{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_43302/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_43302","id":"gutenberg_43302","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/43302","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Christianity -- Controversial literature","Christianity -- Essence, genius, nature","Government, Resistance to -- Religious aspects -- Christianity","Nonviolence -- Religious aspects -- Christianity"],"text":"\"THE KINGDOM OF GOD IS\n  WITHIN YOU\"\n\n  [Illustration: titlepage]\n\n  \"THE KINGDOM OF GOD IS\n  WITHIN YOU\"\n\n  _CHRISTIANITY NOT AS A MYSTIC RELIGION\n  BUT AS A NEW THEORY OF LIFE_\n\n  TRANSLATED FROM THE RUSSIAN OF\n  COUNT LEO TOLSTOY\n\n  BY\n  CONSTANCE GARNETT\n\n  NEW YORK\n  THE CASSELL PUBLISHING CO.\n  31 EAST 17TH ST. (UNION SQUARE)\n\n\n\n\n  COPYRIGHT, 1894, BY\n  THE CASSELL PUBLISHING CO.\n\n  _All rights reserved._\n\n  THE MERSHON COMPANY PRESS,\n  RAHWAY, N. J.\n\n\n\n\nTRANSLATOR'S PREFACE.\n\n\nThe book I have had the privilege of translating is, undoubtedly,\none of the most remarkable studies of the social and psychological\ncondition of the modern world which has appeared in Europe for many\nyears, and its influence is sure to be lasting and far reaching.\nTolstoy's genius is beyond dispute. The verdict of the civilized\nworld has pronounced him as perhaps the greatest novelist of our\ngeneration. But the philosophical and religious works of his later\nyears have met with a somewhat indifferent reception. They have\nbeen much talked about, simply because they were his work, but, as\nTolstoy himself complains, they have never been seriously discussed.\nI hardly think that he will have to repeat the complaint in regard\nto the present volume. One may disagree with his views, but no one\ncan seriously deny the originality, boldness, and depth of the social\nconception which he develops with such powerful logic. The novelist\nhas shown in this book the religious fervor and spiritual insight\nof the prophet; yet one is pleased to recognize that the artist is\nnot wholly lost in the thinker. The subtle intuitive perception of\nthe psychological basis of the social position, the analysis of the\nframe of mind of oppressors and oppressed, and of the intoxication of\nAuthority and Servility, as well as the purely descriptive passages\nin the last chapter--these could only have come from the author of\n\"War and Peace.\"\n\nThe book will surely give all classes of readers much to think of,\nand must call forth much criticism. It must be refuted by those who\ndisapprove of its teaching, if they do not want it to have great\ninfluence.\n\nOne cannot of course anticipate that English people, slow as they are\nto be influenced by ideas, and instinctively distrustful of all that\nis logical, will take a leap in the dark and attempt to put Tolstoy's\ntheory of life into practice. But one may at least be sure that his\ndestructive criticism of the present social and political _r\u00e9gime_\nwill become a powerful force in the work of disintegration and social\nreconstruction which is going on around us. Many earnest thinkers\nwho, like Tolstoy, are struggling to find their way out of the\ncontradictions of our social order will hail him as their spiritual\nguide. The individuality of the author is felt in every line of his\nwork, and even the most prejudiced cannot resist the fascination\nof his genuineness, sincerity, and profound earnestness. Whatever\ncomes from a heart such as his, swelling with anger and pity at the\nsufferings of humanity, cannot fail to reach the hearts of others. No\nreader can put down the book without feeling himself better and more\ntruth-loving for having read it.\n\nMany readers may be disappointed with the opening chapters of the\nbook. Tolstoy disdains all attempt to captivate the reader. He\nbegins by laying what he considers to be the logical foundation\nof his doctrines, stringing together quotations from little-known\ntheological writers, and he keeps his own incisive logic for the\nlater part of the book.\n\nOne word as to the translation. Tolstoy's style in his religious and\nphilosophical works differs considerably from that of his novels.\nHe no longer cares about the form of his work, and his style is\noften slipshod, involved, and diffuse. It has been my aim to give a\nfaithful reproduction of the original.\n\n                                          CONSTANCE GARNETT.\n  _January, 1894._\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE.\n\n\nIn the year 1884 I wrote a book under the title \"What I Believe,\" in\nwhich I did in fact make a sincere statement of my beliefs.\n\nIn affirming my belief in Christ's teaching, I could not help\nexplaining why I do not believe, and consider as mistaken, the\nChurch's doctrine, which is usually called Christianity.\n\nAmong the many points in which this doctrine falls short of the\ndoctrine of Christ I pointed out as the principal one the absence of\nany commandment of non-resistance to evil by force. The perversion\nof Christ's teaching by the teaching of the Church is more clearly\napparent in this than in any other point of difference.\n\nI know--as we all do--very little of the practice and the spoken and\nwritten doctrine of former times on the subject of non-resistance to\nevil. I knew what had been said on the subject by the fathers of the\nChurch--Origen, Tertullian, and others--I knew too of the existence\nof some so-called sects of Mennonites, Herrnhuters, and Quakers,\nwho do not allow a Christian the use of weapons, and do not enter\nmilitary service; but I knew little of what had been done by these\nso-called sects toward expounding the question.\n\nMy book was, as I had anticipated, suppressed by the Russian\ncensorship; but partly owing to my literary reputation, partly\nbecause the book had excited people's curiosity, it circulated\nin manuscript and in lithographed copies in Russia and through\ntranslations abroad, and it evoked, on one side, from those who\nshared my convictions, a series of essays with a great deal of\ninformation on the subject, on the other side a series of criticisms\non the principles laid down in my book.\n\nA great deal was made clear to me by both hostile and sympathetic\ncriticism, and also by the historical events of late years; and I was\nled to fresh results and conclusions, which I wish now to expound.\n\nFirst I will speak of the information I received on the history of\nthe question of non-resistance to evil; then of the views of this\nquestion maintained by spiritual critics, that is, by professed\nbelievers in the Christian religion, and also by temporal ones, that\nis, those who do not profess the Christian religion; and lastly I\nwill speak of the conclusions to which I have been brought by all\nthis in the light of the historical events of late years.\n\n                                                 L. TOLSTOY.\n  YASNA\u00cfA POLIANA,\n    _May 14/26, 1893_.\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS.\n\n\n  CHAPTER                                                     PAGE\n\n     I. THE DOCTRINE OF NON-RESISTANCE TO EVIL BY FORCE\n         HAS BEEN PROFESSED BY A MINORITY OF MEN FROM\n         THE VERY FOUNDATION OF CHRISTIANITY,                    1\n\n    II. CRITICISMS OF THE DOCTRINE OF NON-RESISTANCE TO\n         EVIL BY FORCE ON THE PART OF BELIEVERS AND OF\n         UNBELIEVERS,                                           29\n\n   III. CHRISTIANITY MISUNDERSTOOD BY BELIEVERS,                48\n\n    IV. CHRISTIANITY MISUNDERSTOOD BY MEN OF SCIENCE,           85\n\n     V. CONTRADICTION BETWEEN OUR LIFE AND OUR CHRISTIAN\n         CONSCIENCE,                                           109\n\n    VI. ATTITUDE OF MEN OF THE PRESENT DAY TO WAR,             133\n\n   VII. SIGNIFICANCE OF COMPULSORY SERVICE,                    164\n\n  VIII. DOCTRINE OF NON-RESISTANCE TO EVIL BY FORCE MUST\n         INEVITABLY BE ACCEPTED BY MEN OF THE PRESENT\n         DAY,                                                  184\n\n    IX. THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE CHRISTIAN CONCEPTION OF\n         LIFE WILL EMANCIPATE MEN FROM THE MISERIES\n         OF OUR PAGAN LIFE,                                    208\n\n     X. EVIL CANNOT BE SUPPRESSED BY THE PHYSICAL FORCE\n         OF THE GOVERNMENT--THE MORAL PROGRESS OF\n         HUMANITY IS BROUGHT ABOUT NOT ONLY BY INDIVIDUAL\n         RECOGNITION OF THE TRUTH, BUT ALSO\n         THROUGH THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PUBLIC OPINION,        235\n\n   XI. THE CHRISTIAN CONCEPTION OF LIFE HAS ALREADY\n        ARISEN IN OUR SOCIETY, AND WILL INFALLIBLY PUT\n        AN END TO THE PRESENT ORGANIZATION OF OUR LIFE\n        BASED ON FORCE--WHEN THAT WILL BE,                     264\n\n  XII. CONCLUSION--REPENT YE, FOR THE KINGDOM OF\n        HEAVEN IS AT HAND,                                     278\n\n\n\n\n     \"Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you\n     free.\"--JOHN viii. 32.\n\n     \"Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the\n     soul; but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and\n     body in hell.\"--MATT. x. 28.\n\n     \"Ye have been bought with a price; be not ye the servants of\n     men.\"--1 COR. vii. 23.\n\n\n\n\n\"THE KINGDOM OF GOD IS WITHIN YOU.\"\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\n     THE DOCTRINE OF NON-RESISTANCE TO EVIL BY FORCE HAS BEEN\n     PROFESSED BY A MINORITY OF MEN FROM THE VERY FOUNDATION OF\n     CHRISTIANITY.\n\n     Of the Book \"What I Believe\"--The Correspondence Evoked\n     by it--Letters from Quakers--Garrison's Declaration--Adin\n     Ballou, his Works, his Catechism--Helchitsky's \"Net of\n     Faith\"--The Attitude of the World to Works Elucidating Christ's\n     Teaching--Dymond's Book \"On War\"--Musser's \"Non-resistance\n     Asserted\"--Attitude of the Government in 1818 to Men who Refused\n     to Serve in the Army--Hostile Attitude of Governments Generally\n     and of Liberals to Those who Refuse to Assist in Acts of State\n     Violence, and their Conscious Efforts to Silence and Suppress\n     these Manifestations of Christian Non-resistance.\n\n\nAmong the first responses called forth by my book were some letters\nfrom American Quakers. In these letters, expressing their sympathy\nwith my views on the unlawfulness for a Christian of war and the\nuse of force of any kind, the Quakers gave me details of their own\nso-called sect, which for more than two hundred years has actually\nprofessed the teaching of Christ on non-resistance to evil by force,\nand does not make use of weapons in self-defense. The Quakers sent\nme also their pamphlets, journals, and books, from which I learnt\nhow they had, years ago, established beyond doubt the duty for a\nChristian of fulfilling the command of non-resistance to evil by\nforce, and had exposed the error of the Church's teaching in allowing\nwar and capital punishment.\n\nIn a whole series of arguments and texts showing that war--that is,\nthe wounding and killing of men--is inconsistent with a religion\nfounded on peace and good will toward men, the Quakers maintain\nand prove that nothing has contributed so much to the obscuring of\nChristian truth in the eyes of the heathen, and has hindered so much\nthe diffusion of Christianity through the world, as the disregard of\nthis command by men calling themselves Christians, and the permission\nof war and violence to Christians.\n\n\"Christ's teaching, which came to be known to men, not by means of\nviolence and the sword,\" they say, \"but by means of non-resistance to\nevil, gentleness, meekness, and peaceableness, can only be diffused\nthrough the world by the example of peace, harmony, and love among\nits followers.\"\n\n\"A Christian, according to the teaching of God himself, can act only\npeaceably toward all men, and therefore there can be no authority\nable to force the Christian to act in opposition to the teaching of\nGod and to the principal virtue of the Christian in his relation with\nhis neighbors.\"\n\n\"The law of state necessity,\" they say, \"can force only those to\nchange the law of God who, for the sake of earthly gains, try to\nreconcile the irreconcilable; but for a Christian who sincerely\nbelieves that following Christ's teaching will give him salvation,\nsuch considerations of state can have no force.\"\n\nFurther acquaintance with the labors of the Quakers and their\nworks--with Fox, Penn, and especially the work of Dymond (published\nin 1827)--showed me not only that the impossibility of reconciling\nChristianity with force and war had been recognized long, long ago,\nbut that this irreconcilability had been long ago proved so clearly\nand so indubitably that one could only wonder how this impossible\nreconciliation of Christian teaching with the use of force, which\nhas been, and is still, preached in the churches, could have been\nmaintained in spite of it.\n\nIn addition to what I learned from the Quakers I received about the\nsame time, also from America, some information on the subject from a\nsource perfectly distinct and previously unknown to me.\n\nThe son of William Lloyd Garrison, the famous champion of the\nemancipation of the negroes, wrote to me that he had read my book, in\nwhich he found ideas similar to those expressed by his father in the\nyear 1838, and that, thinking it would be interesting to me to know\nthis, he sent me a declaration or proclamation of \"non-resistance\"\ndrawn up by his father nearly fifty years ago.\n\nThis declaration came about under the following circumstances:\nWilliam Lloyd Garrison took part in a discussion on the means of\nsuppressing war in the Society for the Establishment of Peace among\nMen, which existed in 1838 in America. He came to the conclusion\nthat the establishment of universal peace can only be founded on\nthe open profession of the doctrine of non-resistance to evil by\nviolence (Matt. v. 39), in its full significance, as understood by\nthe Quakers, with whom Garrison happened to be on friendly relations.\nHaving come to this conclusion, Garrison thereupon composed and laid\nbefore the society a declaration, which was signed at the time--in\n1838--by many members.\n\n     \"DECLARATION OF SENTIMENTS ADOPTED BY THE PEACE CONVENTION.\n\n                                              \"BOSTON, 1838.\n\n     \"We, the undersigned, regard it as due to ourselves, to the\n     cause which we love, to the country in which we live, to\n     publish a declaration expressive of the purposes we aim to\n     accomplish and the measures we shall adopt to carry forward the\n     work of peaceful universal reformation.\n\n     \"We do not acknowledge allegiance to any human government.\n     We recognize but one King and Lawgiver, one Judge and Ruler\n     of mankind. Our country is the world, our countrymen are all\n     mankind. We love the land of our nativity only as we love all\n     other lands. The interests and rights of American citizens are\n     not dearer to us than those of the whole human race. Hence we\n     can allow no appeal to patriotism to revenge any national insult\n     or injury....\n\n     \"We conceive that a nation has no right to defend itself against\n     foreign enemies or to punish its invaders, and no individual\n     possesses that right in his own case, and the unit cannot be of\n     greater importance than the aggregate. If soldiers thronging\n     from abroad with intent to commit rapine and destroy life may\n     not be resisted by the people or the magistracy, then ought no\n     resistance to be offered to domestic troublers of the public\n     peace or of private security.\n\n     \"The dogma that all the governments of the world are approvingly\n     ordained of God, and that the powers that be in the United\n     States, in Russia, in Turkey, are in accordance with his will,\n     is no less absurd than impious. It makes the impartial Author\n     of our existence unequal and tyrannical. It cannot be affirmed\n     that the powers that be in any nation are actuated by the spirit\n     or guided by the example of Christ in the treatment of enemies;\n     therefore they cannot be agreeable to the will of God, and\n     therefore their overthrow by a spiritual regeneration of their\n     subjects is inevitable.\n\n     \"We regard as unchristian and unlawful not only all wars,\n     whether offensive or defensive, but all preparations for\n     war; every naval ship, every arsenal, every fortification,\n     we regard as unchristian and unlawful; the existence of any\n     kind of standing army, all military chieftains, all monuments\n     commemorative of victory over a fallen foe, all trophies won\n     in battle, all celebrations in honor of military exploits, all\n     appropriations for defense by arms; we regard as unchristian and\n     unlawful every edict of government requiring of its subjects\n     military service.\n\n     \"Hence we deem it unlawful to bear arms, and we cannot hold\n     any office which imposes on its incumbent the obligation to\n     compel men to do right on pain of imprisonment or death. We\n     therefore voluntarily exclude ourselves from every legislative\n     and judicial body, and repudiate all human politics, worldly\n     honors, and stations of authority. If we cannot occupy a seat\n     in the legislature or on the bench, neither can we elect others\n     to act as our substitutes in any such capacity. It follows that\n     we cannot sue any man at law to force him to return anything he\n     may have wrongly taken from us; if he has seized our coat, we\n     shall surrender him our cloak also rather than subject him to\n     punishment.\n\n     \"We believe that the penal code of the old covenant--an eye for\n     an eye, and a tooth for a tooth--has been abrogated by Jesus\n     Christ, and that under the new covenant the forgiveness instead\n     of the punishment of enemies has been enjoined on all his\n     disciples in all cases whatsoever. To extort money from enemies,\n     cast them into prison, exile or execute them, is obviously not\n     to forgive but to take retribution.\n\n     \"The history of mankind is crowded with evidences proving that\n     physical coercion is not adapted to moral regeneration, and that\n     the sinful dispositions of men can be subdued only by love; that\n     evil can be exterminated only by good; that it is not safe to\n     rely upon the strength of an arm to preserve us from harm; that\n     there is great security in being gentle, long-suffering, and\n     abundant in mercy; that it is only the meek who shall inherit\n     the earth; for those who take up the sword shall perish by the\n     sword.\n\n     \"Hence as a measure of sound policy--of safety to property,\n     life, and liberty--of public quietude and private enjoyment--as\n     well as on the ground of allegiance to Him who is King of\n     kings and Lord of lords, we cordially adopt the non-resistance\n     principle, being confident that it provides for all possible\n     consequences, is armed with omnipotent power, and must\n     ultimately triumph over every assailing force.\n\n     \"We advocate no Jacobinical doctrines. The spirit of Jacobinism\n     is the spirit of retaliation, violence, and murder. It neither\n     fears God nor regards man. We would be filled with the spirit of\n     Christ. If we abide by our fundamental principle of not opposing\n     evil by evil we cannot participate in sedition, treason,\n     or violence. We shall submit to every ordinance and every\n     requirement of government, except such as are contrary to the\n     commands of the Gospel, and in no case resist the operation of\n     law, except by meekly submitting to the penalty of disobedience.\n\n     \"But while we shall adhere to the doctrine of non-resistance\n     and passive submission to enemies, we purpose, in a moral and\n     spiritual sense, to assail iniquity in high places and in low\n     places, to apply our principles to all existing evil, political,\n     legal, and ecclesiastical institutions, and to hasten the time\n     when the kingdoms of this world will have become the kingdom of\n     our Lord Jesus Christ. It appears to us a self-evident truth\n     that whatever the Gospel is designed to destroy at any period\n     of the world, being contrary to it, ought now to be abandoned.\n     If, then, the time is predicted when swords shall be beaten\n     into plowshares and spears into pruning hooks, and men shall\n     not learn the art of war any more, it follows that all who\n     manufacture, sell, or wield these deadly weapons do thus array\n     themselves against the peaceful dominion of the Son of God on\n     earth.\n\n     \"Having thus stated our principles, we proceed to specify the\n     measures we propose to adopt in carrying our object into effect.\n\n     \"We expect to prevail through the Foolishness of Preaching. We\n     shall endeavor to promulgate our views among all persons, to\n     whatever nation, sect, or grade of society they may belong.\n     Hence we shall organize public lectures, circulate tracts and\n     publications, form societies, and petition every governing body.\n     It will be our leading object to devise ways and means for\n     effecting a radical change in the views, feelings, and practices\n     of society respecting the sinfulness of war and the treatment of\n     enemies.\n\n     \"In entering upon the great work before us, we are not unmindful\n     that in its prosecution we may be called to test our sincerity\n     even as in a fiery ordeal. It may subject us to insult, outrage,\n     suffering, yea, even death itself. We anticipate no small amount\n     of misconception, misrepresentation, and calumny. Tumults may\n     arise against us. The proud and pharisaical, the ambitious and\n     tyrannical, principalities and powers, may combine to crush\n     us. So they treated the Messiah whose example we are humbly\n     striving to imitate. We shall not be afraid of their terror.\n     Our confidence is in the Lord Almighty and not in man. Having\n     withdrawn from human protection, what can sustain us but that\n     faith which overcomes the world? We shall not think it strange\n     concerning the fiery trial which is to try us, but rejoice\n     inasmuch as we are partakers of Christ's sufferings.\n\n     \"Wherefore we commit the keeping of our souls to God. For every\n     one that forsakes houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or\n     mother, or wife, or children, or lands for Christ's sake, shall\n     receive a hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.\n\n     \"Firmly relying upon the certain and universal triumph of the\n     sentiments contained in this declaration, however formidable\n     may be the opposition arrayed against them, we hereby affix our\n     signatures to it; commending it to the reason and conscience\n     of mankind, and resolving, in the strength of the Lord God, to\n     calmly and meekly abide the issue.\"\n\nImmediately after this declaration a Society for Non-resistance\nwas founded by Garrison, and a journal called the _Non-resistant_,\nin which the doctrine of non-resistance was advocated in its full\nsignificance and in all its consequences, as it had been expounded in\nthe declaration. Further information as to the ultimate destiny of\nthe society and the journal I gained from the excellent biography of\nW. L. Garrison, the work of his son.\n\nThe society and the journal did not exist for long. The greater\nnumber of Garrison's fellow-workers in the movement for the\nliberation of the slaves, fearing that the too radical programme\nof the journal, the _Non-resistant_, might keep people away from\nthe practical work of negro-emancipation, gave up the profession\nof the principle of non-resistance as it had been expressed in the\ndeclaration, and both society and journal ceased to exist.\n\nThis declaration of Garrison's gave so powerful and eloquent an\nexpression of a confession of faith of such importance to men, that\none would have thought it must have produced a strong impression on\npeople, and have become known throughout the world and the subject of\ndiscussion on every side. But nothing of the kind occurred. Not only\nwas it unknown in Europe, even the Americans, who have such a high\nopinion of Garrison, hardly knew of the declaration.\n\nAnother champion of non-resistance has been overlooked in the same\nway--the American Adin Ballou, who lately died, after spending fifty\nyears in preaching this doctrine. How great the ignorance is of\neverything relating to the question of non-resistance may be seen\nfrom the fact that Garrison the son, who has written an excellent\nbiography of his father in four great volumes, in answer to my\ninquiry whether there are existing now societies for non-resistance,\nand adherents of the doctrine, told me that as far as he knew that\nsociety had broken up, and that there were no adherents of that\ndoctrine, while at the very time when he was writing to me there was\nliving, at Hopedale in Massachusetts, Adin Ballou, who had taken part\nin the labors of Garrison the father, and had devoted fifty years of\nhis life to advocating, both orally and in print, the doctrine of\nnon-resistance. Later on I received a letter from Wilson, a pupil and\ncolleague of Ballou's, and entered into correspondence with Ballou\nhimself. I wrote to Ballou, and he answered me and sent me his works.\nHere is the summary of some extracts from them:\n\n\"Jesus Christ is my Lord and teacher,\" says Ballou in one of his\nessays exposing the inconsistency of Christians who allowed a right\nof self-defense and of warfare. \"I have promised, leaving all else,\nto follow him, through good and through evil, to death itself. But\nI am a citizen of the democratic republic of the United States; and\nin allegiance to it I have sworn to defend the Constitution of my\ncountry, if need be, with my life. Christ requires of me to do unto\nothers as I would they should do unto me. The Constitution of the\nUnited States requires of me to do unto two millions of slaves [at\nthat time there were slaves; now one might venture to substitute the\nword 'laborers'] the very opposite of what I would they should do\nunto me--that is, to help to keep them in their present condition of\nslavery. And, in spite of this, I continue to elect or be elected, I\npropose to vote, I am even ready to be appointed to any office under\ngovernment. That will not hinder me from being a Christian. I shall\nstill profess Christianity, and shall find no difficulty in carrying\nout my covenant with Christ and with the government.\n\n\"Jesus Christ forbids me to resist evil doers, and to take from them\nan eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, bloodshed for bloodshed, and\nlife for life.\n\n\"My government demands from me quite the opposite, and bases a system\nof self-defense on gallows, musket, and sword, to be used against its\nforeign and domestic foes. And the land is filled accordingly with\ngibbets, prisons, arsenals, ships of war, and soldiers.\n\n\"In the maintenance and use of these expensive appliances for murder,\nwe can very suitably exercise to the full the virtues of forgiveness\nto those who injure us, love toward our enemies, blessings to those\nwho curse us, and doing good to those who hate us.\n\n\"For this we have a succession of Christian priests to pray for us\nand beseech the blessing of Heaven on the holy work of slaughter.\n\n\"I see all this (_i. e._, the contradiction between profession and\npractice), and I continue to profess religion and take part in\ngovernment, and pride myself on being at the same time a devout\nChristian and a devoted servant of the government. I do not want\nto agree with these senseless notions of non-resistance. I cannot\nrenounce my authority and leave only immoral men in control of the\ngovernment. The Constitution says the government has the right to\ndeclare war, and I assent to this and support it, and swear that I\nwill support it. And I do not for that cease to be a Christian. War,\ntoo, is a Christian duty. Is it not a Christian duty to kill hundreds\nof thousands of one's fellow-men, to outrage women, to raze and burn\ntowns, and to practice every possible cruelty? It is time to dismiss\nall these false sentimentalities. It is the truest means of forgiving\ninjuries and loving enemies. If we only do it in the spirit of love,\nnothing can be more Christian than such murder.\"\n\nIn another pamphlet, entitled \"How many Men are Necessary to Change a\nCrime into a Virtue?\" he says: \"One man may not kill. If he kills a\nfellow-creature, he is a murderer. If two, ten, a hundred men do so,\nthey, too, are murderers. But a government or a nation may kill as\nmany men as it chooses, and that will not be murder, but a great and\nnoble action. Only gather the people together on a large scale, and a\nbattle of ten thousand men becomes an innocent action. But precisely\nhow many people must there be to make it so?--that is the question.\nOne man cannot plunder and pillage, but a whole nation can. But\nprecisely how many are needed to make it permissible? Why is it that\none man, ten, a hundred, may not break the law of God, but a great\nnumber may?\"\n\nAnd here is a version of Ballou's catechism composed for his flock:\n\n\nCATECHISM OF NON-RESISTANCE.\n\n_Q._ Whence is the word \"non-resistance\" derived?\n\n_A._ From the command, \"Resist not evil.\" (M. v. 39.)\n\n_Q._ What does this word express?\n\n_A._ It expresses a lofty Christian virtue enjoined on us by Christ.\n\n_Q._ Ought the word \"non-resistance\" to be taken in its widest\nsense--that is to say, as intending that we should not offer any\nresistance of any kind to evil?\n\n_A._ No; it ought to be taken in the exact sense of our Saviour's\nteaching--that is, not repaying evil for evil. We ought to oppose\nevil by every righteous means in our power, but not by evil.\n\n_Q._ What is there to show that Christ enjoined non-resistance in\nthat sense?\n\n_A._ It is shown by the words he uttered at the same time. He said:\n\"Ye have heard, it was said of old, An eye for an eye, and a tooth\nfor a tooth. But I say unto you Resist not evil. But if one smites\nthee on the right cheek, turn him the other also; and if one will go\nto law with thee to take thy coat from thee, give him thy cloak also.\"\n\n_Q._ Of whom was he speaking in the words, \"Ye have heard it was said\nof old\"?\n\n_A._ Of the patriarchs and the prophets, contained in the Old\nTestament, which the Hebrews ordinarily call the Law and the Prophets.\n\n_Q._ What utterances did Christ refer to in the words, \"It was said\nof old\"?\n\n_A._ The utterances of Noah, Moses, and the other prophets, in which\nthey admit the right of doing bodily harm to those who inflict harm,\nso as to punish and prevent evil deeds.\n\n_Q._ Quote such utterances.\n\n_A._ \"Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be\nshed.\"--GEN. ix. 6.\n\n\"He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to\ndeath.... And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for\nlife, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,\nburning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.\"--EX. xxi.\n12 and 23-25.\n\n\"He that killeth any man shall surely be put to death. And if a man\ncause a blemish in his neighbor, as he hath done, so shall it be done\nunto him: breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth.\"--LEV.\nxxiv. 17, 19, 20.\n\n\"Then the judges shall make diligent inquisition; and behold, if the\nwitness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his\nbrother, then shall ye do unto him as he had thought to have done\nunto his brother.... And thine eye shall not pity; but life shall\ngo for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for\nfoot.\"--DEUT. xix. 18, 21.\n\nNoah, Moses, and the Prophets taught that he who kills, maims,\nor injures his neighbors does evil. To resist such evil, and to\nprevent it, the evil doer must be punished with death, or maiming,\nor some physical injury. Wrong must be opposed by wrong, murder by\nmurder, injury by injury, evil by evil. Thus taught Noah, Moses,\nand the Prophets. But Christ rejects all this. \"I say unto you,\" is\nwritten in the Gospel, \"resist not evil,\" do not oppose injury with\ninjury, but rather bear repeated injury from the evil doer. What was\npermitted is forbidden. When we understand what kind of resistance\nthey taught, we know exactly what resistance Christ forbade.\n\n_Q._ Then the ancients allowed the resistance of injury by injury?\n\n_A._ Yes. But Jesus forbids it. The Christian has in no case the\nright to put to death his neighbor who has done him evil, or to do\nhim injury in return.\n\n_Q._ May he kill or maim him in self-defense?\n\n_A._ No.\n\n_Q._ May he go with a complaint to the judge that he who has wronged\nhim may be punished?\n\n_A._ No. What he does through others, he is in reality doing himself.\n\n_Q._ Can he fight in conflict with foreign enemies or disturbers of\nthe peace?\n\n_A._ Certainly not. He cannot take any part in war or in preparations\nfor war. He cannot make use of a deadly weapon. He cannot oppose\ninjury to injury, whether he is alone or with others, either in\nperson or through other people.\n\n_Q._ Can he voluntarily vote or furnish soldiers for the government?\n\n_A._ He can do nothing of that kind if he wishes to be faithful to\nChrist's law.\n\n_Q._ Can he voluntarily give money to aid a government resting on\nmilitary force, capital punishment, and violence in general?\n\n_A._ No, unless the money is destined for some special object, right\nin itself, and good both in aim and means.\n\n_Q._ Can he pay taxes to such a government?\n\n_A._ No; he ought not voluntarily to pay taxes, but he ought not to\nresist the collecting of taxes. A tax is levied by the government,\nand is exacted independently of the will of the subject. It is\nimpossible to resist it without having recourse to violence of some\nkind. Since the Christian cannot employ violence, he is obliged to\noffer his property at once to the loss by violence inflicted on it by\nthe authorities.\n\n_Q._ Can a Christian give a vote at elections, or take part in\ngovernment or law business?\n\n_A._ No; participation in election, government, or law business is\nparticipation in government by force.\n\n_Q._ Wherein lies the chief significance of the doctrine of\nnon-resistance?\n\n_A._ In the fact that it alone allows of the possibility of\neradicating evil from one's own heart, and also from one's\nneighbor's. This doctrine forbids doing that whereby evil has endured\nfor ages and multiplied in the world. He who attacks another and\ninjures him, kindles in the other a feeling of hatred, the root of\nevery evil. To injure another because he has injured us, even with\nthe aim of overcoming evil, is doubling the harm for him and for\noneself; it is begetting, or at least setting free and inciting, that\nevil spirit which we should wish to drive out. Satan can never be\ndriven out by Satan. Error can never be corrected by error, and evil\ncannot be vanquished by evil.\n\nTrue non-resistance is the only real resistance to evil. It is\ncrushing the serpent's head. It destroys and in the end extirpates\nthe evil feeling.\n\n_Q._ But if that is the true meaning of the rule of non-resistance,\ncan it always be put into practice?\n\n_A._ It can be put into practice like every virtue enjoined by the\nlaw of God. A virtue cannot be practiced in all circumstances without\nself-sacrifice, privation, suffering, and in extreme cases loss of\nlife itself. But he who esteems life more than fulfilling the will of\nGod is already dead to the only true life. Trying to save his life he\nloses it. Besides, generally speaking, where non-resistance costs the\nsacrifice of a single life or of some material welfare, resistance\ncosts a thousand such sacrifices.\n\nNon-resistance is Salvation; Resistance is Ruin.\n\nIt is incomparably less dangerous to act justly than unjustly, to\nsubmit to injuries than to resist them with violence, less dangerous\neven in one's relations to the present life. If all men refused to\nresist evil by evil our world would be happy.\n\n_Q._ But so long as only a few act thus, what will happen to them?\n\n_A._ If only one man acted thus, and all the rest agreed to\ncrucify him, would it not be nobler for him to die in the glory of\nnon-resisting love, praying for his enemies, than to live to wear\nthe crown of C\u00e6sar stained with the blood of the slain? However, one\nman, or a thousand men, firmly resolved not to oppose evil by evil\nare far more free from danger by violence than those who resort to\nviolence, whether among civilized or savage neighbors. The robber,\nthe murderer, and the cheat will leave them in peace, sooner than\nthose who oppose them with arms, and those who take up the sword\nshall perish by the sword, but those who seek after peace, and\nbehave kindly and harmlessly, forgiving and forgetting injuries, for\nthe most part enjoy peace, or, if they die, they die blessed. In\nthis way, if all kept the ordinance of non-resistance, there would\nobviously be no evil nor crime. If the majority acted thus they would\nestablish the rule of love and good will even over evil doers, never\nopposing evil with evil, and never resorting to force. If there were\na moderately large minority of such men, they would exercise such\na salutary moral influence on society that every cruel punishment\nwould be abolished, and violence and feud would be replaced by peace\nand love. Even if there were only a small minority of them, they\nwould rarely experience anything worse than the world's contempt, and\nmeantime the world, though unconscious of it, and not grateful for\nit, would be continually becoming wiser and better for their unseen\naction on it. And if in the worst case some members of the minority\nwere persecuted to death, in dying for the truth they would have\nleft behind them their doctrine, sanctified by the blood of their\nmartyrdom. Peace, then, to all who seek peace, and may overruling\nlove be the imperishable heritage of every soul who obeys willingly\nChrist's word, \"Resist not evil.\"\n\n                                                ADIN BALLOU.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nFor fifty years Ballou wrote and published books dealing principally\nwith the question of non-resistance to evil by force. In these\nworks, which are distinguished by the clearness of their thought\nand eloquence of exposition, the question is looked at from every\npossible side, and the binding nature of this command on every\nChristian who acknowledges the Bible as the revelation of God is\nfirmly established. All the ordinary objections to the doctrine of\nnon-resistance from the Old and New Testaments are brought forward,\nsuch as the expulsion of the money-changers from the Temple, and\nso on, and arguments follow in disproof of them all. The practical\nreasonableness of this rule of conduct is shown independently of\nScripture, and all the objections ordinarily made against its\npracticability are stated and refuted. Thus one chapter in a book\nof his treats of non-resistance in exceptional cases, and he owns\nin this connection that if there were cases in which the rule of\nnon-resistance were impossible of application, it would prove that\nthe law was not universally authoritative. Quoting these cases, he\nshows that it is precisely in them that the application of the rule\nis both necessary and reasonable. There is no aspect of the question,\neither on his side or on his opponents', which he has not followed up\nin his writings. I mention all this to show the unmistakable interest\nwhich such works ought to have for men who make a profession of\nChristianity, and because one would have thought Ballou's work would\nhave been well known, and the ideas expressed by him would have been\neither accepted or refuted; but such has not been the case.\n\nThe work of Garrison, the father, in his foundation of the Society of\nNon-resistants and his Declaration, even more than my correspondence\nwith the Quakers, convinced me of the fact that the departure of the\nruling form of Christianity from the law of Christ on non-resistance\nby force is an error that has long been observed and pointed out, and\nthat men have labored, and are still laboring, to correct. Ballou's\nwork confirmed me still more in this view. But the fate of Garrison,\nstill more that of Ballou, in being completely unrecognized in\nspite of fifty years of obstinate and persistent work in the same\ndirection, confirmed me in the idea that there exists a kind of tacit\nbut steadfast conspiracy of silence about all such efforts.\n\nBallou died in August, 1890, and there was an obituary notice of him\nin an American journal of Christian views (_Religio-philosophical\nJournal_, August 23). In this laudatory notice it is recorded that\nBallou was the spiritual director of a parish, that he delivered\nfrom eight to nine thousand sermons, married one thousand couples,\nand wrote about five hundred articles; but there is not a single\nword said of the object to which he devoted his life; even the word\n\"non-resistance\" is not mentioned. Precisely as it was with all the\npreaching of the Quakers for two hundred years, and, too, with the\nefforts of Garrison the father, the foundation of his society and\njournal, and his Declaration, so it is with the life-work of Ballou.\nIt seems just as though it did not exist and never had existed.\n\nWe have an astounding example of the obscurity of works which aim at\nexpounding the doctrine of non-resistance to evil by force, and at\nconfuting those who do not recognize this commandment, in the book of\nthe Tsech Helchitsky, which has only lately been noticed and has not\nhitherto been printed.\n\nSoon after the appearance of my book in German, I received a letter\nfrom Prague, from a professor of the university there, informing me\nof the existence of a work, never yet printed, by Helchitsky, a Tsech\nof the fifteenth century, entitled \"The Net of Faith.\" In this work,\nthe professor told me, Helchitsky expressed precisely the same view\nas to true and false Christianity as I had expressed in my book \"What\nI Believe.\" The professor wrote to me that Helchitsky's work was to\nbe published for the first time in the Tsech language in the _Journal\nof The Petersburg Academy of Science_. Since I could not obtain the\nbook itself, I tried to make myself acquainted with what was known of\nHelchitsky, and I gained the following information from a German book\nsent me by the Prague professor and from Pypin's history of Tsech\nliterature. This was Pypin's account:\n\n\"'The Net of Faith' is Christ's teaching, which ought to draw man\nup out of the dark depths of the sea of worldliness and his own\niniquity. True faith consists in believing God's Word; but now a time\nhas come when men mistake the true faith for heresy, and therefore\nit is for the reason to point out what the true faith consists in,\nif anyone does not know this. It is hidden in darkness from men, and\nthey do not recognize the true law of Christ.\n\n\"To make this law plain, Helchitsky points to the primitive\norganization of Christian society--the organization which, he says,\nis now regarded in the Roman Church as an abominable heresy. This\nprimitive Church was his special ideal of social organization,\nfounded on equality, liberty, and fraternity. Christianity, in\nHelchitsky's view, still preserves these elements, and it is only\nnecessary for society to return to its pure doctrine to render\nunnecessary every other form of social order in which kings and popes\nare essential; the law of love would alone be sufficient in every\ncase.\n\n\"Historically, Helchitsky attributes the degeneration of Christianity\nto the times of Constantine the Great, whom the Pope Sylvester\nadmitted into the Christian Church with all his heathen morals\nand life. Constantine, in his turn, endowed the Pope with worldly\nriches and power. From that time forward these two ruling powers\nwere constantly aiding one another to strive for nothing but outward\nglory. Divines and ecclesiastical dignitaries began to concern\nthemselves only about subduing the whole world to their authority,\nincited men against one another to murder and plunder, and in creed\nand life reduced Christianity to a nullity. Helchitsky denies\ncompletely the right to make war and to inflict the punishment of\ndeath; every soldier, even the 'knight,' is only a violent evil\ndoer--a murderer.\"\n\nThe same account is given by the German book, with the addition of a\nfew biographical details and some extracts from Helchitsky's writings.\n\nHaving learnt the drift of Helchitsky's teaching in this way, I\nawaited all the more impatiently the appearance of \"The Net of Faith\"\nin the journal of the Academy. But one year passed, then two and\nthree, and still the book did not appear. It was only in 1888 that\nI learned that the printing of the book, which had been begun, was\nstopped. I obtained the proofs of what had been printed and read\nthem through. It is a marvelous book from every point of view.\n\nIts general tenor is given with perfect accuracy by Pypin.\nHelchitsky's fundamental idea is that Christianity, by allying itself\nwith temporal power in the days of Constantine, and by continuing\nto develop in such conditions, has become completely distorted, and\nhas ceased to be Christian altogether. Helchitsky gave the title\n\"The Net of Faith\" to his book, taking as his motto the verse of\nthe Gospel about the calling of the disciples to be fishers of men;\nand, developing this metaphor, he says: \"Christ, by means of his\ndisciples, would have caught all the world in his net of faith, but\nthe greater fishes broke the net and escaped out of it, and all the\nrest have slipped through the holes made by the greater fishes,\nso that the net has remained quite empty. The greater fishes who\nbroke the net are the rulers, emperors, popes, kings, who have not\nrenounced power, and instead of true Christianity have put on what\nis simply a mask of it.\" Helchitsky teaches precisely what has been\nand is taught in these days by the non-resistant Mennonites and\nQuakers, and in former times by the Bogomilites, Paulicians, and many\nothers. He teaches that Christianity, expecting from its adherents\ngentleness, meekness, peaceableness, forgiveness of injuries,\nturning the other cheek when one is struck, and love for enemies,\nis inconsistent with the use of force, which is an indispensable\ncondition of authority.\n\nThe Christian, according to Helchitsky's reasoning, not only cannot\nbe a ruler or a soldier; he cannot take any part in government nor\nin trade, or even be a landowner; he can only be an artisan or a\nhusbandman.\n\nThis book is one of the few works attacking official Christianity\nwhich has escaped being burned. All such so-called heretical works\nwere burned at the stake, together with their authors, so that there\nare few ancient works exposing the errors of official Christianity.\nThe book has a special interest for this reason alone. But apart\nfrom its interest from every point of view, it is one of the most\nremarkable products of thought for its depth of aim, for the\nastounding strength and beauty of the national language in which\nit is written, and for its antiquity. And yet for more than four\ncenturies it has remained unprinted, and is still unknown, except to\na few learned specialists.\n\nOne would have thought that all such works, whether of the Quakers,\nof Garrison, of Ballou, or of Helchitsky, asserting and proving as\nthey do, on the principles of the Gospel, that our modern world takes\na false view of Christ's teaching, would have awakened interest,\nexcitement, talk, and discussion among spiritual teachers and their\nflocks alike.\n\nWorks of this kind, dealing with the very essence of Christian\ndoctrine, ought, one would have thought, to have been examined\nand accepted as true, or refuted and rejected. But nothing of the\nkind has occurred, and the same fate has been repeated with all\nthose works. Men of the most diverse views, believers, and, what is\nsurprising, unbelieving liberals also, as though by agreement, all\npreserve the same persistent silence about them, and all that has\nbeen done by people to explain the true meaning of Christ's doctrine\nremains either ignored or forgotten.\n\nBut it is still more astonishing that two other books, of which I\nheard on the appearance of my book, should be so little known. I mean\nDymond's book \"On War,\" published for the first time in London in\n1824, and Daniel Musser's book on \"Non-resistance,\" written in 1864.\nIt is particularly astonishing that these books should be unknown,\nbecause, apart from their intrinsic merits, both books treat not so\nmuch of the theory as of the practical application of the theory to\nlife, of the attitude of Christianity to military service, which is\nespecially important and interesting now in these days of universal\nconscription.\n\nPeople will ask, perhaps: How ought a subject to behave who believes\nthat war is inconsistent with his religion while the government\ndemands from him that he should enter military service?\n\nThis question is, I think, a most vital one, and the answer to it is\nspecially important in these days of universal conscription. All--or\nat least the great majority of the people--are Christians, and all\nmen are called upon for military service. How ought a man, as a\nChristian, to meet this demand? This is the gist of Dymond's answer:\n\n\"His duty is humbly but steadfastly to refuse to serve.\"\n\nThere are some people, who, without any definite reasoning about it,\nconclude straightway that the responsibility of government measures\nrests entirely on those who resolve on them, or that the governments\nand sovereigns decide the question of what is good or bad for their\nsubjects, and the duty of the subjects is merely to obey. I think\nthat arguments of this kind only obscure men's conscience. I cannot\ntake part in the councils of government, and therefore I am not\nresponsible for its misdeeds. Indeed, but we are responsible for our\nown misdeeds. And the misdeeds of our rulers become our own, if we,\nknowing that they are misdeeds, assist in carrying them out. Those\nwho suppose that they are bound to obey the government, and that the\nresponsibility for the misdeeds they commit is transferred from them\nto their rulers, deceive themselves. They say: \"We give our acts up\nto the will of others, and our acts cannot be good or bad; there is\nno merit in what is good nor responsibility for what is evil in our\nactions, since they are not done of our own will.\"\n\nIt is remarkable that the very same thing is said in the instructions\nto soldiers which they make them learn--that is, that the officer\nis alone responsible for the consequences of his command. But\nthis is not right. A man cannot get rid of the responsibility for\nhis own actions. And that is clear from the following example. If\nyour officer commands you to kill your neighbor's child, to kill\nyour father or your mother, would you obey? If you would not obey,\nthe whole argument falls to the ground, for if you can disobey\nthe governors in one case, where do you draw the line up to which\nyou can obey them? There is no line other than that laid down by\nChristianity, and that line is both reasonable and practicable.\n\nAnd therefore we consider it the duty of every man who thinks war\ninconsistent with Christianity, meekly but firmly to refuse to serve\nin the army. And let those whose lot it is to act thus, remember\nthat the fulfillment of a great duty rests with them. The destiny of\nhumanity in the world depends, so far as it depends on men at all, on\ntheir fidelity to their religion. Let them confess their conviction,\nand stand up for it, and not in words alone, but in sufferings too,\nif need be. If you believe that Christ forbade murder, pay no heed\nto the arguments nor to the commands of those who call on you to\nbear a hand in it. By such a steadfast refusal to make use of force,\nyou call down on yourselves the blessing promised to those \"who hear\nthese sayings and do them,\" and the time will come when the world\nwill recognize you as having aided in the reformation of mankind.\n\nMusser's book is called \"Non-resistance Asserted,\" or \"Kingdom of\nChrist and Kingdoms of this World Separated.\" This book is devoted to\nthe same question, and was written when the American Government was\nexacting military service from its citizens at the time of the Civil\nWar. And it has, too, a value for all time, dealing with the question\nhow, in such circumstances, people should and can refuse to enter\nmilitary service. Here is the tenor of the author's introductory\nremarks: \"It is well known that there are many persons in the United\nStates who refuse to fight on grounds of conscience. They are called\nthe 'defenseless,' or 'non-resistant' Christians. These Christians\nrefuse to defend their country, to bear arms, or at the call of\ngovernment to make war on its enemies. Till lately this religious\nscruple seemed a valid excuse to the government, and those who urged\nit were let off service. But at the beginning of our Civil War public\nopinion was agitated on this subject. It was natural that persons\nwho considered it their duty to bear all the hardships and dangers\nof war in defense of their country should feel resentment against\nthose persons who had for long shared with them the advantages of the\nprotection of the government, and who now in time of need and danger\nwould not share in bearing the labors and dangers of its defense. It\nwas even natural that they should declare the attitude of such men\nmonstrous, irrational, and suspicious.\"\n\nA host of orators and writers, our author tells us, arose to oppose\nthis attitude, and tried to prove the sinfulness of non-resistance,\nboth from Scripture and on common-sense grounds. And this was\nperfectly natural, and in many cases the authors were right--right,\nthat is, in regard to persons who did not renounce the benefits\nthey received from the government and tried to avoid the hardships\nof military service, but not right in regard to the principle of\nnon-resistance itself. Above all, our author proves the binding\nnature of the rule of non-resistance for a Christian, pointing out\nthat this command is perfectly clear, and is enjoined upon every\nChristian by Christ without possibility of misinterpretation.\n\"Bethink yourselves whether it is righteous to obey man more than\nGod,\" said Peter and John. And this is precisely what ought to be\nthe attitude of every man who wishes to be Christian to the claim\non him for military service, when Christ has said, \"Resist not\nevil by force.\" As for the question of the principle itself, the\nauthor regards that as decided. As to the second question, whether\npeople have the right to refuse to serve in the army who have not\nrefused the benefits conferred by a government resting on force, the\nauthor considers it in detail, and arrives at the conclusion that\na Christian following the law of Christ, since he does not go to\nwar, ought not either to take advantage of any of the institutions\nof government, courts of law, or elections, and that in his private\nconcerns he must not have recourse to the authorities, the police,\nor the law. Further on in the book he treats of the relation of\nthe Old Testament to the New, the value of government for those\nwho are Christians, and makes some observations on the doctrine of\nnon-resistance and the attacks made on it. The author concludes his\nbook by saying: \"Christians do not need government, and therefore\nthey cannot either obey it in what is contrary to Christ's teaching\nnor, still less, take part in it.\" Christ took his disciples out of\nthe world, he says. They do not expect worldly blessings and worldly\nhappiness, but they expect eternal life. The Spirit in whom they\nlive makes them contented and happy in every position. If the world\ntolerates them, they are always happy. If the world will not leave\nthem in peace, they will go elsewhere, since they are pilgrims on the\nearth and they have no fixed place of habitation. They believe that\n\"the dead may bury their dead.\" One thing only is needful for them,\n\"to follow their Master.\"\n\nEven putting aside the question as to the principle laid down in\nthese two books as to the Christian's duty in his attitude to war,\none cannot help perceiving the practical importance and the urgent\nneed of deciding the question.\n\nThere are people, hundreds of thousands of Quakers, Mennonites,\nall our Douhobortsi, Molokani, and others who do not belong to\nany definite sect, who consider that the use of force--and,\nconsequently, military service--is inconsistent with Christianity.\nConsequently there are every year among us in Russia some men called\nupon for military service who refuse to serve on the ground of their\nreligious convictions. Does the government let them off then? No.\nDoes it compel them to go, and in case of disobedience punish them?\nNo. This was how the government treated them in 1818. Here is an\nextract from the diary of Nicholas Myravyov of Kars, which was not\npassed by the censor, and is not known in Russia:\n\n                                   \"TIFLIS, October 2, 1818.\n\n     \"In the morning the commandant told me that five peasants\n     belonging to a landowner in the Tamboff government had lately\n     been sent to Georgia. These men had been sent for soldiers, but\n     they would not serve; they had been several times flogged and\n     made to run the gauntlet, but they would submit readily to the\n     cruelest tortures, and even to death, rather than serve. 'Let us\n     go,' they said, 'and leave us alone; we will not hurt anyone;\n     all men are equal, and the Tzar is a man like us; why should we\n     pay him tribute; why should I expose my life to danger to kill\n     in battle some man who has done me no harm? You can cut us to\n     pieces and we will not be soldiers. He who has compassion on\n     us will give us charity, but as for the government rations, we\n     have not had them and we do not want to have them.' These were\n     the words of those peasants, who declare that there are numbers\n     like them in Russia. They brought them four times before the\n     Committee of Ministers, and at last decided to lay the matter\n     before the Tzar, who gave orders that they should be taken to\n     Georgia for correction, and commanded the commander-in-chief\n     to send him a report every month of their gradual success in\n     bringing these peasants to a better mind.\"\n\nHow the correction ended is not known, as the whole episode indeed\nwas unknown, having been kept in profound secrecy.\n\nThis was how the government behaved seventy-five years ago--this is\nhow it has behaved in a great number of cases, studiously concealed\nfrom the people. And this is how the government behaves now, except\nin the case of the German Mennonites, living in the province of\nKherson, whose plea against military service is considered well\ngrounded. They are made to work off their term of service in labor in\nthe forests.\n\nBut in the recent cases of refusal on the part of Mennonites to serve\nin the army on religious grounds, the government authorities have\nacted in the following manner:\n\nTo begin with, they have recourse to every means of coercion used in\nour times to \"correct\" the culprit and bring him to \"a better mind,\"\nand these measures are carried out with the greatest secrecy. I know\nthat in the case of one man who declined to serve in 1884 in Moscow,\nthe official correspondence on the subject had two months after his\nrefusal accumulated into a big folio, and was kept absolutely secret\namong the Ministry.\n\nThey usually begin by sending the culprit to the priests, and the\nlatter, to their shame be it said, always exhort him to obedience.\nBut since the exhortation in Christ's name to forswear Christ is for\nthe most part unsuccessful, after he has received the admonitions of\nthe spiritual authorities, they send him to the gendarmes, and the\nlatter, finding, as a rule, no political cause for offense in him,\ndispatch him back again, and then he is sent to the learned men, to\nthe doctors, and to the madhouse. During all these vicissitudes he\nis deprived of liberty and has to endure every kind of humiliation\nand suffering as a convicted criminal. (All this has been repeated\nin four cases.) The doctors let him out of the madhouse, and then\nevery kind of secret shift is employed to prevent him from going\nfree--whereby others would be encouraged to refuse to serve as he has\ndone--and at the same time to avoid leaving him among the soldiers,\nfor fear they too should learn from him that military service is not\nat all their duty by the law of God, as they are assured, but quite\ncontrary to it.\n\nThe most convenient thing for the government would be to kill the\nnon-resistant by flogging him to death or some other means, as\nwas done in former days. But to put a man openly to death because\nhe believes in the creed we all confess is impossible. To let a\nman alone who has refused obedience is also impossible. And so\nthe government tries either to compel the man by ill-treatment\nto renounce Christ, or in some way or other to get rid of him\nunobserved, without openly putting him to death, and to hide\nsomehow both the action and the man himself from other people. And\nso all kinds of shifts and wiles and cruelties are set on foot\nagainst him. They either send him to the frontier or provoke him to\ninsubordination, and then try him for breach of discipline and shut\nhim up in the prison of the disciplinary battalion, where they can\nill treat him freely unseen by anyone, or they declare him mad, and\nlock him up in a lunatic asylum. They sent one man in this way to\nTashkend--that is, they pretended to transfer him to the Tashkend\narmy; another to Omsk; a third they convicted of insubordination and\nshut up in prison; a fourth they sent to a lunatic asylum.\n\nEverywhere the same story is repeated. Not only the government, but\nthe great majority of liberal, advanced people, as they are called,\nstudiously turn away from everything that has been said, written, or\ndone, or is being done by men to prove the incompatibility of force\nin its most awful, gross, and glaring form--in the form, that is,\nof an army of soldiers prepared to murder anyone, whoever it may\nbe--with the teachings of Christianity, or even of the humanity which\nsociety professes as its creed.\n\nSo that the information I have gained of the attitude of the higher\nruling classes, not only in Russia but in Europe and America, toward\nthe elucidation of this question has convinced me that there exists\nin these ruling classes a consciously hostile attitude to true\nChristianity, which is shown pre-eminently in their reticence in\nregard to all manifestations of it.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\n     CRITICISMS OF THE DOCTRINE OF NON-RESISTANCE TO EVIL BY FORCE ON\n     THE PART OF BELIEVERS AND OF UNBELIEVERS.\n\n     Fate of the Book \"What I Believe\"--Evasive Character of\n     Religious Criticisms of Principles of my Book--1st Reply: Use\n     of Force not Opposed to Christianity--2d Reply: Use of Force\n     Necessary to Restrain Evil Doers--3d Reply: Duty of Using\n     Force in Defense of One's Neighbor--4th Reply: The Breach\n     of the Command of Non-resistance to be Regarded Simply as a\n     Weakness--5th Reply: Reply Evaded by Making Believe that the\n     Question has long been Decided--To Devise such Subterfuges\n     and to take Refuge Behind the Authority of the Church, of\n     Antiquity, and of Religion is all that Ecclesiastical Critics\n     can do to get out of the Contradiction between Use of Force and\n     Christianity in Theory and in Practice--General Attitude of the\n     Ecclesiastical World and of the Authorities to Profession of\n     True Christianity--General Character of Russian Freethinking\n     Critics--Foreign Freethinking Critics--Mistaken Arguments of\n     these Critics the Result of Misunderstanding the True Meaning of\n     Christ's Teaching.\n\n\nThe impression I gained of a desire to conceal, to hush up, what I\nhad tried to express in my book, led me to judge the book itself\nafresh.\n\nOn its appearance it had, as I had anticipated, been forbidden, and\nought therefore by law to have been burnt. But, at the same time, it\nwas discussed among officials, and circulated in a great number of\nmanuscript and lithograph copies, and in translations printed abroad.\n\nAnd very quickly after the book, criticisms, both religious and\nsecular in character, made their appearance, and these the government\ntolerated, and even encouraged. So that the refutation of a book\nwhich no one was supposed to know anything about was even chosen as\nthe subject for theological dissertations in the academies.\n\nThe criticisms of my book, Russian and foreign alike, fall under\ntwo general divisions--the religious criticisms of men who regard\nthemselves as believers, and secular criticisms, that is, those of\nfreethinkers.\n\nI will begin with the first class. In my book I made it an accusation\nagainst the teachers of the Church that their teaching is opposed\nto Christ's commands clearly and definitely expressed in the Sermon\non the Mount, and opposed in especial to his command in regard to\nresistance to evil, and that in this way they deprive Christ's\nteaching of all value. The Church authorities accept the teaching of\nthe Sermon on the Mount on non-resistance to evil by force as divine\nrevelation; and therefore one would have thought that if they felt\ncalled upon to write about my book at all, they would have found it\ninevitable before everything else to reply to the principal point of\nmy charge against them, and to say plainly, do they or do they not\nadmit the teaching of the Sermon on the Mount and the commandment\nof non-resistance to evil as binding on a Christian. And they were\nbound to answer this question, not after the usual fashion (_i. e._,\n\"that although on the one side one cannot absolutely deny, yet on\nthe other side one cannot again fully assent, all the more seeing\nthat,\" etc., etc.). No; they should have answered the question as\nplainly as it was put in my book--Did Christ really demand from his\ndisciples that they should carry out what he taught them in the\nSermon on the Mount? And can a Christian, then, or can he not,\nalways remaining a Christian, go to law or make any use of the law,\nor seek his own protection in the law? And can the Christian, or can\nhe not, remaining a Christian, take part in the administration of\ngovernment, using compulsion against his neighbors? And--the most\nimportant question hanging over the heads of all of us in these days\nof universal military service--can the Christian, or can he not,\nremaining a Christian, against Christ's direct prohibition, promise\nobedience in future actions directly opposed to his teaching? And can\nhe, by taking his share of service in the army, prepare himself to\nmurder men, and even actually murder them?\n\nThese questions were put plainly and directly, and seemed to require\na plain and direct answer; but in all the criticisms of my book there\nwas no such plain and direct answer. No; my book received precisely\nthe same treatment as all the attacks upon the teachers of the Church\nfor their defection from the Law of Christ of which history from the\ndays of Constantine is full.\n\nA very great deal was said in connection with my book of my having\nincorrectly interpreted this and other passages of the Gospel, of\nmy being in error in not recognizing the Trinity, the redemption,\nand the immortality of the soul. A very great deal was said, but not\na word about the one thing which for every Christian is the most\nessential question in life--how to reconcile the duty of forgiveness,\nmeekness, patience, and love for all, neighbors and enemies alike,\nwhich is so clearly expressed in the words of our teacher, and in the\nheart of each of us--how to reconcile this duty with the obligation\nof using force in war upon men of our own or a foreign people.\n\nAll that are worth calling answers to this question can be brought\nunder the following five heads. I have tried to bring together in\nthis connection all I could, not only from the criticisms on my book,\nbut from what has been written in past times on this theme.\n\nThe first and crudest form of reply consists in the bold assertion\nthat the use of force is not opposed by the teaching of Christ; that\nit is permitted, and even enjoined, on the Christian by the Old and\nNew Testaments.\n\nAssertions of this kind proceed, for the most part, from men who\nhave attained the highest ranks in the governing or ecclesiastical\nhierarchy, and who are consequently perfectly assured that no one\nwill dare to contradict their assertion, and that if anyone does\ncontradict it they will hear nothing of the contradiction. These men\nhave, for the most part, through the intoxication of power, so lost\nthe right idea of what that Christianity is in the name of which they\nhold their position that what is Christian in Christianity presents\nitself to them as heresy, while everything in the Old and New\nTestaments which can be distorted into an antichristian and heathen\nmeaning they regard as the foundation of Christianity. In support of\ntheir assertion that Christianity is not opposed to the use of force,\nthese men usually, with the greatest audacity, bring together all the\nmost obscure passages from the Old and New Testaments, interpreting\nthem in the most unchristian way--the punishment of Ananias and\nSapphira, of Simon the Sorcerer, etc. They quote all those sayings\nof Christ's which can possibly be interpreted as justification of\ncruelty: the expulsion from the Temple; \"It shall be more tolerable\nfor the land of Sodom than for this city,\" etc., etc. According to\nthese people's notions, a Christian government is not in the least\nbound to be guided by the spirit of peace, forgiveness of injuries,\nand love for enemies.\n\nTo refute such an assertion is useless, because the very people who\nmake this assertion refute themselves, or, rather, renounce Christ,\ninventing a Christianity and a Christ of their own in the place of\nhim in whose name the Church itself exists, as well as their office\nin it. If all men were to learn that the Church professes to believe\nin a Christ of punishment and warfare, not of forgiveness, no one\nwould believe in the Church and it could not prove to anyone what it\nis trying to prove.\n\nThe second, somewhat less gross, form of argument consists in\ndeclaring that, though Christ did indeed preach that we should turn\nthe left cheek, and give the cloak also, and this is the highest\nmoral duty, yet that there are wicked men in the world, and if these\nwicked men were not restrained by force, the whole world and all good\nmen would come to ruin through them. This argument I found for the\nfirst time in John Chrysostom, and I show how he is mistaken in my\nbook \"What I Believe.\"\n\nThis argument is ill grounded, because if we allow ourselves to\nregard any men as intrinsically wicked men, then in the first place\nwe annul, by so doing, the whole idea of the Christian teaching,\naccording to which we are all equals and brothers, as sons of one\nFather in heaven. Secondly, it is ill founded, because even if to\nuse force against wicked men had been permitted by God, since it is\nimpossible to find a perfect and unfailing distinction by which one\ncould positively know the wicked from the good, so it would come to\nall individual men and societies of men mutually regarding each other\nas wicked men, as is the case now. Thirdly, even if it were possible\nto distinguish the wicked from the good unfailingly, even then it\nwould be impossible to kill or injure or shut up in prison these\nwicked men, because there would be no one in a Christian society to\ncarry out such punishment, since every Christian, as a Christian, has\nbeen commanded to use no force against the wicked.\n\nThe third kind of answer, still more subtle than the preceding,\nconsists in asserting that though the command of non-resistance to\nevil by force is binding on the Christian when the evil is directed\nagainst himself personally, it ceases to be binding when the evil\nis directed against his neighbors, and that then the Christian is\nnot only not bound to fulfill the commandment, but is even bound\nto act in opposition to it in defense of his neighbors, and to\nuse force against transgressors by force. This assertion is an\nabsolute assumption, and one cannot find in all Christ's teaching\nany confirmation of such an argument. Such an argument is not\nonly a limitation, but a direct contradiction and negation of the\ncommandment. If every man has the right to have recourse to force\nin face of a danger threatening another, the question of the use\nof force is reduced to a question of the definition of danger for\nanother. If my private judgment is to decide the question of what is\ndanger for another, there is no occasion for the use of force which\ncould not be justified on the ground of danger threatening some\nother man. They killed and burnt witches, they killed aristocrats\nand girondists, they killed their enemies, because those who were in\nauthority regarded them as dangerous for the people.\n\nIf this important limitation, which fundamentally undermines the\nwhole value of the commandment, had entered into Christ's meaning,\nthere must have been mention of it somewhere. This restriction is\nmade nowhere in our Saviour's life or preaching. On the contrary,\nwarning is given precisely against this treacherous and scandalous\nrestriction which nullifies the commandment. The error and\nimpossibility of such a limitation is shown in the Gospel with\nspecial clearness in the account of the judgment of Caiaphas, who\nmakes precisely this distinction. He acknowledged that it was wrong\nto punish the innocent Jesus, but he saw in him a source of danger\nnot for himself, but for the whole people, and therefore he said:\nIt is better for one man to die, that the whole people perish not.\nAnd the erroneousness of such a limitation is still more clearly\nexpressed in the words spoken to Peter when he tried to resist by\nforce evil directed against Jesus (Matt. xxvi. 52). Peter was not\ndefending himself, but his beloved and heavenly Master. And Christ\nat once reproved him for this, saying, that he who takes up the sword\nshall perish by the sword.\n\nBesides, apologies for violence used against one's neighbor in\ndefense of another neighbor from greater violence are always\nuntrustworthy, because when force is used against one who has not\nyet carried out his evil intent, I can never know which would be\ngreater--the evil of my act of violence or of the act I want to\nprevent. We kill the criminal that society may be rid of him, and\nwe never know whether the criminal of to-day would not have been\na changed man to-morrow, and whether our punishment of him is not\nuseless cruelty. We shut up the dangerous--as we think--member of\nsociety, but the next day this man might cease to be dangerous and\nhis imprisonment might be for nothing. I see that a man I know to be\na ruffian is pursuing a young girl. I have a gun in my hand--I kill\nthe ruffian and save the girl. But the death or the wounding of the\nruffian has positively taken place, while what would have happened\nif this had not been I cannot know. And what an immense mass of evil\nmust result, and indeed does result, from allowing men to assume the\nright of anticipating what may happen. Ninety-nine per cent. of the\nevil of the world is founded on this reasoning--from the Inquisition\nto dynamite bombs, and the executions or punishments of tens of\nthousands of political criminals.\n\nA fourth, still more refined, reply to the question, What ought to\nbe the Christian's attitude to Christ's command of non-resistance\nto evil by force? consists in declaring that they do not deny the\ncommand of non-resistance to evil, but recognize it; but they only\ndo not ascribe to this command the special exclusive value attached\nto it by sectarians. To regard this command as the indispensable\ncondition of Christian life, as Garrison, Ballou, Dymond, the\nQuakers, the Mennonites, and the Shakers do now, and as the Moravian\nbrothers, the Waldenses, the Albigenses, the Bogomilites, and the\nPaulicians did in the past, is a one-sided heresy. This command has\nneither more nor less value than all the other commands, and the man\nwho through weakness transgresses any command whatever, the command\nof non-resistance included, does not cease to be a Christian if\nhe hold the true faith. This is a very skillful device, and many\npeople who wish to be deceived are easily deceived by it. The device\nconsists in reducing a direct conscious denial of a command to a\ncasual breach of it. But one need only compare the attitude of the\nteachers of the Church to this and to other commands which they\nreally do recognize, to be convinced that their attitude to this is\ncompletely different from their attitude to other duties.\n\nThe command against fornication they do really recognize, and\nconsequently they do not admit that in any case fornication can cease\nto be wrong. The Church preachers never point out cases in which the\ncommand against fornication can be broken, and always teach that\nwe must avoid seductions which lead to temptation to fornication.\nBut not so with the command of non-resistance. All church preachers\nrecognize cases in which that command can be broken, and teach the\npeople accordingly. And they not only do not teach that we should\navoid temptations to break it, chief of which is the military oath,\nbut they themselves administer it. The preachers of the Church never\nin any other case advocate the breaking of any other commandment.\nBut in connection with the commandment of non-resistance they openly\nteach that we must not understand it too literally, but that there\nare conditions and circumstances in which we must do the direct\nopposite, that is, go to law, fight, punish. So that occasions for\nfulfilling the commandment of non-resistance to evil by force are\ntaught for the most part as occasions for not fulfilling it. The\nfulfillment of this command, they say, is very difficult and pertains\nonly to perfection. And how can it not be difficult, when the breach\nof it is not only not forbidden, but law courts, prisons, cannons,\nguns, armies, and wars are under the immediate sanction of the\nChurch? It cannot be true, then, that this command is recognized by\nthe preachers of the Church as on a level with other commands.\n\nThe preachers of the Church clearly do not recognize it; only not\ndaring to acknowledge this, they try to conceal their not recognizing\nit.\n\nSo much for the fourth reply.\n\nThe fifth kind of answer, which is the subtlest, the most often used,\nand the most effective, consists in avoiding answering, in making\nbelieve that this question is one which has long ago been decided\nperfectly clearly and satisfactorily, and that it is not worth while\nto talk about it. This method of reply is employed by all the more or\nless cultivated religious writers, that is to say, those who feel the\nlaws of Christ binding for themselves. Knowing that the contradiction\nexisting between the teaching of Christ which we profess with our\nlips and the whole order of our lives cannot be removed by words,\nand that touching upon it can only make it more obvious, they, with\nmore or less ingenuity, evade it, pretending that the question of\nreconciling Christianity with the use of force has been decided\nalready, or does not exist at all.[1]\n\n  [1] I only know one work which differs somewhat from this general\n  definition, and that is not a criticism in the precise meaning of\n  the word, but an article treating of the same subject and having\n  my book in view. I mean the pamphlet of Mr. Troizky (published at\n  Kazan), \"A Sermon for the People.\" The author obviously accepts\n  Christ's teaching in its true meaning. He says that the prohibition\n  of resistance to evil by force means exactly what it does mean; and\n  the same with the prohibition of swearing. He does not, as others\n  do, deny the meaning of Christ's teaching, but unfortunately he does\n  not draw from this admission the inevitable deductions which present\n  themselves spontaneously in our life when we understand Christ's\n  teaching in that way. If we must not oppose evil by force, nor swear,\n  everyone naturally asks, \"How, then, about military service? and the\n  oath of obedience?\" To this question the author gives no reply; but\n  it must be answered. And if he cannot answer, then he would do better\n  not to speak on the subject at all, as such silence leads to error.\n\nThe majority of religious critics of my book use this fifth method\nof replying to it. I could quote dozens of such critics, in all of\nwhom, without exception, we find the same thing repeated: everything\nis discussed except what constitutes the principal subject of\nthe book. As a characteristic example of such criticisms, I will\nquote the article of a well-known and ingenious English writer and\npreacher--Farrar--who, like many learned theologians, is a great\nmaster of the art of circuitously evading a question. The article was\npublished in an American journal, the _Forum_, in October, 1888.\n\nAfter conscientiously explaining in brief the contents of my book,\nFarrar says: \"Tolstoy came to the conclusion that a coarse deceit\nhad been palmed upon the world when these words, 'Resist not evil,'\nwere held by civil society to be compatible with war, courts of\njustice, capital punishment, divorce, oaths, national prejudice, and,\nindeed, with most of the institutions of civil and social life. He\nnow believes that the kingdom of God would come if all men kept these\nfive commandments of Christ, viz.: 1. Live in peace with all men. 2.\nBe pure. 3. Take no oaths. 4. Resist not evil. 5. Renounce national\ndistinctions.\n\n\"Tolstoy,\" he says, \"rejects the inspiration of the Old Testament;\nhence he rejects the chief doctrines of the Church--that of the\nAtonement by blood, the Trinity, the descent of the Holy Ghost\non the Apostles, and his transmission through the priesthood.\"\nAnd he recognizes only the words and commands of Christ. \"But is\nthis interpretation of Christ a true one?\" he says. \"Are all men\nbound to act as Tolstoy teaches--_i. e._, to carry out these five\ncommandments of Christ?\" You expect, then, that in answer to this\nessential question, which is the only one that could induce a man\nto write an article about the book, he will say either that this\ninterpretation of Christ's teaching is true and we ought to follow\nit, or he will say that such an interpretation is untrue, will show\nwhy, and will give some other correct interpretation of those words\nwhich I interpret incorrectly. But nothing of the kind is done.\nFarrar only expresses his \"belief\" that, \"though actuated by the\nnoblest sincerity, Count Tolstoy has been misled by partial and\none-sided interpretations of the meaning of the Gospel and the mind\nand will of Christ.\" What this error consists in is not made clear;\nit is only said: \"To enter into the proof of this is impossible in\nthis article, for I have already exceeded the space at my command.\"\n\nAnd he concludes, in a tranquil spirit:\n\n\"Meanwhile, the reader who feels troubled lest it should be his duty\nalso to forsake all the conditions of his life and to take up the\nposition and work of a common laborer, may rest for the present on\nthe principle, _securus judicat orbis terrarum_. With few and rare\nexceptions,\" he continues, \"the whole of Christendom, from the days\nof the Apostles down to our own, has come to the firm conclusion that\nit was the object of Christ to lay down great eternal principles, but\nnot to disturb the bases and revolutionize the institutions of all\nhuman society, which themselves rest on divine sanctions as well as\non inevitable conditions. Were it my object to prove how untenable\nis the doctrine of communism, based by Count Tolstoy upon the divine\nparadoxes [_sic_], which can be interpreted only on historical\nprinciples in accordance with the whole method of the teaching of\nJesus, it would require an ampler canvas than I have here at my\ndisposal.\" What a pity he has not \"an ampler canvas at his disposal\"!\nAnd what a strange thing it is that for all these last fifteen\ncenturies no one has had \"a canvas ample enough\" to prove that\nChrist, whom we profess to believe in, says something utterly unlike\nwhat he does say! Still, they could prove it if they wanted to. But\nit is not worth while to prove what everyone knows; it is enough to\nsay, \"_securus judicat orbis terrarum_.\"\n\nAnd of this kind, without exception, are all the criticisms of\neducated believers, who must, as such, understand the danger of\ntheir position. The sole escape from it for them lies in their hope\nthat they may be able, by using the authority of the Church, of\nantiquity, and of their sacred office, to overawe the reader and\ndraw him away from the idea of reading the Gospel for himself and\nthinking out the question in his own mind for himself. And in this\nthey are successful; for, indeed, how could the notion occur to\nanyone that all that has been repeated from century to century with\nsuch earnestness and solemnity by all those archdeacons, bishops,\narchbishops, holy synods, and popes, is all of it a base lie and a\ncalumny foisted upon Christ by them for the sake of keeping safe\nthe money they must have to live luxuriously on the necks of other\nmen? And it is a lie and a calumny so transparent that the only way\nof keeping it up consists in overawing people by their earnestness,\ntheir conscientiousness. It is just what has taken place of late\nyears at recruiting sessions; at a table before the zertzal--the\nsymbol of the Tzar's authority--in the seat of honor under the\nlife-size portrait of the Tzar, sit dignified old officials, wearing\ndecorations, conversing freely and easily, writing notes, summoning\nmen before them, and giving orders. Here, wearing a cross on his\nbreast, near them, is a prosperous-looking old priest in a silken\ncassock, with long gray hair flowing on to his cope, before a lectern\nwho wears the golden cross and has a Gospel bound in gold.\n\nThey summon Ivan Petroff. A young man comes in, wretchedly, shabbily\ndressed, and in terror, the muscles of his face working, his eyes\nbright and restless; and in a broken voice, hardly above a whisper,\nhe says: \"I--by Christ's law--as a Christian--I cannot.\" \"What is\nhe muttering?\" asks the president, frowning impatiently and raising\nhis eyes from his book to listen. \"Speak louder,\" the colonel with\nshining epaulets shouts to him. \"I--I as a Christian----\" And at last\nit appears that the young man refuses to serve in the army because he\nis a Christian. \"Don't talk nonsense. Stand to be measured. Doctor,\nmay I trouble you to measure him. He is all right?\" \"Yes.\" \"Reverend\nfather, administer the oath to him.\"\n\nNo one is the least disturbed by what the poor scared young man is\nmuttering. They do not even pay attention to it. \"They all mutter\nsomething, but we've no time to listen to it, we have to enroll so\nmany.\"\n\nThe recruit tries to say something still. \"It's opposed to the law\nof Christ.\" \"Go along, go along; we know without your help what is\nopposed to the law and what's not; and you soothe his mind, reverend\nfather, soothe him. Next: Vassily Nikitin.\" And they lead the\ntrembling youth away. And it does not strike anyone--the guards, or\nVassily Nikitin, whom they are bringing in, or any of the spectators\nof this scene--that these inarticulate words of the young man, at\nonce suppressed by the authorities, contain the truth, and that the\nloud, solemnly uttered sentences of the calm, self-confident official\nand the priest are a lie and a deception.\n\nSuch is the impression produced not only by Farrar's article, but\nby all those solemn sermons, articles, and books which make their\nappearance from all sides directly there is anywhere a glimpse of\ntruth exposing a predominant falsehood. At once begins the series of\nlong, clever, ingenious, and solemn speeches and writings, which deal\nwith questions nearly related to the subject, but skillfully avoid\ntouching the subject itself.\n\nThat is the essence of the fifth and most effective means of getting\nout of the contradictions in which Church Christianity has placed\nitself, by professing its faith in Christ's teaching in words, while\nit denies it in its life, and teaches people to do the same.\n\nThose who justify themselves by the first method, directly, crudely\nasserting that Christ sanctioned violence, wars, and murder,\nrepudiate Christ's doctrine directly; those who find their defense\nin the second, the third, or the fourth method are confused and can\neasily be convicted of error; but this last class, who do not argue,\nwho do not condescend to argue about it, but take shelter behind\ntheir own grandeur, and make a show of all this having been decided\nby them or at least by someone long ago, and no longer offering a\npossibility of doubt to anyone--they seem safe from attack, and will\nbe beyond attack till men come to realize that they are under the\nnarcotic influence exerted on them by governments and churches, and\nare no longer affected by it.\n\nSuch was the attitude of the spiritual critics--_i. e._, those\nprofessing faith in Christ--to my book. And their attitude could\nnot have been different. They are bound to take up this attitude by\nthe contradictory position in which they find themselves between\nbelief in the divinity of their Master and disbelief in his clearest\nutterances, and they want to escape from this contradiction. So that\none cannot expect from them free discussion of the very essence of\nthe question--that is, of the change in men's life which must result\nfrom applying Christ's teaching to the existing order of the world.\nSuch free discussion I only expected from worldly, freethinking\ncritics who are not bound to Christ's teaching in any way, and can\ntherefore take an independent view of it. I had anticipated that\nfreethinking writers would look at Christ, not merely, like the\nChurchmen, as the founder of a religion of personal salvation, but,\nto express it in their language, as a reformer who laid down new\nprinciples of life and destroyed the old, and whose reforms are not\nyet complete, but are still in progress even now.