do
not contend against them, but simply do not need them and do without
them, and therefore are unwilling to take any part in them?

The revolutionists say: The form of government is bad in this respect
and that respect; we must overturn it and substitute this or that
form of government. The Christian says: I know nothing about the
form of government, I don't know whether it is good or bad, and I
don't want to overturn it precisely because I don't know whether it's
good or bad, but for the very same reason I don't want to support it
either. And I not only don't want to, but I can't, because what it
demands of me is against my conscience.

All state obligations are against the conscience of a Christian--the
oath of allegiance, taxes, law proceedings, and military service. And
the whole power of the government rests on these very obligations.

Revolutionary enemies attack the government from without.
Christianity does not attack it at all, but, from within, it destroys
all the foundations on which government rests.

Among the Russian people, especially since the age of Peter I., the
protest of Christianity against the government has never ceased, and
the social organization has been such that men emigrate in communes
to Turkey, to China, and to uninhabited lands, and not only feel no
need of state aid, but always regard the state as a useless burden,
only to be endured as a misfortune, whether it happens to be Turkish,
Russian, or Chinese. And so, too, among the Russian people more and
more frequent examples have of late appeared of conscious Christian
freedom from subjection to the state. And these examples are the more
alarming for the government from the fact that these non-compliant
persons often belong not to the so-called lower uneducated classes,
but are men of fair or good education; and also from the fact that
they do not in these days justify their position by any mystic and
exceptional views, as in former times, do not associate themselves
with any superstitious or fanatic rites, like the sects who practice
self-immolation by fire, or the wandering pilgrims, but put their
refusal on the very simplest and clearest grounds, comprehensible to
all, and recognized as true by all.

Thus they refuse the voluntary payment of taxes, because taxes are
spent on deeds of violence--on the pay of men of violence--soldiers,
on the construction of prisons, fortresses, and cannons. They as
Christians regard it as sinful and immoral to have any hand in such
deeds.

Those who refuse to take the oath of allegiance refuse because to
promise obedience to authorities, that is, to men who are given to
deeds of violence, is contrary to the sense of Christ's teaching.
They refuse to take the oath in the law courts, because oaths are
directly forbidden by the Gospel. They refuse to perform police
duties, because in the performance of these duties they must use
force against their brothers and ill treat them, and a Christian
cannot do that. They refuse to take part in trials at law, because
they consider every appeal to law is fulfilling the law of vengeance,
which is inconsistent with the Christian law of forgiveness and love.
They refuse to take any part in military preparations and in the
army, because they cannot be executioners, and they are unwilling to
prepare themselves to be so.

The motives in all these cases are so excellent that, however
despotic governments may be, they could hardly punish them openly.
To punish men for refusing to act against their conscience the
government must renounce all claim to good sense and benevolence. And
they assure people that they only rule in the name of good sense and
benevolence.

What are governments to do against such people?

Governments can of course flog to death or execute or keep in
perpetual imprisonment all enemies who want to overturn them by
violence, they can lavish gold on that section of the people who are
ready to destroy their enemies. But what can they do against men
who, without wishing to overturn or destroy anything, desire simply
for their part to do nothing against the law of Christ, and who,
therefore, refuse to perform the commonest state requirements, which
are, therefore, the most indispensable to the maintenance of the
state?

If they had been revolutionists, advocating and practicing violence
and murder, their suppression would have been an easy matter; some
of them could have been bought over, some could have been duped, some
could have been overawed, and these who could not be bought over,
duped, or overawed would have been treated as criminals, enemies
of society, would have been executed or imprisoned, and the crowd
would have approved of the action of the government. If they had
been fanatics, professing some peculiar belief, it might have been
possible, in disproving the superstitious errors mixed in with their
religion, to attack also the truth they advocate. But what is to be
done with men who profess no revolutionary ideas nor any peculiar
religious dogmas, but merely because they are unwilling to do evil to
any man, refuse to take the oath, to pay taxes, to take part in law
proceedings, to serve in the army, to fulfill, in fact, any of the
obligations upon which the whole fabric of a state rests? What is to
done with such people? To buy them over with bribes is impossible;
the very risks to which they voluntarily expose themselves show that
they are incorruptible. To dupe them into believing that this is
their duty to God is also impossible, since their refusal is based on
the clear, unmistakable law of God, recognized even by those who are
trying to compel men to act against it. To terrify them by threats is
still less possible, because the deprivations and sufferings to which
they are subjected only strengthen their desire to follow the faith
by which they are commanded: to obey God rather than men, and not to
fear those who can destroy the body, but to fear him who can destroy
body and soul. To kill them or keep them in perpetual imprisonment
is also impossible. These men have friends, and a past; their way
of thinking and acting is well known; they are known by everyone
for good, gentle, peaceable people, and they cannot be regarded as
criminals who must be removed for the safety of society. And to put
men to death who are regarded as good men is to provoke others to
champion them and justify their refusal. And it is only necessary
to explain the reasons of their refusal to make clear to everyone
that these reasons have the same force for all other men, and that
they all ought to have done the same long ago. These cases put the
ruling powers into a desperate position. They see that the prophecy
of Christianity is coming to pass, that it is loosening the fetters
of those in chains, and setting free them that are in bondage, and
that this must inevitably be the end of all oppressors. The ruling
authorities see this, they know that their hours are numbered, and
they can do nothing. All that they can do to save themselves is only
deferring the hour of their downfall. And this they do, but their
position is none the less desperate.

It is like the position of a conqueror who is trying to save a town
which has been been set on fire by its own inhabitants. Directly he
puts out the conflagration in one place, it is alight in two other
places; directly he gives in to the fire and cuts off what is on fire
from a large building, the building itself is alight at both ends.
These separate fires may be few, but they are burning with a flame
which, however small a spark it starts from, never ceases till it has
set the whole ablaze.

Thus it is that the ruling authorities are in such a defenseless
position before men who advocate Christianity, that but little is
necessary to overthrow this sovereign power which seems so powerful,
and has held such an exalted position for so many centuries. And
yet social reformers are busy promulgating the idea that it is not
necessary and is even pernicious and immoral for every man separately
to work out his own freedom. As though, while one set of men have
been at work a long while turning a river into a new channel, and had
dug out a complete water-course and had only to open the floodgates
for the water to rush in and do the rest, another set of men should
come along and begin to advise them that it would be much better,
instead of letting the water out, to construct a machine which would
ladle the water up from one side and pour it over the other side.

But the thing has gone too far. Already ruling governments feel their
weak and defenseless position, and men of Christian principles are
awakening from their apathy, and already begin to feel their power.

"I am come to send a fire on the earth," said Christ, "and what will
I, if it be already kindled?"

And this fire is beginning to burn.

CHAPTER X.

EVIL CANNOT BE SUPPRESSED BY THE PHYSICAL FORCE OF THE
GOVERNMENT--THE MORAL PROGRESS OF HUMANITY IS BROUGHT ABOUT NOT
ONLY BY INDIVIDUAL RECOGNITION OF TRUTH, BUT ALSO THROUGH THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF A PUBLIC OPINION.

Christianity Destroys the State--But Which is Most Necessary:
Christianity or the State?--There are Some who Assert the
Necessity of a State Organization, and Others who Deny it, both
Arguing from same First Principles--Neither Contention can
be Proved by Abstract Argument--The Question must be Decided
by the Stage in the Development of Conscience of Each Man,
which will either Prevent or Allow him to Support a Government
Organization--Recognition of the Futility and Immorality of
Supporting a State Organization Contrary to Christian Principles
will Decide the Question for Every Man, in Spite of any
Action on Part of the State--Argument of those who Defend the
Government, that it is a Form of Social Life, Needed to Protect
the Good from the Wicked, till all Nations and all Members of
each Nation have Become Christians--The Most Wicked are Always
those in Power--The whole History of Humanity is the History
of the Forcible Appropriation of Power by the Wicked and their
Oppression of the Good--The Recognition by Governments of the
Necessity of Opposing Evil by Force is Equivalent to Suicide
on their Part--The Abolition of State-violence cannot Increase
the Sum Total of Acts of Violence--The Suppression of the Use
of Force is not only Possible, but is even Taking Place before
Our Eyes--But it will Never be Suppressed by the Violence
of Government, but through Men who have Attained Power by
Evidence Recognizing its Emptiness and Becoming Better and
Less Capable of Using Force--Individual Men and also Whole
Nations Pass Through this Process--By this Means Christianity
is Diffused Through Consciousness of Men, not only in Spite of
Use of Violence by Government, but even Through its Action,
and therefore the Suppression is not to be Dreaded, but is
Brought About by the National Progress of Life--Objection of
those who Defend State Organization that Universal Adoption of
Christianity is hardly Likely to be Realized at any Time--The
General Adoption of the Truths of Christianity is being Brought
About not only by the Gradual and Inward Means, that is, by
Knowledge of the Truth, Prophetic Insight, and Recognition of
the Emptiness of Power, and Renunciation of it by Individuals,
but also by Another External Means, the Acceptance of a New
Truth by Whole Masses of Men on a Lower Level of Development
Through Simple Confidence in their Leaders--When a Certain
Stage in the Diffusion of a Truth has been Reached, a Public
Opinion is Created which Impels a Whole Mass of Men, formerly
Antagonistic to the New Truth, to Accept it--And therefore all
Men may Quickly be Brought to Renounce the use of Violence
when once a Christian Public Opinion is Established--The
Conviction of Force being Necessary Hinders the Establishment
of a Christian Public Opinion--The Use of Violence Leads Men to
Distrust the Spiritual Force which is the Only Force by which
they Advance--Neither Nations nor Individuals have been really
Subjugated by Force, but only by Public Opinion, which no Force
can Resist--Savage Nations and Savage Men can only be Subdued
by the Diffusion of a Christian Standard among them, while
actually Christian Nations in order to Subdue them do all they
can to Destroy a Christian Standard--These Fruitless Attempts to
Civilize Savages Cannot be Adduced as Proofs that Men Cannot be
Subdued by Christianity--Violence by Corrupting Public Opinion,
only Hinders the Social Organization from being What it Ought
to Be--And by the Use of Violence being Suppressed, a Christian
Public Opinion would be Established--Whatever might be the
Result of the Suppression of Use of Force, this Unknown Future
could not be Worse than the Present Condition, and so there is
no Need to Dread it--To Attain Knowledge of the Unknown, and to
Move Toward it, is the Essence of Life.

Christianity in its true sense puts an end to government. So it was
understood at its very commencement; it was for that cause that
Christ was crucified. So it has always been understood by people who
were not under the necessity of justifying a Christian government.
Only from the time that the heads of government assumed an external
and nominal Christianity, men began to invent all the impossible,
cunningly devised theories by means of which Christianity can be
reconciled with government. But no honest and serious-minded man of
our day can help seeing the incompatibility of true Christianity--the
doctrine of meekness, forgiveness of injuries, and love--with
government, with its pomp, acts of violence, executions, and wars.
The profession of true Christianity not only excludes the possibility
of recognizing government, but even destroys its very foundations.

But if it is so, and we are right in saying that Christianity is
incompatible with government, then the question naturally presents
itself: which is more necessary to the good of humanity, in which
way is men's happiness best to be secured, by maintaining the
organization of government or by destroying it and replacing it by
Christianity?

Some people maintain that government is more necessary for humanity,
that the destruction of the state organization would involve the
destruction of all that humanity has gained, that the state has been
and still is the only form in which humanity can develop. The evil
which we see among peoples living under a government organization
they attribute not to that type of society, but to its abuses,
which, they say, can be corrected without destroying it, and thus
humanity, without discarding the state organization, can develop and
attain a high degree of happiness. And men of this way of thinking
bring forward in support of their views arguments which they think
irrefutable drawn from history, philosophy, and even religion. But
there are men who hold on the contrary that, as there was a time when
humanity lived without government, such an organization is temporary,
and that a time must come when men need a new organization, and
that that time has come now. And men of this way of thinking also
bring forward in support of their views arguments which they think
irrefutable from philosophy, history, and religion.

Volumes may be written in defense of the former view (and volumes
indeed have long ago been written and more will still be written on
that side), but much also can be written against it (and much also,
and most briliantly, has been written--though more recently--on this
side).

And it cannot be proved, as the champions of the state maintain,
that the destruction of government involves a social chaos, mutual
spoliation and murder, the destruction of all social institutions,
and the return of mankind to barbarism. Nor can it be proved as the
opponents of government maintain that men have already become so
wise and good that they will not spoil or murder one another, but
will prefer peaceful associations to hostilities; that of their own
accord, unaided by the state, they will make all the arrangements
that they need, and that therefore government, far from being any
aid, under show of guarding men exerts a pernicious and brutalizing
influence over them. It is impossible to prove either of these
contentions by abstract reasoning. Still less possible is it to prove
them by experiment, since the whole matter turns on the question,
ought we to try the experiment? The question whether or not the time
has come to make an end of government would be unanswerable, except
that there exists another living means of settling it beyond dispute.

We may dispute upon the question whether the nestlings are ready to
do without the mother-hen and to come out of the eggs, or whether
they are not yet advanced enough. But the young birds will decide
the question without any regard for our arguments when they find
themselves cramped for space in the eggs. Then they will begin to
try them with their beaks and come out of them of their own accord.

It is the same with the question whether the time has come to do
away with the governmental type of society and to replace it by a
new type. If a man, through the growth of a higher conscience, can
no longer comply with the demands of government, he finds himself
cramped by it and at the same time no longer needs its protection.
When this comes to pass, the question whether men are ready to
discard the governmental type is solved. And the conclusion will be
as final for them as for the young birds hatched out of the eggs.
Just as no power in the world can put them back into the shells, so
can no power in the world bring men again under the governmental type
of society when once they have outgrown it.

"It may well be that government was necessary and is still necessary
for all the advantages which you attribute to it," says the man who
has mastered the Christian theory of life. "I only know that on
the one hand, government is no longer necessary for _me_, and on
the other hand, _I_ can no longer carry out the measures that are
necessary to the existence of a government. Settle for yourselves
what you need for your life. I cannot prove the need or the harm of
governments in general. I know only what I need and do not need,
what I can do and what I cannot. I know that I do not need to divide
myself off from other nations, and therefore I cannot admit that I
belong exclusively to any state or nation, or that I owe allegiance
to any government. I know that I do not need all the government
institutions organized within the state, and therefore I cannot
deprive people who need my labor to give it in the form of taxes
to institutions which I do not need, which for all I know may be
pernicious. I know that I have no need of the administration or of
courts of justice founded upon force, and therefore I can take no
part in either. I know that I do not need to attack and slaughter
other nations or to defend myself from them with arms, and therefore
I can take no part in wars or preparations for wars. It may well be
that there are people who cannot help regarding all this as necessary
and indispensable. I cannot dispute the question with them, I can
only speak for myself; but I can say with absolute certainty that I
do not need it, and that I cannot do it. And I do not need this and
I cannot do it, not because such is my own, my personal will, but
because such is the will of him who sent me into life, and gave me an
indubitable law for my conduct through life."

Whatever arguments may be advanced in support of the contention that
the suppression of government authority would be injurious and would
lead to great calamities, men who have once outgrown the governmental
form of society cannot go back to it again. And all the reasoning
in the world cannot make the man who has outgrown the governmental
form of society take part in actions disallowed by his conscience,
any more than the full-grown bird can be made to return into the
egg-shell.

"But even it be so," say the champions of the existing order of
things, "still the suppression of government violence can only be
possible and desirable when all men have become Christians. So
long as among people nominally Christians there are unchristian
wicked men, who for the gratification of their own lusts are ready
to do harm to others, the suppression of government authority,
far from being a blessing to others, would only increase their
miseries. The suppression of the governmental type of society is
not only undesirable so long as there is only a minority of true
Christians; it would not even be desirable if the whole of a nation
were Christians, but among and around them were still unchristian
men of other nations. For these unchristian men would rob, outrage,
and kill the Christians with impunity and would make their lives
miserable. All that would result, would be that the bad would oppress
and outrage the good with impunity. And therefore the authority of
government must not be suppressed till all the wicked and rapacious
people in the world are extinct. And since this will either never
be, or at least cannot be for a long time to come, in spite of the
efforts of individual Christians to be independent of government
authority, it ought to be maintained in the interests of the
majority. The champions of government assert that without it the
wicked will oppress and outrage the good, and that the power of the
government enables the good to resist the wicked."

But in this assertion the champions of the existing order of things
take for granted the proposition they want to prove. When they say
that except for the government the bad would oppress the good, they
take it for granted that the good are those who at the present
time are in possession of power, and the bad are those who are in
subjection to it. But this is just what wants proving. It would only
be true if the custom of our society were what is, or rather is
supposed to be, the custom in China; that is, that the good always
rule, and that directly those at the head of government cease to be
better than those they rule over, the citizens are bound to remove
them. This is supposed to be the custom in China. In reality it is
not so and can never be so. For to remove the heads of a government
ruling by force, it is not the right alone, but the power to do so
that is needed. So that even in China this is only an imaginary
custom. And in our Christian world we do not even suppose such a
custom, and we have nothing on which to build up the supposition that
it is the good or the superior who are in power; in reality it is
those who have seized power and who keep it for their own and their
retainers' benefit.

The good cannot seize power, nor retain it; to do this men must love
power. And love of power is inconsistent with goodness; but quite
consistent with the very opposite qualities--pride, cunning, cruelty.

Without the aggrandizement of self and the abasement of others,
without hypocrisies and deceptions, without prisons, fortresses,
executions, and murders, no power can come into existence or be
maintained.

"If the power of government is suppressed the more wicked will
oppress the less wicked," say the champions of state authority. But
when the Egyptians conquered the Jews, the Romans conquered the
Greeks, and the Barbarians conquered the Romans, is it possible that
all the conquerors were always better than those they conquered?
And the same with the transitions of power within a state from one
personage to another: has the power always passed from a worse person
to a better one? When Louis XVI. was removed and Robespierre came
to power, and afterward Napoleon--who ruled then, a better man or a
worse? And when were better men in power, when the Versaillist party
or when the Commune was in power? When Charles I. was ruler, or when
Cromwell? And when Peter III. was Tzar, or when he was killed and
Catherine was Tzaritsa in one-half of Russia and Pougachef ruled the
other? Which was bad then, and which was good? All men who happen to
be in authority assert that their authority is necessary to keep the
bad from oppressing the good, assuming that they themselves are the
good _par excellence_, who protect other good people from the bad.

But ruling means using force, and using force means doing to him to
whom force is used, what he does not like and what he who uses the
force would certainly not like done to himself. Consequently ruling
means doing to others what we would not they should do unto us, that
is, doing wrong.

To submit means to prefer suffering to using force. And to prefer
suffering to using force means to be good, or at least less wicked
than those who do unto others what they would not like themselves.

And therefore, in all probability, not the better but the worse have
always ruled and are ruling now. There may be bad men among those who
are ruled, but it cannot be that those who are better have generally
ruled those who are worse.

It might be possible to suppose this with the inexact heathen
definition of good; but with the clear Christian definition of good
and evil, it is impossible to imagine it.

If the more or less good, and the more or less bad cannot be
distinguished in the heathen world, the Christian conception of good
and evil has so clearly defined the characteristics of the good and
the wicked, that it is impossible to confound them. According to
Christ's teaching the good are those who are meek and long-suffering,
do not resist evil by force, forgive injuries, and love their
enemies; those are wicked who exalt themselves, oppress, strive,
and use force. Therefore by Christ's teaching there can be no doubt
whether the good are to be found among rulers or ruled, and whether
the wicked are among the ruled or the rulers. Indeed it is absurd
even to speak of Christians ruling.

Non-Christians, that is those who find the aim of their lives in
earthly happiness, must always rule Christians, the aim of whose
lives is the renunciation of such earthly happiness.

This difference has always existed and has become more and more
defined as the Christian religion has been more widely diffused and
more correctly understood.

The more widely true Christianity was diffused and the more it
penetrated men's conscience, the more impossible it was for
Christians to be rulers, and the easier it became for non-Christians
to rule them.

"To get rid of governmental violence in a society in which all are
not true Christians, will only result in the wicked dominating the
good and oppressing them with impunity," say the champions of the
existing order of things. But it has never been, and cannot be
otherwise. So it has always been from the beginning of the world,
and so it is still. _The wicked will always dominate the good, and
will always oppress them._ Cain overpowered Abel, the cunning Jacob
oppressed the guileless Esau and was in his turn deceived by Laban,
Caiaphas and Pilate oppressed Christ, the Roman emperors oppressed
Seneca, Epictetus, and the good Romans who lived in their times.
John IV. with his favorites, the syphilitic drunken Peter with
his buffoons, the vicious Catherine with her paramours, ruled and
oppressed the industrious religious Russians of their times.

William is ruling over the Germans, Stambouloff over the Bulgarians,
the Russian officials over the Russian people. The Germans have
dominated the Italians, now they dominate the Hungarians and
Slavonians; the Turks have dominated and still dominate the
Slavonians and Greeks; the English dominate the Hindoos, the
Mongolians dominate the Chinese.

So that whether governmental violence is suppressed or not, the
position of good men, in being oppressed by the wicked, will be
unchanged.

To terrify men with the prospect of the wicked dominating the good is
impossible, for that is just what has always been, and is now, and
cannot but be.

The whole history of pagan times is nothing but a recital of the
incidents and means by which the more wicked gained possession
of power over the less wicked, and retained it by cruelties and
deceptions, ruling over the good under the pretense of guarding the
right and protecting the good from the wicked. All the revolutions
in history are only examples of the more wicked seizing power and
oppressing the good. In declaring that if their authority did not
exist the more wicked would oppress the good, the ruling authorities
only show their disinclination to let other oppressors come to power
who would like to snatch it from them.

But in asserting this they only accuse themselves. They say that
their power, _i. e._, violence, is needed to defend men from other
possible oppressors in the present or the future.[16]

[16] I may quote in this connection the amazingly naive and comic
declaration of the Russian authorities, the oppressors of other
nationalities--the Poles, the Germans of the Baltic provinces, and
the Jews. The Russian Government has oppressed its subjects for
centuries, and has never troubled itself about the Little Russians
of Poland, or the Letts of the Baltic provinces, or the Russian
peasants, exploited by everyone. And now it has all of a sudden
become the champion of the oppressed--the very oppressed whom it is
itself oppressing.

The weakness of the use of violence lies in the fact that all the
arguments brought forward by oppressors in their own defense can
with even better reason be advanced against them. They plead the
danger of violence--most often imagined in the future--but they are
all the while continuing to practice actual violence themselves.
"You say that men used to pillage and murder in the past, and that
you are afraid that they will pillage and murder one another if your
power were no more. That may happen--or it may not happen. But the
fact that you ruin thousands of men in prisons, fortresses, galleys,
and exile, break up millions of families and ruin millions of men,
physically as well as morally, in the army, that fact is not an
imaginary but a real act of violence, which, according to your own
argument, one ought to oppose by violence. And so you are yourselves
these wicked men against whom, according to your own argument, it is
absolutely necessary to use violence," the oppressed are sure to say
to their oppressors. And non-Christian men always do say, and think
and act on this reasoning. If the oppressed are more wicked than
their oppressors, they attack them and try to overthrow them; and in
favorable circumstances they succeed in overthrowing them, or what is
more common, they rise into the ranks of the oppressors and assist in
their acts of violence.

So that the very violence which the champions of government hold
up as a terror--pretending that except for its oppressive power
the wicked would oppress the good--has really always existed and
will exist in human society. And therefore the suppression of state
violence cannot in any case be the cause of increased oppression of
the good by the wicked.

If state violence ceased, there would be acts of violence perhaps on
the part of different people, other than those who had done deeds of
violence before. But the total amount of violence could not in any
case be increased by the mere fact of power passing from one set of
men to another.

"State violence can only cease when there are no more wicked men in
society," say the champions of the existing order of things, assuming
in this of course that since there will always be wicked men, it can
never cease. And that would be right enough if it were the case, as
they assume, that the oppressors are always the best of men, and that
the sole means of saving men from evil is by violence. Then, indeed,
violence could never cease. But since this is not the case, but quite
the contrary, that it is not the better oppress the worse, but the
worse oppress the better, and since violence will never put an end
to evil, and there is, moreover, another means of putting an end to
it, the assertion that violence will never cease is incorrect. The
use of violence grows less and less and evidently must disappear.
But this will not come to pass, as some champions of the existing
order imagine, through the oppressed becoming better and better under
the influence of government (on the contrary, its influence causes
their continual degradation), but through the fact that all men are
constantly growing better and better of themselves, so that even the
most wicked, who are in power, will become less and less wicked, till
at last they are so good as to be incapable of using violence.

The progressive movement of humanity does not proceed from the
better elements in society seizing power and making those who are
subject to them better, by forcible means, as both conservatives and
revolutionists imagine. It proceeds first and principally from the
fact that all men in general are advancing steadily and undeviatingly
toward a more and more conscious assimilation of the Christian theory
of life; and secondly, from the fact that, even apart from conscious
spiritual life, men are unconsciously brought into a more Christian
attitude to life by the very process of one set of men grasping the
power, and again being replaced by others.

