{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_43794/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_43794","id":"gutenberg_43794","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/43794","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Category: Russian Literature","Christianity"],"text":"Transcriber's Notes:\n\n  Italic text is denoted by _underscores_.\n\n  Blank pages have been eliminated.\n\n  Greek and Hebrew characters have been transliterated to English\n  characters. The transliterations are denoted by [Greek: [Hebrew:\n\n  Variations in spelling and hyphenation have been left as in the\n  original.\n\n  A few typographical errors have been corrected.\n\n\n\n\n  MY RELIGION.\n\n\n  BY\n  COUNT LEO TOLSTOI.\n\n\n  _TRANSLATED FROM THE FRENCH._\n\n\n  NEW YORK:\n  THOMAS Y. CROWELL & CO.,\n  13 ASTOR PLACE.\n\n\n  Copyright by\n  THOMAS Y. CROWELL & CO.,\n  1885.\n\n\n\n\nTRANSLATOR'S PREFACE.\n\n\nTO one not familiar with the Russian language the accessible data\nrelative to the external life of Leo Nikolaevich Tolstoi, the author of\nthis book, are, to say the least, not voluminous. His name does not\nappear in that heterogeneous record of celebrities known as _The Men of\nthe Time_, nor is it to be found in M. Vapereau's comprehensive\n_Dictionnaire des Contemporains_. And yet Count Leo Tolstoi is\nacknowledged by competent critics to be a man of extraordinary genius,\nwho, certainly in one instance, has produced a masterpiece of literature\nwhich will continue to rank with the great artistic productions of this\nage.\n\nPerhaps it is enough for us to know that he was born on his father's\nestate in the Russian province of Tula, in the year 1828; that he\nreceived a good home education and studied the oriental languages at the\nUniversity of Kasan; that he was for a time in the army, which he\nentered at the age of twenty-three as an officer of artillery, serving\nlater on the staff of Prince Gortschakof; and that subsequently he\nalternated between St. Petersburg and Moscow, leading the existence of\nsuper-refined barbarism and excessive luxury, characteristic of the\nRussian aristocracy. He saw life in country and city, in camp and court.\nHe was numbered among the defenders of Sebastopol in the Crimean War,\nand the impressions then gathered he used as material for a series of\n_War Sketches_ that attracted attention in the pages of the magazine\nwhere they first appeared; and when, a little later, they were published\nin book form, their author, then twenty-eight years of age, acquired at\nonce a wide popularity. Popularity became fame with the publication,\nalso in 1856, of _Childhood and Youth_, remarkable alike for its artless\nrevelations concerning the genesis and growth of ideas and emotions in\nthe minds of the young, for its idyllic pictures of domestic life, and\nfor its graceful descriptions of nature. This was followed by _The\nCossacks_, a wild romance of the steppes, vigorously realistic in\ndetails, and, like all of Count Tolstoi's works, poetic in conception\nand inspired with a dramatic intensity. In 1860 appeared _War and\nPeace_, an historical romance in many volumes, dealing with the\nNapoleonic invasion of 1812 and the events that immediately followed the\nretreat from Moscow. According to M. C. Courri\u00e8re,[1] it was seized upon\nwith avidity and produced a profound sensation.\n\n     [1] _Histoire de la litt\u00e9rature contemporaine en Russie._\n\n\"The stage is immense and the actors are innumerable; among them three\nemperors with their ministers, their marshals, and their generals, and\nthen a countless retinue of minor officers, soldiers, nobles, and\npeasants. We are transported by turns from the salons of St. Petersburg\nto the camps of war, from Moscow to the country. And all these diverse\nand varied scenes are joined together with a controlling purpose that\nbrings everything into harmony. Each one of the prolonged series of\nconstantly changing tableaux is of remarkable beauty and palpitating\nwith life.\"\n\nPierre Besushkof, one of the three heroes of _War and Peace_, has,\nrightly or wrongly, long been regarded as in some respects an\nautobiographical study, but the personal note is always clearly\nperceptible in Count Tolstoi's writings, if we are to believe the\nreports of the enthusiastic purveyors of literary information who have\nmade known some of their many attractive qualities. It is plain also\nthat a common purpose runs through them all, a purpose which only in the\nauthor's latest production finds full expression. There are hints of it\nin _Childhood and Youth_; in _War and Peace_, and in a subsequent\nromance, _Anna Karenin_, it becomes very distinct. In the two works last\nnamed Count Tolstoi is pitiless in his portrayal of the vices and\nfollies of the wealthy, aristocratic class, and warm in his praise of\nsimplicity and unpretending virtue. Pierre Besushkof is represented as\nthe product of a transition period, one who sees clearly that the future\nmust be different from the past, but unable to interpret the prophecies\nof its coming. M. Courri\u00e8re speaks of him very happily as \"an overgrown\nchild who seems to be lost in a wholly unfamiliar world.\" For a time\nPierre finds mental tranquility in the tenets of freemasonry, and the\nauthor gives us a vivid account, humorous and pathetic by turns, of the\nyoung man's efforts to carry the newly acquired doctrines into practice.\nHe determines to better the condition of the peasants on his estates;\nbut instead of looking after the affair himself, he leaves the\nconsummation of his plans to his stewards, with the result that \"the\ncleverest among them listened with attention, but considered one thing\nonly,--how to carry out their own private ends under the pretense of\nexecuting his commands.\" Later on we are shown Pierre wandering\naimlessly about the streets of burning Moscow, until taken into custody\nby the French. Then he learns the true meaning of life from a simple\nsoldier, a fellow-prisoner, and thereby realizes that safety for the\nfuture is to be obtained only by bringing life to the standard of rude\nsimplicity adopted by the common people, by recognizing, in act as well\nas in deed, the brotherhood of man.\n\nWe cannot here enter into the question as to whether this mental\nattitude, by no means unusual among Russians of cultivation and\nliberality, arises from the lack of social gradation between the noble\nand the peasant, which forces the social philosopher of rank to accept\nan existence of pure worldliness and empty show, or to adopt the\nprimitive aspirations and humble toil of the tillers of the soil. At any\nrate, it is plain that Count Tolstoi sides with the latter. The doctrine\nof simplification has many adherents in Russia, and when, some time\nago, it was announced that the author of _War and Peace_ had retired to\nthe country and was leading a life of frugality and unaffected toil in\nthe cultivation of his estates, the surprise to his own countrymen could\nnot have been very great. In this book he tells us how the decision was\nformed. He bases his conclusions on a direct and literal interpretation\nof the teachings of Jesus as expressed in the Sermon on the Mount.\n\nThe interpretation is not new in theory, but never before has it been\ncarried out with so much zeal, so much determination, so much sincerity,\nand, granting the premises, with logic so unanswerable, as in this\nbeautiful confession of faith. How movingly does he depict the doubts\nand fears of the searcher after the better life; how impressive his\nearnest inquiry for truth; how inspiring his confidence in the natural\ngoodness, as opposed to the natural depravity of man; how convincing his\nargument that the doctrine of Jesus is simple, practicable, and\nconducive to the highest happiness; how terrifying his enumeration of\nthe sufferings of \"the martyrs to the doctrine of the world\"; how\npitiless his arraignment of the Church for its complacent indifference\nto the welfare of humanity here in this present stage of existence; how\nsublime his prophecy of the golden age when men shall dwell together in\nthe bonds of love, and sin and suffering shall be no more the common lot\nof mankind! We read, and are thrilled with a divine emotion; but which\nof us is willing to accept the truth here unfolded as the veritable\nsecret of life?\n\nShall we take seriously this eloquent enunciation of faith in humility,\nin self-denial, in fraternal love, or shall we regard it only as a\nbeautiful and peaceful phase in the career of a man of genius who, after\nthe storm and stress of a life of sin and suffering, has turned back to\nthe ideals of youth and innocence, and sought to make them once more the\nobjects of desire? Fanaticism, do you say? Ah, yes; but did not Jesus\nand his disciples practise just such fanaticism as this? Does any one\ndeny that all that is best in this modern world (and there is so much of\nthe best, after all), that all that is best has come from the great\nmoral impulse generated by a little group of fanatics in an obscure\ncorner of Asia eighteen centuries ago? That impulse we still feel, in\nspite of all the obstructions that have been put in its way to nullify\nits action; and if any would seek for strength from the primary source\nof power, who shall say him nay? And so although we may smile at the\nartlessness of this Russian evangelist in his determination to find in\nthe gospels the categorical imperative of self-renunciation, although we\nmay regard with wonder the magnificent audacity of his exegetical\nspeculations, we cannot refuse to admire a faith so sincere, so intense,\nand, in many respects, so elevating and so noble.\n\n       HUNTINGTON SMITH.\n\n       DORCHESTER, MASS.,\n       Nov. 19, 1885.\n\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION.\n\n\nI HAVE not always been possessed of the religious ideas set forth in\nthis book. For thirty-five years of my life I was, in the proper\nacceptation of the word, a nihilist,--not a revolutionary socialist, but\na man who believed in nothing. Five years ago faith came to me; I\nbelieved in the doctrine of Jesus, and my whole life underwent a sudden\ntransformation. What I had once wished for I wished for no longer, and I\nbegan to desire what I had never desired before. What had once appeared\nto me right now became wrong, and the wrong of the past I beheld as\nright. My condition was like that of a man who goes forth upon some\nerrand, and having traversed a portion of the road, decides that the\nmatter is of no importance, and turns back. What was at first on his\nright hand is now on his left, and what was at his left hand is now on\nhis right; instead of going away from his abode, he desires to get back\nto it as soon as possible. My life and my desires were completely\nchanged; good and evil interchanged meanings. Why so? Because I\nunderstood the doctrine of Jesus in a different way from that in which I\nhad understood it before.\n\nIt is not my purpose to expound the doctrine of Jesus; I wish only to\ntell how it was that I came to understand what there is in this doctrine\nthat is simple, clear, evident, indisputable; how I understand that part\nof it which appeals to all men, and how this understanding refreshed my\nsoul and gave me happiness and peace.\n\nI do not intend to comment on the doctrine of Jesus; I desire only that\nall comment shall be forever done away with. The Christian sects have\nalways maintained that all men, however unequal in education and\nintelligence, are equal before God; that divine truth is accessible to\nevery one. Jesus has even declared it to be the will of God that what is\nconcealed from the wise shall be revealed to the simple. Not every one\nis able to understand the mysteries of dogmatics, homiletics, liturgics,\nhermeneutics, apologetics; but every one is able and ought to understand\nwhat Jesus Christ said to the millions of simple and ignorant people who\nhave lived, and who are living to-day. Now, the things that Jesus said\nto simple people who could not avail themselves of the comments of Paul,\nof Clement, of Chrysostom, and of others, are just what I did not\nunderstand, and which, now that I have come to understand them, I wish\nto make plain to all.\n\nThe thief on the cross believed in the Christ, and was saved. If the\nthief, instead of dying on the cross, had descended from it, and told\nall men of his belief in the Christ, would not the result have been of\ngreat good? Like the thief on the cross, I believe in the doctrine of\nJesus, and this belief has made me whole. This is not a vain comparison,\nbut a truthful expression of my spiritual condition; my soul, once\nfilled with despair of life and fear of death, is now full of happiness\nand peace.\n\nLike the thief, I knew that my past and present life was vile; I saw\nthat the majority of men about me lived unworthy lives. I knew, like the\nthief, that I was wretched and suffering, that all those about me\nsuffered and were wretched; and I saw before me nothing but death to\nsave me from this condition. As the thief was nailed to his cross, so I\nwas nailed to a life of suffering and evil by an incomprehensible power.\nAnd as the thief saw before him, after the sufferings of a foolish life,\nthe horrible shadows of death, so I beheld the same vista opening before\nme.\n\nIn all this I felt that I was like the thief. There was, however, a\ndifference in our conditions; he was about to die, and I--I still lived.\nThe dying thief thought perhaps to find his salvation beyond the grave,\nwhile I had before me life and its mystery this side the grave. I\nunderstood nothing of this life; it seemed to me a frightful thing, and\nthen--I understood the words of Jesus, and life and death ceased to be\nevil; instead of despair, I tasted joy and happiness that death could\nnot take away.\n\nWill any one, then, be offended if I tell the story of how all this came\nabout?\n\n       LEO TOLSTOI.\n\n       MOSCOW, Jan. 22, 1884.\n\n\n\n\nMY RELIGION.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\n\nI SHALL explain elsewhere, in two voluminous treatises, why I did not\nunderstand the doctrine of Jesus, and how at length it became clear to\nme. These works are a criticism of dogmatic theology and a new\ntranslation of the four Gospels, followed by a concordance. In these\nwritings I seek methodically to disentangle everything that tends to\nconceal the truth from men; I translate the four Gospels anew, verse by\nverse, and I bring them together in a new concordance. The work has\nlasted for six years. Each year, each month, I discover new meanings\nwhich corroborate the fundamental idea; I correct the errors which have\ncrept in, and I put the last touches to what I have already written. My\nlife, whose final term is not far distant, will doubtless end before I\nhave finished my work; but I am convinced that the work will be of great\nservice; so I shall do all that I can to bring it to completion.\n\nI do not now concern myself with this outward work upon theology and the\nGospels, but with an inner work of an entirely different nature. I have\nto do now with nothing systematic or methodical, only with that sudden\nlight which showed me the Gospel doctrine in all its simple beauty.\n\nThe process was something similar to that experienced by one who,\nfollowing an erroneous model, seeks to restore a statue from broken bits\nof marble, and who with one of the most refractory fragments in hand\nperceives the hopelessness of his ideal; then he begins anew, and\ninstead of the former incongruities he finds, as he observes the\noutlines of each fragment, that all fit well together and form one\nconsistent whole. That is exactly what happened to me, and is what I\nwish to relate. I wish to tell how I found the key to the true meaning\nof the doctrine of Jesus, and how by this meaning doubt was absolutely\ndriven from my soul. The discovery came about in this way.\n\nFrom my childhood, from the time I first began to read the New\nTestament, I was touched most of all by that portion of the doctrine of\nJesus which inculcates love, humility, self-denial, and the duty of\nreturning good for evil. This, to me, has always been the substance of\nChristianity; my heart recognized its truth in spite of scepticism and\ndespair, and for this reason I submitted to a religion professed by a\nmultitude of toilers, who find in it the solution of life,--the religion\ntaught by the Orthodox Church. But in making my submission to the\nChurch, I soon saw that I should not find in its creed the confirmation\nof the essence of Christianity; what was to me essential seemed to be in\nthe dogma of the Church merely an accessory. What was to me the most\nimportant of the teachings of Jesus was not so regarded by the Church.\nNo doubt (I thought) the Church sees in Christianity, aside from its\ninner meaning of love, humility, and self-denial, an outer, dogmatic\nmeaning, which, however strange and even repulsive to me, is not in\nitself evil or pernicious. But the further I went on in submission to\nthe doctrine of the Church, the more clearly I saw in this particular\npoint something of greater importance than I had at first realized. What\nI found most repulsive in the doctrine of the Church was the strangeness\nof its dogmas and the approval, nay, the support, which it gave to\npersecutions, to the death penalty, to wars stirred up by the\nintolerance common to all sects; but my faith was chiefly shattered by\nthe indifference of the Church to what seemed to me essential in the\nteachings of Jesus, and its partiality for what seemed to me of\nsecondary importance. I felt that something was wrong; but I could not\nsee where the fault lay, because the doctrine of the Church did not deny\nwhat seemed to me essential in the doctrine of Jesus; this essential was\nfully recognized, yet in such a way as not to give it the first place. I\ncould not accuse the Church of denying the essence of the doctrine of\nJesus, but it was recognized in a way which did not satisfy me. The\nChurch did not give me what I expected from her. I had passed from\nnihilism to the Church simply because I felt it to be impossible to live\nwithout religion, that is, without a knowledge of good and evil aside\nfrom animal instincts. I hoped to find this knowledge in Christianity;\nbut Christianity I then saw only as a vague spiritual tendency, from\nwhich it was impossible to deduce any clear and peremptory rules for the\nguidance of life. These I sought and these I demanded of the Church. The\nChurch offered me rules wherein I not only sought in vain the practice\nof the Christian life so dear to me, but which drove me still further\naway. I could not become a disciple of the Church. An existence based\nupon Christian truth was to me indispensable, and the Church only\noffered me rules completely at variance with the truth that I loved. The\nrules of the Church touching articles of faith, dogmas, the observance\nof the sacrament, fasts, prayers, were not necessary to me, and did not\nseem to be based on Christian truth. Moreover, the rules of the Church\nweakened and sometimes destroyed the Christian disposition of soul which\nalone gave meaning to my life.\n\nI was troubled most that the miseries of humanity, the habit of judging\none another, of passing judgment upon nations and religions, and the\nwars and massacres which resulted in consequence, all went on with the\napprobation of the Church. The doctrine of Jesus,--judge not, be humble,\nforgive offences, deny self, love,--this doctrine was extolled by the\nChurch in words, but at the same time the Church approved what was\nincompatible with the doctrine. Was it possible that the doctrine of\nJesus admitted of such contradiction? I could not believe so.\n\nAnother astonishing thing about the Church was that the passages upon\nwhich it based affirmation of its dogmas were those which were most\nobscure. On the other hand, the passages from which came the moral laws\nwere the most clear and precise. And yet the dogmas and the duties\ndepending upon them were definitely formulated by the Church, while the\nrecommendation to obey the moral law was put in the most vague and\nmystical terms. Was this the intention of Jesus? The Gospels alone could\ndissipate my doubts. I read them once and again.\n\nOf all the other portions of the Gospels, the Sermon on the Mount always\nhad for me an exceptional importance. I now read it more frequently than\never. Nowhere does Jesus speak with greater solemnity, nowhere does he\npropound moral rules more definitely and practically, nor do these rules\nin any other form awaken more readily an echo in the human heart;\nnowhere else does he address himself to a larger multitude of the common\npeople. If there are any clear and precise Christian principles, one\nought to find them here. I therefore sought the solution of my doubts in\nMatthew v., vi., and vii., comprising the Sermon on the Mount. These\nchapters I read very often, each time with the same emotional ardor, as\nI came to the verses which exhort the hearer to turn the other cheek, to\ngive up his cloak, to be at peace with all the world, to love his\nenemies,--but each time with the same disappointment. The divine words\nwere not clear. They exhorted to a renunciation so absolute as to\nentirely stifle life as I understood it; to renounce everything,\ntherefore, could not, it seemed to me, be essential to salvation. And\nthe moment this ceased to be an absolute condition, clearness and\nprecision were at an end.\n\nI read not only the Sermon on the Mount; I read all the Gospels and all\nthe theological commentaries on the Gospels. I was not satisfied with\nthe declarations of the theologians that the Sermon on the Mount was\nonly an indication of the degree of perfection to which man should\naspire; that man, weighed down by sin, could not reach such an ideal;\nand that the salvation of humanity was in faith and prayer and grace. I\ncould not admit the truth of these propositions. It seemed to me a\nstrange thing that Jesus should propound rules so clear and admirable,\naddressed to the understanding of every one, and still realize man's\ninability to carry his doctrine into practice.\n\nThen as I read these maxims I was permeated with the joyous assurance\nthat I might that very hour, that very moment, begin to practise them.\nThe burning desire I felt led me to the attempt, but the doctrine of the\nChurch rang in my ears,--_Man is weak, and to this he cannot\nattain_;--my strength soon failed. On every side I heard, \"You must\nbelieve and pray\"; but my wavering faith impeded prayer. Again I heard,\n\"You must pray, and God will give you faith; this faith will inspire\nprayer, which in turn will invoke faith that will inspire more prayer,\nand so on, indefinitely.\" Reason and experience alike convinced me that\nsuch methods were useless. It seemed to me that the only true way was\nfor me to try to follow the doctrine of Jesus.\n\nAnd so, after all this fruitless search and careful meditation over all\nthat had been written for and against the divinity of the doctrine of\nJesus, after all this doubt and suffering, I came back face to face with\nthe mysterious Gospel message. I could not find the meanings that others\nfound, neither could I discover what I sought. It was only after I had\nrejected the interpretations of the wise critics and theologians,\naccording to the words of Jesus, \"_Except ye... become as little\nchildren, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven_\" (Matt. xviii.\n3),--it was only then that I suddenly understood what had been so\nmeaningless before. I understood, not through exegetical fantasies or\nprofound and ingenious textual combinations; I understood everything,\nbecause I put all commentaries out of my mind. This was the passage that\ngave me the key to the whole:--\n\n\"_Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth\nfor a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil._\" (Matt. v.\n38, 39.)\n\nOne day the exact and simple meaning of these words came to me; I\nunderstood that Jesus meant neither more nor less than what he said.\nWhat I saw was nothing new; only the veil that had hidden the truth from\nme fell away, and the truth was revealed in all its grandeur.\n\n\"_Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth\nfor a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil._\"\n\nThese words suddenly appeared to me as if I had never read them before.\nAlways before, when I had read this passage, I had, singularly enough,\nallowed certain words to escape me, \"_But I say unto you, that ye resist\nnot evil_.\" To me it had always been as if the words just quoted had\nnever existed, or had never possessed a definite meaning. Later on, as I\ntalked with many Christians familiar with the Gospel, I noticed\nfrequently the same blindness with regard to these words. No one\nremembered them, and often in speaking of this passage, Christians took\nup the Gospel to see for themselves if the words were really there.\nThrough a similar neglect of these words I had failed to understand the\nwords that follow:--\n\n\"_But whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the\nother also_,\" etc. (Matt. v. 39, _et seq._)\n\nAlways these words had seemed to me to demand long-suffering and\nprivation contrary to human nature. They touched me; I felt that it\nwould be noble to follow them, but I also felt that I had not the\nstrength to put them into practice. I said to myself, \"If I turn the\nother cheek, I shall get another blow; if I give, all that I have will\nbe taken away. Life would be an impossibility. Since life is given to\nme, why should I deprive myself of it? Jesus cannot demand as much as\nthat.\" Thus I reasoned, persuaded that Jesus, in exalting long-suffering\nand privation, made use of exaggerated terms lacking in clearness and\nprecision; but when I understood the words \"_Resist not evil_,\" I saw\nthat Jesus did not exaggerate, that he did not demand suffering for\nsuffering, but that he had formulated with great clearness and precision\nexactly what he wished to say.\n\n\"_Resist not evil_,\" knowing that you will meet with those who, when\nthey have struck you on one cheek and met with no resistance, will\nstrike you on the other; who, having taken away your coat, will take\naway your cloak also; who, having profited by your labor, will force you\nto labor still more without reward. And yet, though all this should\nhappen to you, \"_Resist not evil_\"; do good to them that injure you.\nWhen I understood these words as they are written, all that had been\nobscure became clear to me, and what had seemed exaggerated I saw to be\nperfectly reasonable. For the first time I grasped the pivotal idea in\nthe words \"_Resist not evil_\"; I saw that what followed was only a\ndevelopment of this command; I saw that Jesus did not exhort us to turn\nthe other cheek that we might endure suffering, but that his exhortation\nwas, \"_Resist not evil_,\" and that he afterward declared suffering to be\nthe possible consequence of the practice of this maxim.\n\nA father, when his son is about to set out on a far journey, commands\nhim not to tarry by the way; he does not tell him to pass his nights\nwithout shelter, to deprive himself of food, to expose himself to rain\nand cold. He says, \"Go thy way, and tarry not, though thou should'st be\nwet or cold.\" So Jesus does not say, \"Turn the other cheek and suffer.\"\nHe says, \"_Resist not evil_\"; no matter what happens, \"_Resist not_.\"\n\nThese words, \"_Resist not evil_,\" when I understood their significance,\nwere to me the key that opened all the rest. Then I was astonished that\nI had failed to comprehend words so clear and precise.\n\n\"_Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth\nfor a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil._\"\n\nWhatever injury the evil-disposed may inflict upon you, bear it, give\nall that you have, but resist not. Could anything be more clear, more\ndefinite, more intelligible than that? I had only to grasp the simple\nand exact meaning of these words, just as they were spoken, when the\nwhole doctrine of Jesus, not only as set forth in the Sermon on the\nMount, but in the entire Gospels, became clear to me; what had seemed\ncontradictory was now in harmony; above all, what had seemed superfluous\nwas now indispensable. Each portion fell into harmonious unison and\nfilled its proper part, like the fragments of a broken statue when\nadjusted in harmony with the sculptor's design. In the Sermon on the\nMount, as well as throughout the whole Gospel, I found everywhere\naffirmation of the same doctrine, \"_Resist not evil_.\"\n\nIn the Sermon on the Mount, as well as in many other places, Jesus\nrepresents his disciples, those who observe the rule of non-resistance\nto evil, as turning the other cheek, giving up their cloaks, persecuted,\nused despitefully, and in want. Everywhere Jesus says that he who taketh\nnot up his cross, he who does not renounce worldly advantage, he who is\nnot ready to bear all the consequences of the commandment, \"_Resist not\nevil_,\" cannot become his disciple.\n\nTo his disciples Jesus says, Choose to be poor; bear all things without\nresistance to evil, even though you thereby bring upon yourself\npersecution, suffering, and death.\n\nPrepared to suffer death rather than resist evil, he reproved the\nresentment of Peter, and died exhorting his followers not to resist and\nto remain always faithful to his doctrine. The early disciples observed\nthis rule, and passed their lives in misery and persecution, without\nrendering evil for evil.\n\nIt seems, then, that Jesus meant precisely what he said. We may declare\nthe practice of such a rule to be very difficult; we may deny that he\nwho follows it will find happiness; we may say with the unbelievers that\nJesus was a dreamer, an idealist who propounded impracticable maxims;\nbut it is impossible not to admit that he expressed in a manner at once\nclear and precise what he wished to say; that is, that according to his\ndoctrine a man must not resist evil, and, consequently, that whoever\nadopts his doctrine will not resist evil. And yet neither believers nor\nunbelievers will admit this simple and clear interpretation of Jesus'\nwords.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\n\nWHEN I apprehended clearly the words \"_Resist not evil_,\" my conception\nof the doctrine of Jesus was entirely changed; and I was astounded, not\nthat I had failed to understand it before, but that I had misunderstood\nit so strangely. I knew, as we all know, that the true significance of\nthe doctrine of Jesus was comprised in the injunction to love one's\nneighbor. When we say, \"_Turn the other cheek_,\" \"_Love your enemies_,\"\nwe express the very essence of Christianity. I knew all that from my\nchildhood; but why had I failed to understand aright these simple words?\nWhy had I always sought for some ulterior meaning? \"_Resist not evil_\"\nmeans, never resist, never oppose violence; or, in other words, never do\nanything contrary to the law of love. If any one takes advantage of this\ndisposition and affronts you, bear the affront, and do not, above all,\nhave recourse to violence. This Jesus said in words so clear and simple\nthat it would be impossible to express the idea more clearly. How was it\nthen, that believing or trying to believe these to be the words of God,\nI still maintained the impossibility of obeying them? If my master says\nto me, \"Go; cut some wood,\" and I reply, \"It is beyond my strength,\" I\nsay one of two things: either I do not believe what my master says, or I\ndo not wish to obey his commands. Should I then say of God's\ncommandment that I could not obey it without the aid of a supernatural\npower? Should I say this without having made the slightest effort of my\nown to obey? We are told that God descended to earth to save mankind;\nthat salvation was secured by the second person of the Trinity, who\nsuffered for men, thereby redeeming them from sin, and gave them the\nChurch as the shrine for the transmission of grace to all believers; but\naside from this, the Saviour gave to men a doctrine and the example of\nhis own life for their salvation. How, then, could I say that the rules\nof life which Jesus has formulated so clearly and simply for every\none--how could I say that these rules were difficult to obey, that it\nwas impossible to obey them without the assistance of a supernatural\npower? Jesus saw no such impossibility; he distinctly declared that\nthose who did not obey could not enter into the kingdom of God. Nowhere\ndid he say that obedience would be difficult; on the contrary, he said\nin so many words, \"_My yoke is easy and my burden is light_\" (Matt. xi.\n30). And John, the evangelist, says, \"_His commandments are not\ngrievous_\" (1 John v. 3). Since God declared the practice of his law to\nbe easy, and himself practised it in human form, as did also his\ndisciples, how dared I speak of the impossibility of obedience without\nthe aid of a supernatural power?\n\nIf one bent all his energies to overthrow any law, what could he say of\ngreater force than that the law was essentially impracticable, and that\nthe maker of the law knew it to be impracticable and unattainable\nwithout the aid of a supernatural power? Yet that is exactly what I had\nbeen thinking of the command, \"_Resist not evil_.\" I endeavored to find\nout how it was that I got the idea that Jesus' law was divine, but that\nit could not be obeyed; and as I reviewed my past history, I perceived\nthat the idea had not been communicated to me in all its crudeness (it\nwould then have been revolting to me), but insensibly I had been imbued\nwith it from childhood, and all my after life had only confirmed me in\nerror.\n\nFrom my childhood I had been taught that Jesus was God, and that his\ndoctrine was divine, but at the same time I was taught to respect as\nsacred the institutions which protected me from violence and evil. I was\ntaught to resist evil, that it was humiliating to submit to evil, and\nthat resistance to it was praiseworthy. I was taught to judge, and to\ninflict punishment. Then I was taught the soldier's trade, that is, to\nresist evil by homicide; the army to which I belonged was called \"The\nChristophile Army,\" and it was sent forth with a Christian benediction.\nFrom infancy to manhood I learned to venerate things that were in direct\ncontradiction to the law of Jesus,--to meet an aggressor with his own\nweapons, to avenge myself by violence for all offences against my\nperson, my family, or my race. Not only was I not blamed for this; I\nlearned to regard it as not at all contrary to the law of Jesus. All\nthat surrounded me, my personal security and that of my family and my\nproperty--depended then upon a law which Jesus reproved,--the law of \"a\ntooth for a tooth.\" My spiritual instructors taught me that the law of\nJesus was divine, but, because of human weakness, impossible of\npractice, and that the grace of Jesus Christ alone could aid us to\nfollow its precepts. And this instruction agreed with what I received in\nsecular institutions and from the social organization about me. I was so\nthoroughly possessed with this idea of the impracticability of the\ndivine doctrine, and it harmonized so well with my desires, that not\ntill the time of awakening did I realize its falsity. I did not see how\nimpossible it was to confess Jesus and his doctrine, \"_Resist not\nevil_,\" and at the same time deliberately assist in the organization of\nproperty, of tribunals, of governments, of armies; to contribute to the\nestablishment of a polity entirely contrary to the doctrine of Jesus,\nand at the same time pray to Jesus to help us to obey his commands, to\nforgive our sins, and to aid us that we resist not evil. I did not see,\nwhat is very clear to me now, how much more simple it would be to\norganize a method of living conformable to the law of Jesus, and then to\npray for tribunals, and massacres, and wars, and all other things\nindispensable to our happiness.\n\nThus I came to understand the source of error into which I had fallen. I\nhad confessed Jesus with my lips, but my heart was still far from him.\nThe command, \"_Resist not evil_,\" is the central point of Jesus'\ndoctrine; it is not a mere verbal affirmation; it is a rule whose\npractice is obligatory. It is verily the key to the whole mystery; but\nthe key must be thrust to the bottom of the lock. When we regard it as a\ncommand impossible of performance, the value of the entire doctrine is\nlost. Why should not a doctrine seem impracticable, when we have\nsuppressed its fundamental proposition? It is not strange that\nunbelievers look upon it as totally absurd. When we declare that one may\nbe a Christian without observing the commandment, \"_Resist not evil_,\"\nwe simply leave out the connecting link which transmits the force of the\ndoctrine of Jesus into action.\n\nSome time ago I was reading in Hebrew, the fifth chapter of Matthew with\na Jewish rabbi. At nearly every verse the rabbi said, \"This is in the\nBible,\" or \"This is in the Talmud,\" and he showed me in the Bible and in\nthe Talmud sentences very like the declarations of the Sermon on the\nMount. When we reached the words, \"_Resist not evil_,\" the rabbi did not\nsay, \"This is in the Talmud,\" but he asked me, with a smile, \"Do the\nChristians obey this command? Do they turn the other cheek?\" I had\nnothing to say in reply, especially as at that particular time,\nChristians, far from turning the other cheek, were smiting the Jews upon\nboth cheeks. I asked him if there were anything similar in the Bible or\nin the Talmud. \"No,\" he replied, \"there is nothing like it; but tell me,\ndo the Christians obey this law?\" It was only another way of saying that\nthe presence in the Christian doctrine of a commandment which no one\nobserved, and which Christians themselves regarded as impracticable, is\nsimply an avowal of the foolishness and nullity of that law. I could say\nnothing in reply to the rabbi.\n\nNow that I understand the exact meaning of the doctrine, I see clearly\nthe strangely contradictory position in which I was placed. Having\nrecognized the divinity of Jesus and of his doctrine, and having at the\nsame time organized a life wholly contrary to that doctrine, what\nremained for me but to look upon the doctrine as impracticable? In words\nI had recognized the doctrine of Jesus as sacred; in actions, I had\nprofessed a doctrine not at all Christian, and I had recognized and\nreverenced the anti-Christian customs which hampered my life upon every\nside. The persistent message of the Old Testament is that misfortunes\ncame upon the Hebrew people because they believed in false gods and\ndenied Jehovah. Samuel (I. viii.-xii.) accuses the people of adding to\ntheir other apostasies the choice of a man, upon whom they depended for\ndeliverance instead of upon Jehovah, who was their true King. \"Turn not\naside after _tohu_, after vain things,\" Samuel says to the people (I.\nxii. 21); \"turn not aside after vain things, which cannot profit nor\ndeliver; for they are _tohu_, are vain.\" \"Fear Jehovah and serve him....\nBut if ye shall still do wickedly, ye shall be consumed, both ye and\nyour king\" (I. xii. 24, 25). And so with me, faith in _tohu_, in vain\nthings, in empty idols, had concealed the truth from me. Across the\npath which led to the truth, _tohu_, the idol of vain things, rose\nbefore me, cutting off the light, and I had not the strength to beat it\ndown.\n\nOn a certain day, at this time, I was walking in Moscow towards the\nBorovitzky Gate, where was stationed an old lame beggar, with a dirty\ncloth wrapped about his head. I took out my purse to bestow an alms; but\nat the same moment I saw a young soldier emerging from the Kremlin at a\nrapid pace, head well up, red of face, wearing the State insignia of\nmilitary dignity. The beggar, on perceiving the soldier, arose in fear,\nand ran with all his might towards the Alexander Garden. The soldier,\nafter a vain attempt to come up with the fugitive, stopped, shouting\nforth an imprecation upon the poor wretch who had established himself\nunder the gateway contrary to regulations. I waited for the soldier.\nWhen he approached me, I asked him if he knew how to read.\n\n\"Yes; why do you ask?\"\n\n\"Have you read the New Testament?\"\n\n\"Yes.\"\n\n\"And do you remember the words, 'If thine enemy hunger, feed him...'?\"\n\nI repeated the passage. He remembered it, and heard me to the end. I saw\nthat he was uneasy. Two passers-by stopped and listened. The soldier\nseemed to be troubled that he should be condemned for doing his duty in\ndriving persons away from a place where they had been forbidden to\nlinger. He thought himself at fault, and sought for an excuse. Suddenly\nhis eye brightened; he looked at me over his shoulder, as if he were\nabout to move away.\n\n\"And the military regulation, do you know anything about that?\" he\ndemanded.\n\n\"No,\" I said.\n\n\"In that case, you have nothing to say to me,\" he retorted, with a\ntriumphant wag of the head, and elevating his plume once more, he\nmarched away to his post. He was the only man that I ever met who had\nsolved, with an inflexible logic, the question which eternally\nconfronted me in social relations, and which rises continually before\nevery man who calls himself a Christian.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\n\nWE are wrong when we say that the Christian doctrine is concerned only\nwith the salvation of the individual, and has nothing to do with\nquestions of State. Such an assertion is simply a bold affirmation of an\nuntruth, which, when we examine it seriously, falls of itself to the\nground. It is well (so I said); I will resist not evil; I will turn the\nother cheek in private life; but hither comes the enemy, or here is an\noppressed nation, and I am called upon to do my part in the struggle\nagainst evil, to go forth and kill. I must decide the question, to serve\nGod or _tohu_, to go to war or not to go. Perhaps I am a peasant; I am\nappointed mayor of a village, a judge, a juryman; I am obliged to take\nthe oath of office, to judge, to condemn. What ought I to do? Again I\nmust choose between the divine law and the human law. Perhaps I am a\nmonk living in a monastery; the neighboring peasants trespass upon our\npasturage, and I am appointed to resist evil, to plead for justice\nagainst the wrong-doers. Again I must choose. It is a dilemma from which\nno man can escape.\n\nI do not speak of those whose entire lives are passed in resisting evil,\nas military authorities, judges, or governors. No one is so obscure that\nhe is not obliged to choose between the service of God and the service\nof _tohu_, in his relation to the State. My very existence, entangled\nwith that of the State and the social existence organized by the State,\nexacts from me an anti-Christian activity directly contrary to the\ncommandments of Jesus. In fact, with conscription and compulsory jury\nservice, this pitiless dilemma arises before every one. Every one is\nforced to take up murderous weapons; and even if he does not get as far\nas murder, his weapons must be ready, his carbine loaded, and his sword\nkeen of edge, that he may declare himself ready for murder. Every one is\nforced into the service of the courts to take part in meting out\njudgment and sentence; that is, to deny the commandment of Jesus,\n\"_Resist not evil_,\" in acts as well as in words.\n\nThe soldier's problem, the Gospel or military regulations, divine law or\nhuman law, is before mankind to-day as it was in the time of Samuel. It\nwas forced upon Jesus and upon his disciples; it is forced in these\ntimes upon all who would be Christians; and it was forced upon me.\n\nThe law of Jesus, with its doctrine of love, humility, and self-denial,\ntouched my heart more deeply than ever before. But everywhere, in the\nannals of history, in the events that were going on about me, in my\nindividual life, I saw the law opposed in a manner revolting to\nsentiment, conscience, and reason, and encouraging to brute instincts. I\nfelt that if I adopted the law of Jesus, I should be alone; I should\npass many unhappy hours; I should be persecuted and afflicted as Jesus\nhad said. But if I adopted the human law, everybody would approve; I\nshould be in peace and safety, with all the resources of civilization at\nmy command to put my conscience at ease. As Jesus said, I should laugh\nand be glad. I felt all this, and so I did not analyze the meaning of\nthe doctrine of Jesus, but sought to understand it in such a way that it\nmight not interfere with my life as an animal. That is, I did not wish\nto understand it at all. This determination not to understand led me\ninto delusions which now astound me. As an instance in point, let me\nexplain my former understanding of these words:--\n\n\"_Judge not, that ye be not judged._\" (Matt. vii. 1.)\n\n\"_Judge not, and ye shall not be judged; condemn not, and ye shall not\nbe condemned._\" (Luke vi. 37.)\n\nThe courts in which I served, and which insured the safety of my\nproperty and my person, seemed to be institutions so indubitably sacred\nand so entirely in accord with the divine law, it had never entered into\nmy head that the words I have quoted could have any other meaning than\nan injunction not to speak ill of one's neighbor. It never occurred to\nme that Jesus spoke in these words of the courts of human law and\njustice. It was only when I understood the true meaning of the words,\n\"_Resist not evil_,\" that the question arose as to Jesus' advice with\nregard to tribunals. When I understood that Jesus would denounce them, I\nasked myself, Is not this the real meaning: Not only do not judge your\nneighbor, do not speak ill of him, but do not judge him in the courts,\ndo not judge him in any of the tribunals that you have instituted? Now\nin Luke (vi. 37-49) these words follow immediately the doctrine that\nexhorts us to resist not evil and to do good to our enemies. And after\nthe injunction, \"_Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is\nmerciful_,\" Jesus says, \"_Judge not, and ye shall not be judged; condemn\nnot, and ye shall not be condemned_.\" \"_Judge not_;\" does not this mean,\nInstitute no tribunals for the judgment of your neighbor? I had only to\nbring this boldly before myself when heart and reason united in an\naffirmative reply.\n\nTo show how far I was before from the true interpretation, I shall\nconfess a foolish pleasantry for which I still blush. When I was reading\nthe New Testament as a divine book at the time that I had become a\nbeliever, I was in the habit of saying to my friends who were judges or\nattorneys, \"And you still judge, although it is said, 'Judge not, and ye\nshall not be judged'?\" I was so sure that these words could have no\nother meaning than a condemnation of evil-speaking that I did not\ncomprehend the horrible blasphemy which I thus committed. I was so\nthoroughly convinced that these words did not mean what they did mean,\nthat I quoted them in their true sense in the form of a pleasantry.\n\nI shall relate in detail how it was that all doubt with regard to the\ntrue meaning of these words was effaced from my mind, and how I saw\ntheir purport to be that Jesus denounced the institution of all human\ntribunals, of whatever sort; that he meant to say so, and could not have\nexpressed himself otherwise. When I understood the command, \"_Resist\nnot evil_,\" in its proper sense, the first thing that occurred to me was\nthat tribunals, instead of conforming to this law, were directly opposed\nto it, and indeed to the entire doctrine; and therefore that if Jesus\nhad thought of tribunals at all, he would have condemned them.\n\nJesus said, \"_Resist not evil_\"; the sole aim of tribunals is to resist\nevil. Jesus exhorted us to return good for evil; tribunals return evil\nfor evil. Jesus said that we were to make no distinction between those\nwho do good and those who do evil; tribunals do nothing else. Jesus\nsaid, Forgive, forgive not once or seven times, but without limit; love\nyour enemies, do good to them that hate you--but tribunals do not\nforgive, they punish; they return not good but evil to those whom they\nregard as the enemies of society. It would seem, then, that Jesus\ndenounced judicial institutions. Perhaps (I said) Jesus never had\nanything to do with courts of justice, and so did not think of them. But\nI saw that such a theory was not tenable. Jesus, from his childhood to\nhis death, was concerned with the tribunals of Herod, of the Sanhedrim,\nand of the High Priests. I saw that Jesus must have regarded courts of\njustice as wrong. He told his disciples that they would be dragged\nbefore the judges, and gave them advice as to how they should comport\nthemselves. He said of himself that he should be condemned by a\ntribunal, and he showed what the attitude toward judges ought to be.\nJesus, then, must have thought of the judicial institutions which\ncondemned him and his disciples; which have condemned and continue to\ncondemn millions of men.\n\nJesus saw the wrong and faced it. When the sentence against the woman\ntaken in adultery was about to be carried into execution, he absolutely\ndenied the possibility of human justice, and demonstrated that man could\nnot be the judge since man himself was guilty. And this idea he has\npropounded many times, as where it is declared that one with a beam in\nhis eye cannot see the mote in another's eye, or that the blind cannot\nlead the blind. He even pointed out the consequences of such\nmisconceptions,--the disciple would be above his Master.\n\nPerhaps, however, after having denounced the incompetency of human\njustice as displayed in the case of the woman taken in adultery, or\nillustrated in the parable of the mote and the beam; perhaps, after all,\nJesus would admit of an appeal to the justice of men where it was\nnecessary for protection against evil; but I soon saw that this was\ninadmissible. In the Sermon on the Mount, he says, addressing the\nmultitude,\n\n\"_And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let\nhim have thy cloak also.\"_ (Matt. v. 40.)\n\nOnce more, perhaps Jesus spoke only of the personal bearing which a man\nshould have when brought before judicial institutions, and did not\ncondemn justice, but admitted the necessity in a Christian society of\nindividuals who judge others in properly constituted forms. But I saw\nthat this view was also inadmissible. When he prayed, Jesus besought all\nmen, without exception, to forgive others, that their own trespasses\nmight be forgiven. This thought he often expresses. He who brings his\ngift to the altar with prayer must first grant forgiveness. How, then,\ncould a man judge and condemn when his religion commanded him to forgive\nall trespasses, without limit? So I saw that according to the doctrine\nof Jesus no Christian judge could pass sentence of condemnation.\n\nBut might not the relation between the words \"_Judge not, and ye shall\nnot be judged_\" and the preceding or subsequent passages permit us to\nconclude that Jesus, in saying \"_Judge not_,\" had no reference whatever\nto judicial institutions? No; this could not be so; on the contrary, it\nis clear from the relation of the phrases that in saying \"_Judge not_,\"\nJesus did actually speak of judicial institutions. According to Matthew\nand Luke, before saying \"_Judge not, condemn not_,\" his command was to\nresist not evil. And prior to this, as Matthew tells us, he repeated the\nancient criminal law of the Jews, \"_An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a\ntooth_.\" Then, after this reference to the old criminal law, he added,\n\"_But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil_\"; and, after that,\n\"_Judge not_.\" Jesus did, then, refer directly to human criminal law,\nand reproved it in the words, \"_Judge not_.\" Moreover, according to\nLuke, he not only said, \"_Judge not_,\" but also, \"_Condemn not_.\" It\nwas not without a purpose that he added this almost synonymous word; it\nshows clearly what meaning should be attributed to the other. If he had\nwished to say \"Judge not your neighbor,\" he would have said \"neighbor\";\nbut he added the words which are translated \"_Condemn not_,\" and then\ncompleted the sentence, \"_And ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye\nshall be forgiven_.\" But some may still insist that Jesus, in expressing\nhimself in this way, did not refer at all to the tribunals, and that I\nhave read my own thoughts into his teachings. Let the apostles tell us\nwhat they thought of courts of justice, and if they recognized and\napproved of them. The apostle James says (iv. 11, 12):--\n\n\"_Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that speaketh evil of his\nbrother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth\nthe law: but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but\na judge. There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who\nart thou that judgest another?