\n\nSuch a view of Christ and his teaching follows from my book. But to\nmy astonishment, out of the great number of critics of my book there\nwas not one, either Russian or foreign, who treated the subject from\nthe side from which it was approached in the book--that is, who\ncriticised Christ's doctrines as philosophical, moral, and social\nprinciples, to use their scientific expressions. This was not done in\na single criticism. The freethinking Russian critics taking my book\nas though its whole contents could be reduced to non-resistance to\nevil, and understanding the doctrine of non-resistance to evil itself\n(no doubt for greater convenience in refuting it) as though it would\nprohibit every kind of conflict with evil, fell vehemently upon this\ndoctrine, and for some years past have been very successfully proving\nthat Christ's teaching is mistaken in so far as it forbids resistance\nto evil. Their refutations of this hypothetical doctrine of Christ\nwere all the more successful since they knew beforehand that their\narguments could not be contested or corrected, for the censorship,\nnot having passed the book, did not pass articles in its defense.\n\nIt is a remarkable thing that among us, where one cannot say a word\nabout the Holy Scriptures without the prohibition of the censorship,\nfor some years past there have been in all the journals constant\nattacks and criticisms on the command of Christ simply and directly\nstated in Matt. v. 39. The Russian advanced critics, obviously\nunaware of all that has been done to elucidate the question of\nnon-resistance, and sometimes even imagining apparently that the rule\nof non-resistance to evil had been invented by me personally, fell\nfoul of the very idea of it. They opposed it and attacked it, and\nadvancing with great heat arguments which had long ago been analyzed\nand refuted from every point of view, they demonstrated that a man\nought invariably to defend (with violence) all the injured and\noppressed, and that thus the doctrine of non-resistance to evil is an\nimmoral doctrine.\n\nTo all Russian critics the whole import of Christ's command\nseemed reducible to the fact that it would hinder them from\nthe active opposition to evil to which they are accustomed. So\nthat the principle of non-resistance to evil by force has been\nattacked by two opposing camps: the conservatives, because this\nprinciple would hinder their activity in resistance to evil as\napplied to the revolutionists, in persecution and punishment\nof them; the revolutionists, too, because this principle would\nhinder their resistance to evil as applied to the conservatives\nand the overthrowing of them. The conservatives were indignant\nat the doctrine of non-resistance to evil by force hindering the\nenergetic destruction of the revolutionary elements, which may ruin\nthe national prosperity; the revolutionists were indignant at the\ndoctrine of non-resistance to evil by force hindering the overthrow\nof the conservatives, who are ruining the national prosperity. It\nis worthy of remark in this connection that the revolutionists have\nattacked the principle of non-resistance to evil by force, in spite\nof the fact that it is the greatest terror and danger for every\ndespotism. For ever since the beginning of the world, the use of\nviolence of every kind, from the Inquisition to the Schl\u00fcsselburg\nfortress, has rested and still rests on the opposite principle of the\nnecessity of resisting evil by force.\n\nBesides this, the Russian critics have pointed out the fact that the\napplication of the command of non-resistance to practical life would\nturn mankind aside out of the path of civilization along which it is\nmoving. The path of civilization on which mankind in Europe is moving\nis in their opinion the one along which all mankind ought always to\nmove.\n\nSo much for the general character of the Russian critics.\n\nForeign critics started from the same premises, but their discussions\nof my book were somewhat different from those of Russian critics, not\nonly in being less bitter, and in showing more culture, but even in\nthe subject-matter.\n\nIn discussing my book and the Gospel teaching generally, as it is\nexpressed in the Sermon on the Mount, the foreign critics maintained\nthat such doctrine is not peculiarly Christian (Christian doctrine is\neither Catholicism or Protestantism according to their views)--the\nteaching of the Sermon on the Mount is only a string of very pretty\nimpracticable dreams _du charmant docteur_, as Renan says, fit for\nthe simple and half-savage inhabitants of Galilee who lived eighteen\nhundred years ago, and for the half-savage Russian peasants--Sutaev\nand Bondarev--and the Russian mystic Tolstoy, but not at all\nconsistent with a high degree of European culture.\n\nThe foreign freethinking critics have tried in a delicate manner,\nwithout being offensive to me, to give the impression that my\nconviction that mankind could be guided by such a na\u00efve doctrine as\nthat of the Sermon on the Mount proceeds from two causes: that such\na conviction is partly due to my want of knowledge, my ignorance\nof history, my ignorance of all the vain attempts to apply the\nprinciples of the Sermon on the Mount to life, which have been\nmade in history and have led to nothing; and partly it is due to\nmy failing to appreciate the full value of the lofty civilization\nto which mankind has attained at present, with its Krupp cannons,\nsmokeless powder, colonization of Africa, Irish Coercion Bill,\nparliamentary government, journalism, strikes, and the Eiffel Tower.\n\nSo wrote de Vog\u00fc\u00e9 and Leroy Beaulieu and Matthew Arnold; so wrote\nthe American author Savage, and Ingersoll, the popular freethinking\nAmerican preacher, and many others.\n\n\"Christ's teaching is no use, because it is inconsistent with\nour industrial age,\" says Ingersoll na\u00efvely, expressing in this\nutterance, with perfect directness and simplicity, the exact notion\nof Christ's teaching held by persons of refinement and culture of our\ntimes. The teaching is no use for our industrial age, precisely as\nthough the existence of this industrial age were a sacred fact which\nought not to and could not be changed. It is just as though drunkards\nwhen advised how they could be brought to habits of sobriety should\nanswer that the advice is incompatible with their habit of taking\nalcohol.\n\nThe arguments of all the freethinking critics, Russian and foreign\nalike, different as they may be in tone and manner of presentation,\nall amount essentially to the same strange misapprehension--namely,\nthat Christ's teaching, one of the consequences of which is\nnon-resistance to evil, is of no use to us because it requires a\nchange of our life.\n\nChrist's teaching is useless because, if it were carried into\npractice, life could not go on as at present; we must add: if we have\nbegun by living sinfully, as we do live and are accustomed to live.\nNot only is the question of non-resistance to evil not discussed;\nthe very mention of the fact that the duty of non-resistance enters\ninto Christ's teaching is regarded as satisfactory proof of the\nimpracticability of the whole teaching.\n\nMeanwhile one would have thought it was necessary to point out at\nleast some kind of solution of the following question, since it is at\nthe root of almost everything that interests us.\n\nThe question amounts to this: In what way are we to decide men's\ndisputes, when some men consider evil what others consider good, and\n_vice versa_? And to reply that that is evil which I think evil, in\nspite of the fact that my opponent thinks it good, is not a solution\nof the difficulty. There can only be two solutions: either to find a\nreal unquestionable criterion of what is evil or not to resist evil\nby force.\n\nThe first course has been tried ever since the beginning of\nhistorical times, and, as we all know, it has not hitherto led to any\nsuccessful results.\n\nThe second solution--not forcibly to resist what we consider evil\nuntil we have found a universal criterion--that is the solution given\nby Christ.\n\nWe may consider the answer given by Christ unsatisfactory; we may\nreplace it by another and better, by finding a criterion by which\nevil could be defined for all men unanimously and simultaneously; we\nmay simply, like savage nations, not recognize the existence of the\nquestion. But we cannot treat the question as the learned critics of\nChristianity do. They pretend either that no such question exists at\nall or that the question is solved by granting to certain persons\nor assemblies of persons the right to define evil and to resist it\nby force. But we know all the while that granting such a right to\ncertain persons does not decide the question (still less so when we\nare ourselves the certain persons), since there are always people who\ndo not recognize this right in the authorized persons or assemblies.\n\nBut this assumption, that what seems evil to us is really evil, shows\na complete misunderstanding of the question, and lies at the root of\nthe argument of freethinking critics about the Christian religion. In\nthis way, then, the discussions of my book on the part of Churchmen\nand freethinking critics alike showed me that the majority of men\nsimply do not understand either Christ's teaching or the questions\nwhich Christ's teaching solves.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\n     CHRISTIANITY MISUNDERSTOOD BY BELIEVERS.\n\n     Meaning of Christian Doctrine, Understood by a Minority,\n     has Become Completely Incomprehensible for the Majority\n     of Men--Reason of this to be Found in Misinterpretation\n     of Christianity and Mistaken Conviction of Believers and\n     Unbelievers Alike that they Understand it--The Meaning of\n     Christianity Obscured for Believers by the Church--The First\n     Appearance of Christ's Teaching--Its Essence and Difference\n     from Heathen Religions--Christianity not Fully Comprehended\n     at the Beginning, Became More and More Clear to those who\n     Accepted it from its Correspondence with Truth--Simultaneously\n     with this Arose the Claim to Possession of the Authentic\n     Meaning of the Doctrine Based on the Miraculous Nature of\n     its Transmission--Assembly of Disciples as Described in the\n     Acts--The Authoritative Claim to the Sole Possession of the\n     True Meaning of Christ's Teaching Supported by Miraculous\n     Evidence has Led by Logical Development to the Creeds of the\n     Churches--A Church Could Not be Founded by Christ--Definitions\n     of a Church According to the Catechisms--The Churches have\n     Always been Several in Number and Hostile to One Another--What\n     is Heresy--The Work of G. Arnold on Heresies--Heresies\n     the Manifestations of Progress in the Churches--Churches\n     Cause Dissension among Men, and are Always Hostile to\n     Christianity--Account of the Work Done by the Russian\n     Church--Matt. xxiii. 23--The Sermon on the Mount or the\n     Creed--The Orthodox Church Conceals from the People the True\n     Meaning of Christianity--The Same Thing is Done by the Other\n     Churches--All the External Conditions of Modern Life are such\n     as to Destroy the Doctrine of the Church, and therefore the\n     Churches use Every Effort to Support their Doctrines.\n\n\nThus the information I received, after my book came out, went to show\nthat the Christian doctrine, in its direct and simple sense, was\nunderstood, and had always been understood, by a minority of men,\nwhile the critics, ecclesiastical and freethinking alike, denied the\npossibility of taking Christ's teaching in its direct sense. All this\nconvinced me that while on one hand the true understanding of this\ndoctrine had never been lost to a minority, but had been established\nmore and more clearly, on the other hand the meaning of it had been\nmore and more obscured for the majority. So that at last such a depth\nof obscurity has been reached that men do not take in their direct\nsense even the simplest precepts, expressed in the simplest words, in\nthe Gospel.\n\nChrist's teaching is not generally understood in its true, simple,\nand direct sense even in these days, when the light of the Gospel\nhas penetrated even to the darkest recesses of human consciousness;\nwhen, in the words of Christ, that which was spoken in the ear is\nproclaimed from the housetops; and when the Gospel is influencing\nevery side of human life--domestic, economic, civic, legislative,\nand international. This lack of true understanding of Christ's words\nat such a time would be inexplicable, if there were not causes to\naccount for it.\n\nOne of these causes is the fact that believers and unbelievers alike\nare firmly persuaded that they have understood Christ's teaching a\nlong time, and that they understand it so fully, indubitably, and\nconclusively that it can have no other significance than the one\nthey attribute to it. And the reason of this conviction is that the\nfalse interpretation and consequent misapprehension of the Gospel is\nan error of such long standing. Even the strongest current of water\ncannot add a drop to a cup which is already full.\n\nThe most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted\nman if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest\nthing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is\nfirmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt,\nwhat is laid before him.\n\nThe Christian doctrine is presented to the men of our world to-day\nas a doctrine which everyone has known so long and accepted so\nunhesitatingly in all its minutest details that it cannot be\nunderstood in any other way than it is understood now.\n\nChristianity is understood now by all who profess the doctrines of\nthe Church as a supernatural miraculous revelation of everything\nwhich is repeated in the Creed. By unbelievers it is regarded as\nan illustration of man's craving for a belief in the supernatural,\nwhich mankind has now outgrown, as an historical phenomenon which\nhas received full expression in Catholicism, Greek Orthodoxy, and\nProtestantism, and has no longer any living significance for us. The\nsignificance of the Gospel is hidden from believers by the Church,\nfrom unbelievers by Science.\n\nI will speak first of the former. Eighteen hundred years ago there\nappeared in the midst of the heathen Roman world a strange new\ndoctrine, unlike any of the old religions, and attributed to a man,\nChrist.\n\nThis new doctrine was in both form and content absolutely new to the\nJewish world in which it originated, and still more to the Roman\nworld in which it was preached and diffused.\n\nIn the midst of the elaborate religious observances of Judaism, in\nwhich, in the words of Isaiah, law was laid upon law, and in the\nmidst of the Roman legal system worked out to the highest point\nof perfection, a new doctrine appeared, which denied not only\nevery deity, and all fear and worship of them, but even all human\ninstitutions and all necessity for them. In place of all the rules\nof the old religions, this doctrine sets up only a type of inward\nperfection, truth, and love in the person of Christ, and--as a result\nof this inward perfection being attained by men--also the outward\nperfection foretold by the Prophets--the kingdom of God, when all men\nwill cease to learn to make war, when all shall be taught of God and\nunited in love, and the lion will lie down with the lamb. Instead\nof the threats of punishment which all the old laws of religions\nand governments alike laid down for non-fulfillment of their rules,\ninstead of promises of rewards for fulfillment of them, this doctrine\ncalled men to it only because it was the truth. John vii. 17: \"If any\nman will do His will, he shall know of the doctrine whether it be\nof God.\" John viii. 46: \"If I say the truth, why do ye not believe\nme? But ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth. Ye\nshall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. God is a\nspirit, and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in\ntruth. Keep my sayings, and ye shall know of my sayings whether they\nbe true.\" No proofs of this doctrine were offered except its truth,\nthe correspondence of the doctrine with the truth. The whole teaching\nconsisted in the recognition of truth and following it, in a greater\nand greater attainment of truth, and a closer and closer following\nof it in the acts of life. There are no acts in this doctrine which\ncould justify a man and make him saved. There is only the image of\ntruth to guide him, for inward perfection in the person of Christ,\nand for outward perfection in the establishment of the kingdom of\nGod. The fulfillment of this teaching consists only in walking in the\nchosen way, in getting nearer to inward perfection in the imitation\nof Christ, and outward perfection in the establishment of the kingdom\nof God. The greater or less blessedness of a man depends, according\nto this doctrine, not on the degree of perfection to which he has\nattained, but on the greater or less swiftness with which he is\npursuing it.\n\nThe progress toward perfection of the publican Zaccheus, of the woman\nthat was a sinner, of the robber on the cross, is a greater state\nof blessedness, according to this doctrine, than the stationary\nrighteousness of the Pharisee. The lost sheep is dearer than\nninety-nine that were not lost. The prodigal son, the piece of money\nthat was lost and found again, are dearer, more precious to God than\nthose which have not been lost.\n\nEvery condition, according to this doctrine, is only a particular\nstep in the attainment of inward and outward perfection, and\ntherefore has no significance of itself. Blessedness consists in\nprogress toward perfection; to stand still in any condition whatever\nmeans the cessation of this blessedness.\n\n\"Let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth.\" \"No man\nhaving put his hand to the plow and looking back is fit for the\nkingdom of God.\" \"Rejoice not that the spirits are subject to you,\nbut seek rather that your names be written in heaven.\" \"Be ye\nperfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect.\" \"Seek ye first\nthe kingdom of heaven and its righteousness.\"\n\nThe fulfillment of this precept is only to be found in uninterrupted\nprogress toward the attainment of ever higher truth, toward\nestablishing more and more firmly an ever greater love within\noneself, and establishing more and more widely the kingdom of God\noutside oneself.\n\nIt is obvious that, appearing as it did in the midst of the Jewish\nand heathen world, such teaching could not be accepted by the\nmajority of men, who were living a life absolutely different from\nwhat was required by it. It is obvious, too, that even for those by\nwhom it was accepted, it was so absolutely opposed to all their old\nviews that it could not be comprehensible in its full significance.\n\nIt has been only by a succession of misunderstandings, errors,\npartial explanations, and the corrections and additions of\ngenerations that the meaning of the Christian doctrine has grown\ncontinually more and more clear to men. The Christian view of\nlife has exerted an influence on the Jewish and heathen, and the\nheathen and Jewish view of life has, too, exerted an influence on\nthe Christian. And Christianity, as the living force, has gained\nmore and more upon the extinct Judaism and heathenism, and has\ngrown continually clearer and clearer, as it freed itself from the\nadmixture of falsehood which had overlaid it. Men went further\nand further in the attainment of the meaning of Christianity, and\nrealized it more and more in life.\n\nThe longer mankind lived, the clearer and clearer became the meaning\nof Christianity, as must always be the case with every theory of life.\n\nSucceeding generations corrected the errors of their predecessors,\nand grew ever nearer and nearer to a comprehension of the true\nmeaning. It was thus from the very earliest times of Christianity.\nAnd so, too, from the earliest times of Christianity there were men\nwho began to assert on their own authority that the meaning they\nattribute to the doctrine is the only true one, and as proof bring\nforward supernatural occurrences in support of the correctness of\ntheir interpretation.\n\nThis was the principal cause at first of the misunderstanding of the\ndoctrine, and afterward of the complete distortion of it.\n\nIt was supposed that Christ's teaching was transmitted to men not\nlike every other truth, but in a special miraculous way. Thus the\ntruth of the teaching was not proved by its correspondence with the\nneeds of the mind and the whole nature of man, but by the miraculous\nmanner of its transmission, which was advanced as an irrefutable\nproof of the truth of the interpretation put on it. This hypothesis\noriginated from misunderstanding of the teaching, and its result was\nto make it impossible to understand it rightly.\n\nAnd this happened first in the earliest times, when the doctrine\nwas still not so fully understood and often interpreted wrongly,\nas we see by the Gospels and the Acts. The less the doctrine was\nunderstood, the more obscure it appeared and the more necessary were\nexternal proofs of its truth. The proposition that we ought not to\ndo unto others as we would not they should do unto us, did not need\nto be proved by miracles and needed no exercise of faith, because\nthis proposition is in itself convincing and in harmony with man's\nmind and nature; but the proposition that Christ was God had to be\nproved by miracles completely beyond our comprehension.\n\nThe more the understanding of Christ's teaching was obscured,\nthe more the miraculous was introduced into it; and the more the\nmiraculous was introduced into it, the more the doctrine was strained\nfrom its meaning and the more obscure it became; and the more it\nwas strained from its meaning and the more obscure it became, the\nmore strongly its infallibility had to be asserted, and the less\ncomprehensible the doctrine became.\n\nOne can see by the Gospels, the Acts, and the Epistles how from the\nearliest times the non-comprehension of the doctrine called forth the\nneed for proofs through the miraculous and incomprehensible.\n\nThe first example in the book of Acts is the assembly which gathered\ntogether in Jerusalem to decide the question which had arisen,\nwhether to baptize or not the uncircumcised and those who had eaten\nof food sacrificed to idols.\n\nThe very fact of this question being raised showed that those who\ndiscussed it did not understand the teaching of Christ, who rejected\nall outward observances--ablutions, purifications, fasts, and\nsabbaths. It was plainly said, \"Not that which goeth into a man's\nmouth, but that which cometh out of a man's mouth, defileth him,\" and\ntherefore the question of baptizing the uncircumcised could only have\narisen among men who, though they loved their Master and dimly felt\nthe grandeur of his teaching, still did not understand the teaching\nitself very clearly. And this was the fact.\n\nJust in proportion to the failure of the members of the assembly\nto understand the doctrine was their need of external confirmation\nof their incomplete interpretation of it. And then to settle this\nquestion, the very asking of which proved their misunderstanding of\nthe doctrine, there was uttered in this assembly, as is described in\nthe Acts, that strange phrase, which was for the first time found\nnecessary to give external confirmation to certain assertions, and\nwhich has been productive of so much evil.\n\nThat is, it was asserted that the correctness of what they had\ndecided was guaranteed by the miraculous participation of the Holy\nGhost, that is, of God, in their decision. But the assertion that\nthe Holy Ghost, that is, God, spoke through the Apostles, in its\nturn wanted proof. And thus it was necessary, to confirm this, that\nthe Holy Ghost should descend at Pentecost in tongues of fire upon\nthose who made this assertion. (In the account of it, the descent\nof the Holy Ghost precedes the assembly, but the book of Acts was\nwritten much later than both events.) But the descent of the Holy\nGhost too had to be proved for those who had not seen the tongues\nof fire (though it is not easy to understand why a tongue of fire\nburning above a man's head should prove that what that man is going\nto say will be infallibly the truth). And so arose the necessity for\nstill more miracles and changes, raisings of the dead to life, and\nstrikings of the living dead, and all those marvels which have been\na stumbling-block to men, of which the Acts is full, and which, far\nfrom ever convincing one of the truth of the Christian doctrine, can\nonly repel men from it. The result of such a means of confirming the\ntruth was that the more these confirmations of truth by tales of\nmiracles were heaped up one after another, the more the doctrine was\ndistorted from its original meaning, and the more incomprehensible it\nbecame.\n\nThus it was from the earliest times, and so it went on, constantly\nincreasing, till it reached in our day the logical climax of the\ndogmas of transubstantiation and the infallibility of the Pope, or of\nthe bishops, or of Scripture, and of requiring a blind faith rendered\nincomprehensible and utterly meaningless, not in God, but in Christ,\nnot in a doctrine, but in a person, as in Catholicism, or in persons,\nas in Greek Orthodoxy, or in a book, as in Protestantism. The more\nwidely Christianity was diffused, and the greater the number of\npeople unprepared for it who were brought under its sway, the less it\nwas understood, the more absolutely was its infallibility insisted\non, and the less possible it became to understand the true meaning of\nthe doctrine. In the times of Constantine the whole interpretation\nof the doctrine had been already reduced to a _r\u00e9sum\u00e9_--supported by\nthe temporal authority--of the disputes that had taken place in the\nCouncil--to a creed which reckoned off--I believe in so and so, and\nso and so, and so and so to the end--to one holy, Apostolic Church,\nwhich means the infallibility of those persons who call themselves\nthe Church. So that it all amounts to a man no longer believing in\nGod nor Christ, as they are revealed to him, but believing in what\nthe Church orders him to believe in.\n\nBut the Church is holy; the Church was founded by Christ. God could\nnot leave men to interpret his teaching at random--therefore he\nfounded the Church. All those statements are so utterly untrue\nand unfounded that one is ashamed to refute them. Nowhere nor in\nanything, except in the assertion of the Church, can we find that\nGod or Christ founded anything like what Churchmen understand by the\nChurch. In the Gospels there is a warning against the Church, as it\nis an external authority, a warning most clear and obvious in the\npassage where it is said that Christ's followers should \"call no\nman master.\" But nowhere is anything said of the foundation of what\nChurchmen call the Church.\n\nThe word church is used twice in the Gospels--once in the sense of\nan assembly of men to decide a dispute, the other time in connection\nwith the obscure utterance about a stone--Peter, and the gates of\nhell. From these two passages in which the word church is used, in\nthe signification merely of an assembly, has been deduced all that we\nnow understand by the Church.\n\nBut Christ could not have founded the Church, that is, what we now\nunderstand by that word. For nothing like the idea of the Church as\nwe know it now, with its sacraments, miracles, and above all its\nclaim to infallibility, is to be found either in Christ's words or in\nthe ideas of the men of that time.\n\nThe fact that men called what was formed afterward by the same word\nas Christ used for something totally different, does not give them\nthe right to assert that Christ founded the one, true Church.\n\nBesides, if Christ had really founded such an institution as the\nChurch for the foundation of all his teaching and the whole faith,\nhe would certainly have described this institution clearly and\ndefinitely, and would have given the only true Church, besides tales\nof miracles, which are used to support every kind of superstition,\nsome tokens so unmistakable that no doubt of its genuineness could\never have arisen. But nothing of the sort was done by him. And there\nhave been and still are different institutions, each calling itself\nthe true Church.\n\nThe Catholic catechism says: \"L'\u00c9glise est la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 des fid\u00e9les\n\u00e9tablie par notre Seigneur J\u00e9sus Christ, r\u00e9pandue sur toute la terre\net soumise \u00e0 l'authorit\u00e9 des pasteurs l\u00e9gitimes, principalement\nnotre Saint P\u00e8re le Pape,\"[2] understanding by the words \"pasteurs\nl\u00e9gitimes\" an association of men having the Pope at its head,\nand consisting of certain individuals bound together by a certain\norganization.\n\n  [2] \"The Church is the society of the faithful, established by our\n  Lord Jesus Christ, spread over the whole earth, and subject to the\n  authority of its lawful pastors, and chief of them our Holy Father\n  the Pope.\"\n\nThe Greek Orthodox catechism says: \"The Church is a society founded\nupon earth by Jesus Christ, which is united into one whole, by one\ndivine doctrine and by sacraments, under the rule and guidance of a\npriesthood appointed by God,\" meaning by the \"priesthood appointed by\nGod\" the Greek Orthodox priesthood, consisting of certain individuals\nwho happen to be in such or such positions.\n\nThe Lutheran catechism says: \"The Church is holy Christianity, or the\ncollection of all believers under Christ, their head, to whom the\nHoly Ghost through the Gospels and sacraments promises, communicates,\nand administers heavenly salvation,\" meaning that the Catholic\nChurch is lost in error, and that the true means of salvation is in\nLutheranism.\n\nFor Catholics the Church of God coincides with the Roman priesthood\nand the Pope. For the Greek Orthodox believer the Church of God\ncoincides with the establishment and priesthood of Russia.[3]\n\n  [3] Homyakov's definition of the Church, which was received with some\n  favor among Russians, does not improve matters, if we are to agree\n  with Homyakov in considering the Greek Orthodox Church as the one\n  true Church. Homyakov asserts that a church is a collection of men\n  (all without distinction of clergy and laymen) united together by\n  love, and that only to men united by love is the truth revealed (let\n  us love each other, that in the unity of thought, etc.), and that\n  such a church is the church which, in the first place, recognizes\n  the Nicene Creed, and in the second place does not, after the\n  division of the churches, recognize the popes and new dogmas. But\n  with such a definition of the church, there is still more difficulty\n  in reconciling, as Homyakov tries to do, the church united by love\n  with the church that recognizes the Nicene Creed and the doctrine\n  of Photius. So that Homyakov's assertion that this church, united\n  by love, and consequently holy, is the same church as the Greek\n  Orthodox priesthood profess faith in, is even more arbitrary than the\n  assertions of the Catholics or the Orthodox. If we admit the idea of\n  a church in the sense Homyakov gives to it--that is, a body of men\n  bound together by love and truth--then all that any man can predicate\n  in regard to this body, if such an one exists, is its love and truth,\n  but there can be no outer signs by which one could reckon oneself\n  or another as a member of this holy body, nor by which one could\n  put anyone outside it; so that no institution having an external\n  existence can correspond to this idea.\n\nFor Lutherans the Church of God coincides with a body of men who\nrecognize the authority of the Bible and Luther's catechism.\n\nOrdinarily, when speaking of the rise of Christianity, men belonging\nto one of the existing churches use the word church in the singular,\nas though there were and had been only one church. But this is\nabsolutely incorrect. The Church, as an institution which asserted\nthat it possessed infallible truth, did not make its appearance\nsingly; there were at least two churches directly this claim was made.\n\nWhile believers were agreed among themselves and the body was one, it\nhad no need to declare itself as a church. It was only when believers\nwere split up into opposing parties, renouncing one another, that\nit seemed necessary to each party to confirm their own truth by\nascribing to themselves infallibility. The conception of one church\nonly arose when there were two sides divided and disputing, who each\ncalled the other side heresy, and recognized their own side only as\nthe infallible church.\n\nIf we knew that there was a church which decided in the year 51 to\nreceive the uncircumcised, it is only so because there was another\nchurch--of the Judaists--who decided to keep the uncircumcised out.\n\nIf there is a Catholic Church now which asserts its\nown infallibility, that is only because there are\nchurches--Greco-Russian, Old Orthodox, and Lutheran--each asserting\nits own infallibility and denying that of all other churches. So that\nthe one Church is only a fantastic imagination which has not the\nleast trace of reality about it.\n\nAs a real historical fact there has existed, and still exist, several\nbodies of men, each asserting that it is the one Church, founded by\nChrist, and that all the others who call themselves churches are only\nsects and heresies.\n\nThe catechisms of the churches of the most world-wide influence--the\nCatholic, the Old Orthodox, and the Lutheran--openly assert this.\n\nIn the Catholic catechism it is said: \"Quels sont ceux qui sont hors\nde l'\u00e9glise? Les infid\u00e8les, les h\u00e9r\u00e9tiques, les schismatiques.\"[4]\nThe so-called Greek Orthodox are regarded as schismatics, the\nLutherans as heretics; so that according to the Catholic catechism\nthe only people in the Church are Catholics.\n\n  [4] \"Who are those who are outside the Church? Infidels, heretics,\n  and schismatics.\"\n\nIn the so-called Orthodox catechism it is said: By the one Christian\nChurch is understood the Orthodox, which remains fully in accord\nwith the Universal Church. As for the Roman Church and other sects\n(the Lutherans and the rest they do not even dignify by the name of\nchurch), they cannot be included in the one true Church, since they\nhave themselves separated from it.\n\nAccording to this definition the Catholics and Lutherans are outside\nthe Church, and there are only Orthodox in the Church.\n\nThe Lutheran catechism says: \"Die wahre Kirche wird darein erkannt,\ndass in ihr das Wort Gottes lauter und rein ohne Menschenzus\u00e4tze\ngelehrt und die Sacramente treu nach Christi Einsetzung gewahret\nwerden.\"[5]\n\n  [5] \"The true Church will be known by the Word of God being studied\n  clear and unmixed with man's additions and the sacraments being\n  maintained faithful to Christ's teaching.\"\n\nAccording to this definition all those who have added anything to\nthe teaching of Christ and the apostles, as the Catholic and Greek\nchurches have done, are outside the Church. And in the Church there\nare only Protestants.\n\nThe Catholics assert that the Holy Ghost has been transmitted without\na break in their priesthood. The Orthodox assert that the same Holy\nGhost has been transmitted without a break in their priesthood.\nThe Arians asserted that the Holy Ghost was transmitted in their\npriesthood (they asserted this with just as much right as the\nchurches in authority now). The Protestants of every kind--Lutherans,\nReformed Church, Presbyterians, Methodists, Swedenborgians,\nMormons--assert that the Holy Ghost is only present in their\ncommunities. If the Catholics assert that the Holy Ghost, at the time\nof the division of the Church into Arian and Greek, left the Church\nthat fell away and remained in the one true Church, with precisely\nthe same right the Protestants of every denomination can assert that\nat the time of the separation of their Church from the Catholic\nthe Holy Ghost left the Catholic and passed into the Church they\nprofessed. And this is just what they do.\n\nEvery church traces its creed through an uninterrupted transmission\nfrom Christ and the Apostles. And truly every Christian creed that\nhas been derived from Christ must have come down to the present\ngeneration through a certain transmission. But that does not prove\nthat it alone of all that has been transmitted, excluding all the\nrest, can be the sole truth, admitting of no doubt.\n\nEvery branch in a tree comes from the root in unbroken connection;\nbut the fact that each branch comes from the one root, does not\nprove at all that each branch was the only one. It is precisely the\nsame with the Church. Every church presents exactly the same proofs\nof the succession, and even the same miracles, in support of its\nauthenticity, as every other. So that there is but one strict and\nexact definition of what is a church (not of something fantastic\nwhich we would wish it to be, but of what it is and has been in\nreality)--a church is a body of men who claim for themselves that\nthey are in complete and sole possession of the truth. And these\nbodies, having in course of time, aided by the support of the\ntemporal authorities, developed into powerful institutions, have been\nthe principal obstacles to the diffusion of a true comprehension of\nthe teaching of Christ.\n\nIt could not be otherwise. The chief peculiarity which distinguished\nChrist's teaching from previous religions consisted in the fact\nthat those who accepted it strove ever more and more to comprehend\nand realize its teaching. But the Church doctrine asserted its own\ncomplete and final comprehension and realization of it.\n\nStrange though it may seem to us who have been brought up in the\nerroneous view of the Church as a Christian institution, and in\ncontempt for heresy, yet the fact is that only in what was called\nheresy was there any true movement, that is, true Christianity, and\nthat it only ceased to be so when those heresies stopped short in\ntheir movement and also petrified into the fixed forms of a church.\n\nAnd, indeed, what is a heresy? Read all the theological works one\nafter another. In all of them heresy is the subject which first\npresents itself for definition; since every theological work deals\nwith the true doctrine of Christ as distinguished from the erroneous\ndoctrines which surround it, that is, heresies. Yet you will not find\nanywhere anything like a definition of heresy.\n\nThe treatment of this subject by the learned historian of\nChristianity, E. de Pressens\u00e9, in his \"Histoire du Dogme\" (Paris,\n1869), under the heading \"Ubi Christus, ibi Ecclesia,\" may serve as\nan illustration of the complete absence of anything like a definition\nof what is understood by the word heresy. Here is what he says in\nhis introduction (p. 3): \"Je sais que l'on nous conteste le droit de\nqualifier ainsi [that is, to call heresies] les tendances qui furent\nsi vivement combattues par les premiers P\u00e8res. La d\u00e9signation m\u00eame\nd'h\u00e9r\u00e9sie semble une atteinte port\u00e9e \u00e0 la libert\u00e9 de conscience et de\npens\u00e9e. Nous ne pouvons partager ce scrupule, car il n'irait \u00e0 rien\nmoins qu'\u00e0 enlever au Christianisme tout caract\u00e8re distinctif.\"[6]\n\n  [6] \"I know that our right to qualify thus the tendencies which were\n  so actively opposed by the early Fathers is contested. The very use\n  of the word heresy seems an attack upon liberty of conscience and\n  thought. We cannot share this scruple; for it would amount to nothing\n  less than depriving Christianity of all distinctive character.\"\n\nAnd though he tells us that after Constantine's time the Church did\nactually abuse its power by designating those who dissented from it\nas heretics and persecuting them, yet he says, when speaking of early\ntimes: \"L'\u00e9glise est une libre association; il y a tout profit \u00e0 se\ns\u00e9parer d'elle. La pol\u00e9mique contre l'erreur n'a d'autres ressources\nque la pens\u00e9e et le sentiment. Un type doctrinal uniforme n'a pas\nencore \u00e9t\u00e9 \u00e9labor\u00e9; les divergences secondaires se produisent en\nOrient et en Occident avec une enti\u00e8re libert\u00e9; la th\u00e9ologie n'est\npoint li\u00e9e \u00e0 d'invariables formules. Si au sein de cette diversit\u00e9\napparait un fonds commun de croyances, n'est-on pas en droit d'y\nvoir non pas un syst\u00e8me formul\u00e9 et compos\u00e9 par les repr\u00e9sentants\nd'une autorit\u00e9 d'\u00e9cole, mais la foi elle-m\u00eame dans son instinct\nle plus s\u00fbr et sa manifestation la plus spontan\u00e9e? Si cette m\u00eame\nunanimit\u00e9 qui se r\u00e9v\u00e8le dans les croyances essentielles, se retrouve\npour repousser telles ou telles tendances, ne serons-nous pas en\ndroit de conclure que ces tendances \u00e9taient en d\u00e9sacord flagrant\navec les principes fondamentaux du christianisme? Cette pr\u00e9somption\nne se transformera-t-elle pas en certitude si nous reconnaissons\ndans la doctrine universellement repouss\u00e9e par l'Eglise les traits\ncaract\u00e9ristiques de l'une des religions du pass\u00e9? Pour dire que\nle gnosticisme ou l'\u00e9bionitisme sont les formes l\u00e9gitimes de la\npens\u00e9e chr\u00e9tienne il faut dire hardiment qu'il n'y a pas de pens\u00e9e\nchr\u00e9tienne, ni de caract\u00e8re sp\u00e9cifique qui la fasse reconna\u00eetre. Sous\npr\u00e9texte de l'\u00e9largir, on la dissout. Personne au temps de Platon\nn'e\u00fbt os\u00e9 couvrir de son nom une doctrine qui n'eut pas fait place\n\u00e0 la th\u00e9orie des id\u00e9es; et l'on e\u00fbt excit\u00e9 les justes moqueries\nde la Gr\u00e8ce, en voulant faire d'Epicure ou de Z\u00e9non un disciple\nde l'Acad\u00e9mie. Reconnaissons donc que s'il existe une religion\nou une doctrine qui s'appelle christianisme, elle peut avoir ses\nh\u00e9r\u00e9sies.\"[7]\n\n  [7] \"The Church is a free association; there is much to be gained by\n  separation from it. Conflict with error has no weapons other than\n  thought and feeling. One uniform type of doctrine has not yet been\n  elaborated; divergencies in secondary matters arise freely in East\n  and West; theology is not wedded to invariable formulas. If in the\n  midst of this diversity a mass of beliefs common to all is apparent,\n  is one not justified in seeing in it, not a formulated system, framed\n  by the representatives of pedantic authority, but faith itself in\n  its surest instinct and its most spontaneous manifestation? If the\n  same unanimity which is revealed in essential points of belief is\n  found also in rejecting certain tendencies, are we not justified in\n  concluding that these tendencies were in flagrant opposition to the\n  fundamental principles of Christianity? And will not this presumption\n  be transformed into certainty if we recognize in the doctrine\n  universally rejected by the Church the characteristic features of one\n  of the religions of the past? To say that gnosticism or ebionitism\n  are legitimate forms of Christian thought, one must boldly deny the\n  existence of Christian thought at all, or any specific character by\n  which it could be recognized. While ostensibly widening its realm,\n  one undermines it. No one in the time of Plato would have ventured\n  to give his name to a doctrine in which the theory of ideas had no\n  place, and one would deservedly have excited the ridicule of Greece\n  by trying to pass off Epicurus or Zeno as a disciple of the Academy.\n  Let us recognize, then, that if a religion or a doctrine exists which\n  is called Christianity, it may have its heresies.\"\n\nThe author's whole argument amounts to this: that every opinion which\ndiffers from the code of dogmas we believe in at a given time, is\nheresy. But of course at any given time and place men always believe\nin something or other; and this belief in something, indefinite at\nany place, at some time, cannot be a criterion of truth.\n\nIt all amounts to this: since ubi Christus ibi Ecclesia, then\nChristus is where we are.\n\nEvery so-called heresy, regarding, as it does, its own creed as\nthe truth, can just as easily find in Church history a series of\nillustrations of its own creed, can use all Pressens\u00e9's arguments on\nits own behalf, and can call its own creed the one truly Christian\ncreed. And that is just what all heresies do and have always done.\n\nThe only definition of heresy (the word \u03b1\u1f35\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, means a\npart) is this: the name given by a body of men to any opinion which\nrejects a part of the Creed professed by that body. The more frequent\nmeaning, more often ascribed to the word heresy, is--that of an\nopinion which rejects the Church doctrine founded and supported by\nthe temporal authorities.\n\nThere is a remarkable and voluminous work, very little known,\n\"Unpartheyische Kirchen- und Ketzer-Historie,\" 1729, by Gottfried\nArnold, which deals with precisely this subject, and points out all\nthe unlawfulness, the arbitrariness, the senselessness, and the\ncruelty of using the word heretic in the sense of reprobate. This\nbook is an attempt to write the history of Christianity in the form\nof a history of heresy.\n\nIn the introduction the author propounds a series of questions: (1)\nOf those who make heretics; (2) Of those whom they made heretics;\n(3) Of heretical subjects themselves; (4) Of the method of making\nheretics; and (5) Of the object and result of making heretics.\n\nOn each of these points he propounds ten more questions, the answers\nto which he gives later on from the works of well-known theologians.\nBut he leaves the reader to draw for himself the principal\nconclusion from the expositions in the whole book. As examples of\nthese questions, in which the answers are to some extent included\nalso, I will quote the following. Under the 4th head, of the manner\nin which heretics are made, he says, in one of the questions (in the\n7th):\n\n\"Does not all history show that the greatest makers of heretics\nand masters of that craft were just these wise men, from whom the\nFather hid his secrets, that is, the hypocrites, the Pharisees, and\nlawyers, men utterly godless and perverted (Question 20-21)? And\nin the corrupt times of Christianity were not these very men cast\nout, denounced by the hypocrites and envious, who were endowed by\nGod with great gifts and who would in the days of pure Christianity\nhave been held in high honor? And, on the other hand, would not the\nmen who, in the decline of Christianity raised themselves above all,\nand regarded themselves as the teachers of the purest Christianity,\nwould not these very men, in the times of the apostles and disciples\nof Christ, have been regarded as the most shameless heretics and\nanti-Christians?\"\n\nHe expounds, among other things in these questions, the theory\nthat any verbal expression of faith, such as was demanded by the\nChurch, and the departure from which was reckoned as heresy, could\nnever fully cover the exact religious ideas of a believer, and that\ntherefore the demand for an expression of faith in certain words was\never productive of heresy, and he says, in Question 21:\n\n\"And if heavenly things and thoughts present themselves to a man's\nmind as so great and so profound that he does not find corresponding\nwords to express them, ought one to call him a heretic, because he\ncannot express his idea with perfect exactness?\" And in Question 33:\n\n\"And is not the fact that there was no heresy in the earliest days\ndue to the fact that the Christians did not judge one another by\nverbal expressions, but by deed and by heart, since they had perfect\nliberty to express their ideas without the dread of being called\nheretics; was it not the easiest and most ordinary ecclesiastical\nproceeding, if the clergy wanted to get rid of or to ruin anyone, for\nthem to cast suspicion on the person's belief, and to throw a cloak\nof heresy upon him, and by this means to procure his condemnation and\nremoval?\n\n\"True though it may be that there were sins and errors among the\nso-called heretics, it is no less true and evident,\" he says farther\non, \"from the innumerable examples quoted here (_i. e._, in the\nhistory of the Church and of heresy), that there was not a single\nsincere and conscientious man of any importance whom the Churchmen\nwould not from envy or other causes have ruined.\"\n\nThus, almost two hundred years ago, the real meaning of heresy was\nunderstood. And notwithstanding that, the same conception of it has\ngone on existing up to now. And it cannot fail to exist so long as\nthe conception of a church exists. Heresy is the obverse side of the\nChurch. Wherever there is a church, there must be the conception\nof heresy. A church is a body of men who assert that they are in\npossession of infallible truth. Heresy is the opinion of the men who\ndo not admit the infallibility of the Church's truth.\n\nHeresy makes its appearance in the Church. It is the effort to break\nthrough the petrified authority of the Church. All effort after a\nliving comprehension of the doctrine has been made by heretics.\nTertullian, Origen, Augustine, Luther, Huss, Savonarola, Helchitsky,\nand the rest were heretics. It could not be otherwise.\n\nThe follower of Christ, whose service means an ever-growing\nunderstanding of his teaching, and an ever-closer fulfillment of it,\nin progress toward perfection, cannot, just because he is a follower\nof Christ, claim for himself or any other that he understands\nChrist's teaching fully and fulfills it. Still less can he claim this\nfor any body of men.\n\nTo whatever degree of understanding and perfection the follower of\nChrist may have attained, he always feels the insufficiency of his\nunderstanding and fulfillment of it, and is always striving toward\na fuller understanding and fulfillment. And therefore, to assert\nof one's self or of any body of men, that one is or they are in\npossession of perfect understanding and fulfillment of Christ's word,\nis to renounce the very spirit of Christ's teaching.\n\nStrange as it may seem, the churches as churches have always been,\nand cannot but be, institutions not only alien in spirit to Christ's\nteaching, but even directly antagonistic to it. With good reason\nVoltaire calls the Church _l'inf\u00e2me_; with good reason have all or\nalmost all so-called sects of Christians recognized the Church as\nthe scarlet woman foretold in the Apocalypse; with good reason is\nthe history of the Church the history of the greatest cruelties and\nhorrors.\n\nThe churches as churches are not, as many people suppose,\ninstitutions which have Christian principles for their basis,\neven though they may have strayed a little away from the straight\npath. The churches as churches, as bodies which assert their own\ninfallibility, are institutions opposed to Christianity. There is not\nonly nothing in common between the churches as such and Christianity,\nexcept the name, but they represent two principles fundamentally\nopposed and antagonistic to one another. One represents pride,\nviolence, self-assertion, stagnation, and death; the other, meekness,\npenitence, humility, progress, and life.\n\nWe cannot serve these two masters; we have to choose between them.\n\nThe servants of the churches of all denominations, especially of\nlater times, try to show themselves champions of progress in\nChristianity. They make concessions, wish to correct the abuses\nthat have slipped into the Church, and maintain that one cannot, on\naccount of these abuses, deny the principle itself of a Christian\nchurch, which alone can bind all men together in unity and be a\nmediator between men and God. But this is all a mistake. Not only\nhave the churches never bound men together in unity; they have always\nbeen one of the principal causes of division between men, of their\nhatred of one another, of wars, battles, inquisitions, massacres of\nSt. Bartholomew, and so on. And the churches have never served as\nmediators between men and God. Such mediation is not wanted, and was\ndirectly forbidden by Christ, who has revealed his teaching directly\nand immediately to each man. But the churches set up dead forms in\nthe place of God, and far from revealing God, they obscure him from\nmen's sight. The churches, which originated from misunderstanding of\nChrist's teaching and have maintained this misunderstanding by their\nimmovability, cannot but persecute and refuse to recognize all true\nunderstanding of Christ's words. They try to conceal this, but in\nvain; for every step forward along the path pointed out for us by\nChrist is a step toward their destruction.\n\nTo hear and to read the sermons and articles in which Church writers\nof later times of all denominations speak of Christian truths and\nvirtues; to hear or read these skillful arguments that have been\nelaborated during centuries, and exhortations and professions,\nwhich sometimes seem like sincere professions, one is ready to\ndoubt whether the churches can be antagonistic to Christianity. \"It\ncannot be,\" one says, \"that these people who can point to such men\nas Chrysostom, F\u00e9nelon, Butler, and others professing the Christian\nfaith, were antagonistic to Christianity.\" One is tempted to say,\n\"The churches may have strayed away from Christianity, they may be\nin error, but they cannot be hostile to it.\" But we must look to\nthe fruit to judge the tree, as Christ taught us. And if we see that\ntheir fruits were evil, that the results of their activity were\nantagonistic to Christianity, we cannot but admit that however good\nthe men were--the work of the Church in which these men took part\nwas not Christian. The goodness and worth of these men who served\nthe churches was the goodness and worth of the men, and not of\nthe institution they served. All the good men, such as Francis of\nAssisi, and Francis of Sales, our Tihon Zadonsky, Thomas \u00e0 Kempis,\nand others, were good men in spite of their serving an institution\nhostile to Christianity, and they would have been still better if\nthey had not been under the influence of the error which they were\nserving.\n\nBut why should we speak of the past and judge from the past, which\nmay have been misrepresented and misunderstood by us? The churches,\nwith their principles and their practice, are not a thing of the\npast. The churches are before us to-day, and we can judge of them to\nsome purpose by their practical activity, their influence on men.\n\nWhat is the practical work of the churches to-day? What is their\ninfluence upon men? What is done by the churches among us, among the\nCatholics and the Protestants of all denominations--what is their\npractical work? and what are the results of their practical work?\n\nThe practice of our Russian so-called Orthodox Church is plain to\nall. It is an enormous fact which there is no possibility of hiding\nand about which there can be no disputing.\n\nWhat constitutes the practical work of this Russian Church, this\nimmense, intensely active institution, which consists of a regiment\nof half a million men and costs the people tens of millions of rubles?\n\nThe practical business of the Church consists in instilling by every\nconceivable means into the mass of one hundred millions of the\nRussian people those extinct relics of beliefs for which there is\nnowadays no kind of justification, \"in which scarcely anyone now\nbelieves, and often not even those whose duty it is to diffuse these\nfalse beliefs.\" To instill into the people the formulas of Byzantine\ntheology, of the Trinity, of the Mother of God, of Sacraments, of\nGrace, and so on, extinct conceptions, foreign to us, and having no\nkind of meaning for men of our times, forms only one part of the\nwork of the Russian Church. Another part of its practice consists in\nthe maintenance of idol-worship in the most literal meaning of the\nword; in the veneration of holy relics, and of ikons, the offering of\nsacrifices to them, and the expectation of their answers to prayer.\nI am not going to speak of what is preached and what is written\nby clergy of scientific or liberal tendencies in the theological\njournals. I am going to speak of what is actually done by the clergy\nthrough the wide expanse of the Russian land among a people of one\nhundred millions. What do they, diligently, assiduously, everywhere\nalike, without intermission, teach the people? What do they demand\nfrom the people in virtue of their (so-called) Christian faith?\n\nI will begin from the beginning with the birth of a child. At the\nbirth of a child they teach them that they must recite a prayer over\nthe child and mother to purify them, as though without this prayer\nthe mother of a newborn child were unclean. To do this the priest\nholds the child in his arms before the images of the saints (called\nby the people plainly gods) and reads words of exorcizing power, and\nthis purifies the mother. Then it is suggested to the parents, and\neven exacted of them, under fear of punishment for non-fulfillment,\nthat the child must be baptized; that is, be dipped by the priest\nthree times into the water, while certain words, understood by no\none, are read aloud, and certain actions, still less understood,\nare performed; various parts of the body are rubbed with oil, and\nthe hair is cut, while the sponsors blow and spit at an imaginary\ndevil. All this is necessary to purify the child and to make him a\nChristian. Then it is instilled into the parents that they ought to\nadminister the sacrament to the child, that is, give him, in the\nguise of bread and wine, a portion of Christ's body to eat, as a\nresult of which the child receives the grace of God within it, and\nso on. Then it is suggested that the child as it grows up must be\ntaught to pray. To pray means to place himself directly before the\nwooden boards on which are painted the faces of Christ, the Mother of\nGod, and the saints, to bow his head and his whole body, and to touch\nhis forehead, his shoulders and his stomach with his right hand,\nholding his fingers in a certain position, and to utter some words\nof Slavonic, the most usual of which as taught to all children are:\nMother of God, virgin, rejoice thee, etc., etc.\n\nThen it is instilled into the child as it is brought up that at the\nsight of any church or ikon he must repeat the same action--_i.\ne._, cross himself. Then it is instilled into him that on holidays\n(holidays are the days on which Christ was born, though no one knows\nwhen that was, on which he was circumcised, on which the Mother of\nGod died, on which the cross was carried in procession, on which\nikons have been set up, on which a lunatic saw a vision, and so\non)--on holidays he must dress himself in his best clothes and go to\nchurch, and must buy candles and place them there before the images\nof the saints. Then he must give offerings and prayers for the dead,\nand little loaves to be cut up into three-cornered pieces, and must\npray many times for the health and prosperity of the Tzar and the\nbishops, and for himself and his own affairs, and then kiss the cross\nand the hand of the priest.\n\nBesides these observances, it is instilled into him that at least\nonce a year he must confess. To confess means to go to the church\nand to tell the priest his sins, on the theory that this informing\na stranger of his sins completely purifies him from them. And after\nthat he must eat with a little spoon a morsel of bread with wine,\nwhich will purify him still more. Next it is instilled into him that\nif a man and woman want their physical union to be sanctified they\nmust go to church, put on metal crowns, drink certain potions, walk\nthree times round a table to the sound of singing, and that then\nthe physical union of a man and woman becomes sacred and altogether\ndifferent from all other such unions.\n\nFurther it is instilled into him in his life that he must observe\nthe following rules: not to eat butter or milk on certain days, and\non certain other days to sing Te Deums and requiems for the dead,\non holidays to entertain the priest and give him money, and several\ntimes in the year to bring the ikons from the church, and to carry\nthem slung on his shoulders through the fields and houses. It is\ninstilled into him that on his death-bed a man must not fail to eat\nbread and wine with a spoon, and that it will be still better if\nhe has time to be rubbed with sacred oil. This will guarantee his\nwelfare in the future life. After his death it is instilled into\nhis relatives that it is a good thing for the salvation of the dead\nman to place a printed paper of prayers in his hands; it is a good\nthing further to read aloud a certain book over the dead body, and to\npronounce the dead man's name in church at a certain time. All this\nis regarded as faith obligatory on everyone.\n\nBut if anyone wants to take particular care of his soul, then\naccording to this faith he is instructed that the greatest security\nof the salvation of the soul in the world is attained by offering\nmoney to the churches and monasteries, and engaging the holy men by\nthis means to pray for him. Entering monasteries too, and kissing\nrelics and miraculous ikons, are further means of salvation for the\nsoul.\n\nAccording to this faith ikons and relics communicate a special\nsanctity, power, and grace, and even proximity to these objects,\ntouching them, kissing them, putting candles before them, crawling\nunder them while they are being carried along, are all efficacious\nfor salvation, as well as Te Deums repeated before these holy things.\n\nSo this, and nothing else, is the faith called Orthodox, that is\nthe actual faith which, under the guise of Christianity, has been\nwith all the forces of the Church, and is now with especial zeal,\ninstilled into the people.\n\nAnd let no one say that the Orthodox teachers place the essential\npart of their teaching in something else, and that all these are\nonly ancient forms, which it is not thought necessary to do away\nwith. That is false. This, and nothing but this, is the faith taught\nthrough the whole of Russia by the whole of the Russian clergy, and\nof late years with especial zeal. There is nothing else taught.\nSomething different may be talked of and written of in the capitals;\nbut among the hundred millions of the people this is what is done,\nthis is what is taught, and nothing more. Churchmen may talk of\nsomething else, but this is what they teach by every means in their\npower.\n\nAll this, and the worship of relics and of ikons, has been introduced\ninto works of theology and into the catechisms. Thus they teach it\nto the people in theory and in practice, using every resource of\nauthority, solemnity, pomp, and violence to impress them. They compel\nthe people, by overawing them, to believe in this, and jealously\nguard this faith from any attempt to free the people from these\nbarbarous superstitions.\n\nAs I said when I published my book, Christ's teaching and his very\nwords about non-resistance to evil were for many years a subject\nfor ridicule and low jesting in my eyes, and Churchmen, far from\nopposing it, even encouraged this scoffing at sacred things. But try\nthe experiment of saying a disrespectful word about a hideous idol\nwhich is carried sacrilegiously about Moscow by drunken men under the\nname of the ikon of the Iversky virgin, and you will raise a groan\nof indignation from these same Churchmen. All that they preach is an\nexternal observance of the rites of idolatry. And let it not be said\nthat the one does not hinder the other, that \"These ought ye to have\ndone, and not to leave the other undone.\" \"All, therefore, whatsoever\nthey bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their\nworks: for they say, and do not\" (Matt. xxiii. 23, 3).\n\nThis was spoken of the Pharisees, who fulfilled all the external\nobservances prescribed by the law, and therefore the words\n\"whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do,\" refer to\nworks of mercy and goodness, and the words \"do not ye after their\nworks, for they say and do not,\" refer to their observance of\nceremonies and their neglect of good works, and have exactly the\nopposite meaning to that which the Churchmen try to give to the\npassage, interpreting it as an injunction to observe ceremonies.\nExternal observances and the service of truth and goodness are for\nthe most part difficult to combine; the one excludes the other. So it\nwas with the Pharisees, so it is now with Church Christians.\n\nIf a man can be saved by the redemption, by sacraments, and by\nprayer, then he does not need good works.\n\nThe Sermon on the Mount, or the Creed. One cannot believe in both.\nAnd Churchmen have chosen the latter. The Creed is taught and is\nread as a prayer in the churches, but the Sermon on the Mount is\nexcluded even from the Gospel passages read in the churches, so that\nthe congregation never hears it in church, except on those days when\nthe whole of the Gospel is read. Indeed, it could not be otherwise.\nPeople who believe in a wicked and senseless God--who has cursed\nthe human race and devoted his own Son to sacrifice, and a part of\nmankind to eternal torment--cannot believe in the God of love. The\nman who believes in a God, in a Christ coming again in glory to judge\nand to punish the quick and the dead, cannot believe in the Christ\nwho bade us turn the left cheek, judge not, forgive those that wrong\nus, and love our enemies. The man who believes in the inspiration of\nthe Old Testament and the sacred character of David, who commanded\non his deathbed the murder of an old man who had cursed him, and\nwhom he could not kill himself because he was bound by an oath to\nhim, and the similar atrocities of which the Old Testament is full,\ncannot believe in the holy love of Christ. The man who believes in\nthe Church's doctrine of the compatibility of warfare and capital\npunishment with Christianity cannot believe in the brotherhood of all\nmen.\n\nAnd what is most important of all--the man who believes in salvation\nthrough faith in the redemption or the sacraments, cannot devote all\nhis powers to realizing Christ's moral teaching in his life.\n\nThe man who has been instructed by the Church in the profane doctrine\nthat a man cannot be saved by his own powers, but that there is\nanother means of salvation, will infallibly rely upon this means and\nnot on his own powers, which, they assure him, it is sinful to trust\nin.\n\nThe teaching of every Church, with its redemption and sacraments,\nexcludes the teaching of Christ; most of all the teaching of the\nOrthodox Church with its idolatrous observances.\n\n\"But the people have always believed of their own accord as they\nbelieve now,\" will be said in answer to this. \"The whole history\nof the Russian people proves it. One cannot deprive the people of\ntheir traditions.\" This statement, too, is misleading. The people\ndid certainly at one time believe in something like what the Church\nbelieves in now, though it was far from being the same thing. In\nspite of their superstitious regard for ikons, house-spirits, relics,\nand festivals with wreaths of birch leaves, there has still always\nbeen in the people a profound moral and living understanding of\nChristianity, which there has never been in the Church as a whole,\nand which is only met with in its best representatives. But the\npeople, notwithstanding all the prejudices instilled into them by the\ngovernment and the Church, have in their best representatives long\noutgrown that crude stage of understanding, a fact which is proved\nby the springing up everywhere of the rationalist sects with which\nRussia is swarming to-day, and on which Churchmen are now carrying on\nan ineffectual warfare. The people are advancing to a consciousness\nof the moral, living side of Christianity. And then the Church comes\nforward, not borrowing from the people, but zealously instilling into\nthem the petrified formalities of an extinct paganism, and striving\nto thrust them back again into the darkness from which they are\nemerging with such effort.\n\n\"We teach the people nothing new, nothing but what they believe, only\nin a more perfect form,\" say the Churchmen. This is just what the man\ndid who tied up the full-grown chicken and thrust it back into the\nshell it had come out of.\n\nI have often been irritated, though it would be comic if the\nconsequences were not so awful, by observing how men shut one another\nin a delusion and cannot get out of this magic circle.\n\nThe first question, the first doubt of a Russian who is beginning to\nthink, is a question about the ikons, and still more the miraculous\nrelics: Is it true that they are genuine, and that miracles are\nworked through them? Hundreds of thousands of men put this question\nto themselves, and their principal difficulty in answering it is\nthe fact that bishops, metropolitans, and all men in positions of\nauthority kiss the relics and wonder-working ikons. Ask the bishops\nand men in positions of authority why they do so, and they will say\nthey do it for the sake of the people, while the people kiss them\nbecause the bishops and men in authority do so.\n\nIn spite of all the external varnish of modernity, learning, and\nspirituality which the members of the Church begin nowadays to assume\nin their works, their articles, their theological journals, and their\nsermons, the practical work of the Russian Church consists of nothing\nmore than keeping the people in their present condition of coarse\nand savage idolatry, and worse still, strengthening and diffusing\nsuperstition and religious ignorance, and suppressing that living\nunderstanding of Christianity which exists in the people side by side\nwith idolatry.\n\nI remember once being present in the monks' bookshop of the Optchy\nHermitage while an old peasant was choosing books for his grandson,\nwho could read. A monk pressed on him accounts of relics, holidays,\nmiraculous ikons, a psalter, etc. I asked the old man, \"Has he the\nGospel?\" \"No.\" \"Give him the Gospel in Russian,\" I said to the monk.\n\"That will not do for him,\" answered the monk. There you have an\nepitome of the work of our Church.\n\nBut this is only in barbarous Russia, the European and American\nreader will observe. And such an observation is just, but only so far\nas it refers to the government, which aids the Church in its task of\nstultification and corruption in Russia.\n\nIt is true that there is nowhere in Europe a government so despotic\nand so closely allied with the ruling Church. And therefore the share\nof the temporal power in the corruption of the people is greatest in\nRussia. But it is untrue that the Russian Church in its influence on\nthe people is in any respect different from any other church.\n\nThe churches are everywhere the same, and if the Catholic, the\nAnglican, or the Lutheran Church has not at hand a government as\ncompliant as the Russian, it is not due to any indisposition to\nprofit by such a government.\n\nThe Church as a church, whatever it may be--Catholic, Anglican,\nLutheran, Presbyterian--every church, in so far as it is a church,\ncannot but strive for the same object as the Russian Church. That\nobject is to conceal the real meaning of Christ's teaching and to\nreplace it by their own, which lays no obligation on them, excludes\nthe possibility of understanding the true teaching of Christ, and\nwhat is the chief consideration, justifies the existence of priests\nsupported at the people's expense.\n\nWhat else has Catholicism done, what else is it doing in its\nprohibition of reading the Gospel, and in its demand for unreasoning\nsubmission to Church authorities and to an infallible Pope? Is the\nreligion of Catholicism any other than that of the Russian Church?\nThere is the same external ritual, the same relics, miracles, and\nwonder-working images of Notre Dame, and the same processions; the\nsame loftily vague discussions of Christianity in books and sermons,\nand when it comes to practice, the same supporting of the present\nidolatry. And is not the same thing done in Anglicanism, Lutheranism,\nand every denomination of Protestantism which has been formed into a\nchurch? There is the same duty laid on their congregations to believe\nin the dogmas expressed in the fourth century, which have lost\nall meaning for men of our times, and the same duty of idolatrous\nworship, if not of relics and ikons, then of the Sabbath Day and the\nletter of the Bible. There is always the same activity directed to\nconcealing the real duties of Christianity, and to putting in their\nplace an external respectability and cant, as it is so well described\nby the English, who are peculiarly oppressed by it. In Protestantism\nthis tendency is specially remarkable because it has not the excuse\nof antiquity. And does not exactly the same thing show itself even\nin contemporary revivalism--the revived Calvinism and Evangelicalism,\nto which the Salvation Army owes its origin?\n\nUniform is the attitude of all the churches to the teaching of\nChrist, whose name they assume for their own advantage.\n\nThe inconsistency of all church forms of religion with the teaching\nof Christ is, of course, the reason why special efforts are\nnecessary to conceal this inconsistency from people. Truly, we need\nonly imagine ourselves in the position of any grown-up man, not\nnecessarily educated, even the simplest man of the present day, who\nhas picked up the ideas that are everywhere in the air nowadays\nof geology, physics, chemistry, cosmography, or history, when he,\nfor the first time, consciously compares them with the articles\nof belief instilled into him in childhood, and maintained by the\nchurches--that God created the world in six days, and light before\nthe sun; that Noah shut up all the animals in his ark, and so on;\nthat Jesus is also God the Son, who created all before time was;\nthat this God came down upon earth to atone for Adam's sin; that he\nrose again, ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of\nthe Father, and will come in the clouds to judge the world, and so\non. All these propositions, elaborated by men of the fourth century,\nhad a certain meaning for men of that time, but for men of to-day\nthey have no meaning whatever. Men of the present day can repeat\nthese words with their lips, but believe them they cannot. For such\nsentences as that God lives in heaven, that the heavens opened and\na voice from somewhere said something, that Christ rose again, and\nascended somewhere in heaven, and again will come from somewhere on\nthe clouds, and so on, have no meaning for us.\n\nA man who regarded the heavens as a solid, finite vault could believe\nor disbelieve that God created the heavens, that the heavens opened,\nthat Christ ascended into heaven, but for us all these phrases have\nno sense whatever. Men of the present can only believe, as indeed\nthey do, that they ought to believe in this; but believe it they\ncannot, because it has no meaning for them.\n\nEven if all these phrases ought to be interpreted in a figurative\nsense and are allegories, we know that in the first place all\nChurchmen are not agreed about it, but, on the contrary, the majority\nstick to understanding the Holy Scripture in its literal sense; and\nsecondly, that these allegorical interpretations are very varied and\nare not supported by any evidence.\n\nBut even if a man wants to force himself to believe in the doctrines\nof the Church just as they are taught to him, the universal diffusion\nof education and of the Gospel and of communication between people\nof different forms of religion presents a still more insurmountable\nobstacle to his doing so.\n\nA man of the present day need only buy a Gospel for three copecks\nand read through the plain words, admitting of no misinterpretation,\nthat Christ said to the Samaritan woman \"that the Father seeketh\nnot worshipers at Jerusalem, nor in this mountain nor in that, but\nworshipers in spirit and in truth,\" or the saying that \"the Christian\nmust not pray like the heathen, nor for show, but secretly, that is,\nin his closet,\" or that Christ's follower must call no man master or\nfather--he need only read these words to be thoroughly convinced that\nthe Church pastors, who call themselves teachers in opposition to\nChrist's precept, and dispute among themselves, constitute no kind of\nauthority, and that what the Churchmen teach us is not Christianity.\nLess even than that is necessary. Even if a man nowadays did continue\nto believe in miracles and did not read the Gospel, mere association\nwith people of different forms of religion and faith, which happens\nso easily in these days, compels him to doubt of the truth of his\nown faith. It was all very well when a man did not see men of any\nother form of religion than his own; he believed that his form of\nreligion was the one true one. But a thinking man has only to come\ninto contact--as constantly happens in these days--with people,\nequally good and bad, of different denominations, who condemn each\nother's beliefs, to doubt of the truth of the belief he professes\nhimself. In these days only a man who is absolutely ignorant or\nabsolutely indifferent to the vital questions with which religion\ndeals, can remain in the faith of the Church.\n\nWhat deceptions and what strenuous efforts the churches must employ\nto continue, in spite of all these tendencies subversive of the\nfaith, to build churches, to perform masses, to preach, to teach, to\nconvert, and, most of all, to receive for it all immense emoluments,\nas do all these priests, pastors, incumbents, superintendents,\nabbots, archdeacons, bishops, and archbishops. They need special\nsupernatural efforts. And the churches do, with ever-increasing\nintensity and zeal, make such efforts. With us in Russia, besides\nother means, they employ simple brute force, as there the temporal\npower is willing to obey the Church. Men who refuse an external\nassent to the faith, and say so openly, are either directly punished\nor deprived of their rights; men who strictly keep the external forms\nof religion are rewarded and given privileges.\n\nThat is how the Orthodox clergy proceed; but indeed all churches\nwithout exception avail themselves of every means for the\npurpose--one of the most important of which is what is now called\nhypnotism.\n\nEvery art, from architecture to poetry, is brought into requisition\nto work its effect on men's souls and to reduce them to a state of\nstupefaction, and this effect is constantly produced. This use of\nhypnotizing influence on men to bring them to a state of stupefaction\nis especially apparent in the proceedings of the Salvation Army,\nwho employ new practices to which we are unaccustomed: trumpets,\ndrums, songs, flags, costumes, marching, dancing, tears, and dramatic\nperformances.\n\nBut this only displeases us because these are new practices. Were\nnot the old practices in churches essentially the same, with their\nspecial lighting, gold, splendor, candles, choirs, organ, bells,\nvestments, intoning, etc.?\n\nBut however powerful this hypnotic influence may be, it is not the\nchief nor the most pernicious activity of the Church. The chief and\nmost pernicious work of the Church is that which is directed to the\ndeception of children--these very children of whom Christ said: \"Woe\nto him that offendeth one of these little ones.\" From the very first\nawakening of the consciousness of the child they begin to deceive\nhim, to instill into him with the utmost solemnity what they do not\nthemselves believe in, and they continue to instill it into him\ntill the deception has by habit grown into the child's nature. They\nstudiously deceive the child on the most important subject in life,\nand when the deception has so grown into his life that it would be\ndifficult to uproot it, then they reveal to him the whole world of\nscience and reality, which cannot by any means be reconciled with the\nbeliefs that have been instilled into him, leaving it to him to find\nhis way as best he can out of these contradictions.\n\nIf one set oneself the task of trying to confuse a man so that he\ncould not think clearly nor free himself from the perplexity of two\nopposing theories of life which had been instilled into him from\nchildhood, one could not invent any means more effectual than the\ntreatment of every young man educated in our so-called Christian\nsociety.\n\nIt is terrible to think what the churches do to men. But if one\nimagines oneself in the position of the men who constitute the\nChurch, we see they could not act differently. The churches are\nplaced in a dilemma: the Sermon on the Mount or the Nicene Creed--the\none excludes the other. If a man sincerely believes in the Sermon\non the Mount, the Nicene Creed must inevitably lose all meaning and\nsignificance for him, and the Church and its representatives together\nwith it. If a man believes in the Nicene Creed, that is, in the\nChurch, that is, in those who call themselves its representatives,\nthe Sermon on the Mount becomes superfluous for him. And therefore\nthe churches cannot but make every possible effort to obscure the\nmeaning of the Sermon on the Mount, and to attract men to themselves.\nIt is only due to the intense zeal of the churches in this direction\nthat the influence of the churches has lasted hitherto.\n\nLet the Church stop its work of hypnotizing the masses, and deceiving\nchildren even for the briefest interval of time, and men would begin\nto understand Christ's teaching. But this understanding will be\nthe end of the churches and all their influence. And therefore the\nchurches will not for an instant relax their zeal in the business\nof hypnotizing grown-up people and deceiving children. This, then,\nis the work of the churches: to instill a false interpretation of\nChrist's teaching into men, and to prevent a true interpretation of\nit for the majority of so-called believers.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\n     CHRISTIANITY MISUNDERSTOOD BY MEN OF SCIENCE.\n\n     Attitude of Men of Science to Religions in General--What\n     Religion is, and What is its Significance for the Life of\n     Humanity--Three Conceptions of Life--Christian Religion the\n     Expression of the Divine Conception of Life--Misinterpretation\n     of Christianity by Men of Science, who Study it in its\n     External Manifestations Due to their Criticising it from\n     Standpoint of Social Conception of Life--Opinion, Resulting\n     from this Misinterpretation, that Christ's Moral Teaching is\n     Exaggerated and Cannot be put into Practice--Expression of\n     Divine Conception of Life in the Gospel--False Ideas of Men\n     of Science on Christianity Proceed from their Conviction that\n     they have an Infallible Method of Criticism--From which come\n     Two Misconceptions in Regard to Christian Doctrine--First\n     Misconception, that the Teaching Cannot be put into Practice,\n     Due to the Christian Religion Directing Life in a Way Different\n     from that of the Social Theory of Life--Christianity holds up\n     Ideal, does not lay down Rules--To the Animal Force of Man\n     Christ Adds the Consciousness of a Divine Force--Christianity\n     Seems to Destroy Possibility of Life only when the Ideal held\n     up is Mistaken for Rule--Ideal Must Not be Lowered--Life,\n     According to Christ's Teaching, is Movement--The Ideal and\n     the Precepts--Second Misconception Shown in Replacing Love\n     and Service of God by Love and Service of Humanity--Men of\n     Science Imagine their Doctrine of Service of Humanity and\n     Christianity are Identical--Doctrine of Service of Humanity\n     Based on Social Conception of Life--Love for Humanity, Logically\n     Deduced from Love of Self, has No Meaning because Humanity is\n     a Fiction--Christian Love Deduced from Love of God, Finds its\n     Object in the whole World, not in Humanity Alone--Christianity\n     Teaches Man to Live in Accordance with his Divine Nature--It\n     Shows that the Essence of the Soul of Man is Love, and that his\n     Happiness Ensues from Love of God, whom he Recognizes as Love\n     within himself.\n\n\nNow I will speak of the other view of Christianity which hinders the\ntrue understanding of it--the scientific view.\n\nChurchmen substitute for Christianity the version they have framed of\nit for themselves, and this view of Christianity they regard as the\none infallibly true one.\n\nMen of science regard as Christianity only the tenets held by the\ndifferent churches in the past and present; and finding that these\ntenets have lost all the significance of Christianity, they accept it\nas a religion which has outlived its age.\n\nTo see clearly how impossible it is to understand the Christian\nteaching from such a point of view, one must form for oneself an\nidea of the place actually held by religions in general, by the\nChristian religion in particular, in the life of mankind, and of the\nsignificance attributed to them by science.\n\nJust as the individual man cannot live without having some\ntheory of the meaning of his life, and is always, though often\nunconsciously, framing his conduct in accordance with the meaning\nhe attributes to his life, so too associations of men living in\nsimilar conditions--nations--cannot but have theories of the meaning\nof their associated life and conduct ensuing from those theories.\nAnd as the individual man, when he attains a fresh stage of growth,\ninevitably changes his philosophy of life, and the grown-up man\nsees a different meaning in it from the child, so too associations\nof men--nations--are bound to change their philosophy of life and\nthe conduct ensuing from their philosophy, to correspond with their\ndevelopment.\n\nThe difference, as regards this, between the individual man and\nhumanity as a whole, lies in the fact that the individual, in\nforming the view of life proper to the new period of life on which\nhe is entering and the conduct resulting from it, benefits by the\nexperience of men who have lived before him, who have already passed\nthrough the stage of growth upon which he is entering. But humanity\ncannot have this aid, because it is always moving along a hitherto\nuntrodden track, and has no one to ask how to understand life, and to\nact in the conditions on which it is entering and through which no\none has ever passed before.\n\nNevertheless, just as a man with wife and children cannot continue\nto look at life as he looked at it when he was a child, so too in\nthe face of the various changes that are taking place, the greater\ndensity of population, the establishment of communication between\ndifferent peoples, the improvements of the methods of the struggle\nwith nature, and the accumulation of knowledge, humanity cannot\ncontinue to look at life as of old, and it must frame a new theory of\nlife, from which conduct may follow adapted to the new conditions on\nwhich it has entered and is entering.\n\nTo meet this need humanity has the special power of producing men\nwho give a new meaning to the whole of human life--a theory of life\nfrom which follow new forms of activity quite different from all\npreceding them. The formation of this philosophy of life appropriate\nto humanity in the new conditions on which it is entering, and of the\npractice resulting from it, is what is called religion.\n\nAnd therefore, in the first place, religion is not, as science\nimagines, a manifestation which at one time corresponded with the\ndevelopment of humanity, but is afterward outgrown by it. It is a\nmanifestation always inherent in the life of humanity, and is as\nindispensable, as inherent in humanity at the present time as at\nany other. Secondly, religion is always the theory of the practice\nof the future and not of the past, and therefore it is clear that\ninvestigation of past manifestations cannot in any case grasp the\nessence of religion.\n\nThe essence of every religious teaching lies not in the desire for\na symbolic expression of the forces of nature, nor in the dread\nof these forces, nor in the craving for the marvelous, nor in the\nexternal forms in which it is manifested, as men of science imagine;\nthe essence of religion lies in the faculty of men of foreseeing and\npointing out the path of life along which humanity must move in the\ndiscovery of a new theory of life, as a result of which the whole\nfuture conduct of humanity is changed and different from all that has\nbeen before.\n\nThis faculty of foreseeing the path along which humanity must move,\nis common in a greater or less degree to all men. But in all times\nthere have been men in whom this faculty was especially strong, and\nthese men have given clear and definite expression to what all men\nfelt vaguely, and formed a new philosophy of life from which new\nlines of action followed for hundreds and thousands of years.\n\nOf such philosophies of life we know three; two have already been\npassed through by humanity, and the third is that we are passing\nthrough now in Christianity. These philosophies of life are three\nin number, and only three, not because we have arbitrarily brought\nthe various theories of life together under these three heads, but\nbecause all men's actions are always based on one of these three\nviews of life--because we cannot view life otherwise than in these\nthree ways.\n\nThese three views of life are as follows: First, embracing the\nindividual, or the animal view of life; second, embracing the\nsociety, or the pagan view of life; third, embracing the whole world,\nor the divine view of life.\n\nIn the first theory of life a man's life is limited to his one\nindividuality; the aim of life is the satisfaction of the will of\nthis individuality. In the second theory of life a man's life is\nlimited not to his own individuality, but to certain societies and\nclasses of individuals: to the tribe, the family, the clan, the\nnation; the aim of life is limited to the satisfaction of the will\nof those associations of individuals. In the third theory of life a\nman's life is limited not to societies and classes of individuals,\nbut extends to the principle and source of life--to God.\n\nThese three conceptions of life form the foundation of all the\nreligions that exist or have existed.\n\nThe savage recognizes life only in himself and his personal desires.\nHis interest in life is concentrated on himself alone. The highest\nhappiness for him is the fullest satisfaction of his desires. The\nmotive power of his life is personal enjoyment. His religion consists\nin propitiating his deity and in worshiping his gods, whom he\nimagines as persons living only for their personal aims.\n\nThe civilized pagan recognizes life not in himself alone, but\nin societies of men--in the tribe, the clan, the family, the\nkingdom--and sacrifices his personal good for these societies. The\nmotive power of his life is glory. His religion consists in the\nexaltation of the glory of those who are allied to him--the founders\nof his family, his ancestors, his rulers--and in worshiping gods who\nare exclusively protectors of his clan, his family, his nation, his\ngovernment.