The worse elements of society, gaining possession of power, under
the sobering influence which always accompanies power, grow less and
less cruel, and become incapable of using cruel forms of violence.
Consequently others are able to seize their place, and the same
process of softening and, so to say, unconscious Christianizing goes
on with them. It is something like the process of ebullition. The
majority of men, having the non-Christian view of life, always strive
for power and struggle to obtain it. In this struggle the most cruel,
the coarsest, the least Christian elements of society overpower the
most gentle, well-disposed, and Christian, and rise by means of their
violence to the upper ranks of society. And in them is Christ's
prophecy fulfilled: "Woe to you that are rich! woe unto you that are
full! woe unto you when all men shall speak well of you!" For the men
who are in possession of power and all that results from it--glory
and wealth--and have attained the various aims they set before
themselves, recognize the vanity of it all and return to the position
from which they came. Charles V., John IV., Alexander I., recognizing
the emptiness and the evil of power, renounced it because they were
incapable of using violence for their own benefit as they had done.

But they are not the solitary examples of this recognition of the
emptiness and evil of power. Everyone who gains a position of power
he has striven for, every general, every minister, every millionaire,
every petty official who has gained the place he has coveted for ten
years, every rich peasant who has laid by some hundred rubles, passes
through this unconscious process of softening.

And not only individual men, but societies of men, whole nations,
pass through this process.

The seductions of power, and all the wealth, honor, and luxury it
gives, seem a sufficient aim for men's efforts only so long as they
are unattained. Directly a man reaches them he sees all their vanity,
and they gradually lose all their power of attraction. They are like
clouds which have form and beauty only from the distance; directly
one ascends into them, all their splendor vanishes.

Men who are in possession of power and wealth, sometimes even those
who have gained for themselves their power and wealth, but more often
their heirs, cease to be so eager for power, and so cruel in their
efforts to obtain it.

Having learnt by experience, under the operation of Christian
influence, the vanity of all that is gained by violence, men
sometimes in one, sometimes in several generations lose the vices
which are generated by the passion for power and wealth. They
become less cruel and so cannot maintain their position, and are
expelled from power by others less Christian and more wicked.
Thus they return to a rank of society lower in position, but
higher in morality, raising thereby the average level of Christian
consciousness in men. But directly after them again the worst,
coarsest, least Christian elements of society rise to the top,
and are subjected to the same process as their predecessors, and
again in a generation or so, seeing the vanity of what is gained by
violence, and having imbibed Christianity, they come down again among
the oppressed, and their place is again filled by new oppressors,
less brutal than former oppressors, though more so than those they
oppress. So that, although power remains externally the same as
it was, with every change of the men in power there is a constant
increase of the number of men who have been brought by experience to
the necessity of assimilating the Christian conception of life, and
with every change--though it is the coarsest, cruelest, and least
Christian who come into possession of power, they are less coarse and
cruel and more Christian than their predecessors when they gained
possession of power.

Power selects and attracts the worst elements of society, transforms
them, improves and softens them, and returns them to society.

Such is the process by means of which Christianity, in spite of the
hindrances to human progress resulting from the violence of power,
gains more and more hold of men. Christianity penetrates to the
consciousness of men, not only in spite of the violence of power, but
also by means of it.

And therefore the assertion of the champions of the state, that if
the power of government were suppressed the wicked would oppress
the good, not only fails to show that that is to be dreaded, since
it is just what happens now, but proves, on the contrary, that it
is governmental power which enables the wicked to oppress the good,
and is the evil most desirable to suppress, and that it is being
gradually suppressed in the natural course of things.

"But if it be true that governmental power will disappear when those
in power become so Christian that they renounce power of their own
accord, and there are no men found willing to take their place, and
even if this process is already going on," say the champions of the
existing order, "when will that come to pass? If, after eighteen
hundred years, there are still so many eager for power, and so few
anxious to obey, there seems no likelihood of its happening very
soon--or indeed of its ever happening at all.

"Even if there are, as there have always been, some men who prefer
renouncing power to enjoying it, the mass of men in reserve, who
prefer dominion to subjection, is so great that it is difficult to
imagine a time when the number will be exhausted.

"Before this Christianizing process could so affect all men one
after another that they would pass from the heathen to the Christian
conception of life, and would voluntarily abandon power and wealth,
it would be necessary that all the coarse, half-savage men,
completely incapable of appreciating Christianity or acting upon it,
of whom there are always a great many in every Christian society,
should be converted to Christianity. More than this, all the savage
and absolutely non-Christian peoples, who are so numerous outside
the Christian world, must also be converted. And therefore, even
if we admit that this Christianizing process will some day affect
everyone, still, judging by the amount of progress it has made in
eighteen hundred years, it will be many times eighteen centuries
before it will do so. And it is therefore impossible and unprofitable
to think at present of anything so impracticable as the suppression
of authority. We ought only to try to put authority into the best
hands."

And this criticism would be perfectly just, if the transition from
one conception of life to another were only accomplished by the
single process of all men, separately and successively, realizing,
each for himself, the emptiness of power, and reaching Christian
truth by the inner spiritual path. That process goes on unceasingly,
and men are passing over to Christianity one after another by this
inner way.

But there is also another external means by which men reach
Christianity and by which the transition is less gradual.

This transition from one organization of life to another is not
accomplished by degrees like the sand running through the hourglass
grain after grain. It is more like the water filling a vessel
floating on water. At first the water only runs in slowly on one
side, but as the vessel grows heavier it suddenly begins to sink, and
almost instantaneously fills with water.

It is just the same with the transitions of mankind from one
conception--and so from one organization of life--to another. At
first only gradually and slowly, one after another, men attain to the
new truth by the inner spiritual way, and follow it out in life. But
when a certain point in the diffusion of the truth has been reached,
it is suddenly assimilated by everyone, not by the inner way, but, as
it were, involuntarily.

That is why the champions of the existing order are wrong in arguing
that, since only a small section of mankind has passed over to
Christianity in eighteen centuries, it must be many times eighteen
centuries before all the remainder do the same. For in that argument
they do not take into account any other means, besides the inward
spiritual one, by which men assimilate a new truth and pass from one
order of life to another.

Men do not only assimilate a truth through recognizing it by
prophetic insight, or by experience of life. When the truth has
become sufficiently widely diffused, men at a lower stage of
development accept it all at once simply through confidence in those
who have reached it by the inner spiritual way, and are applying it
to life.

Every new truth, by which the order of human life is changed and
humanity is advanced, is at first accepted by only a very small
number of men who understand it through inner spiritual intuition.
The remainder of mankind who accepted on trust the preceding truth
on which the existing order is based, are always opposed to the
diffusion of the new truth.

But seeing that, to begin with, men do not stand still, but are
steadily advancing to a greater recognition of the truth and a
closer adaptation of their life to it, and secondly, all men in
varying degrees according to their age, their education, and their
race are capable of understanding the new truths, at first those
who are nearest to the men who have attained the new truth by
spiritual intuition, slowly and one by one, but afterward more and
more quickly, pass over to the new truth. Thus the number of men
who accept the new truth becomes greater and greater, and the truth
becomes more and more comprehensible.

And thus more confidence is aroused in the remainder, who are at a
less advanced stage of capacity for understanding the truth. And it
becomes easier for them to grasp it, and an increasing number accept
it.

And so the movement goes on more and more quickly, and on an
ever-increasing scale, like a snowball, till at last a public opinion
in harmony with the new truth is created, and then the whole mass of
men is carried over all at once by its momentum to the new truth and
establishes a new social order in accordance with it.

Those men who accept a new truth when it has gained a certain degree
of acceptance, always pass over all at once in masses. They are like
the ballast with which every ship is always loaded, at once to keep
it upright and enable it to sail properly. If there were no ballast,
the ship would not be low enough in the water, and would shift its
position at the slightest change in its conditions. This ballast,
which strikes one at first as superfluous and even as hindering
the progress of the vessel, is really indispensable to its good
navigation.

It is the same with the mass of mankind, who not individually, but
always in a mass, under the influence of a new social idea pass all
at once from one organization of life to another. This mass always
hinders, by its inertia, frequent and rapid revolutions in the social
order which have not been sufficiently proved by human experience.
And it delays every truth a long while till it has stood the test of
prolonged struggles, and has thoroughly permeated the consciousness
of humanity.

And that is why it is a mistake to say that because only a very
small minority of men has assimilated Christianity in eighteen
centuries, it must take many times as many centuries for all mankind
to assimilate it, and that since that time is so far off, we who live
in the present need not even think about it. It is a mistake, because
the men at a lower stage of culture, the men and the nations who are
represented as the obstacle to the realization of the Christian order
of life, are the very people who always pass over in masses all at
once to any truth that has once been recognized by public opinion.

And therefore the transformation of human life, through which men
in power will renounce it, and there will be none anxious to take
their place, will not come only by all men consciously and separately
assimilating the Christian conception of life. It will come when
a Christian public opinion has arisen, so definite and easily
comprehensible as to reach the whole of the inert mass, which is not
able to attain truth by its own intuition, and therefore is always
under the sway of public opinion.

Public opinion arises spontaneously and spreads for hundreds and
thousands of years, but it has the power of working on men by
infection, and with great rapidity gains a hold on great numbers of
men.

"But," say the champions of the existing order, "even if it is
true that public opinion, when it has attained a certain degree of
definiteness and precision, can convert the inert mass of men outside
the Christian world--the non-Christian races--as well as the coarse
and depraved who are living in its midst, what proofs have we that
this Christian public opinion has arisen and is able to replace force
and render it unnecessary.

"We must not give up force, by which the existing order is
maintained, and by relying on the vague and impalpable influence
of public opinion expose Christians to the risk of being pillaged,
murdered, and outraged in every way by the savages inside and outside
of civilized society.

"Since, even supported by the use of force, we can hardly control
the non-Christian elements which are always ready to pour down on
us and to destroy all that has been gained by civilization, is it
likely that public opinion could take the place of force and render
us secure? And besides, how are we to find the moment when public
opinion has become strong enough to be able to replace the use of
force? To reject the use of force and trust to public opinion to
defend us would be as insane as to remove all weapons of defense in a
menagerie, and then to let loose all the lions and tigers, relying on
the fact that the animals seemed peaceable when kept in their cages
and held in check by red-hot irons. And therefore people in power,
who have been put in positions of authority by fate or by God, have
not the right to run the risk, ruining all that has been gained by
civilization, just because they want to try an experiment to see
whether public opinion is or is not able to replace the protection
given by authority."

A French writer, forgotten now, Alphonse Karr, said somewhere, trying
to show the impossibility of doing away with the death penalty: "Que
messieurs les assassins commencent par nous donner l'exemple." Often
have I heard this _bon mot_ repeated by men who thought that these
words were a witty and convincing argument against the abolition of
capital punishment. And yet all the erroneousness of the argument of
those who consider that governments cannot give up the use of force
till all people are capable of doing the same, could not be more
clearly expressed than it is in that epigram.

"Let the murderers," say the champions of state violence, "set us the
example by giving up murder and then we will give it up." But the
murderers say just the same, only with much more right. They say:
"Let those who have undertaken to teach us and guide us set us the
example of giving up legal murder, and then we will imitate them."
And they say this, not as a jest, but seriously, because it is the
actual state of the case.

"We cannot give up the use of violence, because we are surrounded
by violent ruffians." Nothing in our days hinders the progress of
humanity and the establishment of the organization corresponding to
its present development more than this false reasoning. Those in
authority are convinced that men are only guided and only progress
through the use of force, and therefore they confidently make use
of it to support the existing organization. The existing order is
maintained, not by force, but by public opinion, the action of which
is disturbed by the use of force. So that the effect of using force
is to disturb and to weaken the very thing it tries to maintain.

Violence, even in the most favorable case, when it is not used simply
for some personal aims of those in power, always punishes under the
one inelastic formula of the law what has long before been condemned
by public opinion. But there is this difference, that while public
opinion censures and condemns all the acts opposed to the moral law,
including the most varied cases in its reprobation, the law which
rests on violence only condemns and punishes a certain very limited
range of acts, and by so doing seems to justify all other acts of the
same kind which do not come under its scope.

Public opinion ever since the time of Moses has regarded
covetousness, profligacy, and cruelty as wrong, and censured
them accordingly. And it condemns every kind of manifestation of
covetousness, not only the appropriation of the property of others
by force or fraud or trickery, but even the cruel abuse of wealth;
it condemns every form of profligacy, whether with concubine, slave,
divorced woman, or even one's own wife; it condemns every kind of
cruelty, whether shown in blows, in ill-treatment, or in murder,
not only of men, but even of animals. The law resting on force
only punishes certain forms of covetousness, such as robbery and
swindling, certain forms of profligacy and cruelty, such as conjugal
infidelity, murder, and wounding. And in this way it seems to
countenance all the manifestations of covetousness, profligacy, and
cruelty which do not come under its narrow definition.

But besides corrupting public opinion, the use of force leads
men to the fatal conviction that they progress, not through the
spiritual impulse which impels them to the attainment of truth and
its realization in life, and which constitutes the only source of
every progressive movement of humanity, but by means of violence,
the very force which, far from leading men to truth, always carries
them further away from it. This is a fatal error, because it leads
men to neglect the chief force underlying their life--their spiritual
activity--and to turn all their attention and energy to the use
of violence, which is superficial, sluggish, and most generally
pernicious in its action.

They make the same mistake as men who, trying to set a steam
engine in motion, should turn its wheels round with their hands,
not suspecting that the underlying cause of its movement was the
expansion of the steam, and not the motion of the wheels. By turning
the wheels by hand and by levers they could only produce a semblance
of movement, and meantime they would be wrenching the wheels and so
preventing their being fit for real movement.

That is just what people are doing who think to make men advance by
means of external force.

They say that the Christian life cannot be established without the
use of violence, because there are savage races outside the pale
of Christian societies in Africa and in Asia (there are some who
even represent the Chinese as a danger to civilization), and that
in the midst of Christian societies there are savage, corrupt, and,
according to the new theory of heredity, congenital criminals. And
violence, they say, is necessary to keep savages and criminals from
annihilating our civilization.

But these savages within and without Christian society, who are such
a terror to us, have never been subjugated by violence, and are not
subjugated by it now. Nations have never subjugated other nations by
violence alone. If a nation which subjugated another was on a lower
level of civilization, it has never happened that it succeeded in
introducing its organization of life by violence. On the contrary, it
was always forced to adopt the organization of life existing in the
conquered nation. If ever any of the nations conquered by force have
been really subjugated, or even nearly so, it has always been by the
action of public opinion, and never by violence, which only tends to
drive a people to further rebellion.

When whole nations have been subjugated by a new religion, and have
become Christian or Mohammedan, such a conversion has never been
brought about because the authorities made it obligatory (on the
contrary, violence has much oftener acted in the opposite direction),
but because public opinion made such a change inevitable. Nations, on
the contrary, who have been driven by force to accept the faith of
their conquerors have always remained antagonistic to it.

It is just the same with the savage elements existing in the midst
of our civilized societies. Neither the increased nor the diminished
severity of punishment, nor the modifications of prisons, nor the
increase of police will increase or diminish the number of criminals.
Their number will only be diminished by the change of the moral
standard of society. No severities could put an end to duels and
vendettas in certain districts. In spite of the number of Tcherkesses
executed for robbery, they continue to be robbers from their youth
up, for no maiden will marry a Tcherkess youth till he has given
proof of his bravery by carrying off a horse, or at least a sheep. If
men cease to fight duels, and the Tcherkesses cease to be robbers, it
will not be from fear of punishment (indeed, that invests the crime
with additional charm for youth), but through a change in the moral
standard of public opinion. It is the same with all other crimes.
Force can never suppress what is sanctioned by public opinion. On the
contrary, public opinion need only be in direct opposition to force
to neutralize the whole effect of the use of force. It has always
been so and always will be in every case of martyrdom.

What would happen if force were not used against hostile nations and
the criminal elements of society we do not know. But we do know by
prolonged experience that neither enemies nor criminals have been
successfully suppressed by force.

And indeed how could nations be subjugated by violence who are led by
their whole education, their traditions, and even their religion to
see the loftiest virtue in warring with their oppressors and fighting
for freedom? And how are we to suppress by force acts committed
in the midst of our society which are regarded as crimes by the
government and as daring exploits by the people?

To exterminate such nations and such criminals by violence is
possible, and indeed is done, but to subdue them is impossible.

The sole guide which directs men and nations has always been and is
the unseen, intangible, underlying force, the resultant of all the
spiritual forces of a certain people, or of all humanity, which finds
its outward expression in public opinion.

The use of violence only weakens this force, hinders it and corrupts
it, and tries to replace it by another which, far from being
conducive to the progress of humanity, is detrimental to it.

To bring under the sway of Christianity all the savage nations
outside the pale of the Christian world--all the Zulus, Mandchoos,
and Chinese, whom many regard as savages--and the savages who live in
our midst, there is only _one means_. That means is the propagation
among these nations of the Christian ideal of society, which can only
be realized by a Christian life, Christian actions, and Christian
examples. And meanwhile, though this is the _one only means_ of
gaining a hold over the people who have remained non-Christian, the
men of our day set to work in the directly opposite fashion to attain
this result.

To bring under the sway of Christianity savage nations who do not
attack us and whom we have therefore no excuse for oppressing, we
ought before all things to leave them in peace, and in case we need
or wish to enter into closer relations with them, we ought only to
influence them by Christian manners and Christian teaching, setting
them the example of the Christian virtues of patience, meekness,
endurance, purity, brotherhood, and love. Instead of that we begin by
establishing among them new markets for our commerce, with the sole
aim of our own profit; then we appropriate their lands, _i. e._, rob
them; then we sell them spirits, tobacco, and opium, _i. e._, corrupt
them; then we establish our morals among them, teach them the use
of violence and new methods of destruction, _i. e._, we teach them
nothing but the animal law of strife, below which man cannot sink,
and we do all we can to conceal from them all that is Christian in
us. After this we send some dozens of missionaries prating to them
of the hypocritical absurdities of the Church, and then quote the
failure of our efforts to turn the heathen to Christianity as an
incontrovertible proof of the impossibility of applying the truths of
Christianity in practical life.

It is just the same with the so-called criminals living in our
midst. To bring these people under the sway of Christianity there
is _one only means_, that is, the Christian social ideal, which
can only be realized among them by true Christian teaching and
supported by a true example of the Christian life. And to preach
this Christian truth and to support it by Christian example we
set up among them prisons, guillotines, gallows, preparations for
murder; we diffuse among the common herd idolatrous superstitions to
stupefy them; we sell them spirits, tobacco, and opium to brutalize
them; we even organize legalized prostitution; we give land to those
who do not need it; we make a display of senseless luxury in the
midst of suffering poverty; we destroy the possibility of anything
like a Christian public opinion, and studiously try to suppress
what Christian public opinion is existing. And then, after having
ourselves assiduously corrupted men, we shut them up like wild beasts
in places from which they cannot escape, and where they become still
more brutalized, or else we kill them. And these very men whom we
have corrupted and brutalized by every means, we bring forward as a
proof that one cannot deal with criminals except by brute force.

We are just like ignorant doctors who put a man, recovering from
illness by the force of nature, into the most unfavorable conditions
of hygiene, and dose him with the most deleterious drugs, and then
assert triumphantly that their hygiene and their drugs saved his
life, when the patient would have been well long before if they had
left him alone.

Violence, which is held up as the means of supporting the Christian
organization of life, not only fails to produce that effect, it even
hinders the social organization of life from being what it might and
ought to be. The social organization is as good as it is not as a
result of force, but in spite of it.

And therefore the champions of the existing order are mistaken
in arguing that since, even with the aid of force, the bad and
non-Christian elements of humanity can hardly be kept from attacking
us, the abolition of the use of force and the substitution of public
opinion for it would leave humanity quite unprotected.

They are mistaken, because force does not protect humanity, but,
on the contrary, deprives it of the only possible means of really
protecting itself, that is, the establishment and diffusion of a
Christian public opinion. Only by the suppression of violence will a
Christian public opinion cease to be corrupted, and be enabled to be
diffused without hindrance, and men will then turn their efforts in
the spiritual direction by which alone they can advance.

"But how are we to cast off the visible tangible protection of an
armed policeman, and trust to something so intangible as public
opinion? Does it yet exist? Moreover, the condition of things
in which we are living now, we know, good or bad; we know its
shortcomings and are used to it, we know what to do, and how to
behave under present conditions. But what will happen when we give
it up and trust ourselves to something invisible and intangible, and
altogether unknown?"

The unknown world on which they are entering in renouncing their
habitual ways of life appears itself as dreadful to them. It is
all very well to dread the unknown when our habitual position is
sound and secure. But our position is so far from being secure that
we know, beyond all doubt, that we are standing on the brink of a
precipice.

If we must be afraid let us be afraid of what is really alarming, and
not what we imagine as alarming.

Fearing to make the effort to detach ourselves from our perilous
position because the future is not fully clear to us, we are like
passengers in a foundering ship who, through being afraid to trust
themselves to the boat which would carry them to the shore, shut
themselves up in the cabin and refuse to come out of it; or like
sheep, who, terrified by their barn being on fire, huddle in a corner
and do not go out of the wide-open door.

We are standing on the threshold of the murderous war of social
revolution, terrific in its miseries, beside which, as those who
are preparing it tell us, the horrors of 1793 will be child's play.
And can we talk of the danger threatening us from the warriors of
Dahomey, the Zulus, and such, who live so far away and are not
dreaming of attacking us, and from some thousands of swindlers,
thieves, and murderers, brutalized and corrupted by ourselves, whose
number is in no way lessened by all our sentences, prisons, and
executions?

Moreover this dread of the suppression of the visible protection of
the policeman is essentially a sentiment of townspeople, that is, of
people who are living in abnormal and artificial conditions. People
living in natural conditions of life, not in towns, but in the midst
of nature, and carrying on the struggle with nature, live without
this protection and know how little force can protect us from the
real dangers with which we are surrounded. There is something sickly
in this dread, which is essentially dependent on the artificial
conditions in which many of us live and have been brought up.

A doctor, a specialist in insanity, told a story that one summer
day when he was leaving the asylum, the lunatics accompanied him to
the street door. "Come for a walk in the town with me?" the doctor
suggested to them. The lunatics agreed, and a small band followed the
doctor. But the further they proceeded along the street where healthy
people were freely moving about, the more timid they became, and they
pressed closer and closer to the doctor, hindering him from walking.
At last they all began to beg him to take them back to the asylum,
to their meaningless but customary way of life, to their keepers, to
blows, strait waistcoats, and solitary cells.

This is just how men of to-day huddle in terror and draw back to
their irrational manner of life, their factories, law courts,
prisons, executions, and wars, when Christianity calls them to
liberty, to the free, rational life of the future coming age.

People ask, "How will our security be guaranteed when the existing
organization is suppressed? What precisely will the new organization
be that is to replace it? So long as we do not know precisely how our
life will be organized, we will not stir a step forward."

An explorer going to an unknown country might as well ask for a
detailed map of the country before he would start.

If a man, before he passed from one stage to another, could know his
future life in full detail, he would have nothing to live for. It is
the same with the life of humanity. If it had a programme of the life
which awaited it before entering a new stage, it would be the surest
sign that it was not living, nor advancing, but simply rotating in
the same place.

The conditions of the new order of life cannot be known by us because
we have to create them by our own labors. That is all that life is,
to learn the unknown, and to adapt our actions to this new knowledge.

That is the life of each individual man, and that is the life of
human societies and of humanity.

CHAPTER XI.

THE CHRISTIAN CONCEPTION OF LIFE HAS ALREADY ARISEN IN OUR
SOCIETY, AND WILL INFALLIBLY PUT AN END TO THE PRESENT
ORGANIZATION OF OUR LIFE BASED ON FORCE--WHEN THAT WILL BE.

The Condition and Organization of our Society are Terrible,
but they Rest only on Public Opinion, and can be Destroyed by
it--Already Violence is Regarded from a Different Point of View;
the Number of those who are Ready to Serve the Government is
Diminishing; and even the Servants of Government are Ashamed of
their Position, and so often Do Not Perform their Duties--These
Facts are all Signs of the Rise of a Public Opinion, which
Continually Growing will Lead to No One being Willing to Enter
Government Service--Moreover, it Becomes More and More Evident
that those Offices are of No Practical Use--Men already Begin to
Understand the Futility of all Institutions Based on Violence,
and if a Few already Understand it, All will One Day Understand
it--The Day of Deliverance is Unknown, but it Depends on Men
Themselves, on how far Each Man Lives According to the Light
that is in Him.

The position of Christian humanity with its prisons, galleys,
gibbets, its factories and accumulation of capital, its taxes,
churches, gin-palaces, licensed brothels, its ever-increasing
armament and its millions of brutalized men, ready, like chained
dogs, to attack anyone against whom their master incites them,
would be terrible indeed if it were the product of violence, but
it is pre-eminently the product of public opinion. And what has
been established by public opinion can be destroyed by public
opinion--and, indeed, is being destroyed by public opinion.

Money lavished by hundreds of millions, tens of millions of
disciplined troops, weapons of astounding destructive power, all
organizations carried to the highest point of perfection, a whole
army of men charged with the task of deluding and hypnotizing the
people, and all this, by means of electricity which annihilates
distance, under the direct control of men who regard such an
organization of society not only as necessary for profit, but even
for self-preservation, and therefore exert every effort of their
ingenuity to preserve it--what an invincible power it would seem! And
yet we need only imagine for a moment what will really inevitably
come to pass, that is, the Christian social standard replacing the
heathen social standard and established with the same power and
universality, and the majority of men as much ashamed of taking
any part in violence or in profiting by it, as they are to-day of
thieving, swindling, begging, and cowardice; and at once we see the
whole of this complex, and seemingly powerful organization of society
falls into ruins of itself without a struggle.