_\"\n\nThe word translated \"speak evil\" is the verb [Greek: katalale\u00f4], which\nmeans \"to speak against, to accuse\"; this is its true meaning, as any\none may find out for himself by opening a dictionary. In the translation\nwe read, \"_He that speaketh evil of his brother, ... speaketh evil of\nthe law_.\" Why so? is the question that involuntarily arises. I may\nspeak evil of my brother, but I do not thereby speak evil of the law.\nIf, however, I _accuse_ my brother, if I bring him to justice, it is\nplain that I thereby accuse the law of Jesus of insufficiency: I accuse\nand judge the law. It is clear, then, that I do not practise the law,\nbut that I make myself a judge of the law. \"_Not to judge, but to save_\"\nis Jesus' declaration. How then shall I, who cannot save, become a judge\nand punish? The entire passage refers to human justice, and denies its\nauthority. The whole epistle is permeated with the same idea. In the\nsecond chapter we read:--\n\n\"_For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy;\nand mercy is exalted above judgment._\"[2] (Jas. ii. 13.)\n\n     [2] Count Tolstoi's rendering.\n\n(The last phrase has been translated in such a way as to declare that\njudgment is compatible with Christianity, but that it ought to be\nmerciful.)\n\nJames exhorts his brethren to have no respect of persons. If you have\nrespect of the condition of persons, you are guilty of sin; you are like\nthe untrustworthy judges of the tribunals. You look upon the beggar as\nthe refuse of society, while it is the rich man who ought to be so\nregarded. He it is who oppresses you and draws you before the\njudgment-seats. If you live according to the law of love for your\nneighbor, according to the law of mercy (which James calls \"_the law of\nliberty_,\" to distinguish it from all others)--if you live according to\nthis law, it is well. But if you have respect of persons, you transgress\nthe law of mercy. Then (doubtless thinking of the case of the woman\ntaken in adultery, who, when she was brought before Jesus, was about to\nbe put to death according to the law), thinking, no doubt, of that case,\nJames says that he who inflicts death upon the adulterous woman would\nhimself be guilty of murder, and thereby transgress the eternal law; for\nthe same law forbids both adultery and murder.\n\n\"_So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of\nliberty. For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no\nmercy; and mercy is exalted above judgment._\" (Jas. ii. 12, 13.)\n\nCould the idea be expressed in terms more clear and precise? Respect of\npersons is forbidden, as well as any judgment that shall classify\npersons as good or bad; human judgment is declared to be inevitably\ndefective, and such judgment is denounced as criminal when it condemns\nfor crime; judgment is blotted out by the eternal law, the law of mercy.\n\nI open the epistles of Paul, who had been a victim of tribunals, and in\nthe letter to the Romans I read the admonitions of the apostle for the\nvices and errors of those to whom his words are addressed; among other\nmatters he speaks of courts of justice:--\n\n\"_Who, knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things\nare worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them\nthat do them._\" (Rom. i. 32.)\n\n\"_Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that\njudgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for\nthou that judgest doest the same things._\" (Rom. ii. 1.)\n\n\"_Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and\nlong-suffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to\nrepentance?_\" (Rom. ii. 4.)\n\nSuch was the opinion of the apostles with regard to tribunals, and we\nknow that human justice was among the trials and sufferings that they\nendured with steadfastness and resignation to the will of God. When we\nthink of the situation of the early Christians, surrounded by\nunbelievers, we can understand that a denial of the right to judge\npersecuted Christians before the tribunals was not considered. The\napostles spoke of it only incidentally as an evil, and denied its\nauthority on every occasion.\n\nI examined the teachings of the early Fathers of the Church, and found\nthem to agree in obliging no one to judge or to condemn, and in urging\nall to bear the inflictions of justice. The martyrs, by their acts,\ndeclared themselves to be of the same mind. I saw that Christianity\nbefore Constantine regarded tribunals only as an evil which was to be\nendured with patience; but it never could have occurred to any early\nChristian that he could take part in the administration of the courts of\njustice. It is plain, therefore, that Jesus' words, \"_Judge not,\ncondemn not_,\" were understood by his first disciples, as they ought to\nbe understood now, in their direct and literal meaning: judge not in\ncourts of justice; take no part in them.\n\nAll this seemed absolutely to corroborate my conviction that the words,\n\"_Judge not, condemn not_,\" referred to the justice of tribunals. Yet\nthe meaning, \"Speak not evil of your neighbor,\" is so firmly\nestablished, and courts of justice flaunt their decrees with so much\nassurance and audacity in all Christian societies, with the support even\nof the Church, that for a long time still I doubted the wisdom of my\ninterpretation. If men have understood the words in this way (I\nthought), and have instituted Christian tribunals, they must certainly\nhave some reason for so doing; there must be a good reason for regarding\nthese words as a denunciation of evil-speaking, and there is certainly a\nbasis of some sort for the institution of Christian tribunals; perhaps,\nafter all, I am in the wrong.\n\nI turned to the Church commentaries. In all, from the fifth century\nonward, I found the invariable interpretation to be, \"Accuse not your\nneighbor\"; that is, avoid evil-speaking. As the words came to be\nunderstood exclusively in this sense, a difficulty arose,--How to\nrefrain from judgment? It being impossible not to condemn evil, all the\ncommentators discussed the question, What is blamable and what is not\nblamable? Some, such as Chrysostom and Theophylact, said that, as far\nas servants of the Church were concerned, the phrase could not be\nconstrued as a prohibition of censure, since the apostles themselves\nwere censorious. Others said that Jesus doubtless referred to the Jews,\nwho accused their neighbors of shortcomings, and were themselves guilty\nof great sins.\n\nNowhere a word about human institutions, about tribunals, to show how\nthey were affected by the warning, \"_Judge not_.\" Did Jesus sanction\ncourts of justice, or did he not? To this very natural question I found\nno reply--as if it was evident that from the moment a Christian took his\nseat on the judge's bench he might not only judge his neighbor, but\ncondemn him to death.\n\nI turned to other writers, Greek, Catholic, Protestant, to the T\u00fcbingen\nschool, to the historical school. Everywhere, even by the most liberal\ncommentators, the words in question were interpreted as an injunction\nagainst evil-speaking.\n\nBut why, contrary to the spirit of the whole doctrine of Jesus, are\nthese words interpreted in so narrow a way as to exclude courts of\njustice from the injunction, \"_Judge not_\"? Why the supposition that\nJesus in forbidding the comparatively light offence of speaking evil of\none's neighbor did not forbid, did not even consider, the more\ndeliberate judgment which results in punishment inflicted upon the\ncondemned? To all this I got no response; not even an allusion to the\nleast possibility that the words \"to judge\" could be used as referring\nto a court of justice, to the tribunals from whose punishments so many\nmillions have suffered.\n\nMoreover, when the words, \"_Judge not, condemn not_,\" are under\ndiscussion, the cruelty of judging in courts of justice is passed over\nin silence, or else commended. The commentators all declare that in\nChristian societies tribunals are necessary, and in no way contrary to\nthe law of Jesus.\n\nRealizing this, I began to doubt the sincerity of the commentators; and\nI did what I should have done in the first place; I turned to the\ntextual translations of the words which we render \"to judge\" and \"to\ncondemn.\" In the original these words are [Greek: krin\u00f4] and [Greek:\nkatadikaz\u00f4]. The defective translation in James of [Greek: katalale\u00f4],\nwhich is rendered \"to speak evil,\" strengthened my doubts as to the\ncorrect translation of the others. When I looked through different\nversions of the Gospels, I found [Greek: katadikaz\u00f4] rendered in the\nVulgate by _condemnare_, \"to condemn\"; in the Sclavonic text the\nrendering is equivalent to that of the Vulgate; Luther has _verdammen_,\n\"to speak evil of.\" These divergent renderings increased my doubts, and\nI was obliged to ask again the meaning of [Greek: krin\u00f4], as used by the\ntwo evangelists, and of [Greek: katadikaz\u00f4], as used by Luke who,\nscholars tell us, wrote very correct Greek.\n\nHow would these words be translated by a man who knew nothing of the\nevangelical creed, and who had before him only the phrases in which they\nare used?\n\nConsulting the dictionary, I found that the word [Greek: krin\u00f4] had\nseveral different meanings, among the most used being \"to condemn in a\ncourt of justice,\" and even \"to condemn to death,\" but in no instance\ndid it signify \"to speak evil.\" I consulted a dictionary of New\nTestament Greek, and found that was often used in the sense \"to condemn\nin a court of justice,\" sometimes in the sense \"to choose,\" never as\nmeaning \"to speak evil.\" From which I inferred that the word [Greek:\nkrin\u00f4] might be translated in different ways, but that the rendering \"to\nspeak evil\" was the most forced and far-fetched.\n\nI searched for the word [Greek: katadikaz\u00f4], which follows [Greek:\nkrin\u00f4], evidently to define more closely the sense in which the latter\nis to be understood. I looked for [Greek: katadikaz\u00f4] in the dictionary,\nand found that it had no other signification than \"to condemn in\njudgment,\" or \"to judge worthy of death.\" I found that the word was used\nfour times in the New Testament, each time in the sense \"to condemn\nunder sentence, to judge worthy of death.\" In James (v. 6) we read, \"_Ye\nhave condemned and killed the just_.\" The word rendered \"condemned\" is\nthis same [Greek: katadikaz\u00f4], and is used with reference to Jesus, who\nwas condemned to death by a court of justice. The word is never used in\nany other sense, in the New Testament or in any other writing in the\nGreek language.\n\nWhat, then, are we to say to all this? Is my conclusion a foolish one?\nIs not every one who considers the fate of humanity filled with horror\nat the sufferings inflicted upon mankind by the enforcement of criminal\ncodes,--a scourge to those who condemn as well as to the\ncondemned,--from the slaughters of Genghis Khan to those of the French\nRevolution and the executions of our own times? He would indeed be\nwithout compassion who could refrain from feeling horror and repulsion,\nnot only at the sight of human beings thus treated by their kind, but at\nthe simple recital of death inflicted by the knout, the guillotine, or\nthe gibbet.\n\nThe Gospel, of which every word is sacred to you, declares distinctly\nand without equivocation: \"You have from of old a criminal law, An eye\nfor an eye, a tooth for a tooth; but a new law is given you, That you\nresist not evil. Obey this law; render not evil for evil, but do good to\nevery one, forgive every one, under all circumstances.\" Further on comes\nthe injunction, \"_Judge not_,\" and that these words might not be\nmisunderstood, Jesus added, \"_Condemn not_; condemn not in justice the\ncrimes of others.\"\n\n\"No more death-warrants,\" said an inner voice--\"no more death-warrants,\"\nsaid the voice of science; \"evil cannot suppress evil.\" The Word of God,\nin which I believed, told me the same thing. And when in reading the\ndoctrine, I came to the words, \"_Condemn not, and ye shall not be\ncondemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven_,\" could I look upon them\nas meaning simply that I was not to indulge in gossip and evil-speaking,\nand should continue to regard tribunals as a Christian institution, and\nmyself as a Christian judge?\n\nI was overwhelmed with horror at the grossness of the error into which I\nhad fallen.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\n\nI NOW understood the words of Jesus: \"_Ye have heard that it hath been\nsaid, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: but I say unto you,\nThat ye resist not evil._\" Jesus' meaning is: \"You have thought that you\nwere acting in a reasonable manner in defending yourself by violence\nagainst evil, in tearing out an eye for an eye, by fighting against evil\nwith criminal tribunals, guardians of the peace, armies; but I say unto\nyou, Renounce violence; have nothing to do with violence; do harm to no\none, not even to your enemy.\" I understood now that in saying \"_Resist\nnot evil_,\" Jesus not only told us what would result from the observance\nof this rule, but established a new basis for society conformable to his\ndoctrine and opposed to the social basis established by the law of\nMoses, by Roman law, and by the different codes in force to-day. He\nformulated a new law whose effect would be to deliver humanity from its\nself-inflicted woes. His declaration was: \"You believe that your laws\nreform criminals; as a matter of fact, they only make more criminals.\nThere is only one way to suppress evil, and that is to return good for\nevil, without respect of persons. For thousands of years you have tried\nthe other method; now try mine, try the reverse.\"\n\nStrange to say, in these later days, I talked with different persons\nabout this commandment of Jesus, \"_Resist not evil_,\" and rarely found\nany one to coincide with my opinion! Two classes of men would never,\neven by implication, admit the literal interpretation of the law. These\nmen were at the extreme poles of the social scale,--they were the\nconservative Christian patriots who maintained the infallibility of the\nChurch, and the atheistic revolutionists. Neither of these two classes\nwas willing to renounce the right to resist by violence what they\nregarded as evil. And the wisest and most intelligent among them would\nnot acknowledge the simple and evident truth, that if we once admit the\nright of any man to resist by violence what he regards as evil, every\nother man has equally the right to resist by violence what he regards as\nevil.\n\nNot long ago I had in my hands an interesting correspondence between an\northodox Slavophile and a Christian revolutionist. The one advocated\nviolence as a partisan of a war for the relief of brother Slavs in\nbondage; the other, as a partisan of revolution, in the name of our\nbrothers the oppressed Russian peasantry. Both invoked violence, and\neach based himself upon the doctrine of Jesus. The doctrine of Jesus is\nunderstood in a hundred different ways; but never, unhappily, in the\nsimple and direct way which harmonizes with the inevitable meaning of\nJesus' words.\n\nOur entire social fabric is founded upon principles that Jesus reproved;\nwe do not wish to understand his doctrine in its simple and direct\nacceptation, and yet we assure ourselves and others that we follow his\ndoctrine, or else that his doctrine is not expedient for us. Believers\nprofess that Christ as God, the second person of the Trinity, descended\nupon earth to teach men by his example how to live; they go through the\nmost elaborate ceremonies for the consummation of the sacraments, the\nbuilding of temples, the sending out of missionaries, the establishment\nof priesthoods, for parochial administration, for the performance of\nrituals; but they forget one little detail,--the practice of the\ncommandments of Jesus. Unbelievers endeavor in every possible way to\norganize their existence independent of the doctrine of Jesus, they\nhaving decided _a priori_ that this doctrine is of no account. But to\nendeavor to put his teachings in practice, this each refuses to do; and\nthe worst of it is, that without any attempt to put them in practice,\nboth believers and unbelievers decide _a priori_ that it is impossible.\n\nJesus said, simply and clearly, that the law of resistance to evil by\nviolence, which has been made the basis of society, is false, and\ncontrary to man's nature; and he gave another basis, that of\nnon-resistance to evil, a law which, according to his doctrine, would\ndeliver man from wrong. \"You believe\" (he says in substance) \"that your\nlaws, which resort to violence, correct evil; not at all; they only\naugment it. For thousands of years you have tried to destroy evil by\nevil, and you have not destroyed it; you have only augmented it. Do as I\ncommand you, follow my example, and you will know that my doctrine is\ntrue.\" Not only in words, but by his acts, by his death, did Jesus\npropound his doctrine, \"_Resist not evil_.\"\n\nBelievers listen to all this. They hear it in their churches, persuaded\nthat the words are divine; they worship Jesus as God, and then they say:\n\"All this is admirable, but it is impossible; as society is now\norganized, it would derange our whole existence, and we should be\nobliged to give up the customs that are so dear to us. We believe it\nall, but only in this sense: That it is the ideal toward which humanity\nought to move; the ideal which is to be attained by prayer, and by\nbelieving in the sacraments, in the redemption, and in the resurrection\nof the dead.\"\n\nThe others, the unbelievers, the free-thinkers who comment on the\ndoctrine of Jesus, the historians of religions, the Strausses, the\nRenans,--completely imbued with the teachings of the Church, which says\nthat the doctrine of Jesus accords with difficulty with our conceptions\nof life,--tell us very seriously that the doctrine of Jesus is the\ndoctrine of a visionary, the consolation of feeble minds; that it was\nall very well preached in the fishermen's huts by Galilee; but that for\nus it is only the sweet dream of one whom Renan calls the \"charmant\ndocteur.\"\n\nIn their opinion, Jesus could not rise to the heights of wisdom and\nculture attained by our civilization. If he had been on an intellectual\nlevel with his modern critics, he never would have uttered his charming\nnonsense about the birds of the air, the turning of the other cheek, the\ntaking no thought for the morrow. These historical critics judge of the\nvalue of Christianity by what they see of it as it now exists. The\nChristianity of our age and civilization approves of society as it now\nis, with its prison-cells, its factories, its houses of infamy, its\nparliaments; but as for the doctrine of Jesus, which is opposed to\nmodern society, it is only empty words. The historical critics see this,\nand, unlike the so-called believers, having no motives for concealment,\nsubmit the doctrine to a careful analysis; they refute it\nsystematically, and prove that Christianity is made up of nothing but\nchimerical ideas.\n\nIt would seem that before deciding upon the doctrine of Jesus, it would\nbe necessary to understand of what it consisted; and to decide whether\nhis doctrine is reasonable or not, it would be well first to realize\nthat he said exactly what he did say. And this is precisely what we do\nnot do, what the Church commentators do not do, what the free-thinkers\ndo not do--and we know very well why. We know perfectly well that the\ndoctrine of Jesus is directed at and denounces all human errors, all\n_tohu_, all the empty idols that we try to except from the category of\nerrors, by dubbing them \"Church,\" \"State,\" \"Culture,\" \"Science,\" \"Art,\"\n\"Civilization.\" But Jesus spoke precisely of all these, of these and all\nother _tohu_. Not only Jesus, but all the Hebrew prophets, John the\nBaptist, all the true sages of the world denounced the Church and State\nand culture and civilization of their times as sources of man's\nperdition.\n\nImagine an architect who says to a house-owner, \"Your house is good for\nnothing; you must rebuild it,\" and then describes how the supports are\nto be cut and fastened. The proprietor turns a deaf ear to the words,\n\"Your house is good for nothing,\" and only listens respectfully when the\narchitect begins to discuss the arrangement of the rooms. Evidently, in\nthis case, all the subsequent advice of the architect will seem to be\nimpracticable; less respectful proprietors would regard it as\nnonsensical. But it is precisely in this way that we treat the doctrine\nof Jesus. I give this illustration for want of a better. I remember now\nthat Jesus in teaching his doctrine made use of the same comparison.\n\"_Destroy this temple_,\" he said, \"_and in three days I will raise it\nup_.\" It was for this they put him on the cross, and for this they now\ncrucify his doctrine.\n\nThe least that can be asked of those who pass judgment upon any doctrine\nis that they shall judge of it with the same understanding as that with\nwhich it was propounded. Jesus understood his doctrine, not as a vague\nand distant ideal impossible of attainment, not as a collection of\nfantastic and poetical reveries with which to charm the simple\ninhabitants on the shores of Galilee; to him his doctrine was a doctrine\nof action, of acts which should become the salvation of mankind. This he\nshowed in his manner of applying his doctrine. The crucified one who\ncried out in agony of spirit and died for his doctrine was not a\ndreamer; he was a man of action. They are not dreamers who have died,\nand still die, for his doctrine. No; that doctrine is not a chimera!\n\nAll doctrine that reveals the truth is chimerical to the blind. We may\nsay, as many people do say (I was of the number), that the doctrine of\nJesus is chimerical because it is contrary to human nature. It is\nagainst nature, we say, to turn the other cheek when we have been\nstruck, to give all that we possess, to toil not for ourselves but for\nothers. It is natural, we say, for a man to defend his person, his\nfamily, his property; that is to say, it is the nature of man to\nstruggle for existence. A learned person has proved scientifically that\nthe most sacred duty of man is to defend his rights, that is, to fight.\n\nBut the moment we detach ourselves from the idea that the existing\norganization established by man is the best, is sacred, the moment we do\nthis, the objection that the doctrine of Jesus is contrary to human\nnature turns immediately upon him who makes it. No one will deny that\nnot only to kill or torture a man, but to torture a dog, to kill a fowl\nor a calf, is to inflict suffering reproved by human nature. (I have\nknown of farmers who had ceased to eat meat solely because it had\nfallen to their lot to slaughter animals.) And yet our existence is so\norganized that every personal enjoyment is purchased at the price of\nhuman suffering contrary to human nature.\n\nWe have only to examine closely the complicated mechanism of our\ninstitutions that are based upon coercion to realize that coercion and\nviolence are contrary to human nature. The judge who has condemned\naccording to the code, is not willing to hang the criminal with his own\nhands; no clerk would tear a villager from his weeping family and cast\nhim into prison; the general or the soldier, unless he be hardened by\ndiscipline and service, will not undertake to slay a hundred Turks or\nGermans or destroy a village, would not, if he could help it, kill a\nsingle man. Yet all these things are done, thanks to the administrative\nmachinery which divides responsibility for misdeeds in such a way that\nno one feels them to be contrary to nature.\n\nSome make the laws, others execute them; some train men by discipline to\nautomatic obedience; and these last, in their turn, become the\ninstruments of coercion, and slay their kind without knowing why or to\nwhat end. But let a man disentangle himself for a moment from this\ncomplicated network, and he will readily see that coercion is contrary\nto his nature. Let us abstain from affirming that organized violence, of\nwhich we make use to our own profit, is a divine, immutable law, and we\nshall see clearly which is most in harmony with human nature,--the\ndoctrine of violence or the doctrine of Jesus.\n\nWhat is the law of nature? Is it to know that my security and that of my\nfamily, all my amusements and pleasures, are purchased at the expense of\nmisery, deprivation, and suffering to thousands of human beings--by the\nterror of the gallows; by the misfortune of thousands stifling within\nprison walls; by the fear inspired by millions of soldiers and guardians\nof civilization, torn from their homes and besotted by discipline, to\nprotect our pleasures with loaded revolvers against the possible\ninterference of the famishing? Is it to purchase every fragment of bread\nthat I put in my mouth and the mouths of my children by the numberless\nprivations that are necessary to procure my abundance? Or is it to be\ncertain that my piece of bread only belongs to me when I know that every\none else has a share, and that no one starves while I eat?\n\nIt is only necessary to understand that, thanks to our social\norganization, each one of our pleasures, every minute of our cherished\ntranquility, is obtained by the sufferings and privations of thousands\nof our fellows--it is only necessary to understand this, to know what is\nconformable to human nature; not to our animal nature alone, but the\nanimal and spiritual nature which constitutes man. When we once\nunderstand the doctrine of Jesus in all its bearings, with all its\nconsequences, we shall be convinced that his doctrine is not contrary to\nhuman nature; but that its sole object is to supplant the chimerical\nlaw of the struggle against evil by violence--itself the law contrary\nto human nature and productive of so many evils.\n\nDo you say that the doctrine of Jesus, \"_Resist not evil_,\" is vain?\nWhat, then, are we to think of the lives of those who are not filled\nwith love and compassion for their kind,--of those who make ready for\ntheir fellow-men punishment at the stake, by the knout, the wheel, the\nrack, chains, compulsory labor, the gibbet, dungeons, prisons for women\nand children, the hecatombs of war, or bring about periodical\nrevolutions; of those who carry these horrors into execution; of those\nwho benefit by these calamities or prepare reprisals,--are not such\nlives vain?\n\nWe need only understand the doctrine of Jesus, to be convinced that\nexistence,--not the reasonable existence which gives happiness to\nhumanity, but the existence men have organized to their own hurt,--that\nsuch an existence is a vanity, the most savage and horrible of vanities,\na veritable delirium of folly, to which, once reclaimed, we do not again\nreturn.\n\nGod descended to earth, became incarnate to redeem Adam's sin, and (so\nwe were taught to believe) said many mysterious and mystical things\nwhich are difficult to understand, which it is not possible to\nunderstand except by the aid of faith and grace--and suddenly the words\nof God are found to be simple, clear, and reasonable! God said, Do no\nevil, and evil will cease to exist. Was the revelation from God really\nso simple--nothing but that? It would seem that every one might\nunderstand it, it is so simple!\n\nThe prophet Elijah, a fugitive from men, took refuge in a cave, and was\ntold that God would appear to him. There came a great wind that\ndevastated the forest; Elijah thought that the Lord had come, but the\nLord was not in the wind. After the wind came the thunder and the\nlightning, but God was not there. Then came the earthquake: the earth\nbelched forth fire, the rocks were shattered, the mountain was rent to\nits foundations; Elijah looked for the Lord, but the Lord was not in the\nearthquake. Then, in the calm that followed, a gentle breeze came to the\nprophet, bearing the freshness of the fields; and Elijah knew that God\nwas there. It is a magnificent illustration of the words, \"_Resist not\nevil_.\"\n\nThey are very simple, these words; but they are, nevertheless, the\nexpression of a law divine and human. If there has been in history a\nprogressive movement for the suppression of evil, it is due to the men\nwho understood the doctrine of Jesus--who endured evil, and resisted not\nevil by violence. The advance of humanity towards righteousness is due,\nnot to the tyrants, but to the martyrs. As fire cannot extinguish fire,\nso evil cannot suppress evil. Good alone, confronting evil and resisting\nits contagion, can overcome evil. And in the inner world of the human\nsoul, the law is as absolute as it was for the hearers by Galilee, more\nabsolute, more clear, more immutable. Men may turn aside from it, they\nmay hide its truth from others; but the progress of humanity towards\nrighteousness can only be attained in this way. Every step must be\nguided by the command, \"_Resist not evil_.\" A disciple of Jesus may say\nnow, with greater assurance than they of Galilee, in spite of\nmisfortunes and threats: \"And yet it is not violence, but good, that\novercomes evil.\" If the progress is slow, it is because the doctrine of\nJesus (which, through its clearness, simplicity, and wisdom, appeals so\ninevitably to human nature), because the doctrine of Jesus has been\ncunningly concealed from the majority of mankind under an entirely\ndifferent doctrine falsely called by his name.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\n\nTHE true meaning of the doctrine of Jesus was revealed to me; everything\nconfirmed its truth. But for a long time I could not accustom myself to\nthe strange fact, that after the eighteen centuries during which the law\nof Jesus had been professed by millions of human beings, after the\neighteen centuries during which thousands of men had consecrated their\nlives to the study of this law, I had discovered it for myself anew. But\nstrange as it seemed, so it was. Jesus' law, \"_Resist not evil_,\" was to\nme wholly new, something of which I had never had any conception before.\nI asked myself how this could be; I must certainly have had a false idea\nof the doctrine of Jesus to cause such a misunderstanding. And a false\nidea of it I unquestionably had. When I began to read the Gospel, I was\nnot in the condition of one who, having heard nothing of the doctrine of\nJesus, becomes acquainted with it for the first time; on the contrary, I\nhad a preconceived theory as to the manner in which I ought to\nunderstand it. Jesus did not appeal to me as a prophet revealing the\ndivine law, but as one who continued and amplified the absolute divine\nlaw which I already knew; for I had very definite and complex notions\nabout God, the creator of the world and of man, and about the\ncommandments of God given to men through the instrumentality of Moses.\n\nWhen I came to the words, \"_Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye\nfor an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist\nnot evil_,\"--the words, \"_An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth_,\"\nexpressed the law given by God to Moses; the words, \"_But I say unto\nyou, That ye resist not evil_,\" expressed the new law, which was a\nnegation of the first. If I had seen Jesus' words, simply, in their true\nsense, and not as a part of the theological theory that I had imbibed at\nmy mother's breast, I should have understood immediately that Jesus\nabrogated the old law, and substituted for it a new law. But I had been\ntaught that Jesus did not abrogate the law of Moses, that, on the\ncontrary, he confirmed it to the slightest iota, and that he made it\nmore complete. Verses 17-20 of the fifth chapter of Matthew always\nimpressed me, when I read the Gospel, by their obscurity, and they\nplunged me into doubt. I knew the Old Testament, particularly the last\nbooks of Moses, very thoroughly, and recalling certain passages in which\nminute doctrines, often absurd and even cruel in their purport, are\npreceded by the words, \"And the Lord said unto Moses,\" it seemed to me\nvery singular that Jesus should confirm all these injunctions; I could\nnot understand why he did so. But I allowed the question to pass without\nsolution, and accepted with confidence the explanations inculcated in my\ninfancy,--that the two laws were equally inspired by the Holy Spirit,\nthat they were in perfect accord, and that Jesus confirmed the law of\nMoses while completing and amplifying it. I did not concern myself with\naccounting for the process of this amplification, with the solution of\nthe contradictions apparent throughout the whole Gospel, in verses 17-20\nof the fifth chapter, in the words, \"_But I say unto you_.\"\n\nNow that I understood the clear and simple meaning of the doctrine of\nJesus, I saw clearly that the two laws are directly opposed to one\nanother; that they can never be harmonized; that, instead of\nsupplementing one by the other, we must inevitably choose between the\ntwo; and that the received explanation of the verses, Matthew v. 17-20,\nwhich had impressed me by their obscurity, must be incorrect.\n\nWhen I now came to read once more the verses that had before impressed\nme as obscure, I was astonished at the clear and simple meaning which\nwas suddenly revealed to me. This meaning was revealed, not by any\ncombination and transposition, but solely by rejecting the factitious\nexplanations with which the words had been encumbered. According to\nMatthew, Jesus said (v. 17-18):--\n\n\"_Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets_ (the\ndoctrine of the prophets): _I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For\nverily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle\nshall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled._\"\n\nAnd in verse 20 he added:--\n\n\"_For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the\nrighteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter\ninto the kingdom of heaven._\"\n\nI am not come (Jesus said) to destroy the eternal law of whose\nfulfilment your books of prophecy foretell. I am come to teach you the\nfulfilment of the eternal law; not of the law that your scribes and\npharisees call the divine law, but of that eternal law which is more\nimmutable than the earth and the heavens.\n\nI have expressed the idea in other words in order to detach the thoughts\nof my readers from the traditional false interpretation. If this false\ninterpretation had never existed, the idea expressed in the verses could\nnot be rendered in a better or more definite manner.\n\nThe view that Jesus did not abrogate the old law arises from the\narbitrary conclusion that \"law\" in this passage signifies the written\nlaw instead of the law eternal, the reference to the iota--jot and\ntittle--perhaps furnishing the grounds for such an opinion. But if Jesus\nhad been speaking of the written law, he would have used the expression\n\"the law and the prophets,\" which he always employed in speaking of the\nwritten law; here, however, he uses a different expression,--\"the law\n_or_ the prophets.\" If Jesus had meant the written law, he would have\nused the expression, \"the law and the prophets,\" in the verses that\nfollow and that continue the thought; but he says, briefly, \"the law.\"\nMoreover, according to Luke, Jesus made use of the same phraseology, and\nthe context renders the meaning inevitable. According to Luke, Jesus\nsaid to the Pharisees, who assumed the justice of their written law:--\n\n\"_Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your\nhearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in\nthe sight of God. The law and the prophets were until John: since that\ntime the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it. And\nit is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to\nfail._\" (Luke xvi. 15-17.)\n\nIn the words, \"_The law and the prophets were until John_,\" Jesus\nabrogated the written law; in the words, \"_And it is easier for heaven\nand earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail_,\" Jesus confirmed\nthe law eternal. In the first passage cited he said, \"the law _and_ the\nprophets,\" that is, the written law; in the second he said \"the law\"\nsimply, therefore the law eternal. It is clear, then, that the eternal\nlaw is opposed to the written law,[3] exactly as in the context of\nMatthew where the eternal law is defined by the phrase, \"the law _or_\nthe prophets.\"\n\n     [3] More than this, as if to do away with all doubt about the law\n     to which he referred, Jesus cites immediately, in connection with\n     this passage, the most decisive instance of the negation of the law\n     of Moses by the eternal law, the law of which not the smallest jot\n     is to fail: \"_Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth\n     another, committeth adultery._\" (Luke xvi. 18.) That is, according\n     to the written law divorce is permissible; according to the eternal\n     law it is forbidden.\n\nThe history of the variants of the text of these verses is quite worthy\nof notice. The majority of texts have simply \"the law,\" without the\naddition, \"and the prophets,\" thus avoiding a false interpretation in\nthe sense of the written law. In other texts, notably that of\nTischendorf, and in the canonical versions, we find the word \"prophets\"\nused, not with the conjunction \"and,\" but with the conjunction\n\"or,\"--\"the law _or_ the prophets,\"--which also excludes any question of\nthe written law, and indicates, as the proper signification, the law\neternal. In several other versions, not countenanced by the Church, we\nfind the word \"prophets\" used with the conjunction \"and,\" not with \"or\";\nand in these versions every repetition of the words \"the law\" is\nfollowed by the phrase, \"and the prophets,\" which would indicate that\nJesus spoke only of the written law.\n\nThe history of the commentaries on the passage in question coincides\nwith that of the variants. The only clear meaning is that authorized by\nLuke,--that Jesus spoke of the eternal law. But among the copyists of\nthe Gospel were some who desired that the written law of Moses should\ncontinue to be regarded as obligatory. They therefore added to the words\n\"the law\" the phrase \"and the prophets,\" and thereby changed the\ninterpretation of the text.\n\nOther Christians, not recognizing to the same degree the authority of\nthe books of Moses, suppressed the added phrase, and replaced the\nparticle [Greek: kai], \"and,\" with [Greek: \u00ea], \"or\"; and with this\nsubstitution the passage was admitted to the canon. Nevertheless, in\nspite of the unequivocal clearness of the text as thus written, the\ncommentators perpetuated the interpretation supported by the phrase\nwhich had been rejected in the canon. The passage evoked innumerable\ncomments, which stray from the true signification in proportion to the\nlack, on the part of the commentators, of fidelity to the simple and\nobvious meaning of Jesus' doctrine. Most of them recognize the reading\nrejected by the canonical text.\n\nTo be absolutely convinced that Jesus spoke only of the eternal law, we\nneed only examine the true meaning of the word which has given rise to\nso many false interpretations. The word \"law\" (in Greek [Greek: nomos],\nin Hebrew [Hebrew: torah], _torah_) has in all languages two principal\nmeanings: one, law in the abstract sense, independent of formul\u00e6; the\nother, the written statutes which men generally recognize as law. In the\nGreek of Paul's Epistles the distinction is indicated by the use of the\narticle. Without the article Paul uses [Greek: nomos] the most\nfrequently in the sense of the divine eternal law. By the ancient\nHebrews, as in books of Isaiah and the other prophets, [Hebrew: torah],\n_torah_, is always used in the sense of an eternal revelation, a divine\nintuition. It was not till the time of Esdras, and later in the Talmud,\nthat \"Torah\" was used in the same sense in which we use the word\n\"Bible\"--with this difference, that while we have words to distinguish\nbetween the Bible and the divine law, the Jews employed the same word to\nexpress both meanings.\n\nAnd so Jesus sometimes speaks of law as the divine law (of Isaiah and\nthe other prophets), in which case he confirms it; and sometimes in the\nsense of the written law of the Pentateuch, in which case he rejects it.\nTo distinguish the difference, he always, in speaking of the written\nlaw, adds, \"and the prophets,\" or prefixes the word \"your,\"--\"your law.\"\n\nWhen he says: \"_Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should\ndo to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets_\"\n(Matt. vii. 12), he speaks of the written law. The entire written law,\nhe says, may be reduced to this expression of the eternal law, and by\nthese words he abrogated the eternal law. When he says, \"_The law and\nthe prophets were until John_\" (Luke xvi. 16), he speaks of the written\nlaw, and abrogates it. When he says, \"_Did not Moses give you the law,\nand yet none of you keepeth the law_\" (John vii. 19), \"_It is also\nwritten in your law_\" (John viii. 17), \"_that the word might be\nfulfilled that is written in their law_\" (John xv. 25), he speaks of the\nwritten law, the law whose authority he denied, the law that condemned\nhim to death: \"_The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he\nought to die_\" (John xix. 7). It is plain that this Jewish law, which\nauthorized condemnation to death, was not the law of Jesus. But when\nJesus says, \"I am not come to destroy the law, but to teach you the\nfulfilment of the law; for nothing of this law shall be changed, but all\nshall be fulfilled,\" then he speaks, not of the written law, but of the\ndivine and eternal law.\n\nAdmit that all this is merely formal proof; admit that I have carefully\ncombined contexts and variants, and excluded everything contrary to my\ntheory; admit that the commentators of the Church are clear and\nconvincing, that, in fact, Jesus did not abrogate the law of Moses, but\nupheld it--admit this: then the question is, what were the teachings of\nJesus?\n\nAccording to the Church, he taught that he was the second person of the\nTrinity, the Son of God, and that he came into the world to atone by his\ndeath for Adam's sin. Those, however, who have read the Gospels know\nthat Jesus taught nothing of the sort, or at least spoke but very\nvaguely on these topics. The passages in which Jesus affirms that he is\nthe second person of the Trinity, and that he was to atone for the sins\nof humanity, form a very inconsiderable and very obscure portion of the\nGospels. In what, then, does the rest of Jesus' doctrine consist? It is\nimpossible to deny, for all Christians have recognized the fact, that\nthe doctrine of Jesus aims summarily to regulate the lives of men, to\nteach them how they ought to live with regard to one another. But to\nrealize that Jesus taught men a new way of life, we must have some idea\nof the condition of the people to whom his teachings were addressed.\n\nWhen we examine into the social development of the Russians, the\nEnglish, the Chinese, the Indians, or even the races of insular\nsavages, we find that each people invariably has certain practical rules\nor laws which govern its existence; consequently, if any one would\ninculcate a new law, he must at the same time abolish the old; in any\nrace or nation this would be inevitable. Laws that we are accustomed to\nregard as almost sacred would assuredly be abrogated; with us, perhaps,\nit might happen that a reformer who taught a new law would abolish only\nour civil laws, the official code, our administrative customs, without\ntouching what we consider as our divine laws, although it is difficult\nto believe that such could be the case. But with the Jewish people, who\nhad but one law, and that recognized as divine,--a law which enveloped\nlife to its minutest details,--what could a reformer accomplish if he\ndeclared in advance that the existing law was inviolable?\n\nAdmit that this argument is not conclusive, and try to interpret the\nwords of Jesus as an affirmation of the entire Mosaic law; in that case,\nwho were the Pharisees, the scribes, the doctors of the law, denounced\nby Jesus during the whole of his ministry? Who were they that rejected\nthe doctrine of Jesus and, their High Priests at their head, crucified\nhim? If Jesus approved the law of Moses, where were the faithful\nfollowers of that law, who practised it sincerely, and must thereby have\nobtained Jesus' approval? Is it possible that there was not one such?\nThe Pharisees, we are told, constituted a sect; where, then, were the\nrighteous?\n\nIn the Gospel of John the enemies of Jesus are spoken of directly as\n\"the Jews.\" They are opposed to the doctrine of Jesus; they are hostile\nbecause they are Jews. But it is not only the Pharisees and the\nSadducees who figure in the Gospels as the enemies of Jesus: we also\nfind mention of the doctors of the law, the guardians of the law of\nMoses, the scribes, the interpreters of the law, the ancients, those who\nare always considered as representatives of the people's wisdom. Jesus\nsaid, \"_I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to\nrepentance_,\" to change their way of life ([Greek: metanoia]). But where\nwere the righteous? Was Nicodemus the only one? He is represented as a\ngood, but misguided man.\n\nWe are so habituated to the singular opinion that Jesus was crucified by\nthe Pharisees and a number of Jewish shopkeepers, that we never think to\nask, Where were the true Jews, the good Jews, the Jews that practised\nthe law? When we have once propounded this query, everything becomes\nperfectly clear. Jesus, whether he was God or man, brought his doctrine\nto a people possessing rules, called the divine law, governing their\nwhole existence. How could Jesus avoid denouncing that law?\n\nEvery prophet, every founder of a religion, inevitably meets, in\nrevealing the divine law to men, with institutions which are regarded as\nupheld by the laws of God. He cannot, therefore, avoid a double use of\nthe word \"law,\" which expresses what his hearers wrongfully consider the\nlaw of God (\"your law\"), and the law he has come to proclaim, the true\nlaw, the divine and eternal law. A reformer not only cannot avoid the\nuse of the word in this manner; often he does not wish to avoid it, but\npurposely confounds the two ideas, thus indicating that, in the law\nconfessed by those whom he would convert, there are still some eternal\ntruths. Every reformer takes these truths, so well known to his hearers,\nas the basis of his teaching. This is precisely what Jesus did in\naddressing the Jews, by whom the two laws were vaguely grouped together\nas \"Torah.\" Jesus recognized that the Mosaic law, and still more the\nprophetical books, especially the writings of Isaiah, whose words he\nconstantly quotes,--Jesus recognized that these contained divine and\neternal truths in harmony with the eternal law, and these he takes as\nthe basis of his own doctrine. This method was many times referred to by\nJesus; thus he said, \"_What is written in the law? how readest thou?_\"\n(Luke x. 26). That is, one may find eternal truth in the law, if one\nreads it aright. And more than once he affirms that the commandments of\nthe Mosaic law, to love the Lord and one's neighbor, are also\ncommandments of the eternal law. At the conclusion of the parables by\nwhich Jesus explained the meaning of his doctrine to his disciples, he\npronounced words that have a bearing upon all that precedes:--\n\n\"_Therefore every scribe which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven_\n(the truth) _is like unto a man that is a householder, which bringeth\nforth out of his treasure_ (without distinction) _things new and old_.\"\n(Matt. xiii. 52.)\n\nThe Church understands these words, as they were understood by Iren\u00e6us;\nbut at the same time, in defiance of the true signification, it\narbitrarily attributes to them the meaning that everything old is\nsacred. The manifest meaning is this: He who seeks for the good, takes\nnot only the new, but also the old; and because a thing is old, he does\nnot therefore reject it. By these words Jesus meant that he did not deny\nwhat was eternal in the old law. But when they spoke to him of the whole\nlaw, or of the formalities exacted by the old law, his reply was that\nnew wine should not be put into old bottles. Jesus could not affirm the\nwhole law; neither could he deny the entire teachings of the law and the\nprophets,--the law which says, \"_love thy neighbor as thyself_,\" the\nprophets whose words often served to express his own thoughts. And yet,\nin place of this clear and simple explanation of Jesus' words, we are\noffered a vague interpretation which introduces needless contradictions,\nwhich reduces the doctrine of Jesus to nothingness, and which\nre-establishes the doctrine of Moses in all its savage cruelty.\n\nCommentators of the Church, particularly those who have written since\nthe fifth century, tell us that Jesus did not abolish the written law;\nthat, on the contrary, he affirmed it. But in what way? How is it\npossible that the law of Jesus should harmonize with the law of Moses?\nTo these inquiries we get no response. The commentators all make use of\na verbal juggle to the effect that Jesus fulfilled the law of Moses, and\nthat the sayings of the prophets were fulfilled in his person; that\nJesus fulfilled the law as our mediator by our faith in him. And the\nessential question for every believer--How to harmonize two conflicting\nlaws, each designed to regulate the lives of men?--is left without the\nslightest attempt at explanation. Thus the contradiction between the\nverse where it is said that Jesus did not come to destroy the law, but\nto fulfil the law, and Jesus' saying, \"_Ye have heard that it hath been\nsaid, An eye for an eye_... _But I say unto you_,\"--the contradiction\nbetween the doctrine of Jesus and the very spirit of the Mosaic\ndoctrine,--is left without any mitigation.\n\nLet those who are interested in the question look through the Church\ncommentaries touching this passage from the time of Chrysostom to our\nday. After a perusal of the voluminous explanations offered, they will\nbe convinced not only of the complete absence of any solution for the\ncontradiction, but of the presence of a new, factitious contradiction\narising in its place. Let us see what Chrysostom says in reply to those\nwho reject the law of Moses:--\n\n\"He made this law, not that we might strike out one another's eyes, but\nthat fear of suffering by others might restrain us from doing any such\nthing to them. As therefore He threatened the Ninevites with overthrow,\nnot that He might destroy them (for had that been His will, He ought to\nhave been silent), but that He might by fear make them better, and so\nquiet His wrath: so also hath He appointed a punishment for those who\nwantonly assail the eyes of others, that if good principle dispose them\nnot to refrain from such cruelty, fear may restrain them from injuring\ntheir neighbors' sight.\n\n\"And if this be cruelty, it is cruelty also for the murderer to be\nrestrained, and the adulterer checked. But these are the sayings of\nsenseless men, and of those that are mad to the extreme of madness. For\nI, so far from saying that this comes of cruelty, should say that the\ncontrary to this would be unlawful, according to men's reckoning. And\nwhereas thou sayest, 'Because He commanded to pluck out _an eye for an\neye_, therefore He is cruel'; I say that if He had not given this\ncommandment, then He would have seemed, in the judgment of most men, to\nbe that which thou sayest He is.\"\n\nChrysostom clearly recognized the law. _An eye for an eye_, as divine,\nand the contrary of that law, that is, the doctrine of Jesus, _Resist\nnot evil_, as an iniquity. \"For let us suppose,\" says Chrysostom\nfurther:--\n\n\"For let us suppose that this law had been altogether done away, and\nthat no one feared the punishment ensuing thereupon, but that license\nhad been given to all the wicked to follow their own dispositions in all\nsecurity to adulterers, and to murderers, to perjured persons, and to\nparricides; would not all things have been turned upside down? would\nnot cities, market-places and houses, sea and land, and the whole world\nhave been filled with unnumbered pollutions and murders? Every one sees\nit. For if, when there are laws, and fear, and threatening, our evil\ndispositions are hardly checked; were even this security taken away,\nwhat is there to prevent men's choosing vice? and what degree of\nmischief would not then come revelling upon the whole of human life?