[8]\n\n  [8] The fact that so many varied forms of existence, as the life of\n  the family, of the tribe, of the clan, of the state, and even the\n  life of humanity theoretically conceived by the Positivists, are\n  founded on this social or pagan theory of life, does not destroy the\n  unity of this theory of life. All these varied forms of life are\n  founded on the same conception, that the life of the individual is\n  not a sufficient aim of life--that the meaning of life can be found\n  only in societies of individuals.\n\nThe man who holds the divine theory of life recognizes life not in\nhis own individuality, and not in societies of individualities (in\nthe family, the clan, the nation, the tribe, or the government),\nbut in the eternal undying source of life--in God; and to fulfill\nthe will of God he is ready to sacrifice his individual and family\nand social welfare. The motor power of his life is love. And his\nreligion is the worship in deed and in truth of the principle of the\nwhole--God.\n\nThe whole historic existence of mankind is nothing else than the\ngradual transition from the personal, animal conception of life\nto the social conception of life, and from the social conception\nof life to the divine conception of life. The whole history of the\nancient peoples, lasting through thousands of years and ending with\nthe history of Rome, is the history of the transition from the\nanimal, personal view of life to the social view of life. The whole\nof history from the time of the Roman Empire and the appearance of\nChristianity is the history of the transition, through which we are\nstill passing now, from the social view of life to the divine view of\nlife.\n\nThis view of life is the last, and founded upon it is the Christian\nteaching, which is a guide for the whole of our life and lies at the\nroot of all our activity, practical and theoretic. Yet men of what is\nfalsely called science, pseudo-scientific men, looking at it only in\nits externals, regard it as something outgrown and having no value\nfor us.\n\nReducing it to its dogmatic side only--to the doctrines of the\nTrinity, the redemption, the miracles, the Church, the sacraments,\nand so on--men of science regard it as only one of an immense number\nof religions which have arisen among mankind, and now, they say,\nhaving played out its part in history, it is outliving its own age\nand fading away before the light of science and of true enlightenment.\n\nWe come here upon what, in a large proportion of cases, forms the\nsource of the grossest errors of mankind. Men on a lower level of\nunderstanding, when brought into contact with phenomena of a higher\norder, instead of making efforts to understand them, to raise\nthemselves up to the point of view from which they must look at the\nsubject, judge it from their lower standpoint, and the less they\nunderstand what they are talking about, the more confidently and\nunhesitatingly they pass judgment on it.\n\nTo the majority of learned men, looking at the living, moral teaching\nof Christ from the lower standpoint of the state conception of\nlife, this doctrine appears as nothing but a very indefinite and\nincongruous combination of Indian asceticism, Stoic and Neoplatonic\nphilosophy, and insubstantial anti-social visions, which have\nno serious significance for our times. Its whole meaning is\nconcentrated for them in its external manifestations--in Catholicism,\nProtestantism, in certain dogmas, or in the conflict with the\ntemporal power. Estimating the value of Christianity by these\nphenomena is like a deaf man's judging of the character and quality\nof music by seeing the movements of the musicians.\n\nThe result of this is that all these scientific men, from Kant,\nStrauss, Spencer, and Renan down, do not understand the meaning of\nChrist's sayings, do not understand the significance, the object, or\nthe reason of their utterance, do not understand even the question\nto which they form the answer. Yet, without even taking the pains\nto enter into their meaning, they refuse, if unfavorably disposed,\nto recognize any reasonableness in his doctrines; or if they want\nto treat them indulgently, they condescend, from the height of\ntheir superiority, to correct them, on the supposition that Christ\nmeant to express precisely their own ideas, but did not succeed in\ndoing so. They behave to his teaching much as self-assertive people\ntalk to those whom they consider beneath them, often supplying\ntheir companions' words: \"Yes, you mean to say this and that.\" This\ncorrection is always with the aim of reducing the teaching of the\nhigher, divine conception of life to the level of the lower, state\nconception of life.\n\nThey usually say that the moral teaching of Christianity is very\nfine, but overexaggerated; that to make it quite right we must reject\nall in it that is superfluous and unnecessary to our manner of life.\n\"And the doctrine that asks too much, and requires what cannot be\nperformed, is worse than that which requires of men what is possible\nand consistent with their powers,\" these learned interpreters of\nChristianity maintain, repeating what was long ago asserted, and\ncould not but be asserted, by those who crucified the Teacher because\nthey did not understand him--the Jews.\n\nIt seems that in the judgment of the learned men of our time the\nHebrew law--a tooth for a tooth, and an eye for an eye--is a law of\njust retaliation, known to mankind five thousand years before the law\nof holiness which Christ taught in its place.\n\nIt seems that all that has been done by those men who understood\nChrist's teaching literally and lived in accordance with such an\nunderstanding of it, all that has been said and done by all true\nChristians, by all the Christian saints, all that is now reforming\nthe world in the shape of socialism and communism--is simply\nexaggeration, not worth talking about.\n\nAfter eighteen hundred years of education in Christianity the\ncivilized world, as represented by its most advanced thinkers,\nholds the conviction that the Christian religion is a religion of\ndogmas; that its teaching in relation to life is unreasonable, and\nis an exaggeration, subversive of the real lawful obligations of\nmorality consistent with the nature of man; and that very doctrine of\nretribution which Christ rejected, and in place of which he put his\nteaching, is more practically useful for us.\n\nTo learned men the doctrine of non-resistance to evil by force\nis exaggerated and even irrational. Christianity is much better\nwithout it, they think, not observing closely what Christianity, as\nrepresented by them, amounts to.\n\nThey do not see that to say that the doctrine of non-resistance to\nevil is an exaggeration in Christ's teaching is just like saying\nthat the statement of the equality of the radii of a circle is an\nexaggeration in the definition of a circle. And those who speak\nthus are acting precisely like a man who, having no idea of what a\ncircle is, should declare that this requirement, that every point\nof the circumference should be an equal distance from the center,\nis exaggerated. To advocate the rejection of Christ's command of\nnon-resistance to evil, or its adaptation to the needs of life,\nimplies a misunderstanding of the teaching of Christ.\n\nAnd those who do so certainly do not understand it. They do not\nunderstand that this teaching is the institution of a new theory\nof life, corresponding to the new conditions on which men have\nentered now for eighteen hundred years, and also the definition\nof the new conduct of life which results from it. They do not\nbelieve that Christ meant to say what he said; or he seems to them\nto have said what he said in the Sermon on the Mount and in other\nplaces accidentally, or through his lack of intelligence or of\ncultivation.[9]\n\n  [9] Here, for example, is a characteristic view of that kind from the\n  American journal the _Arena_ (October, 1890): \"New Basis of Church\n  Life.\" Treating of the significance of the Sermon on the Mount and\n  non-resistance to evil in particular, the author, being under no\n  necessity, like the Churchmen, to hide its significance, says:\n\n  \"Christ in fact preached complete communism and anarchy; but one must\n  learn to regard Christ always in his historical and psychological\n  significance. Like every advocate of the love of humanity, Christ\n  went to the furthest extreme in his teaching. Every step forward\n  toward the moral perfection of humanity is always guided by men who\n  see nothing but their vocation. Christ, in no disparaging sense be it\n  said, had the typical temperament of such a reformer. And therefore\n  we must remember that his precepts cannot be understood literally as\n  a complete philosophy of life. We ought to analyze his words with\n  respect for them, but in the spirit of criticism, accepting what is\n  true,\" etc.\n\n  Christ would have been happy to say what he ought, but he was not\n  able to express himself as exactly and clearly as we can in the\n  spirit of criticism, and therefore let us correct him. All that he\n  said about meekness, sacrifice, lowliness, not caring for the morrow,\n  was said by accident, through lack of knowing how to express himself\n  scientifically.\n\nMatt. vi. 25-34: \"Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your\nlife, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your\nbody, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and\nthe body than raiment? Behold the fowls of the air; for they sow\nnot, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly\nFather feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they? Which of you\nby taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature? And why take\nye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field how they\ngrow; they toil not, neither do they spin; and yet I say unto you,\nThat even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.\nWherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to-day is,\nand to-morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe\nyou, O ye of little faith? Therefore take no thought, saying, What\nshall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Where-withal shall we\nbe clothed? (For after all these things do the Gentiles seek), for\nyour heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things.\nBut seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness, and\nall these things shall be added unto you. Take therefore no thought\nfor the morrow; for the morrow shall take thought for the things\nof itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.\" Luke xii.\n33-34: \"Sell that ye have, and give alms; provide yourselves bags\nwhich wax not old, a treasure in the heavens that faileth not,\nwhere no thief approacheth, neither moth corrupteth. For where your\ntreasure is, there will your heart be also.\" Sell all thou hast and\nfollow me; and he who will not leave father, or mother, or children,\nor brothers, or fields, or house, he cannot be my disciple. Deny\nthyself, take up thy cross each day and follow me. My meat is to do\nthe will of him that sent me, and to perform his works. Not my will,\nbut thine be done; not what I will, but as thou wilt. Life is to do\nnot one's will, but the will of God.\n\nAll these principles appear to men who regard them from the\nstandpoint of a lower conception of life as the expression of an\nimpulsive enthusiasm, having no direct application to life. These\nprinciples, however, follow from the Christian theory of life, just\nas logically as the principles of paying a part of one's private\ngains to the commonwealth and of sacrificing one's life in defense of\none's country follow from the state theory of life.\n\nAs the man of the state conception of life said to the savage:\nReflect, bethink yourself! The life of your individuality cannot be\ntrue life, because that life is pitiful and passing. But the life\nof a society and succession of individuals, family, clan, tribe, or\nstate, goes on living, and therefore a man must sacrifice his own\nindividuality for the life of the family or the state. In exactly\nthe same way the Christian doctrine says to the man of the social,\nstate conception of life, Repent ye--\u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5--_i. e._,\nbethink yourself, or you will be ruined. Understand that this casual,\npersonal life which now comes into being and to-morrow is no more can\nhave no permanence, that no external means, no construction of it can\ngive it consecutiveness and permanence. Take thought and understand\nthat the life you are living is not real life--the life of the\nfamily, of society, of the state will not save you from annihilation.\nThe true, the rational life is only possible for man according to the\nmeasure in which he can participate, not in the family or the state,\nbut in the source of life--the Father; according to the measure\nin which he can merge his life in the life of the Father. Such is\nundoubtedly the Christian conception of life, visible in every\nutterance of the Gospel.\n\nOne may not share this view of life, one may reject it, one may show\nits inaccuracy and its erroneousness, but we cannot judge of the\nChristian teaching without mastering this view of life. Still less\ncan one criticise a subject on a higher plane from a lower point of\nview. From the basement one cannot judge of the effect of the spire.\nBut this is just what the learned critics of the day try to do. For\nthey share the erroneous idea of the orthodox believers that they\nare in possession of certain infallible means for investigating a\nsubject. They fancy if they apply their so-called scientific methods\nof criticism, there can be no doubt of their conclusion being correct.\n\nThis testing the subject by the fancied infallible method of science\nis the principal obstacle to understanding the Christian religion for\nunbelievers, for so-called educated people. From this follow all the\nmistakes made by scientific men about the Christian religion, and\nespecially two strange misconceptions which, more than everything\nelse, hinder them from a correct understanding of it. One of these\nmisconceptions is that the Christian moral teaching cannot be carried\nout, and that therefore it has either no force at all--that is,\nit should not be accepted as the rule of conduct--or it must be\ntransformed, adapted to the limits within which its fulfillment is\npossible in our society. Another misconception is that the Christian\ndoctrine of love of God, and therefore of his service, is an obscure,\nmystic principle, which gives no definite object for love, and should\ntherefore be replaced by the more exact and comprehensible principles\nof love for men and the service of humanity.\n\nThe first misconception in regard to the impossibility of following\nthe principle is the result of men of the state conception of life\nunconsciously taking that conception as the standard by which the\nChristian religion directs men, and taking the Christian principle\nof perfection as the rule by which that life is to be ordered; they\nthink and say that to follow Christ's teaching is impossible, because\nthe complete fulfilment of all that is required by this teaching\nwould put an end to life. \"If a man were to carry out all that Christ\nteaches, he would destroy his own life; and if all men carried it\nout, then the human race would come to an end,\" they say.\n\n\"If we take no thought for the morrow, what we shall eat and what we\nshall drink, and wherewithal we shall be clothed, do not defend our\nlife, nor resist evil by force, lay down our life for others, and\nobserve perfect chastity, the human race cannot exist,\" they say.\n\nAnd they are perfectly right if they take the principle of perfection\ngiven by Christ's teaching as a rule which everyone is bound to\nfulfill, just as in the state principles of life everyone is bound to\ncarry out the rule of paying taxes, supporting the law, and so on.\n\nThe misconception is based precisely on the fact that the teaching\nof Christ guides men differently from the way in which the precepts\nfounded on the lower conception of life guide men. The precepts of\nthe state conception of life only guide men by requiring of them an\nexact fulfillment of rules or laws. Christ's teaching guides men by\npointing them to the infinite perfection of their heavenly Father, to\nwhich every man independently and voluntarily struggles, whatever the\ndegree of his imperfection in the present.\n\nThe misunderstanding of men who judge of the Christian principle from\nthe point of view of the state principle, consists in the fact that\non the supposition that the perfection which Christ points to, can\nbe fully attained, they ask themselves (just as they ask the same\nquestion on the supposition that state laws will be carried out) what\nwill be the result of all this being carried out? This supposition\ncannot be made, because the perfection held up to Christians is\ninfinite and can never be attained; and Christ lays down his\nprinciple, having in view the fact that absolute perfection can never\nbe attained, but that striving toward absolute, infinite perfection\nwill continually increase the blessedness of men, and that this\nblessedness may be increased to infinity thereby.\n\nChrist is teaching not angels, but men, living and moving in\nthe animal life. And so to this animal force of movement Christ,\nas it were, applies the new force--the recognition of Divine\nperfection--and thereby directs the movement by the resultant of\nthese two forces.\n\nTo suppose that human life is going in the direction to which Christ\npointed it, is just like supposing that a little boat afloat on a\nrapid river, and directing its course almost exactly against the\ncurrent, will progress in that direction.\n\nChrist recognizes the existence of both sides of the parallelogram,\nof both eternal indestructible forces of which the life of man is\ncompounded: the force of his animal nature and the force of the\nconsciousness of kinship to God. Saying nothing of the animal force\nwhich asserts itself, remains always the same, and is therefore\nindependent of human will, Christ speaks only of the Divine force,\ncalling upon a man to know it more closely, to set it more free from\nall that retards it, and to carry it to a higher degree of intensity.\n\nIn the process of liberating, of strengthening this force, the true\nlife of man, according to Christ's teaching, consists. The true life,\naccording to preceding religions, consists in carrying out rules, the\nlaw; according to Christ's teaching it consists in an ever closer\napproximation to the divine perfection held up before every man, and\nrecognized within himself by every man, in an ever closer and closer\napproach to the perfect fusion of his will in the will of God, that\nfusion toward which man strives, and the attainment of which would be\nthe destruction of the life we know.\n\nThe divine perfection is the asymptote of human life to which it\nis always striving, and always approaching, though it can only be\nreached in infinity.\n\nThe Christian religion seems to exclude the possibility of life only\nwhen men mistake the pointing to an ideal as the laying down of a\nrule. It is only then that the principles presented in Christ's\nteaching appear to be destructive of life. These principles, on the\ncontrary, are the only ones that make true life possible. Without\nthese principles true life could not be possible.\n\n\"One ought not to expect so much,\" is what people usually say in\ndiscussing the requirements of the Christian religion. \"One cannot\nexpect to take absolutely no thought for the morrow, as is said in\nthe Gospel, but only not to take too much thought for it; one cannot\ngive away all to the poor, but one must give away a certain definite\npart; one need not aim at virginity, but one must avoid debauchery;\none need not forsake wife and children, but one must not give too\ngreat a place to them in one's heart,\" and so on.\n\nBut to speak like this is just like telling a man who is struggling\non a swift river and is directing his course against the current,\nthat it is impossible to cross the river rowing against the current,\nand that to cross it he must float in the direction of the point he\nwants to reach.\n\nIn reality, in order to reach the place to which he wants to go, he\nmust row with all his strength toward a point much higher up.\n\nTo let go the requirements of the ideal means not only to diminish\nthe possibility of perfection, but to make an end of the ideal\nitself. The ideal that has power over men is not an ideal invented by\nsomeone, but the ideal that every man carries within his soul. Only\nthis ideal of complete infinite perfection has power over men, and\nstimulates them to action. A moderate perfection loses its power of\ninfluencing men's hearts.\n\nChrist's teaching only has power when it demands absolute\nperfection--that is, the fusion of the divine nature which exists in\nevery man's soul with the will of God--the union of the Son with the\nFather. Life according to Christ's teaching consists of nothing but\nthis setting free of the Son of God, existing in every man, from the\nanimal, and in bringing him closer to the Father.\n\nThe animal existence of a man does not constitute human life alone.\nLife, according to the will of God only, is also not human life.\nHuman life is a combination of the animal life and the divine life.\nAnd the more this combination approaches to the divine life, the more\nlife there is in it.\n\nLife, according to the Christian religion, is a progress toward the\ndivine perfection. No one condition, according to this doctrine, can\nbe higher or lower than another. Every condition, according to this\ndoctrine, is only a particular stage, of no consequence in itself,\non the way toward unattainable perfection, and therefore in itself\nit does not imply a greater or lesser degree of life. Increase of\nlife, according to this, consists in nothing but the quickening of\nthe progress toward perfection. And therefore the progress toward\nperfection of the publican Zaccheus, of the woman that was a sinner,\nand of the robber on the cross, implies a higher degree of life than\nthe stagnant righteousness of the Pharisee. And therefore for this\nreligion there cannot be rules which it is obligatory to obey. The\nman who is at a lower level but is moving onward toward perfection\nis living a more moral, a better life, is more fully carrying out\nChrist's teaching, than the man on a much higher level of morality\nwho is not moving onward toward perfection.\n\nIt is in this sense that the lost sheep is dearer to the Father than\nthose that were not lost. The prodigal son, the piece of money lost\nand found again, were more precious than those that were not lost.\n\nThe fulfillment of Christ's teaching consists in moving away from\nself toward God. It is obvious that there cannot be definite laws\nand rules for this fulfillment of the teaching. Every degree of\nperfection and every degree of imperfection are equal in it; no\nobedience to laws constitutes a fulfillment of this doctrine, and\ntherefore for it there can be no binding rules and laws.\n\nFrom this fundamental distinction between the religion of Christ\nand all preceding religions based on the state conception of life,\nfollows a corresponding difference in the special precepts of\nthe state theory and the Christian precepts. The precepts of the\nstate theory of life insist for the most part on certain practical\nprescribed acts, by which men are justified and secure of being\nright. The Christian precepts (the commandment of love is not a\nprecept in the strict sense of the word, but the expression of the\nvery essence of the religion) are the five commandments of the Sermon\non the Mount--all negative in character. They show only what at a\ncertain stage of development of humanity men may not do.\n\nThese commandments are, as it were, signposts on the endless road to\nperfection, toward which humanity is moving, showing the point of\nperfection which is possible at a certain period in the development\nof humanity.\n\nChrist has given expression in the Sermon on the Mount to the eternal\nideal toward which men are spontaneously struggling, and also the\ndegree of attainment of it to which men may reach in our times.\n\nThe ideal is not to desire to do ill to anyone, not to provoke ill\nwill, to love all men. The precept, showing the level below which we\ncannot fall in the attainment of this ideal, is the prohibition of\nevil speaking. And that is the first command.\n\nThe ideal is perfect chastity, even in thought. The precept, showing\nthe level below which we cannot fall in the attainment of this ideal,\nis that of purity of married life, avoidance of debauchery. That is\nthe second command.\n\nThe ideal is to take no thought for the future, to live in the\npresent moment. The precept, showing the level below which we cannot\nfall, is the prohibition of swearing, of promising anything in the\nfuture. And that is the third command.\n\nThe ideal is never for any purpose to use force. The precept, showing\nthe level below which we cannot fall is that of returning good for\nevil, being patient under wrong, giving the cloak also. That is the\nfourth command.\n\nThe ideal is to love the enemies who hate us. The precept, showing\nthe level below which we cannot fall, is not to do evil to our\nenemies, to speak well of them, and to make no difference between\nthem and our neighbors.\n\nAll these precepts are indications of what, on our journey to\nperfection, we are already fully able to avoid, and what we must\nlabor to attain now, and what we ought by degrees to translate into\ninstinctive and unconscious habits. But these precepts, far from\nconstituting the whole of Christ's teaching and exhausting it, are\nsimply stages on the way to perfection. These precepts must and\nwill be followed by higher and higher precepts on the way to the\nperfection held up by the religion.\n\nAnd therefore it is essentially a part of the Christian religion to\nmake demands higher than those expressed in its precepts; and by no\nmeans to diminish the demands either of the ideal itself, or of the\nprecepts, as people imagine who judge it from the standpoint of the\nsocial conception of life.\n\nSo much for one misunderstanding of the scientific men, in relation\nto the import and aim of Christ's teaching. Another misunderstanding\narising from the same source consists in substituting love for men,\nthe service of humanity, for the Christian principles of love for God\nand his service.\n\nThe Christian doctrine to love God and serve him, and only as a\nresult of that love to love and serve one's neighbor, seems to\nscientific men obscure, mystic, and arbitrary. And they would\nabsolutely exclude the obligation of love and service of God, holding\nthat the doctrine of love for men, for humanity alone, is far more\nclear, tangible, and reasonable.\n\nScientific men teach in theory that the only good and rational life\nis that which is devoted to the service of the whole of humanity.\nThat is for them the import of the Christian doctrine, and to that\nthey reduce Christ's teaching. They seek confirmation of their own\ndoctrine in the Gospel, on the supposition that the two doctrines are\nreally the same.\n\nThis idea is an absolutely mistaken one. The Christian doctrine has\nnothing in common with the doctrine of the Positivists, Communists,\nand all the apostles of the universal brotherhood of mankind, based\non the general advantage of such a brotherhood. They differ from one\nanother especially in Christianity's having a firm and clear basis\nin the human soul, while love for humanity is only a theoretical\ndeduction from analogy.\n\nThe doctrine of love for humanity alone is based on the social\nconception of life.\n\nThe essence of the social conception of life consists in the\ntransference of the aim of the individual life to the life of\nsocieties of individuals: family, clan, tribe, or state. This\ntransference is accomplished easily and naturally in its earliest\nforms, in the transference of the aim of life from the individual to\nthe family and the clan. The transference to the tribe or the nation\nis more difficult and requires special training. And the transference\nof the sentiment to the state is the furthest limit which the process\ncan reach.\n\nTo love one's self is natural to everyone, and no one needs any\nencouragement to do so. To love one's clan who support and protect\none, to love one's wife, the joy and help of one's existence, one's\nchildren, the hope and consolation of one's life, and one's parents,\nwho have given one life and education, is natural. And such love,\nthough far from being so strong as love of self, is met with pretty\noften.\n\nTo love--for one's own sake, through personal pride--one's tribe,\none's nation, though not so natural, is nevertheless common. Love\nof one's own people who are of the same blood, the same tongue,\nand the same religion as one's self is possible, though far from\nbeing so strong as love of self, or even love of family or clan.\nBut love for a state, such as Turkey, Germany, England, Austria,\nor Russia is a thing almost impossible. And though it is zealously\ninculcated, it is only an imagined sentiment; it has no existence in\nreality. And at that limit man's power of transferring his interest\nceases, and he cannot feel any direct sentiment for that fictitious\nentity. The Positivists, however, and all the apostles of fraternity\non scientific principles, without taking into consideration the\nweakening of sentiment in proportion to the extension of its object,\ndraw further deductions in theory in the same direction. \"Since,\"\nthey say, \"it was for the advantage of the individual to extend his\npersonal interest to the family, the tribe, and subsequently to the\nnation and the state, it would be still more advantageous to extend\nhis interest in societies of men to the whole of mankind, and so all\nto live for humanity just as men live for the family or the state.\"\n\nTheoretically it follows, indeed, having extended the love and\ninterest for the personality to the family, the tribe, and thence\nto the nation and the state, it would be perfectly logical for men\nto save themselves the strife and calamities which result from the\ndivision of mankind into nations and states by extending their\nlove to the whole of humanity. This would be most logical, and\ntheoretically nothing would appear more natural to its advocates, who\ndo not observe that love is a sentiment which may or may not be felt,\nbut which it is useless to advocate; and moreover, that love must\nhave an object, and that humanity is not an object. It is nothing but\na fiction.\n\nThe family, the tribe, even the state were not invented by men, but\nformed themselves spontaneously, like ant-hills or swarms of bees,\nand have a real existence. The man who, for the sake of his own\nanimal personality, loves his family, knows whom he loves: Anna,\nDolly, John, Peter, and so on. The man who loves his tribe and\ntakes pride in it, knows that he loves all the Guelphs or all the\nGhibellines; the man who loves the state knows that he loves France\nbounded by the Rhine, and the Pyrenees, and its principal city Paris,\nand its history and so on. But the man who loves humanity--what does\nhe love? There is such a thing as a state, as a nation; there is the\nabstract conception of man; but humanity as a concrete idea does not,\nand cannot exist.\n\nHumanity! Where is the definition of humanity? Where does it end and\nwhere does it begin? Does humanity end with the savage, the idiot,\nthe dipsomaniac, or the madman? If we draw a line excluding from\nhumanity its lowest representatives, where are we to draw the line?\nShall we exclude the negroes like the Americans, or the Hindoos like\nsome Englishmen, or the Jews like some others? If we include all men\nwithout exception, why should we not include also the higher animals,\nmany of whom are superior to the lowest specimens of the human race.\n\nWe know nothing of humanity as an eternal object, and we know\nnothing of its limits. Humanity is a fiction, and it is impossible\nto love it. It would, doubtless, be very advantageous if men could\nlove humanity just as they love their family. It would be very\nadvantageous, as Communists advocate, to replace the competitive,\nindividualistic organization of men's activity by a social universal\norganisation, so that each would be for all and all for each.\nOnly there are no motives to lead men to do this. The Positivists,\nthe Communists, and all the apostles of fraternity on scientific\nprinciples advocate the extension to the whole of humanity of the\nlove men feel for themselves, their families, and the state. They\nforget that the love which they are discussing is a personal love,\nwhich might expand in a rarefied form to embrace a man's native\ncountry, but which disappears before it can embrace an artificial\nstate such as Austria, England, or Turkey, and which we cannot\neven conceive of in relation to all humanity, an absolutely mystic\nconception.\n\n\"A man loves himself (his animal personality), he loves his family,\nhe even loves his native country. Why should he not love humanity?\nThat would be such an excellent thing. And by the way, it is\nprecisely what is taught by Christianity.\" So think the advocates of\nPositivist, Communistic, or Socialistic fraternity.\n\nIt would indeed be an excellent thing. But it can never be, for the\nlove that is based on a personal or social conception of life can\nnever rise beyond love for the state.\n\nThe fallacy of the argument lies in the fact that the social\nconception of life, on which love for family and nation is founded,\nrests itself on love of self, and that love grows weaker and weaker\nas it is extended from self to family, tribe, nationality, and state;\nand in the state we reach the furthest limit beyond which it cannot\ngo.\n\nThe necessity of extending the sphere of love is beyond dispute. But\nin reality the possibility of this love is destroyed by the necessity\nof extending its object indefinitely. And thus the insufficiency of\npersonal human love is made manifest.\n\nAnd here the advocates of Positivist, Communistic, Socialistic\nfraternity propose to draw upon Christian love to make up the default\nof this bankrupt human love; but Christian love only in its results,\nnot in its foundations, They propose love for humanity alone, apart\nfrom love for God.\n\nBut such a love cannot exist. There is no motive to produce it.\nChristian love is the result only of the Christian conception of\nlife, in which the aim of life is to love and serve God.\n\nThe social conception of life has led men, by a natural transition\nfrom love of self and then of family, tribe, nation, and state, to\na consciousness of the necessity of love for humanity, a conception\nwhich has no definite limits and extends to all living things. And\nthis necessity for love of what awakens no kind of sentiment in a man\nis a contradiction which cannot be solved by the social theory of\nlife.\n\nThe Christian doctrine in its full significance can alone solve\nit, by giving a new meaning to life. Christianity recognizes love\nof self, of family, of nation, and of humanity, and not only\nof humanity, but of everything living, everything existing; it\nrecognizes the necessity of an infinite extension of the sphere\nof love. But the object of this love is not found outside self in\nsocieties of individuals, nor in the external world, but within self,\nin the divine self whose essence is that very love, which the animal\nself is brought to feel the need of through its consciousness of its\nown perishable nature.\n\nThe difference between the Christian doctrine and those which\npreceded it is that the social doctrine said: \"Live in opposition\nto your nature [understanding by this only the animal nature], make\nit subject to the external law of family, society, and state.\"\nChristianity says: \"Live according to your nature [understanding by\nthis the divine nature]; do not make it subject to anything--neither\nyou (an animal self) nor that of others--and you will attain the very\naim to which you are striving when you subject your external self.\"\n\nThe Christian doctrine brings a man to the elementary consciousness\nof self, only not of the animal self, but of the divine self, the\ndivine spark, the self as the Son of God, as much God as the Father\nhimself, though confined in an animal husk. The consciousness of\nbeing the Son of God, whose chief characteristic is love, satisfies\nthe need for the extension of the sphere of love to which the man of\nthe social conception of life had been brought. For the latter, the\nwelfare of the personality demanded an ever-widening extension of\nthe sphere of love; love was a necessity and was confined to certain\nobjects--self, family, society. With the Christian conception of\nlife, love is not a necessity and is confined to no object; it is the\nessential faculty of the human soul. Man loves not because it is his\ninterest to love this or that, but because love is the essence of his\nsoul, because he cannot but love.\n\nThe Christian doctrine shows man that the essence of his soul is\nlove--that his happiness depends not on loving this or that object,\nbut on loving the principle of the whole--God, whom he recognizes\nwithin himself as love, and therefore he loves all things and all men.\n\nIn this is the fundamental difference between the Christian doctrine\nand the doctrine of the Positivists, and all the theorizers about\nuniversal brotherhood on non-christian principles.\n\nSuch are the two principal misunderstandings relating to the\nChristian religion, from which the greater number of false reasonings\nabout it proceed. The first consists in the belief that Christ's\nteaching instructs men, like all previous religions, by rules, which\nthey are bound to follow, and that these rules cannot be fulfilled.\nThe second is the idea that the whole purport of Christianity is to\nteach men to live advantageously together, as one family, and that\nto attain this we need only follow the rule of love to humanity,\ndismissing all thought of love of God altogether.\n\nThe mistaken notion of scientific men that the essence of\nChristianity consists in the supernatural, and that its moral\nteaching is impracticable, constitutes another reason of the failure\nof men of the present day to understand Christianity.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\n     CONTRADICTION BETWEEN OUR LIFE AND OUR CHRISTIAN CONSCIENCE.\n\n     Men Think they can Accept Christianity without Altering their\n     Life--Pagan Conception of Life does not Correspond with Present\n     Stage of Development of Humanity, and Christian Conception\n     Alone Can Accord with it--Christian Conception of Life not yet\n     Understood by Men, but the Progress of Life itself will Lead\n     them Inevitably to Adopt it--The Requirements of a New Theory of\n     Life Always Seem Incomprehensible, Mystic, and Supernatural--So\n     Seem the Requirements of the Christian Theory of Life to the\n     Majority of Men--The Absorption of the Christian Conception of\n     Life will Inevitably be Brought About as the Result of Material\n     and Spiritual Causes--The Fact of Men Knowing the Requirements\n     of the Higher View of Life, and yet Continuing to Preserve\n     Inferior Organizations of Life, Leads to Contradictions and\n     Sufferings which Embitter Existence and Must Result in its\n     Transformation--The Contradictions of our Life--The Economic\n     Contradiction and the Suffering Induced by it for Rich and\n     Poor Alike--The Political Contradiction and the Sufferings\n     Induced by Obedience to the Laws of the State--The International\n     Contradiction and the Recognition of it by Contemporaries:\n     Komarovsky, Ferri, Booth, Passy, Lawson, Wilson, Bartlett,\n     Defourney, Moneta--The Striking Character of the Military\n     Contradiction.\n\n\nThere are many reasons why Christ's teaching is not understood. One\nreason is that people suppose they have understood it when they have\ndecided, as the Churchmen do, that it was revealed by supernatural\nmeans, or when they have studied, as the scientific men do, the\nexternal forms in which it has been manifested. Another reason\nis the mistaken notion that it is impracticable, and ought to be\nreplaced by the doctrine of love for humanity. But the principal\nreason, which is the source of all the other mistaken ideas about it,\nis the notion that Christianity is a doctrine which can be accepted\nor rejected without any change of life.\n\nMen who are used to the existing order of things, who like it and\ndread its being changed, try to take the doctrine as a collection of\nrevelations and rules which one can accept without their modifying\none's life. While Christ's teaching is not only a doctrine which\ngives rules which a man must follow, it unfolds a new meaning in\nlife, and defines a whole world of human activity quite different\nfrom all that has preceded it and appropriate to the period on which\nman is entering.\n\nThe life of humanity changes and advances, like the life of the\nindividual, by stages, and every stage has a theory of life\nappropriate to it, which is inevitably absorbed by men. Those who\ndo not absorb it consciously, absorb it unconsciously. It is the\nsame with the changes in the beliefs of peoples and of all humanity\nas it is with the changes of belief of individuals. If the father\nof a family continues to be guided in his conduct by his childish\nconceptions of life, life becomes so difficult for him that he\ninvoluntarily seeks another philosophy and readily absorbs that which\nis appropriate to his age.\n\nThat is just what is happening now to humanity at this time of\ntransition through which we are passing, from the pagan conception\nof life to the Christian. The socialized man of the present day\nis brought by experience of life itself to the necessity of\nabandoning the pagan conception of life, which is inappropriate to\nthe present stage of humanity, and of submitting to the obligation\nof the Christian doctrines, the truths of which, however corrupt\nand misinterpreted, are still known to him, and alone offer him a\nsolution of the contradictions surrounding him.\n\nIf the requirements of the Christian doctrine seem strange and even\nalarming to the man of the social theory of life, no less strange,\nincomprehensible, and alarming to the savage of ancient times seemed\nthe requirements of the social doctrine when it was not fully\nunderstood and could not be foreseen in its results.\n\n\"It is unreasonable,\" said the savage, \"to sacrifice my peace of mind\nor my life in defense of something incomprehensible, impalpable, and\nconventional--family, tribe, or nation; and above all it is unsafe to\nput oneself at the disposal of the power of others.\"\n\nBut the time came when the savage, on one hand, felt, though vaguely,\nthe value of the social conception of life, and of its chief motor\npower, social censure, or social approbation--glory, and when, on\nthe other hand, the difficulties of his personal life became so\ngreat that he could not continue to believe in the value of his old\ntheory of life. Then he accepted the social, state theory of life and\nsubmitted to it.\n\nThat is just what the man of the social theory of life is passing\nthrough now.\n\n\"It is unreasonable,\" says the socialized man, \"to sacrifice my\nwelfare and that of my family and my country in order to fulfill\nsome higher law, which requires me to renounce my most natural and\nvirtuous feelings of love of self, of family, of kindred, and of\ncountry; and above all, it is unsafe to part with the security of\nlife afforded by the organization of government.\"\n\nBut the time is coming when, on one hand, the vague consciousness in\nhis soul of the higher law, of love to God and his neighbor, and,\non the other hand, the suffering, resulting from the contradictions\nof life, will force the man to reject the social theory and to\nassimilate the new one prepared ready for him, which solves all the\ncontradictions and removes all his sufferings--the Christian theory\nof life. And this time has now come.\n\nWe, who thousands of years ago passed through the transition, from\nthe personal, animal view of life to the socialized view, imagine\nthat that transition was an inevitable and natural one; but this\ntransition through which we have been passing for the last eighteen\nhundred years seems arbitrary, unnatural, and alarming. But we\nonly fancy this because that first transition has been so fully\ncompleted that the practice attained by it has become unconscious and\ninstinctive in us, while the present transition is not yet over and\nwe have to complete it consciously.\n\nIt took ages, thousands of years, for the social conception of life\nto permeate men's consciousness. It went through various forms\nand has now passed into the region of the instinctive through\ninheritance, education, and habit. And therefore it seems natural to\nus. But five thousand years ago it seemed as unnatural and alarming\nto men as the Christian doctrine in its true sense seems to-day.\n\nWe think to-day that the requirements of the Christian doctrine--of\nuniversal brotherhood, suppression of national distinctions,\nabolition of private property, and the strange injunction of\nnon-resistance to evil by force--demand what is impossible. But it\nwas just the same thousands of years ago, with every social or even\nfamily duty, such as the duty of parents to support their children,\nof the young to maintain the old, of fidelity in marriage. Still\nmore strange, and even unreasonable, seemed the state duties of\nsubmitting to the appointed authority, and paying taxes, and fighting\nin defense of the country, and so on. All such requirements seem\nsimple, comprehensible, and natural to us to-day, and we see nothing\nmysterious or alarming in them. But three or five thousand years ago\nthey seemed to require what was impossible.\n\nThe social conception of life served as the basis of religion because\nat the time when it was first presented to men it seemed to them\nabsolutely incomprehensible, mystic, and supernatural. Now that we\nhave outlived that phase of the life of humanity, we understand\nthe rational grounds for uniting men in families, communities, and\nstates. But in antiquity the duties involved by such association were\npresented under cover of the supernatural and were confirmed by it.\n\nThe patriarchal religions exalted the family, the tribe, the nation.\nState religions deified emperors and states. Even now most ignorant\npeople--like our peasants, who call the Tzar an earthly god--obey\nstate laws, not through any rational recognition of their necessity,\nnor because they have any conception of the meaning of state, but\nthrough a religious sentiment.\n\nIn precisely the same way the Christian doctrine is presented to men\nof the social or heathen theory of life to-day, in the guise of a\nsupernatural religion, though there is in reality nothing mysterious,\nmystic, or supernatural about it. It is simply the theory of life\nwhich is appropriate to the present degree of material development,\nthe present stage of growth of humanity, and which must therefore\ninevitably be accepted.\n\nThe time will come--it is already coming--when the Christian\nprinciples of equality and fraternity, community of property,\nnon-resistance of evil by force, will appear just as natural and\nsimple as the principles of family or social life seem to us now.\n\nHumanity can no more go backward in its development than the\nindividual man. Men have outlived the social, family, and state\nconceptions of life. Now they must go forward and assimilate the\nnext and higher conception of life, which is what is now taking\nplace. This change is brought about in two ways: consciously through\nspiritual causes, and unconsciously through material causes.\n\nJust as the individual man very rarely changes his way of life at\nthe dictates of his reason alone, but generally continues to live\nas before, in spite of the new interests and aims revealed to him\nby his reason, and only alters his way of living when it has become\nabsolutely opposed to his conscience, and consequently intolerable\nto him; so, too, humanity, long after it has learnt through its\nreligions the new interests and aims of life, toward which it must\nstrive, continues in the majority of its representatives to live as\nbefore, and is only brought to accept the new conception by finding\nit impossible to go on living its old life as before.\n\nThough the need of a change of life is preached by the religious\nleaders and recognized and realized by the most intelligent men, the\nmajority, in spite of their reverential attitude to their leaders,\nthat is, their faith in their teaching, continue to be guided by the\nold theory of life in their present complex existence. As though the\nfather of a family, knowing how he ought to behave at his age, should\nyet continue through habit and thoughtlessness to live in the same\nchildish way as he did in boyhood.\n\nThat is just what is happening in the transition of humanity from\none stage to another, through which we are passing now. Humanity\nhas outgrown its social stage and has entered upon a new period. It\nrecognizes the doctrine which ought to be made the basis of life in\nthis new period. But through inertia it continues to keep up the old\nforms of life. From this inconsistency between the new conception of\nlife and practical life follows a whole succession of contradictions\nand sufferings which embitter our life and necessitate its alteration.\n\nOne need only compare the practice of life with the theory of it, to\nbe dismayed at the glaring antagonism between our conditions of life\nand our conscience.\n\nOur whole life is in flat contradiction with all we know, and with\nall we regard as necessary and right. This contradiction runs through\neverything, in economic life, in political life, and in international\nlife. As though we had forgotten what we knew and put away for a time\nthe principles we believe in (we cannot help still believing in them\nbecause they are the only foundation we have to base our life on) we\ndo the very opposite of all that our conscience and our common sense\nrequire of us.\n\nWe are guided in economical, political, and international questions\nby the principles which were appropriate to men of three or five\nthousand years ago, though they are directly opposed to our\nconscience and the conditions of life in which we are placed to-day.\n\nIt was very well for the man of ancient times to live in a society\nbased on the division of mankind into masters and slaves, because he\nbelieved that such a distinction was decreed by God and must always\nexist. But is such a belief possible in these days?\n\nThe man of antiquity could believe he had the right to enjoy the\ngood things of this world at the expense of other men, and to keep\nthem in misery for generations, since he believed that men came\nfrom different origins, were base or noble in blood, children of\nHam or of Japhet. The greatest sages of the world, the teachers of\nhumanity, Plato and Aristotle, justified the existence of slaves and\ndemonstrated the lawfulness of slavery; and even three centuries ago,\nthe men who described an imaginary society of the future, Utopia,\ncould not conceive of it without slaves.\n\nMen of ancient and medi\u00e6val times believed, firmly believed, that\nmen are not equal, that the only true men are Persians, or Greeks,\nor Romans, or Franks. But we cannot believe that now. And people\nwho sacrifice themselves for the principles of aristocracy and of\npatriotism to-day, don't believe and can't believe what they assert.\n\nWe all know and cannot help knowing--even though we may never have\nheard the idea clearly expressed, may never have read of it, and may\nnever have put it into words, still through unconsciously imbibing\nthe Christian sentiments that are in the air--with our whole heart we\nknow and cannot escape knowing the fundamental truth of the Christian\ndoctrine, that we are all sons of one Father, wherever we may live\nand whatever language we may speak; we are all brothers and are\nsubject to the same law of love implanted by our common Father in our\nhearts.\n\nWhatever the opinions and degree of education of a man of to-day,\nwhatever his shade of liberalism, whatever his school of philosophy,\nor of science, or of economics, however ignorant or superstitious\nhe may be, every man of the present day knows that all men have an\nequal right to life and the good things of life, and that one set\nof people are no better nor worse than another, that all are equal.\nEveryone knows this, beyond doubt; everyone feels it in his whole\nbeing. Yet at the same time everyone sees all round him the division\nof men into two castes--the one, laboring, oppressed, poor, and\nsuffering, the other idle, oppressing, luxurious, and profligate.\nAnd everyone not only sees this, but voluntarily or involuntarily,\nin one way or another, he takes part in maintaining this distinction\nwhich his conscience condemns. And he cannot help suffering from the\nconsciousness of this contradiction and his share in it.\n\nWhether he be master or slave, the man of to-day cannot help\nconstantly feeling the painful opposition between his conscience and\nactual life, and the miseries resulting from it.\n\nThe toiling masses, the immense majority of mankind who are suffering\nunder the incessant, meaningless, and hopeless toil and privation\nin which their whole life is swallowed up, still find their keenest\nsuffering in the glaring contrast between what is and what ought to\nbe, according to all the beliefs held by themselves, and those who\nhave brought them to that condition and keep them in it.\n\nThey know that they are in slavery and condemned to privation and\ndarkness to minister to the lusts of the minority who keep them down.\nThey know it, and they say so plainly. And this knowledge increases\ntheir sufferings and constitutes its bitterest sting.\n\nThe slave of antiquity knew that he was a slave by nature, but our\nlaborer, while he feels he is a slave, knows that he ought not to be,\nand so he tastes the agony of Tantalus, forever desiring and never\ngaining what might and ought to be his.\n\nThe sufferings of the working classes, springing from the\ncontradiction between what is and what ought to be, are increased\ntenfold by the envy and hatred engendered by their consciousness of\nit.\n\nThe laborer of the present day would not cease to suffer even if\nhis toil were much lighter than that of the slave of ancient times,\neven if he gained an eight-hour working day and a wage of three\ndollars a day. For he is working at the manufacture of things which\nhe will not enjoy, working not by his own will for his own benefit,\nbut through necessity, to satisfy the desires of luxurious and idle\npeople in general, and for the profit of a single rich man, the\nowner of a factory or workshop in particular. And he knows that all\nthis is going on in a world in which it is a recognized scientific\nprinciple that labor alone creates wealth, and that to profit by the\nlabor of others is immoral, dishonest, and punishable by law; in a\nworld, moreover, which professes to believe Christ's doctrine that we\nare all brothers, and that true merit and dignity is to be found in\nserving one's neighbor, not in exploiting him. All this he knows, and\nhe cannot but suffer keenly from the sharp contrast between what is\nand what ought to be.\n\n\"According to all principles, according to all I know, and what\neveryone professes,\" the workman says to himself. \"I ought to\nbe free, equal to everyone else, and loved; and I am--a slave,\nhumiliated and hated.\" And he too is filled with hatred and tries to\nfind means to escape from his position, to shake off the enemy who\nis over-riding him, and to oppress him in turn. People say, \"Workmen\nhave no business to try to become capitalists, the poor to try to\nput themselves in the place of the rich.\" That is a mistake. The\nworkingmen and the poor would be wrong if they tried to do so in a\nworld in which slaves and masters were regarded as different species\ncreated by God; but they are living in a world which professes the\nfaith of the Gospel, that all are alike sons of God, and so brothers\nand equal. And however men may try to conceal it, one of the first\nconditions of Christian life is love, not in words but in deeds.\n\nThe man of the so-called educated classes lives in still more glaring\ninconsistency and suffering. Every educated man, if he believes in\nanything, believes in the brotherhood of all men, or at least he has\na sentiment of humanity, or else of justice, or else he believes in\nscience. And all the while he knows that his whole life is framed on\nprinciples in direct opposition to it all, to all the principles of\nChristianity, humanity, justice, and science.\n\nHe knows that all the habits in which he has been brought up, and\nwhich he could not give up without suffering, can only be satisfied\nthrough the exhausting, often fatal, toil of oppressed laborers,\nthat is, through the most obvious and brutal violation of the\nprinciples of Christianity, humanity, and justice, and even of\nscience (that is, economic science). He advocates the principles\nof fraternity, humanity, justice, and science, and yet he lives so\nthat he is dependent on the oppression of the working classes, which\nhe denounces, and his whole life is based on the advantages gained\nby their oppression. Moreover he is directing every effort to\nmaintaining this state of things so flatly opposed to all his beliefs.\n\nWe are all brothers--and yet every morning a brother or a sister\nmust empty the bedroom slops for me. We are all brothers, but every\nmorning I must have a cigar, a sweetmeat, an ice, and such things,\nwhich my brothers and sisters have been wasting their health in\nmanufacturing, and I enjoy these things and demand them. We are all\nbrothers, yet I live by working in a bank, or mercantile house,\nor shop at making all goods dearer for my brothers. We are all\nbrothers, but I live on a salary paid me for prosecuting, judging,\nand condemning the thief or the prostitute whose existence the whole\ntenor of my life tends to bring about, and who I know ought not to\nbe punished but reformed. We are all brothers, but I live on the\nsalary I gain by collecting taxes from needy laborers to be spent\non the luxuries of the rich and idle. We are all brothers, but I\ntake a stipend for preaching a false Christian religion, which I\ndo not myself believe in, and which only serves to hinder men from\nunderstanding true Christianity. I take a stipend as priest or\nbishop for deceiving men in the matter of the greatest importance to\nthem. We are all brothers, but I will not give the poor the benefit\nof my educational, medical, or literary labors except for money.\nWe are all brothers, yet I take a salary for being ready to commit\nmurder, for teaching men to murder, or making firearms, gunpowder, or\nfortifications.\n\nThe whole life of the upper classes is a constant inconsistency.\nThe more delicate a man's conscience is, the more painful this\ncontradiction is to him.\n\nA man of sensitive conscience cannot but suffer if he lives such a\nlife. The only means by which he can escape from this suffering is\nby blunting his conscience, but even if some men succeed in dulling\ntheir conscience they cannot dull their fears.\n\nThe men of the higher dominating classes whose conscience is\nnaturally not sensitive or has become blunted, if they don't suffer\nthrough conscience, suffer from fear and hatred. They are bound to\nsuffer. They know all the hatred of them existing, and inevitably\nexisting in the working classes. They are aware that the working\nclasses know that they are deceived and exploited, and that they\nare beginning to organize themselves to shake off oppression and\nrevenge themselves on their oppressors. The higher classes see the\nunions, the strikes, the May Day Celebrations, and feel the calamity\nthat is threatening them, and their terror passes into an instinct\nof self-defense and hatred. They know that if for one instant they\nare worsted in the struggle with their oppressed slaves, they will\nperish, because the slaves are exasperated and their exasperation is\ngrowing more intense with every day of oppression. The oppressors,\neven if they wished to do so, could not make an end to oppression.\nThey know that they themselves will perish directly they even relax\nthe harshness of their oppression. And they do not relax it, in spite\nof all their pretended care for the welfare of the working classes,\nfor the eight-hour day, for regulation of the labor of minors and of\nwomen, for savings banks and pensions. All that is humbug, or else\nsimply anxiety to keep the slave fit to do his work. But the slave is\nstill a slave, and the master who cannot live without a slave is less\ndisposed to set him free than ever.\n\nThe attitude of the ruling classes to the laborers is that of a man\nwho has felled his adversary to the earth and holds him down, not\nso much because he wants to hold him down, as because he knows that\nif he let him go, even for a second, he would himself be stabbed,\nfor his adversary is infuriated and has a knife in his hand. And\ntherefore, whether their conscience is tender or the reverse, our\nrich men cannot enjoy the wealth they have filched from the poor\nas the ancients did who believed in their right to it. Their whole\nlife and all their enjoyments are embittered either by the stings of\nconscience or by terror.\n\nSo much for the economic contradiction. The political contradiction\nis even more striking.\n\nAll men are brought up to the habit of obeying the laws of the state\nbefore everything. The whole existence of modern times is defined by\nlaws. A man marries and is divorced, educates his children, and even\n(in many countries) professes his religious faith in accordance with\nthe law. What about the law then which defines our whole existence?\nDo men believe in it? Do they regard it as good? Not at all. In the\nmajority of cases people of the present time do not believe in the\njustice of the law, they despise it, but still they obey it. It was\nvery well for the men of the ancient world to observe their laws.\nThey firmly believed that their law (it was generally of a religious\ncharacter) was the only just law, which everyone ought to obey. But\nis it so with us? we know and cannot help knowing that the law of\nour country is not the one eternal law; that it is only one of the\nmany laws of different countries, which are equally imperfect, often\nobviously wrong and unjust, and are criticised from every point of\nview in the newspapers. The Jew might well obey his laws, since\nhe had not the slightest doubt that God had written them with his\nfinger; the Roman too might well obey the laws which he thought had\nbeen dictated by the nymph Egeria. Men might well observe the laws if\nthey believed the Tzars who made them were God's anointed, or even if\nthey thought they were the work of assemblies of lawgivers who had\nthe power and the desire to make them as good as possible. But we all\nknow how our laws are made. We have all been behind the scenes, we\nknow that they are the product of covetousness, trickery, and party\nstruggles; that there is not and cannot be any real justice in them.\nAnd so modern men cannot believe that obedience to civic or political\nlaws can satisfy the demands of the reason or of human nature. Men\nhave long ago recognized that it is irrational to obey a law the\njustice of which is very doubtful, and so they cannot but suffer in\nobeying a law which they do not accept as judicious and binding.\n\nA man cannot but suffer when his whole life is defined beforehand for\nhim by laws, which he must obey under threat of punishment, though\nhe does not believe in their wisdom or justice, and often clearly\nperceives their injustice, cruelty, and artificiality.\n\nWe recognize the uselessness of customs and import duties, and are\nobliged to pay them. We recognize the uselessness of the expenditure\non the maintenance of the Court and other members of Government, and\nwe regard the teaching of the Church as injurious, but we are obliged\nto bear our share of the expenses of these institutions. We regard\nthe punishments inflicted by law as cruel and shameless, but we must\nassist in supporting them. We regard as unjust and pernicious the\ndistribution of landed property, but we are obliged to submit to it.\nWe see no necessity for wars and armies, but we must bear terribly\nheavy burdens in support of troops and war expenses.\n\nBut this contradiction is nothing in comparison with the\ncontradiction which confronts us when we turn to international\nquestions, and which demands a solution under pain of the loss of\nthe sanity and even the existence of the human race. That is the\ncontradiction between the Christian conscience and war.\n\nWe are all Christian nations living the same spiritual life, so that\nevery noble and pregnant thought, springing up at one end of the\nworld, is at once communicated to the whole of Christian humanity and\nevokes everywhere the same emotion of pride and rejoicing without\ndistinction of nationalities. We who love thinkers, philanthropists,\npoets, and scientific men of foreign origin, and are as proud of\nthe exploits of Father Damien as if he were one of ourselves, we,\nwho have a simple love for men of foreign nationalities, Frenchmen,\nGermans, Americans, and Englishmen, who respect their qualities, are\nglad to meet them and make them so warmly welcome, cannot regard war\nwith them as anything heroic. We cannot even imagine without horror\nthe possibility of a disagreement between these people and ourselves\nwhich would call for reciprocal murder. Yet we are all bound to take\na hand in this slaughter which is bound to come to pass to-morrow--if\nnot to-day.\n\nIt was very well for the Jew, the Greek, and the Roman to defend\nthe independence of his nation by murder. For he piously believed\nthat his people was the only true, fine, and good people dear to\nGod, and all the rest were Philistines, barbarians. Men of medi\u00e6val\ntimes--even up to the end of the last and beginning of this\ncentury--might continue to hold this belief. But however much we\nwork upon ourselves we cannot believe it. And this contradiction for\nmen of the present day has become so full of horror that without its\nsolution life is no longer possible.\n\n\"We live in a time which is full of inconsistencies,\" writes Count\nKomarovsky, the professor of international law, in his learned\ntreatise. \"The press of all countries is continually expressing the\nuniversal desire for peace, and the general sense of its necessity\nfor all nations.\n\n\"Representatives of governments, private persons, and official\norgans say the same thing; it is repeated in parliamentary debates,\ndiplomatic correspondence, and even in state treaties. At the same\ntime governments are increasing the strength of their armies every\nyear, levying fresh taxes, raising loans, and leaving as a bequest\nto future generations the duty of repairing the blunders of the\nsenseless policy of the present. What a striking contrast between\nwords and deeds! Of course governments will plead in justification\nof these measures that all their expenditure and armament are\nexclusively for purposes of defense. But it remains a mystery to\nevery disinterested man whence they can expect attacks if all\nthe great powers are single-hearted in their policy, in pursuing\nnothing but self-defense. In reality it looks as if each of the\ngreat powers were every instant anticipating an attack on the part\nof the others. And this results in a general feeling of insecurity\nand superhuman efforts on the part of each government to increase\ntheir forces beyond those of the other powers. Such a competition\nof itself increases the danger of war. Nations cannot endure the\nconstant increase of armies for long, and sooner or later they will\nprefer war to all the disadvantages of their present position and\nthe constant menace of war. Then the most trifling pretext will be\nsufficient to throw the whole of Europe into the fire of universal\nwar. And it is a mistaken idea that such a crisis might deliver us\nfrom the political and economical troubles that are crushing us. The\nexperience of the wars of latter years teaches us that every war\nhas only intensified national hatreds, made military burdens more\ncrushing and insupportable, and rendered the political and economical\nposition of Europe more grievous and insoluble.\"\n\n\"Modern Europe keeps under arms an active army of nine millions of\nmen,\" writes Enrico Ferri, \"besides fifteen millions of reserve, with\nan outlay of four hundred millions of francs per annum. By continual\nincrease of the armed force, the sources of social and individual\nprosperity are paralyzed, and the state of the modern world may be\ncompared to that of a man who condemns himself to wasting from lack\nof nutrition in order to provide himself with arms, losing thereby\nthe strength to use the arms he provides, under the weight of which\nhe will at last succumb.\"\n\nCharles Booth, in his paper read in London before the Association\nfor the Reform and Codification of the Law of Nations, June 26,\n1887, says the same thing. After referring to the same number, nine\nmillions of the active army and fifteen millions of reserve, and\nthe enormous expenditure of governments on the support and arming\nof these forces, he says: \"These figures represent only a small\npart of the real cost, because besides the recognized expenditure\nof the war budget of the various nations, we ought also to take\ninto account the enormous loss to society involved in withdrawing\nfrom it such an immense number of its most vigorous men, who are\ntaken from industrial pursuits and every kind of labor, as well as\nthe enormous interest on the sums expended on military preparations\nwithout any return. The inevitable result of this expenditure on war\nand preparations for war is a continually growing national debt. The\ngreater number of loans raised by the governments of Europe were\nwith a view to war. Their total sum amounts to four hundred millions\nsterling, and these debts are increasing every year.\"\n\nThe same Professor Komarovsky says in another place: \"We live in\ntroubled times. Everywhere we hear complaints of the depression of\ntrade and manufactures, and the wretchedness of the economic position\ngenerally, the miserable conditions of existence of the working\nclasses, and the universal impoverishment of the masses. But in spite\nof this, governments in their efforts to maintain their independence\nrush to the greatest extremes of senselessness. New taxes and duties\nare being devised everywhere, and the financial oppression of the\nnations knows no limits. If we glance at the budgets of the states\nof Europe for the last hundred years, what strikes us most of all is\ntheir rapid and continually growing increase.\n\n\"How can we explain this extraordinary phenomenon, which sooner or\nlater threatens us all with inevitable bankruptcy?\n\n\"It is caused beyond dispute by the expenditure for the maintenance\nof armaments which swallows up a third and even a half of all the\nexpenditure of European states. And the most melancholy thing is\nthat one can foresee no limit to this augmentation of the budget\nand impoverishment of the masses. What is socialism but a protest\nagainst this abnormal position in which the greater proportion of the\npopulation of our world is placed?\"\n\n\"We are ruining ourselves,\" says Frederick Passy in a letter read\nbefore the last Congress of Universal Peace (in 1890) in London,\n\"we are ruining ourselves in order to be able to take part in the\nsenseless wars of the future or to pay the interest on debts we have\nincurred by the senseless and criminal wars of the past. We are dying\nof hunger so as to secure the means of killing each other.\"\n\nSpeaking later on of the way the subject is looked at in France, he\nsays: \"We believe that, a hundred years after the Declaration of the\nRights of Man and of the citizen, the time has come to recognize\nthe rights of nations and to renounce at once and forever all those\nundertakings based on fraud and force, which, under the name of\nconquests, are veritable crimes against humanity, and which, whatever\nthe vanity of monarchs and the pride of nations may think of them,\nonly weaken even those who are triumphant over them.\"\n\n\"I am surprised at the way religion is carried on in this country,\"\nsaid Sir Wilfrid Lawson at the same congress. \"You send a boy to\nSunday school, and you tell him: 'Dear boy, you must love your\nenemies. If another boy strikes you, you mustn't hit him back, but\ntry to reform him by loving him.' Well. The boy stays in the Sunday\nschool till he is fourteen or fifteen, and then his friends send him\ninto the army. What has he to do in the army? He certainly won't\nlove his enemy; quite the contrary, if he can only get at him, he\nwill run him through with his bayonet. That is the nature of all\nreligious teaching in this country. I do not think that that is a\nvery good way of carrying out the precepts of religion. I think if\nit is a good thing for a boy to love his enemy, it is good for a\ngrown-up man.\"\n\n\"There are in Europe twenty-eight millions of men under arms,\" says\nWilson, \"to decide disputes, not by discussion, but by murdering one\nanother. That is the accepted method for deciding disputes among\nChristian nations. This method is, at the same time, very expensive,\nfor, according to the statistics I have read, the nations of Europe\nspent in the year 1872 a hundred and fifty millions sterling on\npreparations for deciding disputes by means of murder. It seems to\nme, therefore, that in such a state of things one of two alternatives\nmust be admitted: either Christianity is a failure, or those who have\nundertaken to expound it have failed in doing so. Until our warriors\nare disarmed and our armies disbanded, we have not the right to call\nourselves a Christian nation.\"\n\nIn a conference on the subject of the duty of Christian ministers\nto preach against war, G. D. Bartlett said among other things: \"If\nI understand the Scriptures, I say that men are only playing with\nChristianity so long as they ignore the question of war. I have lived\na longish life and have heard our ministers preach on universal peace\nhardly half a dozen times. Twenty years ago, in a drawing room, I\ndared in the presence of forty persons to moot the proposition that\nwar was incompatible with Christianity; I was regarded as an arrant\nfanatic. The idea that we could get on without war was regarded as\nunmitigated weakness and folly.\"\n\nThe Catholic priest Defourney has expressed himself in the same\nspirit. \"One of the first precepts of the eternal law inscribed\nin the consciences of all men,\" says the Abb\u00e9 Defourney, \"is\nthe prohibition of taking the life or shedding the blood of a\nfellow-creature without sufficient cause, without being forced\ninto the necessity of it. This is one of the commandments which\nis most deeply stamped in the heart of man. But so soon as it is\na question of war, that is, of shedding blood in torrents, men of\nthe present day do not trouble themselves about a sufficient cause.\nThose who take part in wars do not even think of asking themselves\nwhether there is any justification for these innumerable murders,\nwhether they are justifiable or unjustifiable, lawful or unlawful,\ninnocent or criminal; whether they are breaking that fundamental\ncommandment that forbids killing without lawful cause. But their\nconscience is mute. War has ceased to be something dependent on moral\nconsiderations. In warfare men have in all the toil and dangers they\nendure no other pleasure than that of being conquerors, no sorrow\nother than that of being conquered. Don't tell me that they are\nserving their country. A great genius answered that long ago in the\nwords that have become a proverb: 'Without justice, what is an empire\nbut a great band of brigands?' And is not every band of brigands a\nlittle empire? They too have their laws; and they too make war to\ngain booty, and even for honor.\n\n\"The aim of the proposed institution [the institution of an\ninternational board of arbitration] is that the nations of Europe may\ncease to be nations of robbers, and their armies, bands of brigands.\nAnd one must add, not only brigands, but slaves. For our armies are\nsimply gangs of slaves at the disposal of one or two commanders or\nministers, who exercise a despotic control over them without any real\nresponsibility, as we very well know.\n\n\"The peculiarity of a slave is that he is a mere tool in the hands\nof his master, a thing, not a man. That is just what soldiers,\nofficers, and generals are, going to murder and be murdered at the\nwill of a ruler or rulers. Military slavery is an actual fact, and\nit is the worst form of slavery, especially now when by means of\ncompulsory service it lays its fetters on the necks of all the strong\nand capable men of a nation, to make them instruments of murder,\nbutchers of human flesh, for that is all they are taken and trained\nto do.\n\n\"The rulers, two or three in number, meet together in cabinets,\nsecretly deliberate without registers, without publicity, and\nconsequently without responsibility, and send men to be murdered.\"\n\n\"Protests against armaments, burdensome to the people, have not\noriginated in our times,\" says Signor E. G. Moneta. \"Hear what\nMontesquieu wrote in his day. 'France [and one might say, Europe]\nwill be ruined by soldiers. A new plague is spreading throughout\nEurope. It attacks sovereigns and forces them to maintain an\nincredible number of armed men. This plague is infectious and\nspreads, because directly one government increases its armament, all\nthe others do likewise. So that nothing is gained by it but general\nruin.\n\n\"'Every government maintains as great an army as it possibly could\nmaintain if its people were threatened with extermination, and people\ncall peace this state of tension of all against all. And therefore\nEurope is so ruined that if private persons were in the position of\nthe governments of our continent, the richest of them would not have\nenough to live on. We are poor though we have the wealth and trade of\nthe whole world.'\n\n\"That was written almost 150 years ago. The picture seems drawn\nfrom the world of to-day. One thing only has changed--the form\nof government. In Montesquieu's time it was said that the cause\nof the maintenance of great armaments was the despotic power of\nkings, who made war in the hope of augmenting by conquest their\npersonal revenues and gaining glory. People used to say then: 'Ah,\nif only people could elect those who would have the right to refuse\ngovernments the soldiers and the money--then there would be an end\nto military politics.' Now there are representative governments in\nalmost the whole of Europe, and in spite of that, war expenditures\nand the preparations for war have increased to alarming proportions.\n\n\"It is evident that the insanity of sovereigns has gained possession\nof the ruling classes. War is not made now because one king has\nbeen wanting in civility to the mistress of another king, as it was\nin Louis XIV.'s time. But the natural and honorable sentiments of\nnational honor and patriotism are so exaggerated, and the public\nopinion of one nation so excited against another, that it is enough\nfor a statement to be made (even though it may be a false report)\nthat the ambassador of one state was not received by the principal\npersonage of another state to cause the outbreak of the most awful\nand destructive war there has ever been seen. Europe keeps more\nsoldiers under arms to-day than in the time of the great Napoleonic\nwars. All citizens with few exceptions are forced to spend some years\nin barracks. Fortresses, arsenals, and ships are built, new weapons\nare constantly being invented, to be replaced in a short time by\nfresh ones, for, sad to say, science, which ought always to be aiming\nat the good of humanity, assists in the work of destruction, and is\nconstantly inventing new means for killing the greatest number of\nmen in the shortest time. And to maintain so great a multitude of\nsoldiers and to make such vast preparations for murder, hundreds of\nmillions are spent annually, sums which would be sufficient for the\neducation of the people and for immense works of public utility,\nand which would make it possible to find a peaceful solution of the\nsocial question.\n\n\"Europe, then, is, in this respect, in spite of all the conquests of\nscience, in the same position as in the darkest and most barbarous\ndays of the Middle Ages. All deplore this state of things--neither\npeace nor war--and all would be glad to escape from it. The heads of\ngovernments all declare that they all wish for peace, and vie with\none another in the most solemn protestations of peaceful intentions.\nBut the same day or the next they will lay a scheme for the increase\nof the armament before their legislative assembly, saying that\nthese are the preventive measures they take for the very purpose of\nsecuring peace.\n\n\"But this is not the kind of peace we want. And the nations are not\ndeceived by it. True peace is based on mutual confidence, while\nthese huge armaments show open and utter lack of confidence, if not\nconcealed hostility, between states. What should we say of a man who,\nwanting to show his friendly feelings for his neighbor, should invite\nhim to discuss their differences with a loaded revolver in his hand?\n\n\"It is just this flagrant contradiction between the peaceful\nprofessions and the warlike policy of governments which all good\ncitizens desire to put an end to, at any cost.\"\n\nPeople are astonished that every year there are sixty thousand cases\nof suicide in Europe, and those only the recognized and recorded\ncases--and excluding Russia and Turkey; but one ought rather to be\nsurprised that there are so few. Every man of the present day, if we\ngo deep enough into the contradiction between his conscience and his\nlife, is in a state of despair.\n\nNot to speak of all the other contradictions between modern life and\nthe conscience, the permanently armed condition of Europe together\nwith its profession of Christianity is alone enough to drive any man\nto despair, to doubt of the sanity of mankind, and to terminate an\nexistence in this senseless and brutal world. This contradiction,\nwhich is a quintessence of all the other contradictions, is so\nterrible that to live and to take part in it is only possible if one\ndoes not think of it--if one is able to forget it.\n\nWhat! all of us, Christians, not only profess to love one another,\nbut do actually live one common life; we whose social existence beats\nwith one common pulse--we aid one another, learn from one another,\ndraw ever closer to one another to our mutual happiness, and find\nin this closeness the whole meaning of life!--and to-morrow some\ncrazy ruler will say some stupidity, and another will answer in the\nsame spirit, and then I must go expose myself to being murdered,\nand murder men--who have done me no harm--and more than that, whom\nI love. And this is not a remote contingency, but the very thing we\nare all preparing for, which is not only probable, but an inevitable\ncertainty.\n\nTo recognize this clearly is enough to drive a man out of his senses\nor to make him shoot himself. And this is just what does happen, and\nespecially often among military men. A man need only come to himself\nfor an instant to be impelled inevitably to such an end.\n\nAnd this is the only explanation of the dreadful intensity with which\nmen of modern times strive to stupefy themselves, with spirits,\ntobacco, opium, cards, reading newspapers, traveling, and all kinds\nof spectacles and amusements. These pursuits are followed up as an\nimportant, serious business. And indeed they are a serious business.\nIf there were no external means of dulling their sensibilities, half\nof mankind would shoot themselves without delay, for to live in\nopposition to one's reason is the most intolerable condition. And\nthat is the condition of all men of the present day. All men of the\nmodern world exist in a state of continual and flagrant antagonism\nbetween their conscience and their way of life. This antagonism is\napparent in economic as well as political life. But most striking of\nall is the contradiction between the Christian law of the brotherhood\nof men existing in the conscience and the necessity under which all\nmen are placed by compulsory military service of being prepared\nfor hatred and murder--of being at the same time a Christian and a\ngladiator.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI.\n\n     ATTITUDE OF MEN OF THE PRESENT DAY TO WAR.\n\n     People do not Try to Remove the Contradiction between Life and\n     Conscience by a Change of Life, but their Cultivated Leaders\n     Exert Every Effort to Obscure the Demands of Conscience, and\n     Justify their Life; in this Way they Degrade Society below\n     Paganism to a State of Primeval Barbarism--Undefined Attitude\n     of Modern Leaders of Thought to War, to Universal Militarism,\n     and to Compulsory Service in Army--One Section Regards War as\n     an Accidental Political Phenomenon, to be Avoided by External\n     Measures only--Peace Congress--The Article in the _Revue des\n     Revues_--Proposition of Maxime du Camp--Value of Boards of\n     Arbitration and Suppression of Armies--Attitude of Governments\n     to Men of this Opinion and What they Do--Another Section\n     Regards War as Cruel, but Inevitable--Maupassant--Rod--A\n     Third Section Regard War as Necessary, and not without its\n     Advantages--Doucet--Claretie--Zola--Vog\u00fc\u00e9.\n\n\nThe antagonism between life and the conscience may be removed in two\nways: by a change of life or by a change of conscience. And there\nwould seem there can be no doubt as to these alternatives.\n\nA man may cease to do what he regards as wrong, but he cannot cease\nto consider wrong what is wrong. Just in the same way all humanity\nmay cease to do what it regards as wrong, but far from being able to\nchange, it cannot even retard for a time the continual growth of a\nclearer recognition of what is wrong and therefore ought not to be.\nAnd therefore it would seem inevitable for Christian men to abandon\nthe pagan forms of society which they condemn, and to reconstruct\ntheir social existence on the Christian principles they profess.\n\nSo it would be were it not for the law of inertia, as immutable a\nforce in men and nations as in inanimate bodies. In men it takes the\nform of the psychological principle, so truly expressed in the words\nof the Gospel, \"They have loved darkness better than light because\ntheir deeds were evil.\" This principle shows itself in men not trying\nto recognize the truth, but to persuade themselves that the life\nthey are leading, which is what they like and are used to, is a life\nperfectly consistent with truth.\n\nSlavery was opposed to all the moral principles advocated by Plato\nand Aristotle, yet neither of them saw that, because to renounce\nslavery would have meant the break up of the life they were living.\nWe see the same thing in our modern world.\n\nThe division of men into two castes, as well as the use of force in\ngovernment and war, are opposed to every moral principle professed by\nour modern society. Yet the cultivated and advanced men of the day\nseem not to see it.\n\nThe majority, if not all, of the cultivated men of our day try\nunconsciously to maintain the old social conception of life, which\njustifies their position, and to hide from themselves and others its\ninsufficiency, and above all the necessity of adopting the Christian\nconception of life, which will mean the break up of the whole\nexisting social order. They struggle to keep up the organization\nbased on the social conception of life, but do not believe in it\nthemselves, because it is extinct and it is impossible to believe in\nit.\n\nAll modern literature--philosophical, political, and artistic--is\nstriking in this respect. What wealth of idea, of form, of color,\nwhat erudition, what art, but what a lack of serious matter, what\ndread of any exactitude of thought or expression! Subtleties,\nallegories, humorous fancies, the widest generalizations, but nothing\nsimple and clear, nothing going straight to the point, that is, to\nthe problem of life.\n\nBut that is not all; besides these graceful frivolities, our\nliterature is full of simple nastiness and brutality, of arguments\nwhich would lead men back in the most refined way to primeval\nbarbarism, to the principles not only of the pagan, but even of the\nanimal life, which we have left behind us five thousand years ago.\n\nAnd it could not be otherwise. In their dread of the Christian\nconception of life which will destroy the social order, which some\ncling to only from habit, others also from interest, men cannot but\nbe thrown back upon the pagan conception of life and the principles\nbased on it. Nowadays we see advocated not only patriotism and\naristocratic principles just as they were advocated two thousand\nyears ago, but even the coarsest epicureanism and animalism, only\nwith this difference, that the men who then professed those views\nbelieved in them, while nowadays even the advocates of such views do\nnot believe in them, for they have no meaning for the present day. No\none can stand still when the earth is shaking under his feet. If we\ndo not go forward we must go back. And strange and terrible to say,\nthe cultivated men of our day, the leaders of thought, are in reality\nwith their subtle reasoning drawing society back, not to paganism\neven, but to a state of primitive barbarism.\n\nThis tendency on the part of the leading thinkers of the day is\nnowhere more apparent than in their attitude to the phenomenon in\nwhich all the insufficiency of the social conception of life is\npresented in the most concentrated form--in their attitude, that is,\nto war, to the general arming of nations, and to universal compulsory\nservice.