And to bring this to pass, nothing new need be brought before men's
minds. Only let the mist, which veils from men's eyes the true
meaning of certain acts of violence, pass away, and the Christian
public opinion which is springing up would overpower the extinct
public opinion which permitted and justified acts of violence. People
need only come to be as much ashamed to do deeds of violence, to
assist in them or to profit by them, as they now are of being, or
being reputed a swindler, a thief, a coward, or a beggar. And already
this change is beginning to take place. We do not notice it just
as we do not notice the movement of the earth, because we are moved
together with everything around us.

It is true that the organization of society remains in its principal
features just as much an organization based on violence as it was
one thousand years ago, and even in some respects, especially in the
preparation for war and in war itself, it appears still more brutal.
But the rising Christian ideal, which must at a certain stage of
development replace the heathen ideal of life, already makes its
influence felt. A dead tree stands apparently as firmly as ever--it
may even seem firmer because it is harder--but it is rotten at the
core, and soon must fall. It is just so with the present order of
society, based on force. The external aspect is unchanged. There is
the same division of oppressors and oppressed, but their view of the
significance and dignity of their respective positions is no longer
what it once was.

The oppressors, that is, those who take part in government, and those
who profit by oppression, that is, the rich, no longer imagine, as
they once did, that they are the elect of the world, and that they
constitute the ideal of human happiness and greatness, to attain
which was once the highest aim of the oppressed.

Very often now it is not the oppressed who strive to attain the
position of the oppressors, and try to imitate them, but on the
contrary the oppressors who voluntarily abandon the advantages of
their position, prefer the condition of the oppressed, and try to
resemble them in the simplicity of their life.

Not to speak of the duties and occupations now openly despised,
such as that of spy, agent of secret police, money-lender, and
publican, there are a great number of professions formerly regarded
as honorable, such as those of police officials, courtiers, judges,
and administrative functionaries, clergymen, military officers,
speculators, and bankers, which are no longer considered desirable
positions by everyone, and are even despised by a special circle of
the most respected people. There are already men who voluntarily
abandon these professions which were once reckoned irreproachable,
and prefer less lucrative callings which are in no way connected with
the use of force.

And there are even rich men who, not through religious sentiment, but
simply through special sensitiveness to the social standard that is
springing up, relinquish their inherited property, believing that a
man can only justly consume what he has gained by his own labor.

The position of a government official or of a rich man is no longer,
as it once was, and still is among non-Christian peoples, regarded
as necessarily honorable and deserving of respect, and under the
special blessing of God. The most delicate and moral people (they are
generally also the most cultivated) avoid such positions and prefer
more humble callings that are not dependent on the use of force.

The best of our young people, at the age when they are still
uncorrupted by life and are choosing a career, prefer the calling of
doctor, engineer, teacher, artist, writer, or even that of simple
farmer living on his own labor, to legal, administrative, clerical,
and military positions in the pay of government, or to an idle
existence living on their incomes.

Monuments and memorials in these days are mostly not erected in honor
of government dignitaries, or generals, or still less of rich men,
but rather of artists, men of science, and inventors, persons who
have nothing in common with the government, and often have even been
in conflict with it. They are the men whose praises are celebrated
in poetry, who are honored by sculpture and received with triumphant
jubilations.

The best men of our day are all striving for such places of honor.
Consequently the class from which the wealthy and the government
officials are drawn grows less in number and lower in intelligence
and education, and still more in moral qualities. So that nowadays
the wealthy class and men at the head of government do not
constitute, as they did in former days, the _élite_ of society; on
the contrary, they are inferior to the middle class.

In Russia and Turkey as in America and France, however often
the government change its officials, the majority of them are
self-seeking and corrupt, of so low a moral standard that they do
not even come up the elementary requirements of common honesty
expected by the government. One may often nowadays hear from persons
in authority the naïve complaint that the best people are always,
by some strange--as it seems to them--fatality, to be found in the
camp of the opposition. As though men were to complain that those who
accepted the office of hangman were--by some strange fatality--all
persons of very little refinement or beauty of character.

The most cultivated and refined people of our society are not
nowadays to be found among the very rich, as used formerly to be the
rule. The rich are mostly coarse money grubbers, absorbed only, in
increasing their hoard, generally by dishonest means, or else the
degenerate heirs of such money grubbers, who, far from playing any
prominent part in society, are mostly treated with general contempt.

And besides the fact that the class from which the servants of
government and the wealthy are drawn grows less in number and lower
in caliber, they no longer themselves attach the same importance
to their positions as they once did; often they are ashamed of the
ignominy of their calling and do not perform the duties they are
bound to perform in their position. Kings and emperors scarcely
govern at all; they scarcely ever decide upon an internal reform
or a new departure in foreign politics. They mostly leave the
decision of such questions to government institutions or to public
opinion. All their duties are reduced to representing the unity
and majesty of government. And even this duty they perform less and
less successfully. The majority of them do not keep up their old
unapproachable majesty, but become more and more democratized and
even vulgarized, casting aside the external prestige that remained to
them, and thereby destroying the very thing it was their function to
maintain.

It is just the same with the army. Military officers of the highest
rank, instead of encouraging in their soldiers the brutality and
ferocity necessary for their work, diffuse education among the
soldiers, inculcate humanity, and often even themselves share the
socialistic ideas of the masses and denounce war. In the last plots
against the Russian Government many of the conspirators were in
the army. And the number of the disaffected in the army is always
increasing. And it often happens (there was a case, indeed, within
the last few days) that when called upon to quell disturbances
they refuse to fire upon the people. Military exploits are openly
reprobated by the military themselves, and are often the subject of
jests among them.

It is the same with judges and public prosecutors. The judges, whose
duty it is to judge and condemn criminals, conduct the proceedings
so as to whitewash them as far as possible. So that the Russian
Government, to procure the condemnation of those whom they want to
punish, never intrust them to the ordinary tribunals, but have them
tried before a court martial, which is only a parody of justice. The
prosecutors themselves often refuse to proceed, and even when they do
proceed, often in spite of the law, really defend those they ought
to be accusing. The learned jurists whose business it is to justify
the violence of authority, are more and more disposed to deny the
right of punishment and to replace it by theories of irresponsibility
and even of moral insanity, proposing to deal with those they call
criminals by medical treatment only.

Jailers and overseers of galleys generally become the champions of
those whom they ought to torture. Police officers and detectives
are continually assisting the escape of those they ought to arrest.
The clergy preach tolerance, and even sometimes condemn the use of
force, and the more educated among them try in their sermons to avoid
the very deception which is the basis of their position and which
it is their duty to support. Executioners refuse to perform their
functions, so that in Russia the death penalty cannot be carried out
for want of executioners. And in spite of all the advantages bestowed
on these men, who are selected from convicts, there is a constantly
diminishing number of volunteers for the post. Governors, police
officials, tax collectors often have compassion on the people and try
to find pretexts for not collecting the tax from them. The rich are
not at ease in spending their wealth only on themselves, and lavish
it on works of public utility. Landowners build schools and hospitals
on their property, and some even give up the ownership of their land
and transfer it to the cultivators, or establish communities upon
it. Millowners and manufacturers build hospitals, schools, savings
banks, asylums, and dwellings for their workpeople. Some of them
form co-operative associations in which they have shares on the same
terms as the others. Capitalists expend a part of their capital on
educational, artistic, philanthropic, and other public institutions.
And many, who are not equal to parting with their wealth in their
lifetime, leave it in their wills to public institutions.

All these phenomena might seem to be mere exceptions, except that
they can all be referred to one common cause. Just as one might fancy
the first leaves on the budding trees in April were exceptional if we
did not know that they all have a common cause, the spring, and that
if we see the branches on some trees shooting and turning green, it
is certain that it will soon be so with all.

So it is with the manifestation of the Christian standard of opinion
on force and all that is based on force. If this standard already
influences some, the most impressionable, and impels each in his
own sphere to abandon advantages based on the use of force, then
its influence will extend further and further till it transforms
the whole order of men's actions and puts it into accord with the
Christian ideal which is already a living force in the vanguard of
humanity.

And if there are now rulers, who do not decide on any step on their
own authority, who try to be as unlike monarchs, and as like plain
mortals as possible, who state their readiness to give up their
prerogatives and become simply the first citizens of a republic;
if there are already soldiers who realize all the sin and harm of
war, and are not willing to fire on men either of their own or a
foreign country; judges and prosecutors who do not like to try and
to condemn criminals; priests, who abjure deception; tax-gatherers
who try to perform as little as they can of their duties, and rich
men renouncing their wealth--then the same thing will inevitably
happen to other rulers, other soldiers, other judges, priests,
tax-gatherers, and rich men. And when there are no longer men willing
to fill these offices, these offices themselves will disappear too.

But this is not the only way in which public opinion is leading men
to the abolition of the prevailing order and the substitution of a
new order. As the positions based on the rule of force become less
attractive and fewer men are found willing to fill them, the more
will their uselessness be apparent.

Everywhere throughout the Christian world the same rulers, and the
same governments, the same armies, the same law courts, the same
tax-gatherers, the same priests, the same rich men, landowners,
manufacturers, and capitalists, as ever, but the attitude of the
world to them, and their attitude to themselves is altogether
changed.

The same sovereigns have still the same audiences and interviews,
hunts and banquets, and balls and uniforms; there are the same
diplomats and the same deliberations on alliances and wars; there
are still the same parliaments, with the same debates on the Eastern
question and Africa, on treaties and violations of treaties, and
Home Rule and the eight-hour day; and one set of ministers replacing
another in the same way, and the same speeches and the same
incidents. But for men who observe how one newspaper article has more
effect on the position of affairs than dozens of royal audiences or
parliamentary sessions, it becomes more and more evident that these
audiences and interviews and debates in parliaments do not direct
the course of affairs, but something independent of all that, which
cannot be concentrated in one place.

The same generals and officers and soldiers, and cannons and
fortresses, and reviews and maneuvers, but no war breaks out. One
year, ten, twenty years pass by. And it becomes less and less
possible to rely on the army for the pacification of riots, and more
and more evident, consequently, that generals, and officers, and
soldiers are only figures in solemn processions--objects of amusement
for governments--a sort of immense--and far too expensive--_corps de
ballet_.

The same lawyers and judges, and the same assizes, but it becomes
more and more evident that the civil courts decide cases on the
most diverse grounds, but regardless of justice, and that criminal
trials are quite senseless, because the punishments do not attain
the objects aimed at by the judges themselves. These institutions
therefore serve no other purpose than to provide a means of
livelihood for men who are not capable of doing anything more useful.

The same priests and archbishops and churches and synods, but it
becomes more and more evident that they have long ago ceased to
believe in what they preach, and therefore they can convince no one
of the necessity of believing what they don't believe themselves.

The same tax collectors, but they are less and less capable of taking
men's property from them by force, and it becomes more and more
evident that people can collect all that is necessary by voluntary
subscription without their aid.

The same rich men, but it becomes more and more evident that they can
only be of use by ceasing to administer their property in person and
giving up to society the whole or at least a part of their wealth.

And when all this has become absolutely evident to everyone, it will
be natural for men to ask themselves: "But why should we keep and
maintain all these kings, emperors, presidents, and members of all
sorts of senates and ministries, since nothing comes of all their
debates and audiences? Wouldn't it be better, as some humorist
suggested, to make a queen of india-rubber?"

And what good to us are these armies with their generals and bands
and horses and drums? And what need is there of them when there
is no war, and no one wants to make war? and if there were a war,
other nations would not let us gain any advantage from it; while the
soldiers refuse to fire on their fellow-countrymen.

And what is the use of these lawyers and judges who don't decide
civil cases with justice and recognize themselves the uselessness of
punishments in criminal cases?

And what is the use of tax collectors who collect the taxes
unwillingly, when it is easy to raise all that is wanted without them?

What is the use of the clergy, who don't believe in what they preach?

And what is the use of capital in the hands of private persons, when
it can only be of use as the property of all?

And when once people have asked themselves these questions they
cannot help coming to some decision and ceasing to support all these
institutions which are no longer of use.

But even before those who support these institutions decide to
abolish them, the men who occupy these positions will be reduced to
the necessity of throwing them up.

Public opinion more and more condemns the use of force, and therefore
men are less and less willing to fill positions which rest on the
use of force, and if they do occupy them, are less and less able to
make use of force in them. And hence they must become more and more
superfluous.

I once took part in Moscow in a religious meeting which used to take
place generally in the week after Easter near the church in the
Ohotny Row. A little knot of some twenty men were collected together
on the pavement, engaged in serious religious discussion. At the
same time there was a kind of concert going on in the buildings of
the Court Club in the same street, and a police officer noticing
the little group collected near the church sent a mounted policeman
to disperse it. It was absolutely unnecessary for the officer to
disperse it. A group of twenty men was no obstruction to anyone, but
he had been standing there the whole morning, and he wanted to do
something. The policeman, a young fellow, with a resolute flourish of
his right arm and a clink of his saber, came up to us and commanded
us severely: "Move on! what's this meeting about?" Everyone looked at
the policeman, and one of the speakers, a quiet man in a peasant's
dress, answered with a calm and gracious air, "We are speaking of
serious matters, and there is no need for us to move on; you would do
better, young man, to get off your horse and listen. It might do you
good"; and turning round he continued his discourse. The policeman
turned his horse and went off without a word.

That is just what should be done in all cases of violence.

The officer was bored, he had nothing to do. He had been put, poor
fellow, in a position in which he had no choice but to give orders.
He was shut off from all human existence; he could do nothing but
superintend and give orders, and give orders and superintend,
though his superintendence and his orders served no useful purpose
whatever. And this is the position in which all these unlucky rulers,
ministers, members of parliament, governors, generals, officers,
archbishops, priests, and even rich men find themselves to some
extent already, and will find themselves altogether as time goes on.
They can do nothing but give orders, and they give orders and send
their messengers, as the officer sent the policeman, to interfere
with people. And because the people they hinder turn to them and
request them not to interfere, they fancy they are very useful indeed.

But the time will come and is coming when it will be perfectly
evident to everyone that they are not of any use at all, and only a
hindrance, and those whom they interfere with will say gently and
quietly to them, like my friend in the street meeting, "Pray don't
interfere with us." And all the messengers and those who send them
too will be obliged to follow this good advice, that is to say, will
leave off galloping about, with their arms akimbo, interfering with
people, and getting off their horses and removing their spurs, will
listen to what is being said, and mixing with others, will take their
place with them in some real human work.

The time will come and is inevitably coming when all institutions
based on force will disappear through their uselessness, stupidity,
and even inconvenience becoming obvious to all.

The time must come when the men of our modern world who fill offices
based upon violence will find themselves in the position of the
emperor in Andersen's tale of "The Emperor's New Clothes," when the
child seeing the emperor undressed, cried in all simplicity, "Look,
he is naked!" And then all the rest, who had seen him and said
nothing, could not help recognizing it too.

The story is that there was once an emperor, very fond of new
clothes. And to him came two tailors, who promised to make him some
extraordinary clothes. The emperor engages them and they begin to sew
at them, but they explain that the clothes have the extraordinary
property of remaining invisible to anyone who is unfit for his
position. The courtiers come to look at the tailors' work and see
nothing, for the men are plying their needles in empty space. But
remembering the extraordinary property of the clothes, they all
declare they see them and are loud in their admiration. The emperor
does the same himself. The day of the procession comes in which the
emperor is to go out in his new clothes. The emperor undresses and
puts on his new clothes, that is to say, remains naked, and naked he
walks through the town. But remembering the magic property of the
clothes, no one ventures to say that he has nothing on till a little
child cries out: "Look, he is naked!"

This will be exactly the situation of all who continue through
inertia to fill offices which have long become useless directly
someone who has no interest in concealing their uselessness exclaims
in all simplicity: "But these people have been of no use to anyone
for a long time past!"

The condition of Christian humanity with its fortresses, cannons,
dynamite, guns, torpedoes, prisons, gallows, churches, factories,
customs offices, and palaces is really terrible. But still cannons
and guns will not fire themselves, prisons will not shut men up of
themselves, gallows will not hang them, churches will not delude
them, nor customs offices hinder them, and palaces and factories are
not built nor kept up of themselves. All those things are the work
of men. If men come to understand that they ought not to do these
things, then they will cease to be. And already they are beginning
to understand it. Though all do not understand it yet, the advanced
guard understand and the rest will follow them. And the advanced
guard cannot cease to understand what they have once understood;
and what they understand the rest not only can but must inevitably
understand hereafter.

So that the prophecy that the time will come when men will be
taught of God, will learn war no more, will beat their swords
into plowshares and their spears into reaping-hooks, which means,
translating it into our language, the fortresses, prisons, barracks,
palaces, and churches will remain empty, and all the gibbets and
guns and cannons will be left unused, is no longer a dream, but
the definite new form of life to which mankind is approaching with
ever-increasing rapidity.

But when will it be?

Eighteen hundred years ago to this question Christ answered that the
end of the world (that is, of the pagan organization of life) shall
come when the tribulation of men is greater than it has ever been,
and when the Gospel of the kingdom of God, that is, the possibility
of a new organization of life, shall be preached in the world unto
all nations. (Matt. xxiv. 3-28.) But of that day and hour knoweth no
man but the Father only (Matt. xxiv. 3-6), said Christ. For it may
come any time, in such an hour as ye think not.

To the question when this hour cometh Christ answers that we cannot
know, but just because we cannot know when that hour is coming we
ought to be always ready to meet it, just as the master ought to
watch who guards his house from thieves, as the virgins ought to
watch with lamps alight for the bridegroom; and further, we ought
to work with all the powers given us to bring that hour to pass, as
the servants ought to work with the talents intrusted to them. (Matt.
xxiv. 43, and xxvi. 13, 14-30.)

And there could be no answer but this one. Men cannot know when the
day and the hour of the kingdom of God will come, because its coming
depends on themselves alone.

The answer is like that of the wise man who, when asked whether it
was far to the town, answered, "Walk!"

How can we tell whether it is far to the goal which humanity is
approaching, when we do not know how men are going toward it, while
it depends on them whether they go or do not go, stand still, slacken
their pace or hasten it?

All we can know is what we who make up mankind ought to do, and not
to do, to bring about the coming of the kingdom of God. And that we
all know. And we need only each begin to do what we ought to do, we
need only each live with all the light that is in us, to bring about
at once the promised kingdom of God to which every man's heart is
yearning.

CHAPTER XII.

CONCLUSION--REPENT YE, FOR THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN IS AT HAND.

1. Chance Meeting with a Train Carrying Soldiers to
Restore Order Among the Famishing Peasants--Reason of the
Expedition--How the Decisions of the Higher Authorities
are Enforced in Cases of Insubordination on Part of the
Peasants--What Happened at Orel, as an Example of How the
Rights of the Propertied Classes are Maintained by Murder and
Torture--All the Privileges of the Wealthy are Based on Similar
Acts of Violence.

2. The Elements that Made up the Force Sent to Toula, and
the Conduct of the Men Composing it--How these Men Could
Carry Out such Acts--The Explanation is Not to be Found in
Ignorance, Conviction, Cruelty, Heartlessness, or Want of
Moral Sense--They do these Things Because they are Necessary to
Support the Existing Order, which they Consider it Every Man's
Duty to Support--The Basis of this Conviction that the Existing
Order is Necessary and Inevitable--In the Upper Classes this
Conviction is Based on the Advantages of the Existing Order for
Themselves--But what Forces Men of the Lower Classes to Believe
in the Immutability of the Existing Order, from which they
Derive no Advantage, and which they Aid in Maintaining, Facts
Contrary to their Conscience?--This is the Result of the Lower
Classes being Deluded by the Upper, Both as to the Inevitability
of the Existing Order and the Lawfulness of the Acts of Violence
Needed to Maintain it--Deception in General--Special Form of
Deception in Regard to Military Service--Conscription.

3. How can Men Allow that Murder is Permissible while they
Preach Principles of Morality, and How can they Allow of the
Existence in their Midst of a Military Organization of Physical
Force which is a Constant Menace to Public Security?--It is only
Allowed by the Upper Classes, who Profit by this Organization,
Because their Privileges are Maintained by it--The Upper Classes
Allow it, and the Lower Classes Carry it into Effect in Spite of
their Consciousness of the Immorality of the Deeds of Violence,
the More Readily Because Through the Arrangements of the
Government the Moral Responsibility for such Deeds is Divided
among a Great Number of Participants in it, and Everyone Throws
the Responsibility on Someone Else--Moreover, the Sense of Moral
Responsibility is Lost through the Delusion of Inequality, and
the Consequent Intoxication of Power on the Part of Superiors,
and Servility on the Part of Inferiors--The Condition of these
Men, Acting against the Dictates of their Conscience, is Like
that of Hypnotized Subjects Acting by Suggestion--The Difference
between this Obedience to Government Suggestion, and Obedience
to Public Opinion, and to the Guidance of Men of a Higher Moral
Sense--The Existing Order of Society, which is the Result of
an Extinct Public Opinion and is Inconsistent with the Already
Existing Public Opinion of the Future, is only Maintained by
the Stupefaction of the Conscience, Produced Spontaneously by
Self-interest in the Upper Classes and Through Hypnotizing in
the Lower Classes--The Conscience or the Common Sense of such
Men may Awaken, and there are Examples of its Sudden Awakening,
so that one can Never be Sure of the Deeds of Violence they are
Prepared for--It Depends Entirely on the Point which the Sense
of the Unlawfulness of Acts of Violence has Reached, and this
Sense may Spontaneously Awaken in Men, or may be Reawakened by
the Influence of Men of more Conscience.

4. Everything Depends on the Strength of the Consciousness of
Christian Truths in Each Individual Man--The Leading Men of
Modern Times, however, do not Think it Necessary to Preach or
Practice the Truths of Christianity, but Regard the Modification
of the External Conditions of Existence within the Limit Imposed
by Governments as Sufficient to Reform the Life of Humanity--On
this Scientific Theory of Hypocrisy, which has Replaced the
Hypocrisy of Religion, Men of the Wealthy Classes Base their
Justification of their Position--Through this Hypocrisy they
can Enjoy the Exclusive Privileges of their Position by Force
and Fraud, and Still Pretend to be Christians to One Another
and be Easy in their Minds--This Hypocrisy Allows Men who
Preach Christianity to Take Part in Institutions Based on
Violence--No External Reformation of Life will Render it Less
Miserable--Its Misery the Result of Disunion Caused by Following
Lies, not the Truth--Union only Possible in Truth--Hypocrisy
Hinders this Union, since Hypocrites Conceal from themselves
and Others the Truth they Know--Hypocrisy Turns all Reforms
of Life to Evil--Hypocrisy Distorts the Idea of Good and
Evil, and so Stands in the Way of the Progress of Men toward
Perfection--Undisguised Criminals and Malefactors do Less
Harm than those who Live by Legalized Violence, Disguised by
Hypocrisy--All Men Feel the Iniquity of our Life, and would
Long Ago have Transformed it if it had not been Dissimulated
by Hypocrisy--But Seem to have Reached the Extreme Limits of
Hypocrisy, and we Need only Make an Effort of Conscience to
Awaken as from a Nightmare to a Different Reality.

5. Can Man Make this Effort?--According to the Hypocritical
Theory of the Day, Man is not Free to Transform his Life--Man
is not Free in his Actions, but he is Free to Admit or to Deny
the Truth he Knows--When Truth is Once Admitted, it Becomes
the Basis of Action--Man's Threefold Relation to Truth--The
Reason of the Apparent Insolubility of the Problem of Free
Will--Man's Freedom Consists in the Recognition of the Truth
Revealed to him. There is no Other Freedom--Recognition of Truth
Gives Freedom, and Shows the Path Along which, Willingly or
Unwillingly by Mankind, Man Must Advance--The Recognition of
Truth and Real Freedom Enables Man to Share in the Work of God,
not as the Slave, but as the Creator of Life--Men Need only Make
the Effort to Renounce all Thought of Bettering the External
Conditions of Life and Bend all their Efforts to Recognizing and
Preaching the Truth they Know, to put an End to the Existing
Miserable State of Things, and to Enter upon the Kingdom of God
so far as it is yet Accessible to Man--All that is Needed is
to Make an End of Lying and Hypocrisy--But then what Awaits us
in the Future?--What will Happen to Humanity if Men Follow the
Dictates of their Conscience, and how can Life go on with the
Conditions of Civilized Life to which we are Accustomed?--All
Uneasiness on these Points may be Removed by the Reflection that
Nothing True and Good can be Destroyed by the Realization of
Truth, but will only be Freed from the Alloy of Falsehood.