\n\n\"The rather, since cruelty lies not only in allowing the bad to do what\nthey will, but in another thing too quite as much,--to overlook, and\nleave uncared for, him who hath done no wrong, but who is without cause\nor reason suffering ill. For tell me; were any one to gather together\nwicked men from all quarters, and arm them with swords, and bid them go\nabout the whole city, and massacre all that came in their way, could\nthere be anything more like a wild beast than he? And what if some\nothers should bind, and confine with the utmost strictness, those whom\nthat man had armed, and should snatch from those lawless hands them who\nwere on the point of being butchered; could anything be greater humanity\nthan this?\"\n\nChrysostom does not say what would be the estimate of these others in\nthe opinion of the wicked. And what if these others were themselves\nwicked and cast the innocent into prison? Chrysostom continues:--\n\n\"Now then, I bid thee transfer these examples to the Law likewise; for\nHe that commands to pluck out _an eye for an eye_ hath laid the fear as\na kind of strong chain upon the souls of the bad, and so resembles him\nwho detains those assassins in prison; whereas he who appoints no\npunishment for them, doth all but arm them by such security, and acts\nthe part of that other, who was putting the swords in their hands, and\nletting them loose over the whole city.\" (\"Homilies on the Gospel of St.\nMatthew,\" xvi.)\n\nIf Chrysostom had understood the law of Jesus, he would have said, Who\nis it that strikes out another's eyes? who is it that casts men into\nprison? If God, who made the law, does this, then there is no\ncontradiction; but it is men who carry out the decrees, and the Son of\nGod has said to men that they must abstain from violence. God commanded\nto strike out, and the Son of God commanded not to strike out. We must\naccept one commandment or the other; and Chrysostom, like all the rest\nof the Church, accepted the commandment of Moses and denied that of the\nChrist, whose doctrine he nevertheless claims to believe.\n\nJesus abolished the Mosaic law, and gave his own law in its place. To\none who really believes in Jesus there is not the slightest\ncontradiction; such an one will pay no attention to the law of Moses,\nbut will practise the law of Jesus, which he believes. To one who\nbelieves in the law of Moses there is no contradiction. The Jews looked\nupon the words of Jesus as foolishness, and believed in the law of\nMoses. The contradiction is only for those who would follow the law of\nMoses under the cover of the law of Jesus--for those whom Jesus\ndenounced as hypocrites, as a generation of vipers.\n\nInstead of recognizing as divine truth the one or the other of the two\nlaws, the law of Moses or that of Jesus, we recognize the divine quality\nof both. But when the question comes with regard to the acts of\nevery-day life, we reject the law of Jesus and follow that of Moses. And\nthis false interpretation, when we realize its importance, reveals the\nsource of that terrible drama which records the struggle between evil\nand good, between darkness and light.\n\nTo the Jewish people, trained to the innumerable formal regulations\ninstituted by the Levites in the rubric of divine laws, each preceded by\nthe words, \"And the Lord said unto Moses\"--to the Jewish people Jesus\nappeared. He found everything, to the minutest detail, prescribed by\nrule; not only the relation of man with God, but his sacrifices, his\nfeasts, his fasts, his social, civil, and family duties, the details of\npersonal habits, circumcision, the purification of the body, of domestic\nutensils, of clothing--all these regulated by laws recognized as\ncommandments of God, and therefore as divine.\n\nExcluding the question of Jesus' divine mission, what could any prophet\nor reformer do who wished to establish his own doctrines among a people\nso enveloped in formalism--what but abolish the law by which all these\ndetails were regulated? Jesus selected from what men considered as the\nlaw of God the portions which were really divine; he took what served\nhis purpose, rejected the rest, and upon this foundation established the\neternal law. It was not necessary to abolish all, but inevitable to\nabrogate much that was looked upon as obligatory. This Jesus did, and\nwas accused of destroying the divine law; for this he was condemned and\nput to death. But his doctrine was cherished by his disciples, traversed\nthe centuries, and is transmitted to other peoples. Under these\nconditions it is again hidden beneath heterogeneous dogmas, obscure\ncomments, and factitious explanations. Pitiable human sophisms replace\nthe divine revelation. For the formula, \"And the Lord said unto Moses,\"\nwe substitute \"Thus saith the Holy Spirit.\" And again formalism hides\nthe truth. Most astounding of all, the doctrine of Jesus is amalgamated\nwith the written law, whose authority he was forced to deny. This\n_Torah_, this written law, is declared to have been inspired by the Holy\nSpirit, the spirit of truth; and thus Jesus is taken in the snare of his\nown revelation--his doctrine is reduced to nothingness.\n\nThis is why, after eighteen hundred years, it so singularly happened\nthat I discovered the meaning of the doctrine of Jesus as some new\nthing. But no; I did not discover it; I did simply what all must do who\nseek after God and His law; I sought for the eternal law amid the\nincongruous elements that men call by that name.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI.\n\n\nWHEN I understood the law of Jesus as the law of Jesus, and not as the\nlaw of Jesus and of Moses, when I understood the commandment of this law\nwhich absolutely abrogated the law of Moses, then the Gospels, before to\nme so obscure, diffuse, and contradictory, blended into a harmonious\nwhole, the substance of whose doctrine, until then incomprehensible, I\nfound to be formulated in terms simple, clear, and accessible to every\nsearcher after truth.[4]\n\n     [4] Matt. v. 21-48, especially 38\n\nThroughout the Gospels we are called upon to consider the commandments\nof Jesus and the necessity of practising them. All the theologians\ndiscuss the commandments of Jesus; but what are these commandments? I\ndid not know before. I thought that the commandment of Jesus was to love\nGod, and one's neighbor as one's self. I did not see that this could not\nbe a new commandment of Jesus, since it was given by them of old in\nDeuteronomy and Leviticus. The words:--\n\n\"_Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and\nshall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of\nheaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called\ngreat in the kingdom of heaven_,\" (Matt. v. 19.)--these words I believed\nto relate to the Mosaic law. But it never had occurred to me that Jesus\nhad propounded, clearly and precisely, new laws. I did not see that in\nthe passage where Jesus declares, \"_Ye have heard that it was said....\nBut I say unto you_,\" he formulated a series of very definite\ncommandments--five entirely new, counting as one the two references to\nthe ancient law against adultery. I had heard of the beatitudes of Jesus\nand of their number; their explanation and enumeration had formed a part\nof my religious instruction; but the commandments of Jesus--I had never\nheard them spoken of. To my great astonishment, I now discovered them\nfor myself. In the fifth chapter of Matthew I found these verses:--\n\n\"_Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not\nkill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: But I\nsay unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause\nshall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his\nbrother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall\nsay, Thou fool, shall be in danger of the Gehenna of fire. Therefore if\nthou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother\nhath aught against thee; Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go\nthy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy\ngift. Agree with thine adversary quickly, while thou art in the way with\nhim; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the\njudge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison. Verily\nI say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast\npaid the uttermost farthing._\" (Matt. v. 21-26.)\n\nWhen I understood the commandment, \"_Resist not evil_,\" it seemed to me\nthat these verses must have a meaning as clear and intelligible as has\nthe commandment just cited. The meaning I had formerly given to the\npassage was, that every one ought to avoid angry feelings against\nothers, ought never to utter abusive language, and ought to live in\npeace with all men, without exception. But there was in the text a\nphrase which excluded this meaning, \"Whosoever shall be angry with his\nbrother _without a cause_\"--the words could not then be an exhortation\nto absolute peace. I was greatly perplexed, and I turned to the\ncommentators, the theologians, for the removal of my doubts. To my\nsurprise I found that the commentators were chiefly occupied with the\nendeavor to define under what conditions anger was permissible. All the\ncommentators of the Church dwelt upon the qualifying phrase \"_without a\ncause_,\" and explained the meaning to be that one must not be offended\nwithout a reason, that one must not be abusive, but that anger is not\nalways unjust; and, to confirm their view, they quoted instances of\nanger on the part of saints and apostles. I saw plainly that the\ncommentators who authorized anger \"for the glory of God\" as not\nreprehensible, although entirely contrary to the spirit of the Gospel,\nbased their argument on the phrase \"without a cause,\" in the\ntwenty-second verse. These words change entirely the meaning of the\npassage.\n\nBe not angry without cause? Jesus exhorts us to pardon every one, to\npardon without restriction or limit. He pardoned all who did him wrong,\nand chided Peter for being angry with Malchus when the former sought to\ndefend his Master at the time of the betrayal, when, if at any time, it\nwould seem that anger might have been justifiable. And yet did this same\nJesus formally teach men not to be angry \"without a cause,\" and thereby\nsanction anger for a cause? Did Jesus enjoin peace upon all men, and\nthen, in the phrase \"without a cause,\" interpolate the reservation that\nthis rule did not apply to all cases; that there were circumstances\nunder which one might be angry with a brother, and so give the\ncommentators the right to say that anger is sometimes expedient?\n\nBut who is to decide when anger is expedient and when it is not\nexpedient? I never yet encountered an angry person who did not believe\nhis wrath to be justifiable. Every one who is angry thinks anger\nlegitimate and serviceable. Evidently the qualifying phrase \"without a\ncause\" destroys the entire force of the verse. And yet there were the\nwords in the sacred text, and I could not efface them. The effect was\nthe same as if the word \"good\" had been added to the phrase. \"Love thy\nneighbor\"--love thy good neighbor, the neighbor that agrees with thee!\n\nThe entire signification of the passage was changed by this phrase,\n\"without a cause.\" Verses 23 and 24, which exhort us to be reconciled\nwith all men before appealing for divine aid, also lost their direct and\nimperative meaning and acquired a conditional import through the\ninfluence of the foregoing qualification. It had seemed to me, however,\nthat Jesus forbade all anger, all evil sentiment, and, that it might not\ncontinue in our hearts, exhorted us before entering into communion with\nGod to ask ourselves if there were any person who might be angry with\nus. If such were the case, whether this anger were with cause or without\ncause, he commanded us to be reconciled. In this manner I had\ninterpreted the passage; but it now seemed, according to the\ncommentators, that the injunction must be taken as a conditional\naffirmation. The commentators all explained that we ought to try to be\nat peace with everybody; but, they added, if this is impossible, if,\nactuated by evil instincts, any one is at enmity with you, try to be\nreconciled with him in spirit, in idea, and then the enmity of others\nwill be no obstacle to divine communion.\n\nNor was this all. The words, \"Whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca,\nshall be in danger of the council,\" always seemed to me strange and\nabsurd. If we are forbidden to be abusive, why this example with its\nordinary and harmless epithet; why this terrible threat against those\nthat utter abuse so feeble as that implied in the word _raca_, which\nmeans a good-for-nothing? All this was obscure to me.\n\nI was convinced that I had before me a problem similar to that which had\nconfronted me in the words, \"_Judge not_.\" I felt that here again the\nsimple, grand, precise, and practical meaning of Jesus had been hidden,\nand that the commentators were groping in gloom. It seemed to me that\nJesus, in saying, \"_be reconciled to thy brother_,\" could not have\nmeant, \"be reconciled in idea,\"--an explanation not at all clear,\nsupposing it were true. I understood what Jesus meant when, using the\nwords of the prophet, he said, \"_I will have mercy, and not sacrifice_;\"\nthat is, I will that men shall love one another. If you would have your\nacts acceptable to God, then, before offering prayer, interrogate your\nconscience; and if you find that any one is angry with you, go and make\nyour peace with him, and then pray as you desire. After this clear\ninterpretation, what was I to understand by the comment, \"be reconciled\nin idea\"?\n\nI saw that what seemed to me the only clear and direct meaning of the\nverse was destroyed by the phrase, \"without a cause.\" If I could\neliminate that, there would be no difficulty in the way of a lucid\ninterpretation. But all the commentators were united against any such\ncourse; and the canonical text authorized the rendering to which I\nobjected. I could not drop these words arbitrarily, and yet, if they\nwere excluded, everything would become clear. I therefore sought for\nsome interpretation which would not conflict with the sense of the\nentire passage.\n\nI consulted the dictionary. In ordinary Greek, the word [Greek: eik\u00ea]\nmeans \"heedlessly, inconsiderately.\" I tried to find some term that\nwould not destroy the sense; but the words, \"without a cause,\" plainly\nhad the meaning attributed to them. In New Testament Greek the\nsignification of [Greek: eik\u00ea] is exactly the same. I consulted the\nconcordances. The word occurs but once in the Gospels, namely, in this\npassage. In the first epistle to the Corinthians, xv. 2, it occurs in\nexactly the same sense. It is impossible to interpret it otherwise, and\nif we accept it, we must conclude that Jesus uttered in vague words a\ncommandment easily so construed as to be of no effect. To admit this\nseemed to me equivalent to rejecting the entire Gospel. There remained\none more resource--was the word to be found in all the manuscripts? I\nconsulted Griesbach, who records all recognized variants, and discovered\nto my joy that the passage in question was not invariable, and that the\nvariation depended upon the word [Greek: eik\u00ea]. In most of the Gospel\ntexts and the citations of the Fathers, this word does not occur. I\nconsulted Tischendorf for the most ancient reading: the word [Greek:\neik\u00ea] did not appear.\n\nThis word, so destructive to the meaning of the doctrine of Jesus, is\nthen an interpolation which had not crept into the best copies of the\nGospel as late as the fifth century. Some copyist added the word; others\napproved it and undertook its explanation. Jesus did not utter, could\nnot have uttered, this terrible word; and the primary meaning of the\npassage, its simple, direct, impressive meaning, is the true\ninterpretation.\n\nNow that I understood Jesus to forbid anger, whatever the cause, and\nwithout distinction of persons, the warning against the use of the words\n\"raca\" and \"fool\" had a purport quite distinct from any prohibition with\nregard to the utterance of abusive epithets. The strange Hebrew word,\n_raca_, which is not translated in the Greek text, serves to reveal the\nmeaning. _Raca_ means, literally, \"vain, empty, that which does not\nexist.\" It was much used by the Hebrews to express exclusion. It is\nemployed in the plural form in Judges ix. 4, in the sense, \"empty and\nvain.\" This word Jesus forbids us to apply to any one, as he forbids us\nto use the word \"fool,\" which, like \"raca,\" relieves us of all the\nobligations of humanity. We get angry, we do evil to men, and then to\nexcuse ourselves we say that the object of our anger is an empty person,\nthe refuse of a man, a fool. It is precisely such words as these that\nJesus forbids us to apply to men. He exhorts us not to be angry with any\none, and not to excuse our anger with the plea that we have to do with a\nvain person, a person bereft of reason.\n\nAnd so in place of insignificant, vague, and uncertain phrases subject\nto arbitrary interpretation, I found in Matthew v. 21-26 the first\ncommandment of Jesus: Live in peace with all men. Do not regard anger as\njustifiable under any circumstances. Never look upon a human being as\nworthless or as a fool. Not only refrain from anger yourself, but do\nnot regard the anger of others toward you as vain. If any one is angry\nwith you, even without reason, be reconciled to him, that all hostile\nfeelings may be effaced. Agree quickly with those that have a grievance\nagainst you, lest animosity prevail to your loss.\n\nThe first commandment of Jesus being thus freed from obscurity, I was\nable to understand the second, which also begins with a reference to the\nancient law:--\n\n\"_Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not\ncommit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman\nto lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.\nAnd if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee:\nfor it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and\nnot that thy whole body should be cast into hell. And if thy right hand\noffend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for\nthee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body\nshould be cast into hell. It hath been said,[5] Whosoever shall put away\nhis wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit\nadultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth\nadultery._ (Matt. v. 27-32.)\n\n     [5] Deut. xxiv. 1.\n\nBy these words I understood that a man ought not, even in imagination,\nto admit that he could approach any woman save her to whom he had once\nbeen united, and her he might never abandon to take another, although\npermitted to do so by the Mosaic law.\n\nIn the first commandment, Jesus counselled us to extinguish the germ of\nanger, and illustrated his meaning by the fate of the man who is\ndelivered to the judges; in the second commandment, Jesus declares that\ndebauchery arises from the disposition of men and women to regard one\nanother as instruments of voluptuousness, and, this being so, we ought\nto guard against every idea that excites to sensual desire, and, once\nunited to a woman, never to abandon her on any pretext, for women thus\nabandoned are sought by other men, and so debauchery is introduced into\nthe world.\n\nThe wisdom of this commandment impressed me profoundly. It would\nsuppress all the evils in the world that result from the sexual\nrelations. Convinced that license in the sexual relations leads to\ncontention, men, in obedience to this injunction, would avoid every\ncause for voluptuousness, and, knowing that the law of humanity is to\nlive in couples, would so unite themselves, and never destroy the bond\nof union. All the evils arising from dissensions caused by sexual\nattraction would be suppressed, since there would be neither men nor\nwomen deprived of the sexual relation.\n\nBut I was much more impressed, as I read the Sermon on the Mount, with\nthe words, \"Saving for the cause of fornication,\" which permitted a man\nto repudiate his wife in case of infidelity. The very form in which the\nidea was expressed seemed to me unworthy of the dignity of the\noccasion, for here, side by side with the profound truths of the Sermon\non the Mount, occurred, like a note in a criminal code, this strange\nexception to the general rule; but I shall not dwell upon the question\nof form; I shall speak only of the exception itself, so entirely in\ncontradiction with the fundamental idea.\n\nI consulted the commentators; all, Chrysostom and the others, even\nauthorities on exegesis like Reuss, all recognized the meaning of the\nwords to be that Jesus permitted divorce in case of infidelity on the\npart of the woman, and that, in the exhortation against divorce in the\nnineteenth chapter of Matthew, the same words had the same\nsignification. I read the thirty-second verse of the fifth chapter again\nand again, and reason refused to accept the interpretation. To verify my\ndoubts I consulted the other portions of the New Testament texts, and I\nfound in Matthew (xix.), Mark (x.), Luke (xvi.), and in the first\nepistle of Paul to the Corinthians, affirmation of the doctrine of the\nindissolubility of marriage. In Luke (xvi. 18) it is said:--\n\n\"_Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth\nadultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband\ncommitteth adultery._\"\n\nIn Mark (x. 5-12) the doctrine is also proclaimed without any exception\nwhatever:--\n\n\"_For the hardness of your heart he_ [Moses] _wrote you this precept.\nBut from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.\nFor this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to\nhis wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more\ntwain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not\nman put asunder. And in the house his disciples asked him again of the\nsame matter. And he said unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife,\nand marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall\nput away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth\nadultery._\"\n\nThe same idea is expressed in Matt. xix. 4-9. Paul, in the first epistle\nto the Corinthians (vii. 1-11), develops systematically the idea that\nthe only way of preventing debauchery is that every man have his own\nwife, and every woman have her own husband, and that they mutually\nsatisfy the sexual instinct; then he says, without equivocation, \"_Let\nnot the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her\nremain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the\nhusband put away his wife_.\"\n\nAccording to Mark, and Luke, and Paul, divorce is forbidden. It is\nforbidden by the assertion repeated in two of the Gospels, that husband\nand wife are one flesh whom God hath joined together. It is forbidden by\nthe doctrine of Jesus, who exhorts us to pardon every one, without\nexcepting the adulterous woman. It is forbidden by the general sense of\nthe whole passage, which explains that divorce is provocative of\ndebauchery, and for this reason that divorce with an adulterous woman is\nprohibited.\n\nUpon what, then, is based the opinion that divorce is permissible in\ncase of infidelity on the part of the woman? Upon the words which had so\nimpressed me in Matt. v. 32; the words every one takes to mean that\nJesus permits divorce in case of adultery by the woman; the words,\nrepeated in Matt. xix. 9, in a number of copies of the Gospel text, and\nby many Fathers of the Church,--the words, \"unless for the cause of\nadultery.\" I studied these words carefully anew. For a long time I could\nnot understand them. It seemed to me that there must be a defect in the\ntranslation, and an erroneous exegesis; but where was the source of the\nerror? I could not find it; and yet the error itself was very plain.\n\nIn opposition to the Mosaic law, which declares that if a man take an\naversion to his wife he may write her a bill of divorcement and send her\nout of his house--in opposition to this law Jesus is made to declare,\n\"_But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for\nthe cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery_.\" I saw\nnothing in these words to allow us to affirm that divorce was either\npermitted or forbidden. It is said that whoever shall put away his wife\ncauses her to commit adultery, and then an exception is made with regard\nto a woman guilty of adultery. This exception, which throws the guilt of\nmarital infidelity entirely upon the _woman_ is, in general, strange and\nunexpected; but here, in relation to the context, it is simply absurd,\nfor even the very doubtful meaning which might otherwise be attributed\nto it is wholly destroyed. Whoever puts away his wife exposes her to the\ncrime of adultery, and yet a man is permitted to put away a wife guilty\nof adultery, as if a woman guilty of adultery would no more commit\nadultery after she were put away.\n\nBut this is not all; when I had examined this passage attentively, I\nfound it also to be lacking in grammatical meaning. The words are,\n\"Whoever shall put away his wife, except for the fault of adultery,\nexposes her to the commission of adultery,\"--and the proposition is\ncomplete. It is a question of the husband, of him who in putting away\nhis wife exposes her to the commission of the crime of adultery; what,\nthen, is the purport of the qualifying phrase, \"except for the fault of\nadultery\"? If the proposition were in this form: Whoever shall put away\nhis wife is guilty of adultery, unless the wife herself has been\nunfaithful--it would be grammatically correct. But as the passage now\nstands, the subject \"whoever\" has no other predicate than the word\n\"exposes,\" with which the phrase \"except for the fault of adultery\"\ncannot be connected. What, then, is the purport of this phrase? It is\nplain that whether for or without the fault of adultery on the part of\nthe woman, the husband who puts away his wife exposes her to the\ncommission of adultery.\n\nThe proposition is analogous to the following sentence: Whoever refuses\nfood to his son, besides the fault of spitefulness, exposes him to the\npossibility of being cruel. This sentence evidently cannot mean that a\nfather may refuse food to his son if the latter is spiteful. It can only\nmean that a father who refuses food to his son, besides being spiteful\ntowards his son, exposes his son to the possibility of becoming cruel.\nAnd in the same way, the Gospel proposition would have a meaning if we\ncould replace the words, \"the fault of adultery,\" by libertinism,\ndebauchery, or some similar phrase, expressing not an act but a quality.\n\nAnd so I asked myself if the meaning here was not simply that whoever\nputs away his wife, besides being himself guilty of libertinism (since\nno one puts away his wife except to take another), exposes his wife to\nthe commission of adultery? If, in the original text, the word\ntranslated \"adultery\" or \"fornication\" had the meaning of libertinism,\nthe meaning of the passage would be clear. And then I met with the same\nexperience that had happened to me before in similar instances. The text\nconfirmed my suppositions and entirely effaced my doubts.\n\nThe first thing that occurred to me in reading the text was that the\nword [Greek: porneia], translated in common with [Greek: moichasthai],\n\"adultery\" or \"fornication,\" is an entirely different word from the\nlatter. But perhaps these two words are used as synonyms in the Gospels?\nI consulted the dictionary, and found that the word [Greek: porneia],\ncorresponding in Hebrew to _zanah_, in Latin to _fornicatio_, in German\nto _hurerei_, in French to _libertinage_, has a very precise meaning,\nand that it never has signified, and never can signify, the act of\nadultery, _ehebruch_, as Luther and the Germans after him have rendered\nthe word. It signifies a state of depravity,--a quality, and not an\nact,--and never can be properly translated by \"adultery\" or\n\"fornication.\" I found, moreover, that \"adultery\" is expressed\nthroughout the Gospel, as well as in the passage under consideration, by\nthe word [Greek: moicheu\u00f4]. I had only to correct the false translation,\nwhich had evidently been made intentionally, to render absolutely\ninadmissible the meaning attributed by commentators to the text, and to\nshow the proper grammatical relation of [Greek: porneia] to the subject\nof the sentence.\n\nA person acquainted with Greek would construe as follows: [Greek:\nparektos], \"except, outside,\" [Greek: logou], \"the matter, the cause,\"\n[Greek: porneias], \"of libertinism,\" [Greek: poiei], \"obliges,\" [Greek:\naut\u00ean], \"her,\" [Greek: moichasthai], \"to be an adulteress\"--which\nrendering gives, word for word, Whoever puts away his wife, besides the\nfault of libertinism, obliges her to be an adulteress.\n\nWe obtain the same meaning from Matt. xix. 9. When we correct the\nunauthorized translation of [Greek: porneia], by substituting\n\"libertinism\" for \"fornication,\" we see at once that the phrase [Greek:\nei m\u00ea epi porneia] cannot apply to \"wife.\" And as the words [Greek:\nparektos logou porneias] could signify nothing else than the fault of\nlibertinism on the part of the husband, so the words [Greek: ei m\u00ea epi\nporneia], in the nineteenth chapter, can have no other than the same\nmeaning. The phrase [Greek: ei m\u00ea epi porneia] is, word for word, \"if\nthis is not through libertinism\" (to give one's self up to\nlibertinism). The meaning then becomes clear. Jesus replies to the\ntheory of the Pharisees, that a man who abandons his wife to marry\nanother without the intention of giving himself up to libertinism does\nnot commit adultery--Jesus replies to this theory that the abandonment\nof a wife, that is, the cessation of sexual relations, even if not for\nthe purpose of libertinism, but to marry another, is none the less\nadultery. Thus we come at the simple meaning of this commandment--a\nmeaning which accords with the whole doctrine, with the words of which\nit is the complement, with grammar, and with logic. This simple and\nclear interpretation, harmonizing so naturally with the doctrine and the\nwords from which it was derived, I discovered after the most careful and\nprolonged research. Upon a premeditated alteration of the text had been\nbased an exegesis which destroyed the moral, religious, logical, and\ngrammatical meaning of Jesus' words.\n\nAnd thus once more I found a confirmation of the terrible fact that the\nmeaning of the doctrine of Jesus is simple and clear, that its\naffirmations are emphatic and precise, but that commentaries upon the\ndoctrine, inspired by a desire to sanction existing evil, have so\nobscured it that determined effort is demanded of him who would know the\ntruth. If the Gospels had come down to us in a fragmentary condition, it\nwould have been easier (so it seemed to me) to restore the true meaning\nof the text than to find that meaning now, beneath the accumulations of\nfallacious comments which have apparently no purpose save to conceal the\ndoctrine they are supposed to expound. With regard to the passage under\nconsideration, it is plain that to justify the divorce of some Byzantine\nemperor this ingenious pretext was employed to obscure the doctrine\nregulating the relations between the sexes. When we have rejected the\nsuggestions of the commentators, we escape from the mist of uncertainty,\nand the second commandment of Jesus becomes precise and clear. \"Guard\nagainst libertinism. Let every man justified in entering into the sexual\nrelation have one wife, and every wife one husband, and under no pretext\nwhatever let this union be violated by either.\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nImmediately after the second commandment is another reference to the\nancient law, followed by the third commandment:--\n\n\"_Again, ye have heard that it hath been said[6] by them of old time,\nThou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine\noaths: But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it\nis God's throne: Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by\nJerusalem; for it is the city of the great king. Neither shalt thou\nswear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black.\nBut let your communications be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is\nmore than these cometh of evil._\" (Matt. v. 33-37.)\n\n     [6] Levit. xix. 12; Deut. xxiii. 21, 34.\n\nThis passage always troubled me when I read it. It did not trouble me by\nits obscurity, like the passage about divorce; or by conflicting with\nother passages, like the authorization of anger for cause; or by the\ndifficulty in the way of obedience, as in the case of the command to\nturn the other cheek;--it troubled me rather by its very clearness,\nsimplicity, and practicality. Side by side with rules whose magnitude\nand importance I felt profoundly, was this saying, which seemed to me\nsuperfluous, frivolous, weak, and without consequence to me or to\nothers. I naturally did not swear, either by Jerusalem, or by heaven, or\nby anything else, and it cost me not the least effort to refrain from\ndoing so; on the other hand, it seemed to me that whether I swore or did\nnot swear could not be of the slightest importance to any one. And\ndesiring to find an explanation of this rule, which troubled me through\nits very simplicity, I consulted the commentators. They were in this\ncase of great assistance to me.\n\nThe commentators all found in these words a confirmation of the third\ncommandment of Moses,--not to swear by the name of the Lord; but, in\naddition to this, they explained that this commandment of Jesus against\nan oath was not always obligatory, and had no reference whatever to the\noath which citizens are obliged to take before the authorities. And they\nbrought together Scripture citations, not to support the direct meaning\nof Jesus' commandment, but to prove when it ought and ought not to be\nobeyed. They claimed that Jesus had himself sanctioned the oath in\ncourts of justice by his reply, \"_Thou hast said_,\" to the words of the\nHigh Priest, \"_I adjure thee by the living God_;\" that the apostle Paul\ninvoked God to witness the truth of his words, which invocation was\nevidently equivalent to an oath; that the law of Moses proscribing the\noath was not abrogated by Jesus; and that Jesus forbade only false\noaths, the oaths of Pharisees and hypocrites. When I had read these\ncomments, I understood that unless I excepted from the oaths forbidden\nby Jesus the oath of fidelity to the State, the commandment was as\ninsignificant as superficial, and as easy to practise as I had supposed.\n\nAnd I asked myself the question, Does this passage contain an\nexhortation to abstain from an oath that the commentators of the Church\nare so zealous to justify? Does it not forbid us to take the oath\nindispensable to the assembling of men into political groups and the\nformation of a military caste? The soldier, that special instrument of\nviolence, goes in Russia by the nickname of _prissaiaga_ (sworn in). If\nI had asked the soldier at the Borovitzky Gate how he solved the\ncontradiction between the Gospels and military regulations, he would\nhave replied that he had taken the oath, that is, that he had sworn by\nthe Gospels. This is the reply that soldiers always make. The oath is so\nindispensable to the horrors of war and armed coercion that in France,\nwhere Christianity is out of favor, the oath remains in full force. If\nJesus did not say in so many words, \"Do not take an oath,\" the\nprohibition ought to be a consequence of his teaching. He came to\nsuppress evil, and, if he did not condemn the oath, he left a terrible\nevil untouched. It may be said, perhaps, that at the time at which Jesus\nlived this evil passed unperceived; but this is not true. Epictetus and\nSeneca declare against the taking of oaths. A similar rule is inscribed\nin the laws of Mani. The Jews of the time of Jesus made proselytes, and\nobliged them to take the oath. How could it be said that Jesus did not\nperceive this evil when he forbade it in clear, direct, and\ncircumstantial terms? He said, \"_Swear not at all_.\" This expression is\nas simple, clear, and absolute as the expression, \"_Judge not, condemn\nnot_,\" and is as little subject to explanation; moreover, he added to\nthis, \"_Let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is\nmore than these cometh of evil_.\"\n\nIf obedience to the doctrine of Jesus consists in perpetual observance\nof the will of God, how can a man swear to observe the will of another\nman or other men? The will of God cannot coincide with the will of man.\nAnd this is precisely what Jesus said in Matt. v. 36:--\n\n\"_Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one\nhair white or black._\"\n\nAnd the apostle James says in his epistle, v. 12:--\n\n\"_But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven,\nneither by earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea;\nand your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation._\"\n\nThe apostle tells us clearly why we must not swear: the oath in itself\nmay be unimportant, but by it men are condemned, and so we ought not to\nswear at all. How could we express more clearly the saying of Jesus and\nhis apostle?\n\nMy ideas had become so confused that for a long time I had kept before\nme the question, Do the words and the meaning of this passage agree?--it\ndoes not seem possible. But, after having read the commentaries\nattentively, I saw that the impossible had become a fact. The\nexplanations of the commentators were in harmony with those they had\noffered concerning the other commandments of Jesus: judge not, be not\nangry, do not violate the marital bonds.\n\nWe have organized a social order which we cherish and look upon as\nsacred. Jesus, whom we recognize as God, comes and tells us that our\nsocial organization is wrong. We recognize him as God, but we are not\nwilling to renounce our social institutions. What, then, are we to do?\nAdd, if we can, the words \"without a cause\" to render void the command\nagainst anger; mutilate the sense of another law, as audacious\nprevaricators have done by substituting for the command absolutely\nforbidding divorce, phraseology which permits divorce; and if there is\nno possible way of deriving an equivocal meaning, as in the case of the\ncommands, \"_Judge not, condemn not_,\" and \"_Swear not at all_,\" then\nwith the utmost effrontery openly violate the rule while affirming that\nwe obey it.\n\nIn fact, the principal obstacle to a comprehension of the truth that the\nGospel forbids all manner of oaths exists in the fact that our\npseudo-Christian commentators themselves, with unexampled audacity, take\noath upon the Gospel itself. They make men swear by the Gospel, that is\nto say, they do just the contrary of what the Gospel commands. Why does\nit never occur to the man who is made to take an oath upon the cross and\nthe Gospel that the cross was made sacred only by the death of one who\nforbade all oaths, and that in kissing the sacred book he perhaps is\npressing his lips upon the very page where is recorded the clear and\ndirect commandment, \"_Swear not at all_\"?\n\nBut I was troubled no more with regard to the meaning of the passage\ncomprised in Matt. v. 33-37 when I found the plain declaration of the\nthird commandment, that we should take no oath, since all oaths are\nimposed for an evil purpose.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nAfter the third commandment comes the fourth reference to the ancient\nlaw and the enunciation of the fourth commandment:--\n\n\"_Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth\nfor a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever\nshall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if\nany man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have\nthy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with\nhim twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow\nof thee turn not thou away._\" (Matt. V. 38-42.)\n\nI have already spoken of the direct and precise meaning of these words;\nI have already said that we have no reason whatever for basing upon them\nan allegorical explanation. The comments that have been made upon them,\nfrom the time of Chrysostom to our day, are really surprising. The words\nare pleasing to every one, and they inspire all manner of profound\nreflections save one,--that these words express exactly what Jesus meant\nto say. The Church commentators, not at all awed by the authority of one\nwhom they recognize as God, boldly distort the meaning of his words.\nThey tell us, of course, that these commandments to bear offences and to\nrefrain from reprisals are directed against the vindictive character of\nthe Jews; they not only do not exclude all general measures for the\nrepression of evil and the punishment of evil-doers, but they exhort\nevery one to individual and personal effort to sustain justice, to\napprehend aggressors, and to prevent the wicked from inflicting evil\nupon others,--for, otherwise (they tell us) these spiritual commandments\nof the Saviour would become, as they became among the Jews, a dead\nletter, and would serve only to propagate evil and to suppress virtue.\nThe love of the Christian should be patterned after the love of God; but\ndivine love circumscribes and reproves evil only as may be required for\nthe glory of God and the safety of his servants. If evil is propagated,\nwe must set bounds to evil and punish it,--now this is the duty of\nauthorities.[7]\n\n     [7] This citation is taken from the _Commentaries on the Gospel_,\n     by the Archbishop Michael, a work based upon the writings of the\n     Fathers of the Church.\n\nChristian scholars and free-thinkers are not embarrassed by the meaning\nof these words of Jesus, and do not hesitate to correct them. The\nsentiments here expressed, they tell us, are very noble, but are\ncompletely inapplicable to life; for if we practised to the letter the\ncommandment, \"_Resist not evil_,\" our entire social fabric would be\ndestroyed. This is what Renan, Strauss, and all the liberal commentators\ntell us. If, however, we take the words of Jesus as we would take the\nwords of any one who speaks to us, and admit that he says exactly what\nhe does say, all these profound circumlocutions vanish away. Jesus says,\n\"Your social system is absurd and wrong. I propose to you another.\" And\nthen he utters the teachings reported by Matthew (v. 38-42). It would\nseem that before correcting them one ought to understand them; now this\nis exactly what no one wishes to do. We decide in advance that the\nsocial order which controls our existence, and which is abolished by\nthese words, is the superior law of humanity.\n\nFor my part, I consider our social order to be neither wise nor sacred;\nand that is why I have understood this commandment when others have not.\nAnd when I had understood these words just as they are written, I was\nstruck with their truth, their lucidity, and their precision. Jesus\nsaid, \"You wish to suppress evil by evil; this is not reasonable. To\nabolish evil, avoid the commission of evil.\" And then he enumerates\ninstances where we are in the habit of returning evil for evil, and says\nthat in these cases we ought not so to do.\n\nThis fourth commandment was the one that I first understood; and it\nrevealed to me the meaning of all the others. This simple, clear, and\npractical fourth commandment says: \"Never resist evil by force, never\nreturn violence for violence: if any one beat you, bear it; if one would\ndeprive you of anything, yield to his wishes; if any one would force you\nto labor, labor; if any one would take away your property, abandon it at\nhis demand.\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nAfter the fourth commandment we find a fifth reference to the ancient\nlaw, followed by the fifth commandment:--\n\n\"_Ye have heard that it hath been said,[8] Thou shall love thy neighbor\nand hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them\nthat curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which\ndespitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of\nyour Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the\nevil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.\nFor if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the\npublicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more\nthan others? do not even the publicans so? Be ye therefore perfect, even\nas your Father which is in heaven is perfect._\" (Matt. v. 43-48.)\n\n     [8] See Levit. xix. 17, 18.\n\nThese verses I had formerly regarded as a continuation, an exposition,\nan enforcement, I might almost say an exaggeration, of the words,\n\"_Resist not evil_.\" But as I had found a simple, precise, and practical\nmeaning in each of the passages beginning with a reference to the\nancient law, I anticipated a similar experience here. After each\nreference of this sort had thus far come a commandment, and each\ncommandment had been important and distinct in meaning; it ought to be\nso now. The closing words of the passage, repeated by Luke, which are to\nthe effect that God makes no distinction of persons, but lavishes his\ngifts upon all, and that we, following his precepts, ought to regard all\nmen as equally worthy, and to do good to all,--these words were clear;\nthey seemed to me to be a confirmation and exposition of some definite\nlaw--but what was this law? For a long time I could not understand it.\n\nTo love one's enemies?--this was impossible. It was one of those sublime\nthoughts that we must look upon only as an indication of a moral ideal\nimpossible of attainment. It demanded all or nothing. We might, perhaps,\nrefrain from doing injury to our enemies--but to love them!--no; Jesus\ndid not command the impossible. And besides, in the words referring to\nthe ancient law, \"_Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt ...\nhate thine enemy_,\" there was cause for doubt. In other references\nJesus cited textually the terms of the Mosaic law; but here he\napparently cites words that have no such authority; he seems to\ncalumniate the law of Moses.\n\nAs with regard to my former doubts, so now the commentators gave me no\nexplanation of the difficulty. They all agreed that the words \"_hate\nthine enemy_\" were not in the Mosaic law, but they offered no suggestion\nas to the meaning of the unauthorized phrase. They spoke of the\ndifficulty of loving one's enemies, that is, wicked men (thus they\nemended Jesus' words); and they said that while it is impossible to love\nour enemies, we may refrain from wishing them harm and from inflicting\ninjury upon them. Moreover, they insinuated that we might and should\n\"convince\" our enemies, that is, resist them; they spoke of the\ndifferent degrees of love for our enemies which we might attain--from\nall of which the final conclusion was that Jesus, for some inexplicable\nreason, quoted as from the law of Moses words not to be found therein,\nand then uttered a number of sublime phrases which at bottom are\nimpracticable and empty of meaning.\n\nI could not agree with this conclusion. In this passage, as in the\npassages containing the first four commandments, there must be some\nclear and precise meaning. To find this meaning, I set myself first of\nall to discover the purport of the words containing the inexact\nreference to the ancient law, \"_Ye have heard that it hath been said,\nThou shalt... hate thine enemy_.\" Jesus had some reason for placing at\nthe head of each of his commandments certain portions of the ancient law\nto serve as the antitheses of his own doctrine. If we do not understand\nwhat is meant by the citations from the ancient law, we cannot\nunderstand what Jesus proscribed. The commentators say frankly (it is\nimpossible not to say so) that Jesus in this instance made use of words\nnot to be found in the Mosaic law, but they do not tell us why he did so\nor what meaning we are to attach to the words thus used.\n\nIt seemed to me above all necessary to know what Jesus had in view when\nhe cited these words which are not to be found in the law. I asked\nmyself what these words could mean. In all other references of the sort,\nJesus quotes a single rule from the ancient law: \"Thou shalt not\nkill\"--\"Thou shalt not commit adultery\"--\"Thou shalt not forswear\nthyself\"--\"An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth\"--and with regard to\neach rule he propounds his own doctrine. In the instance under\nconsideration, he cites two contrasting rules: \"_Ye have heard that it\nhath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor and hate thine\nenemy_,\"--from which it would appear that the contrast between these two\nrules of the ancient law, relative to one's neighbor and one's enemy,\nshould be the basis of the new law. To understand clearly what this\ncontrast was, I sought for the meanings of the words \"neighbor\" and\n\"enemy,\" as used in the Gospel text. After consulting dictionaries and\nBiblical texts, I was convinced that \"neighbor\" in the Hebrew language\nmeant, invariably and exclusively, a Hebrew. We find the same meaning\nexpressed in the Gospel parable of the Samaritan. From the inquiry of\nthe Jewish scribe (Luke x. 29), \"_And who is my neighbor?_\" it is plain\nthat he did not regard the Samaritan as such. The word \"neighbor\" is\nused with the same meaning in Acts vii. 27. \"Neighbor,\" in Gospel\nlanguage, means a compatriot, a person belonging to the same\nnationality. And so the antithesis used by Jesus in the citation, \"_love\nthy neighbor, hate thine enemy_,\" must be in the distinction between the\nwords \"compatriot\" and \"foreigner.\" I then sought for the Jewish\nunderstanding of \"enemy,\" and I found my supposition confirmed. The word\n\"enemy\" is nearly always employed in the Gospels in the sense, not of a\npersonal enemy, but, in general, of a \"hostile people\" (Luke i. 71, 74;\nMatt. xxii. 44; Mark xii. 36; Luke xx. 43, etc.). The use of the word\n\"enemy\" in the singular form, in the phrase \"_hate thine enemy_,\"\nconvinced me that the meaning is a \"hostile people.\" In the Old\nTestament, the conception \"hostile people\" is nearly always expressed in\nthe singular form.\n\nWhen I understood this, I understood why Jesus, who had before quoted\nthe authentic words of the law, had here cited the words \"_hate thine\nenemy_.\" When we understand the word \"enemy\" in the sense of \"hostile\npeople,\" and \"neighbor\" in the sense of \"compatriot,\" the difficulty is\ncompletely solved. Jesus spoke of the manner in which Moses directed\nthe Hebrews to act toward \"hostile peoples.\" The various passages\nscattered through the different books of the Old Testament, prescribing\nthe oppression, slaughter, and extermination of other peoples, Jesus\nsummed up in one word, \"hate,\"--make war upon the enemy. He said, in\nsubstance: \"You have heard that you must love those of your own race,\nand hate foreigners; but I say unto you, love every one without\ndistinction of nationality.\" When I had understood these words in this\nway, I saw immediately the force of the phrase, \"_Love your enemies_.\"\nIt is impossible to love one's personal enemies; but it is perfectly\npossible to love the citizens of a foreign nation equally with one's\ncompatriots. And I saw clearly that in saying, \"_Ye have heard that it\nhath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy. But\nI say unto you, Love your enemies_,\" Jesus meant to say that men are in\nthe habit of looking upon compatriots as neighbors, and foreigners as\nenemies; and this he reproved. His meaning was that the law of Moses\nestablished a difference between the Hebrew and the foreigner--the\nhostile peoples; but he forbade any such difference. And then, according\nto Matthew and Luke, after giving this commandment, he said that with\nGod all men are equal, all are warmed by the same sun, all profit by the\nsame rain. God makes no distinction among peoples, and lavishes his\ngifts upon all men; men ought to act exactly in the same way toward one\nanother, without distinction of nationality, and not like the heathen,\nwho divide themselves into distinct nationalities.\n\nThus once more I found confirmed on all sides the simple, clear,\nimportant, and practical meaning of the words of Jesus. Once more, in\nplace of an obscure sentence, I had found a clear, precise, important,\nand practical rule: To make no distinction between compatriots and\nforeigners, and to abstain from all the results of such\ndistinction,--from hostility towards foreigners, from wars, from all\nparticipation in war, from all preparations for war; to establish with\nall men, of whatever nationality, the same relations granted to\ncompatriots. All this was so simple and so clear, that I was astonished\nthat I had not perceived it from the first.