\n\nThe undefined, if not disingenuous, attitude of modern thinkers to\nthis phenomenon is striking. It takes three forms in cultivated\nsociety. One section look at it as an incidental phenomenon, arising\nout of the special political situation of Europe, and consider\nthat this state of things can be reformed without a revolution in\nthe whole internal social order of nations, by external measures\nof international diplomacy. Another section regard it as something\ncruel and hideous, but at the same time fated and inevitable, like\ndisease and death. A third party with cool indifference consider war\nas an inevitable phenomenon, beneficial in its effects and therefore\ndesirable.\n\nMen look at the subject from different points of view, but all alike\ntalk of war as though it were something absolutely independent of\nthe will of those who take part in it. And consequently they do not\neven admit the natural question which presents itself to every simple\nman: \"How about me--ought I to take any part in it?\" In their view\nno question of this kind even exists, and every man, however he may\nregard war from a personal standpoint, must slavishly submit to the\nrequirements of the authorities on the subject.\n\nThe attitude of the first section of thinkers, those who see a way\nout of war in international diplomatic measures, is well expressed in\nthe report of the last Peace Congress in London, and the articles and\nletters upon war that appeared in No. 8 of the _Revue des Revues_,\n1891. The congress after gathering together from various quarters the\nverbal and written opinion of learned men opened the proceedings by\na religious service, and after listening to addresses for five whole\ndays, concluded them by a public dinner and speeches. They adopted\nthe following resolutions:\n\n\"1. The congress affirms its belief that the brotherhood of man\ninvolves as a necessary consequence a brotherhood of nations.\n\n\"2. The congress recognizes the important influence that Christianity\nexercises on the moral and political progress of mankind, and\nearnestly urges upon ministers of the Gospel and other religious\nteachers the duty of setting forth the principles of peace and good\nwill toward men. _And it recommends that the third Sunday in December\nbe set apart for that purpose._\n\n\"3. The congress expresses the opinion that all teachers of history\nshould call the attention of the young to the grave evils inflicted\non mankind in all ages by war, and to the fact that such war has been\nwaged for most inadequate causes.\n\n\"4. The congress protests against the use of military drill in\nschools by way of physical exercise, and suggests the formation of\nbrigades for saving life rather than of a quasi-military character;\nand urges the desirability of impressing on the Board of Examiners\nwho formulate the questions for examination the propriety of guiding\nthe minds of children in the principles of peace.\n\n\"5. The congress holds that the doctrine of the Rights of Man\nrequires that the aboriginal and weaker races, their territories and\nliberties, shall be guarded from injustice and fraud, and that these\nraces shall be shielded against the vices so prevalent among the\nso-called advanced races of men. It further expresses its conviction\nthat there should be concert of action among the nations for the\naccomplishment of these ends. The congress expresses its hearty\nappreciation of the resolutions of the Anti-slavery Conference held\nrecently at Brussels for the amelioration of the condition of the\npeoples of Africa.\n\n\"6. The congress believes that the warlike prejudices and traditions\nwhich are still fostered in the various nationalities, and the\nmisrepresentations by leaders of public opinion in legislative\nassemblies or through the press, are often indirect causes of war,\nand that these evils should be counteracted by the publication of\naccurate information tending to the removal of misunderstanding\nbetween nations, and recommends the importance of considering the\nquestion of commencing an international newspaper with such a\npurpose.\n\n\"7. The congress proposes to the Inter-parliamentary Conference that\nthe utmost support should be given to every project for unification\nof weights and measures, coinage, tariff, postage, and telegraphic\narrangements, etc., which would assist in constituting a commercial,\nindustrial, and scientific union of the peoples.\n\n\"8. The congress, in view of the vast social and moral influence\nof woman, urges upon every woman to sustain the things that make\nfor peace, as otherwise she incurs grave responsibility for the\ncontinuance of the systems of militarism.\n\n\"9. The congress expresses the hope that the Financial Reform\nAssociation and other similar societies in Europe and America should\nunite in considering means for establishing equitable commercial\nrelations between states, by the reduction of import duties. The\ncongress feels that it can affirm that the whole of Europe desires\npeace, and awaits with impatience the suppression of armaments,\nwhich, under the plea of defense, become in their turn a danger by\nkeeping alive mutual distrust, and are, at the same time, the cause\nof that general economic disturbance which stands in the way of\nsettling in a satisfactory manner the problems of labor and poverty,\nwhich ought to take precedence of all others.\n\n\"10. The congress, recognizing that a general disarmament would be\nthe best guarantee of peace and would lead to the solution of the\nquestions which now most divide states, expresses the wish that\na congress of representatives of all the states of Europe may be\nassembled as soon as possible to consider the means of effecting a\ngradual general disarmament.\n\n\"11. The congress, in consideration of the fact that the timidity of\na single power might delay the convocation of the above-mentioned\ncongress, is of opinion that the government which should first\ndismiss any considerable number of soldiers would confer a signal\nbenefit on Europe and mankind, because it would, by public opinion,\noblige other governments to follow its example, and by the moral\nforce of this accomplished fact would have increased rather than\ndiminished the conditions of its national defense.\n\n\"12. The congress, considering the question of disarmament, as of\npeace in general, depends on public opinion, recommends the peace\nsocieties, as well as all friends of peace, to be active in its\npropaganda, especially at the time of parliamentary elections, in\norder that the electors should give their votes to candidates who are\npledged to support Peace, Disarmament, and Arbitration.\n\n\"13. The congress congratulates the friends of peace on the\nresolution adopted by the International American Conference, held\nat Washington in April last, by which it was recommended that\narbitration should be obligatory in all controversies, whatever their\norigin, except only those which may imperil the independence of one\nof the nations involved.\n\n\"14. The congress recommends this resolution to the attention of\nEuropean statesmen, and expresses the ardent desire that similar\ntreaties may speedily be entered into between the other nations of\nthe world.\n\n\"15. The congress expresses its satisfaction at the adoption by the\nSpanish Senate on June 16 last of a project of law authorizing the\ngovernment to negotiate general or special treaties of arbitration\nfor the settlement of all disputes except those relating to the\nindependence or internal government of the states affected; also\nat the adoption of resolutions to a like effect by the Norwegian\nStorthing and by the Italian Chamber.\n\n\"16. The congress resolves that a committee be appointed to address\ncommunications to the principal political, religious, commercial,\nand labor and peace organizations, requesting them to send petitions\nto the governmental authorities praying that measures be taken\nfor the formation of suitable tribunals for the adjudicature of\ninternational questions so as to avoid the resort to war.\n\n\"17. Seeing (1) that the object pursued by all peace societies is\nthe establishment of judicial order between nations, and (2) that\nneutralization by international treaties constitutes a step toward\nthis judicial state and lessens the number of districts in which war\ncan be carried on, the congress recommends a larger extension of the\nrule of neutralization, and expresses the wish, (1) that all treaties\nwhich at present assure to certain states the benefit of neutrality\nremain in force, or if necessary be amended in a manner to render the\nneutrality more effective, either by extending neutralization to the\nwhole of the state or by ordering the demolition of fortresses, which\nconstitute rather a peril than a guarantee for neutrality; (2) that\nnew treaties in harmony with the wishes of the populations concerned\nbe concluded for establishing the neutralization of other states.\n\n\"18. The sub-committee proposes, (1) that the annual Peace Congress\nshould be held either immediately before the meeting of the annual\nSub-parliamentary Conference, or immediately after it in the same\ntown; (2) that the question of an international peace emblem be\npostponed _sine die_; (3) that the following resolutions be adopted:\n\n\"_a._ To express satisfaction at the official overtures of the\nPresbyterian Church in the United States addressed to the highest\nrepresentatives of each church organization in Christendom to unite\nin a general conference to promote the substitution of international\narbitration for war.\n\n\"_b._ To express in the name of the congress its profound reverence\nfor the memory of Aurelio Saffi, the great Italian jurist, a member\nof the committee of the International League of Peace and Liberty.\n\n\"(4) That the memorial adopted by this congress and signed by the\npresident to the heads of the civilized states should, as far as\npracticable, be presented to each power by influential deputations.\n\n\"(5) That the following resolutions be adopted:\n\n\"_a._ A resolution of thanks to the presidents of the various\nsittings of the congress.\n\n\"_b._ A resolution of thanks to the chairman, the secretaries, and\nthe members of the bureau of the congress.\n\n\"_c._ A resolution of thanks to the conveners and members of the\nsectional committees.\n\n\"_d._ A resolution of thanks to Rev. Canon Scott Holland, Rev. Dr.\nReuen Thomas, and Rev. J. Morgan Gibbon for their pulpit addresses\nbefore the congress, and also to the authorities of St. Paul's\nCathedral, the City Temple, and Stamford Hill Congregational Church\nfor the use of those buildings for public services.\n\n\"_e._ A letter of thanks to her Majesty for permission to visit\nWindsor Castle.\n\n\"_f._ And also a resolution of thanks to the Lord Mayor and Lady\nMayoress, to Mr. Passmore Edwards, and other friends who have\nextended their hospitality to the members of the congress.\n\n\"19. The congress places on record a heartfelt expression of\ngratitude to Almighty God for the remarkable harmony and concord\nwhich have characterized the meetings of the assembly, in which so\nmany men and women of varied nations, creeds, tongues, and races\nhave gathered in closest co-operation, and for the conclusion of the\nlabors of the congress; and expresses its firm and unshaken belief\nin the ultimate triumph of the cause of peace and of the principles\nadvocated at these meetings.\"\n\nThe fundamental idea of the congress is the necessity (1) of\ndiffusing among all people by all means the conviction of the\ndisadvantages of war and the great blessing of peace, and (2) of\nrousing governments to the sense of the superiority of international\narbitration over war and of the consequent advisability and\nnecessity of disarmament. To attain the first aim the congress\nhas recourse to teachers of history, to women, and to the clergy,\nwith the advice to the latter to preach on the evil of war and the\nblessing of peace every third Sunday in December. To attain the\nsecond object the congress appeals to governments with the suggestion\nthat they should disband their armies and replace war by arbitration.\n\nTo preach to men of the evil of war and the blessing of peace! But\nthe blessing of peace is so well known to men that, ever since there\nhave been men at all, their best wish has been expressed in the\ngreeting, \"Peace be with you.\" So why preach about it?\n\nNot only Christians, but pagans, thousands of years ago, all\nrecognized the evil of war and the blessing of peace. So that the\nrecommendation to ministers of the Gospel to preach on the evil of\nwar and the blessing of peace every third Sunday in December is quite\nsuperfluous.\n\nThe Christian cannot but preach on that subject every day of his\nlife. If Christians and preachers of Christianity do not do so,\nthere must be reasons for it. And until these have been removed no\nrecommendations will be effective. Still less effective will be the\nrecommendations to governments to disband their armies and replace\nthem by international boards of arbitration. Governments, too, know\nvery well the difficulty and the burdensomeness of raising and\nmaintaining forces, and if in spite of that knowledge they do, at the\ncost of terrible strain and effort, raise and maintain forces, it is\nevident that they cannot do otherwise, and the recommendation of the\ncongress can never change it. But the learned gentlemen are unwilling\nto see that, and keep hoping to find a political combination, through\nwhich governments shall be induced to limit their powers themselves.\n\n\"Can we get rid of war\"? asks a learned writer in the _Revue des\nRevues_. \"All are agreed that if it were to break out in Europe, its\nconsequences would be like those of the great inroads of barbarians.\nThe existence of whole nationalities would be at stake, and therefore\nthe war would be desperate, bloody, atrocious.\n\n\"This consideration, together with the terrible engines of\ndestruction invented by modern science, retards the moment of\ndeclaring war, and maintains the present temporary situation, which\nmight continue for an indefinite period, except for the fearful cost\nof maintaining armaments which are exhausting the European states and\nthreatening to reduce nations to a state of misery hardly less than\nthat of war itself.\n\n\"Struck by this reflection, men of various countries have tried to\nfind means for preventing, or at least for softening, the results of\nthe terrible slaughter with which we are threatened.\n\n\"Such are the questions brought forward by the Peace Congress shortly\nto be held in Rome, and the publication of a pamphlet, 'Sur le\nD\u00e9sarmement'.\n\n\"It is unhappily beyond doubt that with the present organization of\nthe majority of European states, isolated from one another and guided\nby distinct interests, the absolute suppression of war is an illusion\nwith which it would be dangerous to cheat ourselves. Wiser rules and\nregulations imposed on these duels between nations might, however, at\nleast limit its horrors.\n\n\"It is equally chimerical to reckon on projects of disarmament, the\nexecution of which is rendered almost impossible by considerations\nof a popular character present to the mind of all our readers. [This\nprobably means that France cannot disband its army before taking\nits revenge.] Public opinion is not prepared to accept them, and\nmoreover, the international relations between different peoples are\nnot such as to make their acceptance possible. Disarmament imposed\non one nation by another in circumstances threatening its security\nwould be equivalent to a declaration of war.\n\n\"However, one may admit that an exchange of ideas between the nations\ninterested could aid, to a certain degree, in bringing about the good\nunderstanding indispensable to any negotiations, and would render\npossible a considerable reduction of the military expenditure which\nis crushing the nations of Europe and greatly hindering the solution\nof the social question, which each individually must solve on pain of\nhaving internal war as the price for escaping it externally.\n\n\"We might at least demand the reduction of the enormous expenses\nof war organized as it is at present with a view to the power of\ninvasion within twenty-four hours and a decisive battle within a week\nof the declaration of war.\n\n\"We ought to manage so that states could not make the attack suddenly\nand invade each other's territories within twenty-four hours.\"\n\nThis practical notion has been put forth by Maxime du Camp, and his\narticle concludes with it.\n\nThe propositions of M. du Camp are as follows:\n\n1. A diplomatic congress to be held every year.\n\n2. No war to be declared till two months after the incident which\nprovoked it. (The difficulty here would be to decide precisely what\nincident did provoke the war, since whenever war is declared there\nare very many such incidents, and one would have to decide from which\nto reckon the two months' interval.)\n\n3. No war to be declared before it has been submitted to a\nplebiscitum of the nations preparing to take part in it.\n\n4. No hostilities to be commenced till a month after the official\ndeclaration of war.\n\n\"No war to be declared. No hostilities to be commenced,\" etc. But who\nis to arrange that no war is to be declared? Who is to compel people\nto do this and that? Who is to force states to delay their operations\nfor a certain fixed time? All the other states. But all these others\nare also states which want holding in check and keeping within\nlimits, and forcing, too. Who is to force them, and how? Public\nopinion. But if there is a public opinion which can force governments\nto delay their operations for a fixed period, the same public opinion\ncan force governments not to declare war at all.\n\nBut, it will be replied, there may be such a balance of power, such\na _pond\u00e9ration de forces_, as would lead states to hold back of\ntheir own accord. Well, that has been tried and is being tried even\nnow. The Holy Alliance was nothing but that, the League of Peace was\nanother attempt at the same thing, and so on.\n\nBut, it will be answered, suppose all were agreed. If all were agreed\nthere would be no more war certainly, and no need for arbitration\neither.\n\n\"A court of arbitration! Arbitration shall replace war. Questions\nshall be decided by a court of arbitration. The Alabama question was\ndecided by a court of arbitration, and the question of the Caroline\nIslands was submitted to the decision of the Pope. Switzerland,\nBelgium, Denmark, and Holland have all declared that they prefer\narbitration to war.\"\n\nI dare say Monaco has expressed the same preference. The only\nunfortunate thing is that Germany, Russia, Austria, and France have\nnot so far shown the same inclination. It is amazing how men can\ndeceive themselves when they find it necessary! Governments consent\nto decide their disagreements by arbitration and to disband their\narmies! The differences between Russia and Poland, between England\nand Ireland, between Austria and Bohemia, between Turkey and the\nSlavonic states, between France and Germany, to be soothed away by\namiable conciliation!\n\nOne might as well suggest to merchants and bankers that they should\nsell nothing for a greater price than they gave for it, should\nundertake the distribution of wealth for no profit, and should\nabolish money, as it would thus be rendered unnecessary.\n\nBut since commercial and banking operations consist in nothing but\nselling for more than the cost price, this would be equivalent to\nan invitation to suppress themselves. It is the same in regard to\ngovernments. To suggest to governments that they should not have\nrecourse to violence, but should decide their misunderstandings in\naccordance with equity, is inviting them to abolish themselves as\nrulers, and that no government can ever consent to do.\n\nThe learned men form societies (there are more than a hundred such\nsocieties), assemble in congresses (such as those recently held in\nLondon and Paris, and shortly to be held in Rome), deliver addresses,\neat public dinners and make speeches, publish journals, and prove by\nevery means possible that the nations forced to support millions of\ntroops are strained to the furthest limits of their endurance, that\nthe maintenance of these huge armed forces is in opposition to all\nthe aims, the interests, and the wishes of the people, and that it is\npossible, moreover, by writing numerous papers, and uttering a great\nmany words, to bring all men into agreement and to arrange so that\nthey shall have no antagonistic interests, and then there will be no\nmore war.\n\nWhen I was a little boy they told me if I wanted to catch a bird I\nmust put salt on its tail. I ran after the birds with the salt in\nmy hand, but I soon convinced myself that if I could put salt on a\nbird's tail, I could catch it, and realized that I had been hoaxed.\n\nPeople ought to realize the same fact when they read books and\narticles on arbitration and disarmament.\n\nIf one could put salt on a bird's tail, it would be because it could\nnot fly and there would be no difficulty in catching it. If the bird\nhad wings and did not want to be caught, it would not let one put\nsalt on its tail, because the specialty of a bird is to fly. In\nprecisely the same way the specialty of government is not to obey,\nbut to enforce obedience. And a government is only a government so\nlong as it can make itself obeyed, and therefore it always strives\nfor that and will never willingly abandon its power. But since it is\non the army that the power of government rests, it will never give up\nthe army, and the use of the army in war.\n\nThe error arises from the learned jurists deceiving themselves\nand others, by asserting that government is not what it really\nis, one set of men banded together to oppress another set of men,\nbut, as shown by science, is the representation of the citizens in\ntheir collective capacity. They have so long been persuading other\npeople of this that at last they have persuaded themselves of it;\nand thus they often seriously suppose that government can be bound\nby considerations of justice. But history shows that from C\u00e6sar\nto Napoleon, and from Napoleon to Bismarck, government is in its\nessence always a force acting in violation of justice, and that it\ncannot be otherwise. Justice can have no binding force on a ruler\nor rulers who keep men, deluded and drilled in readiness for acts\nof violence--soldiers, and by means of them control others. And so\ngovernments can never be brought to consent to diminish the number of\nthese drilled slaves, who constitute their whole power and importance.\n\nSuch is the attitude of certain learned men to the contradiction\nunder which our society is being crushed, and such are their methods\nof solving it. Tell these people that the whole matter rests on the\npersonal attitude of each man to the moral and religious question\nput nowadays to everyone, the question, that is, whether it is\nlawful or unlawful for him to take his share of military service,\nand these learned gentlemen will shrug their shoulders and not\ncondescend to listen or to answer you. The solution of the question\nin their idea is to be found in reading addresses, writing books,\nelecting presidents, vice-presidents, and secretaries, and meeting\nand speaking first in one town and then in another. From all this\nspeechifying and writing it will come to pass, according to their\nnotions, that governments will cease to levy the soldiers, on whom\ntheir whole strength depends, will listen to their discourses,\nand will disband their forces, leaving themselves without any\ndefense, not only against their neighbors, but also against their\nown subjects. As though a band of brigands, who have some unarmed\ntravelers bound and ready to be plundered, should be so touched by\ntheir complaints of the pain caused by the cords they are fastened\nwith as to let them go again.\n\nStill there are people who believe in this, busy themselves over\npeace congresses, read addresses, and write books. And governments,\nwe may be quite sure, express their sympathy and make a show of\nencouraging them. In the same way they pretend to support temperance\nsocieties, while they are living principally on the drunkenness of\nthe people; and pretend to encourage education, when their whole\nstrength is based on ignorance; and to support constitutional\nfreedom, when their strength rests on the absence of freedom; and\nto be anxious for the improvement of the condition of the working\nclasses, when their very existence depends on their oppression; and\nto support Christianity, when Christianity destroys all government.\n\nTo be able to do this they have long ago elaborated methods\nencouraging temperance, which cannot suppress drunkenness; methods of\nsupporting education, which not only fail to prevent ignorance, but\neven increase it; methods of aiming at freedom and constitutionalism,\nwhich are no hindrance to despotism; methods of protecting the\nworking classes, which will not free them from slavery; and a\nChristianity, too, they have elaborated, which does not destroy, but\nsupports governments.\n\nNow there is something more for the government to encourage--peace.\nThe sovereigns, who nowadays take counsel with their ministers,\ndecide by their will alone whether the butchery of millions is to\nbe begun this year or next. They know very well that all these\ndiscourses upon peace will not hinder them from sending millions of\nmen to butchery when it seems good to them. They listen even with\nsatisfaction to these discourses, encourage them, and take part in\nthem.\n\nAll this, far from being detrimental, is even of service to\ngovernments, by turning people's attention from the most important\nand pressing question: Ought or ought not each man called upon for\nmilitary service to submit to serve in the army?\n\n\"Peace will soon be arranged, thanks to alliances and congresses,\nto books and pamphlets; meantime go and put on your uniform, and\nprepare to cause suffering and to endure it for our benefit,\" is the\ngovernment's line of argument. And the learned gentlemen who get up\ncongresses and write articles are in perfect agreement with it.\n\nThis is the attitude of one set of thinkers. And since it is that\nmost beneficial to governments, it is also the most encouraged by all\nintelligent governments.\n\nAnother attitude to war has something tragical in it. There are men\nwho maintain that the love for peace and the inevitability of war\nform a hideous contradiction, and that such is the fate of man. These\nare mostly gifted and sensitive men, who see and realize all the\nhorror and imbecility and cruelty of war, but through some strange\nperversion of mind neither see nor seek to find any way out of this\nposition, and seem to take pleasure in teasing the wound by dwelling\non the desperate position of humanity. A notable example of such an\nattitude to war is to be found in the celebrated French writer Guy de\nMaupassant. Looking from his yacht at the drill and firing practice\nof the French soldiers the following reflections occur to him:\n\n\"When I think only of this word war, a kind of terror seizes upon\nme, as though I were listening to some tale of sorcery, of the\nInquisition, some long past, remote abomination, monstrous, unnatural.\n\n\"When cannibalism is spoken of, we smile with pride, proclaiming\nour superiority to these savages. Which are the savages, the real\nsavages? Those who fight to eat the conquered, or those who fight to\nkill, for nothing but to kill?\n\n\"The young recruits, moving about in lines yonder, are destined to\ndeath like the flocks of sheep driven by the butcher along the road.\nThey will fall in some plain with a saber cut in the head, or a\nbullet through the breast. And these are young men who might work, be\nproductive and useful. Their fathers are old and poor. Their mothers,\nwho have loved them for twenty years, worshiped them as none but\nmothers can, will learn in six months' time, or a year perhaps, that\ntheir son, their boy, the big boy reared with so much labor, so much\nexpense, so much love, has been thrown in a hole like some dead dog,\nafter being disemboweled by a bullet, and trampled, crushed, to a\nmass of pulp by the charges of cavalry. Why have they killed her boy,\nher handsome boy, her one hope, her pride, her life? She does not\nknow. Ah, why?\n\n\"War! fighting! slaughter! massacres of men! And we have now, in our\ncentury, with our civilization, with the spread of science, and the\ndegree of philosophy which the genius of man is supposed to have\nattained, schools for training to kill, to kill very far off, to\nperfection, great numbers at once, to kill poor devils of innocent\nmen with families and without any kind of trial.\n\n\"_And what is most bewildering is that the people do not rise against\ntheir governments. For what difference is there between monarchies\nand republics? The most bewildering thing is that the whole of\nsociety is not in revolt at the word war._\"\n\n\"Ah! we shall always live under the burden of the ancient and\nodious customs, the criminal prejudices, the ferocious ideas of our\nbarbarous ancestors, for we are beasts, and beasts we shall remain,\ndominated by instinct and changed by nothing. Would not any other man\nthan Victor Hugo have been exiled for that mighty cry of deliverance\nand truth? 'To-day force is called violence, and is being brought to\njudgment; war has been put on its trial. At the plea of the human\nrace, civilization arraigns warfare, and draws up the great list of\ncrimes laid at the charge of conquerors and generals. The nations\nare coming to understand that the magnitude of a crime cannot be\nits extenuation; that if killing is a crime, killing many can be no\nextenuating circumstance; that if robbery is disgraceful, invasion\ncannot be glorious. Ah! let us proclaim these absolute truths; let us\ndishonor war!'\n\n\"Vain wrath,\" continues Maupassant, \"a poet's indignation. War is\nheld in more veneration than ever.\n\n\"A skilled proficient in that line, a slaughterer of genius, Von\nMoltke, in reply to the peace delegates, once uttered these strange\nwords:\n\n\"'War is holy, war is ordained of God. It is one of the most sacred\nlaws of the world. It maintains among men all the great and noble\nsentiments--honor, devotion, virtue, and courage, and saves them in\nshort from falling into the most hideous materialism.'\n\n\"So, then, bringing millions of men together into herds, marching by\nday and by night without rest, thinking of nothing, studying nothing,\nlearning nothing, reading nothing, being useful to no one, wallowing\nin filth, sleeping in mud, living like brutes in a continual state\nof stupefaction, sacking towns, burning villages, ruining whole\npopulations, then meeting another mass of human flesh, falling upon\nthem, making pools of blood, and plains of flesh mixed with trodden\nmire and red with heaps of corpses, having your arms or legs carried\noff, your brains blown out for no advantage to anyone, and dying in\nsome corner of a field while your old parents, your wife and children\nare perishing of hunger--that is what is meant by not falling into\nthe most hideous materialism!\n\n\"Warriors are the scourge of the world. We struggle against nature\nand ignorance and obstacles of all kinds to make our wretched life\nless hard. Learned men--benefactors of all--spend their lives in\nworking, in seeking what can aid, what be of use, what can alleviate\nthe lot of their fellows. They devote themselves unsparingly to their\ntask of usefulness, making one discovery after another, enlarging the\nsphere of human intelligence, extending the bounds of science, adding\neach day some new store to the sum of knowledge, gaining each day\nprosperity, ease, strength for their country.\n\n\"War breaks out. In six months the generals have destroyed the work\nof twenty years of effort, of patience, and of genius.\n\n\"That is what is meant by not falling into the most hideous\nmaterialism.\n\n\"We have seen it, war. We have seen men turned to brutes, frenzied,\nkilling for fun, for terror, for bravado, for ostentation. Then\nwhen right is no more, law is dead, every notion of justice has\ndisappeared. We have seen men shoot innocent creatures found on the\nroad, and suspected because they were afraid. We have seen them kill\ndogs chained at their masters' doors to try their new revolvers. We\nhave seen them fire on cows lying in a field for no reason whatever,\nsimply for the sake of shooting, for a joke.\n\n\"That is what is meant by not falling into the most hideous\nmaterialism.\n\n\"Going into a country, cutting the man's throat who defends his house\nbecause he wears a blouse and has not a military cap on his head,\nburning the dwellings of wretched beings who have nothing to eat,\nbreaking furniture and stealing goods, drinking the wine found in\nthe cellars, violating the women in the streets, burning thousands\nof francs' worth of powder, and leaving misery and cholera in one's\ntrack--\n\n\"That is what is meant by not falling into the most hideous\nmaterialism.\n\n\"What have they done, those warriors, that proves the least\nintelligence? Nothing. What have they invented? Cannons and muskets.\nThat is all.\n\n\"What remains to us from Greece? Books and statues. Is Greece great\nfrom her conquests or her creations?\n\n\"Was it the invasions of the Persians which saved Greece from falling\ninto the most hideous materialism?\n\n\"Were the invasions of the barbarians what saved and regenerated Rome?\n\n\"Was it Napoleon I. who carried forward the great intellectual\nmovement started by the philosophers of the end of last century?\n\n\"Yes, indeed, since government assumes the right of annihilating\npeoples thus, there is nothing surprising in the fact that the\npeoples assume the right of annihilating governments.\n\n\"They defend themselves. They are right. No one has an absolute right\nto govern others. It ought only to be done for the benefit of those\nwho are governed. And it is as much the duty of anyone who governs to\navoid war as it is the duty of a captain of a ship to avoid shipwreck.\n\n\"When a captain has let his ship come to ruin, he is judged and\ncondemned, if he is found guilty of negligence or even incapacity.\n\n\"Why should not the government be put on its trial after every\ndeclaration of war? _If the people understood that, if they\nthemselves passed judgment on murderous governments, if they refused\nto let themselves be killed for nothing, if they would only turn\ntheir arms against those who have given them to them for massacre, on\nthat day war would be no more. But that day will never come.\"_[10]\n\n  [10] \"Sur l'Eau,\" pp. 71-80.\n\nThe author sees all the horror of war. He sees that it is caused by\ngovernments forcing men by deception to go out to slaughter and be\nslain without any advantage to themselves. And he sees, too, that\nthe men who make up the armies could turn their arms against the\ngovernments and bring them to judgment. But he thinks that that\nwill never come to pass, and that there is, therefore, no escape\nfrom the present position. \"I think war is terrible, but that it is\ninevitable; that compulsory military service is as inevitable as\ndeath, and that since government will always desire it, war will\nalways exist.\"\n\nSo writes this talented and sincere writer, who is endowed with that\npower of penetrating to the innermost core of the subjects which\nis the essence of the poetic faculty. He brings before us all the\ncruelty of the inconsistency between men's moral sense and their\nactions, but without trying to remove it; seems to admit that this\ninconsistency must exist and that it is the poetic tragedy of life.\n\nAnother no less gifted writer, Edouard Rod, paints in still more\nvivid colors the cruelty and madness of the present state of\nthings. He too only aims at presenting its tragic features, without\nsuggesting or forseeing any issue from the position.\n\n\"What is the good of doing anything? What is the good of undertaking\nany enterprise? And how are we to love men in these troubled times\nwhen every fresh day is a menace of danger?... All we have begun, the\nplans we are developing, our schemes of work, the little good we may\nhave been able to do, will it not all be swept away by the tempest\nthat is in preparation?... Every where the earth is shaking under\nour feet and storm-clouds are gathering on our horizon which will\nhave no pity on us.\n\n\"Ah! if all we had to dread were the revolution which is held up\nas a specter to terrify us! Since I cannot imagine a society more\ndetestable than ours, I feel more skeptical than alarmed in regard\nto that which will replace it. If I should have to suffer from the\nchange, I should be consoled by thinking that the executioners of\nthat day were the victims of the previous time, and the hope of\nsomething better would help us to endure the worst. But it is not\nthat remote peril which frightens me. I see another danger, nearer\nand far more cruel; more cruel because there is no excuse for it,\nbecause it is absurd, because it can lead to no good. Every day one\nbalances the chances of war on the morrow, every day they become more\nmerciless.\n\n\"The imagination revolts before the catastrophe which is coming\nat the end of our century as the goal of the progress of our era,\nand yet we must get used to facing it. For twenty years past every\nresource of science has been exhausted in the invention of engines\nof destruction, and soon a few charges of cannon will suffice to\nannihilate a whole army. No longer a few thousands of poor devils,\nwho were paid a price for their blood, are kept under arms, but whole\nnations are under arms to cut each other's throats. They are robbed\nof their time now (by compulsory service) that they may be robbed\nof their lives later. To prepare them for the work of massacre,\ntheir hatred is kindled by persuading them that they are hated. And\npeaceable men let themselves be played on thus and go and fall on one\nanother with the ferocity of wild beasts; furious troops of peaceful\ncitizens taking up arms at an empty word of command, for some\nridiculous question of frontiers or colonial trade interests--Heaven\nonly knows what.... They will go like sheep to the slaughter, knowing\nall the while where they are going, knowing that they are leaving\ntheir wives, knowing that their children will want for food, full\nof misgivings, yet intoxicated by the fine-sounding lies that are\ndinned into their ears. _They will march without revolt, passive,\nresigned--though the numbers and the strength are theirs, and they\nmight, if they knew how to co-operate together, establish the reign\nof good sense and fraternity_, instead of the barbarous trickery of\ndiplomacy. They will march to battle so deluded, so duped, that they\nwill believe slaughter to be a duty, and will ask the benediction\nof God on their lust for blood. They will march to battle trampling\nunderfoot the harvests they have sown, burning the towns they have\nbuilt--with songs of triumph, festive music, and cries of jubilation.\nAnd their sons will raise statues to those who have done most in\ntheir slaughter.\n\n\"The destiny of a whole generation depends on the hour in which some\nill-fated politician may give the signal that will be followed.\nWe know that the best of us will be cut down and our work will be\ndestroyed in embryo. _We know it and tremble with rage, but we can\ndo nothing._ We are held fast in the toils of officialdom and red\ntape, and too rude a shock would be needed to set us free. We are\nenslaved by the laws we set up for our protection, which have become\nour oppression. _We are but the tools of that autocratic abstraction\nthe state, which enslaves each individual in the name of the will of\nall, who would all, taken individually, desire exactly the opposite\nof what they will be made to do._\n\n\"And if it were only a generation that must be sacrificed! But there\nare graver interests at stake.\n\n\"The paid politicians, the ambitious statesmen, who exploit the\nevil passions of the populace, and the imbeciles who are deluded by\nfine-sounding phrases, have so embittered national feuds that the\nexistence of a whole race will be at stake in the war of the morrow.\nOne of the elements that constitute the modern world is threatened,\nthe conquered people will be wiped out of existence, and whichever\nit may be, we shall see a moral force annihilated, as if there were\ntoo many forces to work for good--we shall have a new Europe formed\non foundations so unjust, so brutal, so sanguinary, stained with so\nmonstrous a crime, that it cannot but be worse than the Europe of\nto-day--more iniquitous, more barbarous, more violent.\n\n\"Thus one feels crushed under the weight of an immense\ndiscouragement. We are struggling in a _cul de sac_ with muskets\naimed at us from the housetops. Our labor is like that of sailors\nexecuting their last task as the ship begins to sink. Our pleasures\nare those of the condemned victim, who is offered his choice\nof dainties a quarter of an hour before his execution. Thought\nis paralyzed by anguish, and the most it is capable of is to\ncalculate--interpreting the vague phrases of ministers, spelling out\nthe sense of the speeches of sovereigns, and ruminating on the words\nattributed to diplomatists reported on the uncertain authority of the\nnewspapers--whether it is to be to-morrow or the day after, this year\nor the next, that we are to be murdered. So that one might seek in\nvain in history an epoch more insecure, more crushed under the weight\nof suffering.\"[11]\n\n  [11] \"Le Sens de la Vie,\" pp. 208-13.\n\nHere it is pointed out that the force is in the hands of those who\nwork their own destruction, in the hands of the individual men who\nmake up the masses; it is pointed out that the source of the evil is\nthe government. It would seem evident that the contradiction between\nlife and conscience had reached the limit beyond which it cannot go,\nand after reaching this limit some solution of it must be found.\n\nBut the author does not think so. He sees in this the tragedy of\nhuman life, and after depicting all the horror of the position he\nconcludes that human life must be spent in the midst of this horror.\n\nSo much for the attitude to war of those who regard it as something\ntragic and fated by destiny.\n\nThe third category consists of men who have lost all conscience and,\nconsequently, all common sense and feeling of humanity.\n\nTo this category belongs Moltke, whose opinion has been quoted above\nby Maupassant, and the majority of military men, who have been\neducated in this cruel superstition, live by it, and consequently are\noften in all simplicity convinced that war is not only an inevitable,\nbut even a necessary and beneficial thing. This is also the view of\nsome civilians, so-called educated and cultivated people.\n\nHere is what the celebrated academician Camille Doucet writes in\nreply to the editor of the _Revue des Revues_, where several letters\non war were published together:\n\n     \"DEAR SIR: When you ask the least warlike of academicians\n     whether he is a partisan of war, his answer is known beforehand.\n\n     \"Alas! sir, you yourself speak of the pacific ideal inspiring\n     your generous compatriots as a dream.\n\n     \"During my life I have heard a great many good people protest\n     against this frightful custom of international butchery, which\n     all admit and deplore; but how is it to be remedied?\n\n     \"Often, too, there have been attempts to suppress dueling; one\n     would fancy that seemed an easy task: but not at all! All that\n     has been done hitherto with that noble object has never been and\n     never will be of use.\n\n     \"All the congresses of both hemispheres may vote against\n     war, and against dueling too, but above all arbitrations,\n     conventions, and legislations there will always be the _personal\n     honor of individual men_, which has always demanded dueling, and\n     _the interests of nations_, which will always demand war.\n\n     \"I wish none the less from the depths of my heart that the\n     Congress of Universal Peace may succeed at last in its very\n     honorable and difficult enterprise.\n\n                    \"I am, dear sir, etc.,\n                                           \"CAMILLE DOUCET.\"\n\nThe upshot of this is that personal honor requires men to fight, and\nthe interests of nations require them to ruin and exterminate each\nother. As for the efforts to abolish war, they call for nothing but a\nsmile.\n\nThe opinion of another well-known academician, Jules Claretie, is of\nthe same kind.\n\n     \"DEAR SIR [he writes]: For a man of sense there can be but one\n     opinion on the subject of peace and war.\n\n     \"Humanity is created to live, to live free, to perfect and\n     ameliorate its fate by peaceful labor. The general harmony\n     preached by the Universal Peace Congress is but a dream perhaps,\n     but at least it is the fairest of all dreams. Man is always\n     looking toward the Promised Land, and there the harvests are to\n     ripen with no fear of their being torn up by shells or crushed\n     by cannon wheels.... But! Ah! but--since philosophers and\n     philanthropists are not the controlling powers, it is well for\n     our soldiers to guard our frontier and homes, and their arms,\n     skillfully used, are perhaps the surest guarantee of the peace\n     we all love.\n\n     \"Peace is a gift only granted to the strong and the resolute.\n\n                      \"I am, dear sir, etc.,\n                                           \"JULES CLARETIE.\"\n\nThe upshot of this letter is that there is no harm in talking about\nwhat no one intends or feels obliged to do. But when it comes to\npractice, we must fight.\n\nAnd here now is the view lately expressed by the most popular\nnovelist in Europe, \u00c9mile Zola:\n\n\"I regard war as a fatal necessity, which appears inevitable for\nus from its close connection with human nature and the whole\nconstitution of the world. I should wish that war could be put\noff for the longest possible time. Nevertheless, the moment will\ncome when we shall be forced to go to war. I am considering it at\nthis moment from the standpoint of universal humanity, and making\nno reference to our misunderstanding with Germany--a most trivial\nincident in the history of mankind. I say that war is necessary and\nbeneficial, since it seems one of the conditions of existence for\nhumanity. War confronts us everywhere, not only war between different\nraces and peoples, but war too, in private and family life. It seems\none of the principal elements of progress, and every step in advance\nthat humanity has taken hitherto has been attended by bloodshed.\n\n\"Men have talked, and still talk, of disarmament, while disarmament\nis something impossible, to which, even if it were possible, we ought\nnot to consent. I am convinced that a general disarmament throughout\nthe world would involve something like a moral decadence, which would\nshow itself in general feebleness, and would hinder the progressive\nadvancement of humanity. A warlike nation has always been strong and\nflourishing. The art of war has led to the development of all the\nother arts. History bears witness to it. So in Athens and in Rome,\ncommerce, manufactures, and literature never attained so high a point\nof development as when those cities were masters of the whole world\nby force of arms. To take an example from times nearer our own, we\nmay recall the age of Louis XIV. The wars of the Grand Monarque were\nnot only no hindrance to the progress of the arts and sciences,\nbut even, on the contrary, seem to have promoted and favored their\ndevelopment.\"\n\nSo war is a beneficial thing!\n\nBut the best expression of this attitude is the view of the most\ngifted of the writers of this school, the academician de Vog\u00fc\u00e9.\nThis is what he writes in an article on the Military Section of the\nExhibition of 1889:\n\n\"On the Esplanade des Invalides, among the exotic and colonial\nencampments, a building in a more severe style overawes the\npicturesque bazaar; all these fragments of the globe have come\nto gather round the Palace of War, and in turn our guests mount\nguard submissively before the mother building, but for whom they\nwould not be here. Fine subject for the antithesis of rhetoric, of\nhumanitarians who could not fail to whimper over this juxtaposition,\nand to say that '_ceci tuera cela_,'[12] that the union of the\nnations through science and labor will overcome the instinct of war.\nLet us leave them to cherish the chimera of a golden age, which\nwould soon become, if it could be realized, an age of mud. All\nhistory teaches us that the one is created for the other, that blood\nis needed to hasten and cement the union of the nations. Natural\nscience has ratified in our day the mysterious law revealed to Joseph\nde Maistre by the intuition of his genius and by meditation on\nfundamental truths; he saw the world redeeming itself from hereditary\ndegenerations by sacrifice; science shows it advancing to perfection\nthrough struggle and violent selection; there is the statement of\nthe same law in both, expressed in different formulas. The statement\nis disagreeable, no doubt; but the laws of the world are not made\nfor our pleasure, they are made for our progress. Let us enter this\ninevitable, necessary palace of war; we shall be able to observe\nthere how the most tenacious of our instincts, without losing any of\nits vigor, is transformed and adapted to the varying exigencies of\nhistorical epochs.\"\n\n  [12] Phrase quoted from Victor-Hugo, \"Notre-Dame de Paris.\"\n\nM. de Vog\u00fc\u00e9 finds the necessity for war, according to his views, well\nexpressed by the two great writers, Joseph de Maistre and Darwin,\nwhose statements he likes so much that he quotes them again.\n\n     \"DEAR SIR [he writes to the editor of the _Revue des Revues_]:\n     You ask me my view as to the possible success of the Universal\n     Congress of Peace. I hold with Darwin that violent struggle\n     is a law of nature which overrules all other laws; I hold\n     with Joseph de Maistre that it is a divine law; two different\n     ways of describing the same thing. If by some impossible\n     chance a fraction of human society--all the civilized West,\n     let us suppose--were to succeed in suspending the action of\n     this law, some races of stronger instincts would undertake\n     the task of putting it into action against us: those races\n     would vindicate nature's reasoning against human reason; they\n     would be successful, because the certainty of peace--I do\n     not say _peace_, I say _the certainty of peace_--would, in\n     half a century, engender a corruption and a decadence more\n     destructive for mankind than the worst of wars. I believe that\n     we must do with war--the criminal law of humanity--as with all\n     our criminal laws, that is, soften them, put them in force as\n     rarely as possible; use every effort to make their application\n     unnecessary. But all the experience of history teaches us that\n     they cannot be altogether suppressed so long as two men are left\n     on earth, with bread, money, and a woman between them.\n\n     \"I should be very happy if the Congress would prove me in error.\n     But I doubt if it can prove history, nature, and God in error\n     also.\n\n                       \"I am, dear sir, etc.,\n                                           \"E. M. DE VOG\u00dc\u00c9.\"\n\nThis amounts to saying that history, human nature, and God show\nus that so long as there are two men, and bread, money and a\nwoman--there will be war. That is to say that no progress will lead\nmen to rise above the savage conception of life, which regards no\nparticipation of bread, money (money is good in this context) and\nwoman possible without fighting.\n\nThey are strange people, these men who assemble in Congresses, and\nmake speeches to show us how to catch birds by putting salt on their\ntails, though they must know it is impossible to do it. And amazing\nare they too, who, like Maupassant, Rod, and many others, see clearly\nall the horror of war, all the inconsistency of men not doing what\nis needful, right, and beneficial for them to do; who lament over\nthe tragedy of life, and do not see that the whole tragedy is at\nan end directly men, ceasing to take account of any unnecessary\nconsiderations, refuse to do what is hateful and disastrous to them.\nThey are amazing people truly, but those who, like De Vog\u00fc\u00e9 and\nothers, who, professing the doctrine of evolution, regard war as not\nonly inevitable, but beneficial, and therefore desirable--they are\nterrible, hideous, in their moral perversion. The others, at least,\nsay that they hate evil, and love good, but these openly declare that\ngood and evil do not exist.\n\nAll discussion of the possibility of re-establishing peace instead of\neverlasting war--is the pernicious sentimentality of phrasemongers.\nThere is a law of evolution by which it follows that I must live\nand act in an evil way; what is to be done? I am an educated man, I\nknow the law of evolution, and therefore I will act in an evil way.\n\"_Entrons au palais de la guerre._\" There is the law of evolution,\nand therefore there is neither good nor evil, and one must live for\nthe sake of one's personal existence, leaving the rest to the action\nof the law of evolution. This is the last word of refined culture,\nand with it, of that overshadowing of conscience which has come upon\nthe educated classes of our times. The desire of the educated classes\nto support the ideas they prefer, and the order of existence based\non them, has attained its furthest limits. They lie, and delude\nthemselves, and one another, with the subtlest forms of deception,\nsimply to obscure, to deaden conscience.\n\nInstead of transforming their life into harmony with their\nconscience, they try by every means to stifle its voice. But it is in\ndarkness that the light begins to shine, and so the light is rising\nupon our epoch.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII.\n\n     SIGNIFICANCE OF COMPULSORY SERVICE.\n\n     Universal Compulsory Service is not a Political Accident, but\n     the Furthest Limit of the Contradiction Inherent in the Social\n     Conception of Life--Origin of Authority in Society--Basis of\n     Authority is Physical Violence--To be Able to Perform its\n     Acts of Violence Authority Needs a Special Organization--The\n     Army--Authority, that is, Violence, is the Principle which\n     is Destroying the Social Conception of Life--Attitude of\n     Authority to the Masses, that is, Attitude of Government to\n     Working Oppressed Classes--Governments Try to Foster in Working\n     Classes the Idea that State Force is Necessary to Defend Them\n     from External Enemies--But the Army is Principally Needed\n     to Preserve Government from its own Subjects--The Working\n     Classes--Speech of M. de Caprivi--All Privileges of Ruling\n     Classes Based on Violence--The Increase of Armies up to Point\n     of Universal Service--Universal Compulsory Service Destroys all\n     the Advantages of Social Life, which Government is Intended\n     to Preserve--Compulsory Service is the Furthest Limit of\n     Submission, since in Name of the State it Requires Sacrifice of\n     all that can be Precious to a Man--Is Government Necessary?--The\n     Sacrifices Demanded by Government in Compulsory Service have No\n     Longer any Reasonable Basis--And there is More Advantage to be\n     Gained by not Submitting to the Demands of the State than by\n     Submitting to Them.\n\n\nEducated people of the upper classes are trying to stifle the\never-growing sense of the necessity of transforming the existing\nsocial order. But life, which goes on growing more complex, and\ndeveloping in the same direction, and increases the inconsistencies\nand the sufferings of men, brings them to the limit beyond which\nthey cannot go. This furthest limit of inconsistency is universal\ncompulsory military service.\n\nIt is usually supposed that universal military service and the\nincreased armaments connected with it, as well as the resulting\nincrease of taxes and national debts, are a passing phenomenon,\nproduced by the particular political situation of Europe, and that\nit may be removed by certain political combinations without any\nmodification of the inner order of life.\n\nThis is absolutely incorrect. Universal military service is only the\ninternal inconsistency inherent in the social conception of life,\ncarried to its furthest limits, and becoming evident when a certain\nstage of material development is reached.\n\nThe social conception of life, we have seen, consists in the\ntransfer of the aim of life from the individual to groups and their\nmaintenance--to the tribe, family, race, or state.\n\nIn the social conception of life it is supposed that since the\naim of life is found in groups of individuals, individuals will\nvoluntarily sacrifice their own interests for the interests of\nthe group. And so it has been, and still is, in fact, in certain\ngroups, the distinction being that they are the most primitive\nforms of association in the family or tribe or race, or even in the\npatriarchal state. Through tradition handed down by education and\nsupported by religious sentiment, individuals without compulsion\nmerged their interests in the interest of the group and sacrificed\ntheir own good for the general welfare.\n\nBut the more complex and the larger societies become, and especially\nthe more often conquest becomes the cause of the amalgamation of\npeople into a state, the more often individuals strive to attain\ntheir own aims at the public expense, and the more often it becomes\nnecessary to restrain these insubordinate individuals by recourse\nto authority, that is, to violence. The champions of the social\nconception of life usually try to connect the idea of authority,\nthat is, of violence, with the idea of moral influence, but this\nconnection is quite impossible.\n\nThe effect of moral influence on a man is to change his desires and\nto bend them in the direction of the duty required of him. The man\nwho is controlled by moral influence acts in accordance with his own\ndesires. Authority, in the sense in which the word is ordinarily\nunderstood, is a means of forcing a man to act in opposition to\nhis desires. The man who submits to authority does not do as he\nchooses but as he is obliged by authority. Nothing can oblige a\nman to do what he does not choose except physical force, or the\nthreat of it, that is--deprivation of freedom, blows, imprisonment,\nor threats--easily carried out--of such punishments. This is what\nauthority consists of and always has consisted of.\n\nIn spite of the unceasing efforts of those who happen to be in\nauthority to conceal this and attribute some other significance to\nit, authority has always meant for man the cord, the chain with\nwhich he is bound and fettered, or the knout with which he is to be\nflogged, or the ax with which he is to have hands, ears, nose, or\nhead cut off, or at the very least, the threat of these terrors. So\nit was under Nero and Ghenghis Khan, and so it is to-day, even under\nthe most liberal government in the Republics of the United States\nor of France. If men submit to authority, it is only because they\nare liable to these punishments in case of non-submission. All state\nobligations, payment of taxes, fulfillment of state duties, and\nsubmission to punishments, exile, fines, etc., to which people appear\nto submit voluntarily, are always based on bodily violence or the\nthreat of it.\n\nThe basis of authority is bodily violence. The possibility of\napplying bodily violence to people is provided above all by an\norganization of armed men, trained to act in unison in submission to\none will. These bands of armed men, submissive to a single will, are\nwhat constitute the army. The army has always been and still is the\nbasis of power. Power is always in the hands of those who control the\narmy, and all men in power--from the Roman C\u00e6sars to the Russian and\nGerman Emperors--take more interest in their army than in anything,\nand court popularity in the army, knowing that if that is on their\nside their power is secure.\n\nThe formation and aggrandizement of the army, indispensable to the\nmaintenance of authority, is what has introduced into the social\nconception of life the principle that is destroying it.\n\nThe object of authority and the justification for its existence\nlie in the restraint of those who aim at attaining their personal\ninterests to the detriment of the interests of society.\n\nBut however power has been gained, those who possess it are in no\nway different from other men, and therefore no more disposed than\nothers to subordinate their own interests to those of the society.\nOn the contrary, having the power to do so at their disposal, they\nare more disposed than others to subordinate the public interests to\ntheir own. Whatever means men have devised for preventing those in\nauthority from over-riding public interests for their own benefit, or\nfor intrusting power only to the most faultless people, they have not\nso far succeeded in either of those aims.\n\nAll the methods of appointing authorities that have been tried,\ndivine right, and election, and heredity, and balloting, and\nassemblies and parliaments and senate--have all proved ineffectual.\nEveryone knows that not one of these methods attains the aim either\nof intrusting power only to the incorruptible, or of preventing\npower from being abused. Everyone knows on the contrary that men\nin authority--be they emperors, ministers, governors, or police\nofficers--are always, simply from the possession of power, more\nliable to be demoralized, that is, to subordinate public interests\nto their personal aims than those who have not the power to do so.\nIndeed, it could not be otherwise.\n\nThe state conception of life could be justified only so long as\nall men voluntarily sacrificed their personal interests to the\npublic welfare. But so soon as there were individuals who would\nnot voluntarily sacrifice their own interests, and authority, that\nis, violence, was needed to restrain them, then the disintegrating\nprinciple of the coercion of one set of people by another set entered\ninto the social conception of the organization based on it.\n\nFor the authority of one set of men over another to attain its object\nof restraining those who override public interests for their personal\nends, power ought only to be put into the hands of the impeccable,\nas it is supposed to be among the Chinese, and as it was supposed to\nbe in the Middle Ages, and is even now supposed to be by those who\nbelieve in the consecration by anointing. Only under those conditions\ncould the social organization be justified.\n\nBut since this is not the case, and on the contrary men in power\nare always far from being saints, through the very fact of their\npossession of power, the social organization based on power has no\njustification.\n\nEven if there was once a time when, owing to the low standard of\nmorals, and the disposition of men to violence, the existence of an\nauthority to restrain such violence was an advantage, because the\nviolence of government was less than the violence of individuals,\none cannot but see that this advantage could not be lasting. As\nthe disposition of individuals to violence diminished, and as the\nhabits of the people became more civilized, and as power grew more\ndemoralized through lack of restraint, this advantage disappeared.\n\nThe whole history of the last two thousand years is nothing but\nthe history of this gradual change of relation between the moral\ndevelopment of the masses on the one hand and the demoralization of\ngovernments on the other.\n\nThis, put simply, is how it has come to pass.\n\nMen lived in families, tribes, and races, at feud with one another,\nplundering, outraging, and killing one another. These violent\nhostilities were carried on on a large and on a small scale: man\nagainst man, family against family, tribe against tribe, race against\nrace, and people against people. The larger and stronger groups\nconquered and absorbed the weaker, and the larger and stronger\nthey became, the more internal feuds disappeared and the more the\ncontinuity of the group seemed assured.\n\nThe members of a family or tribe, united into one community, are less\nhostile among themselves, and families and tribes do not die like one\nman, but have a continuity of existence. Between the members of one\nstate, subject to a single authority, the strife between individuals\nseems still less and the life of the state seems even more secure.\n\nTheir association into larger and larger groups was not the result\nof the conscious recognition of the benefits of such associations,\nas it is said to be in the story of the Varyagi. It was produced, on\none hand, by the natural growth of population, and, on the other, by\nstruggle and conquest.\n\nAfter conquest the power of the emperor puts an end to internal\ndissensions, and so the state conception of life justifies itself.\nBut this justification is never more than temporary. Internal\ndissensions disappear only in proportion to the degree of oppression\nexerted by the authority over the dissentient individuals. The\nviolence of internal feud crushed by authority reappears in authority\nitself, which falls into the hands of men who, like the rest, are\nfrequently or always ready to sacrifice the public welfare to their\npersonal interest, with the difference that their subjects cannot\nresist them, and thus they are exposed to all the demoralizing\ninfluence of authority. And thus the evil of violence, when it passes\ninto the hands of authority, is always growing and growing, and in\ntime becomes greater than the evil it is supposed to suppress, while,\nat the same time, the tendency to violence in the members of the\nsociety becomes weaker and weaker, so that the violence of authority\nis less and less needed.\n\nGovernment authority, even if it does suppress private violence,\nalways introduces into the life of men fresh forms of violence, which\ntend to become greater and greater in proportion to the duration and\nstrength of the government.\n\nSo that though the violence of power is less noticeable in government\nthan when it is employed by members of society against one another,\nbecause it finds expression in submission, and not in strife, it\nnevertheless exists, and often to a greater degree than in former\ndays.\n\nAnd it could not be otherwise, since, apart from the demoralizing\ninfluence of power, the policy or even the unconscious tendency of\nthose in power will always be to reduce their subjects to the extreme\nof weakness, for the weaker the oppressed, the less effort need be\nmade to keep him in subjection.\n\nAnd therefore the oppression of the oppressed always goes on growing\nup to the furthest limit, beyond which it cannot go without killing\nthe goose with the golden eggs. And if the goose lays no more eggs,\nlike the American Indians, negroes, and Fijians, then it is killed in\nspite of the sincere protests of philanthropists.\n\nThe most convincing example of this is to be found in the condition\nof the working classes of our epoch, who are in reality no better\nthan the slaves of ancient times subdued by conquest.\n\nIn spite of the pretended efforts of the higher classes to ameliorate\nthe position of the workers, all the working classes of the present\nday are kept down by the inflexible iron law by which they only\nget just what is barely necessary, so that they are forced to work\nwithout ceasing while still retaining strength enough to labor for\ntheir employers, who are really those who have conquered and enslaved\nthem.\n\nSo it has always been. In ratio to the duration and increasing\nstrength of authority its advantages for its subjects disappear and\nits disadvantages increase.\n\nAnd this has been so, independently of the forms of government\nunder which nations have lived. The only difference is that under\na despotic form of government the authority is concentrated in a\nsmall number of oppressors and violence takes a cruder form; under\nconstitutional monarchies and republics as in France and America\nauthority is divided among a great number of oppressors and the\nforms assumed by violence is less crude, but its effect of making\nthe disadvantages of authority greater than its advantages, and of\nenfeebling the oppressed to the furthest extreme to which they can be\nreduced with advantage to the oppressors, remains always the same.\n\nSuch has been and still is the condition of all the oppressed, but\nhitherto they have not recognized the fact. In the majority of\ninstances they have believed in all simplicity that governments exist\nfor their benefit; that they would be lost without a government; that\nthe very idea of living without a government is a blasphemy which\none hardly dare put into words; that this is the--for some reason\nterrible--doctrine of anarchism, with which a mental picture of all\nkinds of horrors is associated.\n\nPeople have believed, as though it were something fully proved, and\nso needing no proof, that since all nations have hitherto developed\nin the form of states, that form of organization is an indispensable\ncondition of the development of humanity.\n\nAnd in that way it has lasted for hundreds and thousands of years,\nand governments--those who happened to be in power--have tried it,\nand are now trying more zealously than ever to keep their subjects in\nthis error.\n\nSo it was under the Roman emperors and so it is now. In spite of the\nfact that the sense of the uselessness and even injurious effects of\nstate violence is more and more penetrating into men's consciousness,\nthings might have gone on in the same way forever if governments were\nnot under the necessity of constantly increasing their armies in\norder to maintain their power.\n\nIt is generally supposed that governments strengthen their forces\nonly to defend the state from other states, in oblivion of the fact\nthat armies are necessary, before all things, for the defense of\ngovernments from their own oppressed and enslaved subjects.\n\nThat has always been necessary, and has become more and more\nnecessary with the increased diffusion of education among the masses,\nwith the improved communication between people of the same and of\ndifferent nationalities. It has become particularly indispensable\nnow in the face of communism, socialism, anarchism, and the labor\nmovement generally. Governments feel that it is so, and strengthen\nthe force of their disciplined armies.[13]\n\n  [13] The fact that in America the abuses of authority exist in spite\n  of the small number of their troops not only fails to disprove this\n  position, but positively confirms it. In America there are fewer\n  soldiers than in other states. That is why there is nowhere else so\n  little oppression of the working classes, and no country where the\n  end of the abuses of government and of government itself seems so\n  near. Of late as the combinations of laborers gain in strength, one\n  hears more and more frequently the cry raised for the increase of the\n  army, though the United States are not threatened with any attack\n  from without. The upper classes know that an army of fifty thousand\n  will soon be insufficient, and no longer relying on Pinkerton's\n  men, they feel that the security of their position depends on the\n  increased strength of the army.\n\nIn the German Reichstag not long ago, in reply to a question why\nfunds were needed for raising the salaries of the under-officers, the\nGerman Chancellor openly declared that trustworthy under-officers\nwere necessary to contend against socialism. Caprivi only said\naloud what every statesman knows and assiduously conceals from the\npeople. The reason to which he gave expression is essentially the\nsame as that which made the French kings and the popes engage Swiss\nand Scotch guards, and makes the Russian authorities of to-day so\ncarefully distribute the recruits, so that the regiments from the\nfrontiers are stationed in central districts, and the regiments from\nthe center are stationed on the frontiers. The meaning of Caprivi's\nspeech, put into plain language, is that funds are needed, not to\nresist foreign foes, but to _buy under-officers_ to be ready to act\nagainst the enslaved toiling masses.\n\nCaprivi incautiously gave utterance to what everyone knows perfectly\nwell, or at least feels vaguely if he does not recognize it, that\nis, that the existing order of life is as it is, not, as would be\nnatural and right, because the people wish it to be so, but because\nit is so maintained by state violence, by the army with its _bought\nunder-officers_ and generals.\n\nIf the laborer has no land, if he cannot use the natural right of\nevery man to derive subsistence for himself and his family out of the\nland, that is not because the people wish it to be so, but because a\ncertain set of men, the land-owners, have appropriated the right of\ngiving or refusing admittance to the land to the laborers. And this\nabnormal order of things is maintained by the army. If the immense\nwealth produced by the labor of the working classes is not regarded\nas the property of all, but as the property of a few exceptional\npersons; if labor is taxed by authority and the taxes spent by a\nfew on what they think fit; if strikes on the part of laborers are\nrepressed, while on the part of capitalists they are encouraged; if\ncertain persons appropriate the right of choosing the form of the\neducation, religious and secular, of children, and certain persons\nmonopolize the right of making the laws all must obey, and so dispose\nof the lives and properties of other people--all this is not done\nbecause the people wish it and because it is what is natural and\nright, but because the government and ruling classes wish this to be\nso for their own benefit, and insist on its being so even by physical\nviolence.\n\nEveryone, if he does not recognize this now, will know that it is so\nat the first attempt at insubordination or at a revolution of the\nexisting order.\n\nArmies, then, are needed by governments and by the ruling classes\nabove all to support the present order, which, far from being the\nresult of the people's needs, is often in direct antagonism to them,\nand is only beneficial to the government and ruling classes.\n\nTo keep their subjects in oppression and to be able to enjoy the\nfruits of their labor the government must have armed forces.\n\nBut there is not only one government. There are other governments,\nexploiting their subjects by violence in the same way, and always\nready to pounce down on any other government and carry off the\nfruits of the toil of its enslaved subjects. And so every government\nneeds an army also to protect its booty from its neighbor brigands.\nEvery government is thus involuntarily reduced to the necessity of\nemulating one another in the increase of their armies. This increase\nis contagious, as Montesquieu pointed out 150 years ago.\n\nEvery increase in the army of one state, with the aim of self-defense\nagainst its subjects, becomes a source of danger for neighboring\nstates and calls for a similar increase in their armies.\n\nThe armed forces have reached their present number of millions not\nonly through the menace of danger from neighboring states, but\nprincipally through the necessity of subduing every effort at revolt\non the part of the subjects.\n\nBoth causes, mutually dependent, contribute to the same result at\nonce; troops are required against internal forces and also to keep\nup a position with other states. One is the result of the other.\nThe despotism of a government always increases with the strength of\nthe army and its external successes, and the aggressiveness of a\ngovernment increases with its internal despotism.\n\nThe rivalry of the European states in constantly increasing their\nforces has reduced them to the necessity of having recourse to\nuniversal military service, since by that means the greatest possible\nnumber of soldiers is obtained at the least possible expense. Germany\nfirst hit on this device. And directly one state adopted it the\nothers were obliged to do the same. And by this means all citizens\nare under arms to support the iniquities practiced upon them; all\ncitizens have become their own oppressors.\n\nUniversal military service was an inevitable logical necessity, to\nwhich we were bound to come. But it is also the last expression\nof the inconsistency inherent in the social conception of life,\nwhen violence is needed to maintain it. This inconsistency has\nbecome obvious in universal military service. In fact, the whole\nsignificance of the social conception of life consists in man's\nrecognition of the barbarity of strife between individuals, and the\ntransitoriness of personal life itself, and the transference of\nthe aim of life to groups of persons. But with universal military\nservice it comes to pass that men, after making every sacrifice to\nget rid of the cruelty of strife and the insecurity of existence,\nare called upon to face all the perils they had meant to avoid. And\nin addition to this the state, for whose sake individuals renounced\ntheir personal advantages, is exposed again to the same risks of\ninsecurity and lack of permanence as the individual himself was in\nprevious times.\n\nGovernments were to give men freedom from the cruelty of personal\nstrife and security in the permanence of the state order of\nexistence. But instead of doing that they expose the individuals to\nthe same necessity of strife, substituting strife with individuals of\nother states for strife with neighbors. And the danger of destruction\nfor the individual, and the state too, they leave just as it was.\n\nUniversal military service may be compared to the efforts of a man to\nprop up his falling house who so surrounds it and fills it with props\nand buttresses and planks and scaffolding that he manages to keep the\nhouse standing only by making it impossible to live in it.\n\nIn the same way universal military service destroys all the benefits\nof the social order of life which it is employed to maintain.\n\nThe advantages of social organization are security of property and\nlabor and associated action for the improvement of existence--universal\nmilitary service destroys all this.\n\nThe taxes raised from the people for war preparations absorb the\ngreater part of the produce of labor which the army ought to defend.\n\nThe withdrawing of all men from the ordinary course of life destroys\nthe possibility of labor itself. The danger of war, ever ready to\nbreak out, renders all reforms of social life vain and fruitless.\n\nIn former days if a man were told that if he did not acknowledge\nthe authority of the state, he would be exposed to attack from\nenemies domestic and foreign, that he would have to resist them\nalone, and would be liable to be killed, and that therefore it would\nbe to his advantage to put up with some hardships to secure himself\nfrom these calamities, he might well believe it, seeing that the\nsacrifices he made to the state were only partial and gave him the\nhope of a tranquil existence in a permanent state. But now, when the\nsacrifices have been increased tenfold and the promised advantages\nare disappearing, it would be a natural reflection that submission to\nauthority is absolutely useless.\n\nBut the fatal significance of universal military service, as the\nmanifestation of the contradiction inherent in the social conception\nof life, is not only apparent in that. The greatest manifestation of\nthis contradiction consists in the fact that every citizen in being\nmade a soldier becomes a prop of the government organization, and\nshares the responsibility of everything the government does, even\nthough he may not admit its legitimacy.\n\nGovernments assert that armies are needed above all for external\ndefense, but that is not true. They are needed principally against\ntheir subjects, and every man, under universal military service,\nbecomes an accomplice in all the acts of violence of the government\nagainst the citizens without any choice of his own.\n\nTo convince oneself of this one need only remember what things are\ndone in every state, in the name of order and the public welfare, of\nwhich the execution always falls to the army. All civil outbreaks\nfor dynastic or other party reasons, all the executions that follow\non such disturbances, all repression of insurrections, and military\nintervention to break up meetings and to suppress strikes, all forced\nextortion of taxes, all the iniquitous distributions of land, all\nthe restrictions on labor--are either carried out directly by the\nmilitary or by the police with the army at their back. Anyone who\nserves his time in the army shares the responsibility of all these\nthings, about which he is, in some cases, dubious, while very often\nthey are directly opposed to his conscience. People are unwilling to\nbe turned out of the land they have cultivated for generations, or\nthey are unwilling to disperse when the government authority orders\nthem, or they are unwilling to pay the taxes required of them, or\nto recognize laws as binding on them when they have had no hand in\nmaking them, or to be deprived of their nationality--and I, in the\nfulfillment of my military duty, must go and shoot them for it.\nHow can I help asking myself when I take part in such punishments,\nwhether they are just, and whether I ought to assist in carrying them\nout?\n\nUniversal service is the extreme limit of violence necessary for the\nsupport of the whole state organization, and it is the extreme limit\nto which submission on the part of the subjects can go. It is the\nkeystone of the whole edifice, and its fall will bring it all down.\n\nThe time has come when the ever-growing abuse of power by governments\nand their struggles with one another has led to their demanding such\nmaterial and even moral sacrifices from their subjects that everyone\nis forced to reflect and ask himself, \"Can I make these sacrifices?\nAnd for the sake of what am I making them? I am expected for the\nsake of the state to make these sacrifices, to renounce everything\nthat can be precious to man--peace, family, security, and human\ndignity.\" What is this state, for whose sake such terrible sacrifices\nhave to be made? And why is it so indispensably necessary? \"The\nstate,\" they tell us, \"is indispensably needed, in the first place,\nbecause without it we should not be protected against the attacks of\nevil-disposed persons; and secondly, except for the state we should\nbe savages and should have neither religion, culture, education, nor\ncommerce, nor means of communication, nor other social institutions;\nand thirdly, without the state to defend us we should be liable to be\nconquered and enslaved by neighboring peoples.\"\n\n\"Except for the state,\" they say, \"we should be exposed to the\nattacks of evil-disposed persons in our own country.\"\n\nBut who are these evil-disposed persons in our midst from whose\nattacks we are preserved by the state and its army? Even if, three\nor four centuries ago, when men prided themselves on their warlike\nprowess, when killing men was considered an heroic achievement, there\nwere such persons; we know very well that there are no such persons\nnow, that we do not nowadays carry or use firearms, but everyone\nprofesses humane principles and feels sympathy for his fellows, and\nwants nothing more than we all do--that is, to be left in peace\nto enjoy his existence undisturbed. So that nowadays there are no\nspecial malefactors from whom the state could defend us. If by these\nevil-disposed persons is meant the men who are punished as criminals,\nwe know very well that they are not a different kind of being like\nwild beasts among sheep, but are men just like ourselves, and no more\nnaturally inclined to crimes than those against whom they commit\nthem. We know now that threats and punishments cannot diminish their\nnumber; that that can only be done by change of environment and moral\ninfluence. So that the justification of state violence on the ground\nof the protection it gives us from evil-disposed persons, even if it\nhad some foundation three or four centuries ago, has none whatever\nnow. At present one would rather say on the contrary that the action\nof the state with its cruel methods of punishment, behind the general\nmoral standard of the age, such as prisons, galleys, gibbets, and\nguillotines, tends rather to brutalize the people than to civilize\nthem, and consequently rather to increase than diminish the number of\nmalefactors.\n\n\"Except for the state,\" they tell us, \"we should not have any\nreligion, education, culture, means of communication, and so on.\nWithout the state men would not have been able to form the social\ninstitutions needed for doing anything.\" This argument too was well\nfounded only some centuries ago.\n\nIf there was a time when people were so disunited, when they had so\nlittle means of communication and interchange of ideas, that they\ncould not co-operate and agree together in any common action in\ncommerce, economics, or education without the state as a center, this\nwant of common action exists no longer. The great extension of means\nof communication and interchange of ideas has made men completely\nable to dispense with state aid in forming societies, associations,\ncorporations, and congresses for scientific, economic, and political\nobjects. Indeed government is more often an obstacle than an\nassistance in attaining these aims.\n\nFrom the end of last century there has hardly been a single\nprogressive movement of humanity which has not been retarded by the\ngovernment. So it has been with abolition of corporal punishment, of\ntrial by torture, and of slavery, as well as with the establishment\nof the liberty of the press and the right of public meeting. In our\nday governments not only fail to encourage, but directly hinder\nevery movement by which people try to work out new forms of life for\nthemselves. Every attempt at the solution of the problems of labor,\nland, politics, and religion meets with direct opposition on the part\nof government.\n\n\"Without governments nations would be enslaved by their neighbors.\"\nIt is scarcely necessary to refute this last argument. It carries its\nrefutation on the face of it. The government, they tell us, with its\narmy, is necessary to defend us from neighboring states who might\nenslave us. But we know this is what all governments say of one\nanother, and yet we know that all the European nations profess the\nsame principles of liberty and fraternity, and therefore stand in\nno need of protection against one another. And if defense against\nbarbarous nations is meant, one-thousandth part of the troops now\nunder arms would be amply sufficient for that purpose. We see that\nit is really the very opposite of what we have been told. The power\nof the state, far from being a security against the attacks of our\nneighbors, exposes us, on the contrary, to much greater danger of\nsuch attacks. So that every man who is led, through his compulsory\nservice in the army, to reflect on the value of the state for whose\nsake he is expected to be ready to sacrifice his peace, security, and\nlife, cannot fail to perceive that there is no kind of justification\nin modern times for such a sacrifice.\n\nAnd it is not only from the theoretical standpoint that every\nman must see that the sacrifices demanded by the state have no\njustification. Even looking at it practically, weighing, that is to\nsay, all the burdens laid on him by the state, no man can fail to see\nthat for him personally to comply with state demands and serve in the\narmy, would, in the majority of cases, be more disadvantageous than\nto refuse to do so.\n\nIf the majority of men choose to submit rather than to refuse, it is\nnot the result of sober balancing of advantages and disadvantages,\nbut because they are induced by a kind of hypnotizing process\npracticed upon them. In submitting they simply yield to the\nsuggestions given them as orders, without thought or effort of\nwill. To resist would need independent thought and effort of which\nevery man is not capable. Even apart from the moral significance of\ncompliance or non-compliance, considering material advantage only,\nnon-compliance will be more advantageous in general.\n\nWhoever I may be, whether I belong to the well-to-do class of the\noppressors, or the working class of the oppressed, in either case the\ndisadvantages of non-compliance are less and its advantages greater\nthan those of compliance. If I belong to the minority of oppressors\nthe disadvantages of non-compliance will consist in my being brought\nto judgment for refusing to perform my duties to the state, and\nif I am lucky, being acquitted or, as is done in the case of the\nMennonites in Russia, being set to work out my military service at\nsome civil occupation for the state; while if I am unlucky, I may be\ncondemned to exile or imprisonment for two or three years (I judge\nby the cases that have occurred in Russia), possibly to even longer\nimprisonment, or possibly to death, though the probability of that\nlatter is very remote.\n\nSo much for the disadvantages of non-compliance. The disadvantages of\ncompliance will be as follows: if I am lucky I shall not be sent to\nmurder my fellow-creatures, and shall not be exposed to great danger\nof being maimed and killed, but shall only be enrolled into military\nslavery. I shall be dressed up like a clown, I shall be at the beck\nand call of every man of a higher grade than my own from corporal to\nfield-marshal, shall be put through any bodily contortions at their\npleasure, and after being kept from one to five years I shall have\nfor ten years afterward to be in readiness to undertake all of it\nagain at any minute. If I am unlucky I may, in addition, be sent to\nwar, where I shall be forced to kill men of foreign nations who have\ndone me no harm, where I may be maimed or killed, or sent to certain\ndestruction as in the case of the garrison of Sevastopol, and other\ncases in every war, or what would be most terrible of all, I may be\nsent against my own compatriots and have to kill my own brothers for\nsome dynastic or other state interests which have absolutely nothing\nto do with me. So much for the comparative disadvantages.\n\nThe comparative advantages of compliance and non-compliance are as\nfollows:\n\nFor the man who submits, the advantages will be that, after exposing\nhimself to all the humiliation and performing all the barbarities\nrequired of him, he may, if he escapes being killed, get a decoration\nof red or gold tinsel to stick on his clown's dress; he may, if he is\nvery lucky, be put in command of hundreds of thousands of others as\nbrutalized as himself; be called a field-marshal, and get a lot of\nmoney.