6. Our Life has Reached the Extreme Limit of Misery and Cannot
be Improved by any Systems of Organization--All our Life and
all our Institutions are Quite Meaningless--Are we Doing what
God Wills of us by Preserving our Privileges and Duties to
Government?--We are put in this Position not Because the World
is so Made and it is Inevitable, but Because we Wish it to be
so, Because it is to the Advantage of Some of us--Our Conscience
is in Opposition to our Position and all our Conduct, and the
Way Out of the Contradiction is to be Found in the Recognition
of the Christian Truth: Do Not unto Others what you Would
Not they should Do unto You--As our Duties to Self Must be
Subordinated to our Duties to Others, so Must our Duties to
Others be Subordinated to our Duties to God--The Only Way Out
of our Position Lies, if not in Renouncing our Position and our
Privileges, at Least in Recognizing our Sin and not Justifying
it nor Disguising it--The Only Object of Life is to Learn the
Truth and to Act on it--Acceptance of the Position and of State
Action Deprives Life of all Object--It is God's Will that we
should Serve Him in our Life, that is, that we should Bring
About the Greatest Unity of all that has Life, a Unity only
Possible in Truth.

I was finishing this book, which I had been working at for two years,
when I happened on the 9th of September to be traveling by rail
through the governments of Toula and Riazan, where the peasants were
starving last year and where the famine is even more severe now. At
one of the railway stations my train passed an extra train which was
taking a troop of soldiers under the conduct of the governor of the
province, together with muskets, cartridges, and rods, to flog and
murder these same famishing peasants.

The punishment of flogging by way of carrying the decrees of the
authorities into effect has been more and more frequently adopted of
late in Russia, in spite of the fact that corporal punishment was
abolished by law thirty years ago.

I had heard of this, I had even read in the newspapers of the
fearful floggings which had been inflicted in Tchernigov, Tambov,
Saratov, Astrakhan, and Orel, and of those of which the governor of
Nijni-Novgorod, General Baranov, had boasted. But I had never before
happened to see men in the process of carrying out these punishments.

And here I saw the spectacle of good Russians full of the Christian
spirit traveling with guns and rods to torture and kill their
starving brethren. The reason for their expedition was as follows:

On one of the estates of a rich landowner the peasants had common
rights on the forest, and having always enjoyed these rights,
regarded the forest as their own, or at least as theirs in common
with the owner. The landowner wished to keep the forest entirely
to himself and began to fell the trees. The peasants lodged a
complaint. The judges in the first instance gave an unjust decision
(I say unjust on the authority of the lawyer and governor, who ought
to understand the matter), and decided the case in favor of the
landowner. All the later decisions, even that of the senate, though
they could see that the matter had been unjustly decided, confirmed
the judgment and adjudged the forest to the landowner. He began to
cut down the trees, but the peasants, unable to believe that such
obvious injustice could be done them by the higher authorities, did
not submit to the decision and drove away the men sent to cut down
the trees, declaring that the forest belonged to them and they would
go to the Tzar before they would let them cut it down.

The matter was referred to Petersburg, and the order was transmitted
to the governor to carry the decision of the court into effect.
The governor asked for a troop of soldiers. And here were the
soldiers with bayonets and cartridges, and moreover, a supply of
rods, expressly prepared for the purpose and heaped up in one of the
trucks, going to carry the decision of the higher authorities into
effect.

The decisions of the higher authorities are carried into effect by
means of murder or torture, or threats of one or the other, according
to whether they offer resistance or not.

In the first case if the peasants offer resistance the practice is in
Russia, and it is the same everywhere where a state organization and
private property exist, as follows:

The governor delivers an address in which he demands submission. The
excited crowd, generally deluded by their leaders, don't understand a
word of what the representative of authority is saying in the pompous
official language, and their excitement continues. Then the governor
announces that if they do not submit and disperse, he will be obliged
to have recourse to force. If the crowd does not disperse even on
this, the governor gives the order to fire over the heads of the
crowd. If the crowd does not even then disperse, the governor gives
the order to fire straight into the crowd; the soldiers fire and the
killed and wounded fall about the street. Then the crowd usually runs
away in all directions, and the troops at the governor's command
take those who are supposed to be the ringleaders and lead them off
under escort. Then they pick up the dying, the wounded, and the dead,
covered with blood, sometimes women and children among them. The dead
they bury and the wounded they carry to the hospital. Those whom they
regard as the ringleaders they take to the town hall and have them
tried by a special court-martial. And if they have had recourse to
violence on their side, they are condemned to be hanged. And then
the gallows is erected. And they solemnly strangle a few defenseless
creatures. This is what has often been done in Russia, and is and
must always be done where the social order is based on force.

But in the second case, when the peasants do submit, something quite
special, peculiar to Russia, takes place. The governor arrives on the
scene of action and delivers an harangue to the people, reproaching
them for their insubordination, and either stations troops in the
houses of the villages, where sometimes for a whole month the
soldiers drain the resources of the peasants, or contenting himself
with threats, he mercifully takes leave of the people, or what is
the most frequent course, he announces that the ringleaders must be
punished, and quite arbitrarily without any trial selects a certain
number of men, regarded as ringleaders, and commands them to be
flogged in his presence.

In order to give an idea of how such things are done I will describe
a proceeding of the kind which took place in Orel, and received the
full approval of the highest authorities.

This is what took place in Orel. Just as here in the Toula province,
a landlord wanted to appropriate the property of the peasants and
just in the same way the peasants opposed it. The matter in dispute
was a fall of water, which irrigated the peasants' fields, and
which the landowner wanted to cut off and divert to turn his mill.
The peasants rebelled against this being done. The landowner laid
a complaint before the district commander, who illegally (as was
recognized later even by a legal decision) decided the matter in
favor of the landowner, and allowed him to divert the water course.
The landowner sent workmen to dig the conduit by which the water was
to be let off to turn the mill. The peasants were indignant at this
unjust decision, and sent their women to prevent the landowner's men
from digging this conduit. The women went to the dykes, overturned
the carts, and drove away the men. The landowner made a complaint
against the women for thus taking the law into their own hands. The
district commander made out an order that from every house throughout
the village one woman was to be taken and put in prison. The order
was not easily executed. For in every household there were several
women, and it was impossible to know which one was to be arrested.
Consequently the police did not carry out the order. The landowner
complained to the governor of the neglect on the part of the police,
and the latter, without examining into the affair, gave the chief
official of the police strict orders to carry out the instructions
of the district commander without delay. The police official, in
obedience to his superior, went to the village and with the insolence
peculiar to Russian officials ordered his policemen to take one
woman out of each house. But since there were more than one woman
in each house, and there was no knowing which one was sentenced
to imprisonment, disputes and opposition arose. In spite of these
disputes and opposition, however, the officer of police gave orders
that some woman, whichever came first, should be taken from each
household and led away to prison. The peasants began to defend their
wives and mothers, would not let them go, and beat the police and
their officer. This was a fresh and terrible crime: resistance was
offered to the authorities. A report of this new offense was sent to
the town. And so this governor--precisely as the governor of Toula
was doing on that day--with a battalion of soldiers with guns and
rods, hastily brought together by means of telegraphs and telephones
and railways, proceeded by a special train to the scene of action,
with a learned doctor whose duty it was to insure the flogging being
of an hygienic character. Herzen's prophecy of the modern Ghenghis
Khan with his telegrams is completely realized by this governor.

Before the town hall of the district were the soldiery, a battalion
of police with their revolvers slung round them with red cords, the
persons of most importance among the peasants, and the culprits.
A crowd of one thousand or more people were standing round. The
governor, on arriving, stepped out of his carriage, delivered a
prepared harangue, and asked for the culprits and a bench. The latter
demand was at first not understood. But a police constable whom the
governor always took about with him, and who undertook to organize
such executions--by no means exceptional in that province--explained
that what was meant was a bench for flogging. A bench was brought as
well as the rods, and then the executioners were summoned (the latter
had been selected beforehand from some horsestealers of the same
village, as the soldiers refused the office). When everything was
ready, the governor ordered the first of the twelve culprits pointed
out by the landowner as the most guilty to come forward. The first to
come forward was the head of a family, a man of forty who had always
stood up manfully for the rights of his class, and therefore was held
in the greatest esteem by all the villagers. He was led to the bench
and stripped, and then ordered to lie down.

The peasant attempted to supplicate for mercy, but seeing it was
useless, he crossed himself and lay down. Two police constables
hastened to hold him down. The learned doctor stood by, in readiness
to give his aid and his medical science when they should be needed.
The convicts spit into their hands, brandished the rods, and began
to flog. It seemed, however, that the bench was too narrow, and it
was difficult to keep the victim writhing in torture upon it. Then
the governor ordered them to bring another bench and to put a plank
across them. Soldiers, with their hands raised to their caps, and
respectful murmurs of "Yes, your Excellency," hasten obediently to
carry out this order. Meanwhile the tortured man, half naked, pale
and scowling, stood waiting, his eyes fixed on the ground and his
teeth chattering. When another bench had been brought they again made
him lie down, and the convicted thieves again began to flog him.

The victim's back and thighs and legs, and even his sides, became
more and more covered with scars and wheals, and at every blow there
came the sound of the deep groans which he could no longer restrain.
In the crowd standing round were heard the sobs of wives, mothers,
children, the families of the tortured man and of all the others
picked out for punishment.

The miserable governor, intoxicated with power, was counting the
strokes on his fingers, and never left off smoking cigarettes, while
several officious persons hastened on every opportunity to offer him
a burning match to light them. When more than fifty strokes had been
given, the peasant ceased to shriek and writhe, and the doctor, who
had been educated in a government institution to serve his sovereign
and his country with his scientific attainments, went up to the
victim, felt his pulse, listened to his heart, and announced to the
representative of authority that the man undergoing punishment had
lost consciousness, and that, in accordance with the conclusions
of science, to continue the punishment would endanger the victim's
life. But the miserable governor, now completely intoxicated by the
sight of blood, gave orders that the punishment should go on, and
the flogging was continued up to seventy strokes, the number which
the governor had for some reason fixed upon as necessary. When the
seventieth stroke had been reached, the governor said "Enough! Next
one!" And the mutilated victim, his back covered with blood, was
lifted up and carried away unconscious, and another was led up. The
sobs and groans of the crowd grew louder. But the representative of
the state continued the torture.

Thus they flogged each of them up to the twelfth, and each of them
received seventy strokes. They all implored mercy, shrieked and
groaned. The sobs and cries of the crowd of women grew louder and
more heart-rending, and the men's faces grew darker and darker. But
they were surrounded by troops, and the torture did not cease till
it had reached the limit which had been fixed by the caprice of the
miserable half-drunken and insane creature they called the governor.

The officials, and officers, and soldiers not only assisted in it,
but were even partly responsible for the affair, since by their
presence they prevented any interference on the part of the crowd.

When I inquired of one of the governors why they made use of this
kind of torture when people had already submitted and soldiers were
stationed in the village, he replied with the important air of a man
who thoroughly understands all the subtleties of statecraft, that
if the peasants were not thoroughly subdued by flogging, they would
begin offering opposition to the decisions of authorities again. When
some of them had been thoroughly tortured, the authority of the state
would be secured forever among them.

And so that was why the Governor of Toula was going in his turn with
his subordinate officials, officers, and soldiers to carry out a
similar measure. By precisely the same means, _i. e._, by murder and
torture, obedience to the decision of the higher authorities was to
be secured. And this decision was to enable a young landowner, who
had an income of one hundred thousand, to gain three thousand rubles
more by stealing a forest from a whole community of cold and famished
peasants, to spend it, in two or three weeks in the saloons of
Moscow, Petersburg, or Paris. That was what those people whom I met
were going to do.

After my thoughts had for two years been turned in the same
direction, fate seemed expressly to have brought me face to face for
the first time in my life with a fact which showed me absolutely
unmistakably in practice what had long been clear to me in theory,
that the organization of our society rests, not as people interested
in maintaining the present order of things like to imagine, on
certain principles of jurisprudence, but on simple brute force, on
the murder and torture of men.

People who own great estates or fortunes, or who receive great
revenues drawn from the class who are in want even of necessities,
the working class, as well as all those who like merchants, doctors,
artists, clerks, learned professors, coachmen, cooks, writers,
valets, and barristers, make their living about these rich people,
like to believe that the privileges they enjoy are not the result of
force, but of absolutely free and just interchange of services, and
that their advantages, far from being gained by such punishments and
murders as took place in Orel and several parts of Russia this year,
and are always taking place all over Europe and America, have no kind
of connection with these acts of violence. They like to believe that
their privileges exist apart and are the result of free contract
among people; and that the violent cruelties perpetrated on the
people also exist apart and are the result of some general judicial,
political, or economical laws. They try not to see that they all
enjoy their privileges as a result of the same fact which forces the
peasants who have tended the forest, and who are in the direct need
of it for fuel, to give it up to a rich landowner who has taken no
part in caring for its growth and has no need of it whatever--the
fact, that is, that if they don't give it up they will be flogged or
killed.

And yet if it is clear that it was only by means of menaces, blows,
or murder, that the mill in Orel was enabled to yield a larger
income, or that the forest which the peasants had planted became
the property of a landowner, it should be equally clear that all
the other exclusive rights enjoyed by the rich, by robbing the
poor of their necessities, rest on the same basis of violence. If
the peasants, who need land to maintain their families, may not
cultivate the land about their houses, but one man, a Russian,
English, Austrian, or any other great landowner, possesses land
enough to maintain a thousand families, though he does not cultivate
it himself, and if a merchant profiting by the misery of the
cultivators, taking corn from them at a third of its value, can
keep this corn in his granaries with perfect security while men are
starving all around him, and sell it again for three times its value
to the very cultivators he bought it from, it is evident that all
this too comes from the same cause. And if one man may not buy of
another a commodity from the other side of a certain fixed line,
called the frontier, without paying certain duties on it to men who
have taken no part whatever in its production--and if men are driven
to sell their last cow to pay taxes which the government distributes
among its functionaries, and spends on maintaining soldiers to murder
these very taxpayers--it would appear self-evident that all this does
not come about as the result of any abstract laws, but is based on
just what was done in Orel, and which may be done in Toula, and is
done periodically in one form or another throughout the whole world
wherever there is a government, and where there are rich and poor.

Simply because torture and murder are not employed in every instance
of oppression by force, those who enjoy the exclusive privileges
of the ruling classes persuade themselves and others that their
privileges are not based on torture and murder, but on some
mysterious general causes, abstract laws, and so on. Yet one would
think it was perfectly clear that if men, who consider it unjust (and
all the working classes do consider it so nowadays), still pay the
principal part of the produce of their labor away to the capitalist
and the landowner, and pay taxes, though they know to what a bad use
these taxes are put, they do so not from recognition of abstract laws
of which they have never heard, but only because they know they will
be beaten and killed if they don't do so.

And if there is no need to imprison, beat, and kill men every time
the landlord collects his rents, every time those who are in want of
bread have to pay a swindling merchant three times its value, every
time the factory hand has to be content with a wage less than half of
the profit made by the employer, and every time a poor man pays his
last ruble in taxes, it is because so many men have been beaten and
killed for trying to resist these demands, that the lesson has now
been learnt very thoroughly.

Just as a trained tiger, who does not eat meat put under his nose,
and jumps over a stick at the word of command, does not act thus
because he likes it, but because he remembers the red-hot irons or
the fast with which he was punished every time he did not obey; so
men submitting to what is disadvantageous or even ruinous to them,
and considered by them as unjust, act thus because they remember what
they suffered for resisting it.

As for those who profit by the privileges gained by previous acts of
violence, they often forget and like to forget how these privileges
were obtained. But one need only recall the facts of history, not the
history of the exploits of different dynasties of rulers, but real
history, the history of the oppression of the majority by a small
number of men, to see that all the advantages the rich have over the
poor are based on nothing but flogging, imprisonment, and murder.

One need but reflect on the unceasing, persistent struggle of all to
better their material position, which is the guiding motive of men
of the present day, to be convinced that the advantages of the rich
over the poor could never and can never be maintained by anything but
force.

There may be cases of oppression, of violence, and of punishments,
though they are rare, the aim of which is not to secure the
privileges of the propertied classes. But one may confidently assert
that in any society where, for every man living in ease, there are
ten exhausted by labor, envious, covetous, and often suffering with
their families from direct privation, all the privileges of the rich,
all their luxuries and superfluities, are obtained and maintained
only by tortures, imprisonment, and murder.

The train I met on the 9th of September going with soldiers, guns,
cartridges, and rods, to confirm the rich landowner in the possession
of a small forest which he had taken from the starving peasants,
which they were in the direst need of, and he was in no need of at
all, was a striking proof of how men are capable of doing deeds
directly opposed to their principles and their conscience without
perceiving it.

The special train consisted of one first-class carriage for the
governor, the officials, and officers, and several luggage vans
crammed full of soldiers. The latter, smart young fellows in their
clean new uniforms, were standing about in groups or sitting swinging
their legs in the wide open doorways of the luggage vans. Some were
smoking, nudging each other, joking, grinning, and laughing, others
were munching sunflower seeds and spitting out the husks with an air
of dignity. Some of them ran along the platform to drink some water
from a tub there, and when they met the officers they slackened their
pace, made their stupid gesture of salutation, raising their hands to
their heads with serious faces as though they were doing something of
the greatest importance. They kept their eyes on them till they had
passed by them, and then set off running still more merrily, stamping
their heels on the platform, laughing and chattering after the
manner of healthy, good-natured young fellows, traveling in lively
company.

They were going to assist at the murder of their fathers or
grandfathers just as if they were going on a party of pleasure, or at
any rate on some quite ordinary business.

The same impression was produced by the well-dressed functionaries
and officers who were scattered about the platform and in the
first-class carriage. At a table covered with bottles was sitting
the governor, who was responsible for the whole expedition, dressed
in his half-military uniform and eating something while he chatted
tranquilly about the weather with some acquaintances he had met,
as though the business he was upon was of so simple and ordinary a
character that it could not disturb his serenity and his interest in
the change of weather.

At a little distance from the table sat the general of the police.
He was not taking any refreshment, and had an impenetrable bored
expression, as though he were weary of the formalities to be gone
through. On all sides officers were bustling noisily about in their
red uniforms trimmed with gold; one sat at a table finishing his
bottle of beer, another stood at the buffet eating a cake, and
brushing the crumbs off his uniform, threw down his money with a
self-confident air; another was sauntering before the carriages of
our train, staring at the faces of the women.

All these men who were going to murder or to torture the famishing
and defenseless creatures who provide them their sustenance had the
air of men who knew very well that they were doing their duty, and
some were even proud, were "glorying" in what they were doing.

What is the meaning of it?

All these people are within half an hour of reaching the place where,
in order to provide a wealthy young man with three thousand rubles
stolen from a whole community of famishing peasants, they may be
forced to commit the most horrible acts one can conceive, to murder
or torture, as was done in Orel, innocent beings, their brothers. And
they see the place and time approaching with untroubled serenity.

To say that all these government officials, officers, and soldiers
do not know what is before them is impossible, for they are prepared
for it. The governor must have given directions about the rods, the
officials must have sent an order for them, purchased them, and
entered the item in their accounts. The military officers have given
and received orders about cartridges. They all know that they are
going to torture, perhaps to kill, their famishing fellow-creatures,
and that they must set to work within an hour.

To say, as is usually said, and as they would themselves repeat,
that they are acting from conviction of the necessity for supporting
the state organization, would be a mistake. For in the first place,
these men have probably never even thought about state organization
and the necessity of it; in the second place, they cannot possibly
be convinced that the act in which they are taking part will tend to
support rather than to ruin the state; and thirdly, in reality the
majority, if not all, of these men, far from ever sacrificing their
own pleasure or tranquillity to support the state, never let slip an
opportunity of profiting at the expense of the state in every way
they can increase their own pleasure and ease. So that they are not
acting thus for the sake of the abstract principle of the state.

What is the meaning of it?

Yet I know all these men. If I don't know all of them personally,
I know their characters pretty nearly, their past, and their way
of thinking. They certainly all have mothers, some of them wives
and children. They are certainly for the most part good, kind, even
tender-hearted fellows, who hate every sort of cruelty, not to speak
of murder; many of them would not kill or hurt an animal. Moreover,
they are all professed Christians and regard all violence directed
against the defenseless as base and disgraceful.

Certainly not one of them would be capable in everyday life, for his
own personal profit, of doing a hundredth part of what the Governor
of Orel did. Every one of them would be insulted at the supposition
that he was capable of doing anything of the kind in private life.

And yet they are within half an hour of reaching the place where they
may be reduced to the inevitable necessity of committing this crime.

What is the meaning of it?

But it is not only these men who are going by train prepared for
murder and torture. How could the men who began the whole business,
the landowner, the commissioner, the judges, and those who gave the
order and are responsible for it, the ministers, the Tzar, who are
also good men, professed Christians, how could they elaborate such a
plan and assent to it, knowing its consequences? The spectators even,
who took no part in the affair, how could they, who are indignant at
the sight of any cruelty in private life, even the overtaxing of a
horse, allow such a horrible deed to be perpetrated? How was it they
did not rise in indignation and bar the roads, shouting, "No; flog
and kill starving men because they won't let their last possession
be stolen from them without resistance, that we won't allow!" But
far from anyone doing this, the majority, even of those who were
the cause of the affair, such as the commissioner, the landowner,
the judge, and those who took part in it and arranged it, as the
governor, the ministers, and the Tzar, are perfectly tranquil and do
not even feel a prick of conscience. And apparently all the men who
are going to carry out this crime are equally undisturbed.

The spectators, who one would suppose could have no personal
interest in the affair, looked rather with sympathy than with
disapproval at all these people preparing to carry out this infamous
action. In the same compartment with me was a wood merchant, who had
risen from a peasant. He openly expressed aloud his sympathy with
such punishments. "They can't disobey the authorities," he said;
"that's what the authorities are for. Let them have a lesson; send
their fleas flying! They'll give over making commotions, I warrant
you. That's what they want."

What is the meaning of it?

It is not possible to say that all these people who have provoked
or aided or allowed this deed are such worthless creatures that,
knowing all the infamy of what they are doing, they do it against
their principles, some for pay and for profit, others through fear of
punishment. All of them in certain circumstances know how to stand
up for their principles. Not one of these officials would steal a
purse, read another man's letter, or put up with an affront without
demanding satisfaction. Not one of these officers would consent to
cheat at cards, would refuse to pay a debt of honor, would betray a
comrade, run away on the field of battle, or desert the flag. Not one
of these soldiers would spit out the holy sacrament or eat meat on
Good Friday. All these men are ready to face any kind of privation,
suffering, or danger rather than consent to do what they regard as
wrong. They have therefore the strength to resist doing what is
against their principles.

It is even less possible to assert that all these men are such brutes
that it is natural and not distasteful to them to do such deeds. One
need only talk to these people a little to see that all of them, the
landowner even, and the judge, and the minister and the Tzar and
the government, the officers and the soldiers, not only disapprove
of such things in the depth of their soul, but suffer from the
consciousness of their participation in them when they recollect
what they imply. But they try not to think about it.

One need only talk to any of these who are taking part in the affair
from the landowner to the lowest policeman or soldier to see that in
the depth of their soul they all know it is a wicked thing, that it
would be better to have nothing to do with it, and are suffering from
the knowledge.

A lady of liberal views, who was traveling in the same train with
us, seeing the governor and the officers in the first-class saloon
and learning the object of the expedition, began, intentionally
raising her voice so that they should hear, to abuse the existing
order of things and to cry shame on men who would take part in such
proceedings. Everyone felt awkward, none knew where to look, but
no one contradicted her. They tried to look as though such remarks
were not worth answering. But one could see by their faces and their
averted eyes that they were ashamed. I noticed the same thing in the
soldiers. They too knew that what they were sent to do was a shameful
thing, but they did not want to think about what was before them.

When the wood merchant, as I suspect insincerely only to show that
he was a man of education, began to speak of the necessity of such
measures, the soldiers who heard him all turned away from him,
scowling and pretending not to hear.

All the men who, like the landowner, the commissioner, the minister,
and the Tzar, were responsible for the perpetration of this act, as
well as those who were now going to execute it, and even those who
were mere spectators of it, knew that it was a wickedness, and were
ashamed of taking any share in it, and even of being present at it.

Then why did they do it, or allow it to be done?

Ask them the question. And the landowner who started the affair, and
the judge who pronounced a clearly unjust even though formally legal
decision, and those who commanded the execution of the decision, and
those who, like the policemen, soldiers, and peasants, will execute
the deed with their own hands, flogging and killing their brothers,
all who have devised, abetted, decreed, executed, or allowed such
crimes, will make substantially the same reply.

The authorities, those who have started, devised, and decreed the
matter, will say that such acts are necessary for the maintenance
of the existing order; the maintenance of the existing order is
necessary for the welfare of the country and of humanity, for the
possibility of social existence and human progress.

Men of the poorer class, peasants and soldiers, who will have to
execute the deed of violence with their own hands, say that they
do so because it is the command of their superior authority, and
the superior authority knows what he is about. That those are in
authority who ought to be in authority, and that they know what they
are doing appears to them a truth of which there can be no doubt. If
they could admit the possibility of mistake or error, it would only
be in functionaries of a lower grade; the highest authority on which
all the rest depends seems to them immaculate beyond suspicion.

Though expressing the motives of their conduct differently, both
those in command and their subordinates are agreed in saying that
they act thus because the existing order is the order which must and
ought to exist at the present time, and that therefore to support it
is the sacred duty of every man.

On this acceptance of the necessity and therefore immutability of the
existing order, all who take part in acts of violence on the part of
government base the argument always advanced in their justification.
"Since the existing order is immutable," they say, "the refusal of a
single individual to perform the duties laid upon him will effect no
change in things, and will only mean that some other man will be put
in his place who may do the work worse, that is to say, more cruelly,
to the still greater injury of the victims of the act of violence."