\n\nThe cause of my error was the same as that which had perplexed me with\nregard to the passages relating to judgments and the taking of oaths. It\nis very difficult to believe that tribunals upheld by professed\nChristians, blest by those who consider themselves the guardians of the\nlaw of Jesus, could be incompatible with the Christian religion; could\nbe, in fact, diametrically opposed to it. It is still more difficult to\nbelieve that the oath which we are obliged to take by the guardians of\nthe law of Jesus, is directly reproved by this law. To admit that\neverything in life that is considered essential and natural, as well as\nwhat is considered the most noble and grand,--love of country, its\ndefence, its glory, battle with its enemies,--to admit that all this is\nnot only an infraction of the law of Jesus, but is directly denounced by\nJesus,--this, I say, is difficult.\n\nOur existence is now so entirely in contradiction with the doctrine of\nJesus, that only with the greatest difficulty can we understand its\nmeaning. We have been so deaf to the rules of life that he has given us,\nto his explanations,--not only when he commands us not to kill, but when\nhe warns us against anger, when he commands us not to resist evil, to\nturn the other cheek, to love our enemies; we are so accustomed to speak\nof a body of men especially organized for murder, as a Christian army,\nwe are so accustomed to prayers addressed to the Christ for the\nassurance of victory, we who have made the sword, that symbol of murder,\nan almost sacred object (so that a man deprived of this symbol, of his\nsword, is a dishonored man); we are so accustomed, I say, to this, that\nthe words of Jesus seem to us compatible with war. We say, \"If he had\nforbidden it, he would have said so plainly.\" We forget that Jesus did\nnot foresee that men having faith in his doctrine of humility, love, and\nfraternity, could ever, with calmness and premeditation, organize\nthemselves for the murder of their brethren.\n\nJesus did not foresee this, and so he did not forbid a Christian to\nparticipate in war. A father who exhorts his son to live honestly, never\nto wrong any person, and to give all that he has to others, would not\nforbid his son to kill people upon the highway. None of the apostles, no\ndisciple of Jesus during the first centuries of Christianity, realized\nthe necessity of forbidding a Christian that form of murder which we\ncall war.\n\nHere, for example, is what Origen says in his reply to Celsus:[9]--\n\n     [9] _Contra Celsum_, book VIII. chap. LXXIII.\n\n\"In the next place, Celsus urges us 'to help the king with all our\nmight, and to labor with him in the maintenance of justice, to fight for\nhim; and, if he requires it, to fight under him, or lead an army along\nwith him.' To this, our answer is that we do, when occasion requires,\ngive help to kings, and that, so to say, a divine help, 'putting on the\nwhole armour of God.' And this we do in obedience to the injunction of\nthe apostle, 'I exhort, therefore, that first of all, supplications,\nprayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men, for\nkings, and for all that are in authority'; and the more any one excels\nin piety, the more effective help does he render to kings, even more\nthan is given by soldiers, who go forth to fight and slay as many of the\nenemy as they can. And to those enemies of our faith who require us to\nbear arms for the commonwealth, and to slay men, we can reply: 'Do not\nthose who are priests at certain shrines, and those who attend on\ncertain gods, as you account them, keep their hands free from blood,\nthat they may with hands unstained and free from human blood, offer the\nappointed sacrifices to your gods? and even when war is upon you, you\nnever enlist the priests in the army. If that, then, is a laudable\ncustom, how much more so, that while others are engaged in battle, these\ntoo should engage as the priests and ministers of God, keeping their\nhands pure, and wrestling in prayers to God on behalf of those who are\nfighting in a righteous cause, and for the king who reigns righteously,\nthat whatever is opposed to those who act righteously may be\ndestroyed!'\"\n\nAnd at the close of the chapter, in explaining that Christians, through\ntheir peaceful lives, are much more helpful to kings than soldiers are,\nOrigen says:--\n\n\"And none fight better for the king than we do. We do not, indeed, fight\nunder him, although he require it; but we fight on his behalf, forming a\nspecial army,--an army of piety,--by offering our prayers to God.\"\n\nThis is the way in which the Christians of the first centuries regarded\nwar, and such was the language that their leaders addressed to the\nrulers of the earth at a period when martyrs perished by hundreds and by\nthousands for having confessed the religion of Jesus, the Christ.\n\nAnd now is not the question settled as to whether a Christian may or may\nnot go to war? All young men brought up according to the doctrine of the\nChurch called Christian, are obliged at a specified date during every\nautumn, to report at the bureaus of conscription and, under the guidance\nof their spiritual directors, deliberately to renounce the religion of\nJesus. Not long ago, there was a peasant who refused military service\non the plea that it was contrary to the Gospel. The doctors of the\nChurch explained to the peasant his error; but, as the peasant had\nfaith, not in their words, but in those of Jesus, he was thrown into\nprison, where he remained until he was ready to renounce the law of\nChrist. And all this happened after Christians had heard for eighteen\nhundred years the clear, precise, and practical commandment of their\nMaster, which teaches not to consider men of different nationality as\nenemies, but to consider all men as brethren, and to maintain with them\nthe same relations existing among compatriots; to refrain not only from\nkilling those who are called enemies, but to love them and to minister\nto their needs.\n\nWhen I had understood these simple and precise commandments of Jesus,\nthese commandments so ill adapted to the ingenious distortions of\ncommentators,--I asked myself what would be the result if the whole\nChristian world believed in them, believed not only in reading and\nchanting them for the glory of God, but also in obeying them for the\ngood of humanity? What would be the result if men believed in the\nobservance of these commandments at least as seriously as they believe\nin daily devotions, in attendance on Sunday worship, in weekly fasts, in\nthe holy sacrament? What would be the result if the faith of men in\nthese commandments were as strong as their faith in the requirements of\nthe Church? And then I saw in imagination a Christian society living\naccording to these commandments and educating the younger generation to\nfollow their precepts. I tried to picture the results if we taught our\nchildren from infancy, not what we teach them now--to maintain personal\ndignity, to uphold personal privileges against the encroachments of\nothers (which we can never do without humiliating or offending\nothers)--but to teach them that no man has a right to privileges, and\ncan neither be above or below any one else; that he alone debases and\ndemeans himself who tries to domineer over others; that a man can be in\na no more contemptible condition than when he is angry with another;\nthat what may seem to be foolish and despicable in another is no excuse\nfor wrath or enmity. I sought to imagine the results if, instead of\nextolling our social organization as it now is, with its theatres, its\nromances, its sumptuous methods for stimulating sensuous desires--if,\ninstead of this, we taught our children by precept and by example, that\nthe reading of lascivious romances and attendance at theatres and balls\nare the most vulgar of all distractions, and that there is nothing more\ngrotesque and humiliating than to pass one's time in the collection and\narrangement of personal finery to make of one's body an object of show.\nI endeavored to imagine a state of society where, instead of permitting\nand approving libertinism in young men before marriage, instead of\nregarding the separation of husband and wife as natural and desirable,\ninstead of giving to women the legal right to practise the trade of\nprostitution, instead of countenancing and sanctioning divorce--if,\ninstead of this, we taught by words and actions that the state of\ncelibacy, the solitary existence of a man properly endowed for, and who\nhas not renounced the sexual relation, is a monstrous and opprobrious\nwrong; and that the abandonment of wife by husband or of husband by wife\nfor the sake of another, is an act against nature, an act bestial and\ninhuman.\n\nInstead of regarding it as natural that our entire existence should be\ncontrolled by coercion; that every one of our amusements should be\nprovided and maintained by force; that each of us from childhood to old\nage should be by turns victim and executioner--instead of this I tried\nto picture the results if, by precept and example, we endeavored to\ninspire the world with the conviction that vengeance is a sentiment\nunworthy of humanity; that violence is not only debasing, but that it\ndeprives us of all capacity for happiness; that the true pleasures of\nlife are not those maintained by force; and that our greatest\nconsideration ought to be bestowed, not upon those who accumulate riches\nto the injury of others, but upon those who best serve others and give\nwhat they have to lessen the woes of their kind. If instead of regarding\nthe taking of an oath and the placing of ourselves and our lives at the\ndisposition of another as a rightful and praiseworthy act,--I tried to\nimagine what would be the result if we taught that the enlightened will\nof man is alone sacred; and that if a man place himself at the\ndisposition of any one, and promise by oath anything whatever, he\nrenounces his rational manhood and outrages his most sacred right. I\ntried to imagine the results, if, instead of the national hatred with\nwhich we are inspired under the name of \"patriotism\"; if, in place of\nthe glory associated with that form of murder which we call war,--if, in\nplace of this, we were taught, on the contrary, horror and contempt for\nall the means--military, diplomatic, and political--which serve to\ndivide men; if we were educated to look upon the division of men into\npolitical States, and a diversity of codes and frontiers, as an\nindication of barbarism; and that to massacre others is a most horrible\nforfeit, which can only be exacted of a depraved and misguided man, who\nhas fallen to the lowest level of the brute. I imagined that all men had\narrived at these convictions, and I considered what I thought would be\nthe result.\n\nUp to this time (I said), what have been the practical results of the\ndoctrine of Jesus as I understand it? and the involuntary reply was,\nNothing. We continue to pray, to partake of the sacraments, to believe\nin the redemption, and in our personal salvation as well as that of the\nworld by Jesus the Christ,--and yet that this salvation will never come\nby our efforts, but will come because the period set for the end of the\nworld will have arrived when the Christ will appear in his glory to\njudge the quick and the dead, and the kingdom of heaven will be\nestablished.\n\nNow the doctrine of Jesus, as I understood it, had an entirely different\nmeaning. The establishment of the kingdom of God depended upon our\npersonal efforts in the practice of Jesus' doctrine as propounded in the\nfive commandments, which instituted the kingdom of God upon earth. The\nkingdom of God upon earth consists in this, that all men should be at\npeace with one another. It was thus that the Hebrew prophets conceived\nof the rule of God. Peace among men is the greatest blessing that can\nexist upon this earth, and it is within reach of all men. This ideal is\nin every human heart. The prophets all brought to men the promise of\npeace. The whole doctrine of Jesus has but one object, to establish\npeace--the kingdom of God--among men.\n\nIn the Sermon on the Mount, in the interview with Nicodemus, in the\ninstructions given to his disciples, in all his teachings, Jesus spoke\nonly of this, of the things that divided men, that kept them from peace,\nthat prevented them from entering into the kingdom of heaven. The\nparables make clear to us what the kingdom of heaven is, and show us the\nonly way of entering therein, which is to love our brethren, and to be\nat peace with all. John the Baptist, the forerunner of Jesus, proclaimed\nthe approach of the kingdom of God, and declared that Jesus was to bring\nit upon earth. Jesus himself said that his mission was to bring peace:--\n\n\"_Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world\ngiveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it\nbe afraid_\" (John xiv. 27).\n\nAnd the observance of his five commandments will bring peace upon the\nearth. They all have but one object,--the establishment of peace among\nmen. If men will only believe in the doctrine of Jesus and practise it,\nthe reign of peace will come upon earth,--not that peace which is the\nwork of man, partial, precarious, and at the mercy of chance; but the\npeace that is all-pervading, inviolable, and eternal.\n\nThe first commandment tells us to be at peace with every one and to\nconsider none as foolish or unworthy. If peace is violated, we are to\nseek to re-establish it. The true religion is in the extinction of\nenmity among men. We are to be reconciled without delay, that we may not\nlose that inner peace which is the true life (Matt. v. 22-24).\nEverything is comprised in this commandment; but Jesus knew the worldly\ntemptations that prevent peace among men. The first temptation perilous\nto peace is that of the sexual relation. We are not to consider the body\nas an instrument of lust; each man is to have one wife, and each woman\none husband, and one is never to forsake the other under any pretext\n(Matt. v. 28-32). The second temptation is that of the oath, which draws\nmen into sin; this is wrong, and we are not to be bound by any such\npromise (Matt. v. 34-37). The third temptation is that of vengeance,\nwhich we call human justice; this we are not to resort to under any\npretext; we are to endure offences and never to return evil for evil\n(Matt. v. 38-42). The fourth temptation is that arising from difference\nin nationalities, from hostility between peoples and States; but we are\nto remember that all men are brothers, and children of the same Father,\nand thus take care that difference in nationality leads not to the\ndestruction of peace (Matt. v. 43-48).\n\nIf men abstain from practising any one of these commandments, peace will\nbe violated. Let men practise all these commandments, which exclude evil\nfrom the lives of men, and peace will be established upon earth. The\npractice of these five commandments would realize the ideal of human\nlife existing in every human heart. All men would be brothers, each\nwould be at peace with others, enjoying all the blessings of earth to\nthe limit of years accorded by the Creator. Men would beat their swords\ninto ploughshares, and their spears into pruning-hooks, and then would\ncome the kingdom of God,--that reign of peace foretold by all the\nprophets, which was foretold by John the Baptist as near at hand, and\nwhich Jesus proclaimed in the words of Isaiah:--\n\n\"'_The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to\npreach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the broken\nhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight\nto the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, to preach the\nacceptable year of the Lord.'[10]... And he began to say unto them,\nTo-day hath this Scripture been fulfilled in your ears_\" (Luke iv. 18,\n19, 21).\n\n     [10] Isaiah lxi. 1, 2.\n\nThe commandments for peace given by Jesus,--those simple and clear\ncommandments, foreseeing all possibilities of discussion, and\nanticipating all objections,--these commandments proclaimed the kingdom\nof God upon earth. Jesus, then, was, in truth, the Messiah. He fulfilled\nwhat had been promised. But we have not fulfilled the commands we must\nfulfil if the kingdom of God is to be established upon earth,--that\nkingdom which men in all ages have earnestly desired, and have sought\nfor continually, all their days.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII.\n\n\nWHY is it that men have not done as Jesus commanded them, and thus\nsecured the greatest happiness within their reach, the happiness they\nhave always longed for and still desire? The reply to this inquiry is\nalways the same, although expressed in different ways. The doctrine of\nJesus (we are told) is admirable, and it is true that if we practised\nit, we should see the kingdom of God established upon earth; but to\npractise it is difficult, and consequently this doctrine is\nimpracticable. The doctrine of Jesus, which teaches men how they should\nlive, is admirable, is divine; it brings true happiness, but it is\ndifficult to practise. We repeat this, and hear it repeated so many,\nmany times, that we do not observe the contradiction contained in these\nwords.\n\nIt is natural to each human being to do what seems to him best. Any\ndoctrine teaching men how they should live instructs them only as to\nwhat is best for each. If we show men what they have to do to attain\nwhat is best for each, how can they say that they would like to do it,\nbut that it is impossible of attainment? According to the law of their\nnature they cannot do what is worse for each, and yet they declare that\nthey cannot do what is best.\n\nThe reasonable activity of man, from his earliest existence, has been\napplied to the search for what is best among the contradictions that\nenvelop human life. Men struggled for the soil, for objects which are\nnecessary to them; then they arrived at the division of goods, and\ncalled this property; finding that this arrangement, although difficult\nto establish, was best, they maintained ownership. Men fought with one\nanother for the possession of women, they abandoned their children; then\nthey found it was best that each should have his own family; and\nalthough it was difficult to sustain a family, they maintained the\nfamily, as they did ownership and many other things. As soon as they\ndiscover that a thing is best, however difficult of attainment, men do\nit. What, then, is the meaning of the saying that the doctrine of Jesus\nis admirable, that a life according to the doctrine of Jesus would be\nbetter than the life which men now lead, but that men cannot lead this\nbetter life because it is difficult?\n\nIf the word \"difficult,\" used in this way, is to be understood in the\nsense that it is difficult to renounce the fleeting satisfaction of\nsensual desires that we may obtain a greater good, why do we not say\nthat it is difficult to labor for bread, difficult to plant a tree that\nwe may enjoy the fruit? Every being endowed with even the most\nrudimentary reason knows that he must endure difficulties to procure any\ngood, superior to that which he has enjoyed before. And yet we say that\nthe doctrine of Jesus is admirable, but impossible of practice, because\nit is difficult! Now it is difficult, because in following it we are\nobliged to deprive ourselves of many things that we have hitherto\nenjoyed. Have we never heard that it is far more to our advantage to\nendure difficulties and privations than to satisfy all our desires? Man\nmay fall to the level of the beasts, but he ought not to make use of his\nreason to devise an apology for his bestiality. From the moment that he\nbegins to reason, he is conscious of being endowed with reason, and this\nconsciousness stimulates him to distinguish between the reasonable and\nthe unreasonable. Reason does not proscribe; it enlightens.\n\nSuppose that I am shut into a dark room, and in searching for the door I\ncontinually bruise myself against the walls. Some one brings me a light,\nand I see the door. I ought no longer to bruise myself when I see the\ndoor; much less ought I to affirm that, although it is best to go out\nthrough the door, it is difficult to do so, and that, consequently, I\nprefer to bruise myself against the walls.\n\nIn this marvellous argument that the doctrine of Jesus is admirable, and\nthat its practice would give the world true happiness, but that men are\nweak and sinful, that they would do the best and do the worst, and so\ncannot do the best,--in this strange plea there is an evident\nmisapprehension; there is something else besides defective reasoning;\nthere is also a chimerical idea. Only a chimerical idea, mistaking\nreality for what does not exist, and taking the non-existent for\nreality, could lead men to deny the possibility of practising that which\nby their own avowal would be for their true welfare.\n\nThe chimerical idea which has reduced men to this condition is that of\nthe dogmatic Christian religion, as it is taught through the various\ncatechisms, to all who profess the Christianity of the Church. This\nreligion, according to the definition of it given by its followers,\nconsists in accepting as real that which does not exist--these are\nPaul's words,[11] and they are repeated in all the theologies and\ncatechisms as the best definition of faith. It is this faith in the\nreality of what does not exist that leads men to make the strange\naffirmation that the doctrine of Jesus is excellent for all men, but is\nworth nothing as a guide to their way of living. Here is an exact\nsummary of what this religion teaches:--\n\n     [11] Heb. ii. 2. Literally, \"Faith is the _support_ of the hoped\n     for, the _conviction_ of the unseen.\"\n\nA personal God, who is from all eternity--one of three persons--decided\nto create a world of spirits. This God of goodness created the world of\nspirits for their own happiness, but it so happened that one of the\nspirits became spontaneously wicked. Time passed, and God created a\nmaterial world, created man for man's own happiness, created man happy,\nimmortal, and without sin. The felicity of man consisted in the\nenjoyment of life without toil; his immortality was due to the promise\nthat this life should last forever; his innocence was due to the fact\nthat he had no conception of evil.\n\nMan was beguiled in paradise by one of the spirits of the first\ncreation, who had become spontaneously wicked. From this dates the fall\nof man, who engendered other men fallen like himself, and from this time\nmen have endured toil, sickness, suffering, death, the physical and\nmoral struggle for existence; that is to say, the fantastic being\npreceding the fall became real, as we know him to be, as we have no\nright or reason to imagine him not to be. The state of man who toils,\nwho suffers, who chooses what is for his own welfare and rejects what\nwould be injurious to him, who dies,--this state, which is the real and\nonly conceivable state, is not, according to the doctrine of this\nreligion, the normal state of man, but a state which is unnatural and\ntemporary.\n\nAlthough this state, according to the doctrine, has lasted for all\nhumanity since the expulsion of Adam from paradise, that is, from the\ncommencement of the world until the birth of Jesus, and has continued\nsince the birth of Jesus under exactly the same conditions, the faithful\nare asked to believe that this is an abnormal and temporary state.\nAccording to this doctrine, the Son of God, the second person of the\nTrinity, who was himself God, was sent by God into the world in the garb\nof humanity to rescue men from this temporary and abnormal state; to\ndeliver them from the pains with which they had been stricken by this\nsame God because of Adam's sin; and to restore them to their former\nnormal state of felicity,--that is to immortality, innocence, and\nidleness. The second person of the Trinity (according to this doctrine),\nby suffering death at the hands of man, atoned for Adam's sin, and put\nan end to that abnormal state which had lasted from the commencement of\nthe world. And from that time onward, the men who have had faith in\nJesus have returned to the state of the first man in paradise; that is,\nhave become immortal, innocent, and idle.\n\nThe doctrine does not concern itself too closely with the practical\nresult of the redemption, in virtue of which the earth after Jesus'\ncoming ought to have become once more, at least for believers,\neverywhere fertile, without need of human toil; sickness ought to have\nceased, and mothers have borne children without pain;--since it is\ndifficult to assure even believers who are worn by excessive labor and\nbroken down by suffering, that toil is light, and suffering easy to\nendure.\n\nBut that portion of the doctrine which proclaims the abrogation of death\nand of sin, is affirmed with redoubled emphasis. It is asserted that the\ndead continue to live. And as the dead cannot bear witness that they are\ndead or prove that they are living (just as a stone is unable to affirm\neither that it can or cannot speak), this absence of denial is admitted\nas proof, and it is affirmed that dead men are not dead. It is affirmed\nwith still more solemnity and assurance that, since the coming of Jesus,\nthe man who has faith in him is free from sin; that is, that since the\ncoming of Jesus, it is no longer necessary that man should guide his\nlife by reason, and choose what is best for himself. He has only to\nbelieve that Jesus has redeemed his sins and he then becomes infallible,\nthat is, perfect. According to this doctrine, men ought to believe that\nreason is powerless, and that for this cause they are without sin, that\nis, cannot err. A faithful believer ought to be convinced that since the\ncoming of Jesus, the earth brings forth without labor, that childbirth\nno longer entails suffering, that diseases no longer exist, and that\ndeath and sin, that is, error, are destroyed; in a word, that what is,\nis not, and what is not, is.\n\nSuch is the rigorously logical theory of Christian theology. This\ndoctrine, by itself, seems to be innocent. But deviations from truth are\nnever inoffensive, and the significance of their consequences is in\nproportion to the importance of the subject to which these errors are\napplied. And here the subject at issue is the whole life of man. What\nthis doctrine calls the true life, is a life of personal happiness,\nwithout sin, and eternal; that is, a life that no one has ever known,\nand which does not exist. But the life that is, the only life that we\nknow, the life that we live and that all humanity lives and has lived,\nis, according to this doctrine, a degraded and evil existence, a mere\nphantasmagoria of the happy life which is our due.\n\nOf the struggle between animal instincts and reason, which is the\nessence of human life, this doctrine takes no account. The struggle that\nAdam underwent in paradise, in deciding whether to eat or not to eat\nthe fruit of the tree of knowledge, is, according to this doctrine, no\nlonger within the range of human experience. The question was decided,\nonce for all, by Adam in paradise. Adam sinned for all; in other words,\nhe did wrong, and all men are irretrievably degraded; and all our\nefforts to live by reason are vain and even impious. This I ought to\nknow, for I am irreparably bad. My salvation does not depend upon living\nby the light of reason, and, after distinguishing between good and evil,\nchoosing the good; no, Adam, once for all, sinned for me, and Jesus,\nonce for all, has atoned for the wrong committed by Adam; and so I\nought, as a looker-on, to mourn over the fall of Adam and rejoice at the\nredemption through Jesus.\n\nAll the love for truth and goodness in the heart of man, all his efforts\nto illuminate his spiritual life by the light of reason, are not only of\nslight importance, according to this doctrine; they are a temptation, an\nincitement to pride. Life as it is upon this earth, with all its joys\nand its splendors, its struggles of reason with darkness,--the life of\nall men that have lived before me, my own life with its inner struggles\nand triumphs,--all this is not the true life; it is the fallen life, a\nlife irretrievably bad. The true life, the life without sin, is only in\nfaith, that is, in imagination, that is, in lunacy.\n\nLet any one break the habit contracted from infancy of believing in all\nthis; let him look boldly at this doctrine as it is; let him endeavor to\nput himself in the position of a man without prejudice, educated\nindependently of this doctrine--and then let him ask himself if this\ndoctrine would not appear to such a man as a product of absolute\ninsanity.\n\nHowever strange and shocking all this might appear to me, I was obliged\nto examine into it, for here alone I found the explanation of the\nobjection, so devoid of logic and common-sense, that I heard everywhere\nwith regard to the impossibility of practising the doctrine of Jesus: It\nis admirable, and would give true happiness to men, but men are not able\nto obey it.\n\nOnly a conviction that reality does not exist, and that the non-existent\nis real, could lead men to this surprising contradiction. And this false\nconviction I found in the pseudo-Christian religion which men had been\nteaching for fifteen hundred years.\n\nThe objection that the doctrine of Jesus is excellent but impracticable,\ncomes not only from believers, but from sceptics, from those who do not\nbelieve, or think that they do not believe, in the dogmas of the fall of\nman and the redemption; from men of science and philosophers who\nconsider themselves free from all prejudice. They believe, or imagine\nthat they believe, in nothing, and so consider themselves as above such\na superstition as the dogma of the fall and the redemption. At first it\nseemed to me that all such persons had serious motives for denying the\npossibility of practising the doctrine of Jesus. But when I came to look\ninto the source of their negation, I was convinced that the sceptics,\nin common with the believers, have a false conception of life; to them\nlife is not what it is, but what they imagine it ought to be,--and this\nconception rests upon the same foundation as does that of the believers.\nIt is true that the sceptics, who pretend to believe in nothing, believe\nnot in God, or in Jesus, or in Adam; but they believe in a fundamental\nidea which is at the basis of their misconception,--in the rights of man\nto a life of happiness,--much more firmly than do the theologians.\n\nIn vain do science and philosophy pose as the arbiters of the human\nmind, of which they are in fact only the servants. Religion has provided\na conception of life, and science travels in the beaten path. Religion\nreveals the meaning of life, and science only applies this meaning to\nthe course of circumstances. And so, if religion falsifies the meaning\nof human life, science, which builds upon the same foundation, can only\nmake manifest the same fantastic ideas.\n\nAccording to the doctrine of the Church, men have a right to happiness,\nand this happiness is not the result of their own efforts, but of\nexternal causes. This conception has become the base of science and\nphilosophy. Religion, science, and public opinion all unite in telling\nus that the life we now live is bad, and at the same time they affirm\nthat the doctrine which teaches us how we can succeed in ameliorating\nlife by becoming better, is an impracticable doctrine. Religion says\nthat the doctrine of Jesus, which provides a reasonable method for the\nimprovement of life by our own efforts, is impracticable because Adam\nfell and the world was plunged into sin. Philosophy says that the\ndoctrine of Jesus is impracticable because human life is developed\naccording to laws that are independent of the human will. In other\nwords, the conclusions of science and philosophy are exactly the same as\nthe conclusion reached by religion in the dogmas of original sin and the\nredemption.\n\nThere are two leading theses at the basis of the doctrine of the\nredemption: (1) the normal life of man is a life of happiness, but our\nlife on earth is one of misery, and it can never be bettered by our own\nefforts; (2) our salvation is in faith, which enables us to escape from\nthis life of misery. These two theses are the source of the religious\nconceptions of the believers and sceptics who make up our\npseudo-Christian societies. The second thesis gave birth to the Church\nand its organization; from the first is derived the received tenets of\npublic opinion and our political and philosophical theories. The germ of\nall political and philosophical theories that seek to justify the\nexisting order of things--such as Hegelianism and its offshoots--is in\nthis second thesis. Pessimism, which demands of life what it cannot give\nand then denies its value, has also its origin in the same dogmatic\nproposition. Materialism, with its strange and enthusiastic affirmation\nthat man is the product of natural forces and nothing more, is the\nlegitimate result of the doctrine that teaches that life on earth is a\ndegraded existence. Spiritism, with its learned adherents, is the best\nproof we have that the conclusions of philosophy and science are based\nupon the religious doctrine of that eternal happiness which should be\nthe natural heritage of man.\n\nThis false conception of life has had a deplorable influence upon all\nreasonable human activity. The dogma of the fall and the redemption has\ndebarred man from the most important and legitimate field for the\nexercise of his powers, and has deprived him entirely of the idea that\nhe can of himself do anything to make his life happier or better.\nScience and philosophy, proudly believing themselves hostile to\npseudo-Christianity, only carry out its decrees. Science and philosophy\nconcern themselves with everything except the theory that man can do\nanything to make himself better or happier. Ethical and moral\ninstruction have disappeared from our pseudo-Christian society without\nleaving a trace.\n\nBelievers and sceptics who concern themselves so little with the problem\nhow to live, how to make use of the reason with which we are endowed,\nask why our earthly life is not what they imagine it ought to be, and\nwhen it will become what they wish. This singular phenomenon is due to\nthe false doctrine which has penetrated into the very marrow of\nhumanity. The effects of the knowledge of good and evil, which man so\nunhappily acquired in paradise, do not seem to have been very lasting;\nfor, neglecting the truth that life is only a solution of the\ncontradictions between animal instincts and reason, he stolidly\nrefrains from applying his reason to the discovery of the historical\nlaws that govern his animal nature.\n\nExcepting the philosophical doctrines of the pseudo-Christian world, all\nthe philosophical and religious doctrines of which we have\nknowledge--Judaism, the doctrine of Confucius, Buddhism, Brahmanism, the\nwisdom of the Greeks--all aim to regulate human life, and to enlighten\nmen with regard to what they must do to improve their condition. The\ndoctrine of Confucius teaches the perfecting of the individual; Judaism,\npersonal fidelity to an alliance with God; Buddhism, how to escape from\na life governed by animal instincts; Socrates taught the perfecting of\nthe individual through reason; the Stoics recognized the independence of\nreason as the sole basis of the true life.\n\nThe reasonable activity of man has always been--it could not be\notherwise--to light by the torch of reason his progress toward\nbeatitude. Philosophy tells us that free-will is an illusion, and then\nboasts of the boldness of such a declaration. Free-will is not only an\nillusion; it is an empty word invented by theologians and experts in\ncriminal law; to refute it would be to undertake a battle with a\nwind-mill. But reason, which illuminates our life and impels us to\nmodify our actions, is not an illusion, and its authority can never be\ndenied. To obey reason in the pursuit of good is the substance of the\nteachings of all the masters of humanity, and it is the substance of the\ndoctrine of Jesus; it is reason itself, and we cannot deny reason by\nthe use of reason.\n\nMaking use of the phrase \"son of man,\" Jesus teaches that all men have a\ncommon impulse toward good and toward reason, which leads to good. It is\nsuperfluous to attempt to prove that \"son of man\" means \"Son of God.\" To\nunderstand by the words \"son of man\" anything different from what they\nsignify is to assume that Jesus, to say what he wished to say,\nintentionally made use of words which have an entirely different\nmeaning. But even if, as the Church says, \"son of man\" means \"Son of\nGod,\" the phrase \"son of man\" applies none the less to man, for Jesus\nhimself called all men \"the sons of God.\"\n\nThe doctrine of the \"son of man\" finds its most complete expression in\nthe interview with Nicodemus. Every man, Jesus says, aside from his\nconsciousness of his material, individual life and of his birth in the\nflesh, has also a consciousness of a spiritual birth (John iii. 5, 6,\n7), of an inner liberty, of something within; this comes from on high,\nfrom the infinite that we call God (John iii. 14-17); now it is this\ninner consciousness born of God, the son of God in man, that we must\npossess and nourish if we would possess true life. The son of man is\nhomogeneous (of the same race) with God.\n\nWhoever lifts up within himself this son of God, whoever identifies his\nlife with the spiritual life, will not deviate from the true way. Men\nwander from the way because they do not believe in this light which is\nwithin them, the light of which John speaks when he says, \"_In him was\nlife; and the life was the light of men_.\" Jesus tells us to lift up the\nson of man, who is the son of God, for a light to all men. When we have\nlifted up the son of man, we shall then know that we can do nothing\nwithout his guidance (John viii. 28). Asked, \"Who is this son of man?\"\nJesus answers:--\n\n\"_Yet a little while is the light in you.[12] Walk while ye have the\nlight, lest darkness come upon you: for he that walketh in darkness\nknoweth not whither he goeth._\" (John xii. 35.)\n\n     [12] In all the translations authorized by the Church, we find here\n     a perhaps intentional error. The words [Greek: en hymin], _in you_,\n     are invariably rendered _with you_.\n\nThe son of man is the light in every man that ought to illuminate his\nlife. \"_Take heed therefore, that the light which is in thee be not\ndarkness_,\" is Jesus' warning to the multitude (Luke xi. 35).\n\nIn all the different ages of humanity we find the same thought, that man\nis the receptacle of the divine light descended from heaven, and that\nthis light is reason, which alone should be the object of our worship,\nsince it alone can show the way to true well-being. This has been said\nby the Brahmins, by the Hebrew prophets, by Confucius, by Socrates, by\nMarcus Aurelius, by Epictetus, and by all the true sages,--not by\ncompilers of philosophical theories, but by men who sought goodness for\nthemselves and for others.[13] And yet we declare, in accordance with\nthe dogma of the redemption, that it is entirely superfluous to think of\nthe light that is in us, and that we ought not to speak of it at all!\n\n     [13] Marcus Aurelius says: \"Reverence that which is best in the\n     universe; and this is that which makes use of all things and\n     directs all things. And in like manner also reverence that which is\n     best in thyself; and this is of the same kind as that. For in\n     thyself, also, that which makes use of everything else, is this,\n     and thy life is directed by this.\" (Meditations v. 21.)\n\n     Epictetus says: \"From God have descended the seeds not only to my\n     father and grandfather, but to all beings which are generated on\n     the earth and are produced, and particularly to rational beings;\n     for these only are by their nature formed to have communion with\n     God, being by means of reason conjoined with him.\" (Discourses,\n     chap. ix.)\n\n     Confucius says: \"The law of the great learning consists in\n     developing and re-establishing the luminous principle of reason\n     which we have received from on high.\" This sentence is repeated\n     many times, and constitutes the basis of Confucius' doctrine.\n\nWe must, say the believers, study the three persons of the Trinity; we\nmust know the nature of each of these persons, and what sacraments we\nought or ought not to perform, for our salvation depends, not on our own\nefforts, but on the Trinity and the regular performance of the\nsacraments. We must, say the sceptics, know the laws by which this\ninfinitesimal particle of matter was evolved in infinite space and\ninfinite time; but it is absurd to believe that by reason alone we can\nsecure true well-being, because the amelioration of man's condition does\nnot depend upon man himself, but upon the laws that we are trying to\ndiscover.\n\nI firmly believe that, a few centuries hence, the history of what we\ncall the scientific activity of this age will be a prolific subject for\nthe hilarity and pity of future generations. For a number of centuries,\nthey will say, the scholars of the western portion of a great continent\nwere the victims of epidemic insanity; they imagined themselves to be\nthe possessors of a life of eternal beatitude, and they busied\nthemselves with divers lucubrations in which they sought to determine in\nwhat way this life could be realized, without doing anything themselves,\nor even concerning themselves with what they ought to do to ameliorate\nthe life which they already had. And what to the future historian will\nseem much more melancholy, it will be found that this group of men had\nonce had a master who had taught them a number of simple and clear\nrules, pointing out what they must do to render their lives happy,--and\nthat the words of this master had been construed by some to mean that he\nwould come on a cloud to re-organize human society, and by others as\nadmirable doctrine, but impracticable, since human life was not what\nthey conceived it to be, and consequently was not worthy of\nconsideration; as to human reason, it must concern itself with the study\nof the laws of an imaginary existence, without concerning itself about\nthe welfare of the individual man.\n\nThe Church says that the doctrine of Jesus cannot be literally practised\nhere on earth, because this earthly life is naturally evil, since it is\nonly a shadow of the true life. The best way of living is to scorn this\nearthly existence, to be guided by faith (that is, by imagination) in a\nhappy and eternal life to come, and to continue to live a bad life here\nand to pray to the good God.\n\nPhilosophy, science, and public opinion all say that the doctrine of\nJesus is not applicable to human life as it now is, because the life of\nman does not depend upon the light of reason, but upon general laws;\nhence it is useless to try to live absolutely conformable to reason; we\nmust live as we can with the firm conviction that according to the laws\nof historical and sociological progress, after having lived very\nimperfectly for a very long time, we shall suddenly find that our lives\nhave become very good.\n\nPeople come to a farm; they find there all that is necessary to sustain\nlife,--a house well furnished, barns filled with grain, cellars and\nstore-rooms well stocked with provisions, implements of husbandry,\nhorses and cattle,--in a word, all that is needed for a life of comfort\nand ease. Each wishes to profit by this abundance, but each for himself,\nwithout thinking of others, or of those who may come after him. Each\nwants the whole for himself, and begins to seize upon all that he can\npossibly grasp. Then begins a veritable pillage; they fight for the\npossession of the spoils; oxen and sheep are slaughtered; wagons and\nother implements are broken up into firewood; they fight for the milk\nand grain; they grasp more than they can consume. No one is able to sit\ndown to the tranquil enjoyment of what he has, lest another take away\nthe spoils already secured, to surrender them in turn to some one\nstronger. All these people leave the farm, bruised and famished.\nThereupon the Master puts everything to rights, and arranges matters so\nthat one may live there in peace. The farm is again a treasury of\nabundance. Then comes another group of seekers, and the same struggle\nand tumult is repeated, till these in their turn go away bruised and\nangry, cursing the Master for providing so little and so ill. The good\nMaster is not discouraged; he again provides for all that is needed to\nsustain life,--and the same incidents are repeated over and over again.\n\nFinally, among those who come to the farm, is one who says to his\ncompanions: \"Comrades, how foolish we are! see how abundantly everything\nis supplied, how well everything is arranged! There is enough here for\nus and for those who will come after us; let us act in a reasonable\nmanner. Instead of robbing each other, let us help one another. Let us\nwork, plant, care for the dumb animals, and every one will be\nsatisfied.\" Some of the company understand what this wise person says;\nthey cease from fighting and from robbing one another, and begin to\nwork. But others, who have not heard the words of the wise man, or who\ndistrust him, continue their former pillage of the Master's goods. This\ncondition of things lasts for a long time. Those who have followed the\ncounsels of the wise man say to those about them: \"Cease from fighting,\ncease from wasting the Master's goods; you will be better off for doing\nso; follow the wise man's advice.\" Nevertheless, a great many do not\nhear and will not believe, and matters go on very much as they did\nbefore.\n\nAll this is natural, and will continue as long as people do not believe\nthe wise man's words. But, we are told, a time will come when every one\non the farm will listen to and understand the words of the wise man, and\nwill realize that God spoke through his lips, and that the wise man was\nhimself none other than God in person; and all will have faith in his\nwords. Meanwhile, instead of living according to the advice of the wise\nman, each struggles for his own, and they slay each other without pity,\nsaying, \"The struggle for existence is inevitable; we cannot do\notherwise.\"\n\nWhat does it all mean? Even the beasts graze in the fields without\ninterfering with each other's needs, and men, after having learned the\nconditions of the true life, and after being convinced that God himself\nhas shown them how to live the true life, follow still their evil ways,\nsaying that it is impossible to live otherwise. What should we think of\nthe people at the farm if, after having heard the words of the wise man,\nthey had continued to live as before, snatching the bread from each\nother's mouths, fighting, and trying to grasp everything, to their own\nloss? We should say that they had misunderstood the wise man's words,\nand imagined things to be different from what they really were. The wise\nman said to them, \"Your life here is bad; amend your ways, and it will\nbecome good.\" And they imagined that the wise man had condemned their\nlife on the farm, and had promised them another and a better life\nsomewhere else. They decided that the farm was only a temporary\ndwelling-place, and that it was not worth while to try to live well\nthere; the important thing was not to be cheated out of the other life\npromised them elsewhere. This is the only way in which we can explain\nthe strange conduct of the people on the farm, of whom some believed\nthat the wise man was God, and others that he was a man of wisdom, but\nall continued to live as before in defiance of the wise man's words.\nThey understood everything but the one significant truth in the wise\nman's teachings,--that they must work out for themselves their own peace\nand happiness there on the farm, which they took for a temporary abode\nthinking all the time of the better life they were to possess elsewhere.\n\nHere is the origin of the strange declaration that the precepts of the\nwise man were admirable, even divine, but that they were difficult to\npractise.\n\nOh, if men would only cease from evil ways while waiting for the Christ\nto come in his chariot of fire to their aid; if they would only cease to\ninvoke the law of the differentiation or integration of forces, or any\nhistorical law whatever! None will come to their aid if they do not aid\nthemselves. And to aid ourselves to a better life, we need expect\nnothing from heaven or from earth; we need only to cease from ways that\nresult in our own loss.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII.\n\n\nIF it be admitted that the doctrine of Jesus is perfectly reasonable,\nand that it alone can give to men true happiness, what would be the\ncondition of a single follower of that doctrine in the midst of a world\nthat did not practise it at all? If all men would decide at the same\ntime to obey, its practice would then be possible. But one man alone\ncannot act in defiance of the whole world; and so we hear continually\nthis plea: \"If, among men who do not practise the doctrine of Jesus, I\nalone obey it; if I give away all that I possess; if I turn the other\ncheek; if I refuse to take an oath or to go to war, I should find myself\nin profound isolation; if I did not die of hunger, I should be beaten;\nif I survived that, I should be cast into prison; I should be shot, and\nall the happiness of my life--my life itself--would be sacrificed in\nvain.\"\n\nThis plea is founded upon the doctrine of _quid pro quo_, which is the\nbasis of all arguments against the possibility of practising the\ndoctrine of Jesus. It is the current objection, and I sympathized with\nit in common with all the rest of the world, until I finally broke\nentirely away from the dogmas of the Church which prevented me from\nunderstanding the true significance of the doctrine of Jesus. Jesus\nprepared his doctrine as a means of salvation from the life of\nperdition organized by men contrary to his precepts; and I declared that\nI should be very glad to follow this doctrine if it were not for fear of\nthis very perdition. Jesus offered me the true remedy against a life of\nperdition, and I clung to the life of perdition! from which it was plain\nthat I did not consider this life as a life of perdition, but as\nsomething good, something real. The conviction that my personal, worldly\nlife was something real and good constituted the misunderstanding, the\nobstacle, that prevented me from comprehending Jesus' doctrine. Jesus\nknew the disposition of men to regard their personal, worldly life as\nreal and good, and so, in a series of apothegms and parables, he taught\nthem that they had no right to life, and that they were given life only\nthat they might assure themselves of the true life by renouncing their\nworldly and fantastic organization of existence.\n\nTo understand what is meant by \"saving\" one's life, according to the\ndoctrine of Jesus, we must first understand what the prophets, what\nSolomon, what Buddha, what all the wise men of the world have said about\nthe personal life of man. But, as Pascal says, we cannot endure to think\nupon this theme, and so we carry always before us a screen to conceal\nthe abyss of death, toward which we are constantly moving. It suffices\nto reflect on the isolation of the personal life of man, to be convinced\nthat this life, in so far as it is personal, is not only of no account\nto each separately, but that it is a cruel jest to heart and reason. To\nunderstand the doctrine of Jesus, we must, before all, return to\nourselves, reflect soberly, undergo the [Greek: metanoia] of which John\nthe Baptist, the precursor of Jesus, speaks, when addressing himself to\nmen of clouded judgment. \"Repent\" (such was his preaching); \"repent,\nhave another mind, or you shall all perish. The axe is laid unto the\nroot of the trees. Death and perdition await each one of you. Be warned,\nturn back, repent.\" And Jesus declared, \"_Except ye repent, ye shall all\nlikewise perish_.\" When Jesus was told of the death of the Galileans\nmassacred by Pilate, he said:--\n\n\"_Suppose ye that these Galileans were sinners above all the Galileans,\nbecause they suffered such things? I tell you, Nay: but, except ye\nrepent, ye shall all likewise perish. Or those eighteen upon whom the\ntower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners\nabove all men that dwelt in Jerusalem? I tell you. Nay: but, except ye\nrepent, ye shall all likewise perish._\" (Luke xiii. 1-5.)\n\nIf he had lived in our day, in Russia, he would have said: \"Think you\nthat those who perished in the circus at Berditchef or on the slopes of\nKoukouyef were sinners above all others? I tell you, No; but you, if you\ndo not repent, if you do not arouse yourselves, if you do not find in\nyour life that which is imperishable, you also shall perish. You are\nhorrified by the death of those crushed by the tower, burned in the\ncircus; but your death, equally as frightful and as inevitable, is here,\nbefore you. You are wrong to conceal it or to forget it; unlocked for,\nit is only more hideous.