\n\nThe advantages of the man who refuses to obey will consist in\npreserving his dignity as a man, gaining the approbation of good\nmen, and above all knowing that he is doing the work of God, and so\nundoubtedly doing good to his fellow-men.\n\nSo much for the advantages and disadvantages of both lines of conduct\nfor a man of the wealthy classes, an oppressor. For a man of the poor\nworking class the advantages and disadvantages will be the same, but\nwith a great increase of disadvantages. The disadvantages for the\npoor man who submits will be aggravated by the fact that he will by\ntaking part in it, and, as it were, assenting to it strengthen the\nstate of subjection in which he is held himself.\n\nBut no considerations as to how far the state is useful or beneficial\nto the men who help to support it by serving in the army, nor of\nthe advantages or disadvantages for the individual of compliance or\nnon-compliance with state demands, will decide the question of the\ncontinued existence or the abolition of government. This question\nwill be finally decided beyond appeal by the religious consciousness\nor conscience of every man who is forced, whether he will or no,\nthrough universal conscription, to face the question whether the\nstate is to continue to exist or not.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII.\n\n     DOCTRINE OF NON-RESISTANCE TO EVIL BY FORCE MUST INEVITABLY BE\n     ACCEPTED BY MEN OF THE PRESENT DAY.\n\n     Christianity is Not a System of Rules, but a New Conception of\n     Life, and therefore it was Not Obligatory and was Not Accepted\n     in its True Significance by All, but only by a Few--Christianity\n     is, Moreover, Prophetic of the Destruction of the Pagan Life,\n     and therefore of Necessity of the Acceptance of the Christian\n     Doctrines--Non-resistance of Evil by Force is One Aspect of\n     the Christian Doctrine, which must Inevitably in Our Times be\n     Accepted by Men--Two Methods of Deciding Every Quarrel--First\n     Method is to Find a Universal Definition of Evil, which All Must\n     Accept, and to Resist this Evil by Force--Second Method is the\n     Christian One of Complete Non-resistance by Force--Though the\n     Failure of the First Method was Recognized since the Early Days\n     of Christianity, it was Still Proposed, and only as Mankind\n     has Progressed it has Become More and More Evident that there\n     Cannot be any Universal Definition of Evil--This is Recognized\n     by All at the Present Day, and if Force is Still Used to Resist\n     Evil, it is Not Because it is Now Regarded as Right, but\n     Because People Don't Know How to Avoid It--The Difficulty of\n     Avoiding It is the Result of the Subtle and Complex Character\n     of the Government Use of Force--Force is Used in Four Ways:\n     Intimidation, Bribery, Hypnotism, and Coercion by Force of\n     Arms--State Violence Can Never be Suppressed by the Forcible\n     Overthrow of the Government--Men are Led by the Sufferings of\n     the Pagan Mode of Life to the Necessity of Accepting Christ's\n     Teaching with its Doctrine of Non-resistance by Force--The\n     Consciousness of its Truth which is Diffused Throughout\n     Our Society, Will also Bring About its Acceptance--This\n     Consciousness is in Complete Contradiction with Our Life--This\n     is Specially Obvious in Compulsory Military Service, but Through\n     Habit and the Application of the Four Methods of Violence by\n     the State, Men do not See this Inconsistency of Christianity\n     with Life of a Soldier--They do Not even See It, though the\n     Authorities Themselves Show all the Immorality of a Soldier's\n     Duties with Perfect Clearness--The Call to Military Service is\n     the Supreme Test for Every Man, when the Choice is Offered Him,\n     between Adopting the Christian Doctrine of Non-resistance, or\n     Slavishly Submitting to the Existing State Organization--Men\n     Usually Renounce All They Hold Sacred, and Submit to the Demands\n     of Government, Seeming to See No Other Course Open to Them--For\n     Men of the Pagan Conception of Life there is No Other Course\n     Open, and Never Will Be, in Spite of the Growing Horrors of\n     War--Society, Made Up of Such Men, Must Perish, and No Social\n     Reorganization Can Save It--Pagan Life Has Reached Its Extreme\n     Limit, and Will Annihilate Itself.\n\n\nIt is often said that if Christianity is a truth, it ought to have\nbeen accepted by everyone directly it appeared, and ought to have\ntransformed men's lives for the better. But this is like saying that\nif the seed were ripe it ought at once to bring forth stalk, flower,\nand fruit.\n\nThe Christian religion is not a legal system which, being imposed by\nviolence, may transform men's lives. Christianity is a new and higher\nconception of life. A new conception of life cannot be imposed on\nmen; it can only be freely assimilated. And it can only be freely\nassimilated in two ways: one spiritual and internal, the other\nexperimental and external.\n\nSome people--a minority--by a kind of prophetic instinct divine\nthe truth of the doctrine, surrender themselves to it and adopt\nit. Others--the majority--only through a long course of mistakes,\nexperiments, and suffering are brought to recognize the truth of the\ndoctrine and the necessity of adopting it.\n\nAnd by this experimental external method the majority of Christian\nmen have now been brought to this necessity of assimilating the\ndoctrine. One sometimes wonders what necessitated the corruption of\nChristianity which is now the greatest obstacle to its acceptance in\nits true significance.\n\nIf Christianity had been presented to men in its true, uncorrupted\nform, it would not have been accepted by the majority, who would have\nbeen as untouched by it as the nations of Asia are now. The peoples\nwho accepted it in its corrupt form were subjected to its slow but\ncertain influence, and by a long course of errors and experiments and\ntheir resultant sufferings have now been brought to the necessity of\nassimulating it in its true significance.\n\nThe corruption of Christianity and its acceptance in its corrupt form\nby the majority of men was as necessary as it is that the seed should\nremain hidden for a certain time in the earth in order to germinate.\n\nChristianity is at once a doctrine of truth and a prophecy. Eighteen\ncenturies ago Christianity revealed to men the truth in which they\nought to live, and at the same time foretold what human life would\nbecome if men would not live by it but continued to live by their\nprevious principles, and what it would become if they accepted the\nChristian doctrine and carried it out in their lives.\n\nLaying down in the Sermon on the Mount the principles by which to\nguide men's lives, Christ said: \"Whosoever heareth these sayings of\nmine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, who built his\nhouse upon a rock; and the rain descended, and the floods came, and\nthe winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not, for it was\nfounded upon a rock. And everyone that heareth these sayings, and\ndoeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, who built his\nhouse upon the sand; and the rain descended, and the floods came, and\nthe winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was\nthe fall of it\" (Matt. vii. 24-27).\n\nAnd now after eighteen centuries the prophecy has been fulfilled. Not\nhaving followed Christ's teaching generally and its application to\nsocial life in non-resistance to evil, men have been brought in spite\nof themselves to the inevitable destruction foretold by Christ for\nthose who do not fulfill his teaching.\n\nPeople often think the question of non-resistance to evil by force\nis a theoretical one, which can be neglected. Yet this question\nis presented by life itself to all men, and calls for some answer\nfrom every thinking man. Ever since Christianity has been outwardly\nprofessed, this question is for men in their social life like the\nquestion which presents itself to a traveler when the road on which\nhe has been journeying divides into two branches. He must go on and\nhe cannot say: I will not think about it, but will go on just as I\ndid before. There was one road, now there are two, and he must make\nhis choice.\n\nIn the same way since Christ's teaching has been known by men they\ncannot say: I will live as before and will not decide the question of\nresistance or non-resistance to evil by force. At every new struggle\nthat arises one must inevitably decide; am I, or am I not, to resist\nby force what I regard as evil.\n\nThe question of resistance or non-resistance to evil arose when\nthe first conflict between men took place, since every conflict is\nnothing else than resistance by force to what each of the combatants\nregards as evil. But before Christ, men did not see that resistance\nby force to what each regards as evil, simply because one thinks evil\nwhat the other thinks good, is only one of the methods of settling\nthe dispute, and that there is another method, that of not resisting\nevil by force at all.\n\nBefore Christ's teaching, it seemed to men that the one only means\nof settling a dispute was by resistance to evil by force. And they\nacted accordingly, each of the combatants trying to convince himself\nand others that what each respectively regards as evil, is actually,\nabsolutely evil.\n\nAnd to do this from the earliest time men have devised definitions of\nevil and tried to make them binding on everyone. And such definitions\nof evil sometimes took the form of laws, supposed to have been\nreceived by supernatural means, sometimes of the commands of rulers\nor assemblies to whom infallibility was attributed. Men resorted to\nviolence against others, and convinced themselves and others that\nthey were directing their violence against evil recognized as such by\nall.\n\nThis means was employed from the earliest times, especially by those\nwho had gained possession of authority, and for a long while its\nirrationality was not detected.\n\nBut the longer men lived in the world and the more complex their\nrelations became, the more evident it was that to resist by force\nwhat each regarded as evil was irrational, that conflict was in no\nway lessened thereby, and that no human definitions can succeed in\nmaking what some regard as evil be accepted as such by others.\n\nAlready at the time Christianity arose, it was evident to a great\nnumber of people in the Roman Empire where it arose, that what was\nregarded as evil by Nero and Caligula could not be regarded as evil\nby others. Even at that time men had begun to understand that human\nlaws, though given out for divine laws, were compiled by men, and\ncannot be infallible, whatever the external majesty with which they\nare invested, and that erring men are not rendered infallible by\nassembling together and calling themselves a senate or any other\nname. Even at that time this was felt and understood by many. And it\nwas then that Christ preached his doctrine, which consisted not only\nof the prohibition of resistance to evil by force, but gave a new\nconception of life and a means of putting an end to conflict between\nall men, not by making it the duty of one section only of mankind\nto submit without conflict to what is prescribed to them by certain\nauthorities, but by making it the duty of all--and consequently of\nthose in authority--not to resort to force against anyone in any\ncircumstances.\n\nThis doctrine was accepted at the time by only a very small number\nof disciples. The majority of men, especially all who were in power,\neven after the nominal acceptance of Christianity, continued to\nmaintain for themselves the principle of resistance by force to\nwhat they regarded as evil. So it was under the Roman and Byzantine\nemperors, and so it continued to be later.\n\nThe insufficiency of the principle of the authoritative definition of\nevil and resistance to it by force, evident as it was in the early\nages of Christianity, becomes still more obvious through the division\nof the Roman Empire into many states of equal authority, through\ntheir hostilities and the internal conflicts that broke out within\nthem.\n\nBut men were not ready to accept the solution given by Christ, and\nthe old definitions of evil, which ought to be resisted, continued to\nbe laid down by means of making laws binding on all and enforced by\nforcible means. The authority who decided what ought to be regarded\nas evil and resisted by force was at one time the Pope, at another\nan emperor or king, an elective assembly or a whole nation. But both\nwithin and without the state there were always men to be found who\ndid not accept as binding on themselves the laws given out as the\ndecrees of a god, or made by men invested with a sacred character,\nor the institutions supposed to represent the will of the nation;\nand there were men who thought good what the existing authorities\nregarded as bad, and who struggled against the authorities with the\nsame violence as was employed against them.\n\nThe men invested with religious authority regarded as evil what the\nmen and institutions invested with temporal authority regarded as\ngood and _vice versa_, and the struggle grew more and more intense.\nAnd the longer men used violence as the means of settling their\ndisputes, the more obvious it became that it was an unsuitable means,\nsince there could be no external authority able to define evil\nrecognized by all.\n\nThings went on like this for eighteen centuries, and at last reached\nthe present position in which it is absolutely obvious that there\nis, and can be, no external definition of evil binding upon all.\nMen have come to the point of ceasing to believe in the possibility\nor even desirability of finding and establishing such a general\ndefinition. It has come to men in power ceasing to attempt to prove\nthat what they regard as evil is evil, and simply declaring that they\nregard as evil what they don't like, while their subjects no longer\nobey them because they accept the definition of evil laid down by\nthem, but simply obey because they cannot help themselves. It was not\nbecause it was a good thing, necessary and beneficial to men, and the\ncontrary course would have been an evil, but simply because it was\nthe will of those in power that Nice was incorporated into France,\nand Lorraine into Germany, and Bohemia into Austria, and that Poland\nwas divided, and Ireland and India ruled by the English government,\nand that the Chinese are attacked and the Africans slaughtered, and\nthe Chinese prevented from immigrating by the Americans, and the Jews\npersecuted by the Russians, and that landowners appropriate lands\nthey do not cultivate and capitalists enjoy the fruits of the labor\nof others. It has come to the present state of things; one set of\nmen commit acts of violence no longer on the pretext of resistance\nto evil, but simply for their profit or their caprice, and another\nset submit to violence, not because they suppose, as was supposed in\nformer times, that this violence was practised upon them for the sake\nof securing them from evil, but simply because they cannot avoid it.\n\nIf the Roman, or the man of medi\u00e6val times, or the average Russian of\nfifty years ago, as I remember him, was convinced without a shade of\ndoubt that the violence of authority was indispensable to preserve\nhim from evil; that taxes, dues, serfage, prisons, scourging, knouts,\nexecutions, the army and war were what ought to be--we know now that\none can seldom find a man who believes that all these means of\nviolence preserve anyone from any evil whatever, and indeed does not\nclearly perceive that most of these acts of violence to which he is\nexposed, and in which he has some share, are in themselves a great\nand useless evil.\n\nThere is no one to-day who does not see the uselessness and\ninjustice of collecting taxes from the toiling masses to enrich idle\nofficials; or the senselessness of inflicting punishments on weak or\ndepraved persons in the shape of transportation from one place to\nanother, or of imprisonment in a fortress where, living in security\nand indolence, they only become weaker and more depraved; or the\nworse than uselessness and injustice, the positive insanity and\nbarbarity of preparations for war and of wars, causing devastation\nand ruin, and having no kind of justification. Yet these forms of\nviolence continue and are supported by the very people who see their\nuselessness, injustice, and cruelty, and suffer from them. If fifty\nyears ago the idle rich man and the illiterate laborer were both\nalike convinced that their state of everlasting holiday for one and\neverlasting toil for the other was ordained by God himself, we know\nvery well that nowadays, thanks to the growth of population and\nthe diffusion of books and education, it would be hard to find in\nEurope or even in Russia, either among rich or poor, a man to whom\nin one shape or another a doubt as to the justice of this state\nof things had never presented itself. The rich know that they are\nguilty in the very fact of being rich, and try to expiate their guilt\nby sacrifices to art and science, as of old they expiated their\nsins by sacrifices to the Church. And even the larger half of the\nworking people openly declare that the existing order is iniquitous\nand bound to be destroyed or reformed. One set of religious people\nof whom there are millions in Russia, the so-called sectaries,\nconsider the existing social order as unjust and to be destroyed on\nthe ground of the Gospel teaching taken in its true sense. Others\nregard it as unjust on the ground of the socialistic, communistic,\nor anarchistic theories, which are springing up in the lower strata\nof the working people. Violence no longer rests on the belief in its\nutility, but only on the fact of its having existed so long, and\nbeing organized by the ruling classes who profit by it, so that those\nwho are under their authority cannot extricate themselves from it.\nThe governments of our day--all of them, the most despotic and the\nliberal alike--have become what Herzen so well called \"Ghenghis Khan\nwith the telegraph;\" that is to say, organizations of violence based\non no principle but the grossest tyranny, and at the same time taking\nadvantage of all the means invented by science for the peaceful\ncollective social activity of free and equal men, used by them to\nenslave and oppress their fellows.\n\nGovernments and the ruling classes no longer take their stand\non right or even on the semblance of justice, but on a skillful\norganization carried to such a point of perfection by the aid of\nscience that everyone is caught in the circle of violence and has\nno chance of escaping from it. This circle is made up now of four\nmethods of working upon men, joined together like the links of a\nchain ring.\n\nThe first and oldest method is intimidation. This consists in\nrepresenting the existing state organization--whatever it may be,\nfree republic or the most savage despotism--as something sacred and\nimmutable, and therefore following any efforts to alter it with the\ncruellest punishments. This method is in use now--as it has been from\nolden times--wherever there is a government: in Russia against the\nso-called Nihilists, in America against Anarchists, in France against\nImperialists, Legitimists, Communards, and Anarchists.\n\nRailways, telegraphs, telephones, photographs, and the great\nperfection of the means of getting rid of men for years, without\nkilling them, by solitary confinement, where, hidden from the\nworld, they perish and are forgotten, and the many other modern\ninventions employed by government, give such power that when once\nauthority has come into certain hands, the police, open and secret,\nthe administration and prosecutors, jailers and executioners of\nall kinds, do their work so zealously that there is no chance of\noverturning the government, however cruel and senseless it may be.\n\nThe second method is corruption. It consists in plundering the\nindustrious working people of their wealth by means of taxes and\ndistributing it in satisfying the greed of officials, who are bound\nin return to support and keep up the oppression of the people. These\nbought officials, from the highest ministers to the poorest copying\nclerks, make up an unbroken network of men bound together by the same\ninterest--that of living at the expense of the people. They become\nthe richer the more submissively they carry out the will of the\ngovernment; and at all times and places, sticking at nothing, in all\ndepartments support by word and deed the violence of government, on\nwhich their own prosperity also rests.\n\nThe third method is what I can only describe as hypnotizing the\npeople. This consists in checking the moral development of men,\nand by various suggestions keeping them back in the ideal of life,\noutgrown by mankind at large, on which the power of government rests.\nThis hypnotizing process is organized at the present in the most\ncomplex manner, and starting from their earliest childhood, continues\nto act on men till the day of their death. It begins in their\nearliest years in the compulsory schools, created for this purpose,\nin which the children have instilled into them the ideas of life of\ntheir ancestors, which are in direct antagonism with the conscience\nof the modern world. In countries where there is a state religion,\nthey teach the children the senseless blasphemies of the Church\ncatechisms, together with the duty of obedience to their superiors.\nIn republican states they teach them the savage superstition of\npatriotism and the same pretended obedience to the governing\nauthorities.\n\nThe process is kept up during later years by the encouragement of\nreligious and patriotic superstitions.\n\nThe religious superstition is encouraged by establishing, with\nmoney taken from the people, temples, processions, memorials, and\nfestivals, which, aided by painting, architecture, music, and\nincense, intoxicate the people, and above all by the support of the\nclergy, whose duty consists in brutalizing the people and keeping\nthem in a permanent state of stupefaction by their teaching, the\nsolemnity of their services, their sermons, and their interference\nin private life--at births, deaths, and marriages. The patriotic\nsuperstition is encouraged by the creation, with money taken from\nthe people, of national f\u00eates, spectacles, monuments, and festivals\nto dispose men to attach importance to their own nation, and to the\naggrandizement of the state and its rulers, and to feel antagonism\nand even hatred for other nations. With these objects under\ndespotic governments there is direct prohibition against printing\nand disseminating books to enlighten the people, and everyone who\nmight rouse the people from their lethargy is exiled or imprisoned.\nMoreover, under every government without exception everything is\nkept back that might emancipate and everything encouraged that\ntends to corrupt the people, such as literary works tending to keep\nthem in the barbarism of religious and patriotic superstition, all\nkinds of sensual amusements, spectacles, circuses, theaters, and\neven the physical means of inducing stupefaction, as tobacco and\nalcohol, which form the principal source of revenue of states.\nEven prostitution is encouraged, and not only recognized, but even\norganized by the government in the majority of states. So much for\nthe third method.\n\nThe fourth method consists in selecting from all the men who\nhave been stupefied and enslaved by the three former methods a\ncertain number, exposing them to special and intensified means of\nstupefaction and brutalization, and so making them into a passive\ninstrument for carrying out all the cruelties and brutalities needed\nby the government. This result is attained by taking them at the\nyouthful age when men have not had time to form clear and definite\nprinciples of morals, and removing them from all natural and human\nconditions of life, home, family and kindred, and useful labor. They\nare shut up together in barracks, dressed in special clothes, and\nworked upon by cries, drums, music, and shining objects to go through\ncertain daily actions invented for this purpose, and by this means\nare brought into an hypnotic condition in which they cease to be men\nand become mere senseless machines, submissive to the hypnotizer.\nThese physically vigorous young men (in these days of universal\nconscription, all young men), hypnotized, armed with murderous\nweapons, always obedient to the governing authorities and ready for\nany act of violence at their command, constitute the fourth and\nprincipal method of enslaving men.\n\nBy this method the circle of violence is completed.\n\nIntimidation, corruption, and hypnotizing bring people into a\ncondition in which they are willing to be soldiers; the soldiers give\nthe power of punishing and plundering them (and purchasing officials\nwith the spoils), and hypnotizing them and converting them in time\ninto these same soldiers again.\n\nThe circle is complete, and there is no chance of breaking through it\nby force.\n\nSome persons maintain that freedom from violence, or at least a great\ndiminution of it, may be gained by the oppressed forcibly overturning\nthe oppressive government and replacing it by a new one under which\nsuch violence and oppression will be unnecessary, but they deceive\nthemselves and others, and their efforts do not better the position\nof the oppressed, but only make it worse. Their conduct only tends\nto increase the despotism of government. Their efforts only afford a\nplausible pretext for government to strengthen their power.\n\nEven if we admit that under a combination of circumstances specially\nunfavorable for the government, as in France in 1870, any government\nmight be forcibly overturned and the power transferred to other\nhands, the new authority would rarely be less oppressive than the\nold one; on the contrary, always having to defend itself against its\ndispossessed and exasperated enemies, it would be more despotic and\ncruel, as has always been the rule in all revolutions.\n\nWhile socialists and communists regard the individualistic,\ncapitalistic organization of society as an evil, and the anarchists\nregard as an evil all government whatever, there are royalists,\nconservatives, and capitalists who consider any socialistic or\ncommunistic organization or anarchy as an evil, and all these\nparties have no means other than violence to bring men to agreement.\nWhichever of these parties were successful in bringing their schemes\nto pass, must resort to support its authority to all the existing\nmethods of violence, and even invent new ones.\n\nThe oppressed would be another set of people, and coercion would take\nsome new form; but the violence and oppression would be unchanged or\neven more cruel, since hatred would be intensified by the struggle,\nand new forms of oppression would have been devised. So it has always\nbeen after all revolutions and all attempts at revolution, all\nconspiracies, and all violent changes of government. Every conflict\nonly strengthens the means of oppression in the hands of those who\nhappen at a given moment to be in power.\n\nThe position of our Christian society, and especially the ideals most\ncurrent in it, prove this in a strikingly convincing way.\n\nThere remains now only one sphere of human life not encroached upon\nby government authority--that is the domestic, economic sphere, the\nsphere of private life and labor. And even this is now--thanks to the\nefforts of communists and socialists--being gradually encroached upon\nby government, so that labor and recreation, dwellings, dress, and\nfood will gradually, if the hopes of the reformers are successful, be\nprescribed and regulated by government.\n\nThe slow progress of eighteen centuries has brought the Christian\nnations again to the necessity of deciding the question they have\nevaded--the question of the acceptance or non-acceptance of Christ's\nteaching, and the question following upon it in social life of\nresistance or non-resistance to evil by force. But there is this\ndifference, that whereas formerly men could accept or refuse to\naccept the solution given by Christ, now that solution cannot be\navoided, since it alone can save men from the slavery in which they\nare caught like a net.\n\nBut it is not only the misery of the position which makes this\ninevitable.\n\nWhile the pagan organization has been proved more and more false,\nthe truth of the Christian religion has been growing more and more\nevident.\n\nNot in vain have the best men of Christian humanity, who apprehended\nthe truth by spiritual intuition, for eighteen centuries testified to\nit in spite of every menace, every privation, and every suffering. By\ntheir martyrdom they passed on the truth to the masses, and impressed\nit on their hearts.\n\nChristianity has penetrated into the consciousness of humanity,\nnot only negatively by the demonstration of the impossibility of\ncontinuing in the pagan life, but also through its simplification,\nits increased clearness and freedom from the superstitions\nintermingled with it, and its diffusion through all classes of the\npopulation.\n\nEighteen centuries of Christianity have not passed without an\neffect even on those who accepted it only externally. These\neighteen centuries have brought men so far that even while they\ncontinue to live the pagan life which is no longer consistent with\nthe development of humanity, they not only see clearly all the\nwretchedness of their position, but in the depths of their souls\nthey believe (they can only live through this belief) that the\nonly salvation from this position is to be found in fulfilling\nthe Christian doctrine in its true significance. As to the time\nand manner of salvation, opinions are divided according to the\nintellectual development and the prejudices of each society. But\nevery man of the modern world recognizes that our salvation lies in\nfulfilling the law of Christ. Some believers in the supernatural\ncharacter of Christianity hold that salvation will come when all men\nare brought to believe in Christ, whose second coming is at hand.\nOther believers in supernatural Christianity hold that salvation\nwill come through the Church, which will draw all men into its\nfold, train them in the Christian virtues, and transform their\nlife. A third section, who do not admit the divinity of Christ,\nhold that the salvation of mankind will be brought about by slow\nand gradual progress, through which the pagan principles of our\nexistence will be replaced by the principles of liberty, equality,\nand fraternity--that is, by Christian principles. A fourth section,\nwho believe in the social revolution, hold that salvation will come\nwhen through a violent revolution men are forced into community\nof property, abolition of government, and collective instead of\nindividual industry--that is to say, the realization of one side of\nthe Christian doctrine. In one way or another all men of our day in\ntheir inner consciousness condemn the existing effete pagan order,\nand admit, often unconsciously and while regarding themselves as\nhostile to Christianity, that our salvation is only to be found in\nthe application of the Christian doctrine, or parts of it, in its\ntrue significance to our daily life.\n\nChristianity cannot, as its Founder said, be realized by the majority\nof men all at once; it must grow like a huge tree from a tiny seed.\nAnd so it has grown, and now has reached its full development, not\nyet in actual life, but in the conscience of men of to-day.\n\nNow not only the minority, who have always comprehended Christianity\nby spiritual intuition, but all the vast majority who seem so far\nfrom it in their social existence recognize its true significance.\n\nLook at individual men in their private life, listen to their\nstandards of conduct in their judgment of one another; hear not\nonly their public utterances, but the counsels given by parents\nand guardians to the young in their charge; and you will see that,\nfar as their social life based on violence may be from realizing\nChristian truth, in their private life what is considered good by\nall without exception is nothing but the Christian virtues; what is\nconsidered as bad is nothing but the antichristian vices. Those who\nconsecrate their lives self-sacrificingly to the service of humanity\nare regarded as the best men. The selfish, who make use of the\nmisfortunes of others for their own advantage, are regarded as the\nworst of men.\n\nThough some non-Christian ideals, such as strength, courage, and\nwealth, are still worshiped by a few who have not been penetrated by\nthe Christian spirit, these ideals are out of date and are abandoned,\nif not by all, at least by all those regarded as the best people.\nThere are no ideals, other than the Christian ideals, which are\naccepted by all and regarded as binding on all.\n\nThe position of our Christian humanity, if you look at it from the\noutside with all its cruelty and degradation of men, is terrible\nindeed. But if one looks at it within, in its inner consciousness,\nthe spectacle it presents is absolutely different.\n\nAll the evil of our life seems to exist only because it has been so\nfor so long; those who do the evil have not had time yet to learn how\nto act otherwise, though they do not want to act as they do.\n\nAll the evil seems to exist through some cause independent of the\nconscience of men.\n\nStrange and contradictory as it seems, all men of the present day\nhate the very social order they are themselves supporting.\n\nI think it is Max M\u00fcller who describes the amazement of an Indian\nconvert to Christianity, who after absorbing the essence of the\nChristian doctrine came to Europe and saw the actual life of\nChristians. He could not recover from his astonishment at the\ncomplete contrast between the reality and what he had expected to\nfind among Christian nations. If we feel no astonishment at the\ncontrast between our convictions and our conduct, that is because\nthe influences, tending to obscure the contrast, produce an effect\nupon us too. We need only look at our life from the point of view of\nthat Indian, who understood Christianity in its true significance,\nwithout any compromises or concessions, we need but look at the\nsavage brutalities of which our life is full, to be appalled at the\ncontradictions in the midst of which we live often without observing\nthem.\n\nWe need only recall the preparations for war, the mitrailleuses, the\nsilver-gilt bullets, the torpedoes, and--the Red Cross; the solitary\nprison cells, the experiments of execution by electricity--and the\ncare of the hygienic welfare of prisoners; the philanthropy of the\nrich, and their life, which produces the poor they are benefiting.\n\nAnd these inconsistencies are not, as it might seem, because men\npretend to be Christians while they are really pagans, but because of\nsomething lacking in men, or some kind of force hindering them from\nbeing what they already feel themselves to be in their consciousness,\nand what they genuinely wish to be. Men of the present day do not\nmerely pretend to hate oppression, inequality, class distinction,\nand every kind of cruelty to animals as well as human beings. They\ngenuinely detest all this, but they do not know how to put a stop to\nit, or perhaps cannot decide to give up what preserves it all, and\nseems to them necessary.\n\nIndeed, ask every man separately whether he thinks it laudable and\nworthy of a man of this age to hold a position from which he receives\na salary disproportionate to his work; to take from the people--often\nin poverty--taxes to be spent on constructing cannon, torpedoes, and\nother instruments of butchery, so as to make war on people with whom\nwe wish to be at peace, and who feel the same wish in regard to us;\nor to receive a salary for devoting one's whole life to constructing\nthese instruments of butchery, or to preparing oneself and others for\nthe work of murder. And ask him whether it is laudable and worthy\nof a man, and suitable for a Christian, to employ himself, for a\nsalary, in seizing wretched, misguided, often illiterate and drunken,\ncreatures because they appropriate the property of others--on a much\nsmaller scale than we do--or because they kill men in a different\nfashion from that in which we undertake to do it--and shutting them\nin prison for it, ill treating them and killing them; and whether\nit is laudable and worthy of a man and a Christian to preach for a\nsalary to the people not Christianity, but superstitions which one\nknows to be stupid and pernicious; and whether it is laudable and\nworthy of a man to rob his neighbor for his gratification of what\nhe wants to satisfy his simplest needs, as the great landowners do;\nor to force him to exhausting labor beyond his strength to augment\none's wealth, as do factory owners and manufacturers; or to profit\nby the poverty of men to increase one's gains, as merchants do. And\neveryone taken separately, especially if one's remarks are directed\nat someone else, not himself, will answer, No! And yet the very man\nwho sees all the baseness of those actions, of his own free will,\nuncoerced by anyone, often even for no pecuniary profit, but only\nfrom childish vanity, for a china cross, a scrap of ribbon, a bit of\nfringe he is allowed to wear, will enter military service, become\na magistrate or justice of the peace, commissioner, archbishop, or\nbeadle, though in fulfilling these offices he must commit acts the\nbaseness and shamefulness of which he cannot fail to recognize.\n\nI know that many of these men will confidently try to prove that they\nhave reasons for regarding their position as legitimate and quite\nindispensable. They will say in their defense that authority is given\nby God, that the functions of the state are indispensable for the\nwelfare of humanity, that property is not opposed to Christianity,\nthat the rich young man was only commanded to sell all he had and\ngive to the poor if he wished to be perfect, that the existing\ndistribution of property and our commercial system must always remain\nas they are, and are to the advantage of all, and so on. But, however\nmuch they try to deceive themselves and others, they all know that\nwhat they are doing is opposed to all the beliefs which they profess,\nand in the depths of their souls, when they are left alone with their\nconscience, they are ashamed and miserable at the recollection of it,\nespecially if the baseness of their action has been pointed out to\nthem. A man of the present day, whether he believes in the divinity\nof Christ or not, cannot fail to see that to assist in the capacity\nof tzar, minister, governor, or commissioner in taking from a poor\nfamily its last cow for taxes to be spent on cannons, or on the pay\nand pensions of idle officials, who live in luxury and are worse\nthan useless; or in putting into prison some man we have ourselves\ncorrupted, and throwing his family on the streets; or in plundering\nand butchering in war; or in inculcating savage and idolatrous\nsuperstitions in the place of the law of Christ; or in impounding\nthe cow found on one's land, though it belongs to a man who has no\nland; or to cheat the workman in a factory, by imposing fines for\naccidentally spoiled articles; or making a poor man pay double the\nvalue for anything simply because he is in the direst poverty;--not\na man of the present day can fail to know that all these actions are\nbase and disgraceful, and that they need not do them. They all know\nit. They know that what they are doing is wrong, and would not do\nit for anything in the world if they had the power of resisting the\nforces which shut their eyes to the criminality of their actions and\nimpel them to commit them.\n\nIn nothing is the pitch of inconsistency modern life has attained to\nso evident as in universal conscription, which is the last resource\nand the final expression of violence.\n\nIndeed, it is only because this state of universal armament has been\nbrought about gradually and imperceptibly, and because governments\nhave exerted, in maintaining it, every resource of intimidation,\ncorruption, brutalization, and violence, that we do not see its\nflagrant inconsistency with the Christian ideas and sentiments by\nwhich the modern world is permeated.\n\nWe are so accustomed to the inconsistency that we do not see all\nthe hideous folly and immorality of men voluntarily choosing the\nprofession of butchery as though it were an honorable career, of\npoor wretches submitting to conscription, or in countries where\ncompulsory service has not been introduced, of people voluntarily\nabandoning a life of industry to recruit soldiers and train them as\nmurderers. We know that all of these men are either Christians, or\nprofess humane and liberal principles, and they know that they thus\nbecome partly responsible--through universal conscription, personally\nresponsible--for the most insane, aimless, and brutal murders. And\nyet they all do it.\n\nMore than that, in Germany, where compulsory service first\noriginated, Caprivi has given expression to what had been hitherto\nso assiduously concealed--that is, that the men that the soldiers\nwill have to kill are not foreigners alone, but their own countrymen,\nthe very working people from whom they themselves are taken. And\nthis admission has not opened people's eyes, has not horrified them!\nThey still go like sheep to the slaughter, and submit to everything\nrequired of them.\n\nAnd that is not all: the Emperor of Germany has lately shown still\nmore clearly the duties of the army, by thanking and rewarding a\nsoldier for killing a defenseless citizen who made his approach\nincautiously. By rewarding an action always regarded as base and\ncowardly even by men on the lowest level of morality, William has\nshown that a soldier's chief duty--the one most appreciated by\nthe authorities--is that of executioner; and not a professional\nexecutioner who kills only condemned criminals, but one ready to\nbutcher any innocent man at the word of command.\n\nAnd even that is not all. In 1892, the same William, the _enfant\nterrible_ of state authority, who says plainly what other people\nonly think, in addressing some soldiers gave public utterance to\nthe following speech, which was reported next day in thousands of\nnewspapers: \"Conscripts!\" he said, \"you have sworn fidelity to _me_\nbefore the altar and the minister of God! You are still too young to\nunderstand all the importance of what has been said here; let your\ncare before all things be to obey the orders and instructions given\nyou. You have sworn fidelity _to me_, lads of my guard; _that means\nthat you are now my soldiers_, that _you have given yourselves to me\nbody and soul_. For you there is now but one enemy, _my_ enemy. _In\nthese days of socialistic sedition it may come to pass that I command\nyou to fire on your own kindred, your brothers, even your own fathers\nand mothers--which God forbid!_--even then you are bound to obey my\norders without hesitation.\"\n\nThis man expresses what all sensible rulers think, but studiously\nconceal. He says openly that the soldiers are in _his_ service, at\n_his_ disposal, and must be ready for _his_ advantage to murder even\ntheir brothers and fathers.\n\nIn the most brutal words he frankly exposes all the horrors and\ncriminality for which men prepare themselves in entering the army,\nand the depths of ignominy to which they fall in promising obedience.\nLike a bold hypnotizer, he tests the degree of insensibility of the\nhypnotized subject. He touches his skin with a red-hot iron; the skin\nsmokes and scorches, but the sleeper does not awake.\n\nThis miserable man, imbecile and drunk with power, outrages in this\nutterance everything that can be sacred for a man of the modern\nworld. And yet all the Christians, liberals, and cultivated people,\nfar from resenting this outrage, did not even observe it.\n\nThe last, the most extreme test is put before men in its coarsest\nform. And they do not seem even to notice that it is a test, that\nthere is any choice about it. They seem to think there is no course\nopen but slavish submission. One would have thought these insane\nwords, which outrage everything a man of the present day holds\nsacred, must rouse indignation. But there has been nothing of the\nkind.\n\nAll the young men through the whole of Europe are exposed year after\nyear to this test, and with very few exceptions they renounce all\nthat a man can hold sacred, all express their readiness to kill\ntheir brothers, even their fathers, at the bidding of the first crazy\ncreature dressed up in a livery with red and gold trimming, and only\nwait to be told where and when they are to kill. And they actually\nare ready.\n\nEvery savage has something he holds sacred, something for which he is\nready to suffer, something he will not consent to do. But what is it\nthat is sacred to the civilized man of to-day? They say to him: \"You\nmust become my slave, and this slavery may force you to kill even\nyour own father;\" and he, often very well educated, trained in all\nthe sciences at the university, quietly puts his head under the yoke.\nThey dress him up in a clown's costume, and order him to cut capers,\nturn and twist and bow, and kill--he does it all submissively. And\nwhen they let him go, he seems to shake himself and go back to his\nformer life, and he continues to discourse upon the dignity of man,\nliberty, equality, and fraternity as before.\n\n\"Yes, but what is one to do?\" people often ask in genuine perplexity.\n\"If everyone would stand out it would be something, but by myself, I\nshall only suffer without doing any good to anyone.\"\n\nAnd that is true. A man with the social conception of life cannot\nresist. The aim of his life is his personal welfare. It is better for\nhis personal welfare for him to submit, and he submits.\n\nWhatever they do to him, however they torture or humiliate him, he\nwill submit, for, alone, he can do nothing; he has no principle for\nthe sake of which he could resist violence alone. And those who\ncontrol them never allow them to unite together. It is often said\nthat the invention of terrible weapons of destruction will put an end\nto war. That is an error. As the means of extermination are improved,\nthe means of reducing men who hold the state conception of life to\nsubmission can be improved to correspond. They may slaughter them by\nthousands, by millions, they may tear them to pieces, still they will\nmarch to war like senseless cattle. Some will want beating to make\nthem move, others will be proud to go if they are allowed to wear a\nscrap of ribbon or gold lace.\n\nAnd of this mass of men so brutalized as to be ready to promise\nto kill their own parents, the social reformers--conservatives,\nliberals, socialists, and anarchists--propose to form a rational and\nmoral society. What sort of moral and rational society can be formed\nout of such elements? With warped and rotten planks you cannot build\na house, however you put them together. And to form a rational moral\nsociety of such men is just as impossible a task. They can be formed\ninto nothing but a herd of cattle, driven by the shouts and whips of\nthe herdsmen. As indeed they are.\n\nSo, then, we have on one side men calling themselves Christians, and\nprofessing the principles of liberty, equality, and fraternity, and\nalong with that ready, in the name of liberty, to submit to the most\nslavish degradation; in the name of equality, to accept the crudest,\nmost senseless division of men by externals merely into higher and\nlower classes, allies and enemies; and, in the name of fraternity,\nready to murder their brothers.[14]\n\n  [14] The fact that among certain nations, as the English and the\n  American, military service is not compulsory (though already one\n  hears there are some who advocate that it should be made so) does not\n  affect the servility of the citizens to the government in principle.\n  Here we have each to go and kill or be killed, there they have\n  each to give the fruit of their toil to pay for the recruiting and\n  training of soldiers.\n\nThe contradiction between life and conscience and the misery\nresulting from it have reached the extreme limit and can go no\nfurther. The state organization of life based on violence, the aim of\nwhich was the security of personal, family, and social welfare, has\ncome to the point of renouncing the very objects for which it was\nfounded--it has reduced men to absolute renunciation and loss of the\nwelfare it was to secure.\n\nThe first half of the prophecy has been fulfilled in the generation\nof men who have not accepted Christ's teaching. Their descendants\nhave been brought now to the absolute necessity of putting the truth\nof the second half to the test of experience.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX.\n\n     THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE CHRISTIAN CONCEPTION OF LIFE WILL\n     EMANCIPATE MEN FROM THE MISERIES OF OUR PAGAN LIFE.\n\n     The External Life of Christian Peoples Remains Pagan Though\n     they are Penetrated by Christian Consciousness--The Way Out\n     of this Contradiction is by the Acceptance of the Christian\n     Theory of Life--Only Through Christianity is Every Man Free,\n     and Emancipated of All Human Authority--This Emancipation can\n     be Effected by no Change in External Conditions of Life, but\n     Only by a Change in the Conception of Life--The Christian\n     Ideal of Life Requires Renunciation of all Violence, and in\n     Emancipating the Man who Accepts it, Emancipates the Whole\n     World from All External Authorities--The Way Out of the Present\n     Apparently Hopeless Position is for Every Man who is Capable\n     of Assimilating the Christian Conception of Life, to Accept\n     it and Live in Accordance with it--But Men Consider this Way\n     too Slow, and Look for Deliverance Through Changes in Material\n     Conditions of Life Aided by Government--That Will Lead to No\n     Improvement, as it is simply Increasing the Evil under which Men\n     are Suffering--A Striking Instance of this is the Submission to\n     Compulsory Military Service, which it would be More Advantageous\n     for Every Man to Refuse than to Submit to--The Emancipation of\n     Men Can Only be Brought About by each Individual Emancipating\n     Himself, and the Examples of this Self-emancipation which are\n     already Appearing Threaten the Destruction of Governmental\n     Authority--Refusal to Comply with the Unchristian Demands\n     of Government Undermines the Authority of the State and\n     Emancipates Men--And therefore Cases of such Non-compliance\n     are Regarded with more Dread by State Authorities than any\n     Conspiracies or Acts of Violence--Examples of Non-compliance\n     in Russia, in Regard to Oath of Allegiance, Payment of Taxes,\n     Passports, Police Duties, and Military Service--Examples of such\n     Non-compliance in other States--Governments do not Know how to\n     Treat Men who Refuse to Comply with their Demands on Christian\n     Grounds--Such People, without Striking a Blow, Undermine\n     the very Basis of Government from Within--To Punish them is\n     Equivalent to Openly Renouncing Christianity, and Assisting in\n     Diffusing the Very Principle by which these Men Justify their\n     Non-compliance--So Governments are in a Helpless Position--Men\n     who Maintain the Uselessness of Personal Independence, only\n     Retard the Dissolution of the Present State Organization Based\n     on Force.\n\n\nThe position of the Christian peoples in our days has remained just\nas cruel as it was in the times of paganism. In many respects,\nespecially in the oppression of the masses, it has become even more\ncruel than it was in the days of paganism.\n\nBut between the condition of men in ancient times and their condition\nin our days there is just the difference that we see in the world\nof vegetation between the last days of autumn and the first days of\nspring. In the autumn the external lifelessness in nature corresponds\nwith its inward condition of death, while in the spring the external\nlifelessness is in sharp contrast with the internal state of reviving\nand passing into new forms of life.\n\nIn the same way the similarity between the ancient heathen life and\nthe life of to-day is merely external: the inward condition of men in\nthe times of heathenism was absolutely different from their inward\ncondition at the present time.\n\nThen the outward condition of cruelty and of slavery was in complete\nharmony with the inner conscience of men, and every step in advance\nintensified this harmony; now the outward condition of cruelty and of\nslavery is completely contradictory to the Christian consciousness\nof men, and every step in advance only intensifies this contradiction.\n\nHumanity is passing through seemingly unnecessary, fruitless agonies.\nIt is passing through something like the throes of birth. Everything\nis ready for the new life, but still the new life does not come.\n\nThere seems no way out of the position. And there would be none,\nexcept that a man (and thereby all men) is gifted with the power of\nforming a different, higher theory of life, which at once frees him\nfrom all the bonds by which he seems indissolubly fettered.\n\nAnd such a theory is the Christian view of life made known to mankind\neighteen hundred years ago.\n\nA man need only make this theory of life his own, for the fetters\nwhich seemed so indissolubly forged upon him to drop off of\nthemselves, and for him to feel himself absolutely free, just as a\nbird would feel itself free in a fenced-in place directly it took to\nits wings.\n\nPeople talk about the liberty of the Christian Church, about giving\nor not giving freedom to Christians. Underlying all these ideas and\nexpressions there is some strange misconception. Freedom cannot be\nbestowed on or taken from a Christian or Christians. Freedom is an\ninalienable possession of the Christian.\n\nIf we talk of bestowing freedom on Christians or withholding it from\nthem, we are obviously talking not of real Christians but of people\nwho only call themselves Christians. A Christian cannot fail to be\nfree, because the attainment of the aim he sets before himself cannot\nbe prevented or even hindered by anyone or anything.\n\nLet a man only understand his life as Christianity teaches him to\nunderstand it, let him understand, that is, that his life belongs\nnot to him--not to his own individuality, nor to his family, nor to\nthe state--but to him who has sent him into the world, and let him\nonce understand that he must therefore fulfill not the law of his own\nindividuality, nor his family, nor of the state, but the infinite\nlaw of him from whom he has come; and he will not only feel himself\nabsolutely free from every human power, but will even cease to regard\nsuch power as at all able to hamper anyone.\n\nLet a man but realize that the aim of his life is the fulfillment of\nGod's law, and that law will replace all other laws for him, and he\nwill give it his sole allegiance, so that by that very allegiance\nevery human law will lose all binding and controlling power in his\neyes.\n\nThe Christian is independent of every human authority by the fact\nthat he regards the divine law of love, implanted in the soul of\nevery man, and brought before his consciousness by Christ, as the\nsole guide of his life and other men's also.\n\nThe Christian may be subjected to external violence, he may be\ndeprived of bodily freedom, he may be in bondage to his passions (he\nwho commits sin is the slave of sin), but he cannot be in bondage in\nthe sense of being forced by any danger or by any threat of external\nharm to perform an act which is against his conscience.\n\nHe cannot be compelled to do this, because the deprivations and\nsufferings which form such a powerful weapon against men of the state\nconception of life, have not the least power to compel him.\n\nDeprivations and sufferings take from them the happiness for which\nthey live; but far from disturbing the happiness of the Christian,\nwhich consists in the consciousness of fulfilling the will of God,\nthey may even intensify it, when they are inflicted on him for\nfulfilling his will.\n\nAnd therefore the Christian, who is subject only to the inner divine\nlaw, not only cannot carry out the enactments of the external law,\nwhen they are not in agreement with the divine law of love which\nhe acknowledges (as is usually the case with state obligations), he\ncannot even recognize the duty of obedience to anyone or anything\nwhatever, he cannot recognize the duty of what is called allegiance.\n\nFor a Christian the oath of allegiance to any government\nwhatever--the very act which is regarded as the foundation of the\nexistence of a state--is a direct renunciation of Christianity.\nFor the man who promises unconditional obedience in the future\nto laws, made or to be made, by that very promise is in the most\npositive manner renouncing Christianity, which means obeying in every\ncircumstance of life only the divine law of love he recognizes within\nhim.\n\nUnder the pagan conception of life it was possible to carry out the\nwill of the temporal authorities, without infringing the law of\nGod expressed in circumcisions, Sabbaths, fixed times of prayer,\nabstention from certain kinds of food, and so on. The one law was\nnot opposed to the other. But that is just the distinction between\nthe Christian religion and heathen religion. Christianity does not\nrequire of a man certain definite negative acts, but puts him in\na new, different relation to men, from which may result the most\ndiverse acts, which cannot be defined beforehand. And therefore the\nChristian not only cannot promise to obey the will of any other man,\nwithout knowing what will be required by that will; he not only\ncannot obey the changing laws of man, but he cannot even promise to\ndo anything definite at a certain time, or to abstain from doing\nanything for a certain time. For he cannot know what at any time will\nbe required of him by that Christian law of love, obedience to which\nconstitutes the meaning of life for him. The Christian, in promising\nunconditional fulfillment of the laws of men in the future, would\nshow plainly by that promise that the inner law of God does not\nconstitute for him the sole law of his life.\n\nFor a Christian to promise obedience to men, or the laws of men, is\njust as though a workman bound to one employer should also promise\nto carry out every order that might be given him by outsiders. One\ncannot serve two masters.\n\nThe Christian is independent of human authority, because he\nacknowledges God's authority alone. His law, revealed by Christ, he\nrecognizes in himself, and voluntarily obeys it.\n\nAnd this independence is gained, not by means of strife, not by\nthe destruction of existing forms of life, but only by a change\nin the interpretation of life. This independence results first\nfrom the Christian recognizing the law of love, revealed to him by\nhis teacher, as perfectly sufficient for all human relations, and\ntherefore he regards every use of force as unnecessary and unlawful;\nand secondly, from the fact that those deprivations and sufferings,\nor threats of deprivations and sufferings (which reduce the man of\nthe social conception of life to the necessity of obeying) to the\nChristian from his different conception of life, present themselves\nmerely as the inevitable conditions of existence. And these\nconditions, without striving against them by force, he patiently\nendures, like sickness, hunger, and every other hardship, but they\ncannot serve him as a guide for his actions. The only guide for the\nChristian's actions is to be found in the divine principle living\nwithin him, which cannot be checked or governed by anything.\n\nThe Christian acts according to the words of the prophecy applied to\nhis teacher: \"He shall not strive, nor cry; neither shall any man\nhear his voice in the streets. A bruised reed shall he not break, and\nsmoking flax shall he not quench, till he send forth judgment unto\nvictory.\" (Matt. xii. 19, 20.)\n\nThe Christian will not dispute with anyone, nor attack anyone, nor\nuse violence against anyone. On the contrary, he will bear violence\nwithout opposing it. But by this very attitude to violence, he will\nnot only himself be free, but will free the whole world from all\nexternal power.\n\n\"Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.\"\nIf there were any doubt of Christianity being the truth, the\nperfect liberty, that nothing can curtail, which a man experiences\ndirectly he makes the Christian theory of life his own, would be an\nunmistakable proof of its truth.\n\nMen in their present condition are like a swarm of bees hanging\nin a cluster to a branch. The position of the bees on the branch\nis temporary, and must inevitably be changed. They must start off\nand find themselves a habitation. Each of the bees knows this, and\ndesires to change her own and the others' position, but no one of\nthem can do it till the rest of them do it. They cannot all start\noff at once, because one hangs on to another and hinders her from\nseparating from the swarm, and therefore they all continue to hang\nthere. It would seem that the bees could never escape from their\nposition, just as it seems that worldly men, caught in the toils of\nthe state conception of life, can never escape. And there would be\nno escape for the bees, if each of them were not a living, separate\ncreature, endowed with wings of its own. Similarly there would be\nno escape for men, if each were not a living being endowed with the\nfaculty of entering into the Christian conception of life.\n\nIf every bee who could fly, did not try to fly, the others, too,\nwould never be stirred, and the swarm would never change its\nposition. And if the man who has mastered the Christian conception\nof life would not, without waiting for other people, begin to live\nin accordance with this conception, mankind would never change its\nposition. But only let one bee spread her wings, start off, and fly\naway, and after her another, and another, and the clinging, inert\ncluster would become a freely flying swarm of bees. Just in the same\nway, only let one man look at life as Christianity teaches him to\nlook at it, and after him let another and another do the same, and\nthe enchanted circle of existence in the state conception of life,\nfrom which there seemed no escape, will be broken through.\n\nBut men think that to set all men free by this means is too slow a\nprocess, that they must find some other means by which they could\nset all men free at once. It is just as though the bees who want to\nstart and fly away should consider it too long a process to wait for\nall the swarm to start one by one; and should think they ought to\nfind some means by which it would not be necessary for every separate\nbee to spread her wings and fly off, but by which the whole swarm\ncould fly at once where it wanted to. But that is not possible; till\na first, a second, a third, a hundredth bee spreads her wings and\nflies off of her own accord, the swarm will not fly off and will not\nbegin its new life. Till every individual man makes the Christian\nconception of life his own, and begins to live in accord with it,\nthere can be no solution of the problem of human life, and no\nestablishment of a new form of life.\n\nOne of the most striking phenomena of our times is precisely this\nadvocacy of slavery, which is promulgated among the masses, not by\ngovernments, in whom it is inevitable, but by men who, in advocating\nsocialistic theories, regard themselves as the champions of freedom.\n\nThese people advance the opinion that the amelioration of life, the\nbringing of the facts of life into harmony with the conscience, will\ncome, not as the result of the personal efforts of individual men,\nbut of itself as the result of a certain possible reconstruction\nof society effected in some way or other. The idea is promulgated\nthat men ought not to walk on their own legs where they want and\nought to go, but that a kind of floor under their feet will be moved\nsomehow, so that on it they can reach where they ought to go without\nmoving their own legs. And, therefore, all their efforts ought to\nbe directed, not to going so far as their strength allows in the\ndirection they ought to go, but to standing still and constructing\nsuch a floor.\n\nIn the sphere of political economy a theory is propounded which\namounts to saying that the worse things are the better they are; that\nthe greater the accumulation of capital, and therefore the oppression\nof the workman, the nearer the day of emancipation, and, therefore,\nevery personal effort on the part of a man to free himself from the\noppression of capital is useless. In the sphere of government it\nis maintained that the greater the power of the government, which,\naccording to this theory, ought to intervene in every department\nof private life in which it has not yet intervened, the better it\nwill be, and that therefore we ought to invoke the interference of\ngovernment in private life. In politics and international questions\nit is maintained that the improvement of the means of destruction,\nthe multiplication of armaments, will lead to the necessity of making\nwar by means of congresses, arbitration, and so on. And, marvelous\nto say, so great is the dullness of men, that they believe in these\ntheories, in spite of the fact that the whole course of life, every\nstep they take, shows how unworthy they are of belief.\n\nThe people are suffering from oppression, and to deliver them from\nthis oppression they are advised to frame general measures for the\nimprovement of their position, which measures are to be intrusted to\nthe authorities, and themselves to continue to yield obedience to\nthe authorities. And obviously all that results from this is only\ngreater power in the hands of the authorities, and greater oppression\nresulting from it.\n\nNot one of the errors of men carries them so far away from the aim\ntoward which they are struggling as this very one. They do all kinds\nof different things for the attainment of their aim, but not the one\nsimple obvious thing which is within reach of everyone. They devise\nthe subtlest means for changing the position which is irksome to\nthem, but not that simplest means, that everyone should refrain from\ndoing what leads to that position.\n\nI have been told a story of a gallant police officer, who came to\na village where the peasants were in insurrection and the military\nhad been called out, and he undertook to pacify the insurrection\nin the spirit of Nicholas I., by his personal influence alone. He\nordered some loads of rods to be brought, and collecting all the\npeasants together into a barn, he went in with them, locking the door\nafter him. To begin with, he so terrified the peasants by his loud\nthreats that, reduced to submission by him, they set to work to flog\none another at his command. And so they flogged one another until\na simpleton was found who would not allow himself to be flogged,\nand shouted to his companions not to flog one another. Only then\nthe flogging ceased, and the police officer made his escape. Well,\nthis simpleton's advice would never be followed by men of the state\nconception of life, who continue to flog one another, and teach\npeople that this very act of self-castigation is the last word of\nhuman wisdom.\n\nIndeed, can one imagine a more striking instance of men flogging\nthemselves than the submissiveness with which men of our times will\nperform the very duties required of them to keep them in slavery,\nespecially the duty of military service? We see people enslaving\nthemselves, suffering from this slavery, and believing that it must\nbe so, that it does not matter, and will not hinder the emancipation\nof men, which is being prepared somewhere, somehow, in spite of the\never-increasing growth of slavery.\n\nIn fact, take any man of the present time whatever (I don't mean a\ntrue Christian, but an average man of the present day), educated\nor uneducated, believing or unbelieving, rich or poor, married or\nunmarried. Such a man lives working at his work, or enjoying his\namusements, spending the fruits of his labors on himself or on those\nnear to him, and, like everyone, hating every kind of restriction and\ndeprivation, dissension and suffering. Such a man is going his way\npeaceably, when suddenly people come and say to him: First, promise\nand swear to us that you will slavishly obey us in everything we\ndictate to you, and will consider absolutely good and authoritative\neverything we plan, decide, and call law. Secondly, hand over a\npart of the fruits of your labors for us to dispose of--we will use\nthe money to keep you in slavery, and to hinder you from forcibly\nopposing our orders. Thirdly, elect others, or be yourself elected,\nto take a pretended share in the government, knowing all the while\nthat the government will proceed quite without regard to the foolish\nspeeches you, and those like you, may utter, and knowing that its\nproceedings will be according to our will, the will of those who have\nthe army in their hands. Fourthly, come at a certain time to the\nlaw courts and take your share in those senseless cruelties which\nwe perpetrate on sinners, and those whom we have corrupted, in the\nshape of penal servitude, exile, solitary confinement, and death. And\nfifthly and lastly, more than all this, in spite of the fact that\nyou may be on the friendliest terms with people of other nations,\nbe ready, directly we order you to do so, to regard those whom we\nindicate to you as your enemies; and be ready to assist, either in\nperson or by proxy, in devastation, plunder, and murder of their\nmen, women, children, and aged alike--possibly your own kinsmen or\nrelations--if that is necessary to us.\n\nOne would expect that every man of the present day who has a grain\nof sense left, might reply to such requirements, \"But why should I\ndo all this?\" One would think every right-minded man must say in\namazement: Why should I promise to yield obedience to everything that\nhas been decreed first by Salisbury, then by Gladstone; one day by\nBoulanger, and another by Parliament; one day by Peter III., the next\nby Catherine, and the day after by Pougachef; one day by a mad king\nof Bavaria, another by William? Why should I promise to obey them,\nknowing them to be wicked or foolish people, or else not knowing them\nat all? Why am I to hand over the fruits of my labors to them in the\nshape of taxes, knowing that the money will be spent on the support\nof officials, prisons, churches, armies, on things that are harmful,\nand on my own enslavement? Why should I punish myself? Why should\nI go wasting my time and hoodwinking myself, giving to miscreant\nevildoers a semblance of legality, by taking part in elections, and\npretending that I am taking part in the government, when I know\nvery well that the real control of the government is in the hands\nof those who have got hold of the army? Why should I go to the law\ncourts to take part in the trial and punishment of men because they\nhave sinned, knowing, if I am a Christian, that the law of vengence\nis replaced by the law of love, and, if I am an educated man, that\npunishments do not reform, but only deprave those on whom they are\ninflicted? And why, most of all, am I to consider as enemies the\npeople of a neighboring nation, with whom I have hitherto lived and\nwith whom I wish to live in love and harmony, and to kill and rob\nthem, or to bring them to misery, simply in order that the keys of\nthe temple at Jerusalem may be in the hands of one archbishop and not\nanother, that one German and not another may be prince in Bulgaria,\nor that the English rather than the American merchants may capture\nseals?\n\nAnd why, most of all, should I take part in person or hire others to\nmurder my own brothers and kinsmen? Why should I flog myself? It is\naltogether unnecessary for me; it is hurtful to me, and from every\npoint of view it is immoral, base, and vile. So why should I do\nthis? If you tell me that if I do it not I shall receive some injury\nfrom someone, then, in the first place, I cannot anticipate from\nanyone an injury so great as the injury you bring on me if I obey\nyou; and secondly, it is perfectly clear to me that if we our own\nselves do not flog ourselves, no one will flog us.\n\nAs for the government--that means the tzars, ministers, and officials\nwith pens in their hands, who cannot force us into doing anything,\nas that officer of police compelled the peasants; the men who will\ndrag us to the law court, to prison, and to execution, are not tzars\nor officials with pens in their hands, but the very people who are\nin the same position as we are. And it is just as unprofitable and\nharmful and unpleasant to them to be flogged as to me, and therefore\nthere is every likelihood that if I open their eyes they not only\nwould not treat me with violence, but would do just as I am doing.\n\nThirdly, even if it should come to pass that I had to suffer for it,\neven then it would be better for me to be exiled or sent to prison\nfor standing up for common sense and right--which, if not to-day,\nat least within a very short time, must be triumphant--than to\nsuffer for folly and wrong which must come to an end directly. And\ntherefore, even in that case, it is better to run the risk of their\nbanishing me, shutting me up in prison, or executing me, than of my\nliving all my life in bondage, through my own fault, to wicked men.\nBetter is this than the possibility of being destroyed by victorious\nenemies, and being stupidly tortured and killed by them, in fighting\nfor a cannon, or a piece of land of no use to anyone, or for a\nsenseless rag called a banner.\n\nI don't want to flog myself and I won't do it. I have no reason to do\nit. Do it yourselves, if you want it done; but I won't do it.\n\nOne would have thought that not religious or moral feeling alone,\nbut the simplest common sense and foresight should impel every man of\nthe present day to answer and to act in that way. But not so. Men of\nthe state conception of life are of the opinion that to act in that\nway is not necessary, and is even prejudicial to the attainment of\ntheir object, the emancipation of men from slavery. They hold that\nwe must continue, like the police officer's peasants, to flog one\nanother, consoling ourselves with the reflection that we are talking\naway in the assemblies and meetings, founding trades unions, marching\nthrough the streets on the 1st of May, getting up conspiracies, and\nstealthily teasing the government that is flogging us, and that\nthrough all this it will be brought to pass that, by enslaving\nourselves in closer and closer bondage, we shall very soon be free.\n\nNothing hinders the emancipation of men from slavery so much as this\namazing error. Instead of every man directing his energies to freeing\nhimself, to transforming his conception of life, people seek for an\nexternal united method of gaining freedom, and continue to rivet\ntheir chains faster and faster.\n\nIt is much as if men were to maintain that to make up a fire there\nwas no need to kindle any of the coals, but that all that was\nnecessary was to arrange the coals in a certain order. Yet the fact\nthat the freedom of all men will be brought about only through the\nfreedom of individual persons, becomes more and more clear as time\ngoes on. The freedom of individual men, in the name of the Christian\nconception of life, from state domination, which was formerly\nan exceptional and unnoticed phenomenon, has of late acquired\nthreatening significance for state authorities.\n\nIf in a former age, in the Roman times, it happened that a Christian\nconfessed his religion and refused to take part in sacrifices, and to\nworship the emperors or the gods; or in the Middle Ages a Christian\nrefused to worship images, or to acknowledge the authority of the\nPope--these cases were in the first place a matter of chance. A man\nmight be placed under the necessity of confessing his faith, or he\nmight live all his life without being placed under this necessity.\nBut now all men, without exception, are subjected to this trial of\ntheir faith. Every man of the present day is under the necessity\nof taking part in the cruelties of pagan life, or of refusing all\nparticipation in them. And secondly, in those days cases of refusal\nto worship the gods or the images or the Pope were not incidents that\nhad any material bearing on the state. Whether men worshiped or did\nnot worship the gods or the images or the Pope, the state remained\njust as powerful. But now cases of refusing to comply with the\nunchristian demands of the government are striking at the very root\nof state authority, because the whole authority of the state is based\non the compliance with these unchristian demands.\n\nThe sovereign powers of the world have in the course of time been\nbrought into a position in which, for their own preservation, they\nmust require from all men actions which cannot be performed by men\nwho profess true Christianity.\n\nAnd therefore in our days every profession of true Christianity, by\nany individual man, strikes at the most essential power of the state,\nand inevitably leads the way for the emancipation of all.\n\nWhat importance, one might think, can one attach to such an incident\nas some dozens of crazy fellows, as people will call them, refusing\nto take the oath of allegiance to the government, refusing to pay\ntaxes, to take part in law proceedings or in military service?\n\nThese people are punished and exiled to a distance, and life goes\non in its old way. One might think there was no importance in such\nincidents; but yet, it is just those incidents, more than anything\nelse, that will undermine the power of the state and prepare the\nway for the freedom of men. These are the individual bees, who are\nbeginning to separate from the swarm, and are flying near it, waiting\ntill the whole swarm can no longer be prevented from starting off\nafter them. And the governments know this, and fear such incidents\nmore than all the socialists, communists, and anarchists, and their\nplots and dynamite bombs.\n\nA new reign is beginning. According to the universal rule and\nestablished order it is required that all the subjects should take\nthe oath of allegiance to the new government. There is a general\ndecree to that effect, and all are summoned to the council-houses to\ntake the oath. All at once one man in Perm, another in Tula, a third\nin Moscow, and a fourth in Kalouga declare that they will not take\nthe oath, and though there is no communication between them, they\nall explain their refusal on the same grounds--namely, that swearing\nis forbidden by the law of Christ, and that even if swearing had not\nbeen forbidden, they could not, in the spirit of the law of Christ,\npromise to perform the evil actions required of them in the oath,\nsuch as informing against all such as may act against the interests\nof the government, or defending their government with firearms\nor attacking its enemies. They are brought before rural police\nofficers, district police captains, priests, and governors. They are\nadmonished, questioned, threatened, and punished; but they adhere to\ntheir resolution, and do not take the oath. And among the millions of\nthose who did take the oath, those dozens go on living who did not\ntake the oath. And they are questioned:\n\n\"What, didn't you take the oath?\"\n\n\"No, I didn't take the oath.\"\n\n\"And what happened--nothing?\"\n\n\"Nothing.\"\n\nThe subjects of a state are all bound to pay taxes. And everyone\npays taxes, till suddenly one man in Kharkov, another in Tver, and\na third in Samara refuse to pay taxes--all, as though in collusion,\nsaying the same thing. One says he will only pay when they tell him\nwhat object the money taken from him will be spent on. \"If it is for\ngood deeds,\" he says, \"he will give it of his own accord, and more\neven than is required of him. If for evil deeds, then he will give\nnothing voluntarily, because by the law of Christ, whose follower he\nis, he cannot take part in evil deeds.\" The others, too, say the same\nin other words, and will not voluntarily pay the taxes.\n\nThose who have anything to be taken have their property taken from\nthem by force; as for those who have nothing, they are left alone.\n\n\"What, didn't you pay the tax?\"\n\n\"No, I didn't pay it.\"\n\n\"And what happened--nothing?\"\n\n\"Nothing.\"\n\nThere is the institution of passports. Everyone moving from his\nplace of residence is bound to carry one, and to pay a duty on it.\nSuddenly people are to be found in various places declaring that to\ncarry a passport is not necessary, that one ought not to recognize\none's dependence on a state which exists by means of force; and these\npeople do not carry passports, or pay the duty on them. And again,\nit's impossible to force those people by any means to do what is\nrequired. They send them to jail, and let them out again, and these\npeople live without passports.\n\nAll peasants are bound to fill certain police offices--that of\nvillage constable, and of watchman, and so on. Suddenly in Kharkov\na peasant refuses to perform this duty, justifying his refusal on\nthe ground that by the law of Christ, of which he is a follower, he\ncannot put any man in fetters, lock him up, or drag him from place\nto place. The same declaration is made by a peasant in Tver, another\nin Tambov. These peasants are abused, beaten, shut up in prison,\nbut they stick to their resolution and don't fill these offices\nagainst their convictions. And at last they cease to appoint them as\nconstables. And again nothing happens.\n\nAll citizens are obliged to take a share in law proceedings in the\ncharacter of jurymen. Suddenly the most different people--mechanics,\nprofessors, tradesmen, peasants, servants, as though by agreement\nrefuse to fill this office, and not on the grounds allowed as\nsufficient by law, but because any process at law is, according to\ntheir views, unchristian. They fine these people, trying not to let\nthem have an opportunity of explaining their motives in public, and\nreplace them by others. And again nothing can be done.\n\nAll young men of twenty-one years of age are obliged to draw lots for\nservice in the army. All at once one young man in Moscow, another in\nTver, a third in Kharkov, and a fourth in Kiev present themselves\nbefore the authorities, and, as though by previous agreement, declare\nthat they will not take the oath, they will not serve because\nthey are Christians. I will give the details of one of the first\ncases, since they have become more frequent, which I happen to know\nabout.[15] The same treatment has been repeated in every other case.\nA young man of fair education refuses in the Moscow Townhall to take\nthe oath. No attention is paid to what he says, and it is requested\nthat he should pronounce the words of the oath like the rest. He\ndeclines, quoting a particular passage of the Gospel in which\nswearing is forbidden. No attention is paid to his arguments, and he\nis again requested to comply with the order, but he does not comply\nwith it. Then it is supposed that he is a sectary and therefore does\nnot understand Christianity in the right sense, that is to say,\nnot in the sense in which the priests in the pay of the government\nunderstand it. And the young man is conducted under escort to the\npriests, that they may bring him to reason. The priests begin to\nreason with him, but their efforts in Christ's name to persuade\nhim to renounce Christ obviously have no influence on him; he is\npronounced incorrigible and sent back again to the army. He persists\nin not taking the oath and openly refuses to perform any military\nduties. It is a case that has not been provided for by the laws. To\noverlook such a refusal to comply with the demands of the authorities\nis out of the question, but to put such a case on a par with simple\nbreach of discipline is also out of the question.\n\n  [15] All the details of this case, as well as those preceding it, are\n  authentic.\n\nAfter deliberation among themselves, the military authorities\ndecide to get rid of the troublesome young man, to consider him\nas a revolutionist, and they dispatch him under escort to the\ncommittee of the secret police. The police authorities and gendarmes\ncross-question him, but nothing that he says can be brought under the\nhead of any of the misdemeanors which come under their jurisdiction.\nAnd there is no possibility of accusing him either of revolutionary\nacts or revolutionary plotting, since he declares that he does not\nwish to attack anything, but, on the contrary, is opposed to any\nuse of force, and, far from plotting in secret, he seeks every\nopportunity of saying and doing all that he says and does in the\nmost open manner. And the gendarmes, though they are bound by no\nhard-and-fast rules, still find no ground for a criminal charge in\nthe young man, and, like the clergy, they send him back to the army.\nAgain the authorities deliberate together, and decide to accept\nhim though he has not taken the oath, and to enrol him among the\nsoldiers. They put him into the uniform, enrol him, and send him\nunder guard to the place where the army is quartered. There the chief\nofficer of the division which he enters again expects the young man\nto perform his military duties, and again he refuses to obey, and in\nthe presence of other soldiers explains the reason of his refusal,\nsaying that he as a Christian cannot voluntarily prepare himself to\ncommit murder, which is forbidden by the law of Moses.\n\nThis incident occurs in a provincial town. The case awakens the\ninterest, and even the sympathy, not only of outsiders, but even\nof the officers. And the chief officers consequently do not decide\nto punish this refusal of obedience with disciplinary measures. To\nsave appearances, though, they shut the young man up in prison, and\nwrite to the highest military authorities to inquire what they are\nto do. To refuse to serve in the army, in which the Tzar himself\nserves, and which enjoys the blessing of the Church, seems insanity\nfrom the official point of view. Consequently they write from\nPetersburg that, since the young man must be out of his mind, they\nmust not use any severe treatment with him, but must send him to a\nlunatic asylum, that his mental condition may be inquired into and\nbe scientifically treated. They send him to the asylum in the hope\nthat he will remain there, like another young man, who refused ten\nyears ago at Tver to serve in the army, and who was tortured in\nthe asylum till he submitted. But even this step does not rid the\nmilitary authorities of the inconvenient man. The doctors examine\nhim, interest themselves warmly in his case, and naturally finding in\nhim no symptoms of mental disease, send him back to the army. There\nthey receive him, and making believe to have forgotten his refusal,\nand his motives for it, they again request him to go to drill, and\nagain in the presence of the other soldiers he refuses and explains\nthe reason of his refusal. The affair continues to attract more and\nmore attention, both among the soldiers and the inhabitants of the\ntown. Again they write to Petersburg, and thence comes the decree\nto transfer the young man to some division of the army stationed on\nthe frontier, in some place where the army is under martial law,\nwhere he can be shot for refusing to obey, and where the matter can\nproceed without attracting observation, seeing that there are few\nRussians and Christians in such a distant part, but the majority are\nforeigners and Mohammedans. This is accordingly done. They transfer\nhim to a division stationed on the Zacaspian border, and in company\nwith convicts send him to a chief officer who is notorious for his\nharshness and severity.\n\nAll this time, through all these changes from place to place, the\nyoung man is roughly treated, kept in cold, hunger, and filth, and\nlife is made burdensome to him generally. But all these sufferings\ndo not compel him to change his resolution. On the Zacaspian\nborder, where he is again requested to go on guard fully armed, he\nagain declines to obey. He does not refuse to go and stand near\nthe haystacks where they place him, but refuses to take his arms,\ndeclaring that he will not use violence in any case against anyone.\nAll this takes place in the presence of the other soldiers. To let\nsuch a refusal pass unpunished is impossible, and the young man is\nput on his trial for breach of discipline. The trial takes place,\nand he is sentenced to confinement in the military prison for two\nyears. He is again transferred, in company with convicts, by \u00e9tape,\nto Caucasus, and there he is shut up in prison and falls under the\nirresponsible power of the jailer. There he is persecuted for a year\nand a half, but he does not for all that alter his decision not to\nbear arms, and he explains why he will not do this to everyone with\nwhom he is brought in contact. At the end of the second year they\nset him free, before the end of his term of imprisonment, reckoning\nit contrary to law to keep him in prison after his time of military\nservice was over, and only too glad to get rid of him as soon as\npossible.\n\nOther men in various parts of Russia behave, as though by agreement,\nprecisely in the same way as this young man, and in all these cases\nthe government has adopted the same timorous, undecided, and\nsecretive course of action. Some of these men are sent to the lunatic\nasylum, some are enrolled as clerks and transferred to Siberia, some\nare sent to work in the forests, some are sent to prison, some are\nfined. And at this very time some men of this kind are in prison,\nnot charged with their real offense--that is, denying the lawfulness\nof the action of the government, but for non-fulfillment of special\nobligations imposed by government. Thus an officer of reserve, who\ndid not report his change of residence, and justified this on the\nground that he would not serve in the army any longer, was fined\nthirty rubles for non-compliance with the orders of the superior\nauthority. This fine he also declined voluntarily to pay. In the same\nway some peasants and soldiers who have refused to be drilled and\nto bear arms have been placed under arrest on a charge of breach of\ndiscipline and insolence.