This conviction that the existing order is the necessary and
therefore immutable order, which it is a sacred duty for every man
to support, enables good men, of high principles in private life, to
take part with conscience more or less untroubled in crimes such as
that perpetrated in Orel, and that which the men in the Toula train
were going to perpetrate.

But what is this conviction based on? It is easy to understand
that the landowner prefers to believe that the existing order is
inevitable and immutable, because this existing order secures him an
income from his hundreds and thousands of acres, by means of which he
can lead his habitual indolent and luxurious life.

It is easy to understand that the judge readily believes in the
necessity of an order of things through which he receives a wage
fifty times as great as the most industrious laborer can earn, and
the same applies to all the higher officials. It is only under the
existing _régime_ that as governor, prosecutor, senator, members of
the various councils, they can receive their several thousands of
rubles a year, without which they and their families would at once
sink into ruin, since if it were not for the position they occupy
they would never by their own abilities, industry, or acquirements
get a thousandth part of their salaries. The minister, the Tzar,
and all the higher authorities are in the same position. The only
distinction is that the higher and the more exceptional their
position, the more necessary it is for them to believe that the
existing order is the only possible order of things. For without it
they would not only be unable to gain an equal position, but would be
found to fall lower than all other people. A man who has of his own
free will entered the police force at a wage of ten rubles, which he
could easily earn in any other position, is hardly dependent on the
preservation of the existing _régime_, and so he may not believe in
its immutability. But a king or an emperor, who receives millions for
his post, and knows that there are thousands of people round him who
would like to dethrone him and take his place, who knows that he will
never receive such a revenue or so much honor in any other position,
who knows, in most cases through his more or less despotic rule,
that if he were dethroned he would have to answer for all his abuse
of power--he cannot but believe in the necessity and even sacredness
of the existing order. The higher and the more profitable a man's
position, the more unstable it becomes, and the more terrible and
dangerous a fall from it for him, the more firmly the man believes in
the existing order, and therefore with the more ease of conscience
can such a man perpetrate cruel and wicked acts, as though they were
not in his own interest, but for the maintenance of that order.

This is the case with all men in authority, who occupy positions more
profitable than they could occupy except for the present _régime_,
from the lowest police officer to the Tzar. All of them are more or
less convinced that the existing order is immutable, because--the
chief consideration--it is to their advantage. But the peasants,
the soldiers, who are at the bottom of the social scale, who have
no kind of advantage from the existing order, who are in the very
lowest position of subjection and humiliation, what forces them to
believe that the existing order in which they are in their humble and
disadvantageous position is the order which ought to exist, and which
they ought to support even at the cost of evil actions contrary to
their conscience?

What forces these men to the false reasoning that the existing order
is unchanging, and that therefore they ought to support it, when it
is so obvious, on the contrary, that it is only unchanging because
they themselves support it?

What forces these peasants, taken only yesterday from the plow and
dressed in ugly and unseemly costumes with blue collars and gilt
buttons, to go with guns and sabers and murder their famishing
fathers and brothers? They gain no kind of advantage and can be in
no fear of losing the position they occupy, because it is worse than
that from which they have been taken.

The persons in authority of the higher orders--landowners, merchants,
judges, senators, governors, ministers, tzars, and officers--take
part in such doings because the existing order is to their advantage.
In other respects they are often good and kind-hearted men, and they
are more able to take part in such doings because their share in
them is limited to suggestions, decisions, and orders. These persons
in authority never do themselves what they suggest, decide, or
command to be done. For the most part they do not even see how all
the atrocious deeds they have suggested and authorized are carried
out. But the unfortunate men of the lower orders, who gain no kind
of advantage from the existing _régime_, but, on the contrary, are
treated with the utmost contempt, support it even by dragging people
with their own hands from their families, handcuffing them, throwing
them in prison, guarding them, shooting them.

Why do they do it? What forces them to believe that the existing
order is unchanging and they must support it?

All violence rests, we know, on those who do the beating, the
handcuffing, the imprisoning, and the killing with their own hands.
If there were no soldiers or armed policemen, ready to kill or
outrage anyone as they are ordered, not one of those people who sign
sentences of death, imprisonment, or galley-slavery for life would
make up his mind to hang, imprison, or torture a thousandth part
of those whom, quietly sitting in his study, he now orders to be
tortured in all kinds of ways, simply because he does not see it nor
do it himself, but only gets it done at a distance by these servile
tools.

All the acts of injustice and cruelty which are committed in the
ordinary course of daily life have only become habitual because there
are these men always ready to carry out such acts of injustice and
cruelty. If it were not for them, far from anyone using violence
against the immense masses who are now ill-treated, those who now
command their punishment would not venture to sentence them, would
not even dare to dream of the sentences they decree with such easy
confidence at present. And if it were not for these men, ready to
kill or torture anyone at their commander's will, no one would dare
to claim, as all the idle landowners claim with such assurance, that
a piece of land, surrounded by peasants, who are in wretchedness from
want of land, is the property of a man who does not cultivate it, or
that stores of corn taken by swindling from the peasants ought to
remain untouched in the midst of a population dying of hunger because
the merchants must make their profit. If it were not for these
servile instruments at the disposal of the authorities, it could
never have entered the head of the landowner to rob the peasants of
the forest they had tended, nor of the officials to think they are
entitled to their salaries, taken from the famishing people, the
price of their oppression; least of all could anyone dream of killing
or exiling men for exposing falsehood and telling the truth. All this
can only be done because the authorities are confidently assured that
they have always these servile tools at hand, ready to carry all
their demands into effect by means of torture and murder.

All the deeds of violence of tyrants from Napoleon to the lowest
commander of a company who fires upon a crowd, can only be explained
by the intoxicating effect of their absolute power over these
slaves. All force, therefore, rests on these men, who carry out the
deeds of violence with their own hands, the men who serve in the
police or the army, especially the army, for the police only venture
to do their work because the army is at their back.

What, then, has brought these masses of honest men, on whom the whole
thing depends, who gain nothing by it, and who have to do these
atrocious deeds with their own hands, what has brought them to accept
the amazing delusion that the existing order, unprofitable, ruinous,
and fatal as it is for them, is the order which ought to exist?

Who has led them into this amazing delusion?

They can never have persuaded themselves that they ought to do what
is against their conscience, and also the source of misery and ruin
for themselves, and all their class, who make up nine-tenths of the
population.

"How can you kill people, when it is written in God's commandment:
'Thou shalt not kill'?" I have often inquired of different soldiers.
And I always drove them to embarrassment and confusion by reminding
them of what they did not want to think about. They knew they were
bound by the law of God, "Thou shalt not kill," and knew too that
they were bound by their duty as soldiers, but had never reflected
on the contradiction between these duties. The drift of the timid
answers I received to this question was always approximately this:
that killing in war and executing criminals by command of the
government are not included in the general prohibition of murder.
But when I said this distinction was not made in the law of God, and
reminded them of the Christian duty of fraternity, forgiveness of
injuries, and love, which could not be reconciled with murder, the
peasants usually agreed, but in their turn began to ask me questions.
"How does it happen," they inquired, "that the government [which
according to their ideas cannot do wrong] sends the army to war and
orders criminals to be executed." When I answered that the government
does wrong in giving such orders, the peasants fell into still
greater confusion, and either broke off the conversation or else got
angry with me.

"They must have found a law for it. The archbishops know as much
about it as we do, I should hope," a Russian soldier once observed to
me. And in saying this the soldier obviously set his mind at rest,
in the full conviction that his spiritual guides had found a law
which authorized his ancestors, and the tzars and their descendants,
and millions of men, to serve as he was doing himself, and that the
question I had put him was a kind of hoax or conundrum on my part.

Everyone in our Christian society knows, either by tradition or by
revelation or by the voice of conscience, that murder is one of the
most fearful crimes a man can commit, as the Gospel tells us, and
that the sin of murder cannot be limited to certain persons, that is,
murder cannot be a sin for some and not a sin for others. Everyone
knows that if murder is a sin, it is always a sin, whoever are the
victims murdered, just like the sin of adultery, theft, or any other.
At the same time from their childhood up men see that murder is not
only permitted, but even sanctioned by the blessing of those whom
they are accustomed to regard as their divinely appointed spiritual
guides, and see their secular leaders with calm assurance organizing
murder, proud to wear murderous arms, and demanding of others in the
name of the laws of the country, and even of God, that they should
take part in murder. Men see that there is some inconsistency here,
but not being able to analyze it, involuntarily assume that this
apparent inconsistency is only the result of their ignorance. The
very grossness and obviousness of the inconsistency confirms them in
this conviction.

They cannot imagine that the leaders of civilization, the educated
classes, could so confidently preach two such opposed principles
as the law of Christ and murder. A simple uncorrupted youth cannot
imagine that those who stand so high in his opinion, whom he regards
as holy or learned men, could for any object whatever mislead him
so shamefully. But this is just what has always been and always is
done to him. It is done (1) by instilling, by example and direct
instruction, from childhood up, into the working people, who have
not time to study moral and religious questions for themselves, the
idea that torture and murder are compatible with Christianity, and
that for certain objects of state, torture and murder are not only
admissible, but ought to be employed; and (2) by instilling into
certain of the people, who have either voluntarily enlisted or been
taken by compulsion into the army, the idea that the perpetration of
murder and torture with their own hands is a sacred duty, and even a
glorious exploit, worthy of praise and reward.

The general delusion is diffused among all people by means of the
catechisms or books, which nowadays replace them, in use for the
compulsory education of children. In them it is stated that violence,
that is, imprisonment and execution, as well as murder in civil or
foreign war in the defense and maintenance of the existing state
organization (whatever that may be, absolute or limited monarchy,
convention, consulate, empire of this or that Napoleon or Boulanger,
constitutional monarchy, commune or republic) is absolutely lawful
and not opposed to morality and Christianity.

This is stated in all catechisms or books used in schools. And men
are so thoroughly persuaded of it that they grow up, live and die in
that conviction without once entertaining a doubt about it.

This is one form of deception, the general deception instilled into
everyone, but there is another special deception practiced upon the
soldiers or police who are picked out by one means or another to do
the torturing and murdering necessary to defend and maintain the
existing _régime_.

In all military instructions there appears in one form or another
what is expressed in the Russian military code in the following words:

_Article 87._ To carry out exactly and without comment the orders
of a superior officer means: to carry out an order received from a
superior officer exactly without considering whether it is good or
not, and whether it is possible to carry it out. The superior officer
is responsible for the consequences of the order he gives.

_Article 88._ The subordinate ought never to refuse to carry out the
orders of a superior officer except when he sees clearly that in
carrying out his superior officer's command, he breaks [the law of
God, one involuntarily expects; not at all] _his oath of fidelity and
allegiance to the Tzar_.

It is here said that the man who is a soldier can and ought to carry
out all the orders of his superior without exception. And as these
orders for the most part involve murder, it follows that he ought to
break all the laws of God and man. The one law he may not break is
that of fidelity and allegiance to the man who happens at a given
moment to be in power.

Precisely the same thing is said in other words in all codes of
military instruction. And it could not be otherwise, since the whole
power of the army and the state is based in reality on this delusive
emancipation of men from their duty to God and their conscience, and
the substitution of duty to their superior officer for all other
duties.

This, then, is the foundation of the belief of the lower classes that
the existing _régime_ so fatal for them is the _régime_ which ought
to exist, and which they ought therefore to support even by torture
and murder.

This belief is founded on a conscious deception practiced on them by
the higher classes.

And it cannot be otherwise. To compel the lower classes, which are
more numerous, to oppress and ill treat themselves, even at the cost
of actions opposed to their conscience, it was necessary to deceive
them. And it has been done accordingly.

Not many days ago I saw once more this shameless deception being
openly practiced, and once more I marveled that it could be practiced
so easily and impudently.

At the beginning of November, as I was passing through Toula, I
saw once again at the gates of the Zemsky Court-house the crowd of
peasants I had so often seen before, and heard the drunken shouts
of the men mingled with the pitiful lamentations of their wives and
mothers. It was the recruiting session.

I can never pass by the spectacle. It attracts me by a kind of
fascination of repulsion. I again went into the crowd, took my stand
among the peasants, looked about and asked questions. And once again
I was amazed that this hideous crime can be perpetrated so easily in
broad daylight and in the midst of a large town.

As the custom is every year, in all the villages and hamlets of the
one hundred millions of Russians, on the 1st of November, the village
elders had assembled the young men inscribed on the lists, often
their own sons among them, and had brought them to the town.

On the road the recruits have been drinking without intermission,
unchecked by the elders, who feel that going on such an insane
errand, abandoning their wives and mothers and renouncing all they
hold sacred in order to become a senseless instrument of destruction,
would be too agonizing if they were not stupefied with spirits.

And so they have come, drinking, swearing, singing, fighting and
scuffling with one another. They have spent the night in taverns. In
the morning they have slept off their drunkenness and have gathered
together at the Zemsky Court-house.

Some of them, in new sheepskin pelisses, with knitted scarves round
their necks, their eyes swollen from drinking, are shouting wildly
to one another to show their courage; others, crowded near the
door, are quietly and mournfully waiting their turn, between their
weeping wives and mothers (I had chanced upon the day of the actual
enrolling, that is, the examination of those whose names are on the
list); others meantime were crowding into the hall of the recruiting
office.

Inside the office the work was going on rapidly. The door is opened
and the guard calls Piotr Sidorov. Piotr Sidorov starts, crosses
himself, and goes into a little room with a glass door, where the
conscripts undress. A comrade of Piotr Sidorov's, who has just been
passed for service, and come naked out of the revision office, is
dressing hurriedly, his teeth chattering. Sidorov has already heard
the news, and can see from his face too that he has been taken. He
wants to ask him questions, but they hurry him and tell him to make
haste and undress. He throws off his pelisse, slips his boots off his
feet, takes off his waistcoat and draws his shirt over his head, and
naked, trembling all over, and exhaling an odor of tobacco, spirits,
and sweat, goes into the revision office, not knowing what to do with
his brawny bare arms.

Directly facing him in the revision office hangs in a great gold
frame a portrait of the Tzar in full uniform with decorations, and
in the corner a little portrait of Christ in a shirt and a crown
of thorns. In the middle of the room is a table covered with green
cloth, on which there are papers lying and a three-cornered ornament
surmounted by an eagle--the zertzal. Round the table are sitting the
revising officers, looking collected and indifferent. One is smoking
a cigarette; another is looking through some papers. Directly Sidorov
comes in, a guard goes up to him, places him under the measuring
frame, raising him under his chin, and straightening his legs.

The man with the cigarette--he is the doctor--comes up, and without
looking at the recruit's face, but somewhere beyond it, feels his
body over with an air of disgust, measures him, tests him, tells the
guard to open his mouth, tells him to breathe, to speak. Someone
notes something down. At last without having once looked him in the
face the doctor says, "Right. Next one!" and with a weary air sits
down again at the table. The soldiers again hustle and hurry the lad.
He somehow gets into his trousers, wraps his feet in rags, puts on
his boots, looks for his scarf and cap, and bundles his pelisse under
his arm. Then they lead him into the main hall, shutting him off
apart from the rest by a bench, behind which all the conscripts who
have been passed for service are waiting. Another village lad like
himself, but from a distant province, now a soldier armed with a gun
with a sharp-pointed bayonet at the end, keeps watch over him, ready
to run him through the body if he should think of trying to escape.

Meantime the crowd of fathers, mothers, and wives, hustled by the
police, are pressing round the doors to hear whose lad has been
taken, whose is let off. One of the rejected comes out and announces
that Piotr is taken, and at once a shrill cry is heard from Piotr's
young wife, for whom this word "taken" means separation for four
or five years, the life of a soldier's wife as a servant, often a
prostitute.

But here comes a man along the street with flowing hair and in a
peculiar dress, who gets out of his droskhy and goes into the Zemsky
Court-house. The police clear a way for him through the crowd. It is
the "reverend father" come to administer the oath, And this "father,"
who has been persuaded that he is specially and exclusively devoted
to the service of Christ, and who, for the most part, does not
himself see the deception in which he lives, goes into the hall where
the conscripts are waiting. He throws round him a kind of curtain of
brocade, pulls his long hair out over it, opens the very Gospel in
which swearing is forbidden, takes the cross, the very cross on which
Christ was crucified because he would not do what this false servant
of his is telling men to do, and puts them on the lectern. And all
these unhappy, defenseless, and deluded lads repeat after him the
lie, which he utters with the assurance of familiarity.

He reads and they repeat after him:

"I promise and swear by Almighty God upon his holy Gospel," etc.,
"to defend," etc., and that is, to murder anyone I am told to, and
to do everything I am told by men I know nothing of, and who care
nothing for me except as an instrument for perpetrating the crimes by
which they are kept in their position of power, and my brothers in
their condition of misery. All the conscripts repeat these ferocious
words without thinking. And then the so-called "father" goes away
with a sense of having correctly and conscientiously done his duty.
And all these poor deluded lads believe that these nonsensical and
incomprehensible words which they have just uttered set them free for
the whole time of their service from their duties as men, and lay
upon them fresh and more binding duties as soldiers.

And this crime is perpetrated publicly and no one cries out to the
deceiving and the deceived: "Think what you are doing; this is the
basest, falsest lie, by which not bodies only, but souls too, are
destroyed."

No one does this. On the contrary, when all have been enrolled,
and they are to be let out again, the military officer goes with a
confident and majestic air into the hall where the drunken, cheated
lads are shut up, and cries in a bold, military voice: "Your health,
my lads! I congratulate you on 'serving the Tzar!'" And they, poor
fellows (someone has given them a hint beforehand), mutter awkwardly,
their voices thick with drink, something to the effect that they are
glad.

Meantime the crowd of fathers, mothers, and wives is standing at the
doors waiting. The women keep their tearful eyes fixed on the doors.
They open at last, and out come the conscripts, unsteady, but trying
to put a good face on it. Here are Piotr and Vania and Makar trying
not to look their dear ones in the face. Nothing is heard but the
wailing of the wives and mothers. Some of the lads embrace them and
weep with them, others make a show of courage, and others try to
comfort them.

The wives and mothers, knowing that they will be left for three,
four, or five years without their breadwinners, weep and rehearse
their woes aloud. The fathers say little. They only utter a clucking
sound with their tongues and sigh mournfully, knowing that they
will see no more of the steady lads they have reared and trained to
help them, that they will come back not the same quiet hard-working
laborers, but for the most part conceited and demoralized, unfitted
for their simple life.

And then all the crowd get into their sledges again and move away
down the street to the taverns and pot-houses, and louder than ever
sounds the medley of singing and sobbing, drunken shouts, and the
wailing of the wives and mothers, the sounds of the accordeon and
oaths. They all turn into the taverns, whose revenues go to the
government, and the drinking bout begins, which stifles their sense
of the wrong which is being done them.

For two or three weeks they go on living at home, and most of that
time they are "jaunting," that is, drinking.

On a fixed day they collect them, drive them together like a flock
of sheep, and begin to train them in the military exercises and
drill. Their teachers are fellows like themselves, only deceived and
brutalized two or three years sooner. The means of instruction are:
deception, stupefaction, blows, and vodka. And before a year has
passed these good, intelligent, healthy-minded lads will be as brutal
beings as their instructors.

"Come, now, suppose your father were arrested and tried to make his
escape?" I asked a young soldier.

"I should run him through with my bayonet," he answered with the
foolish intonation peculiar to soldiers; "and if he made off, I ought
to shoot him," he added, obviously proud of knowing what he must do
if his father were escaping.

And when a good-hearted lad has been brought to a state lower than
that of a brute, he is just what is wanted by those who use him as an
instrument of violence. He is ready; the man has been destroyed and
a new instrument of violence has been created. And all this is done
every year, every autumn, everywhere, through all Russia in broad
daylight in the midst of large towns, where all may see it, and the
deception is so clever, so skillful, that though all men know the
infamy of it in their hearts, and see all its horrible results, they
cannot throw it off and be free.

When one's eyes are opened to this awful deception practiced upon
us, one marvels that the teachers of the Christian religion and
of morals, the instructors of youth, or even the good-hearted and
intelligent parents who are to be found in every society, can teach
any kind of morality in a society in which it is openly admitted (it
is so admitted, under all governments and all churches) that murder
and torture form an indispensable element in the life of all, and
that there must always be special men trained to kill their fellows,
and that any one of us may have to become such a trained assassin.

How can children, youths, and people generally be taught any
kind of morality--not to speak of teaching in the spirit of
Christianity--side by side with the doctrine that murder is necessary
for the public weal, and therefore legitimate, and that there are
men, of whom each of us may have to be one, whose duty is to murder
and torture and commit all sorts of crimes at the will of those who
are in possession of authority. If this is so, and one can and ought
to murder and torture, there is not, and cannot be, any kind of moral
law, but only the law that might is right. And this is just how it
is. In reality that is the doctrine--justified to some by the theory
of the struggle for existence--which reigns in our society.

And, indeed, what sort of ethical doctrine could admit the legitimacy
of murder for any object whatever? It is as impossible as a theory of
mathematics admitting that two is equal to three.

There may be a semblance of mathematics admitting that two is equal
to three, but there can be no real science of mathematics. And there
can only be a semblance of ethics in which murder in the shape of war
and the execution of criminals is allowed, but no true ethics. The
recognition of the life of every man as sacred is the first and only
basis of all ethics.

The doctrine of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth has been
abrogated by Christianity, because it is the justification of
immorality, and a mere semblance of equity, and has no real meaning.
Life is a value which has no weight nor size, and cannot be compared
to any other, and so there is no sense in destroying a life for a
life. Besides, every social law aims at the amelioration of man's
life. What way, then, can the annihilation of the life of some men
ameliorate men's life? Annihilation of life cannot be a means of the
amelioration of life; it is a suicidal act.

To destroy another life for the sake of justice is as though a man,
to repair the misfortune of losing one arm, should cut off the other
arm for the sake of equity.

But putting aside the sin of deluding men into regarding the most
awful crime as a duty, putting aside the revolting sin of using the
name and authority of Christ to sanction what he most condemned,
not to speak of the curse on those who cause these "little ones"
to offend--how can people who cherish their own way of life, their
progress, even from the point of view of their personal security,
allow the formation in their midst of an overwhelming force as
senseless, cruel, and destructive as every government is organized on
the basis of an army? Even the most cruel band of brigands is not so
much to be dreaded as such a government.

The power of every brigand chief is at least so far limited that
the men of his band preserve at least some human liberty, and can
refuse to commit acts opposed to their conscience. But, owing to the
perfection to which the discipline of the army has been brought,
there is no limit to check men who form part of a regularly organized
government. There are no crimes so revolting that they would not
readily be committed by men who form part of a government or army, at
the will of anyone (such as Boulanger, Napoleon, or Pougachef) who
may chance to be at their head.

Often when one sees conscription levies, military drills and
maneuvers, police officers with loaded revolvers, and sentinels at
their posts with bayonets on their rifles; when one hears for whole
days at a time (as I hear it in Hamovniky where I live) the whistle
of balls and the dull thud as they fall in the sand; when one sees in
the midst of a town where any effort at violence in self-defense is
forbidden, where the sale of powder and of chemicals, where furious
driving and practicing as a doctor without a diploma, and so on, are
not allowed, thousands of disciplined troops, trained to murder,
and subject to one man's will; one asks oneself how can people who
prize their security quietly allow it, and put up with it? Apart from
the immorality and evil effects of it, nothing can possibly be more
unsafe. What are people thinking about? I don't mean now Christians,
ministers of religion, philanthropists, and moralists, but simply
people who value their life, their security, and their comfort. This
organization, we know, will work just as well in one man's hands as
another's. To-day, let us assume, power is in the hands of a ruler
who can be endured, but to-morrow it may be seized by a Biron, an
Elizabeth, a Catherine, a Pougachef, a Napoleon I., or a Napoleon III.

And the man in authority, endurable to-day, may become a brute
to-morrow, or may be succeeded by a mad or imbecile heir, like the
King of Bavaria or our Paul I.

And not only the highest authorities, but all little satraps
scattered over everywhere, like so many General Baranovs, governors,
police officers even, and commanders of companies, can perpetrate the
most awful crimes before there is time for them to be removed from
office. And this is what is constantly happening.

One involuntarily asks how can men let it go on, not from higher
considerations only, but from regard to their own safety?

The answer to this question is that it is not all people who do
tolerate it (some--the greater proportion--deluded and submissive,
have no choice and have to tolerate anything). It is tolerated by
those who only under such an organization can occupy a position of
profit. They tolerate it, because for them the risks of suffering
from a foolish or cruel man being at the head of the government or
the army are always less than the disadvantages to which they would
be exposed by the destruction of the organization itself.

A judge, a commander of police, a governor, or an officer will keep
his position just the same under Boulanger or the republic, under
Pougachef or Catherine. He will lose his profitable position for
certain, if the existing order of things which secured it to him is
destroyed. And so all these people feel no uneasiness as to who is at
the head of the organization, they will adapt themselves to anyone;
they only dread the downfall of the organization itself, and that is
the reason--though often an unconscious one--that they support it.