\"\n\nTo the people of his own time he said:--\n\n\"_When ye see a cloud rise out of the west, straightway ye say, There\ncometh a shower; and so it is. And when ye see the south wind blow, ye\nsay, There will be heat; and it cometh to pass. Ye hypocrites, ye can\ndiscern the face of the sky and of the earth; but how is it that ye do\nnot discern this time? Yea, and why even of yourselves judge ye not what\nis right?_\" (Luke xii. 54-57.)\n\nWe know how to interpret the signs of the weather; why, then, do we not\nsee what is before us? It is in vain that we fly from danger, and guard\nour material life by all imaginable means; in spite of all, death is\nbefore us, if not in one way, then in another; if not by massacre, or\nthe falling of a tower, then in our beds, amidst much greater suffering.\n\nMake a simple calculation, as those do who undertake any worldly\nproject, any enterprise whatever, such as the construction of a house,\nor the purchase of an estate, such as those make who labor with the hope\nof seeing their calculations realized.\n\n\"_For which of you intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first,\nand counteth the cost whether he have sufficient to finish it? Lest\nhaply, after he hath laid the foundation, and is not able to finish it,\nall that behold it begin to mock him, saying, This man began to build,\nand was not able to finish. Or what king, going to make war against\nanother king, sitteth not down first and consulteth whether he be able\nwith ten thousand to meet him that cometh against him with twenty\nthousand?_\" (Luke xiv. 28-31.)\n\nIs it not the act of a madman to labor at what, under any circumstances,\none can never finish? Death will always come before the edifice of\nworldly prosperity can be completed. And if we knew beforehand that,\nhowever we may struggle with death, it is not we, but death, that will\ntriumph; is it not an indication that we ought not to struggle with\ndeath, or to set our hearts upon that which will surely perish, but to\nseek to perform the task whose results cannot be destroyed by our\ninevitable departure?\n\n\"_And he said unto his disciples, Therefore I say unto you, Take no\nthought for your life what ye shall eat; neither for the body, what ye\nshall put on. The life is more than meat and the body is more than\nraiment. Consider the ravens: for they neither sow nor reap; which\nneither have storehouse nor barn; and God feedeth them: How much more\nare ye better than the fowls? And which of you with taking thought can\nadd to his stature one cubit? If ye then be not able to do that thing\nwhich is least, why take ye thought for the rest? Consider the lilies\nhow they grow: they toil not, they spin not; and yet I say unto you that\nSolomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these._\" (Luke xii.\n22-27.)\n\nWhatever pains we may take for our nourishment, for the care of the\nbody, we cannot prolong life by a single hour.[14] Is it not folly to\ntrouble ourselves about a thing that we cannot possibly accomplish? We\nknow perfectly well that our material life will end with death, and we\ngive ourselves up to evil to procure riches. Life cannot be measured by\nwhat we possess; if we think so, we only delude ourselves. Jesus tells\nus that the meaning of life does not lie in what we possess or in what\nwe can accumulate, but in something entirely different. He says:--\n\n     [14] The words of verse 25 are incorrectly translated; the word\n     [Greek: h\u00ealikian] means _age, age of life_: consequently the whole\n     phrase should be rendered: can add one hour to his life.\n\n\"_The ground of a certain rich man brought forth plentifully: And he\nthought within himself, saying, What shall I do, because I have no room\nwhere to bestow my fruits? And he said, This will I do: I will pull down\nmy barns, and build greater; and there will I bestow all my fruits and\nmy goods. And I will say to my soul, Soul, thou hast much goods lead up\nfor many years; take thine ease, eat, drink, and be merry. But God said\nunto him, Thou fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee: then\nwhose shall those things be, which thou hast provided? So is he that\nlayeth up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God._\" (Luke xii.\n16-21.)\n\nDeath threatens us every moment; Jesus says:--\n\n\"_Let your loins be girded about, and your lights burning; and ye\nyourselves like unto men that wait for their lord, when he will return\nfrom the wedding; that, when he cometh and knocketh, they may open unto\nhim immediately. Blessed are those servants, whom the lord when he\ncometh shall find watching; ...And if he shall come in the second watch,\nor come in the third watch, and find them so, blessed are those\nservants. And this know, that if the goodman of the house had known\nwhat hour the thief would come, he would have watched, and not have\nsuffered his house to be broken through. Be ye therefore ready also: for\nthe son of man cometh at an hour when ye think not._\" (Luke xii. 35-40.)\n\nThe parable of the virgins waiting for the bridegroom, that of the\nconsummation of the age and the last judgment, as the commentators all\nagree, are designed to teach that death awaits us at every moment. Death\nawaits us at every moment. Life is passed in sight of death. If we labor\nfor ourselves alone, for our personal future, we know that what awaits\nus in the future is death. And death will destroy all the fruits of our\nlabor. Consequently, a life for self can have no meaning. The reasonable\nlife is different; it has another aim than the poor desires of a single\nindividual. The reasonable life consists in living in such a way that\nlife cannot be destroyed by death. We are troubled about many things,\nbut only one thing is necessary.\n\nFrom the moment of his birth, man is menaced by an inevitable peril,\nthat is, by a life deprived of meaning, and a wretched death, if he does\nnot discover the thing essential to the true life. Now it is precisely\nthis one thing which insures the true life that Jesus reveals to men. He\ninvents nothing, he promises nothing through divine power; side by side\nwith this personal life, which is a delusion, he simply reveals to men\nthe truth.\n\nIn the parable of the husbandmen (Matt. xxi. 33-42), Jesus explains the\ncause of that blindness in men which conceals the truth from them, and\nwhich impels them to take the apparent for the real, their personal life\nfor the true life. Certain men, having leased a vineyard, imagined that\nthey were its masters. And this delusion leads them into a series of\nfoolish and cruel actions, which ends in their exile. So each one of us\nimagines that life is his personal property, and that he has a right to\nenjoy it in such a way as may seem to him good, without recognizing any\nobligation to others. And the inevitable consequence of this delusion is\na series of foolish and cruel actions followed by exclusion from life.\nAnd as the husbandmen killed the servants and at last the son of the\nhouseholder, thinking that the more cruel they were, the better able\nthey would be to gain their ends, so we imagine that we shall obtain the\ngreatest security by means of violence.\n\nExpulsion, the inevitable sentence visited upon the husbandmen for\nhaving taken to themselves the fruits of the vineyard, awaits also all\nmen who imagine that the personal life is the true life. Death expels\nthem from life; they are replaced by others, as a consequence of the\nerror which led them to misconceive the meaning of life. As the\nhusbandmen forgot, or did not wish to remember, that they had received a\nvineyard already hedged about and provided with winepress and tower,\nthat some one had labored for them and expected them to labor in their\nturn for others;--so the men who would live for themselves forget, or do\nnot wish to remember, all that has been done for them during their\nlife; they forget that they are under an obligation to labor in their\nturn, and that all the blessings of life which they enjoy are fruits\nthat they ought to divide with others.\n\nThis new manner of looking at life, this [Greek: metanoia], or\nrepentance, is the corner-stone of the doctrine of Jesus. According to\nthis doctrine, men ought to understand and feel that they are insolvent,\nas the husbandmen should have understood and felt that they were\ninsolvent to the householder, unable to pay the debt contracted by\ngenerations past, present, and to come, with the overruling power. They\nought to feel that every hour of their existence is only a mortgage upon\nthis debt, and that every man who, by a selfish life, rejects this\nobligation, separates himself from the principle of life, and so\nforfeits life. Each one should remember that in striving to save his own\nlife, his personal life, he loses the true life, as Jesus so many times\nsaid. The true life is the life which adds something to the store of\nhappiness accumulated by past generations, which increases this heritage\nin the present, and hands it down to the future. To take part in this\ntrue life, man should renounce his personal will for the will of the\nFather, who gives this life to man. In John viii. 35, we read:--\n\n\"_And the servant abideth not in the house forever: but the son abideth\nforever._\"\n\nThat is, only the son who observes the will of the father shall have\neternal life. Now, the will of the Father of Life is not the personal,\nselfish life, but the filial life of the son of man; and so a man saves\nhis life when he considers it as a pledge, as something confided to him\nby the Father for the profit of all, as something with which to live the\nlife of the son of man.\n\nA man, about to travel into a far country, called his servants together\nand divided among them his goods. Although receiving no precise\ninstructions as to the manner in which they were to use these goods,\nsome of the servants understood that the goods still belonged to the\nmaster, and that they ought to employ them for the master's gain. And\nthe servants who had labored for the good of the master were rewarded,\nwhile the others, who had not so labored, were despoiled even of what\nthey had received. (Matt. xxv. 14-46.)\n\nThe life of the son of man has been given to all men, and they know not\nwhy. Some of them understand that life is not for their personal use,\nbut that they must use it for the good of the son of man; others,\nfeigning not to understand the true object of life, refuse to labor for\nthe son of man; and those that labor for the true life will be united\nwith the source of life; those that do not so labor, will lose the life\nthey already have. Jesus tells us in what the service of the son of man\nconsists and what will be the recompense of that service. The son of\nman, endowed with kingly authority, will call upon the faithful to\ninherit the true life; they have fed the hungry, given drink to the\nthirsty, clothed and consoled the wretched, and in so doing they have\nministered to the son of man, who is the same in all men; they have not\nlived the personal life, but the life of the son of man, and they are\ngiven the life eternal.\n\nAccording to all the Gospels, the object of Jesus' teaching was the life\neternal. And, strange as it may seem, Jesus, who is supposed to have\nbeen raised in person, and to have promised a general resurrection,\n--Jesus not only said nothing in affirmation of individual\nresurrection and individual immortality beyond the grave, but on the\ncontrary, every time that he met with this superstition (introduced at\nthis period into the Talmud, and of which there is not a trace in the\nrecords of the Hebrew prophets), he did not fail to deny its truth. The\nPharisees and the Sadducees were constantly discussing the subject of\nthe resurrection of the dead. The Pharisees believed in the resurrection\nof the dead, in angels, and in spirits (Acts xxiii. 8), but the\nSadducees did not believe in resurrection, or angel, or spirit. We do\nnot know the source of the difference in belief, but it is certain that\nit was one of the polemical subjects among the secondary questions of\nthe Hebraic doctrine that were constantly under discussion in the\nSynagogues. And Jesus not only did not recognize the resurrection, but\ndenied it every time he met with the idea. When the Sadducees demanded\nof Jesus, supposing that he believed with the Pharisees in the\nresurrection, to which of the seven brethren the woman should belong, he\nrefuted with clearness and precision the idea of individual\nresurrection, saying that on this subject they erred, knowing neither\nthe Scriptures nor the power of God. Those who are worthy of\nresurrection, he said, will remain like the angels of heaven (Mark xii.\n21-24); and with regard to the dead:--\n\n\"_Have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto\nhim, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God\nof Jacob?[15] He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living:\nye, therefore, do greatly err._\" (Mark xii. 26, 27.)\n\n     [15] Exod. iii. 6.\n\nJesus' meaning was that the dead are living in God. God said to Moses,\n\"I am the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob.\" To God, all those\nwho have lived the life of the son of man, are living. Jesus affirmed\nonly this, that whoever lives in God, will be united to God; and he\nadmitted no other idea of the resurrection. As to personal resurrection,\nstrange as it may appear to those who have never carefully studied the\nGospels for themselves, Jesus said nothing about it whatever.\n\nIf, as the theologians teach, the foundation of the Christian faith is\nthe resurrection of Jesus, is it not strange that Jesus, knowing of his\nown resurrection, knowing that in this consisted the principal dogma of\nfaith in him--is it not strange that Jesus did not speak of the matter\nat least once, in clear and precise terms? Now, according to the\ncanonical Gospels, he not only did not speak of it in clear and precise\nterms; he did not speak of it at all, not once, not a single word.\n\nThe doctrine of Jesus consisted in the elevation of the son of man, that\nis, in the recognition on the part of man, that he, man, was the son of\nGod. In his own individuality Jesus personified the man who has\nrecognized the filial relation with God. He asked his disciples whom men\nsaid that he was--the son of man? His disciples replied that some took\nhim for John the Baptist, and some for Elijah. Then came the question,\n\"_But whom say ye that I am?_\" And Peter answered, \"_Thou art the\nMessiah, the son of the living God._\" Jesus responded, \"_Flesh and blood\nhath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven_;\"\nmeaning that Peter understood, not through faith in human explanations,\nbut because, feeling himself to be the son of God, he understood that\nJesus was also the son of God. And after having explained to Peter that\nthe true faith is founded upon the perception of the filial relation to\nGod, Jesus charged his other disciples that they should tell no man that\nhe was the Messiah. After this, Jesus told them that although he might\nsuffer many things and be put to death, he, that is his doctrine, would\nbe triumphantly re-established. And these words are interpreted as a\nprophecy of the resurrection (Matt. xvi. 13-21).\n\nOf the thirteen passages[16] which are interpreted as prophecies of\nJesus in regard to his own resurrection, two refer to Jonah in the\nwhale's belly, another to the rebuilding of the temple. The others\naffirm that the son of man shall not be destroyed; but there is not a\nword about the resurrection of Jesus. In none of these passages is the\nword \"resurrection\" found in the original text. Ask any one who is\nignorant of theological interpretations, but who knows Greek, to\ntranslate them, and he will never agree with the received versions. In\nthe original we find two different words, _[Greek: anist\u00eami]_ and\n[Greek: egeir\u00f4], which are rendered in the sense of resurrection; one of\nthese words means to \"re-establish\"; the other means \"to awaken, to rise\nup, to arouse one's self.\" But neither the one nor the other can ever,\nin any case, mean to \"resuscitate\"--to raise from the dead. With regard\nto these Greek words and the corresponding Hebrew word, _qum_, we have\nonly to examine the scriptural passages where these words are employed,\nas they are very frequently, to see that in no case is the meaning \"to\nresuscitate\" admissible. The word _voskresnovit_, _auferstehn_,\n_resusciter_--\"to resuscitate\"--did not exist in the Greek or Hebrew\ntongues, for the reason that the conception corresponding to this word\ndid not exist. To express the idea of resurrection in Greek or in\nHebrew, it is necessary to employ a periphrasis, meaning, \"is arisen,\nhas awakened among the dead.\" Thus, in the Gospel of Matthew (xiv. 2)\nwhere reference is made to Herod's belief that John the Baptist had been\nresuscitated, we read, [Greek: autos \u00eagerth\u00ea apo t\u00f4n nekr\u00f4n], \"has\nawakened among the dead.\" In the same manner, in Luke (xvi. 31), at the\nclose of the parable of Lazarus, where it said that if men believe not\nthe prophets, they would not believe even though one be resuscitated, we\nfind the periphrasis, [Greek: ean tis ek nekr\u00f4n anast\u00ea], \"if one arose\namong the dead.\" But, if in these passages the words \"among the dead\"\nwere not added to the words \"arose or awakened,\" the last two could\nnever signify resuscitation. When Jesus spoke of himself, he did not\nonce use the words \"among the dead\" in any of the passages quoted in\nsupport of the affirmation that Jesus foretold his own resurrection.\n\n     [16] John xi. 19-22; Matt. xii. 40; Luke xi. 30; Matt. xvi. 21;\n     Mark viii. 31; Luke ix. 22; Matt. xvii. 23; Mark ix. 31; Matt. xx.\n     19; Mark x. 34; Luke xviii. 33; Matt. xxvi. 32; Mark xiv. 25.\n\nOur conception of the resurrection is so entirely foreign to any idea\nthat the Hebrews possessed with regard to life, that we cannot even\nimagine how Jesus would have been able to talk to them of the\nresurrection, and of an eternal, individual life, which should be the\nlot of every man. The idea of a future eternal life comes neither from\nJewish doctrine nor from the doctrine of Jesus, but from an entirely\ndifferent source. We are obliged to believe that belief in a future life\nis a primitive and crude conception based upon a confused idea of the\nresemblance between death and sleep,--an idea common to all savage\nraces.\n\nThe Hebraic doctrine (and much more the Christian doctrine) was far\nabove this conception. But we are so convinced of the elevated character\nof this superstition, that we use it as a proof of the superiority of\nour doctrine to that of the Chinese or the Hindus, who do not believe\nin it at all. Not the theologians only, but the free-thinkers, the\nlearned historians of religions, such as Tiele, and Max M\u00fcller, make use\nof the same argument. In their classification of religions, they give\nthe first place to those which recognize the superstition of the\nresurrection, and declare them to be far superior to those not\nprofessing that belief. Schopenhauer boldly denounced the Hebraic\nreligion as the most despicable of all religions because it contains not\na trace of this belief. Not only the idea itself, but all means of\nexpressing it, were wanting to the Hebraic religion. Eternal life is in\nHebrew _hayail eolam_. By _olam_ is meant the infinite, that which is\npermanent in the limits of time; _olam_ also means \"world\" or \"cosmos.\"\nUniversal life, and much more _hayai leolam_, \"eternal life,\" is,\naccording to the Jewish doctrine, the attribute of God alone. God is the\nGod of life, the living God. Man, according to the Hebraic idea, is\nalways mortal. God alone is always living. In the Pentateuch, the\nexpression \"eternal life\" is twice met with; once in Deuteronomy and\nonce in Genesis. God is represented as saying:--\n\n  \"_See now that I, even I, am he,\n   And there is no god with me:\n   I kill, and I make alive;\n   I have wounded, and I heal:\n   And there is none that can deliver out of my hand.\n   For I lift up my hand to heaven,\n   And say, As I live forever._\"\n\n       (Deut. xxxii. 39, 40.)\n\n\"_And Jehovah said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good\nand evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also the tree of\nlife, and live forever._\" (Gen. iii. 22.)\n\nThese two sole instances of the use of the expression \"eternal life\" in\nthe Old Testament (with the exception of another instance in the\napocryphal book of Daniel) determine clearly the Hebraic conception of\nthe life of man and the life eternal. Life itself, according to the\nHebrews, is eternal, is in God; but man is always mortal: it is his\nnature to be so. According to the Jewish doctrine, man as man, is\nmortal. He has life only as it passes from one generation to another,\nand is so perpetuated in a race. According to the Jewish doctrine, the\nfaculty of life exists in the _people_. When God said, \"Ye may live, and\nnot die,\" he addressed these words to the people. The life that God\nbreathed into man is mortal for each separate human being; this life is\nperpetuated from generation to generation, if men fulfil the union with\nGod, that is, obey the conditions imposed by God. After having\npropounded the Law, and having told them that this Law was to be found\nnot in heaven, but in their own hearts, Moses said to the people:--\n\n\"_See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and\nevil; in that I command thee this day to love the Eternal, to walk in\nhis ways, and to keep his commandments, that thou mayest live.... I call\nheaven and earth to witness against you this day, that I have set before\nthee life and death, the blessing and the curse: therefore choose life,\nthat thou mayest live, thou and thy seed: to love the Eternal, to obey\nhis voice, and to cleave unto him: for he is thy life, and the length of\nthy days._\" (Deut. xxx. 15-19.)\n\nThe principal difference between our conception of human life and that\npossessed by the Jews is, that while we believe that our mortal life,\ntransmitted from generation to generation, is not the true life, but a\nfallen life, a life temporarily depraved,--the Jews, on the contrary,\nbelieved this life to be the true and supreme good, given to man on\ncondition that he obey the will of God. From our point of view, the\ntransmission of the fallen life from generation to generation is the\ntransmission of a curse; from the Jewish point of view, it is the\nsupreme good to which man can attain, on condition that he accomplish\nthe will of God. It is precisely upon the Hebraic conception of life\nthat Jesus founded his doctrine of the true or eternal life, which he\ncontrasted with the personal and mortal life. Jesus said to the Jews:--\n\n\"_Search the Scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and\nthey are they which testify of me._\" (John v. 39.)\n\nTo the young man who asked what he must do to have eternal life, Jesus\nsaid in reply, \"_If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments_.\"\nHe did not say \"the eternal life,\" but simply \"the life\" (Matt. xix.\n17). To the same question propounded by the scribe, the answer was,\n\"_This do, and thou shalt live_\" (Luke x. 28), once more promising life,\nbut saying nothing of eternal life. From these two instances, we know\nwhat Jesus meant by eternal life; whenever he made use of the phrase in\nspeaking to the Jews, he employed it in exactly the same sense in which\nit was expressed in their own law,--the accomplishment of the will of\nGod. In contrast with the life that is temporary, isolated, and\npersonal, Jesus taught of the eternal life promised by God to\nIsrael--with this difference, that while the Jews believed the eternal\nlife was to be perpetuated solely by their chosen people, and that\nwhoever wished to possess this life must follow the exceptional laws\ngiven by God to Israel,--the doctrine of Jesus holds that the eternal\nlife is perpetuated in the son of man, and that to obtain it we must\npractise the commandments of Jesus, who summed up the will of God for\nall humanity.\n\nAs opposed to the personal life, Jesus taught us, not of a life beyond\nthe grave, but of that universal life which comprises within itself the\nlife of humanity, past, present, and to come. According to the Jewish\ndoctrine, the personal life could be saved from death only by\naccomplishing the will of God as propounded in the Mosaic law. On this\ncondition only the life of the Jewish race would not perish, but would\npass from generation to generation of the chosen people of God.\nAccording to the doctrine of Jesus, the personal life is saved from\ndeath by the accomplishment of the will of God as propounded in the\ncommandments of Jesus. On this condition alone the personal life does\nnot perish, but becomes eternal and immutable, in union with the son of\nman. The difference is, that while the religion given by Moses was that\nof a people for a national God, the religion of Jesus is the expression\nof the aspirations of all humanity. The perpetuity of life in the\nposterity of a people is doubtful, because the people itself may\ndisappear, and perpetuity depends upon a posterity in the flesh.\nPerpetuity of life, according to the doctrine of Jesus, is indubitable,\nbecause life, according to his doctrine, is an attribute of all humanity\nin the son of man who lives in harmony with the will of God.\n\nIf we believe that Jesus' words concerning the last judgment and the\nconsummation of the age, and other words reported in the Gospel of John,\nare a promise of a life beyond the grave for the souls of men,--if we\nbelieve this, it is none the less true that his teachings in regard to\nthe light of life and the kingdom of God have the same meaning for us\nthat they had for his hearers eighteen centuries ago; that is, that the\nonly real life is the life of the son of man conformable to the will of\nthe Giver of Life. It is easier to admit this than to admit that the\ndoctrine of the true life, conformable to the will of the Giver of Life,\ncontains the promise of the immortality of life beyond the grave.\n\nPerhaps it is right to think that man, after this terrestrial life\npassed in the satisfaction of personal desires, will enter upon the\npossession of an eternal personal life in paradise, there to taste all\nimaginable enjoyments; but to believe that this is so, to endeavor to\npersuade ourselves that for our good actions we shall be recompensed\nwith eternal felicity, and for our bad actions punished with eternal\ntorments,--to believe this, does not aid us in understanding the\ndoctrine of Jesus, but, on the contrary, takes away the principal\nfoundation of that doctrine. The entire doctrine of Jesus inculcates\nrenunciation of the personal, imaginary life, and a merging of this\npersonal life in the universal life of humanity, in the life of the son\nof man. Now the doctrine of the individual immortality of the soul does\nnot impel us to renounce the personal life; on the contrary, it affirms\nthe continuance of individuality forever.\n\nThe Jews, the Chinese, the Hindus, all men who do not believe in the\ndogma of the fall and the redemption, conceive of life as it is. A man\nlives, is united with a woman, engenders children, cares for them, grows\nold, and dies. His life continues in his children, and so passes on from\none generation to another, like everything else in the world,--stones,\nmetals, earth, plants, animals, stars. Life is life, and we must make\nthe best of it.\n\nTo live for self alone, for the animal life, is not reasonable. And so\nmen, from their earliest existence, have sought for some reason for\nliving aside from the gratification of their own desires; they live for\ntheir children, for their families, for their nation, for humanity, for\nall that does not die with the personal life.\n\nBut according to the doctrine of the Church, human life, the supreme\ngood that we possess, is but a very small portion of another life of\nwhich we are deprived for a season. Our life is not the life that God\nintended to give us or such as is our due. Our life is degenerate and\nfallen, a mere fragment, a mockery, compared with the real life to which\nwe think ourselves entitled. The principal object of life is not to try\nto live this mortal life conformably to the will of the Giver of Life;\nor to render it eternal in the generations, as the Hebrews believed; or\nto identify ourselves with the will of God, as Jesus taught; no, it is\nto believe that after this unreal life the true life will begin.\n\nJesus did not speak of the imaginary life that we believe to be our due,\nand that God did not give to us for some unexplained reason. The theory\nof the fall of Adam, of eternal life in paradise, of an immortal soul\nbreathed by God into Adam, was unknown to Jesus; he never spoke of it,\nnever made the slightest allusion to its existence. Jesus spoke of life\nas it is, as it must be for all men; we speak of an imaginary life that\nhas never existed. How, then, can we understand the doctrine of Jesus?\n\nJesus did not anticipate such a singular change of view in his\ndisciples. He supposed that all men understood that the destruction of\nthe personal life is inevitable, and he revealed to them an imperishable\nlife. He offers true peace to them that suffer; but to those who believe\nthat they are certain to possess more than Jesus gives, his doctrine can\nbe of no value. How shall I persuade a man to toil in return for food\nand clothing if this man is persuaded that he already possesses great\nriches? Evidently he will pay no attention to my exhortations. So it is\nwith regard to the doctrine of Jesus. Why should I toil for bread when I\ncan be rich without labor? Why should I trouble myself to live this life\naccording to the will of God when I am sure of a personal life for all\neternity?\n\nThat Jesus Christ, as the second person of the Trinity, as God made\nmanifest in the flesh, was the salvation of men; that he took upon\nhimself the penalty for the sin of Adam and the sins of all men; that he\natoned to the first person of the Trinity for the sins of humanity; that\nhe instituted the Church and the sacraments for our salvation--believing\nthis, we are saved, and shall enter into the possession of personal,\neternal life beyond the grave. But meanwhile we cannot deny that he has\nsaved and still saves men by revealing to them their inevitable loss,\nshowing them that he is the way, the truth, and the life, the true way\nto life instead of the false way to the personal life that men had\nheretofore followed.\n\nIf there are any who doubt the life beyond the grave and salvation based\nupon redemption, no one can doubt the salvation of all men, and of each\nindividual man, if they will accept the evidence of the destruction of\nthe personal life, and follow the true way to safety by bringing their\npersonal wills into harmony with the will of God. Let each man endowed\nwith reason ask himself, What is life? and What is death? and let him\ntry to give to life and death any other meaning than that revealed by\nJesus, and he will find that any attempt to find in life a meaning not\nbased upon the renunciation of self, the service of humanity, of the son\nof man, is utterly futile. It cannot be doubted that the personal life\nis condemned to destruction, and that a life conformable to the will of\nGod alone gives the possibility of salvation. It is not much in\ncomparison with the sublime belief in the future life! It is not much,\nbut it is sure.\n\nI am lost with my companions in a snow-storm. One of them assures me\nwith the utmost sincerity that he sees a light in the distance, but it\nis only a mirage which deceives us both; we strive to reach this light,\nbut we never can find it. Another resolutely brushes away the snow; he\nseeks and finds the road, and he cries to us, \"Go not that way, the\nlight you see is false, you will wander to destruction; here is the\nroad, I feel it beneath my feet; we are saved.\" It is very little, we\nsay. We had faith in that light that gleamed in our deluded eyes, that\ntold us of a refuge, a warm shelter, rest, deliverance,--and now in\nexchange for it we have nothing but the road. Ah, but if we continue to\ntravel toward the imaginary light, we shall perish; if we follow the\nroad, we shall surely arrive at a haven of safety.\n\nWhat, then, must I do if I alone understand the doctrine of Jesus, and I\nalone have trust in it among a people who neither understand it nor obey\nit? What ought I to do, to live like the rest of the world, or to live\naccording to the doctrine of Jesus? I understood the doctrine of Jesus\nas expressed in his commandments, and I believed that the practice of\nthese commandments would bring happiness to me and to all men. I\nunderstood that the fulfilment of these commandments is the will of God,\nthe source of life. More than this, I saw that I should die like a brute\nafter a farcical existence if I did not fulfil the will of God, and that\nthe only chance of salvation lay in the fulfilment of His will. In\nfollowing the example of the world about me, I should unquestionably act\ncontrary to the welfare of all men, and, above all, contrary to the will\nof the Giver of Life; I should surely forfeit the sole possibility of\nbettering my desperate condition. In following the doctrine of Jesus, I\nshould continue the work common to all men who had lived before me; I\nshould contribute to the welfare of my fellows, and of those who were to\nlive after me; I should obey the command of the Giver of Life; I should\nseize upon the only hope of salvation.\n\nThe circus at Berditchef[17] is in flames. A crowd of people are\nstruggling before the only place of exit,--a door that opens inward.\nSuddenly, in the midst of the crowd, a voice rings out: \"Back, stand\nback from the door; the closer you press against it, the less the chance\nof escape; stand back; that is your only chance of safety!\" Whether I am\nalone in understanding this command, or whether others with me also hear\nand understand, I have but one duty, and that is, from the moment I have\nheard and understood, to fall back from the door and to call upon every\none to obey the voice of the saviour. I may be suffocated, I may be\ncrushed beneath the feet of the multitude, I may perish; my sole chance\nof safety is to do the one thing necessary to gain an exit. And I can do\nnothing else. A saviour should be a saviour, that is, one who saves. And\nthe salvation of Jesus is the true salvation. He came, he preached his\ndoctrine, and humanity is saved.\n\n     [17] A city in Russia become famous by a recent catastrophe.\n\nThe circus may burn in an hour, and those penned up in it may have no\ntime to escape. But the world has been burning for eighteen hundred\nyears; it has burned ever since Jesus said, \"_I am come to send fire on\nthe earth_;\" and I suffer as it burns, and it will continue to burn\nuntil humanity is saved. Was not this fire kindled that men might have\nthe felicity of salvation? Understanding this, I understood and believed\nthat Jesus is not only the Messiah, that is, the Anointed One, the\nChrist, but that he is in truth the Saviour of the world. I know that he\nis the only way, that there is no other way for me or for those who are\ntormented with me in this life. I know, that for me as for all, there\nis no other safety than the fulfilment of the commandments of Jesus, who\ngave to all humanity the greatest conceivable sum of benefits.\n\nWould there be great trials to endure? Should I die in following the\ndoctrine of Jesus? This question did not alarm me. It might seem\nfrightful to any one who does not realize the nothingness and absurdity\nof an isolated personal life, and who believes that he will never die.\nBut I know that my life, considered in relation to my individual\nhappiness, is, taken by itself, a stupendous farce, and that this\nmeaningless existence will end in a stupid death. Knowing this, I have\nnothing to fear. I shall die as others die who do not observe the\ndoctrine of Jesus; but my life and my death will have a meaning for\nmyself and for others. My life and my death will have added something to\nthe life and salvation of others, and this will be in accordance with\nthe doctrine of Jesus.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX.\n\n\nLET all the world practise the doctrine of Jesus, and the reign of God\nwill come upon earth; if I alone practise it, I shall do what I can to\nbetter my own condition and the condition of those about me. There is no\nsalvation aside from the fulfilment of the doctrine of Jesus. But who\nwill give me the strength to practise it, to follow it without ceasing,\nand never to fail? \"_Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief._\" The\ndisciples called upon Jesus to strengthen their faith. \"_When I would do\ngood_,\" says the apostle Paul, \"_evil is present with me_.\" It is hard\nto work out one's salvation.\n\nA drowning man calls for aid. A rope is thrown to him, and he says:\n\"Strengthen my belief that this rope will save me. I believe that the\nrope will save me; but help my unbelief.\" What is the meaning of this?\nIf a man will not seize upon his only means of safety, it is plain that\nhe does not understand his condition.\n\nHow can a Christian who professes to believe in the divinity of Jesus\nand of his doctrine, whatever may be the meaning that he attaches\nthereto, say that he wishes to believe, and that he cannot believe? God\ncomes upon earth, and says, \"Fire, torments, eternal darkness await you;\nand here is your salvation--fulfil my doctrine.\" It is not possible\nthat a believing Christian should not believe and profit by the\nsalvation thus offered to him; it is not possible that he should say,\n\"Help my unbelief.\" If a man says this, he not only does not believe in\nhis perdition, but he must be certain that he shall not perish.\n\nA number of children have fallen from a boat into the water. For an\ninstant their clothes and their feeble struggles keep them on the\nsurface of the stream, and they do not realize their danger. Those in\nthe boat throw out a rope. They warn the children against their peril,\nand urge them to grasp the rope (the parables of the woman and the piece\nof silver, the shepherd and the lost sheep, the marriage feast, the\nprodigal son, all have this meaning), but the children do not believe;\nthey refuse to believe, not in the rope, but that they are in danger of\ndrowning. Children as frivolous as themselves have assured them that\nthey can continue to float gaily along even when the boat is far away.\nThe children do not believe; but when their clothes are saturated, the\nstrength of their little arms exhausted, they will sink and perish. This\nthey do not believe, and so they do not believe in the rope of safety.\n\nJust as the children in the water will not grasp the rope that is thrown\nto them, persuaded that they will not perish, so men who believe in the\nresurrection of the soul, convinced that there is no danger, do not\npractise the commandments of Jesus. They do not believe in what is\ncertain, simply because they do believe in what is uncertain. It is for\nthis cause they cry, \"Lord, strengthen our faith, lest we perish.\" But\nthis is impossible. To have the faith that will save them from\nperishing, they must cease to do what will lead them to perdition, and\nthey must begin to do something for their own safety; they must grasp\nthe rope of safety. Now this is exactly what they do not wish to do;\nthey wish to persuade themselves that they will not perish, although\nthey see their comrades perishing one after another before their very\neyes. They wish to persuade themselves of the truth of what does not\nexist, and so they ask to be strengthened in faith. It is plain that\nthey have not enough faith, and they wish for more.\n\nWhen I understood the doctrine of Jesus, I saw that what these men call\nfaith is the faith denounced by the apostle James:[18]--\n\n     [18] The epistle of James was for a long time rejected by the\n     Church, and when accepted, was subjected to various alterations:\n     certain words are omitted, others are transposed, or translated in\n     an arbitrary way. I have restored the defective passages after the\n     text authorized by Tischendorf.\n\n\"_What doth it profit, my brethren, if a man believe he hath faith, but\nhath not works? can that faith save him? If a brother or sister be naked\nand in lack of daily food, and one of you say unto them, Go in peace, be\nye warmed and filled; and yet ye give them not the things needful to the\nbody; what doth it profit? Even so faith, if it have not works, is dead\nin itself. But some one will say, Thou hast faith, and I have works:\nShew me thy faith which is without works, and I, by my works, will show\nthee my faith. Thou believest there is one God; thou doest well: the\ndemons also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that\nfaith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by\nworks when he offered up Isaac his son upon the altar? Thou seest that\nfaith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect.... Ye\nsee that by works a man is justified, and not only by faith.... For as\nthe body without the spirit is dead, so faith is dead without works._\"\n(James ii. 14-26.)\n\nJames says that the indication of faith is the acts that it inspires,\nand consequently that a faith which does not result in acts is of words\nmerely, with which one cannot feed the hungry, or justify belief, or\nobtain salvation. A faith without acts is not faith. It is only a\ndisposition to believe in something, a vain affirmation of belief in\nsomething in which one does not really believe. Faith, as the apostle\nJames defines it, is the motive power of actions, and actions are a\nmanifestation of faith.\n\nThe Jews said to Jesus: \"_What signs shewest thou then, that we may see,\nand believe thee? what dost thou work?_\" (John vi. 30. See also Mark xv.\n32; Matt. xxvii. 42). Jesus told them that their desire was vain, and\nthat they could not be made to believe what they did not believe. \"_If I\ntell you,_\" he said, \"_ye will not believe_\" (Luke xxii. 67); \"_I told\nyou, and ye believed not.... But ye believe not because ye are not of my\nsheep_\" (John x. 25, 26).\n\nThe Jews asked exactly what is asked by Christians brought up in the\nChurch; they asked for some outward sign which should make them believe\nin the doctrine of Jesus. Jesus explained that this was impossible, and\nhe told them why it was impossible. He told them that they could not\nbelieve because they were not of his sheep; that is, they did not follow\nthe road he had pointed out. He explained why some believed, and why\nothers did not believe, and he told them what faith really was. He said:\n\"_How can ye believe which receive your doctrine_ ([Greek: doxa][19])\n_one of another, and seek not the doctrine that cometh only from God?_\"\n(John v. 44).\n\n     [19] Here, as in other passages, [Greek: doxa] has been incorrectly\n     translated \"honor\"; [Greek: doxa], from the verb [Greek: doke\u00f4],\n     means \"manner of seeing, judgment, _doctrine_.\"\n\nTo believe, Jesus says, we must seek for the doctrine that comes from\nGod alone.\n\n\"_He that speaketh of himself seeketh_ (to extend) _his own doctrine,\n[Greek: doxan t\u00ean idian], but he that seeketh_ (to extend) _the doctrine\nof him that sent him, the same is true, and no untruth is in him._\"\n(John vii. 18.)\n\nThe doctrine of life, [Greek: doxa], is the foundation of faith, and\nactions result spontaneously from faith. But there are two doctrines of\nlife: Jesus denies the one and affirms the other. One of these\ndoctrines, a source of all error, consists of the idea that the personal\nlife is one of the essential and real attributes of man. This doctrine\nhas been followed, and is still followed, by the majority of men; it is\nthe source of divergent beliefs and acts. The other doctrine, taught by\nJesus and by all the prophets, affirms that our personal life has no\nmeaning save through fulfilment of the will of God. If a man confess a\ndoctrine that emphasizes his own personal life, he will consider that\nhis personal welfare is the most important thing in the world, and he\nwill consider riches, honors, glory, pleasure, as true sources of\nhappiness; he will have a faith in accordance with his inclination, and\nhis acts will always be in harmony with his faith. If a man confess a\ndifferent doctrine, if he find the essence of life in fulfilment of the\nwill of God in accordance with the example of Abraham and the teaching\nand example of Jesus, his faith will accord with his principles, and his\nacts will be conformable to his faith. And so those who believe that\ntrue happiness is to be found in the personal life can never have faith\nin the doctrine of Jesus. All their efforts to fix their faith upon it\nwill be always vain. To believe in the doctrine of Jesus, they must look\nat life in an entirely different way. Their actions will coincide always\nwith their faith and not with their intentions and their words.\n\nIn men who demand of Jesus that he shall work miracles we may recognize\na desire to believe in his doctrine; but this desire never can be\nrealized in life, however arduous the efforts to obtain it. In vain they\npray, and observe the sacraments, and give in charity, and build\nchurches, and convert others; they cannot follow the example of Jesus\nbecause their acts are inspired by a faith based upon an entirely\ndifferent doctrine from that which they confess. They could not\nsacrifice an only son as Abraham was ready to do, although Abraham had\nno hesitation whatever as to what he should do, just as Jesus and his\ndisciples were moved to give their lives for others, because such action\nalone constituted for them the true meaning of life. This incapacity to\nunderstand the substance of faith explains the strange moral state of\nmen, who, acknowledging that they ought to live in accordance with the\ndoctrine of Jesus, endeavor to live in opposition to this doctrine,\nconformably to their belief that the personal life is a sovereign good.\n\nThe basis of faith is the meaning that we derive from life, the meaning\nthat determines whether we look upon life as important and good, or\ntrivial and corrupt. Faith is the appreciation of good and of evil. Men\nwith a faith based upon their own doctrines do not succeed at all in\nharmonizing this faith with the faith inspired by the doctrine of Jesus;\nand so it was with the early disciples. This misapprehension is\nfrequently referred to in the Gospels in clear and decisive terms.\nSeveral times the disciples asked Jesus to strengthen their faith in his\nwords (Matt. xx. 20-28; Mark x. 35-48). After the message, so terrible\nto every man who believes in the personal life and who seeks his\nhappiness in the riches of this world, after the words, \"_How hardly\nshall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God_,\" and after\nwords still more terrible for men who believe only in the personal life,\n\"_Sell whatsoever thou hast and give to the poor_;\" after these warning\nwords Peter asked, \"_Behold, we have forsaken all and followed thee;\nwhat shall we have therefore?_\" Then James and John and, according to\nthe Gospel of Matthew, their mother, asked him that they might be\nallowed to sit with him in glory. They asked Jesus to strengthen their\nfaith with a promise of future recompense. To Peter's question Jesus\nreplied with a parable (Matt. xx. 1-16); to James he replied that they\ndid not know what they asked; that they asked what was impossible; that\nthey did not understand the doctrine, which meant a renunciation of the\npersonal life, while they demanded personal glory, a personal\nrecompense; that they should drink the cup he drank of (that is, live as\nhe lived), but to sit upon his right hand and upon his left was not his\nto give. And Jesus added that the great of this world had their profit\nand enjoyment of glory and personal power only in the worldly life; but\nthat his disciples ought to know that the true meaning of human life is\nnot in personal happiness, but in ministering to others; \"_the son of\nman came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his\nlife a ransom for many_.\" In reply to the unreasonable demands which\nrevealed their slowness to understand his doctrine, Jesus did not\ncommand his disciples to have faith in his doctrine, that is, to modify\nthe ideas inspired by their own doctrine (he knew that to be\nimpossible), but he explained to them the meaning of that life which is\nthe basis of true faith, that is, taught them how to discern good from\nevil, the important from the secondary.\n\nTo Peter's question, \"_What shall we receive?_\" Jesus replies with the\nparable of the laborers in the vineyard (Matt. xx. 1-16), beginning with\nthe words \"_For the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is a\nhouseholder_,\" and by this means Jesus explains to Peter that failure to\nunderstand the doctrine is the cause of lack of faith; and that\nremuneration in proportion to the amount of work done is important only\nfrom the point of view of the personal life.\n\nThis faith is based upon the presumption of certain imaginary rights;\nbut a man has a right to nothing; he is under obligations for the good\nhe has received, and so he can exact nothing. Even if he were to give up\nhis whole life to the service of others, he could not pay the debt he\nhas incurred, and so he cannot complain of injustice. If a man sets a\nvalue upon his rights to life, if he keeps a reckoning with the\nOverruling Power from whom he has received life, he proves simply that\nhe does not understand the meaning of life. Men who have received a\nbenefit act far otherwise. The laborers employed in the vineyard were\nfound by the householder idle and unhappy; they did not possess life in\nthe proper meaning of the term. And then the householder gave them the\nsupreme welfare of life,--work. They accepted the benefits offered, and\nwere discontented because their remuneration was not graduated according\nto their imaginary deserts. They did the work, believing in their false\ndoctrine of life and work as a right, and consequently with an idea of\nthe remuneration to which they were entitled. They did not understand\nthat work is the supreme good, and that they should be thankful for the\nopportunity to work, instead of exacting payment. And so all men who\nlook upon life as these laborers looked upon it, never can possess true\nfaith. This parable of the laborers, related by Jesus in response to the\nrequest by his disciples that he strengthen their faith, shows more\nclearly than ever the basis of the faith that Jesus taught.\n\nWhen Jesus told his disciples that they must forgive a brother who\ntrespassed against them not only once, but seventy times seven times,\nthe disciples were overwhelmed at the difficulty of observing this\ninjunction, and said, \"_Increase our faith_,\" just as a little while\nbefore they had asked, \"_What shall we receive?_\" Now they uttered the\nlanguage of would-be Christians: \"We wish to believe, but cannot;\nstrengthen our faith that we may be saved; make us believe\" (as the Jews\nsaid to Jesus when they demanded miracles); \"either by miracles or\npromises of recompense, make us to have faith in our salvation.\"\n\nThe disciples said what we all say: \"How pleasant it would be if we\ncould live our selfish life, and at the same time believe that it is far\nbetter to practise the doctrine of God by living for others.\" This\ndisposition of mind is common to us all; it is contrary to the meaning\nof the doctrine of Jesus, and yet we are astonished at our lack of\nfaith. Jesus disposed of this misapprehension by means of a parable\nillustrating true faith. Faith cannot come of confidence in his words;\nfaith can come only of a consciousness of our condition; faith is based\nonly upon the dictates of reason as to what is best to do in a given\nsituation. He showed that this faith cannot be awakened in others by\npromises of recompense or threats of punishment, which can only arouse a\nfeeble confidence that will fail at the first trial; but that the faith\nwhich removes mountains, the faith that nothing can shatter, is inspired\nby the consciousness of our inevitable loss if we do not profit by the\nsalvation that is offered.\n\nTo have faith, we must not count on any promise of recompense; we must\nunderstand that the only way of escape from a ruined life is a life\nconformable to the will of the Master. He who understands this will not\nask to be strengthened in his faith, but will work out his salvation\nwithout the need of any exhortation. The householder, when he comes from\nthe fields with his workman, does not ask the latter to sit down at once\nto dinner, but directs him to attend first to other duties and to wait\nupon him, the master, and then to take his place at the table and dine.