\n\nAnd cases of refusing to comply with the demands of government when\nthey are opposed to Christianity, and especially cases of refusing\nto serve in the army, are occurring of late not in Russia only,\nbut everywhere. Thus I happen to know that in Servia men of the\nso-called sect of Nazarenes steadily refuse to serve in the army,\nand the Austrian Government has been carrying on a fruitless contest\nwith them for years, punishing them with imprisonment. In the year\n1885 there were 130 such cases. I know that in Switzerland in the\nyear 1890 there were men in prison in the castle of Chillon for\ndeclining to serve in the army, whose resolution was not shaken by\ntheir punishment. There have been such cases in Sweden, and the\nmen who refused obedience were sent to prison in exactly the same\nway, and the government studiously concealed these cases from the\npeople. There have been similar cases also in Prussia. I know of the\ncase of a sub-lieutenant of the Guards, who in 1891 declared to the\nauthorities in Berlin that he would not, as a Christian, continue\nto serve, and in spite of all admonitions, threats, and punishments\nhe stuck to his resolution. In the south of France a society has\narisen of late bearing the name of the Hinschists (these facts are\ntaken from the _Peace Herald_, July, 1891), the members of which\nrefuse to enter military service on the grounds of their Christian\nprinciples. At first they were enrolled in the ambulance corps, but\nnow, as their numbers increase, they are subjected to punishment for\nnon-compliance, but they still refuse to bear arms just the same.\n\nThe socialists, the communists, the anarchists, with their bombs and\nriots and revolutions, are not nearly so much dreaded by governments\nas these disconnected individuals coming from different parts, and\nall justifying their non-compliance on the grounds of the same\nreligion, which is known to all the world.\n\nEvery government knows by what means and in what manner to\ndefend itself from revolutionists, and has resources for doing\nso, and therefore does not dread these external foes. But what\nare governments to do against men who show the uselessness,\nsuperfluousness, and perniciousness of all governments, and who do\nnot contend against them, but simply do not need them and do without\nthem, and therefore are unwilling to take any part in them?\n\nThe revolutionists say: The form of government is bad in this respect\nand that respect; we must overturn it and substitute this or that\nform of government. The Christian says: I know nothing about the\nform of government, I don't know whether it is good or bad, and I\ndon't want to overturn it precisely because I don't know whether it's\ngood or bad, but for the very same reason I don't want to support it\neither. And I not only don't want to, but I can't, because what it\ndemands of me is against my conscience.\n\nAll state obligations are against the conscience of a Christian--the\noath of allegiance, taxes, law proceedings, and military service. And\nthe whole power of the government rests on these very obligations.\n\nRevolutionary enemies attack the government from without.\nChristianity does not attack it at all, but, from within, it destroys\nall the foundations on which government rests.\n\nAmong the Russian people, especially since the age of Peter I., the\nprotest of Christianity against the government has never ceased, and\nthe social organization has been such that men emigrate in communes\nto Turkey, to China, and to uninhabited lands, and not only feel no\nneed of state aid, but always regard the state as a useless burden,\nonly to be endured as a misfortune, whether it happens to be Turkish,\nRussian, or Chinese. And so, too, among the Russian people more and\nmore frequent examples have of late appeared of conscious Christian\nfreedom from subjection to the state. And these examples are the more\nalarming for the government from the fact that these non-compliant\npersons often belong not to the so-called lower uneducated classes,\nbut are men of fair or good education; and also from the fact that\nthey do not in these days justify their position by any mystic and\nexceptional views, as in former times, do not associate themselves\nwith any superstitious or fanatic rites, like the sects who practice\nself-immolation by fire, or the wandering pilgrims, but put their\nrefusal on the very simplest and clearest grounds, comprehensible to\nall, and recognized as true by all.\n\nThus they refuse the voluntary payment of taxes, because taxes are\nspent on deeds of violence--on the pay of men of violence--soldiers,\non the construction of prisons, fortresses, and cannons. They as\nChristians regard it as sinful and immoral to have any hand in such\ndeeds.\n\nThose who refuse to take the oath of allegiance refuse because to\npromise obedience to authorities, that is, to men who are given to\ndeeds of violence, is contrary to the sense of Christ's teaching.\nThey refuse to take the oath in the law courts, because oaths are\ndirectly forbidden by the Gospel. They refuse to perform police\nduties, because in the performance of these duties they must use\nforce against their brothers and ill treat them, and a Christian\ncannot do that. They refuse to take part in trials at law, because\nthey consider every appeal to law is fulfilling the law of vengeance,\nwhich is inconsistent with the Christian law of forgiveness and love.\nThey refuse to take any part in military preparations and in the\narmy, because they cannot be executioners, and they are unwilling to\nprepare themselves to be so.\n\nThe motives in all these cases are so excellent that, however\ndespotic governments may be, they could hardly punish them openly.\nTo punish men for refusing to act against their conscience the\ngovernment must renounce all claim to good sense and benevolence. And\nthey assure people that they only rule in the name of good sense and\nbenevolence.\n\nWhat are governments to do against such people?\n\nGovernments can of course flog to death or execute or keep in\nperpetual imprisonment all enemies who want to overturn them by\nviolence, they can lavish gold on that section of the people who are\nready to destroy their enemies. But what can they do against men\nwho, without wishing to overturn or destroy anything, desire simply\nfor their part to do nothing against the law of Christ, and who,\ntherefore, refuse to perform the commonest state requirements, which\nare, therefore, the most indispensable to the maintenance of the\nstate?\n\nIf they had been revolutionists, advocating and practicing violence\nand murder, their suppression would have been an easy matter; some\nof them could have been bought over, some could have been duped, some\ncould have been overawed, and these who could not be bought over,\nduped, or overawed would have been treated as criminals, enemies\nof society, would have been executed or imprisoned, and the crowd\nwould have approved of the action of the government. If they had\nbeen fanatics, professing some peculiar belief, it might have been\npossible, in disproving the superstitious errors mixed in with their\nreligion, to attack also the truth they advocate. But what is to be\ndone with men who profess no revolutionary ideas nor any peculiar\nreligious dogmas, but merely because they are unwilling to do evil to\nany man, refuse to take the oath, to pay taxes, to take part in law\nproceedings, to serve in the army, to fulfill, in fact, any of the\nobligations upon which the whole fabric of a state rests? What is to\ndone with such people? To buy them over with bribes is impossible;\nthe very risks to which they voluntarily expose themselves show that\nthey are incorruptible. To dupe them into believing that this is\ntheir duty to God is also impossible, since their refusal is based on\nthe clear, unmistakable law of God, recognized even by those who are\ntrying to compel men to act against it. To terrify them by threats is\nstill less possible, because the deprivations and sufferings to which\nthey are subjected only strengthen their desire to follow the faith\nby which they are commanded: to obey God rather than men, and not to\nfear those who can destroy the body, but to fear him who can destroy\nbody and soul. To kill them or keep them in perpetual imprisonment\nis also impossible. These men have friends, and a past; their way\nof thinking and acting is well known; they are known by everyone\nfor good, gentle, peaceable people, and they cannot be regarded as\ncriminals who must be removed for the safety of society. And to put\nmen to death who are regarded as good men is to provoke others to\nchampion them and justify their refusal. And it is only necessary\nto explain the reasons of their refusal to make clear to everyone\nthat these reasons have the same force for all other men, and that\nthey all ought to have done the same long ago. These cases put the\nruling powers into a desperate position. They see that the prophecy\nof Christianity is coming to pass, that it is loosening the fetters\nof those in chains, and setting free them that are in bondage, and\nthat this must inevitably be the end of all oppressors. The ruling\nauthorities see this, they know that their hours are numbered, and\nthey can do nothing. All that they can do to save themselves is only\ndeferring the hour of their downfall. And this they do, but their\nposition is none the less desperate.\n\nIt is like the position of a conqueror who is trying to save a town\nwhich has been been set on fire by its own inhabitants. Directly he\nputs out the conflagration in one place, it is alight in two other\nplaces; directly he gives in to the fire and cuts off what is on fire\nfrom a large building, the building itself is alight at both ends.\nThese separate fires may be few, but they are burning with a flame\nwhich, however small a spark it starts from, never ceases till it has\nset the whole ablaze.\n\nThus it is that the ruling authorities are in such a defenseless\nposition before men who advocate Christianity, that but little is\nnecessary to overthrow this sovereign power which seems so powerful,\nand has held such an exalted position for so many centuries. And\nyet social reformers are busy promulgating the idea that it is not\nnecessary and is even pernicious and immoral for every man separately\nto work out his own freedom. As though, while one set of men have\nbeen at work a long while turning a river into a new channel, and had\ndug out a complete water-course and had only to open the floodgates\nfor the water to rush in and do the rest, another set of men should\ncome along and begin to advise them that it would be much better,\ninstead of letting the water out, to construct a machine which would\nladle the water up from one side and pour it over the other side.\n\nBut the thing has gone too far. Already ruling governments feel their\nweak and defenseless position, and men of Christian principles are\nawakening from their apathy, and already begin to feel their power.\n\n\"I am come to send a fire on the earth,\" said Christ, \"and what will\nI, if it be already kindled?\"\n\nAnd this fire is beginning to burn.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X.\n\n     EVIL CANNOT BE SUPPRESSED BY THE PHYSICAL FORCE OF THE\n     GOVERNMENT--THE MORAL PROGRESS OF HUMANITY IS BROUGHT ABOUT NOT\n     ONLY BY INDIVIDUAL RECOGNITION OF TRUTH, BUT ALSO THROUGH THE\n     ESTABLISHMENT OF A PUBLIC OPINION.\n\n     Christianity Destroys the State--But Which is Most Necessary:\n     Christianity or the State?--There are Some who Assert the\n     Necessity of a State Organization, and Others who Deny it, both\n     Arguing from same First Principles--Neither Contention can\n     be Proved by Abstract Argument--The Question must be Decided\n     by the Stage in the Development of Conscience of Each Man,\n     which will either Prevent or Allow him to Support a Government\n     Organization--Recognition of the Futility and Immorality of\n     Supporting a State Organization Contrary to Christian Principles\n     will Decide the Question for Every Man, in Spite of any\n     Action on Part of the State--Argument of those who Defend the\n     Government, that it is a Form of Social Life, Needed to Protect\n     the Good from the Wicked, till all Nations and all Members of\n     each Nation have Become Christians--The Most Wicked are Always\n     those in Power--The whole History of Humanity is the History\n     of the Forcible Appropriation of Power by the Wicked and their\n     Oppression of the Good--The Recognition by Governments of the\n     Necessity of Opposing Evil by Force is Equivalent to Suicide\n     on their Part--The Abolition of State-violence cannot Increase\n     the Sum Total of Acts of Violence--The Suppression of the Use\n     of Force is not only Possible, but is even Taking Place before\n     Our Eyes--But it will Never be Suppressed by the Violence\n     of Government, but through Men who have Attained Power by\n     Evidence Recognizing its Emptiness and Becoming Better and\n     Less Capable of Using Force--Individual Men and also Whole\n     Nations Pass Through this Process--By this Means Christianity\n     is Diffused Through Consciousness of Men, not only in Spite of\n     Use of Violence by Government, but even Through its Action,\n     and therefore the Suppression is not to be Dreaded, but is\n     Brought About by the National Progress of Life--Objection of\n     those who Defend State Organization that Universal Adoption of\n     Christianity is hardly Likely to be Realized at any Time--The\n     General Adoption of the Truths of Christianity is being Brought\n     About not only by the Gradual and Inward Means, that is, by\n     Knowledge of the Truth, Prophetic Insight, and Recognition of\n     the Emptiness of Power, and Renunciation of it by Individuals,\n     but also by Another External Means, the Acceptance of a New\n     Truth by Whole Masses of Men on a Lower Level of Development\n     Through Simple Confidence in their Leaders--When a Certain\n     Stage in the Diffusion of a Truth has been Reached, a Public\n     Opinion is Created which Impels a Whole Mass of Men, formerly\n     Antagonistic to the New Truth, to Accept it--And therefore all\n     Men may Quickly be Brought to Renounce the use of Violence\n     when once a Christian Public Opinion is Established--The\n     Conviction of Force being Necessary Hinders the Establishment\n     of a Christian Public Opinion--The Use of Violence Leads Men to\n     Distrust the Spiritual Force which is the Only Force by which\n     they Advance--Neither Nations nor Individuals have been really\n     Subjugated by Force, but only by Public Opinion, which no Force\n     can Resist--Savage Nations and Savage Men can only be Subdued\n     by the Diffusion of a Christian Standard among them, while\n     actually Christian Nations in order to Subdue them do all they\n     can to Destroy a Christian Standard--These Fruitless Attempts to\n     Civilize Savages Cannot be Adduced as Proofs that Men Cannot be\n     Subdued by Christianity--Violence by Corrupting Public Opinion,\n     only Hinders the Social Organization from being What it Ought\n     to Be--And by the Use of Violence being Suppressed, a Christian\n     Public Opinion would be Established--Whatever might be the\n     Result of the Suppression of Use of Force, this Unknown Future\n     could not be Worse than the Present Condition, and so there is\n     no Need to Dread it--To Attain Knowledge of the Unknown, and to\n     Move Toward it, is the Essence of Life.\n\n\nChristianity in its true sense puts an end to government. So it was\nunderstood at its very commencement; it was for that cause that\nChrist was crucified. So it has always been understood by people who\nwere not under the necessity of justifying a Christian government.\nOnly from the time that the heads of government assumed an external\nand nominal Christianity, men began to invent all the impossible,\ncunningly devised theories by means of which Christianity can be\nreconciled with government. But no honest and serious-minded man of\nour day can help seeing the incompatibility of true Christianity--the\ndoctrine of meekness, forgiveness of injuries, and love--with\ngovernment, with its pomp, acts of violence, executions, and wars.\nThe profession of true Christianity not only excludes the possibility\nof recognizing government, but even destroys its very foundations.\n\nBut if it is so, and we are right in saying that Christianity is\nincompatible with government, then the question naturally presents\nitself: which is more necessary to the good of humanity, in which\nway is men's happiness best to be secured, by maintaining the\norganization of government or by destroying it and replacing it by\nChristianity?\n\nSome people maintain that government is more necessary for humanity,\nthat the destruction of the state organization would involve the\ndestruction of all that humanity has gained, that the state has been\nand still is the only form in which humanity can develop. The evil\nwhich we see among peoples living under a government organization\nthey attribute not to that type of society, but to its abuses,\nwhich, they say, can be corrected without destroying it, and thus\nhumanity, without discarding the state organization, can develop and\nattain a high degree of happiness. And men of this way of thinking\nbring forward in support of their views arguments which they think\nirrefutable drawn from history, philosophy, and even religion. But\nthere are men who hold on the contrary that, as there was a time when\nhumanity lived without government, such an organization is temporary,\nand that a time must come when men need a new organization, and\nthat that time has come now. And men of this way of thinking also\nbring forward in support of their views arguments which they think\nirrefutable from philosophy, history, and religion.\n\nVolumes may be written in defense of the former view (and volumes\nindeed have long ago been written and more will still be written on\nthat side), but much also can be written against it (and much also,\nand most briliantly, has been written--though more recently--on this\nside).\n\nAnd it cannot be proved, as the champions of the state maintain,\nthat the destruction of government involves a social chaos, mutual\nspoliation and murder, the destruction of all social institutions,\nand the return of mankind to barbarism. Nor can it be proved as the\nopponents of government maintain that men have already become so\nwise and good that they will not spoil or murder one another, but\nwill prefer peaceful associations to hostilities; that of their own\naccord, unaided by the state, they will make all the arrangements\nthat they need, and that therefore government, far from being any\naid, under show of guarding men exerts a pernicious and brutalizing\ninfluence over them. It is impossible to prove either of these\ncontentions by abstract reasoning. Still less possible is it to prove\nthem by experiment, since the whole matter turns on the question,\nought we to try the experiment? The question whether or not the time\nhas come to make an end of government would be unanswerable, except\nthat there exists another living means of settling it beyond dispute.\n\nWe may dispute upon the question whether the nestlings are ready to\ndo without the mother-hen and to come out of the eggs, or whether\nthey are not yet advanced enough. But the young birds will decide\nthe question without any regard for our arguments when they find\nthemselves cramped for space in the eggs. Then they will begin to\ntry them with their beaks and come out of them of their own accord.\n\nIt is the same with the question whether the time has come to do\naway with the governmental type of society and to replace it by a\nnew type. If a man, through the growth of a higher conscience, can\nno longer comply with the demands of government, he finds himself\ncramped by it and at the same time no longer needs its protection.\nWhen this comes to pass, the question whether men are ready to\ndiscard the governmental type is solved. And the conclusion will be\nas final for them as for the young birds hatched out of the eggs.\nJust as no power in the world can put them back into the shells, so\ncan no power in the world bring men again under the governmental type\nof society when once they have outgrown it.\n\n\"It may well be that government was necessary and is still necessary\nfor all the advantages which you attribute to it,\" says the man who\nhas mastered the Christian theory of life. \"I only know that on\nthe one hand, government is no longer necessary for _me_, and on\nthe other hand, _I_ can no longer carry out the measures that are\nnecessary to the existence of a government. Settle for yourselves\nwhat you need for your life. I cannot prove the need or the harm of\ngovernments in general. I know only what I need and do not need,\nwhat I can do and what I cannot. I know that I do not need to divide\nmyself off from other nations, and therefore I cannot admit that I\nbelong exclusively to any state or nation, or that I owe allegiance\nto any government. I know that I do not need all the government\ninstitutions organized within the state, and therefore I cannot\ndeprive people who need my labor to give it in the form of taxes\nto institutions which I do not need, which for all I know may be\npernicious. I know that I have no need of the administration or of\ncourts of justice founded upon force, and therefore I can take no\npart in either. I know that I do not need to attack and slaughter\nother nations or to defend myself from them with arms, and therefore\nI can take no part in wars or preparations for wars. It may well be\nthat there are people who cannot help regarding all this as necessary\nand indispensable. I cannot dispute the question with them, I can\nonly speak for myself; but I can say with absolute certainty that I\ndo not need it, and that I cannot do it. And I do not need this and\nI cannot do it, not because such is my own, my personal will, but\nbecause such is the will of him who sent me into life, and gave me an\nindubitable law for my conduct through life.\"\n\nWhatever arguments may be advanced in support of the contention that\nthe suppression of government authority would be injurious and would\nlead to great calamities, men who have once outgrown the governmental\nform of society cannot go back to it again. And all the reasoning\nin the world cannot make the man who has outgrown the governmental\nform of society take part in actions disallowed by his conscience,\nany more than the full-grown bird can be made to return into the\negg-shell.\n\n\"But even it be so,\" say the champions of the existing order of\nthings, \"still the suppression of government violence can only be\npossible and desirable when all men have become Christians. So\nlong as among people nominally Christians there are unchristian\nwicked men, who for the gratification of their own lusts are ready\nto do harm to others, the suppression of government authority,\nfar from being a blessing to others, would only increase their\nmiseries. The suppression of the governmental type of society is\nnot only undesirable so long as there is only a minority of true\nChristians; it would not even be desirable if the whole of a nation\nwere Christians, but among and around them were still unchristian\nmen of other nations. For these unchristian men would rob, outrage,\nand kill the Christians with impunity and would make their lives\nmiserable. All that would result, would be that the bad would oppress\nand outrage the good with impunity. And therefore the authority of\ngovernment must not be suppressed till all the wicked and rapacious\npeople in the world are extinct. And since this will either never\nbe, or at least cannot be for a long time to come, in spite of the\nefforts of individual Christians to be independent of government\nauthority, it ought to be maintained in the interests of the\nmajority. The champions of government assert that without it the\nwicked will oppress and outrage the good, and that the power of the\ngovernment enables the good to resist the wicked.\"\n\nBut in this assertion the champions of the existing order of things\ntake for granted the proposition they want to prove. When they say\nthat except for the government the bad would oppress the good, they\ntake it for granted that the good are those who at the present\ntime are in possession of power, and the bad are those who are in\nsubjection to it. But this is just what wants proving. It would only\nbe true if the custom of our society were what is, or rather is\nsupposed to be, the custom in China; that is, that the good always\nrule, and that directly those at the head of government cease to be\nbetter than those they rule over, the citizens are bound to remove\nthem. This is supposed to be the custom in China. In reality it is\nnot so and can never be so. For to remove the heads of a government\nruling by force, it is not the right alone, but the power to do so\nthat is needed. So that even in China this is only an imaginary\ncustom. And in our Christian world we do not even suppose such a\ncustom, and we have nothing on which to build up the supposition that\nit is the good or the superior who are in power; in reality it is\nthose who have seized power and who keep it for their own and their\nretainers' benefit.\n\nThe good cannot seize power, nor retain it; to do this men must love\npower. And love of power is inconsistent with goodness; but quite\nconsistent with the very opposite qualities--pride, cunning, cruelty.\n\nWithout the aggrandizement of self and the abasement of others,\nwithout hypocrisies and deceptions, without prisons, fortresses,\nexecutions, and murders, no power can come into existence or be\nmaintained.\n\n\"If the power of government is suppressed the more wicked will\noppress the less wicked,\" say the champions of state authority. But\nwhen the Egyptians conquered the Jews, the Romans conquered the\nGreeks, and the Barbarians conquered the Romans, is it possible that\nall the conquerors were always better than those they conquered?\nAnd the same with the transitions of power within a state from one\npersonage to another: has the power always passed from a worse person\nto a better one? When Louis XVI. was removed and Robespierre came\nto power, and afterward Napoleon--who ruled then, a better man or a\nworse? And when were better men in power, when the Versaillist party\nor when the Commune was in power? When Charles I. was ruler, or when\nCromwell? And when Peter III. was Tzar, or when he was killed and\nCatherine was Tzaritsa in one-half of Russia and Pougachef ruled the\nother? Which was bad then, and which was good? All men who happen to\nbe in authority assert that their authority is necessary to keep the\nbad from oppressing the good, assuming that they themselves are the\ngood _par excellence_, who protect other good people from the bad.\n\nBut ruling means using force, and using force means doing to him to\nwhom force is used, what he does not like and what he who uses the\nforce would certainly not like done to himself. Consequently ruling\nmeans doing to others what we would not they should do unto us, that\nis, doing wrong.\n\nTo submit means to prefer suffering to using force. And to prefer\nsuffering to using force means to be good, or at least less wicked\nthan those who do unto others what they would not like themselves.\n\nAnd therefore, in all probability, not the better but the worse have\nalways ruled and are ruling now. There may be bad men among those who\nare ruled, but it cannot be that those who are better have generally\nruled those who are worse.\n\nIt might be possible to suppose this with the inexact heathen\ndefinition of good; but with the clear Christian definition of good\nand evil, it is impossible to imagine it.\n\nIf the more or less good, and the more or less bad cannot be\ndistinguished in the heathen world, the Christian conception of good\nand evil has so clearly defined the characteristics of the good and\nthe wicked, that it is impossible to confound them. According to\nChrist's teaching the good are those who are meek and long-suffering,\ndo not resist evil by force, forgive injuries, and love their\nenemies; those are wicked who exalt themselves, oppress, strive,\nand use force. Therefore by Christ's teaching there can be no doubt\nwhether the good are to be found among rulers or ruled, and whether\nthe wicked are among the ruled or the rulers. Indeed it is absurd\neven to speak of Christians ruling.\n\nNon-Christians, that is those who find the aim of their lives in\nearthly happiness, must always rule Christians, the aim of whose\nlives is the renunciation of such earthly happiness.\n\nThis difference has always existed and has become more and more\ndefined as the Christian religion has been more widely diffused and\nmore correctly understood.\n\nThe more widely true Christianity was diffused and the more it\npenetrated men's conscience, the more impossible it was for\nChristians to be rulers, and the easier it became for non-Christians\nto rule them.\n\n\"To get rid of governmental violence in a society in which all are\nnot true Christians, will only result in the wicked dominating the\ngood and oppressing them with impunity,\" say the champions of the\nexisting order of things. But it has never been, and cannot be\notherwise. So it has always been from the beginning of the world,\nand so it is still. _The wicked will always dominate the good, and\nwill always oppress them._ Cain overpowered Abel, the cunning Jacob\noppressed the guileless Esau and was in his turn deceived by Laban,\nCaiaphas and Pilate oppressed Christ, the Roman emperors oppressed\nSeneca, Epictetus, and the good Romans who lived in their times.\nJohn IV. with his favorites, the syphilitic drunken Peter with\nhis buffoons, the vicious Catherine with her paramours, ruled and\noppressed the industrious religious Russians of their times.\n\nWilliam is ruling over the Germans, Stambouloff over the Bulgarians,\nthe Russian officials over the Russian people. The Germans have\ndominated the Italians, now they dominate the Hungarians and\nSlavonians; the Turks have dominated and still dominate the\nSlavonians and Greeks; the English dominate the Hindoos, the\nMongolians dominate the Chinese.\n\nSo that whether governmental violence is suppressed or not, the\nposition of good men, in being oppressed by the wicked, will be\nunchanged.\n\nTo terrify men with the prospect of the wicked dominating the good is\nimpossible, for that is just what has always been, and is now, and\ncannot but be.\n\nThe whole history of pagan times is nothing but a recital of the\nincidents and means by which the more wicked gained possession\nof power over the less wicked, and retained it by cruelties and\ndeceptions, ruling over the good under the pretense of guarding the\nright and protecting the good from the wicked. All the revolutions\nin history are only examples of the more wicked seizing power and\noppressing the good. In declaring that if their authority did not\nexist the more wicked would oppress the good, the ruling authorities\nonly show their disinclination to let other oppressors come to power\nwho would like to snatch it from them.\n\nBut in asserting this they only accuse themselves. They say that\ntheir power, _i. e._, violence, is needed to defend men from other\npossible oppressors in the present or the future.[16]\n\n  [16] I may quote in this connection the amazingly naive and comic\n  declaration of the Russian authorities, the oppressors of other\n  nationalities--the Poles, the Germans of the Baltic provinces, and\n  the Jews. The Russian Government has oppressed its subjects for\n  centuries, and has never troubled itself about the Little Russians\n  of Poland, or the Letts of the Baltic provinces, or the Russian\n  peasants, exploited by everyone. And now it has all of a sudden\n  become the champion of the oppressed--the very oppressed whom it is\n  itself oppressing.\n\nThe weakness of the use of violence lies in the fact that all the\narguments brought forward by oppressors in their own defense can\nwith even better reason be advanced against them. They plead the\ndanger of violence--most often imagined in the future--but they are\nall the while continuing to practice actual violence themselves.\n\"You say that men used to pillage and murder in the past, and that\nyou are afraid that they will pillage and murder one another if your\npower were no more. That may happen--or it may not happen. But the\nfact that you ruin thousands of men in prisons, fortresses, galleys,\nand exile, break up millions of families and ruin millions of men,\nphysically as well as morally, in the army, that fact is not an\nimaginary but a real act of violence, which, according to your own\nargument, one ought to oppose by violence. And so you are yourselves\nthese wicked men against whom, according to your own argument, it is\nabsolutely necessary to use violence,\" the oppressed are sure to say\nto their oppressors. And non-Christian men always do say, and think\nand act on this reasoning. If the oppressed are more wicked than\ntheir oppressors, they attack them and try to overthrow them; and in\nfavorable circumstances they succeed in overthrowing them, or what is\nmore common, they rise into the ranks of the oppressors and assist in\ntheir acts of violence.\n\nSo that the very violence which the champions of government hold\nup as a terror--pretending that except for its oppressive power\nthe wicked would oppress the good--has really always existed and\nwill exist in human society. And therefore the suppression of state\nviolence cannot in any case be the cause of increased oppression of\nthe good by the wicked.\n\nIf state violence ceased, there would be acts of violence perhaps on\nthe part of different people, other than those who had done deeds of\nviolence before. But the total amount of violence could not in any\ncase be increased by the mere fact of power passing from one set of\nmen to another.\n\n\"State violence can only cease when there are no more wicked men in\nsociety,\" say the champions of the existing order of things, assuming\nin this of course that since there will always be wicked men, it can\nnever cease. And that would be right enough if it were the case, as\nthey assume, that the oppressors are always the best of men, and that\nthe sole means of saving men from evil is by violence. Then, indeed,\nviolence could never cease. But since this is not the case, but quite\nthe contrary, that it is not the better oppress the worse, but the\nworse oppress the better, and since violence will never put an end\nto evil, and there is, moreover, another means of putting an end to\nit, the assertion that violence will never cease is incorrect. The\nuse of violence grows less and less and evidently must disappear.\nBut this will not come to pass, as some champions of the existing\norder imagine, through the oppressed becoming better and better under\nthe influence of government (on the contrary, its influence causes\ntheir continual degradation), but through the fact that all men are\nconstantly growing better and better of themselves, so that even the\nmost wicked, who are in power, will become less and less wicked, till\nat last they are so good as to be incapable of using violence.\n\nThe progressive movement of humanity does not proceed from the\nbetter elements in society seizing power and making those who are\nsubject to them better, by forcible means, as both conservatives and\nrevolutionists imagine. It proceeds first and principally from the\nfact that all men in general are advancing steadily and undeviatingly\ntoward a more and more conscious assimilation of the Christian theory\nof life; and secondly, from the fact that, even apart from conscious\nspiritual life, men are unconsciously brought into a more Christian\nattitude to life by the very process of one set of men grasping the\npower, and again being replaced by others.\n\nThe worse elements of society, gaining possession of power, under\nthe sobering influence which always accompanies power, grow less and\nless cruel, and become incapable of using cruel forms of violence.\nConsequently others are able to seize their place, and the same\nprocess of softening and, so to say, unconscious Christianizing goes\non with them. It is something like the process of ebullition. The\nmajority of men, having the non-Christian view of life, always strive\nfor power and struggle to obtain it. In this struggle the most cruel,\nthe coarsest, the least Christian elements of society overpower the\nmost gentle, well-disposed, and Christian, and rise by means of their\nviolence to the upper ranks of society. And in them is Christ's\nprophecy fulfilled: \"Woe to you that are rich! woe unto you that are\nfull! woe unto you when all men shall speak well of you!\" For the men\nwho are in possession of power and all that results from it--glory\nand wealth--and have attained the various aims they set before\nthemselves, recognize the vanity of it all and return to the position\nfrom which they came. Charles V., John IV., Alexander I., recognizing\nthe emptiness and the evil of power, renounced it because they were\nincapable of using violence for their own benefit as they had done.\n\nBut they are not the solitary examples of this recognition of the\nemptiness and evil of power. Everyone who gains a position of power\nhe has striven for, every general, every minister, every millionaire,\nevery petty official who has gained the place he has coveted for ten\nyears, every rich peasant who has laid by some hundred rubles, passes\nthrough this unconscious process of softening.\n\nAnd not only individual men, but societies of men, whole nations,\npass through this process.\n\nThe seductions of power, and all the wealth, honor, and luxury it\ngives, seem a sufficient aim for men's efforts only so long as they\nare unattained. Directly a man reaches them he sees all their vanity,\nand they gradually lose all their power of attraction. They are like\nclouds which have form and beauty only from the distance; directly\none ascends into them, all their splendor vanishes.\n\nMen who are in possession of power and wealth, sometimes even those\nwho have gained for themselves their power and wealth, but more often\ntheir heirs, cease to be so eager for power, and so cruel in their\nefforts to obtain it.\n\nHaving learnt by experience, under the operation of Christian\ninfluence, the vanity of all that is gained by violence, men\nsometimes in one, sometimes in several generations lose the vices\nwhich are generated by the passion for power and wealth. They\nbecome less cruel and so cannot maintain their position, and are\nexpelled from power by others less Christian and more wicked.\nThus they return to a rank of society lower in position, but\nhigher in morality, raising thereby the average level of Christian\nconsciousness in men. But directly after them again the worst,\ncoarsest, least Christian elements of society rise to the top,\nand are subjected to the same process as their predecessors, and\nagain in a generation or so, seeing the vanity of what is gained by\nviolence, and having imbibed Christianity, they come down again among\nthe oppressed, and their place is again filled by new oppressors,\nless brutal than former oppressors, though more so than those they\noppress. So that, although power remains externally the same as\nit was, with every change of the men in power there is a constant\nincrease of the number of men who have been brought by experience to\nthe necessity of assimilating the Christian conception of life, and\nwith every change--though it is the coarsest, cruelest, and least\nChristian who come into possession of power, they are less coarse and\ncruel and more Christian than their predecessors when they gained\npossession of power.\n\nPower selects and attracts the worst elements of society, transforms\nthem, improves and softens them, and returns them to society.\n\nSuch is the process by means of which Christianity, in spite of the\nhindrances to human progress resulting from the violence of power,\ngains more and more hold of men. Christianity penetrates to the\nconsciousness of men, not only in spite of the violence of power, but\nalso by means of it.\n\nAnd therefore the assertion of the champions of the state, that if\nthe power of government were suppressed the wicked would oppress\nthe good, not only fails to show that that is to be dreaded, since\nit is just what happens now, but proves, on the contrary, that it\nis governmental power which enables the wicked to oppress the good,\nand is the evil most desirable to suppress, and that it is being\ngradually suppressed in the natural course of things.\n\n\"But if it be true that governmental power will disappear when those\nin power become so Christian that they renounce power of their own\naccord, and there are no men found willing to take their place, and\neven if this process is already going on,\" say the champions of the\nexisting order, \"when will that come to pass? If, after eighteen\nhundred years, there are still so many eager for power, and so few\nanxious to obey, there seems no likelihood of its happening very\nsoon--or indeed of its ever happening at all.\n\n\"Even if there are, as there have always been, some men who prefer\nrenouncing power to enjoying it, the mass of men in reserve, who\nprefer dominion to subjection, is so great that it is difficult to\nimagine a time when the number will be exhausted.\n\n\"Before this Christianizing process could so affect all men one\nafter another that they would pass from the heathen to the Christian\nconception of life, and would voluntarily abandon power and wealth,\nit would be necessary that all the coarse, half-savage men,\ncompletely incapable of appreciating Christianity or acting upon it,\nof whom there are always a great many in every Christian society,\nshould be converted to Christianity. More than this, all the savage\nand absolutely non-Christian peoples, who are so numerous outside\nthe Christian world, must also be converted. And therefore, even\nif we admit that this Christianizing process will some day affect\neveryone, still, judging by the amount of progress it has made in\neighteen hundred years, it will be many times eighteen centuries\nbefore it will do so. And it is therefore impossible and unprofitable\nto think at present of anything so impracticable as the suppression\nof authority. We ought only to try to put authority into the best\nhands.\"\n\nAnd this criticism would be perfectly just, if the transition from\none conception of life to another were only accomplished by the\nsingle process of all men, separately and successively, realizing,\neach for himself, the emptiness of power, and reaching Christian\ntruth by the inner spiritual path. That process goes on unceasingly,\nand men are passing over to Christianity one after another by this\ninner way.\n\nBut there is also another external means by which men reach\nChristianity and by which the transition is less gradual.\n\nThis transition from one organization of life to another is not\naccomplished by degrees like the sand running through the hourglass\ngrain after grain. It is more like the water filling a vessel\nfloating on water. At first the water only runs in slowly on one\nside, but as the vessel grows heavier it suddenly begins to sink, and\nalmost instantaneously fills with water.\n\nIt is just the same with the transitions of mankind from one\nconception--and so from one organization of life--to another. At\nfirst only gradually and slowly, one after another, men attain to the\nnew truth by the inner spiritual way, and follow it out in life. But\nwhen a certain point in the diffusion of the truth has been reached,\nit is suddenly assimilated by everyone, not by the inner way, but, as\nit were, involuntarily.\n\nThat is why the champions of the existing order are wrong in arguing\nthat, since only a small section of mankind has passed over to\nChristianity in eighteen centuries, it must be many times eighteen\ncenturies before all the remainder do the same. For in that argument\nthey do not take into account any other means, besides the inward\nspiritual one, by which men assimilate a new truth and pass from one\norder of life to another.\n\nMen do not only assimilate a truth through recognizing it by\nprophetic insight, or by experience of life. When the truth has\nbecome sufficiently widely diffused, men at a lower stage of\ndevelopment accept it all at once simply through confidence in those\nwho have reached it by the inner spiritual way, and are applying it\nto life.\n\nEvery new truth, by which the order of human life is changed and\nhumanity is advanced, is at first accepted by only a very small\nnumber of men who understand it through inner spiritual intuition.\nThe remainder of mankind who accepted on trust the preceding truth\non which the existing order is based, are always opposed to the\ndiffusion of the new truth.\n\nBut seeing that, to begin with, men do not stand still, but are\nsteadily advancing to a greater recognition of the truth and a\ncloser adaptation of their life to it, and secondly, all men in\nvarying degrees according to their age, their education, and their\nrace are capable of understanding the new truths, at first those\nwho are nearest to the men who have attained the new truth by\nspiritual intuition, slowly and one by one, but afterward more and\nmore quickly, pass over to the new truth. Thus the number of men\nwho accept the new truth becomes greater and greater, and the truth\nbecomes more and more comprehensible.\n\nAnd thus more confidence is aroused in the remainder, who are at a\nless advanced stage of capacity for understanding the truth. And it\nbecomes easier for them to grasp it, and an increasing number accept\nit.\n\nAnd so the movement goes on more and more quickly, and on an\never-increasing scale, like a snowball, till at last a public opinion\nin harmony with the new truth is created, and then the whole mass of\nmen is carried over all at once by its momentum to the new truth and\nestablishes a new social order in accordance with it.\n\nThose men who accept a new truth when it has gained a certain degree\nof acceptance, always pass over all at once in masses. They are like\nthe ballast with which every ship is always loaded, at once to keep\nit upright and enable it to sail properly. If there were no ballast,\nthe ship would not be low enough in the water, and would shift its\nposition at the slightest change in its conditions. This ballast,\nwhich strikes one at first as superfluous and even as hindering\nthe progress of the vessel, is really indispensable to its good\nnavigation.\n\nIt is the same with the mass of mankind, who not individually, but\nalways in a mass, under the influence of a new social idea pass all\nat once from one organization of life to another. This mass always\nhinders, by its inertia, frequent and rapid revolutions in the social\norder which have not been sufficiently proved by human experience.\nAnd it delays every truth a long while till it has stood the test of\nprolonged struggles, and has thoroughly permeated the consciousness\nof humanity.\n\nAnd that is why it is a mistake to say that because only a very\nsmall minority of men has assimilated Christianity in eighteen\ncenturies, it must take many times as many centuries for all mankind\nto assimilate it, and that since that time is so far off, we who live\nin the present need not even think about it. It is a mistake, because\nthe men at a lower stage of culture, the men and the nations who are\nrepresented as the obstacle to the realization of the Christian order\nof life, are the very people who always pass over in masses all at\nonce to any truth that has once been recognized by public opinion.\n\nAnd therefore the transformation of human life, through which men\nin power will renounce it, and there will be none anxious to take\ntheir place, will not come only by all men consciously and separately\nassimilating the Christian conception of life. It will come when\na Christian public opinion has arisen, so definite and easily\ncomprehensible as to reach the whole of the inert mass, which is not\nable to attain truth by its own intuition, and therefore is always\nunder the sway of public opinion.\n\nPublic opinion arises spontaneously and spreads for hundreds and\nthousands of years, but it has the power of working on men by\ninfection, and with great rapidity gains a hold on great numbers of\nmen.\n\n\"But,\" say the champions of the existing order, \"even if it is\ntrue that public opinion, when it has attained a certain degree of\ndefiniteness and precision, can convert the inert mass of men outside\nthe Christian world--the non-Christian races--as well as the coarse\nand depraved who are living in its midst, what proofs have we that\nthis Christian public opinion has arisen and is able to replace force\nand render it unnecessary.\n\n\"We must not give up force, by which the existing order is\nmaintained, and by relying on the vague and impalpable influence\nof public opinion expose Christians to the risk of being pillaged,\nmurdered, and outraged in every way by the savages inside and outside\nof civilized society.\n\n\"Since, even supported by the use of force, we can hardly control\nthe non-Christian elements which are always ready to pour down on\nus and to destroy all that has been gained by civilization, is it\nlikely that public opinion could take the place of force and render\nus secure? And besides, how are we to find the moment when public\nopinion has become strong enough to be able to replace the use of\nforce? To reject the use of force and trust to public opinion to\ndefend us would be as insane as to remove all weapons of defense in a\nmenagerie, and then to let loose all the lions and tigers, relying on\nthe fact that the animals seemed peaceable when kept in their cages\nand held in check by red-hot irons. And therefore people in power,\nwho have been put in positions of authority by fate or by God, have\nnot the right to run the risk, ruining all that has been gained by\ncivilization, just because they want to try an experiment to see\nwhether public opinion is or is not able to replace the protection\ngiven by authority.\"\n\nA French writer, forgotten now, Alphonse Karr, said somewhere, trying\nto show the impossibility of doing away with the death penalty: \"Que\nmessieurs les assassins commencent par nous donner l'exemple.\" Often\nhave I heard this _bon mot_ repeated by men who thought that these\nwords were a witty and convincing argument against the abolition of\ncapital punishment. And yet all the erroneousness of the argument of\nthose who consider that governments cannot give up the use of force\ntill all people are capable of doing the same, could not be more\nclearly expressed than it is in that epigram.\n\n\"Let the murderers,\" say the champions of state violence, \"set us the\nexample by giving up murder and then we will give it up.\" But the\nmurderers say just the same, only with much more right. They say:\n\"Let those who have undertaken to teach us and guide us set us the\nexample of giving up legal murder, and then we will imitate them.\"\nAnd they say this, not as a jest, but seriously, because it is the\nactual state of the case.\n\n\"We cannot give up the use of violence, because we are surrounded\nby violent ruffians.\" Nothing in our days hinders the progress of\nhumanity and the establishment of the organization corresponding to\nits present development more than this false reasoning. Those in\nauthority are convinced that men are only guided and only progress\nthrough the use of force, and therefore they confidently make use\nof it to support the existing organization. The existing order is\nmaintained, not by force, but by public opinion, the action of which\nis disturbed by the use of force. So that the effect of using force\nis to disturb and to weaken the very thing it tries to maintain.\n\nViolence, even in the most favorable case, when it is not used simply\nfor some personal aims of those in power, always punishes under the\none inelastic formula of the law what has long before been condemned\nby public opinion. But there is this difference, that while public\nopinion censures and condemns all the acts opposed to the moral law,\nincluding the most varied cases in its reprobation, the law which\nrests on violence only condemns and punishes a certain very limited\nrange of acts, and by so doing seems to justify all other acts of the\nsame kind which do not come under its scope.\n\nPublic opinion ever since the time of Moses has regarded\ncovetousness, profligacy, and cruelty as wrong, and censured\nthem accordingly. And it condemns every kind of manifestation of\ncovetousness, not only the appropriation of the property of others\nby force or fraud or trickery, but even the cruel abuse of wealth;\nit condemns every form of profligacy, whether with concubine, slave,\ndivorced woman, or even one's own wife; it condemns every kind of\ncruelty, whether shown in blows, in ill-treatment, or in murder,\nnot only of men, but even of animals. The law resting on force\nonly punishes certain forms of covetousness, such as robbery and\nswindling, certain forms of profligacy and cruelty, such as conjugal\ninfidelity, murder, and wounding. And in this way it seems to\ncountenance all the manifestations of covetousness, profligacy, and\ncruelty which do not come under its narrow definition.\n\nBut besides corrupting public opinion, the use of force leads\nmen to the fatal conviction that they progress, not through the\nspiritual impulse which impels them to the attainment of truth and\nits realization in life, and which constitutes the only source of\nevery progressive movement of humanity, but by means of violence,\nthe very force which, far from leading men to truth, always carries\nthem further away from it. This is a fatal error, because it leads\nmen to neglect the chief force underlying their life--their spiritual\nactivity--and to turn all their attention and energy to the use\nof violence, which is superficial, sluggish, and most generally\npernicious in its action.\n\nThey make the same mistake as men who, trying to set a steam\nengine in motion, should turn its wheels round with their hands,\nnot suspecting that the underlying cause of its movement was the\nexpansion of the steam, and not the motion of the wheels. By turning\nthe wheels by hand and by levers they could only produce a semblance\nof movement, and meantime they would be wrenching the wheels and so\npreventing their being fit for real movement.\n\nThat is just what people are doing who think to make men advance by\nmeans of external force.\n\nThey say that the Christian life cannot be established without the\nuse of violence, because there are savage races outside the pale\nof Christian societies in Africa and in Asia (there are some who\neven represent the Chinese as a danger to civilization), and that\nin the midst of Christian societies there are savage, corrupt, and,\naccording to the new theory of heredity, congenital criminals. And\nviolence, they say, is necessary to keep savages and criminals from\nannihilating our civilization.\n\nBut these savages within and without Christian society, who are such\na terror to us, have never been subjugated by violence, and are not\nsubjugated by it now. Nations have never subjugated other nations by\nviolence alone. If a nation which subjugated another was on a lower\nlevel of civilization, it has never happened that it succeeded in\nintroducing its organization of life by violence. On the contrary, it\nwas always forced to adopt the organization of life existing in the\nconquered nation. If ever any of the nations conquered by force have\nbeen really subjugated, or even nearly so, it has always been by the\naction of public opinion, and never by violence, which only tends to\ndrive a people to further rebellion.\n\nWhen whole nations have been subjugated by a new religion, and have\nbecome Christian or Mohammedan, such a conversion has never been\nbrought about because the authorities made it obligatory (on the\ncontrary, violence has much oftener acted in the opposite direction),\nbut because public opinion made such a change inevitable. Nations, on\nthe contrary, who have been driven by force to accept the faith of\ntheir conquerors have always remained antagonistic to it.\n\nIt is just the same with the savage elements existing in the midst\nof our civilized societies. Neither the increased nor the diminished\nseverity of punishment, nor the modifications of prisons, nor the\nincrease of police will increase or diminish the number of criminals.\nTheir number will only be diminished by the change of the moral\nstandard of society. No severities could put an end to duels and\nvendettas in certain districts. In spite of the number of Tcherkesses\nexecuted for robbery, they continue to be robbers from their youth\nup, for no maiden will marry a Tcherkess youth till he has given\nproof of his bravery by carrying off a horse, or at least a sheep. If\nmen cease to fight duels, and the Tcherkesses cease to be robbers, it\nwill not be from fear of punishment (indeed, that invests the crime\nwith additional charm for youth), but through a change in the moral\nstandard of public opinion. It is the same with all other crimes.\nForce can never suppress what is sanctioned by public opinion. On the\ncontrary, public opinion need only be in direct opposition to force\nto neutralize the whole effect of the use of force. It has always\nbeen so and always will be in every case of martyrdom.\n\nWhat would happen if force were not used against hostile nations and\nthe criminal elements of society we do not know. But we do know by\nprolonged experience that neither enemies nor criminals have been\nsuccessfully suppressed by force.\n\nAnd indeed how could nations be subjugated by violence who are led by\ntheir whole education, their traditions, and even their religion to\nsee the loftiest virtue in warring with their oppressors and fighting\nfor freedom? And how are we to suppress by force acts committed\nin the midst of our society which are regarded as crimes by the\ngovernment and as daring exploits by the people?\n\nTo exterminate such nations and such criminals by violence is\npossible, and indeed is done, but to subdue them is impossible.\n\nThe sole guide which directs men and nations has always been and is\nthe unseen, intangible, underlying force, the resultant of all the\nspiritual forces of a certain people, or of all humanity, which finds\nits outward expression in public opinion.\n\nThe use of violence only weakens this force, hinders it and corrupts\nit, and tries to replace it by another which, far from being\nconducive to the progress of humanity, is detrimental to it.\n\nTo bring under the sway of Christianity all the savage nations\noutside the pale of the Christian world--all the Zulus, Mandchoos,\nand Chinese, whom many regard as savages--and the savages who live in\nour midst, there is only _one means_. That means is the propagation\namong these nations of the Christian ideal of society, which can only\nbe realized by a Christian life, Christian actions, and Christian\nexamples. And meanwhile, though this is the _one only means_ of\ngaining a hold over the people who have remained non-Christian, the\nmen of our day set to work in the directly opposite fashion to attain\nthis result.\n\nTo bring under the sway of Christianity savage nations who do not\nattack us and whom we have therefore no excuse for oppressing, we\nought before all things to leave them in peace, and in case we need\nor wish to enter into closer relations with them, we ought only to\ninfluence them by Christian manners and Christian teaching, setting\nthem the example of the Christian virtues of patience, meekness,\nendurance, purity, brotherhood, and love. Instead of that we begin by\nestablishing among them new markets for our commerce, with the sole\naim of our own profit; then we appropriate their lands, _i. e._, rob\nthem; then we sell them spirits, tobacco, and opium, _i. e._, corrupt\nthem; then we establish our morals among them, teach them the use\nof violence and new methods of destruction, _i. e._, we teach them\nnothing but the animal law of strife, below which man cannot sink,\nand we do all we can to conceal from them all that is Christian in\nus. After this we send some dozens of missionaries prating to them\nof the hypocritical absurdities of the Church, and then quote the\nfailure of our efforts to turn the heathen to Christianity as an\nincontrovertible proof of the impossibility of applying the truths of\nChristianity in practical life.\n\nIt is just the same with the so-called criminals living in our\nmidst. To bring these people under the sway of Christianity there\nis _one only means_, that is, the Christian social ideal, which\ncan only be realized among them by true Christian teaching and\nsupported by a true example of the Christian life. And to preach\nthis Christian truth and to support it by Christian example we\nset up among them prisons, guillotines, gallows, preparations for\nmurder; we diffuse among the common herd idolatrous superstitions to\nstupefy them; we sell them spirits, tobacco, and opium to brutalize\nthem; we even organize legalized prostitution; we give land to those\nwho do not need it; we make a display of senseless luxury in the\nmidst of suffering poverty; we destroy the possibility of anything\nlike a Christian public opinion, and studiously try to suppress\nwhat Christian public opinion is existing. And then, after having\nourselves assiduously corrupted men, we shut them up like wild beasts\nin places from which they cannot escape, and where they become still\nmore brutalized, or else we kill them. And these very men whom we\nhave corrupted and brutalized by every means, we bring forward as a\nproof that one cannot deal with criminals except by brute force.\n\nWe are just like ignorant doctors who put a man, recovering from\nillness by the force of nature, into the most unfavorable conditions\nof hygiene, and dose him with the most deleterious drugs, and then\nassert triumphantly that their hygiene and their drugs saved his\nlife, when the patient would have been well long before if they had\nleft him alone.\n\nViolence, which is held up as the means of supporting the Christian\norganization of life, not only fails to produce that effect, it even\nhinders the social organization of life from being what it might and\nought to be. The social organization is as good as it is not as a\nresult of force, but in spite of it.\n\nAnd therefore the champions of the existing order are mistaken\nin arguing that since, even with the aid of force, the bad and\nnon-Christian elements of humanity can hardly be kept from attacking\nus, the abolition of the use of force and the substitution of public\nopinion for it would leave humanity quite unprotected.\n\nThey are mistaken, because force does not protect humanity, but,\non the contrary, deprives it of the only possible means of really\nprotecting itself, that is, the establishment and diffusion of a\nChristian public opinion. Only by the suppression of violence will a\nChristian public opinion cease to be corrupted, and be enabled to be\ndiffused without hindrance, and men will then turn their efforts in\nthe spiritual direction by which alone they can advance.\n\n\"But how are we to cast off the visible tangible protection of an\narmed policeman, and trust to something so intangible as public\nopinion? Does it yet exist? Moreover, the condition of things\nin which we are living now, we know, good or bad; we know its\nshortcomings and are used to it, we know what to do, and how to\nbehave under present conditions. But what will happen when we give\nit up and trust ourselves to something invisible and intangible, and\naltogether unknown?\"\n\nThe unknown world on which they are entering in renouncing their\nhabitual ways of life appears itself as dreadful to them. It is\nall very well to dread the unknown when our habitual position is\nsound and secure. But our position is so far from being secure that\nwe know, beyond all doubt, that we are standing on the brink of a\nprecipice.\n\nIf we must be afraid let us be afraid of what is really alarming, and\nnot what we imagine as alarming.\n\nFearing to make the effort to detach ourselves from our perilous\nposition because the future is not fully clear to us, we are like\npassengers in a foundering ship who, through being afraid to trust\nthemselves to the boat which would carry them to the shore, shut\nthemselves up in the cabin and refuse to come out of it; or like\nsheep, who, terrified by their barn being on fire, huddle in a corner\nand do not go out of the wide-open door.\n\nWe are standing on the threshold of the murderous war of social\nrevolution, terrific in its miseries, beside which, as those who\nare preparing it tell us, the horrors of 1793 will be child's play.\nAnd can we talk of the danger threatening us from the warriors of\nDahomey, the Zulus, and such, who live so far away and are not\ndreaming of attacking us, and from some thousands of swindlers,\nthieves, and murderers, brutalized and corrupted by ourselves, whose\nnumber is in no way lessened by all our sentences, prisons, and\nexecutions?\n\nMoreover this dread of the suppression of the visible protection of\nthe policeman is essentially a sentiment of townspeople, that is, of\npeople who are living in abnormal and artificial conditions. People\nliving in natural conditions of life, not in towns, but in the midst\nof nature, and carrying on the struggle with nature, live without\nthis protection and know how little force can protect us from the\nreal dangers with which we are surrounded. There is something sickly\nin this dread, which is essentially dependent on the artificial\nconditions in which many of us live and have been brought up.\n\nA doctor, a specialist in insanity, told a story that one summer\nday when he was leaving the asylum, the lunatics accompanied him to\nthe street door. \"Come for a walk in the town with me?\" the doctor\nsuggested to them. The lunatics agreed, and a small band followed the\ndoctor. But the further they proceeded along the street where healthy\npeople were freely moving about, the more timid they became, and they\npressed closer and closer to the doctor, hindering him from walking.\nAt last they all began to beg him to take them back to the asylum,\nto their meaningless but customary way of life, to their keepers, to\nblows, strait waistcoats, and solitary cells.\n\nThis is just how men of to-day huddle in terror and draw back to\ntheir irrational manner of life, their factories, law courts,\nprisons, executions, and wars, when Christianity calls them to\nliberty, to the free, rational life of the future coming age.\n\nPeople ask, \"How will our security be guaranteed when the existing\norganization is suppressed? What precisely will the new organization\nbe that is to replace it? So long as we do not know precisely how our\nlife will be organized, we will not stir a step forward.\"\n\nAn explorer going to an unknown country might as well ask for a\ndetailed map of the country before he would start.\n\nIf a man, before he passed from one stage to another, could know his\nfuture life in full detail, he would have nothing to live for. It is\nthe same with the life of humanity. If it had a programme of the life\nwhich awaited it before entering a new stage, it would be the surest\nsign that it was not living, nor advancing, but simply rotating in\nthe same place.\n\nThe conditions of the new order of life cannot be known by us because\nwe have to create them by our own labors. That is all that life is,\nto learn the unknown, and to adapt our actions to this new knowledge.\n\nThat is the life of each individual man, and that is the life of\nhuman societies and of humanity.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XI.\n\n     THE CHRISTIAN CONCEPTION OF LIFE HAS ALREADY ARISEN IN OUR\n     SOCIETY, AND WILL INFALLIBLY PUT AN END TO THE PRESENT\n     ORGANIZATION OF OUR LIFE BASED ON FORCE--WHEN THAT WILL BE.\n\n     The Condition and Organization of our Society are Terrible,\n     but they Rest only on Public Opinion, and can be Destroyed by\n     it--Already Violence is Regarded from a Different Point of View;\n     the Number of those who are Ready to Serve the Government is\n     Diminishing; and even the Servants of Government are Ashamed of\n     their Position, and so often Do Not Perform their Duties--These\n     Facts are all Signs of the Rise of a Public Opinion, which\n     Continually Growing will Lead to No One being Willing to Enter\n     Government Service--Moreover, it Becomes More and More Evident\n     that those Offices are of No Practical Use--Men already Begin to\n     Understand the Futility of all Institutions Based on Violence,\n     and if a Few already Understand it, All will One Day Understand\n     it--The Day of Deliverance is Unknown, but it Depends on Men\n     Themselves, on how far Each Man Lives According to the Light\n     that is in Him.\n\n\nThe position of Christian humanity with its prisons, galleys,\ngibbets, its factories and accumulation of capital, its taxes,\nchurches, gin-palaces, licensed brothels, its ever-increasing\narmament and its millions of brutalized men, ready, like chained\ndogs, to attack anyone against whom their master incites them,\nwould be terrible indeed if it were the product of violence, but\nit is pre-eminently the product of public opinion. And what has\nbeen established by public opinion can be destroyed by public\nopinion--and, indeed, is being destroyed by public opinion.\n\nMoney lavished by hundreds of millions, tens of millions of\ndisciplined troops, weapons of astounding destructive power, all\norganizations carried to the highest point of perfection, a whole\narmy of men charged with the task of deluding and hypnotizing the\npeople, and all this, by means of electricity which annihilates\ndistance, under the direct control of men who regard such an\norganization of society not only as necessary for profit, but even\nfor self-preservation, and therefore exert every effort of their\ningenuity to preserve it--what an invincible power it would seem! And\nyet we need only imagine for a moment what will really inevitably\ncome to pass, that is, the Christian social standard replacing the\nheathen social standard and established with the same power and\nuniversality, and the majority of men as much ashamed of taking\nany part in violence or in profiting by it, as they are to-day of\nthieving, swindling, begging, and cowardice; and at once we see the\nwhole of this complex, and seemingly powerful organization of society\nfalls into ruins of itself without a struggle.\n\nAnd to bring this to pass, nothing new need be brought before men's\nminds. Only let the mist, which veils from men's eyes the true\nmeaning of certain acts of violence, pass away, and the Christian\npublic opinion which is springing up would overpower the extinct\npublic opinion which permitted and justified acts of violence. People\nneed only come to be as much ashamed to do deeds of violence, to\nassist in them or to profit by them, as they now are of being, or\nbeing reputed a swindler, a thief, a coward, or a beggar. And already\nthis change is beginning to take place. We do not notice it just\nas we do not notice the movement of the earth, because we are moved\ntogether with everything around us.\n\nIt is true that the organization of society remains in its principal\nfeatures just as much an organization based on violence as it was\none thousand years ago, and even in some respects, especially in the\npreparation for war and in war itself, it appears still more brutal.\nBut the rising Christian ideal, which must at a certain stage of\ndevelopment replace the heathen ideal of life, already makes its\ninfluence felt. A dead tree stands apparently as firmly as ever--it\nmay even seem firmer because it is harder--but it is rotten at the\ncore, and soon must fall. It is just so with the present order of\nsociety, based on force. The external aspect is unchanged. There is\nthe same division of oppressors and oppressed, but their view of the\nsignificance and dignity of their respective positions is no longer\nwhat it once was.\n\nThe oppressors, that is, those who take part in government, and those\nwho profit by oppression, that is, the rich, no longer imagine, as\nthey once did, that they are the elect of the world, and that they\nconstitute the ideal of human happiness and greatness, to attain\nwhich was once the highest aim of the oppressed.\n\nVery often now it is not the oppressed who strive to attain the\nposition of the oppressors, and try to imitate them, but on the\ncontrary the oppressors who voluntarily abandon the advantages of\ntheir position, prefer the condition of the oppressed, and try to\nresemble them in the simplicity of their life.\n\nNot to speak of the duties and occupations now openly despised,\nsuch as that of spy, agent of secret police, money-lender, and\npublican, there are a great number of professions formerly regarded\nas honorable, such as those of police officials, courtiers, judges,\nand administrative functionaries, clergymen, military officers,\nspeculators, and bankers, which are no longer considered desirable\npositions by everyone, and are even despised by a special circle of\nthe most respected people. There are already men who voluntarily\nabandon these professions which were once reckoned irreproachable,\nand prefer less lucrative callings which are in no way connected with\nthe use of force.\n\nAnd there are even rich men who, not through religious sentiment, but\nsimply through special sensitiveness to the social standard that is\nspringing up, relinquish their inherited property, believing that a\nman can only justly consume what he has gained by his own labor.\n\nThe position of a government official or of a rich man is no longer,\nas it once was, and still is among non-Christian peoples, regarded\nas necessarily honorable and deserving of respect, and under the\nspecial blessing of God. The most delicate and moral people (they are\ngenerally also the most cultivated) avoid such positions and prefer\nmore humble callings that are not dependent on the use of force.\n\nThe best of our young people, at the age when they are still\nuncorrupted by life and are choosing a career, prefer the calling of\ndoctor, engineer, teacher, artist, writer, or even that of simple\nfarmer living on his own labor, to legal, administrative, clerical,\nand military positions in the pay of government, or to an idle\nexistence living on their incomes.\n\nMonuments and memorials in these days are mostly not erected in honor\nof government dignitaries, or generals, or still less of rich men,\nbut rather of artists, men of science, and inventors, persons who\nhave nothing in common with the government, and often have even been\nin conflict with it. They are the men whose praises are celebrated\nin poetry, who are honored by sculpture and received with triumphant\njubilations.\n\nThe best men of our day are all striving for such places of honor.\nConsequently the class from which the wealthy and the government\nofficials are drawn grows less in number and lower in intelligence\nand education, and still more in moral qualities. So that nowadays\nthe wealthy class and men at the head of government do not\nconstitute, as they did in former days, the _\u00e9lite_ of society; on\nthe contrary, they are inferior to the middle class.\n\nIn Russia and Turkey as in America and France, however often\nthe government change its officials, the majority of them are\nself-seeking and corrupt, of so low a moral standard that they do\nnot even come up the elementary requirements of common honesty\nexpected by the government. One may often nowadays hear from persons\nin authority the na\u00efve complaint that the best people are always,\nby some strange--as it seems to them--fatality, to be found in the\ncamp of the opposition. As though men were to complain that those who\naccepted the office of hangman were--by some strange fatality--all\npersons of very little refinement or beauty of character.\n\nThe most cultivated and refined people of our society are not\nnowadays to be found among the very rich, as used formerly to be the\nrule. The rich are mostly coarse money grubbers, absorbed only, in\nincreasing their hoard, generally by dishonest means, or else the\ndegenerate heirs of such money grubbers, who, far from playing any\nprominent part in society, are mostly treated with general contempt.\n\nAnd besides the fact that the class from which the servants of\ngovernment and the wealthy are drawn grows less in number and lower\nin caliber, they no longer themselves attach the same importance\nto their positions as they once did; often they are ashamed of the\nignominy of their calling and do not perform the duties they are\nbound to perform in their position. Kings and emperors scarcely\ngovern at all; they scarcely ever decide upon an internal reform\nor a new departure in foreign politics. They mostly leave the\ndecision of such questions to government institutions or to public\nopinion. All their duties are reduced to representing the unity\nand majesty of government. And even this duty they perform less and\nless successfully. The majority of them do not keep up their old\nunapproachable majesty, but become more and more democratized and\neven vulgarized, casting aside the external prestige that remained to\nthem, and thereby destroying the very thing it was their function to\nmaintain.\n\nIt is just the same with the army. Military officers of the highest\nrank, instead of encouraging in their soldiers the brutality and\nferocity necessary for their work, diffuse education among the\nsoldiers, inculcate humanity, and often even themselves share the\nsocialistic ideas of the masses and denounce war. In the last plots\nagainst the Russian Government many of the conspirators were in\nthe army. And the number of the disaffected in the army is always\nincreasing. And it often happens (there was a case, indeed, within\nthe last few days) that when called upon to quell disturbances\nthey refuse to fire upon the people. Military exploits are openly\nreprobated by the military themselves, and are often the subject of\njests among them.\n\nIt is the same with judges and public prosecutors. The judges, whose\nduty it is to judge and condemn criminals, conduct the proceedings\nso as to whitewash them as far as possible. So that the Russian\nGovernment, to procure the condemnation of those whom they want to\npunish, never intrust them to the ordinary tribunals, but have them\ntried before a court martial, which is only a parody of justice. The\nprosecutors themselves often refuse to proceed, and even when they do\nproceed, often in spite of the law, really defend those they ought\nto be accusing. The learned jurists whose business it is to justify\nthe violence of authority, are more and more disposed to deny the\nright of punishment and to replace it by theories of irresponsibility\nand even of moral insanity, proposing to deal with those they call\ncriminals by medical treatment only.\n\nJailers and overseers of galleys generally become the champions of\nthose whom they ought to torture. Police officers and detectives\nare continually assisting the escape of those they ought to arrest.\nThe clergy preach tolerance, and even sometimes condemn the use of\nforce, and the more educated among them try in their sermons to avoid\nthe very deception which is the basis of their position and which\nit is their duty to support. Executioners refuse to perform their\nfunctions, so that in Russia the death penalty cannot be carried out\nfor want of executioners. And in spite of all the advantages bestowed\non these men, who are selected from convicts, there is a constantly\ndiminishing number of volunteers for the post. Governors, police\nofficials, tax collectors often have compassion on the people and try\nto find pretexts for not collecting the tax from them. The rich are\nnot at ease in spending their wealth only on themselves, and lavish\nit on works of public utility. Landowners build schools and hospitals\non their property, and some even give up the ownership of their land\nand transfer it to the cultivators, or establish communities upon\nit. Millowners and manufacturers build hospitals, schools, savings\nbanks, asylums, and dwellings for their workpeople. Some of them\nform co-operative associations in which they have shares on the same\nterms as the others. Capitalists expend a part of their capital on\neducational, artistic, philanthropic, and other public institutions.\nAnd many, who are not equal to parting with their wealth in their\nlifetime, leave it in their wills to public institutions.\n\nAll these phenomena might seem to be mere exceptions, except that\nthey can all be referred to one common cause. Just as one might fancy\nthe first leaves on the budding trees in April were exceptional if we\ndid not know that they all have a common cause, the spring, and that\nif we see the branches on some trees shooting and turning green, it\nis certain that it will soon be so with all.\n\nSo it is with the manifestation of the Christian standard of opinion\non force and all that is based on force. If this standard already\ninfluences some, the most impressionable, and impels each in his\nown sphere to abandon advantages based on the use of force, then\nits influence will extend further and further till it transforms\nthe whole order of men's actions and puts it into accord with the\nChristian ideal which is already a living force in the vanguard of\nhumanity.\n\nAnd if there are now rulers, who do not decide on any step on their\nown authority, who try to be as unlike monarchs, and as like plain\nmortals as possible, who state their readiness to give up their\nprerogatives and become simply the first citizens of a republic;\nif there are already soldiers who realize all the sin and harm of\nwar, and are not willing to fire on men either of their own or a\nforeign country; judges and prosecutors who do not like to try and\nto condemn criminals; priests, who abjure deception; tax-gatherers\nwho try to perform as little as they can of their duties, and rich\nmen renouncing their wealth--then the same thing will inevitably\nhappen to other rulers, other soldiers, other judges, priests,\ntax-gatherers, and rich men. And when there are no longer men willing\nto fill these offices, these offices themselves will disappear too.\n\nBut this is not the only way in which public opinion is leading men\nto the abolition of the prevailing order and the substitution of a\nnew order. As the positions based on the rule of force become less\nattractive and fewer men are found willing to fill them, the more\nwill their uselessness be apparent.\n\nEverywhere throughout the Christian world the same rulers, and the\nsame governments, the same armies, the same law courts, the same\ntax-gatherers, the same priests, the same rich men, landowners,\nmanufacturers, and capitalists, as ever, but the attitude of the\nworld to them, and their attitude to themselves is altogether\nchanged.\n\nThe same sovereigns have still the same audiences and interviews,\nhunts and banquets, and balls and uniforms; there are the same\ndiplomats and the same deliberations on alliances and wars; there\nare still the same parliaments, with the same debates on the Eastern\nquestion and Africa, on treaties and violations of treaties, and\nHome Rule and the eight-hour day; and one set of ministers replacing\nanother in the same way, and the same speeches and the same\nincidents. But for men who observe how one newspaper article has more\neffect on the position of affairs than dozens of royal audiences or\nparliamentary sessions, it becomes more and more evident that these\naudiences and interviews and debates in parliaments do not direct\nthe course of affairs, but something independent of all that, which\ncannot be concentrated in one place.\n\nThe same generals and officers and soldiers, and cannons and\nfortresses, and reviews and maneuvers, but no war breaks out. One\nyear, ten, twenty years pass by. And it becomes less and less\npossible to rely on the army for the pacification of riots, and more\nand more evident, consequently, that generals, and officers, and\nsoldiers are only figures in solemn processions--objects of amusement\nfor governments--a sort of immense--and far too expensive--_corps de\nballet_.\n\nThe same lawyers and judges, and the same assizes, but it becomes\nmore and more evident that the civil courts decide cases on the\nmost diverse grounds, but regardless of justice, and that criminal\ntrials are quite senseless, because the punishments do not attain\nthe objects aimed at by the judges themselves. These institutions\ntherefore serve no other purpose than to provide a means of\nlivelihood for men who are not capable of doing anything more useful.\n\nThe same priests and archbishops and churches and synods, but it\nbecomes more and more evident that they have long ago ceased to\nbelieve in what they preach, and therefore they can convince no one\nof the necessity of believing what they don't believe themselves.\n\nThe same tax collectors, but they are less and less capable of taking\nmen's property from them by force, and it becomes more and more\nevident that people can collect all that is necessary by voluntary\nsubscription without their aid.\n\nThe same rich men, but it becomes more and more evident that they can\nonly be of use by ceasing to administer their property in person and\ngiving up to society the whole or at least a part of their wealth.\n\nAnd when all this has become absolutely evident to everyone, it will\nbe natural for men to ask themselves: \"But why should we keep and\nmaintain all these kings, emperors, presidents, and members of all\nsorts of senates and ministries, since nothing comes of all their\ndebates and audiences? Wouldn't it be better, as some humorist\nsuggested, to make a queen of india-rubber?\"\n\nAnd what good to us are these armies with their generals and bands\nand horses and drums? And what need is there of them when there\nis no war, and no one wants to make war? and if there were a war,\nother nations would not let us gain any advantage from it; while the\nsoldiers refuse to fire on their fellow-countrymen.\n\nAnd what is the use of these lawyers and judges who don't decide\ncivil cases with justice and recognize themselves the uselessness of\npunishments in criminal cases?\n\nAnd what is the use of tax collectors who collect the taxes\nunwillingly, when it is easy to raise all that is wanted without them?\n\nWhat is the use of the clergy, who don't believe in what they preach?\n\nAnd what is the use of capital in the hands of private persons, when\nit can only be of use as the property of all?\n\nAnd when once people have asked themselves these questions they\ncannot help coming to some decision and ceasing to support all these\ninstitutions which are no longer of use.\n\nBut even before those who support these institutions decide to\nabolish them, the men who occupy these positions will be reduced to\nthe necessity of throwing them up.\n\nPublic opinion more and more condemns the use of force, and therefore\nmen are less and less willing to fill positions which rest on the\nuse of force, and if they do occupy them, are less and less able to\nmake use of force in them. And hence they must become more and more\nsuperfluous.\n\nI once took part in Moscow in a religious meeting which used to take\nplace generally in the week after Easter near the church in the\nOhotny Row. A little knot of some twenty men were collected together\non the pavement, engaged in serious religious discussion. At the\nsame time there was a kind of concert going on in the buildings of\nthe Court Club in the same street, and a police officer noticing\nthe little group collected near the church sent a mounted policeman\nto disperse it. It was absolutely unnecessary for the officer to\ndisperse it. A group of twenty men was no obstruction to anyone, but\nhe had been standing there the whole morning, and he wanted to do\nsomething. The policeman, a young fellow, with a resolute flourish of\nhis right arm and a clink of his saber, came up to us and commanded\nus severely: \"Move on! what's this meeting about?\" Everyone looked at\nthe policeman, and one of the speakers, a quiet man in a peasant's\ndress, answered with a calm and gracious air, \"We are speaking of\nserious matters, and there is no need for us to move on; you would do\nbetter, young man, to get off your horse and listen. It might do you\ngood\"; and turning round he continued his discourse. The policeman\nturned his horse and went off without a word.\n\nThat is just what should be done in all cases of violence.\n\nThe officer was bored, he had nothing to do. He had been put, poor\nfellow, in a position in which he had no choice but to give orders.\nHe was shut off from all human existence; he could do nothing but\nsuperintend and give orders, and give orders and superintend,\nthough his superintendence and his orders served no useful purpose\nwhatever. And this is the position in which all these unlucky rulers,\nministers, members of parliament, governors, generals, officers,\narchbishops, priests, and even rich men find themselves to some\nextent already, and will find themselves altogether as time goes on.\nThey can do nothing but give orders, and they give orders and send\ntheir messengers, as the officer sent the policeman, to interfere\nwith people. And because the people they hinder turn to them and\nrequest them not to interfere, they fancy they are very useful indeed.\n\nBut the time will come and is coming when it will be perfectly\nevident to everyone that they are not of any use at all, and only a\nhindrance, and those whom they interfere with will say gently and\nquietly to them, like my friend in the street meeting, \"Pray don't\ninterfere with us.\" And all the messengers and those who send them\ntoo will be obliged to follow this good advice, that is to say, will\nleave off galloping about, with their arms akimbo, interfering with\npeople, and getting off their horses and removing their spurs, will\nlisten to what is being said, and mixing with others, will take their\nplace with them in some real human work.\n\nThe time will come and is inevitably coming when all institutions\nbased on force will disappear through their uselessness, stupidity,\nand even inconvenience becoming obvious to all.\n\nThe time must come when the men of our modern world who fill offices\nbased upon violence will find themselves in the position of the\nemperor in Andersen's tale of \"The Emperor's New Clothes,\" when the\nchild seeing the emperor undressed, cried in all simplicity, \"Look,\nhe is naked!\" And then all the rest, who had seen him and said\nnothing, could not help recognizing it too.