One often wonders why independent people, who are not forced to do
so in any way, the so-called _élite_ of society, should go into the
army in Russia, England, Germany, Austria, and even France, and seek
opportunities of becoming murderers. Why do even high-principled
parents send their boys to military schools? Why do mothers buy their
children toy helmets, guns, and swords as playthings? (The peasant's
children never play at soldiers, by the way). Why do good men and
even women, who have certainly no interest in war, go into raptures
over the various exploits of Skobeloff and others, and vie with one
another in glorifying them? Why do men, who are not obliged to do
so, and get no fee for it, devote, like the marshals of nobility in
Russia, whole months of toil to a business physically disagreeable
and morally painful--the enrolling of conscripts? Why do all kings
and emperors wear the military uniform? Why do they all hold military
reviews, why do they organize maneuvers, distribute rewards to the
military, and raise monuments to generals and successful commanders?
Why do rich men of independent position consider it an honor to
perform a valet's duties in attendance on crowned personages,
flattering them and cringing to them and pretending to believe in
their peculiar superiority? Why do men who have ceased to believe
in the superstitions of the mediæval Church, and who could not
possibly believe in them seriously and consistently, pretend to
believe in and give their support to the demoralizing and blasphemous
institution of the church? Why is it that not only governments but
private persons of the higher classes, try so jealously to maintain
the ignorance of the people? Why do they fall with such fury on
any effort at breaking down religious superstitions or really
enlightening the people? Why do historians, novelists, and poets, who
have no hope of gaining anything by their flatteries, make heroes
of kings, emperors, and conquerors of past times? Why do men, who
call themselves learned, dedicate whole lifetimes to making theories
to prove that violence employed by authority against the people is
not violence at all, but a special right? One often wonders why a
fashionable lady or an artist, who, one would think, would take no
interest in political or military questions, should always condemn
strikes of working people, and defend war; and should always be found
without hesitation opposed to the one, favorable to the other.

But one no longer wonders when one realizes that in the higher
classes there is an unerring instinct of what tends to maintain
and of what tends to destroy the organization by virtue of which
they enjoy their privileges. The fashionable lady had certainly not
reasoned out that if there were no capitalists and no army to defend
them, her husband would have no fortune, and she could not have her
entertainments and her ball-dresses. And the artist certainly does
not argue that he needs the capitalists and the troops to defend
them, so that they may buy his pictures. But instinct, replacing
reason in this instance, guides them unerringly. And it is precisely
this instinct which leads all men, with few exceptions, to support
all the religious, political, and economic institutions which are to
their advantage.

But is it possible that the higher classes support the existing order
of things simply because it is to their advantage? Cannot they see
that this order of things is essentially irrational, that it is
no longer consistent with the stage of moral development attained
by people, and with public opinion, and that it is fraught with
perils? The governing classes, or at least the good, honest, and
intelligent people of them, cannot but suffer from these fundamental
inconsistencies, and see the dangers with which they are threatened.
And is it possible that all the millions of the lower classes can
feel easy in conscience when they commit such obviously evil deeds
as torture and murder from fear of punishment? Indeed, it could
not be so, neither the former nor the latter could fail to see the
irrationality of their conduct, if the complexity of government
organization did not obscure the unnatural senselessness of their
actions.

So many instigate, assist, or sanction the commission of every one
of these actions that no one who has a hand in them feels himself
morally responsible for it.

It is the custom among assassins to oblige all the witnesses of
a murder to strike the murdered victim, that the responsibility
may be divided among as large a number of people as possible. The
same principle in different forms is applied under the government
organization in the perpetration of the crimes, without which no
government organization could exist. Rulers always try to implicate
as many citizens as possible in all the crimes committed in their
support.

Of late this tendency has been expressed in a very obvious manner
by the obligation of all citizens to take part in legal processes
as jurors, in the army as soldiers, in the local government, or
legislative assembly, as electors or members.

Just as in a wicker basket all the ends are so hidden away that it is
hard to find them, in the state organization the responsibility for
the crimes committed is so hidden away that men will commit the most
atrocious acts without seeing their responsibility for them.

In ancient times tyrants got credit for the crimes they committed,
but in our day the most atrocious infamies, inconceivable under the
Neros, are perpetrated and no one gets blamed for them.

One set of people have suggested, another set have proposed, a third
have reported, a fourth have decided, a fifth have confirmed, a sixth
have given the order, and a seventh set of men have carried it out.
They hang, they flog to death women, old men, and innocent people, as
was done recently among us in Russia at the Yuzovsky factory, and is
always being done everywhere in Europe and America in the struggle
with the anarchists and all other rebels against the existing order;
they shoot and hang men by hundreds and thousands, or massacre
millions in war, or break men's hearts in solitary confinement, and
ruin their souls in the corruption of a soldier's life, and no one is
responsible.

At the bottom of the social scale soldiers, armed with guns, pistols,
and sabers, injure and murder people, and compel men through these
means to enter the army, and are absolutely convinced that the
responsibility for the actions rests solely on the officers who
command them.

At the top of the scale--the Tzars, presidents, ministers, and
parliaments decree these tortures and murders and military
conscription, and are fully convinced that since they are either
placed in authority by the grace of God or by the society they
govern, which demands such decrees from them, they cannot be held
responsible. Between these two extremes are the intermediary
personages who superintend the murders and other acts of violence,
and are fully convinced that the responsibility is taken off their
shoulders partly by their superiors who have given the order, partly
by the fact that such orders are expected from them by all who are at
the bottom of the scale.

The authority who gives the orders and the authority who executes
them at the two extreme ends of the state organization, meet together
like the two ends of a ring; they support and rest on one another and
inclose all that lies within the ring.

Without the conviction that there is a person or persons who will
take the whole responsibility of his acts, not one soldier would ever
lift a hand to commit a murder or other deed of violence.

Without the conviction that it is expected by the whole people not a
single king, emperor, president, or parliament would order murders or
acts of violence.

Without the conviction that there are persons of a higher grade who
will take the responsibility, and people of a lower grade who require
such acts for their welfare, not one of the intermediate class would
superintend such deeds.

The state is so organized that wherever a man is placed in the social
scale, his irresponsibility is the same. The higher his grade the
more he is under the influence of demands from below, and the less he
is controlled by orders from above, and _vice versa_.

All men, then, bound together by state organization, throw the
responsibility of their acts on one another, the peasant soldier
on the nobleman or merchant who is his officer, and the officer on
the nobleman who has been appointed governor, the governor on the
nobleman or son of an official who is minister, the minister on
the member of the royal family who occupies the post of Tzar, and
the Tzar again on all these officials, noblemen, merchants, and
peasants. But that is not all. Besides the fact that men get rid
of the sense of responsibility for their actions in this way, they
lose their moral sense of responsibility also, by the fact that in
forming themselves into a state organization they persuade themselves
and each other so continually, and so indefatigably, that they are
not all equal, but "as the stars apart," that they come to believe
it genuinely themselves. Thus some are persuaded that they are not
simple people like everyone else, but special people who are to be
specially honored. It is instilled into another set of men by every
possible means that they are inferior to others, and therefore must
submit without a murmur to every order given them by their superiors.

On this inequality, above all, on the elevation of some and the
degradation of others, rests the capacity men have of being blind to
the insanity of the existing order of life, and all the cruelty and
criminality of the deception practiced by one set of men on another.

Those in whom the idea has been instilled that they are invested with
a special supernatural grandeur and consequence, are so intoxicated
with a sense of their own imaginary dignity that they cease to feel
their responsibility for what they do.

While those, on the other hand, in whom the idea is fostered
that they are inferior animals, bound to obey their superiors in
everything, fall, through this perpetual humiliation, into a strange
condition of stupefied servility, and in this stupefied state do not
see the significance of their actions and lose all consciousness of
responsibility for what they do.

The intermediate class, who obey the orders of their superiors on the
one hand and regard themselves as superior beings on the other, are
intoxicated by power and stupefied by servility at the same time and
so lose the sense of their responsibility.

One need only glance during a review at the commander-in-chief,
intoxicated with self-importance, followed by his retinue, all
on magnificent and gayly appareled horses, in splendid uniforms
and wearing decorations, and see how they ride to the harmonious
and solemn strains of music before the ranks of soldiers, all
presenting arms and petrified with servility. One need only glance
at this spectacle to understand that at such moments, when they are
in a state of the most complete intoxication, commander-in-chief,
soldiers, and intermediate officers alike, would be capable of
committing crimes of which they would never dream under other
conditions.

The intoxication produced by such stimulants as parades, reviews,
religious solemnities, and coronations, is, however, an acute
and temporary condition; but there are other forms of chronic,
permanent intoxication, to which those are liable who have any kind
of authority, from that of the Tzar to that of the lowest police
officer at the street corner, and also those who are in subjection
to authority and in a state of stupefied servility. The latter, like
all slaves, always find a justification for their own servility, in
ascribing the greatest possible dignity and importance to those they
serve.

It is principally through this false idea of inequality, and the
intoxication of power and of servility resulting from it, that men
associated in a state organization are enabled to commit acts opposed
to their conscience without the least scruple or remorse.

Under the influence of this intoxication, men imagine themselves no
longer simply men as they are, but some special beings--noblemen,
merchants, governors, judges, officers, tzars, ministers, or
soldiers--no longer bound by ordinary human duties, but by other
duties far more weighty--the peculiar duties of a nobleman, merchant,
governor, judge, officer, tzar, minister, or soldier.

Thus the landowner, who claimed the forest, acted as he did only
because he fancied himself not a simple man, having the same rights
to life as the peasants living beside him and everyone else, but a
great landowner, a member of the nobility, and under the influence
of the intoxication of power he felt his dignity offended by the
peasants' claims. It was only through this feeling that, without
considering the consequences that might follow, he sent in a claim to
be reinstated in his pretended rights.

In the same way the judges, who wrongfully adjudged the forest to the
proprietor, did so simply because they fancied themselves not simply
men like everyone else, and so bound to be guided in everything only
by what they consider right, but, under the intoxicating influence of
power, imagined themselves the representatives of the justice which
cannot err; while under the intoxicating influence of servility they
imagined themselves bound to carry out to the letter the instructions
inscribed in a certain book, the so-called law. In the same way all
who take part in such an affair, from the highest representative of
authority who signs his assent to the report, from the superintendent
presiding at the recruiting sessions, and the priest who deludes the
recruits, to the lowest soldier who is ready now to fire on his own
brothers, imagine, in the intoxication of power or of servility, that
they are some conventional characters. They do not face the question
that is presented to them, whether or not they ought to take part
in what their conscience judges an evil act, but fancy themselves
various conventional personages--one as the Tzar, God's anointed, an
exceptional being, called to watch over the happiness of one hundred
millions of men; another as the representative of nobility; another
as a priest, who has received special grace by his ordination;
another as a soldier, bound by his military oath to carry out all he
is commanded without reflection.

Only under the intoxication of the power or the servility of their
imagined positions could all these people act as they do.

Were not they all firmly convinced that their respective vocations
of tzar, minister, governor, judge, nobleman, landowner,
superintendent, officer, and soldier are something real and
important, not one of them would even think without horror and
aversion of taking part in what they do now.

The conventional positions, established hundreds of years, recognized
for centuries and by everyone, distinguished by special names and
dresses, and, moreover, confirmed by every kind of solemnity,
have so penetrated into men's minds through their senses, that,
forgetting the ordinary conditions of life common to all, they look
at themselves and everyone only from this conventional point of view,
and are guided in their estimation of their own actions and those of
others by this conventional standard.

Thus we see a man of perfect sanity and ripe age, simply because
he is decked out with some fringe, or embroidered keys on his coat
tails, or a colored ribbon only fit for some gayly dressed girl,
and is told that he is a general, a chamberlain, a knight of the
order of St. Andrew, or some similar nonsense, suddenly become
self-important, proud, and even happy, or, on the contrary, grow
melancholy and unhappy to the point of falling ill, because he has
failed to obtain the expected decoration or title. Or what is still
more striking, a young man, perfectly sane in every other matter,
independent and beyond the fear of want, simply because he has been
appointed judicial prosecutor or district commander, separates a poor
widow from her little children, and shuts her up in prison, leaving
her children uncared for, all because the unhappy woman carried on a
secret trade in spirits, and so deprived the revenue of twenty-five
rubles, and he does not feel the least pang of remorse. Or what is
still more amazing; a man, otherwise sensible and good-hearted,
simply because he is given a badge or a uniform to wear, and told
that he is a guard or customs officer, is ready to fire on people,
and neither he nor those around him regard him as to blame for it,
but, on the contrary, would regard him as to blame if he did not
fire. To say nothing of judges and juries who condemn men to death,
and soldiers who kill men by thousands without the slightest scruple
merely because it has been instilled into them that they are not
simply men, but jurors, judges, generals, and soldiers.

This strange and abnormal condition of men under state organization
is usually expressed in the following words: "As a man, I pity
him; but as guard, judge, general, governor, tzar, or soldier, it
is my duty to kill or torture him." Just as though there were some
positions conferred and recognized, which would exonerate us from the
obligations laid on each of us by the fact of our common humanity.

So, for example, in the case before us, men are going to murder and
torture the famishing, and they admit that in the dispute between
the peasants and the landowner the peasants are right (all those
in command said as much to me). They know that the peasants are
wretched, poor, and hungry, and the landowner is rich and inspires no
sympathy. Yet they are all going to kill the peasants to secure three
thousand rubles for the landowner, only because at that moment they
fancy themselves not men but governor, official, general of police,
officer, and soldier, respectively, and consider themselves bound
to obey, not the eternal demands of the conscience of man, but the
casual, temporary demands of their positions as officers or soldiers.

Strange as it may seem, the sole explanation of this astonishing
phenomenon is that they are in the condition of the hypnotized, who,
they say, feel and act like the creatures they are commanded by the
hypnotizer to represent. When, for instance, it is suggested to the
hypnotized subject that he is lame, he begins to walk lame, that he
is blind, and he cannot see, that he is a wild beast, and he begins
to bite. This is the state, not only of those who were going on this
expedition, but of all men who fulfill their state and social duties
in preference to and in detriment of their human duties.

The essence of this state is that under the influence of one
suggestion they lose the power of criticising their actions, and
therefore do, without thinking, everything consistent with the
suggestion to which they are led by example, precept, or insinuation.

The difference between those hypnotized by scientific men and those
under the influence of the state hypnotism, is that an imaginary
position is suggested to the former suddenly by one person in a very
brief space of time, and so the hypnotized state appears to us in a
striking and surprising form, while the imaginary position suggested
by state influence is induced slowly, little by little, imperceptibly
from childhood, sometimes during years, or even generations, and not
in one person alone but in a whole society.

"But," it will be said, "at all times, in all societies, the
majority of persons--all the children, all the women absorbed in the
bearing and rearing of the young, all the great mass of the laboring
population, who are under the necessity of incessant and fatiguing
physical labor, all those of weak character by nature, all those who
are abnormally enfeebled intellectually by the effects of nicotine,
alcohol, opium, or other intoxicants--are always in a condition of
incapacity for independent thought, and are either in subjection
to those who are on a higher intellectual level, or else under the
influence of family or social traditions, of what is called public
opinion, and there is nothing unnatural or incongruous in their
subjection."

And truly there is nothing unnatural in it, and the tendency of men
of small intellectual power to follow the lead of those on a higher
level of intelligence is a constant law, and it is owing to it
that men can live in societies and on the same principles at all.
The minority consciously adopt certain rational principles through
their correspondence with reason, while the majority act on the same
principles unconsciously because it is required by public opinion.

Such subjection to public opinion on the part of the unintellectual
does not assume an unnatural character till the public opinion is
split into two.

But there are times when a higher truth, revealed at first to a few
persons, gradually gains ground till it has taken hold of such a
number of persons that the old public opinion, founded on a lower
order of truths, begins to totter and the new is ready to take its
place, but has not yet been firmly established. It is like the
spring, this time of transition, when the old order of ideas has not
quite broken up and the new has not quite gained a footing. Men begin
to criticise their actions in the light of the new truth, but in the
meantime in practice, through inertia and tradition, they continue
to follow the principles which once represented the highest point of
rational consciousness, but are now in flagrant contradiction with it.

Then men are in an abnormal, wavering condition, feeling the
necessity of following the new ideal, and yet not bold enough to
break with the old-established traditions.

Such is the attitude in regard to the truth of Christianity not only
of the men in the Toula train, but of the majority of men of our
times, alike of the higher and the lower orders.

Those of the ruling classes, having no longer any reasonable
justification for the profitable positions they occupy, are forced,
in order to keep them, to stifle their higher rational faculty
of loving, and to persuade themselves that their positions are
indispensable. And those of the lower classes, exhausted by toil
and brutalized of set purpose, are kept in a permanent deception,
practiced deliberately and continuously by the higher classes upon
them.

Only in this way can one explain the amazing contradictions with
which our life is full, and of which a striking example was presented
to me by the expedition I met on the 9th of September; good, peaceful
men, known to me personally, going with untroubled tranquillity to
perpetrate the most beastly, senseless, and vile of crimes. Had not
they some means of stifling their conscience, not one of them would
be capable of committing a hundredth part of such a villainy.

It is not that they have not a conscience which forbids them from
acting thus, just as, even three or four hundred years ago, when
people burnt men at the stake and put them to the rack they had a
conscience which prohibited it; the conscience is there, but it has
been put to sleep--in those in command by what the psychologists call
auto-suggestion; in the soldiers, by the direct conscious hypnotizing
exerted by the higher classes.

Though asleep, the conscience is there, and in spite of the hypnotism
it is already speaking in them, and it may awake.

All these men are in a position like that of a man under hypnotism,
commanded to do something opposed to everything he regards as good
and rational, such as to kill his mother or his child. The hypnotized
subject feels himself bound to carry out the suggestion--he thinks he
cannot stop--but the nearer he gets to the time and the place of the
action, the more the benumbed conscience begins to stir, to resist,
and to try to awake. And no one can say beforehand whether he will
carry out the suggestion or not; which will gain the upper hand, the
rational conscience or the irrational suggestion. It all depends on
their relative strength.

That is just the case with the men in the Toula train and in general
with everyone carrying out acts of state violence in our day.

There was a time when men who set out with the object of murder and
violence, to make an example, did not return till they had carried
out their object, and then, untroubled by doubts or scruples,
having calmly flogged men to death, they returned home and caressed
their children, laughed, amused themselves, and enjoyed the
peaceful pleasures of family life. In those days it never struck
the landowners and wealthy men who profited by these crimes, that
the privileges they enjoyed had any direct connection with these
atrocities. But now it is no longer so. Men know now, or are not far
from knowing, what they are doing and for what object they do it.
They can shut their eyes and force their conscience to be still,
but so long as their eyes are opened and their conscience undulled,
they must all--those who carry out and those who profit by these
crimes alike--see the import of them. Sometimes they realize it only
after the crime has been perpetrated, sometimes they realize it
just before its perpetration. Thus those who commanded the recent
acts of violence in Nijni-Novgorod, Saratov, Orel, and the Yuzovsky
factory realized their significance only after their perpetration,
and now those who commanded and those who carried out these crimes
are ashamed before public opinion and their conscience. I have talked
to soldiers who had taken part in these crimes, and they always
studiously turned the conversation off the subject, and when they
spoke of it it was with horror and bewilderment. There are cases,
too, when men come to themselves just before the perpetration of the
crime. Thus I know the case of a sergeant-major who had been beaten
by two peasants during the repression of disorder and had made a
complaint. The next day, after seeing the atrocities perpetrated on
the other peasants, he entreated the commander of his company to tear
up his complaint and let off the two peasants. I know cases when
soldiers, commanded to fire, have refused to obey, and I know many
cases of officers who have refused to command expeditions for torture
and murder. So that men sometimes come to their senses long before
perpetrating the suggested crime, sometimes at the very moment before
perpetrating it, sometimes only afterward.

The men traveling in the Toula train were going with the object of
killing and injuring their fellow-creatures, but none could tell
whether they would carry out their object or not. However obscure
his responsibility for the affair is to each, and however strong
the idea instilled into all of them that they are not men, but
governors, officials, officers, and soldiers, and as such beings can
violate every human duty, the nearer they approach the place of the
execution, the stronger their doubts as to its being right, and this
doubt will reach its highest point when the very moment for carrying
it out has come.

The governor, in spite of all the stupefying effect of his
surroundings, cannot help hesitating when the moment comes to give
final decisive command. He knows that the action of the Governor of
Orel has called down upon him the disapproval of the best people, and
he himself, influenced by the public opinion of the circles in which
he moves, has more than once expressed his disapprobation of him. He
knows that the prosecutor, who ought to have come, flatly refused to
have anything to do with it, because he regarded it as disgraceful.
He knows, too, that there may be changes any day in the government,
and that what was a ground for advancement yesterday may be the cause
of disgrace to-morrow. And he knows that there is a press, if not in
Russia, at least abroad, which may report the affair and cover him
with ignominy forever. He is already conscious of a change in public
opinion which condemns what was formerly a duty. Moreover, he cannot
feel fully assured that his soldiers will at the last moment obey
him. He is wavering, and none can say beforehand what he will do.

All the officers and functionaries who accompany him experience in
greater or less degree the same emotions. In the depths of their
hearts they all know that what they are doing is shameful, that
to take part in it is a discredit and blemish in the eyes of some
people whose opinion they value. They know that after murdering and
torturing the defenseless, each of them will be ashamed to face his
betrothed or the woman he is courting. And besides, they too, like
the governor, are doubtful whether the soldiers' obedience to orders
can be reckoned on. What a contrast with the confident air they all
put on as they sauntered about the station and platform! Inwardly
they were not only in a state of suffering but even of suspense.
Indeed they only assumed this bold and composed manner to conceal the
wavering within. And this feeling increased as they drew near the
scene of action.

And imperceptible as it was, and strange as it seems to say so, all
that mass of lads, the soldiers, who seemed so submissive, were in
precisely the same condition.

These are not the soldiers of former days, who gave up the natural
life of industry and devoted their whole existence to debauchery,
plunder, and murder, like the Roman legionaries or the warriors of
the Thirty Years' War, or even the soldiers of more recent times who
served for twenty-five years in the army. They have mostly been only
lately taken from their families, and are full of the recollections
of the good, rational, natural life they have left behind them.

All these lads, peasants for the most part, know what is the business
they have come about; they know that the landowners always oppress
their brothers the peasants, and that therefore it is most likely
the same thing here. Moreover, a majority of them can now read,
and the books they read are not all such as exalt a military life;
there are some which point out its immorality. Among them are often
free-thinking comrades--who have enlisted voluntarily--or young
officers of liberal ideas, and already the first germ of doubt has
been sown in regard to the unconditional legitimacy and glory of
their occupation.

It is true that they have all passed through that terrible, skillful
education, elaborated through centuries, which kills all initiative
in a man, and that they are so trained to mechanical obedience
that at the word of command: "Fire!--All the line!--Fire!" and so
on, their guns will rise of themselves and the habitual movements
will be performed. But "Fire!" now does not mean shooting into the
sand for amusement, it means firing on their broken-down, exploited
fathers and brothers whom they see there in the crowd, with women and
children shouting and waving their arms. Here they are--one with his
scanty beard and patched coat and plaited shoes of reed, just like
the father left at home in Kazan or Riazan province; one with gray
beard and bent back, leaning on a staff like the old grand-father;
one, a young fellow in boots and a red shirt, just as he was himself
a year ago--he, the soldier who must fire upon him. There, too, a
woman in reed shoes and _panyova_, just like the mother left at home.

Is it possible they must fire on them? And no one knows what each
soldier will do at the last minute. The least word, the slightest
allusion would be enough to stop them.

At the last moment they will all find themselves in the position of
a hypnotized man to whom it has been suggested to chop a log, who
coming up to what has been indicated to him as a log, with the ax
already lifted to strike, sees that it is not a log but his sleeping
brother. He may perform the act that has been suggested to him, and
he may come to his senses at the moment of performing it. In the
same way all these men may come to themselves in time or they may go
on to the end.

If they do not come to themselves, the most fearful crime will be
committed, as in Orel, and then the hypnotic suggestion under which
they act will be strengthened in all other men. If they do come to
themselves, not only this terrible crime will not be perpetrated,
but many also who hear of the turn the affair has taken will be
emancipated from the hypnotic influence in which they were held, or
at least will be nearer being emancipated from it.

Even if a few only come to themselves, and boldly explain to the
others all the wickedness of such a crime, the influence of these few
may rouse the others to shake off the controlling suggestion, and the
atrocity will not be perpetrated.

More than that, if a few men, even of those who are not taking part
in the affair but are only present at the preparations for it, or
have heard of such things being done in the past, do not remain
indifferent but boldly and plainly express their detestation of such
crimes to those who have to execute them, and point out to them all
the senselessness, cruelty, and wickedness of such acts, that alone
will be productive of good.

That was what took place in the instance before us. It was enough for
a few men, some personally concerned in the affair and others simply
outsiders, to express their disapproval of floggings that had taken
place elsewhere, and their contempt and loathing for those who had
taken part in inflicting them, for a few persons in the Toula case
to express their repugnance to having any share in it; for a lady
traveling by the train, and a few other bystanders at the station,
to express to those who formed the expedition their disgust at
what they were doing; for one of the commanders of a company, who
was asked for troops for the restoration of order, to reply that
soldiers ought not to be butchers--and thanks to these and a few
other seemingly insignificant influences brought to bear on these
hypnotized men, the affair took a completely different turn, and the
troops, when they reached the place, did not inflict any punishment,
but contented themselves with cutting down the forest and giving it
to the landowner.