\nThis the workman does without any sense of being wronged; he does not\nboast of his labor nor does he demand recognition or recompense, for he\nknows that labor is the inevitable condition of his existence and the\ntrue welfare of his life. So Jesus says that when we have done all that\nwe are commanded to do, we have only fulfilled our duty. He who\nunderstands his relations to his master will understand that he has life\nonly as he obeys the master's will; he will know in what his welfare\nconsists, and he will have a faith that does not demand the impossible.\nThis is the faith taught by Jesus, which has for its foundation a\nthorough perception of the true meaning of life. The source of faith is\nlight:--\n\n\"_That was the true light which lighteth every man that cometh into the\nworld. He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world\nknew him not. He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as\nmany as received him, to them gave he the right to become the children\nof God, even to them that believe on his name._\" (John i. 9-12.)\n\n\"_And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and\nmen loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For\nevery one that doeth ill hateth the light, and cometh not to the light,\nlest his works should be reproved. But he that doeth the truth cometh to\nthe light, that his works may be made manifest, because they have been\nwrought in God._\" (John iii. 19-21.)\n\nHe who understands the doctrine of Jesus will not ask to be strengthened\nin his faith. The doctrine of Jesus teaches that faith is inspired by\nthe light of truth. Jesus never asked men to have faith in his person;\nhe called upon them to have faith in truth. To the Jews he said:--\n\n\"_Ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth which I have\nheard of God._\" (John viii. 40.)\n\n\"_Which of you convicteth me of sin? If I say truth, why do ye not\nbelieve me?_\" (John viii. 46.)\n\n\"_To this end have I been born, and to this end am I come into the\nworld, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of\nthe truth heareth my voice._\" (John xviii. 37.)\n\nTo his disciples he said:--\n\n\"_I am the way, and the truth, and the life._\" (John xiv. 6.)\n\n\"_The Father ... shall give you another Comforter, that he may be with\nyou forever, even the Spirit of truth: whom the world cannot receive;\nfor it beholdeth him not, neither knoweth him: ye know him; for he\nabideth with you, and shall be in you._\" (John xiv. 16, 17.)\n\nJesus' doctrine, then, is truth, and he himself is truth. The doctrine\nof Jesus is the doctrine of truth. Faith in Jesus is not belief in a\nsystem based upon his personality, but a consciousness of truth. No one\ncan be persuaded to believe in the doctrine of Jesus, nor can any one be\nstimulated by any promised reward to practise it. He who understands the\ndoctrine of Jesus will have faith in him, because this doctrine is true.\nHe who knows the truth indispensable to his happiness must believe in\nit, just as a man who knows that he is drowning grasps the rope of\nsafety. Thus, the question, What must I do to believe? is an indication\nthat he who asks it does not understand the doctrine of Jesus.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X.\n\n\nWE say, It is difficult to live according to the doctrine of Jesus! And\nwhy should it not be difficult, when by our organization of life we\ncarefully hide from ourselves our true situation; when we endeavor to\npersuade ourselves that our situation is not at all what it is, but that\nit is something else? We call this faith, and regarding it as sacred, we\nendeavor by all possible means, by threats, by flattery, by falsehood,\nby stimulating the emotions, to attract men to its support. In this mad\ndetermination to believe what is contrary to sense and reason, we reach\nsuch a degree of aberration that we are ready to take as an indication\nof truth the very absurdity of the object in whose behalf we solicit the\nconfidence of men. Are there not Christians who are ready to declare\nwith enthusiasm \"Credo quia absurdum,\" supposing that the absurd is the\nbest medium for teaching men the truth? Not long ago a man of\nintelligence and great learning said to me that the Christian doctrine\nhad no importance as a moral rule of life. Morality, he said, must be\nsought in the teachings of the Stoics and the Brahmins, and in the\nTalmud. The essence of the Christian doctrine is not in morality, he\nsaid, but in the theosophical doctrine propounded in its dogmas.\nAccording to this I ought to prize in the Christian doctrine not what it\ncontains of eternal good to humanity, not its teachings indispensable to\na reasonable life; I ought to regard as the most important element of\nChristianity that portion of it which it is impossible to understand,\nand therefore useless,--and this in the name of thousands of men who\nhave perished for their faith.\n\nWe have a false conception of life, a conception based upon wrong doing\nand inspired by selfish passions, and we consider our faith in this\nfalse conception (which we have in some way attached to the doctrine of\nJesus), as the most important and necessary thing with which we are\nconcerned. If men had not for centuries maintained faith in what is\nuntrue, this false conception of life, as well as the truth of the\ndoctrine of Jesus, would long ago have been revealed.\n\nIt is a terrible thing to say, but it seems to me that if the doctrine\nof Jesus, and that of the Church which has been foisted upon it, had\nnever existed, those who to-day call themselves Christians would be much\nnearer than they are to the truth of the doctrine of Jesus; that is, to\nthe reasonable doctrine which teaches the true meaning of life. The\nmoral doctrines of all the prophets of the world would not then be\nclosed to them. They would have their little ideas of truth, and would\nregard them with confidence. Now, all truth is revealed, and this truth\nhas so horrified those whose manner of life it condemned, that they\nhave disguised it in falsehood, and men have lost confidence in the\ntruth.\n\nIn our European society, the words of Jesus, \"_To this end I am come\ninto the world, that I shall bear witness unto the truth. Every one that\nis of the truth heareth my voice_,\"--have been for a long time\nsupplanted by Pilate's question, \"_What is truth?_\" This question,\nquoted as a bitter and profound irony against a Roman, we have taken as\nof serious purport, and have made of it an article of faith.\n\nWith us, all men live not only without truth, not only without the least\ndesire to know truth, but with the firm conviction that, among all\nuseless occupations, the most useless is the endeavor to find the truth\nthat governs human life. The rule of life, the doctrine that all\npeoples, excepting our European societies, have always considered as the\nmost important thing, the rule of which Jesus spoke as the one thing\nneedful, is an object of universal disdain. An institution called the\nChurch, in which no one, not even if he belong to it, really believes,\nhas for a long time usurped the place of this rule.\n\nThe only source of light for those who think and suffer is hidden. For a\nsolution of the questions, What am I? what ought I to do? I am not\nallowed to depend upon the doctrine of him who came to save; I am told\nto obey the authorities, and believe in the Church. But why is life so\nfull of evil? Why so much wrong-doing? May I not abstain from taking\npart therein? Is it impossible to lighten this heavy load that weighs me\ndown? The reply is that this is impossible, that the desire to live\nwell and to help others to live well is only a temptation of pride; that\none thing is possible,--to save one's soul for the future life. He who\nis not willing to take part in this miserable life may keep aloof from\nit; this way is open to all; but, says the doctrine of the Church, he\nwho chooses this way can take no part in the life of the world; he\nceases to live. Our masters tell us that there are only two ways,--to\nbelieve in and obey the powers that be, to participate in the organized\nevil about us, or to forsake the world and take refuge in convent or\nmonastery; to take part in the offices of the Church, doing nothing for\nmen, and declaring the doctrine of Jesus impossible to practise,\naccepting the iniquity of life sanctioned by the Church, or to renounce\nlife for what is equivalent to slow suicide.\n\nHowever surprising the belief that the doctrine of Jesus is excellent,\nbut impossible of practice, there is a still more surprising tradition\nthat he who wishes to practise this doctrine, not in word, but in deed,\nmust retire from the world. This erroneous belief that it is better for\na man to retire from the world than to expose himself to temptations,\nexisted amongst the Hebrews of old, but is entirely foreign, not only to\nthe spirit of Christianity, but to that of the Jewish religion. The\ncharming and significant story of the prophet Jonah, which Jesus so\nloved to quote, was written in regard to this very error. The prophet\nJonah, wishing to remain upright and virtuous, retires from the perverse\ncompanionship of men. But God shows him that as a prophet he ought to\ncommunicate to misguided men a knowledge of the truth, and so ought not\nto fly from men, but ought rather to live in communion with them. Jonah,\ndisgusted with the depravity of the inhabitants of Nineveh, flies from\nthe city; but he cannot escape his vocation. He is brought back, and the\nwill of God is accomplished; the Ninevites receive the words of Jonah\nand are saved. Instead of rejoicing that he has been made the instrument\nof God's will, Jonah is angry, and condemns God for the mercy shown the\nNinevites, arrogating to himself alone the exercise of reason and\ngoodness. He goes out into the desert and makes him a shelter, whence he\naddresses his reproaches to God. Then a gourd comes up over Jonah and\nprotects him from the sun, but the next day it withers. Jonah, smitten\nby the heat, reproaches God anew for allowing the gourd to wither. Then\nGod says to him:--\n\n\"_Thou hast had pity on the gourd, for the which thou hast not labored,\nneither madest it grow; which came up in a night, and perished in a\nnight: and should I not have pity on Nineveh, that great city; wherein\nare more than six score thousand persons that cannot discern between\ntheir right hand and their left hand?_\"\n\nJesus knew this story, and often referred to it. In the Gospels we find\nit related how Jesus, after the interview with John, who had retired\ninto the desert, was himself subjected to the same temptation before\nbeginning his mission. He was led by the Spirit into the wilderness,\nand there tempted by the Devil (error), over which he triumphed and\nreturned to Galilee. Thereafter he mingled with the most depraved men,\nand passed his life among publicans, Pharisees, and fishermen, teaching\nthem the truth.[20]\n\n     [20] Jesus is led into the desert to be tempted of error. Error\n     suggests to Jesus that he is not the Son of God if he cannot make\n     stones into bread. Jesus replies that he lives, not by bread alone,\n     but by the word of God. Then Error says that if he lives by the\n     word or spirit of God, the flesh may be destroyed, but the spirit\n     will not perish. Jesus' reply is that life in the flesh is the will\n     of God; to destroy the flesh is to act contrary to the will of God,\n     to tempt God. Error then suggests that if this be true, he should,\n     like the rest of the world, place himself at the service of the\n     flesh, and the flesh will give him satisfaction. Jesus' reply is\n     that he can serve God only because the true life is spiritual, and\n     has been placed in the flesh by the will of God. Jesus then leaves\n     the desert and returns to the world. (Matt. iv. 1-11; Luke iv.\n     1-13.)\n\nEven according to the doctrine of the Church, Jesus, as God in man, has\ngiven us the example of his life. All of his life that is known to us\nwas passed in the company of publicans, of the downfallen, and of\nPharisees. The principal commandments of Jesus are that his followers\nshall love others and spread his doctrine. Both exact constant communion\nwith the world. And yet the deduction is made that the doctrine of Jesus\npermits retirement from the world. That is, to imitate Jesus we may do\nexactly contrary to what he taught and did himself.\n\nAs the Church explains it, the doctrine of Jesus offers itself to men of\nthe world and to dwellers in monasteries, not as a rule of life for\nbettering one's own condition and the condition of others, but as a\ndoctrine which teaches the man of the world how to live an evil life and\nat the same time gain for himself another life, and the monk how to\nrender existence still more difficult than it naturally is. But Jesus\ndid not teach this. Jesus taught the truth, and if metaphysical truth is\nthe truth, it will remain such in practice. If life in God is the only\ntrue life, and is in itself profitable, then it is so here in this world\nin spite of all that may happen. If in this world a life in accordance\nwith the doctrine of Jesus is not profitable, his doctrine cannot be\ntrue.\n\nJesus did not ask us to pass from better to worse, but, on the contrary,\nfrom worse to better. He had pity upon men, who to him were like sheep\nwithout a shepherd. He said that his disciples would be persecuted for\nhis doctrine, and that they must bear the persecutions of the world with\nresolution. But he did not say that those who followed his doctrine\nwould suffer more than those who followed the world's doctrine; on the\ncontrary, he said that those who followed the world's doctrine would be\nwretched, and that those who followed his doctrine would have joy and\npeace. Jesus did not teach salvation by faith in asceticism or voluntary\ntorture, but he taught us a way of life which, while saving us from the\nemptiness of the personal life, would give us less of suffering and more\nof joy. Jesus told men that in practising his doctrine among unbelievers\nthey would be, not more unhappy, but, on the contrary, much more happy,\nthan those who did not practise it. There was, he said, one infallible\nrule, and that was to have no care about the worldly life. When Peter\nsaid to Jesus, \"_We have forsaken all, and followed thee; what then\nshall we have?_\" Jesus replied:--\n\n\"_There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or\nmother, or father, or children, or lands, for my sake, and for the\ngospel's sake, but he shall receive a hundred fold more in this time,\nhouses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands,\nwith persecutions; and in the age to come eternal life._\" (Mark x.\n28-30.)\n\nJesus declared, it is true, that those who follow his doctrine must\nexpect to be persecuted by those who do not follow it, but he did not\nsay that his disciples will be the worse off for that reason; on the\ncontrary, he said that his disciples would have, here, in this world,\nmore benefits than those who did not follow him. That Jesus said and\nthought this is beyond a doubt, as the clearness of his words on this\nsubject, the meaning of his entire doctrine, his life and the life of\nhis disciples, plainly show. But was his teaching in this respect true?\n\nWhen we examine the question as to which of the two conditions would be\nthe better, that of the disciples of Jesus or that of the disciples of\nthe world, we are obliged to conclude that the condition of the\ndisciples of Jesus ought to be the most desirable, since the disciples\nof Jesus, in doing good to every one, would not arouse the hatred of\nmen. The disciples of Jesus, doing evil to no one, would be persecuted\nonly by the wicked. The disciples of the world, on the contrary, are\nlikely to be persecuted by every one, since the law of the disciples of\nthe world is the law of each for himself, the law of struggle; that is,\nof mutual persecution. Moreover, the disciples of Jesus would be\nprepared for suffering, while the disciples of the world use all\npossible means to avoid suffering; the disciples of Jesus would feel\nthat their sufferings were useful to the world; but the disciples of the\nworld do not know why they suffer. On abstract grounds, then, the\ncondition of the disciples of Jesus would be more advantageous than that\nof the disciples of the world. But is it so in reality? To answer this,\nlet each one call to mind all the painful moments of his life, all the\nphysical and moral sufferings that he has endured, and let him ask\nhimself if he has suffered these calamities in behalf of the doctrine of\nthe world or in behalf of the doctrine of Jesus. Every sincere man will\nfind in recalling his past life that he has never once suffered for\npractising the doctrine of Jesus. He will find that the greater part of\nthe misfortunes of his life have resulted from following the doctrines\nof the world. In my own life (an exceptionally happy one from a worldly\npoint of view) I can reckon up as much suffering caused by following the\ndoctrine of the world as many a martyr has endured for the doctrine of\nJesus. All the most painful moments of my life,--the orgies and duels\nin which I took part as a student, the wars in which I have\nparticipated, the diseases that I have endured, and the abnormal and\ninsupportable conditions under which I now live,--all these are only so\nmuch martyrdom exacted by fidelity to the doctrine of the world. But I\nspeak of a life exceptionally happy from a worldly point of view. How\nmany martyrs have suffered for the doctrine of the world torments that I\nshould find difficulty in enumerating!\n\nWe do not realize the difficulties and dangers entailed by the practice\nof the doctrine of the world, simply because we are persuaded that we\ncould not do otherwise than follow that doctrine. We are persuaded that\nall the calamities that we inflict upon ourselves are the result of the\ninevitable conditions of life, and we cannot understand that the\ndoctrine of Jesus teaches us how we may rid ourselves of these\ncalamities and render our lives happy. To be able to reply to the\nquestion, Which of these two conditions is the happier? we must, at\nleast for the time being, put aside our prejudices and take a careful\nsurvey of our surroundings.\n\nGo through our great cities and observe the emaciated, sickly, and\ndistorted specimens of humanity to be found therein; recall your own\nexistence and that of all the people with whose lives you are familiar;\nrecall the instances of violent deaths and suicides of which you have\nheard,--and then ask yourself for what cause all this suffering and\ndeath, this despair that leads to suicide, has been endured. You will\nfind, perhaps to your surprise, that nine-tenths of all human suffering\nendured by men is useless, and ought not to exist, that, in fact, the\nmajority of men are martyrs to the doctrine of the world.\n\nOne rainy autumn day I rode on the tramway by the Sukhareff Tower in\nMoscow. For the distance of half a verst the vehicle forced its way\nthrough a compact crowd which quickly reformed its ranks. From morning\ntill night these thousands of men, the greater portion of them starving\nand in rags, tramped angrily through the mud, venting their hatred in\nabusive epithets and acts of violence. The same sight may be seen in all\nthe market-places of Moscow. At sunset these people go to the taverns\nand gaming-houses; their nights are passed in filth and wretchedness.\nThink of the lives of these people, of what they abandon through choice\nfor their present condition; think of the heavy burden of labor without\nreward which weighs upon these men and women, and you will see that they\nare true martyrs. All these people have forsaken houses, lands, parents,\nwives, and children; they have renounced all the comforts of life, and\nthey have come to the cities to acquire that which according to the\ngospel of the world is indispensable to every one. And all these tens of\nthousands of unhappy people sleep in hovels, and subsist upon strong\ndrink and wretched food. But aside from this class, all, from factory\nworkman, cab-driver, sewing girl, and lorette, to merchant and\ngovernment official, all endure the most painful and abnormal\nconditions without being able to acquire what, according to the doctrine\nof the world, is indispensable to each.\n\nSeek among all these men, from beggar to millionaire, one who is\ncontented with his lot, and you will not find one such in a thousand.\nEach one spends his strength in pursuit of what is exacted by the\ndoctrine of the world, and of what he is unhappy not to possess, and\nscarcely has he obtained one object of his desires when he strives for\nanother, and still another, in that infinite labor of Sisyphus which\ndestroys the lives of men. Run over the scale of individual fortunes,\nranging from a yearly income of three hundred roubles to fifty thousand\nroubles, and you will rarely find a person who is not striving to gain\nfour hundred roubles if he have three hundred, five hundred if he have\nfour hundred, and so on to the top of the ladder. Among them all you\nwill scarcely find one who, with five hundred roubles, is willing to\nadopt the mode of life of him who has only four hundred. When such an\ninstance does occur, it is not inspired by a desire to make life more\nsimple, but to amass money and make it more sure. Each strives\ncontinually to make the heavy burden of existence still more heavy, by\ngiving himself up body and soul to the practice of the doctrine of the\nworld. To-day we must buy an overcoat and galoches, to-morrow, a watch\nand chain; the next day we must install ourselves in an apartment with a\nsofa and a bronze lamp; then we must have carpets and velvet gowns;\nthen a house, horses and carriages, paintings and decorations, and\nthen--then we fall ill of overwork and die. Another continues the same\ntask, sacrifices his life to this same Moloch, and then dies also,\nwithout realizing for what he has lived.\n\nBut possibly this existence is in itself attractive? Compare it with\nwhat men have always called happiness, and you will see that it is\nhideous. For what, according to the general estimate, are the principal\nconditions of earthly happiness? One of the first conditions of\nhappiness is that the link between man and nature shall not be severed,\nthat is, that he shall be able to see the sky above him, and that he\nshall be able to enjoy the sunshine, the pure air, the fields with their\nverdure, their multitudinous life. Men have always regarded it as a\ngreat unhappiness to be deprived of all these things. But what is the\ncondition of those men who live according to the doctrine of the world?\nThe greater their success in practising the doctrine of the world, the\nmore they are deprived of these conditions of happiness. The greater\ntheir worldly success, the less they are able to enjoy the light of the\nsun, the freshness of the fields and woods, and all the delights of\ncountry life. Many of them--including nearly all the women--arrive at\nold age without having seen the sun rise or the beauties of the early\nmorning, without having seen a forest except from a seat in a carriage,\nwithout ever having planted a field or a garden, and without having the\nleast idea as to the ways and habits of dumb animals.\n\nThese people, surrounded by artificial light instead of sunshine, look\nonly upon fabrics of tapestry and stone and wood fashioned by the hand\nof man; the roar of machinery, the roll of vehicles, the thunder of\ncannon, the sound of musical instruments, are always in their ears; they\nbreathe an atmosphere heavy with distilled perfumes and tobacco smoke;\nbecause of the weakness of their stomachs and their depraved tastes they\neat rich and highly spiced food. When they move about from place to\nplace, they travel in closed carriages. When they go into the country,\nthey have the same fabrics beneath their feet; the same draperies shut\nout the sunshine; and the same array of servants cut off all\ncommunication with the men, the earth, the vegetation, and the animals\nabout them. Wherever they go, they are like so many captives shut out\nfrom the conditions of happiness. As prisoners sometimes console\nthemselves with a blade of grass that forces its way through the\npavement of their prison yard, or make pets of a spider or a mouse, so\nthese people sometimes amuse themselves with sickly plants, a parrot, a\npoodle, or a monkey, to whose needs however they do not themselves\nadminister.\n\nAnother inevitable condition of happiness is work: first, the\nintellectual labor that one is free to choose and loves; secondly, the\nexercise of physical power that brings a good appetite and tranquil and\nprofound sleep. Here, again, the greater the imagined prosperity that\nfalls to the lot of men according to the doctrine of the world, the more\nsuch men are deprived of this condition of happiness. All the prosperous\npeople of the world, the men of dignity and wealth, are as completely\ndeprived of the advantages of work as if they were shut up in solitary\nconfinement. They struggle unsuccessfully with the diseases caused by\nthe need of physical exercise, and with the ennui which pursues\nthem--unsuccessfully, because labor is a pleasure only when it is\nnecessary, and they have need of nothing; or they undertake work that is\nodious to them, like the bankers, solicitors, administrators, and\ngovernment officials, and their wives, who plan receptions and routs and\ndevise toilettes for themselves and their children. (I say odious,\nbecause I never yet met any person of this class who was contented with\nhis work or took as much satisfaction in it as the porter feels in\nshovelling away the snow from before their doorsteps.) All these\nfavorites of fortune are either deprived of work or are obliged to work\nat what they do not like, after the manner of criminals condemned to\nhard labor.\n\nThe third undoubted condition of happiness is the family. But the more\nmen are enslaved by worldly success, the more certainly are they cut off\nfrom domestic pleasures. The majority of them are libertines, who\ndeliberately renounce the joys of family life and retain only its cares.\nIf they are not libertines, their children, instead of being a source\nof pleasure, are a burden, and all possible means are employed to render\nmarriage unfruitful. If they have children, they make no effort to\ncultivate the pleasures of companionship with them. They leave their\nchildren almost continually to the care of strangers, confiding them\nfirst to the instruction of persons who are usually foreigners, and then\nsending them to public educational institutions, so that of family life\nthey have only the sorrows, and the children from infancy are as unhappy\nas their parents and wish their parents dead that they may become the\nheirs.[21] These people are not confined in prisons, but the\nconsequences of their way of living with regard to the family are more\nmelancholy than the deprivation from the domestic relations inflicted\nupon those who are kept in confinement under sentence of the law.\n\n     [21] The justification of this existence made by parents is very\n     curious. \"I need nothing for myself,\" the father says; \"this way of\n     living is very distasteful to me; but, because of affection for my\n     children, I endure its burdens.\" In plain terms his argument would\n     be: \"I know by experience that my way of living is a source of\n     unhappiness, consequently I am training my children to the same\n     unhappy method of existence. For love of them, I bring them into a\n     city permeated with physical and moral miasma; I give them into the\n     care of strangers, who regard the education of the young as a\n     lucrative enterprise; I surround my children with physical, moral,\n     and intellectual corruption.\" And this reasoning must serve as a\n     justification of the absurd existence led by the parents\n     themselves.\n\nThe fourth condition of happiness is sympathetic and unrestricted\nintercourse with all classes of men. And the higher a man is placed in\nthe social scale, the more certainly is he deprived of this essential\ncondition of happiness. The higher he goes, the narrower becomes his\ncircle of associates; the lower sinks the moral and intellectual level\nof those to whose companionship he is restrained.\n\nThe peasant and his wife are free to enter into friendly relations with\nevery one, and if a million men will have nothing to do with them, there\nremain eighty millions of people with whom they may fraternize, from\nArchangel to Astrakhan, without waiting for a ceremonious visit or an\nintroduction. A clerk and his wife will find hundreds of people who are\ntheir equals; but the clerks of a higher rank will not admit them to a\nfooting of social equality, and they, in their turn, are excluded by\nothers. The wealthy man of the world reckons by dozens the families with\nwhom he is willing to maintain social ties--all the rest of the world\nare strangers. For the cabinet minister and the millionaire there are\nonly a dozen people as rich and as important as themselves. For kings\nand emperors, the circle is still more narrow. Is not the whole system\nlike a great prison where each inmate is restricted to association with\na few fellow-convicts?\n\nFinally, the fifth condition of happiness is bodily health. And once\nmore we find that as we ascend the social scale this condition of\nhappiness is less and less within the reach of the followers of the\ndoctrine of the world. Compare a family of medium social status with a\nfamily of peasants. The latter toil unremittingly and are robust of\nbody; the former is made up of men and women more or less subject to\ndisease. Recall to mind the rich men and women whom you have known; are\nnot most of them invalids? A person of that class whose physical\ndisabilities do not oblige him to take a periodical course of hygienic\nand medical treatment is as rare as is an invalid among the laboring\nclasses. All these favorites of fortune are the victims and\npractitioners of sexual vices that have become a second nature, and they\nare toothless, gray, and bald at an age when a workingman is in the\nprime of manhood. Nearly all are afflicted with nervous or other\ndiseases arising from excesses in eating, drunkenness, luxury, and\nperpetual medication. Those who do not die young, pass half of their\nlives under the influence of morphine or other drugs, as melancholy\nwrecks of humanity incapable of self-attention, leading a parasitic\nexistence like that of a certain species of ants which are nourished by\ntheir slaves. Here is the death list. One has blown out his brains,\nanother has rotted away from the effects of syphilitic poison; this old\nman succumbed to sexual excesses, this young man to a wild outburst of\nsensuality; one died of drunkenness, another of gluttony, another from\nthe abuse of morphine, another from an induced abortion. One after\nanother they perished, victims of the doctrine of the world. And a\nmultitude presses on behind them, like an army of martyrs, to undergo\nthe same sufferings, the same perdition.\n\nTo follow the doctrine of Jesus is difficult! Jesus said that they who\nwould forsake houses, and lands, and brethren, and follow his doctrine\nshould receive a hundred-fold in houses, and lands, and brethren, and\nbesides all this, eternal life. And no one is willing even to make the\nexperiment. The doctrine of the world commands its followers to leave\nhouses, and lands, and brethren; to forsake the country for the filth of\nthe city, there to toil as a bath-keeper soaping the backs of others; as\nan apprentice in a little underground shop passing life in counting\nkopecks; as a prosecuting attorney to serve in bringing unhappy wretches\nunder condemnation of the law; as a cabinet minister, perpetually\nsigning documents of no importance; as the head of an army, killing\nmen.--\"Forsake all and live this hideous life ending in a cruel death,\nand you shall receive nothing in this world or the other,\" is the\ncommand, and every one listens and obeys. Jesus tells us to take up the\ncross and follow him, to bear submissively the lot apportioned out to\nus. No one hears his words or follows his command. But let a man in a\nuniform decked out with gold lace, a man whose speciality is to kill his\nfellows, say, \"Take, not your cross, but your knapsack and carbine, and\nmarch to suffering and certain death,\"--and a mighty host is ready to\nreceive his orders. Leaving parents, wives, and children, clad in\ngrotesque costumes, subject to the will of the first comer of a higher\nrank, famished, benumbed, and exhausted by forced marches, they go, like\na herd of cattle to the slaughter-house, not knowing where,--and yet\nthese are not cattle, they are men.\n\nWith despair in their hearts they move on, to die of hunger, or cold, or\ndisease, or, if they survive, to be brought within range of a storm of\nbullets and commanded to kill. They kill and are killed, none of them\nknows why or to what end. An ambitious stripling has only to brandish\nhis sword and shout a few magniloquent words to induce them to rush to\ncertain death. And yet no one finds this to be difficult. Neither the\nvictims, nor those whom they have forsaken, find anything difficult in\nsuch sacrifices, in which parents encourage their children to take part.\nIt seems to them not only that such things should be, but that they\ncould not be otherwise, and that they are altogether admirable and\nmoral.\n\nIf the practice of the doctrine of the world were easy, agreeable, and\nwithout danger, we might perhaps believe that the practice of the\ndoctrine of Jesus is difficult, frightful, and cruel. But the doctrine\nof the world is much more difficult, more dangerous, and more cruel,\nthan is the doctrine of Jesus. Formerly, we are told, there were martyrs\nfor the cause of Jesus; but they were exceptional. We cannot count up\nmore than about three hundred and eighty thousand of them, voluntary and\ninvoluntary, in the whole course of eighteen hundred years; but who\nshall count the martyrs to the doctrine of the world? For each Christian\nmartyr there have been a thousand martyrs to the doctrine of the world,\nand the sufferings of each one of them have been a hundred times more\ncruel than those endured by the others. The number of the victims of\nwars in our century alone amounts to thirty millions of men. These are\nthe martyrs to the doctrine of the world, who would have escaped\nsuffering and death even if they had refused to follow the doctrine of\nthe world, to say nothing of following the doctrine of Jesus.\n\nIf a man will cease to have faith in the doctrine of the world and not\nthink it indispensable to wear varnished boots and a gold chain, to\nmaintain a useless salon, or to do the various other foolish things the\ndoctrine of the world demands, he will never know the effects of\nbrutalizing occupations, of unlimited suffering, of the anxieties of a\nperpetual struggle; he will remain in communion with nature; he will be\ndeprived neither of the work he loves, or of his family, or of his\nhealth, and he will not perish by a cruel and brutish death.\n\nThe doctrine of Jesus does not exact martyrdom similar to that of the\ndoctrine of the world; it teaches us rather how to put an end to the\nsufferings that men endure in the name of the false doctrine of the\nworld. The doctrine of Jesus has a profound metaphysical meaning; it has\na meaning as an expression of the aspirations of humanity; but it has\nalso for each individual a very simple, very clear, and very practical\nmeaning with regard to the conduct of his own life. In fact, we might\nsay that Jesus taught men not to do foolish things. The meaning of the\ndoctrine of Jesus is simple and accessible to all.\n\nJesus said that we were not to be angry, and not to consider ourselves\nas better than others; if we were angry and offended others, so much the\nworse for us. Again, he said that we were to avoid libertinism, and to\nthat end choose one woman, to whom we should remain faithful. Once more,\nhe said that we were not to bind ourselves by promises or oaths to the\nservice of those who may constrain us to commit acts of folly and\nwickedness. Then he said that we were not to return evil for evil, lest\nthe evil rebound upon ourselves with redoubled force. And, finally, he\nsays that we are not to consider men as foreigners because they dwell in\nanother country and speak a language different from our own. And the\nconclusion is, that if we avoid doing any of these foolish things, we\nshall be happy.\n\nThis is all very well (we say), but the world is so organized that, if\nwe place ourselves in opposition to it, our condition will be much more\ncalamitous than if we live in accordance with its doctrine. If a man\nrefuses to perform military service, he will be shut up in a fortress,\nand possibly will be shot. If a man will not do what is necessary for\nthe support of himself and his family, he and his family will starve.\nThus argue the people who feel themselves obliged to defend the existing\nsocial organization; but they do not believe in the truth of their own\nwords. They only say this because they cannot deny the truth of the\ndoctrine of Jesus which they profess, and because they must justify\nthemselves in some way for their failure to practise it. They not only\ndo not believe in what they say; they have never given any serious\nconsideration to the subject. They have faith in the doctrine of the\nworld, and they only make use of the plea they have learned from the\nChurch,--that much suffering is inevitable for those who would practise\nthe doctrine of Jesus; and so they have never tried to practise the\ndoctrine of Jesus at all.\n\nWe see enough of the frightful suffering endured by men in following the\ndoctrine of the world, but in these times we hear nothing of suffering\nin behalf of the doctrine of Jesus. Thirty millions of men have perished\nin wars, fought in behalf of the doctrine of the world; thousands of\nmillions of beings have perished, crushed by a social system organized\non the principle of the doctrine of the world; but where, in our day,\nshall we find a million, a thousand, a dozen, or a single one, who has\ndied a cruel death, or has even suffered from hunger and cold, in behalf\nof the doctrine of Jesus? This fear of suffering is only a puerile\nexcuse that proves how little we really know of Jesus' doctrine. We not\nonly do not follow it; we do not even take it seriously. The Church has\nexplained it in such a way that it seems to be, not the doctrine of a\nhappy life, but a bugbear, a source of terror.\n\nJesus calls men to drink of a well of living water, which is free to\nall. Men are parched with thirst, they have eaten of filth and drunk\nblood, but they have been told that they will perish if they drink of\nthis water that is offered them by Jesus, and men believe in the\nwarnings of superstition. They die in torment, with the water that they\ndare not touch within their reach. If they would only have faith in\nJesus' words, and go to this well of living water and quench their\nthirst, they would realize how cunning has been the imposture practised\nupon them by the Church, and how needlessly their sufferings have been\nprolonged. If they would only accept the doctrine of Jesus, frankly and\nsimply, they would see at once the horrible error of which we are each\nand all the victims.\n\nOne generation after another strives to find the security of its\nexistence in violence, and by violence to protect its privileges. We\nbelieve that the happiness of our life is in power, and domination, and\nabundance of worldly goods. We are so habituated to this idea that we\nare alarmed at the sacrifices exacted by the doctrine of Jesus, which\nteaches that man's happiness does not depend upon fortune and power, and\nthat the rich cannot enter into the kingdom of God. But this is a false\nidea of the doctrine of Jesus, which teaches us, not to do what is the\nworst, but to do what is the best for ourselves here in this present\nlife. Inspired by his love for men, Jesus taught them not to depend upon\nsecurity based upon violence, and not to seek after riches, just as we\nteach the common people to abstain, for their own interest, from\nquarrels and intemperance. He said that if men lived without defending\nthemselves against violence, and without possessing riches, they would\nbe more happy; and he confirms his words by the example of his life. He\nsaid that a man who lives according to his doctrine must be ready at any\nmoment to endure violence from others, and, possibly, to die of hunger\nand cold. But this warning, which seems to exact such great and\nunbearable sacrifices, is simply a statement of the conditions under\nwhich men always have existed, and always will continue to exist.\n\nA disciple of Jesus should be prepared for everything, and especially\nfor suffering and death. But is the disciple of the world in a more\ndesirable situation? We are so accustomed to believe in all we do for\nthe so-called security of life (the organization of armies, the building\nof fortresses, the provisioning of troops), that our wardrobes, our\nsystems of medical treatment, our furniture, and our money, all seem\nlike real and stable pledges of our existence. We forget the fate of him\nwho resolved to build greater storehouses to provide an abundance for\nmany years: he died in a night. Everything that we do to make our\nexistence secure is like the act of the ostrich, when she hides her head\nin the sand, and does not see that her destruction is near. But we are\neven more foolish than the ostrich. To establish the doubtful security\nof an uncertain life in an uncertain future, we sacrifice a life of\ncertainty in a present that we might really possess.\n\nThe illusion is in the firm conviction that our existence can be made\nsecure by a struggle with others. We are so accustomed to this illusory\nso-called security of our existence and our property, that we do not\nrealize what we lose by striving after it. We lose everything,--we lose\nlife itself. Our whole life is taken up with anxiety for personal\nsecurity, with preparations for living, so that we really never live at\nall.\n\nIf we take a general survey of our lives, we shall see that all our\nefforts in behalf of the so-called security of existence are not made at\nall for the assurance of security, but simply to help us to forget that\nexistence never has been, and never can be, secure. But it is not enough\nto say that we are the dupes of our own illusions, and that we forfeit\nthe true life for an imaginary life; our efforts for security often\nresult in the destruction of what we most wish to preserve. The French\ntook up arms in 1870 to make their national existence secure, and the\nattempt resulted in the destruction of hundreds of thousands of\nFrenchmen. All people who take up arms undergo the same experience. The\nrich man believes that his existence is secure because he possesses\nmoney, and his money attracts a thief who kills him. The invalid thinks\nto make his life secure by the use of medicines, and the medicines\nslowly poison him; if they do not bring about his death, they at least\ndeprive him of life, till he is like the impotent man who waited\nthirty-five years at the pool for an angel to come down and trouble the\nwaters. The doctrine of Jesus, which teaches us that we cannot possibly\nmake life secure, but that we must be ready to die at any moment, is\nunquestionably preferable to the doctrine of the world, which obliges us\nto struggle for the security of existence. It is preferable because the\nimpossibility of escaping death, and the impossibility of making life\nsecure, is the same for the disciples of Jesus as it is for the\ndisciples of the world; but, according to the doctrine of Jesus, life\nitself is not absorbed in the idle attempt to make existence secure. To\nthe follower of Jesus life is free, and can be devoted to the end for\nwhich it is worthy,--its own welfare and the welfare of others. The\ndisciple of Jesus will be poor, but that is only saying that he will\nalways enjoy the gifts that God has lavished upon men. He will not ruin\nhis own existence. We make the word poverty a synonym for calamity, but\nit is in truth a source of happiness, and however much we may regard it\nas a calamity, it remains a source of happiness still. To be poor means\nnot to live in cities, but in the country, not to be shut up in close\nrooms, but to labor out of doors, in the woods and fields, to have the\ndelights of sunshine, of the open heavens, of the earth, of observing\nthe habits of dumb animals; not to rack our brains with inventing dishes\nto stimulate an appetite, and not to endure the pangs of indigestion. To\nbe poor is to be hungry three times a day, to sleep without passing\nhours tossing upon the pillow a victim of insomnia, to have children,\nand have them always with us, to do nothing that we do not wish to do\n(this is essential), and to have no fear for anything that may happen.\nThe poor person will be ill and will suffer; he will die like the rest\nof the world; but his sufferings and his death will probably be less\npainful than those of the rich; and he will certainly live more happily.\nPoverty is one of the conditions of following the doctrine of Jesus, a\ncondition indispensable to those who would enter into the kingdom of God\nand be happy.\n\nThe objection to this is, that no one will care for us, and that we\nshall be left to die of hunger. To this objection we may reply in the\nwords of Jesus, (words that have been interpreted to justify the\nidleness of the clergy):--\n\n\"_Get you no gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses; no wallet for\nyour journey, neither two coats, nor shoes, nor staff: for the laborer\nis worthy of his food_\" (Matt. x. 10).\n\n\"_And into whatsoever house ye shall enter, ... in that same house\nremain, eating and drinking such things as they give: for the laborer is\nworthy of his hire_\" (Luke x. 5, 7).\n\nThe laborer is worthy of ([Greek: axios esti] means, word for word, can\nand ought to have) his food. It is a very short sentence, but he who\nunderstands it as Jesus understood it, will no longer have any fear of\ndying of hunger. To understand the true meaning of these words we must\nget rid of that traditional idea which we have developed from the\ndoctrine of the redemption that man's felicity consists in idleness. We\nmust get back to that point of view natural to all men who are not\nfallen, that work, and not idleness, is the indispensable condition of\nhappiness for every human being; that man cannot, in fact, refrain from\nwork. We must rid ourselves of the savage prejudice which leads us to\nthink that a man who has an income from a place under the government,\nfrom landed property, or from stocks and bonds, is in a natural and\nhappy position because he is relieved from the necessity of work. We\nmust get back into the human brain the idea of work possessed by\nundegenerate men, the idea that Jesus has, when he says that the laborer\nis worthy of his food. Jesus did not imagine that men would regard work\nas a curse, and consequently he did not have in mind a man who would not\nwork, or desired not to work. He supposed that all his disciples would\nwork, and so he said that if a man would work, his work would bring him\nfood. He who makes use of the labor of another will provide food for him\nwho labors, simply because he profits by that labor. And so he who works\nwill always have food; he may not have property, but as to food, there\nneed be no uncertainty whatever.\n\nWith regard to work there is a difference between the doctrine of Jesus\nand the doctrine of the world. According to the doctrine of the world,\nit is very meritorious in a man to be willing to work; he is thereby\nenabled to enter into competition with others, and to demand wages\nproportionate to his qualifications. According to the doctrine of Jesus,\nlabor is the inevitable condition of human life, and food is the\ninevitable consequence of labor. Labor produces food, and food produces\nlabor. However cruel and grasping the employer may be, he will always\nfeed his workman, as he will always feed his horse; he feeds him that he\nmay get all the work possible, and in this way he contributes to the\nwelfare of the workman.\n\n\"_For verily the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to\nminister and to give his life a ransom for many._\"\n\nAccording to the doctrine of Jesus, every individual will be the happier\nthe more clearly he understands that his vocation consists, not in\nexacting service from others, but in ministering to others, in giving\nhis life for the ransom of many. A man who does this will be worthy of\nhis food and will not fail to have it. By the words, \"_came not to be\nministered unto but to minister_,\" Jesus established a method which\nwould insure the material existence of man; and by the words, \"_the\nlaborer is worthy of his food_,\" he answered once for all the objection\nthat a man who should practise the doctrine of Jesus in the midst of\nthose who do not practise it would be in danger of perishing from hunger\nand cold. Jesus practised his own doctrine amid great opposition, and he\ndid not perish from hunger and cold. He showed that a man does not\ninsure his own subsistence by amassing worldly goods at the expense of\nothers, but by rendering himself useful and indispensable to others. The\nmore necessary he is to others, the more will his existence be made\nsecure.\n\nThere are in the world as it is now organized millions of men who\npossess no property and do not practise the doctrine of Jesus by\nministering unto others, but they do not die of hunger. How, then, can\nwe object to the doctrine of Jesus, that those who practise it by\nworking for others will perish for want of food? Men cannot die of\nhunger while the rich have bread. In Russia there are millions of men\nwho possess nothing and subsist entirely by their own toil. The\nexistence of a Christian would be as secure among pagans as it would be\namong those of his own faith. He would labor for others; he would be\nnecessary to them, and therefore he would be fed. Even a dog, if he be\nuseful, is fed and cared for; and shall not a man be fed and cared for\nwhose service is necessary to the whole world?\n\nBut those who seek by all possible means to justify the personal life\nhave another objection. They say that if a man be sick, even if he have\na wife, parents, and children dependent upon him,--if this man cannot\nwork, he will not be fed. They say so, and they will continue to say so;\nbut their own actions prove that they do not believe what they say.\nThese same people who will not admit that the doctrine of Jesus is\npracticable, practise it to a certain extent themselves. They do not\ncease to care for a sick sheep, a sick ox, or a sick dog. They do not\nkill an old horse, but they give him work in proportion to his strength.\nThey care for all sorts of animals without expecting any benefit in\nreturn; and can it be that they will not care for a useful man who has\nfallen sick, that they will not find work suited to the strength of the\nold man and the child, that they will not care for the very babes who\nlater on will be able to work for them in return? As a matter of fact\nthey do all this. Nine-tenths of men are cared for by the other tenth,\nlike so many cattle. And however great the darkness in which this\none-tenth live, however mistaken their views in regard to the other\nnine-tenths of humanity, the tenth, even if they had the power, would\nnot deprive the other nine-tenths of food. The rich will not deprive the\npoor of what is necessary, because they wish them to multiply and work,\nand so in these days the little minority of rich people provide directly\nor indirectly for the nourishment of the majority, that the latter may\nfurnish the maximum of work, and multiply, and bring up a new supply of\nworkers. Ants care for the increase and welfare of their slaves. Shall\nnot men care for those whose labor they find necessary? Laborers are\nnecessary. And those who profit by labor will always be careful to\nprovide the means of labor for those who are willing to work.