\n\nThe story is that there was once an emperor, very fond of new\nclothes. And to him came two tailors, who promised to make him some\nextraordinary clothes. The emperor engages them and they begin to sew\nat them, but they explain that the clothes have the extraordinary\nproperty of remaining invisible to anyone who is unfit for his\nposition. The courtiers come to look at the tailors' work and see\nnothing, for the men are plying their needles in empty space. But\nremembering the extraordinary property of the clothes, they all\ndeclare they see them and are loud in their admiration. The emperor\ndoes the same himself. The day of the procession comes in which the\nemperor is to go out in his new clothes. The emperor undresses and\nputs on his new clothes, that is to say, remains naked, and naked he\nwalks through the town. But remembering the magic property of the\nclothes, no one ventures to say that he has nothing on till a little\nchild cries out: \"Look, he is naked!\"\n\nThis will be exactly the situation of all who continue through\ninertia to fill offices which have long become useless directly\nsomeone who has no interest in concealing their uselessness exclaims\nin all simplicity: \"But these people have been of no use to anyone\nfor a long time past!\"\n\nThe condition of Christian humanity with its fortresses, cannons,\ndynamite, guns, torpedoes, prisons, gallows, churches, factories,\ncustoms offices, and palaces is really terrible. But still cannons\nand guns will not fire themselves, prisons will not shut men up of\nthemselves, gallows will not hang them, churches will not delude\nthem, nor customs offices hinder them, and palaces and factories are\nnot built nor kept up of themselves. All those things are the work\nof men. If men come to understand that they ought not to do these\nthings, then they will cease to be. And already they are beginning\nto understand it. Though all do not understand it yet, the advanced\nguard understand and the rest will follow them. And the advanced\nguard cannot cease to understand what they have once understood;\nand what they understand the rest not only can but must inevitably\nunderstand hereafter.\n\nSo that the prophecy that the time will come when men will be\ntaught of God, will learn war no more, will beat their swords\ninto plowshares and their spears into reaping-hooks, which means,\ntranslating it into our language, the fortresses, prisons, barracks,\npalaces, and churches will remain empty, and all the gibbets and\nguns and cannons will be left unused, is no longer a dream, but\nthe definite new form of life to which mankind is approaching with\never-increasing rapidity.\n\nBut when will it be?\n\nEighteen hundred years ago to this question Christ answered that the\nend of the world (that is, of the pagan organization of life) shall\ncome when the tribulation of men is greater than it has ever been,\nand when the Gospel of the kingdom of God, that is, the possibility\nof a new organization of life, shall be preached in the world unto\nall nations. (Matt. xxiv. 3-28.) But of that day and hour knoweth no\nman but the Father only (Matt. xxiv. 3-6), said Christ. For it may\ncome any time, in such an hour as ye think not.\n\nTo the question when this hour cometh Christ answers that we cannot\nknow, but just because we cannot know when that hour is coming we\nought to be always ready to meet it, just as the master ought to\nwatch who guards his house from thieves, as the virgins ought to\nwatch with lamps alight for the bridegroom; and further, we ought\nto work with all the powers given us to bring that hour to pass, as\nthe servants ought to work with the talents intrusted to them. (Matt.\nxxiv. 43, and xxvi. 13, 14-30.)\n\nAnd there could be no answer but this one. Men cannot know when the\nday and the hour of the kingdom of God will come, because its coming\ndepends on themselves alone.\n\nThe answer is like that of the wise man who, when asked whether it\nwas far to the town, answered, \"Walk!\"\n\nHow can we tell whether it is far to the goal which humanity is\napproaching, when we do not know how men are going toward it, while\nit depends on them whether they go or do not go, stand still, slacken\ntheir pace or hasten it?\n\nAll we can know is what we who make up mankind ought to do, and not\nto do, to bring about the coming of the kingdom of God. And that we\nall know. And we need only each begin to do what we ought to do, we\nneed only each live with all the light that is in us, to bring about\nat once the promised kingdom of God to which every man's heart is\nyearning.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XII.\n\n     CONCLUSION--REPENT YE, FOR THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN IS AT HAND.\n\n     1. Chance Meeting with a Train Carrying Soldiers to\n     Restore Order Among the Famishing Peasants--Reason of the\n     Expedition--How the Decisions of the Higher Authorities\n     are Enforced in Cases of Insubordination on Part of the\n     Peasants--What Happened at Orel, as an Example of How the\n     Rights of the Propertied Classes are Maintained by Murder and\n     Torture--All the Privileges of the Wealthy are Based on Similar\n     Acts of Violence.\n\n     2. The Elements that Made up the Force Sent to Toula, and\n     the Conduct of the Men Composing it--How these Men Could\n     Carry Out such Acts--The Explanation is Not to be Found in\n     Ignorance, Conviction, Cruelty, Heartlessness, or Want of\n     Moral Sense--They do these Things Because they are Necessary to\n     Support the Existing Order, which they Consider it Every Man's\n     Duty to Support--The Basis of this Conviction that the Existing\n     Order is Necessary and Inevitable--In the Upper Classes this\n     Conviction is Based on the Advantages of the Existing Order for\n     Themselves--But what Forces Men of the Lower Classes to Believe\n     in the Immutability of the Existing Order, from which they\n     Derive no Advantage, and which they Aid in Maintaining, Facts\n     Contrary to their Conscience?--This is the Result of the Lower\n     Classes being Deluded by the Upper, Both as to the Inevitability\n     of the Existing Order and the Lawfulness of the Acts of Violence\n     Needed to Maintain it--Deception in General--Special Form of\n     Deception in Regard to Military Service--Conscription.\n\n     3. How can Men Allow that Murder is Permissible while they\n     Preach Principles of Morality, and How can they Allow of the\n     Existence in their Midst of a Military Organization of Physical\n     Force which is a Constant Menace to Public Security?--It is only\n     Allowed by the Upper Classes, who Profit by this Organization,\n     Because their Privileges are Maintained by it--The Upper Classes\n     Allow it, and the Lower Classes Carry it into Effect in Spite of\n     their Consciousness of the Immorality of the Deeds of Violence,\n     the More Readily Because Through the Arrangements of the\n     Government the Moral Responsibility for such Deeds is Divided\n     among a Great Number of Participants in it, and Everyone Throws\n     the Responsibility on Someone Else--Moreover, the Sense of Moral\n     Responsibility is Lost through the Delusion of Inequality, and\n     the Consequent Intoxication of Power on the Part of Superiors,\n     and Servility on the Part of Inferiors--The Condition of these\n     Men, Acting against the Dictates of their Conscience, is Like\n     that of Hypnotized Subjects Acting by Suggestion--The Difference\n     between this Obedience to Government Suggestion, and Obedience\n     to Public Opinion, and to the Guidance of Men of a Higher Moral\n     Sense--The Existing Order of Society, which is the Result of\n     an Extinct Public Opinion and is Inconsistent with the Already\n     Existing Public Opinion of the Future, is only Maintained by\n     the Stupefaction of the Conscience, Produced Spontaneously by\n     Self-interest in the Upper Classes and Through Hypnotizing in\n     the Lower Classes--The Conscience or the Common Sense of such\n     Men may Awaken, and there are Examples of its Sudden Awakening,\n     so that one can Never be Sure of the Deeds of Violence they are\n     Prepared for--It Depends Entirely on the Point which the Sense\n     of the Unlawfulness of Acts of Violence has Reached, and this\n     Sense may Spontaneously Awaken in Men, or may be Reawakened by\n     the Influence of Men of more Conscience.\n\n     4. Everything Depends on the Strength of the Consciousness of\n     Christian Truths in Each Individual Man--The Leading Men of\n     Modern Times, however, do not Think it Necessary to Preach or\n     Practice the Truths of Christianity, but Regard the Modification\n     of the External Conditions of Existence within the Limit Imposed\n     by Governments as Sufficient to Reform the Life of Humanity--On\n     this Scientific Theory of Hypocrisy, which has Replaced the\n     Hypocrisy of Religion, Men of the Wealthy Classes Base their\n     Justification of their Position--Through this Hypocrisy they\n     can Enjoy the Exclusive Privileges of their Position by Force\n     and Fraud, and Still Pretend to be Christians to One Another\n     and be Easy in their Minds--This Hypocrisy Allows Men who\n     Preach Christianity to Take Part in Institutions Based on\n     Violence--No External Reformation of Life will Render it Less\n     Miserable--Its Misery the Result of Disunion Caused by Following\n     Lies, not the Truth--Union only Possible in Truth--Hypocrisy\n     Hinders this Union, since Hypocrites Conceal from themselves\n     and Others the Truth they Know--Hypocrisy Turns all Reforms\n     of Life to Evil--Hypocrisy Distorts the Idea of Good and\n     Evil, and so Stands in the Way of the Progress of Men toward\n     Perfection--Undisguised Criminals and Malefactors do Less\n     Harm than those who Live by Legalized Violence, Disguised by\n     Hypocrisy--All Men Feel the Iniquity of our Life, and would\n     Long Ago have Transformed it if it had not been Dissimulated\n     by Hypocrisy--But Seem to have Reached the Extreme Limits of\n     Hypocrisy, and we Need only Make an Effort of Conscience to\n     Awaken as from a Nightmare to a Different Reality.\n\n     5. Can Man Make this Effort?--According to the Hypocritical\n     Theory of the Day, Man is not Free to Transform his Life--Man\n     is not Free in his Actions, but he is Free to Admit or to Deny\n     the Truth he Knows--When Truth is Once Admitted, it Becomes\n     the Basis of Action--Man's Threefold Relation to Truth--The\n     Reason of the Apparent Insolubility of the Problem of Free\n     Will--Man's Freedom Consists in the Recognition of the Truth\n     Revealed to him. There is no Other Freedom--Recognition of Truth\n     Gives Freedom, and Shows the Path Along which, Willingly or\n     Unwillingly by Mankind, Man Must Advance--The Recognition of\n     Truth and Real Freedom Enables Man to Share in the Work of God,\n     not as the Slave, but as the Creator of Life--Men Need only Make\n     the Effort to Renounce all Thought of Bettering the External\n     Conditions of Life and Bend all their Efforts to Recognizing and\n     Preaching the Truth they Know, to put an End to the Existing\n     Miserable State of Things, and to Enter upon the Kingdom of God\n     so far as it is yet Accessible to Man--All that is Needed is\n     to Make an End of Lying and Hypocrisy--But then what Awaits us\n     in the Future?--What will Happen to Humanity if Men Follow the\n     Dictates of their Conscience, and how can Life go on with the\n     Conditions of Civilized Life to which we are Accustomed?--All\n     Uneasiness on these Points may be Removed by the Reflection that\n     Nothing True and Good can be Destroyed by the Realization of\n     Truth, but will only be Freed from the Alloy of Falsehood.\n\n     6. Our Life has Reached the Extreme Limit of Misery and Cannot\n     be Improved by any Systems of Organization--All our Life and\n     all our Institutions are Quite Meaningless--Are we Doing what\n     God Wills of us by Preserving our Privileges and Duties to\n     Government?--We are put in this Position not Because the World\n     is so Made and it is Inevitable, but Because we Wish it to be\n     so, Because it is to the Advantage of Some of us--Our Conscience\n     is in Opposition to our Position and all our Conduct, and the\n     Way Out of the Contradiction is to be Found in the Recognition\n     of the Christian Truth: Do Not unto Others what you Would\n     Not they should Do unto You--As our Duties to Self Must be\n     Subordinated to our Duties to Others, so Must our Duties to\n     Others be Subordinated to our Duties to God--The Only Way Out\n     of our Position Lies, if not in Renouncing our Position and our\n     Privileges, at Least in Recognizing our Sin and not Justifying\n     it nor Disguising it--The Only Object of Life is to Learn the\n     Truth and to Act on it--Acceptance of the Position and of State\n     Action Deprives Life of all Object--It is God's Will that we\n     should Serve Him in our Life, that is, that we should Bring\n     About the Greatest Unity of all that has Life, a Unity only\n     Possible in Truth.\n\n\nI was finishing this book, which I had been working at for two years,\nwhen I happened on the 9th of September to be traveling by rail\nthrough the governments of Toula and Riazan, where the peasants were\nstarving last year and where the famine is even more severe now. At\none of the railway stations my train passed an extra train which was\ntaking a troop of soldiers under the conduct of the governor of the\nprovince, together with muskets, cartridges, and rods, to flog and\nmurder these same famishing peasants.\n\nThe punishment of flogging by way of carrying the decrees of the\nauthorities into effect has been more and more frequently adopted of\nlate in Russia, in spite of the fact that corporal punishment was\nabolished by law thirty years ago.\n\nI had heard of this, I had even read in the newspapers of the\nfearful floggings which had been inflicted in Tchernigov, Tambov,\nSaratov, Astrakhan, and Orel, and of those of which the governor of\nNijni-Novgorod, General Baranov, had boasted. But I had never before\nhappened to see men in the process of carrying out these punishments.\n\nAnd here I saw the spectacle of good Russians full of the Christian\nspirit traveling with guns and rods to torture and kill their\nstarving brethren. The reason for their expedition was as follows:\n\nOn one of the estates of a rich landowner the peasants had common\nrights on the forest, and having always enjoyed these rights,\nregarded the forest as their own, or at least as theirs in common\nwith the owner. The landowner wished to keep the forest entirely\nto himself and began to fell the trees. The peasants lodged a\ncomplaint. The judges in the first instance gave an unjust decision\n(I say unjust on the authority of the lawyer and governor, who ought\nto understand the matter), and decided the case in favor of the\nlandowner. All the later decisions, even that of the senate, though\nthey could see that the matter had been unjustly decided, confirmed\nthe judgment and adjudged the forest to the landowner. He began to\ncut down the trees, but the peasants, unable to believe that such\nobvious injustice could be done them by the higher authorities, did\nnot submit to the decision and drove away the men sent to cut down\nthe trees, declaring that the forest belonged to them and they would\ngo to the Tzar before they would let them cut it down.\n\nThe matter was referred to Petersburg, and the order was transmitted\nto the governor to carry the decision of the court into effect.\nThe governor asked for a troop of soldiers. And here were the\nsoldiers with bayonets and cartridges, and moreover, a supply of\nrods, expressly prepared for the purpose and heaped up in one of the\ntrucks, going to carry the decision of the higher authorities into\neffect.\n\nThe decisions of the higher authorities are carried into effect by\nmeans of murder or torture, or threats of one or the other, according\nto whether they offer resistance or not.\n\nIn the first case if the peasants offer resistance the practice is in\nRussia, and it is the same everywhere where a state organization and\nprivate property exist, as follows:\n\nThe governor delivers an address in which he demands submission. The\nexcited crowd, generally deluded by their leaders, don't understand a\nword of what the representative of authority is saying in the pompous\nofficial language, and their excitement continues. Then the governor\nannounces that if they do not submit and disperse, he will be obliged\nto have recourse to force. If the crowd does not disperse even on\nthis, the governor gives the order to fire over the heads of the\ncrowd. If the crowd does not even then disperse, the governor gives\nthe order to fire straight into the crowd; the soldiers fire and the\nkilled and wounded fall about the street. Then the crowd usually runs\naway in all directions, and the troops at the governor's command\ntake those who are supposed to be the ringleaders and lead them off\nunder escort. Then they pick up the dying, the wounded, and the dead,\ncovered with blood, sometimes women and children among them. The dead\nthey bury and the wounded they carry to the hospital. Those whom they\nregard as the ringleaders they take to the town hall and have them\ntried by a special court-martial. And if they have had recourse to\nviolence on their side, they are condemned to be hanged. And then\nthe gallows is erected. And they solemnly strangle a few defenseless\ncreatures. This is what has often been done in Russia, and is and\nmust always be done where the social order is based on force.\n\nBut in the second case, when the peasants do submit, something quite\nspecial, peculiar to Russia, takes place. The governor arrives on the\nscene of action and delivers an harangue to the people, reproaching\nthem for their insubordination, and either stations troops in the\nhouses of the villages, where sometimes for a whole month the\nsoldiers drain the resources of the peasants, or contenting himself\nwith threats, he mercifully takes leave of the people, or what is\nthe most frequent course, he announces that the ringleaders must be\npunished, and quite arbitrarily without any trial selects a certain\nnumber of men, regarded as ringleaders, and commands them to be\nflogged in his presence.\n\nIn order to give an idea of how such things are done I will describe\na proceeding of the kind which took place in Orel, and received the\nfull approval of the highest authorities.\n\nThis is what took place in Orel. Just as here in the Toula province,\na landlord wanted to appropriate the property of the peasants and\njust in the same way the peasants opposed it. The matter in dispute\nwas a fall of water, which irrigated the peasants' fields, and\nwhich the landowner wanted to cut off and divert to turn his mill.\nThe peasants rebelled against this being done. The landowner laid\na complaint before the district commander, who illegally (as was\nrecognized later even by a legal decision) decided the matter in\nfavor of the landowner, and allowed him to divert the water course.\nThe landowner sent workmen to dig the conduit by which the water was\nto be let off to turn the mill. The peasants were indignant at this\nunjust decision, and sent their women to prevent the landowner's men\nfrom digging this conduit. The women went to the dykes, overturned\nthe carts, and drove away the men. The landowner made a complaint\nagainst the women for thus taking the law into their own hands. The\ndistrict commander made out an order that from every house throughout\nthe village one woman was to be taken and put in prison. The order\nwas not easily executed. For in every household there were several\nwomen, and it was impossible to know which one was to be arrested.\nConsequently the police did not carry out the order. The landowner\ncomplained to the governor of the neglect on the part of the police,\nand the latter, without examining into the affair, gave the chief\nofficial of the police strict orders to carry out the instructions\nof the district commander without delay. The police official, in\nobedience to his superior, went to the village and with the insolence\npeculiar to Russian officials ordered his policemen to take one\nwoman out of each house. But since there were more than one woman\nin each house, and there was no knowing which one was sentenced\nto imprisonment, disputes and opposition arose. In spite of these\ndisputes and opposition, however, the officer of police gave orders\nthat some woman, whichever came first, should be taken from each\nhousehold and led away to prison. The peasants began to defend their\nwives and mothers, would not let them go, and beat the police and\ntheir officer. This was a fresh and terrible crime: resistance was\noffered to the authorities. A report of this new offense was sent to\nthe town. And so this governor--precisely as the governor of Toula\nwas doing on that day--with a battalion of soldiers with guns and\nrods, hastily brought together by means of telegraphs and telephones\nand railways, proceeded by a special train to the scene of action,\nwith a learned doctor whose duty it was to insure the flogging being\nof an hygienic character. Herzen's prophecy of the modern Ghenghis\nKhan with his telegrams is completely realized by this governor.\n\nBefore the town hall of the district were the soldiery, a battalion\nof police with their revolvers slung round them with red cords, the\npersons of most importance among the peasants, and the culprits.\nA crowd of one thousand or more people were standing round. The\ngovernor, on arriving, stepped out of his carriage, delivered a\nprepared harangue, and asked for the culprits and a bench. The latter\ndemand was at first not understood. But a police constable whom the\ngovernor always took about with him, and who undertook to organize\nsuch executions--by no means exceptional in that province--explained\nthat what was meant was a bench for flogging. A bench was brought as\nwell as the rods, and then the executioners were summoned (the latter\nhad been selected beforehand from some horsestealers of the same\nvillage, as the soldiers refused the office). When everything was\nready, the governor ordered the first of the twelve culprits pointed\nout by the landowner as the most guilty to come forward. The first to\ncome forward was the head of a family, a man of forty who had always\nstood up manfully for the rights of his class, and therefore was held\nin the greatest esteem by all the villagers. He was led to the bench\nand stripped, and then ordered to lie down.\n\nThe peasant attempted to supplicate for mercy, but seeing it was\nuseless, he crossed himself and lay down. Two police constables\nhastened to hold him down. The learned doctor stood by, in readiness\nto give his aid and his medical science when they should be needed.\nThe convicts spit into their hands, brandished the rods, and began\nto flog. It seemed, however, that the bench was too narrow, and it\nwas difficult to keep the victim writhing in torture upon it. Then\nthe governor ordered them to bring another bench and to put a plank\nacross them. Soldiers, with their hands raised to their caps, and\nrespectful murmurs of \"Yes, your Excellency,\" hasten obediently to\ncarry out this order. Meanwhile the tortured man, half naked, pale\nand scowling, stood waiting, his eyes fixed on the ground and his\nteeth chattering. When another bench had been brought they again made\nhim lie down, and the convicted thieves again began to flog him.\n\nThe victim's back and thighs and legs, and even his sides, became\nmore and more covered with scars and wheals, and at every blow there\ncame the sound of the deep groans which he could no longer restrain.\nIn the crowd standing round were heard the sobs of wives, mothers,\nchildren, the families of the tortured man and of all the others\npicked out for punishment.\n\nThe miserable governor, intoxicated with power, was counting the\nstrokes on his fingers, and never left off smoking cigarettes, while\nseveral officious persons hastened on every opportunity to offer him\na burning match to light them. When more than fifty strokes had been\ngiven, the peasant ceased to shriek and writhe, and the doctor, who\nhad been educated in a government institution to serve his sovereign\nand his country with his scientific attainments, went up to the\nvictim, felt his pulse, listened to his heart, and announced to the\nrepresentative of authority that the man undergoing punishment had\nlost consciousness, and that, in accordance with the conclusions\nof science, to continue the punishment would endanger the victim's\nlife. But the miserable governor, now completely intoxicated by the\nsight of blood, gave orders that the punishment should go on, and\nthe flogging was continued up to seventy strokes, the number which\nthe governor had for some reason fixed upon as necessary. When the\nseventieth stroke had been reached, the governor said \"Enough! Next\none!\" And the mutilated victim, his back covered with blood, was\nlifted up and carried away unconscious, and another was led up. The\nsobs and groans of the crowd grew louder. But the representative of\nthe state continued the torture.\n\nThus they flogged each of them up to the twelfth, and each of them\nreceived seventy strokes. They all implored mercy, shrieked and\ngroaned. The sobs and cries of the crowd of women grew louder and\nmore heart-rending, and the men's faces grew darker and darker. But\nthey were surrounded by troops, and the torture did not cease till\nit had reached the limit which had been fixed by the caprice of the\nmiserable half-drunken and insane creature they called the governor.\n\nThe officials, and officers, and soldiers not only assisted in it,\nbut were even partly responsible for the affair, since by their\npresence they prevented any interference on the part of the crowd.\n\nWhen I inquired of one of the governors why they made use of this\nkind of torture when people had already submitted and soldiers were\nstationed in the village, he replied with the important air of a man\nwho thoroughly understands all the subtleties of statecraft, that\nif the peasants were not thoroughly subdued by flogging, they would\nbegin offering opposition to the decisions of authorities again. When\nsome of them had been thoroughly tortured, the authority of the state\nwould be secured forever among them.\n\nAnd so that was why the Governor of Toula was going in his turn with\nhis subordinate officials, officers, and soldiers to carry out a\nsimilar measure. By precisely the same means, _i. e._, by murder and\ntorture, obedience to the decision of the higher authorities was to\nbe secured. And this decision was to enable a young landowner, who\nhad an income of one hundred thousand, to gain three thousand rubles\nmore by stealing a forest from a whole community of cold and famished\npeasants, to spend it, in two or three weeks in the saloons of\nMoscow, Petersburg, or Paris. That was what those people whom I met\nwere going to do.\n\nAfter my thoughts had for two years been turned in the same\ndirection, fate seemed expressly to have brought me face to face for\nthe first time in my life with a fact which showed me absolutely\nunmistakably in practice what had long been clear to me in theory,\nthat the organization of our society rests, not as people interested\nin maintaining the present order of things like to imagine, on\ncertain principles of jurisprudence, but on simple brute force, on\nthe murder and torture of men.\n\nPeople who own great estates or fortunes, or who receive great\nrevenues drawn from the class who are in want even of necessities,\nthe working class, as well as all those who like merchants, doctors,\nartists, clerks, learned professors, coachmen, cooks, writers,\nvalets, and barristers, make their living about these rich people,\nlike to believe that the privileges they enjoy are not the result of\nforce, but of absolutely free and just interchange of services, and\nthat their advantages, far from being gained by such punishments and\nmurders as took place in Orel and several parts of Russia this year,\nand are always taking place all over Europe and America, have no kind\nof connection with these acts of violence. They like to believe that\ntheir privileges exist apart and are the result of free contract\namong people; and that the violent cruelties perpetrated on the\npeople also exist apart and are the result of some general judicial,\npolitical, or economical laws. They try not to see that they all\nenjoy their privileges as a result of the same fact which forces the\npeasants who have tended the forest, and who are in the direct need\nof it for fuel, to give it up to a rich landowner who has taken no\npart in caring for its growth and has no need of it whatever--the\nfact, that is, that if they don't give it up they will be flogged or\nkilled.\n\nAnd yet if it is clear that it was only by means of menaces, blows,\nor murder, that the mill in Orel was enabled to yield a larger\nincome, or that the forest which the peasants had planted became\nthe property of a landowner, it should be equally clear that all\nthe other exclusive rights enjoyed by the rich, by robbing the\npoor of their necessities, rest on the same basis of violence. If\nthe peasants, who need land to maintain their families, may not\ncultivate the land about their houses, but one man, a Russian,\nEnglish, Austrian, or any other great landowner, possesses land\nenough to maintain a thousand families, though he does not cultivate\nit himself, and if a merchant profiting by the misery of the\ncultivators, taking corn from them at a third of its value, can\nkeep this corn in his granaries with perfect security while men are\nstarving all around him, and sell it again for three times its value\nto the very cultivators he bought it from, it is evident that all\nthis too comes from the same cause. And if one man may not buy of\nanother a commodity from the other side of a certain fixed line,\ncalled the frontier, without paying certain duties on it to men who\nhave taken no part whatever in its production--and if men are driven\nto sell their last cow to pay taxes which the government distributes\namong its functionaries, and spends on maintaining soldiers to murder\nthese very taxpayers--it would appear self-evident that all this does\nnot come about as the result of any abstract laws, but is based on\njust what was done in Orel, and which may be done in Toula, and is\ndone periodically in one form or another throughout the whole world\nwherever there is a government, and where there are rich and poor.\n\nSimply because torture and murder are not employed in every instance\nof oppression by force, those who enjoy the exclusive privileges\nof the ruling classes persuade themselves and others that their\nprivileges are not based on torture and murder, but on some\nmysterious general causes, abstract laws, and so on. Yet one would\nthink it was perfectly clear that if men, who consider it unjust (and\nall the working classes do consider it so nowadays), still pay the\nprincipal part of the produce of their labor away to the capitalist\nand the landowner, and pay taxes, though they know to what a bad use\nthese taxes are put, they do so not from recognition of abstract laws\nof which they have never heard, but only because they know they will\nbe beaten and killed if they don't do so.\n\nAnd if there is no need to imprison, beat, and kill men every time\nthe landlord collects his rents, every time those who are in want of\nbread have to pay a swindling merchant three times its value, every\ntime the factory hand has to be content with a wage less than half of\nthe profit made by the employer, and every time a poor man pays his\nlast ruble in taxes, it is because so many men have been beaten and\nkilled for trying to resist these demands, that the lesson has now\nbeen learnt very thoroughly.\n\nJust as a trained tiger, who does not eat meat put under his nose,\nand jumps over a stick at the word of command, does not act thus\nbecause he likes it, but because he remembers the red-hot irons or\nthe fast with which he was punished every time he did not obey; so\nmen submitting to what is disadvantageous or even ruinous to them,\nand considered by them as unjust, act thus because they remember what\nthey suffered for resisting it.\n\nAs for those who profit by the privileges gained by previous acts of\nviolence, they often forget and like to forget how these privileges\nwere obtained. But one need only recall the facts of history, not the\nhistory of the exploits of different dynasties of rulers, but real\nhistory, the history of the oppression of the majority by a small\nnumber of men, to see that all the advantages the rich have over the\npoor are based on nothing but flogging, imprisonment, and murder.\n\nOne need but reflect on the unceasing, persistent struggle of all to\nbetter their material position, which is the guiding motive of men\nof the present day, to be convinced that the advantages of the rich\nover the poor could never and can never be maintained by anything but\nforce.\n\nThere may be cases of oppression, of violence, and of punishments,\nthough they are rare, the aim of which is not to secure the\nprivileges of the propertied classes. But one may confidently assert\nthat in any society where, for every man living in ease, there are\nten exhausted by labor, envious, covetous, and often suffering with\ntheir families from direct privation, all the privileges of the rich,\nall their luxuries and superfluities, are obtained and maintained\nonly by tortures, imprisonment, and murder.\n\nThe train I met on the 9th of September going with soldiers, guns,\ncartridges, and rods, to confirm the rich landowner in the possession\nof a small forest which he had taken from the starving peasants,\nwhich they were in the direst need of, and he was in no need of at\nall, was a striking proof of how men are capable of doing deeds\ndirectly opposed to their principles and their conscience without\nperceiving it.\n\nThe special train consisted of one first-class carriage for the\ngovernor, the officials, and officers, and several luggage vans\ncrammed full of soldiers. The latter, smart young fellows in their\nclean new uniforms, were standing about in groups or sitting swinging\ntheir legs in the wide open doorways of the luggage vans. Some were\nsmoking, nudging each other, joking, grinning, and laughing, others\nwere munching sunflower seeds and spitting out the husks with an air\nof dignity. Some of them ran along the platform to drink some water\nfrom a tub there, and when they met the officers they slackened their\npace, made their stupid gesture of salutation, raising their hands to\ntheir heads with serious faces as though they were doing something of\nthe greatest importance. They kept their eyes on them till they had\npassed by them, and then set off running still more merrily, stamping\ntheir heels on the platform, laughing and chattering after the\nmanner of healthy, good-natured young fellows, traveling in lively\ncompany.\n\nThey were going to assist at the murder of their fathers or\ngrandfathers just as if they were going on a party of pleasure, or at\nany rate on some quite ordinary business.\n\nThe same impression was produced by the well-dressed functionaries\nand officers who were scattered about the platform and in the\nfirst-class carriage. At a table covered with bottles was sitting\nthe governor, who was responsible for the whole expedition, dressed\nin his half-military uniform and eating something while he chatted\ntranquilly about the weather with some acquaintances he had met,\nas though the business he was upon was of so simple and ordinary a\ncharacter that it could not disturb his serenity and his interest in\nthe change of weather.\n\nAt a little distance from the table sat the general of the police.\nHe was not taking any refreshment, and had an impenetrable bored\nexpression, as though he were weary of the formalities to be gone\nthrough. On all sides officers were bustling noisily about in their\nred uniforms trimmed with gold; one sat at a table finishing his\nbottle of beer, another stood at the buffet eating a cake, and\nbrushing the crumbs off his uniform, threw down his money with a\nself-confident air; another was sauntering before the carriages of\nour train, staring at the faces of the women.\n\nAll these men who were going to murder or to torture the famishing\nand defenseless creatures who provide them their sustenance had the\nair of men who knew very well that they were doing their duty, and\nsome were even proud, were \"glorying\" in what they were doing.\n\nWhat is the meaning of it?\n\nAll these people are within half an hour of reaching the place where,\nin order to provide a wealthy young man with three thousand rubles\nstolen from a whole community of famishing peasants, they may be\nforced to commit the most horrible acts one can conceive, to murder\nor torture, as was done in Orel, innocent beings, their brothers. And\nthey see the place and time approaching with untroubled serenity.\n\nTo say that all these government officials, officers, and soldiers\ndo not know what is before them is impossible, for they are prepared\nfor it. The governor must have given directions about the rods, the\nofficials must have sent an order for them, purchased them, and\nentered the item in their accounts. The military officers have given\nand received orders about cartridges. They all know that they are\ngoing to torture, perhaps to kill, their famishing fellow-creatures,\nand that they must set to work within an hour.\n\nTo say, as is usually said, and as they would themselves repeat,\nthat they are acting from conviction of the necessity for supporting\nthe state organization, would be a mistake. For in the first place,\nthese men have probably never even thought about state organization\nand the necessity of it; in the second place, they cannot possibly\nbe convinced that the act in which they are taking part will tend to\nsupport rather than to ruin the state; and thirdly, in reality the\nmajority, if not all, of these men, far from ever sacrificing their\nown pleasure or tranquillity to support the state, never let slip an\nopportunity of profiting at the expense of the state in every way\nthey can increase their own pleasure and ease. So that they are not\nacting thus for the sake of the abstract principle of the state.\n\nWhat is the meaning of it?\n\nYet I know all these men. If I don't know all of them personally,\nI know their characters pretty nearly, their past, and their way\nof thinking. They certainly all have mothers, some of them wives\nand children. They are certainly for the most part good, kind, even\ntender-hearted fellows, who hate every sort of cruelty, not to speak\nof murder; many of them would not kill or hurt an animal. Moreover,\nthey are all professed Christians and regard all violence directed\nagainst the defenseless as base and disgraceful.\n\nCertainly not one of them would be capable in everyday life, for his\nown personal profit, of doing a hundredth part of what the Governor\nof Orel did. Every one of them would be insulted at the supposition\nthat he was capable of doing anything of the kind in private life.\n\nAnd yet they are within half an hour of reaching the place where they\nmay be reduced to the inevitable necessity of committing this crime.\n\nWhat is the meaning of it?\n\nBut it is not only these men who are going by train prepared for\nmurder and torture. How could the men who began the whole business,\nthe landowner, the commissioner, the judges, and those who gave the\norder and are responsible for it, the ministers, the Tzar, who are\nalso good men, professed Christians, how could they elaborate such a\nplan and assent to it, knowing its consequences? The spectators even,\nwho took no part in the affair, how could they, who are indignant at\nthe sight of any cruelty in private life, even the overtaxing of a\nhorse, allow such a horrible deed to be perpetrated? How was it they\ndid not rise in indignation and bar the roads, shouting, \"No; flog\nand kill starving men because they won't let their last possession\nbe stolen from them without resistance, that we won't allow!\" But\nfar from anyone doing this, the majority, even of those who were\nthe cause of the affair, such as the commissioner, the landowner,\nthe judge, and those who took part in it and arranged it, as the\ngovernor, the ministers, and the Tzar, are perfectly tranquil and do\nnot even feel a prick of conscience. And apparently all the men who\nare going to carry out this crime are equally undisturbed.\n\nThe spectators, who one would suppose could have no personal\ninterest in the affair, looked rather with sympathy than with\ndisapproval at all these people preparing to carry out this infamous\naction. In the same compartment with me was a wood merchant, who had\nrisen from a peasant. He openly expressed aloud his sympathy with\nsuch punishments. \"They can't disobey the authorities,\" he said;\n\"that's what the authorities are for. Let them have a lesson; send\ntheir fleas flying! They'll give over making commotions, I warrant\nyou. That's what they want.\"\n\nWhat is the meaning of it?\n\nIt is not possible to say that all these people who have provoked\nor aided or allowed this deed are such worthless creatures that,\nknowing all the infamy of what they are doing, they do it against\ntheir principles, some for pay and for profit, others through fear of\npunishment. All of them in certain circumstances know how to stand\nup for their principles. Not one of these officials would steal a\npurse, read another man's letter, or put up with an affront without\ndemanding satisfaction. Not one of these officers would consent to\ncheat at cards, would refuse to pay a debt of honor, would betray a\ncomrade, run away on the field of battle, or desert the flag. Not one\nof these soldiers would spit out the holy sacrament or eat meat on\nGood Friday. All these men are ready to face any kind of privation,\nsuffering, or danger rather than consent to do what they regard as\nwrong. They have therefore the strength to resist doing what is\nagainst their principles.\n\nIt is even less possible to assert that all these men are such brutes\nthat it is natural and not distasteful to them to do such deeds. One\nneed only talk to these people a little to see that all of them, the\nlandowner even, and the judge, and the minister and the Tzar and\nthe government, the officers and the soldiers, not only disapprove\nof such things in the depth of their soul, but suffer from the\nconsciousness of their participation in them when they recollect\nwhat they imply. But they try not to think about it.\n\nOne need only talk to any of these who are taking part in the affair\nfrom the landowner to the lowest policeman or soldier to see that in\nthe depth of their soul they all know it is a wicked thing, that it\nwould be better to have nothing to do with it, and are suffering from\nthe knowledge.\n\nA lady of liberal views, who was traveling in the same train with\nus, seeing the governor and the officers in the first-class saloon\nand learning the object of the expedition, began, intentionally\nraising her voice so that they should hear, to abuse the existing\norder of things and to cry shame on men who would take part in such\nproceedings. Everyone felt awkward, none knew where to look, but\nno one contradicted her. They tried to look as though such remarks\nwere not worth answering. But one could see by their faces and their\naverted eyes that they were ashamed. I noticed the same thing in the\nsoldiers. They too knew that what they were sent to do was a shameful\nthing, but they did not want to think about what was before them.\n\nWhen the wood merchant, as I suspect insincerely only to show that\nhe was a man of education, began to speak of the necessity of such\nmeasures, the soldiers who heard him all turned away from him,\nscowling and pretending not to hear.\n\nAll the men who, like the landowner, the commissioner, the minister,\nand the Tzar, were responsible for the perpetration of this act, as\nwell as those who were now going to execute it, and even those who\nwere mere spectators of it, knew that it was a wickedness, and were\nashamed of taking any share in it, and even of being present at it.\n\nThen why did they do it, or allow it to be done?\n\nAsk them the question. And the landowner who started the affair, and\nthe judge who pronounced a clearly unjust even though formally legal\ndecision, and those who commanded the execution of the decision, and\nthose who, like the policemen, soldiers, and peasants, will execute\nthe deed with their own hands, flogging and killing their brothers,\nall who have devised, abetted, decreed, executed, or allowed such\ncrimes, will make substantially the same reply.\n\nThe authorities, those who have started, devised, and decreed the\nmatter, will say that such acts are necessary for the maintenance\nof the existing order; the maintenance of the existing order is\nnecessary for the welfare of the country and of humanity, for the\npossibility of social existence and human progress.\n\nMen of the poorer class, peasants and soldiers, who will have to\nexecute the deed of violence with their own hands, say that they\ndo so because it is the command of their superior authority, and\nthe superior authority knows what he is about. That those are in\nauthority who ought to be in authority, and that they know what they\nare doing appears to them a truth of which there can be no doubt. If\nthey could admit the possibility of mistake or error, it would only\nbe in functionaries of a lower grade; the highest authority on which\nall the rest depends seems to them immaculate beyond suspicion.\n\nThough expressing the motives of their conduct differently, both\nthose in command and their subordinates are agreed in saying that\nthey act thus because the existing order is the order which must and\nought to exist at the present time, and that therefore to support it\nis the sacred duty of every man.\n\nOn this acceptance of the necessity and therefore immutability of the\nexisting order, all who take part in acts of violence on the part of\ngovernment base the argument always advanced in their justification.\n\"Since the existing order is immutable,\" they say, \"the refusal of a\nsingle individual to perform the duties laid upon him will effect no\nchange in things, and will only mean that some other man will be put\nin his place who may do the work worse, that is to say, more cruelly,\nto the still greater injury of the victims of the act of violence.\"\n\nThis conviction that the existing order is the necessary and\ntherefore immutable order, which it is a sacred duty for every man\nto support, enables good men, of high principles in private life, to\ntake part with conscience more or less untroubled in crimes such as\nthat perpetrated in Orel, and that which the men in the Toula train\nwere going to perpetrate.\n\nBut what is this conviction based on? It is easy to understand\nthat the landowner prefers to believe that the existing order is\ninevitable and immutable, because this existing order secures him an\nincome from his hundreds and thousands of acres, by means of which he\ncan lead his habitual indolent and luxurious life.\n\nIt is easy to understand that the judge readily believes in the\nnecessity of an order of things through which he receives a wage\nfifty times as great as the most industrious laborer can earn, and\nthe same applies to all the higher officials. It is only under the\nexisting _r\u00e9gime_ that as governor, prosecutor, senator, members of\nthe various councils, they can receive their several thousands of\nrubles a year, without which they and their families would at once\nsink into ruin, since if it were not for the position they occupy\nthey would never by their own abilities, industry, or acquirements\nget a thousandth part of their salaries. The minister, the Tzar,\nand all the higher authorities are in the same position. The only\ndistinction is that the higher and the more exceptional their\nposition, the more necessary it is for them to believe that the\nexisting order is the only possible order of things. For without it\nthey would not only be unable to gain an equal position, but would be\nfound to fall lower than all other people. A man who has of his own\nfree will entered the police force at a wage of ten rubles, which he\ncould easily earn in any other position, is hardly dependent on the\npreservation of the existing _r\u00e9gime_, and so he may not believe in\nits immutability. But a king or an emperor, who receives millions for\nhis post, and knows that there are thousands of people round him who\nwould like to dethrone him and take his place, who knows that he will\nnever receive such a revenue or so much honor in any other position,\nwho knows, in most cases through his more or less despotic rule,\nthat if he were dethroned he would have to answer for all his abuse\nof power--he cannot but believe in the necessity and even sacredness\nof the existing order. The higher and the more profitable a man's\nposition, the more unstable it becomes, and the more terrible and\ndangerous a fall from it for him, the more firmly the man believes in\nthe existing order, and therefore with the more ease of conscience\ncan such a man perpetrate cruel and wicked acts, as though they were\nnot in his own interest, but for the maintenance of that order.\n\nThis is the case with all men in authority, who occupy positions more\nprofitable than they could occupy except for the present _r\u00e9gime_,\nfrom the lowest police officer to the Tzar. All of them are more or\nless convinced that the existing order is immutable, because--the\nchief consideration--it is to their advantage. But the peasants,\nthe soldiers, who are at the bottom of the social scale, who have\nno kind of advantage from the existing order, who are in the very\nlowest position of subjection and humiliation, what forces them to\nbelieve that the existing order in which they are in their humble and\ndisadvantageous position is the order which ought to exist, and which\nthey ought to support even at the cost of evil actions contrary to\ntheir conscience?\n\nWhat forces these men to the false reasoning that the existing order\nis unchanging, and that therefore they ought to support it, when it\nis so obvious, on the contrary, that it is only unchanging because\nthey themselves support it?\n\nWhat forces these peasants, taken only yesterday from the plow and\ndressed in ugly and unseemly costumes with blue collars and gilt\nbuttons, to go with guns and sabers and murder their famishing\nfathers and brothers? They gain no kind of advantage and can be in\nno fear of losing the position they occupy, because it is worse than\nthat from which they have been taken.\n\nThe persons in authority of the higher orders--landowners, merchants,\njudges, senators, governors, ministers, tzars, and officers--take\npart in such doings because the existing order is to their advantage.\nIn other respects they are often good and kind-hearted men, and they\nare more able to take part in such doings because their share in\nthem is limited to suggestions, decisions, and orders. These persons\nin authority never do themselves what they suggest, decide, or\ncommand to be done. For the most part they do not even see how all\nthe atrocious deeds they have suggested and authorized are carried\nout. But the unfortunate men of the lower orders, who gain no kind\nof advantage from the existing _r\u00e9gime_, but, on the contrary, are\ntreated with the utmost contempt, support it even by dragging people\nwith their own hands from their families, handcuffing them, throwing\nthem in prison, guarding them, shooting them.\n\nWhy do they do it? What forces them to believe that the existing\norder is unchanging and they must support it?\n\nAll violence rests, we know, on those who do the beating, the\nhandcuffing, the imprisoning, and the killing with their own hands.\nIf there were no soldiers or armed policemen, ready to kill or\noutrage anyone as they are ordered, not one of those people who sign\nsentences of death, imprisonment, or galley-slavery for life would\nmake up his mind to hang, imprison, or torture a thousandth part\nof those whom, quietly sitting in his study, he now orders to be\ntortured in all kinds of ways, simply because he does not see it nor\ndo it himself, but only gets it done at a distance by these servile\ntools.\n\nAll the acts of injustice and cruelty which are committed in the\nordinary course of daily life have only become habitual because there\nare these men always ready to carry out such acts of injustice and\ncruelty. If it were not for them, far from anyone using violence\nagainst the immense masses who are now ill-treated, those who now\ncommand their punishment would not venture to sentence them, would\nnot even dare to dream of the sentences they decree with such easy\nconfidence at present. And if it were not for these men, ready to\nkill or torture anyone at their commander's will, no one would dare\nto claim, as all the idle landowners claim with such assurance, that\na piece of land, surrounded by peasants, who are in wretchedness from\nwant of land, is the property of a man who does not cultivate it, or\nthat stores of corn taken by swindling from the peasants ought to\nremain untouched in the midst of a population dying of hunger because\nthe merchants must make their profit. If it were not for these\nservile instruments at the disposal of the authorities, it could\nnever have entered the head of the landowner to rob the peasants of\nthe forest they had tended, nor of the officials to think they are\nentitled to their salaries, taken from the famishing people, the\nprice of their oppression; least of all could anyone dream of killing\nor exiling men for exposing falsehood and telling the truth. All this\ncan only be done because the authorities are confidently assured that\nthey have always these servile tools at hand, ready to carry all\ntheir demands into effect by means of torture and murder.\n\nAll the deeds of violence of tyrants from Napoleon to the lowest\ncommander of a company who fires upon a crowd, can only be explained\nby the intoxicating effect of their absolute power over these\nslaves. All force, therefore, rests on these men, who carry out the\ndeeds of violence with their own hands, the men who serve in the\npolice or the army, especially the army, for the police only venture\nto do their work because the army is at their back.\n\nWhat, then, has brought these masses of honest men, on whom the whole\nthing depends, who gain nothing by it, and who have to do these\natrocious deeds with their own hands, what has brought them to accept\nthe amazing delusion that the existing order, unprofitable, ruinous,\nand fatal as it is for them, is the order which ought to exist?\n\nWho has led them into this amazing delusion?\n\nThey can never have persuaded themselves that they ought to do what\nis against their conscience, and also the source of misery and ruin\nfor themselves, and all their class, who make up nine-tenths of the\npopulation.\n\n\"How can you kill people, when it is written in God's commandment:\n'Thou shalt not kill'?\" I have often inquired of different soldiers.\nAnd I always drove them to embarrassment and confusion by reminding\nthem of what they did not want to think about. They knew they were\nbound by the law of God, \"Thou shalt not kill,\" and knew too that\nthey were bound by their duty as soldiers, but had never reflected\non the contradiction between these duties. The drift of the timid\nanswers I received to this question was always approximately this:\nthat killing in war and executing criminals by command of the\ngovernment are not included in the general prohibition of murder.\nBut when I said this distinction was not made in the law of God, and\nreminded them of the Christian duty of fraternity, forgiveness of\ninjuries, and love, which could not be reconciled with murder, the\npeasants usually agreed, but in their turn began to ask me questions.\n\"How does it happen,\" they inquired, \"that the government [which\naccording to their ideas cannot do wrong] sends the army to war and\norders criminals to be executed.\" When I answered that the government\ndoes wrong in giving such orders, the peasants fell into still\ngreater confusion, and either broke off the conversation or else got\nangry with me.\n\n\"They must have found a law for it. The archbishops know as much\nabout it as we do, I should hope,\" a Russian soldier once observed to\nme. And in saying this the soldier obviously set his mind at rest,\nin the full conviction that his spiritual guides had found a law\nwhich authorized his ancestors, and the tzars and their descendants,\nand millions of men, to serve as he was doing himself, and that the\nquestion I had put him was a kind of hoax or conundrum on my part.\n\nEveryone in our Christian society knows, either by tradition or by\nrevelation or by the voice of conscience, that murder is one of the\nmost fearful crimes a man can commit, as the Gospel tells us, and\nthat the sin of murder cannot be limited to certain persons, that is,\nmurder cannot be a sin for some and not a sin for others. Everyone\nknows that if murder is a sin, it is always a sin, whoever are the\nvictims murdered, just like the sin of adultery, theft, or any other.\nAt the same time from their childhood up men see that murder is not\nonly permitted, but even sanctioned by the blessing of those whom\nthey are accustomed to regard as their divinely appointed spiritual\nguides, and see their secular leaders with calm assurance organizing\nmurder, proud to wear murderous arms, and demanding of others in the\nname of the laws of the country, and even of God, that they should\ntake part in murder. Men see that there is some inconsistency here,\nbut not being able to analyze it, involuntarily assume that this\napparent inconsistency is only the result of their ignorance. The\nvery grossness and obviousness of the inconsistency confirms them in\nthis conviction.\n\nThey cannot imagine that the leaders of civilization, the educated\nclasses, could so confidently preach two such opposed principles\nas the law of Christ and murder. A simple uncorrupted youth cannot\nimagine that those who stand so high in his opinion, whom he regards\nas holy or learned men, could for any object whatever mislead him\nso shamefully. But this is just what has always been and always is\ndone to him. It is done (1) by instilling, by example and direct\ninstruction, from childhood up, into the working people, who have\nnot time to study moral and religious questions for themselves, the\nidea that torture and murder are compatible with Christianity, and\nthat for certain objects of state, torture and murder are not only\nadmissible, but ought to be employed; and (2) by instilling into\ncertain of the people, who have either voluntarily enlisted or been\ntaken by compulsion into the army, the idea that the perpetration of\nmurder and torture with their own hands is a sacred duty, and even a\nglorious exploit, worthy of praise and reward.\n\nThe general delusion is diffused among all people by means of the\ncatechisms or books, which nowadays replace them, in use for the\ncompulsory education of children. In them it is stated that violence,\nthat is, imprisonment and execution, as well as murder in civil or\nforeign war in the defense and maintenance of the existing state\norganization (whatever that may be, absolute or limited monarchy,\nconvention, consulate, empire of this or that Napoleon or Boulanger,\nconstitutional monarchy, commune or republic) is absolutely lawful\nand not opposed to morality and Christianity.\n\nThis is stated in all catechisms or books used in schools. And men\nare so thoroughly persuaded of it that they grow up, live and die in\nthat conviction without once entertaining a doubt about it.\n\nThis is one form of deception, the general deception instilled into\neveryone, but there is another special deception practiced upon the\nsoldiers or police who are picked out by one means or another to do\nthe torturing and murdering necessary to defend and maintain the\nexisting _r\u00e9gime_.\n\nIn all military instructions there appears in one form or another\nwhat is expressed in the Russian military code in the following words:\n\n_Article 87._ To carry out exactly and without comment the orders\nof a superior officer means: to carry out an order received from a\nsuperior officer exactly without considering whether it is good or\nnot, and whether it is possible to carry it out. The superior officer\nis responsible for the consequences of the order he gives.\n\n_Article 88._ The subordinate ought never to refuse to carry out the\norders of a superior officer except when he sees clearly that in\ncarrying out his superior officer's command, he breaks [the law of\nGod, one involuntarily expects; not at all] _his oath of fidelity and\nallegiance to the Tzar_.\n\nIt is here said that the man who is a soldier can and ought to carry\nout all the orders of his superior without exception. And as these\norders for the most part involve murder, it follows that he ought to\nbreak all the laws of God and man. The one law he may not break is\nthat of fidelity and allegiance to the man who happens at a given\nmoment to be in power.\n\nPrecisely the same thing is said in other words in all codes of\nmilitary instruction. And it could not be otherwise, since the whole\npower of the army and the state is based in reality on this delusive\nemancipation of men from their duty to God and their conscience, and\nthe substitution of duty to their superior officer for all other\nduties.\n\nThis, then, is the foundation of the belief of the lower classes that\nthe existing _r\u00e9gime_ so fatal for them is the _r\u00e9gime_ which ought\nto exist, and which they ought therefore to support even by torture\nand murder.\n\nThis belief is founded on a conscious deception practiced on them by\nthe higher classes.\n\nAnd it cannot be otherwise. To compel the lower classes, which are\nmore numerous, to oppress and ill treat themselves, even at the cost\nof actions opposed to their conscience, it was necessary to deceive\nthem. And it has been done accordingly.\n\nNot many days ago I saw once more this shameless deception being\nopenly practiced, and once more I marveled that it could be practiced\nso easily and impudently.\n\nAt the beginning of November, as I was passing through Toula, I\nsaw once again at the gates of the Zemsky Court-house the crowd of\npeasants I had so often seen before, and heard the drunken shouts\nof the men mingled with the pitiful lamentations of their wives and\nmothers. It was the recruiting session.\n\nI can never pass by the spectacle. It attracts me by a kind of\nfascination of repulsion. I again went into the crowd, took my stand\namong the peasants, looked about and asked questions. And once again\nI was amazed that this hideous crime can be perpetrated so easily in\nbroad daylight and in the midst of a large town.\n\nAs the custom is every year, in all the villages and hamlets of the\none hundred millions of Russians, on the 1st of November, the village\nelders had assembled the young men inscribed on the lists, often\ntheir own sons among them, and had brought them to the town.\n\nOn the road the recruits have been drinking without intermission,\nunchecked by the elders, who feel that going on such an insane\nerrand, abandoning their wives and mothers and renouncing all they\nhold sacred in order to become a senseless instrument of destruction,\nwould be too agonizing if they were not stupefied with spirits.\n\nAnd so they have come, drinking, swearing, singing, fighting and\nscuffling with one another. They have spent the night in taverns. In\nthe morning they have slept off their drunkenness and have gathered\ntogether at the Zemsky Court-house.\n\nSome of them, in new sheepskin pelisses, with knitted scarves round\ntheir necks, their eyes swollen from drinking, are shouting wildly\nto one another to show their courage; others, crowded near the\ndoor, are quietly and mournfully waiting their turn, between their\nweeping wives and mothers (I had chanced upon the day of the actual\nenrolling, that is, the examination of those whose names are on the\nlist); others meantime were crowding into the hall of the recruiting\noffice.\n\nInside the office the work was going on rapidly. The door is opened\nand the guard calls Piotr Sidorov. Piotr Sidorov starts, crosses\nhimself, and goes into a little room with a glass door, where the\nconscripts undress. A comrade of Piotr Sidorov's, who has just been\npassed for service, and come naked out of the revision office, is\ndressing hurriedly, his teeth chattering. Sidorov has already heard\nthe news, and can see from his face too that he has been taken. He\nwants to ask him questions, but they hurry him and tell him to make\nhaste and undress. He throws off his pelisse, slips his boots off his\nfeet, takes off his waistcoat and draws his shirt over his head, and\nnaked, trembling all over, and exhaling an odor of tobacco, spirits,\nand sweat, goes into the revision office, not knowing what to do with\nhis brawny bare arms.\n\nDirectly facing him in the revision office hangs in a great gold\nframe a portrait of the Tzar in full uniform with decorations, and\nin the corner a little portrait of Christ in a shirt and a crown\nof thorns. In the middle of the room is a table covered with green\ncloth, on which there are papers lying and a three-cornered ornament\nsurmounted by an eagle--the zertzal. Round the table are sitting the\nrevising officers, looking collected and indifferent. One is smoking\na cigarette; another is looking through some papers. Directly Sidorov\ncomes in, a guard goes up to him, places him under the measuring\nframe, raising him under his chin, and straightening his legs.\n\nThe man with the cigarette--he is the doctor--comes up, and without\nlooking at the recruit's face, but somewhere beyond it, feels his\nbody over with an air of disgust, measures him, tests him, tells the\nguard to open his mouth, tells him to breathe, to speak. Someone\nnotes something down. At last without having once looked him in the\nface the doctor says, \"Right. Next one!\" and with a weary air sits\ndown again at the table. The soldiers again hustle and hurry the lad.\nHe somehow gets into his trousers, wraps his feet in rags, puts on\nhis boots, looks for his scarf and cap, and bundles his pelisse under\nhis arm. Then they lead him into the main hall, shutting him off\napart from the rest by a bench, behind which all the conscripts who\nhave been passed for service are waiting. Another village lad like\nhimself, but from a distant province, now a soldier armed with a gun\nwith a sharp-pointed bayonet at the end, keeps watch over him, ready\nto run him through the body if he should think of trying to escape.\n\nMeantime the crowd of fathers, mothers, and wives, hustled by the\npolice, are pressing round the doors to hear whose lad has been\ntaken, whose is let off. One of the rejected comes out and announces\nthat Piotr is taken, and at once a shrill cry is heard from Piotr's\nyoung wife, for whom this word \"taken\" means separation for four\nor five years, the life of a soldier's wife as a servant, often a\nprostitute.\n\nBut here comes a man along the street with flowing hair and in a\npeculiar dress, who gets out of his droskhy and goes into the Zemsky\nCourt-house. The police clear a way for him through the crowd. It is\nthe \"reverend father\" come to administer the oath, And this \"father,\"\nwho has been persuaded that he is specially and exclusively devoted\nto the service of Christ, and who, for the most part, does not\nhimself see the deception in which he lives, goes into the hall where\nthe conscripts are waiting. He throws round him a kind of curtain of\nbrocade, pulls his long hair out over it, opens the very Gospel in\nwhich swearing is forbidden, takes the cross, the very cross on which\nChrist was crucified because he would not do what this false servant\nof his is telling men to do, and puts them on the lectern. And all\nthese unhappy, defenseless, and deluded lads repeat after him the\nlie, which he utters with the assurance of familiarity.\n\nHe reads and they repeat after him:\n\n\"I promise and swear by Almighty God upon his holy Gospel,\" etc.,\n\"to defend,\" etc., and that is, to murder anyone I am told to, and\nto do everything I am told by men I know nothing of, and who care\nnothing for me except as an instrument for perpetrating the crimes by\nwhich they are kept in their position of power, and my brothers in\ntheir condition of misery. All the conscripts repeat these ferocious\nwords without thinking. And then the so-called \"father\" goes away\nwith a sense of having correctly and conscientiously done his duty.\nAnd all these poor deluded lads believe that these nonsensical and\nincomprehensible words which they have just uttered set them free for\nthe whole time of their service from their duties as men, and lay\nupon them fresh and more binding duties as soldiers.\n\nAnd this crime is perpetrated publicly and no one cries out to the\ndeceiving and the deceived: \"Think what you are doing; this is the\nbasest, falsest lie, by which not bodies only, but souls too, are\ndestroyed.\"\n\nNo one does this. On the contrary, when all have been enrolled,\nand they are to be let out again, the military officer goes with a\nconfident and majestic air into the hall where the drunken, cheated\nlads are shut up, and cries in a bold, military voice: \"Your health,\nmy lads! I congratulate you on 'serving the Tzar!'\" And they, poor\nfellows (someone has given them a hint beforehand), mutter awkwardly,\ntheir voices thick with drink, something to the effect that they are\nglad.\n\nMeantime the crowd of fathers, mothers, and wives is standing at the\ndoors waiting. The women keep their tearful eyes fixed on the doors.\nThey open at last, and out come the conscripts, unsteady, but trying\nto put a good face on it. Here are Piotr and Vania and Makar trying\nnot to look their dear ones in the face. Nothing is heard but the\nwailing of the wives and mothers. Some of the lads embrace them and\nweep with them, others make a show of courage, and others try to\ncomfort them.\n\nThe wives and mothers, knowing that they will be left for three,\nfour, or five years without their breadwinners, weep and rehearse\ntheir woes aloud. The fathers say little. They only utter a clucking\nsound with their tongues and sigh mournfully, knowing that they\nwill see no more of the steady lads they have reared and trained to\nhelp them, that they will come back not the same quiet hard-working\nlaborers, but for the most part conceited and demoralized, unfitted\nfor their simple life.\n\nAnd then all the crowd get into their sledges again and move away\ndown the street to the taverns and pot-houses, and louder than ever\nsounds the medley of singing and sobbing, drunken shouts, and the\nwailing of the wives and mothers, the sounds of the accordeon and\noaths. They all turn into the taverns, whose revenues go to the\ngovernment, and the drinking bout begins, which stifles their sense\nof the wrong which is being done them.\n\nFor two or three weeks they go on living at home, and most of that\ntime they are \"jaunting,\" that is, drinking.\n\nOn a fixed day they collect them, drive them together like a flock\nof sheep, and begin to train them in the military exercises and\ndrill. Their teachers are fellows like themselves, only deceived and\nbrutalized two or three years sooner. The means of instruction are:\ndeception, stupefaction, blows, and vodka. And before a year has\npassed these good, intelligent, healthy-minded lads will be as brutal\nbeings as their instructors.\n\n\"Come, now, suppose your father were arrested and tried to make his\nescape?\" I asked a young soldier.\n\n\"I should run him through with my bayonet,\" he answered with the\nfoolish intonation peculiar to soldiers; \"and if he made off, I ought\nto shoot him,\" he added, obviously proud of knowing what he must do\nif his father were escaping.\n\nAnd when a good-hearted lad has been brought to a state lower than\nthat of a brute, he is just what is wanted by those who use him as an\ninstrument of violence. He is ready; the man has been destroyed and\na new instrument of violence has been created. And all this is done\nevery year, every autumn, everywhere, through all Russia in broad\ndaylight in the midst of large towns, where all may see it, and the\ndeception is so clever, so skillful, that though all men know the\ninfamy of it in their hearts, and see all its horrible results, they\ncannot throw it off and be free.\n\nWhen one's eyes are opened to this awful deception practiced upon\nus, one marvels that the teachers of the Christian religion and\nof morals, the instructors of youth, or even the good-hearted and\nintelligent parents who are to be found in every society, can teach\nany kind of morality in a society in which it is openly admitted (it\nis so admitted, under all governments and all churches) that murder\nand torture form an indispensable element in the life of all, and\nthat there must always be special men trained to kill their fellows,\nand that any one of us may have to become such a trained assassin.\n\nHow can children, youths, and people generally be taught any\nkind of morality--not to speak of teaching in the spirit of\nChristianity--side by side with the doctrine that murder is necessary\nfor the public weal, and therefore legitimate, and that there are\nmen, of whom each of us may have to be one, whose duty is to murder\nand torture and commit all sorts of crimes at the will of those who\nare in possession of authority. If this is so, and one can and ought\nto murder and torture, there is not, and cannot be, any kind of moral\nlaw, but only the law that might is right. And this is just how it\nis. In reality that is the doctrine--justified to some by the theory\nof the struggle for existence--which reigns in our society.\n\nAnd, indeed, what sort of ethical doctrine could admit the legitimacy\nof murder for any object whatever? It is as impossible as a theory of\nmathematics admitting that two is equal to three.\n\nThere may be a semblance of mathematics admitting that two is equal\nto three, but there can be no real science of mathematics. And there\ncan only be a semblance of ethics in which murder in the shape of war\nand the execution of criminals is allowed, but no true ethics. The\nrecognition of the life of every man as sacred is the first and only\nbasis of all ethics.\n\nThe doctrine of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth has been\nabrogated by Christianity, because it is the justification of\nimmorality, and a mere semblance of equity, and has no real meaning.\nLife is a value which has no weight nor size, and cannot be compared\nto any other, and so there is no sense in destroying a life for a\nlife. Besides, every social law aims at the amelioration of man's\nlife. What way, then, can the annihilation of the life of some men\nameliorate men's life? Annihilation of life cannot be a means of the\namelioration of life; it is a suicidal act.\n\nTo destroy another life for the sake of justice is as though a man,\nto repair the misfortune of losing one arm, should cut off the other\narm for the sake of equity.\n\nBut putting aside the sin of deluding men into regarding the most\nawful crime as a duty, putting aside the revolting sin of using the\nname and authority of Christ to sanction what he most condemned,\nnot to speak of the curse on those who cause these \"little ones\"\nto offend--how can people who cherish their own way of life, their\nprogress, even from the point of view of their personal security,\nallow the formation in their midst of an overwhelming force as\nsenseless, cruel, and destructive as every government is organized on\nthe basis of an army? Even the most cruel band of brigands is not so\nmuch to be dreaded as such a government.\n\nThe power of every brigand chief is at least so far limited that\nthe men of his band preserve at least some human liberty, and can\nrefuse to commit acts opposed to their conscience. But, owing to the\nperfection to which the discipline of the army has been brought,\nthere is no limit to check men who form part of a regularly organized\ngovernment. There are no crimes so revolting that they would not\nreadily be committed by men who form part of a government or army, at\nthe will of anyone (such as Boulanger, Napoleon, or Pougachef) who\nmay chance to be at their head.\n\nOften when one sees conscription levies, military drills and\nmaneuvers, police officers with loaded revolvers, and sentinels at\ntheir posts with bayonets on their rifles; when one hears for whole\ndays at a time (as I hear it in Hamovniky where I live) the whistle\nof balls and the dull thud as they fall in the sand; when one sees in\nthe midst of a town where any effort at violence in self-defense is\nforbidden, where the sale of powder and of chemicals, where furious\ndriving and practicing as a doctor without a diploma, and so on, are\nnot allowed, thousands of disciplined troops, trained to murder,\nand subject to one man's will; one asks oneself how can people who\nprize their security quietly allow it, and put up with it? Apart from\nthe immorality and evil effects of it, nothing can possibly be more\nunsafe. What are people thinking about? I don't mean now Christians,\nministers of religion, philanthropists, and moralists, but simply\npeople who value their life, their security, and their comfort. This\norganization, we know, will work just as well in one man's hands as\nanother's. To-day, let us assume, power is in the hands of a ruler\nwho can be endured, but to-morrow it may be seized by a Biron, an\nElizabeth, a Catherine, a Pougachef, a Napoleon I., or a Napoleon III.\n\nAnd the man in authority, endurable to-day, may become a brute\nto-morrow, or may be succeeded by a mad or imbecile heir, like the\nKing of Bavaria or our Paul I.\n\nAnd not only the highest authorities, but all little satraps\nscattered over everywhere, like so many General Baranovs, governors,\npolice officers even, and commanders of companies, can perpetrate the\nmost awful crimes before there is time for them to be removed from\noffice. And this is what is constantly happening.\n\nOne involuntarily asks how can men let it go on, not from higher\nconsiderations only, but from regard to their own safety?\n\nThe answer to this question is that it is not all people who do\ntolerate it (some--the greater proportion--deluded and submissive,\nhave no choice and have to tolerate anything). It is tolerated by\nthose who only under such an organization can occupy a position of\nprofit. They tolerate it, because for them the risks of suffering\nfrom a foolish or cruel man being at the head of the government or\nthe army are always less than the disadvantages to which they would\nbe exposed by the destruction of the organization itself.\n\nA judge, a commander of police, a governor, or an officer will keep\nhis position just the same under Boulanger or the republic, under\nPougachef or Catherine. He will lose his profitable position for\ncertain, if the existing order of things which secured it to him is\ndestroyed. And so all these people feel no uneasiness as to who is at\nthe head of the organization, they will adapt themselves to anyone;\nthey only dread the downfall of the organization itself, and that is\nthe reason--though often an unconscious one--that they support it.\n\nOne often wonders why independent people, who are not forced to do\nso in any way, the so-called _\u00e9lite_ of society, should go into the\narmy in Russia, England, Germany, Austria, and even France, and seek\nopportunities of becoming murderers. Why do even high-principled\nparents send their boys to military schools? Why do mothers buy their\nchildren toy helmets, guns, and swords as playthings? (The peasant's\nchildren never play at soldiers, by the way). Why do good men and\neven women, who have certainly no interest in war, go into raptures\nover the various exploits of Skobeloff and others, and vie with one\nanother in glorifying them? Why do men, who are not obliged to do\nso, and get no fee for it, devote, like the marshals of nobility in\nRussia, whole months of toil to a business physically disagreeable\nand morally painful--the enrolling of conscripts? Why do all kings\nand emperors wear the military uniform? Why do they all hold military\nreviews, why do they organize maneuvers, distribute rewards to the\nmilitary, and raise monuments to generals and successful commanders?\nWhy do rich men of independent position consider it an honor to\nperform a valet's duties in attendance on crowned personages,\nflattering them and cringing to them and pretending to believe in\ntheir peculiar superiority? Why do men who have ceased to believe\nin the superstitions of the medi\u00e6val Church, and who could not\npossibly believe in them seriously and consistently, pretend to\nbelieve in and give their support to the demoralizing and blasphemous\ninstitution of the church? Why is it that not only governments but\nprivate persons of the higher classes, try so jealously to maintain\nthe ignorance of the people? Why do they fall with such fury on\nany effort at breaking down religious superstitions or really\nenlightening the people? Why do historians, novelists, and poets, who\nhave no hope of gaining anything by their flatteries, make heroes\nof kings, emperors, and conquerors of past times? Why do men, who\ncall themselves learned, dedicate whole lifetimes to making theories\nto prove that violence employed by authority against the people is\nnot violence at all, but a special right? One often wonders why a\nfashionable lady or an artist, who, one would think, would take no\ninterest in political or military questions, should always condemn\nstrikes of working people, and defend war; and should always be found\nwithout hesitation opposed to the one, favorable to the other.\n\nBut one no longer wonders when one realizes that in the higher\nclasses there is an unerring instinct of what tends to maintain\nand of what tends to destroy the organization by virtue of which\nthey enjoy their privileges. The fashionable lady had certainly not\nreasoned out that if there were no capitalists and no army to defend\nthem, her husband would have no fortune, and she could not have her\nentertainments and her ball-dresses. And the artist certainly does\nnot argue that he needs the capitalists and the troops to defend\nthem, so that they may buy his pictures. But instinct, replacing\nreason in this instance, guides them unerringly. And it is precisely\nthis instinct which leads all men, with few exceptions, to support\nall the religious, political, and economic institutions which are to\ntheir advantage.\n\nBut is it possible that the higher classes support the existing order\nof things simply because it is to their advantage? Cannot they see\nthat this order of things is essentially irrational, that it is\nno longer consistent with the stage of moral development attained\nby people, and with public opinion, and that it is fraught with\nperils? The governing classes, or at least the good, honest, and\nintelligent people of them, cannot but suffer from these fundamental\ninconsistencies, and see the dangers with which they are threatened.\nAnd is it possible that all the millions of the lower classes can\nfeel easy in conscience when they commit such obviously evil deeds\nas torture and murder from fear of punishment? Indeed, it could\nnot be so, neither the former nor the latter could fail to see the\nirrationality of their conduct, if the complexity of government\norganization did not obscure the unnatural senselessness of their\nactions.\n\nSo many instigate, assist, or sanction the commission of every one\nof these actions that no one who has a hand in them feels himself\nmorally responsible for it.\n\nIt is the custom among assassins to oblige all the witnesses of\na murder to strike the murdered victim, that the responsibility\nmay be divided among as large a number of people as possible. The\nsame principle in different forms is applied under the government\norganization in the perpetration of the crimes, without which no\ngovernment organization could exist. Rulers always try to implicate\nas many citizens as possible in all the crimes committed in their\nsupport.\n\nOf late this tendency has been expressed in a very obvious manner\nby the obligation of all citizens to take part in legal processes\nas jurors, in the army as soldiers, in the local government, or\nlegislative assembly, as electors or members.\n\nJust as in a wicker basket all the ends are so hidden away that it is\nhard to find them, in the state organization the responsibility for\nthe crimes committed is so hidden away that men will commit the most\natrocious acts without seeing their responsibility for them.\n\nIn ancient times tyrants got credit for the crimes they committed,\nbut in our day the most atrocious infamies, inconceivable under the\nNeros, are perpetrated and no one gets blamed for them.\n\nOne set of people have suggested, another set have proposed, a third\nhave reported, a fourth have decided, a fifth have confirmed, a sixth\nhave given the order, and a seventh set of men have carried it out.\nThey hang, they flog to death women, old men, and innocent people, as\nwas done recently among us in Russia at the Yuzovsky factory, and is\nalways being done everywhere in Europe and America in the struggle\nwith the anarchists and all other rebels against the existing order;\nthey shoot and hang men by hundreds and thousands, or massacre\nmillions in war, or break men's hearts in solitary confinement, and\nruin their souls in the corruption of a soldier's life, and no one is\nresponsible.\n\nAt the bottom of the social scale soldiers, armed with guns, pistols,\nand sabers, injure and murder people, and compel men through these\nmeans to enter the army, and are absolutely convinced that the\nresponsibility for the actions rests solely on the officers who\ncommand them.\n\nAt the top of the scale--the Tzars, presidents, ministers, and\nparliaments decree these tortures and murders and military\nconscription, and are fully convinced that since they are either\nplaced in authority by the grace of God or by the society they\ngovern, which demands such decrees from them, they cannot be held\nresponsible. Between these two extremes are the intermediary\npersonages who superintend the murders and other acts of violence,\nand are fully convinced that the responsibility is taken off their\nshoulders partly by their superiors who have given the order, partly\nby the fact that such orders are expected from them by all who are at\nthe bottom of the scale.\n\nThe authority who gives the orders and the authority who executes\nthem at the two extreme ends of the state organization, meet together\nlike the two ends of a ring; they support and rest on one another and\ninclose all that lies within the ring.\n\nWithout the conviction that there is a person or persons who will\ntake the whole responsibility of his acts, not one soldier would ever\nlift a hand to commit a murder or other deed of violence.\n\nWithout the conviction that it is expected by the whole people not a\nsingle king, emperor, president, or parliament would order murders or\nacts of violence.\n\nWithout the conviction that there are persons of a higher grade who\nwill take the responsibility, and people of a lower grade who require\nsuch acts for their welfare, not one of the intermediate class would\nsuperintend such deeds.\n\nThe state is so organized that wherever a man is placed in the social\nscale, his irresponsibility is the same. The higher his grade the\nmore he is under the influence of demands from below, and the less he\nis controlled by orders from above, and _vice versa_.\n\nAll men, then, bound together by state organization, throw the\nresponsibility of their acts on one another, the peasant soldier\non the nobleman or merchant who is his officer, and the officer on\nthe nobleman who has been appointed governor, the governor on the\nnobleman or son of an official who is minister, the minister on\nthe member of the royal family who occupies the post of Tzar, and\nthe Tzar again on all these officials, noblemen, merchants, and\npeasants. But that is not all. Besides the fact that men get rid\nof the sense of responsibility for their actions in this way, they\nlose their moral sense of responsibility also, by the fact that in\nforming themselves into a state organization they persuade themselves\nand each other so continually, and so indefatigably, that they are\nnot all equal, but \"as the stars apart,\" that they come to believe\nit genuinely themselves. Thus some are persuaded that they are not\nsimple people like everyone else, but special people who are to be\nspecially honored. It is instilled into another set of men by every\npossible means that they are inferior to others, and therefore must\nsubmit without a murmur to every order given them by their superiors.\n\nOn this inequality, above all, on the elevation of some and the\ndegradation of others, rests the capacity men have of being blind to\nthe insanity of the existing order of life, and all the cruelty and\ncriminality of the deception practiced by one set of men on another.\n\nThose in whom the idea has been instilled that they are invested with\na special supernatural grandeur and consequence, are so intoxicated\nwith a sense of their own imaginary dignity that they cease to feel\ntheir responsibility for what they do.\n\nWhile those, on the other hand, in whom the idea is fostered\nthat they are inferior animals, bound to obey their superiors in\neverything, fall, through this perpetual humiliation, into a strange\ncondition of stupefied servility, and in this stupefied state do not\nsee the significance of their actions and lose all consciousness of\nresponsibility for what they do.\n\nThe intermediate class, who obey the orders of their superiors on the\none hand and regard themselves as superior beings on the other, are\nintoxicated by power and stupefied by servility at the same time and\nso lose the sense of their responsibility.\n\nOne need only glance during a review at the commander-in-chief,\nintoxicated with self-importance, followed by his retinue, all\non magnificent and gayly appareled horses, in splendid uniforms\nand wearing decorations, and see how they ride to the harmonious\nand solemn strains of music before the ranks of soldiers, all\npresenting arms and petrified with servility. One need only glance\nat this spectacle to understand that at such moments, when they are\nin a state of the most complete intoxication, commander-in-chief,\nsoldiers, and intermediate officers alike, would be capable of\ncommitting crimes of which they would never dream under other\nconditions.