Had not a few persons had a clear consciousness that what they were
doing was wrong, and consequently influenced one another in that
direction, what was done at Orel would have taken place at Toula.
Had this consciousness been still stronger, and had the influence
exerted been therefore greater than it was, it might well have been
that the governor with his troops would not even have ventured to cut
down the forest and give it to the landowner. Had that consciousness
been stronger still, it might well have been that the governor would
not have ventured to go to the scene of action at all; even that the
minister would not have ventured to form this decision or the Tzar to
ratify it.

All depends, therefore, on the strength of the consciousness of
Christian truth on the part of each individual man.

And, therefore, one would have thought that the efforts of all men
of the present day who profess to wish to work for the welfare of
humanity would have been directed to strengthening this consciousness
of Christian truth in themselves and others.

But, strange to say, it is precisely those people who profess most
anxiety for the amelioration of human life, and are regarded as
the leaders of public opinion, who assert that there is no need
to do that, and that there are other more effective means for the
amelioration of men's condition. They affirm that the amelioration
of human life is effected not by the efforts of individual men, to
recognize and propagate the truth, but by the gradual modification
of the general conditions of life, and that therefore the efforts
of individuals should be directed to the gradual modification
of external conditions for the better. For every advocacy of a
truth inconsistent with the existing order by an individual is,
they maintain, not only useless but injurious, since it provokes
coercive measures on the part of the authorities, restricting these
individuals from continuing any action useful to society. According
to this doctrine all modifications in human life are brought about by
precisely the same laws as in the life of the animals.

So that, according to this doctrine, all the founders of religions,
such as Moses and the prophets, Confucius, Lao-Tse, Buddha, Christ,
and others, preached their doctrines and their followers accepted
them, not because they loved the truth, but because the political,
social, and above all economic conditions of the peoples among whom
these religions arose were favorable for their origination and
development.

And therefore the chief efforts of the man who wishes to serve
society and improve the condition of humanity ought, according to
this doctrine, to be directed not to the elucidation and propagation
of truth, but to the improvement of the external political,
social, and above all economic conditions. And the modification
of these conditions is partly effected by serving the government
and introducing liberal and progressive principles into it, partly
in promoting the development of industry and the propagation of
socialistic ideas, and most of all by the diffusion of science.
According to this theory it is of no consequence whether you profess
the truth revealed to you, and therefore realize it in your life, or
at least refrain from committing actions opposed to the truth, such
as serving the government and strengthening its authority when you
regard it as injurious, profiting by the capitalistic system when
you regard it as wrong, showing veneration for various ceremonies
which you believe to be degrading superstitions, giving support to
the law when you believe it to be founded on error, serving as a
soldier, taking oaths, and lying, and lowering yourself generally. It
is useless to refrain from all that; what is of use is not altering
the existing forms of life, but submitting to them against your own
convictions, introducing liberalism into the existing institutions,
promoting commerce, the propaganda of socialism, and the triumphs of
what is called science, and the diffusion of education. According
to this theory one can remain a landowner, merchant, manufacturer,
judge, official in government pay, officer or soldier, and still be
not only a humane man, but even a socialist and revolutionist.

Hypocrisy, which had formerly only a religious basis in the doctrine
of original sin, the redemption, and the Church, has in our day
gained a new scientific basis and has consequently caught in its
nets all those who had reached too high a stage of development to be
able to find support in religious hypocrisy. So that while in former
days a man who professed the religion of the Church could take part
in all the crimes of the state, and profit by them, and still regard
himself as free from any taint of sin, so long as he fulfilled the
external observances of his creed, nowadays all who do not believe in
the Christianity of the Church, find similar well-founded irrefutable
reasons in science for regarding themselves as blameless and even
highly moral in spite of their participation in the misdeeds of
government and the advantages they gain from them.

A rich landowner--not only in Russia, but in France, England,
Germany, or America--lives on the rents exacted from the people
living on his land, and robs these generally poverty-stricken people
of all he can get from them. This man's right of property in the land
rests on the fact that at every effort on the part of the oppressed
people, without his consent, to make use of the land he considers
his, troops are called out to subject them to punishment and murder.
One would have thought that it was obvious that a man living in this
way was an evil, egoistic creature and could not possibly consider
himself a Christian or a liberal. One would have supposed it evident
that the first thing such a man must do, if he wishes to approximate
to Christianity or liberalism, would be to cease to plunder and ruin
men by means of acts of state violence in support of his claim to the
land. And so it would be if it were not for the logic of hypocrisy,
which reasons that from a religious point of view possession or
non-possession of land is of no consequence for salvation, and from
the scientific point of view, giving up the ownership of land is a
useless individual renunciation, and that the welfare of mankind is
not promoted in that way, but by a gradual modification of external
forms. And so we see this man, without the least trouble of mind
or doubt that people will believe in his sincerity, organizing an
agricultural exhibition, or a temperance society, or sending some
soup and stockings by his wife or children to three old women, and
boldly in his family, in drawing rooms, in committees, and in the
press, advocating the Gospel or humanitarian doctrine of love for
one's neighbor in general and the agricultural laboring population
in particular whom he is continually exploiting and oppressing.
And other people who are in the same position as he believe him,
commend him, and solemnly discuss with him measures for ameliorating
the condition of the working-class, on whose exploitation their
whole life rests, devising all kinds of possible methods for this,
except the one without which all improvement of their condition
is impossible, _i. e._, refraining from taking from them the land
necessary for their subsistence. (A striking example of this
hypocrisy was the solicitude displayed by the Russian landowners last
year, their efforts to combat the famine which they had caused, and
by which they profited, selling not only bread at the highest price,
but even potato haulm at five rubles the dessiatine (about 2-4/5
acres) for fuel to the freezing peasants.)

Or take a merchant whose whole trade--like all trade indeed--is
founded on a series of trickery, by means of which, profiting by the
ignorance or need of others, he buys goods below their value and
sells them again above their value. One would have fancied it obvious
that a man whose whole occupation was based on what in his own
language is called swindling, if it is done under other conditions,
ought to be ashamed of his position, and could not any way, while he
continues a merchant, profess himself a Christian or a liberal.

But the sophistry of hypocrisy reasons that the merchant can pass for
a virtuous man without giving up his pernicious course of action;
a religious man need only have faith and a liberal man need only
promote the modification of external conditions--the progress of
industry. And so we see the merchant (who often goes further and
commits acts of direct dishonesty, selling adulterated goods, using
false weights and measures, and trading in products injurious to
health, such as alcohol and opium) boldly regarding himself and
being regarded by others, so long as he does not directly deceive
his colleagues in business, as a pattern of probity and virtue. And
if he spends a thousandth part of his stolen wealth on some public
institution, a hospital or museum or school, then he is even regarded
as the benefactor of the people on the exploitation and corruption of
whom his whole prosperity has been founded: if he sacrifices, too, a
portion of his ill-gotten gains on a Church and the poor, then he is
an exemplary Christian.

A manufacturer is a man whose whole income consists of value
squeezed out of the workmen, and whose whole occupation is based
on forced, unnatural labor, exhausting whole generations of men.
It would seem obvious that if this man professes any Christian
or liberal principles, he must first of all give up ruining human
lives for his own profit. But by the existing theory he is promoting
industry, and he ought not to abandon his pursuit. It would even be
injuring society for him to do so. And so we see this man, the harsh
slave-driver of thousands of men, building almshouses with little
gardens two yards square for the workmen broken down in toiling for
him, and a bank, and a poorhouse, and a hospital--fully persuaded
that he has amply expiated in this way for all the human lives
morally and physically ruined by him--and calmly going on with his
business, taking pride in it.

Any civil, religious, or military official in government employ, who
serves the state from vanity, or, as is most often the case, simply
for the sake of the pay wrung from the harassed and toilworn working
classes (all taxes, however raised, always fall on labor), if he, as
is very seldom the case, does not directly rob the government in the
usual way, considers himself, and is considered by his fellows, as a
most useful and virtuous member of society.

A judge or a public prosecutor knows that through his sentence or his
prosecution hundreds or thousands of poor wretches are at once torn
from their families and thrown into prison, where they may go out of
their minds, kill themselves with pieces of broken glass, or starve
themselves; he knows that they have wives and mothers and children,
disgraced and made miserable by separation from them, vainly begging
for pardon for them or some alleviation of their sentence, and this
judge or this prosecutor is so hardened in his hypocrisy that he and
his fellows and his wife and his household are all fully convinced
that he may be a most exemplary man. According to the metaphysics of
hypocrisy it is held that he is doing a work of public utility. And
this man who has ruined hundreds, thousands of men, who curse him and
are driven to desperation by his action, goes to mass, a smile of
shining benevolence on his smooth face, in perfect faith in good and
in God, listens to the Gospel, caresses his children, preaches moral
principles to them, and is moved by imaginary sufferings.

All these men and those who depend on them, their wives, tutors,
children, cooks, actors, jockeys, and so on, are living on the blood
which by one means or another, through one set of blood-suckers or
another, is drawn out of the working class, and every day their
pleasures cost hundreds or thousands of days of labor. They see the
sufferings and privations of these laborers and their children,
their aged, their wives, and their sick, they know the punishments
inflicted on those who resist this organized plunder, and far from
decreasing, far from concealing their luxury, they insolently
display it before these oppressed laborers who hate them, as though
intentionally provoking them with the pomp of their parks and
palaces, their theaters, hunts, and races. At the same time they
continue to persuade themselves and others that they are all much
concerned about the welfare of these working classes, whom they have
always trampled under their feet, and on Sundays, richly dressed,
they drive in sumptuous carriages to the houses of God built in very
mockery of Christianity, and there listen to men, trained to this
work of deception, who in white neckties or in brocaded vestments,
according to their denomination, preach the love for their neighbor
which they all gainsay in their lives. And these people have so
entered into their part that they seriously believe that they really
are what they pretend to be.

The universal hypocrisy has so entered into the flesh and blood of
all classes of our modern society, it has reached such a pitch that
nothing in that way can rouse indignation. Hypocrisy in the Greek
means "acting," and acting--playing a part--is always possible.
The representatives of Christ give their blessing to the ranks of
murderers holding their guns loaded against their brothers; "for
prayer" priests, ministers of various Christian sects are always
present, as indispensably as the hangman, at executions, and sanction
by their presence the compatibility of murder with Christianity
(a clergyman assisted at the attempt at murder by electricity in
America)--but such facts cause no one any surprise.

There was recently held at Petersburg an international exhibition of
instruments of torture, handcuffs, models of solitary cells, that
is to say instruments of torture worse than knouts or rods, and
sensitive ladies and gentlemen went and amused themselves by looking
at them.

No one is surprised that together with its recognition of liberty,
equality, and fraternity, liberal science should prove the necessity
of war, punishment, customs, the censure, the regulation of
prostitution, the exclusion of cheap foreign laborers, the hindrance
of emigration, the justifiableness of colonization, based on
poisoning and destroying whole races of men called savages, and so on.

People talk of the time when all men shall profess what is called
Christianity (that is, various professions of faith hostile to one
another), when all shall be well-fed and clothed, when all shall
be united from one end of the world to the other by telegraphs
and telephones, and be able to communicate by balloons, when all
the working classes are permeated by socialistic doctrines, when
the Trades Unions possess so many millions of members and so many
millions of rubles, when everyone is educated and all can read
newspapers and learn all the sciences.

But what good or useful thing can come of all these improvements, if
men do not speak and act in accordance with what they believe to be
the truth?

The condition of men is the result of their disunion. Their disunion
results from their not following the truth which is one, but
falsehoods which are many. The sole means of uniting men is their
union in the truth. And therefore the more sincerely men strive
toward the truth, the nearer they get to unity.

But how can men be united in the truth or even approximate to it, if
they do not even express the truth they know, but hold that there is
no need to do so, and pretend to regard as truth what they believe to
be false?

And therefore no improvement is possible so long as men are
hypocritical and hide the truth from themselves, so long as they do
not recognize that their union and therefore their welfare is only
possible in the truth, and do not put the recognition and profession
of the truth revealed to them higher than everything else.

All the material improvements that religious and scientific men can
dream of may be accomplished; all men may accept Christianity, and
all the reforms desired by the Bellamys may be brought about with
every possible addition and improvement, but if the hypocrisy which
rules nowadays still exists, if men do not profess the truth they
know, but continue to feign belief in what they do not believe and
veneration for what they do not respect, their condition will remain
the same, or even grow worse and worse. The more men are freed
from privation; the more telegraphs, telephones, books, papers,
and journals there are; the more means there will be of diffusing
inconsistent lies and hypocrisies, and the more disunited and
consequently miserable will men become, which indeed is what we see
actually taking place.

All these material reforms may be realized, but the position of
humanity will not be improved. But only let each man, according
to his powers, at once realize in his life the truth he knows, or
at least cease to support the falsehoods he is supporting in the
place of the truth, and at once, in this year 1893, we should see
such reforms as we do not dare to hope for within a century--the
emancipation of men and the reign of truth upon earth.

Not without good reason was Christ's only harsh and threatening
reproof directed against hypocrites and hypocrisy. It is not theft
nor robbery nor murder nor fornication, but falsehood, the special
falsehood of hypocrisy, which corrupts men, brutalizes them and makes
them vindictive, destroys all distinction between right and wrong in
their conscience, deprives them of what is the true meaning of all
real human life, and debars them from all progress toward perfection.

Those who do evil through ignorance of the truth provoke sympathy
with their victims and repugnance for their actions, they do harm
only to those they attack; but those who know the truth and do
evil masked by hypocrisy, injure themselves and their victims, and
thousands of other men as well who are led astray by the falsehood
with which the wrongdoing is disguised.

Thieves, robbers, murderers, and cheats, who commit crimes recognized
by themselves and everyone else as evil, serve as an example of
what ought not to be done, and deter others from similar crimes.
But those who commit the same thefts, robberies, murders, and other
crimes, disguising them under all kinds of religious or scientific
or humanitarian justifications, as all landowners, merchants,
manufacturers, and government officials do, provoke others to
imitation, and so do harm not only to those who are directly the
victims of their crimes, but to thousands and millions of men whom
they corrupt by obliterating their sense of the distinction between
right and wrong.

A single fortune gained by trading in goods necessary to the
people or in goods pernicious in their effects, or by financial
speculations, or by acquiring land at a low price the value of which
is increased by the needs of the population, or by an industry
ruinous to the health and life of those employed in it, or by
military or civil service of the state, or by any employment which
trades on men's evil instincts--a single fortune acquired in any of
these ways, not only with the sanction, but even with the approbation
of the leading men in society, and masked with an ostentation of
philanthropy, corrupts men incomparably more than millions of thefts
and robberies committed against the recognized forms of law and
punishable as crimes.

A single execution carried out by prosperous educated men
uninfluenced by passion, with the approbation and assistance of
Christian ministers, and represented as something necessary and even
just, is infinitely more corrupting and brutalizing to men than
thousands of murders committed by uneducated working people under the
influence of passion. An execution such as was proposed by Joukovsky,
which would produce even a sentiment of religious emotion in the
spectators, would be one of the most perverting actions imaginable.
(_See_ vol. iv. of the works of Joukovsky.)

Every war, even the most humanely conducted, with all its ordinary
consequences, the destruction of harvests, robberies, the license and
debauchery, and the murder with the justifications of its necessity
and justice, the exaltation and glorification of military exploits,
the worship of the flag, the patriotic sentiments, the feigned
solicitude for the wounded, and so on, does more in one year to
pervert men's minds than thousands of robberies, murders, and arsons
perpetrated during hundreds of years by individual men under the
influence of passion.

The luxurious expenditure of a single respectable and so-called
honorable family, even within the conventional limits, consuming
as it does the produce of as many days of labor as would suffice
to provide for thousands living in privation near, does more to
pervert men's minds than thousands of the violent orgies of coarse
tradespeople, officers, and workmen of drunken and debauched habits,
who smash up glasses and crockery for amusement.

One solemn religious procession, one service, one sermon from the
altar-steps or the pulpit, in which the preacher does not believe,
produces incomparably more evil than thousands of swindling tricks,
adulteration of food, and so on.

We talk of the hypocrisy of the Pharisees. But the hypocrisy of
our society far surpasses the comparatively innocent hypocrisy of
the Pharisees. They had at least an external religious law, the
fulfillment of which hindered them from seeing their obligations
to their neighbors. Moreover, these obligations were not nearly so
clearly defined in their day. Nowadays we have no such religious law
to exonerate us from our duties to our neighbors (I am not speaking
now of the coarse and ignorant persons who still fancy their sins can
be absolved by confession to a priest or by the absolution of the
Pope). On the contrary, the law of the Gospel which we all profess
in one form or another directly defines these duties. Besides, the
duties which had then been only vaguely and mystically expressed by
a few prophets have now been so clearly formulated, have become such
truisms, that they are repeated even by schoolboys and journalists.
And so it would seem that men of to-day cannot pretend that they do
not know these duties.

A man of the modern world who profits by the order of things based on
violence, and at the same time protests that he loves his neighbor
and does not observe what he is doing in his daily life to his
neighbor, is like a brigand who has spent his life in robbing men,
and who, caught at last, knife in hand, in the very act of striking
his shrieking victim, should declare that he had no idea that what he
was doing was disagreeable to the man he had robbed and was prepared
to murder. Just as this robber and murderer could not deny what
was evident to everyone, so it would seem that a man living upon
the privations of the oppressed classes cannot persuade himself and
others that he desires the welfare of those he plunders, and that he
does not know how the advantages he enjoys are obtained.

It is impossible to convince ourselves that we do not know that there
are a hundred thousand men in prison in Russia alone to guarantee
the security of our property and tranquillity, and that we do not
know of the law tribunals in which we take part, and which, at our
initiative, condemn those who have attacked our property or our
security to prison, exile, or forced labor, whereby men no worse than
those who condemn them are ruined and corrupted; or that we do not
know that we only possess all that we do possess because it has been
acquired and is defended for us by murder and violence.

We cannot pretend that we do not see the armed policeman who marches
up and down beneath our windows to guarantee our security while we
eat our luxurious dinner, or look at the new piece at the theater, or
that we are unaware of the existence of the soldiers who will make
their appearance with guns and cartridges directly our property is
attacked.

We know very well that we are only allowed to go on eating our
dinner, to finish seeing the new play, or to enjoy to the end the
ball, the Christmas fête, the promenade, the races or the hunt,
thanks to the policeman's revolver or the soldier's rifle, which will
shoot down the famished outcast who has been robbed of his share, and
who looks round the corner with covetous eyes at our pleasures, ready
to interrupt them instantly, were not the policeman and the soldier
there prepared to run up at our first call for help.

And therefore just as a brigand caught in broad daylight in the act
cannot persuade us that he did not lift his knife in order to rob
his victim of his purse, and had no thought of killing him, we too,
it would seem, cannot persuade ourselves or others that the soldiers
and policemen around us are not to guard us, but only for defense
against foreign foes, and to regulate traffic and fêtes and reviews;
we cannot persuade ourselves and others that we do not know that
men do not like dying of hunger, bereft of the right to gain their
subsistence from the earth on which they live; that they do not like
working underground, in the water, or in stifling heat, for ten to
fourteen hours a day, at night in factories to manufacture objects
for our pleasure. One would imagine it impossible to deny what is so
obvious. Yet it is denied.

Still, there are, among the rich, especially among the young, and
among women, persons whom I am glad to meet more and more frequently,
who, when they are shown in what way and at what cost their pleasures
are purchased, do not try to conceal the truth, but hiding their
heads in their hands, cry: "Ah! don't speak of that. If it is so,
life is impossible." But though there are such sincere people who
even though they cannot renounce their fault, at least see it, the
vast majority of the men of the modern world have so entered into
the parts they play in their hypocrisy that they boldly deny what is
staring everyone in the face.

"All that is unjust," they say; "no one forces the people to work for
the landowners and manufacturers. That is an affair of free contract.
Great properties and fortunes are necessary, because they provide and
organize work for the working classes. And labor in the factories and
workshops is not at all the terrible thing you make it out to be.
Even if there are some abuses in factories, the government and the
public are taking steps to obviate them and to make the labor of the
factory workers much easier, and even agreeable. The working classes
are accustomed to physical labor, and are, so far, fit for nothing
else. The poverty of the people is not the result of private property
in land, nor of capitalistic oppression, but of other causes: it
is the result of the ignorance, brutality, and intemperance of
the people. And we men in authority who are striving against this
impoverishment of the people by wise legislation, we capitalists who
are combating it by the extension of useful inventions, we clergymen
by religious instruction, and we liberals by the formation of trades
unions, and the diffusion of education, are in this way increasing
the prosperity of the people without changing our own positions.
We do not want all to be as poor as the poor; we want all to be as
rich as the rich. As for the assertion that men are ill treated and
murdered to force them to work for the profit of the rich, that is
a sophism. The army is only called out against the mob, when the
people, in ignorance of their own interests, make disturbances and
destroy the tranquillity necessary for the public welfare. In the
same way, too, it is necessary to keep in restraint the malefactors
for whom the prisons and gallows are established. We ourselves
wish to suppress these forms of punishment and are working in that
direction."

Hypocrisy in our day is supported on two sides: by false religion and
by false science. And it has reached such proportions that if we were
not living in its midst, we could not believe that men could attain
such a pitch of self-deception. Men of the present day have come into
such an extraordinary condition, their hearts are so hardened, that
seeing they see not, hearing they do not hear, and understand not.

Men have long been living in antagonism to their conscience. If it
were not for hypocrisy they could not go on living such a life. This
social organization in opposition to their conscience only continues
to exist because it is disguised by hypocrisy.

And the greater the divergence between actual life and men's
conscience, the greater the extension of hypocrisy. But even
hypocrisy has its limits. And it seems to me that we have reached
those limits in the present day.

Every man of the present day with the Christian principles
assimilated involuntarily in his conscience, finds himself in
precisely the position of a man asleep who dreams that he is obliged
to do something which even in his dream he knows he ought not to
do. He knows this in the depths of his conscience, and all the same
he seems unable to change his position; he cannot stop and cease
doing what he ought not to do. And just as in a dream, his position
becoming more and more painful, at last reaches such a pitch of
intensity that he begins sometimes to doubt the reality of what is
passing and makes a moral effort to shake off the nightmare which is
oppressing him.

This is just the condition of the average man of our Christian
society. He feels that all that he does himself and that is done
around him is something absurd, hideous, impossible, and opposed to
his conscience; he feels that his position is becoming more and more
unendurable and reaching a crisis of intensity.

It is not possible that we modern men, with the Christian sense of
human dignity and equality permeating us soul and body, with our need
for peaceful association and unity between nations, should really go
on living in such a way that every joy, every gratification we have
is bought by the sufferings, by the lives of our brother men, and
moreover, that we should be every instant within a hair's-breadth
of falling on one another, nation against nation, like wild beasts,
mercilessly destroying men's lives and labor, only because some
benighted diplomatist or ruler says or writes some stupidity to
another equally benighted diplomatist or ruler.

It is impossible. Yet every man of our day sees that this is so
and awaits the calamity. And the situation becomes more and more
insupportable.

And as the man who is dreaming does not believe that what appears to
him can be truly the reality and tries to wake up to the actual real
world again, so the average man of modern days cannot in the bottom
of his heart believe that the awful position in which he is placed
and which is growing worse and worse can be the reality, and tries to
wake up to a true, real life, as it exists in his conscience.

And just as the dreamer need only make a moral effort and ask
himself, "Isn't it a dream?" and the situation which seemed to him so
hopeless will instantly disappear, and he will wake up to peaceful
and happy reality, so the man of the modern world need only make
a moral effort to doubt the reality presented to him by his own
hypocrisy and the general hypocrisy around him, and to ask himself,
"Isn't it all a delusion?" and he will at once, like the dreamer
awakened, feel himself transported from an imaginary and dreadful
world to the true, calm, and happy reality.

And to do this a man need accomplish no great feats or exploits. He
need only make a moral effort.

But can a man make this effort?

According to the existing theory so essential to support hypocrisy,
man is not free and cannot change his life.

"Man cannot change his life, because he is not free. He is not free,
because all his actions are conditioned by previously existing
causes. And whatever the man may do there are always some causes
or other through which he does these or those acts, and therefore
man cannot be free and change his life," say the champions of the
metaphysics of hypocrisy. And they would be perfectly right if man
were a creature without conscience and incapable of moving toward
the truth; that is to say, if after recognizing a new truth, man
always remained at the same stage of moral development. But man
is a creature with a conscience and capable of attaining a higher
and higher degree of truth. And therefore even if man is not free
as regards performing these or those acts because there exists a
previous cause for every act, the very causes of his acts, consisting
as they do for the man of conscience of the recognition of this or
that truth, are within his own control.

So that though man may not be free as regards the performance of
his actions, he is free as regards the foundation on which they are
performed. Just as the mechanician who is not free to modify the
movement of his locomotive when it is in motion, is free to regulate
the machine beforehand so as to determine what the movement is to be.

Whatever the conscious man does, he acts just as he does, and not
otherwise, only because he recognizes that to act as he is acting is
in accord with the truth, or because he has recognized it at some
previous time, and is now only through inertia, through habit, acting
in accordance with his previous recognition of truth.