\n\nThe objection concerning the possibility of practising the doctrine of\nJesus, that if men do not acquire something for themselves and have\nwealth in reserve no one will take care of their families, is true, but\nit is true only in regard to idle and useless and obnoxious people such\nas make up the majority of our opulent classes. No one (with the\nexception of foolish parents) takes the trouble to care for lazy people,\nbecause lazy people are of no use to any one, not even to themselves; as\nfor the workers, the most selfish and cruel of men will contribute to\ntheir welfare. People breed and train and care for oxen, and a man, as a\nbeast of burden, is much more useful than an ox, as the tariff of the\nslave-mart shows. This is why children will never be left without\nsupport.\n\nMan is not in the world to work for himself; he is in the world to work\nfor others, and the laborer is worthy of his hire. These truths are\njustified by universal experience; now, always, and everywhere, the man\nwho labors receives the means of bodily subsistence. This subsistence is\nassured to him who works against his will; for such a workman desires\nonly to relieve himself of the necessity of work, and acquires all that\nhe possibly can in order that he may take the yoke from his own neck and\nplace it upon the neck of another. A workman like this--envious,\ngrasping, toiling against his will--will never lack for food and will be\nhappier than one, who without labor, lives upon the labor of others. How\nmuch more happy, then, will that laborer be who labors in obedience to\nthe doctrine of Jesus with the object of accomplishing all the work of\nwhich he is capable and wishing for it the least possible return? How\nmuch more desirable will his condition be, as, little by little, he sees\nhis example followed by others. For services rendered he will then be\nthe recipient of equal services in return.\n\nThe doctrine of Jesus with regard to labor and the fruits of labor is\nexpressed in the story of the loaves and fishes, wherein it was shown\nthat man enjoys the greatest sum of the benefits accessible to humanity,\nnot by appropriating all that he can possibly grasp and using what he\nhas for his personal pleasure, but by administering to the needs of\nothers, as Jesus did by the borders of Galilee.\n\nThere were several thousand men and women to be fed. One of the\ndisciples told Jesus that there was a lad who had five loaves and two\nfishes. Jesus understood that some of the people coming from a distance\nhad brought provisions with them and that some had not, for after all\nwere filled, the disciples gathered up twelve basketsful of fragments.\n(If no one but the boy had brought anything, how could so much have been\nleft after so many were fed?) If Jesus had not set them an example, the\npeople would have acted as people of the world act now. Some of those\nwho had food would have eaten all that they had through gluttony or\navidity, and some, after eating what they could eat, would have taken\nthe rest to their homes. Those who had nothing would have been famished,\nand would have regarded their more fortunate companions with envy and\nhatred; some of them would perhaps have tried to take food by force from\nthem who had it, and so hunger and anger and quarrels would have been\nthe result. That is, the multitude would have acted just as people act\nnowadays.\n\nBut Jesus knew exactly what to do. He asked that all be made to sit\ndown, and then commanded his disciples to give of what they had to those\nwho had nothing, and to request others to do the same. The result was\nthat those who had food followed the example of Jesus and his disciples,\nand offered what they had to others. Every one ate and was satisfied,\nand with the broken pieces that remained the disciples filled twelve\nbaskets.\n\nJesus teaches every man to govern his life by the law of reason and\nconscience, for the law of reason is as applicable to the individual as\nit is to humanity at large. Work is the inevitable condition of human\nlife, the true source of human welfare. For this reason a refusal to\ndivide the fruits of one's labor with others is a refusal to accept the\nconditions of true happiness. To give of the fruits of one's labor to\nothers is to contribute to the welfare of all men. The retort is made\nthat if men did not wrest food from others, they would die of hunger. To\nme it seems more reasonable to say, that if men do wrest their food from\none another, some of them will die of hunger, and experience confirms\nthis view.\n\nEvery man, whether he lives according to the doctrine of Jesus or\naccording to the doctrine of the world, lives only by the sufferance and\ncare of others. From his birth, man is cared for and nourished by\nothers. According to the doctrine of the world, man has a right to\ndemand that others should continue to nourish and care for him and for\nhis family, but, according to the doctrine of Jesus, he is only entitled\nto care and nourishment on the condition that he do all he can for the\nservice of others, and so render himself useful and indispensable to\nmankind. Men who live according to the doctrine of the world are usually\nanxious to rid themselves of any one who is useless and whom they are\nobliged to feed; at the first possible opportunity they cease to feed\nsuch a one, and leave him to die, because of his uselessness; but him\nwho lives for others according to the doctrine of Jesus, all men,\nhowever wicked they may be, will always nourish and care for, that he\nmay continue to labor in their behalf.\n\nWhich, then, is the more reasonable; which offers the more joy and the\ngreater security, a life according to the doctrine of the world, or a\nlife according to the doctrine of Jesus?\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XI.\n\n\nTHE doctrine of Jesus is to bring the kingdom of God upon earth. The\npractice of this doctrine is not difficult; and not only so, its\npractice is a natural expression of the belief of all who recognize its\ntruth. The doctrine of Jesus offers the only possible chance of\nsalvation for those who would escape the perdition that threatens the\npersonal life. The fulfilment of this doctrine not only will deliver men\nfrom the privations and sufferings of this life, but will put an end to\nnine-tenths of the suffering endured in behalf of the doctrine of the\nworld.\n\nWhen I understood this I asked myself why I had never practised a\ndoctrine which would give me so much happiness and peace and joy; why,\non the other hand, I always had practised an entirely different\ndoctrine, and thereby made myself wretched? Why? The reply was a simple\none. Because I never had known the truth. The truth had been concealed\nfrom me.\n\nWhen the doctrine of Jesus was first revealed to me, I did not believe\nthat the discovery would lead me to reject the doctrine of the\nChurch.[22] I dreaded this separation, and in the course of my studies\nI did not attempt to search out the errors in the doctrine of the\nChurch. I sought, rather, to close my eyes to propositions that seemed\nto be obscure and strange, provided they were not in evident\ncontradiction with what I regarded as the substance of the Christian\ndoctrine.\n\n     [22] See Appendix.\n\nBut the further I advanced in the study of the Gospels, and the more\nclearly the doctrine of Jesus was revealed to me, the more inevitable\nthe choice became. I must either accept the doctrine of Jesus, a\nreasonable and simple doctrine in accordance with my conscience and my\nhope of salvation; or I must accept an entirely different doctrine, a\ndoctrine in opposition to reason and conscience and that offered me\nnothing except the certainty of my own perdition and that of others. I\nwas therefore forced to reject, one after another, the dogmas of the\nChurch. This I did against my will, struggling with the desire to\nmitigate as much as possible my disagreement with the Church, that I\nmight not be obliged to separate from the Church, and thereby deprive\nmyself of communion with fellow-believers, the greatest happiness that\nreligion can bestow. But when I had completed my task, I saw that in\nspite of all my efforts to maintain a connecting-link with the Church,\nthe separation was complete. I knew before that the bond of union, if it\nexisted at all, must be a very slight one, but I was soon convinced that\nit did not exist at all.\n\nMy son came to me one day, after I had completed my examination of the\nGospels, and told me of a discussion that was going on between two\ndomestics (uneducated persons who scarcely knew how to read) concerning\na passage in some religious book which maintained that it was not a sin\nto put criminals to death, or to kill enemies in war. I could not\nbelieve that an assertion of this sort could be printed in any book, and\nI asked to see it. The volume bore the title of \"_A Book of Selected\nPrayers_; third edition; eighth ten thousand; Moscow: 1879.\" On page 163\nof this book I read:--\n\n\"What is the sixth commandment of God?\n\n\"Thou shalt not kill.\n\n\"What does God forbid by this commandment?\n\n\"He forbids us to kill, to take the life of any man.\n\n\"Is it a sin to punish a criminal with death according to the law, or to\nkill an enemy in war?\n\n\"No; that is not a sin. We take the life of the criminal to put an end\nto the wrong that he commits; we slay an enemy in war, because in war we\nfight for our sovereign and our native land.\"\n\nAnd in this manner was enjoined the abrogation of the law of God! I\ncould scarcely believe that I had read aright.\n\nMy opinion was asked with regard to the subject at issue. To the one who\nmaintained that the instruction given by the book was true, I said that\nthe explanation was not correct.\n\n\"Why, then, do they print untrue explanations contrary to the law?\" was\nhis question, to which I could say nothing in reply.\n\nI kept the volume and looked over its contents. The book contained\nthirty-one prayers with instructions concerning genuflexions and the\njoining of the fingers; an explanation of the _Credo_; a citation from\nthe fifth chapter of Matthew without any explanation whatever, but\nheaded, \"Commands for those who would possess the Beatitudes\"; the ten\ncommandments accompanied by comments that rendered most of them void;\nand hymns for every saint's day.\n\nAs I have said, I not only had sought to avoid censure of the religion\nof the Church; I had done my best to see only its most favorable side;\nand knowing its academic literature from beginning to end, I had paid no\nattention whatever to its popular literature. This book of devotion,\nspread broadcast in an enormous number of copies, awakening doubts in\nthe minds of the most unlearned people, set me to thinking. The contents\nof the book seemed to me so entirely pagan, so wholly out of accord with\nChristianity, that I could not believe it to be the deliberate purpose\nof the Church to propagate such a doctrine. To verify my belief, I\nbought and read all the books published by the synod with its\n\"benediction\" (_blagoslovnia_), containing brief expositions of the\nreligion of the Church for the use of children and the common people.\n\nTheir contents were to me almost entirely new, for at the time when I\nreceived my early religious instruction, they had not yet appeared. As\nfar as I could remember there were no commandments with regard to the\nbeatitudes, and there was no doctrine which taught that it was not a sin\nto kill. No such teachings appeared in the old catechisms; they were\nnot to be found in the catechism of Peter Mogilas, or in that of\nBeliokof, or the abridged Catholic catechisms. The innovation was\nintroduced by the metropolitan Philaret, who prepared a catechism with\nproper regard for the susceptibilities of the military class, and from\nthis catechism the _Book of Selected Prayers_ was compiled. Philaret's\nwork is entitled, _The Christian Catechism of the Orthodox Church, for\nthe Use of all Orthodox Christians_, and is published, \"by order of his\nImperial Majesty.\"[23]\n\n     [23] This book has been in use in all the schools and churches of\n     Russia since 1839.--TR.\n\nThe book is divided into three parts, \"Concerning Faith,\" \"Concerning\nHope,\" and \"Concerning Love.\" The first part contains the analysis of\nthe symbol of faith as given by the Council of Nice. The second part is\nmade up of an exposition of the _Pater Noster_, and the first eight\nverses of the fifth chapter of Matthew, which serve as an introduction\nto the Sermon on the Mount, and are called (I know not why) \"Commands\nfor those who would possess the Beatitudes.\" These first two parts treat\nof the dogmas of the Church, prayers, and the sacraments, but they\ncontain no rules with regard to the conduct of life. The third part,\n\"Concerning Love,\" contains an exposition of Christian duties, based not\non the commandments of Jesus, but upon the ten commandments of Moses.\nThis exposition of the commandments of Moses seems to have been made for\nthe especial purpose of teaching men not to obey them. Each commandment\nis followed by a reservation which completely destroys its force. With\nregard to the first commandment, which enjoins the worship of God alone,\nthe catechism inculcates the worship of saints and angels, to say\nnothing of the Mother of God and the three persons of the Trinity\n(\"Special Catechism,\" pp. 107, 108). With regard to the second\ncommandment, against the worship of idols, the catechism enjoins the\nworship of images (p. 108). With regard to the third commandment, the\ncatechism enjoins the taking of oaths as the principal token of\nlegitimate authority (p. 111). With regard to the fourth commandment,\nconcerning the observance of the Sabbath, the catechism inculcates the\nobservance of Sunday, of the thirteen principal feasts, of a number of\nfeasts of less importance, the observance of Lent, and of fasts on\nWednesdays and Fridays (pp. 112-115). With regard to the fifth\ncommandment, \"_Honor thy father and thy mother_,\" the catechism\nprescribes honor to the sovereign, the country, spiritual fathers, all\npersons in authority, and of these last gives an enumeration in three\npages, including college authorities, civil, judicial, and military\nauthorities, and owners of serfs, with instructions as to the manner of\nhonoring each of these classes (pp. 116-119). My citations are taken\nfrom the sixty-fourth edition of the catechism, dated 1880. Twenty years\nhave passed since the abolition of serfdom, and no one has taken the\ntrouble to strike out the phrase which, in connection with the\ncommandment of God to honor parents, was introduced into the catechism\nto sustain and justify slavery.\n\nWith regard to the sixth commandment, \"_Thou shalt not kill_,\" the\ninstructions of the catechism are from the first in favor of murder.\n\n\"_Question._--What does the sixth commandment forbid?\n\n\"_Answer._--It forbids manslaughter, to take the life of one's neighbor\nin any manner whatever.\n\n\"_Question._--Is all manslaughter a transgression of the law?\n\n\"_Answer._--Manslaughter is not a transgression of the law when life is\ntaken in pursuance of its mandate. For example:\n\n\"1st. When a criminal condemned in justice is punished by death.\n\n\"2d. When we kill _in war_ for the sovereign and our country.\"\n\nThe italics are in the original. Further on we read:--\n\n\"_Question._--With regard to manslaughter, when is the law transgressed?\n\n\"_Answer._--When any one conceals a murderer or sets him at liberty\"\n(_sic_).\n\nAll this is printed in hundreds of thousands of copies, and under the\nname of Christian doctrine is taught by compulsion to every Russian, who\nis obliged to receive it under penalty of castigation. This is taught to\nall the Russian people. It is taught to the innocent children,--to the\nchildren whom Jesus commanded to be brought to him as belonging to the\nkingdom of God; to the children whom we must resemble, in ignorance of\nfalse doctrines, to enter into the kingdom of God; to the children whom\nJesus tried to protect in proclaiming woe on him who should cause one of\nthe little ones to stumble! And the little children are obliged to learn\nall this, and are told that it is the only and sacred law of God. These\nare not proclamations sent out clandestinely, whose authors are punished\nwith penal servitude; they are proclamations which inflict the\npunishment of penal servitude upon all those who do not agree with the\ndoctrines they inculcate.\n\nAs I write these lines, I experience a feeling of insecurity, simply\nbecause I have allowed myself to say that men cannot render void the\nfundamental law of God inscribed in all the codes and in all hearts, by\nsuch words as these:--\n\n\"Manslaughter is not a transgression of the law when life is taken in\npursuance of its mandate... when we kill in war for our sovereign and\nour country.\"\n\nI tremble because I have allowed myself to say that such things should\nnot be taught to children.\n\nIt was against such teachings as these that Jesus warned men when he\nsaid:--\n\n\"_Look, therefore, whether the light that is in thee be not darkness._\"\n(Luke xi. 35.)\n\nThe light that is in us has become darkness; and the darkness of our\nlives is full of terror.\n\n\"_Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye shut the\nkingdom of heaven against men: for ye enter not in yourselves, neither\nsuffer ye them that are entering in to enter. Woe unto you, scribes and\nPharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, even while for a\npretense ye make long prayers: therefore ye shall receive greater\ncondemnation. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye\ncompass sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he is become so, ye\nmake him twofold more a son of hell than yourselves. Woe unto you, ye\nblind guides...._\n\n\"_Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye build the\nsepulchres of the prophets, and garnish the tombs of the righteous, and\nsay, If we had been in the days of our fathers, ice should not have been\npartakers with them in the blood of the prophets. Wherefore ye witness\nto yourselves, that ye are sons of them that slew the prophets. Fill ye\nup, then, the measure of your fathers.... I send unto you prophets, and\nwise men, and scribes: some of them shall ye kill and crucify; and some\nof them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to\ncity: that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth,\nfrom the blood of Abel...._\n\n\"_Every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men; but the blasphemy\nagainst the Spirit shall not be forgiven._\"\n\nOf a truth we might say that all this was written but yesterday, not\nagainst men who no longer compass sea and land to blaspheme against the\nSpirit, or to convert men to a religion that renders its proselytes\nworse than they were before, but against men who deliberately force\npeople to embrace their religion, and persecute and bring to death all\nthe prophets and the righteous who seek to reveal their falsehoods to\nmankind. I became convinced that the doctrine of the Church, although\nbearing the name of \"Christian,\" is one with the darkness against which\nJesus struggled, and against which he commanded his disciples to strive.\n\nThe doctrine of Jesus, like all religious doctrines, is regarded in two\nways,--first, as a moral and ethical system which teaches men how they\nshould live as individuals, and in relation to each other; second, as a\nmetaphysical theory which explains why men should live in a given manner\nand not otherwise. One necessitates the other. Man should live in this\nmanner because such is his destiny; or, man's destiny is this way, and\nconsequently he should follow it. These two methods of doctrinal\nexpression are common to all the religions of the world, to the religion\nof the Brahmins, to that of Confucius, to that of Buddha, to that of\nMoses, and to that of the Christ. But, with regard to the doctrine of\nJesus, as with regard to all other doctrines, men wander from its\nprecepts, and they always find some one to justify their deviations.\nThose who, as Jesus said, sit in Moses' seat, explain the metaphysical\ntheory in such a way that the ethical prescriptions of the doctrine\ncease to be regarded as obligatory, and are replaced by external forms\nof worship, by ceremonial. This is a condition common to all religions,\nbut, to me, it seems that it never has been manifested with so much pomp\nas in connection with Christianity,--and for two reasons: first, because\nthe doctrine of Jesus is the most elevated of all doctrines (the most\nelevated because the metaphysical and ethical portions are so closely\nunited that one cannot be separated from the other without destroying\nthe vitality of the whole); second, because the doctrine of Jesus is in\nitself a protest against all forms, a negation not only of Jewish\nceremonial, but of all exterior rites of worship. Therefore, the\narbitrary separation of the metaphysical and ethical aspects of\nChristianity entirely disfigures the doctrine, and deprives it of every\nsort of meaning. The separation began with the preaching of Paul, who\nknew but imperfectly the ethical doctrine set forth in the Gospel of\nMatthew, and who preached a metaphysico-cabalistic theory entirely\nforeign to the doctrine of Jesus; and this theory was perfected under\nConstantine, when the existing pagan social organization was proclaimed\nChristian simply by covering it with the mantle of Christianity. After\nConstantine, that arch-pagan, whom the Church in spite of all his crimes\nand vices admits to the category of the saints, after Constantine began\nthe domination of the councils, and the centre of gravity of\nChristianity was permanently displaced till only the metaphysical\nportion was left in view. And this metaphysical theory with its\naccompanying ceremonial deviated more and more from its true and\nprimitive meaning, until it has reached its present stage of\ndevelopment, as a doctrine which explains the mysteries of a celestial\nlife beyond the comprehension of human reason, and, with all its\ncomplicated formulas, gives no religious guidance whatever with regard\nto the regulation of this earthly life.\n\nAll religions, with the exception of the religion of the Christian\nChurch, demand from their adherents aside from forms and ceremonies, the\npractice of certain actions called good, and abstinence from certain\nactions that are called bad. The Jewish religion prescribed\ncircumcision, the observance of the Sabbath, the giving of alms, the\nfeast of the Passover. Mohammedanism prescribes circumcision, prayer\nfive times a day, the giving of tithes to the poor, pilgrimage to the\ntomb of the Prophet, and many other things. It is the same with all\nother religions. Whether these prescriptions are good or bad, they are\nprescriptions which exact the performance of certain actions.\nPseudo-Christianity alone prescribes nothing. There is nothing that a\nChristian is obliged to observe except fasts and prayers, which the\nChurch itself does not recognize as obligatory. All that is necessary to\nthe pseudo-Christian is the sacrament. But the sacrament is not\nfulfilled by the believer; it is administered to him by others. The\npseudo-Christian is obliged to do nothing or to abstain from nothing for\nhis own salvation, since the Church administers to him everything of\nwhich he has need. The Church baptizes him, anoints him, gives him the\neucharist, confesses him, even after he has lost consciousness,\nadministers extreme unction to him, and prays for him,--and he is saved.\nFrom the time of Constantine the Christian Church has prescribed no\nreligious duties to its adherents. It has never required that they\nshould abstain from anything. The Christian Church has recognized and\nsanctioned divorce, slavery, tribunals, all earthly powers, the death\npenalty, and war; it has exacted nothing except a renunciation of a\npurpose to do evil on the occasion of baptism, and this only in its\nearly days: later on, when infant baptism was introduced, even this\nrequirement was no longer observed.\n\nThe Church confesses the doctrine of Jesus in theory, but denies it in\npractice. Instead of guiding the life of the world, the Church, through\naffection for the world, expounds the metaphysical doctrine of Jesus in\nsuch a way as not to derive from it any obligation as to the conduct of\nlife, any necessity for men to live differently from the way in which\nthey have been living. The Church has surrendered to the world, and\nsimply follows in the train of its victor. The world does as it pleases,\nand leaves to the Church the task of justifying its actions with\nexplanations as to the meaning of life. The world organizes an existence\nin absolute opposition to the doctrine of Jesus, and the Church\nendeavors to demonstrate that men who live contrary to the doctrine of\nJesus really live in accordance with that doctrine. The final result is\nthat the world lives a worse than pagan existence, and the Church not\nonly approves, but maintains that this existence is in exact conformity\nto the doctrine of Jesus.\n\nBut a time comes when the light of the true doctrine of Jesus shines\nforth from the Gospels, notwithstanding the guilty efforts of the Church\nto conceal it from men's eyes, as, for instance, in prohibiting the\ntranslation of the Bible; there comes a time when the light reaches the\npeople, even through the medium of sectarians and free-thinkers, and the\nfalsity of the doctrine of the Church is shown so clearly that men begin\nto transform the method of living that the Church has justified.\n\nThus men of their own accord, and in opposition to the sanction of the\nChurch, have abolished slavery, abolished the divine right of emperors\nand popes, and are now proceeding to abolish property and the State. And\nthe Church cannot forbid such action because the abolition of these\niniquities is in conformity to the Christian doctrine, that the Church\npreaches after having falsified.\n\nAnd in this way the conduct of human life is freed from the control of\nthe Church, and subjected to an entirely different authority. The Church\nretains its dogmas, but what are its dogmas worth? A metaphysical\nexplanation can be of use only when there is a doctrine of life which it\nserves to make manifest. But the Church possesses only the explanation\nof an organization which it once sanctioned, and which no longer exists.\nThe Church has nothing left but temples and shrines and canonicals and\nvestments and words.\n\nFor eighteen centuries the Church has hidden the light of Christianity\nbehind its forms and ceremonials, and by this same light it is put to\nshame. The world, with an organization sanctioned by the Church, has\nrejected the Church in the name of the very principles of Christianity\nthat the Church has professed. The separation between the two is\ncomplete and cannot be concealed. Everything that truly lives in the\nworld of Europe to-day (everything not cold and dumb in hateful\nisolation),--everything that is living, is detached from the Church,\nfrom all churches, and has an existence independent of the Church. Let\nit not be said that this is true only of the decayed civilizations of\nWestern Europe. Russia, with its millions of civilized and uncivilized\nChristian rationalists, who have rejected the doctrine of the Church,\nproves incontestably that as regards emancipation from the yoke of the\nChurch, she is, thanks be to God, in a worse condition of decay than the\nrest of Europe.\n\nAll that lives is independent of the Church. The power of the State is\nbased upon tradition, upon science, upon popular suffrage, upon brute\nforce, upon everything except upon the Church. Wars, the relation of\nState with State, are governed by principles of nationality, of the\nbalance of power, but not by the Church. The institutions established by\nthe State frankly ignore the Church. The idea that the Church can, in\nthese times, serve as a basis for justice or the conservation of\nproperty, is simply absurd. Science not only does not sustain the\ndoctrine of the Church, but is, in its development, entirely hostile to\nthe Church. Art, formerly entirely devoted to the service of the\nChurch, has wholly forsaken the Church. It is little to say that human\nlife is now entirely emancipated from the Church; it has now, with\nregard to the Church, only contempt when the Church does not interfere\nwith human affairs, and hatred when the Church seeks to re-assert its\nancient privileges. The Church is still permitted a formal existence\nsimply because men dread to shatter the chalice that once contained the\nwater of life. In this way only can we account, in our age, for the\nexistence of Catholicism, of Orthodoxy, and of the different Protestant\nchurches.\n\nAll these churches--Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant--are like so many\nsentinels still keeping careful watch before the prison doors, although\nthe prisoners have long been at liberty before their eyes, and even\nthreaten their existence. All that actually constitutes life, that is,\nthe activity of humanity towards progress and its own welfare,\nsocialism, communism, the new politico-economical theories,\nutilitarianism, the liberty and equality of all social classes, and of\nmen and women, all the moral principles of humanity, the sanctity of\nwork, reason, science, art,--all these that lend an impulse to the\nworld's progress in hostility to the Church are only fragments of the\ndoctrine which the Church has professed, and so carefully endeavored to\nconceal. In these times, the life of the world is entirely independent\nof the doctrine of the Church. The Church is left so far behind, that\nmen no longer hear the voices of those who preach its doctrines. This\nis easily to be understood because the Church still clings to an\norganization of the world's life, which has been forsaken, and is\nrapidly falling to destruction.\n\nImagine a number of men rowing a boat, a pilot steering. The men rely\nupon the pilot, and the pilot steers well; but after a time the good\npilot is replaced by another, who does not steer at all. The boat moves\nalong rapidly and easily. At first the men do not notice the negligence\nof the new pilot; they are only pleased to find that the boat goes along\nso easily. Then they discover that the new pilot is utterly useless, and\nthey mock at him, and drive him from his place.\n\nThe matter would not be so serious if the men, in thrusting aside the\nunskilful pilot, did not forget that without a pilot they are likely to\ntake a wrong course. But so it is with our Christian society. The Church\nhas lost its control; we move smoothly onward, and we are a long way\nfrom our point of departure. Science, that especial pride of this\nnineteenth century, is sometimes alarmed; but that is because of the\nabsence of a pilot. We are moving onward, but to what goal? We organize\nour life without in the least knowing why, or to what end. But we can no\nlonger be contented to live without knowing why, any more than we can\nnavigate a boat without knowing the course that we are following.\n\nIf men could do nothing of themselves, if they were not responsible for\ntheir condition, they might very reasonably reply to the question, \"Why\nare you in this situation?\"--\"We do not know; but here we are, and\nsubmit.\" But men are the builders of their own destiny, and more\nespecially of the destiny of their children; and so when we ask, \"Why do\nyou bring together millions of troops, and why do you make soldiers of\nyourselves, and mangle and murder one another? Why have you expended,\nand why do you still expend, an enormous sum of human energy in the\nconstruction of useless and unhealthful cities? Why do you organize\nridiculous tribunals, and send people whom you consider as criminals\nfrom France to Cayenne, from Russia to Siberia, from England to\nAustralia, when you know the hopeless folly of it? Why do you abandon\nagriculture, which you love, for work in factories and mills, which you\ndespise? Why do you bring up your children in a way that will force them\nto lead an existence which you find worthless? Why do you do this?\" To\nall these questions men feel obliged to make some reply.\n\nIf this existence were an agreeable one, and men took pleasure in it,\neven then men would try to explain why they continued to live under such\nconditions. But all these things are terribly difficult; they are\nendured with murmuring and painful struggles, and men cannot refrain\nfrom reflecting upon the motive which impels them to such a course. They\nmust cease to maintain the accepted organization of existence, or they\nmust explain why they give it their support. And so men never have\nallowed this question to pass unanswered. We find in all ages some\nattempt at a response. The Jew lived as he lived, that is, made war,\nput criminals to death, built the Temple, organized his entire existence\nin one way and not another, because, as he was convinced, he thereby\nfollowed the laws which God himself had promulgated. We may say the same\nof the Hindu, the Chinaman, the Roman, and the Mohammedan. A similar\nresponse was given by the Christian a century ago, and is given by the\ngreat mass of Christians now.\n\nA century ago, and among the ignorant now, the nominal Christian makes\nthis reply: \"Compulsory military service, wars, tribunals, and the death\npenalty, all exist in obedience to the law of God transmitted to us by\nthe Church. This is a fallen world. All the evil that exists, exists by\nGod's will, as a punishment for the sins of men. For this reason we can\ndo nothing to palliate evil. We can only save our own souls by faith, by\nthe sacraments, by prayers, and by submission to the will of God as\ntransmitted by the Church. The Church teaches us that all Christians\nshould unhesitatingly obey their rulers, who are the Lord's anointed,\nand obey also persons placed in authority by rulers; that they ought to\ndefend their property and that of others by force, wage war, inflict the\ndeath penalty, and in all things submit to the authorities, who command\nby the will of God.\"\n\nWhatever we may think of the reasonableness of these explanations, they\nonce sufficed for a believing Christian, as similar explanations\nsatisfied a Jew or a Mohammedan, and men were not obliged to renounce\nall reason for living according to a law which they recognized as\ndivine. But in this time only the most ignorant people have faith in any\nsuch explanations, and the number of these diminishes every day and\nevery hour. It is impossible to check this tendency. Men irresistibly\nfollow those who lead the way, and sooner or later must pass over the\nsame ground as the advance guard. The advance guard is now in a critical\nposition; those who compose it organize life to suit themselves, prepare\nthe same conditions for those who are to follow, and absolutely have not\nthe slightest idea of why they do so. No civilized man in the vanguard\nof progress is able to give any reply now to the direct questions, \"Why\ndo you lead the life that you do lead? Why do you establish the\nconditions that you do establish?\" I have propounded these questions to\nhundreds of people, and never have got from them a direct reply. Instead\nof a direct reply to the direct question, I have received in return a\nresponse to a question that I had not asked.\n\nWhen we ask a Catholic, or Protestant, or Orthodox believer why he leads\nan existence contrary to the doctrine of Jesus, instead of making a\ndirect response he begins to speak of the melancholy state of scepticism\ncharacteristic of this generation, of evil-minded persons who spread\ndoubt broadcast among the masses, of the importance of the future of the\nexisting Church. But he will not tell you why he does not act in\nconformity to the commands of the religion that he professes. Instead of\nspeaking of his own condition, he will talk to you about the condition\nof humanity in general, and of that of the Church, as if his own life\nwere not of the slightest significance, and his sole preoccupations were\nthe salvation of humanity, and of what he calls the Church.\n\nA philosopher of whatever school he may be, whether an idealist or a\nspiritualist, a pessimist or a positivist, if we ask of him why he lives\nas he lives, that is to say, in disaccord with his philosophical\ndoctrine, will begin at once to talk about the progress of humanity and\nabout the historical law of this progress which he has discovered, and\nin virtue of which humanity gravitates toward righteousness. But he\nnever will make any direct reply to the question why he himself, on his\nown account, does not live in harmony with what he recognizes as the\ndictates of reason. It would seem as if the philosopher were as\npreoccupied as the believer, not with his personal life, but with\nobserving the effect of general laws upon the development of humanity.\n\nThe \"average\" man (that is, one of the immense majority of civilized\npeople who are half sceptics and half believers, and who all, without\nexception, deplore existence, condemn its organization, and predict\nuniversal destruction),--the average man, when we ask him why he\ncontinues to lead a life that he condemns, without making any effort\ntowards its amelioration, makes no direct reply, but begins at once to\ntalk about things in general, about justice, about the State, about\ncommerce, about civilization. If he be a member of the police or a\nprosecuting attorney, he asks, \"And what would become of the State, if\nI, to ameliorate my existence, were to cease to serve it?\" \"What would\nbecome of commerce?\" is his demand if he be a merchant; \"What of\ncivilization, if I cease to work for it, and seek only to better my own\ncondition?\" will be the objection of another. His response always will\nbe in this form, as if the duty of his life were not to seek the good\nconformable to his nature, but to serve the State, or commerce, or\ncivilization.\n\nThe average man replies in just the same manner as does the believer or\nthe philosopher. Instead of making the question a personal one, he\nglides at once to generalities. This subterfuge is employed simply\nbecause the believer and the philosopher, and the average man have no\npositive doctrine concerning existence, and cannot, therefore, reply to\nthe personal question, \"What of your own life?\" They are disgusted and\nhumiliated at not possessing the slightest trace of a doctrine with\nregard to life, for no one can live in peace without some understanding\nof what life really means. But nowadays only Christians cling to a\nfantastic and worn-out creed as an explanation of why life is as it is,\nand is not otherwise. Only Christians give the name of religion to a\nsystem which is not of the least use to any one. Only among Christians\nis life separated from any or all doctrine, and left without any\ndefinition whatever. Moreover, science, like tradition, has formulated\nfrom the fortuitous and abnormal condition of humanity a general law.\nLearned men, such as Tiele and Spencer, treat religion as a serious\nmatter, understanding by religion the metaphysical doctrine of the\nuniversal principle, without suspecting that they have lost sight of\nreligion as a whole by confining their attention entirely to one of its\nphases.\n\nFrom all this we get very extraordinary results. We see learned and\nintelligent men artlessly believing that they are emancipated from all\nreligion simply because they reject the metaphysical explanation of the\nuniversal principle which satisfied a former generation. It does not\noccur to them that men cannot live without some theory of existence;\nthat every human being lives according to some principle, and that this\nprinciple by which he governs his life is his religion. The people of\nwhom we have been speaking are persuaded that they have reasonable\nconvictions, but that they have no religion. Nevertheless, however\nserious their asseverations, they have a religion from the moment that\nthey undertake to govern their actions by reason, for a reasonable act\nis determined by some sort of faith. Now their faith is in what they are\ntold to do. The faith of those who deny religion is in a religion of\nobedience to the will of the ruling majority; in a word, submission to\nestablished authority.\n\nWe may live a purely animal life according to the doctrine of the world,\nwithout recognizing any controlling motive more binding than the rules\nof established authority. But he who lives this way cannot affirm that\nhe lives a reasonable life. Before affirming that we live a reasonable\nlife, we must determine what is the doctrine of the life which we regard\nas reasonable. Alas! wretched men that we are, we possess not the\nsemblance of any such doctrine, and more than that, we have lost all\nperception of the necessity for a reasonable doctrine of life.\n\nAsk the believers or sceptics of this age, what doctrine of life they\nfollow. They will be obliged to confess that they follow but one\ndoctrine, the doctrine based upon laws formulated by the judiciary or by\nlegislative assemblies, and enforced by the police--the favorite\ndoctrine of most Europeans. They know that this doctrine does not come\nfrom on high, or from prophets, or from sages; they are continually\nfinding fault with the laws drawn up by the judiciary or formulated by\nlegislative assemblies, but nevertheless they submit to the police\ncharged with their enforcement. They submit without murmuring to the\nmost terrible exactions. The clerks employed by the judiciary or the\nlegislative assemblies decree by statute that every young man must be\nready to take up arms, to kill others, and to die himself, and that all\nparents who have adult sons must favor obedience to this law which was\ndrawn up yesterday by a mercenary official, and may be revoked\nto-morrow.\n\nWe have lost sight of the idea that a law may be in itself reasonable,\nand binding upon every one in spirit as well as in letter. The Hebrews\npossessed a law which regulated life, not by forced obedience to its\nrequirements, but by appealing to the conscience of each individual; and\nthe existence of this law is considered as an exceptional attribute of\nthe Hebrew people. That the Hebrews should have been willing to obey\nonly what they recognized by spiritual perception as the incontestable\ntruth direct from God is considered a remarkable national trait. But it\nappears that the natural and normal state of civilized men is to obey\nwhat to their own knowledge is decreed by despicable officials and\nenforced by the co-operation of armed police.\n\nThe distinctive trait of civilized man is to obey what the majority of\nmen regard as iniquitous, contrary to conscience. I seek in vain in\ncivilized society as it exists to-day for any clearly formulated moral\nbases of life. There are none. No perception of their necessity exists.\nOn the contrary, we find the extraordinary conviction that they are\nsuperfluous; that religion is nothing more than a few words about God\nand a future life, and a few ceremonies very useful for the salvation of\nthe soul according to some, and good for nothing according to others;\nbut that life happens of itself and has no need of any fundamental rule,\nand that we have only to do what we are told to do.\n\nThe two substantial sources of faith, the doctrine that governs life,\nand the explanation of the meaning of life, are regarded as of very\nunequal value. The first is considered as of very little importance, and\nas having no relation to faith whatever; the second, as the explanation\nof a bygone state of existence, or as made up of speculations\nconcerning the historical development of life, is considered as of great\nsignificance. As to all that constitutes the life of man expressed in\naction, the members of our modern society depend willingly for guidance\nupon people who, like themselves, know not why they direct their fellows\nto live in one way and not in another. This disposition holds good\nwhether the question at issue is to decide whether to kill or not to\nkill, to judge or not to judge, to bring up children in this way or in\nthat. And men look upon an existence like this as reasonable, and have\nno feeling of shame!\n\nThe explanations of the Church which pass for faith, and the true faith\nof our generation, which is in obedience to social laws and the laws of\nthe State, have reached a stage of sharp antagonism. The majority of\ncivilized people have nothing to regulate life but faith in the police.\nThis condition would be unbearable if it were universal. Fortunately\nthere is a remnant, made up of the noblest minds of the age, who are not\ncontented with this religion, but have an entirely different faith with\nregard to what the life of man ought to be. These men are looked upon as\nthe most malevolent, the most dangerous, and generally as the most\nunbelieving of all human beings, and yet they are the only men of our\ntime believing in the Gospel doctrine, if not as a whole, at least in\npart. These people, as a general thing, know little of the doctrine of\nJesus; they do not understand it, and, like their adversaries, they\nrefuse to accept the leading principle of the religion of Jesus, which\nis to resist not evil; often they have nothing but a hatred for the name\nof Jesus; but their whole faith with regard to what life ought to be is\nunconsciously based upon the humane and eternal truths comprised in the\nChristian doctrine. This remnant, in spite of calumny and persecution,\nare the only ones who do not tamely submit to the orders of the first\ncomer. Consequently they are the only ones in these days who live a\nreasonable and not an animal life, the only ones who have faith.\n\nThe connecting link between the world and the Church, although carefully\ncherished by the Church, becomes more and more attenuated. To-day it is\nlittle more than a hindrance. The union between the Church and the world\nhas no longer any justification. The mysterious process of maturation is\ngoing on before our eyes. The connecting bond will soon be severed, and\nthe vital social organism will begin to exercise its functions as a\nwholly independent existence. The doctrine of the Church, with its\ndogmas, its councils, and its hierarchy, is manifestly united to the\ndoctrine of Jesus. The connecting link is as perceptible as the cord\nwhich binds the newly-born child to its mother; but as the umbilical\ncord and the placenta become after parturition useless pieces of flesh,\nwhich are carefully buried out of regard for what they once nourished,\nso the Church has become a useless organism, to be preserved, if at all,\nin some museum of curiosities out of regard for what it has once been.\nAs soon as respiration and circulation are established, the former\nsource of nutrition becomes a hindrance to life. Vain and foolish would\nit be to attempt to retain the bond, and to force the child that has\ncome into the light of day to receive its nourishment by a pre-natal\nprocess. But the deliverance of the child from the maternal tie does not\nensure life. The life of the newly born depends upon another bond of\nunion which is established between it and its mother that its\nnourishment may be maintained.\n\nAnd so it must be with our Christian world of to-day. The doctrine of\nJesus has brought the world into the light. The Church, one of the\norgans of the doctrine of Jesus, has fulfilled its mission and is now\nuseless. The world cannot be bound to the Church; but the deliverance of\nthe world from the Church will not ensure life. Life will begin when the\nworld perceives its own weakness and the necessity for a different\nsource of strength. The Christian world feels this necessity: it\nproclaims its helplessness, it feels the impossibility of depending upon\nits former means of nourishment, the inadequacy of any other form of\nnourishment except that of the doctrine by which it was brought forth.\nThis modern European world of ours, apparently so sure of itself, so\nbold, so decided, and within so preyed upon by terror and despair, is\nexactly in the situation of a newly born animal: it writhes, it cries\naloud, it is perplexed, it knows not what to do; it feels that its\nformer source of nourishment is withdrawn, but it knows not where to\nseek for another. A newly born lamb shakes its head, opens its eyes and\nlooks about, and leaps, and bounds, and would make us think by its\napparently intelligent movements that it already has mastered the secret\nof living; but of this the poor little creature knows nothing. The\nimpetuosity and energy it displays were drawn from its mother through a\nmedium of transmission that has just been broken, nevermore to be\nrenewed. The situation of the new comer is one of delight, and at the\nsame time is full of peril. It is animated by youth and strength, but it\nis lost if it cannot avail itself of the nourishment only to be had from\nits mother.\n\nAnd so it is with our European world. What complex activities, what\nenergy, what intelligence, does it apparently possess! It would seem as\nif all its deeds were governed by reason. With what enthusiasm, what\nvigor, what youthfulness do the denizens of this modern world manifest\ntheir abounding vitality! The arts and sciences, the various industries,\npolitical and administrative details, all are full of life. But this\nlife is due to inspiration received through the connecting link that\nbinds it to its source. The Church, by transmitting the truth of the\ndoctrine of Jesus, has communicated life to the world. Upon this\nnourishment the world has grown and developed. But the Church has had\nits day and is now superfluous.\n\nThe world is possessed of a living organism; the means by which it\nformerly received its nourishment has withered away, and it has not yet\nfound another; and it seeks everywhere, everywhere but at the true\nsource of life. It still possesses the animation derived from\nnourishment already received, and it does not yet understand that its\nfuture nourishment is only to be had from one source, and by its own\nefforts. The world must now understand that the period of gestation is\nended, and that a new process of conscious nutrition must henceforth\nmaintain its life. The truth of the doctrine of Jesus, once\nunconsciously absorbed by humanity through the organism of the Church,\nmust now be consciously recognized; for in the truth of this doctrine\nhumanity has always obtained its vital force. Men must lift up the torch\nof truth, which has so long remained concealed, and carry it before\nthem, guiding their actions by its light.\n\nThe doctrine of Jesus, as a religion that governs the actions of men and\nexplains to them the meaning of life, is now before the world just as it\nwas eighteen hundred years ago. Formerly the world had the explanations\nof the Church which, in concealing the doctrine, seemed in itself to\noffer a satisfactory interpretation of life; but now the time is come\nwhen the Church has lost its usefulness, and the world, having no other\nmeans for sustaining its true existence, can only feel its helplessness\nand go for aid directly to the doctrine of Jesus.\n\nNow, Jesus first taught men to believe in the light, and that the light\nis within themselves. Jesus taught men to lift on high the light of\nreason. He taught them to live, guiding their actions by this light, and\nto do nothing contrary to reason. It is unreasonable, it is foolish, to\ngo out to kill Turks or Germans; it is unreasonable to make use of the\nlabor of others that you and yours may be clothed in the height of\nfashion and maintain that mortal source of ennui, a salon; it is\nunreasonable to take people already corrupted by idleness and depravity\nand shut them up within prison walls, and thereby devote them to an\nexistence of absolute idleness and deprivation; it is unreasonable to\nlive in the pestilential air of cities when a purer atmosphere is within\nyour reach; it is unreasonable to base the education of your children on\nthe grammatical laws of dead languages;--all this is unreasonable, and\nyet it is to-day the life of the European world, which lives a life of\nno meaning; which acts, but acts without a purpose, having no confidence\nin reason, and existing in opposition to its decrees.\n\nThe doctrine of Jesus is the light. The light shines forth, and the\ndarkness cannot conceal it. Men cannot deny it, men cannot refuse to\naccept its guidance. They must depend on the doctrine of Jesus, which\npenetrates among all the errors with which the life of men is\nsurrounded. Like the insensible ether filling universal space,\nenveloping all created things, so the doctrine of Jesus is inevitable\nfor every man in whatever situation he may be found. Men cannot refuse\nto recognize the doctrine of Jesus; they may deny the metaphysical\nexplanation of life which it gives (we may deny everything), but the\ndoctrine of Jesus alone offers rules for the conduct of life without\nwhich humanity has never lived, and never will be able to live; without\nwhich no human being has lived or can live, if he would live as man\nshould live,--a reasonable life. The power of the doctrine of Jesus is\nnot in its explanation of the meaning of life, but in the rules that it\ngives for the conduct of life. The metaphysical doctrine of Jesus is not\nnew; it is that eternal doctrine of humanity inscribed in all the hearts\nof men, and preached by all the prophets of all the ages. The power of\nthe doctrine of Jesus is in the application of this metaphysical\ndoctrine to life.