\n\nThe intoxication produced by such stimulants as parades, reviews,\nreligious solemnities, and coronations, is, however, an acute\nand temporary condition; but there are other forms of chronic,\npermanent intoxication, to which those are liable who have any kind\nof authority, from that of the Tzar to that of the lowest police\nofficer at the street corner, and also those who are in subjection\nto authority and in a state of stupefied servility. The latter, like\nall slaves, always find a justification for their own servility, in\nascribing the greatest possible dignity and importance to those they\nserve.\n\nIt is principally through this false idea of inequality, and the\nintoxication of power and of servility resulting from it, that men\nassociated in a state organization are enabled to commit acts opposed\nto their conscience without the least scruple or remorse.\n\nUnder the influence of this intoxication, men imagine themselves no\nlonger simply men as they are, but some special beings--noblemen,\nmerchants, governors, judges, officers, tzars, ministers, or\nsoldiers--no longer bound by ordinary human duties, but by other\nduties far more weighty--the peculiar duties of a nobleman, merchant,\ngovernor, judge, officer, tzar, minister, or soldier.\n\nThus the landowner, who claimed the forest, acted as he did only\nbecause he fancied himself not a simple man, having the same rights\nto life as the peasants living beside him and everyone else, but a\ngreat landowner, a member of the nobility, and under the influence\nof the intoxication of power he felt his dignity offended by the\npeasants' claims. It was only through this feeling that, without\nconsidering the consequences that might follow, he sent in a claim to\nbe reinstated in his pretended rights.\n\nIn the same way the judges, who wrongfully adjudged the forest to the\nproprietor, did so simply because they fancied themselves not simply\nmen like everyone else, and so bound to be guided in everything only\nby what they consider right, but, under the intoxicating influence of\npower, imagined themselves the representatives of the justice which\ncannot err; while under the intoxicating influence of servility they\nimagined themselves bound to carry out to the letter the instructions\ninscribed in a certain book, the so-called law. In the same way all\nwho take part in such an affair, from the highest representative of\nauthority who signs his assent to the report, from the superintendent\npresiding at the recruiting sessions, and the priest who deludes the\nrecruits, to the lowest soldier who is ready now to fire on his own\nbrothers, imagine, in the intoxication of power or of servility, that\nthey are some conventional characters. They do not face the question\nthat is presented to them, whether or not they ought to take part\nin what their conscience judges an evil act, but fancy themselves\nvarious conventional personages--one as the Tzar, God's anointed, an\nexceptional being, called to watch over the happiness of one hundred\nmillions of men; another as the representative of nobility; another\nas a priest, who has received special grace by his ordination;\nanother as a soldier, bound by his military oath to carry out all he\nis commanded without reflection.\n\nOnly under the intoxication of the power or the servility of their\nimagined positions could all these people act as they do.\n\nWere not they all firmly convinced that their respective vocations\nof tzar, minister, governor, judge, nobleman, landowner,\nsuperintendent, officer, and soldier are something real and\nimportant, not one of them would even think without horror and\naversion of taking part in what they do now.\n\nThe conventional positions, established hundreds of years, recognized\nfor centuries and by everyone, distinguished by special names and\ndresses, and, moreover, confirmed by every kind of solemnity,\nhave so penetrated into men's minds through their senses, that,\nforgetting the ordinary conditions of life common to all, they look\nat themselves and everyone only from this conventional point of view,\nand are guided in their estimation of their own actions and those of\nothers by this conventional standard.\n\nThus we see a man of perfect sanity and ripe age, simply because\nhe is decked out with some fringe, or embroidered keys on his coat\ntails, or a colored ribbon only fit for some gayly dressed girl,\nand is told that he is a general, a chamberlain, a knight of the\norder of St. Andrew, or some similar nonsense, suddenly become\nself-important, proud, and even happy, or, on the contrary, grow\nmelancholy and unhappy to the point of falling ill, because he has\nfailed to obtain the expected decoration or title. Or what is still\nmore striking, a young man, perfectly sane in every other matter,\nindependent and beyond the fear of want, simply because he has been\nappointed judicial prosecutor or district commander, separates a poor\nwidow from her little children, and shuts her up in prison, leaving\nher children uncared for, all because the unhappy woman carried on a\nsecret trade in spirits, and so deprived the revenue of twenty-five\nrubles, and he does not feel the least pang of remorse. Or what is\nstill more amazing; a man, otherwise sensible and good-hearted,\nsimply because he is given a badge or a uniform to wear, and told\nthat he is a guard or customs officer, is ready to fire on people,\nand neither he nor those around him regard him as to blame for it,\nbut, on the contrary, would regard him as to blame if he did not\nfire. To say nothing of judges and juries who condemn men to death,\nand soldiers who kill men by thousands without the slightest scruple\nmerely because it has been instilled into them that they are not\nsimply men, but jurors, judges, generals, and soldiers.\n\nThis strange and abnormal condition of men under state organization\nis usually expressed in the following words: \"As a man, I pity\nhim; but as guard, judge, general, governor, tzar, or soldier, it\nis my duty to kill or torture him.\" Just as though there were some\npositions conferred and recognized, which would exonerate us from the\nobligations laid on each of us by the fact of our common humanity.\n\nSo, for example, in the case before us, men are going to murder and\ntorture the famishing, and they admit that in the dispute between\nthe peasants and the landowner the peasants are right (all those\nin command said as much to me). They know that the peasants are\nwretched, poor, and hungry, and the landowner is rich and inspires no\nsympathy. Yet they are all going to kill the peasants to secure three\nthousand rubles for the landowner, only because at that moment they\nfancy themselves not men but governor, official, general of police,\nofficer, and soldier, respectively, and consider themselves bound\nto obey, not the eternal demands of the conscience of man, but the\ncasual, temporary demands of their positions as officers or soldiers.\n\nStrange as it may seem, the sole explanation of this astonishing\nphenomenon is that they are in the condition of the hypnotized, who,\nthey say, feel and act like the creatures they are commanded by the\nhypnotizer to represent. When, for instance, it is suggested to the\nhypnotized subject that he is lame, he begins to walk lame, that he\nis blind, and he cannot see, that he is a wild beast, and he begins\nto bite. This is the state, not only of those who were going on this\nexpedition, but of all men who fulfill their state and social duties\nin preference to and in detriment of their human duties.\n\nThe essence of this state is that under the influence of one\nsuggestion they lose the power of criticising their actions, and\ntherefore do, without thinking, everything consistent with the\nsuggestion to which they are led by example, precept, or insinuation.\n\nThe difference between those hypnotized by scientific men and those\nunder the influence of the state hypnotism, is that an imaginary\nposition is suggested to the former suddenly by one person in a very\nbrief space of time, and so the hypnotized state appears to us in a\nstriking and surprising form, while the imaginary position suggested\nby state influence is induced slowly, little by little, imperceptibly\nfrom childhood, sometimes during years, or even generations, and not\nin one person alone but in a whole society.\n\n\"But,\" it will be said, \"at all times, in all societies, the\nmajority of persons--all the children, all the women absorbed in the\nbearing and rearing of the young, all the great mass of the laboring\npopulation, who are under the necessity of incessant and fatiguing\nphysical labor, all those of weak character by nature, all those who\nare abnormally enfeebled intellectually by the effects of nicotine,\nalcohol, opium, or other intoxicants--are always in a condition of\nincapacity for independent thought, and are either in subjection\nto those who are on a higher intellectual level, or else under the\ninfluence of family or social traditions, of what is called public\nopinion, and there is nothing unnatural or incongruous in their\nsubjection.\"\n\nAnd truly there is nothing unnatural in it, and the tendency of men\nof small intellectual power to follow the lead of those on a higher\nlevel of intelligence is a constant law, and it is owing to it\nthat men can live in societies and on the same principles at all.\nThe minority consciously adopt certain rational principles through\ntheir correspondence with reason, while the majority act on the same\nprinciples unconsciously because it is required by public opinion.\n\nSuch subjection to public opinion on the part of the unintellectual\ndoes not assume an unnatural character till the public opinion is\nsplit into two.\n\nBut there are times when a higher truth, revealed at first to a few\npersons, gradually gains ground till it has taken hold of such a\nnumber of persons that the old public opinion, founded on a lower\norder of truths, begins to totter and the new is ready to take its\nplace, but has not yet been firmly established. It is like the\nspring, this time of transition, when the old order of ideas has not\nquite broken up and the new has not quite gained a footing. Men begin\nto criticise their actions in the light of the new truth, but in the\nmeantime in practice, through inertia and tradition, they continue\nto follow the principles which once represented the highest point of\nrational consciousness, but are now in flagrant contradiction with it.\n\nThen men are in an abnormal, wavering condition, feeling the\nnecessity of following the new ideal, and yet not bold enough to\nbreak with the old-established traditions.\n\nSuch is the attitude in regard to the truth of Christianity not only\nof the men in the Toula train, but of the majority of men of our\ntimes, alike of the higher and the lower orders.\n\nThose of the ruling classes, having no longer any reasonable\njustification for the profitable positions they occupy, are forced,\nin order to keep them, to stifle their higher rational faculty\nof loving, and to persuade themselves that their positions are\nindispensable. And those of the lower classes, exhausted by toil\nand brutalized of set purpose, are kept in a permanent deception,\npracticed deliberately and continuously by the higher classes upon\nthem.\n\nOnly in this way can one explain the amazing contradictions with\nwhich our life is full, and of which a striking example was presented\nto me by the expedition I met on the 9th of September; good, peaceful\nmen, known to me personally, going with untroubled tranquillity to\nperpetrate the most beastly, senseless, and vile of crimes. Had not\nthey some means of stifling their conscience, not one of them would\nbe capable of committing a hundredth part of such a villainy.\n\nIt is not that they have not a conscience which forbids them from\nacting thus, just as, even three or four hundred years ago, when\npeople burnt men at the stake and put them to the rack they had a\nconscience which prohibited it; the conscience is there, but it has\nbeen put to sleep--in those in command by what the psychologists call\nauto-suggestion; in the soldiers, by the direct conscious hypnotizing\nexerted by the higher classes.\n\nThough asleep, the conscience is there, and in spite of the hypnotism\nit is already speaking in them, and it may awake.\n\nAll these men are in a position like that of a man under hypnotism,\ncommanded to do something opposed to everything he regards as good\nand rational, such as to kill his mother or his child. The hypnotized\nsubject feels himself bound to carry out the suggestion--he thinks he\ncannot stop--but the nearer he gets to the time and the place of the\naction, the more the benumbed conscience begins to stir, to resist,\nand to try to awake. And no one can say beforehand whether he will\ncarry out the suggestion or not; which will gain the upper hand, the\nrational conscience or the irrational suggestion. It all depends on\ntheir relative strength.\n\nThat is just the case with the men in the Toula train and in general\nwith everyone carrying out acts of state violence in our day.\n\nThere was a time when men who set out with the object of murder and\nviolence, to make an example, did not return till they had carried\nout their object, and then, untroubled by doubts or scruples,\nhaving calmly flogged men to death, they returned home and caressed\ntheir children, laughed, amused themselves, and enjoyed the\npeaceful pleasures of family life. In those days it never struck\nthe landowners and wealthy men who profited by these crimes, that\nthe privileges they enjoyed had any direct connection with these\natrocities. But now it is no longer so. Men know now, or are not far\nfrom knowing, what they are doing and for what object they do it.\nThey can shut their eyes and force their conscience to be still,\nbut so long as their eyes are opened and their conscience undulled,\nthey must all--those who carry out and those who profit by these\ncrimes alike--see the import of them. Sometimes they realize it only\nafter the crime has been perpetrated, sometimes they realize it\njust before its perpetration. Thus those who commanded the recent\nacts of violence in Nijni-Novgorod, Saratov, Orel, and the Yuzovsky\nfactory realized their significance only after their perpetration,\nand now those who commanded and those who carried out these crimes\nare ashamed before public opinion and their conscience. I have talked\nto soldiers who had taken part in these crimes, and they always\nstudiously turned the conversation off the subject, and when they\nspoke of it it was with horror and bewilderment. There are cases,\ntoo, when men come to themselves just before the perpetration of the\ncrime. Thus I know the case of a sergeant-major who had been beaten\nby two peasants during the repression of disorder and had made a\ncomplaint. The next day, after seeing the atrocities perpetrated on\nthe other peasants, he entreated the commander of his company to tear\nup his complaint and let off the two peasants. I know cases when\nsoldiers, commanded to fire, have refused to obey, and I know many\ncases of officers who have refused to command expeditions for torture\nand murder. So that men sometimes come to their senses long before\nperpetrating the suggested crime, sometimes at the very moment before\nperpetrating it, sometimes only afterward.\n\nThe men traveling in the Toula train were going with the object of\nkilling and injuring their fellow-creatures, but none could tell\nwhether they would carry out their object or not. However obscure\nhis responsibility for the affair is to each, and however strong\nthe idea instilled into all of them that they are not men, but\ngovernors, officials, officers, and soldiers, and as such beings can\nviolate every human duty, the nearer they approach the place of the\nexecution, the stronger their doubts as to its being right, and this\ndoubt will reach its highest point when the very moment for carrying\nit out has come.\n\nThe governor, in spite of all the stupefying effect of his\nsurroundings, cannot help hesitating when the moment comes to give\nfinal decisive command. He knows that the action of the Governor of\nOrel has called down upon him the disapproval of the best people, and\nhe himself, influenced by the public opinion of the circles in which\nhe moves, has more than once expressed his disapprobation of him. He\nknows that the prosecutor, who ought to have come, flatly refused to\nhave anything to do with it, because he regarded it as disgraceful.\nHe knows, too, that there may be changes any day in the government,\nand that what was a ground for advancement yesterday may be the cause\nof disgrace to-morrow. And he knows that there is a press, if not in\nRussia, at least abroad, which may report the affair and cover him\nwith ignominy forever. He is already conscious of a change in public\nopinion which condemns what was formerly a duty. Moreover, he cannot\nfeel fully assured that his soldiers will at the last moment obey\nhim. He is wavering, and none can say beforehand what he will do.\n\nAll the officers and functionaries who accompany him experience in\ngreater or less degree the same emotions. In the depths of their\nhearts they all know that what they are doing is shameful, that\nto take part in it is a discredit and blemish in the eyes of some\npeople whose opinion they value. They know that after murdering and\ntorturing the defenseless, each of them will be ashamed to face his\nbetrothed or the woman he is courting. And besides, they too, like\nthe governor, are doubtful whether the soldiers' obedience to orders\ncan be reckoned on. What a contrast with the confident air they all\nput on as they sauntered about the station and platform! Inwardly\nthey were not only in a state of suffering but even of suspense.\nIndeed they only assumed this bold and composed manner to conceal the\nwavering within. And this feeling increased as they drew near the\nscene of action.\n\nAnd imperceptible as it was, and strange as it seems to say so, all\nthat mass of lads, the soldiers, who seemed so submissive, were in\nprecisely the same condition.\n\nThese are not the soldiers of former days, who gave up the natural\nlife of industry and devoted their whole existence to debauchery,\nplunder, and murder, like the Roman legionaries or the warriors of\nthe Thirty Years' War, or even the soldiers of more recent times who\nserved for twenty-five years in the army. They have mostly been only\nlately taken from their families, and are full of the recollections\nof the good, rational, natural life they have left behind them.\n\nAll these lads, peasants for the most part, know what is the business\nthey have come about; they know that the landowners always oppress\ntheir brothers the peasants, and that therefore it is most likely\nthe same thing here. Moreover, a majority of them can now read,\nand the books they read are not all such as exalt a military life;\nthere are some which point out its immorality. Among them are often\nfree-thinking comrades--who have enlisted voluntarily--or young\nofficers of liberal ideas, and already the first germ of doubt has\nbeen sown in regard to the unconditional legitimacy and glory of\ntheir occupation.\n\nIt is true that they have all passed through that terrible, skillful\neducation, elaborated through centuries, which kills all initiative\nin a man, and that they are so trained to mechanical obedience\nthat at the word of command: \"Fire!--All the line!--Fire!\" and so\non, their guns will rise of themselves and the habitual movements\nwill be performed. But \"Fire!\" now does not mean shooting into the\nsand for amusement, it means firing on their broken-down, exploited\nfathers and brothers whom they see there in the crowd, with women and\nchildren shouting and waving their arms. Here they are--one with his\nscanty beard and patched coat and plaited shoes of reed, just like\nthe father left at home in Kazan or Riazan province; one with gray\nbeard and bent back, leaning on a staff like the old grand-father;\none, a young fellow in boots and a red shirt, just as he was himself\na year ago--he, the soldier who must fire upon him. There, too, a\nwoman in reed shoes and _panyova_, just like the mother left at home.\n\nIs it possible they must fire on them? And no one knows what each\nsoldier will do at the last minute. The least word, the slightest\nallusion would be enough to stop them.\n\nAt the last moment they will all find themselves in the position of\na hypnotized man to whom it has been suggested to chop a log, who\ncoming up to what has been indicated to him as a log, with the ax\nalready lifted to strike, sees that it is not a log but his sleeping\nbrother. He may perform the act that has been suggested to him, and\nhe may come to his senses at the moment of performing it. In the\nsame way all these men may come to themselves in time or they may go\non to the end.\n\nIf they do not come to themselves, the most fearful crime will be\ncommitted, as in Orel, and then the hypnotic suggestion under which\nthey act will be strengthened in all other men. If they do come to\nthemselves, not only this terrible crime will not be perpetrated,\nbut many also who hear of the turn the affair has taken will be\nemancipated from the hypnotic influence in which they were held, or\nat least will be nearer being emancipated from it.\n\nEven if a few only come to themselves, and boldly explain to the\nothers all the wickedness of such a crime, the influence of these few\nmay rouse the others to shake off the controlling suggestion, and the\natrocity will not be perpetrated.\n\nMore than that, if a few men, even of those who are not taking part\nin the affair but are only present at the preparations for it, or\nhave heard of such things being done in the past, do not remain\nindifferent but boldly and plainly express their detestation of such\ncrimes to those who have to execute them, and point out to them all\nthe senselessness, cruelty, and wickedness of such acts, that alone\nwill be productive of good.\n\nThat was what took place in the instance before us. It was enough for\na few men, some personally concerned in the affair and others simply\noutsiders, to express their disapproval of floggings that had taken\nplace elsewhere, and their contempt and loathing for those who had\ntaken part in inflicting them, for a few persons in the Toula case\nto express their repugnance to having any share in it; for a lady\ntraveling by the train, and a few other bystanders at the station,\nto express to those who formed the expedition their disgust at\nwhat they were doing; for one of the commanders of a company, who\nwas asked for troops for the restoration of order, to reply that\nsoldiers ought not to be butchers--and thanks to these and a few\nother seemingly insignificant influences brought to bear on these\nhypnotized men, the affair took a completely different turn, and the\ntroops, when they reached the place, did not inflict any punishment,\nbut contented themselves with cutting down the forest and giving it\nto the landowner.\n\nHad not a few persons had a clear consciousness that what they were\ndoing was wrong, and consequently influenced one another in that\ndirection, what was done at Orel would have taken place at Toula.\nHad this consciousness been still stronger, and had the influence\nexerted been therefore greater than it was, it might well have been\nthat the governor with his troops would not even have ventured to cut\ndown the forest and give it to the landowner. Had that consciousness\nbeen stronger still, it might well have been that the governor would\nnot have ventured to go to the scene of action at all; even that the\nminister would not have ventured to form this decision or the Tzar to\nratify it.\n\nAll depends, therefore, on the strength of the consciousness of\nChristian truth on the part of each individual man.\n\nAnd, therefore, one would have thought that the efforts of all men\nof the present day who profess to wish to work for the welfare of\nhumanity would have been directed to strengthening this consciousness\nof Christian truth in themselves and others.\n\nBut, strange to say, it is precisely those people who profess most\nanxiety for the amelioration of human life, and are regarded as\nthe leaders of public opinion, who assert that there is no need\nto do that, and that there are other more effective means for the\namelioration of men's condition. They affirm that the amelioration\nof human life is effected not by the efforts of individual men, to\nrecognize and propagate the truth, but by the gradual modification\nof the general conditions of life, and that therefore the efforts\nof individuals should be directed to the gradual modification\nof external conditions for the better. For every advocacy of a\ntruth inconsistent with the existing order by an individual is,\nthey maintain, not only useless but injurious, since it provokes\ncoercive measures on the part of the authorities, restricting these\nindividuals from continuing any action useful to society. According\nto this doctrine all modifications in human life are brought about by\nprecisely the same laws as in the life of the animals.\n\nSo that, according to this doctrine, all the founders of religions,\nsuch as Moses and the prophets, Confucius, Lao-Tse, Buddha, Christ,\nand others, preached their doctrines and their followers accepted\nthem, not because they loved the truth, but because the political,\nsocial, and above all economic conditions of the peoples among whom\nthese religions arose were favorable for their origination and\ndevelopment.\n\nAnd therefore the chief efforts of the man who wishes to serve\nsociety and improve the condition of humanity ought, according to\nthis doctrine, to be directed not to the elucidation and propagation\nof truth, but to the improvement of the external political,\nsocial, and above all economic conditions. And the modification\nof these conditions is partly effected by serving the government\nand introducing liberal and progressive principles into it, partly\nin promoting the development of industry and the propagation of\nsocialistic ideas, and most of all by the diffusion of science.\nAccording to this theory it is of no consequence whether you profess\nthe truth revealed to you, and therefore realize it in your life, or\nat least refrain from committing actions opposed to the truth, such\nas serving the government and strengthening its authority when you\nregard it as injurious, profiting by the capitalistic system when\nyou regard it as wrong, showing veneration for various ceremonies\nwhich you believe to be degrading superstitions, giving support to\nthe law when you believe it to be founded on error, serving as a\nsoldier, taking oaths, and lying, and lowering yourself generally. It\nis useless to refrain from all that; what is of use is not altering\nthe existing forms of life, but submitting to them against your own\nconvictions, introducing liberalism into the existing institutions,\npromoting commerce, the propaganda of socialism, and the triumphs of\nwhat is called science, and the diffusion of education. According\nto this theory one can remain a landowner, merchant, manufacturer,\njudge, official in government pay, officer or soldier, and still be\nnot only a humane man, but even a socialist and revolutionist.\n\nHypocrisy, which had formerly only a religious basis in the doctrine\nof original sin, the redemption, and the Church, has in our day\ngained a new scientific basis and has consequently caught in its\nnets all those who had reached too high a stage of development to be\nable to find support in religious hypocrisy. So that while in former\ndays a man who professed the religion of the Church could take part\nin all the crimes of the state, and profit by them, and still regard\nhimself as free from any taint of sin, so long as he fulfilled the\nexternal observances of his creed, nowadays all who do not believe in\nthe Christianity of the Church, find similar well-founded irrefutable\nreasons in science for regarding themselves as blameless and even\nhighly moral in spite of their participation in the misdeeds of\ngovernment and the advantages they gain from them.\n\nA rich landowner--not only in Russia, but in France, England,\nGermany, or America--lives on the rents exacted from the people\nliving on his land, and robs these generally poverty-stricken people\nof all he can get from them. This man's right of property in the land\nrests on the fact that at every effort on the part of the oppressed\npeople, without his consent, to make use of the land he considers\nhis, troops are called out to subject them to punishment and murder.\nOne would have thought that it was obvious that a man living in this\nway was an evil, egoistic creature and could not possibly consider\nhimself a Christian or a liberal. One would have supposed it evident\nthat the first thing such a man must do, if he wishes to approximate\nto Christianity or liberalism, would be to cease to plunder and ruin\nmen by means of acts of state violence in support of his claim to the\nland. And so it would be if it were not for the logic of hypocrisy,\nwhich reasons that from a religious point of view possession or\nnon-possession of land is of no consequence for salvation, and from\nthe scientific point of view, giving up the ownership of land is a\nuseless individual renunciation, and that the welfare of mankind is\nnot promoted in that way, but by a gradual modification of external\nforms. And so we see this man, without the least trouble of mind\nor doubt that people will believe in his sincerity, organizing an\nagricultural exhibition, or a temperance society, or sending some\nsoup and stockings by his wife or children to three old women, and\nboldly in his family, in drawing rooms, in committees, and in the\npress, advocating the Gospel or humanitarian doctrine of love for\none's neighbor in general and the agricultural laboring population\nin particular whom he is continually exploiting and oppressing.\nAnd other people who are in the same position as he believe him,\ncommend him, and solemnly discuss with him measures for ameliorating\nthe condition of the working-class, on whose exploitation their\nwhole life rests, devising all kinds of possible methods for this,\nexcept the one without which all improvement of their condition\nis impossible, _i. e._, refraining from taking from them the land\nnecessary for their subsistence. (A striking example of this\nhypocrisy was the solicitude displayed by the Russian landowners last\nyear, their efforts to combat the famine which they had caused, and\nby which they profited, selling not only bread at the highest price,\nbut even potato haulm at five rubles the dessiatine (about 2-4/5\nacres) for fuel to the freezing peasants.)\n\nOr take a merchant whose whole trade--like all trade indeed--is\nfounded on a series of trickery, by means of which, profiting by the\nignorance or need of others, he buys goods below their value and\nsells them again above their value. One would have fancied it obvious\nthat a man whose whole occupation was based on what in his own\nlanguage is called swindling, if it is done under other conditions,\nought to be ashamed of his position, and could not any way, while he\ncontinues a merchant, profess himself a Christian or a liberal.\n\nBut the sophistry of hypocrisy reasons that the merchant can pass for\na virtuous man without giving up his pernicious course of action;\na religious man need only have faith and a liberal man need only\npromote the modification of external conditions--the progress of\nindustry. And so we see the merchant (who often goes further and\ncommits acts of direct dishonesty, selling adulterated goods, using\nfalse weights and measures, and trading in products injurious to\nhealth, such as alcohol and opium) boldly regarding himself and\nbeing regarded by others, so long as he does not directly deceive\nhis colleagues in business, as a pattern of probity and virtue. And\nif he spends a thousandth part of his stolen wealth on some public\ninstitution, a hospital or museum or school, then he is even regarded\nas the benefactor of the people on the exploitation and corruption of\nwhom his whole prosperity has been founded: if he sacrifices, too, a\nportion of his ill-gotten gains on a Church and the poor, then he is\nan exemplary Christian.\n\nA manufacturer is a man whose whole income consists of value\nsqueezed out of the workmen, and whose whole occupation is based\non forced, unnatural labor, exhausting whole generations of men.\nIt would seem obvious that if this man professes any Christian\nor liberal principles, he must first of all give up ruining human\nlives for his own profit. But by the existing theory he is promoting\nindustry, and he ought not to abandon his pursuit. It would even be\ninjuring society for him to do so. And so we see this man, the harsh\nslave-driver of thousands of men, building almshouses with little\ngardens two yards square for the workmen broken down in toiling for\nhim, and a bank, and a poorhouse, and a hospital--fully persuaded\nthat he has amply expiated in this way for all the human lives\nmorally and physically ruined by him--and calmly going on with his\nbusiness, taking pride in it.\n\nAny civil, religious, or military official in government employ, who\nserves the state from vanity, or, as is most often the case, simply\nfor the sake of the pay wrung from the harassed and toilworn working\nclasses (all taxes, however raised, always fall on labor), if he, as\nis very seldom the case, does not directly rob the government in the\nusual way, considers himself, and is considered by his fellows, as a\nmost useful and virtuous member of society.\n\nA judge or a public prosecutor knows that through his sentence or his\nprosecution hundreds or thousands of poor wretches are at once torn\nfrom their families and thrown into prison, where they may go out of\ntheir minds, kill themselves with pieces of broken glass, or starve\nthemselves; he knows that they have wives and mothers and children,\ndisgraced and made miserable by separation from them, vainly begging\nfor pardon for them or some alleviation of their sentence, and this\njudge or this prosecutor is so hardened in his hypocrisy that he and\nhis fellows and his wife and his household are all fully convinced\nthat he may be a most exemplary man. According to the metaphysics of\nhypocrisy it is held that he is doing a work of public utility. And\nthis man who has ruined hundreds, thousands of men, who curse him and\nare driven to desperation by his action, goes to mass, a smile of\nshining benevolence on his smooth face, in perfect faith in good and\nin God, listens to the Gospel, caresses his children, preaches moral\nprinciples to them, and is moved by imaginary sufferings.\n\nAll these men and those who depend on them, their wives, tutors,\nchildren, cooks, actors, jockeys, and so on, are living on the blood\nwhich by one means or another, through one set of blood-suckers or\nanother, is drawn out of the working class, and every day their\npleasures cost hundreds or thousands of days of labor. They see the\nsufferings and privations of these laborers and their children,\ntheir aged, their wives, and their sick, they know the punishments\ninflicted on those who resist this organized plunder, and far from\ndecreasing, far from concealing their luxury, they insolently\ndisplay it before these oppressed laborers who hate them, as though\nintentionally provoking them with the pomp of their parks and\npalaces, their theaters, hunts, and races. At the same time they\ncontinue to persuade themselves and others that they are all much\nconcerned about the welfare of these working classes, whom they have\nalways trampled under their feet, and on Sundays, richly dressed,\nthey drive in sumptuous carriages to the houses of God built in very\nmockery of Christianity, and there listen to men, trained to this\nwork of deception, who in white neckties or in brocaded vestments,\naccording to their denomination, preach the love for their neighbor\nwhich they all gainsay in their lives. And these people have so\nentered into their part that they seriously believe that they really\nare what they pretend to be.\n\nThe universal hypocrisy has so entered into the flesh and blood of\nall classes of our modern society, it has reached such a pitch that\nnothing in that way can rouse indignation. Hypocrisy in the Greek\nmeans \"acting,\" and acting--playing a part--is always possible.\nThe representatives of Christ give their blessing to the ranks of\nmurderers holding their guns loaded against their brothers; \"for\nprayer\" priests, ministers of various Christian sects are always\npresent, as indispensably as the hangman, at executions, and sanction\nby their presence the compatibility of murder with Christianity\n(a clergyman assisted at the attempt at murder by electricity in\nAmerica)--but such facts cause no one any surprise.\n\nThere was recently held at Petersburg an international exhibition of\ninstruments of torture, handcuffs, models of solitary cells, that\nis to say instruments of torture worse than knouts or rods, and\nsensitive ladies and gentlemen went and amused themselves by looking\nat them.\n\nNo one is surprised that together with its recognition of liberty,\nequality, and fraternity, liberal science should prove the necessity\nof war, punishment, customs, the censure, the regulation of\nprostitution, the exclusion of cheap foreign laborers, the hindrance\nof emigration, the justifiableness of colonization, based on\npoisoning and destroying whole races of men called savages, and so on.\n\nPeople talk of the time when all men shall profess what is called\nChristianity (that is, various professions of faith hostile to one\nanother), when all shall be well-fed and clothed, when all shall\nbe united from one end of the world to the other by telegraphs\nand telephones, and be able to communicate by balloons, when all\nthe working classes are permeated by socialistic doctrines, when\nthe Trades Unions possess so many millions of members and so many\nmillions of rubles, when everyone is educated and all can read\nnewspapers and learn all the sciences.\n\nBut what good or useful thing can come of all these improvements, if\nmen do not speak and act in accordance with what they believe to be\nthe truth?\n\nThe condition of men is the result of their disunion. Their disunion\nresults from their not following the truth which is one, but\nfalsehoods which are many. The sole means of uniting men is their\nunion in the truth. And therefore the more sincerely men strive\ntoward the truth, the nearer they get to unity.\n\nBut how can men be united in the truth or even approximate to it, if\nthey do not even express the truth they know, but hold that there is\nno need to do so, and pretend to regard as truth what they believe to\nbe false?\n\nAnd therefore no improvement is possible so long as men are\nhypocritical and hide the truth from themselves, so long as they do\nnot recognize that their union and therefore their welfare is only\npossible in the truth, and do not put the recognition and profession\nof the truth revealed to them higher than everything else.\n\nAll the material improvements that religious and scientific men can\ndream of may be accomplished; all men may accept Christianity, and\nall the reforms desired by the Bellamys may be brought about with\nevery possible addition and improvement, but if the hypocrisy which\nrules nowadays still exists, if men do not profess the truth they\nknow, but continue to feign belief in what they do not believe and\nveneration for what they do not respect, their condition will remain\nthe same, or even grow worse and worse. The more men are freed\nfrom privation; the more telegraphs, telephones, books, papers,\nand journals there are; the more means there will be of diffusing\ninconsistent lies and hypocrisies, and the more disunited and\nconsequently miserable will men become, which indeed is what we see\nactually taking place.\n\nAll these material reforms may be realized, but the position of\nhumanity will not be improved. But only let each man, according\nto his powers, at once realize in his life the truth he knows, or\nat least cease to support the falsehoods he is supporting in the\nplace of the truth, and at once, in this year 1893, we should see\nsuch reforms as we do not dare to hope for within a century--the\nemancipation of men and the reign of truth upon earth.\n\nNot without good reason was Christ's only harsh and threatening\nreproof directed against hypocrites and hypocrisy. It is not theft\nnor robbery nor murder nor fornication, but falsehood, the special\nfalsehood of hypocrisy, which corrupts men, brutalizes them and makes\nthem vindictive, destroys all distinction between right and wrong in\ntheir conscience, deprives them of what is the true meaning of all\nreal human life, and debars them from all progress toward perfection.\n\nThose who do evil through ignorance of the truth provoke sympathy\nwith their victims and repugnance for their actions, they do harm\nonly to those they attack; but those who know the truth and do\nevil masked by hypocrisy, injure themselves and their victims, and\nthousands of other men as well who are led astray by the falsehood\nwith which the wrongdoing is disguised.\n\nThieves, robbers, murderers, and cheats, who commit crimes recognized\nby themselves and everyone else as evil, serve as an example of\nwhat ought not to be done, and deter others from similar crimes.\nBut those who commit the same thefts, robberies, murders, and other\ncrimes, disguising them under all kinds of religious or scientific\nor humanitarian justifications, as all landowners, merchants,\nmanufacturers, and government officials do, provoke others to\nimitation, and so do harm not only to those who are directly the\nvictims of their crimes, but to thousands and millions of men whom\nthey corrupt by obliterating their sense of the distinction between\nright and wrong.\n\nA single fortune gained by trading in goods necessary to the\npeople or in goods pernicious in their effects, or by financial\nspeculations, or by acquiring land at a low price the value of which\nis increased by the needs of the population, or by an industry\nruinous to the health and life of those employed in it, or by\nmilitary or civil service of the state, or by any employment which\ntrades on men's evil instincts--a single fortune acquired in any of\nthese ways, not only with the sanction, but even with the approbation\nof the leading men in society, and masked with an ostentation of\nphilanthropy, corrupts men incomparably more than millions of thefts\nand robberies committed against the recognized forms of law and\npunishable as crimes.\n\nA single execution carried out by prosperous educated men\nuninfluenced by passion, with the approbation and assistance of\nChristian ministers, and represented as something necessary and even\njust, is infinitely more corrupting and brutalizing to men than\nthousands of murders committed by uneducated working people under the\ninfluence of passion. An execution such as was proposed by Joukovsky,\nwhich would produce even a sentiment of religious emotion in the\nspectators, would be one of the most perverting actions imaginable.\n(_See_ vol. iv. of the works of Joukovsky.)\n\nEvery war, even the most humanely conducted, with all its ordinary\nconsequences, the destruction of harvests, robberies, the license and\ndebauchery, and the murder with the justifications of its necessity\nand justice, the exaltation and glorification of military exploits,\nthe worship of the flag, the patriotic sentiments, the feigned\nsolicitude for the wounded, and so on, does more in one year to\npervert men's minds than thousands of robberies, murders, and arsons\nperpetrated during hundreds of years by individual men under the\ninfluence of passion.\n\nThe luxurious expenditure of a single respectable and so-called\nhonorable family, even within the conventional limits, consuming\nas it does the produce of as many days of labor as would suffice\nto provide for thousands living in privation near, does more to\npervert men's minds than thousands of the violent orgies of coarse\ntradespeople, officers, and workmen of drunken and debauched habits,\nwho smash up glasses and crockery for amusement.\n\nOne solemn religious procession, one service, one sermon from the\naltar-steps or the pulpit, in which the preacher does not believe,\nproduces incomparably more evil than thousands of swindling tricks,\nadulteration of food, and so on.\n\nWe talk of the hypocrisy of the Pharisees. But the hypocrisy of\nour society far surpasses the comparatively innocent hypocrisy of\nthe Pharisees. They had at least an external religious law, the\nfulfillment of which hindered them from seeing their obligations\nto their neighbors. Moreover, these obligations were not nearly so\nclearly defined in their day. Nowadays we have no such religious law\nto exonerate us from our duties to our neighbors (I am not speaking\nnow of the coarse and ignorant persons who still fancy their sins can\nbe absolved by confession to a priest or by the absolution of the\nPope). On the contrary, the law of the Gospel which we all profess\nin one form or another directly defines these duties. Besides, the\nduties which had then been only vaguely and mystically expressed by\na few prophets have now been so clearly formulated, have become such\ntruisms, that they are repeated even by schoolboys and journalists.\nAnd so it would seem that men of to-day cannot pretend that they do\nnot know these duties.\n\nA man of the modern world who profits by the order of things based on\nviolence, and at the same time protests that he loves his neighbor\nand does not observe what he is doing in his daily life to his\nneighbor, is like a brigand who has spent his life in robbing men,\nand who, caught at last, knife in hand, in the very act of striking\nhis shrieking victim, should declare that he had no idea that what he\nwas doing was disagreeable to the man he had robbed and was prepared\nto murder. Just as this robber and murderer could not deny what\nwas evident to everyone, so it would seem that a man living upon\nthe privations of the oppressed classes cannot persuade himself and\nothers that he desires the welfare of those he plunders, and that he\ndoes not know how the advantages he enjoys are obtained.\n\nIt is impossible to convince ourselves that we do not know that there\nare a hundred thousand men in prison in Russia alone to guarantee\nthe security of our property and tranquillity, and that we do not\nknow of the law tribunals in which we take part, and which, at our\ninitiative, condemn those who have attacked our property or our\nsecurity to prison, exile, or forced labor, whereby men no worse than\nthose who condemn them are ruined and corrupted; or that we do not\nknow that we only possess all that we do possess because it has been\nacquired and is defended for us by murder and violence.\n\nWe cannot pretend that we do not see the armed policeman who marches\nup and down beneath our windows to guarantee our security while we\neat our luxurious dinner, or look at the new piece at the theater, or\nthat we are unaware of the existence of the soldiers who will make\ntheir appearance with guns and cartridges directly our property is\nattacked.\n\nWe know very well that we are only allowed to go on eating our\ndinner, to finish seeing the new play, or to enjoy to the end the\nball, the Christmas f\u00eate, the promenade, the races or the hunt,\nthanks to the policeman's revolver or the soldier's rifle, which will\nshoot down the famished outcast who has been robbed of his share, and\nwho looks round the corner with covetous eyes at our pleasures, ready\nto interrupt them instantly, were not the policeman and the soldier\nthere prepared to run up at our first call for help.\n\nAnd therefore just as a brigand caught in broad daylight in the act\ncannot persuade us that he did not lift his knife in order to rob\nhis victim of his purse, and had no thought of killing him, we too,\nit would seem, cannot persuade ourselves or others that the soldiers\nand policemen around us are not to guard us, but only for defense\nagainst foreign foes, and to regulate traffic and f\u00eates and reviews;\nwe cannot persuade ourselves and others that we do not know that\nmen do not like dying of hunger, bereft of the right to gain their\nsubsistence from the earth on which they live; that they do not like\nworking underground, in the water, or in stifling heat, for ten to\nfourteen hours a day, at night in factories to manufacture objects\nfor our pleasure. One would imagine it impossible to deny what is so\nobvious. Yet it is denied.\n\nStill, there are, among the rich, especially among the young, and\namong women, persons whom I am glad to meet more and more frequently,\nwho, when they are shown in what way and at what cost their pleasures\nare purchased, do not try to conceal the truth, but hiding their\nheads in their hands, cry: \"Ah! don't speak of that. If it is so,\nlife is impossible.\" But though there are such sincere people who\neven though they cannot renounce their fault, at least see it, the\nvast majority of the men of the modern world have so entered into\nthe parts they play in their hypocrisy that they boldly deny what is\nstaring everyone in the face.\n\n\"All that is unjust,\" they say; \"no one forces the people to work for\nthe landowners and manufacturers. That is an affair of free contract.\nGreat properties and fortunes are necessary, because they provide and\norganize work for the working classes. And labor in the factories and\nworkshops is not at all the terrible thing you make it out to be.\nEven if there are some abuses in factories, the government and the\npublic are taking steps to obviate them and to make the labor of the\nfactory workers much easier, and even agreeable. The working classes\nare accustomed to physical labor, and are, so far, fit for nothing\nelse. The poverty of the people is not the result of private property\nin land, nor of capitalistic oppression, but of other causes: it\nis the result of the ignorance, brutality, and intemperance of\nthe people. And we men in authority who are striving against this\nimpoverishment of the people by wise legislation, we capitalists who\nare combating it by the extension of useful inventions, we clergymen\nby religious instruction, and we liberals by the formation of trades\nunions, and the diffusion of education, are in this way increasing\nthe prosperity of the people without changing our own positions.\nWe do not want all to be as poor as the poor; we want all to be as\nrich as the rich. As for the assertion that men are ill treated and\nmurdered to force them to work for the profit of the rich, that is\na sophism. The army is only called out against the mob, when the\npeople, in ignorance of their own interests, make disturbances and\ndestroy the tranquillity necessary for the public welfare. In the\nsame way, too, it is necessary to keep in restraint the malefactors\nfor whom the prisons and gallows are established. We ourselves\nwish to suppress these forms of punishment and are working in that\ndirection.\"\n\nHypocrisy in our day is supported on two sides: by false religion and\nby false science. And it has reached such proportions that if we were\nnot living in its midst, we could not believe that men could attain\nsuch a pitch of self-deception. Men of the present day have come into\nsuch an extraordinary condition, their hearts are so hardened, that\nseeing they see not, hearing they do not hear, and understand not.\n\nMen have long been living in antagonism to their conscience. If it\nwere not for hypocrisy they could not go on living such a life. This\nsocial organization in opposition to their conscience only continues\nto exist because it is disguised by hypocrisy.\n\nAnd the greater the divergence between actual life and men's\nconscience, the greater the extension of hypocrisy. But even\nhypocrisy has its limits. And it seems to me that we have reached\nthose limits in the present day.\n\nEvery man of the present day with the Christian principles\nassimilated involuntarily in his conscience, finds himself in\nprecisely the position of a man asleep who dreams that he is obliged\nto do something which even in his dream he knows he ought not to\ndo. He knows this in the depths of his conscience, and all the same\nhe seems unable to change his position; he cannot stop and cease\ndoing what he ought not to do. And just as in a dream, his position\nbecoming more and more painful, at last reaches such a pitch of\nintensity that he begins sometimes to doubt the reality of what is\npassing and makes a moral effort to shake off the nightmare which is\noppressing him.\n\nThis is just the condition of the average man of our Christian\nsociety. He feels that all that he does himself and that is done\naround him is something absurd, hideous, impossible, and opposed to\nhis conscience; he feels that his position is becoming more and more\nunendurable and reaching a crisis of intensity.\n\nIt is not possible that we modern men, with the Christian sense of\nhuman dignity and equality permeating us soul and body, with our need\nfor peaceful association and unity between nations, should really go\non living in such a way that every joy, every gratification we have\nis bought by the sufferings, by the lives of our brother men, and\nmoreover, that we should be every instant within a hair's-breadth\nof falling on one another, nation against nation, like wild beasts,\nmercilessly destroying men's lives and labor, only because some\nbenighted diplomatist or ruler says or writes some stupidity to\nanother equally benighted diplomatist or ruler.\n\nIt is impossible. Yet every man of our day sees that this is so\nand awaits the calamity. And the situation becomes more and more\ninsupportable.\n\nAnd as the man who is dreaming does not believe that what appears to\nhim can be truly the reality and tries to wake up to the actual real\nworld again, so the average man of modern days cannot in the bottom\nof his heart believe that the awful position in which he is placed\nand which is growing worse and worse can be the reality, and tries to\nwake up to a true, real life, as it exists in his conscience.\n\nAnd just as the dreamer need only make a moral effort and ask\nhimself, \"Isn't it a dream?\" and the situation which seemed to him so\nhopeless will instantly disappear, and he will wake up to peaceful\nand happy reality, so the man of the modern world need only make\na moral effort to doubt the reality presented to him by his own\nhypocrisy and the general hypocrisy around him, and to ask himself,\n\"Isn't it all a delusion?\" and he will at once, like the dreamer\nawakened, feel himself transported from an imaginary and dreadful\nworld to the true, calm, and happy reality.\n\nAnd to do this a man need accomplish no great feats or exploits. He\nneed only make a moral effort.\n\nBut can a man make this effort?\n\nAccording to the existing theory so essential to support hypocrisy,\nman is not free and cannot change his life.\n\n\"Man cannot change his life, because he is not free. He is not free,\nbecause all his actions are conditioned by previously existing\ncauses. And whatever the man may do there are always some causes\nor other through which he does these or those acts, and therefore\nman cannot be free and change his life,\" say the champions of the\nmetaphysics of hypocrisy. And they would be perfectly right if man\nwere a creature without conscience and incapable of moving toward\nthe truth; that is to say, if after recognizing a new truth, man\nalways remained at the same stage of moral development. But man\nis a creature with a conscience and capable of attaining a higher\nand higher degree of truth. And therefore even if man is not free\nas regards performing these or those acts because there exists a\nprevious cause for every act, the very causes of his acts, consisting\nas they do for the man of conscience of the recognition of this or\nthat truth, are within his own control.\n\nSo that though man may not be free as regards the performance of\nhis actions, he is free as regards the foundation on which they are\nperformed. Just as the mechanician who is not free to modify the\nmovement of his locomotive when it is in motion, is free to regulate\nthe machine beforehand so as to determine what the movement is to be.\n\nWhatever the conscious man does, he acts just as he does, and not\notherwise, only because he recognizes that to act as he is acting is\nin accord with the truth, or because he has recognized it at some\nprevious time, and is now only through inertia, through habit, acting\nin accordance with his previous recognition of truth.\n\nIn any case, the cause of his action is not to be found in any given\nprevious fact, but in the consciousness of a given relation to truth,\nand the consequent recognition of this or that fact as a sufficient\nbasis for action.\n\nWhether a man eats or does not eat, works or rests, runs risks or\navoids them, if he has a conscience he acts thus only because he\nconsiders it right and rational, because he considers that to act\nthus is in harmony with truth, or else because he has made this\nreflection in the past.\n\nThe recognition or non-recognition of a certain truth depends not on\nexternal causes, but on certain other causes within the man himself.\nSo that at times under external conditions apparently very favorable\nfor the recognition of truth, one man will not recognize it, and\nanother, on the contrary, under the most unfavorable conditions will,\nwithout apparent cause, recognize it. As it is said in the Gospel,\n\"No man can come unto me, except the Father which hath sent me draw\nhim.\" That is to say, the recognition of truth, which is the cause\nof all the manifestations of human life, does not depend on external\nphenomena, but on certain inner spiritual characteristics of the man\nwhich escape our observation.\n\nAnd therefore man, though not free in his acts, always feels\nhimself free in what is the motive of his acts--the recognition or\nnon-recognition of truth. And he feels himself independent not only\nof facts external to his own personality, but even of his own actions.\n\nThus a man who under the influence of passion has committed an act\ncontrary to the truth he recognizes, remains none the less free to\nrecognize it or not to recognize it; that is, he can by refusing to\nrecognize the truth regard his action as necessary and justifiable,\nor he may recognize the truth and regard his act as wrong and censure\nhimself for it.\n\nThus a gambler or a drunkard who does not resist temptation and\nyields to his passion is still free to recognize gambling and\ndrunkenness as wrong or to regard them as a harmless pastime. In the\nfirst case even if he does not at once get over his passion, he gets\nthe more free from it the more sincerely he recognizes the truth\nabout it; in the second case he will be strengthened in his vice and\nwill deprive himself of every possibility of shaking it off.\n\nIn the same way a man who has made his escape alone from a house on\nfire, not having had the courage to save his friend, remains free,\nrecognizing the truth that a man ought to save the life of another\neven at the risk of his own, to regard his action as bad and to\ncensure himself for it, or, not recognizing this truth, to regard his\naction as natural and necessary and to justify it to himself. In the\nfirst case, if he recognizes the truth in spite of his departure\nfrom it, he prepares for himself in the future a whole series of acts\nof self-sacrifice necessarily flowing from this recognition of the\ntruth; in the second case, a whole series of egoistic acts.\n\nNot that a man is always free to recognize or to refuse to recognize\nevery truth. There are truths which he has recognized long before or\nwhich have been handed down to him by education and tradition and\naccepted by him on faith, and to follow these truths has become a\nhabit, a second nature with him; and there are truths, only vaguely,\nas it were distantly, apprehended by him. The man is not free to\nrefuse to recognize the first, nor to recognize the second class of\ntruths. But there are truths of a third kind, which have not yet\nbecome an unconscious motive of action, but yet have been revealed so\nclearly to him that he cannot pass them by, and is inevitably obliged\nto do one thing or the other, to recognize or not to recognize them.\nAnd it is in regard to these truths that the man's freedom manifests\nitself.\n\nEvery man during his life finds himself in regard to truth in the\nposition of a man walking in the darkness with light thrown before\nhim by the lantern he carries. He does not see what is not yet\nlighted up by the lantern; he does not see what he has passed which\nis hidden in the darkness; but at every stage of his journey he sees\nwhat is lighted up by the lantern, and he can always choose one side\nor the other of the road.\n\nThere are always unseen truths not yet revealed to the man's\nintellectual vision, and there are other truths outlived, forgotten,\nand assimilated by him, and there are also certain truths that rise\nup before the light of his reason and require his recognition. And it\nis in the recognition or non-recognition of these truths that what we\ncall his freedom is manifested.\n\nAll the difficulty and seeming insolubility of the question of the\nfreedom of man results from those who tried to solve the question\nimagining man as stationary in his relation to the truth.\n\nMan is certainly not free if we imagine him stationary, and if we\nforget that the life of a man and of humanity is nothing but a\ncontinual movement from darkness into light, from a lower stage of\ntruth to a higher, from a truth more alloyed with errors to a truth\nmore purified from them.\n\nMan would not be free if he knew no truth at all, and in the same way\nhe would not be free and would not even have any idea of freedom if\nthe whole truth which was to guide him in life had been revealed once\nfor all to him in all its purity without any admixture of error.\n\nBut man is not stationary in regard to truth, but every individual\nman as he passes through life, and humanity as a whole in the same\nway, is continually learning to know a greater and greater degree of\ntruth, and growing more and more free from error.\n\nAnd therefore men are in a threefold relation to truth. Some\ntruths have been so assimilated by them that they have become the\nunconscious basis of action, others are only just on the point of\nbeing revealed to him, and a third class, though not yet assimilated\nby him, have been revealed to him with sufficient clearness to force\nhim to decide either to recognize them or to refuse to recognize them.\n\nThese, then, are the truths which man is free to recognize or to\nrefuse to recognize.\n\nThe liberty of man does not consist in the power of acting\nindependently of the progress of life and the influences arising from\nit, but in the capacity for recognizing and acknowledging the truth\nrevealed to him, and becoming the free and joyful participator in\nthe eternal and infinite work of God, the life of the world; or on\nthe other hand for refusing to recognize the truth, and so being a\nmiserable and reluctant slave dragged whither he has no desire to go.\n\nTruth not only points out the way along which human life ought to\nmove, but reveals also the only way along which it can move. And\ntherefore all men must willingly or unwillingly move along the way of\ntruth, some spontaneously accomplishing the task set them in life,\nothers submitting involuntarily to the law of life. Man's freedom\nlies in the power of this choice.\n\nThis freedom within these narrow limits seems so insignificant to men\nthat they do not notice it. Some--the determinists--consider this\namount of freedom so trifling that they do not recognize it at all.\nOthers--the champions of complete free will--keep their eyes fixed on\ntheir hypothetical free will and neglect this which seemed to them\nsuch a trivial degree of freedom.\n\nThis freedom, confined between the limits of complete ignorance\nof the truth and a recognition of a part of the truth, seems\nhardly freedom at all, especially since, whether a man is willing\nor unwilling to recognize the truth revealed to him, he will be\ninevitably forced to carry it out in life.\n\nA horse harnessed with others to a cart is not free to refrain from\nmoving the cart. If he does not move forward the cart will knock him\ndown and go on dragging him with it, whether he will or not. But the\nhorse is free to drag the cart himself or to be dragged with it. And\nso it is with man.\n\nWhether this is a great or small degree of freedom in comparison with\nthe fantastic liberty we should like to have, it is the only freedom\nthat really exists, and in it consists the only happiness attainable\nby man.\n\nAnd more than that, this freedom is the sole means of accomplishing\nthe divine work of the life of the world.\n\nAccording to Christ's doctrine, the man who sees the significance of\nlife in the domain in which it is not free, in the domain of effects,\nthat is, of acts, has not the true life. According to the Christian\ndoctrine, that man is living in the truth who has transported his\nlife to the domain in which it is free--the domain of causes, that\nis, the knowledge and recognition, the profession and realization in\nlife of revealed truth.\n\nDevoting his life to works of the flesh, a man busies himself with\nactions depending on temporary causes outside himself. He himself\ndoes nothing really, he merely seems to be doing something. In\nreality all the acts which seem to be his are the work of a higher\npower, and he is not the creator of his own life, but the slave of\nit. Devoting his life to the recognition and fulfillment of the truth\nrevealed to him, he identifies himself with the source of universal\nlife and accomplishes acts not personal, and dependent on conditions\nof space and time, but acts unconditioned by previous causes, acts\nwhich constitute the causes of everything else, and have an infinite,\nunlimited significance.\n\n\"The kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by\nforce.\" (Matt. xi. 12.)\n\nIt is this violent effort to rise above external conditions to the\nrecognition and realization of truth by which the kingdom of heaven\nis taken, and it is this effort of violence which must and can be\nmade in our times.\n\nMen need only understand this, they need only cease to trouble\nthemselves about the general external conditions in which they are\nnot free, and devote one-hundredth part of the energy they waste\non those material things to that in which they are free, to the\nrecognition and realization of the truth which is before them, and to\nthe liberation of themselves and others from deception and hypocrisy,\nand, without effort or conflict, there would be an end at once of the\nfalse organization of life which makes men miserable, and threatens\nthem with worse calamities in the future. And then the kingdom of\nGod would be realized, or at least that first stage of it for which\nmen are ready now by the degree of development of their conscience.\n\nJust as a single shock may be sufficient, when a liquid is saturated\nwith some salt, to precipitate it at once in crystals, a slight\neffort may be perhaps all that is needed now that the truth already\nrevealed to men may gain a mastery over hundreds, thousands, millions\nof men, that a public opinion consistent with conscience may be\nestablished, and through this change of public opinion the whole\norder of life may be transformed. And it depends upon us to make this\neffort.\n\nLet each of us only try to understand and accept the Christian truth\nwhich in the most varied forms surrounds us on all sides and forces\nitself upon us; let us only cease from lying and pretending that we\ndo not see this truth or wish to realize it, at least in what it\ndemands from us above all else; only let us accept and boldly profess\nthe truth to which we are called, and we should find at once that\nhundreds, thousands, millions of men are in the same position as\nwe, that they see the truth as we do, and dread as we do to stand\nalone in recognizing it, and like us are only waiting for others to\nrecognize it also.\n\nOnly let men cease to be hypocrites, and they would at once see that\nthis cruel social organization, which holds them in bondage, and is\nrepresented to them as something stable, necessary, and ordained of\nGod, is already tottering and is only propped up by the falsehood of\nhypocrisy, with which we, and others like us, support it.\n\nBut if this is so, if it is true that it depends on us to break down\nthe existing organization of life, have we the right to destroy it,\nwithout knowing clearly what we shall set up in its place? What will\nbecome of human society when the existing order of things is at an\nend?\n\n\"What shall we find the other side of the walls of the world we are\nabandoning?\n\n\"Fear will come upon us--a void, a vast emptiness, freedom--how are\nwe to go forward not knowing whither, how face loss, not seeing\nhope of gain?... If Columbus had reasoned thus he would never have\nweighed anchor. It was madness to set off upon the ocean, not knowing\nthe route, on the ocean on which no one had sailed, to sail toward\na land whose existence was doubtful. By this madness he discovered\na new world. Doubtless if the peoples of the world could simply\ntransfer themselves from one furnished mansion to another and better\none--it would make it much easier; but unluckily there is no one to\nget humanity's new dwelling ready for it. The future is even worse\nthan the ocean--there is nothing there--it will be what men and\ncircumstances make it.\n\n\"If you are content with the old world, try to preserve it, it is\nvery sick and cannot hold out much longer. But if you cannot bear to\nlive in everlasting dissonance between your beliefs and your life,\nthinking one thing and doing another, get out of the medi\u00e6val whited\nsepulchers, and face your fears. I know very well it is not easy.\n\n\"It is not a little thing to cut one's self off from all to which a\nman has been accustomed from his birth, with which he has grown up\nto maturity. Men are ready for tremendous sacrifices, but not for\nthose which life demands of them. Are they ready to sacrifice modern\ncivilization, their manner of life, their religion, the received\nconventional morality?\n\n\"Are we ready to give up all the results we have attained with such\neffort, results of which we have been boasting for three centuries;\nto give up every convenience and charm of our existence, to prefer\nsavage youth to the senile decay of civilization, to pull down the\npalace raised for us by our ancestors only for the pleasure of having\na hand in the founding of a new house, which will doubtless be built\nlong after we are gone?\" (Herzen, vol. v. p. 55.)\n\nThus wrote almost half a century ago the Russian writer, who with\nprophetic insight saw clearly then, what even the most unreflecting\nman sees to-day, the impossibility, that is, of life continuing on\nits old basis, and the necessity of establishing new forms of life.\n\nIt is clear now from the very simplest, most commonplace point of\nview, that it is madness to remain under the roof of a building which\ncannot support its weight, and that we must leave it. And indeed it\nis difficult to imagine a position more wretched than that of the\nChristian world to-day, with its nations armed against one another,\nwith its constantly increasing taxation to maintain its armies,\nwith the hatred of the working class for the rich ever growing more\nintense, with the Damocles sword of war forever hanging over the\nheads of all, ready every instant to fall, certain to fall sooner or\nlater.\n\nHardly could any revolution be more disastrous for the great mass\nof the population than the present order or rather disorder of our\nlife, with its daily sacrifices to exhausting and unnatural toil, to\npoverty, drunkenness, and profligacy, with all the horrors of the war\nthat is at hand, which will swallow up in one year more victims than\nall the revolutions of the century.\n\nWhat will become of humanity if each of us performs the duty God\ndemands of us through the conscience implanted within us? Will not\nharm come if, being wholly in the power of a master, I carry out, in\nthe workshop erected and directed by him, the orders he gives me,\nstrange though they may seem to me who do not know the Master's final\naims?\n\nBut it is not even this question \"What will happen?\" that agitates\nmen when they hesitate to fulfill the Master's will. They are\ntroubled by the question how to live without those habitual\nconditions of life which we call civilization, culture, art, and\nscience. We feel ourselves all the burdensomeness of life as it is;\nwe see also that this organization of life must inevitably be our\nruin, if it continues. At the same time we want the conditions of our\nlife which arise out of this organization--our civilization, culture,\nart, and science--to remain intact. It is as though a man, living in\nan old house and suffering from cold and all sorts of inconvenience\nin it, knowing, too, that it is on the point of falling to pieces,\nshould consent to its being rebuilt, but only on the condition\nthat he should not be required to leave it: a condition which is\nequivalent to refusing to have it rebuilt at all.\n\n\"But what if I leave the house and give up every convenience for a\ntime, and the new house is not built, or is built on a different plan\nso that I do not find in it the comforts to which I am accustomed?\"\nBut seeing that the materials and the builders are here, there is\nevery likelihood that the new house will on the contrary be better\nbuilt than the old one. And at the same time, there is not only the\nlikelihood but the certainty that the old house will fall down and\ncrush those who remain within it. Whether the old habitual conditions\nof life are supported, or whether they are abolished and altogether\nnew and better conditions arise; in any case, there is no doubt we\nshall be forced to leave the old forms of life which have become\nimpossible and fatal, and must go forward to meet the future.\n\n\"Civilization, art, science, culture, will disappear!\"\n\nYes, but all these we know are only various manifestations of truth,\nand the change that is before us is only to be made for the sake\nof a closer attainment and realization of truth. How then can the\nmanifestations of truth disappear through our realizing it? These\nmanifestations will be different, higher, better, but they will not\ncease to be. Only what is false in them will be destroyed; all the\ntruth there was in them will only be stronger and more flourishing.\n\nTake thought, oh, men, and have faith in the Gospel, in whose\nteaching is your happiness. If you do not take thought, you will\nperish just as the men perished, slain by Pilate, or crushed by the\ntower of Siloam; as millions of men have perished, slayers and slain,\nexecuting and executed, torturers and tortured alike, and as the man\nfoolishly perished, who filled his granaries full and made ready\nfor a long life and died the very night that he planned to begin\nhis life. Take thought and have faith in the Gospel, Christ said\neighteen hundred years ago, and he says it with even greater force\nnow that the calamities foretold by him have come to pass, and the\nsenselessness of our life has reached the furthest point of suffering\nand madness.\n\nNowadays, after so many centuries of fruitless efforts to make our\nlife secure by the pagan organization of life, it must be evident\nto everyone that all efforts in that direction only introduce fresh\ndangers into personal and social life, and do not render it more\nsecure in any way.\n\nWhatever names we dignify ourselves with, whatever uniforms we wear,\nwhatever priests we anoint ourselves before, however many millions we\npossess, however many guards are stationed along our road, however\nmany policemen guard our wealth, however many so-called criminals,\nrevolutionists, and anarchists we punish, whatever exploits we have\nperformed, whatever states we may have founded, fortresses and\ntowers we may have erected--from Babel to the Eiffel Tower--there\nare two inevitable conditions of life, confronting all of us, which\ndestroy its whole meaning; (1) death, which may at any moment pounce\nupon each of us; and (2) the transitoriness of all our works, which\nso soon pass away and leave no trace. Whatever we may do--found\ncompanies, build palaces and monuments, write songs and poems--it is\nall not for long time. Soon it passes away, leaving no trace. And\ntherefore, however we may conceal it from ourselves, we cannot help\nseeing that the significance of our life cannot lie in our personal\nfleshly existence, the prey of incurable suffering and inevitable\ndeath, nor in any social institution or organization. Whoever you may\nbe who are reading these lines, think of your position and of your\nduties--not of your position as landowner, merchant, judge, emperor,\npresident, minister, priest, soldier, which has been temporarily\nallotted you by men, and not of the imaginary duties laid on you by\nthose positions, but of your real positions in eternity as a creature\nwho at the will of Someone has been called out of unconsciousness\nafter an eternity of non-existence to which you may return at any\nmoment at his will. Think of your duties--not your supposed duties\nas a landowner to your estate, as a merchant to your business, as\nemperor, minister, or official to the state, but of your real duties,\nthe duties that follow from your real position as a being called into\nlife and endowed with reason and love.\n\nAre you doing what he demands of you who has sent you into the world,\nand to whom you will soon return? Are you doing what he wills? Are\nyou doing his will, when as landowner or manufacturer you rob the\npoor of the fruits of their toil, basing your life on this plunder\nof the workers, or when, as judge or governor, you ill treat men,\nsentence them to execution, or when as soldiers you prepare for war,\nkill and plunder?\n\nYou will say that the world is so made that this is inevitable, and\nthat you do not do this of your own free will, but because you are\nforced to do so. But can it be that you have such a strong aversion\nto men's sufferings, ill treatment, and murder, that you have such\nan intense need of love and co-operation with your fellows that you\nsee clearly that only by the recognition of the equality of all, and\nby mutual services, can the greatest possible happiness be realized;\nthat your head and your heart, the faith you profess, and even\nscience itself tell you the same thing, and yet that in spite of it\nall you can be forced by some confused and complicated reasoning to\nact in direct opposition to all this; that as landowner or capitalist\nyou are bound to base your whole life on the oppression of the\npeople; that as emperor or president you are to command armies, that\nis, to be the head and commander of murderers; or that as government\nofficial you are forced to take from the poor their last pence for\nrich men to profit and share them among themselves; or that as\njudge or juryman you could be forced to sentence erring men to ill\ntreatment and death because the truth was not revealed to them, or\nabove all, for that is the basis of all the evil, that you could be\nforced to become a soldier, and renouncing your free will and your\nhuman sentiments, could undertake to kill anyone at the command of\nother men?\n\nIt cannot be.\n\nEven if you are told that all this is necessary for the maintenance\nof the existing order of things, and that this social order with\nits pauperism, famines, prisons, gallows, armies, and wars is\nnecessary to society; that still greater disasters would ensue if\nthis organization were destroyed; all that is said only by those who\nprofit by this organization, while those who suffer from it--and they\nare ten times as numerous--think and say quite the contrary. And at\nthe bottom of your heart you know yourself that it is not true, that\nthe existing organization has outlived its time, and must inevitably\nbe reconstructed on new principles, and that consequently there is\nno obligation upon you to sacrifice your sentiments of humanity to\nsupport it.\n\nAbove all, even if you allow that this organization is necessary,\nwhy do you believe it to be your duty to maintain it at the cost of\nyour best feelings? Who has made you the nurse in charge of this sick\nand moribund organization? Not society nor the state nor anyone;\nno one has asked you to undertake this; you who fill your position\nof landowner, merchant, tzar, priest, or soldier know very well\nthat you occupy that position by no means with the unselfish aim of\nmaintaining the organization of life necessary to men's happiness,\nbut simply in your own interests, to satisfy your own covetousness or\nvanity or ambition or indolence or cowardice. If you did not desire\nthat position, you would not be doing your utmost to retain it. Try\nthe experiment of ceasing to commit the cruel, treacherous, and base\nactions that you are constantly committing in order to retain your\nposition, and you will lose it at once. Try the simple experiment,\nas a government official, of giving up lying, and refusing to take\na part in executions and acts of violence; as a priest, of giving\nup deception; as a soldier, of giving up murder; as landowner or\nmanufacturer, of giving up defending your property by fraud and\nforce; and you will at once lose the position which you pretend is\nforced upon you, and which seems burdensome to you.\n\nA man cannot be placed against his will in a situation opposed to his\nconscience.\n\nIf you find yourself in such a position it is not because it is\nnecessary to anyone whatever, but simply because you wish it. And\ntherefore knowing that your position is repugnant to your heart and\nyour head, and to your faith, and even to the science in which you\nbelieve, you cannot help reflecting upon the question whether in\nretaining it, and above all trying to justify it, you are doing what\nyou ought to do.\n\nYou might risk making a mistake if you had time to see and retrieve\nyour fault, and if you ran the risk for something of some value. But\nwhen you know beyond all doubt that you may disappear any minute,\nwithout the least possibility either for yourself or those you draw\nafter you into your error, of retrieving the mistake, when you know\nthat whatever you may do in the external organization of life it will\nall disappear as quickly and surely as you will yourself, and will\nleave no trace behind, it is clear that you have no reasonable ground\nfor running the risk of such a fearful mistake.\n\nIt would be perfectly simple and clear if you did not by your\nhypocrisy disguise the truth which has so unmistakably been revealed\nto us.\n\nShare all that you have with others, do not heap up riches, do not\nsteal, do not cause suffering, do not kill, do not unto others what\nyou would not they should do unto you, all that has been said not\neighteen hundred, but five thousand years ago, and there could be no\ndoubt of the truth of this law if it were not for hypocrisy. Except\nfor hypocrisy men could not have failed, if not to put the law in\npractice, at least to recognize it, and admit that it is wrong not to\nput it in practice.\n\nBut you will say that there is the public good to be considered, and\nthat on that account one must not and ought not to conform to these\nprinciples; for the public good one may commit acts of violence and\nmurder. It is better for one man to die than that the whole people\nperish, you will say like Caiaphas, and you sign the sentence of\ndeath of one man, of a second, and a third; you load your gun against\nthis man who is to perish for the public good, you imprison him, you\ntake his possessions. You say that you commit these acts of cruelty\nbecause you are a part of the society and of the state; that it is\nyour duty to serve them, and as landowner, judge, emperor, or soldier\nto conform to their laws. But besides belonging to the state and\nhaving duties created by that position, you belong also to eternity\nand to God, who also lays duties upon you. And just as your duties\nto your family and to society are subordinate to your superior\nduties to the state, in the same way the latter must necessarily be\nsubordinated to the duties dictated to you by the eternal life and by\nGod. And just as it would be senseless to pull up the telegraph posts\nfor fuel for a family or society and thus to increase its welfare at\nthe expense of public interests, in the same way it is senseless to\ndo violence, to execute, and to murder to increase the welfare of the\nnation, because that is at the expense of the interests of humanity.\n\nYour duties as a citizen cannot but be subordinated to the superior\nobligations of the eternal life of God, and cannot be in opposition\nto them. As Christ's disciples said eighteen centuries ago: \"Whether\nit be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto\nGod, judge ye\" (Acts iv. 19); and, \"We ought to obey God rather than\nmen\" (Acts v. 29).\n\nIt is asserted that, in order that the unstable order of things,\nestablished in one corner of the world for a few men, may not be\ndestroyed, you ought to commit acts of violence which destroy the\neternal and immutable order established by God and by reason. Can\nthat possibly be?\n\nAnd therefore you cannot but reflect on your position as landowner,\nmanufacturer, judge, emperor, president, minister, priest, and\nsoldier, which is bound up with violence, deception, and murder, and\nrecognize its unlawfulness.\n\nI do not say that if you are a landowner you are bound to give up\nyour lands immediately to the poor; if a capitalist or manufacturer,\nyour money to your workpeople; or that if you are Tzar, minister,\nofficial, judge, or general, you are bound to renounce immediately\nthe advantages of your position; or if a soldier, on whom all the\nsystem of violence is based, to refuse immediately to obey in spite\nof all the dangers of insubordination.\n\nIf you do so, you will be doing the best thing possible. But it may\nhappen, and it is most likely, that you will not have the strength\nto do so. You have relations, a family, subordinates and superiors;\nyou are under an influence so powerful that you cannot shake it off;\nbut you can always recognize the truth and refuse to tell a lie\nabout it. You need not declare that you are remaining a landowner,\nmanufacturer, merchant, artist, or writer because it is useful to\nmankind; that you are governor, prosecutor, or tzar, not because\nit is agreeable to you, because you are used to it, but for the\npublic good; that you continue to be a soldier, not from fear of\npunishment, but because you consider the army necessary to society.\nYou can always avoid lying in this way to yourself and to others, and\nyou ought to do so; because the one aim of your life ought to be to\npurify yourself from falsehood and to confess the truth. And you need\nonly do that and your situation will change directly of itself.\n\nThere is one thing, and only one thing, in which it is granted to\nyou to be free in life, all else being beyond your power: that is to\nrecognize and profess the truth.\n\nAnd yet simply from the fact that other men as misguided and as\npitiful creatures as yourself have made you soldier, tzar, landowner,\ncapitalist, priest, or general, you undertake to commit acts of\nviolence obviously opposed to your reason and your heart, to base\nyour existence on the misfortunes of others, and above all, instead\nof filling the one duty of your life, recognizing and professing the\ntruth, you feign not to recognize it and disguise it from yourself\nand others.\n\nAnd what are the conditions in which you are doing this? You who\nmay die any instant, you sign sentences of death, you declare war,\nyou take part in it, you judge, you punish, you plunder the working\npeople, you live luxuriously in the midst of the poor, and teach weak\nmen who have confidence in you that this must be so, that the duty of\nmen is to do this, and yet it may happen at the moment when you are\nacting thus that a bacterium or a bull may attack you and you will\nfall and die, losing forever the chance of repairing the harm you\nhave done to others, and above all to yourself, in uselessly wasting\na life which has been given you only once in eternity, without\nhaving accomplished the only thing you ought to have done.\n\nHowever commonplace and out of date it may seem to us, however\nconfused we may be by hypocrisy and by the hypnotic suggestion which\nresults from it, nothing can destroy the certainty of this simple\nand clearly defined truth. No external conditions can guarantee our\nlife, which is attended with inevitable sufferings and infallibly\nterminated by death, and which consequently can have no significance\nexcept in the constant accomplishment of what is demanded by the\nPower which has placed us in life with a sole certain guide--the\nrational conscience.\n\nThat is why that Power cannot require of us what is irrational and\nimpossible: the organization of our temporary external life, the life\nof society or of the state. That Power demands of us only what is\nreasonable, certain, and possible: to serve the kingdom of God, that\nis, to contribute to the establishment of the greatest possible union\nbetween all living beings--a union possible only in the truth; and to\nrecognize and to profess the revealed truth, which is always in our\npower.\n\n\"But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness, and all\nthese things shall be added unto you.\" (Matt. vi. 33.)\n\nThe sole meaning of life is to serve humanity by contributing to the\nestablishment of the kingdom of God, which can only be done by the\nrecognition and profession of the truth by every man.\n\n\"The kingdom of God cometh not with outward show; neither shall they\nsay, Lo here! or, Lo there! for behold, the kingdom of God is within\nyou.\" (Luke xvii. 20, 21.)\n\n\n                    THE END.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nTranscriber's note:\n\nText enclosed by underscores is in italics (_italics_).\n\nSmall capital text has been replaced with all capitals.\n\nText enclosed by plus signs (+Greek+) is a transileration of Greek.\n\nVariations in spelling, punctuation and hyphenation have been\nretained except in obvious cases of typographical error.\n\nThe transcriber has changed the page number for Chapter XII in the\nTable of Contents from 279 to 278.","title":"\"The Kingdom of God Is Within You\": Christianity Not as a Mystic Religion but as a New Theory of Life","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":123866}