In any case, the cause of his action is not to be found in any given
previous fact, but in the consciousness of a given relation to truth,
and the consequent recognition of this or that fact as a sufficient
basis for action.

Whether a man eats or does not eat, works or rests, runs risks or
avoids them, if he has a conscience he acts thus only because he
considers it right and rational, because he considers that to act
thus is in harmony with truth, or else because he has made this
reflection in the past.

The recognition or non-recognition of a certain truth depends not on
external causes, but on certain other causes within the man himself.
So that at times under external conditions apparently very favorable
for the recognition of truth, one man will not recognize it, and
another, on the contrary, under the most unfavorable conditions will,
without apparent cause, recognize it. As it is said in the Gospel,
"No man can come unto me, except the Father which hath sent me draw
him." That is to say, the recognition of truth, which is the cause
of all the manifestations of human life, does not depend on external
phenomena, but on certain inner spiritual characteristics of the man
which escape our observation.

And therefore man, though not free in his acts, always feels
himself free in what is the motive of his acts--the recognition or
non-recognition of truth. And he feels himself independent not only
of facts external to his own personality, but even of his own actions.

Thus a man who under the influence of passion has committed an act
contrary to the truth he recognizes, remains none the less free to
recognize it or not to recognize it; that is, he can by refusing to
recognize the truth regard his action as necessary and justifiable,
or he may recognize the truth and regard his act as wrong and censure
himself for it.

Thus a gambler or a drunkard who does not resist temptation and
yields to his passion is still free to recognize gambling and
drunkenness as wrong or to regard them as a harmless pastime. In the
first case even if he does not at once get over his passion, he gets
the more free from it the more sincerely he recognizes the truth
about it; in the second case he will be strengthened in his vice and
will deprive himself of every possibility of shaking it off.

In the same way a man who has made his escape alone from a house on
fire, not having had the courage to save his friend, remains free,
recognizing the truth that a man ought to save the life of another
even at the risk of his own, to regard his action as bad and to
censure himself for it, or, not recognizing this truth, to regard his
action as natural and necessary and to justify it to himself. In the
first case, if he recognizes the truth in spite of his departure
from it, he prepares for himself in the future a whole series of acts
of self-sacrifice necessarily flowing from this recognition of the
truth; in the second case, a whole series of egoistic acts.

Not that a man is always free to recognize or to refuse to recognize
every truth. There are truths which he has recognized long before or
which have been handed down to him by education and tradition and
accepted by him on faith, and to follow these truths has become a
habit, a second nature with him; and there are truths, only vaguely,
as it were distantly, apprehended by him. The man is not free to
refuse to recognize the first, nor to recognize the second class of
truths. But there are truths of a third kind, which have not yet
become an unconscious motive of action, but yet have been revealed so
clearly to him that he cannot pass them by, and is inevitably obliged
to do one thing or the other, to recognize or not to recognize them.
And it is in regard to these truths that the man's freedom manifests
itself.

Every man during his life finds himself in regard to truth in the
position of a man walking in the darkness with light thrown before
him by the lantern he carries. He does not see what is not yet
lighted up by the lantern; he does not see what he has passed which
is hidden in the darkness; but at every stage of his journey he sees
what is lighted up by the lantern, and he can always choose one side
or the other of the road.

There are always unseen truths not yet revealed to the man's
intellectual vision, and there are other truths outlived, forgotten,
and assimilated by him, and there are also certain truths that rise
up before the light of his reason and require his recognition. And it
is in the recognition or non-recognition of these truths that what we
call his freedom is manifested.

All the difficulty and seeming insolubility of the question of the
freedom of man results from those who tried to solve the question
imagining man as stationary in his relation to the truth.

Man is certainly not free if we imagine him stationary, and if we
forget that the life of a man and of humanity is nothing but a
continual movement from darkness into light, from a lower stage of
truth to a higher, from a truth more alloyed with errors to a truth
more purified from them.

Man would not be free if he knew no truth at all, and in the same way
he would not be free and would not even have any idea of freedom if
the whole truth which was to guide him in life had been revealed once
for all to him in all its purity without any admixture of error.

But man is not stationary in regard to truth, but every individual
man as he passes through life, and humanity as a whole in the same
way, is continually learning to know a greater and greater degree of
truth, and growing more and more free from error.

And therefore men are in a threefold relation to truth. Some
truths have been so assimilated by them that they have become the
unconscious basis of action, others are only just on the point of
being revealed to him, and a third class, though not yet assimilated
by him, have been revealed to him with sufficient clearness to force
him to decide either to recognize them or to refuse to recognize them.

These, then, are the truths which man is free to recognize or to
refuse to recognize.

The liberty of man does not consist in the power of acting
independently of the progress of life and the influences arising from
it, but in the capacity for recognizing and acknowledging the truth
revealed to him, and becoming the free and joyful participator in
the eternal and infinite work of God, the life of the world; or on
the other hand for refusing to recognize the truth, and so being a
miserable and reluctant slave dragged whither he has no desire to go.

Truth not only points out the way along which human life ought to
move, but reveals also the only way along which it can move. And
therefore all men must willingly or unwillingly move along the way of
truth, some spontaneously accomplishing the task set them in life,
others submitting involuntarily to the law of life. Man's freedom
lies in the power of this choice.

This freedom within these narrow limits seems so insignificant to men
that they do not notice it. Some--the determinists--consider this
amount of freedom so trifling that they do not recognize it at all.
Others--the champions of complete free will--keep their eyes fixed on
their hypothetical free will and neglect this which seemed to them
such a trivial degree of freedom.

This freedom, confined between the limits of complete ignorance
of the truth and a recognition of a part of the truth, seems
hardly freedom at all, especially since, whether a man is willing
or unwilling to recognize the truth revealed to him, he will be
inevitably forced to carry it out in life.

A horse harnessed with others to a cart is not free to refrain from
moving the cart. If he does not move forward the cart will knock him
down and go on dragging him with it, whether he will or not. But the
horse is free to drag the cart himself or to be dragged with it. And
so it is with man.

Whether this is a great or small degree of freedom in comparison with
the fantastic liberty we should like to have, it is the only freedom
that really exists, and in it consists the only happiness attainable
by man.

And more than that, this freedom is the sole means of accomplishing
the divine work of the life of the world.

According to Christ's doctrine, the man who sees the significance of
life in the domain in which it is not free, in the domain of effects,
that is, of acts, has not the true life. According to the Christian
doctrine, that man is living in the truth who has transported his
life to the domain in which it is free--the domain of causes, that
is, the knowledge and recognition, the profession and realization in
life of revealed truth.

Devoting his life to works of the flesh, a man busies himself with
actions depending on temporary causes outside himself. He himself
does nothing really, he merely seems to be doing something. In
reality all the acts which seem to be his are the work of a higher
power, and he is not the creator of his own life, but the slave of
it. Devoting his life to the recognition and fulfillment of the truth
revealed to him, he identifies himself with the source of universal
life and accomplishes acts not personal, and dependent on conditions
of space and time, but acts unconditioned by previous causes, acts
which constitute the causes of everything else, and have an infinite,
unlimited significance.

"The kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by
force." (Matt. xi. 12.)

It is this violent effort to rise above external conditions to the
recognition and realization of truth by which the kingdom of heaven
is taken, and it is this effort of violence which must and can be
made in our times.

Men need only understand this, they need only cease to trouble
themselves about the general external conditions in which they are
not free, and devote one-hundredth part of the energy they waste
on those material things to that in which they are free, to the
recognition and realization of the truth which is before them, and to
the liberation of themselves and others from deception and hypocrisy,
and, without effort or conflict, there would be an end at once of the
false organization of life which makes men miserable, and threatens
them with worse calamities in the future. And then the kingdom of
God would be realized, or at least that first stage of it for which
men are ready now by the degree of development of their conscience.

Just as a single shock may be sufficient, when a liquid is saturated
with some salt, to precipitate it at once in crystals, a slight
effort may be perhaps all that is needed now that the truth already
revealed to men may gain a mastery over hundreds, thousands, millions
of men, that a public opinion consistent with conscience may be
established, and through this change of public opinion the whole
order of life may be transformed. And it depends upon us to make this
effort.

Let each of us only try to understand and accept the Christian truth
which in the most varied forms surrounds us on all sides and forces
itself upon us; let us only cease from lying and pretending that we
do not see this truth or wish to realize it, at least in what it
demands from us above all else; only let us accept and boldly profess
the truth to which we are called, and we should find at once that
hundreds, thousands, millions of men are in the same position as
we, that they see the truth as we do, and dread as we do to stand
alone in recognizing it, and like us are only waiting for others to
recognize it also.

Only let men cease to be hypocrites, and they would at once see that
this cruel social organization, which holds them in bondage, and is
represented to them as something stable, necessary, and ordained of
God, is already tottering and is only propped up by the falsehood of
hypocrisy, with which we, and others like us, support it.

But if this is so, if it is true that it depends on us to break down
the existing organization of life, have we the right to destroy it,
without knowing clearly what we shall set up in its place? What will
become of human society when the existing order of things is at an
end?

"What shall we find the other side of the walls of the world we are
abandoning?

"Fear will come upon us--a void, a vast emptiness, freedom--how are
we to go forward not knowing whither, how face loss, not seeing
hope of gain?... If Columbus had reasoned thus he would never have
weighed anchor. It was madness to set off upon the ocean, not knowing
the route, on the ocean on which no one had sailed, to sail toward
a land whose existence was doubtful. By this madness he discovered
a new world. Doubtless if the peoples of the world could simply
transfer themselves from one furnished mansion to another and better
one--it would make it much easier; but unluckily there is no one to
get humanity's new dwelling ready for it. The future is even worse
than the ocean--there is nothing there--it will be what men and
circumstances make it.

"If you are content with the old world, try to preserve it, it is
very sick and cannot hold out much longer. But if you cannot bear to
live in everlasting dissonance between your beliefs and your life,
thinking one thing and doing another, get out of the mediæval whited
sepulchers, and face your fears. I know very well it is not easy.

"It is not a little thing to cut one's self off from all to which a
man has been accustomed from his birth, with which he has grown up
to maturity. Men are ready for tremendous sacrifices, but not for
those which life demands of them. Are they ready to sacrifice modern
civilization, their manner of life, their religion, the received
conventional morality?

"Are we ready to give up all the results we have attained with such
effort, results of which we have been boasting for three centuries;
to give up every convenience and charm of our existence, to prefer
savage youth to the senile decay of civilization, to pull down the
palace raised for us by our ancestors only for the pleasure of having
a hand in the founding of a new house, which will doubtless be built
long after we are gone?" (Herzen, vol. v. p. 55.)

Thus wrote almost half a century ago the Russian writer, who with
prophetic insight saw clearly then, what even the most unreflecting
man sees to-day, the impossibility, that is, of life continuing on
its old basis, and the necessity of establishing new forms of life.

It is clear now from the very simplest, most commonplace point of
view, that it is madness to remain under the roof of a building which
cannot support its weight, and that we must leave it. And indeed it
is difficult to imagine a position more wretched than that of the
Christian world to-day, with its nations armed against one another,
with its constantly increasing taxation to maintain its armies,
with the hatred of the working class for the rich ever growing more
intense, with the Damocles sword of war forever hanging over the
heads of all, ready every instant to fall, certain to fall sooner or
later.

Hardly could any revolution be more disastrous for the great mass
of the population than the present order or rather disorder of our
life, with its daily sacrifices to exhausting and unnatural toil, to
poverty, drunkenness, and profligacy, with all the horrors of the war
that is at hand, which will swallow up in one year more victims than
all the revolutions of the century.

What will become of humanity if each of us performs the duty God
demands of us through the conscience implanted within us? Will not
harm come if, being wholly in the power of a master, I carry out, in
the workshop erected and directed by him, the orders he gives me,
strange though they may seem to me who do not know the Master's final
aims?

But it is not even this question "What will happen?" that agitates
men when they hesitate to fulfill the Master's will. They are
troubled by the question how to live without those habitual
conditions of life which we call civilization, culture, art, and
science. We feel ourselves all the burdensomeness of life as it is;
we see also that this organization of life must inevitably be our
ruin, if it continues. At the same time we want the conditions of our
life which arise out of this organization--our civilization, culture,
art, and science--to remain intact. It is as though a man, living in
an old house and suffering from cold and all sorts of inconvenience
in it, knowing, too, that it is on the point of falling to pieces,
should consent to its being rebuilt, but only on the condition
that he should not be required to leave it: a condition which is
equivalent to refusing to have it rebuilt at all.

"But what if I leave the house and give up every convenience for a
time, and the new house is not built, or is built on a different plan
so that I do not find in it the comforts to which I am accustomed?"
But seeing that the materials and the builders are here, there is
every likelihood that the new house will on the contrary be better
built than the old one. And at the same time, there is not only the
likelihood but the certainty that the old house will fall down and
crush those who remain within it. Whether the old habitual conditions
of life are supported, or whether they are abolished and altogether
new and better conditions arise; in any case, there is no doubt we
shall be forced to leave the old forms of life which have become
impossible and fatal, and must go forward to meet the future.

"Civilization, art, science, culture, will disappear!"

Yes, but all these we know are only various manifestations of truth,
and the change that is before us is only to be made for the sake
of a closer attainment and realization of truth. How then can the
manifestations of truth disappear through our realizing it? These
manifestations will be different, higher, better, but they will not
cease to be. Only what is false in them will be destroyed; all the
truth there was in them will only be stronger and more flourishing.

Take thought, oh, men, and have faith in the Gospel, in whose
teaching is your happiness. If you do not take thought, you will
perish just as the men perished, slain by Pilate, or crushed by the
tower of Siloam; as millions of men have perished, slayers and slain,
executing and executed, torturers and tortured alike, and as the man
foolishly perished, who filled his granaries full and made ready
for a long life and died the very night that he planned to begin
his life. Take thought and have faith in the Gospel, Christ said
eighteen hundred years ago, and he says it with even greater force
now that the calamities foretold by him have come to pass, and the
senselessness of our life has reached the furthest point of suffering
and madness.

Nowadays, after so many centuries of fruitless efforts to make our
life secure by the pagan organization of life, it must be evident
to everyone that all efforts in that direction only introduce fresh
dangers into personal and social life, and do not render it more
secure in any way.

Whatever names we dignify ourselves with, whatever uniforms we wear,
whatever priests we anoint ourselves before, however many millions we
possess, however many guards are stationed along our road, however
many policemen guard our wealth, however many so-called criminals,
revolutionists, and anarchists we punish, whatever exploits we have
performed, whatever states we may have founded, fortresses and
towers we may have erected--from Babel to the Eiffel Tower--there
are two inevitable conditions of life, confronting all of us, which
destroy its whole meaning; (1) death, which may at any moment pounce
upon each of us; and (2) the transitoriness of all our works, which
so soon pass away and leave no trace. Whatever we may do--found
companies, build palaces and monuments, write songs and poems--it is
all not for long time. Soon it passes away, leaving no trace. And
therefore, however we may conceal it from ourselves, we cannot help
seeing that the significance of our life cannot lie in our personal
fleshly existence, the prey of incurable suffering and inevitable
death, nor in any social institution or organization. Whoever you may
be who are reading these lines, think of your position and of your
duties--not of your position as landowner, merchant, judge, emperor,
president, minister, priest, soldier, which has been temporarily
allotted you by men, and not of the imaginary duties laid on you by
those positions, but of your real positions in eternity as a creature
who at the will of Someone has been called out of unconsciousness
after an eternity of non-existence to which you may return at any
moment at his will. Think of your duties--not your supposed duties
as a landowner to your estate, as a merchant to your business, as
emperor, minister, or official to the state, but of your real duties,
the duties that follow from your real position as a being called into
life and endowed with reason and love.

Are you doing what he demands of you who has sent you into the world,
and to whom you will soon return? Are you doing what he wills? Are
you doing his will, when as landowner or manufacturer you rob the
poor of the fruits of their toil, basing your life on this plunder
of the workers, or when, as judge or governor, you ill treat men,
sentence them to execution, or when as soldiers you prepare for war,
kill and plunder?

You will say that the world is so made that this is inevitable, and
that you do not do this of your own free will, but because you are
forced to do so. But can it be that you have such a strong aversion
to men's sufferings, ill treatment, and murder, that you have such
an intense need of love and co-operation with your fellows that you
see clearly that only by the recognition of the equality of all, and
by mutual services, can the greatest possible happiness be realized;
that your head and your heart, the faith you profess, and even
science itself tell you the same thing, and yet that in spite of it
all you can be forced by some confused and complicated reasoning to
act in direct opposition to all this; that as landowner or capitalist
you are bound to base your whole life on the oppression of the
people; that as emperor or president you are to command armies, that
is, to be the head and commander of murderers; or that as government
official you are forced to take from the poor their last pence for
rich men to profit and share them among themselves; or that as
judge or juryman you could be forced to sentence erring men to ill
treatment and death because the truth was not revealed to them, or
above all, for that is the basis of all the evil, that you could be
forced to become a soldier, and renouncing your free will and your
human sentiments, could undertake to kill anyone at the command of
other men?

It cannot be.

Even if you are told that all this is necessary for the maintenance
of the existing order of things, and that this social order with
its pauperism, famines, prisons, gallows, armies, and wars is
necessary to society; that still greater disasters would ensue if
this organization were destroyed; all that is said only by those who
profit by this organization, while those who suffer from it--and they
are ten times as numerous--think and say quite the contrary. And at
the bottom of your heart you know yourself that it is not true, that
the existing organization has outlived its time, and must inevitably
be reconstructed on new principles, and that consequently there is
no obligation upon you to sacrifice your sentiments of humanity to
support it.

Above all, even if you allow that this organization is necessary,
why do you believe it to be your duty to maintain it at the cost of
your best feelings? Who has made you the nurse in charge of this sick
and moribund organization? Not society nor the state nor anyone;
no one has asked you to undertake this; you who fill your position
of landowner, merchant, tzar, priest, or soldier know very well
that you occupy that position by no means with the unselfish aim of
maintaining the organization of life necessary to men's happiness,
but simply in your own interests, to satisfy your own covetousness or
vanity or ambition or indolence or cowardice. If you did not desire
that position, you would not be doing your utmost to retain it. Try
the experiment of ceasing to commit the cruel, treacherous, and base
actions that you are constantly committing in order to retain your
position, and you will lose it at once. Try the simple experiment,
as a government official, of giving up lying, and refusing to take
a part in executions and acts of violence; as a priest, of giving
up deception; as a soldier, of giving up murder; as landowner or
manufacturer, of giving up defending your property by fraud and
force; and you will at once lose the position which you pretend is
forced upon you, and which seems burdensome to you.

A man cannot be placed against his will in a situation opposed to his
conscience.

If you find yourself in such a position it is not because it is
necessary to anyone whatever, but simply because you wish it. And
therefore knowing that your position is repugnant to your heart and
your head, and to your faith, and even to the science in which you
believe, you cannot help reflecting upon the question whether in
retaining it, and above all trying to justify it, you are doing what
you ought to do.

You might risk making a mistake if you had time to see and retrieve
your fault, and if you ran the risk for something of some value. But
when you know beyond all doubt that you may disappear any minute,
without the least possibility either for yourself or those you draw
after you into your error, of retrieving the mistake, when you know
that whatever you may do in the external organization of life it will
all disappear as quickly and surely as you will yourself, and will
leave no trace behind, it is clear that you have no reasonable ground
for running the risk of such a fearful mistake.

It would be perfectly simple and clear if you did not by your
hypocrisy disguise the truth which has so unmistakably been revealed
to us.

Share all that you have with others, do not heap up riches, do not
steal, do not cause suffering, do not kill, do not unto others what
you would not they should do unto you, all that has been said not
eighteen hundred, but five thousand years ago, and there could be no
doubt of the truth of this law if it were not for hypocrisy. Except
for hypocrisy men could not have failed, if not to put the law in
practice, at least to recognize it, and admit that it is wrong not to
put it in practice.

But you will say that there is the public good to be considered, and
that on that account one must not and ought not to conform to these
principles; for the public good one may commit acts of violence and
murder. It is better for one man to die than that the whole people
perish, you will say like Caiaphas, and you sign the sentence of
death of one man, of a second, and a third; you load your gun against
this man who is to perish for the public good, you imprison him, you
take his possessions. You say that you commit these acts of cruelty
because you are a part of the society and of the state; that it is
your duty to serve them, and as landowner, judge, emperor, or soldier
to conform to their laws. But besides belonging to the state and
having duties created by that position, you belong also to eternity
and to God, who also lays duties upon you. And just as your duties
to your family and to society are subordinate to your superior
duties to the state, in the same way the latter must necessarily be
subordinated to the duties dictated to you by the eternal life and by
God. And just as it would be senseless to pull up the telegraph posts
for fuel for a family or society and thus to increase its welfare at
the expense of public interests, in the same way it is senseless to
do violence, to execute, and to murder to increase the welfare of the
nation, because that is at the expense of the interests of humanity.

Your duties as a citizen cannot but be subordinated to the superior
obligations of the eternal life of God, and cannot be in opposition
to them. As Christ's disciples said eighteen centuries ago: "Whether
it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto
God, judge ye" (Acts iv. 19); and, "We ought to obey God rather than
men" (Acts v. 29).

It is asserted that, in order that the unstable order of things,
established in one corner of the world for a few men, may not be
destroyed, you ought to commit acts of violence which destroy the
eternal and immutable order established by God and by reason. Can
that possibly be?

And therefore you cannot but reflect on your position as landowner,
manufacturer, judge, emperor, president, minister, priest, and
soldier, which is bound up with violence, deception, and murder, and
recognize its unlawfulness.

I do not say that if you are a landowner you are bound to give up
your lands immediately to the poor; if a capitalist or manufacturer,
your money to your workpeople; or that if you are Tzar, minister,
official, judge, or general, you are bound to renounce immediately
the advantages of your position; or if a soldier, on whom all the
system of violence is based, to refuse immediately to obey in spite
of all the dangers of insubordination.

If you do so, you will be doing the best thing possible. But it may
happen, and it is most likely, that you will not have the strength
to do so. You have relations, a family, subordinates and superiors;
you are under an influence so powerful that you cannot shake it off;
but you can always recognize the truth and refuse to tell a lie
about it. You need not declare that you are remaining a landowner,
manufacturer, merchant, artist, or writer because it is useful to
mankind; that you are governor, prosecutor, or tzar, not because
it is agreeable to you, because you are used to it, but for the
public good; that you continue to be a soldier, not from fear of
punishment, but because you consider the army necessary to society.
You can always avoid lying in this way to yourself and to others, and
you ought to do so; because the one aim of your life ought to be to
purify yourself from falsehood and to confess the truth. And you need
only do that and your situation will change directly of itself.

There is one thing, and only one thing, in which it is granted to
you to be free in life, all else being beyond your power: that is to
recognize and profess the truth.

And yet simply from the fact that other men as misguided and as
pitiful creatures as yourself have made you soldier, tzar, landowner,
capitalist, priest, or general, you undertake to commit acts of
violence obviously opposed to your reason and your heart, to base
your existence on the misfortunes of others, and above all, instead
of filling the one duty of your life, recognizing and professing the
truth, you feign not to recognize it and disguise it from yourself
and others.

And what are the conditions in which you are doing this? You who
may die any instant, you sign sentences of death, you declare war,
you take part in it, you judge, you punish, you plunder the working
people, you live luxuriously in the midst of the poor, and teach weak
men who have confidence in you that this must be so, that the duty of
men is to do this, and yet it may happen at the moment when you are
acting thus that a bacterium or a bull may attack you and you will
fall and die, losing forever the chance of repairing the harm you
have done to others, and above all to yourself, in uselessly wasting
a life which has been given you only once in eternity, without
having accomplished the only thing you ought to have done.

However commonplace and out of date it may seem to us, however
confused we may be by hypocrisy and by the hypnotic suggestion which
results from it, nothing can destroy the certainty of this simple
and clearly defined truth. No external conditions can guarantee our
life, which is attended with inevitable sufferings and infallibly
terminated by death, and which consequently can have no significance
except in the constant accomplishment of what is demanded by the
Power which has placed us in life with a sole certain guide--the
rational conscience.

That is why that Power cannot require of us what is irrational and
impossible: the organization of our temporary external life, the life
of society or of the state. That Power demands of us only what is
reasonable, certain, and possible: to serve the kingdom of God, that
is, to contribute to the establishment of the greatest possible union
between all living beings--a union possible only in the truth; and to
recognize and to profess the revealed truth, which is always in our
power.

"But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness, and all
these things shall be added unto you." (Matt. vi. 33.)

The sole meaning of life is to serve humanity by contributing to the
establishment of the kingdom of God, which can only be done by the
recognition and profession of the truth by every man.

"The kingdom of God cometh not with outward show; neither shall they
say, Lo here! or, Lo there! for behold, the kingdom of God is within
you." (Luke xvii. 20, 21.)

THE END.

* * * * *

Transcriber's note:

Text enclosed by underscores is in italics (_italics_).

Small capital text has been replaced with all capitals.

Text enclosed by plus signs (+Greek+) is a transileration of Greek.

Variations in spelling, punctuation and hyphenation have been
retained except in obvious cases of typographical error.

The transcriber has changed the page number for Chapter XII in the
Table of Contents from 279 to 278.

*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The Kingdom of God is Within You - Christianity Not as a Mystic Religion But as a New Theory of Life" ***

Home