\n\nThe metaphysical basis of the ancient doctrine of the Hebrews, which\nenjoined love to God and men, is identical with the metaphysical basis\nof the doctrine of Jesus. But the application of this doctrine to life,\nas expounded by Moses, was very different from the teachings of Jesus.\nThe Hebrews, in applying the Mosaic law to life, were obliged to fulfil\nsix hundred and thirteen commandments, many of which were absurd and\ncruel, and yet all were based upon the authority of the Scriptures. The\ndoctrine of life, as given by Jesus upon the same metaphysical basis, is\nexpressed in five reasonable and beneficent commandments, having an\nobvious and justifiable meaning, and embracing within their restrictions\nthe whole of human life. A Jew, a disciple of Confucius, a Buddhist, or\na Mohammedan, who sincerely doubts the truth of his own religion,\ncannot refuse to accept the doctrine of Jesus; much less, then, can this\ndoctrine be rejected by the Christian world of to-day, which is now\nliving without any moral law. The doctrine of Jesus cannot interfere in\nany way with the manner in which men of to-day regard the world; it is,\nto begin with, in harmony with their metaphysics, but it gives them what\nthey have not now, what is indispensable to their existence, and what\nthey all seek,--it offers them a way of life; not an unknown way, but a\nway already explored and familiar to all.\n\nLet us suppose that you are a sincere Christian, it matters not of what\nconfession. You believe in the creation of the world, in the Trinity, in\nthe fall and redemption of man, in the sacraments, in prayer, in the\nChurch. The doctrine of Jesus is not opposed to your dogmatic belief,\nand is absolutely in harmony with your theory of the origin of the\nuniverse; and it offers you something that you do not possess. While you\nretain your present religion you feel that your own life and the life of\nthe world is full of evil that you know not how to remedy. The doctrine\nof Jesus (which should be binding upon you since it is the doctrine of\nyour own God) offers you simple and practical rules which will surely\ndeliver you, you and your fellows, from the evils with which you are\ntormented.\n\nBelieve, if you will, in paradise, in hell, in the pope, in the Church,\nin the sacraments, in the redemption; pray according to the dictates of\nyour faith, attend upon your devotions, sing your hymns,--but all this\nwill not prevent you from practising the five commandments given by\nJesus for your welfare: Be not angry; Do not commit adultery; Take no\noaths; Resist not evil; Do not make war. It may happen that you will\nbreak one of these rules; you will perhaps yield to temptation, and\nviolate one of them, just as you violate the rules of your present\nreligion, or the articles of the civil code, or the laws of custom. In\nthe same way you may, perhaps, in moments of temptation, fail of\nobserving all the commandments of Jesus. But, in that case, do not\ncalmly sit down as you do now, and so organize your existence as to\nrender it a task of extreme difficulty not to be angry, not to commit\nadultery, not to take oaths, not to resist evil, not to make war;\norganize rather an existence which shall render the doing of all these\nthings as difficult as the non-performance of them is now laborious. You\ncannot refuse to recognize the validity of these rules, for they are the\ncommandments of the God whom you pretend to worship.\n\nLet us suppose that you are an unbeliever, a philosopher, it matters not\nof what special school. You affirm that the progress of the world is in\naccordance with a law that you have discovered. The doctrine of Jesus\ndoes not oppose your views; it is in harmony with the law that you have\ndiscovered. But, aside from this law, in pursuance of which the world\nwill in the course of a thousand years reach a state of felicity, there\nis still your own personal life to be considered. This life you can use\nby living in conformity to reason, or you can waste it by living in\nopposition to reason, and you have now for its guidance no rule\nwhatever, except the decrees drawn up by men whom you do not esteem, and\nenforced by the police. The doctrine of Jesus offers you rules which are\nassuredly in accord with your law of \"altruism,\" which is nothing but a\nfeeble paraphrase of this same doctrine of Jesus.\n\nLet us suppose that you are an average man, half sceptic, half believer,\none who has no time to analyze the meaning of human life, and one\ntherefore who has no determinate theory of existence. You live as lives\nthe rest of the world about you. The doctrine of Jesus is not at all\ncontrary to your condition. You are incapable of reason, of verifying\nthe truths of the doctrines that are taught you; it is easier for you to\ndo as others do. But however modest may be your estimate of your powers\nof reason, you know that you have within you a judge that sometimes\napproves your acts and sometimes condemns them. However modest your\nsocial position, there are occasions when you are bound to reflect and\nask yourself, \"Shall I follow the example of the rest of the world, or\nshall I act in accordance with my own judgment?\" It is precisely on\nthese occasions when you are called upon to solve some problem with\nregard to the conduct of life, that the commandments of Jesus appeal to\nyou in all their efficiency. The commandments of Jesus will surely\nrespond to your inquiry, because they apply to your whole existence.\nThe response will be in accord with your reason and your conscience. If\nyou are nearer to faith than to unbelief, you will, in following these\ncommandments, act in harmony with the will of God. If you are nearer to\nscepticism than to belief, you will, in following the doctrine of Jesus,\ngovern your actions by the laws of reason, for the commandments of Jesus\nmake manifest their own meaning, and their own justification.\n\n\"_Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world\nbe cast out._\" (John xii. 31.)\n\n\"_These things have I spoken unto you, that in me ye may have peace. In\nthe world ye have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the\nworld._\" (John xvi. 33.)\n\nThe world, that is, the evil in the world, is overcome. If evil still\nexists in the world, it exists only through the influence of inertia; it\nno longer contains the principle of vitality. For those who have faith\nin the commandments of Jesus, it does not exist at all. It is vanquished\nby an awakened conscience, by the elevation of the son of man. A train\nthat has been put in motion continues to move in the direction in which\nit was started; but the time comes when the intelligent effort of a\ncontrolling hand is made manifest, and the movement is reversed.\n\n\"_Ye are of God, and have overcome them because greater is he that is\nwithin you than he that is in the world._\" (1 John v. 4.)\n\nThe faith that triumphs over the doctrines of the world is faith in the\ndoctrine of Jesus.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XII.\n\n\nI BELIEVE in the doctrine of Jesus, and this is my religion:--\n\nI believe that nothing but the fulfilment of the doctrine of Jesus can\ngive true happiness to men. I believe that the fulfilment of this\ndoctrine is possible, easy, and pleasant. I believe that although none\nother follows this doctrine, and I alone am left to practise it, I\ncannot refuse to obey it, if I would save my life from the certainty of\neternal loss; just as a man in a burning house if he find a door of\nsafety, must go out, so I must avail myself of the way to salvation. I\nbelieve that my life according to the doctrine of the world has been a\ntorment, and that a life according to the doctrine of Jesus can alone\ngive me in this world the happiness for which I was destined by the\nFather of Life. I believe that this doctrine is essential to the welfare\nof humanity, will save me from the certainty of eternal loss, and will\ngive me in this world the greatest possible sum of happiness. Believing\nthus, I am obliged to practise its commandments.\n\n\"_The law was given by Moses; grace and truth came by Jesus Christ._\"\n(John i. 17.)\n\nThe doctrine of Jesus is a doctrine of grace and truth. Once I knew not\ngrace and knew not truth. Mistaking evil for good, I fell into evil, and\nI doubted the righteousness of my tendency toward good. I understand and\nbelieve now that the good toward which I was attracted is the will of\nthe Father, the essence of life.\n\nJesus has told us to live in pursuit of the good, and to beware of\nsnares and temptations ([Greek: skandalon]) which, by enticing us with\nthe semblance of good, draw us away from true goodness, and lead us into\nevil. He has taught us that our welfare is to be sought in fellowship\nwith all men; that evil is a violation of fellowship with the son of\nman, and that we must not deprive ourselves of the welfare to be had by\nobedience to his doctrine.\n\nJesus has demonstrated that fellowship with the son of man, the love of\nmen for one another, is not merely an ideal after which men are to\nstrive; he has shown us that this love and this fellowship are natural\nattributes of men in their normal condition, the condition into which\nchildren are born, the condition in which all men would live if they\nwere not drawn aside by error, illusions, and temptations.\n\nIn his commandments, Jesus has enumerated clearly and unmistakably the\ntemptations that interfere with this natural condition of love and\nfellowship and render it a prey to evil. The commandments of Jesus offer\nthe remedies by which I must save myself from the temptations that have\ndeprived me of happiness; and so I am forced to believe that these\ncommandments are true. Happiness was within my grasp and I destroyed\nit. In his commandments Jesus has shown me the temptations that lead to\nthe destruction of happiness. I can no longer work for the destruction\nof my happiness, and in this determination, and in this alone, is the\nsubstance of my religion.\n\nJesus has shown me that the first temptation destructive of happiness is\nenmity toward men, anger against them. I cannot refuse to believe this,\nand so I cannot willingly remain at enmity with others. I cannot, as I\ncould once, foster anger, be proud of it, fan into a flame, justify it,\nregarding myself as an intelligent and superior man and others as\nuseless and foolish people. Now, when I give up to anger, I can only\nrealize that I alone am guilty, and seek to make peace with those who\nhave aught against me.\n\nBut this is not all. While I now see that anger is an abnormal,\npernicious, and morbid state, I also perceive the temptation that led me\ninto it. The temptation was in separating myself from my fellows,\nrecognizing only a few of them as my equals, and regarding all the\nothers as persons of no account (_rekim_) or as uncultivated animals\n(_fools_). I see now that this wilful separation from other men, this\njudgment of _raca_ or _fool_ passed upon others, was the principal\nsource of my disagreements. In looking over my past life I saw that I\nhad rarely permitted my anger to rise against those whom I considered as\nmy equals, whom I seldom abused. But the least disagreeable action on\nthe part of one whom I considered an inferior inflamed my anger and led\nme to abusive words or actions, and the more superior I felt myself to\nbe, the less careful I was of my temper; sometimes the mere supposition\nthat a man was of a lower social position than myself was enough to\nprovoke me to an outrageous manner.\n\nI understand now that he alone is above others who is humble with others\nand makes himself the servant of all. I understand now why those that\nare great in the sight of men are an abomination to God, who has\ndeclared woe upon the rich and mighty and invoked blessedness upon the\npoor and humble. Now I understand this truth, I have faith in it, and\nthis faith has transformed my perception of what is right and important,\nand what is wrong and despicable. Everything that once seemed to me\nright and important, such as honors, glory, civilization, wealth, the\ncomplications and refinements of existence, luxury, rich food, fine\nclothing, etiquette, have become for me wrong and despicable. Everything\nthat formerly seemed to me wrong and despicable, such as rusticity,\nobscurity, poverty, austerity, simplicity of surroundings, of food, of\nclothing, of manners, all have now become right and important to me. And\nso although I may at times give myself up to anger and abuse another, I\ncannot deliberately yield to wrath and so deprive myself of the true\nsource of happiness,--fellowship and love; for it is possible that a man\nshould lay a snare for his own feet and so be lost. Now, I can no\nlonger give my support to anything that lifts me above or separates me\nfrom others. I cannot, as I once did, recognize in myself or others\ntitles or ranks or qualities aside from the title and quality of\nmanhood. I can no longer seek for fame and glory; I can no longer\ncultivate a system of instruction which separates me from men. I cannot\nin my surroundings, my food, my clothing, my manners, strive for what\nnot only separates me from others but renders me a reproach to the\nmajority of mankind.\n\nJesus showed me another temptation destructive of happiness, that is,\ndebauchery, the desire to possess another woman than her to whom I am\nunited. I can no longer, as I did once, consider my sensuality as a\nsublime trait of human nature. I can no longer justify it by my love for\nthe beautiful, or my amorousness, or the faults of my companion. At the\nfirst inclination toward debauchery I cannot fail to recognize that I am\nin a morbid and abnormal state, and to seek to rid myself of the\nbesetting sin.\n\nKnowing that debauchery is an evil, I also know its cause, and can thus\nevade it. I know now that the principal cause of this temptation is not\nthe necessity for the sexual relation, but the abandonment of wives by\ntheir husbands, and of husbands by their wives. I know now that a man\nwho forsakes a woman, or a woman who forsakes a man, when the two have\nonce been united, is guilty of the divorce which Jesus forbade, because\nmen and women abandoned by their first companions are the original cause\nof all the debauchery in the world.\n\nIn seeking to discover the influences that led to debauchery, I found\none to be a barbarous physical and intellectual education that developed\nthe erotic passion which the world endeavors to justify by the most\nsubtile arguments. But the principal influence I found to be the\nabandonment of the woman to whom I had first been united, and the\nsituation of the abandoned women around me. The principal source of\ntemptation was not in carnal desires, but in the fact that those desires\nwere not satisfied in the men and women by whom I was surrounded. I now\nunderstand the words of Jesus when he says:--\n\n\"_He which made them from the beginning, made them male and female....\nSo that they are no more twain, but one flesh. What, therefore, God hath\njoined together, let not man put asunder._\" (Matt. xix. 4-6.)\n\nI understand now that monogamy is the natural law of humanity, which\ncannot with impunity be violated. I now understand perfectly the words\ndeclaring that the man or woman who separates from a companion to seek\nanother, forces the forsaken one to resort to debauchery, and thus\nintroduces into the world an evil that returns upon those who cause it.\n\nThis I believe; and the faith I now have has transformed my opinions\nwith regard to the right and important, and the wrong and despicable,\nthings of life. What once seemed to me the most delightful existence in\nthe world, an existence made up of dainty, \u00e6sthetic pleasures and\npassions, is now revolting to me. And a life of simplicity and\nindigence, which moderates the sexual desires, now seems to me good. The\nhuman institution of marriage, which gives a nominal sanction to the\nunion of man and woman, I regard as of less grave importance than that\nthe union, when accomplished, should be regarded as the will of God, and\nnever be broken.\n\nNow, when in moments of weakness I yield to the promptings of desire, I\nknow the snare that would deliver me into evil, and so I cannot\ndeliberately plan my method of existence as formerly I was accustomed to\ndo. I no longer habitually cherish physical sloth and luxury, which\nexcite to excessive sensuality. I can no longer pursue amusements which\nare oil to the fire of amorous sensuality,--the reading of romances and\nthe most of poetry, listening to music, attendance at theatres and\nballs,--amusements that once seemed to me elevated and refining, but\nwhich I now see to be injurious. I can no longer abandon the woman with\nwhom I have been united, for I know that by forsaking her, I set a snare\nfor myself, for her, and for others. I can no longer encourage the gross\nand idle existence of others. I can no longer encourage or take part in\nlicentious pastimes, romantic literature, plays, operas, balls, which\nare so many snares for myself and for others. I cannot favor the\ncelibacy of persons fitted for the marriage relation. I cannot encourage\nthe separation of wives from their husbands. I cannot make any\ndistinction between unions that are called by the name of marriage, and\nthose that are denied this name. I am obliged to consider as sacred and\nabsolute the sole and unique union by which man is once for all\nindissolubly bound to the first woman with whom he has been united.\n\nJesus has shown me that the third temptation destructive to true\nhappiness is the oath. I am obliged to believe his words; consequently,\nI cannot, as I once did, bind myself by oath to serve any one for any\npurpose, and I can no longer, as I did formerly, justify myself for\nhaving taken an oath because \"it would harm no one,\" because everybody\ndid the same, because it is necessary for the State, because the\nconsequences might be bad for me or for some one else if I refuse to\nsubmit to this exaction. I know now that it is an evil for myself and\nfor others, and I cannot conform to it.\n\nNor is this all. I now know the snare that led me into evil, and I can\nno longer act as an accomplice. I know that the snare is in the use of\nGod's name to sanction an imposture, and that the imposture consists in\npromising in advance to obey the commands of one man, or of many men,\nwhile I ought to obey the commands of God alone. I know now that evils\nthe most terrible of all in their result--war, imprisonments, capital\npunishment--exist only because of the oath, in virtue of which men make\nthemselves instruments of evil, and believe that they free themselves\nfrom all responsibility. As I think now of the many evils that have\nimpelled me to hostility and hatred, I see that they all originated with\nthe the oath, the engagement to submit to the will of others. I\nunderstand now the meaning of the words:--\n\n\"_But let your speech be, Yea, yea; nay, nay; and whatsoever is more\nthan these is of evil._\" (Matt. v. 37.)\n\nUnderstanding this, I am convinced that the oath is destructive of my\ntrue welfare and of that of others, and this belief changes my estimate\nof right and wrong, of the important and despicable. What once seemed to\nme right and important,--the promise of fidelity to the government\nsupported by the oath, the exacting of oaths from others, and all acts\ncontrary to conscience, done because of the oath, now seem to me wrong\nand despicable. Therefore I can no longer evade the commandment of Jesus\nforbidding the oath, I can no longer bind myself by oath to any one, I\ncannot exact an oath from another, I cannot encourage men to take an\noath, or to cause others to take an oath; nor can I regard the oath as\nnecessary, important, or even inoffensive.\n\nJesus has shown me that the fourth temptation destructive to my\nhappiness is the resort to violence for the resistance of evil. I am\nobliged to believe that this is an evil for myself and for others;\nconsequently, I cannot, as I did once, deliberately resort to violence,\nand seek to justify my action with the pretext that it is indispensable\nfor the defence of my person and property, or of the persons and\nproperty of others. I can no longer yield to the first impulse to resort\nto violence; I am obliged to renounce it, and to abstain from it\naltogether.\n\nBut this is not all. I understand now the snare that caused me to fall\ninto this evil. I know now that the snare consisted in the erroneous\nbelief that my life could be made secure by violence, by the defence of\nmy person and property against the encroachments of others. I know now\nthat a great portion of the evils that afflict mankind are due to\nthis,--that men, instead of giving their work for others, deprive\nthemselves completely of the privilege of work, and forcibly appropriate\nthe labor of their fellows. Every one regards a resort to violence as\nthe best possible security for life and for property, and I now see that\na great portion of the evil that I did myself, and saw others do,\nresulted from this practice. I understood now the meaning of the\nwords:--\n\n\"_Not to be ministered unto, but to minister._\" \"_The laborer is worthy\nof his food._\"\n\nI believe now that my true welfare, and that of others, is possible only\nwhen I labor not for myself, but for another, and that I must not refuse\nto labor for another, but to give with joy that of which he has need.\nThis faith has changed my estimate of what is right and important, and\nwrong and despicable. What once seemed to me right and important\n--riches, proprietary rights, the point of honor, the maintenance\nof personal dignity and personal privileges--have now become to me wrong\nand despicable. Labor for others, poverty, humility, the renunciation of\nproperty and of personal privileges, have become in my eyes right and\nimportant.\n\nWhen, now, in a moment of forgetfulness, I yield to the impulse to\nresort to violence, for the defence of my person or property, or of the\npersons or property of others, I can no longer deliberately make use of\nthis snare for my own destruction and the destruction of others. I can\nno longer acquire property. I can no longer resort to force in any form\nfor my own defence or the defence of another. I can no longer co-operate\nwith any power whose object is the defence of men and their property by\nviolence. I can no longer act in a judicial capacity, or clothe myself\nwith any authority, or take part in the exercise of any jurisdiction\nwhatever. I can no longer encourage others in the support of tribunals,\nor in the exercise of authoritative administration.\n\nJesus has shown me that the fifth temptation that deprives me of\nwell-being, is the distinction that we make between compatriots and\nforeigners. I must believe this; consequently, if, in a moment of\nforgetfulness, I have a feeling of hostility toward a man of another\nnationality, I am obliged, in moments of reflection, to regard this\nfeeling as wrong. I can no longer, as I did formerly, justify my\nhostility by the superiority of my own people over others, or by the\nignorance, the cruelty, or the barbarism of another race. I can no\nlonger refrain from striving to be even more friendly with a foreigner\nthan with one of my own countrymen.\n\nI know now that the distinction I once made between my own people and\nthose of other countries is destructive of my welfare; but, more than\nthis, I now know the snare that led me into this evil, and I can no\nlonger, as I did once, walk deliberately and calmly into this snare. I\nknow now that this snare consists in the erroneous belief that my\nwelfare is dependent only upon the welfare of my countrymen, and not\nupon the welfare of all mankind. I know now that my fellowship with\nothers cannot be shut off by a frontier, or by a government decree which\ndecides that I belong to some particular political organization. I know\nnow that all men are everywhere brothers and equals. When I think now of\nall the evil that I have done, that I have endured, and that I have seen\nabout me, arising from national enmities, I see clearly that it is all\ndue to that gross imposture called patriotism,--love for one's native\nland. When I think now of my education, I see how these hateful feelings\nwere grafted into my mind. I understand now the meaning of the words:--\n\n\"_Love your enemies, and pray for them that persecute you; that ye may\nbe sons of your Father that is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise\non the evil and the good, and sendeth rain on the just and the unjust._\"\n\nI understand now that true welfare is possible for me only on condition\nthat I recognize my fellowship with the whole world. I believe this, and\nthe belief has changed my estimate of what is right and wrong, important\nand despicable. What once seemed to me right and important--love of\ncountry, love for those of my own race, for the organization called the\nState, services rendered at the expense of the welfare of other men,\nmilitary exploits--now seem to me detestable and pitiable. What once\nseemed to me shameful and wrong--renunciation of nationality, and the\ncultivation of cosmopolitanism--now seem to me right and important.\nWhen, now, in a moment of forgetfulness, I sustain a Russian in\npreference to a foreigner, and desire the success of Russia or of the\nRussian people, I can no longer in lucid moments allow myself to be\ncontrolled by illusions so destructive to my welfare and the welfare of\nothers. I can no longer recognize states or peoples; I can no longer\ntake part in any difference between peoples or states, or any discussion\nbetween them either verbal or written, much less in any service in\nbehalf of any particular state. I can no longer co-operate with measures\nmaintained by divisions between states,--the collection of custom\nduties, taxes, the manufacture of arms and projectiles, or any act\nfavoring armaments, military service, and, for a stronger reason,\nwars,--neither can I encourage others to take any part in them.\n\nI understand in what my true welfare consists, I have faith in that, and\nconsequently I cannot do what would inevitably be destructive of that\nwelfare. I not only have faith that I ought to live thus, but I have\nfaith that if I live thus, and only thus, my life will attain its only\npossible meaning, and be reasonable, pleasant, and indestructible by\ndeath. I believe that my reasonable life, the light I bear with me, was\ngiven to me only that it might shine before men, not in words only, but\nin good deeds, that men may thereby glorify the Father. I believe that\nmy life and my consciousness of truth is the talent confided to me for a\ngood purpose, and that this talent fulfils its mission only when it is\nof use to others. I believe that I am a Ninevite with regard to other\nJonahs from whom I have learned and shall learn of the truth; but that I\nam a Jonah in regard to other Ninevites to whom I am bound to transmit\nthe truth. I believe that the only meaning of my life is to be attained\nby living in accordance with the light that is within me, and that I\nmust allow this light to shine forth to be seen of all men. This faith\ngives me renewed strength to fulfil the doctrine of Jesus, and to\novercome the obstacles which still arise in my pathway. All that once\ncaused me to doubt the possibility of practising the doctrine of Jesus,\neverything that once turned me aside, the possibility of privations, and\nof suffering, and death, inflicted by those who know not the doctrine of\nJesus, now confirm its truth and draw me into its service. Jesus said,\n\"_When you have lifted up the son of man, then shall you know that I am\nhe_,\"--then shall you be drawn into my service,--and I feel that I am\nirresistibly drawn to him by the influence of his doctrine. \"_The\ntruth_,\" he says again, \"_The truth shall make you free_,\" and I know\nthat I am in perfect liberty.\n\nI once thought that if a foreign invasion occurred, or even if\nevil-minded persons attacked me, and I did not defend myself, I should\nbe robbed and beaten and tortured and killed with those whom I felt\nbound to protect, and this possibility troubled me. But this that once\ntroubled me now seems desirable and in conformity with the truth. I know\nnow that the foreign enemy and the malefactors or brigands are all men\nlike myself; that, like myself, they love good and hate evil; that they\nlive as I live, on the borders of death; and that, with me, they seek\nfor salvation, and will find it in the doctrine of Jesus. The evil that\nthey do to me will be evil to them, and so can be nothing but good for\nme. But if truth is unknown to them, and they do evil thinking that they\ndo good, I, who know the truth, am bound to reveal it to them, and this\nI can do only by refusing to participate in evil, and thereby confessing\nthe truth by my example.\n\n\"But hither come the enemy,--Germans, Turks, savages; if you do not make\nwar on them, they will exterminate you!\" They will do nothing of the\nsort. If there were a society of Christian men that did evil to none and\ngave of their labor for the good of others, such a society would have no\nenemies to kill or to torture them. The foreigners would take only what\nthe members of this society voluntarily gave, making no distinction\nbetween Russians, or Turks, or Germans. But when Christians live in the\nmidst of a non-Christian society which defends itself by force of arm,\nand calls upon the Christians to join in waging war, then the Christians\nhave an opportunity for revealing the truth to them who know it not. A\nChristian knowing the truth bears witness of the truth before others,\nand this testimony can be made manifest only by example. He must\nrenounce war and do good to all men, whether they are foreigners or\ncompatriots.\n\n\"But there are wicked men among compatriots; they will attack a\nChristian, and if the latter do not defend himself, will pillage and\nmassacre him and his family.\" No; they will not do so. If all the\nmembers of this family are Christians, and consequently hold their lives\nonly for the service of others, no man will be found insane enough to\ndeprive such people of the necessaries of life or to kill them. The\nfamous Maclay lived among the most bloodthirsty of savages; they did not\nkill him, they reverenced him and followed his teachings, simply because\nhe did not fear them, exacted nothing from them, and treated them always\nwith kindness.\n\n\"But what if a Christian lives in a non-Christian family, accustomed to\ndefend itself and its property by a resort to violence, and is called\nupon to take part in measures of defence?\" This solicitation is simply\nan appeal to the Christian to fulfil the decrees of truth. A Christian\nknows the truth only that he may show it to others, more especially to\nhis neighbors and to those who are bound to him by ties of blood and\nfriendship, and a Christian can show the truth only by refusing to join\nin the errors of others, by taking part neither with aggressors or\ndefenders, but by abandoning all that he has to those who will take it\nfrom him, thus showing by his acts that he has need of nothing save the\nfulfilment of the will of God, and that he fears nothing except\ndisobedience to that will.\n\n\"But how, if the government will not permit a member of the society over\nwhich it has sway, to refuse to recognize the fundamental principles of\ngovernmental order or to decline to fulfil the duties of a citizen? The\ngovernment exacts from a Christian the oath, jury service, military\nservice, and his refusal to conform to these demands may be punished by\nexile, imprisonment, and even by death.\" Then, once more, the exactions\nof those in authority are only an appeal to the Christian to manifest\nthe truth that is in him. The exactions of those in authority are to a\nChristian the exactions of those who do not know the truth.\nConsequently, a Christian who knows the truth must bear witness of the\ntruth to those who know it not. Exile and imprisonment and death afford\nto the Christian the possibility of bearing witness of the truth, not in\nwords, but in acts. Violence, war, brigandage, executions, are not\naccomplished through the forces of unconscious nature; they are\naccomplished by men who are blinded, and do not know the truth.\nConsequently, the more evil these men do to Christians, the further they\nare from the truth, the more unhappy they are, and the more necessary it\nis that they should have knowledge of the truth. Now a Christian cannot\nmake known his knowledge of truth except by abstaining from the errors\nthat lead men into evil; he must render good for evil. This is the\nlife-work of a Christian, and if it is accomplished, death cannot harm\nhim, for the meaning of his life can never be destroyed.\n\nMen are united by error into a compact mass. The prevailing power of\nevil is the cohesive force that binds them together. The reasonable\nactivity of humanity is to destroy the cohesive power of evil.\nRevolutions are attempts to shatter the power of evil by violence. Men\nthink that by hammering upon the mass they will be able to break it in\nfragments, but they only make it more dense and impermeable than it was\nbefore. External violence is of no avail. The disruptive movement must\ncome from within when molecule releases its hold upon molecule and the\nwhole mass falls into disintegration. Error is the force that binds men\ntogether; truth alone can set them free. Now truth is truth only when it\nis in action, and then only can it be transmitted from man to man. Only\ntruth in action, by introducing light into the conscience of each\nindividual, can dissolve the homogeneity of error, and detach men one by\none from its bonds.\n\nThis work has been going on for eighteen hundred years. It began when\nthe commandments of Jesus were first given to humanity, and it will not\ncease till, as Jesus said, \"_all things be accomplished_\" (Matt. v. 18).\nThe Church that sought to detach men from error and to weld them\ntogether again by the solemn affirmation that it alone was the truth,\nhas long since fallen to decay. But the Church composed of men united,\nnot by promises or sacraments, but by deeds of truth and love, has\nalways lived and will live forever. Now, as eighteen hundred years ago,\nthis Church is made up not of those who say \"_Lord, Lord_,\" and bring\nforth iniquity, but of those who hear the words of truth and reveal them\nin their lives. The members of this Church know that life is to them a\nblessing as long as they maintain fraternity with others and dwell in\nthe fellowship of the son of man; and that the blessing will be lost\nonly to those who do not obey the commandments of Jesus. And so the\nmembers of this Church practise the commandments of Jesus and thereby\nteach them to others. Whether this Church be in numbers little or great,\nit is, nevertheless, the Church that shall never perish, the Church that\nshall finally unite within its bonds the hearts of all mankind.\n\n\"_Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father's good purpose to give\nyou the kingdom._\"\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX.\n\n\nWHEN Count Tolstoi speaks of the Church and its dogmas, he refers\nespecially, of course, to the Orthodox Greek Church, the national church\nof Russia. The following summary of the teachings of the Orthodox Greek\nChurch is taken from Prof. T. M. Lindsay's article in the _Encyclop\u00e6dia\nBrittanica_, ninth edition, volume xi. p. 158. Variations from the Roman\nCatholic doctrine are indicated by small capitals, and variations from\nProtestant doctrine by italics. [Tr.]\n\n\"Christianity is a divine revelation, communicated to mankind through\nChrist; its saving truths are to be learned from the Bible _and\ntradition_, the former having been written, _and the latter maintained\nuncorrupted_ through the influence of the Holy Spirit; _the\ninterpretation of the Bible belongs to the Church, which is taught by\nthe Holy Spirit_, but every believer may read the Scriptures.\n\n\"According to the Christian revelation, God is a trinity, that is, the\ndivine essence exists in three persons, perfectly equal in nature and\ndignity, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; THE HOLY GHOST\nPROCEEDS FROM THE FATHER ONLY. Besides the triune God, there is no\nother object of divine worship, _but homage_ ([Greek: hyperdoulia]) _may\nbe paid to the Virgin Mary, and reverence_ ([Greek: doulia]) _to the\nsaints and to their pictures and relics_.\n\n\"Man is born with a corrupt bias, which was not his at creation; the\nfirst man, when created, possessed IMMORTALITY, PERFECT WISDOM, AND A\nWILL REGULATED BY REASON. Through the first sin, Adam and his posterity\nlost IMMORTALITY, AND HIS WILL RECEIVED A BIAS TOWARDS EVIL. In this\nnatural state, man, who, even before he actually sins, is a sinner\nbefore God by original or inherited sin, commits manifold actual\ntransgressions; _but he is not absolutely without power of will towards\ngood, and is not always doing evil_.\n\n\"Christ, the Son of God, became man in two natures, which internally and\ninseparably united make One Person, and, according to the eternal\npurpose of God, has obtained for man reconciliation with God and eternal\nlife, inasmuch as he, by his vicarious death has made satisfaction to\nGod for the world's sins; and this satisfaction was PERFECTLY\nCOMMENSURATE WITH THE SINS OF THE WORLD. Man is made partaker of\nreconciliation in spiritual regeneration, which he attains to, being led\nand kept by the Holy Ghost. This divine help is offered _to all men\nwithout distinction, and may be rejected_. In order to attain to\nsalvation, man is justified, and, when so justified, CAN DO NO MORE THAN\nTHE COMMANDS OF GOD. He may fall from this state of grace through mortal\nsin.\n\n\"Regeneration is offered by the word of God and in the sacraments,\n_which, under visible signs, communicate God's invisible grace to\nChristians when administered cum intentione_. There are _seven_\nmysteries or sacraments. Baptism _entirely destroys_ original sin. In\nthe Eucharist, the true body and blood of Christ are _substantially\npresent, and the elements are changed into the substance of Christ,\nwhose body and blood are corporeally partaken of by communicants_. ALL\nChristians should receive the bread and the WINE. _The Eucharist is also\nan expiatory sacrifice._ The new birth when lost may be restored through\nrepentance, which is not merely (1) sincere sorrow, but also (2)\n_confession of each individual sin to the priest, and_ (3) _the\ndischarge of penances imposed by the priest for the removal of the\ntemporal punishment, which may have been imposed by God and the Church.\nPenance, accompanied by the judicial absolution of the priest, makes a\ntrue sacrament_.\n\n\"The Church of Christ is the fellowship of ALL THOSE WHO ACCEPT AND\nPROFESS ALL THE ARTICLES OF FAITH TRANSMITTED BY THE APOSTLES, AND\nAPPROVED BY GENERAL SYNODS. _Without this visible Church there is no\nsalvation._ It is under the abiding influence of the Holy Ghost, and\n_therefore cannot err in matters of faith_. Specially appointed persons\nare necessary in the service of the Church, _and they form a threefold\norder, distinct jure divino from other Christians, of Bishops, Priests,\nand Deacons_. THE FOUR PATRIARCHS OF EQUAL DIGNITY HAVE THE HIGHEST\nRANK AMONG THE BISHOPS, AND THE BISHOPS _united in a General Council\nrepresent the Church and infallibly decide_, under the guidance of the\nHoly Ghost, all matters of faith and ecclesiastical life. All ministers\nof Christ must be regularly called and appointed to their office, and\nare consecrated _by the sacrament of orders_. _Bishops must be\nunmarried_, and PRIESTS AND DEACONS MUST NOT CONTRACT A SECOND MARRIAGE.\nTo all priests in common belongs, besides the preaching of the word, the\nadministration of the SIX SACRAMENTS,--BAPTISM, CONFIRMATION, PENANCE,\nEUCHARIST, MATRIMONY, UNCTION OF THE SICK. The _bishops_ alone can\nadminister the _sacrament_ of orders.\n\n\"_Ecclesiastical ceremonies are part of the divine service; most of them\nhave apostolic origin; and those connected with the sacrament must not\nbe omitted by priests under pain of mortal sin._\"\n\n\n\n\nINDEX.\n\n\n  Abraham, 165.\n  Adam, fall of, 118, 122.\n  Age, consummation of, 139, 152.\n  Amusements, harmful, 105;\n    maintained by coercion, 106.\n  Anger, the commandment against, 70\n    _et seq._; destructive of happiness,\n    247; temptations to, 247.\n  [Greek: anist\u00eami], meaning of, 146.\n  Army, the Christophile, 15.\n  Art has forsaken the Church, 224.\n  _auferstehn_, meaning of, 146.\n  Aurelius, Marcus, 126.\n  Average man, the, and the\n    problem of existence, 229.\n  Belief, if true, always brings\n    forth works, 160 _et seq._\n  Believers, and the problem of\n    existence, 228.\n  Berditchef, circus at, 135, 157.\n  Bible, 17.\n  Biblical references.--O. T.:\n    Gen. (iii. 22) 149;\n    Exod. (iii. 6) 144;\n    Levit. (xix. 12) 86, (xix. 17, 18) 94;\n    Deut. (xiii. 21, 34) 86, (xxiv. 1) 77,\n    (xxx. 15-19) 150, (xxxii. 39, 40) 149;\n    Judges (ix. 4) 76; Sam. (I. viii.-xii.)\n    18; Isaiah (lxi. 1, 2) 110. N. T.:\n    Matt. (iv. 1-11) 178, (iv. 37) 253,\n    (v.) 17, (v., vi., vii.) 5, (v. 17-20)\n    51, 52, 53, (v. 18) 262, (v. 19) 70,\n    (v. 21-26) 70, 76, (v. 21-48) 69,\n    (v. 22-44) 109, (v. 27-32) 77,\n    (v. 28-32) 109, (v. 32) 79, 81,\n    (v. 33-37) 86, 91, (v. 34-37) 109,\n    (v. 36) 89, (v. 38, 39) 7, 8, (v. 38-42)\n    92, 93, 110, (v. 40) 26, (v. 43-48) 95,\n    110, (v. 44) 256, (vii. 1) 23, (vii. 12)\n    57, (x. 10) 200, 254, (xi. 30) 14,\n    (xii. 16-21) 138, (xii. 31) 217,\n    (xii. 35-40) 139, (xii. 40) 145,\n    (xiii. 52) 62, (xiv. 2) 146,\n    (xvi. 13-21) 145, (xvi. 21) 145,\n    (xvii. 23) 145, (xix.) 79, (xix. 4-6)\n    250, (xix. 4-9) 80, (xix. 9) 81, 84,\n    (xix. 17) 151, (xx. 1-16) 167, 168,\n    (xx. 19) 145, (xx. 20-28) 166,\n    (xxi. 33-42) 139, (xxii. 44) 98,\n    (xxiii. 13-35) 217, (xxv. 14-46) 142,\n    (xxvi. 32) 145, (xxvii. 42) 163;\n    Mark (viii. 31) 145, (ix. 31) 145,\n    (x. 5-12) 79, (x. 28-30) 180,\n    (x. 34) 145, (x. 35-48) 166, (x. 45)\n    202, 254, (xii. 21-24) 144,\n    (xii. 26, 27) 144, (xii. 36) 98,\n    (xiv. 25) 145, (xv. 32) 163; Luke\n    (i. 71, 74) 98, (iv. 1-13) 178,\n    (iv. 18, 19, 21) 111, (vi. 37) 23,\n    (vi. 37-49) 24, (ix. 22) 145, (x. 5, 7)\n    200, (x. 26) 61, (x. 28) 151, (x. 29)\n    98, (xi. 30) 145, (xi. 35) 125, 216,\n    (xii. 22-27) 137, (xii. 32) 263,\n    (xii. 54-57) 136, (xiii. 1-5) 135,\n    (xiv. 28-31) 136, (xvi. 15-18) 54,\n    (xvi. 16) 57, (xvi. 18) 79, (xvi. 31)\n    147, (xviii. 33) 145, (xx. 43) 98,\n    (xxii. 67) 163; John (i. 9-12) 171,\n    (i. 17) 245, (iii. 5, 6, 7) 125,\n    (iii. 19-21) 171, (iii. 14-17) 125,\n    (v. 39) 150, (v. 44) 164, (vi. 30) 163,\n    (vii. 18) 164, (vii. 19) 57, (viii. 17)\n    57, (viii. 28) 125, 258, (viii. 32) 258,\n    (viii. 35) 141, (viii. 40) 171,\n    (viii. 46) 171, (x. 25, 26) 163,\n    (xi. 19-22) 145, (xii. 31) 244,\n    (xii. 35) 125, (xiv. 6) 172,\n    (xiv. 16, 17) 172, (xiv. 27) 109,\n    (xv. 25) 57, (xvi. 33) 244, (xviii. 37)\n    172, (xix. 7) 57; Acts (vii. 27) 98,\n    (xxiii. 8) 143; Rom.\n    (i. 32, ii. 1, ii. 4) 31; Cor.\n    (I. vii. 1-11) 80, (I. xv. 2) 75; Heb.\n    (ii. 2) 115; Jas. (ii. 12, 13) 30,\n    (ii. 13) 29, (ii. 14-26) 163,\n    (iv. 11, 12) 28, (v. 6) 35, (v. 12) 89;\n    John (I. v. 3) 14, (I. v. 4) 244.\n  Borovitzky Gate, 19.\n  Brahmins, 173, 218.\n  Buddha, 134, 218.\n  Buddhism, 124.\n  Catechism analyzed, 213.\n  Children, education of, 105.\n  Christian rationalists in Russia, 223.\n  Christianity, substance of, 2, 13;\n    a spiritual tendency, 4;\n    lack of ethical and moral instruction\n    in, 123.\n  Christians may believe in Jesus, 241;\n    duties of, 258 _et seq._\n  Chrysostom, xi., 33, 63 _et seq._;\n    79, 92.\n  Church, the fathers of, 31, 81, 93;\n    the Orthodox, 2; creed of, 265;\n    inadequacy of 3, 4, 175, 209-244;\n    teachings of, 4, 40, 47, 58, 62, 107,\n    115, 127, 154, 178, 213-217, 227;\n    compulsory in Russia, 216; the true,\n    262.\n  Churches, as useless sentinels, 224.\n  Civilization, characteristics of, 42, 233.\n  Clement, x.\n  Commandments, abrogated by the Church,\n    214.\n  Commentators, pseudo-Christian, 91;\n    liberal, 93.\n  _condemnare_, 34.\n  Confucius, 124, 126, 127, 218.\n  Constantine, 31, 219.\n  Cosmopolitanism, importance of, 257.\n  Daniel, apocryphal book of, 149.\n  Death, inevitable, 137, 138, 139.\n  Death penalty, sanctioned by the Church,\n    221.\n  Debauchery, 77 _et seq._; Paul's idea\n    of, 80; destructive of happiness, 249;\n    temptations to, 251.\n  Devotion, a pagan book of, 212.\n  Divorce, denounced by Jesus, 78\n    _et seq._; sanctioned by the\n    Church, 221.\n  [Greek: doxa], meaning of, 164.\n  [Greek: egeir\u00f4], meaning of, 146.\n  _ehebruch_, meaning of, 84.\n  [Greek: eik\u00ea], meaning and textual\n    authenticity of, 75.\n  Elijah, 48, 145.\n  [Greek: h\u00ealikian], meaning of, 137.\n  Enemy, love for, 95 _et seq._;\n    meaning of, 98.\n  Epictetus, 89, 126, 127.\n  Error, temptation of Jesus by, 178; the\n    cohesive power of, 262.\n  Esdras, 56.\n  Evil, submission to, 8 _et seq._, 13,\n    92-94; resistance to, 15; destructive of\n    happiness, 253; to speak, 28, 32.\n  Existence, its futilities, 226.\n  Faith, defined, 115, 162, 166, 244; and\n    works, 160, 169; based on the dictates\n    of reason, 170; source of, 171; the\n    false, 173.\n  Fall, dogma of the, 120, 153.\n  Family, the, a condition of happiness, 187.\n  Foreigners, hostility toward, 100;\n    destructive of happiness, 255.\n  Formalism, evils of, 68.\n  _fornicatio_, meaning of, 83.\n  Free-will, an illusion, 124.\n  French war of 1870, 198.\n  Galilee, 41, 44, 48, 49, 178.\n  Galileans, massacre of, 135.\n  Germans, 45, 259.\n  Ghengis Khan, 36.\n  God, service of, 21; appears to Elijah,\n    48; commandments of, 51; kingdom of,\n    108, 111, 160; how brought, 209.\n  Gospels, exegesis, 1, 55, 75.\n  Griesbach, 175.\n  Happiness, conditions of, 185-189.\n  _hayai leolam_, meaning of, 148.\n  Health, a condition of happiness, 189.\n  Hebrews, 176.\n  Hegelianism, 122.\n  Herod, 25, 146.\n  High Priests, 25, 59.\n  Householder, parable of, 168.\n  _hurerei_, meaning of, 83.\n  Husbandmen, parable of, 139.\n  Immortality, belief in, 147, 150, 153, 155.\n  Iren\u00e6us, 62.\n  Isaiah, 56, 61.\n  James, 167.\n  Jesus, as the \"charmant docteur,\" 41;\n    divinity of, 15; the enemies of, 60; his\n    use of the Mosaic law, 67; commandments\n    of, 69, 76, 86, 194, 242, 246 _et seq._;\n    mission of, 108; the Messiah, 111, 145,\n    158; his revelation of the true life,\n    139; his doctrine of eternal life, 153;\n    as a Saviour, 158; his definition of\n    belief, 164; of true life, 167; his\n    temptation in the wilderness, 177;\n    offers the water of truth, 196.\n  Jesus, doctrine of, its simplicity, vi.,\n    6, 7, 11, 12, 69, 194; as a metaphysical\n    theory and an ethical system, 218, 231;\n    a doctrine of grace and truth, 246;\n    practical results of, 107; key to, 2,\n    16, 17; requirements of, 248; its\n    meaning, 7, 43, 50, 58, 108, 172, 193,\n    199, 240; its rewards, 179, 202; to\n    bring the kingdom of God, 209; its\n    relation to the Church, 209-244; its\n    adaptability to Christians, 241; to the\n    philosopher, 242; to the \"average\" man,\n    243; difficulty in obeying, 14, 16, 112,\n    132, 160, 173, 194, 259; belief in, 160\n    _et seq._; requirements of, 245\n    _et seq._; a protest against\n    ceremonial, 219; its concealment, 49,\n    68, 90, 173, 174; and military\n    regulations, 19, 22, 104, 223; its\n    universality, 241; delusions with regard\n    to, 23, 101, 114, 191 _et seq._,\n    204; will overcome the world, 244;\n    substance of, 124; and social customs,\n    58, 90, 93, 133, 194; where are its\n    martyrs? 195.\n  Jews, criminal law of, 27.\n  John, 167.\n  John the Baptist, 43, 54, 108, 135, 145,\n    146.\n  Jonah, 146; story of, 176.\n  Judaism, 124, 220.\n  Judgment, parable of the last, 139, 152.\n  Laborer, worthy of his sustenance, 200,\n    205; rewards of, 201, 203.\n  Law, the eternal, 53, 55.\n  Law of struggle, 47, 181, 197.\n  Lazarus, 147.\n  _libertinage_, meaning of, 83.\n  Libertinism, 83, 85.\n  Liberty, law of, 29.\n  Life, essence of, 118, 138, 165; the\n    personal, 134, 139, 174; salvation of,\n    152, 165; renunciation of, 141, 142;\n    the eternal, 143; how perpetuated, 150;\n    rewards of, 167; doctrine of, enforced\n    by the police, 232.\n  Loaves and fishes, lesson of the, 206.\n  Luke, 34, 54, 55, 80.\n  Luther, 34, 84.\n  Manu, laws of, 89.\n  Mark, 80.\n  Martyrs, Christian, number of, 192.\n  Martyrs to the world, 183, 193.\n  Materialism, 122.\n  Men, brotherhood of, 110, 246, 256;\n    intercourse with, essential to\n    happiness, 188; nature of, 112; debt to\n    the past, 141; mutual dependence, 207;\n    temptations against, 246.\n  [Greek: metanoia], meaning of, 135, 141.\n  Michael, Archbishop, 93.\n  Military regulations, 19.\n  [Greek: moichasthai], meaning of, 83.\n  Monasticism, contrary to the doctrine of\n    Jesus, 176.\n  Monogamy the natural law of humanity, 250.\n  Moscow, 183.\n  Mount, the Sermon on the, 5, 6, 10, 11,\n    17, 26, 78, 79, 108.\n  M\u00fcller, Max, 148.\n  Nationality, renunciation of, 257.\n  Nature, the law of, 46; communion with,\n    essential to happiness, 185.\n  Neighbor, meaning of, 97 _et seq._\n  Nicodemus, 60, 108, 125.\n  [Greek: nomos], meaning of, 56.\n  Oaths, the commandment against, 87\n    _et seq._; destruction of happiness,\n    252; evils of, 252.\n  Origen, 102.\n  Pascal, 134.\n  Paul, x., 30, 56, 80, 88, 115; his\n    metaphysico-cabalistic doctrine, 219.\n  Peace, the reign of, 108; how violated,\n    109.\n  Penalty, the death, 36.\n  Pentateuch, 57, 148.\n  Persons, respect of, 29.\n  Pessimism, 122.\n  Peter, 11, 145, 167, 168, 180.\n  Pharisees, 54, 59, 60, 85, 88, 143, 178.\n  Philosophers, and the problem of\n    existence, 229.\n  Pilate, 135, 175.\n  [Greek: porneia], meaning of, 83 _et seq._\n  Poverty, the blessings of, 199;\n    indispensable to the follower of Jesus,\n    200.\n  _prissaiaga_, meaning of, 85.\n  Prophets, the Hebrew, 43, 57, 143.\n  _qum_, meaning of, 146.\n  _raca_, meaning of, 73, 76.\n  Reason, authority of, 124.\n  Redemption, dogma of, 120, 122, 153.\n  Religions, requirements of, 220.\n  Renan, 31, 93.\n  Repentance, 60; necessity of, 135.\n  Resurrection, not taught by Jesus, 143.\n  _resusciter_, meaning of, 146.\n  Reuss, 79.\n  Revolution, the French, 36.\n  Revolutionists, atheistic, 39; Christian,\n    39.\n  Riches, the struggle for, 184.\n  Righteousness, progress toward, 48.\n  Sadducees, 60, 143.\n  Samaritan, 98.\n  Sanhedrim, 25.\n  Schopenhauer, 148.\n  Science, hostile to the Church, 223.\n  Security, struggle for, its futility, 198.\n  Seneca, 89.\n  Sisyphus, labor of, 184.\n  Slave, 39.\n  Slavery, sanctioned by the Church, 221.\n  Slavophile, 39.\n  Socrates, 124, 126.\n  Soldier, at Borovitzky Gate, 19, 88;\n    Russian nickname for, 88.\n  Solomon, 134.\n  Son of man, doctrine regarding, 125\n    _et seq._; 142, 150, 152, 156, 263.\n  Spirit, the Holy, 68.\n  Spiritism, 123.\n  State, service of, 21, 22, 257;\n    independent of the Church, 223.\n  States, divisions into, a barbarism, 107.\n  Stoics, 124, 173.\n  Strauss, 41, 93.\n  Suffering, useless, 183.\n  Sukhareff Tower, 183.\n  Talents, parable of the, 142.\n  Talmud, 17, 56, 143, 173.\n  Theologians, declarations of, 6.\n  Theophylact, 33.\n  Thief, on the cross, vii.\n  Tiele, 148.\n  Tischendorf, 55, 75.\n  Tohu, 18, 19, 21, 22, 42, 43.\n  Torah, 56, 61, 68.\n  Tribunals, 23, 24; contrary to law of\n    Jesus, 25 _et seq._; sanctioned by\n    the Church, 221.\n  Trinity, 14, 40, 58, 116, 117, 127.\n  Truth, Christian, 4.\n  T\u00fcbingen, school of, 33.\n  Turks, 259.\n  _verdammen_, meaning of, 34.\n  Violence, renunciation of, 38; organized,\n    45, 196; destructive to happiness, 253;\n    temptations to, 254; futility of, 259\n    _et seq._\n  Virgins, parable of, 139.\n  _voskresnovit_, meaning of, 146.\n  Vulgate, 34.\n  War, organized murder, 101, 192; justified\n    by the Church, 211, 221.\n  Wars of our century, victims of, 193.\n  Work, an inevitable condition of\n    happiness, 186, 201, 205, 207.\n  World, the doctrine of, illustrated, 129;\n    sufferings for, 181, 185-192; its\n    commands, 191; its necessities, 184\n    _et seq._; justification of, 188;\n    its relation to the Church, 221\n    _et seq._\n  Worldly advantage, 11.\n  _zanah_, meaning of, 83.","title":"My Religion","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":74305}